The Variations of Popery

636

Transcript of The Variations of Popery

Page 1: The Variations of Popery
Page 2: The Variations of Popery

THE

VARIATIONS OF POPERY,BY

REV. SAMUEL EDGAR, D.D.

WITH

BY

REV. J. GARDNER ROBB, B.A.,TORONTO.

AND ADDITIONS, BRINGING THE WORK DOWN TO DATE.

Tot nunc lIdes exIstere, quot Yolantates, et tot nobill doc~rinas ease, quot mores. FideslICribunter et volumua, aut Ita, ut volumllll, intelliguntur. Annuas atque mcll8tJ'uas, de Dec,Ades decernlmllS.-llILABy, 308.

Verum non _, quod variat.-Juoll, I, 1425.

Acta priorum PODtIlIcwn lIllfluente8 aut Infringerent, aut omnino tollerent.-PLAY. U6.

REVISED, CORRECTED AND ENLARGED.

I;.or.onta:MACLEAl & COMPANY, PUBLISHERS.

1875.

Page 3: The Variations of Popery

,

Page 4: The Variations of Popery

TO

HIS GRACE

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH,

PRnuTll: AND HlITROPOL1T4lII 01' ALL IRBL4lIID,

THIS WORK 18,

WITH PROFOUND GRATITUDE AlO), RESPECt',

DEDICATED

BY HIS OBLIGED 4lIID OBEIlIENT SBRV4lIIT,

THE AUTHOR.

Page 5: The Variations of Popery

PREFACE.--

THE Popish and Protestant controversy, in the present age, has,in these kingdoms, been agitated with ardor and ability. Thedebate, in the end of the last century, seemed to slumber. Thepolemics of each party, satisfied with the unrestricted enjoymentof their own opinions, appeared, for a time, to drop the pen ofdiscussion, dismiss the weapons of hostility, and leave men,according to their several predilections, -to the undisputed pos-session of Popery or Protestantism. But stillness frequentlyushers in the tempest. The calm, amid the serenity of sea andsky, is often the harbin~r of the stonn. This diversity, in lateyears, baa been exemplified in the controversial world. Thepolemical pen, which, intho British dominions, had slept in inac-tivity, has resumed its labors, and the clerical voice, which hadbeen engaged in the sober delivery of sermons, has, in the passingdBoy,been strained to the loud accents of controversial theolop-.Ireland, in a particular manner, has become the field of nOIsydisputation. The clergy, in advocacy of Popery or Protestant-ism, have displayed all their learning a.nd eloquence. A societyfor promoting the principles of the Reformation has beenestablished through England, Ireland, and Scotland; and thisassociation has awakened a conflicting reaction, and blown intoviyid 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 Christiani~y. Theinspired heralds of the Gospel raised the voice, and wielded thepen against Judaism and infidelity. Popery carried on a per-petual war against Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and otheroriental speculations. The papacy, in European nations, ar-rayed itself against Waldensianism; and OJ>f.<?sed power andpersecution to truth and reason. The inqUlSltion erected thedungeon and the gibbet, for the support of error and supersti-tion, and for the extinction of ~ht and liberty. Wickliff andhis followers in England wielded reason and revelation againstsuperstition and persecution, till they were nearly extermfuatedby the sword, the flames and the gibbet.Protestantism, at the era of the Reformation, beQan ita..itAok

on popery in more auspicions circumstances anel on •• 'tV.

Page 6: The Variations of Popery

VI PREFACE.

field of action. Philosophy and literature, which had been dif-fused through the nations by the art of printing, the progress ofsociety, 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 scintillationsof reformation, which flashed in Germany and Switzerland,radiated from the Mediterranean to the Northern Ocean, andfrom the Bay of Biscay to the Black Sea; and Europeans,aroused by its influence, hailed the bright light, shook off theirgloomy 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 hissarcasms, 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, candor,mildness, and moderation. His erudition occupied a vastrange; and the mighty mass of literary attainments was directedby taste and inspired by genius, Their united advoCacyrepelled error, dislodged the enemy from his deepest entrench-ments, and established Lutheranism through the circles ofGermany. The light soon communicated to Denmark, Sweden,and Norway. Gustavus, king of Sweden, countenanced a dis-putation between Olaus and Gallius, and the result, which wasthe triumph of Protestantism, tended to the extension of theReformation.Zuinglius, Bucer, Calvin, and Beza, attacked the Romish

superstition in France and Switzerland. The attack was metwith great resolution by the patrons of popery. This opposi-tion, however, neither dispirited the friends of reformation norprevented their success. Many on the Continent deserted theranks of error; and the shock soon reached the British islands.England and Scotland, as well as many in Ireland, threw offthe yoke of superstition and embraced the liberty of the Gospel.Many, how:e~e:, prostituted leaming and ability, i;n ~efe~di.nfc

the old superstition; none of whom made a more distinguishedf4rure than Baronius, Bellarmine, and Bossuet. Baronius com-piled the annals of the papacy; and, in the relAtion, interwovehis errors and sophistry. His fAnnals,' comprising a vast collec-tion, are full of error and misrepresentation, and void of all can-dor or even honesty. Be1lariiUne pouessed far more c&Ddor

Page 7: The Variations of Popery

PREFACE. vii

than Baronius, He stated the reasons and objections of thereformed with fidelity. His integrity, in this respect, exposedhim to the censure of several theologians of his own communion.His merit, as a writer, consisted in perspicuity of style andcopiousness of argument, which discovered a fertile and excur-sive imagination.Bossuet, in his' Exposition,' affected plainness and simplicity;

and endeavored 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 formand beauty. The expositor, by these means, approximatedPopery to Protestantism. 'The ten-horned monster,' saysGibbon, 'i8, at his magic touch, transformed into the milk-whitehind, which must be loved as soon as she is seen: The school,in which Bossuet studied, favored the design. The Frenchcommunion, to which he belonged, presents Romanism in amore engaging attitude than the Italian system, which exhibitsPopery, 8S it appears in Baronius and Bellarmine, in all itanative deformity.Few have made &. better defence for a bad cause, than Chal-

lenor and Oother. Challenor assumes a tone of pity for hisadversary, and represents the patrons of Protestantism as ob-jects of compassion. He appears all kindness and candor,But the snake is hid in the grass; and the canker-worm of bit-terness lurks under the fairest professions of commiseration andbenevolence. His statements, in general, are misrepresenta-tions, and his quotations, especially from the fathers, are irrele-vant and futile. His work, nevertheless, contains nearly allthat 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 Qf trnUh and certainty. Popery, he repre-sents as rejected only when misunderstood; ana insinuates, inundissembled remonstrance and reprehension, the disingenuous-ness of the patrons of Protestantism. He imitates Bossuet, inattemp~ to remove objections by dexterity of statement, andby dismiflsmg the Ultraism of the Italian school and of genuineRomanism. His manner, however, is striking, and his columnsof representation and misrepresentation possess advantage andoriJZinality.:England, on this, as on every other topic of theology, prO-

duced many distinguished authors. Jewel, Cartwright, Stilling-fleet, and. ::Barrow,among &. crowd of others, ap~ .!""inent fortheir ~e8mingand industry. Jewel's reply to H.&rding. though

Page 8: The Variations of Popery

viii PREFACE.

published shortly after the Reformation, is a most triumphantrefutation 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 onnearly all the topics of distinction between the Romish and Re-formed; and on each, has displayed v.ast stores of erudition, andamazing powers of discriminatien. Barrow assailed the papal

t supremacy; while the depth of his learning, and the extent ofhis 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 Ussher, 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 andecclesiastical history. The mass of his collections has, since hisday, 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 ofPopery. All these errors are, in a compendious review, dis-sected and exposed, in his answer to an Irish Jesuit, whichmay be considered as a condensation of all his ~entsagainst the Romish superstition. The reply was hiS heavya.rtillery, which; like a skilful general, he brought forward~st his most formidable enemy, whilst the superiority ofhis tactics and position enabled bini to sweep the fieldThe paMing century has produced many firm disputants, on

each side of the question. The popish cause in England, hasbeen sustained, but with a feeble hand, by Milner, Butler, andthe notorious Cobbett. These, again, have been opposed bySouthey, Phillpotts, Townsend, and. M'Oavin. Milner's' Endof Controversy: affected in title and weak in argument, is oneof the silliest productions that eVfn"gained popularity. Heaffects citing the Fathers, whom he either...never read, or design-edly misrepresents. His chief resources, indeed, are misstate-ment and misquotation. His logic consists in bold asRertionand noisy bravado. His publication, which was to end contro-versy, has been answered by Grier, Digby, and, in many occa-sional animadversions, by M'Oavin.Butler, imitating the insinuating and imposing manner of

Bossuet, affects plainness and simplicity; and represents therepulsive and misshapen form of Romanism in the most enga-ging point of view. He replied to Southey's 'Book of theChurch.' Pbillpotts, again, in a letter, and Townsend, in his'Accusations of HistOry,' &D8wered Blltler, who, in return,

Page 9: The Variations of Popery

PREFACE. IX

addressed his' Vindication' to Townsend, in reply to the 'Accusations' of the latter. The defects of these authors, in general, isthe 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 itscharacter; and, like a good man seen in bad company, becomessuspected. His calumny (for his fabrications deserve no bettername) has been exposed, with admirable precision, by M'Gavinof Glasgow, in his 'Vindication of the Reformation.' The Scot-tish Vindicator's treatment of the English Fabricator is trulyamusing. He handles, turns, anatomises, and exposes theslippery changeling, with a facility which astonishes, and withan effect which always entertains. All the English author'saccustomed transformations cannot enable him to elude theunmerciful grasp of the Scotchman, who seizes him in all hisvarying shapes, pursues him through all his mazy windings,and exhibits his deformity in all its loathsomeness, till he be-comes the object of derision and dis~st. M'Gavin's dissectionof 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 havebeen deeply read in the Fathers or in Christian antiquity; buthe possesses sense and discrimination, which triumphed overthe 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 thesame class. The Popish prelacy, who were questioned beforethe Parliamentary Committees in London, displayed superiortact and information. Their answers exhibited VEt talentsfor evasion. Crotty, Anglade, Slevin, MacHale, enny, Rig-gilW, Kelly, Curtis, Murray, and Laffan, evinced a least equalcleverness at Maynooth, before the comlllisHioners of Irish edu-cation. Tbeee are certainly most accomplished sophists, andpractised in the arts of Jesuitism. The Kaynooth examinationwas conducted with great ability, and the answers which wereelicited, 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 at~tiC)D. The-

Page 10: The Variations of Popery

x PREFACE.

author is a learned layman, who has directed the energies of apowerful mind to subjects of theology. The literary produc-tions of Newton, Locke, Milton, and Addison, in favor 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 orprepossession. 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 canconfer. But Stuart's work possesses merit, farsuperior to anything of an adventitious description. The author's disquisitionsembrace all the questions of controversy, which have beenagitated between the Romish and Reformed. The statementsare clear, and the arguments conclusive. The facts, which heinterweaves in the work, are numerous, and his references arecorrect. The author introduces many of the transactions, whichare recorded in ecclesiastical history, and which have appearedon the public theatre of the world: while his observations onmen and their actions are distinguished by that freedom, whichalways characterises 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 offormer 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, havebeen many and their labors triumphant. But the ' Variationsof 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 havelong been tlAe 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,ta~ht by the Fathers, and is professed, in the popish eommn-.nionof the present day, without addition, diminution, or change.The design of this work is to shew the groundlessness of such aclaim. The subject is the diversity of doctors, popes, and coun-cils among themselves; with their variations from the AJ)08i;1esand Fathers; and t.hese fluctuations are illustl'&ted by the fliatory.of the superstitions which have destroyed the ahnpUcity, and-deformed t.he beauty of genuine Christianity.The variety of opinions, which have been entertained by

Page 11: The Variations of Popery

PREFACE. xi

Romish theologians, constitutes one principal topic of detail.Papists have differed in the interpretation of Scripture and inthe dogmas of religion, as widely as any Protestants. Doctors,pontiffs, and synods have maintained jarring statements, and, inconsequence, exchanged reciprocal anathemas. The spiritualartillery, on these occasions, was always brought forward, andcarried, not indeed death, but damnation into the adverse ranks.The bayonet, in the, end, was often employed to preach theGospel, enforce the truth, or, at least, to decide the victory.The chief of these contests are related in the' Variations ofPopery;' but the wranglings of obscure theologians, and thelighter shades of difference among authors of celebrity, areomitted as tedious and uninteresting. The detail, if everyminute 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 manyponderous folios, which would require much unnecessary timelabor, 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 thereader, and answer the end of its publication.Popish variations from the A~tles and Fathers also claim

a place in this work. The Bomish system is shewn to possessneither Scriptural nor Traditional authority. This, in one re-spect, will evince the disagreement of Pafists with each other.These claim the inspired and ecclesiaatiea 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, whichis no 688Y task, is to oe interpreted according to the unanimousconsent of the Fathers. A display of their variations from thesestandards, which papists recognise, will, in one way, evince ir

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 alsoshew the time and oocasion of their adoption. The steps whichled to their reception are carefully marked; and these additionsto early Christianity will appear to be the inventions of men.Their commencement was small and their growth gradual.The Alp'ine snow-ball, which rolls down the mountain, is atfirst trifling; but accumulates as it swoops the lofty range ofsteeps, till, at length, the mighty mass, resistless in its comse, 'appals the spectator, mocks opposition, and overwhelms in ruin

Page 12: The Variations of Popery

xii PREFACE.

the vineyard, the village or the city. Superstition, in likemanner, unperceived in the beginning, augments in its progress.The fancy, the fears, or the interests of men supply continualaccessions, till the frowning monster affrights the mind andoppresses the conscience. Such was the rise and progress ofRomanism. A religion, boasting unchangeableness, receivedcontinual accretions of superstition and absurdity, till it becamea heterogeneous composition of Gentilism and Christianity,united to many abominations, unknown in the annals of my-• thology and paganism. The history of these innovations willexpose their novelty, and discover their aberrations from theoriginal 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 lastLateran Council. This includes the long lapse of time fromPaul of Tarsus to Leo the Tenth. Paul saw the incipientworkings of 'the Mystery of Iniquity:' The twilight then be-gan, which advanced in slow progress, to midnight darkness.Superstition, which is so congenial with the human mind, wasadded to superstition, and absurdity to absurdity. Filth col-lected. The Roman hierarchs, amidst alternate success anddefeat, 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 thepapal authority, and encroached on prelatic and regal power.teo the Tenth, in the sixteenth century, saw the mighty plan

completed. The Lateran Assambly, under his presidency,conferred on the pope a full autAority over all councils, which,in consequence of this synodal decision, he was vested with thearbitrary power of convoking, transferring, and dissolving atpleasure,' This concession subjected synodal aristocracy topontifical despotism; and, in consequence, extinguished allepiscopal freedom. The same convention embodied, in its acts,the bull of Boniface the Eighth against Philip the French king.'This transaction subjugated royal prerogative and popular privi-l~ to pontifical tyranny. The synod had only to advanceanother step, and the work of wickedness was consummated.This was soon effected. The infallible bishops addressed theinfallible pontiff as God," The successor of the Galileanfisherman was represented as a Terrestrial Deity; while hereceived with complacency and without reluctance the appeDa-

1Da Pm, 31. 148. Orabb, 3. 696. 'Da Pia 3. 148.SDeUI illTerril, :BiD. 9. lH.

Page 13: The Variations of Popery

PREFACE. xiii

tion of blasphemy. Leo then fulfilled the prediction of Paul,and' as God shewed himself that he was God.' •The man ofsin, the son of perdition,' whom the Lord shall consume withthe spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the brightness ofhis coming was revealed. Popery, appalling the nations withits lurid terrors, stood confessed in all its horrid frightfulnessand 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 halfof his dominions by the friar of Wirtemberg, the canton ofZurich, and the pastor of Geneva. Leo lived to curse Luther,and view whole nations rejecting the usurped authority of thepapacy. Mystic Babylon must, in this manner, continue totall, till at last it shrink and disappear before the light of theGospel, the energy of truth, and the predictions of heaven.This work is designed to employ against p'?pery, the argu-

ment which the celebrated Bossuet wielded WIth ingenuity, butwithout 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 dissenaions the slippery Bessuet collected; and whatwas wanting in fact, he supplied from the fountain of his ownteeming imagination. The discordancy, partly real but chieflyfanciful; the bishop represented as inconsistent with truth anddemonstrative 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 andwill supply copious reprisals. The author of this production,however, would, unlike the Romish advocate, adhere to factsand 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 the 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 haveinformed him, that the variations of popery were a thousandtimeE\more numerous than those of protestaatism. His argu-ment, therefore, is much stronger against himself than againsthis adversary. This, one would think, might have taught the~lemic, for his own sake, to spare his controversial details.Boesuet's argument is, in another respect, more injurious to

himself than to the enemy. The Romish communion claimsinfallibility. The reformed prefer no such ridieuloU8 preten-

Page 14: The Variations of Popery

xiv PREFACE.

sion ; and might, therefore, differ in circumstantials and agreein fundamentals, might err and return to the truth. Thesemight 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 inerrabilityandunchangeability, is fatal. Its numerous vacillations, indeed, inevery age, destroy all 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-logia.ns are seldom quoted, and only in matters of minor import-ance. Popish professors will, with more readiness, creditpopish doetors ; and these are easily supplied. Many annalistsof this denomination have, even on subjects connected with thehonor of the papacy, shewn a candor which is highly praise-worthy. These, with laudable ingenuousness, have relatedfacts; while others, indeed, with shameful prevarication, havedealt in fiction. The communion which produced a Baronius,a Bellarmine, a Maimbourg, and a Binius, can boast of a DuPin, a Giannone, a Thua.nus, a Paolo, and a Guiccisrdini.One popish author is, in this performance, confuted from

another. "I'heologian, in this manner, is opposed to theologian,pope to pope, and council to council. A Launoy and a Du Pinsupply materials for a refutation of a Baronius and a Bellar-mine. A Paolo will often correct the errors of a Pa1la.vincino;and a Du Pin, in ma.ny instances, rectify the mistakes of aBinius. Eugenius condemned and excommunicated whatNicholas approved and confirmed. Clement and Benedict, infine style and with great devotion, a.nathematised Boniface,Innocent, and Gregory. The Councils of Pisa, Constance, andBasil committed direct acts of hostility on those of Lyons, Flor-ence, and the Lateran. The French and Italian schools, inthe war of opinion and theology, conflict in determined anddiametrical opposition. The Jesuit and the Molinist view theJansenist and the Dominican as professed enemies. The facil-ity, indeed, with which anyone popish divine may be confutedfrom another, exhibits, in a stri~ point of view, the diversityof Romanism. A protestant, skilled in popish doctors andsynods, may safely undertake the refutation of any papist fromwriters 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 ~asio~he is unacquainted with the art of disguising absunbty, for thelow purpose of flattering its partisans or obtaining the .praise olmodern liberalism. He knOWI the woe pronounced against noh

Page 15: The Variations of Popery

PREFACE. xv

as 'put darkness for light, and light for darkness j' and say,, peace! peace! when there is no peace: He intends, in thefollowing pages, an unmitigated and unrelenting exposure ofantichristian abominations. He would, like an experiencedsurgeon, examine every ailment, probe every wound, and layopen, without shrinking or hesitation, every festering sore. Hewould expose the moral disorder, in all its hateful and haggardfrightfulness, to the full gaze of a disgusted world. This hewould do, not to give pain or gratify the malignity of men j butto heal the wound, cure the disease, prevent the spread of thedistemper 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 fearof con~on. The medicine, he would, like the skilful physi-cian, SUIt to the symptoms, and apply caustic when a lotionwould be ineffectual Ridicule may be used, when, throughthe perverseness of man or the inveteracy of the malady, reasonhas been found to fail. 'Grateful for the favorable reception given to the first editions

of this work (which were published in ] 881-8) the author ~inoffers it to the candid acceptance of the public, carefully revised,enlarged, and corrected thro~hout. He feels some confidence,indeed, in the materials of which it is composed. He travelleda long, but delightful journey, through whole files of authoritiesin ancient and modem langtUlolles;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 vastmass of matter, which he has endeavored to condense. Butthe elements of information are valueless, and will be neglected,ifvoid of order or beauty. A body without a soul wants attrac-tion. The richest colors, 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 inmodem days, will fail to interest the mind, if unaccompaniedwith the -fascinations of life, grace, and elegance. Ideas require,to be ~ and animated, in order to form a useful or invit-ing compo8ltion; &8 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 anda popular book. He invites criticism. Should the public con-tinue to smile and enco~ his essay, he will rejoice in itsfavor; but if otherwise, he will acquiesce in its decision:

Page 16: The Variations of Popery

XVI CONTENTS.

OONTENTS.

I

INTRODUOTION: By Rev. J. Gardner Robb, B.A.

OHAPTER 1.

INTRODUOTION: THE UNITY OF PROTESTANTISM.

Page 23

Harmony of the Reformed Confessions of Faith-eonsubstantiation of Luther-anism- Popish DiverBity on TransubBtantiation- Disciplinarian Variety-8ecta-rianism- Foolery of Romanism- Beata-Clara-N ativity- Flagellism-eonvul-sionarianism-Festival of the Ass-Decision of a Roman Synod-Antiquity ofProtestantism-Protestant Name-Protestant Theology-Protestant Church_The Waldensian-The Greek-The Nestorian-The Monophysite-The Arme-nian-The S~ 33

CHAP. II: POPES.

Difficult)' of the Pontifical Suceession- Historical Variations-Electol'&1. VariationB-Schisms in the Papacy-Liberius and Felix-8ilverius and V'=-FOJ'IDO-sus, Sergius, and St-mhen-Benedict, Sylvester, Johnand . -GreatWestern lkhiam-B~ and Florentine SclriIIll- Doot.riDal Variations-Victor-Stephen-Liberius. Zozimus and Honoriua- V'Jgilius-John-Moral VariatiODS-State of the Pa~-Theodora and Mal'OZii----John-Boniface-Gregory-BonH-J'ohn-Sixtua-Aleunder-Juli __ Leo-PerjuredPontilfB. 16

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 GeneralCouncils-Cillalpine or F:renoh School rejects the Councils of Lyons, FlorencelLateran and Trent-Adopts these of Pisa; Constance, Basil, and the Illlcond orPisa-S~ of a third party-U niveraality of General Councils-Its Conditions-Legality of General Councils- Its ConditiO~Convoeation, Presidency, andConfirmation-Members-Unanilnity- Freedom. 131

CHAP. IV: SUPREMACY.

Four Variations __Pope's Presiden"l-His Sovereignty or Despotism-His suPPosedEcraaIib' with God-Hie alleged Superiority to God-8criptural Proof~"'1'ndi-tioDal gYidenoe-Original State of the Roman Church-e_ of its ~-Eminenoeof the City-False Decretals- Mission&-Oppositions from Aaia. Africa,France, Spain, England and Ireland- Universal.Bishop-U IIlIl1l6tioDB of Nioho-1a&-JoJm; Gregory, Innocent and Bonif~. 160

Page 17: The Variations of Popery

CONTENTS. xvii

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 andJUlius dethrone Henry, Lewis, Philip and Lewis-British Depositions-Adriantransfers Ireland to Henry- Innocent, Paul and Pius pronounce sentence ofDegradatdonagainst John, Henry and Elizabeth-Synodal Depositions-Councilsof the Lateran, Lyons, Vienna, Pisa, Constance, Basil, Lateran and Trent-Modem Opinions-Effects of the Reformation. 218

CHAP. VII: PERSECUTION.

Pretensions of the Papacy-Three Periods-First Period; Religious Liberty-SecondPeriodLPersecution of Paganism-Persecution of Heresy-PersecutingKings, Saints, Theologians, Popes and Councils-Crusades against the Al~nses-Inquisition-Third PeriOl.!;Persecuting Doctors, Popes, Councilsand Ki!Jgs-Persecutions in Germany, ..l'lethfTIands, 8J!&in, France and Eugland-Diversitrof Systems-Popish Disavowal of Persecution-Modem OpiniODL 247

CHAP. VIII : INVALIDATION OF OATHS.

Violation of Faith-TheolOlrians, Popes and Councils-Pontifical MaximI-Ponti-tical ActiOJlll-Councila of Rome and Diamper-Oouncils of the Latert.n, LrOIIIPisa, Constance lttIld B..n-Era lttIld Iufluenee of.the Reformation. 2811

CHAP. IX: ARIANISM.

Trinitarianism of Antiquity-<>riRin of the.Arian S:vatem-Alexandrian lttIld Bithy·Dian Councils-Nicene and Tynan Counci1e-S8mi·,ArilttIlism-AntiochilttllandRomlttll Councils-Sardican, .Arleeian,Milan and Sirmian Councils-Liberius-Felix-Armenian, Seleucilttlland Byzantine Councils-8tate of Chrilltendom-Variety of Conf_oua 304

CHAP. X: EUTYCffiANISM.

Eutychianism a verbal Heresy-·lts prior Existence-Byzantine Council-EphesianCouncil-ChalcedoniaD Council- State of Monophysitismafter the Council ofChaleedon-Zeno's Henoticon-Varietyof Opinionson that Edict-Jacobitism-Distraeted state of Christendom. 319

CHAP. XI: MONOTHELITISM.

CHAP. XII: PELAGIANISM.

Page 18: The Variations of Popery

xviii CONTENTS,

lence and Langres-Modern Controversy--Council of Trent-Rhemish Annota-tions-Dominicans against the Molinist-Congregation of Helps-The Jesuitsagainst the Jansenists-Controversy on Quesnel'sMoral Reflections. 562

CHAP. XIII: TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Variety of Opinions-Scriptural and Traditional Arguments-Elements accountedSigns, Figures and Emblems-Retained their own Substance-Nourished theHuman Body-Similar Changein Baptism and Regeneration-Causes which facili-tated the Introduction of Transubstantiation-History of Transubstantiation-Paschasius- Berengarius- Diversity ofOpinions- Diversit;yofProofs-Absurdityof Transubstantiation-Creation of the Creator-Its Oannibalism, :389

CHAP. XIV: COMMU~ION IN ONE KIND.

Its Contrariety_to Scriptural Institution-Concessions-Axgnments-Its Contra-riety to the Usage of the Early and Middle .Ages-Concessions-Its Contrarietyto the Custom of the Oriental Christians-Origin of Half-Communion-Councilsof Constanceand Basil-> Inconsistencyof the Constantian andBasilian Canons-Inconsistency of the Basilian Assemblywith its ownEnactments in granting theCup to the Moravians and Bohemians-Council of Trent-s-Oppoaition to theTrentine Canons in France, Germany, Bohemia, Poland and Hungary. 433

CHAP. XV: EXTREME UNCTION.

Variations on its Effects-Disagreement on its Institution-The Scriptural andPopish Unction vary in their Administrator! ~ign, Form, Subject and End-Recovery of Health the Scriptural end or Anointing the Blck-TraditionalEvidence-History of Extreme Unction. 449

CHAP. XVI: IM.AGEWORSHIP.

Three System&-One allows the use of Image8-The Second patronises their In-ferior or Honorary Worship-the Thirdjll'8fers the same Adoration to theRepresentatiou as to the Original-Image- Worship a Variation from ScripturalAuthority -A Variation from EcclesiasticalAntiquitr-Miraculous Proofs-s-Ad-missions-Introduction of Images into the Church--Their Worship-Iconoclasm-Byzantine Council-8econd NiceneCouncil-Western System-Caroline Boob- Frankfordian Council-Parisian Council-EaIltern Variations- Final Eiltab-lishment of Idolatry by Theodora. 46l}

CHAP. XVII: PURGATOR~Its Situation and Punishment-Destitute of Scriptural Authority-Admissions--Scriptural Arguments-Destitute of Traditional Authority-Admissions-Prayerfor the Dead-Pagan, Jewish and Mahometan Purgatory-Its Introduction Intothe Christian Community-Its slow Progress-Completed by the Schoolmen-Florentine Council- Trentine Council 498

CHAP. XVIII: CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.VarietYof Sy&tem&-JewishTheocracy-Christian Establishment-Ancient Tradi·tion-IntrOduction of Clerical Velibacy-Reasons-G~Latins-Etfects ofSacerdotal Celibacy-DomeBticism,COJ1cubinageand Matrimony-Second Periodof Celibacy-OppOeitiou to Gregory-Toleration of Fornication-Preference of'Form_OIl to M*imoat ~ ~ Cl~PenrdlMioD of Adultery or Biomyto the JAity-View ofPrlIlClf ~ bl ~, 8P1l1n. GtrmaDY, S'Il'1taW·hind, Frauce,laIr- P~cu.Of ~,.~ ad:Ball. 53~

Page 19: The Variations of Popery

FATHERS AND POPISH AUTHORS

QUOTEDIN THIS WORK.

AUTHOR. WORK. VOL, PLACR. D.lTB.

ABBO - Sermones - 1 Paris 1723Aimon - - Tractatus - 1 Paris 1723Alexander - Historia - 25 Paris 1683Ambrosius - Opera - 5 Paris 1661Amour - - Journal - 1 London 1664Andilly - - Vies des Saints- - 1 Paris 1664Anastasius - De Vitis Pontificum - 1 Venice 1729Anglade - Maynooth Report - 1 London 1827Antonius De Concilio - - 1 Venice 1828Aquinas (Thomas) - Summa - 3 Lyons 1567Arsdekin - Theologia - 3 AntwElrp 1682Athanasius - Opera - 3 Paris 1698Augustine - Opera - 10 Venice 1731Avocat Dictionnaire 2 Paris 1760Barclay - De Potestate · 1 1609Basil Or-era : · 3 Paris 1721Bausset Life of Fenelon · 2 London 1810Bade Opera · 8 Colonia 1612Bellarmine - Disputationes · 3 Lyons 1587Bentivolio - Historia - 1Benedict - Histoire - 2 Paris 1691Bernard - Opera - 1 Paris 1632Bertram - De Corpore - 1 London 1688Binius - Concilia · 9 Paris 1636Bossuet - Exposition - 1 London 1685Bossuet - Variations - 4 Paris 1747Bossuet - Opuscules - 3 Louvain 1764Biseiola - Epitome - 1 Louvain 1680Boileau - Historia - 1 Paris 1700Bruys - Histoire - 5 Hague 1732Cajetan - Opuscula - 3 Lyons 1567Calmet . Dissertations - - 3 Paris 1720Oalmet - Commentaire - - 24 Paris 1115Canmus - Theaa11l'l18 - 4: Antwerp 1726Carranza Conei1ia - 1 Paris 1678. Caron - Remonstrantia · 1 1665Chrysostom - • Opera • '13 Paris 1724Oedrenus 'Compendium - · 2 Venice 1729Challenor - Catholic Christian - 1 London 1782Chardin - Travels · 1 London 1686Clemens - Opera · 2 Oxford 1715Coquille - Discours - 1 Paris 1617CoImas - TopoJ:phia - . 1 Paris 1101Coesart COD . · 6 Lucca 1148

Page 20: The Variations of Popery

xx FATHERS AND POPISH AUTHORS.

AU'rHO&' WOlt,.. VOL. PLI.OB. DATI':.Cotelerius Patres Apostolici - 2 Amsterdam 1724Coyne. Catalogue • · 1 Dublin 1735Crotty - Maynooth Report · 1 London 1827Crabbe · Ooncilia · 3 Colonia 1551Cyprian - Opera · 1 Oxford 1682Cyril (Jerusal.) · Opera · 1 Oxford 1703Cyril (Alex.) · Opera · 7 Paris 1638Dachery - Spicilegium · 4 Paris 1723Davila - Histoire · 1 Rouen 1664Daniel - Histoire • 10 Paris 1729Durand - Speculum · 3 Venice 1578Dens · Theologia - - 8 Dublin 1832Doyle Parliamentary Report 1 'London 1827Du Cange · Glossarium - 6 Paris 1733Du Pin - Dissertationes • 1 Paris 1686Du Pin · History 3 Dublin 1724Dellon · History 1 London 1688Durandus - De Corpore . - 1 Paris 1648Eadmerus Vita Oswaldi 1 London 1623Ephraim · Opera · 1 Colonia 1603Epiphanius · Opera - 2 Colonia 1684Erasmus · Opera • 10 Lyons 1703Estius · Commentaria . · 2 London 1653Etherius · Adv. Alepand • - 1 Antwerp 1'r25Eusebius Historia - · 1 Paris 1659Evagnus · Historia - 1 Cambridge 1720Faber · Dis~utationea . · 2 Paris 1723Fabulottus De. oteatate · 1 Venice 1728Fauchet · Trai~ · 1 Paris 1639Fleury · Catechism · 1 Dublin 1765:roman - Ristoria · 1 Oxford 1691Gabutius Vita Pii V. 1 Rome 1605Gaufridus · Histoire - 2 AU: 1694,Gelasius - Adv.Euty. · 1 Basil 1556Gibert Corpus - 3 Lyons 1737Gocelin · Ristoria - 1 London 1691Godeau · Histoire - 6 Paris 1680Giannone · History · 2 London 1129Gother · Papist represented - 1 London 1685Gildas Historia - · 1 Oxford 1691Gregory • · Opera · 4 Paris 1705Guicciardini - La Ristoria · 2 Venice 1755Benrieiua Annalea 1 Antwerp 1125

lBerman - Chronicon - 1 Antwerp 1725B' . - KafJlooth Report - 1 London 1827Bif:,.111 9P6ra - - 1 Paria 1631Botman TraiU • - 1 Paria 159'Bonbpt . Bibli& - • PaN 1'168Hoveden - Annal. · 1 Londo. 1&" l

Page 21: The Variations of Popery

"FATHERS AND POPISH AUTHORS. XXI

A{;'l'IIOR. won. VOL. l'LACll. DATB.

Hugo - De Corpore - 1 Paris 1648Irenreus - Contra Hrereses - 1 Paris 1710Isodorus - De Ordine - 1 Paris 1723Jacobatius - De Concilio · 1 Venice 1728Jerome - Opera - 5 Paris 1706Jonas - De Institutione - 1 Paris 1723Jovius · Historia - 2 Paris 1553Juenin - Institutiones - 5 Bassano 1773Justin - Opera - 1 Paris 1636Labbeus - Ooneilia - 23 Venice 1728Lactantius - Opera - 1 Cambridge 1685Limiers - Histoire - 10 Amsterdam 1718Llorente - Histo - 1 London 1818Launoy Episto7re - 5 Paris .1675Lanfranc - Opera - 1 Paris 164-8Le Bruyn - Voyages - 5 Paris 1726Liberatus - Breviarium · 1 Paris 1648Lopez - Ep'itome - 1 Antwerp 1622~a Blblia - 6 Venice 1688abillon - Annales · 6 Paris 1713

~eoghegan · Histoire - 3 Paris 1768donat • - Commentarium · 1 Mentz 1696

McHale - Maynooth Report - 1 London 1827Maimbourg - TraiM · 1 Paris 1686Maimbourg · Histoire - 1 Paris 1684Mariana - Histoire · 6 Paris 1726Mendoza - De Concilio - 1 Venice 1728Mezeray ., · Histoire - 6 Amsterdam 1688Milletot - Traite - 1 Paris 1639Milner · End of Controversy - 1 Philadelphia 1820Montfaucon - - Bibliotheca · 1 Paris 1715

,. Moren Dictionnaire - 8 Amsterdam 1720MUlbf'ord - Scripturist - 1 Dublin 1767Malmsbury - - De Pontificibus - 1 Oxford 1691Malmsbury · De Gestis - 1 London 1596More - °era - 1 Louvain 1516Nangis C onicon - 1 Paris 1723O'Leary - Works - 1 Dublin 1181Origen - Commentaria - 2 Paris 1619Origen H~la .i 2 Paris 1713Orleans HistoIre · 2 Hague 17290I>bem - Vita Odonis - 1 London 1691Panormitan . - Decretalia -.4 Lyons 1550Panormitan - · Ooncilia - 1 Lyons 1551Paolo - Histoire - 2 London 1136Paris · Historia · 1 Zurich 1589Paac:al - <Euvres - 6 Paris 1'819Paulin1l8 - Opt:ra . - 1 V\lI'ODA 1736Peti"tius Ration&nom - 2 LYODI 1146

Page 22: The Variations of Popery

11

xxii FATHERS AND POPISH AUTHORS.

AUTHOR. WORK. VOL. PLACK. U.AT~.Pithou - OOrpUS Juris - · I Paris 1687Photius - Bibliotheea · 1 Geneva 1612Platina - De Vitas Pontificum 1 Colonia li'i5 IPolydorus - Historia · ] Basil 1531Procopius - Opera · 1 Venice 1729Prosper - Opera - 2 Venice 1744Quesnel - Le Nouveau Testament 4 Brussels 1702Ranulph · Polychronicon · 1 Oxford 1691Ratramn - Contra Greec, Opp. · 1 Paris 1723Ratherius - Epistolse - 1 Paris 1723Renaudot - Collectio - 2 Paris 1716Rhemists - New Testament - 1 Manchester 1813Rivers - Manuel - I Dublin 1816Sclater · Consensus - 1 London 1686Sclater - Nubes Testium - 1 London 1686Slevin MaynootIl Report - 1 London 1827Socrates - Historia - 1 Paris 1668Spondanus - Epitome - 1 Mentz 1618Theodolf - Fragmenta - 1 Paris ]723Theodoret - Opera - 4 Paris 1612Theophanes . - Chronographia - 1 Venice 1729Theophylact Oommentarii - 2 Paris 1635Tertullian · Opera - 1 Paris 1689Thomassin - Discipline - 2 Paris 1679Thuanus - Historia . 7 London 1773Thevenot · Voyages - 5 Amsterdam 1727Trivettus · Chronicon - 1 Paris 1723Uldenc · Consuetudines - 1 Paris 1723Varillas - Histoire - .2 Cologne 1684Vertot - Origines - 1 Hague 1737Victor Chronicon - 1 Antwerp 1725Vignier - Bibliotheque - 3 Paris 1587Velly Ristoire - 20 Paris 1701'Ward - Speculum - 1 London 1688Walsh . History - 1 1674Zonares - Annales - 2 Venice 1729

Apologie - 3 Antwerp 1792Breviarium Romanum 1 Venice 1729Catech. Tridentin - 1 Paris 1568Codex Justinian - 2 Lyons 1571Codex Theodosianus 6 Lyons 1665Clementinre - 1 Paris 1612De Primatu - 1 London 1769Extravagantes - 1 Paris 1612Hist. Du Wickli£ • 1 LyoDs 1682Jdemoire8\U' laPr6deatin 1 Amsterdam 1689Miuale RomAllQm . 1 CbI: 1767Officia Propria. • 1 Du • 1192ProoeeaiooiJe Botuaum 1 Paria, 1676

Page 23: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION

BY THE

REV. J. GARDNER ROBB, B.A.

, THE Bible,' says Chilling worth, 'is the religion of Protestants.'Protestantism rests upon the authority of God. Its founda-tion is the inspired word; and upon that word alone it restssure and immovable. For the best of men are but men at thetest. 'But after all,' said the Duke of Bavaria to the Ro-mish doctors; 'can you refute, by sound reasons, the confessionmade by the Elector and his allies?' 'With the writings of theApostles and Prophets-No,' replied Dr. Eck; l but with thoseof the Fathers and of the Councils-Yes !' 'I understand,'quickly replied the Duke, ' I understand the Lutherans, accord-ing to you, are in the Scriptures, and we are on the outside.'Goliath knew where his strength lay: therefore he warred

'with a sword, and with a spear and a. shield.' David eon-quered with the sling and stone, in the name of the Lord of, Hosts, the defied God of the armies of Israel; and the earththen knew that there was 'a God in Israel.' The God of Pro-vidence and Grace will yet vindicate both Himself and His wordeven by human history-by the evolutions of human thoughtand the results of human effort. The sword of the Spirit,which is the word of God, is potent now as in the temptation inthe wilderness. With it opposed and resisted, Satan mustvanquished quit the field.A.t no period in her history has the' ChurCh of Christ been-

more characterised by activity in almost all departments ofChristian effort, than at the present time. The activities ofthe Church of Christ have manifested its love and life not onlyin the field of home operations, but also in efforts to reclaimthe moral and spiritual wastes of heathenism. The possessionof a missionary spirit has come to be regarded not only as a signof a living church, but also a pledge of the favour of thechurch's risen and reigning Head. Now to be truly and fullysuccessful abroad the Church must be not only strong at home,but free from such internal embarrassment as will pemit herto bring all her resources to bear upon the akten810n of her

Page 24: The Variations of Popery

xxiv INTRODUCTION.

influences among the nations. An earthly kingdom rent byinternal feuds is powerless for foreign conquest and extendedempire. While the Church of Christ is only true to her mis-sion when she prosecutes her great work of subduing an peo-ples to the sovereignty of her King, yet to make these effortsmost effective she must leave no enemy within her citadel. Israelwas powerless against Syria or Egypt, while the Canaaniteswere still strong in the land. The home heathen have thefirst claim upon the patriotic Christian, and this by the callof God's Providence; while this claim is much strengthened bythe consideration that, this call responded to, the rule of Christwill be more hopefully extended throughout all the nations of theworld. It is from. conquering to conquer the Prince of Peaceshall ride forth to universal empire on earth.In the foreign field the Christian Church is opposed by va-

rious systems of error, presenting many and different features.Her missionaries have to deal with these in all their diverse pe-culiarities. Truth is one, and the members of the body of Christare one, in their living Head. But the truth to overcome many-sided error must be presented in such form as is specially suited toeradicate each opposing error. He who carries the Gospel tothe teeming millions of India or China, qualifies himself for hisspecial work by securing acquaintance with the intellectual,social and religious peculiarities of those to whom he goes. Theirmodes of thought, customs, and specially the religious insti-tutions and sacred usages prevailing amongst them he mustcarefully study and master, that he may successfully combattheir prejudices, and bring Gospel truth to bear upon themwith adaptive, and 80 much the more effective, power. Similarqualifications are needed in dealing with errors in the homesphere. To use cavalry in a sea fight, or to attack Sebastopolwith side arms, would not only evince the want of military skill,it would give no hope of victory. To secure universal swaytruth must triumph at home as well as abroad; and that itmay so and soon triumph, the home field must not be over-looked or its claims disregarded. To subdue here, we mustbe no strangers to the foe, to the nature and amount of theirresources, the strength and system of their defences or the pe-culiar modes of their warfare. ~We have said so much with the view of stirring up the Re-

formed Churches to a yet deeper and stronger sense of their dutyin active, earnest, persevering efforts for the conversion of Ro-manists.Let us mention 'the following amongst other inciting and

stimulating consideratioDs :-1. Our commission from Christ is to disciple all nations; to

preach the Gospel to eTe!y creature ;

Page 25: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. xxY"

2. Regard for our own peace and prosperity; and3. The influence pure Christianity universally prevailing in

Christendom, would exercise in subduing all the nations of theearth to Christ.On the first point little needs to be said. Romanists have

souls to be saved, the Gospel of Christ is the only outward meansinstrumental to salvation; and that Gospel in its purity we have.Protestants only need to repeat the process which issued inReformation in by-gone days; and to continue the influenceswhich operated so gloriously among their own progenitors.The history and fact of the Reformation, the progress ofthe Reformed Churches, should rebuke all doubt and indifference,should furnish to us the strongest incentives to faithful effort,and keep burning and bright the hope of success. Until this suc-cess by the blessing and through the grace of God crowns oureffortS, these efforts should be unceasing; for till then the coll}-mission of our King is unfulfilled, our duty is undone. Uponthe second point we may confidently appeal to the history ofProtestantism. Popery is aggressive, It seeks with persistent

• effort to recover the territory lost bY.'the Reformation. No op-portunity is ~rmitted to pass WIthout renewed assault; nomeans by which her ambitious designs may be furthered, doesRome allow to lie unused; no weapon but she would wield ifonly it may prove useful in the strife. Unscrupulous and un-ceasing, she must prove a perpetual barrier to the peace andprosperity of Scriptural Christianity. The overthrow of Romisherror and influence is demanded of the members of the Churchof' Christ for their own sakes, as well as for the sake of the truthto them so dear. And but little reflection is needed to shewthat if the impeding influence of Popery were overcome, hererrors removed and her energies engaged on the side of truthmuch larger efforts would be available for operation on the na-tions not yet Ohristian ; while a great stumbling block to thefaith both of Jew and Gentile would be taken out of the way.Then t the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all fleshshall see it together.' Let faith and effort co-operate with Hisgrace and Spirit for the accomplishment of this.Two things, we think, may here be taken for granted;(1.) That it is a present and pressing duty specially ineum-"

bent upon those who, in the Providence of God, are brought in-to immediate contact with Bomanists, to seek their conversion.(2.) That in this Christian effort the truth is to be directed

against, and therefore adapted to, the special errors of the sup-porters of the Papacy, and the special conquests it has amongstthem to achieve.John tells us in his gospel, C These are written that ye tnight.

Page 26: The Variations of Popery

XXVI INTHODUCTIOK.

believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that be-lieving ye might have life through His name.' But John is nota mere copyist of the Synoptists. The Holy Spirit uses the be-loved disciple for a special purpose, and to that special purposeJohn's testimony is adapted. It is the same gospel-the gos-pel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God-but it has through Johnto combat new phases of error and other classes of opposition-ists. The inspired Epistle to the Hebrews, if written by Paul,i"!in malfY respects different from either Epistle to the Corinth-ians or the letter to the Church at Rome. There is a manifestadaptation of the same all-saving truth as it is in Christ to thecircumstances of the time and the peculiarities of the personsaddressed. The errors to be overcome are taken into accountin the presentation and enforcement of the truth which alonecan make wise unto salvation and perfect in every good wordand work.'So in regard to Romanism. If it is to be successfully assailed,

we must seek to understand the peculiar phases of error it pre-sents and develops, and adapt the all-conquering truth to thedestruction of those errors behind which the wiliest enemy Chris-tianity has ever been called on to attack, has entrenched itself.Now it is because of the helpful aid it affords for such a work,

that we rejoice in the republication of this treatise on c TheVariations of Popery.' The learned author after vast researchhas accumulated the testimonies of Fathers, Councils,'Popes, andacknowledged authorities in the Church of Rome upon the great .leading subjects in controversy between her and the Church .of Christ. Within wondrously small compass, Dr. Edgar hascompacted an amount of carefully selected information not else-where in the same useful and attractive form available. Nor ishis volume a mere compilation-a heterogenous mass of culledand collocated statements. The resources he has systematizedand assorted lay to his hand the evidence with which a highlytrained intellect, by a ready and incisive logic, and in a flowingand luminous expression, perhaps in these euphemistic daysoccasionally more forcible than elegant, demonstrates how ut-terly untenable are the positions Rome assumes and tries todefend, in face of that Christianity which against her is Protes-tant, only because it is Scriptural and Apostolic.The weapons Dr. Edgar supplies and uses are specially effect-

ive against the imperial aspirations of Rome, and the boastedUnity under which she would subject all Christian churches toher sole and sovereign sway. Rome assumes that a visible unity,one outward organisation, is es,sentUU to the existence of theChurch which in Scripture u, caJled the •body of Christ, 'c thefulness of Him that filleth aJl in. aJl ; '-that Church which

Page 27: The Variations of Popery

I~TltOD\ TTlON. XXVll

embraces the whole body of the elect, and none others. Thisassumption nowhere warranted by the Scriptures of truth,has forced the Church of Rome into many t>retences. Amongthese we may specify the Sanctity with which Rome seeks hy-pocritically to clothe herself; the Apostolicity, or conformity indoctrine, discipline, government and worship to the New Tes-tament Church, which she vainly endeavors to evince; andthe Catholicity which by excommunicating and anathematisingall who will not acknowledge her sway and bend before herbastard sceptre, she has sought to secure-s-as some claimantsto the thrones of Eastern climes seek to secure their crowus-by the extermination of all rivals.'Tis true that Christ's Church on earth shall continue through-

out all generations. 'Tis true that it is not possible todeceive the elect so as to imperil their salvation. But it is alsotrue that these true members of Christ's body are often God's'hidden ones,' invisible to the world or even to the Prophetsof the Lord; as were the seven thousand who never bowedthe knee to Baal in those defective times, when Elijah be-wailed, that he only was left faithful to the God of Israel,And it is also true they are subject to Imperfection both inknowledge and service. There is in Scripture no more foun-dation for the assurance that all the visible assoeiatdons ofChrist's people shall hold on all points precisely the same viewsand be united under the same visible organisation, as thltt allthe members in the same visible organisation shall possess per·cisely the same graces a'\14 in precisely the same degree. Naythe indications of Scripture instruct us differently. Truth essen-tial to salvation with a greater or less degree of clearness andfulness is common to all the saved. But in some that faithmay be but as a grain of mustard seed; and the prayer of thedisciples will ever be a fit supplication for the church on earth,"Lord increase our faith !' Rome has sought most inconsistentlyto deny the Scriptural distinction between essentials and non-essentials; and yet no church on earth has had more to do withsuch distinctions. Five years ago the dogma of Papal infallibilitywas not an essential to salvation. Now to doubt or deny this dog-ma is to be damned. Now it is not de fide-essential to salvation-to believe that the dogma of infallibility extends beyond ex-cathedra definitions concerning faith and morals. The nextcouncil, nay the Pope himself, may by ex-cathedra definition ex-tend faith and morals so as explicitly to comprehend all humanaffairs. ButhewhoholdsChristthehead,firmlybelievesHisW"ordand has His Spirit in him as the principle of life is a member ofthe Church of Christ, though disowned by Pppe, bishops,councils, synods, or any visible organisatioD<l&1litlr it&~ the. .,' ,

Page 28: The Variations of Popery

xxviii INTRODUCTION.

Church of Christ. Union to Christ made by faith bringslife eternal, and not any visible relationship whatsoever. TheRefonned Churches differ from the Church of Rome, not inthe existence of such distinction as that between essentials andnon-essentials, but as to the basis on which this distinctionrests, whether on Scripture or the dogmaRof the Church. AllScripture truth is essential in the sense that wanting any partof it, the man of God could not be perfect. But every part ofScripture is not essential to life or salvation. It is for saintson earth the Apostle pray!:!,'the very God of peace sanctify youwholly.' All who truly believe in what Scripture sets forth asessential to life are true members of Christ's redeemed Church.In regard to non-essentials, they may be divided in opinion andseparated because of such division into different visible organi-sations. Nowhere does Scripture make salvation to depend uponoutward and visible relationships. Now upon this subject, vitalto a right appreciation and a clear understanding of the conten-tions of the Church of Christ with the Church of Rome, Dr.Edgar brings to bear against the latter an overwhelming amountof adverse testimony. He abundantly proves that Rome's claimsto unity and infallibility are historically unfounded as well asscripturally untrue. That on this subject the Protean varia-tions of her faith and the chameleon changes of her news,render the confusion of her testimony chaotic.In regard to each leading variation of Romish faith, he

shews that this divergence is due to the departure of Rome.1st. from Scripture doctrine; 2nd from the early Fathers;300. from the expressed views of some of the wisest and bestwithin her own pale; frequently at the very time at whichsuch divergence became dogma-c-stereotyped by the fiat ofRome's Infallibility.Rome claims, 88 we have said, subjection from all existing

professing Christian churches, and from every member in thesechurches.To substantiate this claim she must shew, and by her attempts

to do it confesses she must shew: • '1. Scripture foundation for the Supremacy and Infallibility

of Peter;2. That Supremacy and Infallibility were not personal and

temporary, but officially given to Peter to be transmitted byhim to his successors, and3. That Peter was de facto Bishop of Rome, and did transmit

to his successors, Bishops of Rome, Sopremacy and InfallibilityTo fail in anyone of these three items she fails altogether.Now Dr. Edgar in this volume beyond all historic cavil

conclusively proves :

Page 29: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. xxix

1. That Scripture upon the Supremacy and Infallibility ofPeter is not only a silent, but an adverse witness j and thatthis is both confessed and proved by the abundant testimonyof many of Rome's own chosen authorities.2. That the early Bishops of Rome never received such .

Supremacy and Infallibility as Rome claims for them j thatthey for centuries never claimed such; that their earlyposition in the Church of Christ and the independence ofother churches are utterly inconsistent with any such claim;and that for centuries such claim was unheard of, and bydistinguished Roman bishops and learned authorities explicitlydisav<YWed. .Supremacy and Infallibility were of slow growth,and when they did appear after the lapse of centuries, it waswith such opposition as proves such claim to be 'earthly,sensual, devilish.' No' Supreme and Infallible authority didthe early Christian Church acknowledge, but the Holy Spiritspeaking in His word; and we may add(3.) There is no evidence to prove that Peter was at any

time Bishop of Rome, or ever set his foot on Europeansoil. Contemporary teRtimony-the history of the Apostle'slife as given by himself, or sketched by his contemporaries,never once hints that he was Bishop of Rome, or ever re-sided or even visited there. Weare told of others being inRome, but no mention of Peter. Paul testifies tha.t at hisfirst answer no man stood by him, but the Lord stood by him.Peter was not in Rome then. By Paul was the Epistle to theRomans written and not by Peter, showing clearly that theChurch of Rome was not under Peter's care. Paul in Romewrites epistles to other churches, sending to them the greetingsof the Saints with him; but Peter is not with bim there orthen. Peter writes to Asiatic not to European Christians,and dates his letters not from Rome as the sea.t of his supposedbishopric, but from Babylon. Nor did Peter's special worklead him to Rome. He was the Apostle of the Circumcision, asPaul was of the Uncireumcision. Peter was ap6stle to those ofthe Jewish faith and of Hebrew descent; Paul went to theGentiles, whose centre was the imoeriel city of Rome.Paul testified that Peter was f:tlible and recognised in him

no supremacy. In fact the evidence for supremacy and infalli-bility is rather in favor of Paul; for Paul withstood Peter tothe face because he was to be blamed. In the council- ofJerusalem Peter had no supremaey.he did not even preside there.Dr. Edgar in this volume is full upon this controversy; heshews that the passages of Scripture to wbich modem Romea.ppea1s were understood for centuries, not as she interprets

Page 30: The Variations of Popery

xxx INTRODUCTION.

them, but as Protestants understand them, and as many withinher own pale understood them, until she excommunicatedall who did not agree with her.Dr. Edgar sets this subject forth in the light of Scripture

and of history with great fulness, clearness, and completenessdown to his own time. Since then Rome has introduced a newvariation, has made another advance towards absolute sway.The discussion of this last development receives in this volumebrief, but exact and trustworthy treatment at the hands of onein every way competent in this department. This addition withthe subjoined notice of the Papal Encyclical by which Pius theIX., in A.D. 1864, announced and decreed the Immaculate Con-ception of the Virgin Mary, makes this treatise one for thepresent time, and a complete manual of the variations of theChurch of Rome-s-a church not Catholic-not even RomanCatholic; but in deed and in truth, both historically and lite-rally, 'The Papacy,' the Church of' Our Lord God, the Pope.'It has always seemed to the writer that the most vital varia- .

tions of the Papacy from Scriptural Christianity, and on whichshe irreconcileably differs from Protestantism are thoae ofSupremacy and Infallibility. Allow this dual claim andeverything Rome demands must be conceded. Overthrow thesedogmas and Rome is Anti-christ.The events of this eighth decade of the nineteenth century

have revived the discussion of this vital and fundamental ques-tion. 'Tis true the contention has taken a secular rather thana spiritual course; but the greater question of spiritual truth asl,lg8.inst Romish error is S"!l:teto emerge. Here we haveRome's chosen arena for the final conflict. Here now mustthe battle with Rome be fought and won. The defender ofScripture truth could seek no fairer field and no more hope-ful conflict. The very citadel itself invites attack-with de-termination here to do or die, the enemy shouts defiance. T Jconquer here is to leave no enemy in European Christendom.whose name or fame can indicate serious opposition. So far vic-tory sides with truth. Mr. Gladstone has proved himselfmore than a match for Dr. J. H. ~ ewman, Cardinal Manning.and a host of minor men. His' Expostulation' has broughtout as present Variations of Infallibility (1.) Old Catholicism,represented by Dollinger and others; (2.) MinimisID. supportedby Dr. J. H. Newman; (3.) Gallicanism, revealing on its ban- .ner the names of Doyle. Murray. and Crolly and lately LordsActon and Camoys. allied to the Old Catholics of Germanyand Switzerland; (+.) Oallico-UltramonU,mism. a transitionadvocated by Lord Herries and Canon Oakley; and (5.) Ultra-montanism pure, with its new Cardinal (Manning) and the

Page 31: The Variations of Popery

•INTRODUCTION. xxxi

Vatican Fathers of 1870. Prince Bismarck has as yet success-fully resented the insult offered by the Pope to the sovereigns ofEurope, when Pius the IX dared to annul a law of the GermanEmpire. Papal defenders may allege, that with the source andseat of Infallibility, Protestants have nothing to do; that thisis a matter only of internal arrangement, affecting only thesubjects spiritual of the Pope, and with no appreciable or ma-terial bearings on the relations of Romanists to their temporalsovereigns or the States in which they live, or to ProtestantChurches. All such specious and subtle statements will notblind the watchful. Protestant England believed Bishop Doylewhen he swore that Infallibility did not belong to the Pope,and could 'not become a dogma binding upon British Roman-ists. Accepting this the Emancipation Act found a place uponthe Statute book of Britain. But now we are told Doyle andothers spake without authority. Do not Newman and Manningspeak with much less authority on Papal subjects now 1 It isin vain sought to be shown that British Romanists are left un-fettered in their loyalty to the British crown by this last dogma.On the contrary. it is even argued that the spiritual subjects ofthe Pope should be dealt with by the Governments underwhich they live through an accredited re{>resentative of thePope; and reference is made in this connection to the Englishand French living in Russia during the Crimean war, and toGermans in France during the Franco-Prussian war: that is tosay, the spiritual subjects of the Pope living under ProtestantGovernments are to be treated as aliens. Besides, what gua-rantee have the Governments of Europe in the proposed limitsof Infallibility-within the sphere of faith and morals 1 Whoshall define these limits; and how long shall such definitions ifmade, be binding 1 In former times, each bishop within hisdiocese was the representative of the Church's Infallibility.This he can be no longer. Even Infallibility itself becomes apractical impossibility: for no bishop can give a binding inter-pretation to any pronounced dogma of the Pope. And even ifthe Pope infallibly define this infallible definition, the bishopcannot infallibly interpret; and so we are driven along a seriesof infallible definitions of infallible definitions, ad infinitum;and infallible truth becomes as a practical reality, impossible.Controversy in some quarters is in these days much, and to

some extent not undeservedly, decried. It may be so con-ducted as only to engender strife. When angry passions areexcited and only prejudices reign, its result can be little but ..evil. Yet Paul was pre-eminently a controversialist. The in-furiated mobs of Jerusalem and Ephesus as little deterred himas the sceptical and contemptuous hostility of Athens. In

Page 32: The Variations of Popery

xxxii INTRODUCTION.

bonds for the gospel's sake, he pleaded before royal Agrippa,and at the court of the imperial Ceesar. By him the gos-pel must be preached whether men will hear or whetherthey will forbear. Peter, for the same gospel's sake, daredthe wrath and defied the intolerance of the Jewish Sanhe-drim, Opposition to existing errors consigns him to prisonand direct divine intervention miracles his deliverance, onlythat he may more boldly prosecute his heaven-assigned prose-lytising wk. The meek spirit of the disciple 'whom Jesusloved,' emboldened by divine grace, quails not before the foes_of Christ's truth and cause, though his faithfulness consignshim to the banishment of the sea-girt Patmos, Apostolic timeswere signally times of controversy. .And He who maketh thewrath of man to praise Him amidst the confusion of thenations and the contentions of the schools, established His king-dom and extended His church. The glorious reformation ofthe sixteenth century too was cradled in controversy. '.A. dogbarks fiercely' said the learned Calvin, 'when its master isattacked; and shall I hold my peace when they attack myLord and my God 1'The Papacy has now flung down the gauntlet at the feet of

the Princes of Europe. Never since the times of the Great Gre-gory has she been so weak in Christendom; and yet out of hervery weakness does she seek to make herself strong. The in-dependence of nations is assailed and the civil liberties of thepeoples are threatened. The secular power is to be cowed andcoerced into alliance that her spirit'U(J,l aupremacy may besecured. May the God of all grace increase the faith of Hischurch on earth, and enable the blood-bou~ht freemen of theLord to add to their 'faith' both I virtue well to war, andl knowledge,' wisely to discern the signs of the times !

J. GARDNER BOBB.

'TORONTO, 10th May, 1875.

Page 33: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER 1.

THE UNITY OF PROTESTANTISM.

HA1lJ(ONY OF THE BErOBOD CONFESaION8 OF FAITH-eONSUBSTANTIATION OFLUTHERANI8M-POPISH DIVERSITY ON TRAN8UBSTANTIA.TION-DISCIPLINARIANVABIETY-SECTARIAo.'HSI4-FOOLERY OF ROMANISM-BEATA--CLARA-NATIVITY-J'LAGItLLISI4-eUNVULSIONABIANIBll{--FESTIVALOJ' THEADS-DECIllION OJ' A BOIlANSYNOD-ANTIQUITY OF PROTESTANTISM-PRoTESTANT NAI4B--PBOTJ:IlTANT THE-OLoGY-PROTESTANT CHUBCHE8-TBB WALDENSIAN-TBB GBBBIt-THJ lQIlTO-BIAN-THB MONOPHYSIAN-THB AitMBNIAN-THB SYRIAN.,

THE unity and antiquity of Romanism have, by its partisans,been often contrasted with the diversity and novelty of Protest-antism. These topics supply the votary of papal superstitionwith fond occasions of exultation, triumph, and bravado. Ro-manism, according to its friends, is unchangeable as truth, andold as Christianity. Protestantism, according to its enemies,is fluctuating as falsehood, and modem as the Reformation ..The Bishop of Meaux has detailed the pretended "V a.riationsof Protestantism," and collected, with invidious industry, allits 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 befound, is the offspring of misrepresentation. The Reformers,in their doctrinal sentiments, exhibited a wonderful agreement.Their unanimity, indeed, was amazing; and showed, that thesedistinguished theologians, renouncing the vain commandmentsof men, and the muddy streams of tradition; had all imbibedthe 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 commencementof the Reformation; and all, in different phraseology, contain,in the main, the same truths. Twelve of these public Expoai-tions of belief were issued in the several European nations.These were the Augsburg, Tetrapolitan, Polish, .Saxon, Bohe-mian, WitteD;lberg, Palatine, Helvetian, French, Dutch, En~li8h,and Scottish confessions. All these are printed, in Latin, inOhouet's Collection; and have been abridged and criticised by

c

Page 34: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION.

Sleidan, Seckendorf, Brandt, Bossuet, Maimbourg, Moreri, andDu 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. TheElector of Saxony, attended by a few of the German Princes,presented it in 1530 to the Emperor of Germany at the Dietof Augsburg. This confessional manifesto, which was read inthe Augustan Congress, received its name from the place of itspresentation; and became the standard of Lutheranism, throughGermany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. The work has beencriticised with the pen ofprejudice by Maimbourg, and abridgedwith impartiality by Seckendorf, Sleidan, Paolo, Moreri, andDu Pin.' .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, andLindau. The ambassadors, on this occasion, represented thesefour cities, and, from this circumstance, this public documenttook its appellation. This compendium was compiled by Bucerand Capito, and approved by the Senate of Strasbourg. Thecompilation has been epitomised, with his usual fairness, oy DuPin, 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 expressedin a manner calculated to impose on the reader. 'The Bohemian, the Saxon, tbe Wittemberg, the Polish, and

the Palatine, soon followed the Augustan Confession. The Bo-hemian or Waldensian' Formulary was compiled from olderrecords, and presented, in 1535, to the Emperor Ferdinand, bythe nobility of Bohemia. The Saxon, in 1551, was issued inthe Synod of Wittemberg, approved by the Protestant Clergyof Saxony, Misnia, and Pomerania, sanctioned by the Princesof Brandenburg and Mansfelt, and presented, the same year, tothe Council of Trent. The Wittemberg, composed by Brent,was published in 1552. The Polish was formed in the GeneralSynod of Sendomir, in 1570, and recognised through Poland,Lithuania, and Samogitia. Frederic the Third, the ElectorPalatine, in 1576, issued a Formulary, in which he conveyed anexposition of his own faith. 3The Helvetian Confession was issued in 1536, at Basil, in a

1MeL 4. 566. Chouet, 3. Boa 1. 98. Sleid.]. 284. Secken. 151. Paolo,1. 89. Du Pin, 3. 207. Moreri, 2. 001. ., Chouet, 216.Du Pin, 3. ~, 209. Bo.. 1. 98. 8leid. 1." Seeken. 198.a <.lhouet, 4. 140, 201. .AIel[. 17. 406. Bouuet. I. oilO. Du PiD, 3. 669.

Moren, 2. 562.

Page 35: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 35convention 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 bya second assembly, held the same year in the same city. This,enlarged and improved, was again published in 156G, andextorted an unwilling eulogy even from the Bishop of Meaux.The Swiss Confession, according to this author, excels all othercompendiums of the same kind which he had seen, in plainnessand precision. The theologians of Basil, therefore, on thismemorable occasion, not only promulgated their creed, but,wonderful to tell, made even Bossuet once at least in his life tellthe truth.'The confessions of France, Holland, England, and Scotland

soon followed that of Switzerland. The French Formulary wasdrawn up in a national synod at Paris in 1559. Beza, in 1561,presented it to Charles the Ninth, in the colloquy of Poissy.This puhlic document was confirmed in the national council ofRochelle, and signed by the Queen of Navarre, by her sonHenry the Fourth, by Conde, Nassau, Coligny, and the synod,and recognised by the reformed of the French nation. Chouethas given it in Latin, and Laval in French. The Dutch orBelgic, written in French in 1561, and in Dutch and Latin in1581, was confirmed in a Nntional Synod in 1.579. The Englishwas edited in the Synod of London in 1562, and printed by theauthority of the Queen in 1571. This form of belief, publishedfor the purpose of removing dissension and promoting harmony,was approved by the dignified and inferior clergy and subscribedby her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. That Formula is faithfullyabridged by Du Pin. Several Confessions appeared in Scotlandin different times. Knox, in 1560, composed one, which wasratified by parliament. This, however, and others, were onlyprovisional and temporary. and sunk. into neglect, on the appear-ance of the Formulary compiled at Westminster, which, in 1641,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,"The approbation of each confession was not limited to the

nation, for which, in a particular manner, it was intended. TheReformed of the several Europeankingdoms evinced their mutualconcord and communion, by a reciprocal subscription to theseforms of faith. The Saxon Creed was approved by the Reformedof Strasbourg and Poland: and the Bohemian or Waldensian by

1Chouet, 3. 4. Du Pin, 3. 219, 656. Boss. 1. no, and (2. 61. Moren, 2. 562-s:Chouet, 4,99,125. Laval, 1. 117. Dn Pin, 3. 656, 661. Aymon, 1.145,300.

98-111. Thuan. 2. lS4. Moreri, 2. 562. .

Page 36: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION.

Luther, Melancthon, Bucer ; by the academy of Wittemberg, bythe Lutherans and Zuinglians, and indeed by all the friendsof Protestanbism.' The Polish was recommended by the Wal-denaians and Lutherans. The Dutch was subscribed by theFrench National Synod of Figeac; and the French by theReformed of the Netherlands. The Swiss, united to each otherin mind and communion, declared themselves undivided fromthe 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 andperspicuity. 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 andsatisfactory 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. Theextensive territory, in this manner, from the Atlantic to theEuxine, and from the Icy. Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea,witnessed the light of the Reformation, which, propagated atsucceeding times by missionary zeal, reached the African andAaian continents, and crossing the interposing ocean.illuminatedthe 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 ofman.The annals of religion and philosophy supply no other exampleof such agreement. The several nations, let it be recollected,acted, on these occasions, in an independent manner, withoutconcert or collusion. The one had no power or authority tocontrol the other. The clergy and laity, besides, were numer-ous and scattered over a wide territory. The transaction, inits whole progress, manifested the finger of Heaven, and theoverruling providence of God. The Reformed, indeed, hadthe one common standard of revelation. Directed by this cri-terion, the early patrons of Protestantism formed their faith,

1LutheMil hlDo Valdcmaiam Bohemorum. OODfeui.oaem"pprobavit. Eamdemlaudraran. Me1aDoWlet Buoeriu. Ales:. 17.408. Chouet. 3, 4, lJ. Du Pin,So 263. BoIL 1. XV. A)'mOD, 1.114.6, 11S7,aoo.

Page 37: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 87

which, except on one point, to evidence human weakness, ex-hibited a perfect unanimity. The Zuinglian and Lutheran Confessiona, says Paolo, differed in reality, only on the sacra-ment,' All these comprehensive abridgments showed, in varieddiction, 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 Reformerduring his whole life, retained with obstinacy. His pertinacityon this subject kindled the sacramentarian controversy, whichawakened. a series of noisy, useless disputations. These discus-sions afforded Bossuet a subject of empty triumph. Had it notbeen for this topic, on which he has rung every possible change,and which constitutes the staple commodity of his .~variations,"the gopd bishop would often have been at a wofulloss.Lutlier's hostility to Zuinglianism, however, has been often

much overrated. This appears from the conference betweenthe Ll,ltherans and Zuinglians at Marpurg in 1529. Lutherappeared, on this occasion, accompanied by Melancthon, Jonu,Osiander, Brent, and Agricola; and ZuingHus by Bucerz<Ecolompadius, and Hredio. Many other persons of merit an<1erudition attended, The Lutherans and Zuinglia.ns both agreedin the belief of a real presence in the sacrament; but differedwhether this presence was corporal or spiritual. Mutual goodwill and friendly feeling, however, prevailed, especially on thepart of the Zuinglians. This is .admitted by Maimbourg, DuPin, Paolo, and Luther. The Zuinglians, according to "Maim-bourg, Du Pin, Sleidsn, and Seckendorf, begged, with the mostearnest 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 afraternal and formal union is not effected, there exists a peace-ful and amiable concord.' All agreed to exercise Christ.iancharity, till God should supply additional light on the subjectof disputation and direct. to the means of establishing unanimity.The Conference, besides, were unanimous on all other points ofdivinity. All, say Du Pin and Paolo, were agreed on all topicsbut f,he communion. 8 .A confeMBionwas issued on the subjectsof the Trinity, the incarnation, faith, baptism,just.ification, sanc-tification, tradition, original sin, vicarious righteousness, good

1QUi ne di1feroit de I'autre, que dans l'article de l'eucbaristie. Paolo,]. 8].'Est, tamen pl&Ci~ anuca concordia. Seckendorf, 1. 136, 138.8 Etant d'accol'd IIlIJ' tous lee autre8 chefs. Paolo, 1. 82.-They: di&rupoll

aoDe of ibe artic1eB, but that of the Lord's supper. Dll Pin, 3. 205•...:s&eidM. VI.

Page 38: The Variations of Popery

38 INTRODUCTION~

works, the civil magistracy, and future judgment, and sub-scribed with the utmost harmony by Luther, Zuinglius, andthe 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, inthe National Synod of Charenton, acknowledged, in expressterms, 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 in1661, at Cassel, professed their reciprocal esteem; and, thougha formal union was not constituted, expressed their mutual wil-lingness for co-operation and cordiality. The Lutherans andCalvinists of Hungary, Transylvania, and Poland, in ] 570, inthe synod of Sendomir, acknowledged the orthodoxy of eachother's faith, and formed a treaty of friendship and unity.'The mutual friendship entertained by the Reformed of Ger-

many, France, and Switzerland terminated, among those ofHungary, Transylvania, and Poland, in a formal ecclesiasticalunion. This was gloriously effected at Sendomir in 1570. Asynod of Hungarian, Transylvanian, and Polish Calvinists andLutherans met at that city, acknowledged the conformity oftheir mutual faith to truth and revelation, formed themselvesinto one body, and resolved on reciprocal co-operation againstthe partisans of Romanism and sectarianism. Agreed in doc-trine, the synod, in the genuine spirit of religious liberty, lefteach church to the enjoyment of its own discipline and forms.This noble and happy compact was confirmed in the synod ofPosen held in the same year; and in those of Cracow, Petro-cow, and Breslau in 1573, 1578, and 1583. Two branches ofthe Reformed, who had differed in one non-essential, concurred,in this manner, to form one ecclesiastical communion, and tobury in eternal oblivion, all the conflicting elements of factionand animosity.'The formal junction, which bigotry had prevented, was, in

1817, effected through Prussia and Germany. The Calvinistsmodified the severity of predestination, and the Lutheransrenounced the absurdity of consubstantiation; and both de-nominations, after a candid explanation, could see no remainingground of schism. The two, in consequence, united into onebody. Lutheranism and Calvinism, through the Prussian andGerman dominions, were amalgamated, and both distinctions

1Aymon, 2. 501. Du Pin, 3.699.' TbultD. 2. 778•••

Page 39: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTIOr\. 39resolved into one. The two have formed one eccles1asticalcommunity, and are called Evangelical Christians. The Kingof Prussia, on the occasion, showed great activity in promotirtthe compilation of a Liturgy, calculated to g-ratify the commu-nity and afford universal satisfaction. The professors ofLutheranism and Calvinism, in this manner, harmonized, andone burst ofbenevolence 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 haveknown the changes of Romanism on this topic, and have fearedto provoke retaliation. The friends of Popery have entertaineddi versified opinions on transubstantiation, which they have notaccounted as essential in their system. A few instances ofthese fluctuations may be adduced. Gregory, Pius, Du Pin,and the Sorbonne, rejected, or were willing to modify, theirdarling 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 allowedBerengarius to profess, that the bread of the altar after eonse-cration was the true body, and the wine, the true blood of ourLord.\ Transubstantiation and the corporal prcsence are hereexcluded. Any Protestant would sign the declaration. TheZUinglians, at the conference of Marpurg, admitted the pres-ence of the true body and blood of Jesus in the sacrament, andtheir reception by those who approach the communion.' Thesame 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 Hisbody and blood, which feed and strengthen the communicant.'Those of Strasbourg, Holland, and England represent the con-secrated elements as His true body and blood, which are presentin the institution and become our nourishment. i The doctrinalexposition of Pope Gregory and the Roman council would havesatisfied any of the Reformed denominations. All these ad-mitted all that was enjoined by the Holy, Roman, Apostolic\ Profitebatur, panem altaris, post cOD8eCrationem,ease verum corpus Christi,

et vinumesse verum sanguinem. Coaart, 2. 28. Mabillon,5. 12fl.2 Neque negare volant, verum corpus et sanguinem Christi adesse. Seckend.

138., Appellari corpus et sanguinem Domini. Hel. Con. in Chouet, 67. Nos pucit

et nutrit came sua et sanguine. Gal. Con. in Chouet, 109, no.i Venun suum corpus, verumque snum sanguinem. Argen. Con. in Chouet,

240. Vero Christi COrpON et sanguine alimur. Christum ipsum sic nobis pne-lIeD em exhiberi. Aug. Con. in Chouet. 1I9, Bro.-Nos fide reeipere vel'llcllooryUB, ei verum sanguinem Christi. BeL Con. in Cbouet. l82. .

Page 40: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION.

Synod,' headed by his infallibility. Mabillon acknowledges theBerengarian creed's ambiguity and insufficiency.' The con-ifmporary 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'substantial.' This accordingly was effected next year. Anew creed was issued, acknowledging a substantial change inthe sacramental elements after consecration."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 theThirty-nine articles and the Litany, if the British Sovereignwould acknowledge the Pontifical supremacy, and the Britishnation join the Romish Communion.' The English Articlesreject Transubstantiation; The religion of England under Eliza-beth, Mageoghegan would insinuate, though without reason,was composed of Lutheranism and Calvinism; but certainlycontained nothing of Transubstantiation. Pius wrote a letterto the Queen, which, in the must friendly style, professed ananxiety for her eternal welfare, and the establishment of herroyal dignity. This epistle, with the overtures for union, wastransmitted by Parpalio, the Pope's nuncio. Martinengo wascommissioned by his Holiness, the same year, to negotiate asimilar treaty. But the terms were refused by the Queen andthe nation. Martinengo was not even allowed to land in Britain,but was stopped in the Netherlands.'Du Pin and the Sorbonne copied the example of Gregory

and Pius, and proposed at least to modify the doctrine of Tran-substantiation. Wake in London and Du Pin in Paris com-menced an epistolary correspondence, on the subject of a unionbetween the English and the French churches. The Frenchdoctor proposed to the Engli8h bishop to omit the word Tran-substantiation, and profess a real change of the bread. and wineinto the Lord's body and blood. This modification, which wouldsatisfy many Protestants, was a new modelling of the Trentinecouncil's definition. The proposal was conveyed in Du Pin's

1Sub hiB veri corporis et sanguinis verbis lequivoca Iatere non immerito ere-deremr. Mabil. 5. 125.-BerengariuB brevem fidei BUleformulam, sed insuf&.eientem ediderat. Mabillon. 5. 139.I Berengarius explicationem fidei formulam snbseribere COactuBest. Vox sub.

stantialiter uItime Beren~re fidei l'rofessioni inserta eet. Mabil. 5. 139.3 Qu'il confirmeroit Ie livre de Ia Priere Commune. Le livre de la Priere

Commune eet nne espece de RitueI ou Breviaire, qui contient lea trente-neufanticlea de la religion pritendue rtlform6e, avec la formule dea priere8. Mageo-ahegan,3. 379, 380,381. Cart. 3. 393.-Heylm. 303.-strype. 1. 228.- 4 'l'ransitUB nepiUI. Alexander, 23. 230. :NehUJus quidem Illdia ad ipllUll,hac de cauaa, nWlciol illAaaJiamtrajiOlN permiIerit. M~. a. 41t

Page 41: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 41Commonitorium. The plan, however, was not merely the actof Du Pin. The conditions of a coalition were read, and, afterdue consideration, approved by the Sorbonnian faculty, so cele-brated for its erudition, wisdom, and Catholicism,' TheseRoman hierarchs and a French university were willing, oncertain terms, to compromise or modify Transubstantiation; andthe 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 Consubstantiation disagreed,and much less, when their minds, after long consideration, cameto correspond.The unity of the Reformed, it may be observed, was restricted

to faith and morality. Considerable diversity existed in disci-pline and ceremonies." But these, all admit, are unessential, and,m 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 Franceand in part of Ireland; while they are admitted even in Spainonly so far as consistent with regal authority. Almost everycelebrated schoolman in the Romish Communion became thefounder of a particular denomination, distinguished by a pecu-liarity of regu lation and government. The Augustinians, Fran-ciscans, Dominicans, J ansenists, Jesuits, Benedictines, were allcharacterized 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, Southeottianism, andother errors have erected their portentous and fantastic heads.The clamor of Arianism, the nonsense of Swedenborgianism,and the ravings of Southcottianism, have blended in mingleddiscord and in full cry.But all these or similar kinds of schism and heresy appeared,

in all their enormity, many ages before the Reformation.Division arose in the church from its origin, in the days of apos-tolic truth and purity. Jrensens, who flourished in the secondcentury, attacked the errors of his day, and his work on thissubject fills a full volume in folio. These errors, in the days ofEpiphanius, in the fourth century, had Increased to eighty, and,in the time of Philaster, to an hundred and fifty. Their numbercontinued to augment with the progress of time; and theirsystems equalled those of the moderns in extravagance. Schismand heresy prevailed to a more alarming extent, before than

1DuPin. Commonitorium. in Maclaine'8 Moab. App. III. BiOI. Diet. 30. 473-t In divel'8ie ecclesii8 qusedam depreheaditur variet... in loquitioDibu, et

modo expoeitionis, d.octrinal, in ritibus item vel Cl8l'eD101liia. Chouet. 12.

Page 42: The Variations of Popery

42 INTRODUCTION.

since the establishment of Protestantism in its present form.Later are but a revival of former errors and delusions, whichflourished at a distant period, and, preserved from oblivion bythe historian, swell the folios of ecclesiastical antiquity.These illusions, however, the Reformers never countenanced,

but, on the contrary, opposed. Luther and Calvin withstoodthe many deviations from truth and propriety, which appearedin their day, and which since that period have, in various forms,infested Christendom. The Saxon Reformer exerted all hisauthority against the error and fury of Anabaptism in Ger-many; and was imitated in his opposition to turhulence by theSwiss, 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 ofsectarianism, which, though unconnected with Protestantism,arose since the Reformation, and disgraced religion, has nestledin the bosom of Popery, and been cherished by its priesthoodand people. Arianism, an affiliated branch of Socinianism,claims the honor of antiquity, and was patronized by Liberius,and by the councils of Sirmium, Seleucia, and Ariminum. Theextravagance of Montanism, as Tertullian relates, was patron-ized by the contemporary Pope and rivalled the fanaticism ofSwedenborgianism. The Pontiff, says Godeau, gave Mon-tanus letters of peace, which showed that he had been admittedto his communion." His Holiness, says Rhenan, M ontanized.Vietor, says Brnys, approved the prophesying of Montanus,Priscilla, and Maximilla. The mania of Joanna Southcott inmodern times is eclipsed by the dreams of Beata, Clara, andNativity.Beata, of Cuenza, in Spain, was born in the end of the eight-

eenth 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 extraordinaryfiction, 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'sbody. Beata's blasphemy created no less discussion in Spainthan Joanna's in England. The Spanish priests and monksdivided on the absurdity. Some maintained its possibility, andsome its impossibility; and the one party wondered at the

1 Soerat. IV. 21, 22. Theod. II. 39,40. Spon. 173. II. Du Pin, 347. Bruy. 1.112. Tertul. 501.2 Le Pape lui avoit dODnISlettree paoifiqtlel, qui mODtroieDt qu'U l'avoit.admia

en 11& communion. Godeau. 1. •. Bray. 1. 40.

Page 43: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION,

other's unbelief. A few, indeed, it appears, were the accom-plices of her imposture. But many were the dupes of their owncredulity. Beata's visionary votaries, believing her flesh andblood transformed into the substance of the Messiah, proceeded,in their folly and impiety, to adore the impostor. Her sacer-dotal and lay partisans conducted her in procession, and withlighted tapers to the churches and through the streets; whilethese shameful exhibitions were accompanied with prostrationand burning of incense before the new-made goddess, as beforethe consecrated host.' The woman, indeed, was as good a divi-nity as sacramental pastry. Beata's claim, in all its ridiculousinconsistency, was as rational in itself, and supported by asstrong evidence, as the tale of Transubstantiation. The clergyand laity of Spain, basking in the sunshine of infallibility andilluminated with all its dazzling splendor, were no less liable todeception than a few fanatics in England, guided by their ownunlettered and infatuated minds.Clara at Madrid, less assuming than Beata, aspired only to

the name and distinction of a prophetess; and her claims, likethose of many other impostors, soon obtained general credit.Her sanctity and her miracles became the general topiCHof con-versation. Pretending to a paralytic affection, and unable toleave her bed, the prophetess was visited by the most distin-guished citizens of the Spanish capital, whQ accounted themselves honored in being admitted into her presence. The sickimplored her mediation with God, for the cure of their disorders ;and grave and learned judges supplicated light to direct themin their legal decisions, from the holy prophetess. Clarauttered her responses in the true Delphic style, like a Priestessof Apollo, placed on the Tripod and under the afflatus of theGod, or like a seer, who beheld futurity through the visions ofinspiration. She was destined, she announced, by a special callof the spirit, to become a capuchin nun; but wanted the healthand 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 holyprophetic 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 Southcottwas disowned by every Protestant community. An altar, bythe permission of his infallibility, was erected opposite her bed.MlUl8 was often said in her bed-room, and the sacrament left in

1Llorente, 558.

Page 44: The Variations of Popery

44 INTRODUCTION.

her chamber as in a sacred repository. Clara communicatedevery day, and pretended to her followers that she took no foodbut the consecrated bread. This delusion lasted for severalyears. But the inquisition at last, on the strength of someinformation, interfered in 1802, in its usual rude manner, andspoiled the play.' The punishments, however, contrary tocustom, were mild. This was, perhaps, the only act of justicewhich the holy office ever attempted, and the only good ofwhich 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 pro-phetess, if she had little brains, had, it seems, clear eyes andgood ears. She saw, on one occasion, in the hands of the offici-ating priest at the consecration of the wafer, a little child, livingand clothed with light. The child, eager to be received, or inother words eaten, spoke, with an infantile voice, and desiredto be swallowed. She had the pleasure of seeing, at anothertime, an infant in the host, with extended arms and bleeding atevery limb. All nature, on the day of the proceesion, she per-ceived sensible of a present deity and manifesting joy. Theflowers, on that auspicious day, blew with brighter beauty, andthe anthems of angels mixed with the hosannas of men. Thevery dust becoming animated, danced in the sepulchre of thesaint with exultat10n, 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. Theuse of the disciplining whip, unknown, say Du Pin and Boileau,to all antiquity, began in the end of the eleventh century. Thenovelty was eagerly embraced by a community which boasts ofits unchangeability. The inhuman absurdity has been advo-cated by Bsronius, Spondanus, Pullus, Gerson, and the RomanBreviary. Baronius, the great champion of Romanism, fol-Iowed by Spondanus, calls flagellation ' a laudable usage." Thissatisfaction, Cardinal Pullus admits, is rough, but, in proportionto its severity, is, he h8.'3discovered, 'the more acceptable toGod," Gerson, in the council of Constance in 1417, thoughhe condemned the absurdity in its grosser forms, recommendedthe custom, when under the control of a superior, and executedby another with moderation, and without ostentation or effusion

1Uorente, 559.2 IIle laudabililJl18'll8, ut pamitentille caua. M .... verberib118 MipllOBalllcereDt

~iL Spon. 1066. III.8atiafac& upera, tameD, et taIlto I>eo ,ratior. PIl1L!- Boil.. 1&, m.

Page 45: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 45

of blood.' Self-flagellation, indeed, is sanctioned by the Popishchurch. The Roman Breviary, published by the authority ofPius, Clement, and Urban, has recommended the absurdity byits approbation. This publication details and eulogizes theflagellations practised by the Roman saints. These encomiumson the disciplinarian whip are read on the festivals of thesecanonized flagellators. The work containing these commenda-tions is authorized by three Pontiffs, and received with theutmost 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 penitentia1criminals, men andwomen, 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 88 the esrdinal, the metro-politan, the bishop, the priest, the monk, and the nun, alljoinedin the painful and disgusting extravagance.' Cardinal Damian,in 1056, brought it into fashion, ani 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 theirhands, the sanctified means of superior holiness. This roll con-tains the celebrated names of Xavier, Canutus, Francisea, Begu-latus, Bernard, Franeiecus, Teresia, and Bertrand. Xavier, theIndian apostle, wielded against his own flesh, 'an iron whip,which, at every blow, was followed with copious streams ofblood.' Canutus, the Danish sovereign, 'chaatised his bodywith hair-cloth, and flagellation. Francisca copied the holypattern. Her saintship 'took continual pains to reduce herbody to aubmission by frequent self-flagellation.' Regulatua, bythe skilful application of the sanguinary lash, 'subjected theflesh to the spirit.' Bernardin, Franciscus, and Bertrand, fol-lowing the useful example, operated with a thong on the backfor the good of the soul. Teresia merits particular and honor-able mention, for applying with laudable attention, these Chris-

1Flagellatio fiat, judicio snperioris, et sine scandalo, et ostentatiolle, et .linelADglJine. Gerson, in Labb. 16. 1161..' Non modo viri, lied et nobiles mulieres veTberibua Ileipeoa afticerent. Spoil.1056. UI.Boileau,I80,307. Labb. 16. 1161. Du Pin, 2. 266. )I. Parii. 90.

Page 46: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION.

tian means of holy torment. 'She often applied the bloodylash.' This, however, did not satisfy her saintship. She also,in addition, 'rolled herself on thorns;' and by this means, saysthe 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,, circumfused in a fragrant fluid, remains, till the present day, theundecayed object of worship." The church, that retains suchsenseless and ridiculous absurdity, in a publication, reviewedby Pius, Clement, and Urban, may cease to reproach Protest-antism with the acts of a few mistaken fanatics or moon-struckmaniacs, who, whatever name they may assume, are disownedby every reformed denomination in Christendom.Dominic, Hedwig, and Margaret merit particular attention in

the annals of flagellation. Dominic of the iron cuirass seems tohave been the great patron and example of this discipline. Heshowed himself no mercy, and whipped, on one occasion, till hisface, livid and gory, could not be recognised. This scourgingwas accompanied with psalm-singing," The music of the voiceand the cracking of the whip mingled, during the operation, in

, delightful variety.Dominic, in the use of the whip, had the honor of making

several improvements, which, in magnitude and utility, may bereckoned with those of Copernicus, Flamsteed, Newton, and LaPlace. He taught flagellators to lash with both hands, and,consequently, to do double execution," 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 muchuseless blood from his veins. He obliged the world also withthe invention of knotted scourges. This discovery also facili-tated the flaying of the shoulders, and enabled a skilful hand tomangle the flesh in fine styIe 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 andGreat Poland. She often walked during the frost and cold, tillshe might be traced by the blood dropping from her feet on the

1Xavier ferreia in se flagellis ita srevit, ut ssepe copioso eruore difllueret.Brev. Rom. 604.Canutus corpus mum jejuniis, eilieiis, et f1agellis castigavit. Brev. Rom. "648.Francisca corpus BUum crebris flagellis in servitutem redigere jngiter satage-

bat. Brev. Rom. 710.Regulatus flagellis camem intra snbjectionem spiritus eontinebit, Brev. 787.BeinardinuB ttaRelliB delicatnm corpus a1Bigens. Brev. Rom. SOLTeresia asperrimis ftagellis IIlIlpe crueia.ret. Aliquando inter Ipinaa volutaret

sic Deum alloqui lOlita. Ejus COrpul usque ad haDe diem IDeorruptum, odoratoliquore cireumfulUm, colitur. Brev. Rom. 1CM3.2 PlIaltana integra reoitabAtur. Boileau, c. 7.8 Be utraqne JDaDua«atim divII'bmMae. BoUta1l, 186.

Page 47: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 47snow. She wore next her skin, a hair-cloth that mangled herflesh, which she would not allow to be washed. Her womenhad by force,' to remove the clotted blood, which flowed fromthe torn veins. The Duchess invented or adopted an effectual,but rather rough, means of sanctification. She purified her soulby the tears which see shed, and her body by the blows whichshe inflicted with a knotted lash."Margaret, daughter to the King. of Hungary, wore a hair-

cloth and an iron girdle. She underwent not only the usualnumber of stripes, but made the nuns inflict on her an extraor-dinary quantity, which caused such an effusion of blood fromher flesh as horror-struck the weeping executioners. Her devo-tion still augmenting during the holy week, she lacerated herwhole body with the blows of a whip,"Edmond, Matthew, and Bernardin, used their disciplinarian

thongs on particular occasions. Edmond, who is a saint andwas Archbishop of Canterbury, was solicited to unchastity bya Parisian lady. The saint directed the lady to his study, andwhether from a taste for natural beauty, or more probably, tofacilitate his intended flagellation, proceeded, without ceremony,to undress his enamoured duleinea, to which, being unao-quaintcd with his design, the unsuspecting fair submitted withgreat Christian resignation. He then began to ply her nakedbody with a whip.' The operation, though it did not in allprobability 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 lovelyperson, 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." But this Adonis wasinsensible and unkind. A lash of Spanish cords, administeredfront and rear to her naked beauty, vindicated the Friar's purityand 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 300n 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

«

1Ses femmes I'en retir88sent par force. AndiIly, 769.2 Andilly, 770. 3 Andilly, 795.• Virgie cecidit, et nudatum corpus ernentis vibicibus conscribillavit. Boileau,

217.6 Noctu quad am, epoliata auis vestibus, ad eum insponda jaeentem acceuerat.

BOileau, 217. Sulcos sanguinolentos, in juvenilibua femon"bua. clunibJ&8, aescapulia diduxit. Boileau, 218.

Page 48: The Variations of Popery

48 INTRODUCTION.

the woman to undress,' 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." The lady,accordingly, on the intimation of his will, and misunderstandinghis design, immediately complied. But she was soon disagree-ably undeceived. Contrary to her expectations, and probablyto her desire, he began to apply his whip, which he used withgreat 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 oneoccasion, says 'I'isen and after him Boileau, was bestowed onhis infernal majesty by Saint J uliana," Her sister nuns, onthis emergency, heard a dreadful noise in Juliana's apartment.This, on examination, was found to proceed from her conflictwith Beelzebub. Her saintship engaged his devilship in apitched battle in her own chamber. But Satan, for once, wasovermatched and foiled. The saintess seized the demon in herhands, and thrashed him with all her might. Juliana then threwBelial on the earth, trampled him with her feet, and laceratedhim with sarcasms. Satan, if accounts may be credited, hassometimes 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 ofthe infernal lash. But Juliana, for once, repaid Satan withinterest for all his former impoliteness and incivility. Thesainted heroine, it appears, fought with her tongue as well aswith her fists and feet.' This weapon she had at command,and she embraced the opportunity of treating the Devil to afew 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, andattacked the saint. Satan, in commencing hostilities, gaped andshowed his teeth; but, it appears, could not bite. He contrived,however, to seize Dunstan's pastoral staff in his paws, andattempted to drag this ensign of office to himself. But this,Dunstan was not disposed tamely to resign. He chose ratherto retain the weapon, and to use it as an instrument of waragainst his diabolical assailant. He accordingly applied it toBelial's back with such dexterity and effect, 'that the enemy wassoon put to flight. The conqueror, also, like a skilful general,

1 Ut 118 veetibllll nudaret ; nee mulier diatulli. Boileau. 216. Sariua,272.2 Nudatia COl'poribua.et omm Iltamine apoliatis, palam et in conspectu homi·

Dum. ftageDare. &ne.u, 222. J TiseD, 60. Boileau,270., Demonem, quem mtmibu oom1R8hensum, q1Ullltipottrat Cl8deba" In ter-

ram demde prostratu~, pedibua ~bM, Iaoei'abat Ial'OU'IbiI. Boileau. 27 O.81'«. Rom. 700.

Page 49: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 49

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 inthree pieces on the vanquished Devil.'Dunstan, on another occasion, discovered, saint as he was,

still less mercy. Satan, or some other Devil, had the assuranceto put his head through the window of Dunstan's cell, for thepurpose of tempting the saint. But the demon's intrusion costhim his nose, which, it seems,was of an enormous length. Hissaintship heated a pair of pincers in the fire, and actuated withholy rage, seized Beelzebub's nose in the red-hot forceps. Thesaint then pulled in, and Belial, if it were he, pulled out, till thenose gave way: and Satan, who, during the comfortable opera-tion, yelled like a fury, and alarmed the whole neighborhood,escaped with the loss of his olfactory organ. The Devil, thoughthe prominence of his face had formerly been nearly 88 large 88if he had been at Sterne's promontory of noses,haa been dis-tinguished ever since by the flatness of his nasal emunctories.'This story is gravely told by Osbern, Ranulph, and other popishhistorians.Middleton, during his visit to Rome, witnessed a procession

in which the wretched votaries of superstition marched withwhips in their hands, and lashed their naked backs till bloodstreamed from the wounds. A similar exhibition is presentedat the annual return of the Lent, season. Men of all conditionsassembled at a certain place, where whips, ready for the work,are given to the operators. The lights are extinguished. Analarm bell announces the moment for commencement. The vic-tims of superstition and priestcraft then ply the thong, and flaytheir unfortunate shoulders. Nothing is heard during the tra-gedy, but the groans of the self-tormentors, mingled with thecracking of whips and the clanking of chains, forming, if not avery harmonious, at least a very striking and noisy concert. Thecomfortable operation, producing of course an agreeable ex-coriation, continues nearly an hour, accompanied with the vocaland instrumental symphony of groans, whips and chains.These flagellating exhibitions were perhaps surpassed by the

convulsionarian scenes, displayed in Paris about the year 1759.These frightful displays of fanaticism and inhumanity have

1Translatus in specium ursi eonsimilem hianti rietu orantem aggreditur. Fugi-entum belluam dirissime credit, etc. Osbern, 105.2Larvelem faeiem tenaculis includit, et totis viribus renitens, monstrum in-

trorsum trahit. Osbern, 96.Dunstanus, foreipibus suisignitis, nasum dalmonis comprehendit et tenuit,

donee dalmone uluJante factum hoc convicaneis innotesceret. Ranulph, vi p.270. Le Sueur, 4. 157.

D_

Page 50: The Variations of Popery

50 INTRODUCTION.

been recorded by Baron Grimm with the greatest exactness,from reports taken on the spot by Condamine and Castel.These shocking and degrading transactions, countenanced byseveral of the Roman clergy, were continued for upwards oftwenty years in the capital of'his Most Christian Majesty. Theconvulsionaries were Popish fanatics, who pretended to extra-ordinary visitations of the Spirit. During these visitations, theenthusiasts of this school fell into convulsions, or, at their ownrequest, suffered crucifixion or some other punishment,'Rachel and Felicite, two pupils of the sisterhood, were ac-

tresses in the tragedy. These two maniacs suffered crucifixion,for the purpose, they said, of exhibiting a. lively image of theSaviour's passion. Each was nailed to a wooden cross throughthe hands and feet, and remained in this situation fur more thanthree hours. During this time, the sisters slumbered in abeatific ecstacy, uttered abundance of infantile nonsense, andaddressed the spectators in lisping accents and all the silly baby-ism of the nursery. The nails at length were drawn; and thesisters, after their wounds were washed and bandaged, satdown to a repast in the apartment, and pretended that the ope-ration was attended with no pain, but with transporting plea-sure. They both, indeed, had, with wonderful self-command,suppressed all audible indications of torment by groans ormurmurs. Visible marks, however, betrayed their inwardmisery. Their agony, especially at the drawing of the nails,appeared· by various, contortions, writhings, and other unequiv-oeal tokens of internal distress.A second exhibition consisted. in the crucifixion of Fanny

and Mary. Condamine, who was a spectator, on the occasion,took his description from life. Fanny suffered with the great-est heroism. She remained three hours nailed to the cross, andwas shifted, during this period, into a great variety of postures.But Mary wanted faith or fortitude. She shuddered at the fas-tening of nails, and, in less than an hour, shouted for relief.She was, accordingly, taken from the cross, and carried out ofthe chamber in a state of insensibility.This tragedy was succeeded by a comedy, Sister Frances

announced that God had commanded her on that day to burnthe gown off her back, for the spiritual edification of herself andthe spectators. Fire, accordingly, was, after a great deal ofgrimacing, set to her skirts. But her saintship, instead o( ex-periencing consolation and delight, screamed with terror andyelled like a fury. Water, therefore, was poured on her petd-

MidcUetoa, S. lot'. Ediaburp Rmew for&ptember, 1814.

Page 51: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 51coats, and her ladyship, half-roasted and half-drowned, andutterly ashamed of the exhibition, was carried into anotherapartment.The melody of this flagellating and convulsionarian worship,

indeed, to vulgar earn, appears something harsh; and the devo-tion might, to common understandings, seem not very high inthe scale of rationality. But the music, in the one instance,was as harmonious, and the worship, in the other, as reasonableas in the Feast of the Ass, celebrated, for some time, in theGallican church, at Beauvais in Burgundy. The friends ofthis ceremony had, by their superior discernment, discoveredthat an ass was the conveyance of Joseph and Mary, whenthey fled for an asylum from Herod into Egypt. An institution,therefore, was appointed for the commemoration of the flightand deliverance, and the solemnity was a pattern of rationalityand devotion,'A handsome girl, richly attired, represented Mary, who, from

some flattering portraits of her ladyship, was accounted 8. Jew-ish beauty. The girl, bedizened with finery, was placed on anass covered with a cloth of gold and superbly caparisoned.The ass, accompanied with a vast concourse of clergy and laity,was led from the cathedral to the parish church of St. Stephen.The girl, who represented the mother of God, seated on theass, was conducted in solemn procession into the sanctuaryitself, and placed with the gospels near the altar. High massbegan with great pomp; and the ass, who was a devout wor-shipper on the occasion,was taught to kneel, as in duty bound,at certain intervals, while a hymn, no less rational than pious,was sung in his praise. The holy hymn, recorded by DuCange, is a model for elegance and devotion. The following isa translation of four stanzas of the sacred ode in the Miltonianstyle; though no version can equal the sublimity and sense ofthe inimitable original.

The Ass he came from Eastern climes,Heigh-ho, my 8Il8y,He'a fair and fit for the pack at all times.Sing, Father ABB, and you Iha1l get gruB.And straw and hay too in plenty.

The Au is slow and lazy too ;Heigh-ho, my asay,But the Whip and the spur will make him go.Sing, Father Ass, and you shall hsve grass,And straw and bay too in plenty.* • • • •

The Au was hom and bred with long eara ;Heigh-ho mYaMY,

I Du Cange, 3. 426. Ve1ly,.2. m.

Page 52: The Variations of Popery

52 INTRODUCTION.

And yet he the Lord of asses appears.Grin, Father Ass, and you shall get grass,And straw and hay too in plenty.

The Ass excels the hind at a. leap,Heigh-he, my assy,And faster than hound or hare can trot.Bray, Father Ass, and you shall have grass,And straw and hay too in plenty.!

The worship concluded with a braying-match between theclergy and laity in honor of the ass. The officiating priestturned to the people, and in a fine treble voice and with greatdevotion, brayed three times like an ass, whose fail' representa-trvehe was; while the people,imitating his example in thankingGod, brayed three times in concert. Shades of Montanus,Southcott, and Swedenborg, hide your diminished heads!Attempt not to vie with the extravagancy of Romanism. Yourwildest ravings, your loudest nonsense, your most eccentricaberrations have been outrivalled by an infallible church.The ridiculousness of the asinine ceremony was equalled, if

not surpassed, by the decision of a Roman Synod. His Infalli-bility, Boniface the Fourth, presided on the occasion. The actsof the council were published from a manuscript in the Vatican,by Holstenius, and have been inserted in the works of Du Pinand Labbe. The holy Roman Council condemned an opinion,which, it appears, had prevailed in England, that monks, becausedead to the world, are incapable of receiving ordination or per-forming the sacerdotal or episcopal functions. The sacred synod,under the immediate superintendency of his Holiness, provedby the soundest logic, that monks are angels, and thereforeproper ministers of the Gospel. The synodal dialectics supplya beautiful specimen of syllogistic reasoning. An angel, inGreek, said his Infallibility and the learned Fathers, is, in theLatin language, called a messenger. But monks are angels, andtherefore monks are messengers. Monks are demonstrated tobe angels, by a very simple and satisfactory process. AUanimals with six wings are angels. But monks have six wings,

1Orientis partibus,Adventavit asinusPulcher et fortissimU8,Sarcinis aptissimus.Jfez, Sire Asnes, car chantez,Belle bouche rechignezVons aurez du foin assez,Et de l'avoine a plantez.

Lentu. erat pedibui,Nisi foret b&eulua,Et 811m in c1unibWIPungent aculeua

Hez, Sire Asnes, etc.. . . ..Ecce magnie anribuaSubjugalis tiliusAsinus egregiusAsinorum Dominus.Hez, Sire Amell, etc.Saltu vincit hiDnulOlJ,Dam .. et oapreolos,Super dromedarioe,Velos KadiaDeoLRes, BiN ASDel, etc.

Du CaDge, 3. U6, m.

Page 53: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 58

and therefore monks are angels. The minor of this syllogismis evinced in a most conclusive manner. The cowl forms two,the arms two, and the extremities two wings. Monks, therefore,have six wings, and, consequently are angels, which WItS to bedemonstrated.' The annals of fanaticism and folly, through thewhole range of Protestant Christendom, afforded no equal exam-ple of unqualified senselessness and absurdity.Du Pin and Bruys suspect the document of forgery. The

reasons of their suspicion are its nonsense, frivolity, barbarism,and illogical argument.2 These, however, to persons acquaintedwith Roman Councils, are rather proofs of its genuineness.Sense, found in an ancient synodal monument, would go agreat way to prove its supposititiousness. The unwieldy col-lection of councils, if the nonsense were subtracted, would, ina great measure, disappear from the view, and present a wideand unmeaning blank. The ponderous folios of Crabbe, Bin-ius, Labbe and Cossart, under which -the shelf now groans,would, if the sense only were retained, contract their ampledimensions and shrink into the pamphlet or the primer.These observations show the unity of Protestantism, as well

as the folly of Popery. But the antiquity of Romanism has,by its partisans, been contrasted with the novelty of Protestsnt-ism. Popery, in the languag-e of its advocates, is the offspringof antiquity; but Protestantism, the child of the Reformation.The one originated with the first heralds of the Gospel; butthe other with Luther and Calvin.Antiquity, however, in the abstract, is no criterion of truth.

Superstition is nearly as old as religion, and originated in theremotest period of time, in the darkness and profanity of theantediluvian world. Indian Braminism existed long antece-dent to Italian Popery. Cbristianitywas preceded by Judaismand Paganism, and the Christian revelation by the Grecian andRoman mythology.The truths of the Gospel, however, must, it is granted, have

been known and professed from its original promulgation; andthe Christian Church has existed from the commencement ofthe Christian era. The Gospel was proclaimed and a churchplanted by their Divine Author. The apostolic heralds, com-missioned by His immediate authority, disseminated evangelicaltruth and enlarged the Christian society, This system con-tinued foe some time in all its original purity, unmixed with the

1Ut cherubim, monachi sex alis velantur: duse in capitio, quo caput tegitur.mud vero quod brachiis extenditur dun alas esse dicimus ; et illud quo COrpUIIcollditur &las dDall. Sacerdotales igitur Jllonachi atque canonici aJIlieliTOOall-hr. Labb. 6, 1358. Bed&, 718. t Do Pin, 2. 1. Bruy. 1.410.

Page 54: The Variations of Popery

54 INTRODUCTION.

muddy influx of human folly and superstition. The friends ofProt.estantism, therefore, should be prepared to show that theirreligion is no novelty; but existed from the origination of Chris-tianity, and before the Papacy or the Reformation.Protestantism comprises three things. These are the Name,

the Faith, and the Church, or, in other terms, the Appellation,the Profession, and the People. The name, all admit, is, inthis acceptation, a novelty, which originated in the sixteenthcentury and as late as the days of Luther. The patrons of theReformation in Germany protested, in 1529, against the unjustdecision of the Diet of Spires, and, in consequence, were calledProtestants,' An old institution, therefore, came to be distin-guished by a new appellation. Protestantism, in its modernand ecclesiastical application, began to signify Christianity.

But changing a sign does not change the signification.Britain, according to the ancient appellation, is now calledEngland, without any change in the territory. The ancientscalled that Hibernia which the moderns call Ireland. Francewas formerly named Gaul, and Columbia lately Terra Firma;whilst these divisions of the European and American continents,notwithstanding their new designations, remain the same.Boniface the Third was not transubstantiated into another man,when, according to Baronius, he assumed the new appellationof Universal Bishop. The modern Popes, on their elevation tothe papal chair, change their names; but, 88 all confess, retaintheir identity. Catholicism, according to the primitive designa-tion, began in this manner to be denominated Protestantism,for the purpose of distinguishing the simplicity of Christianityfrom the superstition of Romanism.But the name, in itself, is unimportant. The sign is nothing

compared with the signification. The antiquity of the PROTEST-ANT FAITHis easily shown. The theology of the Reformed isfound in the Bible, in the fathers, in the primitive creeds, andin the early councils. Protestantism is contained in the wordof God. The sacred volume is the great repository of the Re-formed faith. The religion, therefore, which is written withsun-beams in the New Testament, the earliest monument ofChristianity, the great treasury of revealed truth, cannot withany propriety be denominated a novelty.The truths of Revelation and the theology of Protestantism

are contained in the early Fathers. These authors indeed, ac-cording to the usual reckoning, include a vast range. The ec-clesiastical writers, from Clemens to Bernard, from the Bishop

Page 55: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 55

of Rome to the Monk of Clairvaux, comprising a period ofeleven hundred years, have been denominated Fathers. 'l'~irworks, immediately after the council of Nice, began to ee in-fected with popery. Each succeeding author, in each followingage, added to the gathering mass of error. Superstition accu-mulated. The filth and mud of Romanism collected, till thesystem of delusion, or, "the Man of Sin," in all his dimensions,was completed. The post-Nieene Fathers, therefore, may, withsafety and without regret, be consigned to the Vatican, to rustor 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. Manythings contained in their works are exploded both by the Rom-ish and Reformed, such as the Millenium, the administration ofthe Lord's Supper to infants, and the subterranean repositoryof souls from death till the resurrection. The errors and igno-rance of the Fathers have been acknowledged by Erasmus andDu Pin, the friends of Romanism, The ancient commentators,says Erasmus, such as Origen, Basil, Gregory, AthanagiuA:Cyril,Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, I were men subject tofailings, ignorant in some things and mistaken in others: DuPin makes a similar concession.' Some errors, says the ParisianDoctor, were frequent in the first ages, which have since beenrejected. 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, wereDot the errors of Romanism. The ecclesiastical productions ofthree hundred years after the commencement of the Christianera teach, in the main, the principles of Protestantism.The Reformed also .reeognised the three pristine creeds. The

Apostolic, the Nioene, and the Athanasian formularies of beliefwere adopted by the patrons of Protestantism, and have beendistinguished by their general reception in Christendom. Theconfessions of Irenreus, 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-..Hately after the Reformation, and believed by all genuineProtestants to the present day.The doctrinal definitions of the first six general councils,

!Homines erant, quesdam ignorablUlt, in nonnullia hallucinati ll1lIlt. Erum.5. 133. Du Pin, 1. 687. .

Page 56: The Variations of Popery

56 INTRODUCTION.

which were held at Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constanti-nople, have been adopted into the Reformed theology. 'TheNicene and Byzantine councils declared the divinity of the Sonand Spirit, in opposition to Arianism and Macedonianism. 'TheEphesian, Chalcedonian, and Byzantine synods taught the unityof the Son's person and the duality of His nature and will, incontradistinction to Nestorianism, Eutychianism, and Monothe-litism. 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'sface was that morning before it was washed. The reply wasjust. Dirt could constitute no part of the human countenance;and washing, which would remove the filth, could neitherchange the lineaments of the human visage nor destroy itsidentity. 'The features by the cleansing application, instead ofalteration, would only resume their natural appearance. 'Thesuperstition of Romanism, in like manner, formed no part ofChristianity; and the Reformation, which expunged the filthof adulteration, neither new modelled the form, nor curtailedthe substance of the native and genuine system. The pollutionsof 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 intruderswhich injure the useful grain. The wheat may remain andadvance to maturity with accelerated vegetation, when theweeds, which impede its growth, are eradicated. The super-stition of Romanism, in the same manner, like an exotic andruining weed, deformed the Gospel and counteracted its utility.The Reformers, therefore, zealous for the honor of religion andtruth, and actuated with the love of God and man, proceededwith skill and resolution, to separate Popish inventions fromdivine revelation, and exhibited the latter to the admiring worldin all its striking attraction and symmetry.But nothing, perhaps, presents a more striking image of

Popery than a person laboring under a dreadful disorder;while the same person, restored to vigorous health, will afford alively emblem of Protestantism. The malady, let it be sup-posed, has deranged the whole animal economy. AI;>petite andstrength fail, and are succeeded by languor and debility, Thedisease, which works within, appeal'S in all its disgusti1li' effects

Page 57: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. .57

on the exterior, and produces emaciation, paleness, swelling,ulceration, tumor, 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 themean time, exerts his professional skill. Medical applicationsarrest the progress of disease, and renovate the functions of thewhole human system. Every protuberance, excrescence, sup-puration, and pain is removed by an unsparing application ofthe lancet, regimen, medicine, and aliment. The blood, inreviving streams, begins to flow with its usual velocity, and thepulse, in healthy movements, to beat with its accustomed regu-larity. Debility and decay give place to vigor, bloom, andbeauty. The healthy subject, in this state, presents a portraitof Protestantism; and the Reformers acted the part of thephysician. -Religion, by their skilful exertions, was divested ofthe adventitious and accumulated superadditions of If. thousandyears, 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, becomeanother per-son or lose hill identity: neither does Christianity, when reducedto 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 churchesunconnected with the Romish and rejecting the most obnoxiousabominations of Popery, or professing, in all the grand leadingtruths, the principles of Protestantism, were, from the primitivetimes, 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 byvarious appellations. But the principal branches of this stock,

. were Waldensianism, Albigensianism, and Wickliffism. These,however, tho~gh called by several names, had one commonorigin 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 thispersecuted denomination of Christians. But the imputation isunfounded, and has been refuted by Perrin, Basnage, Usher,Peyran, and Moreri. Moreri, though attached to Romanism,has vindicated the Albigensian theology from this slander withgenerosity and effect,' This charge, according to Moreri, may

~.:Moreri, I. 234.

Page 58: The Variations of Popery

58 INTRODUCTION.

be refuted from the silence of original records; the admission ofPopish historians; and the testimony ofAlbigensian confessions.The original monuments, such as the Chronicle of Tolosa,

the testimony of Bernard, Guido, and the Councils of Tours andLavaur, in 1163 and 1213, contain no trace of this allegation.The Tolosan Chronicle contains an account of the processesagainst the Albigensians signed by the Inquisitors, and, in manyinstances, by the Bishops; but no mention is made of AlbigensianManicheanism or of Arianism. A similar silence is preserved byBernard and Guido, as well as by the synods of Tolosa, Tours,and Lavaur, that brought several accusations against this people.'The same appears from Popish admissions. The Albigen-

sians, according ,to jEneas Sylvius, Alexander, and Thuanus,were a branch of the Waldensians, who, all admit, .were un-tainted with the Manichean or Arian heresy," The Albigensians,says Alexander, 'did not err on the Trinity,' and, therefore,were not Arians," Bruys, Henry, Osca, and Arnold, who werethe chiefs ofthis denomination, were neveraccused of these errors.Moreri, on this subject, quotes the admissions of Mabillon, Tillet,Serrus, Vignier, Guaguin, and Marca, in vindication of theseinjured people.' .All these testify that the Albigensians differlittle in doctrine from the Waldensians and the Reformed, who,all confess, were free from Arianism.This calumny is repelled by the Albigensian Confessions.

Several of these remain. One is preserved in Leger. TheTreatise' on Antichrist, written in 1120 before the days ofWaldo, contains an outline of the Albi~ensian theology. Gra-verol also possessed an ancient manuscript, which detailed thepersecutions of the Inquisition against the professors of Albi-gensianism. The Confession of Osca, who belonged to thisdenomination, is still extant, and contains an outline of PI'o&eS-'tantism. The Albigensians, who were accused before the coun-cil of Lombez, made, in the synod, a public profession of theirfaith. All these records reject the Manichean and Arian errors,and include, in the essentials, the faith of the Reformation.The accused, at Lombez, professed their belief in one God in

1Bened. 14. Labb. 12. 1284. et 13. 841. Du Pm, 2, 32.2 Ab ecclesia Catholica recedentes, impiam Waldensium sectam atque insanam

amplexi aunt. ,,£no Sylv. c. 35. Albigenses Waldensium ease progeniem. ~ex.20 268. Pauperea Lugdunenees, Albigei dicti aunt. Thuan. 1.222. Du Pin, 1.318.a Non hi circa Trinitatia fidem erraverint. Alexan. 20. 269. Mabil. 3. 456.i I1a etoient dana lea m&nes sentimens que lea Reformez. Leurs sentimens

etoient lea mAmea que oeux, qui ont et8 reDouvellez par Wielef et par Luther.Moreri, 1. 235.lis n'y avoieDt pas grude difference de doctrine entre lea Albigeois et v.. ·

doi8.Vignier,3. 233. -

Page 59: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 59

three persons, the Father, Son, and Spirit; and therefore dis-claimed Arianism, as well as Manicheanism.'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, conspiredagainst 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 wroteduring the hottest persecutions of the Albigensians, whom hedistinguished from the Manicheans and Arians. Guido Was aDominican persecutor, and wrote in the Tolosan Chronicle.'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 toothers, from the days of the apostles." This is the reluctanttestimony of an Inquisitor in the thirteenth century. He grantsthat 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,' Leo, who flourished inthe 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 simpleshepherds lived, for a long series of years,~in the sequestered re-cesses of the Alpine retreats, opposed to Popish superstitionand error.The Waldensians, as they were ancient, were also numerous,"

Vignier, from other historians, gives a high idea of their popu-lousness. The Waldensians, says thi8authol', multiplied won-derfully in France, as well as inother countries of Christendom.They had many patrons in Germany, France, Italy, and espe-cially in Lombardy, notwithstanding the Papal exertions fortheir extirpation.This sect, says Nangis, were infinite. in number; appeared,1Pour J'euentiel, leur doctrine ~toit conforme a eelle des Vaudois et' des

Protestaus. Osca a lais~ une confession de (oi, dont les articles accordentavec 1&doctrine des ~formez. Moren, I. 234, 2M. DuPin, 325. Labb. 13. 384.2 Moren, I. 2M.3 Aliqui enim dicunt, quod duravit & tempore Sylveatn; aliqui a tempore

Apostolorum. Rainerus, 3. 4.4 Romana ecclesia non est ecclesia Jesu Christi, sed ecclesia malignantium

earnque sub Sylvestro deficisse. Alex. 17. 368. Seysel, 9. Moren. 8. 47.G LeaVaudois Be trou verent merveiJIeusement multipliez, tant en France qu' en

&utres eontreee de la Chr~tienM. Ils avoient grand nombre de complices etadhmma. taut en Allemagne,qu'en France et l'Italie, specialement en laLom·hardie. Vtgnier, 3. 283, 393. .

Page 60: The Variations of Popery

60 INTRODUCTION.

says Rainerus, in nearly every country; multiplied, says San-derus, through all lands; infected, says Csesarius, a thousandcities, and spread their contagion, says Ciacouius, through al-most the whole Latin world. Scarcely any region, says Gret-zer, remained free and untainted from this pestilence.' TheWaldensians, says Popliner, spread, not only through France,but also through nearly all the European coasts, and appearedin Gaul, Spain, England, Scotland, Italy, Germany, Bohemia,Saxony, Poland, and Lithuania," Mn.tthew Paris representsthis 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,"Thuanus and Moreri represent the Waldensians as dispersed

through Germany, Poland, Livonia, Italy, Apulia, Calabria, andProvence.' Persecuted by the Inquisition, this simple peoplefled into England, Switzerland, Germany, France, Bohemia,Poland, and Piedmont, and became, says Newburg, like thesand of the sea, without number in Gaul, Spain, Italy, andGermany," .The Diocese of Passau, it was computed, contained forty

Waldensian schools and eighty thousand Waldensian popula-tion." The .Albigensian errors, according to Daniel, infected allLanguedoc and corrupted the nobility and the populace.' TheBomish temples, according to Bernard, were left without people,the people without pastors, and the pastors without respect,"The number of the Albigeiisians appears from the army which1Infinitus erat numerus. Nangis, An. 1207. Dachery. 3. 22.Fere enim nulla est terra, in qua heec secta non sit. Rain. c. 4. Per omnes

terras multiplicati sunt. Sanderus, VII. Infeeerunt usque ad mille civitates.Ceesar. V.21. Totum fere Latinum orbem infecisse, Ciacon.525.Vix aliqua regie, sb hac peste, immunis et intaeta, remansit. Gretz. c. 1.2Non per Galliam solum totam sed etiam per omnes pene Europre Oral!.

Poplin. 1. 7.3 Albigenlles in finibus Bulgarorum, Croatire, et Dalmatire. M. Paris, 306.

Albigenses in partibus Hispanire et illis regionibus invaluerunt , M. Paris, 381.lIs se disperserent dans Ies vallees du Piemont, dans Ia Sicile, la Calabre, Pouilleet 14Boheme. L'Allemagne, qui n'en etoit pas moins remplie. Bened.2.243--248.• Pars in Germaniam et Sarmatiam, et inde in Livoniam usque ad extrem~

septentrionem transmigravit. Pars in Italiam profecta in Apulia et Calabnaeonsedit. Pars denique in Provincia nostra locis ineultis et asperiPlatuit. Thuan.XXVII. 8. VI. 16. TIss'en retira un bon nombre en Angleterre, en Boheme,en Pologne, et dans lea vallees de Piemont. Moreri, 8. 48. .5 In latissimis Gallire, Hispanire, ltalire, Germanireque provinciia tum multI

hac pellte iDfeeti e8IIe dieuntur, ut eecundum prophetam. multiplieati eIII8,snpernumerum areme videantur. Labb. 13. 284. Newburg. II. 13.

S Computatle annt echole in diOClIllIIi PUII&vieJlli. ~. Rain. c. 3.7 Le, erreun avoient infecU tout Ie ~edoc, at autaDt corrompul'etprit

4e Nobleue, 9Ge ce1ui du peuple. Daniel, 3, 610.8 BaailiC8l lIne plebe, plebelline lACetdote. Benwd. Ep.!NO.

Page 61: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 61they equipped against the crusaders. Benedict reckons theAlbigemlian army against Count Montfort at 100,000 men.'The French, according to the same historians,sent 300,000warriors, who, under the holy banners of the cross,went tocombat the heretics of Languedoc. Waldensian bravery, evenaccording to his partial relation, withstood for near two hundredyears, the vigilance of Pontiffs, the piety of bishops, the zeal ofmonarchs, and the magnanimity of warriors; and injured thechurch in the west, as much as the infidels in the east. Theheterodox army of the Albigensians, adds the historian, hadnearly on one occasion, overwhelmed the holy warriors of thecross. Any other hero but Montfort, if Benedict may bebelieved, would have despaired of success and abandoned hisconquests. 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 itafullest sense, has, with the utmost candor, been acknowledgedby many cotemporary and succeeding historians who wereattached to Romanism. The conformity of the Wa.ldonsianwith the Reformed faith may be shown from Popish statementsand admissions, and frorn Waldensian confessions.The following statements are taken from the unexceptionable

authority of Sylvius, Petavius, Gaufridus, Serrus, Marea,Thuanus, More, Vignier, and Alexander.' The Waldensians,according to Sylvius,afterward Pius the Second, in his History ofBohemia, rejected the papacy, purgatory, image-worship, sacra-

1 11se forma une armee de cent mille hommes. Bened. 1. 6, 228, ]00, 2]4., Purgatorium ignem nullum inveniri: vanum esse orare pro mortuis : Dei et

Sanctorum imagines delendaa ; confirmationem et extremam unctionem interecclesire Sacramenta minime contineri : auricularem confessionem nugacem esse.Sylv. c. 35. Non esse obediendum Pontifici Romano: Indulgentias mhil valere:non enare Purgatorium: sanctos non attendere precibus nostris: festa et jejuniamdieta non esse servanda et alia. Petavius,2. 2"25. Ils declament cont1'el'~lise,contre BeB ceremonies, centre ses dogmes. lIs tournent sa hieraz'Chieen deMon.lis disent que Ie purgatoire est une fable, que la priers pour Ies morts est nneillusion, que l'invocation des saints, que le culte de Ie11J'llimages est une foi-blesse, Gaufrid. 2. 468. JIs rejettoient Ie culte des images, Ie purgatoire, meritedes eeuvres, les indulgences, lea peIerinages, les VallU, J'invocatioD des saints, etIe celibat des pr~tres. Moreri,]. 235. Eccleaia.m Romanam, Babyloniaam mer.etricem epse: monasticam vitam ecc]eaimsentinam ac Plutonium esse: vana iUiusTota: ignem purgatorium, solemne sacrum, templorum enCalnia, cultum sanet<>-rum, ac pro mortIDs propitiatorium Satanre commenta eBBe. Thuan. l. 221.Auricularem confcssionem prorsus tollunt. Docent imagines eBBetollendas all-eecleaia. Indulgentias contemnnnt. Docent, &c. More, 387. Ds nioyent latransubstantiation et If!purgatoire, disant que les prieres et suffrages des vivansne servent de rien aux trespassez. N'attribuoyent aussi aucune autorite auPaps; meprisant toutes lell traditions de l'eglise, m~mement l'institntion deafMClI et dell jeunee, comme aUll8ide l'extrime onction. Vignier, 3. 283.

Page 62: The Variations of Popery

62 INTRODUCTION.

mental confession, extreme unction, invocation of saints, praJTerfor the dead, and the use of oil and chrism in baptism. Peta-vius represents the Christians of the valleys as opposed to thepapal supremacy, indulgences, purgatory, fasts, festivals, andsaint-invocation. The Waldensians, says Gaufridus in his his-tory of Provence, disseminated their poison till the origin ofLutheranism, and derided the Romish hierarchy, dogmas,rituals,purgatory, saint-invocation, image-worship, and prayer for thedead. Senus and Marca, quoted by Moreri, mention the Wal-densian rejection of the supremacy, transubstantiation, purgatory,indulgences, pilgrimages, festivals, tradition, image-worship,decretals of the church, intercession of saints, merit of works,and celibacy of the clergy Thuanus details their disclaimingof the Romish church, pontiff, festivals, mass, monkery, purga-tory, worship of saints, and prayer for the dead: and More andVignier deliver a similar statement on the subject of Waldensiantheology.The following is an outline of Alexander's impartial state-

ment, which the learned Sorbonnist supports by the testimonyof the original historians, Rainerus, Seysel, Bernard, Pilichdorff,and Ebrardus de Bethunia. ' The text of the Sacred Scripturesis to be received, in opposition to traditions and comments.The Pope is the head of all errors. The sacraments are onlytwo, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Baptism is not abso-lutely necessary for salvation. Transubstantiation or the cor-poral presence is unscriptural. Penance, matrimony, confirma-tion, extreme unction, and holy orders are no sacraments. Thechurch erred, when it enjoined the celibacy of the clergy. Dis-pensations, indulgences, relics, canonizations, vigils, flfsts, festi-vals, purgatory, altars, consecrations, incensing, processions,exorcisms, holy water, sacerdotal vestments, annual confession,modern miracles, sacred burial, and saint-invocation, all thesethe Waldensians despised and rejected. Remission of sin isobtained through the merits of Jesus. No sin is venial, but allare 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. Rainerushimself clears them of the blasphemy of Manicheanism andArianism. Christian pastors are to be ordained by the impo-sition of hands; and elders, besides, should be chosen to governthe people," The Parisian doctor's portrait of Waldensianismpresents a. picture of Protestantism taken from life.

Page 63: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 63The admissions of Romish historians bear testimony to the

conformity of Waldensianism and AIbigensianism with Protest-antism. This conformity has been admitted among others, byGratius, Popliner, Alexander, Mezeray, Gaufridus, Moreri,Tillet, Serrus, Evenswyn, and Marca. The Waldensians, saysGratius, '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'sapprobation of the Waldensian confession, at the commence-ment of the Reformation. 'The Henricians and Waldensians,'says Mezeray, ' held nearly the same dogmas as the Calvinists.According to Gaufridus, ' the Lutherans and Calvinists praisedthe learning, disinterestedness, and morality of the Walden-sians, and consulted them as oracles on points cf religion.'Moreri, Tillet, Serrus, Evenswyn, and Maroa, grant ' the agree-ment of the Waldensian faith, in all the principal articles, withthe Reformed theology.'The Waldensian Confessions, issued on several occasions,

show the conformity of their principles to Protestantism. TheWaldensians, who, to avoid persecution, had removed into Bo-hemia and Moravia, published their Confession in 1504. Thillformulary of belief was presented to King Ledislaus, in vindi-cation of their' character from the slanderous accusations of thePapists and Calixtines. The same people published anotherConfession in 1535. This was compiled from older documents,and presented by the Bohemian nobility to the Emperor Fer-dinand. This celebrated production, as Alexander states, 'wasprefaced and approved by Luther, and praised by Bucer and

•non existimasse absolute necessarium ad salutem. Waldenses transubstantia-tionem non admittebant. Confessionem annuam rejiciebant. Prenitentiam exsacramentorum numero expungebant. Matrimonium, sacramentum esse nega-bant. Ecclesiam errasse dicebant, cum erelibatum clerieis indixit. Sacramen-tum unctionis extremre rejiciunt. Infirmum adhortabantur, ut certain fidn-ciam et sceuritatem remissionis peecatorum per merita Christi baberet.Sacramentum ordinis rejiciebant. Dispensationes ecclesire et indulgentiasrespuebant. Sanetorum invocationem impugnabant. Reliquias. trana1ationes,canonizationes, vigilias. festivitates sanctornm contemnebant. Miraculisnullam adhibebant fidem. Electos Dei, immo, ipsam Christi genetricem honor.and08 negabant. Purgatorium negabant. Ecclesias, altaria, eorum consecra-tiones, ornatum et suPellectilem, sacerdotaliaindUDlEnta, luminaria, thurifiea-tiones, aqnam benedictam, processionee, alioaque sacros ritus rejieiebant, etderidebant. Sacram sepulturam nihili fAciebant. Exorcism08 impugnabant.Ecclesiastica jejunia,quasi idolatriam et suplll'lltitionem redolentia aversabantur.Nullum veniale peceatum, sed omnia mortalis. Waldenscs puros de Deo etChristo recte sensisse. Rainerus ipsos a Maniehreornm et Arianornm blasphe-miis abeolvit. Waldenses pastores habebant ; ad praldieandi munns, imposi-tione manuum admittebantur. Seniores prreterea ad regendum populumeligebant. Alex. 17- 370-388.1 Non multum alicubi dissentiunt ab iis. Gratius in FasciouL 8li. Dootri-

Da1I1 suam ab eo quam hodie 'Protestantes amplectuntur parum diiferentlUUdilleminarant. Popliner, 1. 7. •

Page 64: The Variations of Popery

64 INTRODUCTION.

Melancthon.1 <Ecolompadius,Beza, and Bullinger, also recog-nised these people, though despised and persecuted, as a consti-tuent part of the great Christian Commonwealth. The Luther-ans and Zuinglians, in this manner, acknowledged the Walden-sians as Christians, and their faith as the truth of the Gospel.The Waldensians also published a Confession in the reignof Francis the First. This, in 1544, was followed by another,which, in V'i51, was transmitted to the French King and readin the Parisian Parliament. All these are in strict harmonywith Reformed Theology; and all breathe the spirit and teachthe truths of Christianity." This same people, as late as inlS19, in a confession found among the manuscripts of Peyran,declared their adherence to the doctrines of the churches ofEngland, Netherlands, Germany, Prussia, Switzerland, Poland,and Hungary; and entreated these communions and otherssettled 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 esteemand extorted the approbation of friend and foe,of the protestant,the papist, and even the inquisitor. Many partisans of poperyhave concurred with the patrons ofprotestantism in their eulogy.The following character of this people is taken from Bainerus,Seysel, Lewis, Hagee, Alexander, La.bbe, Gaufrid, andThuanus.Rainerus, quoted by Alexander, ' admits their show of piety

and integrity before men.' This is pretty well for a Dominicaninquisitor, who discovered, however, that Waldensi&n pietywas mere dissimulation. But Rainerus also acknowledges, their sobriety, modesty, chastity, and temperance, with theiraversion to taverns, balls, vanity, anger, scurrility, detraction,levity, swearing, and falsehood. He grants their attention, men

1 Quod nunc, quoque, Calvinistre nostri faciunt. .Alex. 17. 375.Lutherus hanc Valdensium Bohemorum Confessionem approbavit. Alex. 17.

401.Henericiens et Vaudois tenoient A peu pres Ies mames dogmes que leaCalvinis-

tea. Mezeray, 2. 577. Les Lntheriens et lea Calvinistes eommencerent a louerleur maniere de vivre ; leur desinteressement, leurs Iumieres, On eommenea alea consulter comme des oracles sur Ies points de la religion. Gaufrid. 2. 458.Leur doctrine est eonforme a celle dell Reformez, dans lea principaux articles.

Moreri, 8, 48. Tillet eroit, qu'ils etoient danll les m~mes sentimens que leaReformez. Serres declare que leurs sentimens etoient les m~mes que ceux quiont eM renouvellez par Wiclif et par Luther. Moreri, 1. 235.EvenBwyn dit que lea Al~eo" etoient dana lea m~ aentimens que lea

Reformez. Maroa parle dea AIbigeoiB a pen prell de la memetmanibre que leaReformez. Moreri, 1. _.Prlllfatua est hooorifioe LuUl8l11l. Alez. 17. 406, 406.J Da Pill, 3. 250. Thuara. 2. 82. Benedict, HO.

Page 65: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 65

and women, young and old, night and day, to learning orteaching; and he had seen a Waldensian rustic, who repeatedJob, word for word, and many who perfectly knew the wholeof the New Testament,"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.' Hagee admits 'theirsimplicity of habits and their show of piety,' under which, how-ever, his penetration enabled him exclusively to discover' theirmiscreancy.' His eyes must have been very clear to discernmiscreancy through such distinguished simplicity and piety.Alexander portrays 'their disposition to love their enemies,tolive, if possible, in peace with all men, and, at the same time, toavoid revenge, judicial litigation, love of the' world, and thecompany of the wicked.' Alexander, also vindicates the Wal-densians from the calumny of Ebrard and Emeric, who hadaccused them of avarice, lewdness, and unchastity. Labbe,like Rainerus and Hagee, allows the Waldensians ' a pretendedshow of piety.' The Jesuit, of course, must, like the inquisitorand the historian, have been a notable discerner of hearts.Gaufridus mentions' their industry, which, in a superior mannercultivated 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 theirchastity, which they accounted a particular honor, their culti-vation of manners, their knowledge of letters, their expertnessin writing, and their skill in French. A boy could scarcely befound among them, but, if questioned on his religion, could,with readiness, give It reason for his faith. Tribute, they paidwith the utmost punctuality; and if prevented for a time bycivil war, they discharged this debt on the return of peace,"

1Magnam habet speciem pietatis, eo quod coram hominibus juste vivant.Sunt in moribus, compoaiti et modesti. Casti etiam snnt; maxime Leonistal,temperati in eibo et potu. Ad tabernas non eunt, nee ad chorea&, nec ad aliasvanitates. Ab ira se cohibent. Cavent a 8C1lITilitate, detractione, verborumlevitate, mendacio, et jll1'allleDto. Omnea, viri. e1;fl'lmlinle, parvi et magni, dienoctuque docent vel discunt. Vidi quemdam rusticum, qui Job reeitavit, deverbo ad verbum; et plurea, qui totum Novum Testamentum perfecte sciverunt.Rain. e.4, 7. 9. Alex. 17, 38, 390, 393.2 Puriorem quam ceeteri Christiani vitam agunt. Seysel, 92. Alex. 17. 387.Me et csetero populo meo Catholico, meliores illi viri sunt. Camero 419. Ils

savoient eacher leur mechaneete sons des habits fort simples, et sous une grandeapparence de piete. Hagee,550. Lenfan.I. 10.Has conversationis external regulas proponebant. Mundam non diligere, malo-

rum co1l8Ortium fU/lere, pacem habere cum omnibus, quantum fieri poteat, noncontendere in judicio, non ulcisci injurias, inimicoa amare. Alex. 17. 399.

E

Page 66: The Variations of Popery

66 INTRODUCTION.

The Waldensians, notwithstanding the sanguinary persecu-tions of Bomanism, still exist, and still are persecuted in theirnative valleys. A population of twenty thousand always remainand exhibit, to an admiring world, all the grandeur of truth andall the beauty of holiness. Their relics still show what theyhave been, and they continue unaltered amid the revolution ofages. The world has changed around this sacred society; whileits principles and practice, through all the vicissitudes of timelive immutably the same. The Walden sian church, thoughdespised by the Roman hierarchy, illuminated, in this manner,the dark ages; and appears, in a more enlightened period, theclearest drop in the ocean of truth, and shines the brightestconstellation in the firmament of holiness; sparkles the richestgem in the diadem of Immanuel, and blooms the fairest flowerin 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 occupyEuropean Turkey and the Mediterranean Islands; and aredispersed, though in fewer numbers, through Mesopotamia,Syria, Cilicia, Palestine, Georgia and Mingrelia. The religionof the Greek Church is also the religion of European andAsiatic Russia, comprehending a territory more extensive thanthe empire of Alexander or Tamerlane. The Greeks, as theypossess an extensive country, comprehend a numerous people.The patriarch of Constantinople, says Allatius, quoted byThomassin, governed, in the eleventh century, sixty-five Metro-politans and more than six hundred bishops.'The Greeks, indeed, agree not with modern Protestants in

all things. Some of the Orientals had drunk more and someless from the muddy fountain of human invention, according tothe 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, inmany points, close and striking. The Greeks, however,concur toa man in opposing Papal usurpation and tyranny; in denying thatthe Romish is the true church; and in condemning the dogmas of

PopiDArum frequentationem prohibebant. Alex. 17. 389. PrlBtenta speciepietatis. Lab1ieua, 13.285. lis 8'appliquerent a cultiver la terre avec tautd'industrie, que lea SeigneU!'ll en augmenterent considerablement leU!'llrevenU8'Gaufride, 2.~. OmJiem a 88 ac suis O<Btibua iniquitatem eliminare illici tasdejerationes perjuria, diru, imprecationell, contumelias, rixas, seditiones, &c.Thuan. 2. 85, 89, 91. .1Le Patriarche de OoDatautblople dominoit encore a IIOixante-ciD~Metropoli.

__ at 1\ pla d•• oem enlqa.. Tho. Put IV. 2. 17. ADat. L M.

Page 67: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 67

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 Romanpontiff and all the Latin episcopacy, as the abettors of schismand heresy. Prateolus, Fisher, More, Renaudot, Guido, Inno-cent, Bellarmine, and Aquinas confess the Grecian disbelief inpurgatory and in the utility of supplications for the dead. Theirrejection of confirmation and extreme unction is testified bySimon; 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.1The 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 jand this seems to have been their common appellation for all thepartisans of popery. The Greeks, says the Lateran Council,detest the Latins, rebaptize those whom they admit to theircommunion, and wash the altars on which the Romish clergycelebrate mass, and which, in their mind, had been pollutedwith the defilement of the popish sacrament.''The Mingrelians, who belong to the Greek church, appear1TIs ne reconnoissent point absolument II' primautll du Pape, lis nient que

l'ep Romaine soit Ia veritable eglise, lis excommunient Ie Pape, et [email protected], commegheretiques et schismatiques. SIMON, C. 1. Grreci omnesLatinos, excommunicatos reputant. Canisius, 4. 433.Docent nullum purgstorinm. Prateol. VII. Grrecis ad hunc usque diem, non

est creditum purgatonum esse. Fisher, Art. 18. Docent esse nullum purgatoriumlocum. More, 199. Nee tertium ilium locum, quem pmgatorium appellamusagnosount. Renaudot, 2. 105. Idem tribuitur Grrecis aGuidone. Bell. 1. 1370.Locum purgationis hujusmodi diount (Grreci) non fuisse. Innocent, 4. Ep. adOtton. Du Fresne, 5. 931. Credibile est, Grrecos de hac hrereai saltem suapectoBfuisse; nam B. TnOJU.ll,in opuscnlo contra Gnooos, refellit etiam hnnc errorem.Bell. 1. 2. Docent etiam nihil prodesse defunctis orationes. More, 200. DB ne~oivent point la confirmation ni l'extr@me onction. SIIION, Co 1. Esse neees-sario Bubutraque specie, panis scilicet et vini, communicandum. More, 199.Lee Grecs n'admettent point de pmgatoire. DB ne reconnm-nt point Ie Pape

pour chef de I'eglise, DB communient sousles deux eBp8ces. DB rejettent 1epurgatoire. Le 'Bmyn, 1. 338, 339, Co 13..2 Toutes cas Eglises Chrsstiennes, excepttlla Grecque, ont pam extr@mement

disposees A reconnoitre la primaute du Saint Siege. Thom. L 5.GrlllCi, in malitia sua, perseverant, qui ubique, aut latenter aut aperte, ecc1esial

RomaI1Illcontradiount. Omnia sacramenta nostra bleephemant, M. Paris, 426.Vocabant eoe canes. Cossart, 3. 21. Grreci ceepernnt, abominari Latin~.

Labb. 13. 938. .Altaria sua, supra qUillLatini celebraverunt divina,ablnere COD-neverunt. Canis. 4. 433. Leai Grecs ont; nne grande aversiOll pour l't\aliIe .R0-maine. DaOllf; 1&_ des Romains en grande aversion. Le Bniyn, 1.:fn. 0. 13.

Page 68: The Variations of Popery

68 INTRODUCTION.

to disbelieve transubstantiation. Sir John Chardin, while onhis travels in Mingrelia, asked a priest, if the sacramentalbread and wine became the body and blood of our Lord. Thepriest, on the occasion, laughed, as if the question had beenintended in raillery. The simple Mingrelian, in the exerciseof common sense, could not understand how the Mediatorbetween God and man could be compressed into a loaf, or whyhe should descend from heaven to earth.'The Nestorians overspread Asiatic Turkey, Arabia, Persia,

Tartary, India, and China. Their number and extent willappear from the statements of Cosmas, Vitricius, Canisius, Polo,Paris, Godeau, and Thomassin. Cosmas, in Montfaucon, repre-sented the.Nestorian churches, in the sixth century, as infiniteor unnumbered. Vitricius records the numerical superiorityof the Nestorians and Jacobites over the Greeks and Romans.Canisius, from an old author, gives a similar statement. Polo,the Venetian, who remained seventeen years in Tartary, andwas employed hy the Cham on many important commissions,testifies the dissemination of Nestorianism through Tartary,China, and the empire of the Mogols. Matthew Paris relates thespread of the Nestorian heresy through India, the kingdom ofPrester John, and the nations lying nearer the East. Godeaumentions the extension of Nestorianism through the East, andits penetration into the extremity of India, where it remainsto the present day. Thomassin attests its diffusion throughIndia, Persia, and Tartary, and its multiplication in the Northand East, nearly to infinity.'The J acobites or Monophysites are divided into the Asiatics

and Mricans. The .Asia~icsare diffused through Syria, Meso-potamia, and Armenia; and the Africans through Egypt, Nu-bia, and Abyssinia. The vast number of this denomination,and the extensive territory which they have occupied, maybe shown from the relations of Vitricius, Paris, Canisius, andThomassin.Vitricius records the dissemination of the Monophysite con-

tagion through more than forty kingdoms. The Patriarch of

1ChazodiD, 1. 100., Ece1eaIiIe infurital II1lIlt. Montfanoon, 2. 179. Orientalem regionem, pro

magna parte, infeeit. CanisiU8, 4. 433. Qui cum Jacobinia, Jlluree _ dicuntur,quam Latini ~ Gneci. Vitricin8 1. 76. Lea Nestonena aVolent plumenn aglise8dan8 la Tartarie, dana Ie!paUl des Mogols, et dana la Chine. Thom. 1.4. Part 4-Nestoriana hlllnlllia per Indiam Majorem, et regnnm _rdotiB JohanDis, 810 perregna magie proxima orienti dilatatur. )(. Paris, 425. n Il8 ~pandit dana toutI'Orient, etpenetra jWJqu'AIlX extremitet des Iudes. Godeau, 3. 3M- Ile.'aten-direDt ju~_d&Dal .. Ind .. laPene, etlaTarCarie. Tbom.2.20. Part IV. Ila.'y multipllilreDt pneque "l'intlni ven l'Orient et Ie Nord. Tbom. 1. 87~. Bayle,S. 2079.

Page 69: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 69the J acobites, says Matthew Paris, superintends the Chaldeans,Medians, Persians, Armenians, Indians, .Ai:thiopians,Lyhians,Nubians, and Egyptians. These, mingled with the Saracensor fixed in their own settlements through Asia, Africa, and theEast, occupy more than forty kingdoms, containing an innu-merable Christian population. Caniaius, from the manuscriptof an anonymous historian, has transmitted a similar account.The Jacobites, according to Thomassin, spread, under theempire of the Saracens, through all Asia and Africa. ThePatriarch of Antioch presides over the Metropolitans of Jeru-salem, Mosul, Damascus, Edessa, and Cyprus. The Patriarchof Alexandria and Abyssinia presides over Egypt, ..Ethiopia,and Nubia,' Abyssinia boasts a Christian empire and estab-lishment. Jowett, the missionary, found in Siout, an Egyptiancity, about 5000 Coptic Christians.The Jacobites reject the supremacy, purgatory, transubstan-

tiation, half-communion, auricular confession,extreme unction,the Latin Liturgy, and the seven sacraments. The usurpedauthority of the Roman Hierarch, they view with contempt.Their communion in both kinds, as well as their rejection ofconfirmation and extreme unction, are testified by Dresser andGodeau. Canisius, from an old author, in his Lections andMoreri show the Jacobin disbelief of purgatory. The Mono-physan Missal, cited by Geddes, disclaims transubstantiation.According to this document, , the bread and the wine are dis-tinct from our Lord in nature, but the same in power and effi-cacy. His body is broken, but only by faith.' An Abyssinianor Monophysan priest expressly declared against transubstan-tiation to Bruce. 'The Priest,' says this author,' declared tome with great earnestness, that he never did believe that theelements in the Eucharist were converted into the real bodyand blood of Christ. He said, however, that he believed thisto be the Roman Catholic faith, but it never was his, and that I

he conceived the bread was bread and the wine was wine evenafter consecration.' Vitricius attests their rejection of auricularconfession. Their disuse of the Latin Liturgy is well known ;and their renunciation of confirmation, confession,and extremennction, shows their opinion of the seven sacraments.,

IPatriarcha .Jacobitarum p1'lllestChaldreia, Media, Pel'llis, et Armeniis. Septua-ginta provincial ei obediunt, in quibas habitant innumerabiles Christiani. i:Iinosubdita est Minor India, .<Ethiopia, Lybia, cum 1Egypto. Occupavemnt Nubiamet omnes regiones usque in Indiam, plusqaam quadraginta regns, Paris, 425, 526Jacobini majorem partem Asire inhabitant. Conterminata At4rrPto, maguam

partem .<Ethopireet plures regionea usque in Indiam Citeriorem, plura regna po*-eident. Canisius, 4. 433. Cette secte s'etendit dans toute l'Asie et I'Afrique.Thom. 2. 20. Vitricius, 1. 75. Renaudot, 1. 375, 438, 540.I Sacramentum integrum, tam elerici quam Iaiei, accipiunt Dre ... 526.

Page 70: The Variations of Popery

70 INTRODUCTION.

The Nestorians were said to divide the person of the Son'and the Jacobites to confound His natures. But this contro-versy, as the ablest and most candid theologians and historiansadmit, was a dispute about words. This is the opinion of theProtestant historians, Mosheim, Bayle, :Basnage, La Croze,Jalonsky, and Buchanan. Many Romish as well as Reformedcritics entertained the same opinion. This was the judgmentof Simon, Bruys, Assemanni, Tournefort, Gelasius, Thomassin,and Godeau. Nestorianism, says Simon, ii only a nominalheresy, and the controversy originated in a mutual misunder-standing. Bruys, Assemanni, Tournefort, and Gelasius speakto the same purpose. Thomassin calls the Jacobites, Arme-nians, Oopts, and Abyssinians, Demi-Eutychians, who rejectedthe extravagant imaginations of the original Monophysites.Modern relations, says this author, show that the Jacobitesconfounded not the godhead and manhood of the Messiah, but 'represented these as forming one person, without confusion, inthe Son, as soul and body in man. The Abyssinians, who area branch of the Monophysites, disbelieve, says Godeau, anycommixture of Deity and humanity in the Son of God,'The Armenians are scattered through Armenia, Oappadocia,

Oilicia, Syria, Persia, India, Oyprus, Poland, Turkey, Tran-s,ylvania, Hungary, and Russia. Julfa, in the suburbs of Ispa-han, is, say' Renaudot and Ohardin, entirely inhabited by thisdenomination. This colony. amounted to 30,000 persons.A.bbas, the Persian monarch, contemporary with Elizabeth ofEngland, invited, says Walsh, the Armenians to settle in hisdominions, where he gave them every protection. Twentythousand families were placed in the province of GuiIam.Forty thousand reside in India, and carry on a great part ofthe inland trade. Two hundred thousand of them remain inConstantinople, in the adjoining villages, and on the Bosphorus,"The Armenian merchants are distinguished for their industry,

frugality, activity, and opulence. Fixing their settlements inevery principal city and emporium of Asia, the A.rmenians, says

IIa ccmmunient soua lea deux especes, Ilsne pratiquent ni Z.oonfumation, nil'extrime onotion. Godeau, 1. 275.DePnrgatorio nil credunt.· Canis. 4. 434. Lea Jacobites ne croyent pea Ie pur-

gatoire. Moren, 8. 429.o Christe, llient in pane et vino naturresunt a te diatinctle.in virtute et potentia

idem sunt tecum. Corpus frangimus, sed tantum per fidem. Gedd. 169Confession" peccatol'lllD BUOl'lllD,nOnsacerdotibwl. lied 80li Deo laknter faciunt.Vitricius. 1. 76. Bruce V. 12.1Bay)e, 2f1l7. SinU>D, Co 9. Brnye. 1. 2f1l. AIIem. 291. Toum, 2. 297. Gel.

de d.ob. Thom. 2. 21. Godeau. I. 276.I Abba ~lIjDusArmeDol'lllDJulfa prope IapabUlND, oolODiam ClODItituit, etc.

Raa.d. 2. 376. Chard, 2. '11.

Page 71: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 11

Buchanan, are the general merchants of the ElI8t,and in con-stant motion between Canton and Constantinople. Calcutta,Madras, and Bombay have each an Armenian church. Tour-nefort extols their civility, politeness, probity, sense, wealth,industry, and enterprising disposition. Godeau reckons theArmenian families, under one of the Armenian patriarchs, atmore than 1500. The Armenian patriarch of Antioch, saysOtho, superintends more than a thousand bishops, and is, inconsequence, called Universal. He governs, says Vitricius,twenty provinces and fourteen metropolitans, with their suffra-gans, who occupy, according to Thomassin, many churchesthrough all the East, in Mesopotamia, Persia, Cara.m.an.ia,andArmenia. 1This denomination, beyond all the Christians in Central Asia,

have repelled Mahometan and Romish superstitions. True totheir ancient faith, they have nobly resisted the oppression ofIslamism, and the allurements of Popery. Preserving the Bible,their faith, says Buchanan, is a transcript of biblical purity.The Armenians condemn the Suyremacy, TransubstAntiation,Purgatory, Image-worship, Clerica Celibacy, the Seven Sacra-ments, the Latin Liturgy, the power of the Sacraments to confergrace, the observance of Vigils and Festivals, and the with-holding the Bible from the laity. Their re-baptism of papistswho join their communion, 1I8 mentioned by Godeau and More,is a sufficient evidence of the opinion which they entertain ofthe Supremacy and of Romanism. The uncatholicism andfalsehood of popery besides, is, says More, one of their pro-fessed dogmas. Their disbelief of the real presence in theCommunion, except in sign and similitude, is acknowledged byGodeau, Guido, and More. Their denial of purgatory andprayers for the dead is admitted by Godeau,More, and Cani-siua ; while Nicetas, Baronius, and Spondanus proclaim theArmenian renunciation of image-worship. The Armenians,according to Godeau, ordain only married men to the [riest-hood, and detract from the Sacraments the .power 0 con-fening grace. Thevenot attests their rejection of purgatoryand the pope. as well as their great enmity to all the professorsof Romanism.t

1 Les familles qai sont SOWI sa Jurisdiction excedeDt Ie nombre de quinze oentmille. Godeau, 1. 273. Le :patriarche dee ArmeDiena etoit a~pe16 lJatboliqueon Universel, parcequ'il avolt plus de milleev~uessoU8 sa jurisdiction. Thom-_in, 1. 4. Labbeus, 12. 1572. Habet Bub se viginti provincias AntiochenuaPatriarcha, lJuarum quatuordecim MetropolitanOll habebant, cum sibi su1fraga-neia EpiscOp18. Vitricius, c. 23. Ils occupeut prllsentement plusieurs ~dans tout l'orient, dans 1a Mesopotamie, 1a Perse, 1a Caramanie, et dana 1.deux Anneni.. Thorn. I. 4. part 4. Spon. 1146. IV.t 111 rebaptizent I. Catholiquell Romaina qui vieunent a leur oommanioa.

Page 72: The Variations of Popery

72 INTRODUCTION.

The Syrian Christians who agree in faith with the Reformed,inhabit India, where Travancore and Malabar constitute theirchief settlements. These had occupied Western India from theearliest ages, and had never heard of Romanism or the Papacytill Vasco De Gama arrived at Cochin in the beginning of thesixteenth century. The infernal spirit of Popery and persecu-tion then invaded this ancient church, and disturbed the tran-quillityof 1200 years.' The Syrians on the sea-coast yielded,for a time, to the storm, But the inland inhabitants, in supportof their ancient religion, braved all the terrors of the inquisitionwith unshaken resolution.The Syrians constitute a numerous churchs Godeau reckons

the Syrian population of Comorin, Coutan, Cranganor, Malabar,and Negapatam at 16,000 families, or 70,000 individuals," Butthe multitude is greater towards the west, the north, and thecity of Cochin.The antiquity of the Syrian Church reaches beyond that of

Nestorianism, Jacobitism, or Armenianism, and this appearsin the purity and simplicity of their theology. Godeau admitstheir reading of the New Testament in the Syrian tongue intheir churches; and their rejection of extreme unction, image-worship, and clerical celibacy. The Syrians, says Moreri aswell as Thomas, quoted by Renaudot, neither believe purga-torial fire nor pray for the dead. These Indian Christians, saysRenaudot, celebrate the communion in Syriac, and reckon, saysCanisillil, all the Latins excommunicated,"But the Synod of Diamper, in which Menez, Archbishop of•

Godean, 1. 273. R.ebaptizant 008, qui jam simnl baptisma snsceperunt in ecclesiaRomana. More, 62. Apud Latinos, non esse veram et catholicam ecc1esiamaffirmans. More, 62. lIs nient Ia presence reelle du corps de Jesus Christ enI'euoharistie. Godeau, 1. 272. Non crednnt quod sit sub speciebus panis etvini, vere et realiter verum corpus et sanguis Christi, sed tantum in similitudineet signa. Guido, c. 22. Negant illi verum Christi corpus realiter in sacramentoEucharistire sub panis, et sanguinem sub vini speciebus contineri. More, 62.Ils rejettent Ie purgatoire, et Ia priere des morts. Godeau, 1. 273. Nullum essepnrgatorium locum. More, 63. De purgatorio nil credunt. Canisins, 4. 434.Sacras imagines non adorabant. Spond. 863. V. Ils n'admettent an saeerdoceque lea hommes mariez. Godeau, 1. 273. Ils otent aux seeremens Ia vertu deconferer 1& grAce. Godeau, 1. 273. Ab omnibus sacramentis, virtutem con-ferendi gratiam tollunt. More, 62. Negant in nuptiis contrahendis aliquod esseaacramentum. More, 63. Armeni in vulgari aermone Divinas Scripturas pronnn-CliaDt. Vigiliaa et festa sanctorum non sanetificant. Canieiue, 4. 434-Leta ArmOOieDa n'admettent point de purgatoire. Ils ne reconnoissens point Ie

Pspe, ns 80Dt univeJ'lle1lement grands ennemis de toUII ceUI qui professent 1&foi CMholique Romaine. Thevenot, 3. 396-1Coea. 6. 83.t On faisoit monter. ~ on leize mille famillell, ou a soixante et dix mille

peJ'8ODD8II. n y en STOlt une pIu grande mul.tllde, .c. Godeau, 1. 270.a I1a n'avoieDt ell 1IIlIp le AOI'eIIlellt de l'Enr6me-Onction, ni dell iJnasee d.

laintl. lMul'8 prO.... po1lYoient .. marier nne foiL Le Nouyeau Teatament Ie

Page 73: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION.

q.oa, presided, affords unexceptionable evidence of the opposi-tron of the Syrian Ohurch to Popery, and of its agreement, inevery essential, with Protestantism, The acts of this synodare inserted in Cossart's collections, and supply the followingstatements. 'The Babylonian patriarch is independent of theRoman pontiff, and the Syrian Church of the Papal communion,The Son of God conferred no authority on Peter above his apos-tolic fellows. The Romish communion has renounced the faithand fallen into heresy. The Popish theology is a system offalsehood, which was propagated through Christendom, by thearms and enactment'! of the Roman emperors., Transubstantiation is an absurdity. The body of Jesus is

not in the host, and is only in heaven. The bread and wineare the emblems of his body and blood, from which they differas a picture from the original. The Sacramental elements arethe Lord, not in reality but in appearance, not in substancebut in efficacy. When Meriez elevated the host, the Syriansshut their eyes lest they should see the object of idolatry., Images are not to be venerated. These hateful and filthy

idols are to be excluded from the churches and houses of thefaithful.' When Menez exhibited an image of the Virgin Mary,the people cried:' Away with this abomination. We areChristians, and do not worship idols.', Matrimony, confirmation, and extreme unction are no sacra-

ments. The Syrians had no knowledge of confirmation; and• regarded it, when proposed by the Metropolitan of Goa, notonly as superfluous and unnecessary, but as an insult. TheSyrian clergy adminstered no extreme unction, and were igno-rant of its supposed institution, use, and efficacy. The Syrianlaity practised no auricular confession. The Syro-Indianchurch used no holy oil, either in baptism or in any other cere-mony. Menez, the Popish metropolitan, ordered baptism to beadministered according to the Roman ritual; a certain tokenthat the chrism, exorcism, spittle, and other ridiculous super-stitions of Romanism in the administration of this sacramenthad been unknown in this ancient communion. Sacerdotalcelibacy was no institution of Syrian discipline. The clergymarried, and sometimes even widows.' Such is the Synod of

lisoit dans leurs eglises en langue Syriaque. Godeau, I, 270. Lea Chretiens de R.Thomas n'avoient point entendu parler du Purgatoire, nidu sacrifice oBert pouren retirer les Ames,avant Ie Synode de Diamper, en 1599. Moreri, 7. 397.Ill08 Purgatorium ignem non sgnoseere, Neque illoe orare pro mortuis ..Thomu. VII. 15. Renaudot, 2. 105. Syri Syriace sacra celebrant. Renaud.1. 347. Syriani omnea Latinos excommnnicstoe reputant. Canili1l8, 4. 433.

Page 74: The Variations of Popery

74 INTRODUCTION.

Diamper'a representation of the distinctions which discri-minated Syrianism from Popery.'Buchanan and Kerr visited this Christian community, and

have transmitted accounts of its people and profession. Theirknowledge of the 8y~ian clergy and laity was obtained by per-sonal acquaintance, and their delineations possess all the meritof pictures taken from life. Buchanan held long conversationswith the Syrian clergy, and found, after mature examination.the conformity of their faith with the reformed. He acknow-ledged the antiquity of Syrianism, and its identity, in all itstenets, with Protestantism. India, from sime immemorial, con-tained a church which was unknown to the rest 'of Christendom,but which held the same theology that had been professed inthe European nations by the Waldensians, and which, in thesixteenth century, was promulgated by Luther and Calvin, andis received, at the present day, by a great part of the Old andNew World.The European, Asiatic, and African denominations that dis-

sented from Popery were four times more numerous than thepartisans of Romanism, when, prior to the Reformation, thePapacy shone in all its glory. Popery, instead of universality,which is its vain but empty boast, was never embraced by morethan a fifth part of Christendom. The West and especially theEast were crowded by the opponents of the Bomish despotismand absurdity. Superstition and error, indeed, except among

1 Unam esse legem Sancti Thomse, aIiam vero Divi Petri, quee tamen consti·tuebant duas eeelesias distinetas, et aIteram ab altera independentem, nec pas-torem uniua debere pastori alterius obedire. Patriarcham Babylonicumsubjectum non esse Romano Pontifici. Potestatem a Christo Petro relictam inecclesiam nihil omnino differre ab ea quam sacerdotibua aliis contulit: quam-obrem Petri successores non excedere in jurisdictione episcopos alios. EcclesiamRomanam a fide excidisse; Romanorum hmreticam falsam, et armorum vi, necnonDecretis Imperatorum, quoad majorem Orbis partem introductam. COlIIIal't,6.29,36, 37, 39,40.Sacram Eucharistianl esse tantum imaginem Christi, et ab eo distingui non

secus ac imago ab homine vero ; nec in illa esse Christi corpus, quod solum inceelo existit. In Eucharistia tantummodo Christi virtutem, non autem verumcorpus et sanguinem continen. Cossart, 6. 39.40.Imagines venerandas non esse, utpote Idola turpia, et immunda. Imagines

ultetius idola esse impie docetur, nee venerandas in ecclesiis. Coesart, 6.40, 47.Matrimonium non esse sacramentum, sed nec _~. .Hactenus confir-

mationis usn notitiaque populus Christianus hujus DUeceseos caruerit. RemBUperflll&lll,nec aecesaarinm, hactenus ignotam, et Don visan1 dicerent. Hac-tenus in hoc episcopatu nnllns merit ~BUS ~en~ ~~ma: Unctio~.Nulla de _ ejusque effectu, et efficama, nec de Ip81US instltutlone, notitiahabita fuit. Pralceptum hujusmodi (confessionis) non fuit adhuc ita in uau, ~hoc epiBoopatu. Secri Olei U8l1S in SacramentiB hue usque in hac epilcopalisede, aut nullus fuit, aut Ecclesim Catholicm ritibUB minime colUMlntaDeus.Presbyteri matrimonia CODtnhebllDt. Neque ulla babebatur ratio, an virgoesset, an vidua, an prima uxor euet, anllllOUDda, an etiam Wrtia. ~ 6.36, 615172, 73, 83, 101. l1l1, 127.

Page 75: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION. 75

the Waldenses, prevailed through the European nations, andreigned in the realms of Papacy with uncontrolled sway.Darkness, within its dominions, covered the earth and grossdarkness the people. But the Waldenses, who were nume-rous, held up, in the Western world, a steady light which shonethrough the surrounding obscurity, and illuminated, with itswarming beams, the minds of many. The oriental Christians,more numerous than the Waldenses and divided and disputingabout minor matters of words and ceremony, opposed,withfirmness and unanimity, the tyranny and corruptions of Ro-manism. All these, overspreading the Eastern and Westernworld and resisting the usurpations of pontifical despotism,faroutnumbered the sons of European superstition and Popery.

Page 76: The Variations of Popery

THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

CHAPTER II.

POPES.

THE DIFFICULTY OF THE PONTIFICAL SUCCESSION-HISTORICAL VARIATIONS-ELECTORAL VARIATIONS-SCHISMS IN THE PAPACY-LIBERIUS AND FELIX-f:lILVERIUSAND VIRGILIUS-FORMOSUS, SERGIUS, AND STEPHEN-BENEDHJT, SIL-VESTER, JOHNAND GREGORY-GREAT WESTERN SCHISM-BAIlILIAN AND FLOREN-TINE SCHISM-DOCTRINAL VARIATIONS-VICTOR-STEPHEN-LIBERIUS, ZOZIMUS,AND HONORIUS-VIGILIUB-JOHN-MORAL VARIATIONS-STATE OF THE PAPACY-THEODORAANDMAROZIA-JORN-BONIFACE-GllEGORY-BONIFACE-JOHN-SIXTU8-ALEXANDER-JULIUS-LEo-PERJURED PONTIFFS.

THEpontifical succession is attended with more difficulty thanthe quadrature of the circle or the longitude at sea. The onepresents greater perplexity to the annalist and the divine, thanthe 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 mocksinvestigation, eludes research, and bids proud defiance to allinquiry.The difficulty on this topic arises from the variations of the

historians and electors, and from the faith and morality of theRoman pontiffs. Historians, for a century, differed in theirrecords of the papacy; and the electors, in thirty instances,disagreed in their choice of an ecclesiastical sovereign. Manyof the Popes embraced heresy and perpetrated immorality: andthese considerations render the problem of their legitimatesuccession 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, fromany good authority,show that the apostle was ever in the Roman capital, and stillless that he was ever a Roman hierarch. The evidence of hisvisit to that city is not historical but traditional, History, fora century aftierthe alleged event, presents on this topic an uni-versal blank, which is supplied from the very suspicious testi-mony of j,radition.

Page 77: The Variations of Popery

POPES. 77A single hint on this subject is not afforded by Peter himself,

nor by his inspired companions, Luke, James, Jude, Paul, andJohn. Pope Peter, in his epistolary productions, mentionsnothing .of his Roman residency, episcopacy, or supremacy.Paul wrote a letter to the Romans; and, from the Roman cityaddressed the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,Timothy, and Philemon. He sends salutations to various Ro-man friends, such as Priscilla, Aquila, Eprenetus, Mary, Andro-nicus, Junia, and Amplias: but forgets Simon the supposedRoman hierarch. Writing from Rome to the Colossians,hementions Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Marcus, Justus,Epaphras, Luke, and Demas, who had afforded him consolation;but, strange to tell, neglects the sovereign pontiff. AddressingTimothy from the Roman city, Paul of Tarsus remembersEubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia; but overlooks the Ro-man bishop. No man, except Luke, stood with Paul at hisfirst answer or at the nearer approach of dissolution.' His &pos-tolic holiness could not then have been in his own diocese, andshould 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 Evan~eliBts,andhis Revelation at the close of the first century, maintains, onthis agitated subject, a profound and provoking silence.The omission is continued by the apostolic men, Clemens,

Barnabas, Hennas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Not one of all thesedeigns to mention a matter of such stupendous importance toChristendom. Clemens, in particular, might have been ex-pected to record such an event. He was a Roman bishop, andinterested in a peculiar manner, in the dignity of the RomanSee. An apostolic predecessor, besides, would have reflectedhonor on his successor in the hierarchy. He mentions hispretended predecessor indeed; but omits any allusion to hisjourney to Rome, or his occupation of the pontifi..calthrone.The fiction of Peter's visit to the metropolis of the world

began to obtain credit about the end of the second century.Ireneeus, trusting to the prattlement of Papias or to commonreport, recorded the tradition; and was afterwards followed byTertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Athan-asius, Ephraim, Lactantius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Arnobius,Prudentius, Theodoret, Orosins, Prosper, Cyril, Eusebius.Optatus, Sosonren, and Augustine.' The tradition, however,seemed doubtful to Eusebius. He introduces it as somethingreported, but not certain. The relation, to the father of ecole-1Rom. XVI. Cololl. IV. 2 Tim. IV.t IreD. m 3. Maimb. 22. Bl'lly.1. 10. Spon. U.X. Bell. II. 3. .Eueb. n 25.

Page 78: The Variations of Popery

78 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

..

siastical history, was a mere hearsay. Bede, on this subject,uses a similar expression, which corroborates this interpretationof the Greek historian. Peter, according to the British annal-ist, having founded the Roman church, is SAID to have conse-crated his successor.'The evidence of the tale may be reduced to small compass.

Irenreus is the first author of any credibility who mentiomfthereport. The Apostle, according to Baronius, Binius, and Labbe,came to Rome in the reign of Claudius, in the year 45; andIreneeus, at the close of the second century, relates the sup-posed transaction." A hundred and fifty years, therefore,elapsed, from the occurrence of the alleged event till the timeof its record. The cotemporary and succeeding authors for acentury and a half, such as Luke, Paul, John, Clemens, Bar-nabas, Hennas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who detail Peter'sbiography, and who were interested in the supposed fact, saynothing of the tradition. The intervening historians betweenPeter and Irenreus are on this topic silent as the grave. Thebelief of such a story requires Popish prejudice and infatua-tion.Simon, however, even if he were at the Roman city, could

not have been the Roman bishop. The Episcopacy, in itsproper sense, is, as Chrysostom, Giannon, and Du Pin haveobserved, incompatible with the Apostleship. A bishop'sauthority, say Chrysostom and Giannon, • is limited to a cityor nation; but an apostle's commission extends to the wholeworld." The Apostles, says the Parisian Sorbonnist, ' peram-bulated the principal pa.re-, of the earth, and were confined tono place or city," This constituted one distinction between theapostolic and episcopal functions. The Apostles foundedand organized churches, and then consigned their superin-tendency to fixed and ordinary pastors. The one formed anarmy of conquest for the formation of ecclesiastical kingdoms,and the other an army of possession for the purpose of occu-pation and government. .This statement corresponds with the details of Irenseus,

Ruffinus, Eusebius, and the author of the Apostolic consti-tutions, who lived near the scene of action and the fountain oftradition. These represent Linus as the first Roman bishop,who, succeeded by, Anacletus and Clemens, exercised theRoman prelacy; while Peter and Paul executed the ChristianApostleship. - Peter and Paul, says Irenreus, having founded1 Fundata ROIJll8 eccleaia, IIllCCeI80rem COJllle(.'I'8IlIe perhibetur. Bed&, V. 4.2 Bin. 1. 24. Labb. 1. M. 3 IJluonI .'XOf' dnN. Chr1-tom, 11. 83.4 A~li pl'lecipuaa orbia~ pencranmt, nulli at urbi at 1000 addioti.

Du Pin, 15. Qui lei oblipit d'aner par tautll Ja terre _ 1ID8 noanlleloi. An. EccL 22. GiamIoD, I, I. -

Page 79: The Variations of Popery

POPES. 79the Roman church, committed its episcopacy to Linus, whowas succeeded by Anacletus and Clemens.' Linus, Cletus,and Clemens, says Ruffinus, in the Clementin Recognitionsedited by Cotelerius, 'were Roman bishops during Peter's life,that he might fulfil his apostolic commission." According toEusebius, 'Linus was the first Roman bishop, who was fol-lowed in succession by Anacletus and Clemens," The aposto-lic constitutions refer' the ordination of Linus, the first Roman.bishop. to Paul, and the ordination of Clemens, the second insuccession after the death of Linus, to Peter." Linus, there-fore, to the exclusion of Peter, was the first Roman bishop;and Clemens, Cletus, or Anacletus succeeded during the apos-tolic age as the ordinary overseers of the church; while Pauland Peter accomplished their extraordinary mission.The episcopacy of Linus, Anacletus, and Clemens was

incompatible with that of Simon in the same city. Had hebeen bishop, the consecration of another during his life wouldhave been a violation of the ecclesiastical canons of antiquity.The ancients, to a man, deprecated the idea of two prelatic. superintendents in one city. Gibert has collected seven canonsof this kind, issued by Clemens,Hilary, and Pascal, and by thecouncils of Nicea, Ohalons, and the Lateran. The LateranFathers, in the fourth canon, compared a city with twobishops to a monster with two heads. The Nicene and Lateransynods were general, and therefore, according to both theItalian and French schools, were vested with infallibility. Noinstance indeed can, in all antiquity, be produced, of twobishops ruling in conjunction in the same city,"The reasoning of the Roman advocates on this question is

remarkable only for its silliness. Bellarmine's arguments onthis topic are like to those of a person, who in the manner ofSwift, wished, in solemn irony, to ridicule the whole story.He is so weak, one can hardly think him serious. A suppo-sition which, if true, should be supported by evidence the mostindisputable, is as destitute of historical tesiimonyas the visionsof fancy, the tales of romance, or the nctions of fairy-land.A specimen of BelIarmine's reasoJring may amuse the reader.

Babylon, from which Peter wrote, was, Bellannine as well as1A~li Lino episcopatum administrandal eccIesial fa'adiderunt. lren. III. 3.2 Linus et Clems fuernnt quidem ante Clementem Episcopi in urbe Roma,

sed superstite Petro, ut illi episoopatwl C111'aD1 gere.nmt, ipse vero apostolatus~eret officium. Cotel. I. 492.

A&lvosBE 611'pWroslj", '"" fAn' _", ~".,.os. Euseb. III. 21. et v, 6.f Romanorum EcclesUe primus quidem Linus a Paulo; secundns autem a me

Petro post mortem Lini.o.rdinatus £nit Clemens. Con. Ap. VII. 56. Cote!. 1.387. Labb 1. 63.6 Ne in civitate duo Hint Episoopi Labb. 2.38. Duo, in una civitate uno

~ Dec ordineniur D8C toIereniur episcopi Labb. 7. 397. at 13. NG.GiblrU.7.

Page 80: The Variations of Popery

80 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Maimbourg gravely affirms, the Roman capital: and in sup-port of his opinion he cites Jerome and Bede, who seem, onthis subject, to have possessed about as much sense as Bellar-mine. Paul found Christians at Rome on his arrival at thatcity; and the learned Jesuit could not, for his life, discoverhow this could have been the case had Peter not been at thecapital of the world.' Peter's victory at Rome over Simon themagician, the Cardinal alleges, proves his point; and indeedthe Apostle's conflict with the magician and his Roman episco-pacy are attended with equal probability. Both rest on thesame authority of tradition. But the ridiculousness of the ma-gician's exploits, who rose in the air by the power of sorcery,and fell by the prayer of Peter, and broke his leg, overthrowsits probability. The airy and ridiculous fabrication of thenecromancer's achievements falls, like their fabled author, andburies in its ruins the silly fiction of the Apostle's Romanepiscopacy.But the whole accounts of this event are as discordant as

they are silly. The partisans of this opinion differ in the timeof the Apostolic pontiff's arrival and stay in the Roman capital,Jerome, Eusebius, Binius, Orosius, Labbeus, Spondanus,Onuphrius, Nauclerus, Petavius, Bede, Bruys, Baronius, andValesius send Peter to Rome in the reign of Claudius. These,however, disagree in the year; the second, third, fourth, thir-teenth, and fourteenth years of the Emperor's reign beingassigned by different authors, for the era of this important event.Simon, says Jerome, having preached to the Jews of Pontus,Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, proceeded to Rome inthe second year of Claudius, and held the sacerdotal chairtwenty-five years. Lactantius, Origen, Balusius, and Pagiusfix his arrival at the Roman metropolis to the reign of Nero.But these too differ as to the year. The length of Peter's epis-copacy is also disputed. Twenty-three, twenty-five, twenty-seven, and twenty-nine years have been reckoned by various-chronologers for its duration," This discordance of opinion isthe natural consequence of deficiency of evidence. Contempo-rary historians, indeed, say no more of the Apostle Peter's jour-ney toRome than of Baron Munehausen' s excursion to the moon.Many fictions of the same kind have been imposed on men,

and obtained a temporary belief. Geoffrey of Monmouth'sstory of the Trojan Brutus is well known. The English Ar-thur, and the French Roland were accounted real heroes, and

1 Quia hoa Ch.rittiaJI08 fecerit. IiPetrua DOn fuit BODIlIe ! :Bell. I. 561. :Maimb.20. Acta 28. 15. Peter 5. 13. Alex. 1. 511.2 Jerome. 4. 107. Eueb. II. 16. PeaT. t. lao. BecIa, 17. Bruy. 1. 7. Laotaa.

Co 2. Bin. 1. 24. Labb. 1. M. KaiDtb. 16.

Page 81: The Variations of Popery

POPES. 81presented a popular theme for the poet, the novelist, and thehist- -rian. The whole story of the Apostle's Roman episcopacyseems to have originated with the garrulous Papias, and tohave been founded on equal authority with these legends. ThePopedoms of Peter and Joan display wonderful similarity.Joan's accession remained unmentioned for two hundred yearsafter her death, when the fiction, says Florimond, was attestedby Mariana. The reign of the Popess was afterwards related bythirty Romish authors, and circulated through all Christendomwithout contradiction, for five hundred years, till the era of theReformation. The Popedoms of Peter and Joan, in the view ofevery unprejudiced mind, possess equal credibility.The earliest ecclesiastical historians, differing, in this man-

ner, on the subject of the first Pope, show the utmost discord-ance on the topic of his successors. Irenseus, Eusebius, Epi-phanius, Jerome, Theodoret; Optatus, Augustine, and the apos-tolic constitutions place Linus immediately after Peter. Ter-tullian, Jerome, and the Latins, in general, place Clemensimmediately after the Apostle. Jerome, however, in sheerinconsistency, gives this honor, in his catalogue of ecclesiastiealauthors, to Linus. Cossart could not determine whether Linus,Clemens or some other was the second Roman Pontiff. Healso admits the uncertainty of the Pontifical succession.Clemens, according to Tertullian, was ordained by Peter.' Linus,according to the apostolic constitutions, was ordained by Paul.Linus, however, at the present day, is, by Greeks and Latins,accounted the second Roman Pontiff.The succession of the Roman hierarchs, exclusive of Peter,

in the first century, according to Augustine, Optatus, Damasus,and the apostolic constitutions, was Linus, Clemens, and Ana-oletus ; but, according to Irenseus, Eusebius, Jerome, and Alex-ander, was Linus, Anacletus, and Clemens. The arrangementof Epiphanius, Nicephorus, Ruffinus, and Prosper, is, Linus,Cletus, and Clemens: whilst that of Anastasius, Platina, More,Binins, Crabbe, Lab~ and Cossart, is Linus, Cletus, Clemens,and Anacletus. Cletus, who is inserted by others,' is omittedby Augustine, Optatus, Damasus and the apostolic constitutions.Baronius, Bellarmine, Pagius, Godeau, and Petavius reckonOletus and Anacletus two different pontiffs. Cotelerius, Fleury,BailJet, and Alexander account these two names for the samepersan, Bruys and Cassart confess, tnat whether Cletus andAnacletus were identical or distinct, is doubtful or unknown,s1 Iren. III. 3. Euseb. III. 21. Epiphan. II. XXVII. Jerom,4. 107. 126.

~eod. in Tim. 4. Optatu8. U. A.ng Ep. 161: Con. Ap. Vll.46. Tertul. 213-; Alex. 1.545. Cote!. 1.387. Bin. 1. 30. N1OOp. II. Prosp. 1.410. Anastut.Ul Pet. Crabb. 1.30. Cosa. 1.6. Bell. II. 5. Godeau, 1. 389.

F

Page 82: The Variations of Popery

82 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

The variations of historians in this manner, have introducedconfusion into the annals of the Roman pontiffs. Petavius con-fesses their doubtfulness till the time of Victor, and Bruys, theimpossibility of discovering the fact. The most eagle-eyedwriters, says Cossart, cannot, amid the darkness of these ages,elicit a shadow of truth or certainty in the Papal succession.'This diversity appears, indeed, in the history of the Popedom,during the early, the middle, and the modern ages. The par-tisans of Romanism boast of an uninterrupted and unbrokensuccession in the sovereign Pontiffs and in the Holy See. Butthis is all empty bravado. The fond conceit shuns the light;and vanishes, on examination, like the dream of the morning.Each historian, ancient and modern, has his own catalogue ofPopes, and scarcely two agree. The rolls of the Pontiffs,supplied by the annalists of the papacy, are more numerousthan all the denominations which have affected the appellationof Protestantism. Such are a few of the historical variationson this topic, and the consequent disorder and uncertainty.Electoral variations have produced similar difficulty. The

electors, differing in their objects as the historians in their de-tails, have caused many schisma in the papacy. These, Baro-nius reckons at twenty-six. Onuphrius mentions thirty, whichis the common estimation. A detailed account of all thesewould be tedious. Some are more and some less important,and, therefore, in proportion to their moment, claim a mereallusion or a circumstantial history. The following observa-tions will refer to the second, seventh, thirteenth, nineteenth,twenty-ninth, and thirtieth schisms. ,The second schism in the papacy began in the ecclesiastical

reigns of Liberius and Felix, and lasted about three years.Liberius, who was lawful bishop, and who, for a time, opposedArianism, was banished in 355 to Berea, by the Emperor Con-stantius. Felix, in the meantime, was, by the Arian faction,elected in the room of Liberius, and ordained by Epictetus,Basil, and Acasius. Liberius, afterwards, weary of exile,signed the Arian creed, and was recalled from banishmentand restored to the Popedom, His return was followed bysanguinary battles between the two contending factions. The.clergy were murdered in the very churches. Felix, however,witli his party, was at length overthrown, and forced to yield.

1 Fluxa et dubia, q1Ull de summil pontificibull ad Victorem usque traduntur.Pctav. 2. 130. neat impoIBible de d6couvrir 1& v6riU\. Bruy. 1. flT. Nee intauta AlCUlonam caHgiM, ooulatoiMimi qllique IOriptonII quidqlUlm indioarepotuerin~ ex quo veritatoiI unbn. ... tem Aliclua ~ Nee certi quiclquamRatai ~ ubi.... de iJlormD ordiDe et noOeIIione. eo...n. 1.1.

Page 83: The Variations of Popery

SCHISMS IN THE PAPACY. 83

He retired to his estate on the road to Ponto, where, at the endof seven years, he died.'The several claims of these two Arians to the papacy have

caused great diversity of opinion between the ancients and themoderns. Liberius, though guilty of Arianism, was supportedby legitimacy of election and ordination. Felix, on the con.trary, was obtruded in an irregular manner by the Arian party.Godeau represents his ordination as surpassing all belief, andcompares the ceremony on the occasion to the 'abomination ofAntichrist.'2 Felix had sworn to resist the intrusion of anotherbishop during the life of Liberius. His holiness, therefore, inaccepting the Popedom, was guilty of perjury. His Infalli-bility, according to Socrates and Jerome, was an Arian; and,according to Theodoret, Ruffinus, Baronius, Spondanus, Go-deau, Alexander, and Moreri, communicated with the Ariana,and condemned Athanasius. All the ancients, among whomare Jerome, Optatus, Augustine, Athanasius, and Prosper, fol-lowed, in modern days, by Panvinius, Bona, Moreri, Lupus,and Fleury, reject his claim to the Papacy. Athanasius callshis holiness' a monster, raised to the Roman hierarchy, by themalice of Antichrist,"These two Arians, nevertheless, are, at the present day, Ro-

man saints. Their names are on the roll of canonization; andthe legality and validity of their Popedom are maintained bythe papal community. The Arian Liberius is the object ofRomish worship. The devout papist, according to the Romanmissal and breviary, on this saint's festival, addresses his ArianInfallibility as ' the light of the holy church, and the lover ofthe Divine law, whom God loved and clothed with the robe ofglory,' while supplication is made for' pardon of' all sin, throughhis merits and intercession." Similar blasphemy and idolatryare addressed to Felix, who, in the days of antiquity, was ac-counted an Arian, a perjurer, an antichristian monster andabomination, shunned by all the Roman people like contagionbut who is now reckoned a saint and a martyr. .His saintship, however, had: nearly lost his seat in heaven in

15S2, when the KEYS, for the purpose of reforming the RomanCalendar, 'were transferred from Peter to Baronius. Doubtswere entertained of the perjured Arian's title to heaven. Gre-gory the Thirteenth, however, judging it uncourteous to

1Socrat. IV. 5. Jerome. 4. 124. Platina. 44.2 Une image de l'abomination de I'AntichriBt. Godeau. 2. 266.aAthan. ad SoL Labb. 2. 991. Spon. 357. XVII. et 365. X. Socrat. n, 37.

Ru1Iin. 1. Theod. II. 17. Bruy. 1. 123. Alex. 7. 20. Moren. 4.42-, Eju intercedentibus meritia ab ollUloibuanos absolve peccatia, IIias. Rom

P. XIV. Brev. Bom. P. XXXV, .

Page 84: The Variations of Popery

84 THE VA.RIA.TIONSOF POPERY.

uncanonize his holiness, and turn him out of heaven without afair trial, appointed Baronius as counsel for the prosecution,and Santorio for the defence. Santorio, unable to answer thearguments of Baronius, prayed to his client the departed Pon-tiff for assistance. The timely interposition of a miracle,accordingly, came to the aid of' his feeble advocacy. Felixwasjustgoing to descend, like a falling star, from heaven, whena marble coffin was discovered in the Basilic of Cosmas andDamian, with this inscription: ' The body of Saint Felix, whocondemned Constantius.' This phenomenon, which Morericalls a fable, and Bruys a cheat, silenced, as might be ex-pected, all opposition. TE DEuM was tlung for the triumph oftruth ; and the perjured Arian Vicar-General of' God wasdeclared worthy the honors of martyrdom-eanonization andworship.iThe seventh schism distinguished the spiritual reigns of Sil-

verius and Vigilius, Silverius, in 536, was elected by simony.He bribed 'I'heodatus, who, says Anastasius, threatened to putall who should oppose him to the sword." His election, Godeauadmits, was owing to the power of the Cathic king, rather thanto the authority of the Roman clergy. His ordination, in con-sequence, was the effect of fear and violence,"The election and ordination of Silverius, therefore, according

to a Bull of Julius and a canon of the Lateran Council, wasillegal and invalid. Julius the Second pronounced the nullityof an election effected by simony, and declared the candidatean apostate, a thief, a robber, a heresiarch, a magician, a pagan,and a publican. The elected, in this case, might be prosecutedfor heresy, and deposed by the secular arm; while the electorswere to be deprived of their possessions and dignity. TheLateran Council, in which Nicholas the Second presided, de-creed the invalidity of an election obtained by simony, thefavor of the powerful, or the cabals of the people or soldiery.Possession of the Papacy, procured in this way, exposed theintruder, as a felon, to deposition by the clergy and laity!These regulations abrogated the claims of Silverius to thePontifical throne.Silverius, who obtained the Popedom by simony, was, in a

short time, supplanted by Vigilius, who also gained the samedignity by similar means. His stratagems were aided by themachinations of Theodora and Belisarius. Theodora. the Em-press was friendly to Monophysiiism, and hostile to the council1Spon. 367. XVIII. Labh. 2.993. t GJadio pUDiretur. AnutMiua, 21.a OrdiDato Silverio auh vi et mew. ADaatuiul, 21,

• 4 b non AJIOItoliona, lied A~ liceatque cardinalibul, nlericil, laioiliD1mt 'At pnedoDem 1IJMbem......... CanuuIa., &1. Platina, I~.

Page 85: The Variations of Popery

SCHISMS IN THE PAPACY. 85of Chalcedon. Her aim was the degradation of Mennas, theByzantine patriarch, who adhered to the Ohalcedonian faith;and the restoration of Anthimus, 'I'heodosius, and Severns,who had been deposed for their attachment to the Monophysiteheresy. Theodora. applied to Silverius for the execution of herdesign, and was refused. She then turned her attention toVigilius, and offered him seven hundred pieces of gold and thePapacy, to effect her intention. The offer was accepted. TheEmpress then suborned Belisarius, at Rome, to expel therefractory Silveri us, and raise the complying Vigilius to thePapal chair. The General, influenced by the Empress andaided by his wife Antonia, obeyed. He scrupled, indeed, atfirst; but on reflection, like a prudent casuist, complied. Twohundred pieces of gold, which he received from Vigilius, had,in all probability, a happy effect in reconciling his conscience,such as it was, to his work. False Witnesses were subornedagainst Silverius, These accused the Pontiff of a design tobetray the city to the Goths. He was banished, in consequence,to Palmaris, where, according to Liberatus, he died of hunger,but, accordin~ to Procopius, by assassination. The degrada-tion of Silverius was followed by the promotion of VigiliUlJ,who assumed the Pontifical authority. The enactments ofJulius and the Lateran Oouncil condemn VigiliuB as well asSilverius,'The election and ordination of Vigilius were invalid, prior

to the death of Silverius. Two Pontiffs, according to thecanons, could not, at the same time, occupy the Papal chair.Ordination into a full See, besides, was condemned by theNicean Oouncil. Baronius, Binius, and Maimbourg, indeed,pretend that Vigilius, on the dissolution of his competitor, re-si~ed, and was again elected.' Nothing of the kind, how-ever, i~mentioned by any cotemporary historian. No monu-ment of his abdication, says Alexander, is extant! Theannalist and the collector of councils, therefore, must have gotthe news by inspiration. Proeopius, on the contrary, dates theeleetion of Vigilius immediately after the banishment of Sil-verius, and Liberatus, on the next day. Du Pin and Pagius,accordingly, with their usual candor, reject the tale of re-election, and found the title of Vigilius on his general receptionin Christendom!The simony of the two ri~als betrays the canonical illegiti-

macy of their election. The occupation of the Episcopal chair1Godeau. 4. 204. Bin. 4. 141. Bruy. 1. 315. Platina, 68. Procop. 1. 26-t Baron. 540. IV. Bin. 4. 142. Maimb. 66.S Quod IiVigiliU8 abdicavit, ex nullo monumento habetur. Alex. 12. 82-• ProcopiUI, 281. Libera. c. 22. Du Pin, 1. 452 Bruy. 1.330.

Page 86: The Variations of Popery

86 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

by h is predecessor, besides, destroyed the title of Vigilius.His moral character, also, if villany could affect his claims,placed another obstacle in his way. "His history forms an un-interrupted tissue of enormity and abomination. He wasguilty of murder, covetousness, perfidy, prostitution of religionfor selfish ends, and mockery of both God and man. He killedhis secretary with the blow of a club. He whipped his nephewto death, and was accessory to the assassination of Silverius.His conduct with Theodora, Belisarius, J ustinian, and thefifth general council, showed him to be a miser and a traitor,regardless of religion and honor, of God and man.'The thirteenth schism disgraced the Papacy of Formosus

and Sergius. Formosus, in S93, gained the Pontifical throneby bribery. His infallibility, therefore, by the Bulls of Nicho-las and Julius, forfeited allclaim to the ecclesiastical supremacy.He was Bishop of Porto, and therefore was incapacitated,according to the canons, to become Bishop of Rome. He hadsworn to John the Eighth, by whom he had been excommuni-cated and banished, never to revisit the Roman metropolis.His holiness, therefore, was guilty of perjury. The hierarch,contrary to another canon, had recourse, in his extremity, whenthe Sergian party opposed his election, to the aid of Arnolf,the Gothic king. His Majesty's authority, however, thoughuncanonical, was successful Sergius, his rival, whose claimswere supported by a Roman faction, was expelled by royalpower; and Formosus retained possession of the Papal sove-reignty till the day of his death,"Hut an extraordinary scene was exhibited by his successor.

Stephen, who succeeded in 896, raged with unexampled furyagainst the memory and remains of Formosus, Solon, a hea-then legislator, enacted a law to forbid the Athenians to speakevil of the dead. But the vicar-general of God outraged, inthis respect, the laws of earth and heaven. Stephen unearthedthe mouldering body of Formosus, which, robed in Pontificalornaments, he placed before a Roman Council that he hadassembled. He then asked the lifeless pontiff, why, beinglBishop of Porto, he had, contrary to the canons, usurped theRoman See. The body probably made no unnecessary reply.The pontiff then stripped the bloated corpse, and amputatedits head and fingers. The disinterred and mutilated carcass,despoiled of its dress and mangled in a shocking manner, hethrew without any funeral honors or solemnity into the Tiber.He rescinded his acts, and declared his ordinations irregular

1Platina, 68.2 Alex. 16. 82. Bruya, 2. 186. &ron. 897. 1.

Page 87: The Variations of Popery

SCHISMS IN THE PAPACY. 87

and invalid.' Such was the atrocity perpetrated by theviceroy of heaven, and approved and sanctioned by a holyRoman Council.Stephen's sentence, however, was afterwards repealed by his

successors. John the Tenth, on his accession, assembled a synodof seventy-four bishops at Ravenna, condemned the acts 'ofStephen, and re-established the ordinations of Formosus. ButJohn's decisions again were destined to proclaim the variationsof Popery, and display the mutability of earthly things. Sergiusthe Third, on his promotion to the Roman Hierarchy, called acouncil, rescinded the acts of John, and once more, annulledthe ordinations of Formosus.sVengeance soon overtook Stephen, the violator of the sepul-

chre and the dead. His miscreancy met with condign punish-ment. The Romans, unable to bear his ruffianism, expelledhis holiness from the hierarchy. He was then immured in adungeon, loaded with chains, and finally strangled. He entered,says Baronius, like a thief, and died as he deserved by the rope.'This father and teacher of all Christians, was,' says Bruys,, as ignorant as he was wicked.' This head of the Church andvicar-general of God was unacquainted with the first elementsof learning,"Omitting the intermediate distractions in the Papacy, the

nineteenth schism deformed the ecclesiastical reigns of Bene-dict, Silvester, and John. Benedict was son to Alberic, Countof Tuscany; and, in 1083, was raised to the pontifical thronein the tenth or, some say, in the twelfth year of his age. Hispromotion was the effect of simony, and his life was a scene ofpollution. His days were spent in debauchery. He dealt, saysBenno, in sorcery, and sacrificed to Demons,'Such was the miscreant, who, for ten years, was, according

to the popish system, the head of the Church, the judge of con-troversy, and, in deciding on questions of faith, the organ ofinspiration. A Roman faction, however, in 1044, headed by theConsul Ptolemy, expelled Benedict and substituted Silvester.But Silvester's reign lasted only a short time. The Tuscanfaction, in three months, expelled Silvester and restored Bene-dict. Benedict again soon resigned injavour of John. He wasinduced to retire, to avoid the public odium caused by his mis-1 Luitb. 1. 8. Spon. 897. II Bruy. 2. 193. Platina, 126. Petav, 1. 4fYl.

Bin. 7.162.Stephan us, Formosum post obitum mense effosum, et in sella positum, crimi-

natum, et quasi convictum, degradsvit, et per crura de ecclesia pertractum inTiberim projici prrecepit. Hermann, Anno 896. Canisius, 2. 256.2 Platina. 117. 128. Luitprand. I. 7.3 Spon. 900. II. Baron. 900. V. Bruys.2. 194.• Spon. 1033. II. Du Pin. 2. 206. Bruy. 406 Bin. 7. 222.

Page 88: The Variations of Popery

88 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

creaney, and to enjoy a freer indulgence in licentiousness andsensuality. Led by this view, the vicar-general of God soldthe pA.pacyfor 1500 pounds to John.1 Benedict then departedwith the price of the papal chair, to private life, to continue hiedebauchery. Silvester, in the mean time, resolved to re-asserthis right to the pontifical throne, and took possession of theVatican. Benedict, weary of privacy, renewed his claim, andseized by dint of arms, on the Lateran. These three ruffians,therefore, Silvester, John and Benedict, on this unexampledoccasion, occupied Saint Mary's, the Vatican, and the Lateran j

and fixed their head quarters in the principal Basilics of theRoman capital. 'A Three-headed BEAST, says Binius andLabbe, , rising from the gates of hell, infested in a woful man-ner the holy chair.'! A three-headed monster, therefore,emerging from the portals of the infernal pit, constituted a link:in the sacred unbroken chain of the pontifical succession.The conduct of Benedict, Silvester and John exhibited, on

the occasion, an extraordinary spectacle. Their mutual agree-ment and concessionswere not the least striking traits in thepicture. These wretches resolved not to interrupt their plea-sures by unnecessary contention. No attempt was made atreciprocal expulsion. These earthly Gods forbore to waste theprecious hours of sensuality in vain jangling, and in the utmostharmony, divided the ecclesiastical revenues, which they spentin revelry and intoxication.Gratian, in the mean time, a man of rank and authority,

added another feature to the ridiculousness of the spectacle.His design was to deliver the Church from this three-headedmonster. The end might be praiseworthy; but the means WMsomething like that attempted by Simon the magician. Theargument which he used on the occasion was in the form ofmoney," He purchased the papacy, with 811 the appurtenancesthereunto belonging, be the same more or less,from the proprie-tors, Benedict, Silvester, and John. Benedict, probably onaccount of his greater interest in the property, received thegreatest compensation. He stipulated for the ecclesiasticalrevenues of England, to expend in every enormity. Gratian'smoney, which, according to Platina, was in these times a ready

1 Vendidit Papatum complici BUO, acceptis, ab eo, libris mille quingentis ..Benno, in Hildeb. Moyennant nne somme de quinze livrea de deniers, it cedaIe Pontificat a Jean. Bl1lY, 2. 331. Spou. I~ I. II. Le lliege de Romedevenu la proie de l'avarice et de l'ambition, etoit donne au plus otfrant. Gian·non. VII. 5 . .An. Eccl345.2 Triceps .Beetia,ab inferontlD portis emergeu, ADctiaaimam Petri cathedra.

millerrime infelltam., BiD. 7, 221. Labb. n, 1280.2 Eis a sede uncta oedere,pecunia pIlnuasit. 8poD. 10'8. I. Platina. 142

Bruy. 2. 332. Bin. 7. 127. Labb. 11. 1303.

Page 89: The Variations of Popery

GREAT WESTll:RN SCHISM. 89

passport to the papacy, delivered the Holy See from theusurpers. Gratian himself succeeded, under the appellationof Gregory the Sixth. The patrons of Romanism may deter-mine which of those three ruffians, Benedict, Silvester, or John,preserved the pontifical succession and was on earth the vice-roy of heaven.The great western schism, which constituted the twenty-

ninth division in the popedom, troubled the ecclesiasticalreignsof Urban, Boniface, Innocent, Gregory, Clement, and Benedict.This contest began in 1378, and distracted Christendom forhalf a century with atrocity and revolution.' The papal court,having continued at Avignon for seventy years, was restoredto Rome by Gregory the Eleventh. The conclave proceedingat his death, in 1378, to a new election, a mob of thirty thou-sand, fearing, should a Frenchman be chosen, that he wouldremove to Avignon, threatened the cardinals with death, if theydid not select an Italian. The sixteen electors, twelve Frenchand four Italian, intimidated by such a formidable sedition,returned Urban the Sixth, a Neapolitan, or, some say, a Pisan.But -retiring to Fundi as a place of safety, the sacred collegeappointed Clement the Seventh to the popedom.' Clement, atAvignon, was succeeded by Benedict : and Urban, at Rome,by Boniface, Innocent, and Gregory. .Urban and Clement divided Christendom. The Church

could not determine which of the two was its head, the vicar-general of God, and the plenipotentiary of heaven. The rivalpontiffs therefore received, in nearly equal proportions, theobedience of the European kingdoms. Scotland, France, Spain,~n, Castile, Lorraine, Naples, Navarre, Sicily, Cyprus andSavoy acknowledged Clement; while Urban was recognisedby Italy, Portugal, Germany, England, Belgium, Hungary,Bohemia, Poland, Russia, Denmark, Sweden and Norway.A few states remained neutral; and some, for a time, obeyedhis Roman holiness, and afterwards, according to the dictationof policy, conscience, whim, or passion, shifted to his Frenchinfallibility.s Hainaultasserted its neutrality. Arragon at firsthesitated, but soon recognised Urban; and afterwards, whenthe pontiff disputed the sovereign's pretensions to Sicily, affectedneutrality, and finally declared without any ceremony in favorof Clement. Spain and Naples, at'the commencement of theschism, supported the Italian hierarch; but afterward, in thefluctuation of caprice or folly, veered round to the .French1Ce schisme dura plus de 50ans. Morery. 3. 454.2 Platina, 233. Alex. 24. 439. Daniel, 5 244. Giannon, XXIII. 4.S Nounullis interdum variantibul, et neutralitatem amplexantibll8. Alex. 20.

1M.

Page 90: The Variations of Popery

90 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

pontiff. Joanna, the Neapolitan queen, received Clement withparticular honors, His holiness, on the occasion, had hissacred foot well kissed. The queen began the AUGUST CERE-MONY : and her majesty's holy example was followedwith greatelegance and edification by the Neapolitan barons, knights,ladies, and gentlemen, such as Margaret, Agnes, Otho, Robertus,and Durazzo. Urban, in return, as a token of his pontificalfriendship, deposed Joanna from her royalty, despoiled her ofher kingdom, and recommended her soul to the devil.' Twopowerful and contending factions, in this manner, divided thepapacy, and distracted the Latin communion.The schism spread dissension, animosity, demoralization,

and war through the European nations; and especially throughItaly, France, Spain and Germany. Kings and clergy formedecclesiastical factions, according to the dictates of faith or fancy.The pontiffs pursued their several interests, often without policyand always without principle. The pontifical conscienceeva-porated in ambition and malignity. The kings, in general,dictated the belief of the priesthood and laity, who followedthe faith or faction, the principles or party of their sovereign.Christendom, in consequence,was demoralized. Paper and ink,says Niem, would fail to recount the cabals and iniquity of therival pontiffs,who were hardened in obduracy, and full of themachinations of Satan. High and low, prince and people,abjured all shame and fear of God. The belligerents, who wagedthe war, carried it on by unchristian machinations, which dis-graced reason and man. The arms used on the occasionwereexcommunication, anathemas,' deposition, perjury, prevarication,duplicity, proscription, saints, miracles, revelations, .dreams,visions, the rack, the stiletto, and the dagger.2Urban and his electors had the honor of opening the cam-

paign. These commenced hostilities with a free use of theirspiritual artillery. The cardinals declared the nullity of Urban'sappointment, and enjoined his speedy abdication. But his in-fallibility had no relish for either the declaration or the injunc-tion; and resolved to retain his dignity. The sacred college,in their extremity, had recourse to excommunication. Theecclesiastical artillery was well served on the occasion, andlaunched their anathemas with singular precision ; but, never-theless, without effect. His holiness, in addition to these exe-crations, was, by his own electors, found guilty of apostacy,usurpation, intrusion, dissemination of heresy and enmity toreligion and truth,"

1 Labb. 15. 940. Bmy. 3, 535. 639. 667. Du Pin.2. 1lO9. Con. 3. 632. 638.2 Bruy.3. 651. Dame!, 6. 238. I BruT. 3. 629. Daniel,5. 207.308.

Page 91: The Variations of Popery

GREAT WESTERN SCHISM. 91His infallibility soon returned these compliments. The

plenipotentiary of heaven was gifted with a signal facility inhurling excommunications, and fulminated his anathemas withsingular practical skill. He was enabled, in consequence,torepay the conclave's congratulation with due interest. Heanathematized his electors,whom he called sons of perditionand heresy, a nursery of scandal and treachery, who wereguilty of apostacy, conspiracy, treason, blasphemy, rapine,sacrilege, contumacy, pride and calumny. Their cold remainsafter death, his infallibility by a judicial sentence, deprived ofChristian burial. The persons who should consign their life-less bodies to the grave with funereal honors, he also excom-municated,tiU with the hands which administered the sepulchralsolemnity they should unearth the mouldering flesh, and casteach accursed and putrifying carcass from the consecrated soilof the hallowed tomb.'Seven of his cardinals, whom he suspected of a conspiracy

against his life, he punished with a more cruel sentence. Theaccused were men of merit and of a literary character; whilstthe accusation was unsupported by any evidence. But hisholiness, outraging reason and common sense, pretended to aspecial revelation of their guilt. He also, in defiance of mercyand justice, put the alleged conspirators to the rack to extort aconfession. The tortures which they endured were beyonddescription; but no guilt was acknowledged. The unfeelingpontiff, in hardened insensibility, amidst the groans of theagonizing sufferers, counted his beads in cold blood, and en-couraged the executioners in the work of torment, Hisnephew, unreproved, laughed aloud at sight of the horridspectacle. These unhappy men afterwards suffered death.The pontiff slew Aquille, in his flight from Nocera and theNeapolitan army, and left the unburied body for the flesh tomoulder without a grave, and the bones to whiten in the sun.Five of the cardinals, according to common report, he thrustinto sacks, and threw into the sea. Two, says Callenicio,werebeheaded with an axe. The headless bodies were fried in anoven, and then reduced to powder. This, kept in bags, wascarried before Urban to terrify others from a similar con-spiracy.'The holy pontiffs next encountered each other in the war of

excommunication. Urban and Clement, says Alexander,hurled mutual execrations and anathemas.' 3 These vicegerents1Labb. 15. 942, 94-1,. Giannon, XXIII. 4.'Labb. 15. 941. Bruy. 3. 547. Giannon, XXIV. 1.8Mutuaa diraa, execrationea, et anathemetum fulmina, an Urbano et Cle-

mente, vibrata. Alex. 20. 2M. Bruy. 3. 515.

Page 92: The Variations of Popery

92 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

of God cursed one another indeed with sincere devotion. Hisholiness at Rome hailed his holiness at Avignon with direfulimprecations: and the Christian and polite salutation wasreturned with equal piety and fervor. The thunder of ana-themns, almost without interruption, continued, in redoubledvolleys and reciprocal peals, to roar between the Tiber and theRhone. The rival vice-gods, in the language of Pope Paul,unsatisfied with mutual excommunications, proceeded withdistinguished ability to draw full-length portraits of each other.Each denominated his fellow a son of Belial; and described,with graphic skill, his antichristianity, schism, heresy, thievery,despotism and treachery. These heads of the church mighthave spared their execrations, but they certainly did themselvesjustice in the representations of their moral characters. Thedelineations, sketched by the pencil of truth, possess all themerit of pictures taken from life.Urban having, in this manner, excommunicated his com-

petitor, proceeded to the excommunication of several kingswho withstood his authority. He anathematized Clement and~11his adherents, which included the sovereigns of the oppo-sition. He bestowed a particular share of his maledictions onJohn, Lewis, Joanna and Charles of Castile, Anjou and Naples.He declared John a son of iniquity, and guilty of apostacy,treason, conspiracy, schism and heresy. He then pronouncedhis deposition and deprivation of his dignit1. and .kingdom, ab-solved his vassals from their oath of fidelity, and forbade all,on pain of personal excommunication and national interdict,to admit the degraded Prince into any city or country. Hepronounced a similar sentence against Lewis, on whom Clementhad bestowed the crown of Naples, He declared this sove-reign accursed, guilty of schism and heresy, and published acrusade, granting plenary indulgence to all who would armagainst his majesty.'Joanna, Queen of Naples, received a full proportion of the

hierarch's maledictions. His holiness declared her Majesty.accursed and deposed, guilty of treason and heresy, and pro-hibited all obedience of this Princess, under the penalty of ex-eommunication of person and interdict of the community. Henext freed her vassals from their fealty, transferred her king-dom to Charles, and her soul to Satan.Charles, on whom Urban had bestowed the kingdom of

Naples, soon met a similar destiny. This Prince had been thePontiffs chief patron and friend. The king's friendship, how-ever, the hierarch, in a short time, requited with anathemas

1Bray. 3. 539, 150'1. GianDoD, urn. 6. et XXIV. 1.

Page 93: The Variations of Popery

GREAT WESTERN SCHISM. 98and degradation. The attachment, indeed, between Charlesand Urban was the mercenary combination of two ruffians formutual self-interest, against the unoffending Neapolitan Queenwhom the miscreants betrayed and murdered. But a quarrelbetween the two assassins, as might be expected, soon ensued.The Pontiff, then, in requital of former kindness, erected a cross,lighted tapers, interdicted the kingdom, cursed the king, andconsigned his Majesty, soul and body, to the devil. Thiseffusionof pontifical gratitude was followed with dreadful re-prisals. Charles tormented the clergy who acknowledgedUrban as pope, and offered ten thousand florins of gold for hishead, dead or alive. He led an army against Urban, and be-sieged him, amid the inroads of famine and fear, in the castleof Nocera. Four times a day the terrified Pope from hiswindow, cursed the hostile army with 'bell, book, and candle-light: He bestowed absolution on all who should maim an:rof the enemy; and on all who would come to his aid, he con-ferred the crusading indulgence granted to those who marchedto the Holy Land. Urban, in a wonderful manner, escaped,and Charles was afterwards assassinated in Hungary. The.holy Pontiff rejoiced in the violent death of the Neapolitan king.The blood-stained instrument of murder, which was presentedto his infallibility, red with the enemy's gore, excited in thevicar-general of God a fiendish smile.'These are a few specimens of Urban's ability in the Pontifi-

cal accomplishment of cursing. Urban, in this art, which is amatter of great importance in a good Pope, seems to have ex-celled Clement. Both, indeed, showed splendid talents in thisedifying department, which is an essential qualification in aplenipotentiary of heaven. But Urban, in this part of'a Pope'sduty, eclipsed his rival and carried this practical science toperfection.These mutual maledictions, with which the competitors

attempted to maintain their several pretensions, were support-ed in the rear by another species of ecclesiastical artillery;such as miracles, visions, dreams, and revelations. Each factionwas supplied with these in copious profusion. Peter andCatharine appeared for Urban. Peter was a Franciscan andfamed for sanctity, miracles, and celestial visions; Catharineof Sienna, a Dominican virgin, who has been raised to thehonors of saintship, appeared for his Roman infallibility. Shesupported her patron with all the influence of her sanctity, andwrote a bad letter to the French king ill his favor. Vincentand Peter declared for Clement. Vincent, a Dominican, besides

1Bl'Ily. 3. 550.563.

Page 94: The Variations of Popery

94 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

heavenly visions, and miraculous powers, had, according to ac-counts, proselyted multitudes of the Jews and Waldenses.But Vincent, in the end, deserted his French holiness, andcalled him, in saintly language, a schismatic and a heretic.Peter, the cardinal of Luxembourg, who adhered to Clement,was in equal odor of sanctity and superior to all in the manu-facturing of miracles. Forty-two dead men, at one cast, revivedat his tomb. Many others, of each sex and of the same sancti-fied class, supported each party. 'Many holy men and women,'said Urban's advocate in the council of Modena in 1380,' hadrevelations for his Roman holiness.' His French infallibility'sparty was also prolific in prophets, prophetesses, and wonders.All these, in favor of their several patrons, saw visions, utteredrevelations, wrought miracles, and dreamed dreams,'The evils which the schism had long inflicted on Christendom,

at length induced men to think of some remedy. The distrac-tions extended through all ahe European nations, and were at-tended with dreadful effects. The charities of life, in the un-social divisions, were discarded, and men's minds wound upto fury and madness. Society seemed to be unhinged. War,excited by the rival pontiffs and their several partisans, desola-ted the kingdoms of the Latin communion, and especiallyFrance and Italy. Treachery, cabal, massacre, assassination,robbery and piracy reigned through the nations. These evils,in loud appeal, called for the extinction of the schism in whichthese disorders had originated.The end indeed was the wish of all. The European king-

doms were unanimous for the termination of division and thereturn of tranquillity. The means for effecting the end werethe only subject of disputation. The difficulty consisted in thediscovery of a remedy. Three ways were proposed for the ex-tinction of the schism. These were cession, arbitration, and ageneral council. Cession consisted in the voluntary resigna-tion of the rivals for the election of another, who should be ac-knowledged by all Christendom. Arbitration consisted in as-certaining by competent judges, which of the two competitorswas the true vicar-general of God. A general council would,by a judicial sentence, depose both, and elect a third whoseclaim would obtain universal recognition. The difficulty ofassembling a general council, and the utter impossibility of de-ciding by arbitration on the claims of the reigning Pontiffs,militated, in the general opinion, against each of these means.Cession tberefore was at first the commonly adopted remedy.

1AIeL 20. 256. et 2f. 476, 479. M-. a. 236. Bray •• a, 181. Daniel, 6. 237eo.an, a. 632. ADdi1l. 861,

Page 95: The Variations of Popery

GREAT WESTERN SCHISM.

Resignation and degradation were the only plans, which, infact, were attempted. These means, which alone were attendedwith moral possibility, were adopted by the French church andthe Pisan and Constantian councils.The French favored the method of cession. This plan was

suggested by the Parisian university, which, in that age, hadobtained a high character for learning and catholicism. Thisfaculty proposed the renunciation of the French and Romanhierarchs ; and, in this proposal, confessed the difficulty of dis-crimination. The Sorbonne, supported by the Gallican Churchunable to decide between Benedict and Gregory, required bothto resign. The design, after some discussion, was seconded bythe king, the nobility, the clergy, and the people. The methodof abdication was also approved and supported by the Dukesof Berry, Orleans, and Burgnndy, who governed the nationduring the indisposition of the king. A. majority of the Euro-pean kingdoms concurred with the French nation. A. few,indeed, such as Portugal and t~e northern nations, refused theirco-operation. But the abdication of the contending pontiffsWas recommended by England, Bohemia, Hungary, Navarre,Arragon, Castile, and Sicily.1This attempt, however, was defeated by the selfish obstinacy

of the two competitors. These, to frustrate the scheme, used allkinds of chicanery, practised perjury, and issued anathemas andexecrations. Speech, said a French wit, was given, not to dis-cover, but to conceal our sentiments. This observation wasexemplified in Innocent, Gregory and Benedict. These viceroysof heaven had sworn to relinquish their several claims, for thegood of the church and the tranquillization of Christendom.But the pontificial perjurers violated their oaths to retain theirpower, and wounded conscience, if they had any, to gratifyambition.' The church, therefore, had, for several years, twojar-ring heads, and God two perjured vicars-g¢neral.. A.ll descriptionof falsehold these Impostors added to perjury. Their ambitionand selfishness caused their perpetration of any enormity, andtheir submission to any baseness, which might enable them, fora few months, to hold their precarious authority.The subtraction of obedience from Benedict by the French

was the consequence of his shuilling and obstinacy. This mea-sure, which, like that of cession, was su~ted by the Parisianuniversity, consisted in the rejection of hlS infallibility's sutbo-rity. The King, at the instance of the Sorbonne faculty, called

1 DaD. 5. 337, 381. Du Pin, 2. 512.t Labb. 15. 1003. 1080.1081. Cos. 3. 695. Daniel, 5. .al.

Page 96: The Variations of Popery

96. THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

an assembly of the bishops, abbots, and universities of thekingdom; and the meeting was also attended by the Dukes ofBerry, Orleans, Burgundy, and Bourbon. The council, indeed,on this occasion were divided. The Duke of Orleans, the uni-versity of Toulouse, and the bishops of Tours and Le Puy,were against subtraction. The majority, however, recommendedthe proposed measure; and a total rejection of pontificalauthority was published. Benedict's cardinals, also, exceptBoniface and Pampeluna, approved the decision of the Frenchassembly, and advised the French sovereign to declare thepontiff, from his disregard of his oath, guilty of schism andheresy.'The French nation, however, in 1403, in the vacillation of

its councils, repealed the neutrality and restored obedience.The neutrality had lasted five years, from its commencement in1398. Its abrogation was chiefly owing to the agency andeabals of the Duke of Orleans, who was opposed, but withoutsuccess, by the Dukes of Berry and Burgundy. The cardinalsalso were reconciled to Benedict, and the re-establishment ofhis authority was advocated by the universities of Orleans,Angers, :Montpellier, and Toulouse. The King, cajoled by theartifice of Orleans, ordered the recognition of obedience.'But this recognition was temporary. The French, remark-

able for their fickleness, enjoyed, on this occasion, all the charmsof variety. An assembly of the French prelacy declared againin favor of neutrality; and his majesty, in 1408, commandedthe nation to disown the authority of both Benedict and Gre-gory. The example of France was followed by Germany,Bohemia, Hungary, and indeed by the majority of the Europeannations. Benedict, in the mean time, issued a bull of excom-munication against all who countenanced the neutrality, whethercardinal or king, interdicted the nation, and absolved the sub-jects from the oath of fidelity. A copy of this precious manifestothe pontiff transmitted to the king, who treated it withmerited contempt.Benedict and Gregory, in the midst of these scenes of animo-

Bity, retired in 140M from Avignon and Rome to Arragon andAquileia, where, having convened councils, these rival vice-gods encountered each other, as usual, with cursing andanathemas. His Italian infallibility, in the synod of Aquileia,condemned, as illegal, the electicn of Clement and Benedict,and sant:tioned, as canonica.l, that of Urban, Boniface and

1 Do Pill, 2. 612. DarUeJ. 6. 378. Labb. 16. 1072.t Boa. 2. 100. Daniel. 6. _ 4OG. Brul' a. UO. ('(1& a. 7'11.t Daniel, 6. '"" GiuaOla. XXIV." UCIIIont a.. 7'11.

Page 97: The Variations of Popery

GREAT WESTEltN SCHISM. 97

Innocent. He then condemned and annulled all Benedict'sordinations and promotions. His French infallibility, in thecouncil of Arragon, reversed the picture. Having forbiddenall obedience, and dissolved all obligations to his rival, heannulled his ordinations and promotions. Gregory convictedBenedict of schism, heresy, contumacy, and perjury. Benedictconvicted Gregory of dishonesty, baseness, impiety, abomina-tion, audacity, temerity, blasphemy, schism, and heresy.'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 concertsome plan for the extermination of the schism and the restora-tion of unity. The convocation of a general council appearedthe only remedy. The Italian and French cardinals, therefore,now united, wrote circular letters to the kings and prelacy ofChristendom, summoning an oecumeaical assembly, for theextirpation of division and the establishment of union.tThe Pisan council, in 1409, unable to ascertain whether

Gregory 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,, not their knowledge but their power;' and having dismissedGregory and Benedict, appointed Alexander. Gregory andBenedict were summoned to appear, and, on refusal, were, inthe 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 thework of degradation.s Their definitive sentence against theFrench and Italian viceroys of heaven is a curiosity, andworthy 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 churchof God, and unworthy of all power and dignity. The charac-ter of these plenipotentiaries of heaven, if not very good, iscertainly pretty extensive. The sacred synod then deprivedGregory and Benedict of the papacy, and forbade all Christians,onpainof excommunication, notwithstanding any oath of fidelity,to obey the ex-pontiffs, or lend them counsel or favor.'The papacy being vacated by the sentence of deposition, the

1 Cossart, 3. 381, 382. Du Pin. 2. 6. Labb. IS. n07.•Giann. XXIV. 6. Bruy. 3. 655. Du Pin. 2. 515.s Labb. II>. 1123, 1229. Du Pia. 3. 3, 5.6 Dacery I. 847' Bruy. 3. 671. Labb. 15. 1131, 1139.

G•

Page 98: The Variations of Popery

98 THE VARlATIONS OF POPERY.

next step was to elect a supreme pontiff. This task, the coun-cil, in the nineteenth session, performed by the French andItalian cardinals, formed into one sacred college. The conclave,with cordial unanimity, elected the Cardinal of Milan, whoassumed the appellation of Alexander the Fifth. He presidedin the ensuing session, and ratified the acts Of the cardinals andgenentl council.The Pisan council, however, notwithstanding its alleged uni-

versality, did not extinguish the schism. The decision of thesynod, and election of the conclave only furnished a third .claimant for the pontifical chair. The universality and authorityof 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 recognised by Scotland, Spain, Armagnac,and Foix. Alexander was acknowledged, as supreme spiritualdirector, by the other 'European nations. The schism, there-fore, still continued. The Latin communion was dividedbetween three ecclesiastical chiefs, who continued to distractthe western church. The inefficiency of the Pisan attemptrequired the convocation of another general council, whoseenergy might be better directed and more successful.' Thisremedy 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 itspredecessor, 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 pontiffswere, at that time, Gregory, Benedict, and John. Gregoryand Benedict, though obeyed by Scotland, Spain, Hungary,Na.ples,and Germany, were under the sentence of synodicaldeposition. John, on the contrary, was recognised, even bythe Constantian council, as the lawful ecclesiastical sovereignof Christendom.The Constantians, though they admitted the legitimacy of

John's election, and the legality of his title, required him to:resignfor the good of the church and the extinction of schism.The pontiff, knowing the power and resolution of the council,professed comnliance ; and, in the second session, confirmedhis declaration, in case of Gregory's and Benedict's cession,with an oath. This obligation, however, he endeavored toevade. Degradation from his ecclesiastical elevation presenteda dreadful mortification to his ambition, and he fled, in conse-quence, from Constance, with the fond, but disappointed,

1GiumOD, XXIV. G. Labb. us... Bruy... 7. :BoAuet, 2. 101.

Page 99: The Variations of Popery

GREAT WESTERN SCHISM. 99expectation of escaping his destiny. Gregory and Benedictwere also guilty of violating their oath.' The church, therefore,at this time, had three perjured heads, and the Messiah threeperjured 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 Christianityand 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, perjuryand infidelity. The holy fathers then pronounced sentence ofdeposition, and absolved the faithful from their oath of fealty,"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,andin old age, forced to make this concession, Malatesta, Lord ofRimini, in Gregory's name renounced the papacy, with all itshonors and dignity.John and Gregory, notwithstanding their frightful character,

as sketched by the Pisan and Constantian synods, were raisedto the cardinal dignity. The two councils had blazoned theirimmorality in strong and appalling colors, and pronouncedboth unworthy of any dignity. Martin, however, promotedJohn 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 himto the episcopal, legatine, and cardinal dignity, with all itsemoluments and authority. Benedict, though importuned bythe council of Constance and the King of the Romans to resign,resolved to retain the pontifical dignity, and retired, with thisdetermination, to Paniscola, a strong castle on the sea-coast ofValentia. The old dotard, however, was deserted by all theEuropean states; but, till his death, continued, twice a day,to excommunicate the rebel nations that had abandoned hisrighteous cause. The council, in the mean time, pronouncedhis sentence of deposition, and convicted him ofschism, heresy,error, pertinacity, incorrigibility, and perjury, and declared himunworthy of all rank or title! Mani.n was raised tothe papacyand his elevation terminated a schism, which, for half a century,had divided and demoralized the nations of Western Chris-tendom.The pontifical succession, it is clear, was, during this schism,1 Labb. 16. 142. 148. Du Pin. 3. 14.2 Labb. 16. 178. 221. Coss, 4. 90, 110. Du Pin. 3. 14.• Labb. 16. 277, 681, 715. Collll&l't, 3. 881. at 4. 81. Du Pin, 3. 5' 119·

..

Page 100: The Variations of Popery

100 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

interrupted. The links of the chain were IORt, or so confused,that human ingenuity can never find their place, nor humanpenetration discover their arrangement. Their disentanglementmay defy all the art of man and all the sophistry of Jesuitism.The election of Urban or Clement must have been uncanonical,and his papacy unlawful: and the successors of the unlawfulpontiff must have shared in his illegality. Clement and Bene-dict commanded the obedience of nearly the half of WesternChristendom; while the remainder obeyed Urban, Boniface,Innocent, and Gregory. One division must have recognised theauthority 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 ofthe Parisian university and the Spanish nation was unavailing,The French and Spanish doctors, in the assemblies of Parisand Medina, in 1381, examined the several claims of the com-petitors with erudition and ability. The question was treatedby the canonists and theologians of Spain, France, and Italy,with freedom and impartiality. But Spanish, French, andItalian ingenuity on this suhject was useless. The Pisan andConstantian councils, in all their holiness and infallibility, were,says Daniel, equally nonplused. These, notwithstanding theirpretensions to divine direction, could depose, but could not'discriminate; and were forced to use, not their information orwisdom, but their power and authority.' The inspired fatherscould, in their own opinion, depose all the claimants, but couldnot ascertain the right or title of any. This conduct was aplain confession of their inability to discover the canonical headof the church and vicar-general of God. Moderns, in this partof ecclesiastical history, 8J'eat an equal loss with contempo-rary authors and councils.The impracticability of ascertaining the rightful pontiff has

been admitted by the ablest critics and theologians of Roman-ism, such as Gerson,Antoninus, Bellarmine, Andilly, MaimbourgAlexander, Mezeray, Daniel, and Moreri.2 Gerson admits1 Alexander, 24. 466,467. Daniel, 5.227.2 Est varietas opinionum Doctorum, et inter doctissimos et probatissimos ex

utraque parte. Gerson, in Alex. 24.474. Peritissimos viros in sacra pagina etjure canonico habuit utraque pars, ac etiam rehgiossimos viros, et etiam mira-culia fulgentes; nee unquam sic potiet queestio illa decidi, Antouin. c. II.Alex. 24. 477. Nee potuit facile prredicari quia eorum verns et legitimus essetPontifex, cum non decessent singulia doctissimi patroni. Bell, IV. 14. L'affaireetant obscure et difficile d'elle meme, n'a point encore ete decidee, Andilly.860. Pour cette impouibilite morale, on ron etoit de demaler Ies viais Papesd'avec lea Anti-Papea. Maimb. I. Brny. 3. 515. Adeo obaenra erant etdnbia contendentinm jnra, nt post mnltaa virornm docti.llaimorumdiasertationesplurimosqne traetatna editol, cognOlCi non poIIllllt quia euet vernaet • legitimu Pontifa .Alex. 24. 444. On n'. jamaia pn vuiderce dem.eI~ :Mel. a. 236. De tria lavaDll hO.llllllea, et del aainM

Page 101: The Variations of Popery

GREAT WESTERN SCHISM. 101, the reasonableness of doubt, and the variety of opinionsamongthe most learned and approved doctors on the several claimsof the rival pontiffs.' Antoninus acknowledges' the unsettledstate of the controversy, notwithstanding each party's shiningmiracles, and the advocacy of pious men, deeply skilled inSacred Writ and in canon law.' Bellarmine mentions' thelearned patrons which supported the several competitors, andthe difficulty of determining the true and lawful pontiff.Andilly agrees with Gerson, Antoninus, and Bellarmine. Hegrants 'the obscurity and difficulty of the question, which hasnot 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 fromcivilians, 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 thesuhject 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 notdecide the contest.' Daniel and Moreri confess,on this topic,, the jarring and contradictory opinion of saints, as well as oflawyers, theologians, and doctors, and the unwillingness or in-ability of the church, assembled afterwards in the council ofConstance, to discriminate among the several competitors thetrue vicar-general of God and ecclesiastical sovereign of Christ-endom.' Similar concessions have been made by Giannone,Bruys, Panormitan, Balusius, ZabarelIa, 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 andFelix, This contest presented the edifying spectacle of twopopes 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 deposedEugenius and substituted Felix. Eugenius assembled the

m~m6furent partag~s la deseue, L'j\glise aBsembl~, dans Ie concile de Con-.tance, ne voulftt point l'examiner. Daniel, 5.m. Le droit des deux {lartiane fftt jamais bien 6clairci, et il y a en des deux cOt~sde tres savans juriseon-sultea, de eelebree theologiens, et de grands Docteurs- Moreri, 7. 172. Leedeux papes avoient chacun des partisans illustree par leur science et pill" leurpiet6. Moreri, 3. 4M.

Page 102: The Variations of Popery

102 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

council of Florence, and excommunicated Felix and the councilof Basil.The council of Basil met anno 1431. The holy fathers, in

the second session, decreed the superiority of a general councilto a pope, and the obligation of all, even the Roman pontiff,under pain of condign punishment, to obey the synodalauthority 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 toEugenius. His holiness, in consequence, issued against thecouncil two bulls of dissolution, and annulled all its enactments.The bulls, however, contained no terror for the council. TheBasilians, supported by the Emperor Sigismond, entreatedEugenius to repeal his proclamations; and' threatened, in caseof refusal, to pronounce his holiness guilty of contumacy. Thepontiff, therefore, was under the direful necessity of revokinghis bulls of dissolution, and declaring the legality of the coun-cil; and, at the same time, its title, in its commencement andcontinuation, to his approbation.'• His infallibility's approbation, however, which was extorted,was soon recalled. New dissensions arose between the popeand the council. The reformation, which the Basilians hadeffected and which they still contemplated, was, to this headof the church, altogether intolerable. His holiness, therefore,in 1438, translated the council to Ferrara, with the immediateintention to gainsay the Basilian assembly. The Basilians, inreturn, accused Eugenius of simony, perjury, abuse of authority,wasting the ecclesiastical pa.trimony, ruining the city of Pales-trina, and hostility to their enactments. The Fathers thenannulled the translation of the council to Ferrara, cited hisholiness to appear at Basil in sixty days, and, on his refusal,pronounced him guilty of contumacy,"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 1430, deprived himof the papacy. The sentence against God's vicar-general bythe 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-tina%lity,disobedience, simony, incorrigibility, perjury, schism,heresy, and error, and, in consequence, unworthy of all titlerank, honor, and dignity. The sacred Synod. then deposed

1Labb. 17.236. 'Bra,.. 4. 104, 106. DB Pill, 3. 22, ~t .Alex. 23. 39. 'Bray••• ns, DB Pm, 3. ~.

Page 103: The Variations of Popery

B.1SILIAN AND FLORENTINE SCHISM. 103Condalmerio from the papacy, abrogated all his constitutionsand ordinations, absolved the faithful from their obedience,oaths, obligations, and fidelity; and prohibited the obedienceof all, even bishops, patriarchs, cardinals, emperors and kings,under privation of all honor and possessions.'The Basilians, having cashiered one vice-god, appointed

another. The person selected for this dignity was Amadeus,duke of Savoy. This prince had governed his hereditaryrealms for forty years. The ability which, during this revolvingperiod, he had displayed, rendered him the delight of his peo-pie, and the admiration of the age. He was accounted aSolomon for wisdom, and made arbiter of differences amongkings, who consulted him on the most important affairs. Hepossessed a philosophical cast of mind, a love of repose, anda contempt for worldly grandeur. Weary of a throne, which,to so many, is the object of ambition, and disgusted probablywith the bustle and tumult of life, Amadeus resigned the ducaladministration to his sons, and resolved to embrace the seclusionof a hermit. He chose for the place of his retreat the beautifulvilla of Ripaille, on the banks of the lake of Geneva. Thissolitude 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 encloseda park, which he supplied with deer. Accompanied in hisretreat by a few domestics, and supporting his aged limbs ona crooked and knotty staff, he spent his days far from the noiseand busy scenes of the world, in innocence and piety. A de-putation arrived at this retirement, conveying the triple crownand other trappings of the papacy. The ducal hermit accepted,with reluctance and tears, and after much entreaty, the insigniaof power and authority. Western Christendom, amidst theunity of Romanism, had then two universal bishops, and twouniversal eouncila" Eugenius and Felix, with the Florentineand Basilian synods, divided the Latin communion, except afew states which assumed an attitude of neutrality., The two rival pontiffs and councils soon began the work ofmutual 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 newdignity 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 lisento trouble the church and destroy the faith, and who, willing

1 Bruy. f. 126. Dn Pin. 3. 39. Dan. 6, 167. Roes. 2, 167.2 Labb. 17.,395. Dan 6. 168. :Bou. 2. 177. Alex. 25. MO. SyIT. Co XLDI.

Page 104: The Variations of Popery

104 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

not merely to overthrow a single state but unhinge the wholeuniverse, had resigned humanity, assumed the manners of awild beast, and crowned the iniquity of his past life by themost frightful impiety.' His infallibility, among other accom-plishments, discovered in this salutation a superior genius forelegance of diction and delicacy of sentiment. Luther, socelebrated for this talent in his answers to Leo and Henry, theRoman 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 distinguishedonly 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,"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 Florenceand with its full approbation. He condemned the Basilianproposition 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, soonfollowed. 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 impietyfrom the church, despoiled the Basilian doctors, bishops, arch-bishops, and cardinals of all honor, 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 thedevils in the universe, by wholesale, to receive their portion incondign 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

1 Brny. 4. 130•• ('roes. 5. 232. Labb. IS. 841, 914, 1394. Poggio. 101, 155.2 Labb. 19. 914. 1202-1335. Poggie. 156.3 Affirmat totiua orbia Wemonia ad Latrooininm BaaileeJl8e confluxiue, ut, ad

complendam iDiquitatem, abominationem deaolationil in Dei eccle.ia ponunt.Declarat omnea qui Baai.lilIB 1'eIII&IlIIerint. cum Core, DatMl.' Abiron, lIlternojudicio eeae perdeadoL LAbb. 1& 1884.

Page 105: The Variations of Popery

BASILIAN AND FLORENTINE SCHISM.~ 105

days to expel the council from the city, Eugenius suhjected tointerdict and confiscation of goods. Their forfeited propertymight, by pontifical authority, be seized by the faithful or byany person who could take possession This edifying sentencehis infallibility pronounced in the plenitude of apostolicpower,and subjected all who should attempt any infringement on hisdeclaration, constitution, condemnation, and reprobation. to theindignation of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peterand Paul.' This was the act of the general, apostolic, holy,Florentine council, and issued with due solemnity in a publicsynodal 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 councilof Basil. Nicholas denominated Eugenius the supreme headof the church and vicar-general of Jesus. But Felix, whomhe excommunicated with all his adherents, he designated thepatron of schism, heresy, and iniquity. The dukedom of Savoy,his holiness, by apostolic authority, transferred to Charles theFrench king, to bring the population back to the sheepfold.This plenipotentiary of heaven then proclaimed a crusadeagainst the duke and his subjects. He admonished the Frenchking to assume the sign of the cross, and to act in this enter-prize with energy. He exhorted the faithful to join the Frencharmy; and for their encouragement, his holiness, supported bythe mercy of the Omnipotent God, 'and the authority of theblessed Apostles Peter and Paul, granted the crusading army afull pardon of all their sins, and, at the resurrection of the just,the enjoyment of eternal life.'Felix and the Basilians, however, did not take all this kind-

ness for nothing. The holy fathers, with their pontiff at theirhead, 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 devoutcordiality, nullified the Florentine council, and rescinded all itsacts," The Basilian congress indeed cursed, 88 usual, in amasterly sty Ie. But Felix, through some defect of intellect oreducation, W88 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 thepapal duty of cursing. He did well afterwards to resign the

1Du Pin, 3. 28. Bruy.4. 130. Labb. 18.915, 1205-1384.t Labb. J9. 47. C088. 5. 261.• Labb. 18. 1365. Bruy. 4. 130. Du Pin. 3. 42.

Page 106: The Variations of Popery

106 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

office,for which his inability for clothing imprecations in suit-able language rendered him unfit. The council were to blamefor choosing a head, who, in this capacity, showed such wofulinadequacy. Few of these vice-gods, however, for the honorof the Holy See, were incompetent in this useful attainment.Felix, in latter days, seems to have been the only one, who, inthis respect, disgraced his dignity.The schism in the prelacy and popedom communicated to

the nations. These were divided into three fractions, accordingto their declaration for Eugenius, Felix, or neutrality. Thetwo popes and synods, though branded with mutual excom-muuication, 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; andyet, in sheer inconsistency, rejected Felix and adhered to Eu-genius. Scotland, except a few lords, not only declared forEugenius, 'but its prelacy, assembled in a national council, ex-communicated Felix. Arragon, through interested motives,declared in 1441 for Felix, and afterwards, in 1443, veeredround to Eugenius.'Felix, however, commanded a respectable minority. He

was recognized by Switzerland, Hungary, Austria, Bavaria, I

Strasbourg, Calabria, Piedmont, and Savoy. His authoritywas acknowledged by many universities of France, Germanyand Poland; such as those of Paris, Vienna Erfurt, Colonia,and Cracow. The Carthusians and Franciscans also ralliedround the standard of Felix.'Germany, forming a third party, disclaimed both the com-

petitors, and maintained, amid these dissensions, an armedneutrality. It."!suspension of obedience commenced in 1438,and lasted eight years. During this period, its priesthood andpeople contrived, in some way or other, to do without a pope.'The Germans, on this occasion, anticipated, on the subject ofpontifical authority, their revolt under Luther, which usheredin the Reformation.This schism,however, which had distracted western Christen-

dom for about ten years, terminated in 1449. This was effectedby 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 thegreat western schism, abdicated with promptitude and facility.'

1Labb. 18. 1396. Daniel, 6. 224. Coeaart, 5. 38.sLabb. 18. 1397, 1398, 1403-3Alex. 23. 46. Labb. 18. 1368, 1378. Platina, 178.Du Pin, 3. 43. Dan. 6. 226.

Page 107: The Variations of Popery

BASILIAN AND FLORENTINE ~CHISM. 107

He had accepted the dignity 'with reluctance, and he renouncedit 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,andin a bull which he addressed to all the faithful, rescinded, indue form all the suspensions, interdicts, privations, and ana-themas, which had been issued against Felix and the councilof Basil; while, at the same time, he approved and confirmed ,.all their ordinations, promotions, el~tions, provisions, collations,confirmations, consecrations, absolutions, and dispensations.He abrogated all that was said or written against Felix and theBasilian convention. . This bull overthrows the ultramontanesystem, which maintains the illegitimacy of the Basilian synodfrom the deposition of Eugenius. Nicholas confirmed it in theamplest manner. Felix then revoked all the Basilian pro-ceedings against Eugenius, Nicholas, and the Florentine coun-cil ; and, though appointed legate, vicar, first cardinal, andsecond to the sovereign pontiff, retired again to his retreat atRipaiIle, on the banks of the Leman Lake; and there, till hisdeath in 1450, enjoyed a life of ease and piety.'. The Basilian and Florentine schism presented an odd pros-pect of papal unity. Two popes and two synods exchangedreciprocal anathemas; and afterwards, in a short time, sane-tiol1edall their several acts with the broad seal of mutual appro-bation and authority. Felix-whom Eugenius had designatedAntichrist, Mahomet, Cerberus, a schismatic, a heretic, thegolden calf, and the abomination of desoletiou-e-Nicholas, inthe friendliest style, and kindest manner, called chief cardinal,and dearest brother," The council of Basil, which Eugenius hadrepresented as an assembly of madmen, barbarians, wild beasts,heretics, miscreant.'>,monsters, and a pandemonium, Nicholas,without any hesitation and in the amplest manner, approvedand confirmed. Two general councils condemned each other forschism.and heresy, and afterwards exchanged mutual compli-ments and approbation. The French and Italian schools stillcontinue their enmity. The French detest the Florentine con-vention and applaud the Basilianassembly; whilst the Italians.denounce the conventicle of Basil and eulogize the council ofFlorence.The Basilian and Florentine contest displays all the elements

of discord, which distinguish the great western schism. Pope,

1Labb. 19.50. C088.5. 247. Lenfant. 2. 210. Bmy. 4. 159. Alex. 23, 53.t Cariasimum fratrem nostrum Amadeum, primum Cardinalem. .Alex. 25,258.

Cuu. 5. 274.

Page 108: The Variations of Popery

108 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

in both, opposed pope. Two viceroys of heaven clashed inmutual excommunications. Western Christendom, on bothoccasions, was rent into contending factions. Nations, severedfrom nation, refused reciprocal communion, and acknowledgedtwo 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 Homish unity, opposed an universal council, and bothfulminated mutual execrations. Each assembly in its own andin its party's opinion, and, according to many at the presentday, represented the whole Itlhurch ; and, nevertheless, in thebitterest 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 intheir records of the popedom, while electors, in many cases,disagreed in their choice of a sovereign. Several of the pontiffsalso varied from the faith of the majority. All the heads of thechurch, who patronized heresy, need not be enumerated. Afew of the most distinguished, however, may be mentioned;such as Victor, Stephen, Zosimus, Honorius, Vigilius, andJohn.Victor, or, according to Bellarmine, Zephyrinus, patronized

Montanisrn: His infallibility approved the prophecies of Mon-tanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla, admitted these fanatics to hiscommunion, and granted the impostors letters of peace or re-commendation to the churches of Asia and Phrygia. Thepontiff, deceived by appearances, gave Montanus, says Godeau,'pacific letters, which shews that he had admitted the prophetto his communion.' According to Rhenanus. 'hi'! holinessMontanized.' 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 withoutexcuse. The pope afterward revoked his letters of peace; andin 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,' 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 theYalidity of baptism administered by any heretical denomina.tion.

1BelL IV; 8. Teriv1L 501. Du Pin, 346. Godeaa, 436. Spou. 173. 11.Bruy. 1.40.

Page 109: The Variations of Popery

DOCTRINAL VARIATIONS. 109His infallibility's language, according to Cyprian, Firmilian,and the plain signification of the words, taught the efficacyofthe baptismal ceremony in any form, even without the nameof the I'rinity.' The cotemporary partisans of heresy, indeed,except the Novatians, who were out of the question, rejectedthe deity of the Son and the Spirit, and, therefore, in this insti-tution, omitted the names of these two divine persons. Theirforms, in the celebration of this sacrament, were, as appearsfrom Irenseus, distinguished for their ridiculousness and absurd-ity. Persons, however, who had been baptized in any hereticalcommunion did not, according to Stephen's system, need arepetition of the ceremony.Cyprian, the Carthaginian metropolitan, who led the Africans,

Nurnidians, Phrygians, Cappadocians, Galatians, Cilieians,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. Uyprian's system was supported by tradition andseveral councils, and had obtained through Africa and Asia.The decisions of Stephen and Cyprian are in direct opposition,and both contrary to modern Catholicism.!. The pontiff and the saint maintained their respective errorswith animosity arid sarcasm. The pontiff called the saint anti-christ, a false apostle, and a deceitful workman. To a depu-tatiun sent on this suhject from Africa he refused admission intol,is presence, or even the rights of common hospitality; andexcommunicated 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." Such was a Roman saint's character of aRoman pontiff and the vicar-general of God.Firmilian's portrait of his infallibility is 88unflattering 88 that

of Cyprian. The prominent traits in Firmilian's picture of hisholiness are inhumanity, insolence, audacity, dissension, discord,folly, pride, ridiculousness, ignorance, contumacy, error, schism,and heresy. He even represented the head of the church asan apostate, worse than all heretics, in supporting error and

1Cyprian, 210. Bin. 1. 177. Euseb. VII. 2. ,2 Les Romains vouloient qu'il fdt bon, par quclque heretique qu'il ftlt confere:

et les Afriqua;ns soutenoient qu'il etoit nuls'il etoit confere hera de l'tlglise, parIes heretiqu6s. Iln'ya rien de plus oppose, que ees deux d@cretB.:Maimb. 88,90, 97. Du Pil), 347. Cyprian, Ep. LXXIV.a Cyprian, 210-216.

Page 110: The Variations of Popery

110 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

obscuring the light of ecclesiastical truth, who, in attempting toexcommunicate others, had separated himself from the wholeChristian community.' These two moral painters, betweenthem, 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, accordingto the Romish system, depends not on the administrator, buton the matter and form. The administrator may be a hereticor a schismatic, a clergyman, a layman, or a woman, if theelement of water and the name of the Trinity be used. Cy-prian and Stephen, the saint and the pontiff, differed from oneanother, and according to the present popish faith, from thetruth. The church, in the clashing systemsof the Carthaginianmetropolitan and the Ruman hierarch, varied on this topicfrom the church which has been established since their day.Cyprian's opinion, though supported by Athanasius, Cyril,Dionysius, Optatus, and Basil, with the Asiatic and Africancommunions, was, in 314, condemned by the council of Arles.Stephen's opinion, which supported the efficacy of any baptism,even without the name of the Trinity, was, in 32.5,condemned,in the nineteenth canon of the general council of Nice."Liberius, Zosimus, and Honorius patronized Arianism,

Pelagianism, and Monothelitism. Liberius excommunicatedAthanasius, and signed an Arian confession of faith. Zosimuscountenanced 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 ofthis work, when their errors will be more fully developed.Vigilius, the next topic of animad version, was the prince of

changelings. The celebrated Vicar of Bray seems to havebeen only a copy, taken from the original-the notorious bishopof 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 declarationin favour of Monophysitism. This confession was intendedto satisfy the Empress Theodora, who favored this heresy ..His holiness anathematized the Chalcedonian faith and itspatrons, and embraced the Eutychianism of Anthemus, Severns,and Theodosius. This system, however, his infallibility, inthe vicissitudes of inconsistency, soon retracted, and shiftedround, like the veering vAne, to the definition of Chalcedon.The pontiff, in 539, in a communication to the Emperor

t Cyprian, Ep. 71). Bmy. 1. 66., Challenor. 5. Labb. 1. 1462. et 2. 42. lrIaimb. 98. 99. BiD. 1. 20.

Page 111: The Variations of Popery

DOUTRINAL VARIATIONS. 111Justinian and the patriarch Mennas, disclaimed Eutychianismand excommunicated all its partisans.' 'His avowal of Jacobitism, indeed, was during the life of his

rival Silveri US, when, instead of being lawful pastor, Vigiliusaccording to Bellarmine, Baronius, and Godeau, was only anillegal intruder, who had obtained the ecclesiastical sovereigntyby violence and simony," The usurper, however, even thenheld the whole administration of the papacy; and, after thedeath of his competitor, made four different and jarring con-fessions of faith on the subject of the three chapters, whichcontained the writings of Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodorus.Vigilius, in 547, opposed Justinian's edict, which condemned

the works of these three authors," The emperor, in 545, hadissued a constitution, in which he anathematized Ibas, Theo-doret, and Theodorus, and condemned their productions, onaccount of their execrable heresy and blasphemy. The impe-rial proclamation was subscribed by Menna.<;,Zoilos, Ephraim,and Peter, patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch,and Jerusalem; and by the oriental suffragans, who followedthe footsteps of their superiors. Iiis holiness, however, on hisarival in the imperial city, in 547, refused to sign the imperialedict. He declared the condemnation of the three chaptersderogatory to the council of Chalcedon, and, in consequence,excommunicated the Grecian clergy, and anathematized all whocondemned Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodorus.His infallibility's hostility to the royal manifesto, however,

was temporary. His holiness, in 548~ published a bull, whichhe called his judgment, and which condemned, in the strongestand most express terms, the works of Ibas, Theodoret, andTheodorus. These productions, according to this decision, con-tained many things contrary to the right faith, and tending tothe establishment of impiety and Nestorianism. Vigilius, there-fore, anathematized' the publications, the authors, and theirabettors. Alexander and Godeau, on this occasion, acknow-ledged the inconsistency of his infallibility's judgment with hisformer decision.' Godean's observation is worthy of remark. •The pontift"s compliance with the emperor, says the historian,was a prudent accommodation to the malignity of the. times."

1Liberat. c. XXII. Godesu, 4. 203. 208. Vigil Ep. IV. V.2 Bell. IV. 11. Godean, 4. 206. Binn. 4. 400.3 Damnationi primum obstitit. Alex. 12. 33.-GOOeau, 4. 229. Theoph. 152., Ills pcetmodam judicato damnavit. Alexand. 12. 33. Maimb. 61. Labb, 6.

23, 171-C'etoit un jugement contraire au premier, qu'il avoit ai fortement soutenu coo-

tre l'Empereur, et contre Ies ev~uetl Orientaux. Godeau, 4. 233.f Prudent aceommOOement a la malignite du temps. Godeau, 4. 233.

Page 112: The Variations of Popery

112 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

The badness of the times, in the good bishop's mind, justifiedthe Pope's discretion and versatility.The Latin clergy, however, had a different opinion of the

pontifical judgment. These, toa man, forsook Vigilius: Daeius,Sebastian, Ruaticus, and Facundus, with the 1llyrians, Dal-matians, and Africans, viewed the decision as the subversion ofthe Chalcedonian faith, and the establishment of Eutychianismon the ruins of Catholicism. Facundus openly taxed his holi-ness with prevarication and perfidy.'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, disapprovedof sixty extracts from Theodorus, in the bad acceptation inwhich they had been taken; but prohibited the condemnationof 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 theworks, and forbade all anathematizing of the persons of'Theo-doret and Ibas. His supremacy ordained and decreed, thatnothing should be done or attempted to the injury or detractionof Theodoret, who signed, without hesitation, the Chalcedoniandefinition, 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, shouldremain, without addition or diminution. All this WIl8 in directcontradiction, as the fifth general council showed, to his judg-ment, in which he had condemned the heresy of the threechapters, and anathematized the persons of their authors andadvocates. This constitution, however, notwithstanding its in-consistency with his former declaration, the pontiff sanctionedby his apostolic authority, and interdicted all of every ecclesias-tical dignity, from writing, speaking, publishing, or teachingany thing against his pontifical decision."The sixth and last detour of Vi~ilius was his confirmation of

the fifth general council, which condemned and anathematizedIbss, Theodoret, Theodorus, and their works, for impiety, wick-edness, blasphemy, madness, heresy, and Nestorianism. Tqefollowing is a specimen of the infallible assembly's condemna-tion .of the three chapters and their authors, which .the holyfathers, as usual, bellowed in loud vociferation. 'Anathema toTheodorus. Satan composed his coufession. The Ephesiancouncil anathematized its author. Tbeodorus renounced thegospel, Anathema to all who do not anathematize Theodorus.

1<ffldeau.4. lUI. :Brny. in Viail.Labb. 5. 1300- 1360. :Maim6. 6&

Page 113: The Variations of Popery

DOCTRINAL VARIATIONS. 113

Theodoret's works contain blasphemy and impiety against theright faith and the Ephesian council. The epistle of Ibas is, inall things, contrary to the Chalcedonian definition and the truefaith. 'I'he 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, andTheodorus, his infallibility approved and confirmed.'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 ofIbas, Theodoret and Theodorus, when their flesh was resolvedinto dust and their bones were mouldering in the tomb. Hecondemned and anathematized Theodoret and Theodorus, whoseworks, according to his infallibility, contained impiety and manythings against the right faith and the Ephesian council.' Asimilar sentence he pronounced against Ibas, his works, and allwho believed or defended their impiety.The papacy of Vigilius presents a scene of fluctuation un-

known in the annals of Protestantism. 'I'he' vicar-general ofGod, the head of the church, and the father and teacher of allChristians shifted his ground six times. He sanctioned Euty-chianism and afterwards retracted. He withstood Justinian'sedict, and, in his celebrated judgment, afterwards recanted. Thechangeling pontiff, in his constitution, shielded Ibas, Theodoret,and Theodorus, and afterwards confirmed the general council,which condemned these authors for blasphemy and heresy. Hisinfallibillity's condemnation of the three chapters was opposedby the whole Latin commmnion. The Africans, Illyrians, Dal-matians, and ma.ny other churches withdrew from his commu-nion, and accused him of overthrowing the council of Chalcedonand establishing MonophysitisID. A general council of theGrecian prelacy" in the mean time, condemned the Pope'sconstitution arld the declaration of the Latin clergy; and thiscouncil's S6'ltence, amid the universal distraction ofOhristendoID,was established by Pope Viplius, and afterwa.rds by Pelagius,Gregory, Nicholas, and Leo.John the Twenty-second was another of these pontiffs,

who was distinguished for patronizing heresy. 'This fathera.nd teacher of all Christia.ns' denied the admission of disem-bodied souls into the beatific vision of God, during their inter-mediate state between death and the. resurrection. The spiritsof the just, indeed, he believed, entered at death on the enjoy-

1Labb. 6. 66, 130, 197, 199, 310. Godeau, •. 265, 268.s Labb. 6. ~I, 244.. Bmy. I. 228.I Godeau, 4. 233. Bra.y. 1. 327.

B

Page 114: The Variations of Popery

114 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

ment of happiness and the contemplation of the Son's ~lorifiedhumanity. But the vision of Jehovah and the perfection offelicity, according to this head of the church, are deferred tillthe day of general judgment.'This dogma his supremacy taught by sermons, letters, and

lega.tions. He preached the heresy in public, according toBalu-sins, Raynal and Maimbourg, in three sermons in succession,andcaused it to be maintained by cardinals, prelates, and doctors.'He transmitted letters in all directions, especially through theFrench 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, saysAdrian the Sixth, quoted by Launoy, 'publicly taught anddeclared his innovation, and enjoined its belief on all men."Nangis has transmitted a similar statement. He endeavored,in this manner, says Du Pin, 'to spread his error and dissemi-nate a. universal heresy through the whole church,"His infallibility's speculation, however, soon met decided hos-

tility. The citizens ofAvignon, indeed, in which John resided,maintained a profound silence. This, in some, arose from fear,and, in some, from favor. A few believed and countenancedthe innovation. Many disbelieved; but, at the same time, con-cealed their disapprobation through terror of the pontiff's powerand tyranny. The king and the Parisian university, however,were not to be affrighted, Philip, in 1333, assembled thefaculty, who canvassed the controversy and condemned hisinfallibility's faith lIB a falsehood and a heresy. These doctorsdefined, that the souls of the faithful come at death to thenaked, clear, beatific, intuitive, and immediate vision of theessence of the divine and blessed Trinity. Many doctors con-curred with the Parisians in opposition to the pontiff. Gobelincalled his infallibility an old dotard. Alliaco denominated John'stheory an error; while Gerson characterized it as a falsehood.Philip, the French monarch, proclaimed its condemnation by theBOundof a trumpet,"The statements and reasons of the university and of other

divines were unavailing. His infallibility was proof againstParisian dialectics. But the French king was an abler lo~cian,and his reasoning. in consequence, possessed more effiCIency.1Du Pin, 352. Alex. 22. 461. Maimb. 130.2 n l'elllleigna publiquement. n 1.pr8cha luim&ne. noblige., par lOB e.x-

em~, 188 careiinaux; 188 prilata de 111& cour, et lea docteun, to 11& 8OUteniT.llaimb. 131.I Publice docuit, declaravit, et abODlDibua teneri mandavit.· Lunoy, 1. 634-4 Joannee PapaXXlI. eTrOrem de beatitudiDe aDimal, ~ ipIe diu ten11erat,

publice predicaftl'at. N..... Au. 13lK. DaoJaery, 3. '1'/•• Bray. 3. -. 421. CcliIliu$, "- 4M. 1I_h. 18 Go'belm, e,LXXI.

Page 115: The Variations of Popery

MORAL VARIATIONS. 115

The royal argument, on the occasion,was composedof fire. Hismost Christian Majesty threatened, if the pontiff did not retract,to roast his Supremacy in the flames.' This tangible and sen-sible argument, always conclusive and convincing, was calcu-lated for the meridian of his infallibility's intellect: Thisluminous application, therefore, soon connected the premiseswith the conclusion,brightened John's ideas, and convinced him,in a short time, of his error. The clearness of the threatenedfire communicated light to his infallibility's understanding. Hisholiness, though enamoured of heresy, was not, it appears, am-bitious of martyrdom. He chose to retract, therefore, ratherthan be burned alive. His infallibility, accordingly, just beforehe expired, read his recantation and declared his orthodoxy,on the subject of the beatific vision and the enjoyment of thedeity.Bellarmine and Labbe deny John's heterodoxy," Theae en-

deavor to excuse the pontiff, but by different means. Bellar-mine grounds his vindication on the silence of the church on thistopic, when John published his opinion. No synodical orauthoritative definition, declaring the soul's enjoyment of thebeatific 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 ofthe 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 transubstantiatedinto error, and catholicism into heresy, even in an unchangeablechurch distinguished for its unity. The popish communion caneffect the transubstantiation of doctrinal propositions, as wellM of the sacremental elements. John's faith, says Labbe,was taught by Ireneeus, Lactantius, and other orthodox fathers.This is a noble excuse indeed, and calculated to display, in astrong light, the unity of Romanism, The faith of primitivesaintA' and orthodox fathers is, it seems,become heresy. Labbeattempts to acquit John by arraigning lrenreus and Lac-tantius. The legitimate conclusion from the premises L4J, thatIreneeus, Lactantius and John, were all three infected with error.Moral, as well as historical, electoral, and doctrinal variations

diversified and disfigured the popedom. Sanctity characterizedthe early Roman bishops, and degeneracy their successors.Linus, Anacletus, Clemens, and many of a. later period weredistinguished by piety, benevolence, holiness, and humility.

I Rex rogum ipsi intentanll ne revocarit errorem. AIell. 22. 461.: Bell. 1. 780. Labb. 15. 147. Alex. 22. 456.Labb. US. 147. CaIIIIaJlt, 4. 431.

Page 116: The Variations of Popery

116 THE VARI.A.TlONS OF POPERY.

Some deviations and defects might appear, marking the infirmityand the imperfection of man. The Roman pastors, however,who, during the earlier days of Christianity, did not, in moralcharacter, aspire to excellence, aimed at decency; and few, fora 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 thevariations of impiety, malevolence, inhumanity, ambition,debauchery, gluttony, sensuality, deism, and atheism. Gregorythe Great seems to have led the way in the career of villany.This celebrated pontiff has been characterized as worse than hispredecessors and better than his successors, or, in other terms,as the last good and the first bad pope. The flood-gates ofmoral pollution appear, in the tenth century, to have been setwide open, and inundations of all impurity poured on the Chris-tian world through the channel ofthe Roman hierarchy. Awfuland melancholy indeed is the picture of the popedom at thisera, drawn, as it has been, by its warmest friends; such asPlatina, 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, andwere apostatical rather than apostolicaJ.1 Thirty pontiffsresigned in the tenth century: and the successor, in eachinstance, seemed demoralized even beyond his predecessor.Baronius, in his Annals of the Tenth Century, seems to labourfor language to express the base degeneracy of the popes andthe frightful deformity of the popedom. M.any8hocki~ mon-sters, says the annalist, intruded into the pontifical chair, whowere guilty of robbery, assassination, simony, dissipation,tyranny, sacrilege, perjury, and all kinds of miscreancy. Can-didates, destitute of every requisite qualification, were ProFotedto 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; whileothers broke in by violence, and defiled the holy chair with thefilthiest . ralit 2lIDJDO y.1 Per aIIJlOlI fere 150. Pontifices circlter .quinquaginta a IO&Jl1leBcilieet VIII,

uque ~ ~ IX, mtute !JIAjOl'1lmprol'l118 defecerint, apoetatici potiua q11&1l1apoatoliCl, Gimeb. IV. P1atina; 128. Du Pin, 2. 156. Bruy. 2. 208., Plunma horreDda in e&B1 monstra intruaerunt. Spon. 900. I. et 908. tIl.L' egliIe etoit ploDa6e daDa un chaoe d'impietee. An. Eccl. 3M. Giannon.

VII. 5.Sanctiuimam ~.1IIOribU iaiq'llita~ facia.... :Baro1ay, 36.0.4-

OIlvcyoitaloraDOll ... Papee. .......... AD.:Boot lNI. GiaImon.VlI,I.

Page 117: The Variations of Popery

PROFI.IGACY OF JOHN THE TWELFTH. 117

The electors and the elected, during this period, appear, asmight be expected, to have been kindred spirits. The electorswere neither the clergy nor people,but two courtesans, Theodoraand Marozia,mother and daughter, womendistinguished by theirbeauty, and at the same time, though of senatorial family,notorious for their prostitution. These polluted patrons oflicentiousness, according to their pleasure, passion, whim, orcaprice, elected popes, collated bishops, disposed of dioceses,and indeed assumed, in a great measure, the whole administra-tion of the Church. The Roman See, become the prey ofavarice and ambition, was given to the highest bidder.1These 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 Johnthe Tenth, raised her gallant to the papacy. The pontiff, likehis 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 wasmistress to Sergius the Third, who treated the dead body ofFormosus with such indignity. She brought her pontificalparamour a son; and this hopeful scion of illegitimacy and thepopedom was, by his precious mosher, promoted to the vice-gerency of heaven. His conduct was worthy of his genealogy.He was thrown, however, into prison by Alberic, Marozia's 80nby Adelbert, where he died of grief, or, some say, by assaseina-tion," The person who can believe in the validity of suchelections, and the authority of such pontiffs, must possess anextraordinary 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 ofgratification. A mass of moral impurity might be collectedfrom the Roman hierarchy, sufficient to crowd the pages offolios~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 spaying hand.A few specimens, however, are necessary, and shall be selectedfrom the biograph' 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 all his prede-

1Le siege de Rome etoit donne au plusoffrant. Giannon.VII. 5. Ann. Eccl.345.2 Spau. 929. I. et 933. I. Giannon. VII. 5. 6. Luitprand, II. 13. Petavius, I.

418. L'infame Theodora fit elire ]?OurPape, Ie plus deelar6 de BeS amans, quifut appe16 Jean X. Barouiu8 eent, qu'alor8 Rome etoit Ban8 Pape. An, EcCl3U. Gianuon. VII. 5.

Page 118: The Variations of Popery

.118 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

cessors, saYAPlatina, in debauchery. His holiness, in a Romansynod, before Otho the Great, was found guilty of blasphemy,perjury, profanation, impiety, simony, sacrilege,adultery, incest,constupration, and murder. He swore allegiance to Otho, andafterwards revolted to his enemy. Ordination, which he oftenbartered for money, he conferred on a deacon in a stable, andon a boy ten years old by constituting him a bishop. He killedJohn, a sub-deacon, by emasculation, Benedict by putting outhis eyes, and, in the wantonness of cruelty, amputated the noseof one cardinal, and the hand of another. He drank a healthto 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, formerlythe habitation of purity, he converted into a sink of infamy andprostitution. Fear of violation from Peter's successor deterredfemale pilgrims, maids, matrons, and widows, from visitingPeter's tomb. His infallibility, when summoned to attend thesynod to answer for these charges, refused; but excommunicatedthe council in the name of Almighty God. The clergy andlaity, however, declared his guilt, and prayed, if the accusationswere unfounded, that they might be accursed, and placed onthe left hand at the day of-judgment. The pontifical villainwas deposed by the Roman council. But he afterward re-gained the Holy See; and, being caught in adultery, waskilled, says Luitprand, by the devil,' or, more probably, by theinjured husband. John, says Bellannine, f was nearly the wick-edest of the popes," Some of the vice-gods, therefore, thecardinal suggests, surpassed his holiuess in miscreancy.Boniface the Seventh, who seized the papal chair in 9740,

murdered his predecessor and successor. Historians representhim as the basest and wickedest of mankind. Baronius callshim a thief, a miscreant, and a murderer, 'who is to be reckoned,not among the Roman pontiffs, but among the notorious robbersof the age. Gerbert and Vignier characterize this vice-god as amonster, who surpassed all mankind in miscreancy," Promptedby 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.1Ordinationes epiacoponun faceret pretio. Benedictum lumine privasae, et

mox mortuum _. Joannem virilibus amputatis occidisse.ViduamRamarii et Stephanam patris concubinam at Annam viduam cum nepte

sua abusum _: et eanctum palatium lu~ar et pl'Olltibulum feciBBe. Labb.ii. 881. A Diabolo ad Jl8I'CUIlIUB. Labb. h. 873. Platina, 132. Bellarmin. ii. 20.2Sacrileans predo ..clem AJI(lSto1icuminvuit Bonifacip, annumerandal inter

fam'*-lairone.. Spon. 17•• 1. at••. 'Brut. 2. 266,271. Bonifaoe, mQlUltrehorrible, IUl'DlOntant tou lei JmmainI en mechanoetea. Vipier, 2. _

Page 119: The Variations of Popery

CHARACTER OF GREGORY THE SEVENTH. 119

The exiled pontiff, however, was not, it appears, ambitious oftravelling in the train of poverty. The treasury of the Vaticanwas rifled by this apostolieal robber, and its sacred ornamentsand vessels conveyed by his holy hands to Oonstantinople.B~nedict the Seventh was, by universal suffrage, substituted inhis stead. He held the papacy nine years, in opposition toBoniface, 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. Thistreasure he expended in the bribery of his partisans, who, bymain violence, replaced the ruffian, in 985, on the pontificalthrone. John, who had succeeded during his absence, he im-prisoned in the castle of St. Angelo, where, in four months after,he died of starvation and misery. But even the death of hisrival could not satiate the vengeance of Boniface. John's cold,pale, stiffened, emaciated corpse was placed at the door of thecastle, and there, in all its ghastly and haggard frightfulness,exposed to the public gaze. But the murderer did not longsurvive this insult on the dead. He died suddenly, and hisnaked carcass, mangled and lacerated by his fonner' partisans,to whom he had become odious, was, with the utmost indignity,dragged through the streets.Gregory the Seventh, who obtained the papacy in 1073, waa

another pontifical patron of iniquity. He WM elected on theday 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, onthis head, accused Hildebrand to his face of precipitation. Heobtained the supremacy, in the general opinion, by grosssimony.' He had the hypocrisy or hardihood, nevertheless,to pretend that the dignity was obtruded on him against hiswill.Benno has sketched the character of this pontiff in strong

colors, This cardinal accused his holiness of simony, sacri-lege, epicurism, magic, sorcery, treason, impiety and murder.'The Italians of Lombardy drew nearly as frightful a portrait ofhis supremacy. These represented his holiness as havinggained the pontifical dignity by simony, and stained it byassaasination and adultery.The councils of Worms and Brescia depicted his character

with great precision. The council of Worms, comprehendingforty-six of the German prelacy, met in }(i76, and preferrednumerous imputations against Gregory. This synod found hisholiness guilty of usurpation, simony; apostacy, treason, schism,

1 Du Pin, 2. 210, 216. Bruy. 2. m.

Page 120: The Variations of Popery

120 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

heresy, chicanery, dissimulation, fornication, adultery and per-jury. His infallibility, according to this assembly, debasedsacred theology by innovation, and scandalized Christendom byhis intimacy with the Princess Matilda. His holiness, in thesentence of the German prelacy, preferred harlots to womenof character, and adultery and incest to chaste and holymatrimony. 1The council of Brescia, in 1078, portrayed his supremacy

with equal freedom. This assembly, composed of thirty bishops,and many princes from Italy, France and Germany, calledGregory a fornicator, an impostor, an assassin, a violator of thecanons, a disseminator of discord, a disturber of the Christiancommonwealth, and a pestilential patron of all madness, whohad sown scandal among friends, dissension among the peaceful,and separation among the married. The Brescian fathers thendeclared 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. Thesacred synod having, in this manner, done justice to his charac-ter, deposed Gregory from his dignity by the authorit.y ofAlmighty God.2The fathers of Worms and Brescia supported the Emperor

Henry against Pope Gregory. Their condemnation of thepontiff therefore has, by Labbe, Alexander and Binius, beenreckoned 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 twocouncils were, in this respect, in the same situation with theother synods who have condemned any of the Roman hierarchs.The Roman Synod that condemned John the Twelfth, theParisian assembly that convicted Boniface, the Pisan and Con-stantian councils that degraded Gregory, Benedict and John,all these were placed in similar circumstances, and actuatedby similar motives. But their sentences are not, therefore, tobe accounted the mere ebullitions of calumny. Gregory's sen-tence of deposition against Henry was, according to the parti-sans of popery in the present day, an unlawful act, and beyondthe limits of pontifical authority. The fathers of Worms andBrescia, therefore, had a right to withstand Gregory in hisassumption 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. lH7. Co8eart, 2. U, 48. BMy. 2. 471. Alex. 18. 398., Labb. 12. 646. Alenuder, 18. 402.

Page 121: The Variations of Popery

CHARACTER OF GREGORY THE SEVENTH. 121

Celestin, a silly old dotard, who, prior to Boniface, placed on thepontifical throne, and clothed with infallibility, governed Chris-tendom. He had been a visionary monk, who, in his mountaincave, mistook his own dreams for inspiration, and the whistlingof the winds for the accents of divine revelation, and spenthis useless days in vain contemplation and in the unrelentingmaceration of his body. He considered his body, says Alliaco,3.'! a domestic enemy. He would descend into a pit during thecold and snow, and remain till-his clothes would be frozen. Hewore a knotted hair-cloth which mangled his flesh, till it some-times corrupted and produced worms. This visionary, in hisfanaticism, was transferred from a mountain cavern of Apuliato the holy chair of St. Peter; and his election, says Alexander,'was the effect of divine afflatus.'lCardinal Cajetan, afterwards Boniface the Eighth, was, in the

mean time, ambitious of the popedom. He formed a plan, inconsequence, to induce Celestin to resign, that he might besubstituted in his stead. Knowing Celestin's superstition, hespoke through a tube during the stillness of the night to thepontiff, and enjoined him to resign the papacy. The voice ofthe impostor Celestin mistook for the warning of an angel, and,in obedience to the command, renounced his authority. Hisreasons for abdication are a curiosity. He resigned on accountof debility of body, defect of information, and the malignity ofthe people. Boniface, who in 1294 was chosen in his place,imprisoned the old man with such circumstances of severity ascaused his death,"The character of Boniface W3.'! 'placed in a striking point of

view by Nogaret and Du Plessis. The pontiff had offended Philipthe Fair, King of France, by his bulls of deposition issued againstthat monarch. His majesty, in consequence, called two con-ventions of the three estates of the French nation. Nogaret andDlJ.·Plessis, in these meetings, accused Boniface of usurpation,simony, ambition, avarice, church-robbery, extortion, tyranny,impiety, abomination, blasphemy, heresy, infidelity, murder, andthe sin for which Sodom was consumed. His infallibility repre-sented the gospel as a medley of truth and falsehood, and deniedthe doctrine of transubstantiation, the Trinity, the Incamation,and the immortality of the BOuL The soul of msn, his holiness,affirmed, was the same as a. beast's; and he believed no more inthe Virgin Mary than hi an ass, nor in her son than in the foalof an ass.'1 CleetinU8 simplex erato Ebel'bard, An. 1290. Bray. 3. 302. Andilly, 806.

Alex. 20. 140. Canisius, 4. 223.2 Bruy. 3. 307. Mariana, 3. 266.3 Lee hommea ont lea m&meaAmeaque lea Wtes. L'Evangile eueigne pIa-

Page 122: The Variations of Popery

122 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

These accusations were not mere hearsay, but supported onauthentic and unquestionable evidence. Fourteen witnesses, menof credibility, deposed to their truth. Nogaret and Du Plessisoffered to prove all these allegations before a general council.But Benedict and Clement, successors to Boniface, shrunk fromthe task of vindicating their predecessor; or, conscious of hisguilt, spun out the time of the trial by various interruptions,without coming to any conclusion.'The simplicity of Celestin and the subtlety of Boniface made

both unhap'py. Superstition made Celestin a self-tormentor;while his silliness, united indeed with superstition, rendered himthe easy victim of Boniface. The understanding and infidelityof Boniface were just sufficient to pull destruction on his ownhead. The ambition of Boniface was as fatal to its pos..qessor,&8the submission of Celestin. Boniface, on his disappointment,died, gnawing his fingers, and knocking his head against thewall like one in desperation. He entered the papacy, it has beensaid, 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 ex-tensive field of action, and discovered, during his whole career,the deepest depravity. The atrocity of his life was ascertainedand published by the general council of Constance, after a tedi-ous trial and the examination of many witnesses. Thirty-sevenwere examined on only one part of the imputations. Many ofthese were bishops and doctors in law and theology, and allwere men of probity and intelligence. His holiness, therefore,was convicted on the best authority, and indeed confessed hisown 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. lIe fostered schism, by refusing toresign the popedom for the sake of unit)'. He rejected all theieu1'8 veritez, et pluaieurs mensonges. Ladoctrine de laTriniM est {ausee, l'en-fantement d'une vierge est impossible, l'incarnation du fils de Dieu ridiculeanBBibien que Ia transubstantiation. Je ne crois plus enelle qu'en nne Anease,iiia aon Fils, qu'a.u poulain d'une anesse. Bruy. 3. 346. Du Puy, 529. Alex.22. 319,3ZI. Boss. 1. 278.Papal BoDifacio multa. imposuerent enormia., puta hlBreaim, simorUam. et

homoeidia, Trivet. Ann. 1303. Dachery, 228. . .Rex FranoorumOBlla Bonifacii petiit ad eonburandum, tanfl.Uam lueretici.

Trivet. Ann. 1306. Dachery, 3, 231. Eberhard, Anno. 1303. Canmus, 4. 228.1 Daniel 4. 456. Du Pin, 2. 494-Audiens Rex Francia! PbiliP:p11sa pluribua fide digniB peraonis, Papam Bolli-

facinm deteetandis infectum cnminibus diveraisque hJ&relibua irretitum. NaP-p, Ann. 1303. Dachery,3. 56.N~tua Lbjecta crimiDa diem innovavit, eaque IesitUne~ _ oifereu.

Nangu, Ann. 1309. Qlchery. a. 6t. DaDiel... 458.

Page 123: The Variations of Popery

CHARACTER OF JOHN THE'TWENTY-THIRD. 123

truths of the gospel and all the doctrines of Christianity. Hedenied the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body,and the responsibility of man. The human spirit, according tothis head of the church, is, like that of the brute creation, ex-tinguished at death. Agreeable to his belief, or rather unbelief,he disregarded all the institutions of revealed religion. Theseprinciples, he held with the utmost pertinacity. Accordingto the language of the Constantian assembly, his infallibility,actuated by the devil, pertinaciously said, asserted, dogma-tized, and maintained before sundry bishops and other menof integrity, that man, like the irrational animals, became atdeath extinct both in soul and body.'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 LabM,(was convicted of forty crimes." The Constantian fathersfound his holiness guilty of simony, piracy, exaction, barbarity,robbery, massacre, murder, lying, perjury, fornication, adultery,incest, constupration, and sodomy; and characterized his su-premMyas 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 apostaey, the inventor ofmalevolence, the mirror of infamy, and to finish the climax, anincarnated devil. The accusation, says Niem, (contained allmortal sins and an infinity of abominations.' .His simony, according to the council, appeared in the way

'in which he obtained the eardinalship, the popedom, and soldindulgences. He gained the cardinal and pontifical dignities bybribery and violence. He extorted vast sums by the traffic ofindulgences in several cities, such as Utrecht, Mechlin, andAntwerp. He practised piracy with a high hand, during thewar between Ladialas and Lewis, tor the kingdom of Naples.His exactions, on many occasions, were attended with massacreand inhUmanity. His treatment of the citizens of Bologna andRome will supply a specimen of his cruelty and extortions.He exercised legatine authority for some time in Bologna, andnearly depopulated the city by barbarity, injustice, tyranny,rapine, dilapidation and murder. He oppressed Rome anddissipated the patrimony of .Peter. Be augmented formerimposts and invented new ones, and then abandoned the capitalto be pillaged and sacked by the enemy. His desertion exposedthe women to the brutality of the soldiery, and the men tospoliation, imprisonment, assassination, and galley-slavery. He

1 Labb. 16. 178. Bmya, 4. 41. Du Pin, 3. 13. Crabb. 2. 1050. Bin. 7. 1036., Crimiaibu quadraginta convietua. Labb. It;' 1378. et 16. 154.

Page 124: The Variations of Popery

124 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

poisoned Alexander his predecessor, and Daniel who was hisphysician. His conduct, through life, evinced incorrigibility,pertinacity, obduracy, lying, treachery, falsehood, perjury, anda diabolical spirit.'His youth was spent in defilement and impudicity. He passed

his nights in debauchery and his days in sleep. He violatedmarried women and deflowered huly nuns. Three hundred ofthese devoted virgins were the unwilling victims of his licen-tiousness. He was guilty of incest with three maiden sistersand with his brother's wife. He gratified his unnatural lust ona mother and her Bon; while the father with difficulty escaped.He perpetrated the sin of Sodom 011 many youths, of which one,contracting in consequence a mortal malady, died, the martyrof pollution and iniquity,"Such was the pontiff: who, according to the Florentine coun-

cil, was 'the vicar-general of God, the head of the church, andthe father and teacher of all Christians.' His holiness, it,wouldappear, was indeed the father of a great many, though perhapshis offspring were not all Christians. The council of Constanceindeed deposed John from the papacy. But Pope Martin after-ward raised him to the eardinalship, and treated him with thesame honour and respect as the rest of the sacred college. Hisremains, after death, were honourably interred in John's church.John, with all his miscreancy, was elevated to a dignity secondonly to the pontifical supremacy. Jerome and Huss, notwith-standing their sanctity, were, by an unerring council, triedwithout 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 anddebauchery. He conspired for the assassination of Julian andLaurentius, two of the M:edicean family. He engaged Pazzi,who was chief of the faction, which, in Florence, was hostile, tothe Medici, in the stratagem. Pazzi was supported in thediabolical attempt by Riario, Montesecco, Salvian, and Poggio.The conspirators, who were many, attacked Julian and Lauren-tios during mass on Sunday. Julian was killed. Laurentiusfled wounded to the vestry, where he was saved from the furyof the assassins. The Medicean faction, in the mean time,

1Labb. 1&. 1M, 158, 184. fuuy.4. 3. Lemant 1. 281.sMu11io8 ~91IDe8 demuxit in poaterioribUB, quorum UDUBin lIun aanguiDi8

Q.eceait. Violavittru 'rirgin88lOrores, et cognovit matrem. et filium, at pater vixeTuit. Bard. 4. 228. Lenfam. 1. 290. n etoit c1aiTement pl'OllV', qu'i1aYOitom de 1amere et du 6lII, ... quo Ie ~ aYQit eo. de 1a peine a eehappe1' a auerimiDela dtleira. Bra,.. "" .. ,.IAbb. 160 III. Bba. 7. 103&"

Page 125: The Variations of Popery

CHARACTER OF JOHN THE 'l'WENTY-THIRD. 125

mustered and assailed the conspirators, on whom they took anample and summary vengeance.'Sixtus patronized debauchery as well as murder. His holi-

ness, for this worthy purpose, established brothels extraordinaryin Rome. His infallibility, in consequence, became head, notonly of the church, but also of the stews. He presided withability and applause in two important departments, and was thevicar-general of God and of Venus. These seminaries of pollu-tion, it seems, brought a great accession to the ecclesiasticalrevenue. The goddesses, who were worshiped in these temples,paid a weekly tax from the wages of iniquity to the viceroy ofheaven. The sacred treasury, by this means, received from thisapostolic tribute an annual augmentation of 20,000 ducats. Hissupremacy himself, was it seems, a regular and steady customerin his new commercial establishments. He nightly worshiped,with great zeal and devotion, in these pontifical fanes whichhe had erected to the Cytherean goddess.' 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 humanitydisowns, seems to have excelled all his rivals in the arena ofvillany,and outstripped every competitor on the stadium of mis-creancy. Sannazarius compared Alexander to Nero, Caligula,and Heliogabalus: and Pope, in his celebrated ES8ay on Man,likened Borgia, which was the family name, to Cataline. Thispontiff, according to contemporary historians, was actuated, tomeasureless excess, with vanity, ambition, cruelty, covetousness,rapacity and sensuality, and void of all faith, honor, sincerity,truth, fidelity, decency, religion, shame, modesty and compunc-tion. ' His debauchery, perfidy, am bition, malice, inhumanity,and irreligion,' says Daniel, 'made him the execration of allEurope.' Rome, under his administration and by his example,became the sink of filthiness, the headquarters of atrocity, andthe hotbed of prostitution, murder, and robbery.'Hypocrisy formed lone trait in his early character. His

youth, indeed, evinced to men of discernment symptoms ofbaseness and degeneracy. But he possessed, in a high degree,1Bayle, 2598. Bruy. 4. 241. Moreri, 8. 30'.2 Agrippa, c. LXIV. Brul' 4. 260. Bayle, 3. 2602.Saiinazarius ilium cum Oaligulis confert, cum NeronibulJ et HeJiogabalia.

Sann. II. Montfaucon, Monum. 4. 85. .Lee debordemens ~ubliC8, lee perfidies, l'ambition demesuree, l'avarice insa.

tiable, la cruaute, I irreligion en avoient fait l'objet de l'execration de toutel'Eurof8. Daniel, 7, 84-Mulieribus maxime addietua. Nee Doctu tutum per urbem iter, nee inter.

diu extra urbem. Roma jam oarnificia facta erato Alex. 23. 113.

Page 126: The Variations of Popery

126 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

the art of concealment from common observation. His dissimu-lation appeared, in a particular manner, on his appointmentto the cardinalship. He walked with downcast eyes, affecteddevotion and humility, and preached repentance and sanctity.He imposed by these arts, on the populace, who comparedhim to .rob, Mosesand Solomon.But depravity lurked under this specious display; and broke

out, in secret, in sensuality and incest. He formed an illicitconnection with a widow who resided at Rome, and with hertwo daughters, His passions, irregular and brutal, could findgratification only in enormity. His licentiousness, after thewidow's death, drove him to the incestuous enjoyment of herdaughter, the notorious and infamous Vannoza. She becamehis mistress, after her mother's decease. His holiness in thepursuit of variety and the perpetration of atrocity, afterwardformed a criminal connection with his own daughter, the witty,the learned, the gay and the abandoned Lucretia. _ She wasmistress to her own father and brother. Pontanus, in con-sequence, represented Lucretia as Alexander's daughter, wife,and daughter-in-law.' Peter's palace, in this manner, becamea. scene of debauchery and abomination.Simony and assassination were as prominent in Alexander's

character as incest and debauchery. He purchased the papacy,and. afterwards for remuneration and to glut his rapacity, hesold its officesand preferment. He first bought, it h88 beensaid, and then sold, the keys, the altar, and the Saviour. Hemurdered the majority of the cardinals who raised him to thepopedom, and seized their estates. He had a family ofspurioussons and daughters, and for the aggrandizement of these chil-dren of illegitimacy, he exposed to sale all things sacred andprofane, and violated and outraged all the laws of God andman,"His death was the consequence of an attempt to poison the

rich cardinals for the sake of their possessions. Alexander andBorgia, father and son, actuated with this design, invited theSacred College to a sumptuous banquet near the fountain inthe delightful garden of Belvidere. Poisoned wine W88pre-pared for the unsuspecting guests. But the poisoned cup W88,by mistake, handed to the father and son, who drank withoutknowing their danger, Borgia's constitution, for a time over-came the virulence of the poison. But Alexander soon died.by the stratagem he had prepared for the murder of his friends,"

I .Alexandri 6lia, 1111....11-. POIltana in Bray. 4. 280.'Komi,l. 270. a Labb. 19. ua. MOIlt, Mon1llll. .. M.

Page 127: The Variations of Popery

PROFLIGATE CONDUCT OF ALEXANDER THE SIXTH. 127

Julius the Second succeeded Alexander in the papacy and~niniqu~ty. His hol.inesswas guilty. of ~imony, chicanery, per-JUry, thievery, empoisonment, assassination, drunkenness, im-pudicity, and sodomy. He bribed the cardinals to raise himto the popedom; and employed, on the occasion,all kinds offalsehood and trickery. He swore to convoke a general counciland violated his oath.' 'His infallibility's drunkenness was proverbial. He was

'mighty to drink wine.' He practised incontinency as well asinebriation, and the effects of this crime shattered his consti-tution. One of his historians represents his holiness as allcorroded with the disease which, in the judgment of God, oftenattends this kind of filthiness, The atrocity for which Sodomwas consumed with fire from heaven is also reckoned amonghis deeds of pollution and exeesa"His ingratitude and enmity to the French nation formed one

dark feature in his character. The French king protected him, against A lexander who sought his ruin. The French nationwas his asylum in the time of danger and in the day ofdistress.This friendship he afterwards repaid with detestation, becauseLewis patronized the convocation of a general council. Juliusoffered rewards to any person who would kill a Frenchman.One of these rewards was of an extraordinary, or rather amongthe popes of an ordinary kind. He granted a pardon of allsins to any person who would murder only an individual of theFrench nation. The vicegerent of heaven conferred the for-giveness of all sin, as a compensation for perpretating theshocking crime of assassination,"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. Mird.ndula,who mentions a pope that denied God, is,by some, supposed to have referred to Leo. His holiness, saysJovius, was reckoned guilty of sodomy with his chamberlains.These reports, however, are uncertain. But Leo, beyond allquestion, was addicted to pleasure, luxury, idleness, ambition,unchastity, and sensuality beyond all bounds of decency; andspent whole days in the company of musicians and buffoons.'Seventeen of the Roman pontiffs were perjurers. These

were Felix, Formosus, John, Gregory, Pascal, Clement, John,

1Alex. 23. l1S. Bray. 4. 371. Caranza, 602.2 Tout ronKede verole. Bray. 4. 371. Zuing. 140. Dnobus nobiliaBimigen-

en. adoleBCeutibuBstnprnm intulerit. Wolf. 2. 21.3Hotman, BO.t Non earuit etiam infamia, quod parum honeste nonnullQll e cubioulariia ada-

IIW'e. Jov. 192. Bray. 4. 417. Guiooia. XIV ...

Page 128: The Variations of Popery

128 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Boniface, Innocent, Gregory, Benedict, John, Eugenius, Paul,Innocent, Julius, and Paul. Felix and the rest of the Romanclergy swore to acknowledge no other pontiff during the life ofLiberius, whom the emperor had banished. The clergy, not-withstanding, immediately after, while Liberius survived,elected Felix to that dignity, which, without hesitation, heaccepted.' A perjured Roman bishop then presided amongthe perjured Roman clergy.Formosus was deposed and excommunicated by Pope John,

who made him swear never again to enter his bishopric or theRoman city. Pope Martin, in the way of his profession, andwith great facility, dissolved the oath and restored Formosus tohis dignity. The obligation having, in this manner, undergone8, chymical analysis in the pontifical laboratory, Formosus re-turned with a good conscience and with great propriety to hisepiscopal seat, and, in the end, to the Roman See.' John theTwelfth, in 957, swore fealty to Otho on the body of Peter.This solemn obligation, his holiness afterward violated andrevolted to Adalbert, the Emperor's enemy," Gregory theSeventh took an oath, inconsistent with the acceptance of thePontifical dignity with which he was afterwards vested. Thecouncil of Worms, in consequence, in 1076, declared his holi-ness guilty of perjury, Gregory, besides, made Rodolph ofGermany break the oath of fidelity which he had taken to theEmperor Henry.'Pascal the Second, in 1111, granted to Henry, on oath, the

right of investiture, and promised never to excommunicate theEmperor. Pascal, afterward in a synod of the Lateran, excom-municated Henry. His holiness excused his conduct andpacified his conscience by an extraordinary specimen ofcasuistry. 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 toPhilip the Fair, to condemn the memory and bum the bonesof Boniface the Eighth. This obligation, his holiness violated.John the Twenty-second, in 1316, swore to cardinal Napoleon,to mount neither horse nor mule till he had established theHoly See at Rome. His holiness, however, established hisapostolic court, not at Rome, but at Avignon. He satisfiedhis conscience by sailing instead of riding, and substituted a

1Clerici juraverunt quod nullum aliUID SUllCeperunt. PlurilDi perjuraverunt,Crabb. 1. 347. Du Pin, 1. 190. Prosper, 292.

2 Alex. 15. 88. Bruy. 1. 187. Luitp. VI. 6-3 n oublia nienWt Ie aennent de fidliliU. Bruy. 2. 242. JoaDDee Pontilex,

bmneJDor jUJ'lUlleDRpl'llllltiti, Adelberto Ie conjunxit. Labb. 11. 872-• Du Pin, 2. 214. Labb. 12. 618. GiaDAon. X. 6.

Page 129: The Variations of Popery

PERJURED PONTIFFS. ]29

ship for a land conveyance. John's casuistry was nearly asgood as Pascal's,'Boniface, Innocent, Gregory, Benedict, and John engaged on

oath to resign the Papacy; but, on being required to fulfil theobligation, these viceroys of heaven refused. The oaths, onthe occasion, were of the most solemn kind. Innocent sworeon the holy Evangelists; and Gregory, in the name of God,Lady Mary, the Apostles, and all the celestial court. Benedictswore on the gospels and the wood of the Cross. The oaths,,:ere attended with dreadful imprecations. The attempt of thesevice-gods to evade the accomplishment of their engagementspresents a scene of equivocation and chicauery, which is un-equalled perhaps in the annals of the world. Benedict, saidthe Parisian University, endeavored to escape by a forced in-terpretation, contrary to the intention of the obligation. Gregoryand Benedict, says Giannone, swore and then shuflled aboutthe performance, and, according to Alexander, resolved to re-tain their dignity contrary to the sanctity of a solemn oath.Gregory and Benedict, however, on this occasion,discoveredsome candor. Gregory, said the council of Pisa, contrary tohis obligation, declared publicly and frequently, that the wayof cession was unjust and diabolical, and, in this, he agreedwith Benedict. Gregory, Benedict, and John were, in thecouncils of Pisa and Constance, condemned for perjury.'Eugeni~ the Fourth, in 1439,was condemned in the council

of Basil for perjury. Paul the Second, as well as Innocent theEighth, bound himself by oath, to certain regulations, andafterwards disregarded his engagement. Julius the Secondtook an oath on the gospels, binding himself to call a generalcouncil; but afterward deterred the fulfilment of the treaty.The breach of his obligation occasioned the convocation of thesecond council of Pisa. Paul the Fourth, in 1556, before theseventh month of his Papacy, created seven cardinals, thoughhe bad sworn in the conclave before his election, to add onlyfOUT to the sacred college for two years after his accession.Seventeen popes, it appears, at the least, were roresworn.8 The1Brur.. 2. 580. et 3. 360, 390. DuPiD..2. 281., Dixit Gregorius JlUblice et frequenter, quod via oe-icmia erat mala, injusta,

et diabolioa, contra JU1'aIQIlnta,~ in hie CRUD .Benedicto. Labb. 15. 1202.Du Pin, 3. 16. Juramentis per Joaanem Papam nper hoo factia deviativnm.Lsbb, 16. 142. Contra eorum juramenta et vota. Labb. 15. 1131. Giannon.XXIV. 6. Bruy. 3.600. Platina. 246. In dignitate retinenda, contra. jura-menti 80lemnis religionem. .Alex. 24. 441.Continuata perjuriorum serie, non magis poetrema quam priora ejuBpromissa

aervavit. Labb. 15. 1331.8 Synodo, juramentum violatum occasioneJn dedit. .Alexander, 33. 118. Ju1eI

-oublia bientbt B88 sermens. Mariana. 5. 718. Boss. 3. 81. CllI'J'aUa, GOO. Paolo, .So 'rI. Bruy. 4. 223, 6Ut. ChoW, 8. ?:15.

I

Page 130: The Variations of Popery

130 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

church, therefore, had seventeen perjured heads, and God, seven-teen perjured vicars-general.These heretical and abandoned pontiffs, according to many

eminent partisans of Romanism, were not true heads of thechurch or vicars of Jesus. This was the opinion of J acobatius,Leo, Mirandula, Baronius, Du Pin, Giannone and Geoffry.Jacobatius declares 'the election of a heretic for a pope to benull," Pope Leo the Great, writing to Julian, excludes allwho deny the faith from the pale of the church. These, saysthe Roman hierarch, as ' they reject the doctrines of the gospel,are no members of the ecclesiastical body.' The partisanofheresy, 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, excellingin absurdity, denied the existence of God. These, the nobleauthor maintains, 'could be no popes.' The ruffians who wereraised to the Papacy by Theodora and Marozia, Baronius de-clares, 'were no popes, but monsters;' and the church, onthese occasions, was, according to the Cardinal,' without anyearthly head.' Boniface the Seventh, who, says Baronius, ' was .a thief, a miscreant, and a murderer, is to be .ranked, not amongthe popes,but among the notorious robbers of the age.' Du Pinand Giannone, the popish Sorbonnist and Civilian, quote andapprove the sentence of Baronius, the Roman Cardinal Thepope, says Geoffry, C if he depart from the faith, is no pastor,"The spiritual reign of these sovereign ruffians must have createdseveral interruptions in the popedom, and destroyed manynecessary links in the boasted chain of the pontifical suc-cession. The concatenated series of the Roman hierarchs,therefore, with the unbroken continuity of the sacerdotal au-thority, is in the admission even of Romish doctors, a celebratednonentity.

1Papa hrereticus, tanquam separatus ab ecclesia, non est papa, et electio deeo facta erit nulla. Jacob. III. p. 107.

2 Bell. II. 30. Canus, IV. 2. Bin. 3. 70 Miran. tho ~o Turrecrema, IV. 20.Spon. 9000 10 et 985. II. DuPin, 2. 156. Giannon. VII. 6.Baronius ecnt, qu'alors Rome etoit sans Pape. On ne voyoit alora plus dell

Papa, mais des monstres. Giannon. VII. 5. •Si eltOl'bitaverit a fide, jam non est pastor. Geof. Ep. 19i. Apol. 385.

Page 131: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER III.

COUNCILS.

THllER SYSTEMS-ITALIAN SYSTEM RECKONS THE GBNlIBAL COUNCILSAT EIGHTEEN~TEMPORARYREJECTION OJ!' THll SEooND, THIRD, lI'OUBTH, lI'IlI'TH, SEVENTH, ANDTWELlI'TH GENERAL COUNCILS-CISALPINE OR FRENCH SCHOOL REJECTS THECOUNCILS OJ!' LYONS, FLORENCE, LATERAN, AND TRENT-ADOPTS THOSE OF PISA,CONS'PANCB, BASIL, AND THll SECOND OF PISA-STSTEM OF A THIRD PARTY-UNIVERSALITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS- ITS ooNDITIONB-LEGALITY OF GENERAtCOUNCILS-ITS CONDITION&-oONVOCATION, PRESIDENCY, AND CONll'IEMATION-MEMBEBS-UNANIMITY- PREEDOM.

THE general councils in ecclesiastical history are as uncertainas the Roman pontiffs. The succession of the popes and theenumeration of the synods are attended with similar difficulty,and have occasioned similar diversity of opinion. Gibert ad-mits 'the uncertainty of the western cecumenieal councils.'Morerigrants'the disagreement of authors in their enumeration.One reckons more and another less; whilst some account thoseuniversal and approved, which others regard as provincial, na-tional, or condemned." A full detail of popish variety indeedwould, on this topic, fill folios. This, however, is unnecessary.~ statement of each individual's peculiar notions, on this, orindeed on any other subject, would be tedious and useless.The opinions entertained on this question, not merely by a fewpersons, but by an, influential party, are worthy of observation;and these only, in the following pages, slmll be detailed.Three jarring and numerous factiollS have, on the subject of

general councils, divided and agitated the Romish communion.One party reckons the general councils at eighteen. A secondfaction counts the same number, but adopts different councils.These reject the councils of Lyons, Florence, Lateran, andTrent; and adopt, in their stead, those of Pisa, Constance,Basil, and the second of Piss, A third division omits the

1Numerua Conciliorum Generalium, in Occidente babitorum, est incertus.Gibert. I. 76. Toualea auteul'l ne conviennent pal du nombre des conciles gene-raux : 18l.~ en comptent pllll, lei autrel moina. Lea UDS en l'eCOIlDOieaentde,enenu al!POue., .~ 1eIi •• tree regardeDt on comme DOD gena-x, ou oommenon appI'01lv& 1I0l'iri, a. A9. .

Page 132: The Variations of Popery

132 VA.RIA..TIONSOF POPERY.

whole or a part of the councils which intervened between theeighth and sixteenth of these general conventions. The wholeof these are omitted by Clement, Abrahamus, and Pole, and apart 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 atNiceea, two at Lyons,four at Constantinople, and five at theLateran. The patrons of this enumeration are, in general, theItalian faction, headed by the pope, and maintaining his temporalas well as his spiritual authority. Baronius and Bellarmine inparticular, have patronized this scheme with learning andability, but with a total disregard of all honor and honesty.Bellarmine, besides the eighteen which are approved, reckons

eight general councils which are reprobated, and six which arepartly admitted and partly rejected. One, which is the Pisan-strange to tell-is neither adopted nor proscribed. Bellarmine'sdistinctions and decisions indeed are badly calculated to establishthe authority of councils. His hair-breadth distinctions andarbitrary decisions, on the contrary, tend only to overthrow allconfidence in his determinations and in universal councils.'All the eighteen, however, were not accounted valid or

unerring on their first publication. Six, marked now with theseal of approbation and infallibility, were, for a long series oftime, in whole or in part, rejected by a part or by the wholeof Christendom. These are the second, third, fourth, fifth,seventh, and twelfth general councils. The canons of thesecond, according to Alexander and Thomas ..sin, were not re-ceived by the Latins till the Lateran council in 1215, a periodof 834 years after their promulgation: Its faith, indeed, inIpposition to Macedonianism, corresponded with that of theNesterns, and was, in consequence, admitted by Damasus,Gelasius, and Gregory. Its creed, however, was recognisedonly on the authority of divine revelation and ancient faith.Leo rejected its canons. Simplicius and Felix, enumeratingthe councils which they acknowledged, mention only those ofNicma, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. Gregory the Great declaredthat the Roman church possessed neither the acts nor canonsof the Byzantine assembly, though his infallibilit.y, in glorious'inconsistency, elsewhere affirmed that he esteemed the fouroocumenical councils of NiClBa, Ephesus, Constantinople, andChalcedon 88 the four gospels.~

1:Bellar. L 6-'1tAlex. '1.235. 9.lllG. Thom. 2.11. Pithou, 29. Crabb. I. 991. Godeau.4-

498. JIoreri, 8, WJ.

Page 133: The Variations of Popery

IN THE RECEPTION OF COUNCILS. 133The Ephesian synod was anathematized, and, for several

years, rejected by the orientals. Its universality, during itscelebration, consisted in a few Asians and Egyptians. Thesebeing 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 westernsor orientals, and contrary to all justice or even decency. Sixty-eight bishops, and Count Candidian, who represented theemperor, protested against Cyril's conduct, and absented them-selves from his cabal. The remainder, reduced to 160, consti-tuted a hopeful universality, a dashing general council, anda blessed representation of the church. Candidian, whowielded the civil and military authority, reasoned when heshould have punished the sainted ruffian and his lawless myr-midons. Cyril's faction, however, contemptible as it was, inthe course of one day, tried, and deposed Nestorius, patriarchof Constantinople.'John, patriarch of Antioch, celebrated for his wisdom and

piety, arrived five days after the condemnation of Nestoriusaccompanied by twenty-six suffragans. His arrival was followedby one of the most distinguishedcursin~.matches of antiquity.The sacred bishops, on oeeaaions of this kind, had immediaterecourse to cursing, which uniformly gave ease to their con-science and vent to their zeal. The holy men, for comfort,displayed their devotion in a litany of execrations. Their ardentpiety and benevolence, struggling for utterance, burst in ebul-litions of anathemae. Cyril and Nestorius, prior to the meet-ing of the council, had, in the spirit of their MASTER, exchangedmutual imprecations. The saint, in an Alexandrian synod, in430, had launched twelve anathemas at the heretic; and the her-etic, inclined to make some return, thanked the saint in kind, andwith a corresponding number of these inverted blessings. Johnand Cyril, now at Ephesus, engaged in similar warfare. John andhis partisans, amounting to fifty, posted at the Ephesian inn, andinformed by Candidian of the transactions of the adverse partycongratulated Cyril, Memmon, and their accomplices with de-position and excommunication. Nestorius, says Godeau,' in-stead of recognising the hand of God in the thunderbolts of thecouncil, continued, with redoubled fury to rebel against thedivine majesty.' This honor Cyril and his faction, entrenchedin Mary's church, repaid with cordiality and devotion.' Thespi ritual artillery continued, for some time, to fulminate mutual

1 8ocrat. VIL 34. E!UI.._ L 3. 4. LiberatuB. c. IV. Spon, 430. V.Crabb. 1. 134. Godeau. ,3. 2W, 302, 309.I Lt.'bb. a. _ 981. Crabb. I. 634. Godeau, 3. 301. Libera. 0. VI.

Page 134: The Variations of Popery

134 THE VABlATIONS OF POPERY.

anathemas; and these reciprocal benedictions were the onlytokens of esteem which the sacred synods, in their mutualsalutations, condescended to interchange.The Greeks called the second Ephesian council a gang of

felons, and the designation would, with equal propriety, havecharacterized the former assembly, which, if possible, excelledits successor in all the arts of villany. The character of Cyriland the council have been portrayed in strong colors, by theorientals, Candidian, Isidorus, and Gennadius. The orientalscalled Oyril's decision tyranny and heretical perfidy. Candi-dian represented the Ephesian transactions as contrary to all- order and regularity. Isidorus accused Cyril of rashness, andthe Ephesians of seeking revenge instead of promoting truth orpiety. Gennadius declared Cyril guilty of blasphemy; whileDionysius, who wrote in 527, and whose collection had thegreatest authority in' the west, entirely omits the Ephesiancouncil,'The contest was, at last, determined by the emperor. The

faith, which, with animosity but without decision, had beendebated by the ecclesiastical body, was, at length, adjusted bythe civil authority. The unity of the Mediator's person was,properly speaking, established, not by the church but by thestate. The appeal was, not to the pope, but to the emperor ;and the synodal decision was reviewed, not by Celestin but byTheodosius, The sovereign and his courtiers, after a protractedand varying negociation, reinstated Cyril and banished Nesto-rins. The orientals, however, persevered for several years inopposition. But the oriental diocese, in the end, was reducedto submission, and the church to unity ; not, indeed, by eccles-astical authority, but by imperial power,"The Latins proscribed the twenty-eighth canon of the Chal-

cedonian council, which conferred the same honor on theByzantine patriarch as on the Roman pontiff. Leo and afterhim Simplicius opposed it with all their might, but withoutany success, and confirmed only the faith of the council. Itsauthority, in consequence, has been rejected by the Latins;though Pelagius, Gregory, Pascal, and Boniface acknowledgedthe first four eouncils,"The secondByzantine or fifth general council, under Justinian

was, for some time, rejected by Pope VigiliuB, by the Africans,

I Crabb. I. 552. Brny. 1. 214. Du Pin, 1. 646. IBid. 1. 310. Du Pm. 1.407,424.. Facmn. II. 4 Giann. III 6.

2 EVilg. I. 5. Libera. c. VI. Labo. 3. 574. Godeau, 3. 310._Nullum ~uam potuernnt nonrnmobtinere CODIl!DI11DI. Leo, Ep. 53, Li-

b lrate, c.XIII. SiDe CODI8UU Papeet lepto1um ejllL Cuisiua, 4, 69. Canaua,267. Pithou, 14.

Page 135: The Variations of Popery

IN THE RECEPTION OF COUNCILS. 135and by many in Illyria, Italy, Liguria, Tuscany, Istria, France,Spain, and Ireland. rhe emperor convened this congressagainst the three chapters, a momentous subject, composed byTheodoret, Ibas, and Theodorns. Vigilius, with sixteen bishopsand 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 byhis partisans, opposed the emperor and council, but in vain,with all his pontifical power and authority. He formed hisbishops and deacons into a separate synod, issued a constitutiondefending, though in qualified terms, the three chapters andtheir 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 anddefenders of Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodorus. His holiness,therefore, being a partisan 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. Thepontiff's expatriation brightened his understandi~, and enabledhim to see the subject in a new point of view. HlB infallibility,through the happy effect of exile in illuminating his intellect,felt it his duty to approve what he had formerly condemned.'Heresy, by the magic touch of imperial power, was, by a speeRytransformation, converted into catholicism, and error, by thesame process, transubstantiated into orthodoxy.The Italians, Tuscans, Ligurians, Istrians, French, Spanish,

IUyrians, and Africans, who had the effrontery to gainsay thewill of the emperor, were, like the vicar-general of God, con-verted by the sword of Justinian. Reparatus, the Carthaginianbishop, was dismissed, and Primasius, by imperial authority,was substituted, and the Africans, in general, submitted. TheItalian clergy, who opposed, were banished. The Frenchyielded to the storm. But the Ligurians, and Istrians, whowere under the dominion of the Lombards, and, in consequence,feared no persecution from the emperor, avowed a bolder andmore protracted opposition. The schism, from its commence-ment till the end, lasted near a century.'The seventh general council, which asBePlbled at Nicrea, in

favour of image-worship, was disclaimed for more than a cen-tury. Irene's son Constantine, in the east, on. obtaining ashadow of p~wer, proceeded, says Platina, to repeal the synodal

IAlex. 12. 31. Maimb. 42. Crabb, 2. 91., Godeaa. 4. 169, 446. Bray. 1. M3.

Page 136: The Variations of Popery

136 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 Nieeneassembly. The Nicene acts remained in a state of proscriptionamong the Greeks, till the final establishment of idolatry bythe Empress Theodora.1The Nicene decisionswere disclaimed by the western emperor

and the Latin Church. The Caroline books, with the Parisianand Frankfortian councils, showed the minds of the Latins inunequivocal terms. The council of Frankfort exhibited a re-presentation 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.' TheFrankfortians, say Aventin, Hincmar, and Regina, rescindedthe 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 theother eighty years after the Nicene assembly, reckon only sixgeneral councils.' The Nicene congress, therefore, was ex-cluded by these pontiffs. The cabal of Niceea, for it deservesno better name, was, in this manner, accounted, for a series ofyelp'S,a mere Grecian synod and of no general authority. Butits merits, it seems, grew with its age, and, in process of time,the patrons of Romanism and idolatry began to invest thecontemptible junto with the attributes of universality, holiness,and infallibility.The canons of the twelft.h general council, which met at the

Lateran palace in 1215, lay, for 322 years, neglected and un-known. This celebrated ecclesiastical congress has, in latterdays, occasioned a wonderful diversity of opinion. Thecouncils of Oxford, Constance and Trent maintained its uni-versalityand authority. Bellarmine supported its ecumenicity,accounted its rejection a heresy, and called Barclay, who re-fleeted on its third canon, a pagan and a publican. Perron,Possevin, and Alexander entertained a high opinion of it. ~utthis flattering picture is reversed by Paris, Nauclerus, Platina,Godefrid, Antony, Severin, Du Pin, and Barclay. The11'WiD. 1471. Crabb. 2. 457. Bin. 6. 232. Theod. EI,»-XV.i Nieama Secunda Synodua o1im a Gallia inter c:ecumemcoeDODfuit. Alex.

25. 630. In 'FnnkfordieDlii eoneilio 1lCita. Gneoorum de adorandis ~busreIICiIIlla 81Ult. ATeD. 337. Pl81ldo-synodua GI'lllCOl'UDl deetraota eat.' Hincm.0. xx. Mabillon. 2. 496. Piihou, 18. Omnium aanctorum IIttque venerau-dorum leX ooncilioram autoritate. Llltbb. 9. 1809. Nihil lItudemulipnedioare,quod poIIIit NicIeDo00IIClili0, n q..........e oetierormn COIlCiJioram reguliI obviate.Ac1riAD, n inDa Pm, .. .--s-

Page 137: The Variations of Popery

IN THE RECEPTION OF COUNCILS. 187

council, according to these historians and critics, did nothing;and ended in laughter and mockery. Its canons, in all theirworth or worthlessness, rested, for more than three centuries,in a state of dormancy, unknown to pontiff, cardinal, bishop,critic, or historian; and Uhristendomcertainly would have beenat no loss, had they slept till eternity. The canons, such asthey are, were not, as might have been expected, printed at lastfrom a manuscript in the Vatican or from the Pope's ownlibrary; but extracted, in the year 1537 by Cocbleeus, a Lu-theran, from a German library, and transmitted to Colonia forinsertion in Crabb's collection of the councils, though they arenot mentioned in Merlin's edition of 1535.1 The document, inthis 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 Protestanttheologian, burst, in all their splendor and infallibility, on anadmiring and enlightened world. The inquisition, in particular,must have felt a feat want of its third canon, which teachesthe most. approve and efficient means of ~ersecution and ex-tirpation of heresy; though, to do the inquisitors justice, theycould rack the suspected in the secret cell, and burn theheretical as a public act of faith, in a Christian spirit and withan edifying effect, without the direction of the infallible Laterancouncil.Such is the scheme of the Italian faction and their partisans

on general councils, and such the diversity of opinion on thissubject. A second party rejects the councils of Lyons,Florence, Lateran, and Trent. These, in «eneraJ, are theFrench school, who disclaim pontifical infallibIlity and deposi-tion of kings.The French reject the conncil of Lyons, which is the

thirteenth in the plan of the Italian school. The patrons ofpontifical despotism and regal deposition extol this assembly tothe sky. Their opponents, on the contrary, load it withridicule and contempt. Paris, Albert, Trithemius, Platina,.and Palmerius deny its universality; and the same idea wasentertained by Launoy, Du Pin, and Widrington. Nicolin,Silvius, Sixtus, and Carra.nza, in their collections, have omittedit as unworthy of general or public attention. Onuphrius, saysDu Pin, < seems to have been the first who invested this assem-bly with universality."

1.Alex. 21. 500, tWti. Platina, in11m. Ill. Da Pin, 5'12. WaJah, 66. Parle,.262. Doyle. GOB.o~. ad Ra)'IL PIatin. in 11m. IV. OialmOD. XVII. 3. Do Pin. 561."

Page 138: The Variations of Popery

138 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

The French also reject the Florentine council, which theycall a conventicle, neither general nor lawful. Such have beenthe representations of Alexander, Du Pin, and Moreri.! TheFrench and Italians differed on this subject in the council ofTrent. The Italians asserted its universality; while the Frenchrefused this title to an assembly, which, they said, was cele-brated by a few Italians and four Grecians. The Florentiansraised the pontiff above a council, and, in consequence,offendedthe Gallicans, who place the supremacy in an universal andlawful synod. The assembly of Florence, besides, was contem-porary with that of Basil, which, in the French account, wasgeneral; and two general councils, it is plain, could not coexistin 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, neveraccounted the Lateran assembly general Lewis the Twelfth,indeed, who had patronized the synod of Pisa in opposition tothat of the Lateran, submitted, in 1513,to the latter convention,which, in accordance with his majesty's will, annulled thepragmatic sanction and substituted the concordat. But theFrench people continued determined and steady. The parlia-ment, indeed, were compelled to register the concordat; butwith reiterated protestations that they acted by the expresscommand of the monarch, and neither authorised nor approvedits publication. The Parisian university, in particular, distin-guished for its learning and independence, opposed Lewis, Leo,the council, and the concordat. This faculty took sufficientliberty with the pontiff and his convention, accused him ofacting for the destruction of Catholicism, the divine laws, andthe sacred canons; and boldly appealed from the papal andsynodal enactments to a wiser pope, and to a free and lawfulcouncil. The appeal, in 1517, was printed and posted in thecross ways and in the most public places of the city. TheFrench king, also, in 1612, abandoned the council of theLateran, which the French, in the most decided manner, con-tinued to disclaim.2The Council of Trent WaB not only rejected in France, but

also in Spain, Flanders, Naples, part of Ireland, and rea.lly,though not formally, in Germany. Its doctrinal decisions,

! Florentinum nec legitimum, nec generale, agnoecitur. Alex. 25, .15.Florentinum, nee OlC1IJDenicumnec generale, rejicitur. Du Pin, 421. On n'ymet point au rang dee;.conciIee Pn4raux, Ie cinquibme concile de LatraD nieelni de Florenoe. MONri, 3. ~. Daniel, 6. 1lSS. Paolo, vtL

2 Gibert, 1. lOIS. Monri, 3. MS. Du Pin, 430. Bruy. 4. 400.

Page 139: The Variations of Popery

IN THE RECEPTION OF COUNCILS. 139

indeed, embodied the prior faith of these kingdoms; and,therefore, was not opposed. The theology, however, inculcatedat Trent, was recognised, not on the authority of that assembly,but on the authority of antiquity and former reception. Thecouncil was utterly exploded by the French, on account of itscanons of discipline and reformation. The French, says Peta-vius and Moreri, respected the faith of this assembly, butdisclaimed its discipline. The Cardinal de Lorraine, whoattended 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 theTrentine theologians became the subject of jest, satire, ridicule,and merriment. The prelatical convention of Trent, it wassaid, in proverbial but profane wit, excelled the apostolie councilof Jerusalem. The ancient assembly required the aid of theHoly Ghost; while the modern synod was independent of suchassistance, and could determine by human wisdom and arbitrarydictation.'Its publication was opposed by many persons and arguments.

The Parisian parliament notified twenty-three of its reformingand disciplinarian canons, which became the topic of publicanimadversion; and which, i~ was alleged, were repugnant tothe regal authority, the common law, and theJublic good.The canons, it was maintained, which countenanc the excom-munication and deposition of kings, the ecclesiastical punish-ment of laymen by fine and imprisonment, and superiority ofthe pope above a general council, tended to extend the spiritualauthority of the church, and to diminish the civil power of thestate. Many attempts were made to effect its reception in theFrench dominions, but in vain. The Roman hierarchs directedall their energy to this end; and engaged, on one occasion, the• interest of the Emperor of Germany, the King of Spain, andthe Duke of Savoy. The Parisian faculty, also, in those daysof its degeneracy, used their influence in favor of the Romancourt. Th~ united influence of the pope, the e.mperor,the king,the duke, ahd the Sorbonne, in 1614, procured the consent ofthe French nobility and clergy, but the. project was frustratedby the firmness of the Commons. The French nation, in con-sequence, to-the present day, disclaim the authority of the gen-eral, infallible, holy, Roman council of~nt.2 .The council of Trent underwent similar treatment m the

kingdom of Spain. Philip, indeed, the king of the Spanish1 Canones in Gallia de dogmate venerantur, de disciplina vero ~ttnntnr.

Petaviua, 2. 249. Le concile de Trente n'y est point ~ pour 1& discipline.Moren, 3. 639. Paolo, 2. 686. Gibert, 1. 148.2 Paolo, ~ 6t3. Thuau. CV.21. Dan. 9. 821.

Page 140: The Variations of Popery

140 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 nevertheless foundmeans of security against its obnoxious canons of disciplineand of reformation. These he was determined to repel, butwith wary circumspection. He convened the Spanish clergy in1564, in the synods of Salamanca, Toledo, Saragossa, Seville,and Valentia; and sent deputies to preside in these conven-tions. All, in consequence, was carried, in these synods,according to the dictation of the king's council. The resultwas, that in Spain, the land of Catholicism, whose sovereignswere the most obsequious servants of the Roman pontiff, theuniversal, holy,. Roman synod was acknowledged only so far aswas consistent with the prerogatives of the king, the privilegesof the people, and the laws of the nation.'Similar decisions were enacted in the Netherlands. Margaret,

Duchess of Panna, was, at this time, governess of these pro-vinces. She consulted the magistracy, clergy, and royal council,who represented the Trentine canons of reformation as unfriendlyto the privileges and usages of the Belgian dominions. Thesecouncellors also feared popular commotions, if the council werepublished without any restriction. Its publication, therefore,was accompanied with a. declaration, that its reception wouldbe allowed to effect no innovation in the laws and customs ofthe provinces. The Duke of Alba, the Neapolitan viceroy in16940,published the council in the Neapolitan dominions ofSpain, with similar 'Provisions against all innovation,"The Trentine discipline is also excluded from part of Ireland.

Its faith, says Doyle, in his parliamentary evidence, is admittedthrough the whole island, but not its discipline. Its canons onmatrimony, for example, have obtained only a partial reception. •The provincial bishops assembled for the pnrpose of delibera-ting whether the Trentine discipline would be useful Thosewho concluded in:favor. of its utility published ~ declarationto that effect in each chapel; and the annunciation gave itvalidity in the bounds of their jurisdiction. Those who decidedagainst its utility, omitted its publication; and the Trentinecanons, were excluded from the limits of their ecclesiasticalauthority. S The holy council, in this manner, was subjected toa partial exclusion even from the leland of Saints. The EmeraldIsle itself enjoys only in part the sacred canons, which the Irishprelacy, in some provinces, accounted and declared useless.1 Giannon, XXXlIL 3. Paolo, 2. 686. Slevin, 226.: ;;:I~ Co II. Giannon,¥XIIL 3. Paolo,2. 686. Gibert, I. 146-.,.

Page 141: The Variations of Popery

RECEPTION OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. 141

The friends of the reformation in Germany detested the faithof 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 manyrestrictions, was rather nominal than real. Its recognition wasby no means uniform; and those who acknowledged its authorityinterpreted its canons as they pleased.'The French in thia 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,'reco~ise, as general, the council of Pisa, Constance, andBasil. 2 The Pisan assembly in 1409 haa occasioned a varietyof opinions. Some have denied its universality. I~ name isnot found among the ei~hteen approved by the Italians j andits authority has been rejected by Cajetan, Antoninus, Sandemsand Raynald. Antoninus endeavors to throw contempt on thisassembly by calling it an unlawful conventicle. The statementof Petavius, respecting this congress is amusing. The Pisanassembly, says this author, was, as it were, a general council,'Bellarmine characterizes it as neither approved nor condemned.'This champion of Romanism and his partisans cannot decide,whether this equivocal convention should be stamped with theseal of infallibility or marked with the signature of reprobation.Its decisions are consigned, according to this celebrated polemicand his minions, to float on the ocean of uncertainty, and to betreated with .esteem or contempt at the suggestion of caprice orpartiality. The unfortunate synod, which no person, in Bellar-mine's system, is either to own or disown, is left, like a peace-ful and insulated state, without any alliance, either offensive ordefensive, among belligerent powers, to defend its own frontiersor to maintain an armed neutrality. Bellarmine, however, hadreasons for his moderation or indecision. The Pisans deposedGregory and Benedict for heresy and schism, and elected Alex-ander, who has been recognised as the rightful pontiif' and anecessary link in the unbroken chain of the pontifical succession.Bellarmine, ·had he approved the Pisan assembly, would, con-trary to his principles, have admitted th&supremacy ofa generalcouncil and its authority to d~e a. Roman pontiff. Had thecardinal disapproved, he would have acknowledged the invali-·dityof Alexander's election, and dismissed God's vicar-general1 Paolo, 2. 697. .2 En France, on reconnoit pour generaux lei Conciles de Conltance, de Pise

et de BAle. Moren, 8. 589. '3 Pisanum, tanquam Generale convocatum cardinalibus. Pectavius, 2. 249.

Caieta.D, c. XL AntoniUI, c. V. Banderus, VIII.I Genm.l~DeC ap~nec reprnbatum, videtur esse Conoilium Pial.num,

BeD. La. •.

Page 142: The Variations of Popery

142 THE VAlUATIONS OF POPERY.

from the series 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 recordits convocation from all Christendom, and confirmation by PopeAlexander.'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 nor a partialgenerality. Cardinal Cantarin excluded it from his compendiumof councils, and Pope Sixtus from his paintings and inscriptionsin the Vatiean. The Florentian and Lateran conventionsreprobated its definition of the superiority of a council above apope. Its authority is disregarded in Spain, Portugal, andthe nations under their control. The Italians in the council ofTrent, represented it as in part approved and in part condemned,and the Italian system on this subject has been adoptedby Bellarmine, Canus, Cajetan andDuval. Baptista, in the Tren-tine assembly, extolled the Constantian, says Paolo, above allother councils, The French, in the same synod,declared it generalin all its sessions from beginning to end; and thi8 declarationhas been repeated by Lorrain, Launoy, Alexander, Moreri,Carranza, and Du Pin. The Constantian eouncil, says Alex-ander, , represented the universal church, and among the Frenchis accounted general in all its parts,' Pope Martin confirmed itand, by his sanction, sealed it with infallibility.'The French school also recognised the Basilian council as

general. The Basilians have met with much opposition andmuch support, with many enemies and many friends; Popesand councils, snpported by many critics and theologians, suchas Bellarmine, Turrecrema, Cajetan, Sanderus, Raynald,Bzovius,and Duval, declaimed with fury against its authority, andexecrated its decisions. Eugenius the Fourth assailed it withred hot anathemas, and cursed its assembled fathers, in ColonelBath's elegant style, with' great dignity of expression and em-phasis of Judgment.' The sacred synod, though execrated,were loth to be in debt, and made a suitable return. Theholy fathers declared his infallibility guilty of contumacy,

1 Do Pin, 4()3. Moren, 3. 639. Alex. 24, SliJ.2 Apud Galloa, ContantieDseConem-, in OJDDibaa l11i. pambua; alCUmem-

cum habetaJ'. Alex. 26. 416. Do Pm, 41U. BelL 1. 7. Paolo, VI. et VU.

Page 143: The Variations of Popery

RECEPTION OF THE COUNCILS OF PISA AND CONSTANCE. 143

pertinacity, rebellion, incorrigibility, disobedience, simony,schism, heresy, desertion from the faith, violation of the canons,scandalization of the church, and unworthy of any title, rank,honor, or dignity. Leo the Tenth called this assembly, incontempt, a conventicle. Its name, says Paolo, was detestedat Trent, as schismatical and destitute of universality andauthority.'The council, nevertheless, execrated as it was by popes and

councils, and exploded by divines, was confirmed by Nicholasthe Fifth, and received through the extensive territory andnumerous churches of France aud Germany. The sanctionof Nicholas, it seems, notwithstanding the course of' cursing itendured from Eugenius, vested it with infallibility. The Frenchcontemplate it with peculiar esteem, and regard its rival ofFlorence as a conventicle. The Sorbonnists, such as Richerius,Du Pin, Launoy, and Alexander, have, with argument andeloquence, maintained its cecumenicity, and their approval hasbeen repeated by Moreri and even Carranza."The French also acknowledge the second of Pisa, in opposi-

tion to the fifth of the Lateran. Julius the Seconddelighted inwar, practised cruelty on the cardinals, excommunicated Lewisthe French king, and absolved his subjects from the oath offidelity. A few of the cardinals, in consequence, separatedfrom the pontiff; and, patronized by Maximilian, the Germanemperor, and Lewis, the French monarch, summoned a council,in 1511, at Pisa. Julius, in opposition, opened a council, in1512, at the Lateran. These two conventions, as might beexpected, did not treat each other with excess of politeness.Julius characterized the Pisans. as a scandal, a pestilence, aconvention of the devil, a congregation of wretches, an assemblyof malignants, whose head was Satan, the father of falsehoodand 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, withsuch graphic precision, drawn their character, proceeded,without any ceremony, to pronounce their sentence of excom-munication. Unsatisfied with his sentence against the refractoryconvention, the vicar-general of God interdicted Pisa, Milan,and Lyons, where the synod was allowed to meet,"The Pisans, overflowing with gratitude, and ready at com-

pliment and benediction, retalia.ted in fine style. The holy1Alex 25. 42'1. Crab. 3. 966. Moren, 2. 100. Bell. III. 16. Paolo, VL and

VTI. L'~ Gallicane a tenn ce conoile pour eeeumenique, Milletot, 572.» Du Pm, 406. .Alex 26. 408. Bruya, 4. 400. Daniel, 6. 153. Carraua. 579.-a Labb. 19. lJ7O. 1'12-817. -eo.. 6. 3IS6,357. 360.

Page 144: The Variations of Popery

144 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

fathers declared the vicar-general of Jesus guilty of contumacy,schism, incorrigibility, obduracy, perjury, and indeed all villany.The sacred synod, to these compliments, added a benedictioncouched in very flattering language. This consisted in sus-pending the viceroy of heaven from the administration of thepopedom, and prohibiting all obedience of the clergy and laityof Christendom. This sentence, in all its rigour, was actuallyenforced through the French nation. Lewis commanded hissubjects, both clergy and laity, to withdraw all submission.But the martial Julius, in the mean time, who had excom-munieated Lewis, died, and the sensual Leo succeeded. Lewis,therefore, in 1513, withdrew his support from the Pisans, andsubmitted 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 sovereignwas not lasting. The French monarchs afterwards returnedto the council of Pisa, Its acts, in ] 612, were published fromthe library of his most Christian majesty, and its authority, inopposition to that of the Lateran, which had always beenobnoxious to the French parliament and clergy, was againacknowledged.'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 Italiansadmit; and admit four, those of Piss, Constance, Basil, and thesecond of Pisa, which the others reject.A third party in the Romish Church reject the whole or a

part of the councils, which, in the Italian system, occur from theeighth at Constantinople to the sixteenth at Florence. All thesewere retrenched by Abrahamus, Clement, and Pole. The edi-tion of the Florentian synod, published by Abrahamus, reckonsit the eighth general council The editor, therefore, expungesthe Byzantine council and the seven following. The extermi-nation of the eighth, says Launoy, was in accordance with severalGreeks and Latins.2 The edition of Abrahamus was approvedby Clement the Seventh, who stamped it with the seal of hisinfallibility. Baronius, nevertheless, followed by Binius andLabW, has found the editor guilty of audacity, ignorance,temerity, and falsehood.' Pole, in the synod of Lambeth, in1 Inveterate neDa Gonia et ne' costami infAmi et perduto. Guicciardin, I,275.Endurcy en simoaie et en erreurs infames ?t ~bIes, ~ !Iepouvoit lltre ca~·ble de gouverner la PApauti!. It ~toit noto1l:'ement lnCOrrtglbie AU_dale nm-verseldetoutlaChreetienU. Vignier. 3. 867. MariaDa, 6.767. Moreri,3. 568.et5 •72 • .Alex. 26. ~_ BI:'UY!'.r4. 4.61.2 P'ui.- GJ'lIlC08et LatiDol, qui octavam synodum e llumeJ'O geaeralium ayDC>-

dorum exp1UIX8rint. La1mo7, ~ .. et 6. 133.8Mllpamterpretia temeritate, .. -daeia, ~ at imperi1;ia fac$lm" BiD.

7. 1038. Labb. 10. 998. WWd&. " liS, 1••

Page 145: The Variations of Popery

THE RECEPTION OF COUNOILS. 145

1556, adopted the same. enumeration, and denominated theFlorentian assembly the eighth general council.' This wastransacted in an English synod, and, therefore, was the generalopinion of the En~lish clergy in the reign of Queen Mary. Pole,notwithstanding, In noble inconsistency, recognised the oeeume-nicity of the fourth and fifth of the Lateran, and the second ofLyons. This system proscribed the eight general councilswhich 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 hissummary of councils} addressed to Paul the Third, reckons theByzantine the eighth, and the Florentian the ninth generalcouncil. He therefore omits two of Lyons, four of the Lat-eran, and those of Vienna, Pisa, Constance, and Basil; andexcludes ten which have been owned by the French and Italianschools.Sixtus, Carranza, Silvius, and the Constantian synod omit

part of the councils, which intervened between the eighth andsixteenth. Sixtus the Fifth, in 1588, erected paintings and in-scriptions of the general councils in the Vatican. These omitthe first and second of the Lateran, which, destitute of canons,have no paintin~ or inscriptions in the Vatican.' These two,therefore, are discarded by a celebrated r.ontiff 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 theiracts and the imperfection of their history. The ecclesiasticalannals, according to Gibert, have recorded only the definitionsof the council of Vienna, the constitutions of the :first and secondof 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, andVienna, between the Byzantine and Florentian conventions.The Constantians, therefore, exclude the five which met at theLateran, Lyons, and Pisa, The pontiff elect, according to theConstantian assembly in its thirty-ninth session, was, in thepresence of the electors, required ~ :e.rofess his faith in theseeleven general councils, and es~y in the eight whichassembled at Nicrea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon!Had the Constantians, who omitted five, exterminated thewhole of these councils from the annals of time, the holy fathers

1 InOctav& Genera1i SyDOdo Flol'eDtUe Bub Eugenio. Labb.2O. 1018. 1021., On Jl'a ~t lea oaDOJlI de cea deux ooncilee, et iJa n'ollt point de tableau, ni

d'iucription daIIlIle V_can. Moren. 3. 539.s Gi'birt. 1.98. Crabb. 2. 'i. 65. AIeL 2L 505. SaDota octo univenalia

COIIllWa itramtm]......... x.bb. 16. 703. 1046.I

Page 146: The Variations of Popery

146 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

would have conferred a distinguished favor on the world, andmerited 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 abouttheir universality. Somecondition or peculiarity should distin-guish a general from a diocesan, a provincial, or a nationalsynod. This characteristic distinction, however, has never beenascertained. The attempt, indeed, has been made by Bellar-mine, Binius, Carranza, Jacobatius, Holden, Lupus, Arsdekin,Fabulottus, Panormitan, Bosius, and Martinon. But theirrequisitions differ from each other and from the facts of thecouncils. The theory of each is at variance with the rest orinapplicable 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 onthe universality and sufficiency of a general council. "hiscondition has been advocated by Panormitan, Martinon, andJacobatius.1 But its application to the acknowledged generalcouncils would cause the partial or total, the temporary or per-manent explosion of six, which have been admitted into theItalian or French systems. The popes, for a long lapse of time,rejected all the canons of the second at Constantinople, andhave never recognised the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon.Vigilius, for some time, withstood the fifth oocumenicalsynod,, and his acquiescence was, at last, extorted by banishment.The council of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, applauded by theFrench school, deposed Gregory, Benedict, John, andEugenius.A second class, to constitute a synodal universality, require

the attendance of the pope, patriarchs, and metropolitans,together with subsequent general reception," This requisitionhas been advocated by Bosius and Paolo, and is in discordancywith the system ofMartinon and Jacobatius, as well as that ofBellarmine, Binius, Carranza, Canus, Gibert, Lupus, Fabu-lottus. Its application would exclude many of the <eCumenicalsynods. The Roman hierarch attended the second and fifthneither in person nor by proxy. The patriarchs were presentin neither the third, fourth, nor seventh, nor in any of the tenwestern councils. The Ephesian and .Chalcedonian synods1Pontificis est declarare, an congregatio generalis sufficienter. Martinon,

Disput. V. § 7. MainIb. c. VII. Anton. c. V. XXXI. Posset numerus episco-porum, cum quibuB tenendumest eoncilium relinqui arbitrio Papse, Jocobatius, II.Concilium generale necessario non poteat, quando Papa tali coneilio prmeet.

Panormitan. 2. 63.2 Dico adesse op()rtere Sedem Apostolicam, omne. eoc1eeim orthodOXOI Pat-

riarchaa. BoeiWl, V. 8. Paol. Rig. Sov. e, IV.

Page 147: The Variations of Popery

UNIVERSALITY OF GENElUL COUNCILS. 147condemned Nestorianism, and Eutychianism without the pa-triarchs of Antioch or Alexandria. The pretended vicars ofthe patriarch of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in thesecond of Nicsea, were impostors. During the ten generalcouncils which assembled in the west, the eastern patriarchswere 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 Ancyra,Neoceesarea, Laodicea, and Gangra.lA third faction prescribe, as the condition of universality,

the convocation of all, the rejection of none, and the actualattendance of some from all 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 leastechismatieal, is not necassary. This system has been patronizedby Bellarmine, Binius, Carranm, Canus, Gibert, Lupus, Ars-dekin, Jacobatius, and has obtained general adoption.' Theserequisitions, nevertheless, varying from those of other critics,vary also from the constitution of all the acknowledged councils.Bellarmine's prescription, exploding all the preceding, would,in its practical application, exterminate, with one sweepingreprobation, all the Grecian, Latin, and French cecumenicalsynods.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 Alexander, only two or three westerns.The second, third, and fifth of the eastern synods, which metat Constantinople and Ephesus, were wholly unattended withany westerns. The first council of Constantinople, sayThomassin and Alexander, was entirely Grecian, and becamegeneral only by future reception; and its reception was confinedto its faith, exclusive of its discipline. Vigilius, with someLatins, was in Constantinople at the celebration of the fifth,and refused, notwithstanding, to attend. The Ephesian councilhad effected the condemnation of Nestorianism, which was itschief or only business, before the arrival of the Latins, andwas, in consequence, restricted to the Asians and Egyptians.'

1Lupus. 306. BelL I. 17. C~ ~ Theod. S~d. Ep'.1. . .I Satis eat, ut eit omnibus provmeus mtimatum, ommbusque liber SIt ad illud

aceeuus. Fabulottus. c. V. Majore parte Christianarum provinciarum, aliquiadYeniant. Carrawra, 4. Bell, 1. 1'7. ArsdekiD, 1. 160.Inplerilque conciliia GlClUIIIenicia in Oriente celebratis, duOl aut tree dun-

Page 148: The Variations of Popery

148 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Two or three, indeed; delegated by the Roman hierarch, werepresent in the first, fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth generalcouncils. Vitus, Vicentius, snd Hosius appeared in the councilof Niceea ; while Petus and Vicedomus sat, with legatineauthority, in the second of that city. Three represented thepontiff, and three the westerns, in the fourth and sixth at Chal-cedon and Constantinople. The eighth constituted a blessedrepresentation of the universal church. The first session con-sisted of sixteen or seventeen bishops, who, of course, werein their synodal capacity, clothed with infallibility. The secondreceived an augmentation of ten, who begged pardon for havingsupported Photius, and were admitted. The third sessionconsisted of twenty-three, and the fourth of twenty-one bishops.The fifth was fewer in number. The sixth, seventh and eightha.mounted to the wonderful multitude of thirty-seven. Theninth rose to sixty, and the tenth numbered one hundred, whosubscribed the synodal decision.' Such were the eight Greciansynods, which are, therefore, fairly dismissed by the applicationof Bellarmine's condition of universality.Bellarmine's terms would dismiss the ten western as well as

the eight eastern councils. The former, as Moreri and Du Pinhave shown, were limited to the Latins, to the exclusion of theGreeks. The first of Lyons consisted of about one hundredand forty bishops from France and ~land, withou~ any from. Spain, Portugal, Germany, or Italy. The French, in the councilof Trent, mocked at the Florentian convention, which, theysaid, was celebrated by only a few Italians and four Grecians.The fift.h of the Lateran consisted of about eighty, and nearlyall from Italy. The far famed assembly of Trent, when it con-ferred canonicity on the Apocrypha and authenticity on theVulgate, consisted only of five cardinals and forty-eight bishops,without one from Germany. These, few in number, werebelow mediocrity in theological and literary attainments. Somewere lawyers, and perhaps learned in their profession; but meresciolists in divinity. The majority were courtiers, and gentle-men of titular dignity, and from small eitieas These could notbe said to represent one in a thousand in Christendom. Duringthe lapse of eight months, the council, reckoning even the pre-sidents and princes, did not exceed sixty-four.The councils of the French school, like those of the Italian,

cannot bear the test hf Bellarmine's requisitions. These, liketaut ep~ occidentrJia ecclesial adfuiB8e. .Alexan. 25. 632. Moren, 3.539. DuPm, 3. 388. Pithou, 29. In seclUldo et tertio CODCi1iogenerali nul-Ina fuihpiloopu oocideDtaIia. Fabul. c. V. Thorn"', 1. 6. Crabb, 2. 91.MaimboUJ. os. GclcleM. 4. 498. 1 Bin. 1. 821. Du Pm, oea. V. at oen IX,a.IX., Par lee IIiIlIa 'v6quee d'oooident. Moren, 8, 689. Du PiD, t. 388,4030,

Paolo, IL vn. GiI:aD. XVU. a. LauDoY. 1. 871.

Page 149: The Variations of Popery

ON THE LEGALITY OF COUNCILi. 149

the others, were composed of Europeans. The Pisans, thoughthey amounted to more than two hundred, were collected chieflyfrom Italy, France, Germany, and England. The Constantiansand Basilians, though more numerous, were westerns and Latins.The second of Pisa was principally collected from the Frenchdominions, and could, therefore, have no just claim to univer-sality or a convocation from all Christendom.'Theologians and critics, disagreeing in this manner about the

universality of general councils, differ also respecting theirlegality. A synod, to be general or valid, must be lawful; andthe conditions of the latter as well as of the former, have occa-sioned a striking variety of opinion. The partisans of poperydiffer 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 councillawful without these requisitions. All others, say the Transal-pines, are conventicles. The sovereign pontiff, according toJacobatius, 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 Nichola.'l, without pon-tifical authority, is invalid. The assembling of IL general council,says Pelagius the Second, is the sole prerogative of the RomanSee. Nicholas and Pelagius, in these statements, have beenfollowed by Jacobatius and Antonius.'This system, taught in th"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 easterncouncils. According to Du Pin and Moreri, (the eight formercouncils were convoked by the emperors: Gilbert states that(all the oriental general councils were assembled by the imperialauthority:' and this statement has been repeated by Mezeray,Alexander, Maimbourg, Paoli, Almain, Gerson, .Alliaco, andLaunoy.'

1 Dn Pin, 403. Moreri, 7. 244. Cnbb. 3. 549.2 Congregare concilinm eat proprium Romani Pontifici. Jacob. IlL Ad solum

Romanum Pontiiicem, generale Concilium conyocare pertinet. Carranza, 3-Non pote4t conciJium rite co~ nW auctoritate Romani Pontificis. Anton.c. V. Synodns absque auctoritate Romani Pontifiei8, non valet. Nicholas, I.Carranza, /ill. Generales synodia non posee CODyocari, nisi auctoritate Apoeto-liCllll sedia. Pelagins, II. Carranza, 329.S Octo \Irion. ooncilia ab ~ratoribua conyooata eue OOIistat. Du Pin. 3:t1.

Lea pl'tlDl1e1'l ont ettI autrefOl8, iu8qu'au hnitieme .eral, toujoura oonYOqulSlpar Jea ~ Moreri, 3. 1S39. Omnia concilia generalia Orieatalia libJaperatoriha ClC*lta fuerunt. Giberl. 1. 78, 71.

Page 150: The Variations of Popery

150 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Launoy has shown the imperial convocation of the orientalcouncils 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 tothis author, attested by Eusebius, Epiphanius, Ruffinus, Socrates,Theodoret, Sozomen, Gelasius, Justinian, Isidorus, Gregory,Mansuetus, Zonaras, Reparatus, Robertus, Yicentius, 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, Nicephorus,Sigonius, and Petavius. The assembling of the Ephesiancouncil by Theodosius and Valentinian is attested by Theodo-sius, Basil, Cyril, Theodoret, John, Socrates, Justinian, Valen-tinian, Sigibert, Nicephorus, and the council itself. Marcian,according to Valentini an, Leo, Theodoret, Prosper, Liberatus,Evagrius, Justinian, Vigilius, Mansuetus, Sigibert, Nicephorus,Gobelin, Mariana, and the synod itself, convened the council ofChalcedon : and Justinian summoned the ConstantinopolitanA,ssembly, say Justinian, Evagrius, Mansuetus, Nicephorus,Mariana, and Petavius. The emperor Constantine the Fourthconvoked 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 Theempress Irene, in conjunction with Constantine, assembledthe second Nicene convention, as is-related by Tarasius, Adrian,Anastasius, Paulus, Platina, Hartmann, Bergomas, and theacts of the council. The emperor Basil's convocation of theeighth recumenical assembly is testified by Adrian, Ignatius,Cedrenus, and Zonaras. The council of Pisa was convenedby cardinals,'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 theemperors.' The sovereigns, says Paolo, 'who called these

Nous ne trollVons point de concile ceeumeniqne jllBqu'au neuvieme 8iecle,qui n'ait ete _mbM par leur autorite. Mezeray,5. 466. Maimbourg, 42.Nicama SynodU8 convocata est a Conetantino. Alex. 7. 122. et 8. 82 . ....,.Hoe

eoneilium alCUDlenicum fuit a Theodosio Beniore convocatum, inconeulto Damaeo,Romano Pontifice. Alexander, 9. 79.-8ynodue alCUDlenica Epheeina convocataest a Theodoaio. Alex. 2. 218.-Marcianue SynodllDl IV. convocavit. Alex-and. 2. 3Q6.~ua SynodllDl Sextlm convocavit. Aleund. 13. 287.~timaSynoclasaCoDatantiDoetb.DeAuguatiaoonvocata.t. Aleund.l .. 623.{Launoy ad LUov.· .. It..t ad VoeJL I:108. e$ ad Bray ... 191. et ad MaW.

.. 207, 223. DaDieI. 6. ""

"

Page 151: The Variations of Popery

PRESIDENCY OF COUNCILS. 151synods, presided in person or by representation, and proposedthe matter, prescribed the form, and regulated the discussionsof such conventions.' The sovereign pontiff, according toMariana, Gibert, Maimbourg, and Godeau, did not appeareither in person or by proxy, in the second, fifth, or Pisanassembly. Timotheus and Eutychius, says Alexander, presidedin the Byzantine conventions under the emperors Theodosiusand Justinian. Photius attributes the presidency of the seventhgeneral council to Tarasius,'The first councils, says Du Pin, 'were not confirmed by the

popes: The pontiffs, on the contrary, opposed the canons ofthe second and fourth, which conferred rank and jurisdictionon the Byzantine patriarch. Vigilius withstood the fifth withall his pontifical authority. Petavius's representation of thishierarch's versatility is a curiosity. His infallibility, says thishistorian, ' proscribed, and then confirmed the fifth universalcouncil. He afterward again disclaimed, and finally declaredits legitimacy." .The general conventions, from that of the Lateran to that of

Trent, were held in the west, and enjoyed the distinguishedhonor of pontifical convocation, presidency, and ratification.This period embraced the ten Latin universal councils. TheRoman empire was then divided into many smaller states,whose sovereigns, actuated with petty ambition and engaged inmutual opposition and rivalry, could not agree about ecclesias-tical conventions. The pope, in this emergency, assumed theprerogative of convocation and presidency. He convened theclergy and arrogated the power, which had been exercised bythe emperor, and which, in the hands of the hierarch, becamean engine of pontifical aggrandisement and despotism,"A variety of opinions have been entertained, with respect to

the persons who should form a general council. A few wouldadmit laymen j while many would exclude all but the clergy. .Some would restrict decisive suffrage to the prelacy, and otherswould extend it to the priesthood. The former was the usageof antiquity. The latter obtained in some of the councils in

1 Tribns primis conciliis ge:neralibns non pn.efait. DB Pin, 337; Cusan, II~.16. n n'm pl'llaide au premier Conoile de Coll8taDtinop1e. nest tre& certamqu'll ne conv!Mluapas Ie cinquieme, et n'y prtlaida pOint. Maimb. 42. Huieconcilio pl'lllfuit Timotheua. AJexand. 7. 2U. Cancilio Quinto recumenicopl'llllfuit Eutychiu. Aleund. 12 574. Paolo, 1. 213. Mariana, 1. 521.Gibert, 1.66.68. Godeau, 4. 274. Photiua, 57.2 Prima Cancilla a Pontiftoibua confumata minime aunt. Du Pin, 337. Gi-

bert, 1. 102. Bedes Apostolic. nunc usque coniradicit, quod a slDodo firmatumeat. Liberr.tua, c. XIn. Il1am primum. reapuit Vigilius, demde aBBensiODetlrmavit, postea repudiavit iterum. Denique legitimam esse prof6l8ns est.Pe$aviu, !. 137.a Gibert. 1. 7" hol0, 1. tUs. Moren. 3. 639.

Page 152: The Variations of Popery

152 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

more modem days. Panormitan would restrict membership ina general council to the pope and prelacy, to the exclusion ofthe laity.'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 requireunanimity as a' condition of legitimacy. One faction, patronizedby Bellarmine, account a majority, if sanctioned by pontificalratification, sufficient for conferring validity. A second partycountenanced by Du Pin, Canus, Salmeron, Cusan, and Panor-mitan, would demand unanimity, for bestowing legitimationon a council and validity on its decisions,"The requisition of unanimity would, in fact, explode the

majority of all the eighteen general councils. A few indeedhave been unanimous, but many divided. The Nicene, By-zantine, Ephesian, and Chalcedonian synods contained factionsthat favored Arianism, Macedonianism, Nestorianism, Euty-chianism, and Monothelitism. Mighty controversy, say bothEusebius and Socrates, arose at Nicsea, and was maintainedwith pertinacity. But these sons of heresy were, in general,exterminated by deposition, banishment, murder or some otherway of legal ratiocination and evangelical discipline! Thepatrons of idolatry in the second assembly of Nicrea, anticipatedall opposition to their intended enactments by rejecting all whowould not execrate the patrons of Iconoclasm.The ten western councils were under the control of the

Roman pontiff. His power, combined with ignorance and theinquisition, succeeded ina great measure, in silencing oppositionand commanding unanimity. But occasional symptoms ofrebellion against the vicar-general of God appeared, notwith-standing general submission, even in western Christendom. Noassembly, civil or ecclesiastical, ever showed less unity than thecouncil of Trent. Theologian opposed theologian, and bishopwithstood bishop, in persevering impertinence and contention.The Dominican fought with the Franciscan in an endless andprovoking war of rancor and nonsense. The French andSpanish encountered the Italians, with inferior numbers, in-deed, but with far superior reason and eloquence. All thisappears in the details of Paolo, Du Pin, and even Pallavicino.The r.rrentine contest and decision on original sin may be given

1 Crotty, 83. Alex. 10. 34J. Lenfan. 1. 107. Auton. c. V. Du PiD, 3. 9.Syuodu geD8l'llJja ccmatimtur a papa lit ep-pi8, lit lie Dihil dicit de laioia.Pauorm. Ie.2 n faut\u'eIle pII8Ie au oonaentement lID&Dime. ])a Pin, Doct. d. 1. 3.Nego. 01UD de He aaitur, lequi ~ ~oium. 0IJ0l't;ere. Caau, VI.

6. ApoL 1. 108-106. • lI:Uebiu, m. 13. 8GcrateI, 1. 8.

Page 153: The Variations of Popery

WANT OF UNANIMITY IN COUNCILS. 1.53

as a specimen of Trentine contention and senseless animosity.The bishops, learned in general in the law, but unskilled indivinity, were utterly confounded by the distinctions, scholas-ticism, and puzzling diversity of opinion which prevailed amongthe theologians. The composition of the canons was over-whelmed with inextricable difficulty. The persons employedin this task could not comprise every opinion, or avoid thehazard of creating a schism.' The discord of the Trentinefathers became, in the French nation, the subject of witticismand mockery.The contentions of the French synod of Melun, preparatory

to that of Trent, afforded a striking prelude and specimen ofthe noisy and numerous altercations which were afterwardsdisplayed in the latter assembly. The French king convenedthe Parisian doctors at Melun, for the purpose of arranging thedogmas of faith, which, on the assembling of the general council,were to be proposed for discussion. The Parisians, however,could agree on nothing. These, adhering to a church whichboasts of extensive unity, squabbled and contended on thetopics of the sacraments, the Concordat, the Pragmatic Sanction,and the Constantian and Bssilian councils, without meaning orend. Each, however, without being disconcerted by their dis-cord, would have his own opinion made an article of faith. Theking, in consequence, had to dissolve the council without comingto any conclusion" A scene of equal dissension is not to befound in all 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 ofliberty. This, in an ecclesiastical assembly, was the demand ofthe ancients, such as Hilary, Athanasius, Basil, Faeundus, aswell as of the modems, such as Richerius, Canus, and Duval.No eouneil, says Facnndas, was ever known, under compulsion,to subscribe any thing but falsehood.' Freedom of speechwas one of the conditions of a general ecclesiastical assemblyrequired by the council of Basil. This freedom, it has beenadmitted, is destroyed, not only by deposition and banishment,1 Lee evaques emban-uses par une si grande vari8U d'opUUllb8, ne llavoient

quel jugement porter. nyawit une Iigrande vari8U de sentimens des theolo-giens, il8 ne croyoient ~ qu'il itt possible, uide dMluir 1& chose ni de condamnerquelqu'une de oea opInions, IIAII8 courir Ie risque de causer quelque schiame.PaolO, 1. 281. Lea disputes Be riveill~t avec taut de force, que lee legat.seurent beaucoup de peine a lee apaiser. Paolo, 2. 282. Dn Pin, 3. 426.2 I1a etoient aaasi partagez sur l'article des sacrem_ Chacun vouloit f&ire

paller eon opinion pour un dogme de foi. n.ne puzent convenir d'aufire chose.PlI01o, 1. 171 178.• N~ 00MWn co6oili.um, nisi talIitati, subecripsit. Facandu, XIL 3-

GibeIt, 1. 74. Ambo. in Luo. 6.

Page 154: The Variations of Popery

154 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

but also by threats, bribery, gifts, favors, faction, simony, party,money, and influence. The favor of the emperor was, byAmbrosius, considered subversive of synodal liberty. Thraldom01' servility may arise from any thing that may bias the mindor influence the vote.The application of this requisition would explode all the

general councils that ever met in Christendom. All these wereswayed by hope, fear, reward, or punishment, or influenced,more or less, by faction or favor, menace or money. Theeighteen councilswere controlled by the Roman emperor or theRoman pontiff. The eight recumenical councils celebrated inthe east were influenced by imperial power. The emperors, inperson or by representation, presided as judges in the Grecianconventions, and moulded them into any form they pleased.'None of these ecclesiastical meetings was ever known to resistthe will of its sovereigns, but adhered, with undeviating uni-formity, to the duty of unlimited and unqualified submission.Constantine's management of the Nicene assembly, the mostrespectable of all that have been called general, is recorded byEusebius and Socrates. He gained some, say these historians,by reason and some by supplication, Some he praised andsome he blamed; and, by these means, succeeded, with a fewexceptions, in effecting an unanimity.' Such are the effects ofimperial arguments. A few, however, preferred their conscienceor their system to royal favor, and were banished or deposedfor error and contumacy. Arius, Eusebius, and Theognis,having for some time felt the blessed effects of these logical andscriptural arguments, subscribed and were restored. Maris,Theognis, and Eusebius, says Philostorgius, declared in self-condemnation, that, influenced by terror, they had signed hete-rodoxy.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 humor, and signed, like dutifulsubjects, the Arian and Semi-Arian confessions of Sirmium,Seleucia, Milan, and Ariminum. The oriental and occidentalprelacy, united at Sirmium in one of the most numerous coun-cils that ever met, subscribed, in compliance with their sover-eigns, inArian creed, which, as Du Pin has shown. was signedby his infallibility Pope Liberius. The Greeks. consisting ofleeS .one. d'aseerabUeil furent dirig8ea F lea Princes. Paolo. 1. 21~, fIIIMtrJ ~_ ~ Euibi1U; de ritaCoaAmtiDi, tIL 13. '1'-

/if If "... ... ....." Ie _ ....... .,..~ t ........ ~ _. 8oclrat. 1.8. Phil~ 1. 10.

Page 155: The Variations of Popery

WA.NT OF FREEDOM: IN COUNCILS.

Arians and Semi-Arians, assembled at Seleucia, framed, aftera long and bitter altercation, an Arian and Semi-Arian con-fession. These two the holy bishops referred, not to Liberiusbut to Constantius, not to the pontiff but to the emperor, forhis approbation and sanction. The Emperor, rejecting both,produced one of an Arian stamp, which had been composedatNicrea and subscribed at Ariminum; and this, the sacred synodwith the most obliging condescension unanimously adopted.The Latins, at Milan and Ariminum, followed the footsteps ofthe Greeks. The world, says Jerome on this occasion,groanedand wondered at its Arianism; and all in compliancewith itssovereign.The annals of image worship, as well as the history of Arian-

ism, show the control which the Roman emperors exercisedover the consciences and the faith of their subjects, clergy andlaity. The emperor Constantine, the enemy of idolatry andthe 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 orchisel. But the empress Irene, the votary of images and super-stition, assembled the second Nicene council, which is theseventh general, and the holy fathers, proselyted by imperialarguments, cursed, in long and loud execrations, all the sonsand daughters of iconoclasm. The western emperor, in hosti-lity to image worship, called, at Frankfort, a council of threehundred bishops, who represented the whole western church,and who overthrew the Nieene enactment in favour of idolatry.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, comparedwith imperialpower, appeared in the second, third, fourth, and fiflihgeneralcouncils. The second and fourth councils elevated the Byzan-tine patriarch to a pitch of honor and jurisdiction, offensive, ina high degree, to the Roman pontiff. The second conferred onthe (',ollStantinopolita.nchief an honorary primacy, next to theRoman hierarch; and the fourth, ~ its twenty~hth canon,granted equality of honor, and added the jurisdiction of Asia,Pontus, and Thracia. These honors, bestowed on a rival,the po~, as might be expected, resisted with all his might andauthonty. Lucentius, the pope's vicar at Chalcedon on this

1 :BiD. 1. 479. Du Pin, in Lib. Bil. in Syn. Jerom. in Chron., ~ •• Zcmana, 2. 86. Bruy. 1. 1'iM. Crabb. 2. 599. Bruy, 1. 5M.c.ran.;.. lIabiUoa, I... . '

Page 156: The Variations of Popery

156 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 notconsented.' But pontifical exertion was vain, when opposedto imperial power. Lucentius protested.' But the obnoxiouscanon, 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 andimperial 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 ofthe wise," John and Cyril, indeed, headed two rival and jarringcabals. Each issued its creed, and appealed, not to the Romanpontiff, but to the Roman emperor, for the orthodoxy of itsfaith. His infallibility, on the occasion, was not even consulted.Theodosius, at first, seemed favorable to the Nestorian faction.He afterward veered round to Cyril's party; and the change,it appears, was owing to the efficiency of pecuniary logic.Cyril, says Acacius, bribed Scholasticus a courtier, who in-fluenced the mind of Theodosius. The emperor, not the pon-tift, confirmed the synodal decision and stamped the faith ofCyril with the seal of orthodoxy,"Justinian, in like manner, in the fifth general council, pte-

vailed against Vigilius. This assembly, indeed, enjoyed nofreedom, and showed no deference to the pontiff. Liberatus,Lupus, and Eustathius have adduced weighty imputationsagainst its validity. According to Liberatus, the council, whosesubject of discussion was the silly productions of Ibas, Theo-doret, and Theodorus, was convened by the machinations ofTheodorus of Cresarea, and was swayed by his influence withJustinian and Theodora, the ~mperor and empress. Theepiscopal courtier was an enthusiastic admirer of Origen, and aconcealed partisan of Monophysitism. The fanciful theologianwas his darling author, and the heretical theology was his de-voted system. He was, in consequence, an enemy to Theodo-rna of Mopsuestia, who had written against Origen, and to thecouncil of Chalcedon, which had approved his works, containedin the celebrated three chapters, the mighty topic of imperialanimadversion and synodal reprehension. The C&a.rean dig-

1 Qua circumventione cum 8&11ctia episoopis ~ llit, ut l10D ooucriptiaeauonibaa aubllcribere lIillt coacti. Crabb. 1. 938. Luoe11tilUl fut nlduit a fain_e P1'OteetdioIl 006_ oe~.:::ntfait era oeJa. Godea. a. 600, Ii08·.AllNI otaDium ftII4IIIO 0 ti oonloIl8pienti'am obtinuit. IM>b. 6. 131.I Godeaa, 3. 310. Labb. 3. 57" LiberMat, e, VI. -...; L 6. J:.upu. e, XLI.

Page 157: The Variations of Popery

WANT OF FREEDOM: IN COUNCILS. 157

nitary, however, notwithstanding his heterodoxy, found meansof ingratiating himself with the emperor and empress. He in-sinuatedhimselfinto the royal favor and ruled the royal councils.This influence he used for the discredit of the Chalcedoniansynod and the condemnation of the Mopsuestian critic. Hepersuaded Justinian to issue an edict against the writings of Ibas,Theodoret, and Theodorus, which had been sanctioned atChalcedon. These writers, Pontius, an African bishop, in aletter to Vigilius, represents as the authors whom the holy synodof Chalcedon had received,' The emperor, also, actuated byhis counsellor's suggestions, called an <ecumenical council forthe 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, bybribery and banishment. He enriched those who promoted hisdesigns and banished all who resisted."The allegations of Liberatus have been repeated by Lupus

and Eustathius. According to Lupus,' Justinian became aDioclesian ..and the Grecian prelacy became the tools of hili im-perial despotism." 'All things,' says Eustathius, 'were effectedby violence.' Certain it is, however these things be determined,that the Roman pontiff opposed the Roman emperor and theuniversal 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 hisholiness hated, and to sanction enactments, against which, inthe 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 formergeneral council, and acting in unrelenting hostility to the vicar-general of God, constituted the :fifth general, unerring, holyRoman council.The eight eastern councils, in this manner, were subject to

the control of the Roman emperor; and the western, in thesame way were swayed by the authority of the Roman pontiff.The pope became as arbitrary and despotic among the Latins,

1 Lea autel11'll, que Ie eaint concile de Cbalcedoine avoit nl9U8• Godeau, 4. 230.2 C0D88ntientes episcopi in Trium damnationem UapitulomDl muneribns dita-

bantur, veIllOn consentientea, depositi; in exilium missi BUilt. Liberatus, c.XXIV. Crabb. 2. 121.3 InhaQ 8)'DOdo, Jastinanal Dioo1etianum indicerat: ejns alfectibus I81'ViebaDt

0IIlDeII Gl'IlOOI'UJDepiIcopi. _Lupua, 1. m. Bruy. 1. 330.

Page 158: The Variations of Popery

158 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

as the emperor had been among the Greeks. This servilityof the Westerns has been delineated with the pencil of truth,by Gibert, Giannone, Du Pin, and Richerius.' According toGibert, 'the pontiffs, in these conventions, did as they pleased.'The Roman hierarchs, says Du Pin, ' established, in the twelfthcentury, their sovereignty in the Roman city, and their inde-pendence of the Roman emperor; and even assumed the rightof conferring the imperial crown. Their power over the stateand the magistracy was attended with additional authority andjurisdiction over the church and clergy. Councils were con-vened by their summons, and the synodal constitutions weretheir 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.' Thecouncils, in the twelfth century, were according to Giannone,, 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, ' departedwith the elevation of Gregory the Seventh to the pap~y. Thispatron of ecclesiastical despotism, contrary to the custom ofmore than a thousand years, compelled the clergy of Uhristen-dom to swear fidelity to the Roman See: and this stretch ofpapal power, in a short time, introduced spiritual slavery.' Thepontiffs, according to the same historian, 'continued, from theaccession of Gregory till the council of Constance, embracing aperiod of 840 years, to assume the authority of framing canonsand definitions at the Vatican,and then summoned servile synodsto 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 thecanon-law. In Gibert's statements 'bishops should swearfideli-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 tohis holiness," Pius the Fourth, in the Confession of Faithwhich, in 1564, he annexed to the Council of Trent, exacts anoath of the same kind. According to this bull, issued by thepope and received by the prelacy, all the beneficed clergy inthe Romish communion, 'promise and swear obedience to the

1Pontificem in iia feciase qnidqnid libuit. Gibert, 1. 100. Du Pin, Cen. XII.c. XX. Giannon. XIV. 3. Rich. c. 38.

2 Epiaoopi Papll debent juajunmdwn. Gibert, 8. 20&. Hodie omnee accipienteadignitatem a Pa~ libi jurit. Pithou, 10'1.Romano PonWici ftn.trl obedieDQluupondeoaojuro. IADb. 20." &rolal,

11. e.s,

Page 159: The Variations of Popery

WANT OF FREEDOM IN COUNCILS. 159Roman pontiff.' This obligation, it is plain, is inconsistent withfreedom or independence.This servility and compulsion appeared in all the ten Latin

councils, and in none more than in the council of Trent. TheTrentines were under the control of the Roman court. Hisholiness 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 ofother nations mustered only eighty. The French, Spanish,andGermans, indeed, endeavored to maintain the freedom of theassembly; but were overwhelmed by numbers. The Frenchand Spanish, however, both confessed the thraldom of thesynod. The Cardinal de Lorraine complained of papal influ-ence. Lausac, the French ambassador, declared that theRoman court was master in the council and opposed thereformation. Claudius, a French Trentine theologian, said, ina. letter to Espensseus, 'you would die with grief, if you shouldsee the villany which is here perpetrated for the purpose ofevading a reformation." The Spanish declared that the councilcontained more than forty, who receivedmonthly pensionsfromthe Roman court. Richerius as well as Paolo admits the utterabsence of allliberly in the Council of Trent.

1 Pro dolore, mortuus as, si ea vidisses qUal ad eludendam reformationem,infanda eatrantur. Claud. Ep. ad Espen. Paolo. II. V. VI. A In tenne d'unceaeile libre, eelui de Trente ne l'etant pas. Paol. 1. 216. et 2. 416.

Page 160: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER IV.

SUPREMACY.

~UR VARIATIONS-POPB'S PBKSroJliNCY-HIS SOY.l!:BEIGNTr OB DESPOTISM-HIllSUPPOSED EQUALITY WITH GoD-HIa ALLEGED SUPERIORITY TO GoD-SORIl'-TUBAL PBOOF-TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE--oBIGINAL STATE 01' THill BOHAN CHURCH-CAUSIIlS OJ!' ITS PBIHACY-IIlHINENCIil OP THE CITY-PALSE DBCBETALB-HISSION8-OPPOSITION l!'BOMASIA, A.l!'BICA,PRANCE, SPAIN, ENGLAND, AND IBELAND UNI-VEBSAL BISHOP-USURPATIONS OJ!' NICHOLAS, JOHN, GREGORY, INNOCENT, ANDBONIl!'ACE.

THE Supremacy is, by the patrons of Romanism, uniformlyascribed to the pope. This title the partisans of popery use torepresent the Roman hierarch's superiority in the church. Butthe authority attached to this dignity remains to the presentday undecided. Opinions on this topic have floated at freedom,unfixed by any acknowledged standard, and uncontrolled byany recognised decision. The Romish doctors, in consequence,have, on the pontifical supremacy,. roved at random throughall the gradations and forms of diversified and conflictingsystems.These systems are many, and, as might be expected, are

distinguished in many instances by trifling and evanescentshades of discrimination. A full enumeration would be end-less, and, at the same time, is useless. The chief variations onthis topic may be reduced to four. One confers a mere presi-dency; and the second an unlimited sovereignty on the Romanpontiff. The third makes the pope equal-and the fourthsuperior 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 hisequals, he is not the church's master, but its minister. Such arethe statements of Du Pin, Rigaltius, Filaster, Gibert, a.nd Paolo.'

1 Petnun hder ~ ~um 1ocnua~. Du Pia, 313. PremiI1Dl- BoIDaaum p~ Du Pia, ...NOIlimpelium._d;e' _ ~ prim.1uII..looum. DuPia,

314. Le Pape lai- Ie lei,..... ~ 1. 1t11.

Page 161: The Variations of Popery

VARIATIONS IN THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 161

The pontiff, says Du Pin, 'like Peter among the Apostles, obtainsthe first place. The pontiff has no power over the church, butthe church, on the contrary, over the pontiff.' The Romanhierarch, says Rigaltius, quoted by Du Pin, 'possesses not juris-diction, dominion or sovereignty, but the first place.' CardinalFilaster, 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 Romanhierarch, according to Paolo, 'is chief, not in authority, but inorder, as the president of an assembly.' This presidency, there-fore, Du Pin observes, is only a primacy of order and unity;which, indeed, is necessary for the efficiency and co-operation ofevery society.This primacy authorizes a general superintendence, allows the

possessor to watch over the faith and morality of the wholecommunity, and to enforce the observance of the ecclesiasticalcanons. The power, however, is executive, not legislative; andextends, not to the enactment, but merely to the enforcementof laws. The pontiff's doctrinal definitions and moral instruc-tions are, on account of his dignity, entitled to attention i butdepend on their general reception for their validity. The pon-tifical primacy, or, as some say, monarchy, is, according to thissystem, limited by prelatical aristocracy. The episcopacy, inother words, restricts the popedom. The Roman pontiff isinferior to a general council, by which he may, for heresy orimmorality, be tried and deposed, and which does not necessa.-rily require his summons, presidency, or confirmation; thoughthese may, on some occasions, be a matter of convenience. Thepatrons of this system deprecate the papal claims to infallibility,and view with detestation all the Roman hierarch's pretensionsto the deposition of kings, the transferring of kingdoms, and theabsolution of subjects from the oath of fidelity.lThe French have patronized this system on the subject of the

papal primacy. The Gallican church mainta.ins this plan ofmoderation and freedom,and disclaims the ultraism and servilityof the Italian school The same views have been entertainedby the university of Paris, followed by those of ~ers, Orleans,Bononia, Louvaln, Herford, Cracow, and Coloma. The Sor-bonne, in several instances, pronounced the contra.ry opinion

Aliud DOD Bit Papa quam ~~ prim118; Gibe~ S. ~. De~ter lllqual. epucopos, pnmUUl gradlim obtineat, pnm118 mter parea.

Pnm. 206.Le ~ .. iIliDinre de l'~ a'en en pal Ie maitre. Apol. 2. 82.1Da. CIOJeIlt aax ...... x. Moreri, 1. 40. DB Pia, 3••

AndeIda. 1. 111. .Jt

Page 162: The Variations of Popery

Hi2 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

a heresy.' The same scheme has been supported by manydistinguished theologians, such as Gerson, Cusan, Tostatus,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, Siri-cius, Zozimus, Celestine, Sixtus, Gregory, Eugenius, Innocent,and Adrian,"A similar subordination of the papal power was patronized

by the councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil. The Pisansdeclared the superiority of a general council over the Romanpontiff; degraded Benedict and Gregory and elected Alexander,"The Constantians, treading in the footsteps of the Pisans,defined, in the fourth session, the subjection of a pope to acouncil, and denounced condign punishment on all persons, ofevery state and dignity, even the papal, who should disobey thesynodal enactments." The Basilians, in their second session,renewed the decision of Constance with its penalty against alltransgressors. The council of Basil, besides, in its thirty-thirdsession,declared the superiority of a general council to a Romanhierarch, and its incapability of being dissolved, prorogued,or transferred against its consent, to be truths of the Catholicfaith. Pertinacity in the denial of these truths, the holyunerring fathers pronounced a heresy. The inferiority of apope to an universal synod, and his incompetency to order itsdissolution, adjournment, or translation are, according to aninfallible council, doctrines of Catholicism, and respect not dis-cipline but the faith.6A 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, unlimitedby democracy or aristocracy, by the laity or the clergy. TheRoman pontiff's .power is civil as well as ecclesiastical, extend-ing both to the church and the state; and legislative as well asexecutive, comprehending in its measureless range both themakin~ and enforcing of laws. He is clothed.with uncontrolled&uthonty over the church, the clergy, councils, and kings. He• Qui docent contrarium, halreticos esse censet. DuPin, 421. L'~ Gal-

lioane a approuve Ie decret de 1& superiorite des conciles Bur 1es Papas.Kil1etot, 572.I Lauoor, 1. 296, 314. Du Pin, 442. Fabulottua, c. 2-• ConciIium generale UDiveraam reprlllllelltana eocleaiam 8888 BUperiua Papal.

DuPia, 404.• Cui quilibet cuj ue statu vel dipitatia, etiam Ii palla exiatat,

obire teaaemr. Labb.~ 8'lUDD1UID poDti.ftcem auheaee ~ generalibuB.Gm.t.1. ,. .ea..n, 4.. 113.. I....... icW e.tItolioe Veritatlillud.... PNlC1ictia )MtftiaIaciter~ ....... ~ IAbb.l'l."" -n JUri. a'''re08lllll8~ :BnlJ.4.... Da 1iD." 88. ~ 811,_

Page 163: The Variations of Popery

SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 163has a right, both in a legislative and executive capacity, togovern the universal church, and to ordain, judge, suspend, anddepose bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs through Christen-do.m. These receive their authority from the pope, as he re-cerves his from God. He possesses a superiority over generalcouncils, which, for legitimation and validity, require pontificalconvocation, presidency, and ratification. He is the supremeJudge of controversy, and, in this capacity, receives appealsfrom the whole church. He is vested with temporal as well asspiritual authority; and may depose sovereigns, transfer king-doms, and absolve subjects from the oath of fealty. His chiefprerogative is infallibility. The Roman pontiff unlike otherfrail mortals, is, at least in his official sentences, which he pro-nounces from the chair, exempted from all possibility of erroror mistake,'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 pontiffwith all this superhuman power and authority. This party hasbeen supported in these views by Jesuits, canonists, theologians.popes and councils. The votaries of Jesuitism, dispersedthrough the world, have advocated the unlimited authority ofthe popedom, with their accustomed erudition and sophistry.The canonists, such as Gratian and Pithou, have, in general,been friends to the plenitude of pontifical jurisdiction and des-potism. These have been supported by an host of theologiansand schoolmen ,such as Baronius, Bellarmine, Binius, Turrecrema,Sanderus, Perron, Pighins, Carranza, Fabulottus, Lainez, Jacoba-tins, Arsdekin, AntoniuH, 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, Bo~, <::Iement. ~dPaul supported their overgrown tyranny WIthp«lCuliarresolutionand energy. Gregory the Seventh subjected, not only thechurch but the state, and monopolized both civil and ecclesi.as-ticalpower, Boniface the Eighth taught the necessity of sub-mission to the pontiff for the a.ttainment of salvation. Paul theFourth seems to have been a.model of pontifical ambition, arro-gance, haughtiness, and tyranny. His infallibility contemned1Du Pm, 333. BelL IV. 1, 15, et 6. Gibert, 3. 36, 487, Cajetan, 0. I.

Enrav. 62, 101. Labb. 18. 18. FabuL 0. n.Sub ratione regmiDia moDlll'Ohioi. DeDI, 2. 141. In Papa reIIidet II1lpI'8Dla

potedu. Faber. 2. aM. • • • ;..._ T _....l!locl.... ClIridu~m.tarftlDJ,mquaUDUll, .... __ - .-.-.- •.......Papa._~ ........... ...-,.17

Page 164: The Variations of Popery

164 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

the authority of councils and kings. The papal power, hemaintained, was unbounded and above all synods; and this,he called an article of faith; and the contrary, he denominateda heresy.' His holiness declared himself the successor of onewho had deposed emperors and kings, and superior to princeswhom he would not acknowledge as his companions, but useas his footstool. This vain glory, these empty boasts, his infalli-bility enforced with the stamp of his foot and the thunder ofhis 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 acouncil, whose enactments he was authorized by his apostolicprerogative to change or repeal. The pontifical dissolution ortranslation of a council, he declared, is no heresy, notwithstand-ing the contrary sentence of the Basilian assembly, whose acts,he affirmed, were unjust and foolish, and contrary to the lawsof God and man. The Florentines vested his infallibility withthe vicegerency of God, and authority to teach all Christians,and the supremacy over the whole world,"The fifth council of the Lateran clothed Leo with equal

power. This convention decreed the superiority of the Romanpontiff over all councils, and his full power and right of synodalconvocation, translation, and dissolution. This assembly alsorenewed the bull of Boniface, which declared the subjection ofall Christians to the Roman pontiff necessary for salvation,"The council of Trent, on this subject, was not so explicit as

those of Florence and the Lateran. The French and ~panish,in this synod, withstood the Italians, and prevented the freeexpression of Ultramontane servility. The council, however,in its fourteenth session, ascribed to the pope 'the supremepower in the universal church." The pontiff, said CardiIlus tothe Trentine fathers, without any disclaimer, ' holds, as a mor-ta!God, the place of Christ on earth, and cannot be judged by1C'6toit nn article de foi, at que de dire Ie contraire etoit une her.leie. Paolo,

2. ZT. Labb. 19. 968.s Couata1; synodum pontifici 8888 inferiorem. Labb. 18. 132()' Papa est super

pot;ea1iatem ecclesire univenalis et eoneilii ~neralirs. Cajetan, 1. 10.Diaeolutionem sive translationem concilli hlerellim non pertinere. Labb. 18.

1321. Romanum Pontmcem in univennu:n orbem teDfte primatum, at vemmChriati vicarium existere. Labb. 18. 526, 1152. Gibert, 1. 93.• Solum B.ouaaDumPontificem, tanquam. auetoritatem super 0IIlDia concilia

habeDtem, tam conci1iorum dioeAdol'lUll, traaWemadol'lUll, dinolvendonunp1eInna jtIe '" ~ habere. Labb. 19. 867. 8m,.. 4. 806. Dn Pin 430.• Pro I1lpnma poteIWe libi inecclMia uivena tndita. Labb. 20. 98. Giblin,

1.181. Deu. "-tat.IaCIaNti no-~ illterril, ...... IDOI'UIIaDeua: ~ue a oonaUio ......n P... ,......... e-B1i1l:wbb.1&. 671. 1177.

Page 165: The Variations of Popery

SUPPOSED EQUALITY OF THE POPE WITH GOD. 165

a general council.' This avowal is inconsistent with Cisalpineliberality 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, .AIwain, Paolo,Marca, Du Pin, Carron, and Walsh, encounter Baroni us,Bellarmine, Binius, Carranza, Turiano, Turrecrema, Arsdekin,Cajetan, Aquinas, and Bonaventura. The universities of Paris,Angiers, Orleans, Toulouse, Bononia, Louvain, Cracow,Cologne, and Herford may be pitted against the schoolmen,the Jesuits, and the Roman court. Pope charges po:re, indreadful affray. Damasus, Felix, Sirieius, Celestine, an Piuslead their phalanx against the squadrons of Leo, Gregory,Urban, Nicholas, Pascal, Paul, and Sixtns, General councilsstand in array against general councils. The Pisans, Constan-tians, and Basilians wage war against the Florentines, Laterans,and Trentines; and hurl mutual anathemas from their spiritualartillery ..A third variety would raise the pope to an equality with God.

The Italian school, one would expect, confers a power on theRoman hierarch calculated to satisfy the highest ambition. Butthe transalpine system does not terminate the progression. Athird description of flatterers have proceeded to greater ex-travagancy, and vested his holiness with ampler preroKatives.These, in the exorbitance of papal adulation, have Insulted rea-son, outraged common sense, and ascended, in their impiousprogress, through all the gradations of blasphemy. PretendedChristians have ascribed that Divinity to the Roman pontiff,which the Pagans attributed to the Roman emperors. Domitian,addressing his subjects in his proclamation, signed himself their< Lord God.' Caligula arrogated the name of' the Greatest andBest God;' while Sapor, the Persian monarch, affected, withmore modesty, to be only • the Brother of the Sun sad M.oon.'1This blasphemy has Been imitated by the minions of his Romaninfallibility. The pope, says the gloss of the canon law, •is nota man.' This awkward compliment is intended to place hisholiness above humanity. According to Tu1Tecrema and Bar-clay, •some DOCTORL1NGS wish, in their adulation, to equal thepontiff to God.' These, says Gerson, quoted by Carrou andGiannone, 'esteem the pope a God,who has all power in heavenand eartb.' The sainted Bernard affirms that,' none, exceptGod, is like the pope, either in heaven or on earth. It

1~ ... III, 1IIS5. ....~ .. ~ Bat. DecloA L. L Tit.·VL e, 18.

TOlaDt actaJaado .. q"'eqaipuareDeo.&rc1ay,J19. ~

Page 166: The Variations of Popery

166 THE VARIATIOKS OF POPERY.

The name and the works of God have been appropriated tothe pope, by theologians, canonists, popes, and councils.Gratian, Pithou, Durand, Jacobatius, Musso, Gibert, Gregory,Nicholas, Innocent, the canon law, and the Lateran council havecomplimented his holiness with the name of deity, or bestowedon him the vicegerency of heaven. Pithou, Gibert, Durand,Jacobatius, Musso, and Gratian, on the authority of the canonlaw, style the pontiff the Almighty's vicegerent, 'who occupiesthe place, not of a mere man, but of the true God.' Accordingto Gregory the Second, 'The whole Western Nations reckonedPeter a terrestrial God: and the Roman pontiff, of course, suc-ceeds to the title and the estate. This blasphemy, Gratiancopied into the canon law. 'The emperor Constantine: saysNicholas the First,' conferred the appellation of God on thepope, who, therefore, being God, cannot be judged by man.'A.ccordingto Innocent the Third,' the pope holds the place ofthe true God.' The canon law, in the gloss, denominates theRoman hierarch, 'our Lord God.' The canonists, in generalreckon the pope the one God, who hath all power, human anddivine, in heaven and in earth. Marcellus in the Laterancouncil and with its full approbation, called Julius,' God onearth." 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, Deeius, Lainez,the canon law, and the Lateran council 'The pope and theLord,' in the statement of Innocent, Jacobatius and Deeius,'form the same tribunal, so that, sin excepted, the pope can donearly all that God can do.' Jacobatius, in his modesty, usesthe qualifying expression nearly, which Decius, with more ef-frontery, rejects as unnecessary. The pontiff, say Jacobatiusand Durand, 'possesses a plenitude of power, and none daresay to him, any more than to God, Lord, what dost thou 1 Hecan 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 Denm ease qui habet potestatem omnem inecalo et in terra. Carron, 34. Giaunon. X. 12. Prseter Deum, non est similisei nee in eoelo, nee in terra. Bernard, 1725. 2. Theu. 11.4-1Papa Yicem non purl hominis, sed veri Dei, gerens in terra. JlIOOb. VILBarclay, 222. Pithou, 29. Decret. I. Tit. VII. c. III. Papa locum Dei tenet

in tenia. Gibert, 2. 9. Durand. 1. 51. Omnia Occidentis regna, velut Deumteu_hlUl babent. Labb. 8. 666. Bruy.2. 100. Conatantino DeUm appellatum,ClUB nee ~ Dewa ab hominibue judican JIUIlDifenam eet. Labb; 9. 1572.Dominu Dna ..... Papa. Extrav. Tit. XIV. 0. IV. Walall. p. IX. Deuin tenia. Labh. 19. 'Ill. Bia. 9. M.Caonia&Ie ~ Pallam. .e_ 1ID1UIl ~ qui habet pote..... omMID ill

OGllo et inMrnt. ~ __ .. DiWi1ullih .. JauiUam hpa ki'bJrut,.&reIa7.......

Page 167: The Variations of Popery

ALLEGED BUPERIORrry OF THE POPE TO GOD. 167

imaginations of Jacobatius, Durand, and Decius; but are found,in all their absurdity, in the canon law, which attributes to thepope, the irresponsibility of the Creator, the divine power ofperforming the works of God, and making something out ofnothing. The pope, according to Lainez at the council ofTrent, c has the power of dispensing with all laws, and the sameauthority as the Lord.' This, exclaimed Hugo, 'is a scandaland impiety which equals a mortal to the immortal, and a manto God.' An archbishop, in the last Lateran synod, calledJulius' 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, theholy, unerring, Roman council heard without any disapproba-tion, and the pontiff with unmingled complacency. The manof sin then 'sat in the temple of God, and showed himself thathe was God.' 'Some popes,' says Coquille, 'have allowedthemselves to be called omnipotent.'!A fourth variety, on this subject, makes the Pope superior to

God. Equality with the Almi~hty, it might have been expected,would have satiated the ambition of the pontiff and satisfied thesycophancy of his minions. But this was not the giddiest stepin the scale of blasphemy. The superiority of the pope overthe Creator, has been boldly and unblushingly maintained bypontiffs, 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 ofGod.' The canon law declares that, 'the Pope, in the pleni-tude of his power, is above right, can change the substantialnature of things, and transform unlawful into lawful." Bellar-mine's statement is of a similar kind. The cardinal affirmsthat 'the Pope can transubstantiate sin into duty, and dutyinto sin.' He can, says the canon law, 'dispense with right.'Stephen, archbishop of Petraea, in his senseless parasitismand blasphemy, declared, in the council of the Lateran, that1Papa et ChristuB faciunt idem COIIlIiBtorium, ita quod. exoepto peceato, ;poteat

Papa fere 0JlUIia facere, qlUepoteQ Deus. Jacob. III. PaplIIlnullua.-deat di8cere,Dollline, CUTita faciB? Extrav. Tit. IV. c. II. 8icut])eo diai non poteBt, cur itafaciB? Ita nee in iiB, qUill anmt juris positivi, Paplll poWR dici CUThoc faciB ?Jacob. ill. De aliquo facit Dihil, mutaDdo etiam rei JUI$arUD. De Dihilo, aliquidfacit. Durand, 1. 00. Extrav. De TrIm. Co 1. q. 6. Coram te. hoc est, coramtotiu orbiBprinciJ?8. Labb. 19. 700. Tibi data est, omniB po~ in00110 et interra. Super OmnIa repa mudi sedeas, Labb. 19. 920, 927. Dn Pin. 3. 602.2. Theu. 11. 4. AUuaUB oat enduri d'6t!'e ~es omDipoteDa. Coquille, 408.I Poatiftcea multa Bibiarropverunt, et 0JJ1IU& 118 ~ exiBtiment, et qui~uid

liberit, etiam illicita; ~ue supra Dei pneoeptum. potestatem illam extendiIee.Zaba.r8L de 8chiarm. ThUD. 8. 397. .I!alIe' pieDitudiDem poteIItani;ie, et IU~ju ... Gibetol,l,l08. 1JDIlplW IUbNDtialem rei 8MUrIlIn". faoieDdoile i1Jesitbao, ~ Du-.d, 1. 10., ,

Page 168: The Variations of Popery

168 THE VARIA.TIONS OF POPERY.

Leo possessed 'power above all powers, both in heaven and inearth." The son of perdition then 'exalted himself above allthat is called God.' This brazen blasphemy passed in a generalcouncil, and is, therefore, in all its revolting absurdity, stampedwith the seal of Roman infallibility.But the chief prerogative of the Roman hierarch seems to

be his power of creating the Creator.' Pascal and Urbanplumed themselves on this attribute, which, according to theirown account, raised them above all subjection to earthlysovereigns. This, however, is a communicable perfection, and,in consequence, is become common to all the sacerdotal confra-ternity. His holiness keeps a transfer office at the Vatican, inwhich he can make over this prerogative to all his deputiesthrough Christendom. These, in consequence, can make andeat, create and swallow, whole thousands of pastry-gods everyday. But these deities, in the opinion of their makers, are per-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, contendingwith one another, have also to contend with such as maintainhis equality or superiority to God. The two latter descriptions,indeed, seem to be divided by a thin partition. Having elevateda sinful mortal to an equality with Jehovah, the remaining taskof conferring a superiority was easy. But both vary from theFrench and Italian schools, as well as from reason and commonsense.Such are a few of the opinions, which speculators have enter-

tained of the pope's jurisdiction and authority. These opinionshave not been confined to empty speculation; but have, as far a8possible, been realized in action on the wide theatre of Christen-dom, and before the public gaze of an astonished world. TheRoman hierarchy has, in reality passed through all the grada-tion 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 andtheir minions, about the beginning of the fifth century,fabricatedan extraordinary story about Pope Peter's Roman episcopacyand ecclesiastical supremacy; and his transmission of aJl thishonor and jurisdiction to his pontifical successors. The tale,if arranged with judgment and written with elegance, would

I 8i P~ errr.ret prtIlCipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtu. teneretur eccleaiaeredere mia ... bODao. et; virtutell, malu. BellarmiD. IV. 5. POII1IDIua.prajua cti8peDIMe. Declre$. Gl'eI:_Ill. 8. IV. Bnrav. CoDua. a. Potestu~ _~ ClCJlIi, q_terra. JAbb. It. 9lM.

Deam C\IIlMID$. HOftlleD. til&. 1Abb. 19. 980. -.vee tooat Ia_ de __ 1e 0riMev. ..,.1." I

Page 169: The Variations of Popery

ALLEGED SUPERIORITY OF THE POPB TO GOD. 169make an entertaining religious novel; but as destitute of evi-dence as Roderic Random, Tristram Shandy, or the SevenChampions of Christendom. The fiction too has been composedby bungling and tasteless authors. The plot is far inferior tothat of Don Quixote or Tom Jones. The characters, emblazonedwith ridiculous and legendary miracles, the offspring of credu-lity and tradition, bear no resemblance to probability; whilstthe 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, accompaniedwith Helen a goddess, who had been taken from the Tyrianbrothels, and who had been transformed from a courtezan intoa divinity. This man had, by the arts of necromancy, obtainedan infamous notoriety; and the Apostle, it would appear, wasconducted to Rome for the purpose of withstanding the en-chanter. The new pope was opposed to the old conjuror.Simon, before the emperor Nero and the whole city, Hew intothe air. But Peter kneeling invoked Jesus j and the devil, inconsequence, who had aided the magician's flight, struck withterror at. the sacred name, let his emissary fall and break hisleg.1 One stone, in the Roman capital, retains, to the presentday, 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 intomotion the entire machinery; and the busy actors in the scene,accordingly, have endeavored, as well as they can, to supportthe illusion with some kind of evidence. The proof, such as itis, these doctors extort from the phraseology of the Messiahtransmitted by the sacred historian Matthew.'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, Honorins, Vigilius, John, Boniface, andAlexander, who have been immortaliZed by heresy or villany.Matthew's relation is conveyed. inmetaphorica.l1&nguage, and

haS given rise to a variety or interpretations. Different exposi-tors, even among Romish critics, explain the Rome, mentionedby the ~ired historian, in various senses. The diversity ofthese opimons is £reely admitted by I.aunoy, Dn Pin, Calmet,and Maldonet. .All these com_ the variety or opinions on this

I Cyril, as. CateciIL. Yi. \ , JlaUh. xvi. 18.

Page 170: The Variations of Popery

170 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

passage of Revelation.' Launoy, followed by Du Pin, Calmet,and Maimbourg, distinguish the interpretations on this part ofsac-redwrit into four classes, according as they make the foun-dation to be Peter; the Apostles; Peter's confession; or Jesushimself. Each class boasts the authority of popes, saints, andother commentators.One class refers the rock or foundation, mentioned by the in-

spired historian, to Peter. These support their opinion byseventeen 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 followedby Baronius, Calmet, Binius, Maldonat, and Alexander. PopeLeo the First patronized the same opinion. Fontidinius andCardillns, in the Conncil of Trent, advocated this explanation,without any contradiction; and, therefore, it appears, expressedthe mind of that assembly.sA 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, arid Paseaaius, The samewas admitted by Du Pin, Calmet, Alexander, Cusan, Launoy,and Maldonat, as well as by the saints Cyprian, Jerome,Hilary, Cyril, Ambrosius, Chrysostom, and Augustine,"This signification of the' word was also sanctioned by the

general councils of Constance and Basil. Gerson delivered astatement to this purpose in the general council of Constance,in aapeeeh 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 deliveredbefore the unerring assembly in the name of the Ca.tholicChurch, 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 the1Ab interpretibus et sanctis patribuB varie e~nit.nr. Du Pin, 304. Las diver-

sitez danB las peres Bur las sens de ce passage. Calmet, 18. 3M. Maimbourg, c.v. De Prim. 1, 5.2 Lannoy, ad Voel. Du Pin, Dies. IV. Maldon. in Matt. xiv.De Launoy, 17.

Pdrea leU ecelesiastiCOll auctoftll laudat huic interpretationi OODII8JltHntes. DePrimata, 10.l'riDee1lII Apoetolorum Petre .•cujus humeris hanc molam ecclesilIe Chri8tUB im-

poni'&. 11'ontid. in Labb. 20. 658.OujUll fundamentum Petrus est. Super hunc Petrum, taaquam IUpra 1Irmam

petrum. ~ editicavit eoo1eIIiam II1I&Dl. CardilL illLabb. 2Q. 668, 671.B l:AMmoy, 2. 11. Du Pin. Dis&. IV. Maldon. inMatt. xvi. Apoetoli 0IIlDtlI.

lllq1lO ~ f1aeIiut eoclwiIe fuadamenta. AIR. 1." 'l1'ihlI .... __ .p.... ,~ ...... diet1Ua .. lIit. cu.a. Do a.Toulei Apotna • .-leIfiiJrdesMae ~ 18." Bp1a. ii, 10.BeY.

n;i.14. , ..•.

Page 171: The Variations of Popery

ALLEGED SUPERIORITY OF THE POPE TO GOD. 171

other apostles.' Neither pope nor council, on any of these oc-casions, remonstrated or showed any opposition. The infalliblefathers acquiesced in silent consent, and, in this way, accordingto Launoy, Dens, and other popish doctors, conveyed theirapprobation. 1A third class interpret the rock or foundation to signify

Peter's faith or confession. This signification, according toLaunoy, 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 popishauthors who held this opinion; and the roll might be enlargedto any extent. Amongst these were Eusebius, Beda, Theodoret,Damascen, Theophylact, Odo, Ragusa, Alphonsus, Pole, Jonas,Eckius, and Erasmus. A loug 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 admittedeven by Bellarmine and Maimbollrg, as well as by Calmet andMaldonat. Anno 825, Jonas, Bishop of Orleans, ascribed thisexplanation to nearly all ecclesiastical writers; and none, saidthe celebrated Eckius so late as 1525, deny this interpretation.Erasmus not only accounted Peter's faith or profession thefoundation, 'but wondered that any person would wrest thepassage to signify the Roman pontiff,"1 In apostolorum at prophetarum doctrinis fundata est. Genon in Labb. 16.

1315.InAJ)OCa1ypsi dicitur, murum civitl/.tis deacendentis de Oeelo, qnee est eccleaia,

habere fundamenta duodecim apoetolorum et Agni. Ont. Preeeed. in Labb. 17.696.Nee in hoc, majorem potestatem dedit Petro quam creteris apoatolia simul.

Panorm in Casaant, 4. 1405.Cum a aynado admittatur, pro synodi doctrina haberi merito poteat et debet.

Launoy, 2. 00. .~u1ficit consensus tacitus. Facere, in hoc casu, est consentire. Deus. 2. 129.t Launoy, 2. 18. Do Pin, 30/). CaIJIlet et Maldon. in Matt. xvi. 18. :Maim-

bo~, e.e.Idem alteriUll istiua in~re~ollis patroDOS 44 patres aut scriptoreseccleai-

aaticoa laudat. Do Pin, 2.Bellarminua, ut expoaitionem tertiam, bano veterum patrum tsstimoniia poue,

fateatuT. Launoy, 2.61. . •n y en a d'autree, qui lea ont entenduee de oette cet6b1e oonf-.m. MlUm-bo!llll', Co 6.. .Hano confesaionem porte inferDi non tenebunt. Leo L Senn. II. Super ista

confesaione &ldiicabo ecclesiam meam. Felix IlL Ep. ad Zenon. Labb. 6. 166.Apoeto1i fidem seonti nnt. Borm. in Comm. Inpetra ecclesire, hoc est, in

contesaione Beati Petri. Grell. I. in Labb. 6. 1112-Super IIOIidam fidem apoetofOl'llIll principia. Nich. 1. ad Mich. super 80lidam

oonfesaionia petTam, IIlUlII1 DominUll fabriaaYit eccleaiam. John viii. ad Petnm.1'.co1eeia~ au1*: 1irmanl ~ ~i, videlicet Petri ~

Steph. I.~ ......8aliitu-o ~ ~ eoc1eeiam: ~ 1I~_finDi-~ Bdei: l-. n: a4~ .,..... fidei lUIIdiYit. UrbU lB..

Page 172: The Variations of Popery

172 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Peter's faith or confession is the foundation, also, accordingto the general councils of Nicrea, Constantinople, Constance,Basil, and the Lateran. Pope Hadrian, in a letter to theempress Irene, read and received with acclamation in thesecond general council of Nicrea, gave this interpretation. Thesame 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 bishopsapproved. The eighth general council of Constantinople ac-cepted Pope Nicholas' Epistle to Photius, which avowed thesame opinion. The Constantian theologians, in their censureofWicklifficism,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 advocatesagainst the Bohemian heresy,was equally express in maintainingthis exposition, which had been avowed at Nieeea, Constantino-ple, and Constance. The foundation or rock in these famedorations, ' is faith, on which the Creator built the church, andwhich sustains the superstructure.' The council of the Lateranconcurred with that of Basil Peter, said Archbishop Ste-phanus, addressing Pope Leo in the tenth session of the fifthgeneral council of the Lateran, 'confessed the Catholic Apos-tolic faith, ordained by the eternal Father and the eternal Sonfor the foundation of the Church.' i The holy pontiff and theholy fathers, in silent approbation, admitted the unquestionedtrutb, which, sanctioned by the five general councils of Nicees,Constantinople, Constance, Basil and the Lateran, was, there-fore, on five several occasions,emblazoned with the insignia ofinfallibility. 1Promeruit confiteri fidem, super quam fundatur ecclesia, Hadrian T. ad Con.Inconfessionis petra. Hadrian IV. ad Fred. Labb. 8. 747. Cyril. 2. 593.Hilary, 77.Ad annum DCCCXXV. Jonas expositionem tertiam traditoribus ecclesire

pame omnibus tribuit. Launoy, 2. 51.Ad annum MDXXV. Eckius eam a nemine negari pugnat. Launoy, 2. 51.Miror esse, qui locum hune detorqueant ad Romanum Pontificem.. Erasm.

6.88,92-1 Promeruit confiteri fidem, supra quam fundatur ecclesia. Fides llOIItra eat

petra super quam Chrlstus redificavit anam ecclesiam. Germ. adThom. Labb.8. 747, 770, 951, 1193, 1303. Du Pin, 2, 34, 35.ChrilIt1llllUpra soliditatem fidei suam sanctam dignatua eat stabilire ecclesiam.

Nich. Photio. labb. 10. 539.IDam ip.e solna Christus fundavit, et super petram fidei DlOX nucentis et'tlxit.

Theol CODatan. m labb. 16, 868, 870. CanisiuB, 4. 765.Pidea .. fuDdameatum m domo mea. Hoc autam fidei fundamelltum firmiter

IUteate$ .. ACli-. tklpe1' hane petram, videlicet 8d.ei, 1IlC1i6cabo eocJealammeam. x..bb. 17,_ .... 'Crabb. 3. 2M.Chrinaa~ .... &Iei~ q.oaefeIIna,... ...... qum ipeeCJaria.

tu~ .... "''' ~iD1Albb.I'._.FicleDl~"~ab ClliMIDo P P'O cMerDol'iJlo 0I'4bIatMl~..... .......... 0J0ld. -. LMIb. 18. til.

Page 173: The Variations of Popery

ALLEGED SUPERIORITY OF THE POPE TO GOD. 173

A fourth class make Christ himself the rock or foundation.This explanation also has been patronized by theologians,saints, popes, and councils. , Launoyenumerates sixteen fathersor popish doctors of this description; and the list might bevastly 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, Augus-tine, and Aquinas, as well as many more that might be men-tioned. The popes are Celestine, Innocent, Pius, Alexander,Hadrian, Nicholas, and Leo; and to these might be addedmany other Roman pontiffs,'The rock or foundation, say also the general councils of

Nicsea, Constantinople, Basil, and Trent, was the Lord. Thiswas expressed in Pope Hadrian's letter to Tarasius, which wasread and received in the second Nicean council; and inthe speech of Epiphanius to the same assembly. The samewas declared in It letter of Pope Nicholas to Michael, which wasread without any declamation in the eighth general councilthat met at Constantinople. The Basilian council concurredwith those of Niceea and Constantinople. This assembly,through Julian and Ragusa, its advocates for Catholicismagainst the Bohemian heresy, also sanctioned this interpretation.The general council of Trent followed in the same path. Fragusin this synod, declared without any disclamation, that' thechurch was builded on the living stone, the firm and divinerock. '1 This interpretation, therefore, giving the honor to theMessiah, was, in four general councils, marked with the sealof synodal infallibility.Augustine's language on this question is, in several places,

very strong and emphatical. He makes a distinction between1 Laun. ad Veon. Du~, 305. TheophyIa.ct, 2. 186. Lyra, 5. 52. Can-

mus, 2. 298. .De Launoi sexdecim nunIerat patres IIll1l ecc1eBiaaticoeauctores sic Inmci tex-

tum exponente8. De Prim 2.Chrilitus qui est petra. Cyprian, Ep. 63. A__ ~ ~. Cyril, 2. 612.Fundamentum unna est Dominus. Jerom. c. 7. Petra Chriatua est. Jerom, 3.1430. Ang. Ret. 1.21. Chr:istllll est ecclesilefandamentum. Aquin.~.6. Ant. 6.De seipsa veritate dicena, IJUper hanc JJeVam. Ce1eBt. ID. lid Lin. Labb. 13.

702. Petra erat Christua. IDa. 8enn. 11. &rper &mam petram. qwe eratChristus. Pi1I8. IL de Gest. Launoy, 2. ~ Lab1l. 8. 770 efj 10. 529. De Prim14. Infundamento quod est Christu&. Leo 9. ad Kick. Labb. 11. 1323.2 Chriatua fundamentum eat. Had. L ad T-. Labb. 8. 770. 1268. A

firmitate petne, qUill Chriatua eat. Nioolai EpiatoJaad Michaelem Imp. in Labb.10.529. 'Chriatua JeIJUII hujusllldificii buia et fundamentum fieri diRnatus e&t. Fundata

eat; hale IAClrOUIlcta mea damua IJUper ~ Christi vivam. Julian iD Labb. 17.692. 693. Crabb. .. " 2M. Petra iigDificabat Chrimm. JOADDelI de Rapa:ill Labb. 1'1. 8111. c.maiQ,4. 469.~.mua lIG1UD inDIaqtle lit J>i'riDaIa petnm ooutru-. om. J'raa.Lahb: ...

Page 174: The Variations of Popery

174 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

the word, which, in the English version, is translated Peter, andthat which is rendered Rock. The two terms, indeed, both inthe original and in the vulgate, in the Greek and in the Latin,are different in form and signification. Augustine, accordingly,as Erasmus has remarked, applies the word rock, not to Peter,but to Christ. Jesus, observes the saint,' Raid not, thouart the rock, but thou art Peter. The rock was Christ, whomPeter confessed.'! Maldonat characterizes this distinction bythe epithet, silly and ridiculous. But the distinction, whethersilly or solid, is the work, not of a Protestant commentator, butof 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 generalcouncils. Calvin embraced the interpretation of the fourthclass. His opinion, therefore, like Luther's, was patronized bythe highest authority in the Romish communion. Luther andCalvin therefore, if they were mistaken, erred, even in popishestimation, in good company ; and their explanations flow inthe same channel with the stream of antiquity.These four expositions, seemingly at variance, mayall, say

Launoy and Du Pin, be shown to agree. The two former arethe same in sense, and so are the two latter. The meaning ofboth 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 subordi-nate, and the Lord the supreme foundation, and the wholetrain of doctors, saints, pontiffs, and councils, however they mayappear to differ, will, in reality, immediately be reconciled.The first and second interpretations, says Launoy and Du

Pin, are the same in sense. The two, differing in appearancerather than in reality, may easily be reconciled. The commen-tators, who represent Simon as the foundation, do not excludehis apostolic companions. None of the ancients characterizedPeter as the only foundation. Those who ascribe to him thishonor, never ina single instance, attribute it exclusively to himalone, but refer it, in common, to the 'whole apostolic college.Both explanations, accordingly, were patronized by Origen, Cy-prian, Jerome, and Augustine. Cyprian, at an early period, de-'clared that' our Lord conferred equal power on all the Apostles, 'who, in this respect, were certainly the same as Peter;' and the

Page 175: The Variations of Popery

ALLEGED SUPERIORITY OF THE POPE TO GOD. 175

saint has been followed in more modern times by PanormitanAlexander, Launoy, Du Pin, Maldonat, Cusan, and Calmet:The cardinals also, who convoked the council of Pisa, and along train of other popish doctors, have taken the same viewof the subject.'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 themetaphorical and prophetic language of Revelation, is anemblem of the extraordinary commission which these mission-aries executed as the primary heralds of the gospel. .All thesacred college, therefore, are represented as the foundation ofthe new Jerusalem, which, in their Master's name, and as hisspiritual 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 governmentof the church.The third and fourth interpretations, as well as the first and

second, are the same in sense. The two, though they differ inexpression, agree, like the other two, in s~nification. TheLord 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 ofcandid professors of Popery, of Launoy, Du Pin, and manyothers of the same deecription.' 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. Butthe identical meaning of both the preceding, signifying theapostles, and of both the following, denoting the Lord, are inno respect inconsistent or contradictory. 1'he one is ministerialand subordinate, and the other sovereign and supreme. Thisis a distinction, not merely of protestant origin, but warrantedby popish authority. Dena, the treasury of. Romanism, thedarling of the {lOpishprelacy inIreland, adopts, on this question,a similar distinction. The celebrated Gerson, in a speech1Expoeiti_ primal ef; MOUDdlIl fMria IIibi ipIIiB COIlCiiianw facile. Lau-

noy, 2. 46..A.poatoJia omnibua parem potestatem tribuat. Cyp~ 107.Apoatoli omneB, equo jure, fueruat eoolellial fundAiDenta. Alex. 1. 283.Hiec non lMlC11aapo8tolia ClIIterill ac Petro data aunt. Du Pin, 308. Ya1d.on:

in Matt. xvi. 18.Tou lea ApGIreiI8Il IOZlt lea fondemens. Calm.et. 18. 363. Labb. US"11.2·Tertia et qaaria elEpOlitio ~ OOI1V8munt. Launoy, 2. 63..A.b_ ~ .llQIl ~ ablll_ iiqui Petnm iDterpntutar 0JariIl0,

1JDl 41_ .......... ooafeSV1. Du Pia, 806. De Prim. 2.

Page 176: The Variations of Popery

176 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

delivered in the council of Constance, and armed with all itsunerring authority, discriminated, on this topic, in the samemanner. Many doctors, saints, popes, and councils, as appearsfrom the preceding statements, have admitted both foundations,but certainly, in accordance with the foregoing discrimination,in a different sense, accounting the one subordinate, and theother supreme. Pope Leo the Ninth represents the church asbuilt on the rock, which is Emmanuel, as well as on Peter orCephas. Fossus, Archbishop of Reginum, in the council ofTrent, and countenanced with at least its tacit consent, referredthe rock or foundation to Christ, to faith, and to Peter. Thepontiff and the prelate, on this occaaion, must have intended todistinguish between the apostolic and mediatorial foundations.All these authors, therefore, as Launoy remarks, may, in thismanner, be reconciled with themselves, as well a8 with reasonand revelation,'The donation of the KEYS, mentioned by Matthew, and ad-

duced in proof of the supremacy by Baronius, Bellarmine, Binius,and their party, affords another topic of diversified opinionamong the friends of Romanism. This argument, if it deservethe name, forms one of the most pitiful sophisms that ever dis-graced the pages of controversy. The keys, conveying thepower of binding and loosing, of remitting and retaining sinwere, according to the ancients and many moderns, given toall 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 thekeys to the whole apostolic college and to the whole Christiancommonwealth, has been collected by Du Pin and Maldonat.The Sorbonnist and the Jesuit declare the unanimity of theancients on this opinion. 2 Du Pin, for the exposition, instancesthe saints Cyprian, Jerome, Ambrosius, Augustin, Leo, FDl-gentius, and the fathers Tertullia.n, Optatus, Oaudentius,Theophylact, Euchariu8, Beda, Raban, iIincmar, and Odo,1 Sola ChriBtuB etlt quidem fundamentum ellBel1tialeet primarium. Petrus

etlt fundamentum aeeundarium in Christo fundatum. DenB, 2. 149.Ad unum caput primarium ChriBtum, et vioarium llUlDmumPontificem. Ger-

_ in lAbb. 16. 1315.Bocleeia 1I1lplll' petram, id est Christu.m, et auper Petna1Il vel Cepham aJ<lliloata.

Leo ad Mich. I..aLb. 11. 1323.Ad ('hriBtum et ad fidem, quam Petras ccmf-. ut, refennr, ut nisi ad Pet-

nun ipemn nferri etiam intelligae,diminute ondea et prope DihiL F-. inLabb.; 20. l$i9.Si ..... Wi CIIDD8II inter lie COIDpoIUIIlWr, U.......ClOIDpOI1i fMile ~~,S.'l.sA.ntiQ1d, _, "_t, Ia ~ P*i. Wi

eocleIiII :o.~. o.n. ~clial ...... ,..0IIIDiIru __ ".... ........

Page 177: The Variations of Popery

ALLEGED SUPERIORITY OF THE POPE TO GOD. 177

Maldonat specifies, for the same interpretation, the names ofChrysostom, Ambrosius, Origen, and Theophylact. Calmet,for this opinion, enumerates Cyprian, Augustin, Origen, and• Theophylact; while Alexander mentions Origen, Hilary, Am-brosius, and Augustin.' The system, therefore, which is nowdeprecated by the Italian school of Romanism, was patronizedby the whole sainthood, from Cyprian to Fulgentius and Chry-sostom.The ancients, indeed, with the utmost harmony and without

one murmur of dissent, ascribe the reception of the keys to theuniversal church. A single sentence to the contrary could not beextorted from all the ponderous volumes and all the diversifiedmonuments of Christian antiquity. Many learned moderns inthe Romish communion have entertained the same sentiments,such as Lyra, Du Pin, Calmet, Maldonat, Pithou, Alexander,.:\loreri,Fabel', Pole, and even the Rhemists," The same opinionhas been advocated by Gerson, Cusan, and Launoy. The giftso~ the keys, therefore, being common, could confer on an indi-VIdual no peculiar jurisdiction or authority.Bellarmine and his numerous partisans have endeavored to

torture a third argument from the admonition: 'Feed my sheep,'This, say these theologians, is an evidence of Simon's universalpastorship. But this reason, if possible, surpasses the former, inRupArlativesilliness and impertinence. Similar admonitions, inthe hook of inspiration, are addressed to all the pastors, ordinaryand extraordinary, of the Christian commonwealth. Jesus, Paul,and Peter concur in enjoining this duty," Simon indeed was adistinguished herald of the gospel; and successful to an extra-1.Creteri apostoli, quod fnit Petrus, pari eonsortio prrediti honoris et potes-

tatia, Tertul in Seorp. Cuneti claves Re~ Crelorum aceipiant. Jerom. adv,:Jov.-Quod Petro dieitur, ereteris Apostolis dicitur, tibi dabo claves. Ambl'Oll.ill Ps. xviii.-Eccleaire claves regni erelorum datal BUnt. August. de Agon. c.xxx -cunctis eeclesire reetoribus forma prreponitur. Leo, Sena.m. Deus,inpersona beati Petri, ecc1esire ligandi ac solvendi tribuit potestatem. Fu1gentiu8de Fide. c. III. Apostoli erelorum clavea sortiti sunt. Hilary, 688-2 Potelltas data Petro intelligitur dan allis. Lyra, 5. 52. Falluntur, qui

soli Petro datas claves ~ &utumant. DB Pin, 308.-On ne pent pas dire, queSaint Pierre &it reeu lea clefs du ciel • l'exeluaion des autres ~postreI; Calmet,18,368. Non nego creteros APOlltolOS suas ~tiam elaTes ~~ .. Mal~onat,340. Petrus, quando clavea accepit, eeelesiam IIaIlctam silloifieaVlt. Pithon,Cane, 24. Qu. I. Clllterls AJlO!If'olis datle lunt c1aves. Afexander. l',3.-n.LeB passages si l'on consulte l'explication qu'en donnent leI peres, s addre ..

sent. tons lea ~pOtres et a toute l'eglise, 7. 40.Anctoritas luec non est eoncesaa personee soli Petri, sed ipsi ecclesire. Faber,

2. 385.Htec, qUill Petro dicuntur, ad 0lIBter0s paatores omnes pertineant. Polua, in

Labb.20, 961.On a toujOllJ8 fait profesaion en Franoe de croire que lea clefs ont lite donn_

a 1't\gJiee. ApoL a. ..•Matt. ii.8, 19. Mark ni. 11. Leke xxiv. '7. lohD xxi. 16. A.otI Do IS.

1. Peter ....t. »aPia, DilL IV.L

Page 178: The Variations of Popery

178 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

ordinary extent, in proclaiming salvation to the Jews. Paul,however, was inferior to none in the evangelical transcendencyof exertion and success. This statement is corroborated by theauthority of Ambrosius, Chrysostom, Augustin, and Basil, who .,.are quoted for this purpose by Du Pin.'The evangelists, therefore, make no mention of the supremacy,

and the other sacred penmen are guilty of the same omission.Nothing of the kind is to be found in the works of Luke, Paul,James, Peter, Jude, or John. Luke mentions the electionof Matthias and the deacons, the mission to Samaria, and thecouncil of Jerusalem.' 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 solitary ana-thema.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 imputationof inferiority. He reproved Cephas in strong terms, for tempo-rizing dissimulation in his treatment of the Christian convertsfrom Judaism and Gentilism. He addressed a long letter to theRoman Christians. He transmitted salutations from manyinferior names, but neglected the Roman pontiff who reigned inthe Roman capital. The Christian missionary, with all hiserudition, seems not to have known his holiness, who, it wouldappear, had no name in the apostolic vocabulary. He mentionsthe civil governor; but neglects the sacerdotal viceroy. He ismindful of the emperor; but unmindful of the pope," This wasvery uncourteous. The pupil of Gamaliel might have imbibedsome Rabbinicalleaming, and the citizen of Tarsus might haveacquired some Grecian literature. But he must have beenwofully defective in politeness. Paul, however, did not, afterall, speak evil of this dignity. His apostleship only forgot to sayany thing of his spiritual majesty, who then wielded throughChristendom, 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. Butthe viceroy of heaven preserves, on this topic, a vexatious andprovoking silence. He discovers not one solitary or cheering1s.-pR Petru, Bed et nobiBcumeu lIllIlCepit. AmI». de Dign. 0. xxx.EtfIrnu .,........,,\1-. Chrr-tom, 7.7.,.NOD q.o Petro, led in corpore mo, !lit, puce OVtlll meaa. Angus. de Agon. e.

~ .Diln -4lf'IfttI .... - .......... .",.....,~tl-'- Bull J, 6'19.t Acta L 18.: 'ti. 1-6.; ST. 1-22.t 2 Coria. xL" cw. iL 11. t. Coria. xii. 11.

Page 179: The Variations of Popery

SILENCE OF TRADI'J'ION CONCERNING THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 179

hint of any such dignity. The Galilean fisherman exercises noprerogative of the modern papacy in commanding the Apostles,issuing bulls, 'enacting laws, judging controversy, decidinz ap-peals, summoning councils, transferring kingdoms, wielding thecivil and spiritual swords, and dissolving the oath of fealty toprinces.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. Thepapacy, if a divine institution, would, from its magnitude, bewritten with sunbeams in Divine Revelation. This, if anything,required perspicuity and detail. But an insinuation ofthe kindis not to be found in the whole volume of inspiration. Thepope and the popedom, both in name and reality, in sign andsignification, in expression and implication, are utterly excludedfrom all the Book of God, all the pandects ofDivine legislation,and all the monuments of ecclesiastical antiquity. The Deity,in His word, utterly neglects the promulgation of the papalpolity. The Heavenly Majesty, reversing the example of earthlykings, who notify their viceroys by special commissions, deignsnot, in his gospel, to mention his vicar-general. The inspiredpenmen 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 theecclesiastical sovereign is consigned to silence and oblivion.The vast, misshapen, unwielded, overgrown, menacing mass ofsuperstition and despotism is passed, without mention, in thescriptural records, except in the tremendous denunciations ofscriptural prophecy foretelling the future rise and final destruc-tion of" the man of sin, whom the Lord shall consume withthe spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightnessof his coming."Innocent the Third indeed discovered the popedom in the

Book of Genesis. According to his infallibility, the firmamentmentioned by the Jewish leWslator signifies the church. Thegreater light, according to the same unerring commentstor, de-notes the pontifical authority; and the less, :represents the royalpower.' The prince therefore derives and exercises this juris-diction from the pontiff, 88 the moon borrows and reflects thelight of the sun. This, no doubt, was very sensible in his in-fallibility, and makes the thing very clear. The Romanhierarchy indeed may be 8B plainly found in Genesis as in any1Fecit Deu duo IIlIIfPIA lumiDaria, id eIt, dlUll iDstituit ~tatell, quAl aunt

ponti1lcaliuuctcitu 6-1;. poteetu. Gibert, I. 11. I>eoret. Greg. L 38.VI. ~Ita. »» ...--

Page 180: The Variations of Popery

180 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

other book of the Bible. The same kind of exposition wouldenable an ingenious mind to find any thing in any book. Thepopedom, by the same kind of elehymy, might be found inOvid, or a system of divinity in Homer or Virgil. But thesystem, which requires the extorted evidence obtained bystraining, wresting, torturing, and mangling scriptural languagecarries 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 ofRomanism. Du Pin, Bellarmine and Alexander, among manyothers, have, with extensive erudition and research, in vestigatedthis controversy; and the Sorbonnist, the Jesuit, and theDominican, notwithstanding all their learning and labor, havefailed in attempting to find the supremacy of his apostolic holi-ness in the monuments of traditional antiquity.' Du Pin, withhis usual candor, admits the silence of the most ancientfathers, such as Justin, Irenseus, and Clemens of Alexandria-These, is no instance, condescend to mention the pontificaldignityofthe sacerdotal viceroy, who with spiritual sovereigntyfirst governed Christendom. The Sorbonnist begins his quota-tions in proof of Peter's prerogative with Origen, who flourishedabout the middle of the third century. But the Greek original,he grants, is lost, and the Latin translation of Ruffinus aboundswith interpolations. He mentions Cyprian and Eusebius, whosetestimony he rejects for interpolation or inadequacy. His firstauthority, on which he rests any dependence, is Optatus, whowrote about the year 370. Bellarmine's first authority, ifOrigen, Cyprian, and Eusebius, whom Du Pin rejects, beomitted, is Basil the cotemporary of Optatus, Alexander beginswith Cyril, who was later than either Optatus or Basil. A periodof 370 years had run its ample round, and its annals, scrutinizedby three learned doctors, could not supply a single document,witnessing the vicegerency of his apostolic holiness. This, toevery unprejudiced mind, must be a clear evidence of its non-existence. No person, free from prepossession, can believe thatan ecclesiastical monarchy existed so many years in Christen-dom, and, at the same time, remained unnoticed by so manyecclesiastical 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 em remain, notwith-stan~, on this topic an historical blank; No v~~ of thisspiritual sovereignty can be discovered in Clemens Romanus,1DaPm, 3l3. Bell, L 26. Alexander, 1. 283-2De Petri primatu. Dihil "Pnd J1lIItinum. henlllum. C1emeDtem, A1euD.

drinum • a1ioi IlIltiquillimoe. DB Pm, 313.

Page 181: The Variations of Popery

PAPAL SUPREMACY UNKNOWN TO ANTIQUITY. 181

Hermas, Barnabas, Ignatius, Polyearp, Justin, Ireneeus,Clemens, Alexandrinus, Athenagoras, Tatian, 'I'heophilus, orTertullian. The most extraordinary monarchy that everastonished the world continued, according to the popish state-ment, during a long series of time, to exist in the view and toregulate the minds of its devoted subjects, and passed, never-theless, without leaving a single monument of antiquity toperpetuate its memory. The subjects of the papacy seem tohave paid little attention to their sovereign. But his apostolicinfallibility should not have endured such disrespectful treat-ment. His holiness or his successors, during this interval,should have roared from the Vatican and aroused Christendomfrom its lethargy. The viceroy of God should have fulminatedhis anathemas as in modern times, and taught men the sin anddanger 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 theGrecian 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, embellishedtheir works and flattered the Apostle with many sounding namesand titles, such as prince, head, foundation, leader, president,governor, master, guardian, captain, and, to crown all, thedivine Dionysius called Peter' the vertical summit of theolo-gians,' These, Bellarmine and Alexander applied to Cephas,and, in consequence, infer his supremacy.The conclusion, however, is illogical. The argument would

prove too much, and therefore proves nothing. The fallacyconsists in reckoning peculiar what is common. Similar oreven superior eulogiums, for example, have, by some writers,been bestowed on James, John, and Paul. The Clementinerecognitions call' James the Prince of Bishops,' and Hesychiusstyles him' the Head of the Apostles, and the Chief Captain ofthe New Jerusalem.' John, according to Chrysostom, was, the Pillar of all the Churches in the world, and had the keysof heaven.'s. Paul is represented as equal to Peter by Bernard,Ambrosius, and Leo. Bernard styles' Peter and Paul princesI Divin118 Dionysius verticalem theologorom. sumDlitatem magnum Petnun no-

minavit. . Barlaam, 374. .Bell. 1. 25. Du Pin, 314. Alex. 1. 283. Leo, Serm. 3. Jerom., 4. 101.

Bernard, 220. Optatus, II.S Jacobum epiacoporum princ:ipem orabat. Clem. Recog, 1. 68. CoteI 1. 509.To.. '"IS _ Ifpoul1VJ1\1/p. apXllM'pvmryO". 'nIOCI _OIM'II?' .... .", .. f~apxOIl. Photius'

Codex, Z75. p. 1525.'0 II'rUAOSftW nno'"l" ouroup.t""" flflrA.".,I.... "'I'as If?.tlS 'X-II 'l'OU0UflCU'0lI0 Chty-

80Bt0Dl, 8. 2. Hol'n. J.

Page 182: The Variations of Popery

]82 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

of ilIte Apostles.' According to Ambrosius, •Paul was not in-ferior to Peter.' Paul and Peter, says Pope Leo,were equalin their election, labor, and end.' Paul's superiority to Peteris maintained by Origen, Chrysostom, and Gregory. Origenterms •Paul the greatest of the Apostles.' According to Chry-sostom, •Paul had no equal.' • Paul,' says Gregory,' was thehead of the nations, and obtained the principality of the wholechurch." These are higher compliments than any which thefathers have given to Peter. Sounding titles, therefore, iftheyimply the supremacy of Peter, must, in stronger languageimply the supremacy of James, John, and Paul. These turgidexpressions 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 o~erApostles, 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 thefathers, indeed, have, in the language of exaggeration, bestowedmany sounding titles on the Roman patriarch, and pompouseulogiums on the Roman church. Ireneeus styles the RomanSee, • the more powerful principality.' Cyprian calls theRoman •the principal church.' These and many other en-comiums of a similar kind have been collected by Bellarmine,Du Pin, and Alexander.8 All these, however, are unmeaningand 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 higherstrains of hyperbolical and nauseous adulation. .Gregory, Basil, Constantine, and Paulus, in all the fulsome

exaggeration and pomposity of diction, bestowed the supremacyon Cyprian, Athanasius, Miletius, Constantine, and Irene.l Cyprian,' says Gregory Nazianzen, •presided not only over theCarthaginian and African church, on which he reflected splen-dol'; but over all the nations of the West, and nearly over allthe East, and North, and South.' Gregory and Basil conferan universal, ecclesiastical legislation and supremacy onAthanasius the Alexandrian patriarch. cAthanasius,' says Gre-gory quoted by Alexander, I prescribed laws to the wholeworld' , I The Alexandrian patriarch,' says Basil, c bestowed the1 .&po.&olonun principea BlUlt Petrus et Paulua. Bernard, 220. Nee Paul1lll

inferior Petro. Amb. 11. Illoe eli electio pareIl eli labor similes, et fuIis fecitEqualea. Leo, Berm. 8.8 Paulus Apoetolorqm maxim1lll. Origen, Hom. 3. Kana IlcatM1r /UP ouklS """'.

Chrf-tom, II. 200. Caput eft'ect1lll est nationum, quia obtinuit totiua eco1esilllprincipatum. G'!SOl'1, IV. 5.8 Iren. IlL 3. (,'ypriaD, Ep. lSG. Bell. II. 15. Du Pin, 314. Ala. 1. 294.

Page 183: The Variations of Popery

SUPREMACY ASCRIBED TO OTHER SEES, BESIDES ROME. 183

flame care on all, as on the particular church that was entrustedto his inspection by our common Lord. ' Basil who, with suchkindness, had promoted Athanasius to a general episcopacy, con-fers, with equal condescension, the same honor on Miletius,patriarch of Antioch. ' Miletius,' according to the Roman saint,< presided over the whole church.' Constantine appropriatedthe government of the church and the superintendence of thefaith to himself. ' God,' said the emperor, 'hath appointed meto the chief command in the church, and to maintain the purityand integrity of the faith.' This assumption of ecclesiasticalauthority 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, wasstamped with the broad seal of synodal and pontifical infalli-bility. Paulus, the Byzantine patriarch, when dying, when theparting spirit is supposed to catch a brighter ray from heaven,ascribed the jurisdiction of the whole ecclesiastical communityto the empress Irene. 'The grand flock of Jesus,' said thedeparting patriarch, 'is attached to the imperial dignity," Hisdying speech, which committed the superintendency of theChristian commonwealth to a woman, was received with generalapplause, and has been transmitted to posterity as a specimenof catholicism and piety.The ecclesiastical supremacy, in the same kind of swollen

diction, has been attributed to the Sees of Oeeearea, Antioch,Alexandria, and Constantinople, by Gregory, Basil, Chrysos-tum, Justinian, and the Council of Ohaloedon," Gregory as--cribed the presidency to Cresarea. According to the saint ofNasianzen, 'the whole Christian republic looked to the Cresar-ean church as the circumscribed circle to the centre.' Basil andChrysostom bestow the supremacy on Antioch. Basil repre-sents the Antiochean church as calculated, 'like a head, tosupply health to the whole body.' Chrysostom's language is

IIpoIta8f'1"CU "'ClCM/S '"IS ffn .... pUJv, ...ltf30 .. ~ '"IS f_. 4lI'MlS 1HI'f'otI"" '"" {Jopfw".( ... s. Gregory, Orat. 18.Leges etiam 1"ll1'lIUII orbi terrarom prlIllICribit. Greg. in.A1eund. 1. ~.AM' '1/ I"fHIU!" ...01....,fir,.,.... fICleAflT_. Basil, 1. 161. Ep. 69. T.. "/IU .,.,.",.os

...."'p.MOf '"IS fuA.';"'UU _ ...~. Basil, 3. 180. Ep. 67.JUBlIit Deue principaliter l1OfIimperare. CoDlltituti lRUIluSlI81'VlIolefidem_ctam,

et immacuJatam. Labb. 7. 614, 618.Le soin au grand tronpeau deS.. Chriat eet attacM a votre dignite imperiale.

Andilly, 413. .2.1b .."..,. DKMs ...~. Gregory, Ep. 22. OIrnp ~".. """''''''''1'

........,., .,." .""..., we ](Dp'If'fflI' 'MJJ' .",._. Basil, 3. 160. T_o "O>'f"" caE-l'/l."01J'rD,..,...r,- Chr:Y-tom. 2. 176. Hom. XVD. Orbis ooulum, ad quamextrema terne undique CODveniunt, et; to qua velut COIDDlunifidei emporio incipi-unto NuiaDzen, Ont. XXXII. H fJ' x-nrr_oAf& UItA'Icr&&l_ .. 'hoI'~ ffl'nllffllllA7/0 Justin. Cod. 1. 129. DiOlCellia Ext.rchamadeat, vel Impe·ria1ie 1Il'bia Coaatantinopolia tbronum, et; apud 811m litiget. Labb. 4. 1686.

Page 184: The Variations of Popery

184 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

still more emphatieal, ' 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 eventhe 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 ConstantinopolitanSee. Gregory called this city 'the eye of the world, and theemporium of the common faith.' According to the emperorJustinian, 'the Constantinopolitan church was the head of allothers.' Justinian was an emperor, a legislator, a philosopher,and a theologian, and renowned for learning and wisdom. Hisinformation and opportunity must have secured him from mis-taking, and his integrity and veracity f:r;ommisrepresenting, theopinions entertained, in his day, on this topic. The council ofChalcedon, 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 theMetropolitan to the Exarch, and from the Exarch, for a finalsentence, to the Constantinopolitan patriarch.'The Chalcedonian canon so annoyed Nicholas the First that

he had recourse, in his distress, to an extraordinary or ratherto an ordinary remedy. His holiness explained the canon bywriting nonsense; and in this ingenious manner and by thissimple process, removed the difficulty. Diocese, said Nicholas,is, by a figure of speech, used for dioceses and the diocesanExarch, in this canon, signitiesthe Roman pontiff" 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 societyin the time of Nicholas, was characterized by humility. All itsmembers, according to the primeval records, could meet in onehouse. 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." On the death of Anterus,, all the brethren met in the church to elect a successor, andthe whole people with promptitude and unanimity, declaredthe eligibility of Fabian,"The pastor's superintendency extended from the highest to

the lowest concerns of the fold, from the rich and the free to theinmate of indigence and the subject of slavery. He was entirely

1 Quantum ai JMlrhibuisset DiOlCeeeon. Labb. 9. 1331.t ~ unctiuiDue atque ampliaaiJnal plebi legere te 8ClDlper literas noetras.

Cyprian, 'Ep. 59. P. 139.sM.JvI*p. _ ........ , '"If .1UrA".,"" tTV"fIC""f1tIJO'"III'-". TOI1,...",..·Mtw ••••

'lrpo8rlp.Ja 'IrIIIlr?1 _"" +UXP A(- n~ Eueb. VI. 29.

Page 185: The Variations of Popery

PAPAL SUPREMACY ASSEUTED BY FALSE DEORETALS. 185

unacquainted with the ambition which actuated the soul of aLeo or a Gregory. The bull of a modern pontiff would, to hisunaspiring mind, have been unintelligible. Possessing no civilauthority, and exposed to imperial contempt, his jurisdictionwas confined to the boundary of his own flock. An humble andholy pastor, in this manner, administered to a humble and holypeople.But the Roman church outlived its humility. The Apostolic

See emerged from obscurity, raised its head into notoriety, anddisplayed all the madness and extravagance of ambition in thepursuit of dominion and power. The Roman hierarchs variedfrom poverty to emolument, from obscurity to eminence, andpassed 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 hepresided. The episcopacy was, in rank, assimilated to themagistracy of the Roman empire. The metropolitan, theexarch, and the patriarch corresponded with the president, thevicar, and the prefect. The church, in this manner, was, in itsdivisions, adjusted to the state. The church, says Optatus,C was formed in the empire, and not the empire in the church,and, therefore, assumed the same polity.' The conformity ofthe sacerdotal with the civil goverment has been clearly shownby Du Pin and many others, such as Giannone, Mezeray, andThomessin.'A bishop, therefore, obtained a rank in the hierarchy in pro-

portion to the city in which he ruled. Antioch, Alexandriaand Rome, in the East, South, and West, surpassed all theother cities in the empire. Antioch was the third city in thestate, and its bishop ranked in the third place in the church.Alexandria was the second city, and its patriarch obtained thesecond rank in the prelacy. Rome was the metropolis, and itspontiff accordingly enjoyed the primacy. The Roman church,sa;ysDu Pin, gained the precedence,' because Rome was thechief city.' Giannone also ascribes the rank of the Romanpatriarch to the same cause. 'The ecclesiastical,' says he,formed itself on the civil government, and the Roman city mayboast of being chief in religion, as formerly in the empire andthe universe. The innovation was 80 natural that any othereTent would have been a kind of miracle.'JThe dependence of the bishop's dignity on the eminency of1Ad cujua formam. ecclesia coDlltitllta eef;. Du Pin, 23. L'~gliae eat ~blie

dane l'empin. Giannon. II. 8. Mezeray. 5, 464. Thomaaain I. 12. An. Ecel 56.'. Quia Romana urbe erat prima. DuPin, 336. Parce qu'il avoit son ail!ge dana

la Capitate de l'lUIivera. GiaDnon,m. 6. Une es~ de miracle. Giannon I8. An. EocL H 142.

Page 186: The Variations of Popery

186 THE VABlATIONS OF POPERY.

the city appeared, in striking colors, in the original obscurityand future greatness of the Byzantine hierarch. This bishophad been suffragan to the metropolitan of Heraclea and exarchof Thracia. But the suffragan, when Oonstantinople becamethe imperial city, became a patriarch. The second generalcouncil, in its third canon, raised the Oonstantinopolitan Seeabove those of Antioch and Alexandria, and placed it next tothat of Rome, because Constantinople was new Rome and theroyal city. The patriarch, in consequence, usurped the juris-diction of Asia, Pontus, and Thracia. The fourth generalcouncil, in its twenty-eighth canon, conferred equal ecclesiasti-cal privileges on the Byzantine and Roman Sees.IThe usurpation of the papal hierarch was aided, with singular

efficiency, by the publication of the false deeretals, This col-lection, about the year 800, was ushered into the world aa thework of the early pontiffs. All the authority assumed by mo-dern popes was, in this forgery, ascribed to their predecessorsin .the days of primitive Christianity. A Linus and a Clemenswere, by this author, represented as claiming the supremacyand wielding the power afterward arrogated by a Boniface oran Innocent.' 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, a.nd urged byNicholas the First against the French prelacy! Its genuine-ness and authenticity, indeed, from the ninth century till thereformation, were generally admitted; and its authority sus-tained, during this period of auperstition and credulity, themighty fabric of the pontifical supremacy. An age, envelopedin darkness and monkery, and void of letters and philosophy,was incapable of detecting the imposture, though executed witha vulgar and bungling hand. Turriano and Binius, even inmodern times, have maintained. its authenticity. The dawn ofthe reformation, however, exposed the cheat, in all its clumsyand misshapen deformity. «Its anachronisms and contradictionsbetrayed the silly and stupid fiction.' Its forgery has beenadmitted by Bellarmine, Baronius, Erasm1J.s,Petavius, Thomas-sin, Pagius,' Giaanone, Perron, Fleury, .Marca, Du Pin, and1Eo quod lit iptIA nova Rom&. Crabb. 1. 411. 930. Labb. 2. 1125. Godeau.

4. 4f11. Recte judioante8, urbem qlll8 et iInnerio et IeData honora .. lit, et lIllC1ua)i'baa cmnaatiquUaima reginaRoma prime F. -fiuahr etiam in rebaa eccleaiaatiei.e·Labb. 4. 1691. ThomMaiu. 1. 19. CoQu:M: 406.2 Du .Pin, 132.et 2. 486. Giaanou, "to 6.a 11M aWim epiatoJa Summi Pontifi_ aWle • • enmt. Du Pm. 132.

AclniteDte Nioo1IiO I,et .teria Jlomaaia Pontificl'baa~PLabb. L 79.

Page 187: The Variations of Popery

REJECTION OF PAPAL SUPREMACY IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES. 187

Labbeus. Du Pin calls the collection a medley. Labbeuscalls it 'a deformity, which can be disguised by no art orcoloring," The forgery remains a lasting monument of thebarbarism and superstition of the period of its reception andauthority. .The domination of the papacy was, also, promoted by mis-

sions to the kingdoms of Paganism. The vast wealth andrich domains of the Roman See. both in Italy and the adjacentislands, enabled the pontiff to support missions on an extensivescale through the European kingdoms, for the purpose of pro-selytism. These exertions displayed the Roman hierarch'szeal, and their success promoted his aggrandizement. Thechurches, established in this way, acknowledged a dependenceon 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 theOrkney Islands. A few of the missionaries sent to these nationswere actuated by piety, accompanied indeed with weaknessand superstition. These visited the abodes of idolatry andpolytheism in the midst of danger and privation, to communi.cate the light of the gospel. But many of these nations wereproselyted by missions of a different description. Violence andcompulsion were often substituted for persuasion and Chris-tianity. The Pagans of Poland, Prussia, and Livonia weredragooned into, popery by military dialectics. The martialapostles, who invaded these nations under the standard of thecross, were attached only to their own interest, and the Romanpontiff's domination and tyranny.2 The popedom was enlargedby the accession of the northern nations, which, converted byLa tin missions, submitted to papal jurisdiction, and swelled theglory of the Romish communion.The papal yoke, received in this manner by the proselyted

nations of the north, was rejected with resolution by the Asiatic,Mrican, and European kingdoms who had professed Chris-tianity. The Asians despised Victor's denunciations on thesubject of the paschal solemnity. The Africans contemnedStephen's excommunication, on the topic of heretical baptism.The prelacy of Africa, amounting to 225 bishops, forbade, in,418, on pain of exoommtmieetion, all appeals beyond the sea.3. This canon they renewed in 426 ; while 'Faustinus, who repre-1 Adeo defonnea videntur, ufonuDa artie, nuDa eeruua, aut p1ll'pUl'i88o fucan

poaaint;. Labb. 2. 78. BeJlannin, n, 14. .Alex. 2. 218.2 Alex. 14. 321. Gibbon, c. LV. Giannon, III. 6. Bmy. 2. 259.8 Ad trazlImarina qui putaverihppellandmn, a nullo inter Africamin commu·

niDnem BlIICipiamr. Crabb. L lS17. "Du Pin, 143. SocrateB, v. 22. Eueeb. V. 21.

Page 188: The Variations of Popery

188 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

sented the pope in the council, blustered, vapored, threatenedand stormed, but all in vain. The bishopscontemned his fury,issued their canons,and, with steady unanimity, repelled papalaggression.The usurpations of the popedomwere also long withstood by

several of the European nations, such as France, Spain, Eng-land, and Ireland. These continued, for ages, to repress Romandespotism with vigor and effect. Gaul or France opposedpontificalencroachment.and maintained metropoliticalauthoritywith the utmost resolution. The synod of Lyons, in 567,directed all dissensions among the clergy to be terminated in aprovincial council Gregory the Fourth, in the beginning ofthe ninth century, pretended to excommunicate the Frenchprelacy, who, inclined to retaliation, threatened to excommuni-cate Gregory. Hincmar, the celebrated French bishop andstatesman, wrote, in 865, the famous epistle, in which he ex-ploded the novelty of the Decretals and advocated the canonsof Nicrea and Sardica. The French, says Du Pin, maintained,in the tenth century, the ancient discipline and interdictedappeals. The Metropolitans preserved their right'! inviolated,'till beyond the twelfth century." This, Du Pin shows fromthe works of Alcuin, the council of Laodicea, and the Epistlesof Nicholas, John, Stephen, Gregory, and Urban.Spain remained free of pontifical domination till the begin-

ning of the ninth century. The Spanish prelacy and nobility,under the protection of the king and independent of foreigncontrol, continued, prior to the Moorish conquest, to conductthe administration of the Spanish church. Provincial councils,says Du Pin, in the end of the sixth century, judged the Spanishprelacy without an appeal. Arnolf, Bishop of Orleans, evenat the close of the tenth century, declared, in the council ofRheims, without contradiction, that the Spanish church dis-claimed the authority of the Roman pontiff"Britain continued independent of papal authority, till the

end of the sixth century. The English, dissenting from theRomish institutions and communion, disclaimed the papalsupremacy. Baronius himself, practised in all the arts ofevasion and chicanery, admits, on this occasion, a long anddreadful schism, The British, says Bede, differed from theRoman Christians in the celebration of baptism, the paschalsoleumity, 'and in many other things,' The points of dif-ference, according to the Anglo-Saxon historian, were not few,but many. Augustine gave the seme statement as Bade. The1 Ad duodecim1UlllllMlq118 wcU111D1 et ampliu. DuPin, 66. 130, 133, et 2. 191.2 InHiapuia II De· bat, etiam lUI) a-..orio, vetua illa diIcliplina, at

ca1l8al Epiiooporum~ ~iuaw;ib:nmmr. DuPin, 131, e\ 2. 176.

Page 189: The Variations of Popery

PAPAL SUPREMACY REJECTED IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 189

English, says the Roman missionary, 'acted, in many respects,contrary to the Roman usage,"Bede's report has been corroborated by Goscelin,Ranulph,

and Malmsbury. The Britons, says Goscelin,' differed in theirecclesiastical ritual from the common observance of all otherchurches; while, formed in hostile array, and opposing therequest and admonition of Augustine, they pronounced theirown usages, superior even to those of pontifical authority."Ranulph's statement is of a similar description. Augustine,

observes this historian, 'admonished the British clergy tocorrect some errors, and promised, if they would concur withhim in evangelizing the English, he would patiently toleratetheir other mistakes. This offer, however, these refractoryspirits wholly contemned."Malmsbury's language is still stronger than Ranulph's.

These islanders, says this annalist, 'preferred their own tothe Roman traditions, and to some other tenets of catholicism;and persisted in their opinions with pertinacity. The time ofobserving the paschal festival formed one principal point ofcontroversy between the Roman missionary and the Britishcl~rgy. The Britons, as well as the Scots, who on this topic,differedfrom the Roman traditions, obstinately refused to admitthe Roman usage. In this, they manifested the utmost in-flexibility. When the English afterward, in the synod ofWhitby, in 664, determined, in conformity with fureign pre-scription, to change the day of celebration, the Scottish clergyleft England. On this occasion, Colman, bishop of the Nor-thumbrians, seeing, says Bede, 'his doctrine slighted and hissect despised, returned to Scotland."The Britons, in consequence, disclaimed the supremacy of

.Gregory and the episcopacy of Augustine, whom the pontiffhad commissioned as a missionary and archbishop in England.Augustine, on this topic, conferred with Dinoth, accompaniedby seven British bishops and several Bangorian monks, atAugustine's oak on the frontiers of the Anglo-Saxons. Augus-tine, on this occasion,recommended an acknowledgment of thepapal supremacy. Dinoth, speaking for the English, 'pro-fessed himself, his fellows, and the nation, attached to all1 Inmultis quidem noatrle COI1llUetudini contraria ~tia. Beda, II. 2. Per-

plura ecclesia8ticle castitati et paci contrarla genmt. .Bed&, 203. Spon. 604. VIII.2 Non solum ~t, venun etiIlm _ 1I81U oamibua pneeminentiores

Sancti Pa{lll'lEluthem auctoritate pronunciant. GoBoeliD, Co 24. Wharton, 2. 65.3 Monmt eCJII ut qUlledamemmea corrigent. Ipsi omnino spemerent. Ranulph.

V. .Ann. 001., Suia potiua CJUaDl Romania obleeundarent traditionibua etpluraquidem alia

catholica. P~ controvemam ferebant. Malmabury, V. P. 349•. CohnaD, meDII ~ Il1laIIl doctriaam, IleCtamque eae deBpectam, in Scot-tiam 1'egr8IRI'" Beda. IlL 26.

Page 190: The Variations of Popery

190 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 toevery Christian; but were unacquainted with any other sub-mission, which they owed to the peraonwhom Augustine calledthe pope," Dinoth and his companions, though men of learn-ing in their day, seem to have known nothing of the Romanhierarch. The English bishops, at the end of the sixth cen-tury, had never heard of God's vicar-general on earth; andwhat was nearly as bad, cared no more about his infallibilityafter his name had been mentioned, than about any other man.Dinoth.also informed Augustine, that the British church wasgoverned by the bishop of Crerleon, and, therefore, had noneed of the Roman missionary's service or superintendency.The obstinate people refused the archbishop ready provided forthem 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, weredeaf to entreaty and reproof.Ireland maintained its independency still longer than Eng-

land. This nation rejected the papal supremacy and indeed allforeign domination, till its conquest by Henry at the end. ofthe twelfth century. The Scottish and Irish communions, Ba-ronius admits, were involved in the same schism. Bede accusesthe Irish of fosteri~ hatred to Romanism, and of entertaininga heterodox profession, Laurentius, Justus, and Mellitus in614, in their epistolary communication to the Irish clergy andlaity, identified the Hibernian with the British church. Dagan,an Irish bishop, refused to eat, sit in company, or remain underthe roof with the Roman bishops.2Ireland, for many ages, was a school of learning for the Eu-

ropean nations; and she maintained her independency, andrepressed the incursions of foreign control during the days ofher 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 wayfor Romanism. The dissensions of the native sovereigns aug-mented the misery of the distracted nation, and facilitated the'progress of popery. King Henry, patronized by Pope Adrian,

I AJiam obedientiam quam hane non scio debitam. ei quem VOl nmninatia Pa-Jll!IDo Sed obedientiam bane IUUlUBnOl parati dare et IOlvere eiet cnique Christ-I8l1O. lleda, 716. Bray-, 1. 371. Mabillon, 1. 279, 280.t Bmnanun oonsuetudinem odio habuenmt. "Bed&, 702. Prof_onem minus

eoc1eeiadioam in Ulultia _ cognovit. Beda, n. 4. Rpon 604. VIIL .Daganu ~ ad IlOIl veniens, Don lO1um cibum nobi8cum, led nec in

eodem hOllpitiio, quo ~'bImnn-, 81JII1ere voluit. Beda, sa. 702.EouleIiIe RomUa de ~ domibUB unllMim 'llDiu deIl&l'ii peDIIU'8', Tri·

vettue. An. lW. 1>IoJMr7. a. 161.

Page 191: The Variations of Popery

TITLE OF UNIVERSAL BISHOP CONFERRED BY PHOCAS. 191

completed the system of pontifical subjugation. The vicar-general of God transferred the whole island to the monarchof England for many pious ends; and especially for the pay-ment of an annual tax of one penny from each family to theholy Roman See.The usurpations of the papacy, therefore, were effected by

gradual innovation. Several nations, in defiance of pontificalclaims and ambition, maintained their 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,l indeed, seems to have felt all the activity of genius and am-bition; and he attempted in consequence, by many skilful andrapid movements, to enlarge the circle of his power. Hepointed his spiritual artillery against the Gallican Church, butwas repelled with resolution and success. His ecclesiasticaltactics, though well concerted, were in the main unsuccessful ;and papal usurpation made little progress through any part ofChristendom, till the accession of Gregory in the end of thesixth century.The sainted Gregory was distinguished, not by his learning

or integrity, but by his ambition and activity. His works arevoid of literary taste, and his life was a tissue of superstition,priestoraft, monkery, intolerance, formality, and dissimulation.He maintained a continual correspondence with kings; and asoccasion dictated, employed, with temporising versatility, thelanguage of devotion or flattery. His great aim was to repressthe Byzantine patriarch, and to exalt the Roman pontiff.During Gregory's reign, the Oonstantinopolitan patriarch, actu-ated by a silly vanitr. and countenanced by the Emperor Mau~rieius, assumed the title of universal bishop. This appellation,noisy and empty, was unattended by any new accession ofpower. But the sounding distinction, unmeaning as it was initself, and suitable, as the emperor seems to have thought it,to the bishop of the imperial city, awoke Gregory's jealousyand hostility. His holiness, accordingly, pronounced thedignity vain-glorious, proud, profane, impious, execrable,heretical, blaaphemous, diabolical, and antichristian: andendeavored, WIth unremitting activity, to rouse all the powersof the earth for its extinction. His saintship, had the spirit ofprophecy been among the number of his accomplishments,would, in all probability, have spoken with more caution abouta title afterwards ~ted by his successors. The usurper ofthis appellation, according to Gregory, was the harbinger andherald of Antichrist. His infallibililly, of course, in designating

Page 192: The Variations of Popery

192 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

the pope Antichrist, had the honor of anticipating Luther neara 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 assassinatedthe royal family and seized the imperial throne. The usurper,on this occasion,was a monster of inhumanity. Some tyrantshave been cruel from policy; but Phocas seems to have beenactuated with unalloyed disinterested malignity, unconnectedwith any end except the gratification of a malevolent and infer-nal mind. He massacred five of his predecessor's sons beforethe eyes of the father, whom he reserved to the last that he ~might be a spectator of his family's destruction. The youngestboy's nurse endeavored to substitute her own child in the placeof 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 allthe 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 princesseswere next, by the most solemn oaths and promises of safety,allured from their asylum in a church, and fell the helplessvictims of relentless fury. Phocas was deformed in body aswell as in mind. His aspect inspired terror; and he was voidof genius, learning, truth, honor, or humanity, and the slaveof drunkenness, impudicity, licentiousness, and cruelty.'This demon of inhumanity, however, became the object of

his infallibility's unqualified Hattery, for the promotion of pro-jects of ambition and despotism. His holiness hailed themiscreant's accessionin strains suited only to the advent of theMessiah. The hierarch celebrated the piety and benignity ofthe assassin, and welcomed the successful rebellion of theusurper as the joy of heaven and earth.' His saintship, in fondanticipation, grasped the title of universal bishop as the rewardof his prostituted adulation and blasphemy. But death arrestedhis career,and prevented the transfer of the disputed and enviedhonor. Gregory's ambition and ability, however, succeededin extending the limits and advancing the authority of the pope-dom. Claims, hitherto disputed or half-preferred, assumedunder his superintendence l!' 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,

seem to have obtained no material accessions of ecclesiastica.l1 Spon. 602. VL Godeau, 5. 43. B~. 1. 402,400.2 Pontifex Phocam CI"lIlklillllimmn multi8laudibua exta1lt. DuPiD. 279.

Page 193: The Variations of Popery

USURPATION OF THE POPES. 193power. The infernal Phocas, indeed, aceording to manyhistorians, wrested the title of universal bishop from the Byzan-tine patriarch, and entailed it in perpetuity on the Roman pon-tiff.1 Some modern publications annex considerable importanceto this transaction, and even date the papal supremacy fromthis epoch. But this, as. many reasons show, was no leadingfact, much less a marked era in the history of the papacy. Thetruth of the narration is very questionable. The contemporaryhistorians are silent on this topic. The relation rests on thesole credit of Baronius, who, on account of his modernness aswell as his partiality, is no authority. Pelagius and Gregoryhad disclaimed the title, which, for some centuries, was notretained by the successors of Boniface. The Roman pontiff,says Gratian, 'is not universal,' though some refer its assump-tion to the ninth century.t But the account, even if true, isunimportant. The application, intended merely as complimen-tal and honorary, was not new nor accompanied with any freshaeeessions of authority. The title had been given to Pope Leothe Great, by the council of Chalcedon, and to the Byzantinepatriarchs by the emperors Leo and Justinian. Leo had calledStephen universal, and Justinian, at a latter date, had, in thesame style, mentioned Mennas, Epiphanies, and Anthemius.The patriarchs of Constantinople, before, as well as after Boni-face, were called universal bishops. Phocas, indeed, rescindedthe dignity. But the title was afterwards restored by Hera-clius the successor of Phocas, and retained with the utmostpertinacity.'But Phocas, if he did not bestow the title of universal bishop

on the Roman pontiff, conferred something, which, ifbelief maybe attached to Anastasius,· Bede, and Paul the Deacon, wasequivalent or even superior. The primacy, claimed by theeastern patriarch, this emperor, according to these historians,transferred to the western pontiff.' The primacy, however,obtained in this manner, could have no pretensions to be of

1Nomen univel'llalis episcopi decere Romanam tantummodo ecclesiam. S~n.606,11.

Z Nee etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus. Gratian, 303.Anon. ISO.s Godeau, 4, 500. Thom. 1. 2. Du Pin. 328. Giannon, III. 6.~Hio obtinuit apud Pbocam princi~m, ut aedes Apostolica beati Petri Apo.-

toll, caput _ omnium eoolesianun, Id eat, eoclesia Roouma, quia ecclesir. Con-stantinopolitana primam Be omnium eoo1eeiarum soribebat. Anastasiua, ~ inBon.3.Hie, rogante Papa Bonifacio, statuit, sedem RoIll&lllll et ApostoliOlil ecelesUe

caput esse omnium eoo1esiarum, quia eoolesia Constantinopolitana primam Beomnium ecelesiarum soribebat. Beda in Cbron. 29. Paul Diacon, 4, 47.Apud Pbocam obtinuit, ut RoIDlll ecelesis omnium caput ecclesiarum decer-

lleretur. Hermann Ann. 608. Cauasiua, 3, 231. Fordun. III. 32.M

Page 194: The Variations of Popery

194 THE "VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

ecclesiastical or divine origin; but on the contrary> like all thehonors of the papacy, was of civil and human authority.Nicholas and John, in the ninth century, laid the foundation,

and Gregory, in the eleventh, raised the superstructure. Thelatter completed the outline, which the two former had begun.The skeleton, which Nicholas and John had organized,Gregoryclothed with flesh, supplied with blood, and inspired with lifeand activity. Innocent the Third seemed, if possible, toout-rival Gregory in the career of usurpation and tyranny.Unwearied application, extensive knowledge of ecclesiasticallaw, and vigilant observation of passing events, sustained thispontiff's fearless activity; and he obtained the three greatobjects of his pursuit, sacerdotal sovereignty, regal monarchy,and dominion over kings. Boniface the Eighth walked inInnocent's steps, and endeavored to surpass his predecessor inthe paths of despotism. During the periodwhich elapsed fromInnocent till Boniface, the sun of pontifical glory shone in all itsmeridian splendor. The thirteenth century constituted t.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 councilsand kings. Christendom, through all its extended realms ofmental and moral darkness, trembled while the pontiff fulmi-nated excommunications. Monarchs quaked on their thronesat the terror of papal deposition, and crouched before hisspiritual power like the meanest slaves. The clergy consideredhis holiness as the fountain of their subordinate authority, andthe way to future promotion. The people immersed in grossignorance and superstition, viewed his supremacy as a ter-restrial deity, who wielded the temporal and eternal destiniesof man. The wealth of nations flowedinto the sacred treasury,and enabled the successor of the Galilean fisherman and headof the Christian commonwealth to rival the splendor ofeastern pomp and grandeur.

Page 195: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER V.

INFALLIBILITY.

P<lNTIFIOAL INFALLIBILrrY-rrs OBJECT, 1'OJ:U(, AND UN01m7AlNTY- SYNODALINFALLIBILITY-PONTIFICAL AND SYNODALINFALLIBILrrY-EllCLIlSIASTICAL INFAL-LIBILrrY-ITB ABBUBDITY-ITS IlilPOSSIBILITY.

THE infallibility of the church, like the supremacy of the pope,p*sents an inviting theme to the votary of papal superstition.A genuine son of Romanism expatiates on this topic with greatpride and volubility. But the boasted unity of pretendedCatholicism has on this, as on every other question, diver~edinto a heterogeneous medley ofjarring opinions and contendingsyatems. The ablest advocates of infallibility cannot tell inwhom this prerogative is placed. Its seat, in consequence, has,even among its friends, become the subject of tedious as wellas useless discussion.All indeed seem to agree in ascribing infallibility to the

church. But this agreement in word is no proof of unity inopinion. 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 onthis subject in the Romish eemmunion. One party placeinfallibility in the church virtual or the Roman pontifE Asecond faction seat inerrability in the church representative ora general council. A third class ascribe this prerogative to aunion of the church, virtual and representative, or, in .otherterms, to a general council headed by the Roman pontiff Afourth division, rejecting the other systems, persist in attributingexemption from error only tothe church, collective or dispersed,embracing tbe 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 Italianclergy, placed under the influence of the pope, concur withabject submission in this opinion. These receive the official

1 Per eooleaiam inteUigiJJ!uapontifioem Romanum. Gretaer. Co 10. Papa vir·haliterest tota eooleeia. Herv. c. XXIII, J'CObatiU8, I. P. 63.

Page 196: The Variations of Popery

196 THJ~ VARIATIONS OF POPEI.:.Y.

definitions of the supreme hierarch on faith and morals as thedivine oracles of infallibility.This system, in all its absurdity, has been patronized by

theologians, popes and councils. Many Romish doctors haveentertained this opinion, such as Baronius, Bellarmine, Binius,Carranza, Pighius, Turrecrema, Canus, Pole, Duval, Lainez,Aquinas, Cajetan, Pole, Fabulottus, and Palavicino. Severalpontiffs, as might be expected, have been found in the sameranks; such as Pascal, Pius, Leo, Pelagius, Boniface, andGregory.' These, and many others who have joined the samestandard, form a numerous and influential faction in the bosomof the papacy. Bellarmine, Duval and Arsdekin, indeed,have represented this as the common sentiment entertained byall popish theologians of distinction,"This system seemsalso to have been embraced by the councils

of Florence, Lateran, and Trent. These conventions conferredon the pontiff an authority above all councils. The pontifical,therefore, is superior to synodal authority, and according to theFlorentine and Lateran decisions, must possess infallibility.The Lateran synod, besides, renewed and approved the bull ofBoniface the Eighth, which declared subjection to the Romanpontiff necessary to all for salvation. ' The pope,' said Cardillusin the council of Trent, without contradiction, is 80 suppliedwith the divine aid and light of the Holy Spirit, thathe cannoterr to a degree of scandal, in defining faith or enacting generallaws.' These councils were general, and accounted a repre-sentation of the whole church. The belief of pontificalexemption from error, therefore, was not confined to a mereparty, but extended to the whole communion.The infallibility of the Roman pontiff, maintained in this

manner by theologians, popes, and councils, has also beenrejected by similar authority. Doctors, pontiffs, synods, andindeed all antiquity, have denied the inerrability of his Romanholiness. The absurdity has been disclaimed by Gerson,Launoy, Almain, .Richerius, Alliaco, Victoria, Tostatus, Lyra,Alphonsus, MarcR,Du Pin, Bossuet, and many other Romishdivines. Many popes also have disowned this prerogative, suchas Damasus, Celestin, Pius, Gelasius, Innocent, Eugenius,

1Bell. IV. 2. Fabul. c. 8. Caron, c. 18. Dn Pin, 336. Labb. 18. 142'1.Maimbourg, 56. .I Hrec dOctrina communis est inter omnes notm theologos. Arsdekin, 1. US.a Al'lIdekin, I. U4, lIS. Du Pin, 3. 148. Crabb, 3.697. Labb. 9. 968.Romanum pontificem, neque in rebus fidei definiendissc::l:Ie etiam in con-

dendis legibua generalibus, usquam lic errare yosse, ut 0 lit allis. ~ amin his rebus perpetuo illi adest Spiritus Sancti patrocinium lumenque Divinum,quo ejuB mems COJli- admodllm illustrata, velut manu ducatur. Cardillo iaLabb. 20. 1177. ,

Page 197: The Variations of Popery

PONTIFICAL INFALLIBILITY. 197Acirian, and Paull The French Iikewise explode this claim.These superhuman pretensions have been also rejeeted by thegeneral councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil.The assertors of pontifical infallibility, outraging common

sense and varying from others, have also, on this subject,differedamong themselves. Few indeed have had the effronteryto represent even the pope, as unerring in all his decisions. Hisholiness, according to Bellarmine and Dens, may, in a personaland private capacity, be subject to mistake, and, according toOosterus, be guilty of heresy and infidelity. The Transalpinesaccordingly, have disagreed among themselves on the object,form, and certainty of infallibility.The object of infallibility has been one topic of disputation

among the partisans of the Italian school. These contendwhether this prerogative of his holiness Le restricted to faith orextended to fact. The majority seem to confine this attributeof the pontiff to faith, and admit his liability to error in fact.Bellarmine and his partisans seem to limit inerrability to theformer, and leave the. latter to the contingency of humanignorance and imbecility. One party, however, though a smallone, in the Romish communion,would cover even the varyingform 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 sycophancyand 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 divineillumination, is unerring as the Son of God,who imparts theinfallibility which he possesses.' We tremble while we writesuch shocking blasphemy.' John, Boniface, and Alexander,monsters of iniquity, were,according to this statement, inspiredby God and infallible as Emmanuel Talon, the Frenchadvocate general, protesting against this insult, on reason andcommon sense,stigmatised it as impiety and blasphemy.This blasphemy, howeverywas not confined to the cringing,

unprincipled Jesuits. Leo, in the Latemn council in the

I Certumestquod pontifex poesit errare etiamin iiB, qUilltangunt fidem. Adrian,6. De min. Art. 3. Maimbourg, 138. Non dubito, quin ego et decessores meierrare aliquando potnerimus, Piml, 4 in Mainlb. 139. DuPin, 364. Caron, c. 18.Launoy, 1,145. Galli aliique moderni ipeins infallibilitatem impugnant. Dens, i.5. Papa SOII1S potest errare et esse hseretieua, Panormitan, Q. J. :N. 21. P. 140., Papam non minua infallibilem in materia facti vel juris esse quam fuerit Jesns

Christus. Caron. 60. Walsh. p. 9. Nullum errorem cadere posse in doctrinam,quam Pontifex auetoritate summa definit et proponit universe ecclesiee, sive iDajuris sive facti qUllllltionemcontineat. Arsdekin, I. 124. -Papam, nee cUoto nee facto, errare posse credebant. Barclay, 35. 0. 4.

Page 198: The Variations of Popery

198 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

eleventh session, recognised the same principle in all itshatefulness.and deformity. He declared his ability to ' supplythe defects both of right and fact, from his certain knowledgeand from the plenitude of apostolic power. '1 The declarationwas 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 itsrejection a heresy. The J ansenists, on this topic, opposed theJesuits, and betrayed,by their disputations, the boasted unityof Catholicism.The Italian school also vary with respect to the form of

infallibility. This party indeed confess the pope's liability toerror and deception, like other men, in a private or personalcapacity, and limit his infallibility to his official decisions, orwhen he speaks from the chair. But the friends of officialinfallibility, agreeing in word, have disagreed about the inter-pretation of the term. One variety, on this topic, representshis holiness, as speaking with officialauthority when he decidesin council. This explanation has been patronized by Viguerius,Bagot, and Monilian. But these, it is plain, betray their owncause, 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 Callot andTurrecrema. But these, like the former, miss their aim, andascribe infallibility, not to the pope, but to Scripture and tradi-tion. The difficulty still remains, to know when his holinessspeaks in accordance with these standards. A third variety,supported by Canus and his partisans, reckons these officialinstructions, such as are uttered after mature and diligentexamination," But all the wisdom of Canus, and his friends,and perhaps a subsidy, would be necessary to distinguiehbetween the pontiff's deliberate and hasty determinations.The fourth and commonest variety, on this topic, is that of

Bellarmine, Duval, Raynald, Dens, and Cajetan. His holiness,according to these doctors, utters his oracles from the chairwhen, in a public capacity, he teaches the whole church con-eeming faith and morality," But a difficulty still remains todetermine when this is the case; andthis difficulty has dividedthe advocates of this folly into several factions. The pontiff,

1Tam juria quam facti defeetnssupplentea, ex carta nostra scientie, et de Apos·tolicre }lOteatatia plenitudine. Labb. 19. 968.

2 Lannoy, ad Metay. Du Pin, 340. Maimb. 55. Lannoy, 3. 29, 40.S CeD86turl~uiex cathedra quandoloqniturexplenitudine pote8tatis, pneecri.

bella nnivenali eccleaile a1iqnid ~uam dogma fide credendum vel in moribueobaervandulll. Dens, 1. 159. DB PiD,341. Lannoy, 3. 24. Maimbourg, 66.

Page 199: The Variations of Popery

PONTIFICAL INFALLIBILITY. 199say some, teaches the whole church, when he enacts laws;and say others, when he issues rescripts. The pontiff, sayTannerus and Compton, instructs the whole ecclesiasticalcommunity, when his bull has, for some time, been affixed tothe apostolic chancery. This, which Du Pin calls the height offolly, is indeed the concentrated spirit of sublimated nonsense.Maimbourg requires public and solemn prayer, with the con-saltation ofmany councils and universities.The certainty or uncertainty of pontifical exemption from

error has, in the Romish communion, been a subject of disa-greement and disputation. While the Ultramontane contendsfor its truth, and the Cisalpine for its falsehood, a numerousand influential party maintain its utter uncertainty, and repre-sent it as a question, not of faith, but of opinion. The class-book of Maynooth stoutly advocates the probability of bothsystems,' The sage writer's penetrating eye could, at a glance,discern the prohability of two contradictory propositions. Theauthor must have been a man ofgenius. Anglade, Slevin, andKenny, at the Maynooth examination, declared, on oath, theirindecision on this enquiry. The learned doctors could nottell whether their visible head be the organ of truth or thechannel of error, even in his officialdecisions and on points offaith. A communion, which boasts of infallibility, cannotdetermine whether the sovereign pontiff, the plenipotentiary ofheaven, and the 'father and teacher of all Christians' be, evenwhen speaking from the chair, the oracle of catholicism or ofheresy.A second faction seat inerrability in the church representa-

tive or a general council. An <ECumenicalsynod, according tothis class, is the sovereign tribunal, which all ranks of men,even the Roman pontiff himself, are bound to obey. Anassembly of this kind, guided by the Holy Spirit, is superior tothe pope, and supreme judge of controversy. The pontiff, incase of disobedience, is subject to deposition by the sameauthority.'This is the system of the French or Cisalpine school The

Gallican church has distinguished itself, in every age, by itsopposition to pontifical usurpation and tyra.nny. The pontiff'sauthority, in consequence,never obtained the same prevalencein France as in several other nations of Christendom, and hisinfallibility is one of those claims which the French schoolnever acknowledged. His liability to error, even on questionsof faith, has accordingly been maintained by the ablest French

1 Utl'&mque eententiam _ probabilem. Anglade, lBO, 181. Slevin. 201,202. KeDJley,:n.t Du.Pin, 3, 283. OlDen, 2. 7; Crabb. 1. 1018. Carranza, li66.

Page 200: The Variations of Popery

200 THE VARJATIONR OF POPERY.

divines, such as Launoy, Gerson, Almain, Richerius,Maimbourg,Marca, Bossuet, and Du Pin. These doctors have been sup-ported by many French universities, such as Paris, Angiers,Toulouse, and Orleans, which have been followed by those ofLouvain, Herford, Cologne, Cracow, and Vienna. Many pontiffsalso, such as Damasus, Celestine, Felix, Adrian, Gelasius,Leo, Innocent, and Eugenius, admitting their own liability toerror, have referred infallibility to a general council,'The general councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil enacted a

similar decision. These proceeded, without any ceremony, ~the demolition of pontifical supremacy and inerrability. Allthis is contained in the superiority of a council to the pope, asestablished by these synods, as well as by their deposition ofBenedict, Gregory, John, and Eugenius. These pontiffs, the'lAthers of Pi sa, Constance, and Basil found guilty of contumacy,incorrigibility, simony, perjury, schism, and heresy, and foundedsynodal authority on the ruins of papal presumption anddespotism. The Basilians, in express terms, declared thepope's fallibility, and, in many instances, his actual heresy.Some of the supreme pontiffs, said these legislators,. 'havefallen into heresy and error. The pope may and often doeserr. History and experience show, that the pope, though thehead and chief, has often been guilty of error," These quotationsare plain and expressive of the council's sentiments on theRoman hierarch's pretended exemption from the common weak-ness 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 councilof the Lateran, in a particular manner, contradicts the councilof Basil. Leo, in the former assembly, and with its entireapprobation, declared his certain know ledge both of right andfact. The latter congress, in the plainest language, admittedthe pope's fallibility and actual heresy.A third class ascribe infallibility to a union of the church

virtual and representative, or to a general council headed bythe Roman pontiff. These, in general, require pontifical con-vocation, presidency, and confirmation to confer on a conncillegality and vaJidity. .A pope or synod, according to thifltheory, may, when disconnected, fall into error; but when,1Hmo elIIIll eccleaie Gallicame certam et indubitabilem doctrinam. Arsdekin,

1. 117. ABirmativam tuentur Galli. Dens, 2. 156. Launoy, 145. Da Pin.362, 3M. Maimbourg, c. 15, Caron. c. 18.i Nonnulli aummi,Pontificee, in halresea et errores lApIi leguntur. Errant.

Pontifice, Bicut IIalpe contingit, et contingere poteat. Crabb. 3, 12, 146, 148,Bin. 8. 22. Carranza, 580. Du Pin. 361, 404.3 Labb. 19. 968. Crabb. 3. 148.

Page 201: The Variations of Popery

PONTIFIOA:b AND SYNODAL INFALLIBILITY. 201

united, become unerring. A council, under the direction andsuperintendence of the pontiff, is, say these speculators, raisedabove mistake on subjects of faith and morality.'This class is opposed by both the former. The system con-

tradicts the assumption of pontifical and synodal infallibilityand the sentiments of the French and Italian schools. Its par-tisans differ not only from the Cisalpine theologians, Launoy,Gerson, Almain, Bossuet, and Du Pin, but also from theUltramontane Doctors, Baronius, Bellarmine, Binius, Carranza,and Cajetan; and are exposed to the fire of the councils ofFlorence and Lateran, as well 86 of Pisa, Constance, and Basil.This party, varying from the French and Italian schools,

vary from their own theory and from the acknowledged factsof the general councils. The Romish communion admitsthe authority of several synods, undistinguished by pontificalsummons and ratification. The eight oriental councils, asLaunoy, Du Pin, Gibert, and Caron, have clearly shown, weresummoned sometimes against the pontiff's will and always with-out his authority. The pope, in the first, second, third, andfifth general oouncils, at Niessa, Ephesus, and Constantinople,presided neither in person nor by representation;. while thesecond Ephesian synod, says Mirandula, having a lawful calland legatine presence of the Roman bishop, prostituted itsauthority nevertheless to the subversion of the faith. Severalgeneral councils were not sanctioned, but, on the contrary, re-sisted by pontifical power. This was the case with the thirdcanon of the second general council, which declared the Byzan-tine next in rank and dignity to the Roman see. The twenty-eighth canon of the fourth general council at Chalcedon, whichraised the Constantinopolitan patriarch to an equality with theRoman pontiff, met with similar opposition. But the Chal-cedonian fathers disregarded the Roman bishop's expostulationsand hostility. The fifth general council decided againstVigilius, and, in addition, complimented his holiness with ananathema and the imputation of heresy. The sixth <ecumenicalsynod condemned Honorius, and its acts were confirmed bythe emperor and afterwards by Leo. The Baailian assemblywas ridiculed by Leo the Tenth, and both cursed and confirmedby EU~nius. His holiness, of course, between maledictionand ratification, showed ample attention to the fathers of Basil.The French clergy reject the councils of Lyons, Florence,and the Lateran, though sanctioned by Innocent, Eugenius,and Leo. The Italian clergy, on the contrary, and the par-tisans of pontifical sovereignty, have proscribed the councils

1Maimbourg, o. 6. BelL IV. 2. Caron, c. 18. Kenney, 398.

Page 202: The Variations of Popery

202 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, though ratified by Alexander,Martin, and Nicholas. ,A fourth division in the Romish communion,rejecting the

other systems, persist in attributing exemption from error onlyto the church collective or dispersed, embracing the generalbody of Christian professors. These, disclaiming pontificaland synodal infallibility as well as both united, patronizeecclesiasticalinerrability. The partisans of this theory, how-ever, are few, comparedwith the other factions. The system,notwithstanding, can boast of several patrons of celebrity, suchas Panormitan, Mirandula, and Alliaco.\ Panormitan, thefamous canonist, was one of the advocates of this theory.Councils, according to this author, may err and have erred.The universal church, he adds, 'comprehends the assembly ofall the faithful; and this is the church which is invested withinfallibility.' Mirandula adopted the opinion of Panormitan.He represents the second council of Ephesus as general andlawful, which, nevertheless, 'betrayed the faith.' Alliaco'sstatement on this head, in the council of Constance, is remark-able. He observed that 'a general council, according tocelebrated doctors,may err, not only in fact, but also in right,and, what is more, in the faith.' He delivered the statementas the opinion of many. The declaration, besides, was madein an assembly containing about a thousand of the clergy, andconstituting a representation of the wholechurch, with generalapprobation and consent.This party, dissentingfrompontificaland synodal infallibility,

differ also among themselves and are subdivided into twosections. One subdivisionplacesunliabilityto error in the clergydispersed through Christendom. The laity, according to thisspeculation, have nothing to do but obey the clergy and besafe. The other subdivision reckons the laity among theparticipators of infallibility. Clergy and laity, according to thissupposition, form one sacred society, which, though dispersedthrough Christendom, and subject to mistake in an individualcapacity, is, in a collective sense, raised above the possibilityof error in the faith.Such is the diversity of opinions in the Romish communion,

on a theory, which has disgraced man, and insulted humanreason, These observations shall now be concluded with adigression on the absurdity and on the impossibility of this

ITota eccleaia er;rare non poteat. Panormitan, a. I, N. 2]. P. 140. Eccleaiauniverea1ianon poteat enare. Panormitan de Jud. No. 4. •NihilominuB in eversionem fidei agitatum. Mirandula, Th. 4~Secundum magn08 Doctorea, generale concilium poteat enare, non dum in

facto, II(>detiamin jure, etquod majuaeet, in fide. Hard. 2. 201. Lenfant, 1.172.

Page 203: The Variations of Popery

ABSURDITY OF ECCLESIASTIGAL INFALLlBILITY. 203

infallibility. Its absurdity may be shown from the intellectualweakness of man, and the moral deformity which has disfiguredthe Roman pontiffs, the general councils, and the papal com-munion.The intellectual weakness of man shows, in the clearest light,

the absurdity of the claim. Human reason, weak in its opera-tions and deceived by passion, selfishness, ignorance, and pre-possession, is open to the inroads of error. Facts testify itsfallibility. The annals of the world proclaim, in loud andunequivocal accents, the certainty of this humbling truth.

, The history of Romanism, and its diversity of opinions not-withstanding its boasted unity, teach the same fact. The manwho first claimed or afterwards assumed the superhuman at-tribute, must have possessed an impregnable effrontery. Lia-bility to error, indeed, with respect to each individual in ordi-nary situations, is universally admitted. But a whole is equalto its parts. Fallible individuals, therefore, though united inone convention or society, can never form an infallible councilor an infallible church.The absurdity of this arrogant claim may be shown from the

moral deformity, which, from age to age, has disfigured theRoman pontiffs, the general councils, and the papal communion.The moral character of the popes proclaims a loud negationagainst their infallibility. Many of these hierarchs carriedmiscreancy to an unenvied perfection, and excelled, in thisrespect, all men recorded in the annals of time. A John, aBenedict, and an Alexander seem to have heen born to showhow far human nature could proceed in degeneracy, and, inthis department, outshine a Nero, a Domitian, and a Caligula.Several popes in the tenth century owed their dignity toMarozia and Theodora, two celebrated courtezans, who raisedtheir gallants to the pontifical throne and vested them withpontifical infallibility.' Fifty of these viceroys of heaven ac-cording to Genebrard, degenerated, for one hundred and fiftyyears, from the integrity of their ancestors, and were apostaticalrather than apostolical. Genebrard, Platina, Stella, and evenBaronius,call them monsters, portends, thieves, robbers, assassins,magicians, murderers, barbarians, and perjurers, No less thanseventeen of God's vicars-general were guilty of perjury. Papalambition, usurpation, persecution, domination, excommunica-tions, Interdicts, and deposition of kings have filled the earthwith war and desolation.1 Intruderentur in sedem Petri eorum amasii Peeudo-Pontitlees. Baron. 912.

VIII. Spon. 900. I. Genebrard, IV.On ne voyoit alora plus des Papes, maia des monstree, Baroniua tlcrit qu' alors

Rome tltoit sans Pape. Giannon, VII. 5. An. Eool. 345.

Page 204: The Variations of Popery

204 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

The general councils, like the Roman pontiffs, were a. stigmaon religion and man. Many of these conventions, in point ofrespectability, were inferior to a modern cock-fight or bull-bait-ing. Gregory Nazianzen, who is a Roman saint, has describedthese scenes'with the pencil of truth and with the hand of amaster. ' I never,' says the Grecian bishop, 'saw a synod whichhad a happy termination. These conventions, instead of dimin-ishing, uniformly augment the evil which they were intendedto remedy. Passion, jealousy, envy, prepossession, and theambition of victory, prevail and SUrpasM all description. Zealis actuated rather by malignancy to the criminal than aversionto the crime.' He compares the dissension and wrangling ex-hibited in the councils, to the quarrels of geese and cranes, gab-bling and cuntending in confusion,and represents such disputa-tion and vain jangling as calculated to demoralize the spectator.rather than to correct or reform.' This portrait, which is takenfrom life, exhibits, in graphic delineation and in true colors, thegenuine features of all the general, infallible, apostolic, holyRoman councils.The general synods of Constantinople, Niosea, Lyons,

Constance, and Basil are, in a particular manner, worthy ofobservation. These conventions were composed of the lowest, rabble, and patronized the vilest abominations. The Byzantineassembly, which was the second general council, has been des-cribed by Nazianzen. This convention the saint characterizesas •a cabal of wretches fit for the house of correction; fellowsnewly taken from the plough, the spade, the oar, and the anny.'Such is the Roman saint~ sketch of a holy, apostolic, unerringcouncil,"The second Nicene council approved of perjury and fornica-

tion. The unerring synod, in loud acclamation, approved of adisgusting and filthy tale, taken from the' spiritual meadow,'and ~anctioning these sins. A monk, according to the story,had been haunted with the spirit of fornication from early lifetill hoary age. The lascivious propensity, which is all tha.tcould be meant by the demon of sensuality, had seized thesolitary in the fervor of youth, and continued its temptationseven in the decline of years. One day, when the spirit, ormore probably the flesh, had made an extraordinary attack onthe anchoret, he begged the foul fiend to depart, as he wasnow arrived at the 'years of longevity, when such allurements,t x",..." " "1*""""" aqrr.. JUII'''''/U1'fI''.b6 iEpn *1'6ta 1'080$. Gregory 2. 82. Carm. X. Ep. 56. Do Pin, 1. 658.3 Alii ab araw venerant adusti a BOle; alii a ligone vel bident totum diem

non quiescente; alii remoa exercitusve reliquerant, redolentes adhuo sentinamvel corpus fOldatum oioatricibull habente8. ,........... Flagriones, et pistrinil,digni. Greg. Quer. Ep. Labb. 2. 1168. Du Pin, 1. 259.

Page 205: The Variations of Popery

IMPOSSIBILITY OF INFALLIBILITY. 205

through attendant debility, should cease. The devil, appearingin his proper form, promised a cessation of arms, if the hermitwould swear to tell no person what he was going to say.' Themonk, without hesitation, obeyed the devil, and bound himselfby oath to secrecy. The devil administered and the monkswore. He swore by the Most High never to divulge whatBelial would tell. The solitary, it appears, was sufficientlycomplaisant with Beelzebub, who, in return, promised towithdraw his temptations, if the monk would quit worshippinga statue of Lady Mary carrying her son in her arms.The tempted, it seems, did not reject the temptation with

becoming resolution. He requested time for consideration;and next day, notwithstanding his oath, discovered all to theAbbot Theodorus, who lived in Pharan. The holy abbot indeedcalled the oath a delusion; but notwithstanding his sanctity,approved of the confession,and, in consequence,of the perjury.The devil, perhaps, in the popish divinity, is a heretic, whichwould warrant the violation of faith with his infernal majesty.The abbot's approbation,· however, some may think, was asufficient stretch of politeness in the holy Theodorus, and notvery flattering to veracity. The followingis as little flattering tochastity. 'You should rather visit all the brothels in the city,'said the holy abbot to the holy z!lonk, 'than omit worshippingImmanuel and his mother in their images.' Theodorus wasan excellent casuist, and knew how to solvea case of conscience.Satan afterward appeared to the monk, accused him of perjury,and pronounced his doom at the day of judgment. The devilseems to have felt a greater horror of perjury than the monk;and preached better morality than Theodorus or the holygeneral council. The anchoret, in his reply to the fiend, admittedthat he had perjured himself; but declared that he had notabjured his God.Such is the tale as related in the sacred synod from 'the

spiritual meadow.' The holy fathers, with unanimous consent,approved; and by their approbation, showed the refinement oftheir taste, and sanctioned perjury and debauchery. John, theoriental vicar, declared perjury better than the destruction ofimages. John must have been an excellent moral philosopherand Christian divine, and a worthy member of an unerringcouncil. The monk's oath, however, did not imply thealternative of forswearing himself or renouncing image worship.

1 Jura mihi, quod ea q1llll tibi dicam nemini significabis, et non amplius tecumpugnabo. Crabb. 2. 520. Bin. 5. 642.2 Expedit tibi potius, ut non dimittas in civitate ieta lupinar, in quod non

introeu, quam ut recullelladorare Dominum et Deum nostrum Iesum Christum,cum propria make 811a in imagine. Labb. 8. 902.

Page 206: The Variations of Popery

206 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

He might have kept the solemn obligation, and, at the sametime, enjoyed his orthodox idolatry. He was only sworn tosecrecy with respect to the demon's communication. Theengagement was solemn. The officerindeed, who administeredthe oath, was the devil. But the solitary swore by the Highest;and the validity of an oath, all agree, arises not from theadministrator, but from the deity in whose name it is taken.His discovery to Theodorus, therefore, though applauded by theinfallihle synod, was a flagrant violation of the ninth precept ofthe moral law.The approval of debauchery was, in this case, accompanied

with that of perjury, Theodorus' sermon, recommended by thesacred synod, encouraged the monk, rather than dismisshis idol,which in all probability was a parcel of fusty baggage, to launchinto the troubled waters of prostitution, and, with crowdedcanvas and swelling sail, to sweep the wide ocean of licentious-ness. The picture of sensuality, presented in the abbot's holyadvice, seems to have tickled the fancy and feeling of the holyfathers, who appear to have been actuated with the same spiritin the council as the monk in the cell. The old sensualistsgloated over the sceneof voluptuousness, which the Theodoriantheology had presented to the view. The aged libertines,enamored of the tale, caused it to be repeated in the fifthsession, for the laudable purpose of once more glutting theirlibidinous appetite, and prompting their imagination with itsfilthiness.The Caroline books, the production of the French king and

prelacy, deprecated the story as an unprecedented absurdityand a pestilential evil Du Pin, actuated with the sentimentsof a man and a Christian, condemns the synod, deprecates thewhole transaction, and even refuses to translate the Abbot ofPharan's holy homily. The infallible council sanctioned abreach of the seventh commandment, at least in comparisonwith the abandonment of emblematic adoration. The Nicreans,nevertheless, boasted of their inspiration. The sacred synod,amid all its atrocity, pretended to the immediate influence ofheaven. The divine afHatus, forsooth, passed through theseskins of pollution, and made the consecrated ruffians thechannels of supernatural communications to man. The sourceof their inspiration, if the holy fathers felt such an impulse, iseasy to tell. The spirit which influenced the secreted monkseems to have been busy with the worthy bishops, and to havestimulated their imaginations to the enjoyment of the dirtystory, and the approbation of its foul criminality.The holy infallible council of Lyons has been delineated in a

portrait taken from life, by Matthew Paris, a contemporary

Page 207: The Variations of Popery

IMPOSSIBILITY OF INFALLIBILITY. 207

historian. Pope Innocent retiring from the general council ofLyons in which he had presided, Cardinal Hugo made afarewell speech for his holiness and the whole court to thecitizens, who had assembled on the occasion to witness hisinfallibility's departure. ' Friends' said the orator, 'we haveeffected a work of great utility and charity in this city. Whenwe came to Lyons we found three or four brothels in it, and wehave left at our departure only one. But this extends withoutinterruption, from the eastern to the western gatP. of the city.'!The clergy, who should be- patterns of purity, seem on thisoccasion,when attending an unerring council, to have been theagents ofdemoralizationthrough the city inwhich theyassembled.The cardinal, speaking in the name of his holiness,gloried in hisshame,and talked of the abomination of himself and his com-panions in a strain of raillery and unblushing effrontery.The Constantine council wascharacterized by Baptiza, one of

its own members. His portrait is frightful. The cler~, hedeclared, 'were nearly all under the power of the devil, andmocked all religion by external devotion and Pharisean hypo-crisy. The prelacy, actuated only by malice, iniquity, pride,vanity, ignorance, lasciviousness, avarice, pomp, simony, anddissimulation, had exterminated catholicism and extinguishedpiety." . .The characters of the holy bishops, indeed, appear from their

company. Morethan seven hundred PUBLIC WOMEN,accordingto Dachery's account, attended the sacred synod. The Viennamanuscript reckons the number of these female attendants,whom it calls vagrant prostitutes, at 1500.3 This was a fairsupply for the thousand holy fathers who constituted the Con-stantian assembly. These courtesans, says Bruys, were, in a~-pearance, intended to exercise the chastity of the clergy. Theircompany, no doubt, contributed to the entertainment of thelearned divines, and introduced great variety into the amuse-ments.The council of Basil taught the theory of filthiness, as that of

Constance had exhibited the practice. Carlerius, the championof catholicism in the Basilian assembly against Nicholas theBohemian heretic, advocated the propriety of tolerating stews ina city! This hopeful and holy thesis the hero of the faith sup-1Tria vel quatuor pl'Olltibula invenUnUB. Ullum lolum relinquimus. Verum

ipsum durat continatum ab orientali porta civitatis usque ad oocidentalem. M.Paris, 792.2 Presque tout Ie clerge est SOUBla puissance du diable. Dans les prelate, il

n'y a que malice, iniquite, negligence, ignorance, vanite, orgueil, avarice, si-monie, lascivete, pompe, hypoorisie. Baptiza, in Lenfan. 2.95.3 Sept eena dix·huit femmes publiques. Bruy. 4. 49. XVC. meretrices vaga-

bundle. .Labb. 16. 1436, 1436.• HleC peatia maueat in urbibus. Canisius, 4-. 457.

Page 208: The Variations of Popery

208 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

ported by the authority of the sainted Augustine and Aquinas.Remove prostitutes, says Augustin.e as cited by Carlerius, ' andyou will disturb all things with licentiousness.' Human govern-ment, says Aquinas, quoted by the same orator, ' should imitatethe divine. But God, according to the saint, permits someevils in the universe, and therefore, so should man." Hissaintship's logic is nearly as good as his morality. Simplefornication, therefore, concludes Carlerius, is to be permitted toavoid a greater evil.This severe moralist, however, would exclude these courtezans

from the interior of the city, and confine them to the suburbs,to serve as sewers to carry away the filth. He wonId even, inhis rigor, forbid these professional ladies the use of robes, orns-

• ments, silver, gold, jewels, fringes, lace, flounces, and furbelows.This useful and pure speculation, the sacred synod heard withsilent approbation. The holy fathers, in their superior senseand sanctity, could easily perceive the utility and reasonable-ness of the scheme, and could not, in politeness, object to thearguments which their champion wielded with such triumphanteffects against the advocate of heresy.The oouneils of Niesen, Vienna, and the Lateran, patronized

the hateful and degrading doctrine of materialism. Angels andsouls, the Nicreans represented as corporeal. The angels ofheaven and the sonIs of men, if the Nieman doctors are to becredited, possess bodies, though of a refined, thin, subtile, andattenuated description. These angelical and mental forms, thelearned metaphysicians admitted, were composed of a substanceless gross indeed than the human flesh or nerve, and less firmthan the human bone or sinew; but nevertheless material,tangible and visible. The council of Vienna improved on thatof Niceea, The holy infallible fathers of Vienna declared thesoul not only of the same substance,but also essentially and initself of the true and perfect form of the body. The rational andintellectual mind, therefore, in this system, possesse!la materialand corporeal shape, limbs, features, feet and hands, and haseircumference, diameter, length, breadth, and thickness. Thisdefinition the sacred synod issued, to teach all men the truefaith. This doctrine, according to the same authority, iscatholicism, and the contrary is heresy. The Lateran council, inits eighth session, followed the Tiennese definition, and decreedthat the human spirit, truly, essentially, and in itself, exists inthe form of the human frame.' Three holy universal councils,1Aufer mewetricibu8 de reb1lllhumaniB, turbaveriB omnia libidinibU.B. Labb.

17.986. DeU8 permittit a1i~ua mala fieri in univeJ'llO. Aquinas, II. 10. XI.2 Catholica eoo1eBia sic _tit_ quOBdam intelligibilee, sed nonomnino corpo-

ris expertel et inYiAbiJ.ee,verum tiBnui corpore pl'lIlditiol. In loco exiat;unt et;cir·

Page 209: The Variations of Popery

BIMORALITY OF THE ROMISH CHURCH. 209in this manner, patronized the materialism which WM afterwardobtrude i on the world by a Priestley, a Voltaire and a Hume.The Romish communion was as demoralized as the Roman

pontiffs or the general councils. During the six hundred yearsthat preceded the reformation, the papal communion, clergyand laity, were, in the account of their own historians, sunk intothe lowest depths of vice and abomination. A rapid view ofthis period, from the tenth till the sixteenth century, sketchedby the warmest partisans of the papacy, will show the truth andjustice of this imputation.The tenth century has been portrayed by the pencil of

Sabellicus, Stella, Baronius, Giannone, and Du Pin. Stuporand forgetfulness of morals invaded the minds of men. Allvirtue fled from the pontiff and the people. This whole periodwas characterized by obduracy and an inundation of overflow-ing wickedness. The Romisb church was filthy and deformed,and the abomination of desolation was erected in the temple ofGod. Holiness bad escaped from the world, and God seemedto have forgotten His church, which was overwhelmed in achaos of impiety.' I

The eleventh century has been described by Gulielmus, Paris,Spondanus and Baronius, Gulielmus portrays the scene indark and frightful colors. 'Faith WM not found on earth.All flesh had corrupted their way. Justice, equity, virtue,sobriety, and the fear of God perished, and were succeeded byviolence, fraud, stratagem, malevolence, circumvention, luxury,drunkenness, and debauchery. All kinds of abomination andincest were committed without shame or punishment.' Thecolors used by Paris are equally black and shocking. ' Thenobility,' says the English historian, ' were the slaves ofgluttonyand sensuality. All, in common, passed their days and nightsin protracted drunkenness. Men provoked surfeit by voracious-ness, and vomit by ebriety.' The outlines of Spondanus andBaronius correspond with those of Gulielmus and Paris. 'Pietyand holiness,' these historians confess, 'had fled from the earth,whilst irregularity and iniquity among all, and, in an especialmanner, among the clergy, every where reigned. The sacra-ments, in many parts of Christendom, ceased to be dispensed.cumferentiam habent. Nemo, velangelos, vel animosdixerit incorporeos. Car- •.ranza, 478. Labb. 8. 1446-Anima rationalia non sit forma corporis h1lIDlUli..JI6l'se et euentialiter, tanquam

hrereticus sit censendus. Carranza, 560. Du Pin, 2. 546.Dla humani corporis existat. Carranza, 604. Labb. 19. 812. Bin. 8. 928.1Stupor et amentia quoodamoblivioqne morum invaserunt hominum animOll.

Sabellicus, II. Quia Don putarit Deum oblitum ecclesioo Bure. Span. 908. III.Contingerit abominationem desolationis in templo. Baron, 900. 1. L' egliee etoitdana un etat pitoyable, defigun\e _pal' lea plus ~ds desordrea, ,t plongee dana"UD chaos d'iuipietea. Giannon, VII. 5. Du l'in, 2, 156. Bruy. 2. 316.

N

Page 210: The Variations of Popery

210 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

The few men of piety, from the prospect of atrocity, thoughtthat the reign ofAntichrist had commenced,and that the worldwas hastening to its end."The twelfth and thirteenth ages were similar in their morals,

and have been described by Morlaix, Honorins, and Bernard.According to the two former, 'Piety and religion seemed tobid adieu to man; and for these were substituted treachery,fraud, impurity, rapine, schism, quarrels, war and assassination.The throne of the beast seemed to be fixed among the clergy,who neglected God, stained the priesthood with impurity,demoralized the people with their hypocrisy, denied the Lordby their works, and rejected the revelation which God gave forthe salvation of man,"But Bernard's sketch of this period is the fullest and most

hideous. The saint, addressing the clergy, and witnessing whathe saw, loads the canvas with the darkest colors. ' The clergy,'said the monk of Clairvaux, 'are called pastors, but in realityare plunderers, who, unsatisfied with the fleece, thirst for theblood of the flock; and merit the appellation not of shepherdsbut of traitors, who do not feed but slay and devoar the sheep.The Saviour's reproach, scourges, nails, spear, and cross, allthese, his ministers, who serve Antichrist, melt in the furnaceof covetousness and expend on the acquisition of filthy gain,differing fromJudas only in the magnitude of the sum for whichthey sell their master. The degenerate ecclesiastics, promptedby avarice, dare for gain even to barter assassination, adultery,incest, fornication, sacrilege, and perjury. Their extortions,they lavish on pomp and folly. These patrons of humilityappear at home amid royal furniture, and exhibit abroad inmeretricious finery and theatrical dress. Sumptuous food,splendid cups, overflowing cellars, drunken banquets, accom-panied with the lyre and the violin, are the means by whichthese ministers of the cross evince their self denial and in-differenceto the world,"1Fides deficerit, et Domini timor erat de midio sublatus. Perierat de rebus,

justitia et requitate subaeta, violentia dominibatur in populis. Fraus, dolus, etcircumventiolate involverant universa. Fides non inveniebatur super terram.Omnis caro corruperat vi.am snam. Bell. Sacr. 1. 8.Optinlates gulre et veneri servientes, in cubiculia, et inter lLXOri08complexus.

Potabatur ab omnibus in commune, et tam dies quam noctes, in hoc studio pro-ductal aunt. Incibis urgebant crapuIam, in potibus vomicam irritabant. Paris5, 1001. Spon. 1001. II. Bruy. 2. 316.! La fraude, l'imyurete, les rapines, hs schismes, les querelles, les guerres, lee

trahisons, lea hOIDlcidesBOnten vogue. Adieu la piete et 1& religion. Morlaix,in Bruy. 2. 547.Tourne toi verB Ie clerge, tu Yverras Ia tente de la mte. Ilsnegligent Ie serviceDivin. lla IIODillentIe eacerdoce par leurs impuretez, seduisent Ie peuple parleur hypocriaie. reBieDt Dieu par leu1"llreuvres. Honor. in Bruy. 2. 547.a DioemiDi putoreI, own aitill raptoreL Sititia enim lIaIIfPinem. Non sunt

Page 211: The Variations of Popery

IMMORALITY OF THE ROMISH CHURCH. 211

Bernard's picture of the priesthood is certainly not compli-mentary; and his character of the laity is ofthe same unflatter-ing description. According to this saint, 'the putrid contagionhad, in his day, crept through the whole body of the church,and the malady was inward and could not be healed. Theactions of the prelacy in secret were too gross for expression,'and the saint, therefore, left the midnight miscreancy in itsnative and congenial darkness."The moral traits of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries

have been delineated by the bold but faithful pens of Alliaco,Petrarch, Mariana, lEgidius, Mirandulo, and Fordun.> Alliaco'sdescription is very striking and significant. ''l'he church,'said the cardinal, 'is come to such a state, that it is worthy ofbeing governed only by reprobates: Petrarch, without anyhesitation, calls Rome, ' Babylon, the Great Whore, the schoolof error, and the temple of heresy.' The court of Avignon,he pronounced, 'the sink and sewer of all vice, and the houseof hardship and misery;' while he lamented, in general, 'thedereliction of all piety, charity, faith, shame, sanctity, integrity,justice, honesty, candor, humanity, and fear of God.'Every enormity, according to Mariana, 'had passed into It

custom and law, and was committed without fear. Shame andmodesty were banished, while, by a monstrous irregularity, themost dreadful outrages, perfidy, and treason were betterrecompensed than the brightest virtue. The wickedness ofthe pontiff descended to the people.'"The account of .A!:gidiusis equally striking. ' Licentiousness

reigned. All kinds of atrocity, like an impetuous torrent,inundated the church, and like It pestilence, infected nearly allits members. Irregularity, ignorance, ambition, unchastity,libertinism, and impurity triumphed; while the plains of Italywere drenched in blood and strewed with the dead. Violence,rapine, adultery, incest, and all the pestilence of villany, con-founded all things sacred and profane."paitores, sed traditores. Ministri Christi aunt, et serviunt Anticbristo. Vendunthomicidia, adulteria, fornicationes, sacrilegia, perjuria. Bemard, 1725-1728.1Serpit hodie putrida t&bes per omne corpus ecelesiee, Intestina et msana-

bills eRt plaga. ecclesire. Qure enim in occu1~ fiunt ab episcopia, tnrpe est dicere.Bernard, 1728.I Ad hunc statum venisse ecclesiam, ut'non sit digna regi, nisi per reprobos.

Alliaco inHard. 1.~. Leman. 2. 276.naj)pelle, _ detour,la ville de Rome, II' grande Paillarde, Babylone, l'Ecolede l'Erreur, Ie Tem»le de I'Hereaie. n n'y a nulle piete, nulle charite, nulle foi,nulle crainte de Dieu. La l'amOllr, la pndeur, la CIIiIldeur,en BOIlt banDies.Petrarcha, ~~. 3. ~70.a Lea pl1l8 crimes etoient presque pousaez en coutume et en loi. On les

commettoit _ craiDte. La honte et la pudeur etoient banDies, et par un de-r8Jlemen' IllOII8tnle1Ix, lea P!aa'noin a~tatI, lea perfidies, lea trahiBoDB etaien*-IDleUX ~ que :De r~ lea verba lea plua lIolatantes. Marian, 6.718., Vidim,. .... ~.~ me.ttaa, ClIDDetn deDique IICII1trldD peRem.

Page 212: The Variations of Popery

212 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Mimndula's picture, to the followingeffect,is equally hideous.,Men abandoned religion, shame,modesty, and justice. Pietydegenerated into superstition. All ranks sinned with openeffrontery. Virtue was often accounted vice, and vice honoredfor virtue. The sacred temples were governed by pimps andGanymedes, stained with the sin of Sodom. Parents encouragedtheir sons in the vile pollution. The retreats, formerly sacredto unspotted virgins, were converted into brothels, and thehaunts of obscenity and abomination. Money, intended forsacred purposes, was lavished on the filthiest pleasures, whilethe perpetrators of the defilement, instead of being ashamed,gloried in the profanation.' Fordun, in his sketch of thefourteenth century, has loaded the canvas with the same darkcolors.1 'Inferiors,' say the historians, 'devoted themselvesto malediction and perjury, to rioting and drunkenness, tofornication and adultery, and to other shocking crimes. Su-periors studied, night and day, to oppress their underlings inevery possiblemanner, to seize their possessions, and to devisenew imposts and exactions.'The sixteenth century has been depicted by Antonius. He

addressed the fathers and senators assembled at Trent, whilehe delineated in such black colors the hideous portrait of thepassing day. The orator, on the occasion, stated, while helamented, the general 'depravation of manners, the turpitudeof vice, the contempt of the sacraments, the solicitude of earthlythings, and the forgetfulness of celestial good and of all Chris-tian piety. Each succeeding day witnessed a deterioration indevotion, divine grace, Christian virtue, and other spiritualattainments. No age had ever seen more tribunals and lessjustice; more senators and less care of the commonwealth;mere indigence and less charity; or greater riches and feweralms. This neglect of justice and alms was attended withpublic adultery, rape, rapine, exaction, taxation, oppression,drunkenness, gluttony, pomp of dress, superfluity of expense,contamination of luxury, and effusion of Christian blood.Women displayed lasciviousness and effrontery; youth, dis-ita sacra profanaque miscere omnia. Labb. 19. 670. Bruy.4. 365. Mariana, 5-170.18acralIlildes et templa lenonibus et eatamitis commissa. Virginibus olim

dieat&, plerisque in urbibus Ilepta inmeretriciall fomices et obserenalatibnla fn-isse COnvertla. Spurcia8imia voluptatibus et impendeant, et impendi8se gIori-entur. Mir&ndula, in Roeco, 6. 68. La plupart dee=n'ont presque pl_ni religion, ni pudeur,.ni modeetie. La Justice est en bngan~, lapiete a presque d~ere en supermtion; du vice on fait nne verm. MinDeLmBmy.4. 397.lnferiorea tam vacant maJedictdoniboa et perjuriia, comeuiouibUi et ebrietati~

bus, fomicatlom1lU8 et 1ldu1tllriia, 1lOaWa hwrenia ~tiL Superioree vero atu-dent, noote et die, ciromD1'eD.ire aubditolll1l08 0JJi.DibwI modilI qnibua polI8uD$,'ut auferant eorum bema et iDduclaDt acmtIlI1lbWitatee, adiDVeD801le11, et eDO-tione.. Fordun, XIV. 89. . .

Page 213: The Variations of Popery

IMMORALITY OF THE ROMISH CHURCH. 213

order and insubordination; and age, impiety and folly; whilenever had there, in all ranks, appeared less honor, virtue,modesty and fear of God, or more licentiousness, abuse, andexorbitance of sensuality. The pastor was without vigilance,the preacher without works, the law without subjection, thepeople without obedience,the monk without devotion, the richwithout humility, the female without compassion, the youngwithout discipline, and every Christian without religion. Thewicked were exalted and the good depressed. Virtue wasdespised, and vice, in its stead, reigned in the world. Usury,fraud, adultery, fornication, enmity, revenge, and blasphemy,enjoyed distinction; while worldly and perverse men, beingencouraged and congratulated in their wickedness, boasted oftheir villany." .The conclusion from these statements has been drawn by

Gerson, Mandruccio,Cervino, Pole, and Monte. Gerson,in thecouncil of Constance, represented C as ridiculous, the preten-sions of a man to bind and to loose in heaven and in earth, whoisguilty of simony, falsehood,exaction, pride, and fornification,'and, in one word, worse than a demon. A person of suchcharacter, according to this authority, is unfit to exercise dis-cipline ; and much less therefore entitled to the attribute ofinfallibility. ' The Holy Spirit,' said Cardinal Mandruccio,inthe council of Trent, 'will not dwell ill men who are vessels ofimpurity; and from such, therefore, no right judgment can beexpected on questions of faith.' His speech,which was pre·1Depravatos hominum mores, vitiorum omnium turpitudinem, sacramen-

torum despectus, BOlam curam terrenorum et ceelestinm bonorum; totiusqueChristianre pietatis oblivionemconsideremus. In Divinis lVatiis, in Christianiavirtutibus, et devotione, et creteris spiritualibus bonis, m dies magis semperdeficere, et ad deteriora prolabi videantur, Nam ubi unquam tot fuerunt insreculo, tribunalia, et minor justitia! Ubi unquam tot senatores et magistra-tus, et minor cura reipublicre ! Ubi majorpauperum multitudo, et minor divi-tum pietas! et ubi majores divitire, et psuciores fuerunt eleemosynee ! Labb.20. 1217-1219.Taceo publica adulteria, stupra, rapinas. Prretereo tantam Christianre san-

guinis effusionem, indebitas exactiones, vectagalia, gratis supuraddita, et innu-meres hujuscemodi oppressiones. Prmmitto etiam superbam vestium pompam,supervacaneous ultra statut dieentium snmptus, ebrietates, crapnlas, et enor-mes luxurire fooditates, quales a sreculonon fuere. Quia nunquam foemineuseexus lascivior et inverecundior, nunqtlam juventus efl'ramatioret indisciplina-tior; et nunquam indevotior et insapientior senectus, atque, in summa, nunquam~nor fuit in omnibus Dei timor honest&s,virtus et modestia, et nunquam major111omniBtatu, carnis libertu, abusio et exorbitantia. Nam qUill major iumundo,exorbitantia, et abusio excogitari poteet iU&m pastor sine vigilalltia, prredica-tor ~e open'bus, judex sine lIlquitate, eges sine observantia, populus eineobedientia, religi08uasine devotione, dives aine verecundia, mulier sine miseri-~,.i'!1venia sine. disci{llina, aenex ~nt:.prudentia, et ~hristianue quisqueame.~one. Boni oppnmuntnr, et lDlpU exaltantnr, VlrtUteS despiciuntnr,~.V1~.pro~. inmundo refP,Wlt•• USUrlll,fraudes, adulwl'ia, fOnlicationes,~tia, vmdiote, blupheDUlIl,et idgenus reliqua, nota aunt; in quibuamnn-ciani et penerai hODlinee,fuoo solumexcusantnr, scd laJtantur, cum makft>cerint•.. exultaat in 18bwt peIIimiI. Labb.~. 1219-122;i.

Page 214: The Variations of Popery

214 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

meditated, met with no opposition from any in the assembly.Cervino, Pole and Monte, presiding in the same synod withlegatine authority, declared that the clergy, if they perseveredin sin 'would in vain call on the Holy Spirit," The idea,ind-eed, that such popes, councils, or church should be influ-enced by the Spirit of God, and exempted by this means fromerror, is an outrageous insult on all common sense.No valid reason could he given why God, in his goodness to

man, should confer doctrinal and withhold moral infallibity.Impeccability in duty is as valuable in itself, and as necessaryfor the perfection of the human character, as inerrability in faith.Holiness, in scriptural language, is enjoined on man with asunmitigated rigor as truth. Criminality, in manners, is, inRevelation, represented as equally hateful to God and detri-mental to man, as mistake in judgment. The Deity is 'ofpurer eyes than to behold iniqui ty;' and 'without holiness noman shall see the Lord." Moral apostasy is, indeed, in manycases, more culpable than doctrinal error. The one is sometimesinvincible; while the other is always voluntary. But noindividual or society is gifted with impeccability, or has reasonto claim infallibility. God does not keep man, either in apersonal or collective capacity, from error in practice, and onlypresumption, therefore, will conclude, that he keeps any frommisapprehension in belief or theory.The moral impossibility of infallibility, without individual

inspiration and the special interposition of heaven in each case,is as clear as its improbability or absurdity. God, by his extra-ordinary interference extended to each person, could, no doubt,preserve all men from error, and convey, with undeviating cer-tainty, a knowledge of the truth. His power of bestowing thisperfection appeared in the Jewish prophets and Christianapostles. These communicated the will of God to men, underthe Old and New Testament, without any liability to mistake.The Holy Spirit, in these instances, acted in a supernaturalmanner on each individual's mind; which, in consequence,became the certain channel of Divine truth, to the Jewishtheocracy, and the Christian commonwealth.But infallibility, though it may be conferred in an extraordi-

nary or miraculous way by God to man, cannot be transferredby ordinary or common means from man to man. God couldinspire men with a certain knowledge of his will; but these

1 N'est ce pas 1U1ll ehose bien ridicule, qu'nn homme simouiaque, avare, men·teur, e:mcteur, fornicateur, 811perbe, fa&tueux, pile en un mot qu'un Demon,pritende avoir 1&~ce de lieret de delier danIIle aiel et aur laterre Gel'lODm Leufan. 2. 288. Le Saint Blq)rit ne pouvoit habiter en nos vuea, I'ila u'etoieDtpurifiez. Mandruccio, illPao!. 1.ti'1. .f.l'rIutra iIlTOC&IDuI8piritum Sanctam.Labb. 20. lao t Habak. i. 13. Beb. xii. 14.

Page 215: The Variations of Popery

)fORAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF INFA.LLIBILITY. 215

again could not inspire others with a certainty of understandingtheir oracles without any possibility of misapprehension. Aperson who is himself uninspired may misinterpret the dictatesof inspiration. This liability to misapprehension was exempli-fied in both the Jewish and Christian revelations. Many Jewsmisunderstood the Jewish prophets. The misapplication ofscriptural truth, at the advent of the Messiah, was so gross thatthey rejected his person and authority. The Christian apostles,prior to the effusion of the Spirit, mistook, on several occasions,the clear language of Immanuel; and these apostolioal heraldsof the gospel, though afterwards guided into' all truth,' havebeen misapprehended in many instances by the various denom-inations of Christendom.Papal bulls and synodal canons, like the Jewish and Chris-

tian revelations, are liable to misconception by uninspired or'fallible interpreters. Suppose infallibility to reside in the pope.Suppose the pontiff, through divine illumination, to deliver thetruth with unerring certainty, and, contrary to custom, with theutmost perspicuity. Admit that the pontifical bulls, spokenfrom the chair, are the fruits of divine influence and the decla-rations of heaven. Each of the clergy and laity, notwithstand-ing, even according to the popish system, is fallible. Thepatrons of infallibility, in a collective capacity, grant that theseveral individuals, taken separately, may err; Some of theclergy, therefore, may misunderstand and therefore misinterpretthe Romish bulls to the people. But suppose each of the clergy,in his separate capacity, to understand and explain the pontiff'scommunications with the utmost precision and with certainexemption from error; the laity, nevertheless, if uninspired orfallible, may misapprehend the explanation of the clergy, and,in consequence, embrace heresy. The papal instructions,therefore, though true in themselves, may be perverted in theirtransmission through a fallible medium to the people.Or suppose infallibility to reside in a eouncil, and the synodal

canons to declare the truth with the utmost certainty andwithout any possibility of mistake. The canons, when circula-ted through Christendom, are liable to misapprehension fromsome of the clergy or laity, iteach is not inspired or infalliblein his interpretation. An individual, who, according to popishprinciples, is not unerring, cannot be certain he has interpretedany synodal decision in its proper and right sense. A clergyman,if he mistake the meaning, will lead his flock astray. Alayman, if fallible in apprehension, mll.Ymisconceive the signi-fication of any instruction issued either by synodal or papalauthority. Each individual, in short, must be an infallible Judge

Page 216: The Variations of Popery

216 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

of controversy, or, from misapprehension, he may be deceived,and there is an end to the infallibility of the church.Many instances of the clergy as well as of the laity, mistaking

the meaning of synodal definitions, might be adduced. EXRm-ples of this kind are afforded by the councils of Chalcedon andTrent, two of the most celebrated synods in the annals of thechurch. The council of Chalcedon, according to the generalexplanation, taught the belief of only two substances or natures,the human and the divine, in the Son of God. The fifteenthcouncil of Toledo,notwithstanding, enumerated three substancesin Immanuel, and quoted the Chalcedonian definition, for itsauthority.' The Spanish clergy, therefore, and through themthe Spanish people, put a wrong construction, according to theusual interpretation, on the general council of Chalcedon.Contradictory explanations were also imposed on some of the

Trentine canons, the last infallible assembly that blessed theworld with its orthodoxy or cursed it with its nonsense. Soto,a Dominican, and Vega, a Franciscan, interpreted the decisionsof the sixth session on original sin, grace, and justificationaccording to their several peculiar systems. Soto publishedthree books on nature and grace and Vega fifteen books on thesame subject. Each of these productions was printed in 1548,and intended as a commentary on the canons of Trent. Theirvarying and often contradictory statements are both founded,the authors pretend, on the definitions of the universal councilThis contrariety of opinion was not confined to Soto and Vega.The Trentine fathers were divided into several factions on theexposition of their own decisions."The same synod affords another example of the same kind.

The council, in the sixth session, declared that ministerialintention, actual or virtual, is necessary to confer validity on asacrament. This sentence, Contarinus opposed in the synodwith warmth; and a year after, notwithstanding the perspicuityof the synodal definition, wrote a book to show that the Tren-tine assembly was of his opinion, and that their canon shouldbe understood in his sense,"Pontifical as well as synodal definitions have beenmisunder-

stood and subjected to contradictory interpretations. The bullUnigenitus, issued by Clement the Eleventh, affordsan instance1Ecce tres in una Christi persona substantias, secundum Chalcedonense con-

cilium. Labb. 8. 13-I Cea deux thtlolOlPeDS non seulement differassent de sentiment dans presque

toua lee articles. JDaUI que dans plnaieura m&ne, Us enseignassent une doctnneevidemment contraire. .Paolo, 1. 4.110.Du Pin, 3. 446. Mem. Sur Predestin. 172.Lee antres en oat parI' avec 1& m&ne diversiW. Paolo, 1. 340.Un kritpour plO1IV8r que Ie concile avoit ew de son avis. Paolo, 1. 389.

M:orery, 2. ?H1.

Page 217: The Variations of Popery

MORAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF INFALLIBILITY. 217

of this kind. The French and Italians, the Jesuits and theJansenists explained the papal constitution according to theirseveral humors and prepossessions. The accommodatingdocument, according to some, was pointed against the 'I'homists,but, according to others, against the abettors of Calvinism.Many maintained its obscurity, or candidly admitted theirinability to understand this puzzle. The astonished pontiff, inthe meantime, wondered at the people's blindness or perversity.Men, he was satisfied, must have lost their reason or shut theireyes, to become insensible to the dazzling light, which, clear asnoonday, radiated from the bright emanation of hia brain.Popes and councils, in this manner, may be misrepresented, andtheir definitions, even if true in themselves as the dictates ofheaven, are no infallible security against error in men who areliable to mistake their meaning. Each of the clergy and laitywould require preternatural aid, to understand their instructionswith certainty. Every individual, subject to error, may annexheterodox significations to the dictations of the sovereignpontiffs and general councils, as well as to the inspired volume.Very different opinions, accordingly, have been tortured fromthe synodical canons and the sacred penmen. Sound doctrine,both written and verbal, may be perverted by erroneousinterpretation. Water, though clear in the fountain, maycontract impurity as it flows through muddy channels to thereservoir. Truth in like manner may be misrepresented ormisunderstood in its transmission, in various ways, and throughdiversified mediums, to the minds of men. The friend ofprotestantism, because fallible, may misinterpret revelation, andtherefore is liable to mistake. The professor of Romanism,who is also fallible, may, it is plain, misunderstand the churchand therefore fall into error. Infallibility, therefore, or thepreservation of all, clergy and laity, from error, would requirea continued miracle and personal inspiration extended to everyage and to every individual in the Christian commonwealth.

1 La Bulle BOu1l"re lea explications lea plua opposees. AllOL2. 264-A l'6gard de 1& bulle de Clement XI., lea UDS l'entendent d'une ~n et lea

antres de I'autre. On a tire comme on pent pour a faire plier a lei sent;i·-mens, etc. Apol 1. 131; 132-Une bulle qui lui paroissoit plus claire que Ie jour. AllOL 1. 259.

Page 218: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER VI.

DEPOSITION OF KINGS.

FRENCH SYSTEM-ITALIAN SYSTEM-QRIGINA.L STATE OJ!' THE CHRISTIAN OOMMON-WEA.LTH-PONTII!'ICAL ROYALTY-ATTEMPTS AT DEPOSITION OF KINGS-GREGORYAND LEQ--ZACHARY AND OIDLDERW----()ONTINENTAL DlIPOSITIONS- GREGORY,CLEMENT,BONIFACE, AND JULIUS DETHRONE HENRY, LEWIS, PHILIP, AND LEWIS-BRITISH D:EPOSITIONS-AIlRIAN TRANSFERS IR:ELAND TO H:ENRY-INNOC:ENT,PAUL, AND PIUS, PRONOUNOEI:l:ENTENOEOF DEGRADATIONAGAINSTJOHN, H:ENRY,AND ELIZABETH-SYNODAL DEPOSITIONS--oOUNCILS OJ!' THE LATERAN, LYONS,VIENNA, PISA, OONSTANCE, BASIL, LATERAN, AND TR:ENT-MODEBN OPINIONS-EF:FEOTSOJ!' THE R:EFORMATION.

THE French and Italian schools vary on the civil power of theRoman pontiff, as well as on his spiritual authority. TheFrench deny his political or regal jurisdiction, except perhapsin the ecclesiastical states of Italy, over which, in consequenceof Pepin's donation, he hes obtained dominion. Pontificaldeposition of kings and domination through the nations ofChristendom, the, Cisalpines to a man hold in detestation.'This system has been supported with great learning and ~

.ability by the French theologians; such as Gerson, Launoy,Almain, Marca, Maimbourg, Bossuet, and Du Pin. TheParisian parliament and university distinguished this view ofthe subject by their persevering and powerful advocacy. TheParisian senate, in 1610, proscribed Bellarmine's Treatiseagainst Barclay, on the temporal power of the pope. Thewhole French clergy, in 1682, assembled at Paris, and recog-nized this as the belief of the Gallican church; and theirdecision has been embraced by the moderate and rationalfriends of Romanism throuh the several nations of Chris-tendom.'The Italians, and all who abet their slavish system, counte-

nance the pope's political power, even beyond the papal regalia,and support his &88UJDed authority over emperors and kings.

1Bell. i 811. Maimb. 260. DB Pin, 433., Gibert 2. 613. Kaimb. Co 30. ADalad. 166. Thuan. 5. 241. Grotty, 70.Ita habet declaratio cleri GaUicaui, Auno 1682, quam sequuntur phares uteri.

Dens 2, 164.

Page 219: The Variations of Popery

ITALIAN SYSTEM. 219

'The Roman hierarch, according to this theory, presides by divineright in the state as well as in the church. He possesses autho-rity to transfer kingdoms, dethrone sovereigns for heresy, andabsolve their subjects from the oath of fidelity.'The partisans of the Italian school are divided into two fac-

tions. One party allows the pope no direct power over thestate or over kings. He is not, according to this theory, thelord of the whole world. He possesses no jurisdiction over therealms of paganism or infidelity. But he is vested with anindirect power over the temporal monarchs and the politicalinstitutions of Christendom. The supreme pontiff can, for thegood of the church and the salvation of souls, enact and repealcivil laws, erect kingdoms, transfer thrones, depose emperorsand kings, and rescind, by divine right and spiritual authority,the obligations of vassals to their sovereigns. This, Bellarminerepresents as the common opinion of all the friends of Roman-ism. This system has been advocated by Baronius, Bellarmine,Binius, Carranza, Perron, Turrecrema, Pighius, Walden, San-derus, Cajetan, and Vittoria. Many pontiffs, also, since thedays of Gregory the Seventh, as well as several provincial andgeneral councils, have patronized the same absurdity.'A second faction vest the pontiff with still ampler prerogatives

and greater power. These characterize the pope as the lord ofthe whole world, who presides, with divine and uncontrolledauthority, over all the nations of Christendom and infid"lity.His power, according to this system, is direct in civil as wellas ecclesiastical affairs. He wields, at once, the temporal andspiritual swords. He is clothed with civil and ecclesiasticalsovereignty, which places him above all earthly monarchs,whom he is authorized, in his unerring judgment and unlimitedpower, to degrade from their dignity and to remove from theirdominions. This scheme has, with brazen effrontery, beenmaintained by many doctors and pontiffs, and, in general, bythe Canonists and Jesuits. .The last council of the Lateran,also, in some of its declarations and enactments, seems to havefavored the same monstrous theory," "Christendom, on this topic, has witnessed four variations, and

fluctuated through as many diversified periods. One periodembraced a protracted lapse of about 700 years, from.the era ofour redemption till the accession of Gregory the Second. Chri&-1Bell. v. L Daniel, 4.402. Maimb.260. Dens, 2. 164.2 Bellarmin, V.I. Maimbourg, c. 26. Caron, 31.3Bell. 1. S20. Du Pin. 2. 523. Labb. 19, 726. Bin. 9. 112.Omnem vim regiam omniamq.ne rerum, qUlIl in terris sunt, potestatem et

.dominium datum eBBeRomano PontUici jure Divino. Barclay, 7.Canonistte dicunt, pAp&m directe dominium temporale totius orbis a Christo

JlCCepisH. B&rclay,95.

Page 220: The Variations of Popery

220 THE VAmATIO~S OF POPERY.

tians, during this time, all professed and practised unconditionalloyalty. A period of dissension and rivalry, between the mitreand the digdem, between royalty and the papacy, then sue-ceeded, continued nearly four hundred years, from GregorytheSecond till Gregory the Seventh, and terminated in the defeatof regal sovereignty and the triumph of pontifical domination.The supremacy of the popeclomand the debasement of kinglymajesty, according to Lessius, an ultra advocate of Romaniam,next ensued, and continued for a period of near five hundredyears after Gregory, till the dawn of the Reformation, when-the meridian splendor of papal glory began to decline. Thefourth period, from the rise of Protestantism till the presentday, comprehends about three hundred years, during which the-pontifical pretensions have gradually receded, and the regalclaims have revived. The first and third periods were distin-guished for their unanimity: the former for the monarchy ofkings, and the latter for the sovereignty of pontiffs. Th6secondand fourth were days of contention between the churchand the state, between the authority of popes, and the powerof kings.The church, for seven hundred years after its establishment

was distinguished for its loyalty and submission to the civilmagistracy. The Christian commonwealth for more than threehundred years, from Jesus to Constantine, existed in povertyand without power or ostentation. Joseph and Jesus werehumble artizans of Nasareth. The Son of :Man, who came topour contempi on human glory, had not where to lay his head.The original heralds of the gospel, apostles, evangelists, addpastors, were, like their master, void of wordly rank or influ-ence. The voluntary oblations ef the faithful were chieflydivided among this humble ministry, and the poor, the sick, the-distressed, the aged, the stranger, the prisoner, the orphan, andthe widow. The Christian society, indeed, during the reign ofthe heathen emperors, might, by concealment and connivance,possess some landed property. But these possessions were-trifling and precarious; and, at the same time, liable to be seizedby a rapacious magistracy.' The Roman Bishop, participat-ing in the general indigence, and destitute of civil authorityor wordly power, was subject to persecution and obscurity.The situation of the church, at the accession of Constantine,

1Giannon. II. 8. Maimb. Co 'n. John xvii. 16. Luke xii. 14. Rom. xiii.l.n.., avoit plus de sept cent ans, que la Beulepuiasanoe spirituelle des clefltfaisOlt reverer 1& majeatl\ du saint siege. Vertot, 1.JUBqu'au ~ du Grand CoDBtantm, lea BUooeBII61lJ'lI de St. Pierre n'eII

avoient hmW que _ chalneII et des peraeou\iona, IOUvent tenniDeea par 1e-martyre. Verlot. 2.

Page 221: The Variations of Popery

ORIGINAL STATE OF 'fHI, CHRISTIAN COMl\lONWEALTH. 221

underwent an important change. The emperor, by the edict ofMilan, gave legal security to the temporal possessions of theChristian republic. The Christians recovered the land forfeitedunder Dioclesian, and obtained a title to all the property whichthey had enjoyed by the connivance of the Roman magistracy.A second edict, in 321, granted a liberty of bequeathing pro-perty to the church; while the emperor showed an example ofliberality, and lavished wealth on the clergy with an unsparinghand.The imperial munificence attracted many imitators, whose

.donations, during life and especially at the hour of death, flowedinto the ecclesiastical treasury in copious streams. The women,in particular, displayed on the occasion the utmost profusion.The Roman matrons rivalled each other in this pecuniarydevotion. The clergy, indeed, in this respect, prevailed somuch with female credulity, that Valentinian was obliged toenact a law, forbidding monks or ecclesiastics to accept anydonation or legacy from maids, matrons, orphans, or widows.Womanish simplicity, the emperor wished to prevent from beingdeluded by priestly policy.The northern barbarians, who, had overrun the Roman

empire, might indeed, be less enlightened; hut they were evenmore lavish in their generosity. The adoration of Hessus, Odin,and Terasius, these rough warriors left in the fastnesses and·forests of the north; but they retained, in a great measure, theirbarbarianism and superstition. The credulity and venerationof these hardy veterans for the hierarchy, seemed to inviteimposture. Rapacious, but lavish; dissolute, but devotional,these proselyted sons of heathenism, poured torrents of wealthinto the channels of the church.The Roman Bishops, from Constantine to Pepin, enjoyed an

exuberance of this liberality. The grandeur and opulence ofthe church in the imperial city, in a few years after Christianityobtained a legal establishment, became truly astonishing. Am-mianus, a pagan, an impartial and a contemporary historian, hasdescribed the pontiff's affluence and ostentation. The hierarch·enjoyed the stateliest chariots, the gayest attire, and the finestentertainments. He surpassed kings in splendor and magnifi-cence. His luxury, pride, vanity, and sensuality formed a·contrast, to the provincial bishops, who approved themselves tothe eternal God by their temperance, frugality, IIimplicity,plainness, and modesty.' Christianity, at this. time, had been·established by law only about fifty years. The Roman See, in1Ammianus, XXVII,3. Thomaain, III. 1. Gienon, IV. ]2.Lea Papes, depuis l'empire du Grand Conetantin, avoient sequie une grande

"OODBiderationdaWl Rome et dana toute l'Italie. Verlet, 10.

Page 222: The Variations of Popery

222 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

that period, had emerged from obscurity, mounted to earthlygrandeur, and obtained afterwards in the seventh century, an'ample patrimony through Italy, France, and Africa.But ambition is never satisfied; and his infallibility, sur-

rounded with wealth and grandeur, affected royalty, and aspiredto be numbered among kings. This dignity was bestowed onthese viceroys of heaven by the French monarchs Pepin andCarolus. The Lombards, taking advantage of the seditions inItaly, occasioned by the imperial edicts of Leoand Constantineagainst image-worship, seized the Grecian provinces subject tothe exarch of Ravenna. Astolf, King of Lombardy, elated withthese new accessions to his dominions, formed the project ofsubduing the Roman city, its territory, and indeed all Italy.The city was summoned to acknowledge his sovereignty, andthe sword of destruction was unsheathed to exact the penaltyof disobedience. The Romans, in this emergency, solicited theinterposition of Pepin, whose hand, in war or in friendship,wasnever lifted in vain. Actuated by the call of religion, policy,gratitude, and glory, the French monarch mustered an army,scaled the Alps, descended on the plains of Italy, marched onthe capital, defeated the enemy, and compelledAstolf in 754,in a solemn treaty, to surrender Ravenna, Pentapolis, and theRoman dukedom, to the Roman pontiff and his sacerdotalsuccessors,'Astolf, however, on the departure of Pepin, retracted his

engagement. Stephen again applied to Pepin; and personi-fying Peter himself, assured the French king, that dead inbody, he was alive in spirit, and summoned the monarch to •obey the fonnder and guardian of the Roman See. The virgin,the angels, the saints, the martyrs, and all the host of heaven,if credit may be attached to his holiness,urged the request andwould reward the obligation. Victory and paradise, he prom-ised, would crown the enterprise; while damnation would bethe penalty of suffering his tomb, his temple, and his people,to fall into the possessionof the enemy. These arguments, inthe eighth century, could not fail. Pepin again crossed theAlps, and obliged Astolf to fulfil the violated treaty. Carolus,the son of Pepin, afterward confirmed the grant of his prede-cessor, consisting of Ravenna, Pentapolis, or the March ofAncona, and the Roman dukedom; and, according to thegeneral opinion, added the duchy of Spoleto, completing, bythis cession,the present eirele of the ecclesiastical states, andforming an extensive territory in the midland region of Italy.'1Labb. 8. 368, 370. ADlI8taBiua,44. GiaDnou, V.I. Vertot, 30, 41.'Bray 1.562. GiumoII, V. 4. " VI. I. Labb. 8. zrTe. Vertot, 78.8i .,ou 'f'OU1es •• U,.... TOIlAmee et- TOIloorpI du feu ekmeI, voua aUl'llll 8D1wte

1a vie etemeUe. VertcI', M.

Page 223: The Variations of Popery

PONTIFICAL ROYA.LTY. 223

This splendid donation raised the pontiff to royalty. Theworld, for the first time, saw a bishop vested with the preroga-tives of a prince and ranked among the sovereigns of the earth.His holiness added a temporal to a spiritual kingdom. Thehierarch, in this manner, united principality to priesthood, thecrown to the mitre, and the sceptre to the keys. The vicegerentof J esus, who declared his kingdom not of this world and refuseda diadem, grasped with avidity at regal honors and temporaldominion. Satan, said Passavan with equal truth and severity,tendered this earth and all its glory to Immanuel; but met witha peremptory rejection. The Devil afterwards made the sameoverture to the pope, who accepted the offer with thanks, andwith the annexed condition of worshipping the prince of dark-ness. The observation unites all the keenness of sarcasm, andthe energy of truth.'The Roman hierarchs, however, during these seven revolving

ages, professed unqualified submission to the Roman emperors ;and, though often persecuted, attempted neither anathemas nordeposition. Gelasius, Gregory, Agatho, and Leo, manifestedobedience and even servility to the imperial authority. Thepersecuting emperors, for three hundred years after the era ofredemption, experienced nothing but rassive obedience fromthe Christian priesthood and people, Liberius and Damasuslaunched no anathemas against the Arian Constantius andValens. Felix and Gelasius fulminated no excommunicationsagainst Zeno, who discountenanced Catholicism and favoredheresy. Julian, notwithstanding his apostasy, escaped pontificaldegradation. Vitalian even honored Constans, the patron oferror, who banished Martin and tortured Maximus. Gregory,little indeed to his credit, eulogized Phoeas, the assassin ofMauricius and his helpless family," The Gothic kings, not-withstanding their stratagems and invasion of the ecclesiasticalpatrimony, reigned without molestation ill Italy.The second period of papal pretension, which entered with

Gregory the Second in the beginning of the eighth century,introduced dissension and rivalry between the Roman emperorsand the Roman pontiffs, which lasted above three hundred years.The Popes advanced to the deposition of kings with slow andgradual, but fum .and steady steps. Their first essay, in thishazardous, enterprise, showed their usual caution. The waryhierarchs began the career of ambition by using their spiritualauthority in the encouragement of subjects to rebel a.ga.insttheirsovereigns. The prudent chiefs stimulated others to the depo-

1Du Pill, 279, 469. Caron. 11'- MaimbourK. Co 29.I Lee Papa obeiMoient; alora • desroil, ou in1idelea ou Ariena. Vmot. 3.

Page 224: The Variations of Popery

�24 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

sition of civil governors ; but attempted nothing, in this perilousproject, in their own name. Specimens of this kind wereafforded by Gregory and Zachary in France and Italy.Gregory encouraged the Italians to rebel against Leo. The

eastern emperor, in 726, issued an edict in favor of Iconoclasm.The Roman pontiff, in return, proceeded, according tothe Greekhistorians Theophanes, Cedrenus, Zonaras, Nicephorus, andGlycas, to excommunicate his Grecian majesty. The Greekshave been followed by the Transalpine Latins, Baronius, Bellar-mine, Sigonius, Perron, and Allatius. Gregory's excommuni-cation of Leo, however, has, with reason, been rejected by thecritics of the French school, Launoy, Alexander, Marca, Bossuet,Giannone, Caron, and Du Pin. The event is unmentioned oropposed by Gregory, John Damascen, Paulus, Diaconius,Anastasius, and other Latin historians. The hierarch, however,fomented a revolt amongst the Romans, Venetians, Lombards,and other Italians. Subjects, his holiness taught, could notin conscience contribute taxes to a heretical prince. The people,in consequence, rose in arms for the protection of the pontiffand the faith, disclaimed all fealty to the emperor, and refusedto pay tribute,' Italy, in this manner, was, by papal treason,severed from the eastern emperor.Gregory's success encouraged Zachary. Childeric, the French

king, was, in 751, deposed for inefficiency, and Pepin, mayor ofthe palace, crowned for his activity and achievements; andthrough the casuistry of Zachary, who occupied the Roman See,which was esteemed, in the eighth century, the seminary of allvirtue and sanctity. The ultra partisans of Romanism'main-tain that the diadem was transferred from Childeric to Pepinby the pontiff's supremacy, and not by his casusistry. Eginhard,indeed, says Childeric was dethroned by the command ofZachary, and Pepin crowned by his authority." Similar ex-pressions have been used by Regino, Almon, Marian, Sigebert,Otho, lEmilius, and Ado. Launoy, Caron, and Du Pin thinkthat this phraseology signifies only the papal edvice and.recom-mendation. The Roman pontiff's authority, however, influ-enced the French nation, and decided the destiny of the Frenchking, who was hurled from the throne and immured in a monas-tery. The Pope, also, dissolved the oath of fidelity, which Pepinand the French nation had taken to Childeric, and which, forthe gratification of ambition, they bad violated. 81 lIs ne pouvoient en conscience payer d811 tributa Iiun prince heretique.

Vertot, 13. Giannon. II. 4. Bruy. I. 520. Labb. 8. 163. Meuray, 1. 198Giannon. V. 1. Caron, 32. Dn Pm, 50S.2 Per auctoritatem Romani Pontiflcia. ~ in Carol.-Papa mandavit

Pepino .. Regino, II. M-'7, I. 209 AUnon, IV. 61.8 ZlIchariai 0ID11eI ~ a juramenfio fidelitatil abeol'rit. Caron, O.

IX. DIl Pia, 613.

Page 225: The Variations of Popery

ATrEMPTS OF POPES TO DEPOSE KINGS. 225

The third period, in the annals of papal deposition of empe-rors and kings, began with Gregory the Seventh, and lasted tillthe declension of the papacy at the commencement of the re-formation. This protracted series of about five hundred yearswas marked by pontifical sovereignty and regal debasement.During this time, the Roman vicegerents of heaven, shining inmeridian splendor and appearing in all their glory, continued,according to the dictates of interest or passion, to dethronesovereigns, transfer kingdoms, and control the governments ofthe world. Each vicar-general of God in succession, withhardly any exception, proceeded, on his accession to the chairof the Galilean fisherman, to hurl his anathemas, issue hisinterdicts, and degrade kings. The history of these transactionswould fill folios. .A. few continental examples may be suppliedfrom the annals of Gregory, Clement, Boniface, and Julius, whodeposed Henry, Lewis, Philip, and Lewis. .A. few British in-stances may be selected from the history of Adrian, Innocent,Paul, and Pius, in their treatment of Henry, John, Henry, andElizabeth.Gregory and Clement deposed Henry and Lewis, two Ger-

man emperors; and Boniface and Julius degraded Philip andLewis, two French kings. Gregory the Seventh, who succeededto the papal throne in 1073, was, according to Otho, Panvinius,and the Leodian clergy, the first Pope, who, in the fury of am-bition, attempted the degradation of civil potentates. I haveoften, says Otho, 'read the deeds of the Roman emperors, andnever found any, prior to Henry, whom papal usurpation de-prived of his kingdom or dignity.' Henry, says PanviniusIwas the first whom pontifical ambition divested of his kingdomor empire.' Hildebrand, according to the Leodian clergy,'first lifted the sacerdotal lance against the royal diadem,"Similar statements have been made by Benno, Waltram,Trithemius, Gotofred, Ouspinian, Masson, Helmold, andGiannone.Gregory had not only the honor of commencement in this

field, but also of bringing the system to perfection. His infsl-~bility excelled his predecessors and eclipsed all his successorsm the noble art, which he had the glory to invent. His holi-ness pointed his sarcasms aga.inst the institution of regal gov-ernment, as well as aga.inst its royal administration. The~nity itself, his infallibility declared, l was the invention oflaymen who were unacquainted with God.' Monarchy, whichhe represented as a stratagem of Satan and ushered into the

1Hildebrandua primua levant -rootalem laDoeam contra diadema ~Crabb. 2. 814. Dia PiD, .78. Caroa, 10. JIilletot, 1524. •

o

Page 226: The Variations of Popery

226 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

world by infernal agency, reigns over men, his holiness dis-covered, in blind ambition and intolerable presumption and inthe perpetration of rapine, pride, perfidy, homicide, and everyatrocity. Kings, who are void of religion, Gregory charac-terized as 'the body and members of the devil." Sovereigns,accordingly, he treated as his vassals, The necks .of all, healleged, should submit to the clergy, and much more to thehierarch, whom the supreme Divinity had appointed to presideover the clergy. He degraded Basilas, the Polish king, andNicephorus, the Grecian emperor. The viceroy of Heaven, inthe wantonness of ambition and fury, menaced the Frenchand English sovereigns, and, indeed, all the European poten-tates with degradation.But Gregory's treatment of Henry, the emperor, affords the

most striking display of his tyranny. This denunciation wasissued in two Roman councils, and presents the most frightfulcombination of dissimulation, blasphemy, arrogance, folly, super-stition, and fury that ever outraged reason or insulted man.The papacy he represented as forced on his acceptance, andreceived with sighs and tears; though ambition, it is wellknown, was the ruling passion of his souL He forced his way,in the general opinion, to the papal throne through murder andperfidy, and certainly by hasty and hypocritical machinations.Henry and his partisans he denominated 'wild beasts andmembers of the devil' Assuming the authority of AlmightyGod even in an act of enormity, this plenipotentiary of heavenproceeded' for the honor and protection of the church, todepose Henry from the government of Germany and Italy, inthe name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.' The sentencewas accompanied with shocking execrations. His holiness,'relying on the divine mercy, cursed the emperor by the autho-rity of the Almighty, with whom he joined Jesus, Peter, Paul,and Lady Mary, the mother of God.' Henry's subjects, Gre-gory absolved from the oath of fidelity, and transferred hisdominions to Rodolphus, to whom he granted the pardon of allsin, and apostolic benediction in time and eternity. A Romancouncil of one hundred and ten bishops, in which Gregorypresided, urged their head, by their importunity, to pass thissentence, which was afterwards confirmed by Victor, Urban,Pascal, Gelasius, and Calixtus in the synods of Beneventum,Placentia, Rome, Colonia, and Bheims. t

1Dignitu a IlIBCU1aribusetiam Deum ignorantibus inventa. Mundi principediabo10 videlicet agitante. Labb. 12. 409.-Membra ll1Jnt Dlllmonum. Illidiabo1i oorpaa IIUlt. Labb. 12. 5<ll.-Membra diaboli consuRexere, et manus8WlIJ in me ~~ PJatiD. Ie. Daniel. 3, 106.t Labb. Ii, -. .. 889. PIa..... 162. GiaDnoD. X. 6. Ala. IS. .. 338.

Page 227: The Variations of Popery

DEPOSITIONS 01' CONTINENTAL SOVEREIGNS. 227

His infallibility's curse, however, did not consume Henry,nor did his blessing preserve Rodolphus. His apostolic bene-diction, which he pronounced on Rodolphus, was of little usein time, whatever it might effect in eternity. The usurper fellin battle against the emperor,' Holding up his hand, whichhad been wounded in the engagement, to his captains, 'yousee,' said the dying warrior, 'this hand with which I swore al-legiance to Henry. But Gregory induced me to break my oathand usurp an unmerited honor. I have received this mortalwound in the hand, with which I violated my obligation.' Thatmartyr of ambition, treason, perjury, and pontifical domination,made this confession and expired.Many of the Italian, German, and French prelacy in the

mean time supported Henry against Gregory. The emperormustered a party, and summoned the councils of Worms, Mentz,and Brescia against the pontiff. The council of Worms accusedhis holiness of perjury, innovation, and too great familiaritywith the Countess Matilda. The synod of Brescia deposed thehead of the church, for simony, perjury, sacrilege, obstinacy,perverseness, scandal, sorcery, necromancy, infidelitY" heresy,and Berengarianism. 2 Henry, in thil1 manner, enjoyed thesweets of evangelical retaliation, and returned, according to theold law, a tooth for a. tooth, or deposition for deposition.Clement deposed the Emperor Lewis, 88 Gregory had de-

graded the Emperor Henry. Lewis indeed was excommunicatedby the pontiffs John, Benedict, and Clement. The emperor,on his election, had not submitted to be crowned by the pope,or plastered with the hierarch's holy oil. John the Twenty-second, therefore, according to custom, excommunicated Lewis.The pope fulminated red hot anathemas and execrations againstthe emperor; as a patron of schism and heresy. Benedict con-firmed John's sentence, and divested Lewis of the imperialdignity, which, according to his infallibility, devolved on thepontiff as the viceroy of heaven. Clement the Sixth degradedLewis in 1344, and ordered the election of another emperor,"Lewis, however, though excommunicated and cursed, protes-

t~d against the papal sentence, and appealed to a general coun-eil, He declared that the imperial dignity, with which he wasvested by election, depended on God and not on the pontiff,who possessed no authority in temporals. He even retortedJoh~'s deposition, and raised Nicholas, in opposition, to thepontifical ~hrone. The emperor, in his hostility to the refrac-tory pontiffs, wa.s supported by the German electors. His~HOelmold, c. 29. Albert ad Ann. 1080. GiannOD. X. 5. Coquille, 415.aron,I26. Du Pin, 2. 216, 217. Giannon. X. 5.

3 Labb. 15,1~ 419. Du Pm, 552. DaD. 4. 65. Oaron. 30.

Page 228: The Variations of Popery

228 THE VAlUA.TIONS OF POPERY.

majesty also consulted the universities of Germany, France, andItaly, especially those of Bononia and Paris, on the lawfulnessand validity of the papal denunciations. These all agreed thatthe acts and enactments of John against Lewis were contraryto Christian simplicity and divine philosophy.'Boniface and Julius deposed Philip and Lewis, French kings,

as Gregory and Clement had degraded Henry and Lewis, Ger-man emperors. Boniface was a man of profound capacity, andof extensive information in the civil and canon law. Ambi-tion was the ruling passion of his soul; and seemed, in him, tobe without any bounds or limits. He hurled his anathemas inevery direction against all who opposed the mad projects ofhis measureless ambition. Philip the Fair, the French king,who withstood his usurpations, was, in consequence, visited bythe papal denunciations. Boniface, in proper form and withdue solemnity, excommunicated the king, interdicted his king- .dom, freed his subjects from their allegiance, and declared thegovernment of the French nation to have devolved on theRoman pontiff."Th~ French king and nation, however, refused to acquiesce

in the pontiff's decision or submit to his temporal authority.Boniface declared that Philip was subject to the holy see intemporals as well as in spirituals; and that the contrary washeresy. Philip replied, that he was subject to none in tempo-rals; and that the contrary was madness. The prince, on thisoccasion, addressed the pontiff, not as his holiness, but as hisfoolishness. The Parisian parliament burnt the papal bulls.The French, consisting of the nobility, the clergy, and the mag-istracy, convened by the king, rejected his claims and confirmedtheir civil and ecclesiastical immunity. The vicar-general ofGod was assailed in turn, and found guilty of simony, murder,usury, incest, adultery, heresy, and atheism. The majesty ofthe Church, says Mariana, 'was, by an unprecedented atrocity,violated in the person of the pope." His infallibility, mad-dened by the outrage, died of grief and desperation.Julius excommunicated Lewis, as Boniface had anathemat-

ized Philip. His supremacy, in 1510 in. due and properform, deposed the king, interdicted the nation, rescinded thepeople's oath of fealty" and transferred the kingdom to anysuccessful invader. He anathematized the Gallican clergy, the

1Acta e1id~ata Joannisadyel'lll1S c~, Christiawe Bimplicitati e1i Di-vinJe pbiloeophilll repugnare. AventinuB, VII. Caron, 44. DiI Pin. 2, 502.t Labb. 14. 1222. Dan. 4. 380. :Marian. 3. 306. Dn Pill.. seo, Mezeray,

2. 788.a Par 1Ul ati1ienta1i inoui, 1a majesU de l'~ lut violtle en 1& perIIOIU1e du

PapeBoDifaoe VIII. Marl.., 3, 8lH. Du1'iD, 2. 480.

Page 229: The Variations of Popery

DEPOSITIONS OF CONTINENTAL SOVEREIGNS. 229

council of Pisa, Milan, and Lyons, and all the sovereigns whoshould aid the French monarch. Lewis, though a man ofhonor and piety, the plenipotentiary of heaven accursed indreadful anathemas and imprecations. The king of Navarre,the French sovereign's ally, his holiness honored with similarcompliments and benedictions, and his kingdoms with equaltokens of pontifical charity and benevolence,'Lewis withstood Julius, as Philip had resisted Boniface. He

convoked a general assembly of the French clergy at Tours,which established the nullity of unjust excommunications, theright of repelling pontifical usurpation, and the lawfulness ofwithdrawing obedience, in case of aggression, from the RomanSee. Patronized by his most Christian majesty, the council ofPisa, afterwards translated to Milan and Lyons, convicted hisholiness of perjury, schism, incorrigibility, and obduracy, andsuspended him from the administration of the papacy; and his. suspension, in the French nation, was authorised by the Frenchking and government.'These are a few specimens of continental depositions. But

the Roman pontiffs also extended their usurpations to theBritish Islands, and assumed the sovereignty of England andIreland. Adrian transferred Ireland to Henry; while Innocent,Paul and Pius deposed John, Henry, and Elizabeth.Adrian the Fourth, who arrogated the power of transferring

kingdoms, was a striking example of the vicissitudes of humanlife, and the ~resumption of many who rise from penury topower. Born m England, and the child of indigence and obscu-rity, he was subject, in early life, to all the hardships whichmarch in the train of poverty. He lived in an English abbey,spent his juvenile days in drudgery, and subsisted, during hisyouth, on alms supplied by the cold hand of charity. Elevated,in the revolution of human affairs, to the pontifical dknity, hedisplayed all the arrogance which often attends a sudden tran-sition from meanness to celebrity. He compelled the EmperorFrederick Barbarossa to officiate 38 his equerry. His impe?almajesty, in the sight of all his army, had the honor of holdingthe stirrup for his pontifical holiness.S His infallibility, slso, asthe viceroy of heaven, bestowed Ireland on Henry the Second,king of England. Henry's petition on the occasion and Adrian'sgrant are the two completest ~mens of hypocrisy and thetwo foulest pervers!0ns. of religion, to cloak ambition and

1Labb. 19. 536. Daniel, 7. 6. Marian, 6, 710, 711, 749, 787.2 Dn PiD, 284. Caron, 184. Labb. 19. 568. l.>aniel,7. 214.3Morery, 1. 130. n fut nIaolu que Fred~rio feroit la fonotion d'6cuyer

aup"" du Pape. Bru,., 3. 21.

Page 230: The Variations of Popery

230 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

avarice, the love of power and money, that the annals ofnations afford.Henry, in 1155, despatched messengers to Adrian, requesting

his infallibility's permission to invade Ireland. His design, theEnglish sovereign pretended, was to exterminate the seeds ofimmorality, and turn the brutal Irish, whowere Christians onlyin name, to the faith and to the way of truth.' Adrian's replywas complaisant, and fraught with the grossest dissimulation andambition. He pronounced his apostolic benediction on Henry,whom he styled his dearest son, who, on account of his resolu-tion to conquer Ireland, would obtain glory on earth and felicityin heaven. Fame and heaven, in the apostolic manifesto,wereto be the recompense of bloodshed and usurpation. The reduc-tion of Ireland and the murder of its inhabitants, his holinessrepresented as the means of enlarging the bounds of the church,teaching the truths of Christianity to a barbarous and unletteredpeople, and eradicatingthe tares of vice from the garden ofGod. All this, in his infallibility's statement, would tend tothe honor of God and the salvation of souls. His holiness,anxious in this manner for the salvation of men, was alsomind-ful of another important consideration. He had the recollec-tion to stipulate for Peter's pence,which wasan annual tax fromeach family," This fruit of Henry's military mission, whichAdrian 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 holyhumble successorof the Galilean fisherman, reminds the Englishmonarch of his right to bestow Ireland on Henry. This island,his infallibility' discovered, and all others which have beenenlightened by the sun of righteousness and shown evidence oftheir Christianity, belonged to the Roman pontiff. Adrian,who, it appears, had a respectable domain, considered Henry'sapplication for apostolic sanction to his expedition, as anearnest.of victory. Adrian's bull was confirmed by Alexander theThird. The Irish clergy also met at Waterford, submitted tothe papal dictation, and took an oath of fidelity to Henry andhis successors.Mageoghegan and Caron, the friends of Romanism, have

both condemned the bull of Adrian, which transferred Irelandto Henry.s Adrian's sentence, says Mageoghegan, 'violated1Homines illos bestiales ad fidem et viam reducere veritatis. Paris, 91.2 De eingulus domibns, annuam UIDUS denarii "Beato Petro velle solvere

pensionem. Labb. 13 14. 15. Mageogh. 1. 439, et 2. 12. Spon, 1152. III:Ut .•. quse ad honorem Dei et saIutem pertinent animarum taliter ordin-

entur, ut a Deo sempiternre mercedis fructum consequi merearls. Trivettus,Ann. 1155. Dachery, 3. 151.s Mageogh. 1. 440. Caron. Co 13.

Page 231: The Variations of Popery

ADRIAN TRANSFERS IRELAND TO HENRY II. 231

the rights of nations and the most sacred laws of men, underthe specious pretext of religion and reformation. Ireland wasblotted from the map of nations and consigned to the loss offreedom, without a tribunal and without a crime.' The historianrepresents 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 transgressorof the law of nations and equity.'Innocent divested John of England, as Adrian had vested

Henry with Ireland. Innocent the Third, says Orleans, mightboast of striking nearly all the crowned heads with anathemas.The Roman pontiff opened the campaign against the Britishsovereign by a national interdict. This, which he published in1208, presents to the eye of superstition an awful spectacle. Allthe institutions of religion were suspended, except Baptism,Confession, and the Viaticum in the last extremity. Thechurches were closed. The images of the saints were laid onthe ground, and the bells ceased to toll. The dead, borne fromthe towns, were, without ceremony or funeral solemnity, depo-sited in pits or buried, like dogs, in the highways,'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 ofthe sacred college, and in accordance with their unanimousadvice, declared John's dethronement, the recision ofhis eeople'soath of allegiance, and the transfer of the kingdom to Philip, theFrench monarch. The English sovereign was denounced as thepublic enemy of God," The French king was encouraged totake possession of the English realm. His holiness exhortedall Christians in the British and French States to rally round thestandard of Philip; and offered a pardon of all sins as an induce-ment to engage in the holy expedition. He granted the sol-diery of the pious enterprise the same remission as the pilgrimswho visited the sacred sepulchre, or the crusaders who marchedfor the recovery of the Holy Land. The British nobility andpeople were invited to rebellion; and 'the English baronsrejoiced in being freed from the obligation of fidelity," Philip'spiety and ambition were kindled by the prospect of obtaining1Corpora quoque defunctorum de civitaiibus et villis efferebantur, et more

eanum.m biviis et fossatis sine orationibns et sacerdotum ministerio sepeliebau-tur. M. Paris, 217. Polyd. Virgo 271. Orleans, 1. 118·2 Tanquam Dei publicum hostem persequantur. Poly. Virgil. XV. Orleans,

1. 119.3 Les Seigneurs ravia de se voir absous de leur serment de fidelite. Dan. 3.

552,554.

Page 232: The Variations of Popery

232 THE VARIA.TIONS OF POPERY.

the expiation of sin, and the possession of a kingdom. Hemustered an army, equipped a fleet of one hundred sail, andonly waited a favoring gale to swell the canvas and waft hisarmy to the British shores.The thunder of the Vatican, the disaffection of the English,

and especially the armament of the French king, alarmed theBritish sovereign and shook his resolution. He submitted toall the despotic demands of the pontiff. British independencestruck to Roman tyranny. John, in an assembly of the Englishnobility and clergy, took the crown from his head, delivered it,in token of subjection, to Pandolphus the pope's nuncio, fromwhom the king condescended to receive this emblem ofroyalty.' The monarch confirmed his submission with anoatn.These transactions completed the degradation of majesty. .Thisimportant day witnessed the debasement of the British sove-reign, and the vassalage of the British nation. Pandolphus, inconsequence, who was vested with legatine authority, counter-manded Philip's expedition. Philip had only been the tool ofInnocent'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'srejection of the pontifical authority. Henry, indeed, accordingto Mageoghegan and Du Pin,' was guilty, not of heresy, butmerely of schism. He changed nothing in the faith. Hismajesty, without any discrimination, persecuted the partisansof popery and protestantism. The Reformation, indeed, inEngland, had not appeared under Henry. This revolution wasreserved for the foll~wing reign. '2 But Henry withdrew fromthe papal jurisdiction, and, in consequence, was exposed topapal execration. Paul excommunicated and deposed Henry,interdicted the nation, and absolved his subjects from their oathof allegiance. He transferred the kingdom to any successfulinvader, and prohibited all communication with the Englishmonarch. He deprived the king of Christian burial, and con-signed the sovereign, and his friends, accomplices, and adherentsto anathemas. maledictions, and everlasting destruction. ' Paul,'says Paolo, ' excommunicated, anathematized, cursed, and con-demned Henry to eternal damnation. 8 He stigmatized his1Diadema eapiti ademptum Pandolpho legato tradit, nunquam id ipse a~t

luIllredee accepturi, nisi a Pontilice Romano. Polydorus Virgiliu8, 273. M. Part8,~. Daniel 3. 556. Orlean8, 1. 121. Concedimus Deo et nOBtroPapal Inno-eentio ejl18ClueBUCceBSoribu8totum regnum Anglire et totum regnum Hibernial,proredemptione peceatorumnostrorum. Trivettus, Am. 1213. Dachery, :U83.

2 La n1forme ne s'etoitpaa encore montree a decouvert BOUS Henri VIII. Cetterevolution etoit nleervee au regne suivant. Le Roi neteit lJue schiBIDatique.Mageoghepn, 2. 310.-Nihil quidem in fide mutanB. Du Pm, li68.8Eoe auat.hematia, maIediotioail, et damnationiB IIlterDIe mUCl'OIIepercu.timl1L

Page 233: The Variations of Popery

DEPOSITIONS OF HENRY VIII. AND QUEEN ELIZA.BETH. 233I

posterity by Queen Anna, with illegitimacy and incapacity ofsuccession to the crown; while he delivered his partisans toslavery.The English clergy, his holiness commanded to leave the

kingdom, and admonished the nobility to arm in rebellionagainst the king. He annulled every treaty between Henryand, other princes. He enjoined the clergy to publish theexcommunication; and, with the standard of the cross, to ringthe bells on the occasion, and then extinguish the candles.All .who opposed, according to his infallibility, 'incurred theindignation of Almighty God, and the blessed Apostles Peterand Paul.'Pius deposed Elizabeth, aa Innocent and Paul had degraded

John and Henry. His holiness, in 1570,,' anathematized hermajesty as a professor and patrlm of heresy, despoiled theEnglish queen of all dominion and dignity, and freed the Britishnation from all subjection and fidelity.' His infallibity's im-precations, according to Gabutius, took effect on the Britishsovereign. 'The queen of England,' says the historian of Piusthe Fifth, 'exchanged, in 1603, an impious life for eternal.death,"The Roman pontiff also intrigued for the temporal destruction

of the English queen, whom he had excommunicated. Thishe attempted by rebellion and invasion, and through the agencyof Rodolpho and the Spanish King. Rodolpho, a Florentinemerchant who resided at London, employed, in his zeal forRomanism, a variety of stratagems for exciting an insurrectionin England. Many partisans of popery and some nominalfriends of protestantism, a.ctuated by ambition or a desire ofinnovation, entered into the conspiracy. This, according toGabutius, ' was an evidence of their piety.' The majority ofthe nobility, headed by the Duke of Norfolk, engaged, throughthe activity of Rodolpho, in this combination for an insurree-tion," The rebels were to be supported by a Spanish army ofCherub. 2, 704. n avoit excommum6, anathematiee, maudit, condamne i\ 1&damnation etemel1e.... Paolo 1. 166. Labb. 19. 1203. :Mageogh. 2. 310. DuPin. 568. Alex. 93. 174. Paulus, ill Henrienm regno ao dominUs omnibnBprivatum denunciat, et loca omnia, in ~uibua rex merit, eoo1esiaatico8ubjicitmterdicto. Henrici v&IIII&1loe et 81lbditoe a juramenta fideJitatie absolvit ..Alex. 24. 20..1 lpeam Angllie regno olllllique alio dominio diptate, privilegio, privatum de-

claravit, omn~ue ao 8ingu!OSejua 81lbditos a juramenta fidelitatie abeolvit,latoe in _ qui illiua legiliua et mandatie parerent anathemate ; quam eonsti-tntionem, Gregoriua XIIL et Sixtua V. mnovarunt et confi.rmaz1mt. Alex.24. 436. Mageo~ 3. 412, 413. Impiam vitam cum eempitema morte eommu-taverit. Gabutius, 102. Maaeogh. 3. 409. Thnan, 2. 770.

2 Incolamm animoe adElizaDetfue perditionem, rebeI1ionefacta,commoveret.Anglorum inElizabetham pie conapirantium etudia foveret. Rodulfue negotiumeo perdllXit, ut panmajor optimatum inElizabetham conapiraret. Gabut. 103.

Page 234: The Variations of Popery

234 THE VARIATIONS OF, POPERY.

10,000men from the Netherlands, under the command of theDuke 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, senthis apostolic benediction to the Irish rebels, who, according to .his infallibility, were, in the war with the English, fightingagainst the friends of heresy and the enemies of God. Thepontiff accompanied this benediction to the Irish army with aplenary pardon of all sins, as to the crusaders who marched forthe recovery of the Holy Land. He supported his benedictionand remission with a levy of 2000 men raised in the Ecclesias-tical states. Sixtus the Fifth also fulminated anathemas anddeposition against Elizabeth; and urged Spain to second hismaledictions by military expeditions to Ireland. Clement theEighth, in 1600, loaded Oviedo and La Cerda, whom Philip theSpanish 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 two

expeditions to Ireland, under Lerda and Aquilla, with arms,ammunition, men, and money. The university of Salamanca,in the meantime, as well as that of Valladolid, celebrated forlearning and Catholicism, deliberated, in 1603, on the lawful-ness of the war waged by the Irish against the English. TheSalamancan theologians, after mature consideration, decided infavor of its legality, and of supporting the army of the faithunder the command of O'Neal, prince of Tyrone, against thequeen of England. The learned doctors, at the same time,determined against the lawfulness of resisting O'Neal, whowasthe defender of'CatholieismagaiIllitheresy. The warriors ofthefaith, according to the Spanish university, were sowing right-eousness and would reap an eternal recompense; while thosewho supported the English committed a mortal sin, and wouldsuffer, if they persisted, the reward of iniquity. This sentenceproceeded on the principle, which the Salamancans assumed ascertain, that the Roman pontiff had a right io use the seculararm against the deserters of the faith and the impugners ofCatholicism.' The university of Valladolid agreed with that ofSalemanca ; and both, on the occasion, differed from theirmodem reply in 1778 to Pitt the British statesman.The Roman Pontiffs, in these and various other instances,

1Mageogh. 3.437, 542, 549. Thuan. 4. 531.2Magno cum merito at ape maxima retributionis IIlternre. Mageogh, 3. 595.

Staft'ord, 286. Tanquam certum est aceip'ie.ndum, poue Romanum Pontificemfidei daertorea. et eoe, <J.uiCatholioam reJigiOllem oppugnant, armis oompel1ere.Mageogh. S. IS96. Slavm, 193. •

Page 235: The Variations of Popery

DETHRONEMENT OF KINGS TAUGHT BY THE POPES. 235

shewed, in practical illustration, their assumption of temporalauthority. But these viceroys of heaven also taught what theypractised; and inculcated the theory in their bulls, as well asthe execution in fact. The partisans of the French systemindeed have, with the assistance of shuffling and sophistry,endeavored to explain this principle out of the pontifical deere-tals. Doctor Slavin, in the Maynooth examination, has, on thistopic, exhibited a world of quibbling, chicanery, and Jesuitism.The learned doctor, with admirable dexterity, plays the artilleryof misrepresentation and ,hair-breadth distinctions. He main-tains that no pope, speaking from the chair, ever proposed thisdoctrine to the church, to be believed as revealed and held asan article of faith. Doctor Higgins, on the same occasion, andwith more candor and dogmatism than Slavin, asserted, thatno pontiff defined, for the belief of the faithful, that the ponti-fical power of dethroning kings was founded on divine right,'These misrepresentations and evasions, however, will vanishbefore a plain unvarnished statement of facts. These facts maybe 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 8.H hewielded the exercise. His infallibility, in a Roman council in1076, decreed that the power of binding and loosing in heavenand earth, which extended to temporals as well as to spirituals,and by which he deposed the emperor Henry, was given to thepontiff by God. Gregory, in consequence, degraded his imperialmajesty in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thesentence, he pronounced in council, and therefore in an officialcapacity. He acted, he declared, by the authority of God, andtherefore by divine right.2Gregory afterwards vindicated his conduct in a letter to Her-

m~n, who requested information on this subject. The act, hesaid, 'was warranted by many certain scriptural proofs,' andquoted, as a specimen, the words of Jesus conferring the power?f the keys. He represented, 'the Holy Fathers as agreeing• in his favor with one spirit and with one voice.' The contraryopinion his holiness called madness, fatuity, impudence, andidolatry. Those who opposed, he styled wild beasts, the bodyof Satan, and members of the devil and antiehrist," Philip, the1 Slavin, 189. Hi . ,Zl5.2 Labb. 12. 498, 4~lO, 637, 638, 639. Duran. 1. 46.3 Hujus rei, tam multa et certiBsima documenta in sacrarum scripturarum

paginis reperiuntur. Greg. ad Herm. Matt. xvi. 16.Sancti patres in hoc consentiente&, et lJuaei uno spiritu, et una voce eoncor-

dantee. Labb. 12. 498.-eontra illorum 1D8tU1iam, qui nefando ore garriunt.-Pro mapa fatWtate. Scelue idololatrilll incurrunt. Labb. 12. 380, 497, 498.

Page 236: The Variations of Popery

286 THE VABlATIONS OF POPERY.

French monarch, whose soul and kingdom, Gregory affirmed,were in the pontiff's power; his holiness denominated a raven-ing wolf, an iniquitous tyrant, and the enemy of God, religion,and the holy church.'Boniface followed the footsteps of Gregory. The Roman pontiff,

says Boniface in his bull against Philip, 'wields, according to thewords of the Gospel, two swords, the spiritual and the temporal.H&,who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of thepope, misunderstands the words of our Lord.' His infallibilityapplies to the pope, the language of leremiah, 'I have set theeover the nations and over the kingdoms.' This power, con-tinues his holiness, 'is not human, but rather divine, and wasconferred by divine authority on Peter for himself and his suc-cessors. He, therefore, who resists this power, resists the insti-tution of God. The subjection of all men to the Roman pontiffis wholly necessary for salvation.' .All this the pontiff declared,asserted, pronounced, and defined,"Gibert, Maimbourg, and Caron admit that the pontiff, in these

words, defines the pope's temporal power from the chair, andproposes it, as an article of faith, to the whole church. Accord-ing to Gibert, 'Boniface defined that the earthly is subject tothe spiritual power, so that the former may, by the latter, beconstituted and overthrown.' 'Boniface,' says Maimbourg,, proposed the pontifical sovereignty over all earthly kingdoms,in temporals as well as in spirituals, to all as an article of faithnecessary for salvation.' •Boniface,' according to Caron, 'de-fined from the chair, that the French king W88 subject to theRoman pontiff in temporals 88 in spirituals.' Durand, accord-ingly, states,agreeably to the canon law, that 'the pontiff bythe commission of God, wields both the temporal and spiritualswords.' 3 .

Paul and Pius, in their bulls against Henry and Elizabeth,represented themselves as 'the vicegerents of God,' who gaveHac fera bestia. Plat. inGreg. Dli diaboli corpus aunt-Membra diaboli.

Membra Bunt Antichristi Labb. 12. 501, 637.1 In ejus potestate est, tuum regnum et anima tua. Lupu8 rapax, tyrannus

iniquus. Dei et religionis, sanetre ecclesire mimieua, G~. ad Phil2 In hac ejus pote8tate, duos esse gladi08, spiritualem Videlicet et tempora-

Iem, evangelicis dictis instmimur. Uterque, ergo, est in potestate ecclesire.Qui in ;potestate Petri temporalem gIadium esse" negat, male verbum attenditDomiDi: constitui te hodie super gentes et regna. Ore Divino Petro data,sibique, suisque BUCCeB80ribuB.Quicunque. igitur, huic potestati a Deo sic ordi·natre resi8tit, Dei ordinatioui resistit. Extrav. Comm. I. 8. 1.a Bonifacius vm. definit, terrenam potestatem spirituali ita subdi, ut ilia

possit ab ista institui et destitui Gibert, 2. 513.Boniface propose a tons les fideJes, comme un uticle de foi, dont la creance

est nece.atre .. ulut. Jlaimbourg, 129. ,.DefiDit hie Po.atitex ex CathecUa. Caron. 0. II. Papa utrumque gbldillm

habet, ~ telBporaIem -* spiritualem, ex OOI!I1D!wioDe Dei. DanD. 1. 61.

Page 237: The Variations of Popery

PAPAL POWER OF DEPOSING MADE AN ARTICLE OF FAITH. 237

the pontiffs the sovereignty above kings, and set them, in thelanguage of Jeremiah, 'over the nations and over the kingdoms,to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throwdown, to build and to plant.' Sixtus, also, in his bull againstHenry ofNavarre, boasted of 'the immense power of the eternalking conferred on Peter and his successors, who in consequencecould, not by human but divine institution, cast from theirthrones the most powerful monarchs as the ministers of aspiringLucifer," These are a few specimens of the temporal authoritywhich the Roman viceroys of heaven assumed over earthlykings.These insults on royalty were not the mere acts of the Roman

pontiffs. Pontifical deposition of kings was sanctioned by eightgeneral, holy, apostolic,Roman councils. These were the councilsof the Lateran, Lyons, Vienna, Pisa, Constance, Basil, Lateran,and Trent.The fourth council of the Lateran, in its third canon, enacted

formal regulations for the dethronement of refractory kings.The offending sovereign, according to these regulations, 'is firstto be excommunicated by his metropolitan and suffragans; and,if he should afterward persist in his contumacy for a year, theRoman pontiff, the vicegerent of God, is empowered to degradethe obstinate monarch, absolve his subjects from their fealty,and transfer his dominions to any adhnturer, who may invadehis territory and become the champion of Catholicism.' 2 Thisassembly consisted of about 1,300 members. The Greek andthe Roman emperors attended, and many other sovereigns inperson or by their ambassadors. .All these potentates, in thetrue spirit of servility and superstition, consented, under certainconditions, to degradation by his Roman supremacy. Thisenactment was indeed the debasement of majesty.The general council of Lyons pronounced sentence of depo-

sition against Frederic the Second. This emperor was the objectof many papal denunciations, and was cursed by Honorius,Gregory, and Innocent. Honorius anathematized and deposedFrederic, and freed his subjects from their oath of fidelity.Gregory the Ninth, says Heinricius and Du Pin, 'proclaimeda holy war against Frederic, and cursed him with ~ possible

1Ch8rllb. 2. 7M:' Jerem. L 10. Maseogh. 3. 409. Thuan. 4. 301.8ixtua dim, 16 aupremam in omne8 regea e$ prinaipes UDiv8l'lIal terrre, CUllC·

toeQue popnloa, gentes, e$ nationes, non humana sed Dirina institutione sibitraditam potestatem obtinere. Bal"Clay, 101. Co 13. Resna e$ principatus, cuiet quando voluerit, dare vel auferre poaait. Barclay ,7.2 VaualOll ab ejua fideliiate, denunciat abIolutOll, e$ terram exponat catho-

licis 00C1lplU1dam, qui eam poeaideaDt. Biniua, 8. 80'1. Labb. 13.833. Alex.21. allt. Ds pm, 671.

Page 238: The Variations of Popery

238 THE VABlATIONS OF POPERY.

solemnity.' 1 'His holiness,' says Paris, 'consigned his majestyto the devil for destruction." His infallibility's sentence, in-deed, is a beautiful and perfect specimen of pontifical execration.His holiness, seven times in succession and nearly in It breath,excommunicated and anathematized his imperial majesty, 'inthe name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,' and absolved hissubjects from their oath of fidelity. The emperor, however,did not take all the hierarch's kindness and compliments fornothing. His majesty, in return and in the overflowings ofgratitude to his benefactor, called his holiness, "Balaam, Anti-christ, the Prince of Darkness, and the great dragon that deceivesthe nations.' 3Innocent the Fourth, in 1245, in the general council of Lyons,

repeated this sentence of degradation. His infallibility's denun-ciation, on the occasion, was a master-piece of abuse and impre-cation. The pontiff compared the emperor, 'to Pharaoh and to aserpent, and accused his majesty of iniquity, sacrilege, treachery,profaneness, perjury, assassination, adultery, schism, heresy, andchurch-robbery.' Having in these polite and flattering termscharacterized his sovereign as an emissary of Satan, his holinessproceeded, without hesitation and in the language of blasphemy,to represent himself, as 'the vicegerent of God, to whom, in theperson of Peter, was committed the power of binding and loos-ing, and who therefore possessed authority over emperors andkings.' The emperor's dethronement being pronounced by theviceroy of heaven, was, according to his infallibility, 'from Godhimself.' , His denunciations, hurling Frederic from all honorand dignity, his supremacy thundered in full council, and withsuch vociferation and fury, that he filled the whole audiencewith astonishment and dismay. The emperor's vassals, absolvedfrom all fealty, his holiness prohibited, by apostolic authorityand on pain of excommunication, to obey Frederic, or to lendthe fallen monarch any aid or favor.. This sentence was pronounced (in full synod, after matureand diligent deliberation, and with the consent of the holy coun-cil's Du Pin, indeed, forgetful of his usual candor, has recourse1Cum quanta poteat solemnitate devovet. Dn Pin, 547. Giannon. XVII.

1. Paris, 470. Heinrieins, Ann. 1227. Canisius, 4. 181. .2 Dominus Papa Satanm dederit in Perditionem. M. Paris, 542. Omnea qin

ei fidelitatis juramenta tenAntur, decemendo ab observatione juramenti hujus-modi abeolutos. Heinricius, Ann 1227. Canisius, 4. 1~I C'est Ie grand Dragon, qui seduit I'Univen, l'Antechrist, un autre Balaam,

et un Prince de Tenebrea. Bruy. 3. 192.'Ipeum velut hostem ecclesial privandi imperio condemnavit. Trivettus,

Ann. l245. Dachery, 3. 193.A <leo, ue repet Vel imperet, eat abjeotua. Paria, 651. Labb. 14. 48,67.

Bin. 8. 862. Ales. 21•. 'TIS. .lpeum..5 Cum I8Cl'OIUlCtlo 00D0iJi0. cieliberMioDe pnahabita maturaet diJi&en*i. Paris,

661. Labb. 1~ 01.

Page 239: The Variations of Popery

SYNODAL DEPOSITIONS OF SOVEREIGNS. 239on this occasion to Jesuitism; and represents the pontificalsentence as hasty, and the sole act of Innocent. This is a grossmisstatement. Thaddeus, the emperor's advocate, was allowedto plead his cause, and the sentence was deferred for severaldays for the purpose of affording his majesty an opportunity ofpersonal attendance. The prelacy, in the synodal denunciation,concurred with the pontiff. ' The pope and the bishops, sittingin:council, lighted tapers, and thundered,' says Paris, 'in frightfulfulminations against the emperor." Frederic, therefore, hadthe honor to be not only dethroned, but also excommunicatedand cursed with candle light in a universal, infallible, holy,Roman council. This testimony of Paris is corroborated byMartin and Nangis.2 The sentence on the atrocious Fredericwas, says Nangis, pronounced after' diligent previous delibera-tion with the assembled prelacy.' Innocent, says Pope Martin,'denounced the notorious Frederic at Lyons with the approba-tion of the council.' I

The general council of Lyons issued another canon of asimilar kind, but of a more general application. 'Any 'princeor other person, civil or ecclesiastical, who becomes principal 01'

accessory to the assassination of a Christian, or who defends 01'conceals the assassins,' incurs, according to this assembly in itscanon on homicide, 'the sentence of excommunication anddeposition from all honor and dignity," This canon is not,like the sentence against Frederic, restricted to an individual;but extends to all sovereigns who are guilty of a certain crime.The Pope decreed this enactment in proper form, and with theapprobation of the holy general council.The general council of Vienna, in 1311, under the presidency

of Clement, declared that 'the emperor was bound to the Pope,from whom he received unction and coronation, by an oath offealty.' This, in other words, was to proclaim the emperor thesubject or vassal of the papacy. Former emperors, accordingto the assembly of Vienna, had submitted to this obligation,which still, according to the same infallible authority, •retainedits validity." His holiness, on the occasion, also reminded hismajesty of the superiority which the pontiff, beyond all doubt,

1DominU8 Papa et pl'lll1ati, aBBidentes conCilio, candeliB accensis, in indietumimperatorem Fredericum terribiliterfulguraruDt. Paris, 652. Giann. XVII. 3.2 Di!igenti deliberatione pnehabita cum p1'll!1atiBibidem congregatiB super

nefandiB Frederici. NangiB,.Ann. 1045 Dach!!r, 3. 35.Innocentius, memoratum Fredericum in concilio Lugdunensi, eodem appro-

bante, concilio denunciavit. Dachery, 3. 684.3 Sacri approbatione concilii, 8tatuimus, ut depoaitiOni8 incurrat sententiam.

Labb. 14. SO. Sex.~. V. 4. 1. Pithou, 334.4 Declaramus illa juramenta pnediota fidelitatiB existere. Clem. L. II. Tit. 9

Pithoa, 3Ii6. BiD. 8. 908.

Page 240: The Variations of Popery

240 TlIE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

possessed in the empire, and which, in the person of Peter, hehad received from the King of Kings. ' The grandest emperorsand kings,' Clement declared, 'owed subjection to the eccle-siastical power which was deri ved from God."The general council of Piss, in its fifteenth session, forbade

all Christians of every order and dignity, even emperors andkings, to obey Benedict or Gregory, or to afford these degradedpontiffs council or favor. .All who disobeyed this injunction,though clothed with regal or imperial authority, the Pisanssentenced to excommunication and the other punishmentsawarded by the divine precepts and sacred canons.'The general council of Constance, in its fourteenth session,

condemned all, whether emperors or kings, who should annoythe synod or violate its canons, to perpetual infamy, the ban ofthe empire, and the spoliation of all regal and imperial autho-rity. The same infallible assembly, in its seventeenth session,excommunicated and deposed all persons, whether clergy orlaity, bishops or cardinals, princes or kings, who should throwany obstacle or molestation in the way of the emperor Sigis-mond in his journey to Arragon, to confer with king Ferdinandfor the extinction of schism in the church. This enactmentroused the indignation even of the Jesuit Maimbourg, whostyled it an insult on all sovereigns, especially the Freneh king,through whose dominions Sigismond had to pass. Du Pin onthis topic, instead of his accustomed candor, musters an arrayof shufHing and misrepresentation; and these, mdeed, on thisoccasion, his cause required. The Constantian convention, inits twentieth session, granted a monitory of excommunicationand interdict against Frederic duke of Austria, if he would notrestore the domiuions which he had taken from the Bishop ofTrent. The sentence extended to his heirs, his accomplices,the loss of his feudal domini.ons, which he held from the churchor the state, and the absolution of his vassals from the oath offidelity. The Constantian congress, in its thirty-ninth session,interdicted the obedience of all Christians to Benedict, andsentenced the refractory, whether bishops or cardinals, empe-rors or kings, to deposition and the punishment of persons guiltyof schism and heresy. 8The general council of Basil imitated the examples of the

Pisa.n and Constantine synods. This assembly, in its fortieth

1 Le Roi dea Bois a donne une telle puiasanoe a llOD 6gliae, que Ie Royaume luiappartient, qu'eUe ~t eIever lea p1U1grands Prinoee, et que lea Empereurs etlea Roia doivent 1m obeir et 1& lenir. lml;y. 3, 373. Giannon, XI. L2 Labb, 15. 1219. Lenfan. 1. 278. DB Pm, 3. 6.I Labb. 16." 280,aoa. 681. LeofaDt. 1. _. G,102. :BiD. a If117,1116

:Ma.imb. t<l7. Da!'la, a. 1" l6, II.

Page 241: The Variations of Popery

\

SYNODAL DEPOSITIONS OF SOVEREIGNS. 241

session, commanded all the faithful, even emperors and kings,to obey Felix, the newly-elected pontiff, under pain of excom-munication, suspension, interdict, and deprivation of all regaland imperial authority.'The council of the Lateran, in 1512, taught the same theory.

Cajetan, in this assembly and without any opposition, declaredthat the Pope had two swords; one common to his supremacyand other earthly princes, and another peculiar to himself. Leo,afterward, in the certainty of pontifical knowledge and theplenitude of apostolic power, sanctioned the constitution ofBoniface, teaching the subordination of the temporal to thespiritual power, and the necessity of all men's subjection to theRoman pontiff for salvation," This, in all its extravagancy,the infallible council, in its eleventh session, approved andconfirmed.The council of Trent finishes the long array. This celebrated

assembly, in its twenty-fifth session, excommunicated the kingor other temporal sovereign who permits a duel in his dominions.The excommunication is accompanied with the loss of the cityor place which had been the scene of combat.' The territory,if ecclesiastical, is to be resumed by the church, and if feudal,to revert to the direct lord. The duellists and their secondsare, in the same canon, condemned to perpetual infamy, s~olia-tion of goods, and, if they fall in fight, to privation of Christianburial. The spectators, though otherwise unconcerned, areexcommunicated and sentenced to eternal malediction.' Thesame synod, in its twenty-fourth session, anathematized thetemporal lords of every rank and condition, who compel theiry~s or any other persons to marry. Eight infallible councils,In this manner, sanctioned a principle, incompatible with politi-cal government, fraught with war and perjury, and calculated tounhmge and disorganize all civil society.All the beneficed clergy in the Romish communion are,

according to the bull of Pius the Fourth sworn to all thesecouncils and canons. The following is contained in their oath.'I receive and profess all that the sacred canons and generalcouncils have delivered, defined, and declared; and I shallendeavor, to the utmost of my power, to cause the same to beheld, taught, and preached. This I promise, vow, and swear,so help me God and these Holy Gospela IS Any person whoI Labb. 17,41. Crabb. 3. 120.3 Labb. 19. 726. Bin. 9. 153. Labb. 19. 968."tteSyndi~U8 .~getn ex~unicat et print ea civitate ac loco, in quo duelli com-

JJI1 n COP1&Jll fecent. Thuan. 5. 241. Du Pin, 3. 645. Paolo, VIII.Lab~~~~~ excommunicationia ac perpetwe maledictionia vinculo teneantur.

Omnia a sacria canonibua e\ lII0111DeII.ici eonciliia tradita, deftDitA, et iJecllU'ntap..... '

Page 242: The Variations of Popery

242 THE VARIATJONS OF POPERY.

should infringe or contradict this declaration, will and com-mandment, incurs, according to his infallibility, the indignationof Almighty God, and the blessed apostles Peter and Paul.The reformation introduced the fourth era on this subject of

the deposing power. Protestantism, from ita infancy, avowedits hostility to this principle in all its forms. A struggle. there-fore, on this topic, has existed for three hundred years betweenthe spirit of Protestantism and the ambition of the Papacy.The Roman Pontiffs, for a long period after the check whichthe reformation gave their usurpation, continued to prefer theirclaims, and to indulge, with fond and lingering attachment, indreams of former greatness. These patrons of spiritual domi-nations persisted in fulminating their anathemas with greatresolution, indeed, but little terror. The denunciations whichhad been hurled with more efficiency by a Gregory and aBoniface, were wielded, but without effect, by a Paul, a Pius,and a Sixtus.Paul, Pius, and Sixtus, even after the commencement of the

reformation, thundered deposition against Henry and Elizabethof England and Henry of Navarre. Paul the Fifth, in 1567,issued the bull IN C<ENA. This, says Giannone, overthrowsthe sovereignty of kings, subverts regal sovereignty, and sub-jects political government to the power of the papacy. Hisinfallibility in this. publication excommunicated, by wholesale,all monarchs who countenanced heresy, as well as all who,without special licence from the apostolic see, exact, in theirown dominions, new taxes and customs. The excommunica-tion which, according to his Supremacy's directions, is publishedevery year, extends to all the Protestant sovereigns in theworld. His holiness also enacted ecclesiastical laws againstcivil government, which, if carried into full execution, wouldoverturn all regal authority and transfer all causes to episcopaljurisdiction.' This bull, his holiness ordered to be published ODHoly Thursday and to become the law of all ChristendomPaul the Fifth, in 1609, issued a bull, forbidding the English

who were attached to Romanism to take the oath of allegiance,which had been prescribed by the king and contained a dis-avowal of the deposing maxim. The oath, according to his in-fallibility, comprehended many things inimical to the faith andto salvation. Bellarmine, on the occasion, subsidized the pon-tiff, and, in support of his theory, quoted Basil, Gregory, Leo,iDdubitanter recipio a~ue proliteor. IlliB quorum aura ad me, inmunere meo,apeoW.bit, teneri, docen. et pnedicari, quaotum inme erit, curatumm, ego idemIPom1eo. 'VCmlO, ac juro. Sic me Deu adjU'l"et, e$hee MD.Dei ev&ogelia.lAbbtlO ...1CJiIImoIa. UXln." )(aiaU." I

Page 243: The Variations of Popery

•PAPAL BULL AGAINST OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO JAMES I. 243

Alan, Cajetan, Sixtus, Mendoza, Sanderus, and Pedrezza. Theking wrote an apology for the oath ; and the Pope called theroyal publication heretical, and subjected its reader to excom-munication. But his infallibility's anathemas were vain.'Many took the prescribed oath j and .the Parisian university,in defiance of pontifical denunciations, declared it lawful.Paul the Fifth also canonized Gregory the Seventh, and in-

serted an office in the Roman breviary for the day of his festi-val. This eulogizes Gregory's dethronement of Henry, as anact of piety and heroism. The following are extracts from thework of blasphemy. 'Gregory shone like the sun in the houseof God. He deprived Henry of his kingdom, and freed hisvassals from their fealty. All the earth is full of his doctrine.He has departed to heaven. Ena.ble us, by his example andadvocacy, to overcome all adversity. May he intercede for thesins of the people," Alexander the Seventh introduced thisoffice,in all its senselessness and impiety, into the Romanbasilics. Clement the Eleventh, in 1704, recommended it tothe Cistercians, and, in 1710, to the Benedictines. The impietyWasapproved by Benedict the Thirteenth, and retains its placein the Roman breviary, though rejected by most Europeannations."Pius the Seventh, so late as 1809, excommunicated and ana-

thematized Bonaparte. His holiness, in the nineteenth century.proceeded, though in captivity, to pronounce against the empe-ror sentence of excommunication, and all the punishments in-flicted by the sacred canons, the apostolic constitutions, andthe general councils. His anathemas, which were pointless asPriam's dart, Pius hurled from his spiritual artillery againstNapoleon, on account of his military occupation of the ecclesi-astical states,"N0 pope or council has ever disclaimed the powor of de-

throning kings, though time and experience have s~estedcaution in its use. This fact, Crotty, Anglade, and Slevin ad-mitted in their examination at Ma.ynooth! Many of the pon-tiffs, knowing the inutility of avowing the claim, have wiselyallowed it to sleep in oblivion and inactivity, till occasion may

1 Thuan. CX:XXVIII. 12. Du Pin, 570. Thuan. 6. 42&.S Da nobis ejus exemplo et intel'Cellllioneomnia adveraantia fomter auperare.

8icut 11<>1etrulait in domo Dei. Benricum regno privavit atque aubdit~ POl?u-101fide ei data liberavit. Migravit in CGllum. Omnia terra doctrina eJuarepleta est. Ipse intercedat pro ~ omnium populoram. Bray. 2.491-m. Crotty, 85.Bre. Rom. 6.7. 01Iicia Propria. 75-77.J Cona. Miaeel. 36 •.197.24.4.i Pie VII. lan9a UDe bulle d'exeoDIm1lDieUion eontre 1e11aute11ft, fauteuJ'l,etl

U~teulll dee ~ ueroee._t1'e 18 IlliDHiep. Gravien, 471.!.Orotty, 84.A.DsJade. 182. SlAvin, 200.

Page 244: The Variations of Popery

244 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

awake its slumbering energy. But no express renunciation ofthis prerogative has ever issued from the Vatican. The councilsalso, like the pontiffs, have, in no instance since the eleventhcentury, disavowed the assumed right of degrading monarchs.Another fact is worthy of observation. The Congregation ofthe Index has never condemned the works of Bellarmine, Ba-ronius, Perron, Lessius and other authors, who have supportedthis claim of the papacy with devoted advocacy. The expur-gatorian index has given no quarter to the patrons of heresy,whose literary works have been mangled, mutilated, and con-demned. But the society, which, in casesof schismand protes-tantism, has proceeded with inquisitorial zeal, has uniformlytreated the abettors of the deposing power with unusual for-bearance and courtesy.The authority of the Roman pontiff to dethrone sovereigns,

however, since the days of Luther and Calvin, has declined.The general opinion, says Anglade, even in popish Christendomexcept the papal states, is against this principle.' The usur-pation has been denied or deprecated by some of the boldestpartisans of catholicism. Two reasons, however, whichsufficientlyaccount for this fact, may be assigned for the disa-vowal. One reason arises from the utter want of power toenforce the claim. According to Aquinas, 'the church, in itsinfancy, tolerated the faithful to obey Julian, through want ofpower to repress earthly princes.' The loyalty of the pristineecclesiastical community, clergy and laity, saints, confessors,and martyrs, the angelic 'doctor resolves into weakness,Bellarmine, following Aquinas, 'represents inability, as thereason, which prevented the Christians from deposing Nero,Diocletian, Julian, and Valena"The Christian commonwealth,in its early state, soared far

above all such meannessand hypocrisy. But the Popish com-munity, for near 300 years, have acted on the prudent but un-principled maxims of Aquinas and Bellarmine. The Reforma-tion detached nearly half the European nations from the do-mination of the Romish superstition, and, by this means,enfeebled its power. Protestantism, in strength, soon becamea formidablerival of popery; and the two religions,the Romishand the Reformed, now divide Christendom in nearly equalproportions. The defection of so many states has, in a greatmeasure, rendered Rome's spiritual artillery useless, and spoiled1ADgJade, Ui8.I EoClesiaIn, in lIUA nontate, nondum h.bebat pote8tlltem terrenos principes

com~ et ideo toleravit fidelea Juliano Apostlltm obedire. Aquin. 11.12. 1t. P. 51. 8i Ohrietiani olim non de.poeuerunt Neronem et DiocletianUlll.Ju1iI.num, et; V..leotem,id fuit quia defioerNlt vil'eII temporalea ChriBtillni& Bell.V.7.

Page 245: The Variations of Popery

EFFECTS OF THE REFORMATION ON THE DEPOSING POWER. 245

her anathemas of nearly all their terrors. Kings have becomewiser, and learned to contemn ecclesiastical denunciations.Rome, therefore, according to her usual policy, has ceased toclaim an authority which she can no longer exercise with suc-cess. But raise her to her former elevation, and, ancientambition returning with reviving power, she would reassumethe attitude, in which she once launched the thunders of ex-communication, affrighted monarchs, interdicted nations, andwieldedall the destinies of man.A second reason for the renunciation of this maxim arises

from the effects of the reformation on public opinion. Theseeffects are not to be estimated merely by their influence onthose who have embraced the protestant communion j but onthose also, who, though they disclaim the name, have imbibedsomething of its spirit. Many, at the present day, remainingstill in the bosom of the Romish communion, have been rea-soned or ridiculed out of some of its loftiest pretensions. Senti-ments, in consequence, may, on this subject, be now utteredwith safety, which would formerly have been attended withdanger. Answers from Alcala, Valladolid, and Salamanca,similar to those returned in our day to the celebrated questionsof Pitt, would, in the sixteenth century, have thrown the doorsof the Spanish inquisition wide open for the reception of thehauthors. The light of the reformation exposed the misshapenfabric of papal superstition, in all its frightful deformity, to thegaze of the world ; whilst the champions of protestantismpointed their heaviest artillery against the mighty mass, andcarried destruction into its frowning battlements, whichthreatened the subversion of political government and the dis-organization of civil society. Its defenders, in consequence,abandoned these holds, which they found untenable by all theirspiritual tactics and artillery.. The k~ng-deposingpower of the papacy, however, is neverlikely to return. The days of its glory, in all probability, have,on this usurped claim, for ever departed. Kings, in general,ev.enin the times of literary and religious darkness, resistedthis usurpation j and often, especially in France, with decidedsuccess. Monarchs, even in the middle ages, frequently con-temned the thunder of excommunication fulminated from theVatiean. Those, therefore, who successfully contended fortheir rights in a period of gross superstition, will hardly permita resumption of pontifical usurpation when philosophy andthe reformation have poured a flood of light over Christen-dom. Prophecy, on the contrary, teaches, in clear terms, thatRome will fall under the detestation and fury of regal autho.

,

Page 246: The Variations of Popery

2+6 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

rity. Kings, in the strong languageof Revelation, 'shall hateher, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat herflesh and burn her with fire.' The sovereignsof the earth, itwould appear, will be made instrumental in overthrowing theecclesiastical despotism, the fulminations of whose spiritualartillery ofteu shook the thrones of the world and mademonarchs tremble.

,

Page 247: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER VII.

PERSECUTION.

PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY-THREE PERIODS-J'IKBT PERIOD: RBLIGIOUS LIBBR-TY-SECOND PBRIOD: PERSECUTION OF PAGANISM--PERSECUTION OF HERESY-PERSECDTING KINGS, SAINTS, THEOLOGIANS, POPES, AND COUNCILS-GRUSADIl8AGAINST THE ALBIGENSES-INQUISITION-THIRD PERIOD: PERSECUTING DOCTORS,POPES, COUNCILS, AND KINGS-PRRSECUTIONS IN GERMANY, NETHERLANDS, SPAIN,FRANCI!l, AND ENGLAND-DIVI!lRSITY OJ' SYSTElol8- POPISH DISAVOWAL OJ' PER-SECUTION-MODERN OPINIONS.

THE popsdom, raised to the Iilupremacy in church and state,challenged a ('ontrollin$ power over the partisans of heresy,schism and apostasy, as well as over kings. The sovereignpontiffs, in the madness of ambition and despotism, affected thedominion over all mankind, and called the arm of the civilmagistracy to their aid, to enforce their pretensions. Schisma-tics and heretics, accordingly, though separated from the Romishcommunion, are reckoned subject to its authority, as rebels anddeserters are amenable to the civil and military laws of theircountry. The traitor may be punished by the state for hisperfidy; and the apostate, in like manner, may, from thechurch, undergo excommunication and anathemas,' H~ mayeven, according to Aquina-'l,Dens, and the university of Sala-manca, followed by that of Valladolid, be compelled by armsto return to the profession of Catholicism.' This assumptionof power and authority has given rise, as might be expected,to long and sanguinary persecutions.Christendom, on the subject of persecution, has witnessed

three distinct periods. One commenced with the era of Re-demption, and ended at the accession of Constantine, the first

~~.

1Neque illi!J1&gisad ecclesiam spectant, quam tranafugsl ad exercitum perti-neaut, • quo defi.cenmt. Non negandum tamen qlJin_ in ecclesial J;IOtestate Hint.Cat. Trid. M. Slavin, 216,217. KeDJley,399. Ecc:lesia in eos, Jurisdictionemhabet. Dens, 2, 80., P08II8 Romanum Pontiftcem fidei de&ertores, armis compellere. :M:ageog. 3.

395. Hllll'etici 8UJlt etiam corporaliter oompellendi. Aquin. 2, 42. Bereticinnt compellendi, ut fidem teneant. Aquinas, II. 10. VIII.Cogi poeaunt, etiam pomiB oorporalibua, ut nlvertantur ad fidem. Deua, 2. 80.

Page 248: The Variations of Popery

248 THE VARIATIONS OJ!' POPERY.

Christian emperor. During this period, Christians disavowedall persecution both in theory and action. The second periodextended from Constantine till the Reformation. This longlapse of years was more or less characterized by continual in-tolerance and persecution. The third period occupiesthe timewhich has intervened between the Reformation and the presentday. This interval has. been diversified by many jarringopinions on the topic of persecution, the rights of conscience,and religious liberty.The world saw more than three ages pass, from the era of

Christianity till the accessionof Constantine, before its profes-sors disgraced their religion by the persecution of heathenismor heresy. Intolerance is a manifest innovation on the usageof antiquity, and one of the variations of Romanism. Theancients, Du Pin remarks, 'inflicted no ecclesiastical punish-ment but excommunication, and never employed the civilauthority against the abettors of heresy and rebellion.' DuPin has been followed by Giannone, Mariana,Moreri, and DuHamePThe Messiah, the apostles, and the fathers for several ages,

opposed,in word and deed, all compuision and persecution.The Son of Man came not to destroy but to save the lives ofmen. This he stated to his apostles, when, in mistaken zeal,they wished, like Elias, to command fire from heaven to con-sume the Samaritans, who, actuated by the spirit of party,werehostile to the Jews. His empire,he declared, is spiritual;and is not, like Paganism, Popery, or Islamism, to be establishedor enlarged by the roar of artillery, the din of battle, or thehorrors of war. When Peter struck Malchus, Jesus healed thewound, and condemned,in emphatical language, the use of thesword in the defence of his kingdom,"No two eharacters, indeed, ever displayed a more striking

contrast than the Messiah and an inquisitor.. TheMessiahwasclothed in mercy. The inquisitor was drenched in blood. Thetear of compassion stained the cheek of the divine Savior.The storm of vengeance infuriated the face of the inquisitorialtormentor. The Son of God on earth was alwa.yapersecuted;but .never retaliated. His ardent petitions, on the contrary,ascended to heaven, supplicating pity for his enemies'weaknessand pardon for their sins.The apostles walked in the footsteps of their divine Master.1Ill&Ilditum earte eat apud antiquos quemquam alia quam excommunicationisaut deJlOl:itionispama fui8lle ab ecclesia mulctatum. DnPin, 448. Multis annis,eee1elIia ciTili antcoritate adversus ha!reticos at rebeUes minime usa est. DuPin, 449. GiaDnon. XV.4. Mariua. 4. 365. Moren, 5,129. Dn Hanlel, 691.~M~ xxxvi. 61, 52. Mark xiv. 47. Luke ix. 56, md un. 51. Johnrriii. 10, 36.

Page 249: The Variations of Popery

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OF THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES. 249

The inspired heralds of the gospel recommended their messageby holiness and miracles, accompanied with the influence ofdivine energy. Persecution from the powers of earth and hell,from demons and men, was their predicted destiny. But thesemessengersof peace,when execrated, blessed, and when perse-cuted, showed no wish for retaliation; but, in submission totheir Master's precept, returned good for evil.The fathers, for several ages, copied the example of their

Lord and the apostles. The ancients, Du Pin observes,'taught with unanimous consent the unlawfulness ofcompulsionand punishment in religion." The sentiments of Origen, Ter-tullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, and Bernard on this topic areworthy of transcription and imitation. Christians, says Origen,, should not use the sword.' Religion, according to Tertullian,'does not compel religion.' According to Cyprian, 'the Kingof Zion alone has authority to break the earthen vessels; norcan any claim the power which the Father hath given to theSon.' Lactantius, in the following statement, is still more fulland explicit, , Coercionand injury are unnecessary,for religioncannot be forced. Barbarity and piety are far different; nor cantruth be conjoined with violenceor justice with cruelty. Reli-gion is to be defended, not by killing, but by dying; not byinhumanity, but by patience.' Bernard, at a later date, enjoins,in similar language, the same toleration. 'Faith is conveyedby persuasion, not by constraint. The patrons of heresy areto be assailed, not by arms, but by arguments. Attack them,but with the word, not with the sword." Du Pin has shownthat the ideas of Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, andBernard were entertained by Gregory,Athanasius, Chrysostom.Augustine, Damian, and Anselm. .The second period, from Constantine till the Reformation,

was characterized, more or less,by uninterrupted persecutionand constraint, as the former was by toleration and liberty.This emperor's proselytism to Christianity, in the beginning ofthe fourth century, commenced a new era in the Christiancommonwealth. The church, in his reign, obtained a new1Sancti Patres, unanimi consensu docent ecclesiam carere omni gladio mate-

riali ad homines cogendos et pnuiend08. Dn Pin, 450.2 Adve:rs1l8 neminem, gladio uti debemus. Origen, in Matt. xxvi, 25. Nee

religionis est cogere religionem. Te~ ad Soap. 69. Fictilia ~ conf~:gere Domino soli eoneesanm-est cui et VU'gaferrea da~ est. Nee qmsquam 81bJ,quod soli filio Pater tribnit, vindicare poteet. Cypnal!' 100. Ep. 54 .. N?ll est01'1l8vi et injuria quia religio eogi non poteet. Longe diversa sunt camificma etpletaB ; nec potest aut ventas cum vi! aut justitia .cum crudelita~. oonjungi.Defendenda enim religio est non oeeidendo sed monendo, non 8lllVltia, sed pa-tientia. Lactan. V. 19. Fides suadenda, non imponenda. Bernard, 766:Hillretici capiantur, dieo non armis, sed argumentis. Aggredere eoa sed verbo,non ferro. Bernard,885. Berm. 64.

Page 250: The Variations of Popery

250 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

establishment; and the civil power began to sanction theecclesiastical authority. The magistracy learned to act inunison with the clergy. The emperor, however, was not apersecutor of Paganism. He extended to Heathenism the tol-eriition which he withheld from heresy. The prudent monarch,unwilling to alarm Pagan suspicion,advanced with slow andcautious steps to undermine the irregular and decayed fabricof gentilism. He condemned indeed the arts of divination,silenced the oracles of Polytheism which had been convictedof fraud and falsehood,and demolished the temples of Phosnioia,which, in the face of day, displayed all the abominations ofprostitution to the honor of Venus. But he tolerated thepriests, the immolations, and the worship of the Grecian andRoman gods of antiquity.'Constans and Constantius imitated the example of Constan-

tine. Facts and monuments still remain, to attest the publicexercise of idolatry during their whole reign. Many templeswere respected, or at least spared; and the patrons of Pagan-ism, by permissionor connivance, enjoyed,notwithstanding theImperial laws, the luxury of sacrifices,processions,and festi-vals. The emperors continued to bestow the honors of thearmy and the state on Christians and Heathens; whilst wealthand honor, in many mstances, patronized the declining institu-tions of Polytheism.'Julian's reign was characterized by apostasy, and Jovian's

brevity. Valentinian was the friend of toleration. The perse-cution of Paganism commenced in the reign of Gratian, andcontinued through the reigns of Theodosius, Arcadius, andHonorius. Gratian and Theodosius were influencedby Ambro-sius, Archbishop of Milan: and the clergy, in general, misap-plied the laws of the Jewish theocracy and the transactions ofthe Jewish annals, for the unchristian and base purpose ofawakening the demon of' persecution against the moulderingremains of Grecianand Roman superstition. Gratian abolishedthe pretensions of the Pagan pontiff, the honors of the priestsand vestals, transferred their revenues to the use of the church,the state, and the army, and dissolved the ancient fabric ofPolytheism, which had dishonored humanity for the length-ened period of eleven hundred years.Theodosiusfinished the work of destruction which Gratian

had begun. He issued edicts of proscription aga.inst easternand western gentilism, Cynegius, Jovius, and Gaudentius werecommissionedto close the temples, destroy the instruments of

1 Moren. 5. 129. Eueb. Vito Con. n. 56. 60. Gibbon, 0. 21. 22., Cod. Theod. XVI. Tit. 5. Gibbon, e, 28.

Page 251: The Variations of Popery

PERSECUTION OF PAGANISM. 251Idolatry, and confiscate the consecrated property. Heavy fineswere imposed on the use of frankincense and libations. Thetemples of the gods were afterwards demolished. The faireststructures of antiquity, the splendid and beautiful monumentsof Grecian architecture, were, by mistaken and barbarian zeal,levelled with the dust. The sainted Martin, of Tours inGaul, marched at the head of its tattered monks to the demoli-tion of the fanes, the idols, and the consecrated groves of hisextensive diocese. Martin's example was followed by Mar-cellus of Syria, whom Theodorus calls divine, and by Theophi-Ius, patriarch of Alexandria. A few of these grand edifices,however, were spared by the venality or the taste of the civilor ecclesiastical governors. The Carthaginian temple of thecelestial Venus was converted into a Christian church; and asimple consecration rescued from ruin the mejestic dome of theRoman pantheon.' ,Gentilism, by these means, was, in the reign of Areadius

and Honorius, expelled from the Roman territory. Theodo-sius who was distinguished by his zeal for the exterminationof Polytheism, questioned whether, in his time, a single Paganremained in the empire. Its ruin affords perhaps the onlyexample in the annals of time of the total extirpation of anancient and popular superstition, and presents, in this point ofview, a singular event in the history of the human mind.'But the friend of Christianitv and his species must, in many

instances, lament the means by which the end was effected.Paganism was indeed an unwieldy and hideous system ofabomination and folly: and its destruction, by lawful means,must have been the wish of every friend of God and man.But the means, in this case, often dishonoured .the end.Coercion, in general, was substituted for conviction, and terrorfor the gospel One blushes to read of a Symmachus and aLihanius, two heathen orators, pleading for reason and persua-sion in the propagation of religion; whilst a Theodosiu~ andan Ambrosius, a Christian emperor and a Christian bishop,urge violence and constraint. The whole scene opens amelancholy but striking prospect of human nature. TheChristians, while few and powerless, deprecated the unhal-lowed weapons of persecution wielded with such fury by thePagans. But the situation of the two is no sooner reversed,than the heathens who were the former partisans of intoler-ance, recommend' forbearance; and the Christians, the formeradvocates of toleration, assume the unholy tarms of proscrip-tion. '1Theoph. 49. Codex Theod. 6. 266-274. Giannon. III. 6. Godeau, 3. 361.t BiaciOla, 318. Cod. Theod. 6. 277-283.

Page 252: The Variations of Popery

252 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

The hostility of the secular arm under the Emperors was notrestricted to Gentilism. Heresy,as well asheathenism, becamethe object of imperial persecution. Constantine, till he wasperverted by the tuition of the clergy, seems to have possessedcorrect views of religious liberty and the rights of conscience.The imperial edict ofMilan conceivedin the genuine spirit ofliberality, was the great charter of toleration which conferredthe privilege of choosinghis own religion on each individual ofthe Roman world. The beauty of this fair picture, however,as usual, was fading and transitory. Its mild features weresoondashed with traits of harshness and severity.. The empe-ror, influenced by his ecclesiasticaltutors, imbibed the maximsof illiberality, and learned to punish men for consulting theirown reason in the concerns of their own souls.Sovereigns, according to the sacerdotal theology 'of the day,

acted in a two-fold capacity; as Christians and as governors.Considered as Christians, kings in their personal character,should believe the truth as well as practise duty, which, asgovernors and in their officialrelation, they should enforce ontheir subjects. Offencesagainst man, accordingto these clericalcasuists, were less criminal than against God. Theft andmurder, of course,were less heinous than schism and heresy.The edicts of emperors,in consequence, came to be substitutedfor the gospelof God. Error, according to these theologians,was to be remedied by proscription; which, accordingto com-mon sense, may produce hypocrisy, but can never enlightenthe understanding or subduethe heart. Constantine, therefore,in conformity with this new, or .rather old plan of instructionand proselytism, issued two penal laws against heresy; andwas followed in the hopeful project, by Valentinian, Gratian,Theodosius, Arcadius, and Honorius. Theodosiua publishedfifteen, Arcadius twelve, and Honorius no less than eighteenof these inhuman and antichistian statutes. Theseare recordedin the Theodosian and Justinian codes, to the eternal infamyof the priestly and imperial authors.'The chief victims of persecution,during this period, were the

Arians, Manicheans, Priscillianists, and Paulicians, Valenti-nian, Gratian, and Theodosius overwhelmed Arianism with de-struction, and clothed Trinitarianism with triumph. TheArians, however, under Constantius and Valens, Roman empe-rors,and 6enseric and Hunnerie, Vandal kings, retaliated, intheir tum, in dreadful inhumanity and vengeance. Valenti-Dian fined the Manichean doctors and interdicted the Mani-chean assemblies. Theodosius exposed them to infamy and

1Th~h. 42, 46, 46. Codex Theod. XVI. Tit. 5. p.l04-190.

Page 253: The Variations of Popery

PERSECUTION OF HEHESY.

deprived them of the rights of citizens. Constantine, Gratian,Maximus, and Honorius harassed and ruined the factions ofDonatism, Priscillianism, and Pelagianism. The Paulicianswere persecuted in the most dreadful manner, during thereigns of Constans, Constantine, Justinian, Leo,Michael, andTheodora. Ammianus, a heathen historian, and Chrysostom,a Roman saint, compare the mutual enmity of Christians atthis time, to the fury of wild beasts,'Heresy, during this period, was punished with more or less

severity, according to the offender's supposed criminality orobstinacy. The penalty was banishment, fine, confiscation,infamy, disqualification of buying and selling, or incapacity ofcivil and military honor. The Roman code contained no law,sentencing persons guilty of heresy to death. Capital punish-menta, indeed, in some instances, were inflicted. This was thecase with the unhappy Priscillian and some of his partisans,who were prosecuted by the inquisitoriallthacius and sentencedby the usurping Maximus. But Maximus, on this occasion,exercised an illegal authority, as he had usurped the imperialpower. The unlawful and unhallowed transaction displayed thebaseness of the prosecutor and the tyranny of the emperor.The few that suffered capital punishment for sectarianism were,in general, also guilty or supposed to be guilty of treason orrebellion.iThe Roman laws, on the topic of persecution, continued in

this state till the year 800, and in the eastern empire till itsdissolution in 1453 by the Ottomans. An important changehappened about the commepcement of the ninth century. Thisconsisted of the great eastern schism. The Greek and Latinchurches were rent asunder and ceased to be governed bymutual laws. A new era, on the subject of heresy and itspunishment, began at this time in the west,.and lasted till ,theyear 1100 of our redemption, .comprehending. ~ laf?Seof :JOOyears. This periodwas distinguished by supersti~IO~,Ign~rance,insurrection revolution and confusion. Sectarlamsm, in the

" • be 1European nations, seemed, for thr~e centunes,. to near yextinguished. Egyptian darkness reigned !ind tri~mphed overlearning and morality. The world ~unk. into a Iiterary leth-argy; and, in the language of somehlS~n!ins, slept the sleepof orthodoxy. Leal'ning, philosophy, religIOUSe:ror, an~ secta-rianism reposed in inactivity, or fled from the VIew,amidst the

1Codex Thood. 8. 113, 115, ]20,]23. Godeau, 3.. 9, 67. ~ :rheod. 6: 5,10, 130, 146. Codex Justin. 1. p. 71, 75, 88. Null':8 infestas hominibus bestias,ut aunt libi ferales plerique Christianorum. Ammian. XXII. 5. Kcz6clwEp Ih,pUllllN'nJ'"YUJ' ~ 10 632. Hom. 'n.

2 GiaDno~,XV. 4.' 8~p, Bev. II. 49. Codex. '!'hood. 6. 160, 161.

Page 254: The Variations of Popery

254 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

wide and debasing dominion of ignorance, immorality, andsuperstition, which superseded the use of the inquisitor andcrusader.'The revival of sectarianism followed the revival of Letters.

Many denominations of this kind appeared, in the beginning ofthe twelfth century, among the European nations, such asthe Paulieians, Catharians, Henricians, Waldenses, and Albi-genses. The Waldenses and Albigenses were the mostnumerous and rational, and therefore the most formidable to thePapacy. All these concurred in hostility to Romanism, as asystem of error and superstition. The usurpation and despo-tism of the Popedom were the chief objects of their enmity andopposition. The despotism and immorality of the clergyexposed them to the indignation of sectarian zeal Philosophyin its first dawn, learning in its feeblest glimmerings, discoveredthe deformity and shook the domination of the Papacy. Therevival of literature, however, was not the only cause of opposi-tion to Romanism. Many reasons concurred. The' reign ofsuperstition; the traffic of indulgences j the dissensions between.the emperors and the pontiffs; the wars, which, for two hun-dred years, had desolated tbe Christian world; the luxury ofthe bishops and inferior clergy; all these tended to arouse thehostility of men against the overgrown system of ecclesiasticaltyranny.'This hostility against the principles of Popery produced a

reaction and enmity against the partisans of sectarianism.Rome plied all her spiritual artillery, and vented her rage inexcommunication and massacre. Heresy, or rather truth andholiness, were assailed by kings, theologians, popes, councils,crusaders, and inquisitors. .Princes wielded the secular arm against the abettors ofheresy.

Frederic the German emperor, and Lewis the French king, aswell as many other sovereigns, enacted persecuting laws againstthe Waldenses and Albigenses. Frederic, in 1224, promul-gated four edicts of this kind from Padua. His majesty, in hisimperial politeness, began with calling the Albigenses vipers,snakes, serpents, wolves, angels of wickedness, and sons ofperfidy, who were descended from the author of iniquity andfalsehood, and insulted God and the church. Pretending tothe authority of God for his inhumanity, he execrated all thepatrons of apostasy from Catholicism, and sentenced hereticsof every sect and denomination alive to the flames, tLeir prop-erty to confiscation, and their posterity, unless they becamepersecutors, to infamy. The suspected, unless they took aIL1Moreri. 5. 129. GiaDnon. XV. 4. Velly, 3. 431., Giannon, XV. 4.

Page 255: The Variations of Popery

PERSECUTION OF HERESY. 255oath of exculpation, were accounted guilty. Princes wereadmonished to purify their dominionsfromheretical perversity;and, if they refused, their land might without hesitation beseized by the champions of Catholicism.' This was the firstlaw that made heresy a capital offence. The emperor alsopatronized the inquisition, and protected its agents of tortureand·malevolence.Lewis, in 1228, issued similar enactments. He published

laws for the extirpation of heresy, and enjoined their executionon the barons and bailiffs. He rendered the patrons and pro-tectors of error incapable of giving testimony, making a will, orsucceeding to any honor or emolument. The sainted monarchencouraged the work of death, and in the langnage of PopeInnocent, diffused through the crusading army' ,thenatural andhereditary piety of the French kings.' He forced Jtaymond,Count of Toulouse, to undertake the extermination of heresyfrom his dominions,without sparing vassal or friend. Alfonso,king of Arragon, and several others copied the example ofFrederic and Lewis,"The emperors were sworn to exterminate heretics. The

emperor Henry, according to Clement, in the councilof Viennatook an oath, obliging his majesty to eradicate the professorsand protectors of heterodoxy. A similar obligation was im-posed on the emperor of Germany, even after the dawn of theReformation. He was bound by a solemn oath to extirpate,even at the hazard of his life and dominions, all whom thepontiff condemned."Saints and pontiffs, in these deeds of inhumanity, imitated

emperors and kings. Lewis, who enacted such statutes ofcruelty, was a saint as well as a sovereign. Aquinas wasactuated with the same demon of malevolence,and breathedthe same spirit of barbarity. 'Heretics,' the angelic doctordeclares, '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." Dominic, Osma, Arnold,1Hi aunt lupi rapacee. Hi eunt angeli peasimi, Hi aunt filii pravitatum, &

patre nequitim et fraudis auctore. Hi colubri, hi serpentes, CJ.uilatenter videnturmserpere. Debitre ultionis in eos gladium ,xeramns: deeemimns, ut vivi in con-speetu hominum colllburantur. Labb. 14. 25, 26. DR Pin, 2. 486.:I Labb. 13. 1231. Velly,4. 134. Gibert, 1. 15.I Omnem lueresim, schisma, et hlIlretioos quoslibet fautores, receptatores, et

ddensoreB ipsorum exterminaret. Clem. IL Tit. 9. Bruy. 3. 373.Lea Princes, et encore pluB lea Empereurs, qui en font des sermens si solennels,

t\tant lItroitement obliges IIOUB peine des censures, d'extirper eeux q.ue les papesont coudamnez, tit d'yemployer jUBqu'a leurs lItats tit m&ne leur Vie. Paolo 1.lOa.'. Hm~ticl JlOIIIIUIlt non solum excommunica.ri, sed et jnste occidi ...... EccleeU.

relinqUlt eum judiclllleCulari mundo exterminandum per mortem. Aquinaa. II.U. III. p, 48.

Page 256: The Variations of Popery

256 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY .

. Conrad, Rainer, Guy, Castelnau, Guido, Rodolf, and a long trainof saints and doctors might be named, who, for supporting thework of murder and extermination, were raised to the honorsof 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 Martingained an infamous notoriety for their ruthless and unre-lenting enactments against the partisans 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 ofmurder,' The assassination of a man under the sentence ofexcommunication, his infallibility accounted only a venialcrime. !fs holiness must have excelled in the knowledge ofcasuistry. His morality, however, Bruys characterized by theepithets diabolical and infernal," Lucius the Third fulminatedred-hot anathemas against the Waldenses, as well as againsttheir protectors and patrons, and consigned them to the seculararm, to undergo condign vengeance in proportion to theircriminality. Innocent the Fourth sanctioned the enactmentsof Frederic, which sentenced the partisans of error and apostasyto be burned alive. He commanded the house in which anAlbigensian had been sheltered to be razed from the founda-tion. All these viceroys of heaven concurred in consigning toinfamy any who should give the apostate from the faith eithercounselor favor; and in driving the magistracy to execute thesanguinary statutee, by interdicts and excommunication. Thecrusaders against ·the Albigenses enjoyed the same indulgencesas those who marched to the Holy Land. Supported by themercy of Omnipotent God and the blessed apostles Peter andPaul, Innocent granted these holy warriors a full pardon of allsin, and eternal salvation in heaven."Provincial and national council'! breathed the same spirit <1f

persecution, as kings and pontiffs. These were many. Butthe 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 fromSpain, and for the permission of none in the kingdom but the

1 lion enim _ homicidas arbitramur, quos adversus exoommunicatos, zeloCatholiee matriB ardentes, aliquis eorum trucidasse contingent. Pithou, 324.2 Bruy. 2. 508.8 Plenam ;peecamiD/PD veni!PD indulgemus, et in retributione justorum l&1utis

retenue pollicemur augmentum. Lebb. 14.64. Bened. 1.73. at 2. 232. Bruy.3. 13. Do Pin, 2. 336. Labb. 13. 643. at 14. 23.

Page 257: The Variations of Popery

PERSECUTION OF THE WALDF.NSES AND OTHERS. 257

professorsof Romanism,' This holy assembly made the king,on his accession,swear to tolerate no heretical SUbjectsin theSpanish dominions. The sovereign who should violate thisoath, and all his accomplices,would, according to the sacredsynod, ' be accursed in the" sight of the everlasting God, andbecome the fuel of eternal fire.' This sentence, the holyfathers represented' as pleasing to God.' Spain, at an earlydate, began those proscriptions, which she has continued to thepresent day.The council of Oxford, in 1160, condemned more than thirty

of the Waldenseswho 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, anddriven half-naked out of the city ; while all were forbid togrant these wretched people hospitality or consolation. Nonetherefore showed the condemned the least pity. The winterraged in all its severity, and the Waldenses in consequenceperished of cold and hunger,"The councils of Tours, Lavaur, Albi, Narbonne, Beziers,and

Tolosa issued various enactments of outlawry and extermina-tion against the Albigenses and Waldenses. These, accordingto the sentence of those sacred synods, were excommunicatedevery Sunday and festival; while, to add solemnity and horrorto the scene, the bells were rung and the candles extinguished.An inquisitorial deputation of the clergy and laity wascommissionedfor the detection of heresy and its partisans.The barons and the magistracy were sworn to exterminateheretical pollution from their lands. The barons who throughfear or favor should neglect the work of destruction, forfeitedtheir estates, which were transferred to the active and ruthlessagents of extirpation. The magistracy, who were remiss,werestripped of their officeand property,"All were forbidden to hold any commerce in buying or1 .~c promulgamus Deo p1acituram sententiam. Inter reliqua sacramenta,

pollieitna fuerit, nullum non catholicum permittere in suo regno degere. Teme-ra~r hujus extiterit promissi Bit anathema, maranatha, in conspectu sempitemiDel, et pabulum efli.ciaturwns retemi Carranza, 376. Crabb. 2. 211. Godea.5.157.2 PrreceJ>ithleretiCIBiufamial characterem frontibus eorum inuri ; et spectante

po~ult), Vll'gis cmrcitos, urbe expelli, districte prohibenll, ne 9.~ eoe vel hoapitiorempere, !Ill aliquo solatio confovere, pl'lll81llll8ret.... AIgoris intolerantia(hy:eDllI qUlppe erat), nemine vel exiguum misericordilll impendente, misere in-te~~~!:.J.abb. 13. 9.87, 288. Neu~. II. 13. S~ 2. 60.

~UDicentur in eccl. pulutis campanili et extiDctis candelia. Labb.4. US8. Dominae Iocorum de i1lis detegendia aOlicitoe _, et illorum latibula~estruere.; fautorea hlereticorum teme llI1lIl jactura et aliia JM8Di.a plecti. Bail-livn:m..qUl utermiDandil hlIlretiaill operam DODdederit, boniIJ luis etmagistrMueXIU. Alelt. .. 1667. Du Pin, 2. 415. labb.l3. 1237. Marian. 2. 7(YJ.

Q

Page 258: The Variations of Popery

258 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

selling with these sectarians, that, deprived of the consolationsof humanity, they might, according to the council of Tours., be compelledto renounce their error.' No Rersonwas allowedto afford them succoror protection. The house, inwhich theAlbigensian sheltered his head, w\\'s,as if contaminated withhis presence, to be demolished and the ground confiscated.The grave itself could not defend the heretical tenants of itscold domain from the fury of the inquisitor. The body or thebones of the Albigenses that slept in the dust were to be disin-terred, and the mouldering remains committed, in impotentand unavailing vengeance, to the flames.'The council of Tolosa,in 1229,waged war on this occasion

against the Bible as well as against heresy. The sacred synodstrictly forbade the laity to possess the books of the Old andNew Testament in the vernacular idiom. A layman, in thelanguage of the holy fathers, might perhaps keep a Psalm-book,a breviary, or the hours of holy Mary; hut no Bible." This,Velly admits, was the first prohibition of the kind. Twelverevolving. ages from the commencement of Christianity hadrolled their ample course over the world, and no assembly ofmen had dared to interdict the book of God. But a synod, ina communionboasting unchangeability, arrogated at length theauthority of repealing the enactment ofheaven and the practiceof twelve hundred years.These provincial synods weresanctionedby general councils ;

which therefore were blessed with infallibility. These com-prehended four of the Lateran, and those of Constance andSienna. Anno 1139, the second council of the Lateran, in itstwenty-third canon, excommunicated and eondemned theheretics of the day who affected a show of piety. These, theinfallible assembly commanded the civil powers to suppress;and consignedtheir protectors also to the same condemnation."The third general council of the Lateran issued a canon of

a similar kind; but of greater rigor and severity. Thisunerring assembly, in its twenty-seventh canon,and supportedby the mercy of God and the authority of Peter and Paul,excommunicated on Sundays and festivals, the Cathari of1Nee in venditione aut emptione aliqus cum eis omnino commercium habee-

tar, ut soIatio saltern humanitatis amisso ab errore vitre suee resipiacere compel-lantur.Labb. 13. 303. Bened. I. 47. 52. Domum in qua merit inventus htereticusdimi, et fnndum confiscari. Alex. 20. 667. Hteretici exhumentur et eorumcadavers sive 0Il88 publica eombnrantur, Labb. 14.. 160. Alex. 2. 679.

2 Ne wei libros veteris ant novi testamenti permittantor. Ne saeros Iibrosin linguam vulgarem translatos habeant, arctissime prohibet Synodus. Lsbb.13. 1239. Alex. 20. 668. Mez. 2. 810. Aucnn lalque n'aura chez lui leslivree de l'aneien et du nouveau Testament. Velly,2. 133.8 Eos qui reliaiOllitatis speciem simulantes, tanquam heereticoe ab ecelesia

Dei pelllinu, et damnamuS, et per potestates elltsras crereeri prreeipimus. De-fenaores quoque ipllOl'lW1 ejusdem dainnationia vinoulo innodauius. Bin. 8. 596.

Page 259: The Variations of Popery

PERSECUTING COUNCILS. 259

Gascony, Albi, and Tolosa; and the sentence extended to alltheir protectors, who admitted those sons of error into theirhouses or lands, or to any kind of traffic or commerce. Theirpossessionswere consigned to confiscation and themselves toslavery; while any who had made a treaty or contract withthem, were acquitted of their engagement.' Crusaderswerearmed against these adherents of heresy: and the holy war-riors were encouraged in the work of extermination and deathby indulgences and-the assurance of eternal felicity. But nooblation was to be offered for the souls of the heretics, andtheir dead were refused Christian burial on consecratedground. •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 regulargradation of inhumanity. The third excelled the second onthe scale of cruelty; and both again were exceeded by thefourth, which indeed seems to have brought. the system ofpersecution to perfection. This infallible assemblypronouncedexcommunication, anathemas, and condemnation against allheretics of every denomination, with their protectors; andconsigned all such to the secular arm for due punishment,"The property of these sons of apostasy, if laymen, was,accor-ding to the holy fathers, to be confiscated,and, if clergymen,to be conferred on the church. The suspected,unless theyproved their innocence, were to be accounted guilty, andavoided by all till they afforded condign satisfaction. Kingswere 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 excommunicatedby the metropolitan and SUffragans:and, if he should proverefractory for a year, the Roman pontiff, the vicar-general ofO:od,was empowered to transfer his kingdom to somecham-pion of Catholicism and absolve his vassals from their fealty.The populace were encouraged to engage in crusadingexpeditions for the extinction of heterodoxy. The ad-venturers in these holy wars enjoyed the same indulgencesand the same honors as the soldiery that marched to

! Eos et defensores eorum et receptores anathemati decernimus subjacere.Sub anathemate prohibemus, ne quia eos in domibus, vel in terra sua tenere velfov~re, vel negotiationem cum eis exercere prresumat. Confis~tur eoram bonaet libe~ Bit principibus hujusmodi hommes subjicere Berntuti. Labb, 13.430. Bm 8. 662.~ExcommUBicamus et anathematizamus omnem hreresim, condemnantes UBi-

ver ~ hrereticos, quibuscumqne nominibus oenseantur. Labb. 13.934. Synodushre.retiCOllomnes clliis devovit, et dsmnatoB, sreoularibus potestatibus tradi jussit.aniJDadveraione debita puniendos. AIeL 20. 312. Bray. 3. 148. Gibert, 1. 16.

Page 260: The Variations of Popery

260 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

the Holy Land. The prelacy were enjoined to bind thepeople of their vicinity by oath to inform, if they knew anyguilty or suspected of heresy. Any, who should refuse toswear, were to be considered as guilty: and the bishops, if'remiss in the execution of their task, were threatened withcanonical vengeance.The general council of Constance, in 1418, sanctioned the

canonsof the Lateran. The holy and infallible assembly,in itsforty-fifth session,presented a shocking seJ'se of blasphemy andbarbarity. Pope Martin, presiding in the sacred synod andclothed with all its authority, addressed the bishops and inqui-sitors 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 ofhimself and the council. His infallibility, in his pontificalpoliteness,characterized Wickliff,Huss, and Jerome, as pestilentand deceitful heresiarchs, who, excited with truculent rage,invested the Christian fold, and, in his supremacy's beautifulstyle, made the sheep putrify with the filth of falsehood. Thepartisans 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. Thepontiff, then, supported by the council, proceeded,for the gloryof God, the stability of Romanism, and the preservation ofChristianity, to excommunicate these advocates of error, withtheir pestilent patrons and protectors, and to consign them tothe secular arm and the severest vengeance. He commandedkings to punish them according to the Lateran council. Theabovementioned inhuman enactments of the Lateran, therefore,were to be brought into requisition against the Bohemians andMoravians. These, according to the holy synod, were to bedespoiled of all property, Christian burial, and the consolationsof humanity!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, andrepresenting the universal church, acknowledged the spread ofheresy in different parts of the world through the remissness ofthe inquisitors, and to the offenceof God, the injury of Catho-licism, and the perdition of souls. The sacred convention then1Hlereaiarchal, LuciferiDa aunerbia et rabie lupiDa evecti, dlmnonum fraudi-

baa mui. <>vee Chriati Catholi_ lueresiarclue ipei mcesaivem-nmt, et inItercore mendllCioram feoerunt putrelcere. Cniiientee et adhaIrentell eiIdem,tllDq1UlUl hleretiooll indicetia et velut IuBretiooIII8OIIlari Curial reJiDquatis. Bin.8. 1\20. Secundum teDOnlDl LMerane:naia Ccmcilii expe.1lant, nee eOiIdem domi·oDia teDere, llOIl1lrIIotuiniJe, ~ ex-. aut hUJDaDiWia I01atia cumChririi fideh"baa babere penDittaat. .BiD. S. 1121.' Crab. So 1166.

Page 261: The Variations of Popery

PERSECUTING COUNCILS. 261commandedthe inquisitors, in every place, to extirpate everyheresy, especially those of Wickliff,Huss,and Jerome. Princeswere admonished by the mercy of God to exterminate error,if they would escapedivine vengeance. The holy fathers andthe viceroy of heaven conspired, in this manner, to sanctionmurder in the name of the God of mercy; and granted plenaryindulgencesto all who should banish those sons of heterodoxyor provide arms for their destruction.' These enactmentswerepublished every Sabbath, while the bells were rung and thecandles lighted and extinguished.The fifth general council of the .Lateran, in 1514, enacted

laws,marked, if possible,with augmented barbarity. Dissem-bling Christians of every kind and nation, hereticspolluted with. any contamination of error were, by this infallible gang ofruffians,dismissed from the assembly of the faithful, and con-signed to the inquisition, that the convictedmight undergoduepunishment, and the relapsed suffer without any hope ofpardon."The general council of Trent was the last of these infallible

conventionsthat sanctioned persecutions. This assembly, inits second session, 'enjoined the extermination of heretics bythe sword, the fire, the rope, and all other means, when itcouldbe done with safety.' The sacred synod again, in tholast session,admonished 'all princes to exert their influencetoprevent the abettors of heresy frommisinterpreting or violatingthe ecclesiasticaldecrees,and to oblige these objectors, as wellas all their other subjects, to accept and to observethe synodalcanons with devotion and fidelity.' This was clearly anappeal to the secular arm, for the purpose of forcing acquies-cence and submission. The natural consequence of suchcompulsionwas persecution. The holy fathers, having, in thislaudable manner, taught temporal sovereigns their duty, eon-,cluded with a discharge of their spiritual artillery, andpronounced an 'anathema on all heretics," The unerring1yolens hrec saneta synodus remedium adhibere, lItatuit et mandat omnibus

et ~gulis inquisitoribus hrereticre pravitatis, ut solioite intendant inqnisitionietextirIJ.ationi hreresium quarumenmque. Omnes Christianre reIigionis principesa.~ dominos tam eccleaiesticos quam srecula.reshor~tur, invitat, et monet perV18ce~ misericordire Dei, ad extirpationem tanti per ecclesiam prredamnat'errona omni celeritate, si Divinam ultionem et pcenas juris evitare voluemns,Labb. l7. 97, 98. Bruy. 4. 72.2 ~nes ficti Christ:umi, ae de fide male sentientes, cujnscumque generis aut

nalitioms fuerint, neenon hreretici sen aliqua hreresiB Iabe pollnti, a Christi fide-um ~tu penitus eliminentur, et qnocumque loco expellantur, a.c debita anim-adverBlOllepuniantur, Btatuimus. Crabb. 3, 646. Bin. 2. 112. Labb. 19. 844.P 3 On devoit lea destruire par Ie fer, Ie feu, la corde, 011. tout autre moyen.&010, ry, p. 604.dam,UtpnnClpeS omnee, quot facit indominomoneat adoperam suam ita prlllllltaD-

ut q1l&l ab ea decreta aunt, ab hlmeticis depravari aut violari nonpermittant;

Page 262: The Variations of Popery

262 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

council, actuated according to their own account, by the HolyGhost, terminated their protracted deliberations, not withblessing mankind, but with cursing all who should claimreligious liberty, assert the rights of conscience, or presume todiffer from the absurdity of their synodal decisions.The principle of persecution, therefore, being sanctioned,

not only by theologians, popes, and provincial synods, but alsoby general councils, is a necessary and integral part ofRomanism. The Romish communion has, by its representa-tives, declared its right to compel men to renounce heterodoxyand embrace Catholicism, and to consign the obstinate to thecivil power to be banished, tortured, or killed.The modern pretenders to liberality in the Popish commu-

nion have, in general, endeavored to solve this difficulty bydividing the work of persecution between the civil and ecclesi-astical powers. This was the solution of Crotty, Slavin, andHiggins at the Maynooth examination.' The canons of theLateran, these doctors pretend, were the acts of both churchand state. These councils were conventions of princes aswell as of priests, of kings as well as of clergy. Their enact-ments therefore were authorized by the temporal as well as bythe spiritual authority.But the laity never voted in councils. The prelacy, accord-

ingly, Crotty admits, had the sole right of suffrage, and thesecanons, 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 byinterdicts and excommunication.The solution, even on the supposition of concurrence or

collusion between the church and'state, is a beautiful specimenof ShanJean dialectics. Tristram invented a plan. of evadingsin by a division similar to the logic of Crotty, Slavin, andHiggins. The process was simple and easy. Two ladiesbetween them contrived to repeat a word, the pronunciation of.which by one would have entrenched a little on politeness andmorality. Each lady, therefore, rehearsed only half of theobnoxious term, and, of course, preserved a clear conscienceand committed no offence against propriety or purity. Ourlearned Popish doctors, in like manner, and by equally con-clusive reasoning, have, by a similar participation, beenenabled to transubstantiate sin into duty, and excuse murderand massacre.The authority of the Lateran, Constantian, and Siennan

sedab his et omnibus devote recipiantur et fideliterobservantur. Labb.2O. 195Anathema eunctis hmeticis. Reap. Anathema, Labb. 20. 197.

, I Crotty, 82, 87. Slavin, 241. Higgins, 269.

Page 263: The Variations of Popery

CRUSADE AGAINST THE ALBIGEISSES. 263canons may be shown in another way. Popish Christendom,without a single murmur of opposition, acquiesced in thesedecisions,and in their accomplishment in the massacreof theAlbigenses. None, among either the clergy or laity, remon-strated or reclaimed. But a Papal bull, received by open ortacit assent and by a majority of the Popish clergy, forms adogma of faith. This, at Maynooth, was, in the clearest lan-guage, stated by Crotty, Brown, and Higgins.l Many pontiffssuch as Urban, Innocent, Clement, and Honorius, issued suchdecretals of persecution. These without the objectionof a soli-tary clergyman or layman, were approved and executed withoutjustice or mercy on the adherents of heresy. These principles,therefore, obtained the sanction of the whole Romish churchand have been marked with the sign manual of infallibility.All the Popish beneficedclergy through Christendom profess,

on oath, to receive these persecuting canons and councils.They swear on the holy evangelists and in the. most solemnmanner, 'to hold and teach all that the sacred canons andgeneral councils have delivered, defined, and declared." Therejection of these enactments would amount to a violation ofthis obligation. Any person, who should infringe or contra-dict this declaration, will, and commandment, incurs,accordingto the bull of Pius the Fourth, the indignation of AlmightyGod 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 synodalenactments were called into active operation; and their prac-~icalaccomplishment had been written in characters of bloodIn the annals ofthe papacy and the inquisition.Pope Innocent first sent a missionary expedition against the

Albigenses. His holiness, for this purpose, commissionedRainer, Guy, Arnold, Guido, Osma, Castelnau, Rodolf, andDominic. These, in the execution of their mission, preachedPopery and wrought miracles. Dominic, in particular, thoughdistinguished for cruelty, excelled in the manufacture of these, lying wonders.' .But the miracles and sermons, or rather theimposition and balderdash, of these apostlesof superstition andbarbarity, excited only the derision and scornof these' sons ofheresy and error.' The obdurate people, says Benedict,, shewed no desire for conversion; but, on the contrary, treatedtheir instructors with contempt and reproach.' 'An infinite

1Crotty, 78. Brown, 154. Higgins, 274. •2 Omnia a sacris canonibus et oocumenicillconciliis tradita, definita, et decla-

rata, indubitanter recipio atque profiteor. Ego idem apondeo, voveo, ac juro.SlC me Deus adjuvet. Labb. 20. 222.

Page 264: The Variations of Popery

264 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.' Thegospel of Castelnau, Rainer, and Arnold, Yelly grants, ' metwith no attention;' and, therefore, according to Giannone'sadmission, ' made no impression."His infallibility, Pope Innocent the Third, finding the ineffi-

ciency of his gospel as preached by Dominic, proclaimed, byhis bulls, a crusade against the Albigenses. Supported hydivine aid, his holiness, in the name of the Lord of Hosts,granted all who should march against the Albigensian pestilencethe pardon of sin, the glory of martyrdom, and the possessionof heaven. The pontiff, by special favor and indulgence, gavethe hero of the cross, if he fell in battle, an immediate passport,by a short way, to heaven, without ever touching on purgatory.'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 honor ofof God, the good of society, the defence of Romanism, and theextinction 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'sambition, stratagems, malice, violence, and duplicity. But thecontemporary historians ascribed his exploits to zeal and piety;while Raymond, Count of Toulouse, 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, theeldest hom of Satan, the enemy of the cross, the defender ofheresy, and the oppressor of Catholicism,"This holy war, during its campaigns, exhibited a great diver-

sity of battles and sieges. The storming of Beziers and Lavaurwill supply a specimen of the spirit and achievements of thecrusading army.The city of Beziers was taken by storm in 1209, and the1Les deux Iegats travaillerent quelques annees avec bllaucoup de zele, et peu

de fruit. Sans qu'il parftt que les heretiques {ullsent touchez d'aucun desir deconversion. Benedict, 1. 51, 52. Mariana, 2. 686. Alii, quorum infinituseratnumerus, suo pertinaciter iuhrerebant errori. Nan~s, Ann. 1007. Dachery,3. 22. Tous les trois se mirent a. faire des sermons, qUIne furent point <\coutee.Velly,3, 436. Giannon. XV. 4.

2 Nos per iudulgentias innovatas Crucesignatos et fideles alios excitamus, utad extirpandanl pestem hanc, Divino freti auxilio, procedant in nomine DominiSabbaoth. Alex. 20. 307. Ve11y,3, 439. Thnan. VI. 16. Benedict, 1. 79.lnnocentius III. sacram adversus hrereticos militiam indixit. Alex. 20. 290.8L'archev~. de Narbonne depeint les demarches, lea menees, lea violences,

l'ambition, et 1amalice de ce general de la croillade. Ve11y, 3, 444. Vrai mem-bre du diable, fila de perdition, fila a1ne de Satan, ellJUlI1ll de la oroix. Velly, 3.437. MariaDa,2.687.

Page 265: The Variations of Popery

MASSACRES OF THE ALBIGENSES. 265

citizens put to the sword without distinction of condition, age,sex, or even religion. When the Crusaders and Albigenseswere so mixed that they could not be discriminated,Arnold,thePapal missionary, commanded the soldiery to ' kill all and Godwould know his own." Seven hundred were slain in the church.Daniel reckons the killed at thirty thousand. Mezeray andVelly, as well as someof the original historians, estimate thenumber who were massacred at sixtv thousand. The blood ofthe human victims, who fled to the churches for safety andweremurdered by the HOLY WARRIORS, drenched the altars, andflowedin 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 intoa well and overwhelmed with stones. Eighty gentlemen, whohad beenmade prisoners, were slaughtered like sheep in coldblood. All the citizens were mangled without discriminationin promiscuouscarnage. Four hundred were burned alive, tothe extreme delight of the Crusaders.' One' shudders, saysVelly in his history of these transactions, while he relates suchhorrors.Languedoc, a country flourishing and cultivated, was wasted

by these desolators. Its plains becamea desert; while its citieawere burned and its inhabitants swept away with fire andsword. An hundred thousand Albigenses fell, it is said, inone day; and their bodies were heaped together and burned.Detachment.sof soldiery were, for three months, despatched inevery direction to demolishhouses, destroy vineyards, and ruinthe hopes of the husbandman. The femaleswere defiled. Themarch of the HOLY wAURIORS was marked by the flames ofburning houses, the screams of violated women,and the groansof murdered men," The war, with all its sanguinalyaccom-paniments, lasted twenty years, and the Albigenses,during thistime, were not the only sufferers. Three hundred thousandcrusaders fell on the plains of Languedoc,and fattened the soilwith their blood.

1Tuez les tous, Dieu connoit ceux qui sout a lui. Soixante mille habitanspasserent par Ie fil de I'epee. Velly, 3. 441. n y fut tue plus de soixaute millepersonnes. Mezeray, 2. 619. Promiscua ClIldescivium facta est. Thuan. 1. 222.Urbs capta, eeedee promiscue facta. Alex. 20. 291. Benedict, 1. 104. Daniel. 3.518. Nangis,Ann. 1209. Dachery, 3.23.2 Quatre.vingt gentilshommes prisonniers furent egorges de sang froid. Quatre

cents heretiques furent brtUlIsviis avec nne joye ex~me de la part des croisee.Velly, 3. 4M. Benedict, 1. 163. Daniel, 3. 5~. Alex. 20. 292. Nangis, Ann.1210 ..3En violant fUleeetfemmes. Bruy. 3. 141. En un sew jour, dh egorgea cent

milledeces heretil}ues. .Bruy, 3. 139. Dsniel, 3. 511. Velly, 4. 121, 135.

MOn :promit indulgence et abllolution plemere a ceux qui tueroient des Vaudois.oren, 8.48. .

Page 266: The Variations of Popery

266 THE VARIATIONS OF POPElty.

All this barbarity was perpetrated in the name of religion.The carnage was celebrated as the triumph of the church, thehonor of' the Papacy, and the glory of Catholicism. Thepope proclaimed the HOLY WAR in the name of' the Lord. Thearmy of the cross exulted in the massacre of Lavaur, and theclergy snng a hymn to the Creator for the glorious victory.'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 wastethe country and murder its population. The assassination of sixtythousand citizens of Beziers was accounted, says Mariana, 'thevisible judgment of heaven.' According to Benedict, 'theheresy of Albigensianism drew down the wrath of God on thecountry of' Languedoc.'The Orusaders were accompanied with another engine of

horror and inhumanity. This was no less than the INFERNALINQUISITION. The inventor of this inquisition, according toBenedict, 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 orto Innocent, to the saint or to the pontiff. But Dominic firstmentioned it to Arnold. The saint also established, as agentsof this tribunal, a confraternity of knights whom he called theMILITIA OF JESUS.2 These demons of destruction, these fiendsof blood, the blasphemer had the effrontery to represent as thewarriors of the Captain of Salvation. Gregory the Ninth, inmore appropriate language, styled the knights the MILITIA OFDOMINIC .. 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, andwho bestow that honor on Rodolf, Castelnau, and Arnold. Theinvention of the holy office,and the title of Inquisitor-General,in this author's opinion, crowns his hero with immortal renown,"The historian of Waldensianism, therefore, has eternalized hispatron's name, by combining it with an institution erected forhuman destruction, associated with scenes of blood, and calcu-lated to awaken horror in every mind which retains a singlesentiment of humanity. .Dominic, it must be granted, was well qualified for his office.

He possessed all that impregnable cruelty, which enabled hismind to soar above every feeling of compassion, and to extract1Le clerge chantoit avec beaucoup de devotion l'hymne V8Di Creator. Velly

3.4M, 121. Alex. 20. 307. Mariana. 2. 687. Benedict, 2. 139.2n nomma lee Frelell de 1& Milice de Jesus. Bened. 2. 131.s Bened. 2. 131. Giannon. XXXIL 5.

Page 267: The Variations of Popery

CRUELTIES OF THE INQUISITION. 267

pleasure from scenes of torture and misery. The torments ofmen or, at least, of heretics were his enjoyment. The saint, insatanic and unsated malignity, enjoyed the spectacle of hisvictim's bleeding veins, dislocated joints, torn nerves, andlacerated limbs, quivering and convulsed with agony.Proofs of his inhumanity appeared, in many instances,in the

holy war and in the holy office. During the crusade againstthe Albigenses, though a pretended missionary, he encouragedthe holy warriors of the cross in the work of massacre andmurder. He marched'at the head of the army with a crucifixin his hand; and animated the soldiery to deeds of death anddestruction.' This was the way of disseminating Dominic'sgospel. The cross,which should be the emblem of peace andmercy, became, in perverted application, the signal of war andbloodshed; 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 notbrought to the perfection exhibited in modern days of Spanishinquisitorial glory. But Dominic,notwithstanding, could, evenwith 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 refractoryAlbigensian, as practised in the Tolosan Inquisition, affordedthe saint a classicaland Christian amusement. This kind opera-tion, he performed by , suspending his victim by a cord,affixedto his arms that were brought behind his back, which, beingraised by a wheel, lifted off the ground the suspected Walden-sian, man or woman who refused to confess,till forced by theviolence of torture," Innocent commissionedDominic to pun-ish, not only by confiscation and banishment, but also withdeath; and, in the execution of his task, he stimulated themagistracy and populace to massacre the harmless professorsofWaldensianism. 'His saintship, by words and MIRACLES, con-victed a hundred and eighty Albigenses,who were at one timecommitted to the flames."Such Wa3 the man or monster, who, to the present day, is a

full-length saint in the Roman Calendar. The miscreant is an1Dominique animoit Iea soldats, Ie crucifix a la main. Dominique marchoit

a laMte de I'armee avec nn crucifix ala main. Bened. 1. 248, 249. Le8 Catholi-ques anime8 par le~ exhortation8 de S. Dominique. Marian. 2. 689•• 2 In chorda levatuB aliquantulum. N egans Be quicquam de heeresi confessumnisi per violentiam tormentorum. Limboreh, IV. 29.3 Fnernnt aliquando Bimul 6XUsti CLXXX hll'retici Albige1lBe8,cum antea et

verbis et miraculia COBS. Dominicus conviciBset. Bell. de Laic, III. 22. Velly,3. 435. Giannon. XV. 4.

Page 268: The Variations of Popery

268 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

object of worship in the popish communion. The Roman bre-viary lauds' his merits and doctrines which enlightened thechurch, his ingenuity and virtue which overthrew the Tolosanheretics, and his many miracles which extended even to theraising of the dead.' The Roman missal, having eulogized hismerits, prays for' temporal aid through his intercession,' Theholy infallible church, in this manner, prefers adoration to thecanonized Dominic, who was the first Inquisitor-General, andone of the greatest ruffians that ever disgraced humanity.The inquisition was first established in Languedoc. The

council of Toulouse, in 1229, appointed a priest and threelaymen to search for the partisans of heresy. The synod ofAlbi, in 1254, commissioned a clergyman and a layman toengage in the same odious task: and this commencement con-stituted this infernal institution in its infancy. The tribunalafterward received various alterations and fresh accessions ofpower, till, at length, it was authorized in Spain, Portugal, andGoa to try the suspected, not only for heresy, but also forblasphemy, magic, sorcery, witchcraft, infidelity, and Judaism,and to punish the convicted with infamy, imprisonment, galley-slavery, banishment, outlawry, confiscation of property, andconsignment to the flames in an ACT OF FAITH.2

The holy office admitted all kinds of evidence. Suspicionalone would subject its object to a long course of imprisonmentin a dungeon, far from all intercourse with friends or society.A malefactor or a child was allowed to be a witness. A sonmight depose against his father, or a wife against her husband.The accuser and the accusation were equally unknown to theaccused, who was urged by the most treacherous means to dis-cover on himself. His feelings, in the mean time, were horrifiedby a vast apparatus of crosses, imprecations, exorcisms, con-jurations, and flaming piles of wood, ready to consume theguilty,"The RACK, in defect of evidence, was applied. The accused,

whether man or woman, was, in defiance of all decency, strippednaked. The arms, to which a small hard cord was fastened,were turned behind the back. The cord, by the action of apulley, raised the sufferer off his feet and held him suspendedin the air. The victim of barbarity was, several times, let fall,and raised with a jerk, which dislocated all the joints of his.a.nns; whilst the cord, by which he was suspended, entered the

1Deaa, qui eeclesiam tuam beati Dominici confeaeoria tui illuminare dignatueeIIt mentis et; doctriDie, concedeut ejua intercesaione, temporalibua non deetitua-tar auiliiB. :Mias. Rom. 463. Brev. Rom. 986.2 Labb. 1 1236. et; 14. 153. Velly,4. 132. l>e11on. e, 2. Mariana, 4. 362.a Mariana 4. 362, 363. ~oreri, 5. 130. Dellon, c. 3. Giannon. XXXII. 5.

Page 269: The Variations of Popery

CRUELTIES OF THE INQUISITIOK. 269flesh and lacerated the tortured nerves. Heavy weights werefrequently, in this case, appended to the feet, and when theprisoner was raised from the earth by the arms, strained thewhole frame, and caused a general luxation of the shatteredsystem. The cord was sometimes twisted round the nakedarms and legs, till it penetrated to the bone through the rupturedflesh and bleeding veins.'This application of the rack, without evidence, caused many

to be tortured who had never committed the sin of heresy. Ayoung lady, who was incarcerated in the dungeon of the inqui-sition at the same time with the celebrated Bohorquia, willsupply an instance of this kind .. This victim of inquisitorialbrutality, notwithstanding her admitted attachment to Roman-ism, endured the rack till all the members of her body wererent asunder by the infernal machinery of the holy office. Aninterval of some days succeeded,till she began, notwithstandingsuch inhumanity, to recover. She was then taken back to theinfliction of similar barbarity. Small cords were twisted roundher naked arms, legs, and thighs, till they cut through the fleshto the bone; and blood, in copious torrents, streamed from thelacerated veins. Eight days after, she died of her wounds,andwas translated from the dungeons of the inquisition to theglory of heaven.The celebrated Orobio endured the rack for the sin of

Judaism. His description of the transaction is frightful. Thoplace of execution was a subterranean vault lighted with a dimlamp. His hands and feet were bound round with cords,which were drawn by an engine made for the purpose, till theydivided the flesh to the excoriated bone. His hands and feetswelled, and blood burst, in copious effusion, from his nails aswell as from his wounded limbs. He was then set at liberty,and left Spain, the scene of persecution and misery.'The convicted were sentenced to an ACT of FAlTH. The

ecclesiasticalauthority transferred the condemnedto the seculararm, and the clergy in the mean time, in mockery of mercy,supplicated the magistracy ina hypocritical prayer, to she:wcom-passion to the intended victim ofbarbarity. But the magistracy,who, through pity, should have deferred the execution, woul~,by.the relentless clergy, have been compelledby e~commulll-cation to proceed in the work of death. The heretic, dressedin a yellow coat variegated with pictures of dogs, ~rpe~ts,fl.a.mes,and devils, was then led to the place of execution, tiedto the stake, .and committed, amid the joyful acclamations ofthe populace, to the flames. SUell has been the death of

I Limboreh, iv. 29. , Moren,6.'. Limborch, 323-

Page 270: The Variations of Popery

270 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

myriads. Torquemada, on being made Inquisitor-General,burned alive, to signalize his promotion to the holy office,noless than two thousand of these 'sons of heresy."The inquisition, in all its horrors, was founded and fostered

by the whole Romish church or popish hierarchy. Severalpopish kingdoms indeed deprecated and expelled this enemyof 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, andGoa. The holy office, with all its apparatus of inquisitors,qualifioators, familiars, jailors, dungeons, racks, and otherengines of torture, was driven, with indignation and ignominy,out of the Netherlands, Hungary, France, Germany, Poland,and even Italy. The Neapolitans and Romans expelled theinhuman nuisance with determined resolution. Spain itself,notwithstanding its red-hot persecutions, witnessed a scene ofa similar kind. The citizens of Cordova, on one occasion,rose in insurrection against this infernal tribunal, stormed thepalace of the inquisition, pillaged its apartments, and im-prisoned the jailor,"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 theirinfluence, encouraged the institution in all its inhumanity. Thepope and the prelacy, who, in the Romish system, are thechurch and possess infallibility, have, with the utmost unan-imity, declared in favor of the holy office. No Roman pontiffor 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 ofhuman nature. Nothing, in all the annals of time, ever exhib-ited so appalling and hateful a view of fallen and degenerateman, demoralized to the lowest ebb of perversity by Romanismand the popedom, No tribunal, equally regardless of justiceand humanity, ever raised its frightful formin all the dominionsof Heathenism or Mahometanism, Judaism or Christianity.The misantbropist, in the contemplation of the holy office,may find continual and nnfailing fuel for his malevolence. Hemay see, in its victim, the wretchedest sufferer that everdrained the cup ofmisery; and in the inquisitor, the hatefullest1On Ie faiaoit publiquement brtUer vii. Mariana, 4. 362, 365. Dellon. c. 28.

Moreri. 5. 130.t M&I'iana, 5. 535, 572. Giannon. XXXII. 5. Thuan. 1. 788< Paolo, 1.

444. et 2. 57, l)66. .

Page 271: The Variations of Popery

PERSECUTING ROMISH DOCTORS AND POPES. 271

object, Satan not exempted, that ever defiledor diwaced thecreation of God. No person, in a future world, would own aninquisitor, 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 persecutionswhich distracted

Christendom, from the accessionof Constantine till the era ofthe Reformation. The third period occupies the time whichintervened between the Reformationand the present day. Thislong series of years displays great variety. Its commencementwas marked by persecution, which was afterwards repressedby the diffusionof letters, the light of Revelation, and theinfluenceof 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 oftheologians,popes, and councils,labored in the work of perse-cution. The theologians and historians, who have prostitutedtheir pen for the unworthy purpose, have been many. Fromthis multitude may be selected Benedict, Mariana, Bellarmine,Dens, the collegeofRheims, and the universities of Salamancaand Valladolid.Benedict the Dominican, in his history of the Albigenses,

approves of all the inhumanity of the holy officeand the holywars. The inquisitor and the crusader are the themes of hisunqualified applause. Mariana the Jesuit, in his history ofSpain, has, like Benedict,eulogizedpersecutions and the inqui-sition; though these, he admits, 'are innovations on Chris-tianity.' The historian recommends 'fire and sword, whenmild means are unavailing and useless. A wise severity, insuch cases,is the sovereign remedy/? .Bellarmine's statements, as well as those of Dens, on this

subject, are distinguished by their ridiculousnessand barbarity.He urges, in the strongest terms, the eradication of heretics,when it can be effectedwith safety. Freedom of faith, in hissystem, tends to the injury of the individual and of society; andthe abettors of heterodoxy therefore are, for the honor of reli-gion, to be delivered to the secular arm and consigned to theflames. The cardinal would burn the body for the good of thesoul. The prudent Jesuit, however, would allow even theadvocates of heresy to live, when, owing to their strength andnumber, an appeal to arms would be attended with danger tothe friends oforthodoxy. The apostles,he contends, 'abstainedfrom calling in the secular arm only becausethere were, in their

1n faut recourir au fer et au feu dans Ies manx on lee remedes lents Bontinutiles. Une sage Beverite eBt Ie remede souverain. Mariana, 2. 686.

Page 272: The Variations of Popery

272 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

day, no C~ristian princes.' This, in all its horrors,he representsas the common sentiment of all the patrons of Catholicism.'His arguments, in favor of his system, are a burlesqueon reasonand commonsense. Dens, patronized by the Romish clergy inIreland, followsBellanuine. He would punish notorious abet-tors of heresy with confiscationofproperty, exile, imprisonment,death, and deprivation of Christian burial. 'Such falsifiers ofthe faith and troublers of the community,' says the preciousDivine, 'justly suffer death in the same manner as those whocounterfeit money and disturb the state.' This, he argues, fromthe Divine command to slay the Jewish false prophets, andfrom 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 goodshould tolerate the wicked, when, in consequenceof the latter'sstrength, punishment would be attended with danger. Butheresy or any other evil, when its destruction couldbe effectedwith safety, should, according to this precious exposition, besuppressed and its authors exterminated. Such is the instruc-tion, conveyed in a popular commentary on the gospelof peaceand goodwill to man. The university of Salamanca followedthe collegeofRheims. The doctors of this seminary, in 1603,maintained 'the Roman pontiff's right to compel, by arms,the sons of apostasy and the opponents of catholicism.' Thetheory taught at Salamanca, was also inculcated by the pro-fessorsof Valladolid IIThese 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 theadvocacy of persecution, 'have wearied eloquence and ex-hausted learning.'Pontiffs, as well as theologians, have enjoined persecution.

This practical lessonhas, for a thousand years, been uniformlytaught in the school of the popedom. The viceroys of heavenhave, for this long succession of ages, acted on the samesatanic system. From these pontifical persecutors, since the

1Libertas eredendi pemiciosa est. Libras halreticornm jure interdici at axun.Bell. De Laic. Ill. 18. HUBSaBBel'llit, non licere halreticum incorrigibilemtradere eecnlari potestati at permittere comburendum. Contrarium docentomnes Catholioi Bell. In. 20. Ecc1esia, zelo salutis animarum, 60S perse·quitar. Sunt prooul dubio extirpandi Bellannin. 1. 1363. .Bantiei notorii rivantur IIepmtura ecc1elIiutica. :Bona eoram tem~

II1Ult pjure ~ ExiJio, _, &o.,merito afticiuntar. PaIaarii ~vel am nmptlbJicam tur1Iutea, juat;a morte p1IDiuntur; ergo etiam halretici,qui aunt f&liarrii tkki. e\~blieam gavite1.- perturbant. 'DeDI. 2. 88, 89.

2 Rheim. Teetam. in xm 29. :Mapogh. a. 50S.

Page 273: The Variations of Popery

PERSECUTION OF PROTESTANTS BY CHARLES V. 273

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 chasethe 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 employfireand faggot.lPaul the Fourth distinguished himself by his recommenda-

tion of the inquisition for the extermination of heresy. Thistribunal, his infallibility accounted the sheet-anchor of thepapacy, 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 officefor the defence of theholy see. Paul was right. The gospel may support thechurch, but the inquisition is the proper instrument to protectthe popedom. The inquisition, accordingly, was the darlingtheme of his supremacy's thoughts. He conferred additionalauthority on the sacred institution, and recommendedit to thecardinals and his successors with his parting breath.! Whenthe cold hand of death was pressing on his lips, and the souljust going to appear before its God, he enjoined the useof the inquisition, and expired, recommending murder andinhumanity.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 thedisseminators of heresy, and to appeal, when necessary, to thesecular arm. Anno 1528, the council of Sens enjoined onprincesthe extermination of heretics, in imitation of Constan-tine, Yalentinian, and Theodosius.3. The general council of Trent, in the same manner, patron-ized persecution. Ciaconia, a Dominican, preached beforethis assembly on the parable of the tares. The preacher, onthis occasion, broached the maxim afterward adopted byBellarmine and the Rhemish annotators. He urged 'that thea?J1erentsof heresy should be tolerated, when their extermina-tion would be attended with danger; but when their extirpation1Labb. 19. 1050, 1068. Dn Pin, 3.170. Se semr de remedes plus violens,

et d'employer Ie feu. Paolo, 1. 48.2.ndonna toutes Bell pensees aux affaires de l'inquisition, qn'il disoit litre Ia

~eilleure batterie, qu'on put opposer Iil'henlsie, et 1& principale defense du SaintSlege. Paolo, 2. 45, 51. Bmys,4. 636. Sanctissimum inquisitionisofficium, quounosacrre sedis auctoritatem nitiaffirmabat, commendatum haberent. Thuan. XXIII.15. Sacne inquisitionis tribunali majorem anctoritatem dedit. Alex. 23. 216.3 Labb. 19.1127, 1180. Dn Pin, 3.257.

B

Page 274: The Variations of Popery

274 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

can be 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 inits second session ; and the Dominican's sermon and declarationswere heard in the infallible assembly without objection or con-tradiction. The sacred synod again, in their last session, admon-ished ' all princes to exert their influenee to prevent abettor!" ofheresy from misinterpreting or violating the eeclesiasticaldecrees, and to oblige these objectors, as well as all their othersubjects, to accept and to observe the synodal canons withdevotion and fidelity.'! This was clearly an appeal to the secu-lar arm, for the purpose of forcing acquiescence and 8Ubmission;and the natural consequence of such compulsion was persecu-tion.The canon law and the Roman ritual extend the spirit of

persecution even to the dead. The canon law excommunicatesany, who. with his knowledge, bestows Christian burial onheretics. The Roman ritual, also, published br the commandof Paul the Fifth, and in general use through the popish com-munion, 'refuses sepulchral honors to heretics and schismatics.'The offender, in this case, to obtain absolution and be freedfrom excommunication, must, with his own hands and in apublic manner, raise the interred from the hallowed sepulchre,"He must, to be uncursed, unearth the mouldering remains ofthe corpse) and violate, by an act of horror, the sanctuary ofthe tomb.The enactments of popes and councils were sanctioned and

enforced by emperors and kings. Charles the Fifth, emperOl'of Germany and king of Spain and the Netherlands, persecutedthe friends of the reformation through his extensive dominions.His majesty, in 1521, supported by the electors in the Diet ofWorms, declared it his duty, for the glory of God, the honorof the papacy, and the dignity of the nation, to protect thefaith and extinguish heresy; and in consequence proscribedLuther, his followers, and books, and condemned all, who, inany manner, should aid or defend the Saxon reformer or readhis works, to the confiscation of their property, the ban of theempire, and the penalty of high-treasonfIOn devoit las detruire par Ie fer, Ie feu, la COMe,on tout autre moyen.

Paolo, IV. p. 604-Le concile ensuite exhortait tons 1e8princes a ne point souB'rir que see d6cl'ets

full8ent violez par lea Mretiques, mais a las obliger aussi bien que tons leursautres lUjetl a lea obeerver. Paolo, 2. 660., Qaicnlmque lueretioosllCienter p~t eoclesiasticle tradere sepultu1'lll,

exoommllDioNionia IBDtenU Be nOverint snbj-..e. Nee abeo1utionis beDeficiuJDmereazmu., DiIi propriis mauibus pu~extumulent. Sex. Deeret. V.2. p.li5O.Nepnr eoclesiMtica sepultura halreticiB, at eomm fautorib1ll, ecbilJDaRlJia.RituaL Rom. 16'1. I PI01o, 1. 30. 8leidaD, Ill. Du PiD, 3. 176.

Page 275: The Variations of Popery

•MASSACRES OF THE FRENCH PROTESTANTS. 275

The emperor's edicts against the Lutherans in the Nether-lands were fraught with still greater severity. Men whofavored Lutheranism were to be beheaded, and women to beburied alive, or, if obstinate, to be committed to the flames.This law, however, was suspended. But inquisitorial andmilitary executions rioted in the work of death in all its shockingforms. The duke of Alva boasted of having caused, in sixweeks, the execution of eighteen thousand for the crime ofprotestantism. Paolo reckons the number, who, in the Neth-erlands, were, in It few years, massacred on account of theirreligion, at fifty thousand; while Grotius raises the list of theBelgic martyrs to a hundred thousand.'Charles began the work of persecution inSpain, 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. Heexecuted the infernal plan in all its barbarity, without shewinga 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,Va:mia,Vircesia, Cornelia, Bohorquia, .LEgidio,Losado, Arellan,and Arias. Thirty-eight of the Spanish nobility were, inhis presence, bound to the stake and burned.' Philip was aspectator of these shocking scenes, and gratified his royaland refined taste with these spectacles of horror. The inqui-sition, since his day, has, by relentless severity, succeededin banishing protestantism from the peninsula. -of Spain andPortugal.Francis and Henry, the French kings, imitated the example

of Charles and Philip. Francis enacted laws against the FrenchProtestants; and ordered the judges, under severe penalties, toenforce them with rigor. These Taws were renewed and newones 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 hisresolution to banish the friends of the reformation from hisdominions, and to protect Catholicism and the ecclesiasticalhierarchy. He caused many Lutherans to suff'ermartyrdomin

P<8D& in virOII capitis, in foomiDaBdeiOlllliomain terr.am, sin pertinace& fuerinteXU$tionia. Thuan. 1. 229. Brand. IL Dau lea Pais Baa, Ie nombre de ceux,que ron avoit peIldus, decapitez, brulez, et enterrez rifB, monta a cinquanl;emille hommea. Paolo, 2. 52. Caniliicata hominum non minus centum millia.Grotil1ll..A:mIaL ~ Brand. IV. X. On Pin, 3. 6l)6.I 8pectan1;8 ipeo Philippc:l. XXXvnl ex pnecipua regioui8 uobilibte palia

alligati ac cremati BUnt. Thuan. XXUI. 14. On Pin, 3. 655.

Page 276: The Variations of Popery

276•

THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Paris, and lent his royal assistance in person at the execution.'Henry, like Philip, had, on this occasion, an opportunity ofindulging the refinement and delicacy of his taste, in viewingthe expiring struggles of his heretical subjects in the pangs ofdissolution.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, wasexecuted by the president Oppeda. The president was com-missionedto slay the population, burn the towns, and demolishthe castles of the Waldenses.Oppeda, thirsting for blood, executed his commissi.onwith

infernal barbarity. The appalling butchery has been relatedby the popishhistorians, Gaufridus,Moreri,Paolo, and Thuanuswith precision and impartiality," The president slaughteredmore than three thousand Waldenses, who, from age to age,have been the object of papal enmity. Man, woman,and childfell in indiscriminate and relentless carnage. Thousands weremassacred. Twenty-four towns were ruined and the countryleft 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 anny, fled to the adjoining woods andmountains. Old men and women were mixed with boys andgirls. M.anyof the weeping mothers carried their infants incradles or in their arms; while the woods and mountainsre-echoed their groans and lamentations. These were pursuedand immolated by the sword of popish persecution, whichnever knew pity.A few remained in the towns and met a similar destiny.

Sixty men and thirty womensurrendered in Oapraria, on con-dition that their lives should be spared: and, notwithstandingpli.ghtedfaith, they were taken to a meadow and murdered incold blood. Five hundred women were thrown into a barn,which was then set on fire; and when any leaped from thewindows, they were received on the points of spears or hal-berts. The rest were consumed in the flames or suffocatedwith the smoke.The women were subjected to the most brutal insults. Girls1Ce Prince fit exeeuter plusieurs Lutheriene a Paris, aux Bupplices'desqueleilvoulut assister Ini-meme, n vouloit extenuiner de tout Bon royaume lesnouveaux hertltiques. Paolo, 1. 484. Thuan. VI. 4. 10.t Gaufrid, XII: Moreri, 6. 46. Thuan. VI. 16. Las troupes passerent au

fil de l'epee tou oeux qui n'avoient pu 8~, et etoient restez expoeez a lamerci du 8Oldat, BaD8 distinction d'Age, de qualite, ni de Bexe. On y.massacraplu de 4000 pe1'8ODJ1e8. Paolo, 1. 190.

Page 277: The Variations of Popery

MASSACRES OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW. 277

were snatched from the arms of their 'mothers, violated andafterward treated with the most shocking inhumanity. Motherssaw 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, whoseoffspringhad 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 throughthe streets.'The massacrewas 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 wereattached to Romanism. Francis and the city of Paris heardthe news of the massacre with joy, and congratulated Oppedaon the victory. The parliament of Aix also, actuated, like theFrench monarch and nobility, with enmity against Waldensian-ism, approved of the carnage, and felicitated the president onthe 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 causedby that heresy in the church, by which the historian meansthepopedom. The friends of the papacy, therefo-o, according tothe same author, 'reckoned the fire and sword well employed,which extinguished Waldensianism, and forgot nothing thatcould immortalize the name of Oppeda,' Paul the Fourthmade the president Count Palatine and Knight of Saint John;while the partisans of Romanism styled the monster, 'thedefender of the faith, the protector of the faithful, and the heroof Christianity.'!The massacre of Orange, in 1562, was attended with the

same horrors, as that of Merindol. This was perpetratedagainst the protestants, as the other had been against theWaldensians. Its horrifying transactions have been relatedwith impartiality by the popish historians Varillas, Bruys, andThuanua" The Italian army, sent by pope Pius the Fourth,1 Feemineea furentibns violatle, et satiata libidine tam cmdeliter habitre, ut

plerreque, sive ex animi moerore, sive fame et cmciatibus perierint. Thuau. 1.227. La cruaute alla jusqu';\ violer des femmes mourantes, et d'antres, ;\ la vuedesquelles on avoit egorge leurs enfana. Gaufrid. 2 ..480.Les troupes apres avoir rempli tous les pals de crimes et de debauches. Paolo,

1. 190. .2 Tons ceux de la cour feliciterent Ie ptemier President de sa victoire. Rome

et la Cour du Pape y prirent leur part. Ceux 1;\ trouverent Ie fer et Ie feu bienemployes. Gaufrid. 2. 481. DBIe traiterent de defenseur de Ia foi, de herosdu Christianiame, et protecteur des fldeles. Gaufrid. 2. 494.3 Varillas, III. Bray. 4.. 654. Thuauus. XXXI. II.

Page 278: The Variations of Popery

278 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

was commanded by Serbellon, and slewman, woman, and childin indiscriminate carnage. Infants, and even the sick wereassassinated in cold blood. Ohildren were snatched from theembraces of their mothers, and killed with the blowsof blud-geons.The work of death was carried on by various modes of

torture and brutality. Some were killed with the sword, andsome precipitated from the rock on which the city was built.Some were hanged and others roasted over a slow fire. Manywere thrown on the points of hooks and daggers. The sol-dieryjrnutilated the citizens in such a shameful manner asmodesty forbids to name.' Women with child were suspendedon posts and gates, and their bowels let out with knives. Theblood, 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 wereabandoned to the will of the ruffian soldiery ; and afterwardexposed to the public laughter, with horns and stakes thrustinto 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 withgreat impartiality by Bossuet, Daniel, Davila, Thuanus, andMezeray. The queen laid this plan, which had been two yearspreconcerted, for the extinction of heresy. The execution wasentrusted to the Duke of Guise, who was distinguished by hisinhumanity and hatred of the Reforma.tion. The duke, on theoccasion, was aided by the soldiery, the populace, and theking. The military and the people attached to Romanismthirsted for the blood of the Huguenots, His most Christianmajesty, Charles the Ninth, attacked, in person, his wiresistingsubjects with a gun, and' shouted with all his might, KILL,IILL.'4 One man, if he deserves the name, boasted of having,in one night, killed a hundred and fifty, and another of havingslain four hundred.1Ds prirent plaisir il. couper les parties secretes. Varillaa, I. 203.2 Pueri multi item rapti, et ad nefandam libidinem satiandam ad miseram cap-

tivitatem abducti. Thuan. 2. 228. .Les dames fluent expoeees DUesil. la risee publique, avec des comes enfoacees

daDa lee plIriies que le pudeur defend de nommer. Varillaa, 1. 203. Productismulierum ~veribus, et in eorum pudenda bourn cornibus, at saxis, ac stipiti-buadludibrium injectia. Thuan. 2. 228. Exudante pasaim per urbem cruore.Thuan. a1. 11. . .3 ~ Abreg. XVlL Daniel, 8. 7Z7·740. Mezeray, 5. 151-162. Davila,

V. M~.i. 161-162.f n~ 8U1' lee Ca1riaiJtea. Suny. 1. 3J.Le Boi tiroit IIUl' enx lui-__ e avec de longues arquebulleB, at crioit de toute

sa force. 'To... taea.' Daa. 8.731. Mezeray,5. 156. Davila, V.

Page 279: The Variations of Popery

MASSACRES OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW. 279

The tocsin, at midnight, tolled the signal of destruction. Theassailants spared neither old nor young, man nor woman. Thecarnage lasted seven days. Mezeray reckons the killed, inParis, during this time, at 5000, Bossuet at more than 6000,and Davila at 10,000,among whom were five or six hundredgentlemen. The Seine was coveredwith the dead which floatedon its surface, and the city was one great butchery and flowedwith human blood. The court was heaped with the slain, onwhich the king and queen gazed, not with horror, but withdelight. Her majesty unblushingly feasted her eyes on thespectacle of thousands of men, exposed naked, and lyingwounded and frightful in the pale livery of death.' The kingwent to see the body of Admiral Coligny, which was draggedby 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 messengerswere,on the preceding day, despatched in all directions, ordering ageneral massacre of the Huguenots. 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. Manywere thrown into the rivers, which, floating the corpses on thewaves, carried hon-or and infection to all the country, whichthey 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 tobe a mere pretence. The populace, tutored by the priesthood,accounted themselves, in shedding heretical blood, 'the agentsof Divine justice,' and engaged 'in doing God service." Theking accompaniedwith the queen and princes of the blood,andall the French court, went to the Parliament, and acknowledgedthat all these sanguinary transactions were done by his autho-rity. 'The parliament publicly eulogised the king's wisdom,'which had effected the effusionof so much heretical blood. His1T?ut Ie quartier ruisseloit de sang. La cour etoit pleine de c~rps morts, .q~e

le R01 et Ia Reine regardoient, ;Don seulement sans !?-orreur,maie avec plaisir.Toutes les rues de la ville n'etolent plus que bouchenes. Bosauet, 4. 537. Onexposa leurs corps tout nuda a 1a porte du Louvre, Ia Reine Mere etant a unefenestre, qui repaissait sea yeux de cet horrible spectacle. Mezeray, 5. 157.Davila, V. Thuan. II. 8.~uentes e gynreceo freminre, nequaquam crudeli spectaculo eas absterrente,

curiesie oculis nudorum corpora inverecunde intue'6alitur. Thuan. 3. 131. ., Lee Catholiques se repidl!lrent comme les executeurs de 1a justice de Dieu,

Daniel, 8. 738. Thuan. 3. 149.

Page 280: The Variations of Popery

280 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

majesty also went to mass, and returned solemn thanks to Godfor the glorious victory obtained over heresy. He orderedmedals to be coined to perpetuate its memory. A medal ac-cordingly was struck for the purposewith this inscription,PIETYEXCrrED JUSTICE.1 Piety, forsooth, propelled to murder,and the immolation of forty thousand peoplewas 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 theRoman court. Rome' from her hatred of heresy, received thenews with unspeakable joy. The pope went in processiontothe church of Saint Lewis, to render thanks to God for thehappy victory.' His legate in France felicitated his mostChristian majesty in the pontiff's name, 'and praisedthe exploit,80 long meditated and so happily executed, for the good ofreligion.' The massacre, says Mezeray, 'was extolled beforethe king as the triumph of the church,"Spain rejoicedalso 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, onthis occasion,appeared in the joy manifested by the Spanishpeople for the murder of the French Huguenots.England, like Germany, France, Spain, and the Netherlands,

was the sceneof persecutionand martyrdom. Philip and Mary,who exercisedthe royal authority in the British nation, issueda commissionfor' the burning of heretics.' The queen, in thismanifesto, 'professed her resolution to support justice andCatholicism,and to eradicate error and heresy: and orderedher heretical subjects, therefore, to be committed before thepeople to the flames.' . This, her majesty alleged, would shewher detestation of heterodoxy, and serve as an example to otherChristians, to shun the contagion of heresy,"Orleans acknowledges Mary's rigor, and her execution of1Pietsa excitavit justitiam. Il fit frapper une medaille aI'occasion de Ia Saint

Bsrthelemi. Daniel, 8, 786. Apres avoir oui solennellement la messe pourremercier Dieu de Ia belle victoire obtenue sur I'heresie, et eommande de fabri-quer des medailles pour en conserver la memoirs. Mezeray, 5. 160. Il :fremissoitmalgre lui, au reeit de mille traits de cruante. Sully, 1. 33.~ La haine de l'heresie Ies fit recevoir agI"eablement iI. Rome. On se rejouit

aussi en Espagne. Bossuet, 4. 545. La Cour de Rome et Ie Oonseil d'Espagneeurent une joye indicible de la Saint Barthelemi. Le Pape alla en procession a1'eglise de Saint Louis, readre grAces iI. Dieu d'nn si heureux BUCOOll, et 1'on fit Iepaneg}'riqne de eette action BOUS Ie nom de Triomphe de l'EgIise. Mezeray. 5.162. Sull" 1. 'Zl •• 3 HrereticoB juxta legem, ignis inoondiocombnri debere; prrecipimuB, quodpl'lIJfatOB.coram populo igui committi, et in eodem igne realiter eomburi facias.WiIkin.4. 177.

"

Page 281: The Variations of Popery

POPISH PERSECUTIONS IN ENGLAND. 281many on account of their protestantism. In this, he discovers,the queen followedher own genius rather than the spirit of thechurch, by which he means the popedom. This historian,nevertheless, represents Mary as 'worthy of eternal remem-brance for her zeal." Such is his character of a womanwhowas a modern Theodora, and never obliged the world butwhen she died. Her death was the only favor 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. Theflow of this overwhelming tide began at the accession ofConstantine to the throne of the Roman empire; and, havingprevailed for a long period, gradually ebbed after the era ofprotestantism. The popedom, on this topic, was compelled,though with reluctance and inconsistency,to vary its professionand practice. A change was effected in an unchangeablecommunion. Some symptoms of the old disease indeed stillappear. The spirit, like latent heat, is inactive rather thanextinguished. But the general cry is for liberality or evenlatitudinarianism. The shout, even among the advoca'tcs ofRomanism, is in favor of religious liberty, unfettered con-science,and universal toleration. The inquisition of Spainand Portugal, with all its apparatus of racks, wheels, andgibbets, has lost its efficacy,and its palace at Goa is in ruins.The bright sun of India enlightens its late dungeons,whichare now inhabited, not by the victim of popishpersecution,butby 'the owl, the dragon, and the wild beast of the desert.'This change has, in some measure, been influenced by the

diffusionof literature and the Reformation. The darkness ofthe middle ages has fled before the light of modernscience;and with it, in part, has disappeared priestcraft and supersti-tion. Philosophy has improved,and its light continues to gainon the empire of darkness. Protestantism has circulated theBook of God, and shed its radiancy over a benighted world.The advances of literature and revelation have been unfavor-able to the reign of intolerance and the inquisition.But the chief causes of this change in the papacy are the

preponderanceof protestantism and the policy of popery. TheReformation,in its liberalizing principles,is establishedover agreat part of Christendom. Its friends have become nearlyequal to its opponents in number, and far superior in intelli-geneeand activity. Rome, therefore, though she has not ex-pressly disavowed her former claims, has according to her

1Reine digne d'nne memoire etemelle, par son l/Jille. On en fit, en effet,mounr un grand nombre, Orleans, VIII. P 174, 175.

Page 282: The Variations of Popery

282 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

ancient policy, allowed these lofty pretensions to slumber for atime in inactivity, and yielded, though with reluctant andawkward submission, to the progress of science, the light ofrevelation, 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 Louvain, published a system of theology in1758, and in some of the succeedingyears. This work, fraughtwith the most revolting principles of persecution, awards to thepatrons of heresy, confiscation of goods, banishment from thecountry, confinement in prison, infliction of death, and depri-vation of Christian burial. Falsifiers of the Faith, like forgersof money and disturbers of the state, this author would, accord-ing to the sainted Thomas, consign to death as the proper andmerited penalty of their offence. This, he argues from thesentence of the Jewish false prophets, and from the condemna-tion of Huss in the general council of Constance.'This production, in all its horror and deformity, was dedi-

cated to Cardinal Philippus, and recommended to Christendomby the approbation of the University of Louvain, whichvouched for its 'orthodox faith and its Christian morality.' Itwas ushered into the world with the permission of superiors,and the full sanction of episcopalauthority. Its circulation onthe continent was, even in the nineteenth century, impeded byno Romish reclamation, nor by the appalling terrors of theexpurgatorian index. The popish clergy and people, in silentconsent or avowed approbation, acknowledged, in whole andin part, its Catholicism and morality,"

The University of Louvain, on this occasion, exhibited abeautiful specimenof Jesuitism. A few years after its appro-bation of Dens' Theology, Pitt, the British statesman, askedthis same university, as well as those of Salamanca andValladolid, whether persecution were a principle of Romanism.The astonished doctors, insulted at the question, and burningwith ardor to obliterate the foul stain, branded the insinuationwith a loud and deep negation. The former, in this case,copied the example of the latter. The divines of Salamancaand Valladolid, questioned on the same subject in 1603, in

1An hmretici recte puniuutur morte ? Respoudet S. Thomas affirmative; quiafalsarii ~re velaJii rempublicam turbanteB juste morta puniuutur ; ergoetiamhmretiCl qui Bunt falsarii fidei et rempublicam graviter perturbant.Confirmatur ex eo quod Dens in veteri lege jllllBerit occidi frJsos Prophetas.Idem p!obatur ex condemnatione articuli 14, Joan. HUBS in Coucilio Constan-

tiflDlli. Dena, 2. 88, 89.Heiemci notorii privantur88pwtura ecclesiaBt.ica. Bona. &c. Dens, 2. 88.2 Deus, 4. 3. FAuI reperi nihil continere a fide orthodoxa et moribus Christ-

iania rJieJram. Dens, IS. 1. Home'. P~. Mem. 95, ~. .

Page 283: The Variations of Popery

PERSECUTING PRINCIPLES OF DENS' THEOLOGY. 283

reference to the war waged by the Irish against the English inthe reign of queen Elizabeth, patronized the principle of perse-cution, which, in their answer to Pitt, they proscribed,' Such,on the European continent, where the candor and consistencyof the popish clergy, who, in this manner adapted their move-ments, like skilful generals, to the evolutions of the enemy, andsuited 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 popishprelacy, in 1808, met, says Coyne and Wise, in Dublin, andunanimously agreed that this book was the best work, andsafest guide in theology for the Irish clergy. Coyne, in conse-quence, was ordered to publish a large edition, for circulationamong the prelacy and priesthood of the kingdom.'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 performancewith his approbation. Murray, Doyle, Keating, and Kinsellamade it the conference book for the Romish clergy of Leinster,The popish ordo or directory, for five successive years, had itsquestions for conference arranged as they occurred in Dens,and were, of course, to be decided by his high authority. TheRomish 'episcopacy, in this way, made this author their~tandar.d of theology to direct the Irish prelacy and priesth~odm CasUIstryand speculation," Dens, therefore, pOBBeBBes,WIththem, the same authority on popish theology as Blackstonewith 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 atext book. This honor was reserved for Ba.illy. But thisseminary received Dens as a work of reference. His theologylay in the library, ready, at any time, for consultation. DoctorMurphy's academy in Cork had fifty or sixty copies for. theuse of the seminary and the diocesan clergy.' The preciouaproduction, indeed, has found its way into the hands of almosteve;y priest in the kingdom, and forms the holy fountain fromwhich he draws the pU1'ewaters of the sanctUlUY.The days of persecution, notwithstanding, will, in all proba-! Tanquam certum est aooip~~dum, po8Iltl Romanum Pontificem fidei desert-

ores, at 60S qui Catholioam reJigionem oppugnant, armis compellere. Mageogh.3. 595. Slevin, 193.2 Coyne, Catal. 6, 7. Wyee, Hist. Cath. Ass. App. N. 7. Home's Protest.

Mem.96.Revenmdissimo in Deo Pam all Domino, Daniell Murray, &c. Dens, I. 1.

Coyne, 7. Home, 96, 96.' 4 Home, 95, 96.

Page 284: The Variations of Popery

284 THE VABlATIONS OF POPERY.

bility, never return to dishonor Christianity and curse mankind.The inquisition, with all its engines of torment and destruction,may rest forever in inactivity. The Inquisitor may exercise hismalevolence, 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 ofthe tortured victim, or feast his eyes in witnessing an Act ofFaith. The popedom may regret its departed power. TheRoman pontiff and hierarchy may indulge in dreams of futuregreatness, 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 greatmeasure, become useless; and the secular arm no longer, asformerly, enforces ecclesiastical denunciation, or consigns theabettors of heresy to the flames.

Page 285: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER VIII.

INVALIDATION OF OATHS.

VIOLATIONOF FAITH-THEOLOGIANS, POPES, AND OOUNCILB--PONTIFIOAL .MAXIKS-PONTIFIOAJ. AOTIONB--OOUNOILS OF ROKE AND DI.AllPEB~UNOILB OF TlIlI:LATERAN, LYONS, PIiIA, OONSTANOE,AND BASIL-ERA AND INFLUENOE OF TlIlI:RBFOR.MATION.

THE Roman pontiffs, unsatisfied with the sovereignty .overkings and heretics, aimed, with measureless ambition, at loftierpretensions and more extensive domination. These vice-godsextended their usurpation into the moral world and invadedthe empire of heaven. The power of dissolving the obligationof vows, promises, oaths, and indeed all engagements, especiallythose injurious to the church, and those made with the patronsof 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, hasdisturbed the relations which the Deity established in His ra-tional creation, and grasped at claims which tend to unhingecivil 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 traitm. the Christianity of antiquity. A second ~ra c?mmenc~WIth the dark ages. Faithlessness, accompanied WIth all Itsfoultrain, entered on the extinction of literature and philosophy,and became one of the filthy elements of Romish superstition.'J.!1eabomination, under the patronage of the papacy, flourishedtill the rise of protestantism. The reformation formed a third~ra!and. poured a flood of light, which detected the demon ofms~ce~ty and exposed it to the detestation of the world.. ~ldelity to all QDgagementsconstituted one grand character-~tlC of primeval Christianity. Violation of oaths and promises18, 1;'ey~>ndall question, an innovation on the Chris~ianity ofantiqUIty, and forms one of the variations of Bomanism, Theattachment to truth and the faithfulness to compacts, evinced

Page 286: The Variations of Popery

286 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

by the ancient Christians, were proverbial. The Christianprofession, in the days of antiquity, was marked by a loftysincerity, which disdained all falsehood, dissimulation, subter-fuge, and chicanery. Death, say Justin and Tertullian, wouldhave been more welcome than the violation of a solemn promise.A Roman bishop, in those days of purity, would have met anapplication for absolution from an oath with holy indignation;and the humblest of his flock, who should have been supposedcapable of desiring such a dispensation, would have viewedthe 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, beganto work. Christianity, by adulteration, degenerated intoRomanism, and the popedorn became the hot-bed of all abomi-nation. Dispensations for violating the sanctity of oathsformed perhaps the most frightful feature inthe moral deformityof popery. This shocking maxim was, for many ages, sanc-tioned by theologians, caaonists, popes, councils; and the wholeBomish communion.The theologians and canonists, who, have inculcated this

frightful maxim, are many. A few may be selected as aspecimen. Such were Bailly, Dens, CaJetan, Aquinas, Ber-nard, the Parisian university, and the French clergy.Ba.illy, in the class-book used in the Mayn60th seminary

ascribes to' the church a power of dispensing in vows andoaths," .This the author attempts to show from the words ofRevelation, which confer the prerogative of the keys in bindingand loosing, and which, he concludes, being general, signifynot only the power of absolving from sin, but also from promisesand oaths. The moral theologian, in this manner, abuses theinspired language for the vilest purpose, and represents hisshocking assumption as taught in the Bible and as an article offaith. The church, in this hopeful proposition, means theRoman pontiff, whom the canon law characterizes as the inter-preter of an oath.. Dens, in his theology, the modern standard of Catholicism inIreland, authorizes this maxim 2 The dispensation: of ~ vow,

1Existit in eec1esia potestas dispensandi in votis at juramentie- Bailly, 2. 140.

Ma~ ~~ sen interpretatio, cum de ipeo dubitatur, pertinat adPaJ)Il1D, Gibed, 3. 512.f'~. tanquam vicariua Dei, vice et nomine Dei, l'8JDittit hominidebitulll

prr>erilllimria faotial. DeDa, 4. 1M, 135.DeW~ • DeIClin eam,.et, Iiopus -. idem ~ CODfirmare·

T_ 0GId1 Sa ~ 16homo, at ~utbOmo. lamautemllOlllicit lllltomo m.a .eU.em, quam'ril __ 16De1lL DeDa, 6. 219.

Page 287: The Variations of Popery

VIOLATION OF FAITH TAUGHT BY ROMISH DOCTORS. 287

Haysthis 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 thedebt of a plighted promise. God's acceptance, by this dispen-sation, ceases: for it is dispensed in God's name.' Theprecious 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. Suchfacts he is to conceal, though the life or safet.y of a man or thedestruction of the state, depended on the' disclosure.' Thereason, in this case, is as extraordinary as the doctrine. ' Theconfessor 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. .peIJury.Cajetan teaches the same maxim. According to the cardi-

nal, ' the sentence of excommunication :tbr apostasy from thefaith is no sooner pronounced against a king, than, in fact, hissubjects are free from his dominion and oath."Aquinas, though a saint, and worshipped in the popish com-

munion on the bended knee" maintains the same shockingprinciple. 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 apostasy, his vassals are in fact, immedia.tely freedfrom his dominion and from their oath of fealty,: for a hereticcannot govern the faithful.' Such a.prince is to be deprived ofanthority, and his subjects freed from the obligation of allegi-ance. This is the doctrine of a man adored by the patrons ofRomanism for his sanctity. He enjoined the breach of faithand the violation of a sworn engagement; and is cited for?,uthority on this point by Dens; the idol of the popish prelacyIn Ireland,"Bernard, the celebrated glossator on the canon-law, advances

the same principle. A debtor, says the canonist of Panna,'though sworn to pay, may refuse the claim of a. creditor whofalls into heresy or under excommunica.tion.' According tothe same authority, I the debtor's oath implies the tacit eondi-

1Quam cito NilJ.uia per sententiam denunciatur excommumcatua propterapolltaaiam a fide, 1pIO facto, ej1l.llfimbditi 811Df; abBoluti a dominio et juramenta.Cajetan in AquiD. 2. 50.S Quam ciio alil{Uia per _tentiam denunciatur flXcommunicatua, propter

apoB'tuiam a fide, ~ facto ejua eubditi a domiDio et juramento fidelitatia ejuslibelati 1UDt, qllOCleubditit 1icIelibua domiDari DOD pouit. ' AquiDae, 2. 5i.

Page 288: The Variations of Popery

288 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

tion that the creditor, to be entitled to payment, should remainin a state in which communication with him would be lawful,"The Parisian University in 1589, consisting of sixty doctors,

declared the French entirely freed from their oath of allegianceto their king, Henry the Third, and authorized to take almsagainst their sovereign, on account of his opposition to Catholi-cism,"The French clergy, in 1577, even after the reformation,

taught the same infernal maxim. The Huguenots' insisted onthe faith which the French nation had plighted in a solemntreaty. The Romish theologians, on the contrary, rejected theplea, and contended in their sermons and public writings, thata prince is not bound to keep faith with the partisans ofheresy.' These advocates of treachery and perjury pleaded, onthe occasion, the precedent of the Constantian council, which,in opposition to a safe-conduct, had sacrificedHUBSand Jerometo the demon of popery."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. Theseviceroys of heaven, indeed, for many ages, engaged, withhardly an exception, in violating faith, both in theory and in. practice. From this mass may, for the sake of exemplifyingthe theory, be selected Gregory, Urban, Paul, Alexander,Clement, Benedict, and Innocent.Gregory, in 1080, asserted his authority to dissolve the oath

of fealty.' His infallibility supported his assertion by proofs,or pretended proofs, from scripture and tradition. This au-thority, his holinees alleged, was conveyed in the power of thekeys, consisting in binding and loosing, and confirmed by theunanimous consent of the fathers. The contrary opinion herepresented as madness and idolatry.Urban, in 1090, followed the example of Gregory. Subjects,

he declared, , are by no authority bound to observe the fealtywhich they swear to a Christian prince, who withstands God1Licet non solvat, non incidit in pcenam, et in eodem modo, si per juramen-

tum : in illa obligatione et juramento tacite subintelligetur, si talis permanserit,cui communicare liceat. Greg. 9. Decret. L. 5. TIt. 7. c. 16. MaynoothReport, 261. '2 Populum jurejurando solutum esse. Thuan. 4. 690. Lea Fran9l>is

etoient e1fectivement delies du serment de fidelit6. Maimbourg, 299. Daniel, 2,349. .3 Protestantes fidem datam urgerent. Contra theologi nostri diaputabant,

et jam aperto capJ~e, i:a concionibus et e~tis scriptis, ad fidem sectarUsBerv8lldaln non o~ principem oontendebant. Thuan. 3. 524.4 Contra illorum msaniam, qui, nefando ore, garriunt, mctontatem sanctre

et Apoatoliele -us DOD ~ quemquam a sacnmento 1ideJitatis ejus absol-vere. :r...bb.l2. 380, 431J, 4f11.

Page 289: The Variations of Popery

VIOLATIONS OF OATHS TAUGHT AND PRACTISED BY POPES. 289

and the saints and contemns their precepts," The pontiff ac-cordingly prohibited Count Hugo's soldiery, though under theobligation of an oath, to obey their sovereign.Gregory the Ninth, in 1229, followed the footsteps of his

predecessors. According to his infallibility, 'none should keepfaith with the person who opposes God and the saints," Gre-gory, on this account, declared the Emperor Frederic's vassalsfreed from their oath of fidelity.Urban the Sixth imitated Gregory the Ninth. This pontiff,

in 1378, declared that' engagements of any kind, even whenconfirmed by oath, with persons guilty of schism or heresy,though made before their apostasy, are in themselves unlawfuland void."Paul the Fourth, in 1555, absolved himself from an oath

which he had taken in the Conclave. His holiness had swornto make only four cardinals; but violated his obligation. Hissupremacy declared that the pontiff could not be bound, or hisauthority limited, even by an oath. The contrary, he charac-terized, 'as a manifest heresy,"Paul the Fifth canonized Gregory the Seventh, and inserted

an officein the Roman breviary, praising his holiness for free-ing the emperor Henry's subjects from the oath of fidelity."His absolution, as well as the deposition of the emperor, thepontiff 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 couldInvalidate civil contracts, promises or oaths, made by the friendsof Catholicism with the patrons of heresy," A denial of thisprop~ition, his infallibility styled heresy; and those who re-jected the idea of papal dispensation, incurred, according to hisholiness, the penalty prescribed by the sacred canons andapostolic constitutions against those who impugn the pontifica.lauthority in questions of faith.The Roman pontiffs taught this diabolical doctrine, not only

by precept but also by example. The practice of annulling1 Fidelitatem quam Christiano prineipi jurant, Deo ejusqne sanctis adversati,

et eorumprrecapta calcanti, nullo cohibentur anctoritatepersolvere. Pithou,260.Decret. cans. 15. QUlIl8t. 6.B 2 Pereonne ne doit garder fidtlliM a eelai qui s' oppose a Dien et a see saints.my. 3. 183.3 ~nventiones factal cum hnjusmodiluereticis Ben schismaticis, postquam talesiaffectier:"Ut, sunt temerarilll, illicital, et ipso jure nnllse, (etsi forte ante ipsomm

fi psum III schisma sen lueresim inite) atiam si forent juramenta vel fide datarm&tle. Rymer, 7. 352-4 La COIltraire etoit nne hen!8ia manifests. Paolo, 2. Z1.6 CSnbditos populos ide ei data liberarit. Bmy. 2. 492. Crotty, 85.6 ;ontraetQi civiles, p1'01IIi-, vel juramenta catholicomm cum luereticis ac

quod Juentioi lIiDt. per poatificem enenvi poIlIint. Caron, 14-8 .

Page 290: The Variations of Popery

290 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

oaths and breaking faith was exemplifiedby 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 offealty to king Childeric, and Stephen, Zachary's successor,afterward dissolved Pepin's allegiance to the Frenchmonarch.'Gregory, in 1078,' absolved all from their fidelity, who were

bound by oath to persons excommunicated,' This sweepingand infernal sentence, his holiness, according to his own ac-count, pronounced' in accordance with the statutes of his sacredpredecessorsand in virtue of his apostolic authority."Innocent, in 1215,' freed all that were bound to those who

had fallen into heresy from all fealty, homage, and obedience,"His infallibity's dispensation extended to the dissolution ofobligation and security of all kinds.Honorius, in 1220, freed the king of Hungary from all obli-

gations in somealienations of his kingdom, which his majestyhad made, and which he had sworn to fulfil. These, it appears,were prejudicial to the state and dishonorable to the .sovereign.His holiness, however, soon contrived a remedy, which wasdistinguished by its facility and efficiency. The vicar-generalof God, in the fulness of apostolic authority,' demolished theroyal oath, and commanded the revocation of these alienations,"Clement, in 1806, emancipated Edward, king of England,

from a solemn oath in confirmation of the ~eat charter. ' TheEnglish monarch had taken this obligation in 1258 on theholy evangelists: and the ceremony was performed with anaffecting solemnity and awful imprecations of perdition in caseof violation or infringement. The Roman viceroy of heaven,however, soon removed these uneasy bonds, and furnished hisBritish majesty with a ready licence for the breach of faith andthe commission of perjury. The pontiff published a bull,•granting the king absolution from his oath.' The absolution,1Zacharias omnes Francigenas a juramento fidelitatis absolvit. Labb, 12. 500.

Pithou, 260. Pepinus a Stephano papa a fidelitatis sacramento absolvitur. 000,V.23. Bossuet, 1. 49. •

2 Eos qui excommunicatis fidelitate aut sacremento constricti aunt, Apostolicaauetoritate a sacramento absolvimus. Pithou, 260. Cans. 15. Q. 6.3Absolutos I16noverint a debito fidelitatis,hominis,ettotius obseqllii,quicunque

Iapsismanifeste in hrereaim, aliquo pacta, quaeunque firmitatevallato, tenebanturadatricti. Pithou, 241. L. 5. T. 7.~:NOBeidemregi dirigimuB scripta nOBtra,utalienationes pl'llldictaB,non obstante

juramenta, Btudeat revocare. Greg. 9. L. 2. Tit. 24. c. 33. Pithou, lIi.liHenri etEdooardlurirent l'observation sur lea evangiles. Orleans. 5. 163.

I.e Pltpe lui dcmnoit I absolutioD du serment. Bruy. 3. 3118. Collier, 1.400.RexOOlMltua llIR preatare saeramentum. Trivettus, Ann. 1258. ObtQlebat rex

aDomino papublohttionem .. juramento. Trivettus. Ann. 1306. Dachery,3.196,230.

Page 291: The Variations of Popery

VIOLATIONS OF OATHS TAUGHT AND PIUCTI8ED BY POPE8. 291

for greater comfort, was supported in the rear by an excommu-nication pronounced against all who should observe such anoath.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 takenprisoners by a gang of marauders who infested the French na-tion, and had sworn all whom they released, to remit a sum ofmoney as the price of their Iiberation.' His holiness, however,having heard of the transaction, not only repealed the treaty,but with the whole weight of his pontifical autority 'dissolvedthe 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 thisway toward Piccinino and in nullifying the Bohemian compacts,Wag followed in this latter transaction by Pope Pius. Eu-genius, in 1444, also induced Ladislaus, King of Hungary, tobreak his treaty with the Sultan Amurath, though confirmedby the solemn oaths of the king and the sultan on the gospeland the koran. His holiness, on this occasion, introduced avariety into the system established for the encouragement ofpeIjury, by executing his plan by proxy. Julian, clothed withlegatine authority, mustered all his eloquence to effect thedesign j and represented, in strong colors, the criminality of'observing a treaty, so prejudicial to the publio safety and 80inimical to the holy faith. The pontiff's vicegerent, in solemnmockery, dispensed with the oath, which, being sworn withinfidels, was, like those with heretics, a mere nullity. ' Iabsolve you,' said the representative of the representative ofGod, 'from perjury, and I sanctify your arms. Follow myfootsteps in the path of glory and salvation. Dismiss yourscrupulosity, and devolve on my head the sin and the punish-menl' The sultan, it is said, displayed a copy of the violated~reaty, t}1emonument of papal perfidy, in the front of battle,Impl0l'eQ the protection of the God of truth, and called aloudon the prophet Jesus to aveage the mockery of his religion andauthority. The faith of Islamism excelled the casuistry ofpopery. The perjurers, whom Moreri calls Christians, t falsi.fied their oath,' took arms against the Turks, and were defeatedon the plains of Varna.'~~P.!'J16 envoia au prisonniel'lll'absolution du aerment. Daniel, 5. 145.f' ..,~'hretiena 1J01lici.tez par Julien, Legat du Papa EugeneIV. faUlllMlrentleur~. n_~~~~ 1. 390. 8iBmond. 9. 196. Caniaiua, 4. 4.62. Lenfant, 2. 164.. ~_~en dispenaoit ~ l'autorite da ai~ Apostolique. Amurath a'es-

cnAfoyau........Vi .. ~ CO$llbat, (;hrilt, Chri.et, voya ton peuple desIoyal qui a fauleesa • Jg01'len, 3. 692.

Page 292: The Variations of Popery

292 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY•

•Clement, in 1526, absolved Francis II. the French king froma treaty which he had formed in Spain.' The Emperor ofGermany had taken his Christian majesty a prisoner in thebattle of Pavia, and carried him to Madrid. The conditions ofhis engagement, which were disadvantageous, Francis confirmedby an oath. This engagement, however, the pontiff, by hisapostolic power, soon dissolved, for the purpose of gaining theFrench king as an ally in a holy confederacy, which his infalli-bility had organized against the German emperor. The con-vention, though ratified by a solemn oath, soon yielded toapostolic 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 holinessalso 'absolved all princes from all such promises and engage-ments,? Pius IV. treated Elizabeth as Paul had treatedHenry. 'His holiness annulled the oath of allegiance, whichhad been sworn to her majesty, by her subjects.' This consti-tution Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V. renewed and confirmed,"Henry and Elizabeth had patronized schism or heresy, andtherefore forfeited all claim to enjoy the conditions of plightedfaith. .Councils, as well as pontiffs, encouraged this principle of

faithlessness. Some of these synods were provincial and somegeneral. Among the :provincial councils, which countenancedor practised this maxim were those ef Rome, Lateran, andDiamper.A Roman Council, in 1036, absolved Edward the Confessor,

King of England, from a vow which he had made to visit theCity of Rome and the tombs of the holy apostles. The fulfil-ment of his engagement, it seems, was inconvenient to hissainted majesty, and contrary to the wish of the British nation.But Leo the Ninth and a Roman Council soon supplied aremedy. His holiness presided in this assembly, which eulo-gized Edward's piety, and in a few moments and with greatfacility disannulled his majesty's t.roublesomevow.'Gregory VII., in 1076, in a Roman synod, absolved all Chris-

tians from their oath of fealty to the Emperor Henry, who, inhis infallibility's"elegant language, had becomea member of the1Le Pape deIivra leroi du serment. qu'i! avoit p~te en Evpagne. Pool. 1. 63.2 Hemici v.-alos at subditos a iuramento fidelitatia abeolvit. Cum Henrico,

coufcederatione conhactUB, JlIda. at convanta oumia, quovis modo Btabilib,irritll facit el DU1Ja.. Alex. 24. 420.30- 110siDpb ejlllll1lbc1itol a jurameato lidelitatie abeolvit, Jatom eos,

qui iDia Jesibua ao ...... puereat, anMhemate. Alexander, 23. "25. Bruy.4. liO'L, Sa 8aintete, qui y pzeaidoit, lui doaDa l'abeo1ution de IOD VOlU. Andilly. 568.

Page 293: The Variations of Popery

VIOLATIONS OF OATHS BY POPISH COUNCILS. 293

devil, and an enemy to the vicar-general of God.' He alsointerdicted all persons from obeying Henry, as king, notwith-standing their oath. This sentence the pontiff, with the appro-hation of the council, pronounced as the plenipotentiary ofheaven, 'who possessedthe power of binding and loosing, illthe 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 consecratedhost, on the subject of investitures and excommunication. Thisobligation, in all its terrors, the holy assembly, with the utmostunanimity, 'condemned and annulled." This decision, thesacred synod, in their own statement, , pronounced by canonicalauthority and by the judgment of the Holy Spirit.' Thesepatrons of perjury, in the annunciation of this infernal sentence,pretended, in the language of blasphemy, to the inspiration ofheaven.Gregory the Ninth, in 1228, convened a Roman council,

consisting of the bishops of Lombardy, Tuscany, and Apulia,and, with the approbation ofthis assembly,absolved,from theiroath, all who had sworn fealty to Frederic the Roman Emperor.The sacred synod issued this sentence, because, according toits own statement, no person is obliged to keep faith with aChristian prince when he gainsays God and the saints," Thepontiff: on this occasion, declared, in council, that 'he pro-ceeded against the emperor, as against one who was guilty ofheresy and who despisedthe keys of the church.' The synodaldecision contains a direct and unmitigated avowal of the dia-bolical maxim, that no faith should be kept with personsguiltyof 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 ofMenez, invalidated the oaths that those Indian Christians hadtaken against changing Syrianism for Popery,or receiving theirclergy from the Roman pontiff instead of the Babylonianpatriarch. Such obligations, the holy council pronouncedpestilential and void, and the keeping of them an impiety andtemerity! The sacred synod, in this manner, could, by askilful use of their spiritual artillery, exterminate obligationsand oaths by wholesale.The encouragement to faithlessness and perjury was not1Omnes Christianos a vinculo juramenti absolvo. Labb. 12. 600.2 Judicio Sancti Spiritus damnamua. Irritum esse judicamus, atque omnino

castramus. Labb. 12. 1165. Bruy. 2. 580. Platina, in Pascal.3 On n'est point oblige de garder la foi, que ron a jure a un prince Chl'elltieu.

quand ile'oppeee aDieu et Ii sea saints. Bruy. 3. 179. Labb. 13. 114, 1223.~DecIarat Synodua juramenta hujuamodi nulla prol'll1lllet irrita. Coesart,

6. lil.

Page 294: The Variations of Popery

294 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-ment and breach of trust. These were the universal councilsof the Lateran, Lyons, Pisa, Constance, and Basil.The third general council of the Lateran, superintended by

Alexander and clothed with infallibility, taught this principle inword and deed. The unerring fathers, in the sixteenth canon,styled 'an oath contrary to ecclesiastical utility, not an oath,but perjury." The pontiffs, whose province it is to explainoaths and vows, always confounded ecclesiastical utility withpontifical aggrandizement. Obligations, therefore, which mili-tated against the interest or grandeur of the papacy, soonhas-tened to their dissolution. The Lateran convention, in itstwenty-seventh canon, exemplified its own theory, and disen-gaged, from their oath of fidelity, the vassals of the barons andlords who embraced or protected the heresy of Albigensianism.2These princes patronized heresy, and their subjects, therefore,were not bound to keep faith with such sovereigns, or to yieldthem fealty or obedience. 'l'his language is unequivocal, andsupersedes, by its perspicuity and precision, the necessity ofany comment.The fourth general council of the Lateran, in1215, issued

an enactment of the same kind. This infallible assembly, inits third canon, 'freed the subjects of such sovereigns asembraced heresy from their fealty." The temporal lord, whorefused to purify his dominions from heretical pollution, not onlyforfeited 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 ofproperty, and warrants the violation of faith.The general council of Lyons absolved the Emperor Frederic's

vassals from their oath of fealty.' The synod in their ownway,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 subjects'oath of obedience. Innocent, who presided on the occasion,represented himself as the viceroy of heaven, on whom God,1Non juramenta, sed perjuria potins aunt dicenda, qnre contra ntilitatem ec-

clesiasticam attentantur. Pith. 110. Labb. 13. 426. Gibert, 3. 504., Re.laxatos se noverint a debito fidelitatis et hominii, at totius obsequii, Labb.

13.431. .3Vassalos ab ejus fidelitate dennnciet absolntos. Bin. 8. 807. Labb. 13. 934.4 OIDneaqui ei juramento fidelitatis tenentur adatricti a juramento hnjne-

modi perpetuo ab8olventea. Labb. 14. 52. BiDD.8. 852. Paris, 601, 602.Giannon. XVllL 3.

Page 295: The Variations of Popery

VIOLATIONS OF OATHS BY POPISH COUNCILS. 295

in the person of the Galilean fisherman, had conferred the keysof his kingdom, and vested with the power of binding andloosing. The council concurred with the pontiff. The popeand the prelacy, says Paris, 'lighted tapers and thundered, infrightful fulminations, against his imperial majesty.' The testi-monyof Paris is corroborated by Nangis and pope Martin.lThe general council of Pisa imitated those of the Lateran

and Lyons. This assembly, in its fifteenth session, releasedall Ohristians from their oath of fidelity to Benedict andGregory, and forbade all men, notwithstanding any obligation,to obey the rival pontiffs, whom the holy fathers, by a sum-mary process, convicted of peIjury, contumacy, incorrigibility,schism, and heresy," The sacred synod, in this instance,assumed the power of dissolving sworn engagements, and ofwarranting all Ohristendom to break faith with two viceroysof heaven, who, according to the synodal sentence, were guiltyof schism and heresy.The general council of Oonstance, on this topic, outstripped

all competition and gained an infamous celebrity, in recom-mending and exemplifying treachery, the demolition of oaths,and unfaithfulness to e"ngagements. The holy assembly havingconvicted 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 similarkind, deposed his holiness, and emancipated all Christiana fromtheir oath of obedience to his supremacy," Hi"! infallibility, inthe mean time, notwithstanding his simony, schism, heresy,perjury, murder, incest, and sodomy, exercised his prerogativeof dissolving oaths as well as the council. The holy fathershad Sworn to conceal from the pontiff their plans for hisdegradation. The trusty prelacy, however, notwithstandingtheir obligation to secrecy, revealed all, during the night, to hisholiness, John, by this means, had the satisfaction of diseov-~nng the machinations of his judges, and of inducing themfallible bishops to perjury, The pontiff, however, by hissovereign 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.1 Di¥genti deliberatione prrehabita cum prre1atia ibidem congregatia super

nefandis Frederici. Nangis, Ann. 1045. Dachery,3. 35. .Innocentius, memoratum Fredericum in concilio Ludgnnensi, eodem appro-

bante concilio denunciavit. Dachery, 3. 684.2 Nonobetante quocunque fidelitatia juramento. Labb. lli. 1138. Alex. 24.

573. l?achery, 1. 847.

bs Umvlll'l!Ollet BingulosChristianos ab ejus obedientia, fidelitate, et juramento,a BOlutosdeclarana. Alex. 24. (J20.

d ' ~ «Ugageant par BOnautorite BOuverainedes sermena qu'ila avoient faitse ne n.en :reveler. Bray. 4. 40. Labb. 16- 23:1.

Page 296: The Variations of Popery

296 THE VABIATIONS OF POPERY.

The pontiff shewed the council, that he could demolish oathsas well as his faithless accusers, who 'represented the wholechurch and had met in the spirit of God.'The Constantians, in the twentieth session,freed the vaasals

of Frederic, Duke ofAustria, from their oath of fealty. Thethirty-seventh session was distinguished by disentangling allChristians from their oath of fidelity, however taken, to PopeBenedict, and forbidding any to obey him on pain of the pen-alty annexed to schism and heresy.' The sacred synod, in itsforty-first session, annulled and execrated all conventions andoaths, which might militate against the freedom and efficiencyof the pending election.This council'streatment of Huss and Jerome constituted the

most revolting instance of its treachery. The martyrdom ofthese 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 theexecration of posterity. John Huss was summoned to thecity of Constance on a charge of heresy. His safety, duringhis journey, his stay, and his RETURN, was guaranteed by asafe-conduct from the Emperor Sigismund, addressed to allcivil and ecclesiastical governors in his dominions. Hussobeyedthe summons. Plighted faith, however, could, in thosedays, confer no security on a man accused of heresy. Husswas tried and condemnedby an ecclesiasticaltribunal, which,in its holy zeal, 'devoted his soul to the infernal devils,' anddelivered his body to the secular arm; which, notwithstandingthe imperial promiseof protection and in defianceof all justiceand humanity, committed the victim of its own perfidy to theflames," This harbinger of the reformation suffered martyr-dom with the emperor's safe-conduct in his hand. He died ashe had lived, like a Christian hero. He endured the punish-ment with unparalleled magnanimity, and, in the triumph offaith and the ecstacy of divine love, 'sung hymns to God,'while the mouldering flesh was consumed from his bones, tillthe immortal spirit ascended from the funeral pile and soaredto heaven,"Jerome, also, trepanned by the mockery of a safe-conduct

from the faithless synod, shared the same destiny. This man,1 Omnes ChristianOlI ab ejus obedieatie atque jmamentis absolvit. COlllJ.4.

81. Labb. 16. 309, 681, 714-S Animam mam devovemue diabolis infemiB. Leman. 1. 409.8 Buss montaaur Ie Mehel, aveeune grandeintripidite, et ilmourut en chen-

tant dell PB&1UIl8IL Moren, 4. 221.AUeIUl phi~ n'avoit endurila mort avec une risolution sidetenninee. n

pratitpa Ie dehon de tona 1Mactea que aoggke la devotion la plus IlOlide. Saferveur redonbloit lonqu'il ~ Ie flauibeau. HiIlt. dn Wicilif. 2, 127. 128.

Page 297: The Variations of Popery

VIOLATIONS OF OATHS BY POPISH COUNCILS. 297

distinguished for his friendship and eloquence, came to Con-stance, for the generous purpose of supporting his earlycompanion, and died with heroism, in the fire which had con-sumed his friend. Huss and Jerome, says oLEneasSylvius,afterward Pope Pius the Second, 'discovered no symptom ofweakness,went to punishment as to a festival, and sung hymnsin the midst of the flames and without interruption till the lastsigh."Doctor Murray, Titular Archbishop of Dublin, has, in his

examination before the British Commons, endeavored, by hisusual misrepresentations and sophistry, to exculpate Sigismundand the synod from the imputation of faithlessness. The taskwas Herculean, but the bishop's arguments are silly. Murray,like Phaeton, failed in a bold attempt. The imperial safe-con-duct, says the doctor, following Becanns,Maimbourg,and Alex-ander, was only a passport, like those granted to travellers onthe European continent, to hinder interruption or molestationon the way; but, by no means, to prevent the execution ofjustice, in case of a legal conviction. The archbishop's state-ment is as faithless as the emperor's safe-conductor the synod'ssentence. The emperor's promised protection to Huss, 'extended,not only to his going and stay, but also to his RETURN.' Thereturn of this victim of treachery was intercepted by the faggotand the stake, trying obstacles, indeed, but good enough for aheretic. The emperor's safe-conduct, says the Popish author ofthe history of Wickliffism, 'was, in its terma, clear, general,absolute, and without reserve."The council was accessory to the emperor's treachery. The

safe-conduct,indeed,was not binding on the Constantian clergy.Thesewere not a party to the agreement, and possessed,at leasta canonical and admitted power of pronouncing on the theologyof the accused. An ecclesiastical court was the proper tribunalfor deciding an ecclesiastical question. The Constantian fathers,there~ore, according to the opinion of the age, might, withpropnety, have tried the Catholicism of Huss, and on evidence,declared him guilty of heresy and obstinacy. But this did notsatisfy the holy synod, who advised and sanctionedSiWsmund'sI Ila alloient au supplice comme a un festin. n ne leur 6chi£!::~amais

aucune parole, qui marq,ull.t Ia moindre foiblesse.. Au milieu des es, ilschan~rent des hymnes Jusqu'au dernier soupir. Moren, 4. 232. Sylv. c. 36.Qui les. avoient aceompagnez leur avoient oui chanter jusqu'au demier soupir

de leur Vie lea louanges de Dieu, Hist. du Wiclif. 2.2 Transire, stare, moreri, et redire libere permittatis. Alexander, 25, 258,

260.De Ie lai88er librement et Bt\rement passer, demeurer, a'~ter, et retoumer.

Moreri, 4. 232. D1i Pin, 3. 92. Lea termes "toient mdens, ~neraux, abBolus,et IllU1B aueuue rtSserve. Histoire du Wic1diffiani8JDe, 98. Maimb. 215. Oom.Rep. 629.

Page 298: The Variations of Popery

298 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

breach of faith, and, by this means, became partakers in hisperfidy.But Huss, says Murray, suffered in Constance, a free city, over

the laws of which Sigismund had no control. The emperor, heconcludes, could not have prevented the Constantian Act ofFaith. This is another shameful misrepresentation. The bishop,in his statement, breaks faith with history as much as the em-peror did with Huss, The emperor made no attempt to opposethe synod. His majesty, on the contrary, protested, that ratherthan support the Heresiarch in his error and obstinacy, he wouldkindle the fire with his own hands. The sentence, accordinglywas executed by imperial authority. The council consignedthe prisoner to the emperor, and the emperor to the Duke ofBavaria, who delivered him to the executioner,' Sigismund, itappears, possessed power;· but instead of using it for the pro-tection of Huss, he exerted it for his punishment. He couldnot, indeed, have annulled the prisoner's sentence of heresy;but he could have granted him life and liberty, till the expira-tion of his safe-conduct, as Charles V. did to Luther.But the council's sanction of the oath-annulling and faith-

violating slstem depends, by no means, on the contents of theemperor's .safeooeonductor his treatment of Huss. Murray, ifhe even could have vindicated Sigismund, would have effectedjust nothing with respect to the council. The holy ruffians, atConstance, avowed the shocking maxim with fearlessness andwithout disguise, both by their deputation to the emperor andby 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'sfuture delillerations, maintained this principle. These gave hismajesty W understand, that the council had authority to disen-gage him from a legal promise, when pledged to a person guiltyof heresy. This is attested by Dachery, an eye-witness, in hisGerman 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 manaccused of hereey:" Nauclerus, who lived shortly after thecouncil, testifies nearly the same thing. The emperor himselfentertained this opinion of the deputation's sentiments. Hismajesty, addressing Huss at his last examination, declared I thatsome thought he had no right to afford any protection to a man

1Lenfan. 1. 82, 318. Do Pin, 3. 94. Bruy. 4. 66. Hist. du Wicklif. 126.2 0_, quasi tenore d.eoTetalium, HUlIIIO fidem d&tem pttIl8tanl non tenere·tur mnltis Verbis pel8t18Il1lS, HUSIlO et Bohemia Salvi OoDductua fidem fregit.~1.~. .

Page 299: The Variations of Popery

VIOLATION OF OATHS BY POPISH COUNCILS. 299

convicted or even suspected of heresy.' The deputation, onthis occasion,must have known and represented the opinionof the synod,which acquiesced,without any contradiction, inthis statement, and which, had the emperor been mistaken,should have corrected the error, Huss was a victim to themalevolent passions of' the council, and the superstition andperfidy 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 Hussby natural, divine, or human law," Prejudicial to Catholicism,in this case, could signify no infraction on the faith of thechurch; but merely the permission of a man convicted ofheresy, to escape with his life. Faith, therefore, according tothe council, should be violated rather than allow a heretic tolive. The synod of Basil, however, and the diet of WOrIllilthought otherwise, when they suffered the Bohemians andLuther, under the protection of a safe-conduct, to withdrawfrom the council and the diet, and return in safety to theirown country.The sacred synod, unsatisfied with this frightful declaration,

issued, in its nineteenth session,another enactment of a similarkind, but expressed in more general terms and capable of moreextensive application. According to these patrons of'perfidy,(no safe-conduct, disadvantageous to the faith or jurisdictionof'the church, though granted by emperor or king, and ratifiedby the most solemn obligations, can be any protection to per-sons convicted of heresy. Persons suspected of defectionfrom~he fait~, may be tried. b:r th~ proper ecclesiasticaljU;dges,and, if convicted and persisting m error, may be punishedthough they attended the tribunal relying on a safe-conduct,~n? otherwise would not have appeared:' This declaration,It 18 plain, contains a formal sanction of the atrocious principle.Alexander, followed by Murray, Crotty, and Higgms,

endeavors to vindicate the council and the emperor, bydistributing the condemnation and execution of Russ betweenth~ synodal and royal authority.' The council, in the exerciseof Its ecclesiasticaljurisdiction, convicted the accused of heresy,1Nonnulli dieant, nos de jure ei non posse patrocinari, qui aut hrerettcus,

aut de hooresi aliqua suspectus, Hard. 4. 397. Lenfsat, 1. 492.2 ~e~ aliqua Bibi fides, aut promiBsio de jure naturali, Divino, aut humano,

fuent In pl'llljudicium Catholicre fidei observanda.. Lebbeus, 16. 292-.3 Salvo dicto conductu non obstante, liceat judici competenti ecclesiaBtico deejusmodi peraonarnm erroribus inquirere, et alias contra eos debite procedere,eosdemque punire. LabbeUB, 16. 301. AIeL 25. 255. Crabb. 2, nn.i Alex. 25. 256. Murray, 660. Crotty, 88. Higgina, 271.

Page 300: The Variations of Popery

THE VAlUATIONS OF POPERY.

and the emperor, according to the laws of the state, executedthe sentence. Both, therefore, were clear of all imputation ofperfidy.This is a beautiful specimen of Shandian logic and casuis-

try. The learned doctors had studied dialectics in the ahove-mentioned celebrated school. An action, according to Tris-tram, which, when committed entirely by one, is sinful, does,when divided between two, and perpetrated partly by one,and partly by the other, becomesinless. Two ladies, accord-ingly' an abbess and Margarita, wished to name a word of twosyllables, the pronunciation of which by one person wouldhave been a crime. The abbess, therefore, repeated the first,and Margarita, by her airection, the last syllable; and by thismeans, both evaded all criminality.' Alexander, Murray,Crotty, and Higgins, in like manner, partition the breach offaith between the council and the emperor, the church andstate, the ecclesiastical and civil law, and by this simple andeasy process, exculpate both from all blame or violation offaith. Breach of trust it seems, loses, in this way, its im-morality, and is transformed into duty. Some people,howeverunacquainted with the new system of Shandian dialectics,maysuppose that this learned distinction, instead, of excriminatingeach, only rendered both guilty.The faithlessness of the council and the emperor has been

admitted by Sigismund, the French clergy, the diet of WOrIDS,

and the infallible councils of Basil and Trent. Sigismund,onone occasion,seemed sensible of his own infamy. His Majestyaccordingly blushed in the council, when Huss appealed tothe imperial pledge of protection. 'I came to this city, said theaccused, to the assembledFathers, ' relying on the public faithof the emperor, who is now present;' and, whilst he utteredthese words, 'he lookedsteadfastly in the face of Sigismund,who, feeling the truth of the reproach, blushed for his ownbaseness," 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 unwillingacknowledgment 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."The French, according to Gibert, afterward, iD. temporizing

1Tristram Shan. c. 25-2 n :regarda mement Sigismond, que ne put s'empkher de rougir. Lenfan.

L~ . .aAllato in e.un rem Concillii Constantiensia decreto. Thuanus, 3. 524.

Gibert, 1. 106.

Page 301: The Variations of Popery

VIOLATIONS OF OATHS BY POPISH COUNCILS. 301

inconsistency, deprecated the infringement of tho imperialsafeguard, by which capital punishment was inflicted .on Itman, to whom had been promised safety and impunity. TheFrench, in these instances, varied indeed with the times onthe subject of breaking trust, and exemplified the fluctuationswhich occur even in an infallible communion. The Frenchclergy, however, in both cases, both in their urgency anddeprecation, concurred in ascribing perfidy to the Constantiancongress.The Diet of Worms, or, at least, a "arty in that assembly,

pleaded the precedent of synodal and imperial treachery at theConstantian assembly,in favor of breaking faith with Luther.'This showedtheir opinion of the council. CharlesV.,however,possessedmore integrity than Sigismund, 'and was resolvednot to blush with his predecessor." The Elector Palatinesupported the emperor; and their unitodauthority defeatedthe intended design of treachery.The councils of Basil and Trent, in the safe-conducts

granted to the Bohemians and Germans, admitted the samefact. The Basilians, in their safe-conduct to the Bohemians,disclaimed all intention of fallacy or deception,open er con-cealed,prejudicial to the publicfaith, foundedon any authority,power, right, law, canon, or council, especially those of Con-stance or Sienna. The Trentine safe-conduct to the GermanProtestants is to the same effect." Both those documents,proceeding from general councils, reject, for themselves, theCo~stantian precedent of treachery, and, in so doing, grant itReXIstence.The general council of Basil copied the bad example, issued

at the Lateran, at Lyons, Pisa, and Constance. This unerringassembly,in its fourth session,invalidated all oaths and obliga-tions, .which might prevent any ~person from coming to thecouncil,' Attendance, at Basil, it was alleged, would tend toecclesiastical utility, and to this end even at the expense ofperjury, every sacred and sworn engagement had to yi~ld.The sacred synod, in its thirty-fourth session,deposedEugemusfor simony, perjury, schism, and heresy, and absolved all

~Qui .approuvant ce qui s'etoit fait lJ. Constance, di80ient qu'on ne devoitpomt lUI garder 1& foi Paolo. I. 28.2 Je ne .veux: pas rongir avec Sigiamond, mon pnldeceaaeur. ~fan~, 1. ~3 Promlttentea sine frande et quolibet dolo, quod nolnmns uti aliqUI aucton-

tate, vol potentia, jure statuto vel privilegio 18$Um vel canonum et quorum-cumque conciliorum, aPeeuwte~ Conatantienais m aliquod prrejudicium salvooonductui. Bin. 8. 25, et 9.398. Crabb. 3. 17. Labb. 17. 244. et20. 120.• 4 ~e quia, prreterlu cujlUlllUJlque turamenti, vel. o~ligationia, aut promia-Sloma, lie ab acceeau ad concilium dilpeoaatum e:ristimaret. Alex. 25, 321.Crabb. 3. 19.

Page 302: The Variations of Popery

302 THE VABlATIONS OF POPERY.

Christians from their sworn obedience to his Supremacy.'The pontiff was guilty of heterodoxy, and therefore, unworthyof good faith, and became a proper object of treachery. Theholy fathers, in the thirty-seventh session, condemned andannulled all compacts and oaths, which might obstruct theelection 'Ofa sovereign pontiff." This was clever and like mendetermined to do business.This maxim, in this manner, prior to the reformation, ob-

tained general reception in the popish communion. The Romanhierarchs, as the viceroys of heaven, continued, according tointerest or fancy, and especially with persons convicted or sus-pected of schism or apostasy, to invalidate oaths or vows ofall descriptions. General councils arrogated the same autho-rity, practised the same infernal principle. Universal har-mony, without a breath of opposition, prevailed on this topicthrough papal Christendom. This abomination, therefore, inall its frightful deformity, constituted an integral part ofpopery.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, andeven in the dim twilight which dawned on the world at therevival of letters. The hideous spectre, associated with kindredhorrors and concealed in congenial obscurity, escaped for a longtime, the execration of man. But the light of the reformationexposed the monster in all its frightfulness. The Bible beganto shed its lustre through the world. The beams of the SUD

of Righteousness, reflected from the book of God, poured aflood of moral radiance over the earth. Man opened his eyes,and the foul spirits of darkness fled. Intellectual light shed itsrays through the mental gloom of the votary of popery, as wellas the patron of Proteatantism.The abettors of Romanism, in the general diffusion of scrip-

tural information and rational philosophy, felt ashamed ofancient absurdity; and have, in consequence, disowned ormodified several tenets of their religion, which were embraced,with unshaken fidelity, by their orthodox ancestors. The sixuniversities of Louvain, Douay, Paris, Alcala, Valladolid, andSaJa.ma.nca, which, in their reply to Pitt's questions, disownedthe king-deposing power, disavowed also the oath-annullingand faith-violating maxim The Bomish Committee of Irelandin 1792, in the name of all their popish countrymen, represen-1Omnes ChristicoIaa ab ipeius obedientia, fide1itate, ac juramentia ablolvit.

Labb. 17. 391. Crabb. 3. 107. .2 PromiIlIlioneI5 obligr.tiones, juramenta, inadvenum hujua electionis, damnat

reprobat, lit annullat. Crabb. 3. 109. Labb. 16. 395.

Page 303: The Variations of Popery

VIOLATION OF OATHS BY POPISH COUNCILS. 30:1

ted the latter principle, as worthy of unqualified reprobationand destructive of all morality and religion. The Irish bishops,Murray, Doyle, and Kelly, in their examination before theBritish Commons in 1826, disclaimed all such sentiments withbecoming and utter indignation, which was followed at theMaynooth examination by the deprecation of Grotty, Slavin,and M'Rale.1 This at the present day seems to be the avowalof all, even those of the Romish communion, except perhaps afew apostles of Jesuitism.This change is an edifying specimen of the boasted immuta-

bility ofRomanism, and one of the triumphs of the Reformation,by which it was produced. The universal renunciation of thehateful maxim is a trophy of the great revolution, which Doyle,in a late publication, has denominated the grand apostasy.

1Com. Report, 175, 227, 243, 659. Crotty,89. Slavin, 258. M'Hale,288.O'Leary, 77, 85.

Page 304: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER IX.

ARIANISM.

TRINITARIANISM OF ANTIQUITY-ORIGIN OF THE ARIAN SYSTEM-ALEXANDRIANAND BITHYNIAN OOUNOILS-NIOENE AND TYRIAN OOUNOILS-BEMI-ARIANISM-ANTIOOHAN AND ROMAN OOUNOILS-SARIlIOAN, ARLESIAN, MILAN, AND SIRMIANOOUNOILS-LIBERIUS-FELIX-ARMENIAN, SELEUOIAN, AND BYZANTINE COUNCILS-STATE OF OHRISTENDOM-VARIETY OF OONFESSIONS.

TRINITARIANIS~r,though without system or settled phraseology,W3.."l the faith of Christian antiquity. This doctrine indeedwas not confined to Judaism or Ohristianity ; but may, in adisfigured and uncouth semblance, be discovered in the annalsof gentilism and philosophy. ,The Persian, Egyptian, Grecian,Roman, and Scandinavian mythologies exhibit some faint traces,some distorted features of this mystery, conveyed, no doubt,through the defective and muddy channels of tradition. Thesame in a misshapen form, appears in the Orphic theology,and in the Zoroastrian, Pythagorean, and Platonic philosophy.The system which tradition in broken hints and caricaturedrepresentation insinuated, was declared, in plain language, byrevelation, and received, in full confidence, by Christian faith.The early Christians, however, unpraetised in speculation,

were satisfied with acknowledging the essential unity and per-sonal distinctions of the Supreme Being. The manner of theidentity 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 thelapse of three ages after the introduction of Christianity, hadnot, 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 orimperial authoritf. the unfettered freedom of antiquity ascribedto the leVeraI divme persons in the Godhead. all the perfections

Page 305: The Variations of Popery

ORIGIN OF THE ARIAN SYSTEM.

1)1' Deity. This liberty, indeed, was unfriendly to precision oflanguage; and many phrases, accordingly, were used by theancients on this subject, which are unmarked with accuracy.The hostility of heresiarchs first taught the necessity of discri-mination and exactness of diction, on this as on other topics oftheology.Arius, about the year 317, was, on this question, the first

innovator on the faith of antiquity, whose error obtained exten-live circulation or was attended with important consequences.Artemon, Paul, Ebion, and a few other speculators, indeed, hadon this topic, broached some novel opinions. These, howeverwere local and soon checked. But Arianism, like contagion,spread through Christendom: and was malignant in its natureand lasting in it'! consequences.This heresy originated in Alexandria. The patriarch of that

city, whose name was Alexander, discoursing, perhaps withostentation, on the Trinity, ascribed consubstantiality and equa-lity to the Son. Arius, actuated, says Theodoret, with envyand ambition, opposed this theory. Epiphanius representsArius, in this attempt, as influenced by Satan and inspired bythe afflatus of the Devil. Alexander's theology seemedto Arius,to destroy the unity of God and the distinction of Father andSon.'Epiphanius has drawn a masterly and striking portrait of

Arius. His stature was tall and his aspect melancholy. Hiswhole person, like the wily serpent, seemed formed for decep-tion. His dresswas simple and pleasing ; whilst his address andconversation, on the first interview, were mild and winning. Hisprepossessingmanner was calculated to captivate the mind, b)'the fascinations of gentleness and insinuation. SozomenandSocrates represent Arius as an able dialectician, and a formida-ble champion in the thorny field of controversy," _His opinions,on the topic of the"Trinity, differedwidely from

the generality of his fellow Christians. The Son, according tohis view,was a created being, formed in time out of nothing bythe plastic power of the Almighty. Emmanuel, in his system,doesnot possess eternity. A time was in which he did not exist.He was, according to this statement, unlike the Father in sub-stance, subject to"mutability, and liable to pain,",-!,heIIeresiarch's impiety prevented not his success in prose-

Iytism, which he obtained, in a great meesure, by his extraor-dmary zeal and activity. His system was soon embraced byt Epiph. 1. 728. Socrates, I. 6. Theodoret, L 2. AIeL 7. 87.2 Epiph. 1. 729. Socrates, L 5. SoIomen, I. 15. AIeL 7. 86. Godeau. 2. 101.

God3Theodor. I. 2. Sozomen. I. 15. Socrato I. 6. Augustin, 8. 621. AIeL 7. 31.eau, 2. 121.

T

Page 306: The Variations of Popery

306 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

two Egyptian bishops, seven presbyters, twelve deacons, and,what is more extraordinary, by 700 devoted virgins. He boastedat one time, of being followed by all the oriental clergy, exceptPhilogonos, Hellenicus, and Macarius, of Antioch, Tripoli, andJerusalem.'The patriarch of Alexandria, in the mean time, having

admonished the innovator and found him obstinate, conveneda council in 320, consisting of about 100 Egyptian and Lybianbishops, who condemned Arianism, expelled its author, withthe clergy and laity of his faction, from the church and fromthe city. Anus went to Palestine, where some, says Epiph-anius, received, and some rejected his system." His party,however, soon became formidable. The Arians, accordingly;assembled a synod, and exhibited a noble display of their unitywith the Egyptians. The former in- the council of Bithynia,reversed all that had been done at Alexandria. Arius wasdeclared orthodox and admitted to their communion. Circularletters were transmitted to the several bishops of the church,for the. purpose of inducing them to follow the Bithynianexample, and of enjoining the same on the patriarch of Alex-andria.The Tyrian, some time after, counteracted the Nicene coun-

cil, as the Bithynian had the Alexandrian. The council ofNicrea,the first general council convoked by the emperorConstantine, was assembled to settle the Trinitarian contro-versy, and was the most celebrated ecclesiastical congress ofantiquity. The clergy were summoned from the several parts ofChristendom, and about 31.8 attended. Hosius, in the generalopinion, was honored with the presidency. The assembledfathers, for the establishment of Trinitarianism and theextermination of Arianism, declared the CONSUBSTANTIALITYof the Son. This celebrated term, indeed, had, about sixtyyears before, been rejected oy the synod of Antioch and byDionysius of Alexandria, in opposition to Sabellianism. Diony-sius, however, had rejected it merely because unscriptual; hutafterward used it in an epistle to the Roman hierarch. TheAntiochian fathers omitted it, because it seemed, 'in the per-verted explanation of the Paulicians, to favor Sabellianism,and militate against the distinct personality of the Son. Theword, however, came into use BOOnafter the apostolic age.Vertullian, arguing against Praxeas, employs an expression ofthe same import.. The term, according to Ruffinus, was foundin the works of Origen," The Arians, only three in number,1~ n. 69. P. 729. Sozomen, I. 15. Godea. 2. 120.2 EpiplI. I. 729. Eueb. m. 6, 7. Soscaen, I. 15. .Alex. 7. 91.I Epiph. I. 7•• Socrat. L 8. TenuDiaD, 002. c. 4. .Alex. 7.122. JueDin, 3.60.

Page 307: The Variations of Popery

NICENE AND TYRIAN COUNCILS. 301

who refused subscription, were, according to the unchristiancustom of the age, anathematized and banished.Th8 Tyrian synod, though only provincial, endeavored to'

counteract the supreme authority of the general Nicene COUlt-cil. This assembly, which was convened by the emperor in335, 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, attendedwith about forty Egyptians.· Dionysius, with the imperialguards, was commissioned to prevent commotion or disorder.The Arian faction was led by Eusebius of Ceesarea, withpassion and tyranny. The whole scene combined the noisy"fury of a mob, and the appalling horrors of an inquisition.Athanasius, notwithstanding, with admirable dexterity, exposedthe injustice of the council and vindicated his own innocence.The champion of Trinitarianism, however, would have beenmurdered by the bravoes of Arianism, had not the soldieryrescued the intended victim from assassination. He embarkedin a ship and escaped their holy vengeance.' But the sacredsynod, in his absence, did not forget to pronounce sentence ofexcommunication and banishment. .The Anti-trinitarians, soon after the Nicene council, split into

several factions, distinguished by different names. The Ariansand Semi-Ariana," however, predominated. The Ariana fol-lowed the system of their founder, and continued to maintainthe DISSIMII,ARITY of the Son. The Semi-Arians, approxima-ting to the Nicenians, asserted his SIMII,ARITY.2 Arianism.indeed, in the multiplicity of its several forms, occupies all theImmense space between Socinianism, which holds the Bon'sm~re humanity, and Trinitarianism, which maintains His truedeity, This intermediate distance seems to have been filled.by t.he Anti-trinitarian systems of the fourth century, as theyascnbed more or less perfection to the second person of theGodhead. The Arians and Semi-Arians, however, wranglingabout. the similarity and dissimilarity, showed the utmostopposItion and hatred to each other, as well as to the Nicenianswho contended for the consubstantiality. .The Semi-Arians and Trinitarians soon came to action, in

the Antiochian and Roman synods. Julius, the Roman pontiff,assembled a. Roman council of fifty Italian bishops, in whichAthanas~us was acquitted and admitted to communion. TheGreeks, In the mean time, assembled at Antioch, and opened

2.1~t. 1. 28-34. Bozom. II. 2{)-28. Theod. 1.30. Alex. 7.132. Godeaa,.

2 Epiph. n, 73. P. 486. Alex. 7. 95.

Page 308: The Variations of Popery

308 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

a battery against the enemy.' These, amounting to ninety,degraded Athanasius, and issued three Semi-Arian creeds,which differing in other particulars, concurred in rejecting theconsubstantiality.The council of Sardica, in 347, declared for Athanasius and

Trinitarianism, and was opposed by that of Philippopolis inThracia. The Sardican assembly consisted of about 300 ofthe Latins, and the other of about seventy of the Greeks.The hostile councils encountered each other with their spiritualartillery, and hurled the thunders of mutual excommunication.The Latins at Sardica cursed and degraded the Arians withgreat devotion. The Greeks at Philippopolis, retorting theimprecations 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 reveredin the west as 'a saint. Accounted the patron of heresy amongthe Greeks, he was reckoned, among the Latins, the championof catholicism. Having devoted each other to Satan withmutual satisfaction, the pious episcopacy proceeded to thesecondary task of enacting forms of faith. The western pre-lacy were content with 'the Nicene confession. The orientalclergy published an ambiguous creed faintly tinged with Semi-arianism.'The Sardican council was the last stand which the Latins,

during the reign of Constantius, made for Athanasius andTrinitarianism. The Greeks, who were mostly Arians, werejoined by the Latins, and both in concert, in the councils ofArles, 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. Constantiushad long, with the utmost anxiety, wished the western prelacyto condemn the Alexandrian metropolitan. But the emperor,on account of his enemy's popularity, and the reviving freedomof 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 tomaintain the dignity of their legation, represented the Romanhierarch. Valens and Ursacius, who were veterans in faction,led the Arian and Imperial party; and succeeded by thesuperiority of their tactics and the influence of their sovereign,in procuring the condemnation of Athanasius.3

I Socrat. 11.7. Bin. 1. 519. Alex. 7. 151. Godeau, 2.20.1Theod. n. 8. Soorat. n. 20. Bin. 1. 558. Alex. 7. 153. Bruya, 1. II2.BiD. 1. 589. Labb. 2. 823. Bruys, 1. US.

Page 309: The Variations of Popery

COUNCILS OF SARDICA, ARLES, AND MILAN. 309

The Synod of Arles was, in 355, succeeded by that of Milan,and attended with similar consequences. This convention,summoned by Constantiua, consisted of about 300 of thewestern and a few of the oriental clergy. The assembly,which in number appears to have equalled the Nicene council,seemed, at first, to favor the Nicene faith and its intrepiddefender. Dionysius, Eusebius, Lucifer, and Hilary made avigorous, though an unsuccessful stand. But the integrity ofthe bishops was gradually undermined by the sophistry of theArians and the solicitation of the emperor, who gratified hisrevenge at the expense of his dignity, and exposed his ownpassions while he infl.uence~ those of the clergy. Reason andtruth were silenced by the clamors of a venal majority. TheArians were admitted to communion, and the hero of Trinita-rianism was, with all due solemnity, condemned by the formaljudgment of western as well as eastern Christendom.The decisions of Arles and Milan were corroborated by

those of Sirmium. The Sirmian assembly, convoked by theemperor and celebrated in the annals of antiquity, consistedsays Sozomen,' of both Greeks and Latins; and, therefore, inthe usual acceptation of the term, was a general council. Thewesterns, according to Binius, amounted to more than threehundred, and the easterns, in all probability, were equallynumerous. The fathers of Sirmium must have been aboutdouble those of Nieeea," The assembly seems to have had sev-eral sessions at considerable intervals, and its chronology hasbeen adjusted by Petavius and Valesius.The Sirmians emitted three forms of faith. The first, ill

35~, omits the consubstantiality, but contains no express decla-rat~on against the divinity of the Son. This exposition,which Athanasius accounted Arian, Gelasius, Hilary, andFacundus reckoned Trinitarian," The eastern and westernchampions of the faith differed, in this manner, on the orthodoxyof a creed, issued by a numerous council and confirmed by a~man ~ontiff. Athanasius condemned, as heresy, a confes-sion whIch Hilary, supported in the rear by his infallibility,Pope O~lasius, approved as Catholicism. This was an admi-rable display of unity. The second formulary of Sirmium, in8.57! c?ntains pure Arianism. The consubstantiality and&ffill~ty, in this celebrated confession, are rejected, and then, m honor and glory, represented as inferior to the Father.

~~. IV. 9. Socnlt. 2. 36. Bin. 1. 289. Labb. 2. 827.3Uil:' r~.30. Sozomen, IV. 6. Bin 1.593,a94,595.

AthanaisiIII ~~m formulam non iplprobat, imo eenset Catholicam. Sed abtinereturO jlClt'.'-r tanquam opus, quoAriana impietaa, implicite saltem, con-

. uenm, 3. 70. Alex. 7. 170. Labb. 2. 846. Godeau,2. 282.

Page 310: The Variations of Popery

�310 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

who alone possesses the attributes of eternity, invisibility, andimmortality. The third, which was afterward adopted in theArmenian synod, is Semi-Arian. Rejecting the consubstanti-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 havelabored hard to show that the creed which Liberius signed,was not the second, but the first of Sirmium, which, according toHilary, was orthodox.' But the unanimous testimony of historyis against this opinion. Du Pin has stated the transactions, onthis occasion. with his usual candor and accuracy. The Ro-man bishop, according to this author, subscribed the second ofSirmium, which was Arian, while an exile at Berea, and thefirst of the same city, which was Semi-Arian, afterwards at theplace in which itrwas issued. ' All antiquity, with one consent.admits the certainty of this Pontiff's subscription to an Ariancreed, and speaks of his fall as an apostasy from the faith." DuPin's statement and the Arianism of the Sirmian confession,which Liberius signed, has been attested by Liberius, Hilary,Athanasius, Jerome, Philostorgius, Damasus, Anastasius, andSozomen.Liberius himself, in his epistle to his oriental clergy, declared,

that he signed, at Berea, the confession which was presentedto him by Demophilus, a decided and zealous partisan of Ari-anism. Demophilus, the Roman pontiffwrites, 'explained theSirmian faith, which Liberius, with a willing mind, afterwardsubscribed.' He avers, in the same production, that' he agreedwith the oriental bishops,' who were notoriously Arian, 'in allthings.' 3

The sainted Hilary calls Liberius a prevaricator, designatellthe confession issued at Sirmium, proposed by Demophilus, andsigned by the pontiff, 'the Arian perfidy,' and launches 'threeanathemas against his holiness and his companions, wko were. ,all heretics," Hilary's account shows, in the clearest terms, .that it was not the first Sirmian formulary which Liberiuseigned. This, Hilary accounted orthodox, and therefore wouldnot denominate it a perfidy.Athanasius confirms the relation of Hilary and the apostasy

<ofLiberius, 'who, through fear of death, subscribed.' Jerome

1Spon. 357. XIII .. Alex. 7. 117. Bin. 1.576.20mnee lIotltiqui, uno ore, de Ispsu Liberii, velut de apostasia a fide loqunn-

tur. Du Pin, 347.8Videtill in omnibus me vobis consentllotleum esse.· Hanc ego libenti animo, .

.ueepi. Bin. 1. 582. Hilary, FraRm. 426. Juenin, 3. 75. Maimbourg, l~.HlIeC eat periidia.Ariana. Anathema, tibi a me dictum, Liberi, et 8OC11I

tuis. lteJ:1llD tibi AllatheJrJa et tertio pnevaricator, Liberi. Hilary, in Fragm.426, m. Maimbouq, 104.

Page 311: The Variations of Popery

POPE LIBERIUS AN ARIAN. 311

of sainted memory has, in his catalogue and ohronicon,relatedthe 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, signedheretical depravity.' Liberius according to Philostorgius,'subscribed against Athanasius and the Consubstantiality.'This pontiff, says Damasus in his pontifical, and Anastasius inhis history, 'consented to the heretic Constantius.' Theemperor, says Sozomen,'forced Liberius to deny the consub-stantiality,"Liberius, Hilary, Athanasius, Jerome, Philostorgius, Da-

masus, and Anastasius, in this statement, have, in moremoderntimes, been followed by Platina, Auxilius, Eusebius, Cusan,Areolus, Mezeray, Bruys, Petavius, Avocat, Gerson, Vignier,Marian, Alvarius, Bede, Sabellicus, Gerson, Regina, Alphon-sus, Caron, Tostatus, Godeau, Du Pin, and Maimbourg.Liberius, says Platina, 'agreed in all things with the hereticsor Arians.' Auxilius, Eusebius, Cusan, Areolus, Mezeray,Bruys, Petavius, Avocat, Gerson,Vignier, Marian,and Alvariusrepresent Liberius, as subscribing or consenting to an Arianconfession. Bede, the English historian, in his martyrology,characterizes this pontiff, like the Emperor Constantius, as apartisan of Arianism. Liberius,accordingto Sabellicus,Gerson,Regino, Alphonsus, Caron and Tostatus, was an Arian. Thispontiff,says Godeau, 'subscribed the Sirmian confession andconcurred with the oriental clergy, who were the patrons ofheresy. His condemnation of Athanasius, at this time, was thecondemnation of Catholicism.' Du Pin bears testimony of thispontiff's apostasy, in signing the second confessionof Sirmium.TheRoman hierarch, says this author in his History and Dis-sertations, subscribed both to Arianism and Semi-Ari8.nismjwhile all the ancients, with the utmost unanimity, testify hisdefection from Trinitarianism. Maimbourg,though a. Jesuit,admits the pontift's solemn approbation of Arianism, and his .fall into the abyss of heresy.'

.1 +oJ)."IIElS TOV .. 1rElAOlJp.IIOIJ IIIlJ1f1T0V, VWE-yP"'/iEV. Athanasius, ad Sol.--Solic!ta-";it ac fregit et ad subscriptionem hreresios compulit .. Jerom. 4. 1~. Libe-nus tredio victus exilii et in hreretica pravitate subscnbens. Jerom m Chron.A.J)EpIOII 1aIT.. TOIl OJUJPtTlOIJ ,.... ,.."V /(/1&......... -yE TOIl A8lIrHIur101J VWO"(fJlI'In&l. Philos.IV. 3. Liberiusconsensit Constantio hreretico. Anastasius, 11. Bin. 1,576. EJ)UI-'ETO lIIJTo0J401o.o-yEW,..." E._...... n.....p. TOil ..... 11OJ4OPt1IOII. Sosomen, IV. 5. .2 In rebus omnibus sensit cum hrereticis. Pontifex' cum Anania seutiebat.

Pl~tina in Liber. QuiB nesciat quod Liberius, proh dolor, Arianre hreresi BUb-Bcnpserit. AuxiliUB, 1.25. Alex. 9. 17.Doleret Liberium Papam Arianre perfidire consensisse. Euseb. in Brev. Rom.

Lannoy, 1. 126.Liberius oonsensit errori Arlanorum. Cusano II. 5. Caron. 87.LiberiuB in illam pravitatem subscripsissit. Areolus in Caron, 96.

Page 312: The Variations of Popery

sa THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

His supremacy's fall from Trinitarianism, indeed, is attestedby all antiquity and by all the moderns, who have any preten-sions to candor or honesty. ['he relation has been deniedonly by a few men, such as Baronius and Bellarmine, whosedays were spent in the worthy task of concealing Or pervert-ing the truth. These; utterly destitute of historical authority,have endeavored to puzzle the subject by misrepresentationand chicanery. Baronius maintains the orthodoxy of theSirmian confessionsigned by the Roman pontiff. The annalist,on this topic, has the honor 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 j whilehis mind, 'that noble seat of thought,' remained the unspottedcitadel ofgenuine Catholicism. This was very clear and sensiblein the Jesuit, who seems to have been nearly asgood at distinc-tions as Walter Shandy.The pontiffs vindicators, such as Baronius,Bellarmine,Binius,

Juenin, Faber, Dens, and BOS8uet,who deny his Arianism,'admit his condemnation of Athanasius, his communionwith theArians, and his omission of the consubstantiality. Theseerrors, which are acknowledged, amount, in reality, to a pro-fession of Arianism and an immolation of the truth. The causeof Athanasius, says Maimbourg, 'was inseparable from thefaith which he defended.' The condemnation of the Trinita-

Liberius etant tombe en hereme. Mezeray, 561.Concile de Sirmium ayant dreese nne profession de foi en faveur de l'arianismc,

Libere y eouscrivit. Bruys, 1. lI8.Liberius subscripsit Arianorum fidei professioni. Petavius, 2. 134.Liberius eut la foiblesse de souserire a. une formule de foi dressee a. Sirmium

avec beau coup d'artifice par les Ariens, Avocat, 2. 67.Legimus Liberium Arianre pravitati subecripsiase. Gerson in Cossant, 3. 1156.Liberius souscrivit a. la doctrine des Ariens, Vignier, 3. 879.Liberius tredio victus exilii, in hreretica privitate subscribens. Marian, in

Crabb. 1. 347. Liberius Papa Arianss perfidire consensit. Alvarus, n. 10.Sub Oonstantio lmperatore Ariano machinante, Liberio prresule similiter

hreretico. Beda, 3. 326 .• Marty. 19. Calend. Sept.Arianus, ut qnidam scribunt, est factus. Sabell. Enn. 7. L. 8.Libere souscrivit l'Arianisme. Gerson in Lenfan. Pisa, 1. 286.Liberiua reversus ab exilio, hrereticis favet. Regin. 1.De'Liberio Pape, constat fuisse Arianum. Alphoneus, I. 4. Caron, 96.Vere ArianU8 fnit. Caron. c. 18.

. Quilibet homo poteat errare in fide, et effici brereticus : sicut de multis SUlD'mis. PontificibWllegimus ut de Liberio, Tostatus, in.LaUD. ad Metay. 16.On ne pent nier qu'ils ne fuBBent heretiques. Godeau, 2. 286.Liberiu8 fidei formnhe hllll'eticre subscripsit. Du Pin, 347. .LiberiU8approuva BOlenneJl8JDent I'Arianisme tomberdans l'ablme de I'herR'

aie. MaimboUig, c: 10.

Page 313: The Variations of Popery

COUNCILS OF ARIJolINUM AND SELEUCIA. 313

riun chief, according to Godeau and MOl'Gri,'was tantamountto the condemnation of Catholicism.'1The Papal church, therefore, in its representation at Sir-

mium, through the oriental and occidental communions, was, inthis manner, guilty of general apostasy. Its head and its meiu-bel's, or the Roman pontiff and his clergy, conspired, througheastern and western Christendom, against Catholicism, and fellinto heresy. The defection extended to the Greeks and Latins,and was sanctioned by the pope. No fact, in all antiquity, isbetter attested than this event, in which all the cotemporaryhistorians concur, without a single discord to interrupt thegeneral harmony.The world, on this occasion, was blessed with two cotem-

porary Arian Pontiffs. During the expatriation of Liberius,Felix was raised to the Papacy, and remains to the present daya saint and a martyr of Romanism. This Hierarch, notwith-standing, was, without any lawful election, ordained by Arianbishops, communicated with the Arian party, embraced, SH.y

Socrates and Jerome, the Arian heresy, and violated a solemnoath, which, with the rest of the Roman clergy, he had taken,to acknowledge no other bishop while Liberius lived. Atha-nasius, the champion of Trinitarianism, was so ungenteel as tostyle this saint, 'a monster, raised to the Papacy by the maliceof Antichrist," The church, at this time, had two Arian heads,and God had two heretical vicars-general. One viceroy ofheaven was guilty of Arianism, and the other, both (If Ariani.'ll.and perjury. Baronius and Bellarrnine should have informedChristendom, 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 strikingpoint of view, the versatility of the Papal communion and thetriumph of the Arian heresy. Constantius had designed to calla general council, for the great, but impracticable purpose ofeffecting unanimity of faith th:rough all the precincts of easternand western Christendom; and Arianism, in the emperor'sintention, 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 oneas.'Jembly. Two councils, therefore, one in the east and the1On ne peut nier que condamner Athanase ne fat oondamner lafoi Catholique.

Godeau, 5. 286. Moren, 5. 154. Maimbourg, IV. Bellarmin, IV. 9. Bin.l. 593.Vemm eIlt Liberium cum Arianis commnnieasse et subscripsisse damnationi

Athanasii. Dens 2.1G:l .. Liberius rejettaia communion d'Athanase,communia aveeles.Ariens.et souacri-~ltnne oonfellllion de foi oula foi de Nicee etoit supprimee, Bossuet, Opus. 2. MIL2Athan. ad Sol. Theod. n. 17. Socrat. 11.37. Sozomen, IV. n.

Page 314: The Variations of Popery

:3L4 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 theeasterns at Seleucia, The Ariminian council, which met in359, consisted of 400, or, as some say, 600 western bishops,from Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Illyricum.' TheArian party, in this convention, was small, amounting only toabout 80; but was led by Valens and Ursaeius, who trainedunder the Eusebian banners in the ecclesiastical wars of theeast, had been practised in faction and popular discussion,which gave them a superiority over the undisciplined ecclesias-tical soldiery of the west.The council, at first, assumed a high tone of orthodoxy. The

eonsubstantiality was retained, the Nicene faith confirmed,andthe Arian heresy condemned with the usual anathemas. TheAriminians, unsatisfied with the condemnation of Arianism,proceedednext to point their spiritual artillery against its par-tisans." These were sacrificed to the interests of the Nicenetheology, and hurled from their episcopal thrones, as an immo-lation to the offendedgenius of Trinitarianism.But the end of this assembly disgraced the beginning. Ursa-

eius and Valens,experienced in wordy war and skilled in syno-dal tactics, rallied their flying forces,and charged the victoriousenemy with menace and sophistry. These veterans summonedto their aid, the authority of the emperor and the control of thePrefect, who was commissionedto banish the refractory, if theydid not exceedfifteen. The chicanery of the Semi-Arian factionembarrassed, confounded, and, at last, deceived the ignoranceor simplicity of the Latin prelacy, who, by fraud and intimida-tion, yielded to the enemy, and surrendered the palladium ofthe Nicenian faith. The authority of Constantius, the influenceof Taurus, the stratagems of Ursacius and Valens, the dreadof banishment, the distress of hunger and cold, extorted thereluctant subscription of the Ariminian Fathers to a Semi-Arianform of faith, which established the similarity of the Son, butsuppressed the consubstantiality. The suppression, however,did not satisfy the Semi-Arian party. An addition was sub-joined, declaring' the Son unlike other creatures.' This plainlyimplied that the Son is a created being, though of a superiororder and a peculiar kind. The western clergy, in thismanner were bubbled out of their religion. All, says Prosper,'condemned, through treachery, the ancient faith, and sub-scribed the perfidy of Ariminum.'a The crafty dexterity of1Theod. 11. 18. Epiph. 1. 870. Hilary,428. AleJt.7. 180. Godean, 2.296.2 Theod. II. 16. Labbeus, 2. 896, 912. Paolo, 2. Hl6. .Jnenin, 3. 71.• SynodU8~d Ariminum at Seleuciam Iaaurile facta, in qua antiqua patrum

ides decem pnmo legato1'Ull1dehinc omnium proditione daumata est. Prosper,1. 423. SoCrat. II.~. Sosomen. IV. 19.

Page 315: The Variations of Popery

VARIETY OF <':ONFESSlON~. 3i5the Semi-Arians gulled the silly simplicity or gross ignoranceof the Trinitarians, who, according to their own story, soonrepented. 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, andnonsense, calculated to excite the scorn of the infidel and thepity of the wise. Nazianzen calls this assembly' the tower ofBabel and the council of Caiaphas.' An hundred and sixtybishops attended. The Semi-Arians amounted to about onehundred and five, the Arians to forty, and the Trinitarians tofifteen; Leonas, the Qusestor, attended, as the Emperor's deputy,to prevent tumult. The Arians and Semi-Arians commencedfurious debates on the Son's similarity, dissimilarity, and con-substantiality. Dissension and animosity arose to such a height,that Leona.'> withdrew, telling the noisy ecclesiastics, that hispresence was not necessary to enable them to wrangle andscold. The Semi-Arian creed of Antioch, however, was, on themotion of Sylvan, recognised and subscribed; and the Arianawithdrew from the assembly. The Arians and a deputation fromthe Semi-Arians afterwards appeared at court, to plead theircause before the emperor, who obliged both to sign the lastSirmian confession, which, dropping the consubstantiality, es-tablished the similarity of the Son in all things.'The Byzantine synod, which met in 3(j(), confirmed the last

Sirmian confession. This assembly consisted of fifty bishopsof 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, thesedissemblers did to flatter the emperor, who patronized this sys-tem. All other forms of belief were condemned, 'the Acts ofthe Seleucian synod repealed, and the chief patrons of the Semi-Arian heresy deposed."The Arians, supported by the emperor, continued the perse-

cution of the Nicene faith, till the world, in general, becameArian. The contagion of heresy, like a desolating pestilen~e,spread through the wide extent of eastern and western Chris-tendom. The melancholy ~le has, a~ong o~hers, ~en attestedby Sozomen, Jerome, Basil, Augustme, Vmcent1U8, Prosper,Beda, Baronius, and Labbeus.3

1Godeau, 2. 302. Nazianzen, Or. 21. Labbeua, 2. 915. Sozomen, IV. 22.Soerat. II. 39.40. Ale:L 7. 18(1.t Soorat. IL 41. Labbeus,3. 72. Juenin,3. 72.DoItE, TO'I'E Iua TO" TOll Bao'aAfOIIS'IIO/30'" CUl<rToA" Itlll lSI/ens ol'-"'l>fJO"'!" "'P' ore

'"""" Sozomen, IV. 16. Iugemuit totua orbis, et Arian'!-m se esse miratua est.Jerom. adv. Luci{. 4. 300. ITA""o~ ll')'CU" Nazian Or. 21. Easa 'f(~0H1'"

Page 316: The Variations of Popery

316 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

I The east and west,' says Sozomen, I seemed, through fearof Constantius, to agree in faith.' Arianism, all know, was thefaith produced by dread of the emperor. 'The whole world,'says the sainted Jerome, I groaned and wondered to find itselfbecomeArian.' Gregory's relation is still more circumstantialand melancholy. All, says this celebrated author, 'except a-very few whom obscurity protected,or whose resolution, throughdivine strength, was proof against temptation and danger, tem-porised, yielded to the emperor,and betrayed the faith.' Somehe adds, 'were chiefs of the impiety, and some were circum-vented by threats, gain, ignorance, or flattery. The rightfulguardians of the faith, actuated by hope or fear, became itspersecutors. Few were found, who did not sign with their,hands what they condemned in their hearts; while many,whohad been accounted invincible, were overcome. The faithful,without distinction, were degraded and banished.' The sub-scription of the Byzantine confession was an indispensablequalification for obtaining and retaining the episcopal dignity.Basil, on the occasion,uses still stronger language than Gre-

gory. He represents the church as reduced to that.' completedesperation, which he calls its dissolution.' According to Au-gustine, 'the church, as it were, perished from the earth.Nearly all the world fell from the apostolic faith. Among sixhundred and :fiftybishops, were found scarcely seven,whoobeyed God rather than the emperor, and who would neithercondemn Athanasius nor deny the Trinity. The Latins, accor-ding to Vincentius, 'yielded almost all to force or fraud, andthe poison of Arianism contaminated, not merely a few, butnearly the whole world.', Nearly aU the churches in the whole world,' saYi Prosper,•

'were, in the name of peace and the emperor, polluted witllthe communion of the Arian."l.' The councils of Ariminum andSeleucia, which embraced the eastern and western prelacy, all,E"VI'''''' EpxopElla, rD.VrE1<.1/ 1<.1/1<.v..."",CIpA EICIC1<.1/UlQ. Basil, ep 82. ad Athan. 3. 173.Tanquam perierit ecclesia de orbe terrarum. August. Ep. 93. L'eglise etoitperie, Apol, 1. 100. Dilspeo a fide Apostolorum omni pene mundo, De sex-centis et quinquaginta, ut fertur, episcopis vix septem inventi sunt, quibu.seariora essent Dei prrecepta quam regis, VIdelicet ut nee in Athanasii damna-tionem convenirent, nee 'I'rinitatis confession em negarent. Augustin, contraJul. 10. 919. Ariauorum venenum non jamportiuncu1am quandam, sed peneorbem totum contaminaverat, sdeo ut prope eunetis Latini lrermonis episcopis,partim vii. partim fraude, caligo queedem mentibus offunderetur. Vincent.Com. 644. Omnes pene ecclesire, toto orbe sub nominepacis et regis, ArianoruDlconsortio polluuntur. Prosper, Chron. 1. 423. Ariana vesania, corrupto orbe to-to, bane etiam insulam veneno sui infecit erroris. Non solum orbis totius, sed etinsulanun ecclesiis aspenit. Beds, 1. 8. Fere omnes episcopi in fraudem suntiuducti, ut Occidental. Ariminensi illi fonnu1le, ita Orientales subecriberent.JIaroa in Bi8cioIa. 230. Omnes pene totius orbia antistites metu exilii et Wr-JlJentorum per vim, induxerunt. Labbens. 2. 912.

Page 317: The Variations of Popery

ECCLESIASTICAL DISSENSIONH. :n7

through treachery, condemned the ancient fait!'!. The Arimi-nian confession,the saint denominated 'the Ariminian perfidy.'The Arian madness, says the English historian Bede, 'cor-rupted the whole continent, opened a way for the pestilencebeyond the ocean, and shed its poison on the British !IJl1dotherwestern islands.'Earonius calls Arianism, in this age, 'the fallacy, into which

were led almost all the eastern and western clergy, who sub-scribed the Ariminian confession.' Labbeus, in his statement,concurs with Baronius. He represents 'all the prelacy of thewhole world, except a few, as yielding, on this occasion,to thefear ofexile or torment.'Arianism, in this manner, was sanctioned by the Papal

ehurch, virtual, representative, and dispersed, or, in otherwords, by the Roman pontiff, a general council, and the col-lective clergy of Christendom. Pope Liberius confirmed anArian creed, issued by the general council of Sirmium. Thesynods of Ariminum and Seleucia, comprehending both theGreeks and the Latins, copied the example of Sirmium. TheConstantinopolitan confession, which was the same as theAriminianand Sirmian, which were both Semi-Arian, was cir-eulated through the east and west, and signed by the clergydispersed through the Roman empire. The Romish churchprofessesto receive the doctrines, approved, in general, by theEpiscopacy, assembled in councilor scattered through theworld. Arianism was established in both these ways, and theRomish communion therefore became Arian in its head and illits members, or, in other words, in the pope and in the clergy.The boasted unity of Romanism was gloriously displayed,

by the diversifled councils and confessions of the fourth cen-tury. Popery, on that as on every other occasion, eclipsed~rotestantism in the manufacture of creeds. Forty-five coun-~Il~, says Jortin, were held in the fourth century. Of these,thIrteen were against Arianism, fifteen for that heresy, a~dseventeen for Semi-Arianism. The roads were crowdedwithbishops thronging to synods, and the tra vellingexpen~,· whichwere defrayed by the emperor, exhausted the public funds.These exhibitions became the sneer of the heathen, who were~mused to behold men, who, from infancy, had been educatedIII Christianity, and appointed to instruct others in that religion,hastening, in this manner, to distant placesand conventions forthe purpose of ascertaining their belief.Socrates reckons nine Arian creeds, which, in significant

language, he calls a labyrinth. The Sirmian confession,which

Jortin, 3. 106. Ammian. XXV. Athan. de Syn.

Page 318: The Variations of Popery

318 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

contained one of the nine, was signed by the Roman pontiff,and the majority of these innovations was subscribed by thewestern as well as by the eastern prelacy. Fleury makes theArian confessions sixteen, and 'I'illemont eighteen. Petaviu-reckons the public creeds at eleven. Fourteen forms' of faith,says Juenin, were published in fourteen years, by those whorejected the Nicene theology,' Eight of these are mentionedby Socrates, and the rest by Athanasius, Hilary, andEpiphanius.Hilary seems to have been the severest satirist, in this age,

on the variations of Popery. Our faith, says the Roman saint,, varies as our wills, and our creeds are diversified as our man-ners. Oonfessions are formed and interpreted according tofancy. We publish annual and monthly creeds concerning God.We repent and defend our decisions, and pronounce anathemason those whom we have defended. Our mutual dissensionshave caused our mutual ruin." Hilary was surely an ungrate-ful son of canonization.Gregory Nazianzen, who equalled Hilary in sanctity and

surpassed him in moderation and genius, treats the jarring pre-lacy of his day with similar freedom and severity. The Byzan-tine patriarch lamented the misery ofthe Ohristian community,which, torn with divisions, contended about the most uselessand trivial questions. He compared the contentions of theclergy in synods, 'to the noisy and discordant cackling of geeseand cranes." He resigned his dignity and retired from the cityand council of Constantinople, through an aversion to the alter-cations and enmity of the ecclesiastics who, by their discord,had dishonored their profession, and 'changed the kingdomof heaven into an image of chaos.'

1Socrat. II. 41. Span. 359. VIII. Fleury, XIV. Bisciola, 320. Tillem,6. 477. Juenin, 3.72. Petav. VI. 4. Epiph. R. 73.

2 Tot nunc fides existere, quot voluntates ; et tot nobis doctrinas esse, quotmores. Fides seribuntur, ut volumns, aut ita ut volumus, intell~guntur. In;certodoctrinarumvento vagamur. Annuasatque menstruas de DeoFides de~ermml;1S'Decretis pcenitemus, defendimus, defensos, anathematizamus. Mordientes ill'vieem, jam absumpti Humusab invieem. Hilary, ad Constan. 308.3Greg.IOr. I. Carro. X. Orat. 32.

Page 319: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER X.

EUTYCHIANISM .

• J;TYCHIANISM A VERBAL HERESY-IT8~ PRIOR EXISTENCE-BYZANTINE COUNCIL-EPHESIAN COUNCIL--CHALCEDONIAN COUNCIL-STATE OF MONOPHYSITISM AFTEItTHE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON-ZENO'S HENOTICON-VABIETY OF OPINIONS ONTHAT EDICT-JACOBINISM--DISTBACTED STATE OF CHRISTENDOM.

THE Son of God, in the theology of Christian antiquity, united,in one person, both deity and humanity. The Christians, inthe days of simplicity and prior to the introduction of refine-ment and speculation, accounted the Mediator perfect God andperfectman. His divinity was acknowledged in opposition toArianism; and his humanity, consisting in a real body and arational soul, in contradiction to Gnosticismand Apollinarian-ism. Godhead and manhood, according to the same faith andcontrary to the alleged error of Nestorianism, subsisted in theunity of his person. The simplicity of the faithful, in the earlyages, was satisfied with the plain untheorized fact, withoutvainly attempting to investigate the manner of the union be-tween the divinity and humanity.All human knowledge may be resolved into a few facts, evi-

denced by human or divine testimony. Reason, in a few in-stances, may discover their causes and consequences, whichagain are known to man only as facts. The manner, inscru-table to man, is removed beyond the ken of the human mind, Iand cognizableonly by the boundlessnessof divine omniscience.An acorn is evolved into an oak. But the modeof accomplish-ment is unknown to man. The human eye cannot trace the?peration through all its curious and wonderful transformationsI~ the mazy labyrinth of nature, and in the dark la~ratory a:ndhidden recesses of vegetation. The soul, unacquamted WIththe manner of its union with the body and the mutual actionof matter and mind, may decline philosophizingon the incar-nation of the Son and the union of Godhead and manhood inImmanuel The ancients therefore showed their wisdom inavoiding Speculationona truth, the certainty of which,to theirgreat joy, they had learned from revelation.

Page 320: The Variations of Popery

320 TH~ VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

But the days of simplicity passed and the age of speculationarrived. Men, under the mask of devotion, differed and foughtabout what they did not understand. The Eutychain contro-versy, which exemplified these observations and which was theoccasionof shocking animosity, began in the year 448. Euty-ches, fromwhom this party took its name, wasAbbot or Superiorof a Byzantine convent of 300 monks, in which he had re-mained for seventy years. This recluse seems, in his cell, tohave spent a life of sanctity; and he boasted of having grownhoary in combating error and defending the truth. His un-derstanding and literary attainments have been represented asbelowmediocrity. Leo, the Roman hierarch, calls Eutyches anold senseless dotard. Petavius reflects on his stupidity.' Butthese aspersions seem to have been the offspring of preposses-sion and enmity. The supposed Heresiarch, if a judgmentmay be formed from the records of history, showed no imbecil-ity of mind either in word or action. He displayed, on thecontrary, before the Byzantine and C'halcedonian councils, Itfund of sense and modesty, which might have awakened theenvy of hi; persecutors. He resolved indeed to rest his faithonly on the Bible, as a firmer foundation than the fathers.'This was unpardonable, and evinced shocking and incurablestupidity. .This celebrated innovator, however, as he had been some

times accounted, seemed to confound the natures of the Son, asNestorius had appeared to divide his person. He was accusedof denying our Lord's humanity, as Arius had denied hisdivinity, and of renewing the errors of Gnosticism and Apol- •linarianism. He believed, said some of his opponents, that thehumanity was absorbed by the divinity as a drop is over-whelmed in the ocean. Godeau, unsatisfied with accusing theHeresiareh with other errors, has, by a curious process ofreasoning, endeavored to add Nestorianism, though this, ingeneral, was accounted the opposite heresy. These statements,however, he rejected with indignation. He used language,indeed, which, from its inaccuracy, seemed to imply that theSon of God, after his incarnation, possessed but one nature;and that he was not consubstantial with man in his humanity,as he was consubstantial with God in his deity. Eutychian-ism, as refined and explained. by Fullo and Xenias, was de-nominated Monophysitism. These, though they maintained the

! Qui sui nominis halreaim condidit. Victor, 321.Leo. adFJav. et ad Fast. Labb. 4. 790, 1214.. Bin. 3. 10, 104. Godeau,3.

10,405,.418. Petav. I. 1'- .AIeL 10. 321.2 Solu ICl"ipturae aectari, tanquam firmiores Patram expcllIi.tioDibua. .Alex.

10.325.

Page 321: The Variations of Popery

EUTYCHIA:-lISM A VlmnAL HERESY. 3~l

unity of the Son's nature, admitted that this unity WIIHtwo-foldand compounded, and rejected the idea of change or confusi.mof His divinity and humanity. 1 This denomination, from .J/te"I,or Zanzal, its restorer, the grandeur of' whose views surpassedthe obscurity of his station, was called Jacobites.Eutychianism was only a nominal or verbal heresy. The

controversy, through all its stages and in all its fury, was amere logomacy, a miserable quibbling on the meaning of a word.Its author, though he said that Jesus, before the hypostaticalunion, possessed two natures, and after it only one, admitted, .at the same time, that he was perfect God and perfect mauwithout confusion of the godhead and manhood; and anathe-matized the partisans of Manicheanism and Apollinarianism.Dioscorus, in the council of Chalcedon, anathematized. all whoadmitted transmutation or commixion of divinity and humanity."These supposed innovators, therefore, were only guilty of

confounding the words nature and person; and offended againstthe propriety of language rather than against the truth of Chris-tianity. The diction of Catholicism, indeed, on this topic, farexcels the phraseology of Monophysitism in precision and sim-plicity. But the disputation turned only on the terms of ex-pression. This, at the present day, is the general opinion ofProtestant critics, such as Basnage, La Croze, Mosheim, andBuchanan. Many Romish theologians also, all indeed whopossess candor and moderation, have entertained the Harneview.Gelasius, Thomassin, Tournefort, Simon, Petavius, AHsernan,Bruys, Alphonsus, and Vasquesius, all the partisans of Roman-

• ism, have declared in favor of' this opinion." The Jacobites orMonophysites, says Gelasius and after him Thomassin, are farfrom believing, that the godhead, in the Son, is blended or con-founded with. the manhood. Deity and humanity, say theseauthors, according to the Monophysite system, form one natureand person in Jesus as soul and body in man, while each retainsIts proper distinctions. The Armenians, who are a branch ofthe Jacobites, disclaim, says Tournefort, the imputation of con-founding the divine and human nature, which are distinct, andascribe the misunderstanding between themselves and the otherChristian denominations to the poverty of their language. Eu-tychianism, says Simon, uses indeed too strong language. Butthe distinction arose from the various acceptations of the terms1EvagriuB, 1. 9. Theoph. 69. Zlmaras, 2. 34. Crabb. 1. 644. Godeau, 3. 406.2 Confitebatur perfectum Deum esseet perfectum hominem. Bin. 3. 104. Go-

deau, 3. 432. Dioscoms dixit, neque confusionem dicimus, neque divisionem,neque conversionem. Bin. 3. 93. Labb. 4. 9M.

3 GelAsius de Duab. Thomassin, 1. 4. Tournefort, ll;!, 297. Simon, c. 9. Pe-av. 1. 14. A8Ilem&1l,2. 2f11. Bmy. 1. 230. Alex. 11. 297, 300. Thom. 2.' 21.Du Pin, 694.

U

Page 322: The Variations of Popery

322 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

nature and person, and might easily be reconciled with Cath~-licism. The Mono~hysite expression, according to Petavius,may be understood 10 an orthodox sense. Alphonsus, Vasque-sius, and Asseman have delivered similar statements, Euty-ches, says Bruys, differed from the orthodox only in his man-ner of expression, and was condemned only because he wasmisunderstood. Gregory, the Monophysite metropolitan, whowas also a theologian, philosopher, poet, physician, and histo-rian, accounted the Jacobite a mere verbal controversy.Gregory's view of this supposed heresy appears from theByzantine conference between the Severians and Hypatiu;.;under Justinian; and again, in a still clearer light, from theconfession of faith, which the Armenian patriarch sent to theemperor Manuel.Monophysitism, however, whether real or verbal, was no

novelty. Similar expressions, as Theorian, Eutyches, Diosco-rus, Eustathips, Damascen, the Orientals, and Severians showed,had been used by Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory, Dionysius, andNazianzen, who are Roman saints; and by Felix and Julius,who were Roman pontiffs,' Athanasius and Cyril, said Theo-rian, the advocate of Catholicism in 1169, used the expression, one incarnated nature of the Word.' Eutyches, in the councilof Chalcedon, said, 'I have read the works of Cyril, Athaan-sius, and other fathers, who ascribed two natures to the Sonbefore the union, but after it only one.' Writing to Leo, herepresented Julius saying, that divinity and humanity in Im-manuel after the incarnation, formed, like soul and body in man,but one nature. The comparison of soul and body, on this'question, seems to have been a favorite among the ancients.Nazianzen used it in nearly the same diction as Julius. Dios-corus, in the council of Chalcedon, said, 'I have the repeatedattestations of Athanasius, Gregory, and Cyril for only one na-ture in Jesus after the union, and these kept, not in a negligentor careless manner, but in books, Eustathius, bishop of Bery-tus, on this topic, displayed signal confidence and resolution.

I Unam naturam sermonis incarnatam. Cossart, 2. 580,581. Du Pin, 1. 659:Eutyches dixit, ego legi scripta beati Cyrilli, et sanctorum patrum, et sanetl

Athanasii, quoniam ex duabus quidem naturis dixennt ante adunationem, postadunationem, non jam dUMnaturas, sed unam naturam dixerunt. Bin. 3. 124.Labb. 6. 436. Alex. 10. 371. Liberatus, c. 11. .Naturm quidem dum, Deus et homo, quemadmodum et anima et corpus. Na.zIa '.

ad Cledon. Bin. 3. 182. Labb. 4. 954-Verisimile eat, non esse Cyrilli. Bell. III. 4. Damas. III.6,. .Beato Cyrillo et beato Athanaaio Alexandrinre civitatis episcopis, Felice eti~

et Julio Romanre eccleeire> Gregorio quin etiam et Dionysio, unam naturam DelVerbi decenaentibua post uniti~nemhOi omnea tra.n8~ illi, postunitionem.p~·sumpeerunt duas natu:ruprredicare. Labb.5. 912. Bin. 3. 93,94,97. Dn Pin, .694.

Page 323: The Variations of Popery

EUTYCHIANISM A VERBAL HERESY.

Cyril, said the bold Monophysite, declared in favor of' one in-carnated nature,' and confirmed his declaration by the testi-many of Atbanasius, The Judges were going to speak, whenEustathius interrupted them, and, passing into the middle ofthe assembly, said, ' if I am mistaken, behold Cyril's book.Anathematize Cyril, and I am anathematized.' One incarnatednature, indeed, says Du Pin, was a favorite and frequentphrase with Cyril.Damascen also, quoted by Bellarmine, ascribed language of

the same kind to Athanasius, Cyril, and Nazianzen. Thisauthor, though an adherent of Romanism, admitted the use of~Ionophysite expressions in the above-named Grecian saints.Bellarmine, indeed, with respect to Cyril, hints a suspicion offorgery. The Cardinal, however, does not aver a certainty offalsification even in Cyril's works. He insinuates only a like-lihood of interpolation in this author; and, at the same time,acknowledges the genuineness of the language"attributed toAthanasius and Nazianzen.The Orientals, Asians, Pontians, and Thracians at Chalcedon,

represented Eutyches and Dioscorus as agreeing with Athana-sius and Cyril in the belief of 'one incarnated nature of theWord.' The Severians, in the Byzantine conferencein 533under Justinian, convicted Athanasius, Cyril, Felix, Julius,Ure~ory, and Dionysius of Monophysitism from their ownworks in the face of Hypatius, who, on that occasion,was theadvocate of Catholicism. These, according to their ownwritings, declared in favor of one nature in the Son after theunion.The antiquity or orthodoxy of Eutychianism, however, real

or pretended, failed to protect the system from condemnation,or its supposed author from curses and excommunication.Eusebius of Doryleeum,who had been admitted into intimacyand friendship with the alleged Heresiarch, and in consequencehad become acquainted with his opinions or expressions, ex-postulated and endeavored to show him, says Godeau, hiserror and impiety. But these expostulations were useless andunavailing. He then arraigned him for heresy in a council atCQnstantinople,in which Flavian, patriarch of that city, presided.The Eutychian error, nominal as it was, excited the holy synod'szea~against heresy. The pious bishops, on its author's decla-~atlOnof his opinion, rose in tumultuous uproar and cursed infull chorus. Their devotion evaporated in noisy and repeatedanathemas against the shocking blasphemy and its impious au-thor, The holy fathers, rising to assist their cursing and bellow-lUg powers, twice, says Liberatns, imprecated anathemas on

Page 324: The Variations of Popery

324 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

the Heresiarch.' The sacred synod rose to their feet, toenable themselves, in an erect posture, to do justice to theirdevotion and 0 their lungs in uttering their pious ejaculations.Eutyches was declared guilty of heresy and blasphemy; andthe sacred synod, in the excess of Christian charity and com-passion, sighed and wept for his total apostasy. The holymen, in one breath, cursed, and sighed, and wept, and excom-municated. Their tune, it seems, exhibited sufficientvariety.Sighs of pity mingled with yells of execration. The melody,which must have resembled the harmony of the spheres,couldnot fail to gratify all who had an ear for music. The holycouncil, after a reasonable expenditure of sighs, tears, lamen-tations, and anathemas, deprived the impious heresiarch of thesacerdotal dignity, ecclesiastical communion, andJhe govern-ment of his monastery. He was anathematized for holding thefaith of the pontifical Felix and Julius, as well as of the saintedCyril, Gregory, Athanasius, and Nazianzen.The Ephesian council, in 449, completely reversed the Con-

stantinopolitan decision. The second council of Ephesus wasconvened by the Emperor Theodosius, who favored Monophy-sitism ; and, according to the summons, consisted of ten Metro-politans, and ten suffragans from the six oriental diocesesofEgypt, Thracia, Pontus, Antioch, Asia, and lllyricum. A fewothers were admitted by special favor. Barsumas the Syrianwas invited to represent the monks. Julian and Hilary sat asvicars of Leo the Roman hierarch. The whole assembly,inconsequence,numbered about 150.Dioscorus, the Alexandrianpatriarch, presided. Elpidius and Eulogius, as protectors andguardians of the convention, were commissionedby Theodosiusto prevent uproar and confusion, and to induce the assemblyto act with proper deliberation.2This synod, from its total disregard of all justice and equity,

has been called the Ephesian latrocinium or gang of felons.The application, indeed, has not been misplaced. The Ephe-.sian cabal affords as distinguished a display of ruffianism asever disgraced humanity. Villany, however, was not peculiarto this ecclesiastical convention. Many others possessedequalmerit of the same kind, and are equally entitled to the samehonorable distinction.TIrebattle and bloodshed, which"afterwards ensued, did not

commenceduring the preceding transactions of the assembly.The campaign, did not open while faith was the topic of discus-

1:kurgma san_ IplOdns clamavUi. dieens, anathema iJllli. Liberatus, c. 11.Theoph. 69. Zotwaa. XIII. 23. AleZ"1O. 322. Godea. 3. 4!.Y1. Bin. 3. 125., Kvag. r, 9. 0. lib. 3.~. Alex. ]0••. 346. Godea. 3. 416. Moren, 3. 209

Page 325: The Variations of Popery

BYZANTINE DECREE REVERSED BY THE EPHESIAN COUNCIL. 3~5I

sion, The utmost unanimity prevailed on the su bject of MOllo-physitism; and Dioscorus, on this question, found nJI intimida-tion and compulsion unnecessary. The sacred synod joined,with one consent and in holy fervor, in cursing the enemiesof Eutychianism and the heresy of two natures: and piouslypraying that Eusebius, who had opposed their system, mightbe hewn asunder, burnt alive, and, as he would divide, bedivided. Dioscorus desired those who could not roar, to holdup their hands in anathematizing the heresy of'-Fla vian, All,as one man, yelled anathemas, and in loud execration and fury,vented their imprecations, that those who should divide the Sonof God might be torn and massacred.' Dioscorus, even in thecouncil of Chalcedon, proclaimed, without hesitation or dismay,the unanimity of the Ephesian assembly. The orientals, indeed,at Chalcedon, disclaimed, through fear, these exclamationswhich the Egyptians, with more consistency and resolution,even then avowed. These things, exclaimed the Egyptians,, we then said and now say.' Eutyches, in the Ephesian synod,was declared orthodox, reinstated in the sacerdotal dignity, andrestored to ecclesiastical communion; while his firmness andintrepidity, in support of the faith, were'extolled in the higheststrains of fulsome flattery. All this was transacted with accla-mation and unanimity, and without force or intimidation. Noobjections were made even by Flavian, Julian, or Hilary. TheByzantine patriarch and the Roman legates viewed, with tacitor avowed consent, the establishment of Eutyehianism and itsauthor's restoration to the priesthood and ecclesiastical COJll-munion.But the scene changed, when Dioscorus attempted to depose

Flavian. Discord then succeeded to harmony, and compulsionto freedom. Many of the bishops, and especially those ofThracia, Pontus, and Asia, could not, without regret, witnessthe degradation ofthe Byzantine patriarch; and ventured,withthe utmost submission, to supplicate Dioscorua in favor ofFlavian. Julian and Hilary, say Victor and Theodoret, op-posed the sentence of deposition with unshaken resolution. ButDioscorus, in reply to these supplications and expostu~ations,appealed to Elipidius and Eulogius. The doors, by their com-mand, were opened, and the Proconsul of Asia entered, sur-rounded with a detachment of 300 soldiery armed with clubsand swords, followed by a crowd of monks, inaccessible to.1Sic sapit omnia synodus. HIOOuninrsalis synodus sic sapit. Saneta synodusdIXit, siquis dicit duo sit anathema. Bin. 3. 121. Labb. 4. 931, 1012, lOIS.In duo separate eo; qui dicunt dUM natums. Qui dicunt dUM, dividite, in-

ierficite, ejicite. Alex. II. 294.DiOBCOrusdixit, consentimus his et nos omnes! Sancta synodus dixit con-

tllllltimus. Bin. 3. 123. Godeau, 3. 435.

Page 326: The Variations of Popery

326 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

reason or mercy, and accoutred with bludgeons, the usual wea-pons of such militia. Hostilities soon commenced. Terrorand confusion reigned. The trembling bishops, unambitiousof martyrdom, hid behind the altar, crept under the benches,and, concealed in corners, seemed to envy the mouse the shel-ter of the wall. A few who refused to sign a blank paper,afterward filled with Flavian's condemnation, were inhumanlybeaten.' These arguments, though perhaps not satisfactory,were tangible and convincing to the holy fathers, who, Julianand Hilary excepted, all subscribed.Flavian, however, as might be expected, continued to object

to his own condemnation, and, in consequence, was reviledand trampled. Dioscorus distinguished himself, accordingtoZonaras, Theophanes, Evagrius, and Binius, in cruelty to theaged patriarch. The president, on the occasion, shewed greatscience,and played his hands and feet with a precision,which,even in the days ofmodern improvement, would have delightedany amateur of the fancy. Dioscorus, says Zonaras, leaped,like a wild ass, on Flavian, and kicked the holy man's breastwith his heels and struck his jaws with his fist.2 Theophauesdelivers a similar account, and describes the holy patriarch'sdexterity in the belligerent application of his hands and feet.Flavian, says Evagrius, was beaten and assassinated, in awretched manner, by Dioscorus. This, no doubt, was closereasoning, and afforded a specimen of warm and masterly dis-cussion. The disputants certainly used hard arguments,though perhaps not strictly scriptural. Dioscorus, saysBinius,from a bishop became a hangman, and thumped with both feetand fists," Barsumas, who commanded the Syrian monks, wasalso very active in effecting the assassination of Flavian. Heurged his men or rather monsters to murder. Kill, said thebarbarian to his myrmidons, kill Flavian. Blowsand kicks,knuckles and fists were, in this manner, applied with addressand effect to the Byzantine patriarch by these holy men. Hisdeath, three days after, was the natural consequence. TheRoman vicars, however, though they had betrayed the faith,made a noble stand forFlavian. These, in the face of danger,protested against the injustice of his sentence; and mindful,says Godeau, of the pontiff whom they represented, defied thefury of Dioscorus, contemned the insolence of Barsumas, andbraved the terrors of death.! Liberat. c. 12. Bin. 3. 60. Labb. 6. 438. Godea 3. 435.20... 'r"&!/l'}'flIOS Ol'OS 1I1IU80fJow 11 Ji.UHJICOfJOs, Aa{ 'T" (T'T£p"" .."dJo~ 'TOU EUUE{!1I)US EKE'-

""" ~s, ... ~ ..."..ou .......11 KoHnJs 'TJIIM""". Zonar. 2. 34. Theoph.69. Evag.II. 2-3 DiOll4lOru& factus ex epiacopo camifex, pugnis calcibusquecontendit. Bin.

3.6,317. Labb. 4. 1413. Alex: 10.356. Godea. 3. 434, 435.

Page 327: The Variations of Popery

VAJ.IDITY OF THE EPHESIAN COUNCIL. 327

The Ephesian council, though rejected by Baronins and Bel-larmine, was general, lawful, and, on the doctrinal question,freeand unanimous. Its meeting was called and its decisionscon-firmed, as usual, by the emperor. The summons,was moregeneral and the attendance more numerous than those of manyother general councils, such as the fourth of Constantinopleandthe fifth of the Lateran. The Ephesian fathers, indeed, exceptJulian and Hilary, were easterns. But the same was the casewith the second, third, fourth, and fifth general councils, ex-cept a few Egyptians at Ephesus, and two Africans and onePersian at Chalcedon. The second, third, and fifth wanted thePope's legates, who sat at the secondof Ephesus. Its decisionswere sanctioned by Theodosius,who, by an edict, subjected allof the contrary system to banishment and their books to theflames. The Roman pontiff indeed did not confirm its acts.But this can be no reason for its rejection by those, who, likethe French clergy and the synod of Pisa, Constance,and Basil,reckon a council above a Pope. Damasus, besides, rejectedthe third canon of Constantinople, and Leo, the twenty-eighthof Ohalcedon; while Vigilius confirmedthe fifthgeneral councilonly by compulsion. The condemnation of Flavian, indeed,which was a question of discipline,was exacted by the tyrannyof Dioscorus. But the decision in favor of Eutychianism,which was a point of faith, passed with freedom,unanimity,and deafening acclamation. Less liberty, if possible, wasallowed in the preceding Ephesian convention,which, notwith-standing, remains, till this day, a general, apostolic,holy infal-lible council. Mirandula, an advocate of Romanism, admitsthe legality and, at the same time, the heresy 6f the secondEphesian congress.'The Greek and Latin emperors,with the Alexandrian patri-

arch and Roman pontiff, were, after the council of Ephesus,placed in open hostility. Theodosius and Dioscorus, in theeast, supported }fonophysitism with imperial and patriarchalauthority. Valentinian and Leo, in the west, patronised thetheology, which, on account of its final success,and establish-ment, had been denominated Catholicism. The Roman andAlexandrian patriarchs, in genius, piety, and determination,were well matched. Both possessedsplendid ability, pretendedreligion, and fearless resolution. Leo, at one time, had charac-terised Dioscorus as a man adorned with true faith and holiness;while Theodoret represented the patriarch as a person,who,fixing his affections on heaven, despised all worldly grandeur,"I Mirandul. Th.4. Godeau,3. 436.2 Ova. .... " 111'0".'" "0 """,,s fJ1l.."flS 'rlll ..o.s lI.lIm "01'01< ""01l.0ullflS, r.", '11 rpvJo."1<1l

"'1'0('"'' 1'_ 01'1"''''''' ,"," Bacr&1l........ Theod. 9. 935. Ep.60. Leoad Dioscor.

Page 328: The Variations of Popery

328 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Leo, however, whatever may have been the case with Theodo-ret, began to alter his mind, and sung to another tune, as soonas his vicars, having escaped from threatened destruction, an-nounced the decision of Ephesus. Hilary and Julian arrivedto tell the melancholy tale of the tyranny of Dioscorus and themartyrdom of Flavian. Leo, on hearing the tragic intelligence,immediately summoned a Roman synod, and, supported by afaithful troop of suffragans, disannulled the Ephesian enact-ments, and launched a red-hot anathema, which winged its fierycourse across the Mediterranean, and rebounded from the headof Dioscorus at Alexandria. But Dioseorus was no trembler.He was not a man to be intimidated by the fulminations ofLeo's spiritual artillery. He soon returned the compliment.He convened his suffragans in an Alexandrian council, andhurled the thunders of excommunication, with interest andwithout fear, against his infallibility.' But Leo was not to befrightened by the empty flash of an anathema. He had, with-out shrinking, encountered the hostility of Genseric and Attila,and was not to be dismayed by the spiritual artillery of Dios-corus.. These ecclesiastical engines indeed possess one advan-tage. Their explosions, though they may sometimes stun, neverslay. These campaigns may be followed with the loss of char-acter, but are not attended with the loss of life.Leo, feeling the inefficiency of excommunication, petitioned

Theodosius, heretic as he was, to assemble a' general council.The western emperor Valentinian, and the two empresses Pla-cidia and Eudoxia with sighs and tears, joined 'in the request.But Theodosius was a Eutychian, and therefore satisfied withthe faith of Ephesus. The heretical and hardened emperor, inconsequence, rejected the application, regardless of the suppli-cations of Valentinian and Leo, as well as the sighs which rosefrom the orthodox hearts, and the tears which fell from the faireyes of Placidia and Eudoxia. He had even the obduracy, ina letter to Placidia, to call the blessed Flavian 'the prince ofcontention.' He represented the Byzantine patriarch, in a let-ter to Valentinian, as guilty of innovation, and suffering duepunishment; and the church, in consequence of his removal, asenjoying peace and flourishing in truth and tranquillity. Theo-dosius, prior to the Ephesian synod, had -begged Flavian to besatisfied with the Nicene faith, without perplexing his mindwith hair-breadth distinctions, which no'person could understandor explain. This was a good advice; and Flavian, had he

1Dioecoms, ponens in COllum08 suum, excommunicationem in sanctum Leo-nem Papam dictavit. Labb. 9. 1328. Bin. 3. 6. Liberst. e. 12. Bisciola, 401.Theod. Ep. 125. G4)dea. So 440, 442.

Page 329: The Variations of Popery

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON eONVENED. 329

enjoyed the liberty of thinking for himself, would have followedit.! But the mild patriarch was influenced hy more ardentspirits, who were unacquainted with moderation and drove{'very thing to extremity.But 'I'heodosius, in the mean time, died, and Marcian, who

was attached to Leo and his system, succeeded. This emperor,urged by the pontiff; convened the general council of Chalcedon.This grand assembly contained, say historians, six hundred andthirty bishops. All these, however, six only excepted, wereGreeks. Pascasinus, Lucentius, and Boniface represented Leothe Roman hierarch. Twenty laymen of consular or senatorialdignity, as royal commissioners, represented the emperor. Thegospels, which the good bishops neither understood nor regarded,were, with affected ostentation,. placed on a lofty throne in thecentre. 2The Chalcedonian resembled the Ephesian council in confu-

sion, noise, tumult, and a total want of all liberty. Its acts,like its predecessor's, were scenes of uproar and vociferation,which disgraced the Christian religion and degraded the episco-pal dignity. A bear-garden, a cock-pit, or a noisy bedlamwould afford a modern some faint idea of the general, infallible,apostolic, holy, Roman, council of Chalcedon. Nothing washeard, on any particular occasion of excitement, but vocifera-tion, anathemas, execration, cursing, and imprecation, bellowedby the several factions, or by the whole synod ill mutual 01'

eontending fury. A specimen of these denunciations undinsults was displayed in the first session, when Theodoret, whowas accounted friendly to Nestorianism, and Dioscorus, whohad caused the assassination of Flavian, entered the assembly. •Tho Egyptians, Illyrians, and Palestinians shouted till the roofreechoed, 'put out Theodoret. Put out the master of NestoriuaOut with the enemy of God and the blasphemer of His Son.Put out the Jew. Long life to the Emperor and Empress.'The Orientals, Asians, Pontians, and Thracians replied withequal uproar, 'put out Dioscorus. Put out the assassin. Putout the Manichean. Out with the enemy of heaven and theadversary of the faith."The Imperial commissioners, on these occasions, had to inter-

fere for the purpose of keeping the peace. These, in strongterms, represented such acclamations as unbecoming the episco-pal dignity and useless to each party. Du Pin admits that theauthority of the commissioners was necessary to prevent the

1 Bin. 3. 6. 29. Liberatus, c.12. Labb. 6. 439.~Evag. II. ~ Crabb. 1. 740. Bin. 3. 49. Labb. 4. 1358.Evag. II. 18. Crabb. I. 743. Bin. 3. 55. Labb. 4. 886. Godea. 3. 461.

Page 330: The Variations of Popery

330 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

infallible council from degenerating into a confused and noisymob. The judges, says Alexander, repressed the tumultuaryclamors by their prudence and authority.' The pontifical,and especially the imperial, authority destroyed all freedomofsuffrage. Marcian influenced the decisions of Chalcedon,withmore decency indeed, but with no less certainty than Dioscorusdid those of Ephesus.The Chalcedonian council, as a proof of its unity, passed

three distinct creeds on the subject of Monophysitism; and allhy acclamation. Leo's letter, which he had addressed to Fla-vian, was passed in the second session. The Roman hierarchhad transmitted an epistle, on the pending question, to theByzantine patriarch. This epistolary communication, whichhas been styled the column of orthodoxy, had discussedthistopic, it has been said, with judgment and precision. Thisbeingrecited in the synod,the assembled fathers approved in loudacclamations. The IJIyrians and Palestinians indeed paused,and seemed for a time to doubt. Their scrupulosity, however,was soon removed, and all began to vociferate,' This is thefaith of the fathers. This is the faith of the apostles. This isthe faith of the orthodox. This we all believe. Anathema tothe person who disbelieves. Peter speaks by Leo. Theapostles thus taught. Uyril thus taught. Cyril for ever: Thisis the true faith. Leo teaches piety and truth, and those whogainsay are Eutychians.' The infallible fathers, however, ifwe may judge from their conduct in the fifth session, inwhichthey thundered acclamations in favor of a Monophysan confes-sion, misunderstood his Roman infallibility.A second confessionor definition was passed with reiterated

acclamations in the fifth session. This definition, which hadbeen composed with careful deliberation by Anatolius, anddeclared that the Son of God was composed of two natures,(which implied that he possessed the divinity and humanity,prior, though not posterior, to the union or incarnation,) wasunqualified Monophyaitism, expressed perhaps with some lati-tude or ambiguity. The definition implied that godhead andmanhood were, to speak in chemical language, the two distinctelements ofwhich, at the instant of conjunction, a new substanceor nature was formed. Two elements, in the laboratory of thechemist, will form a composition by the amalgamation of theirconstituent principles. The Eutychians and Chalcedoniansseem to.have entertained an idea, that the humanity and divi-! Tumultuarios clamores auctoritate et pmdentia sua judices compescuerunt.

Alex. 10. 368.2 Epistolam Leonia tanquam columnam orthodoxeefidei susceperunt. Canisius,

4.69. Eng. 11.4. Bin. 3.221. Crabb. 1.880. Godeau, 3.479.

Page 331: The Variations of Popery

MONOPHYSITISM OF THE COUNCIL OF ClIALCEDON. 331

nity of the Son, were, in some way of this kind, incorporatedItt the moment of his incarnation. Thisnotion was expressed,in plain language, in the Chalcedonian definition. ' The idea isrank Monophysitism. Eutyches or Dioscorus would have sub-scribed the formulary.'All the Chaleedonians, nevertheless, the three Romans and a

few orientals excepted, were unanimous in its favor, and sup-ported it with vociferation." 'The definition pleases all. Thisis the faith of the fathers. He who thinks otherwise is a here-tic. Anathema to him who forms a different opinion. Put outthe Nestorians, The definition pleases all, Holy Mary is themother of God.' The emperor, however, by his commissioners,and the pontiff, by his vicars, opposed the council. Theseinsisted, that the Son should be said to exist 'IN two natures.'Paseasinus, Lucentius, and Boniface, who represented his holi-ness, determined if this were opposed, to return to the Romancity and there convene a Roman council for the establishmentof the true faith; and in this determination, they were seconded,with the utmost pertinacity, by the Imperial commissioners.The council, notwithstanding, shewed a firm resolution againstany supplement to a form of belief, which, in their mind, wasperfect. ' The definition,' the bishops vociferated, 'pleases all.The definition is orthodox. Put out the Nestorians. Expelthe enemies of God. Yesterday the definition pleased all. Letthe definition be subscribed before the gospel>; and no fraudpractised against the faith. Whoever subscribes Hot is 11 heretic.The Holy Spirit dictated the definition. Let it be signed forth-with. Put out the heretics. Put out the Nestorians. Let thedefinition be confirmed or we will depart. Whoever will notsubscribe may depart. Those who oppose may go to Rome.'But the commissioners were determined. The emperor'ssovereign will must be obeyed; and the council, after a tempo-rary resistance, yielded at length to the legatine obstinacy andespecially to the imperial power.Many eonsideratiens shew the Monophysitism of this Chal-

cedonian definition and of the Chalcedonian Council. Theomission of the definition, in the acts of the council, throws asuspicion on its orthodoxy. The formulary is omitted in Eva-. grius, Liberatus, Binius, Crabb, and Labbe. The judges ofthe council, in an indirect manner, mention its contents, merelyfor the purpose of denouncing its heterodoxy. The design was,

1Eutyches dixit uuionem ex duabus naturis, AlQj:. 10. 330. Evag. II. 18.Crabb, I. 879. Bin. 3. 334.~<?mnes .episcopi, preeter Romanos et aliquos Orientales, clamaverunt, 'De-

fimtio omnibus placet.' Bin. 3. 3.'14. Labb. 4. 1446, 1450. Godeau,3. 480.

Page 332: The Variations of Popery

332 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

no doubt, to keep it out of sight; a plain indication of its sup-posed heresy.A comparison of this confession with those of Eutyches and

Dioscorus at Constantinople, Ephesus, and Cbalcedon, willevince their identity. This of Uhalcedon declared, that Jesuswas 'of two natures." This was the precise creed of Eutychesand Dioscorus. Eutyches, in the Byzantine council, professedhis belief, that Christ was 'of two natures." Dioscorus avoweda similar profession at Ephesus and repeated it at Chalcedon.'These Uhalcedonian and Eutychian confessions contained thesame faith in the same language. Leo's, and the last of Chal-cedon taught, on the contrary, that our Lord existed' IN twonatures,"The opposition of the Senators, Romans, and Orientals,

shewed their conviction of its Eutychianism. These wieldedthe Pontifical and. Imperial power, and opposed the definitionwith obstinacy. Pascasinus, Lucentius, and Boniface, whorepresented Leo, resolved to leave Chalcedon, return to Italy,and celebrate a western council for the establishment of thetrue faith, if this Chalcedonian creed should be confirmed.This resolution was countenanced by the commissioners, whorepresented the Emperor; and a few Orientals echoed thedeclaration," This determination, in strong colors, portraystheir opinion of the confession, which they resisted with suchwarmth and resolution. These would have submitted, had thedefinition, in their mind, contained Catholicism.Godeau and Alexander, two modern zealots for Romanism,

edmit the ambiguity and inadequacy of this Chalcedonian defini-tion. The definition, says Godeau, 'did not, in sufficientlyexpress terms, condemn the Eutychian heresy.' According toAlexander, many additions were necessary for the overthrowof Eutychianism .. The accomplishment of this end required acreed, teaching our Lord's existence, not only of, but 'IN twonatures' without confusion, change or division," Godeau, there-fore, acknowledged the ambiguity of the definition, and Alex-ander its inadequacy.1 0 i'Pos ,I< 300 "'vu.",,, 'x... Evag. II. 18. Ex duabus habet naturis. Crabb.

1. 880.2 EI<300 "'lXT."'''. Theoph. 69. Eutyches dixit etiam ex duabus naturia. Bin.

3.129.3 Confiteor ex duabus naturis fuisse Dominum. Bin. 3. 123. Labb. 4. 1018.i EK 3vo </>V<1.UlI'. Evag. n. 4. "' ... " 300 "'lXT •• S A." .......... " X/Jurr... Labb.

4. 1452. Bin. 3. J30.5 Bin. 3. 336. Labb. 4.!ll5o. Godeau, 3. 480.

, 8 Elle ne condemnoit pas assez expressement I'heresie naissante d'Eutyches.Godeau, 3. 479.MuJta ~ ad profJigandam hreresim Eutychianam. .Ad id enim satis n~n

esse, ut Chriatue ex duabUs natum diceretur; sed necease ut in duabus uatunsaubsidere diceretur. Alex. Ii. 376.

Page 333: The Variations of Popery

COKDlJCT OF 'fHE COUNOIL OF CHALCEDON. 333

The Monophysitism of the Chalcedonian Council, the Ro-mans and a few Orientals excepted, appearH from the obstinacywith which they insisted on the definition, in defiance of Im-perial and Pontifical authority. The Chalcedonians, on thisoccasion, manifested more determination than the clergy, at anyother time, evinced against the emperor and the pontiff. Theprelatical suffrages, in general, were the ready echoes of theimperial and pontifical will. The Greeks obeyed his majesty,and the Latins seldom disobeyed his holiness. But the assem-bled prelacy, on this momentous occasion, displayed an astonish-ing firmness and constancy.. Their determination once with-stood the imperial commissioners, and four times the Romanvicars. These reasoned and remonstrated ; and those resistedand vociferated. The opposition was uttered in yells, whichwould have terrified ordinary minds, and commanded obedienceon ordinary occasions. The dissension, says Alexander, wasgreat, and the shouts tumultuary. All, says Godeau, cried that, whosoever should refuse to sign the definition was a heretic."All this obstinacy and outcry were in favor of a creed, whichwould have been subscribed by Eutyches, Dioscorus, Mongos,Philoxenus, Fullo, and Zanzel.The Monophysitism of the council also may be evinced from

its reasons for the condemnation of Dioscorus, The Alexan-•drian Patriarch, said Antolius in full synod and without any togainsay, 'was not condemned for any error of faith, but forexcommunicating Leo, and refusing, when summoned, to attendthe council.' The same fact is stated by Evagrius and PopeNicholas. Justinian, also, according to Valesius in his annota-tions on Theodorus, declared that Dioscorus was not condemn-ed for any deviation from the faith.2 The Patriarch indeed wascharged with a few practical foibles, such as tyranny, extortion,fornication, adultery, murder, and ravishment. He was coJI'.victed of burning houses, lavishing the alms of the faithful on~trumpets and buffoons, and admitting the fair Pansophia,in broad day, into the patriarchal bath and palace.' Butnone accused him of heterodoxy. Heresy was not among thereasons assigned by the council for his deposition and banish-ment. His faith, therefore, was unsuspected of error, andconsonant with the common theology. These considerationsshew the faith of the Chalcedonians, and the opinion entertainedof their definition.

, Tons erie rent, que quioonque refuBeroit de la Bigileretoit heretique. Godeau,3,479.2 'Propter fidem DOll est damnatus DioecoruB. Bin. 6. 506. DiOSCOruB non

ob u11uiD in fide enorem damnatuB £nit. ValesiUB,3. 330.5Bin. 3. 7. !H7, 335. Labb. 4. 1447. .AIell. 10. 356. Evag. II. 18.

Page 334: The Variations of Popery

334 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

The Chalcedonian council, at length, were forced by theemperor to sign a third formulary of faith. The former confes-sion had to be resigned, in obedience to his majesty's sovereign,command. The emperor in the early days of the church, asthe pope at a later period, influenced, at pleasure, the decisionsof holy infallible councils. Theodosius, with facility, sustainedMonophysitism at Ephesus. Marcian, with equal ease, estab-lished Catholicism at Chalcedon. He ordered eighteen bishopsselected from the East, Asia, Pontus, Thracia, and Illyria, tomeet in the oratory of Euphemia, and compose a confessionwhich might obtain universal approbation. These, accordinglyassembled at the place appointed, and, with becoming submissionand easy versatility, produced a creed, according to Marcian'simperial directions and Leo's pontifical epistle. This formularyembodied the Nicene, Constantinopolitan, and Ephesian faith,with the letters of Cyril and Leo, and declared that the Son ofGod, existing , IN two natures,' without confusion or division,was in His Deity,consu bstantial with God, and in His humanity,consubstantial with man.' The infallible fathers, for the thirdtime, yelled approbation.This confession was of imperial and pontifical dictation. The

emperor, not the council, at the suggestion of the pope, pre-scribed the formulary. All this indeed, Alexander, attached ashe was to Romanism, has confessed. This form of belief, saysthis author, ' was enjoined by the emperor," Christians there-fore, at the present day, profess, on this topic, a royal creed.Popish and Protestant Christendom has received a form of faith,which, though true, is imperial, and for which, the Romish andReformed are indebted to Marcian.The abettors of Romanism would be ready to exult, if, in

the annals of the Reformation, they could find an instance ofTacillation equal to that of Chalcedon. The history would berelated in all the parade of language. But aU the councils ofProtestantism afford no exemplification of such versatility andfluctuation. Bossuet, in all the records of history, and, whichis more, in all the treasury of his own imagination, could dis-cover no equal discordancy, during all the transactions whichattended the Reformation, in its origin, progress, and establish-ment.But flexibility, in the council, failed to produce unanimity in

the church. The infallibility of the Chalcedonian assembly wasmocked, and its apostolical or rather imperial faith contemned.1 lpae sit perfectus DeU8 et perfectns homo in duabus naturis, sine confuBione

{It divisione. Canisiua,1. 69. Liberatue,e. 12. 'Bin. 3. 336, 340. Crabb. 1.885. Labb. 4. 1447. DuPin, I. 674.2 Ju88U tandem Imperatori8. Alex. U). 376.

Page 335: The Variations of Popery

CONDUCT OF Tin; COUNCIL or CHAT.CEDON. :18.)

The African, Asiatic, and European Monophysite disclaimedthe definition of the emperor and the pontiff; and their oppo-sition did not, as usual, evaporate in frothy anathemas, butterminated in battle and carnage. The Chalcedonian prelacy,according to Liberatus, were, when they returned to their sees,torn by an unprecedented schism.' The Egyptians, Thracians,and Palestinians followed Dioscorus; while the Orientals,Pontians, and Asiatics adhered to Flavian. Romanismwasdis-graced by a train of revolutions and massacres,such as neverdishonored the Reformation. Schism and heresy extended toall Christendom, and embraced, in wide amplitude, Greeks andLatins, emperors, clergy, and populace.Six emperors reigned after the council of Chalcedon, and

during the rage of the Monophysan controversy. These wereMarcian, Leo, Zeno, Basiliscus, Anastasius, and Justin ; andwere divided between the Eutychian and Chalcedonian faith.Marcian, Leo, and Justin patronised Chalcedonianism; whileZeno,Basiliscus,and Anastasius, in the general opinion, coun-tenanced Eutychianism. Marcian convoked the council ofChalcedon, presided in its deliberations, and supported itstheology with devoted fidelity and imperial power; but by theunhallowed instrumentality of violenceand persecution. Leo,Marcian's successor,maintained the same system by the sameunholy weapons.'Zeno,Basiliscus,and Anastasius have been reckoned,perhap«

with some unfairness, among the partisans of heresy, Zeno,during his whole reign, feigned a regard for Catholicism, andproclaimedhimself its protector. But someof his actions seemedto favor Monophysitism; and his name, in consequence, has,by the partial pen of prejudice and popery, beenentered in theblack roll ofheretics who attempted the subversionof orthodoxy.He issued the Henoticon, protected Acaciu8,and restored theexiled Mongosand Fullo to the patriarchal thrones of Alexan-dria and Antioch. These were crimes never to be forgiven by1he narrow mind of bigotry. The transactions provoked thehigh indignation of Facundus, Baronius, Alexander, Petavius,and Godeau.! Baronius represents Zeno as the patron ofheresy . and perfidy, and the enemy of Catholicism andC'hristianity.Basiliscus, for the sake of unity and consistency, both

denounced and patronised the Synod of Chalcedon and itstheology. His majesty, prompted by .iE!urus, issued, on his1Scisaio facta llIlt inter eoa, qualis ante nunquam contigerat. Liberatue, c. 12.

Labb. 6. 438.2 Evag. II. 8. Alex. 10. 398.S Facun. XII. 4. Spon.482. UI. Alex. :0.421. Petav. 1. 320. Godeau, 3.356.

Page 336: The Variations of Popery

336 THE VARIATIOXS OF POPERY.

accession, a circular letter, which approved the councils 1)1'Niceea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and condemned andanathematized that of Chalcedon, as the occasion of massacreand bloodshed. This precious manifesto was signed by FulloPaul, and Anastasius of Antioch, Ephesus, and Jerusalem:and supported, in the rear, by about five hundred of the Asiaticprelacy. The emperor, in these transactions, was influencedby the empress Zenodia. But his majesty, varying in thismanner from Catholicism, varied, in a short time, from himself,and veered round to orthodoxy. He attempted, by compulsion,to obtain the approbation of Acacius. But Acacius opposedhim, being supported by a multitude of monks and women,who pursued the emperor with maledictions. This movement,in a few moments, converted Basiliscus to the true faith. Heissued, in consequence, an anticircular edict, rejecting theformer, confirming the council ofChalcedon,and anathematizingEutyches and all otherheresiarchs. His versatility, however,was unavailing. Zeno drove the usurper from the imperialauthority, and banished him to Cappadocia, where he died ofhunger and cold.'Anastasius succeeded Zeno in 491, and was excommunicated

by Symmachus for heresy. The emperor, however, notwith-standing the anathema, seems, according to Evagrius, neitherto have patronized nor opposed Catholicisn. He loved peaceand withstood novelty. He protected all his subjects, whowere content to worship according to their conscience,withoutmolestation to their fellow-christians. But he repressed inno-vators, who fostered dissension. He expelled, in consequence,Euphemins, Flavian, aud Elias, bishops of Constantinople,Antioch, and Jerusalem; and this incurred the wrath of thepope and Vitalian. The latter, followed by an army of Hunsand barbarians, declared himself the champion of the faith.Actuated with this resolution, the warrior, in the name of thePrince of Peace, depopulated Thracia, exterminated 65,000men,and, in bloodshed, established the council of Chalcedon and thefaith of LeO.2-A diversity, similar to this of the emperors, was manifested

by the clergy, the populace, and the monks. Dioscorus, 1!1Alexandria, was succeeded by Proterios, the friend of Catholi-cism. But the throne of the new patriarch had to be supportedby two thousand armed soldiery; and the Alexandrian populace,on the death ofMarcian,assassinated Proterios in the baptistery,

1Evag. 111.5,7. Libel'at. c. 16. Theoph. 84. Zona:ras, 2. 41. Bisciola, 420.Alex. 10. ,118,420. Godeau, 3. 619. VIctor. 324-2 Evag. 111. 35. Liberat. c. 16. Theoph. i07. Alex. 10. 25. Labb. 4. 477.

Page 337: The Variations of Popery

CONDUCT OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON. 337

regardless of the sacred temple and the paschal solemnity, Thewaters of baptism and of the sanctuary were crimsoned withhis blood. The mangled body, in all its frightfulness, was,amid insults and mockery, exhibited in the Tetraphylon: andthen, covered with wounds, was, in fiendish derision, draggedthrough the city. The assassins, says Evagrius, shocking totell, beat the senseless limbs, devoured the reeking entrails,committed the torn carcass to the flames, and its ashes to thewinds,' The barbarians, though stained with blood, burned,through fear of pollution, the chair of the patriarch, and washedthe altar on which he had sacrificed with sea-water, as if it hadbeen.defiled with his touch or his ministry.iElurus, the partisan of Monophysitism, was substituted for

Proterios. He was banished to Oherson, or some say, to Oasis,by Leo; but was afterward restored by Basiliscus. He, at last,poisoned himself, being, says the charitable Godeau, 'unworthyof a more honorable executioner.' The one party, after hisdeath, elected Mongos, and the other, Timothy, to the patri-archal dignity. Zeno, however, obliged Mongos, who was thepartisan of Eutychianism, to yield. But the triumph of theOhalcedonian party W88 transitory. Mongos, on the death ofTimothy, was, by an edict of Zeno and the favor of Acacius,appointed his successor,"Palestine in the mean time, became the scene of similar

outrage and revolution. Juvenal, the patriarch of Jerusalem,was deposed, and Theodosius, a Monophysite, ordained in hisplace. The new patriarch occupied Jerusalem with an anuyof felons and outlaws, who in the name of religion and underthe mask of zeal, pillaged and murdered. The sepulehre ofImmanuel was defil~d with blood; and the gates of the city,which had witnessed these massacres, were, in tumultuaryrebellion, guarded against the army of the emperor. These,notwithstanding their inhumanity and rebellion, were counte-nanced by Eudoxia, wife to Theodosius," The empress usedor rather abused her royal authority, in support of these san-guinary zealots for the Monophysite theology.Antioch was occupied by the rival patriarchs Calendion and

Fullo, Calendion maintained the.Chalcedonian faith, and Fullothe Eutychian theory. Fullo, besides, in unpardonable impiety,added a supplement of his own invention, to the Trisagion,which, in those days of superstition and credulity, was regarded

1More canum, interiora ejus derastaTlUlt, reliquumque corpus igni, cinerea.vento, tradiderunt. Span. 467, IV: Evaft. II. 8. Liberat. c. US. AIeL 10.394. Godeau, 3, 656. Victor, 322.2 Liberat. 0. 16. .BiaoioIa, 420. Godeau, 3. 623. Labb. 5. 215. Moreri, 8. 136.s ... n. 5. Theoph. 73. Alex. 10. 416. :Moren, 8. 90. Victor, 322.

V

Page 338: The Variations of Popery

338 THE VABlATIONS OF POPERY.

as the sacred hymn, sung by the holy angels and seraphs thatsurround the throne of God. Zeno, at first, patronized Calen-dion and banished Fullo. But Calendion, in the end, was sus-pected of favoring the revolt of Illus and Leontius ; and theemperor therefore banished the patriarch to Oasis, and outragedChristianity, says Godeau, by establishing Fullo.'The bishops and monks varied like the patriarchs and empe-

rors. Many, says Godeau, 'followed the faith of the courtrather than that of the Gospel; and displayed a baseness,unworthy of men who should have been the columns of thetruth.' Five hundred bishops signed the encyclical manifestoof Basiliscus ; and, according to their own declaration, 'withwillingness and alacrity.' These, again, on the dethronementof Basiliscus and the restoration of Zeno, deprecated the wholetransaction, alleged imperial compulsion as a palliation for theircrime, and begged pardon of Acacius for their offence.These rival factions fulminated against each other mutual

and unwearied excommunications. The lightning of anathemascontinued, in uninterrupted coruscations, to flash through theAfrican, Asiatic, and European nations, and to radiate fromEast to West. The spiritual artillery was admirably served,and, ill continued explosions, carried, not death indeed, butdamnation in every direction. Proterios, Timothy, Juvenal,and Calendion cursed 1Elurus, Mongos, Theodosius, and Fullo:while lElurus, Mongos, Theodosius, and Fullo, in grateful re-ciprocation, cursed Proterios, Timothy, Juvenal, and Calendion.Acaeius cursed the patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and.Antioyh who were not slow in repaying the compliment. Felix,the Roman pontiff, cursed all by wholesale. Intrenched in theVatican, the vicar-general of God continued, from his ecclesias-tical battery, to thunder excommunications against Mongos,Fullo, and Acacius.sFullo, who abetted Monophysitism and corrupted the Trisa-

gion, seems to have been the chief object of these invertedbenedictions. 'Quinian, in a Sacred Synod, aimed no less thantwelve anathemas at Fullo's devoted head. The example wasfollowed by Acacius. The patriarch of Antioch, it seems,had in 483, taken the liberty of writing an epistle full of blas-phemy to the patriarch of Constantinople. The blasphemycaused Acacius, holy man, to shudder. He assembled acouncil, therefore, and in full synod, condemned, says Lab?t1,.the mad error of the mad patriarch. But the Roman pontiff,

1'!'J1eoph. 92. Eng. m. 8. Godeau, 3. 649. Labb. 5. 271. •2~. m. 6, 9. Liberat118, c. 16. Alex. 10. 418. Godeau, 3. 620. AI• Jtvai.m6, e. Theoph. 104. Godea. 3. 649. Spon. 467, 484. IV. ex.

10. (21).

Page 339: The Variations of Popery

HONOPHYSITISM AFTER THE COUNCIL OF t:HALCEDON. 339

as was right, excelled even the Byzantine patriarch in a suitablename and in an appropriate sentence, for the impugner of theChalcedonian faith and the corrupter of the sacred hymn.Felix denominated Fullo the first-born of the devil, and, in aholy Roman Council, condemned him as a patron of Arianism,Sabellianism, impiety, heathenism, and idolatry.'But the hardest, or at least the most signal cursing-match,

on the occasion, was between Felix and Acacius. The Byzan-tine hierarch, indeed, had committed nothing to merit thehonor of excommunication. He disclaimed, on all occasions,the heresy of Eutychianism.. He opposed the Monophysanemperor Basiliscus and his circular edict, 'with vigor andsuccess. Be assembled a Constantinopolitan synod, and con-demned 1Elurus, Fullo, John, and Paul, who were the Mono-physite bishops of .Alexandria, Antioch, Apamea, and Ephesus.He issued a synodal reprobation of Fullo's addition to theTrisagion, which, in the opinion of Acacius, was the song ofthe Cherubim in Heaven, He patronised no heresy; and,which should have recommended him to mercy, he W88 88

ignorant and superstitious even 88 his Roman infallibility. lJ3uthe signed the Henoticon for the sake of peace, and communi-cated with Fullo without a formal recognition of the council ofChalcedon. These were the ostensible reasons of the pontiff'sdetestation and anathemas. He urged the equality of theByzantine with the Roman See; and, of course, rejected thepontifical supremacy.' This was the real reason and theunpardonable sin, for which Felix honored Acacius withanathemas and degrsdetion,His infallibility's denunciations, however, were, at Con-

stantinople, a subject of sheer mockery. Acacius, knowingthe ridiculousness of the attempt, received the intelligence ofhis deposition with perfect contempt; and, nothing loath,returned the compliment in kind with promptitude and devo-tion. The patriarch, like another Dioscorus, excommunicatedhis infallibility, and struck his name out of the Dyptics orsacred roll of registry. He then, in his usual manner, and indefiance of Felix, continued his ministry and retained hisdignity till the day of his death,"Acacius W88 supported against Felix by Zeno, and all the1 Insanus ilie insani Fullonis error condemDAtus fuit. Labb. 5. 229, 230.

Petrus primogenitus Diaboli filius. Labb. 5. 166. Le Foulon qu'll appelle lefils premier-ne du Diable. Godeau. 3. 650. Bisciola. 424-2 Cedere nOD debere ~ EcclesiJD. Labb. 5. 246. Evag. ill 5, 6.

Liberat. a. 17. Spon. 484. IV. Bruy. 1. 255. Alex. 10. 420.Ipse excommunicavit Summum Pontificem. Cossart, 3. 22. Qui vicem

rependena, Felicia nomen eraait e diptychiL Petav. 1. 330. Ad mortem,patrociDante imperatore, remanait sacrmcana. LJ.'berat. 3. 18.

Page 340: The Variations of Popery

340 THE VABlATIONS OF POPERY.

oriental clergy. The emperor, knowing the illegality andinjustice of the sentence, held over the patriarch the protectingshield of his royal authority. The Greek clergy, on the sameaccount, contemned the Latin or Roman anathemas, and com-municated with the Byzantine patriarch. Felix, besides, wason this occasion,unfortunate in his own agents. Misenus andVitalis, whom he had commissionedas his envoys to Constanti-nople against Acacius,joined in communion with the patriarch;and heard, without disapprobation, the name of Mongosrepeated from the sacred registry. Titus, who was afterwarddespatched on a similar errand, copied the example of Vitalisand Misenus.1 These, in consequence,put Felix to the task ofissuing their excommunication, which, however, his infallibity,from his facility in this duty, seems to have thought no trouble.The Roman pontiffs had hitherto patronised the Chalcedo-

nian fa~th, and rejected, with resolution and perseverance, theMonophysite system. Leo had supported the council ofChabedon, with all his talents and influence. Felix hadexhausted himself in cursing all its enemies. But the hierarchsof the apostolic see were soon destined to alter their system,and exemplify the changeableness of all earthly things.Vigilius, who was a Roman pontiff, and Martin, who was aRoman saint, deserted the council of Chalcedon and went overto the camp of the enemy.Vigilius, in 537, was raised to the pontifical throne by the

Empress Theodora, on condition that, on his promotion, hewould profess Eutychianism, and concur in restoring Anathe-IDUS to the patriarchal chair of Constantinople. The newpontiff was faithful to his engagement in the profession ofheresy. He condemned the Chaldedonian faith, and declaredin favor of Monophysitism. His confession,addressed on thisoccasion to Theodora and other. partisans of heterodoxy, hasbeen preserved by Liberatus," He rejected the dogma of twonatures in the Son of God, and repealed the celebrated epistleof Leo. His iIifaJ.libility then proceeded, in due form andwithout delay or equivocation, to pronounce an anathemaagainst any person who should confesstwo forms in the Medi-ator. This was like a man determined to do business. Hisholiness, in consequence, had the honor of ' cursing his severalpredecessors and successors, the holy council of Chalcedon,

1Eng. m. 21. Spon. 484. ii. Bin. 3. 614. Labb.5. 246.2 VigiliUSllU&111fidem scripeit; duas in Christo damDavit natnras; et leBOI·

V8111I tOJDDm Papa Leonia sic dixit, non duas Christum confitemur natnras ; sedex duabus DMtuis~ unum 1Uium. Qui dixit inChristo duas fOl'lDll!!.anathema... 0.22. Anathema dicebat iis qui ClllIlfiteDtur duas mChrisIio DIoturM. BeDarmin. 1. 160. Alex. 10. 429.

Page 341: The Variations of Popery

MONOPHYSITISM AFTER THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON. 341

and the majority of the past, present, and future Christianworld. ,Baronius and Binius have endeavored to prove this docu-

ment, preserved in Liberatus, a forgery. Godeau doubts itsgenuineness. But their arguments, which scarcely deserve thename, have been confuted by Bellarmine, Du Pin, and Alexan-der. Liberatus, Victor, and Facundus, cotemporary authors,vouch for its authenticity. Bellarmine admits the heresy ofVigilius ; but consoles himself under the distress occasioned bysuch an event, with the real or fancied dissimulation of itsauthor, and the illegality of his claim, during the life of his pre-decessor and rival Silverius, to the papacy. His infallibility'sapprobation of heresy, according to the cardinal, was all exter-nal profession, while, in his soul, he was the devoted friend ofCatholicism. Alexander calls Vigilius ' a hidden traitor," Thecardinal and the Sorbonnist, it seems, possessed a faculty of dis-cerning the heart, and discovered the superiority of hypocrisy toheresy. Vigilius, besides, say these authors, could be no truepope prior to the death of Silverius, as two could not reign atthe same time. The church, however, has often been blessedwith several cotemporary heads, and the Messiah, supplied, onthe same occasion, with several vicars-general. Vigilius, what-ever might have been his right when he issued his hopeful con-fession, was, in fact, the sovereign pontiff, and was never againelected or ordained. He occupied the pontifical chair andexercised the pontifical authority, in the administration ofecclesiastical affairs, throughout papal Christendom.The sainted Martin, in 649, followed the footsteps ofVigilius,

and, in conjunction with the Lateran synod, decided in favorof Eutychianism. This assembly, in which his holiness presided,amounted to one hundred and fifty members, who all, in thefifth canon and with the greatest unanimity, ' condemned everyperson, who, according to the holy fathers, does not, in truthand propriety, confess one incarnated nature of God theWord." The sentence would have satisfied Dioscorus, Mongos,or Fullo. Bellarmine represents the condemnation, pronouncedby the holy synod, as equivalent to an anathema. Vigilius'decision seems to have been personal. Martin's was synodal.The one was signed only by the author; while the other wassubscribed by one hundred and fifty of the Italian prelacy.

~Dico vigilium damnasse Catholicam fidem solum exteriori professione, neque~o hrereticu8 £nit. Bellarmin, 1. 7fiO. Occultus proditor. .Alex. 10. 429.Bm. 4. 400. Godeau 4. 203.~Si quia secundum ~etos ~trelI non confitetur, proprie et secundum verita.

tem, unam naturam Dei Verbl incarnatam, condemnatus sit. Bin. 4. 733. Crabb.2. 234. Labb. 7. 360. Bellarmin, III. 4.

Page 342: The Variations of Popery

..342 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

But Martin, who is a saint, had, like Vigilius, who was littlebetter than a sinner, the distinguished honor of anathematizingevery professor of orthodoxy.The council of the Lateran presents a complete contrast to

that of Chalcedon. The definition of Chalcedon was suggestedby the pope to an. orthodox emperor, by whom it was forced, inthe midst of noisy opposition, on a reluctant synod. The canonof the Lateran was issued by the pope, in a willing council, inopposition to a heterodox emperor. Marcian patronised Leoand the Chalcedonians. Constans withstood Martin and theLaterans. The one assembly defined a duality of natures in theSon of God. The other declared in favor of his simple unity.This distracted state of the church induced Zeno, prompted,

some say, by Acacius, to publish the celebrated Henoticon oredict of union. The emperor's design, in this undertaking,was pacific. He intended to conciliate the partisans of Mono-physitism and Catholicism, and supply an exposition of belief;which each jarring faction, without compromising its principles,might sign. The means, at first sight; seemed calculated toobtain the end. The Henoticon, preserved by Evagrius andLiberatus, was addressed to the Alexandrian, Egyptian, Lybian,and Pentapolitan clergy and laity. This royal edict, having,in the introduction, lamented the dissensions, which had occa-sioned the massacres and bloodshed, which had contaminatedearth and air, confirmed the inspired and unstained faith of theNicene, Constantinopolitan, and Ephesian councils, in oppositionto Arianism, Macedonianism, and Nestorianism. The Mediator,according to the imperial theology, and, in agreement with theChalcedonian definition, without mentioning its authority, isconsubstantial with God in His deity, and with man in Hishumanity; but at the same time, is not two, but one incarnatedGod the Word 1 This last expression, which, it must be con-fessed, is a little suspicious, has given great offence to Baronius,Godeau, and Petavius, with a shoal of other Romish critics andtheologians.But the conclusion of the royal manifesto conveys the fright-

fullest sounds of terror to the ear of superstition. Zeno sparedDioscorus from a regard to the Alexandrians; but anathema-tized all who, at Chalcedon or elsewhere, might have dissentedfrom the imperial confession. His Majesty, though a layman,dared, in this manner, to enact a formulary of faith, and excom-municate all the prelacy who dared to refuse subscription.The Henoticon experienced the destiny of all similar attempts,

1 EN ~ _ 011 Iuo. Evag. In. 14. Inoarnato uno de TriDitate DeoVerbo. Liberat1Ul. Co 18. Alex. 10. 421. Spond. 482.iii

Page 343: The Variations of Popery

HENOTICON OJ!' THE EMPEROR ZENO. 343

and only augmented the evil which it was designed to remedy.A pacificator is seldom a favorite with man. The royal edict,supported by imperial power, enjoyed, however, a partial andtemporary success, and was signed by Acacius, Mongos, Fullo,and indeed by all possessed of moderation. The Byzantinepatriarch and his clergy acknowledged the edict of pacification:and all those who had professed Monophysitism, whetherecclesiastics or laymen, were received into communion. TheAlexandrian patriarch convened a general assembly of the clergyand laity, in which the Henoticon was read and recognised.The pastor, then, like a good shepherd, exhorted the flock,united in one faith and baptism, to mutual peace and charity.The easterns, Calendion excepted, followed the footsteps of theByzantines and Alexandrians. Fullo of Antioch, and evenMartyrias of Jerusalem, famed for his sanctity, subscribed thepacific formulary and joined in reciprocal communion. TheHenoticon, in this manner, was, under Anastasius in 503, wel-comed by the oriental prelacy, who, to a man, agreed to livein forbearance and tranquillity.But the Henoticon met with very different treatment in occi-

dental Christendom. The west, on this topic, varied from theeast. Felix, the Roman hierarch, rejected the overture ofpacification, and carried every thing to an extremity. Biniushas drawn a striking picture of the pontiffs opposition. Hisholiness proscribed and execrated the Henoticon of the mostimpious Zeno, who, though a layman, presumed to denouncethe council of Chalcedon, enact a rule of faith, prescribe a lawto the church, and, stealing the keys of ecclesiastical authority,hurl the anathemas of the hierarchy against allwho disclaimedhis usurpation and tyranny.' The edict his infallibility de-nominated an impiety j and he pronounced sentence against allwho subscribed it. The western clergy, as well as laity, seem,on this question, to have joined the Roman pontiff. Thewestern hierarch, in this manner, engaged in hostility againstthe easterJ;l patriarchs, and the Latin against the Grecianclergy..The critics and theologians of Romanism differ as to the or-

thodoxy of the Henoticon, The royal manifesto has been re-pr.e~entedas rank heresy by an array of popish doctors andcritics, such as Baronius, Spondanus, Bisciola, Petavius, Binius,LabM, Moreri, Godeau, and Victor. Baronius characterizesthe Henoticon as a tacit repeal of the council of Chalcedon, and! ProacJ:ipsit et execra.tuB est impiissimi Zenonis Henoticon. Hoc impiissi-

~ sacrilegi Imperatoris edictum impietatia seminarium non tantum proscrip-~~ verum etiam subBcribentes anathematis sententia condemnavit. Bin. 3."..... Labb. IS. 141. Spon. 483. UL

Page 344: The Variations of Popery

344 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

in this is followed by Spondanus, Biseiola, Petavius, and Mo-reri, Binius, quoted and approved by Labbe, calls theimperial edict of pacification an impiety. The proclamationof Zeno put Oodeau into a dreadful passion. The impiousedict, says the historian, not only anathematised the definitionof Chalcedon, the last criterion of truth; but condemnedEuty-chianism only to conceal its approbation of heresy.'This array of doctors has been confronted by others, among

whom are Asseman, Pagius, and Alexander, supported, in therear by the schoolmen. These acquit the Henoticon of heresy.Asseman and Pagius represent it as free from error, while,according to Alexander, it is free from heresy and gives no sup-port to Eutyehianism," The schoolmen, with all their subtletyand distinctions, could find no blemish in this celebrated docu-ment. An annotator on Evagrius came to the same conclusion.Some, in this manner, accuse, and some acquit the Henoticonof heresy. 'I'hese, therefore, call Catholicism, what thosedenominate heresy. The ablest theologian of the papacy, inthis way, cannot discriminate between truth and error, andconfounds Romanism with heterodoxy. This presents an oddspecimen of unity, and a strange proof of the immutability ofa system.The distracted state of the church, under AnastaBius in 491,

has been depicted, in bold language, by Evagrius a contempo-rary historian, who witnessed the sceneswhich he has described.The representation, in part, has been transcribed by Alexander,3All Christendom, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, was, saysEvagrius, divided into diversified and jarring factions. Oneparty adhered, with the utmost pertinacity, ,to the faith ofChalcedon. These deprecated the alteration of a single sylla-ble or even a single letter in the Chalcedonian definition. Theopposing faction, on the contrary, rejected and even anathe-matised the faith of Chalcedon. One class patronised theHenoticon with unshaken obstinacy and resolution,' whileanother execrated that edict as the fountain of heresy. Thepartisans and opponents of Zeno's manifesto, in the mean time,1 Tacit8m immiscuit abrogationem concilii Ohaleedonensis. Spon. 482. III.Ineotaeita inerat conciliiChalcedonensis abrogatio. Peter. I. 330. Cet editpronon\loit anatheme contre Ie concile de Chalcedoine. Moreri, 4. 77. Om-neshalretici, damnata synodo Chalcedonense, efficerentur. Bisciola, 423. Cetedit impie prononeoit anathilme contre Ie eoneile de Chalcedoine, qui 6toit Iadernim rillde de 1& verite orthodoxe. Godeau, 3. 656. Pour cacher I'appro-bation de Ilhtlnlsie. Godeau, 3. 656. Zeno, per Henoticum, a catholica fidereaedit. Victor. 324-2 Henoticon Zenonis Eutychianam lueresim nOD adstruere. Alex. 10. 412.a-. 1. M.'J. PagiU1l.2. 411.8 Alii ZeDoDie Benotico mordiOUll adhzerebant, tametsi de una aut de duabus

uaturiB inter lie dilaiderunt. AIeL 10. 424. Evag. III. 30.

Page 345: The Variations of Popery

DISTRACTED STATE OF THE CHURCH. 845

disagreed about the unity and duality of our Lord. Some, de-ceived by the ambiguity of the imperial confession, ascribedtwo natures to the Son of God and others only one.The several factions, amid the Eastern, Western, and African

dissensions, refused reciprocal communion. The Easternswould not communicate with the Westerns or Africans; andthese again in return, rejected the communion of the Easterns.Dissension, at last, advanced even to a. greater extremity. TheOrientals, among themselves, proceeded to mutual division andexcommunication; while the Europeans and Africans engagedin similar altercation with each other and with strangers. Suchwas the state of the Latins and Greeks in the end of the fifthcentury. The annals of the reformation present no scene ofequal diversity and anathemas. The patrons of Protestantismhave, on some points, differed, but never anathematised.Execrations of this kind, the protestant leaves to the papist, asthey express a concentrated malevolence and miscreancy,inconsistent with the light and the principles of the reformation.The popish communion through eastern and western Chris-

tendom, exhibited, in this manner, a ridiculous and disgustingdiversity on the subject of Monophysitism. Emperors, popes,and councils clashed in continued anathemas and excommuni-cation. A theory, which had been entertained by the pontiffsFelix and Julius, as well as by the saints Cyril, Gregory,Athanasius, and Nazianzen, was, when broached by a monk ofConstantinople, stigmatised as a heresy. A Byzantine council,amidst curses and execrations, deprived its advocate of thesacerdotal dignity and ecclesiastical communion. The Ephe-sian council, convened by Theodosius, and containing anhundred and fifty of the eesterniprelacy, reversed the Con-stantinopolitan decision, declared the alleged heresiarch ortho-dox, and restored him to communion with the priesthood.The general council of Chalcedon repealed the enactments

of Ephesus, and issued three jarring creeds. This assembly,clothed with infallibility, first passed, in loud acclaim, the famedTome of Leo, which has been styled the column of orthodoxy.Its second confession, which was clearly the faith of the council,consisted of unqualified Monophysitism. .Its definition, at last,which was forced on the infallible synod by Leo and Mar-eian, the pope and the emperor, contained the faith, which, onaccount of its final triumph and establishment, has been de-nominated Catholicism. All these forms of belief, the holyunerring council adopted in deafening yells and with frightfuland reiterated anAthemas.Eastern and western Christendom, notwithstanding the defi-

nition of Chalcedon, split into three contending factions.

Page 346: The Variations of Popery

346 THE VARIA.TIONS OF POPERY.

Emperors, pontiffs, clergy, and people divided in favor ofEutychianism, the Chalcedonian faith, or Zeno's Henoticon.The emperors Marcian, Leo, and Justin patronised Catholicism.Zeno, Basiliscus, and Anastasius, in the general opinion, coun-tenanced heresy. Leo and Felix, Roman pontiffs, stamped thedefinition of Chalcedon with the broad seal of their infallibility.Vigilius and Martin affixed the signature of their inerrabilityto Monophysitism and the simple unity of Emmanuel. Theoriental patriarchs, Fullo, Mongos,and Muros waged a spirit-ual war against Calendion, Proterios, and Timothy, while theprelacy and populace fought in the ranks of their respectiveleaders. Latins and Greeks, Europeans and Africans, thun-dered mutual excommunications and anathemas.

Page 347: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER XI.

MONOTHELITISM.

ITS GENlIlRAL RlI:CEPTION-SUl'PORTED BY THE ROIIAN EMPEROR, AND BY THEANTIOCHIAN, ALEXANDRIAN, BYZANTINE, AND ROMAN PATIlIARCBB-ITS DEGRA-DATION nOM CATIIOLICISM: TO HJIllEllY- THE IIlC'I'lIBIIIS OR BXPOBITION--THE,)Wl'EBOll AND THE GRlI:EK!l AGAINST THE POPII AND THE LATINB-THB TYPII ORFORMULARY-SECOND BATTLE BIITWlIBN TIIlI GRlI:EK!l AND TIIlI LATJ:NB---tillCONDTIlIUM:PH OF MONOTHELITISllt:-IlIXTII GENlIlRA.L OOUNCIIr-TOTAL OVEBTIIROW OJ!'MONOTHELITISM-ITS PARTIAL REVIVAL-ITS UNIVEBSAL AND FINAL EXTINCTION.

MONOTHELITISM: ascribed only one will and one operation tothe Son of God. This will or volition, according to this system,proceeded, not from the humanity, but from the divinity. Thepatrons of this theology, indeed, disclaimed monophysitism,admitted the Mediator'a-Godhead and manhood, and attributedto the latter both action and passion, such as volition, motion,thirst, hunger, and pain. But the agency, the partisans of thissystem referred to the deity, and the mere instrumentality tothe humanity, in the same manner as the soul actuates thebody. Catholicism, on the contrary, as established by thesixth general council, rejected this unity. and maintained thedogma of two wills and operations. One volition, in thissystem, belonged to the deity and one to the humanity.' Thismetaphysical distinction, in which, however, Catholicism seemsto use the correctest phraseology, continued, for a long period,to divide Christendom, and, in its progress, to excite dissension,animosity, execration, anathemas, excommunications, massacre,and bloodshed.Alexander traces monothelitism to an infernal origin. •This .

heresy,' says the historian, 'burst from hell," Its earthlyauthor, however, as appears "from Stephen, Bishop of Dora, ~the Lateran council under Martin, was Theodorus of Pharan illPalestina, who perhaps, according to Alexander, came fromthe Tartarian regions or had a commission from Satan. Thisinnovator b~hed his shocking impiety, as his silly meta-

Theoph. 21& Godea. 5. 128. Alex. 13. 23. Bin." 577. et 5. 6.2 HlIlreIIis Q: wens erupit. Alex. 13. !fl. Labb.7. 106.

Page 348: The Variations of Popery

348 THE VABlATIONS OF POPERY.

physics have been called, about the year 620. A speculator,who had lived in obscurity, fabricated this new theory, toemploy the thoughts or awaken the animosity of emperors,popes,and councils.But neither the obscurity of the author nor the alleged blas-

phemy of the system prevented its circulation. Heresy, likepestilence, is contagious; and Monothelitism soon obtainedgeneral dissemination, and, by its universal reception, becameentitled to assume the boasted name of Catholicism. Greeksand Latins, through oriental and western Christendom, em-braced the innovation, which, in its infancy, was patronised bythe Roman emperor, and by the Antiochian, Alexandrian,Byzantine, and Roman Patriarchs and Clergy.The emperor Heraclius, anxious to reconcile the J acobites

to Catholicism,and influenced by the opinions of Anastasius,Cyrus, and Sergius, issued an edict in favor of Monothelitism.Depending on the judgment of others, and conversant withmilitary tactics rather than with Christian theology, the royalwarrior lent his imperial authority in support of heterodoxy.Godeau accuses Heraclius of' abandoning the faith, protectinga heresy, and inflicting a mortal wound on Catholicism.''Inimical to God and hardened in lOul, the emperor,' saysBaronius, 'published his exposition to establish an impiety."Anastasius, Macedonius, and Macarius, Patriarchs of

Antioch, disseminated the Monothelitism,which was patronisedby the emperor Heraclius. Anastasius or Athanasius, who hadsupported Jacobitism as well as Monothelitism, was promotedto the patriarchal throne by the emperor in 630, and retainedthis dignity for ten years. Macedonius,his successor,favoredthe same theory. Macarius, who was deposed in the sixthgeneral council,maintained this error with the utmost obsti-nacy. The suffragans of these dignitaries embraced thissystem,and were followedby the laity without a singlemurmurof opposition or animosity.'Cyrus followed the example of Anastasius. Promoted to the

See of Alexandria, this patriarch in 633, convened, in that city,a great council, which decided in favor of one will and opera-tion and anathematised all who dissented. The decision wasreceived without any oposition by the prelacy as well as thepeople of the diocese.' Monothelitism, therefore, became thefaith of the Alexandrian as well as the Antiochian See.Sergius concurred with Anastasius and Cyrus. The Byzan-

tine patriarch, with the design of giving more weight to his1 '!heoPh- 218. Zunaraa, 2. 6. Godeau, 5, 161. &on. I. 639.2 ~ 218. Clldnn. I. 331. Godeau. 6. 128. \loren, 1. 499., CecbiD. L 332. BiD. 6. tlIO. Godeau, 5. 138. Span. II. 638.

Page 349: The Variations of Popery

MONOTHELITISM SUPPORTED BY HONORHTS. 349

decision, assembled also a council of his suffragans; and allthese, with the utmost unanimity, decided in. favor of thesame speculation. The clergy agreed with their patriarch.Cyrus, some time after, wrote a flattering letter to Sergius ; andpraised the Ecthesis of the emperor and the patriarch, which,he said, 'was clear as sun-beams.'!Monothelitism, in this manner, became the faith of the

Greeks. The harmony of the eastern clergy, on this theory, isstated in the celebrated Ecthesis or Exposition. The Orientalprelacy received, with the utmost readiness, a form of belief,which inculcated the dogma of one will. This heresy, Godeauadmits, 'was maintained by the emperor and the three orientalpatriarchs, poisoned nearly the whole of eastern Christendom,and corrupted the prelacy and the people.' Godeau's state-ment is repeated by Bruys. Maimbourg attests' the concordof the emperor Heraclius, and the patriarchs Anastasius,Macarius, Cyrus, and Sergius in behalf of this error.' 2Honorius, the Roman pontiff, next declared in favor of

Monothelitism. His infallibility, in two letters written in replyto the Byzantine patriarch, expressed in clear and unequivocalterms, his belief of one will in the Son of God, and his un-qualified assent to the decision of Sergius. His supremacydenied that any of the fathers had taught the doctrine of twowills. He represented the question concerning the operations,as trifling and undecided by Scriptural or Synodal authority.His infallibility's approbation of the opinion, embraced by theByzantine patriarch, was express, and caused Honorius to beanathemasised with Sergius in the sixth general council, as thefollower of that chief of the heresy,"The pontiff's letter, on this occasion, was dogmatical; and

the sixth general council characterised it by this epithet. Hisholiness, says Du Pin, , spoke in this production from the chair,and supported the Monothelan error by a decretal definition.'iHis bull was an answer to the Constantinopolitan patriarch,! Theoph. 219. Labb. 7. 214. Alex. 13. 32.2 Excepernnt Patriarchis sedibus p1'llllluIes, et gratanter ei oonaenserunt.

Labb. 7. 202. Qui )toit soustenue par l'Empereur, et las trois Patriarchesd'Orient. Presque tout l'Orient en fftt empeisonne, Lea Patriarchas et las pre-late etant oorrumpus, oorrompoient leurs troupe&ux. Godeau, 5. 153, 166.L'heresie des Monothelites soustenue par presque tout 1'0rient, Emy. 1. 423.Sergius entreprit de repandre cetta heresie dans tout 1'0rienf;. n avoit pour

lui, Cyrus, Mac&fre, et Athanase. n entl'aina ce pauvre Prince dans cettenouvelle herem.e. Maimb. 108.8 Unam voluntatem fatemur Domini. Bin. 5. 203. Labb. 7. 962. Hrec

n?biscum Fratemitas vestra prmdicat, Bientet nos ea vobiscum un&Dimiterpne-. d:icamus. Labb. 7. 966.Sergio et Honoria lUIAthema. Alexander, 13. 303. In omnibus ejus mentem

secutua est. Labb. 7. 978. Maimbourg, no.i Monothelitarum enorem deczeta1i iipistola definivit. Du Pin, 349. 352.

Bruys, 1. 424. Godeau. 5. 14.0. Bellarmin, adClem. 8. Gam. inDium.

Page 350: The Variations of Popery

350 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

and indeed to the Byzantine and Alexandrian councils, to whomhe prescribed the means, which he thought necessary for theunity of the faith and the preservation of Catholicism. Hisletter also was sanctioned by a Roman Synod. The pontiffsof this age, Bellarmine and Garnier have shown, issued nothingof this kind without the authority of a council. The faith ofHonorius therefore was, like that of Cyrus and Sergius, recom-mended by the synodal sentence of the suffragan clergy.The only opposition to Monothelitism arose from Sophronius,

patriarch of Jerusalem. He convened a council in 633, whichcondemned this system and decided in favor of two wills.He also despatched Stephen, Bishop of Dora, at the head of asolemn deputation to the Roman pontiff, to solicit the condem-nation of the Monothelan theology, as inconsistent with thecouncil of Chalcedon and the faith of antiquity. But hisinfallibility had already declared for the unity of the Mediator'swill. He therefore recommended' peace, and obliged thedeputation to promise, in name of their patriarch, to forego alldiscussion on this difficult question. This injunction, whichwas the offspring of sound wisdom and discretion, and which,had it been always afterward observed, would have preventedmuch useless discussion and unchristian animosity, was, duringthe life of Honorius, faithfully obeyed. Sophronius, as well 880yruH and Sergius, preserved, on this subject, a profoundsilence and remained In inactivity.'During the five years, therefore, which elapsed from the

deputation of Sophronius to Honorius, in 683, till the death ofthe pontiff in 638, the whole Romish communion, Greeks andLatins, received, by silent or avowed consent, the faith ofMonothelitism. A pontifical decision, admitted by the clergy,constitutes, according to Popish theologians, a standard of faith.Such at the Maynooth examination, was the statement of Crotty,Brown, Slevin, and Higgins.' Monothelitism, on this supposi-tion, W88, in the beginning of the seventh century, transubstan-tiated into Catholicism. The Greeks, in general, avowed theirMonothelitism. Sophronius and his clergy, who at first resisted,concurred, at last, in accordance with the advice of Honorius,in tacit acquiescence. The western hierarch and episcopacyreceived the same theology without the faintest murmur ofhostility. The Pope declared in its favor, and the clergysubmitted in cordial unanimity. A breath of discontent wasnot heatd, for five revolving years, through all the wide extentof orienW and western Christendom. A single fact, indicating1Theoph. 118. 0edreD. 1. 331. ZoDaraa, 2. 67. Spon. 633. m. LabbeUI,

6. 1481.t May. :Bepon, 'l8, 1M, 269,.274.

Page 351: The Variations of Popery

MONOTHELITISMDECLAREDTO BE HERESY. 851

a disbelief of this system, from the publication of the pontifF'i'Iletter till his dissolution, could not be culled from all the maga-zines of ecclesiastical history and all the literary monumentsof the east and west. The Monothelan theology, therefore,embraced by the clergy of the papal communion, was, by thiseasy and simple process, transformed into genuine Romanism.According to Godeau,' Heraclius inflicted a mortal wound onthe church.' The Chalcedonian council, says Theophanes,became, on this occasion, a great reproach, 'and the CATHOLICCHURCHwas overthrown,"Monothelitism, however, which, in the Popedom of Hono-

rius, had been elevated into orthodoxy, was, in the vicissitudeof human affairs and in the variations of the Roman faith,degraded into heresy. This theology, expelled from the throneof Catholicism, which it had usurped, was, ~mid sacerdotaland imperial anathemas, consigned, with execration, to theempire of heterodoxy and perdition. Its legitimacy was dis-puted, and its dynasty, amidst clerical imprecations and bal-derdash, was overthrown. A revolution of this kind, however,was not effected without opposition and animosity,The belligerents, in this war of words, were the Greeks and

the Latins. The Pope and the Latins arrayed themselvesagainst the emperor and the Greeks: and each, during thecampaign, displayed admirable skill in ecclesiastical tactics.Heraclius, or Sergius in his name, commenced hostilities in 689,by the publication of the Ecthesis or Exposition of the faith.This celebrated edict, having rejected Arianism, Nestorianism,and Eutychianism, J?roceeded,in express terms, to teach theunity of the Mediator s will and to interdict all controversy onthe operations. The unity of the one was defined, and silenceenjoined on the other; while the definition and interdictionwere followed by the usual volleys of anathemaa.1 Thisexposition, issued by the emperor, was received by the Orientalpatriarchs and prelacy.Monothelitism and the Exposition .. approved in this manner,

by the emperors and the easterns, were, with horror and execra-tion, condemned by the pope and the westerns. P?pe Johnmarsha.1ledhis episcopal troops, and, at their head, dischargedhis spiritual artillery from the Vatican, loaded with curses an~anathemas against the Monothelan army of the east. Hissynodal battery was pointed a.gainst Monothelitism and theEXposition. Monothelitism, John in his synod declared to be

1Herae1iua fit une plap mortelleal'Eg1ille. Godeau, IS. 161. Ell I""1G _~s7/G'tIJ'll3osXaAq3oI'OS, -It ~ .~ICI np_.. Theop. 218.I ZODal'll8,2. 69. Labb. 6. 1603, et 7. 206.. BiD. 4. 696. Alex. 13. 31.

Page 352: The Variations of Popery

352 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

contrary to the faith, the fathers, and the council of Ohalcedon,'The silence enjoined, as well as the unity of will taught in theEcthesis, offended the pontiff and his clergy. Ecclesiastics,in all ages, seem to have challenged verbal contention as theirinalienable prerogative; and this, at that period,appears to havebeen their ruling passion. The emperor's interdict, therefore,these noisy polemics deprecated as an invasion of their rights,and as treason against the church and their freedom.The African clergy also declared, with distinguished zeal,

against Monothelitism. Oolombas, Stephen, and Raparatus,metropolitans of Numidia, Byzaca, and Mauritania, anathema-tised the heresy of one will in their respective councils; andsent letters to the same effect addressed to the emperor, thepope, and the Byzantine patriarch. Victor also, the Cartha-ginian bishop, despatched Melosus,with a solemn embassy tothe Roman hierarch, declaring his promotion, his attachmentto the faith of antiquity, and his detestation of the heresy ofMonothelitism.2.All this apparatus of edicts, councils, imprecations, anathe-

mas, and excommunications, however, produced no decisiveeffect. The Greeks and the Latins, the partisans of orthodoxyand heterodoxy, held their several systems with unyieldingpertinacity. The authority of the emperor and the pope, onthis occasion was divided. The emperor, when he exertedhis influence, could always command a majority, and oftenthe whole of the clergy. The emperor and pope, when united,could a1wayseffectunanimity of professionamong the conscien-tious bishops. But Heraclius and John, on this occasion, pat-ronised two contending factions; and his majesty, besides,wasnot determined. He liad been entrapped into Monothelitismby Anastasius, Cyrus, and Bergius, in the full confidenceof itsorthodoxy. But the declaration of the Latins awakened doubtsin his mind; and he remained, therefore, in suspense andinactivity. The balance of victory, in consequence,was SUB-

o pended in equilibrium; and the holy fathers both of the east ,and west, expended their curses and their excommunicationsfor nothing.The former battle being indecisive, jhe Greeks and Latins

prepared again for action. The Greeks, indeed, though headedby the emperor, being weary of war, appear, on this occasion,to ha.vebeen inclined to peace. But the Latins rejected allcessatiOJl of arms. The organs of combativeness, in the lan-guage of Spurzheim and phrenology, must ha.ve been well,l'l"11eoph. il9. Cedna. t... Peav. t.138. Maimb. Ill. 1Abb.6. 1502.

BiD. I.7kI ~ t... Theoph. 219. Bray. 1. «0. PeaviuB, 1. 3'19.

Page 353: The Variations of Popery

THE TYPE OR FORMULARY OF CONSTANS. 853

developed in the Western clergy. Their pugnacity, after six-teen years' 'war, with some intervals, had suffered no diminutionnotwithstanding the severity of the former campaign.The emperor Constans, pretending to inspiration, issued, in

648, a pacific overture,' which he styled the Type or Formulary.This edict, suggested by Paul, the Byzantine patriarch, having,with great perspicuity and without any partiality, explainedthe opinions on the subject of contention, and expressed deepregret for the unhallowed divisions of the Christian community,interdicted all disputation oq the contested topics of the willand operations. .All discussion of these metaphysical anddifficult questions was forbidden each party, on pain of Divinejudgment and imperial indignation. The clergy who shouldoffend against the edict of pacification were to be degraded,the monks excommunicated, and the nobility deprived of theirrank and property. The Type differed from the Ecthesis.The Ecthesis defined the unity of the will, and enjoined silenceonly on the operations. The Type defined nothing, and pro-hibited all controversy on both these subjects. The Greeksacquiesced in the manifesto of pacification, and submitted,with willingness, to the imperial authority.'But the Latins, headed by the pope, and disinclined to peace,

commenced immediate hostilities; and, from the secretary ofthe Lateran, hurled anathemas from their spiritual enginesagainst the impiety of the Ecthesis, the atrocity of the Type,and the heresy of Monothelitism. Pope Martin led the chargeagainst the emperor and the Greeks. Full of zeal for thefaith, or rather actuated with the spirit of faction, this pontiff,in 649, assembled, in the Lateran, no less than 150 bishopscollected from Italyand the adjacent islands, This assembly,more numerous than some general councils, fulminated execra-tions against Monothelitism and the most wicked Type, whichWas published by Constans, and calculated to restrain menfrom professing the truth or combating error, The sacreds!nod also thundered imprecations with great spirit and devo-bion, against Theodorus, Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and allwho entertained their heretical impiety,"This campaign, like the former, was indecisive. Constans

showed no partiality to Monothelitism or to Catholicism; butmaintained, on the contrary, an armed neutrality. His onlydesign seems to have been the promotion .of peace, and theextinction of faction and animosity. Caliopss, therefore,1Labb. 7. 239. Alex. 13. 35. Brays, 1. 441.2 Typo Constantia lmP!lratoria damnato, Monothelitarum hllll'llllim, ejusque

auctoreeetpromotoresdiiismultavit. Mabillon.l.407. Maimbourg, Ill. Crabb2. 232. Platina, inMartin. Theoph. 219.

w

Page 354: The Variations of Popery

354 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Exarch of Italy, seized Marlin by the emperor's orders, andconfined this disturber of the peace a whole year in Naxos, anisland in the Archipelago or Egean Sea. He was then, after amock trial and the utmost cruelty, banished to Cherson, wherehe died,' He suffered with great fortitude and patience, and,in consequence, has, in the Roman communion, obtained thehonors of saintship and martyrdom.Martin's punishment tamed the haughty insolence of his

successors Eugenius and Vitalian, and taught these pontiffs torespect the imperial authority. 1'hese took special care not toimitate their predecessors, John and Martin, in condemning theType; but, on the contrary, maintained, during their spiritualreigns, a suspicious and provoking silence and neutrality. Thered-hot anathemas, such as John and Martin had thunderedfrom the Vatican against all the patrons of the' Ecthesis, theType, and Monothelitism, got time to cool, and the churchand empire, in consequence, enjoyed a temporary peace.Eugenius and Vitalian, it has been alleged, conferred their

formal sanction on the emperor's pacific formulary. This hasbeen inferred from the friendship which Constans discoveredfor these two pontiffs. His majesty enlarged the privileges ofthe Roman See. He sent Vitalian a copy of the Gospels, orna-mented with gold and jewels of extraordinary magnitude andbrilliancy. But the sovereign, who wreaked such vengeanceon :Martin for condemning the Type, would not, in so distin-guished a manner, have countenanced Vitalian in the sameoffence," Engenius and Vitalian, therefore, if they withheldtheir avowed approbation of the Edict, suspended their opencondemnation.This neutrality was a virtual, if not a formal, submission to

the formulary, which was issued merely to prevent discussionand animosity. The Type interdicted controversy, and thisinterdiction these pontiffs obeyed. This taciturnity, which wasexecrated by Martin, was a direct compliance with the requis~-tions of Constans. Eugenius and Vitalian sanctioned, by theircessation of hostility, what Theodorus and Martin in two Romancouncils, had denounced as heresy inimical to Catholicism:Christendom, for a second time, sawall opposition to :Monothe·litism entirely abandoned, and his infallibility, 'the universalbish,?p, the head of the church, and the father and teacher ofaJl Christians, with all his western suffragans, resting, for a

1CedreD. 2. 332. Bray. 1. 461. Bella, 30.s~. 1." Lab~11II, 7.457. Beda, Cbron. Ann. 671.. .. 4a ~ p~ OODOilio'OOJlgnlpto, eundem typam damDa'riL .BiDiUll, •

5'11. r-.-. . . __'lis ~ ~ n.- Labbeus, 7. 365.1b:poMIit 1-'1Pam ad..... CMholicam fidem. Beda, BO.

Page 355: The Variations of Popery

THE SIXTH GENERAL COUNCIL CO~VENED. 855

lon~ series of years, in connivance and inactivity. This wasplainly the second triumph of Monothelitism. The Monothelantheology, if a total cessation of all opposition to a doctrine constitutes it an article of faith, was, for the second time, raised tothe throne of orthodoxy and Catholicism.Monothelitism, however, enjoyed only a precarious and tem-

porary reign. The era of its dethronement had nearly madeitl; appearance on the broad theatre of the world. A revolution,which had taken place in the imperial mind, portended its speedyoverthrow and dissolution. The emperor Constantine, a de-scendant of Heraclius, and educated in the Monothelite system,induced by reason, caprice, interest, passion, whim, fancy,inclination, or some of these diversified motives which actuatethe human mind, abjured the catechism of his infancy, andembraced the theology which he afterwards raised to the throneof orthodoxy. ' His majesty, the warm friend of Catholicism,'says Binius, 'hastened to expunge the domestic and hereditarystain of his family.' The royal convert concluded pacificnegotiations with the Saracens, and formed a treaty with thepope for the destruction of Monothelitism ; and when hismajesty and his holiness united against this or any other creed,the spirit of prophecy was unnecessary to anticipate its doom.The royal smiles and frowns, seconded by pontifical influence,always conveyed instant conviction to episcopal consciences,and reduced jarring systems to unanimity.Constantine, anxious to allay ecclesiastical discord, summoned

for this end a general council, which met at Constantinople int~e year 680. The bishops of this assembly, in its first session,dId not exceed forty, though in the end they amounted to 166.The emperor, attended by the counsellors of state, presided,and, in the acts of the synod, they are styled the judges, Theseprescribed the subjects, ruled the discussions, collected thes~es, and indeed conducted the whole machinery of thecouncil, Their partiality appeared in the first session. Ma.ca-nus, .patriarch of Antioch, and the representatives of the Romanpo~ti:ff,had disputed about a quotation from Cyril of Alexan-dria, This, though couched in the language of metaphysicalJargon and unqualified nonsense, equally unintelligible andsenseless, the judges decided in favor of the party which wasnow, III consequence of imperial patronage, to becomeorthodox.1The acta of the sixth general council were distinguished by

~y proselytism of the Greeks, the condemnation ofus and Honorius, and the l7llodal decision against

Monothelitism, Georgius of Constantmople was the first who,

1A1enncIer, 13. 47. Maimbourg, 111. Labbeu, 7. 686.

Page 356: The Variations of Popery

356 THE VA..R!ATIONS OJ' POPERY.

changed by a hasty conversion, recanted his former opinion,and anathematised the dogma of one will. and operation. Thelogic of imperial favor, in an instant, flashed conviction on hismind. The arguments of the monarch bore, no doubt, theimperial stamp, and therefore possessed, beyond question, asterling value. His conversion was immediately followed bythat of all his suffragans. These, imitating their superior, andsensible to the dialectics of their sovereign, cursed, in loudvociferation, all the patrons of Monothelitism.!

• But Macarius, the Antiochian patriarch, was formed of lessyielding materials. He publicly declared in the eighth session,that he would not retract, though, on account of his obstinacy,he should be torn into fragrneute, and hurled headlong into thesea. This shocking blasphemy awakened all the' zeal of thepious bishops, who, in consequence, roared out, 'Cursed be thenew Dioscoms. Put out the new Dioseorus, Cursed be thenew Apollinaris. Strip him of his pall.' The sacred synodand Roman sovereign then commanded the pall to be torn offMacarius. Basil, the Cretan, then leaped up, seized theunhappy patriarch, rent the pall from his shoulders; and,while the council continued cursing, expelled the heretic andhis throne, by sheer violence, out of the assembly. The Romanclergy next caught Stephen, the abettor of M.acarius, by theshoulders, and threw him, amidst direful execrations, out of thesacred synod," The holy fathers, on the occasion, had nomercy on Macarius, Stephen, or their own lungs j and had itnot been for their facility of cursing, acquired by long habit,must have cursed themselves out of breath.The condemnation of his infallibility Pope Honorius, for

heresy, formed the most extraordinary act of the sixth generalcouncil. This pontiff had sunk into the cold tomb, and hisbones, during a period of half a. century, had been moulderingin the dust. But death, the coffin, the shroud, and the gravecould not shield his memory from the holy church's anathemas,which were pronounced with perfect unanimity, and withoutthe least opposition or faintest murmur of mercy."The council, 'in the thirteenth session, having condemned the

dogmatic letters of Honorius as conformed to heresy, and con-trary to Catholicism and the faith of the Apostles and the

1Binius, 5. 88. Meunder. 13. 50. .t ~ syn~ns11D;& cum principe .ejns o~um ~uferri j~sserunt.a ?Ollo eJuB,

et eDlieDa BaailiU8 -eplllOOp1Ul Cretel1llUl eccleaial, eJus oranum abBtolit, et ~a'Ulematizautee projecerunt eum foria synodum, aimulque et Thronum eJuB"S~UDl autem diacipulUDl ejus cervicibus a aanota 8ynodo clenci RoIDJloDlejicientee exoulel'lIDt. .AnaatUius, 30. Labbeus, 7. 690. Bin. 5. 92. 365.Crabb. 2., Iitl 321. Carausa, 421. AIeL 13. 52. ..,n• HODOrio IU) ,Ori8Iltalibu pod mol'tem anathema sit dictum. Caranza. ou"·

Page 357: The Variations of Popery

ACTS OF THE GENERAL COUNCILS. 357

Fathers, anathematised their pontifical author in company withTheodorus, Cyrus, and Sergi us. Honorius was represented asagreeing, in every respect, with Sergi us, whose impiety thepontiff confirmed. The sacred synod, in its sixteenth session,repeated these anathemas against the heretical Honorius andhis companions. Having, in the eighteenth session, condemnedMonothelitism, and issued their definition of two wills andoperations in Emmanuel, the holy fathers again anathematisedTheodorus, Sergi us, Pyrrhus, Paul, Cyrus, Macarius, andHonorius,'The unerring council, in ita eighteenth session, among other

compliments, represented his holiness, in company with Theo-dorus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Cyrus, and Paul, as an organ of thedevil, who had used the pontiff, like the serpent, in bringingdeath on man in the dissemination of scandal and heresy.s Hissupremacy, it seems, occupied two important situations. Hewas the organ of Satan and the viceroy of God. Clothed withinfallibility, the Byzantine council proclaimed his agency, as aMonothelite, in the dynasty of his infernal majesty. Vested inlike manner with infallibility, the Florentian and Lateran coun-cils defined his holiness, as .pontiff, the vicar-general of thesupernal Emmanuel. Honorius, in this way, was promoted tothe premiership of both heaven and hell, and, with characteris-tic ability, conducted the administration of the two dominions.He presided, like all other popes, in the kingdom of Jesus, and,at the same time, by special favor in the empire of Beelzebub.The anathemas of the Byzantine assembly were repeated

by the seventh and eighth general councils, The seventh, inin its third session, anathematised and execrated Cyrus,:Sergius,Pyrrhus, and Honorius, and, in ita seventh session, uttered asimilar denunciation. The eighth, in its tenth session, alsopronounced anathemas against Honorius, Cyrus, Stephen, andMacarius.sCondemned by these general councils, Honorins was also

d~nounced by six Roman pontiffs and by the old Rom~n bre-VIary. He was anathematised for heresy, by Agatho, NIcholas,two Leos, and two Adri.ans, on a question, says Caron, not offact, ?ut of faith. ~tho, says Caranza, excommunicated theheretics Honorius, Macarius, Stephen, and. Cyrus. Leo theSecond and four of his successors confirmed the sixth, seventh,. 1 ~ui falsas doctriDas hleretieorum. Inomnibus ejus mentem secutus est etunpia dogmata eonfirmavit. Labb. 7.978. Honoriolueretieo anathema. Labb.,7. 1043. Dn Pin, 360. Maimb. 113. .S Organa ad propnam aui voluntateM apta reperiens, Theodol'llIll, Sergium,

Pprhum, Paulum, insuperet Honorium. Labb.7. 1058. Alexander, 13. 303.Bu:p}-8M. et 9. UH. Crabb. 3, 476, 694. Du Pin, 349.m. 5. 819. et 6. 844. Crabb. 2. 403.

Page 358: The Variations of Popery

358 THE VARIATIONS 01' POPERY.

and eighth general councils, that had condemned and anathe-matised Honorius. Leo, in his confirmation of the Byzantinecouncil, characterised Honorius as a traitor to the holy apostolicfaith. The old Roman breviary also, approved by the Romanpontiffs and used in the Romish worship, attested the condem-nation of Cyrus, Sergius, and Honorius for the error ofMonothelitism.1The decisions and anathemas of these councils and pontiffs

have, in modern times, distracted the friends of the papacy.One party, in the face of this overwhelming evidence, main-tain the hierarch's orthodoxy, while another, in the exercise ofcommon sense and candor, confess his heresy, Baronius,

to Bellarmine, and Binius, in the genuine spirit of Ultramontaneservility, assert his Catholicism. Binius represents Honorius,as free from every stain or suspicion of error. The means,which this faction employ in his vindication, are extraordinary.One party, in this faction, such as Baronius, Bellarmine,Pighius, and Binius, represent the synodal acts of the sixthuniversal synod as corrupted, and the name of Honoriusinserted in the place of Theodorus. This hopeful solutionprevailed for some time; but is now the object of scorn andcontempt. The silly conjecture had its day; but has passed tooblivion with many other variations of popery. The Shandiansupposition has been demolished by the overwhelming argu-ments and criticisms of Du Pin, Alexander, Godeau, Launoy,and Maimbourg.2Another party in this faction, among whom were Turre-

crema, Pallavicino, Spondanus, and Arsdekin, admit thegenuineness of the acts; but allege an error in the council.The condemnation of Honorius,according to these critics, wasa question, not of faith, but of fact, in which, even a generalcouncil may err. Popes and councils, according to these vin-dicators, condemned Honorius; but, in their sentence, weremistaken. The modest critics weigh their own opinion, thoughvoid of all evidence, against the decision of pontiffs, councils,and all antiquity," His infallibility's vindicators, in their nobleenterprise, have displayed a tissue of sophistry, quibbling.misrepresentation, distinctions, nonsense, shu:fll.ing, evasion.and chicanery, unrivalled in the annals of controversy.1NovimUII Honorium Papam, tanquam halreticum Monothelitam a 3 lIynodis

generalibua, VI, VII, VIII, moot eta 4 Pontificibus Romania, Leone, Agathone,4uobua Adrianis damnatum esse. Caron. 89. 418. A1ex. 13. 311. Maimbourg,11. Proditione iJnmaculatam fidem aubvertere conatus est. Labb. 7. 1151). et 8.652. Bin. 5. 3<Yl. Moren, 4. 186. .t 8poa. 881. V. BelL IV. 11. Bin. 4. 672. Maimb. 116. Da Pin, 380. Alex.lIa* ~ 6. 339. Laun~~ 1. 118. .~ n. 9'J. PaUav. vn, 4. Andek. 1. 127. Bell. IV. 11. MaiJn-

bourg, uo.

Page 359: The Variations of Popery

TEMPORARY REVIVAL OF MONOTHELITI8M. 3;')9

A second party, among whom may be reckoned Ma.rca.,Gamer, Pagius, Alexander, Godea.u, Moreri, Launoy, Bruys,Maimbourg, Caron, Csnus, Beda, and Du Pin, confess thejustice of the pontiff's sentence. This party again is dividedinto two factions. One of these, supported by the authorityof Ma.rca., Garner, Pagius, Alexander, Godeau, and Moreri,represent Honorius merely as guilty of remissness and inac-tivity, in neglecting to suppress the rising heresy of Monothe-litism, Launoy, Bruys, Caron, Canus, Beda, Maimbourg, andDu Pin have characterised Honorius as guilty of heresy, andhave evinced their allegation by a mass of evidence whichmust command the assent of every unprejudiced mind.'Monotlaelitism, by the decision of the Byzantine eouncil,

received a total overthrow. The Greeks and Latins, throughthe oriental and western empire, acknowledged, by open ortacit consent, the definition of the Constantinopolitan assembly.The theology of one will and operation, seemed, for a lapseof about thirty-two years, to be extinguished.The Yonothela.n theory, however, was destined to enjoy a

temporary revival, in the reign of Philippicus. Justinian, dis-tinguished by his cruelty, was assassinated in the year 712,and Philippicus raised to the throne. His elevation to the impe-rial dignity, Binius ascribes to the devil and a blind magician.The usurper, says 'I'heophanes, bad been educated by Stephen,a MOllothelite, and a pupil of Macarius, the Antiochan patriarch,and had, from his infancy, imbibed the principles of his tutor.The magician, who, though blind in mind and body, was, itseems, skilled in astrology, foretold the promotion of Philippi-eus; and, should he patronise Monothelitism, the prosperityofhis reign. The prophet, however, in this latter circumstance,happened to be mistaken. The stars had been unfaithful, orthe sage astrologer had miscalculated. Philippicus, however,believing the impostor's prediction, bound himself by oath tothe conditions,"Vested with the sovereign authority, the emperor convened a.

council in Constantinople, for the purpose of overturningOatholicism and substituting Monothelitism. This assembly,which Theophanes calls 'a mad synod,' was, 'says Binius,attended by numberless oriental bishops, who, according to thesame author, were at the emperor's suggestion, converted, ina moment, from ~rthodoxy to heresy. The proselytism, onthis occasion, was somewhat sudden; but nothing extraordi-nary. The prelacy of these days possessed an admirable1Alex. 13. 320. Godeau, 5. 140. :Moren. 4. 186. Lannoy, 1. 118. Bruy,

1.423. Caron, 89. Canu V. o. Bed., 31. :Maimb. 113. Du Pin, 3/iO., Cedren. 1. 353. Theoph.2M. Bin. 5. 447.

Page 360: The Variations of Popery

360 THE VABlATIONS OF POPERY.

versatility of belief and elasticity of conscience; and couldgenerally conform, with accommodating and obliging facility,to the' faith of the emperor. Many of these holy fathers, who,on this occasion, embraced the imperial religion, had, underConstantine, supported Catholicism, and, again, under Anasta-sius, who succeeded Philippicus, returned, with equal ease, toorthodoxy. The sacred synod, therefore, at the nod of theemperor, and with the utmost unanimity, condemned the sixthgeneral council, consigned its acts to the flames, and declaredthe theology of one will, which many of them had formerlyanathematised, the true faith of antiquity. John, whomPhilippicus substituted for Cyrus in the see of Constantinople,poisoned, according to Godeau, all the Greeks with heresy.The Eastern clergy abandoned the faith rather than theirdignity. The Byzantine conventicle, whose atrocious acts,full of blasphemy, are, says Labbeus, buried with the wickedemperor, and consigned to eternal anathemas, renewed theimpiety of MoIiothelitism.1Philippious, who was a man of learning, having, on the dis-

missal of the council, compiled a confession agreeable to itsdefinition, transmitted it to the several metropolitans, andenjoined it on the clergy on pain of deposition and banishment.A few, unwilling to make the imperial faith and consciencethestandard of their own, remonstrated. But these refractoryspirits were BOonremoved, and others of greater pliancy weresubstituted. Monothelitism, in consequence, was again em-braced by all the Greeks, and even by the envoys of the apos-tolic see, who, at that time, resided in the imperial city.The Latins, however, were, for once, less passive or com-

plying. The emperor's power in the west had become lessarbitrary than in the east. The Roman city, in which theimperial authority had been reduced to a low ebb, was, in agreat measure, governed by the Roman pontiff. The pope,therefore, rejected the imperial confessionwith indignation, andcondemned it, in council, as fraught with blasphemy, dictatedby the enemy of truth, and calculated to sap the foundations ofCatholicism, the faith of the fathers, and the authority of coun-cils. The Roman populace, unaccustomed to moderation, pro-ceeded to greater extremity. These, in the extravagancy oftheir zeal, threw the emperor's image from the church, and ex-punged his name from the public liturgy. The infatuated peo-ple proceeded even to oppose the Roman governor, who hadbeen appointed by the heretical emperor. A skirmish, beforethe paJace was the consequence, in which twenty-five were~~ XlV. 26. Theoph. 240.' BiD.5.448. Labb. 1.130. Spon.712.

VIIt Godeau, 6. 339.

Page 361: The Variations of Popery

FINAL EXTINCTION OF MONOTHEJ,ITJSM. 361

killed. The pope, however, dispatched a deputation to theclergy with the gospel and cross in their hand, to part thecombatants and allow the governor to take possession of thepalace.'Philippicus, in the mean time, prepared to wreak his ven-

geance on the pontiff and the people,was, by a conspiracy,driven from the throne, and Anastasius, as zealousfor orthodoxyas Philippicus had been for heresy, was raised to the imperialdignity. He, accordingly, issued an edict to the metropolitans,commanding the reception of the sixth general council,and thecondemnation of all who should reject its decisions,which, hesaid, had been dictated by the Holy Ghost. The imperial edictmet no opposition. The will of the reigning emperor beingknown, the transition of the Grecianclergy from rank heresy tohigh orthodoxy was instantaneous. Monothelitism never re-covered this shock, but hastened, by rapid declension,to nearlytotal extinction. Arianism,Nestorianism, and,.Monophysitism,survived the anathemas ofgeneral councils,and even flourishedin the face of opposition. But imperial, papal, and synodalauthority, which had formerly been wielded in support ofMonothelitism, succeeded,in the vieissitudes of religion,in itssuppression, and finally to its almost universal extinction.

1 Beda, Ohron. Ann. 716. Bmy. 1. 512. Alex. 13. 61, 62.

Page 362: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER XII.

PELAGIANISM.

ITS AUTHOR AND DlSSlDfiNATION-PATBONI81lD BY '1'HlIl ASlAN8-oPPOSm BY THEAPBIOAN8-00NDIDINlID BY INNOOlIlNT--APPBOVlIDBY ZOZnro8-ANATHEJlATI81IDBY ZOZDlU8-DJlNOUNOlID BY '1'HlIl A8IAN8-<lEN8UBlID BY THlI GENlIBAL OOUNCILOF BPHE8US-DJlCLJlNSION OJ' PELAGIANI8)(-<lONTBOnBSY IN THE NINTIl CEN-TUBY-GOTTllBCALOU8AGAlN8T BABANU8- THE OOUNOILBOF JaNTZ AND QUIBBOYAGAIN8T THE COUNOILB OF VALJlNOE AND LANGBEB-KODEBN OONTBOVIIB8Y-COUNOILOF TRENT....RHlDII8H ANNOTATION8-DOKINIOANS AGAlN8T THlI KOLINI8T8-<lONGBJlGATION OJ' HELPB-THJI JJ:8UITS AGAINST THE JAN811lN18T8-00NTBO-VEBI:lYON QUESNEL'SKORAL BJlJ'LJ:OTIOX8.

,PELAGIA.NISMmisrepresented man, as Arianism misrepresentedEmmanuel, who is both God and man. The whole humanfamily, according to the Pelagian system, continues, in itspresent condition, to possess the same moral power and purityas Adam in a state of innocence. The patrons of this theologydeny the fall and recovery of man, and the imputation of sinand righteousness. Grace, which in this theory is the rewardof merit, is, its abettors maintain, wholly unnecessary for theattainment of holiness, which is the offspring of free-will. Man,in the due exercise of his moral powers, actuated by free-willand unaided by divine influence, may arrive at a moral perfec-tion, beyond the sphere of criminality and condemnation.Adam was created mortal; and death is not the effect of sin,but a law of nature.' The design of this impiety was the vainadulation of human ability, for the purpose of superseding thenecessity of divine assistance. .The authors of this heresy were Pelagius and Oelestius,

Pelagius was an Englishman, and possessed eloquence andcapacity; but, at the same time, artifice and dissimulation.eelestius, his pupil, was a native of Scotland, or, as some say,of Ireland. He was educated in the Pelagian school andattached to the Pe~an system, but excelled Ius tutor in can-dor and uprightness.

t A ..... PClOClU.Orig. 0. 17, 80. Monry, 7. lOCi. Crabb. 1. 470.·Prosp. 1.430. T~, 1.IlL Goc1eau, a Ill.t Pol7. V". a. BiD. 1. ll63. Alex. 10. 00.

Page 363: The Variations of Popery

PELAGIANISM PATUONISED BY THE ASIANS. 363

These two companions in error began the dissemination oftheir opinions in the Roman capital, about the commencementof the fifth century. The publication of the Pelagian theologyin the Roman city was, through fear of detection, conductedwith caution and in privacy. Retiring from Rome in 410, onthe approach of the Goths, the two heresiarchs repaired to Sicilyand afterwards to Africa, where they published their sentimentswith more freedom. Celestius, for some time, remained inAfrica, while Pelagius passed into Asia to Palestine. Pelagian-ism, in this way, was propagated in the European, African, andAsian continents; and succeeded, says Augustine, far beyondexpectation. A spark, says Godeau, 'augmented to a confla-gration, which threatened to consume the Christian common-wealth.'!Pelagianism, like all systems introduced among men, met a

diversified reception; and was alternately praised and blamed,condemned and approved, by popes and councils. Pelagiusin Palestine gained the friendship of John, patriarch of Jeru-salem, and was protected by this chief from the accusationspreferred against the heresiarch in the synods of Jerusalem andDiospolis, Orosius, in 415, accused Pelagiua of heresy, in If.

synod or conference at Jerusalem. John, the friend ofPelagius, presided in this assembly. Orosius opposed theauthority of Jerome and Augustine to that of PelagJU8.1 Theplea, however, was disregarded. The synod, after some alter-cation, agreed to consult Pope Innocent before they shouldcome to a decision.Heros and Lazarus, in the same year, accused Pelsgiue before

fourteen bishops in the synod of Diospolis or Lydda, a city ofPalestine. Eulogius, a metropolitan of Ceesarea, presided, andJohn of Jerusalem occupied the second place.. Pelagius wasagain acquitted. Oneof his accusers was detained by sickness,and the other would not abandon his friend in that extremity.The judges were, in a great measure, unacquainted with Latin,and could not understand the book of Pelagius, which he hadpublished in favor of his system. The accused, besides,showed his usual prevarication and address. He disclaimedsome of his errors, explained others in an orthodox sense, andanathematised all opinions contrary to Catholicism. His the-ology in consequence was approved, and he himself continuedin the enjoyment of ecclesiastical communion. Pelsgius after-ward boasted that his opinion on the moral powers ofman was

1Godea. 3. 118. Photo cod. M. Crabb. 1. .70. Aug. Ep. 89.1.A1ex. 10.1M. AllI- 10. Ii08.

\.

Page 364: The Variations of Popery

364 THE VARIATIONSOF POPERY.

sanctioned by this synod, which Jerome called the pitiful con-vention of Diospolis,'Pelagius and his principles in this manner escaped the con-

demnation of the Asians; and even, in a limited sense, obtainedtheir approbation. But all his finesse could neither elude thevigilance nor escape the activity of the African clergy. Celes-tins, the companion and pupil of Pelagius,had, as early as the year412, been condemned and excommunicated in the Carthaginiansynod. Aurelius, the Carthaginian bishop, presided on theoccasion. The accusation was preferred by Paulinus, adeacon, and the sentence of condemnation extended both tothe heresy and its author. The Carthaginian prelacy, amount-ing to sixty-eight, again in 416 anathematised both Pelagiusand Celestius and condemned their principles. The Numidians,also, to the amount of sixty, following the example of the Car-thaginians, assembled in council at Milevum, expressed theirhorror of Pelagianism and anathematised its abettors. Augus-tine, also, who swayed the African councils and influencedtheir decisions, declared, in a public manner, against thePelagian impiety. The whole African episcopacy in this way,raised their voice with resolution and unanimity against therising error,"The Africans, in this manner, in a church boasting its unvary-

ing unity, encountered the Asians, and condemned the theology• which the latter approved. But diversity of sentiment, on thistopic, was not limited to the African and Asian prelacy. Romanpontiffs, in Roma.n councils, displayed similar discordancy.The African clergy transmitted their decisions, on the subjectof Pelagianism, to Pope Innocent for his approbation. Thepontiff, though at one time suspected of countenancing Pela-gianism, proceeded, after some big talk about the dignity of theApostolic See, to sanction the judgment of the Africans, and.excommunicated Pelagius, who according to his holiness, 'was'led captive by Satan, and unworthy of ecclesiastical communion,civil society, or even human life.' Pelagianism, contained ina book which the heresiarch had published, his infallibilityehearaeterised 'as contagion and blasphemy," The Africandecisions, in this manner, were corroborated by pontificalauthority, and the westerns, with steady and determinedunanimity, declared against the orientals.But Innocent in the mean time died, and was succeeded by1Godeau, 3. 140, 143. Bruy. 162. Augustin, 2. 622. ill; 10. 219. Alexander,

10. 159. Jerom. Ep. 79.2 Crabb. 1.469,473,475. Bin. 1. 864, 866, 869. Godeau, 3. 147. Alexander,

10,169.B In quo, JIllI1a b1aBphemii.. bm cent ad Aurel. nn'y a trouve que des blas-

pheme.. GodMu,s. no. Aug. Ep.93. Labb. 3. 8. Bru}'ll, 1. 178. AleL 10. 163.

Page 365: The Variations of Popery

PELAGIANISM APPROVED BY ZOZIlIU8. 8 65

Zozimus; and this event interrupted the harmony of the Latins.This pontiff threw the whole weight of his infallibility into thescale of the Asians and of Pelagianism against the Africans andorthodoxy. Celestius, condemned by the Carthaginians andNumidians, fled to Ephesus and Constantinople. But theodium of his theology caused his expulsion from both thesecities; and he repaired, in consequence, to the Roman capital,to seek the protection of the Roman pontiff, who, he knew,seldom rejected the opportunity of extending his jurisdictionand drawing appeals to his tribunal.Celestius, therefore, in full anticipation of success, presented

himself before Zozimus, declared his innocence, and deprecatedthe aspersions which had been circulated to blast his reputation.He also presented a confession of faith, which, among otherthings, contained a rejection of original sin, and, of course, ac-cording to the theology of Romanism and the future professionof Zozimus, an avowal of rank heresy. His sentiments on thissubject have been preserved by Augustine. Sin, Celestius said., is not conveyed to man by traduction or hereditary transmis-sion. Such an idea. is foreign to Catholicism. Sin, on the con-trary, which is the fault, not of our nature, but our will, is notborn with man, but is his own act after he comes into theworld'l Sueh was his statement, as transmitted by a. Romansaint of the first magnitude. The heresiarch's denial' of man'smoral apostasy and original sin in his confession is alsoadmittedor rather stated by Oodeau, Bruys, and Alexander.' This con-fession, disclaiming the depravation of man, his infallibility ap-proved in a Roman synod, and vouched to the African clergyfor its Catholicism. He absolved the heretic and confirmed tbeheresy. This confirmation did not satisfy his holiness. Heaccused the African bishops of temerity, and represented alldiscussions on grace and original sin as empty speculations,proceeding from useless refinement or criminal curiosity! Hisholiness also vented his spleen against Heros and La.zarus, whohave been eulogised by Augustine and Prosper, arid who, withdistinguished zeal and activity, had opposed Pelagianism.1 Id asseveravit expressme quod parvulorum neminem obstringa~ originale

pecca.tum. August. De peccat, Orig, n. 2. . .Non dicimus, ut peceatum ex traduce firmare vi~eamur, 9uod longe aCatholico

sensu aIienum est. Quia Peccatum non c~ homme D.a8Cltur! quod postmodumexercetur ab homine, quia. non natul'lll delictum,aed. voluntatis esse monstratur.Aug. De Peccat. Orig. 10. 253, 255. Labb. 3. 408. _2 ~ nioit ouvertement Ie pecha originel. ~~u, a. 146. ., .L aveu qu'il fit de sa doctrine Bur Ie pilche ongJ-uel me parolt clair et sans eqUl-

voque. BruyB, 1. 181.Pecestnm originale Cle1estiUB, eo libello, negabat. Alex. 10. 166.3 ~epta certaminA, qUlll non IBdificant,ex iDa euriositatis contagione protluere.

ZoziIn. ad AureL Bin. 1. 877. J.,abb. 3. 404t.Isti turbinell eccleaUe vel procellie. Zozim. ad AureL Labb. 3. 404.

Page 366: The Variations of Popery

366 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Zozimus treated both with the bitterest acrimony, and calledthem pests, whirlwinds, and storms, while he hurled excom-munication, fraught with imprecations and fury, against theirdevoted heads. All this was transacted in a Roman council,which his infallibility had assembled in the Basilic of Clement.The heresy of Celestius, on this occasion, was unequivocal

and avowed. He was candid, and used neither concealmentnor disguise. His doctrine on original sin, the infallible councilof Trent in its fifth session, complimented with an anathema.The Sacred Synod, in its holy denunciation against all whodeny original sin, cursed Pope Zozimus with all his infallibility.'The acquital of Celestius was followed by that of Pelagius.

This heresiarch wrote the pontiff a letter, which contained hisown vindication, and which was accompanied with a confessionof his faith. His opinion, according to Augustine and Zozimus,corresponded with those of Celestius. 'All the good and evil,'said Pelagius in Augustine's statement, 'for which man ispraised or blamed, is not born with him, but performed by him.Man is procreated without sin," The confession of Pelagius,says Zozimus, was, in diction and signification, the same asthat of Celestius, which denied the apostasy of the humanspecies. His infallibility, nevertheless, declared himself satis-fied with the Pelagian theology and vouched for its truth andCatholicism. His reply to the African Episcopacy, on theoccasion, contained a eulogy on Pelagius and Celestius, aninvective against Heros and Lazarus, and a condemnation ofthe Carthaginian and Numidian councils.The recitation of the Pelagian creed had a curious effect on

the Roman clergy, who were present in the council as well ason the Roman pontiff. The heresy, as it afterwards became,awakened joy and admiration in these holy men, who, on thisoccasion, could scarcely refrain from weeping. The calumny,which had been circulated against a man of such BOundfaithas Pel agius, moved the compassion of the Sacred Synod, and.had nearly drawn streams of sympathetic tears from theireyes.sThe Roman convention was not the only ecclesiastical assem-

bly which, in western Christendom, sanctioned Pelagianism.1Lt.bb. 20. '.tI., Onme bonum et malllJD.,lJUO vellaudabilea vel vituperabiles 8Utnllll, non nobis-

cmn ori1;ur sed agitura nobis, Bine vitio p:rooreamur. August. Pee. Or. 14. P.258. GOOea. 3. 150. La.bb. 3. 403.InftJlienUMimum,fidem ipeiua Pelagii, tanquam veramet catholicam,lau~-

tern. Pelagi:a:in.ef; Cc:e1eIrti.umputarent OrthoooxOL Facundul vii 3. Augustin,10.102.I Quod IIIIIletoram • '. aderaat, dium fuitf Qwe admiratio lIingulo-

lIDIl f Via'" quid~Jacr:ymiI ~t. Labb.3. 4M. Alex. 1•.168. 'GcNIelIa,." 161.

Page 367: The Variations of Popery

PELAGIANI8M: APPROVED BY ZOZIMUS. 867

This heresy, in 794,was approved by the council of Frankfort,consisting of three hundred bishops from Germany, France,and Italy, assembled by the French monarch, superintendedby the Papal Legates, Theophylact and Stephen, and con-firmed by the Roman pontiff. Mistaking the confession ofPelagius for a work of Jerome, this great congressof the Latinclergy stamped the Pelagian creed with the broad seal of theirapprobation. Pelagianism, which was then heterodoxy, theholy synod characterised as the true faith, which, he whobelieves, shall enjoy eternal salvation. The Frankfordians,whorepresented the wholeLatin communion,becamePelagians.The German council confounded the works of Jerome andPelagius, and could not distinguish between heresy andCatholicism, as the Roman Synod, though superintended byhis infallibility, had been unable to discriminate Pelagianismfrom orthodoxy.'The Africans, however, were not intimidated by his infalli-

bility's threats and indignation; but, on the contrary, continuedtheir opposition, with resolution and unanimity. The Prelacyof all Africa, to the amount of 214, assembled in 417, andconfirmed their former sentence, in opposition to the judgmentof Zozimus. This did not satisfy their zeal. These active de-fenders of the faith, to the number of 225, met again in 418,and enacted eight canons against Pelagianism," The firmnessof the .Africanclergy, indeed, seems to have been the means ofpreventing the Pelagian theology from becoming the faith ofChristendom. Had their zeal yielded to the perversity of hisholiness, Pelagianism would, in all probability, have becomeCatholicism. Heresy might have been transubstantiated intoorthodoxy, and become the divinity of .the Greek and Latincommunion. But the energy of the African, not the Romanchurch, overcame every difficulty, and the faith of Augustine,not of Zozimus,prevailed.The patrons of the papacy admit the mistake of Zozimus.

These have been forced to grant that the pontiff sanctionedheresy as Catholicism. Augustine, having formed severalexcuses for Zozimus and his council, insinuates, in the end,(the prevarication of the Roman clergy.' Zozimus, saysFacundus, (condemned the sentence of his rredecessor andthe African prelacy, and extolled the faith 0 Pelagius a~dCelestius 88 true Catholicism.' Zozimus, says Godeau IIImodern times; (received the confessionof Celestiua as Catho-licism and its author 88 orthodox.' The credulous pontiff,according to Alexander, 'accounted the Heresiarch's book

1Bnl,., 1. 183. V088i1l8,18. I Bin. 1. 883. BruJl, 1. 186,

Page 368: The Variations of Popery

368 THE V.ARlA.TlONS OF POPERY.

orthodox, and formed a high opinion of his Catholicism.'Zozimus, says Caron, I erred, when he vouched for the ortho-doxy of Pelagianism.' The confession of Celestius, accordingto Moreri, Iwas not entirely exempted from error.' Zozimus,in the statement of Du Pin, I pronounced the Catholicism of aheretical creed, and recommended it by letters to the Africanclergy."The Africans, in these scenes of altercation, engaged in mor-

tal conflict with the Asians, and Pope Innocent with PopeZozimus. Church appeared against church, and Jnfallibilityagainst infallibity. Zozimus is next to take the field againsthimself. Several reasons contributed to this effect. The Afri-cans continued their opposition with the utmost resolution.Jerome and Augustine, the two greatest luminaries of the Latincommunion, and whose judgment influenced Western Chris-tendom, declared openly against his holiness. The EmperorHonorius, also, induced by a deputation from the African Synodin 418, approved its decisions and enacted cruel laws, datedfrom Ravenna, against the Pelagians, whom the pretorianprefects were, by royal authority, empowered to deprive oftheir estates and condemn to perpetual banishment,"His infallibility, at this crisis, saw his danger and sounded a

retreat. His holiness yielded to the storm; and, facing to theright about, anathematised Pelagius and Celestius, whom he hadhonored with his approbation and covered with his protection;while, in the midst of his perplexity, he continued, with ridicn-lous vanity and inconsistency, to boast of his pontifical preroga-tives and authority. This vice-god, in the modest language ofPope Paul, chattered about the pre-eminence of the popedom,.and, at the same time, cursed Pelagianism, which he had for-merly sanctioned, with might and main. His infallibility, in asacred synod of the Roman clergy, condemned the confession offaith which he had approved, confirmed the sentence ef theAfricans which he had rejected, and anathematised the personswhom he had patronised. Pelagianism, which, a few monthsbefore, he had dubbed Catholicism, now, by a hasty process,I Ex hoc potius esset prrevaricationis nota Romania cl61'icis inurenda. August:

10. 434. Invenient Zozimum contra Innocentii decessol'is sui sententiam, qUIprimU8 Pe1agianam hmresim condemnavit, fidem ipsius Pelagii ejusque eompli-cis Celestii, tanquam veram et Catholicam laudantem, iusuper e~ Africanosculpautem episcopos. F8CllJ1dus, VII. 3. Zozime l'e9Ut son livre eommeCatholique, et lui COIIlDle oithodoxe. Godea. 3. 153. ZozimU8 magnam de Pe-¥ ipsma et Celestii orthodoxia eoncepit opinionem. Libe1lum Catholicum ex-istilnant. Alu. 19. 1~7. 169. Zozimus aberravit, cumCmlestinUJll P8lagianumpro Catholioo clecl-'. Caron. 100. Qui n'etoit pas enti~rement e:xemptea'errenl'. ¥onri, 8. 116. Zozimus Celestii lueretici Libellum Catholicum- )mlIl1UlCliant. ])a Pm, M8.1.Alex. 19. 188. Godea'a, a. 161.

Page 369: The Variations of Popery

PELAGIANISM CONDEMNED BY THE ASIANS. 369

became, in the language of Zozimus, impiety, poison, abomina-tion, error, perversity, execration, pestilence, and heresy. Un-satisfied with these imprecations, he proceeded, in the fervorof his zeal for orthodoxy, to publish through Christendom circu-lar letters, denouncing anathemas on the Pelagian impioty.!His holiness, to do himjustice, showed himself, on this occa-

sion, a profound adept in the Christian art of cursing. Heformed his anathemas with skill, pointed them with precision,and launched them with energy. His infallibility, probablyfrom the proficiency which he displayed in the evangelical dutyof cursing, and for his attachment to injustice and ambitionduring his life,was canonized after his death. He lived a tyrantand died a saint, or rather, by a lucky hit or Baronian blunderacquired the sanctified character after his decease. His carcassaffords materials for worship: and indeed, with all his imper-fections, which were many, Zozimus is not the worst articleof the kind which has graced the Roman calendar and chal-lenged Roman adoration. .The Asians also, like the pope, wheeled to the right about,

and manfully condemned their former sentences, which theyhad pronounced in favor of Pelagius, The heresiarch hadbeen patronised by John and Eulogius, and WBB afterwarddenounced by Theodotus and Theodorus. He had beenacquitted in the councils of Jernsalem and Diospolis, and wasafterwards condemned in those of Antioch and Cilicia..Theodotus, patriarch of Antioch, assembled a council in thatcity about the end of the year 4018,and without any ceremony,condemned Pelagian ism and anathematised ita unfortunateautho~2' •Theodotus WBB imitated by Theodorus. This changeling,

who, like his Roman infallibility, varied his religion with theo?casion,had patronised Pelagius and opposed Augustine. ButhIs temporising versatility induced him, about 420, to convenea synod in Cilicia, in which he abjured. his former profession anddenounced his former system. The Cilician clergy, with easydocility and Christian resignation, copied the o~ligingr?liten~of ~hell' superior.' Such was the accommodating facIlity Withwhich the orientals abandoned their prior faith, and embracedthe fashionable theolo~.Pelagianism, in conjunction with Nestorianism, was, in 431,

denounced by the general council of Ephesus. The Ephesianassembly, being accounted a representation of the whole church,I Detectus a Zozimo at Jueretioorum -teatiBsim11ll JKl81;ea ode11lI11lI £nit. Labb.

3. ~. Augustin. 1. 58. at ~O.263. Proeper, 1. 76. Bin. 1, 871. Alex. 10. 176.8lCator. 0. 3. Coea. L 298. Labb. 3.~497.

aAlu. 10. 178. Lr.bb. 3. 498. Gamer, 219.X

Page 370: The Variations of Popery

370 THE VABlATIONS OF POPERY.

its sentence, in consequence, was of the highest authority, andgave the Pelagian heresy the finishing blow. Celestine also, theRoman pontiff of the day, exerted all his energy for the exter-mination of the error, which had been patronised by his prede-cessor. Addressing Maximian, the Byzantine patriarch, hecharacterised Pelagianism as an impiety which deserved noquarter. Its partisans, he admonished the patriarch to expelfrom human society, lest the impious system, through his leiiity,should revive.'These synodal canons and imperial laws were followed by the

rapid declension of Pelagianism. An odium, by these means,was thrown on the system, which covered its partisans with sus-picion and unpopularity. Its eaemies, in consequence, imaginedthey had effected its destruction. Prosper composed the epi-taph of Pelagianism and Nestorianism, which he denominatedmother and daughter, and represented as buried in the sametomb," But the triumph was ideal. A future day witnessedthe resurrection of the entombed theology. The ancientpontiffs, after a lapse of many years, were opposed by theirmore modern successors.The controversy on grace,free-will, and predestination seemed,

for a long period after the declension of Pelagianism, to sleep.Christendom, says Calmet in his Dissertation on predestination,continued, after the council of Orange, to enjoy, on thesetopics, a peace of three hundred years. But a theological dis-putation, similar to the Pelagian, originated in the ninth cen-tury. Augustine, refuting Pelagian freewill, taught, as Calmet,Godeau, and Mabillon have shown, the doctrine of gratuitouspredestination. ' Predestination,' said the African saint, ' is theprecursor of grace; but grace is the donation itself,": Thistheology, insinuated by Augustine, became afterward a fertilesource of contest among the French clergy.Gottescalcus and Rahan, in this controversy, appeared first

in the arena of literary combat. Gottescalcus was it monk anddistinguished for le..arning. He maintained the system of pre-destination, and particular redemption, which, in modern times,has been called Calvinism. He taught the kindred doctrinesof election and reprobation. Raban and Hincmar, indeed,represented Gottescalcus as denying free-will and teachingpredestina.tion to sin as well as to punishment. This, however,was a mere calumny. The monk rejected every insinuationof the kind with the utmost indignation. The wicked, Gottes-1Bin. 2. 576" 577, 578. .Alex. 10, 182. 'I PNrP. I. 114. Bray. 1. 209.• PZIlldeetiJlatio twt grau PJ'lllPIU'I'tio ; gratia vero jam ipsa donatio. Aug. De

Pnad. c. 10. GocleaU; 6. 368. "Oa1met, 3. 384.

Page 371: The Variations of Popery

COUNCILS OPPOSED TO COUNCIL8. 371

cslcus declared, were not compelled by aiJ.ynecessity to perpe-trate immorality, and would be punished only for voluntarytransgression.'Raban, Archbishop of Mentz, opposed' Gottescalcus. The

archbishop seems to have admitted election; but denied repro-bation. He acknowledged predestination to life; but not to

• death; and, like many other polemics, misrepresented hisadversary. He wrote to Count Eberard and Bishop Notingus,and characterised Gottescalcus as a perverter of religion and aforger of heresy,"Gottescalcus and Raban were not left to single combat; but

were supported by some of the ablest theologians and the mostcelebrated characters of the day. Hincmar, Scotus, and Ama-larius seconded Raban; whilst Gottesealus was patronised byRemigius, Bertram, Prudentius, Florus, Lupus, and PopeNicholas. These two factions maintained their own particularviews by copious quotations from the fathers, who indeed area kind of mercenary soldiery, whose alliance, offensive anddefensive, may be obtained. by all theological polemics on everytopic of ecclesiastical controversy. Gottescalcus and Remigiuscited Augustine, Fulgentius, Jerome, Isodorus and Gregory;while Raban and Hincmar quoted Chrysostom, Gennadius,Hilary, Cyprian, Cyril, Beda, and Theodorus.The shock of councils followed the war of theologians. The

councils of Mentz and Quiercy appeared against those of Valenceand Langres, as Raban, Hincmar, and Seotus had encounteredGottesca1cus, Bemigius, and Florus. Gottescalous and hiscause were first tried in the council of Mentz in 848. The 4,monk presented his confession of faith, in which he unfolded hissystem of predestination to this assembly. The synod con-demned Gottescalcus for heresy, and sent him to Hincmar,Archbishop of Rheims, in whose diocese he had been ordainedto the priesthood. 8

Gottescalcus was next tried in the council of Quiercy in 849,and convicted of contumacy and heresy. He was, in conse-quence, deposed by a solemn sentence from the priesthood,and scourged, without mercy, before the emperor and the~urrounding prelacy.' Charles was a. spectator of this act of~umanity, and feasted. his royal eyes with this refined enter-tainment. The punishment was inflicted with the utmost c~el-ty, so that Gottescalcus, in the agony of torment, threw into! Du Pin, 2. 52, 53. Ca1met, 3. 186.2 Mabillon, 2. 681. Mezeray, 1. 409. Cabnet, 3. 484, 486. Godeau, 6. 368.8 Du Pin, 2. 53. Labb. 9. 1048. Mabillon, 2. 286. Godeau, 6. 132. .4.Il fut COlldamne, comme heretique. Cabnet, 3. 486. Inventus IuJeretlcua

et mc~Dilia. Labb, 9, 10M. :Mabillon,2. 682.On Ie dUlciplina oruellement. Godeaa, 3. 136.

Page 372: The Variations of Popery

372 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

the fire a book which' he had written in favor of his system,He was then cast into prison, where he was doomed to sufferthe greatest privations. .But the decisions of Mentz and QuieTcy were afterward re-

scinded by those of Valence and Langres. The synod ofValence,composed of the prelacy from the three provinces of Lyons,Arles, and Vienna, met in 855, and employed all its authorityto sanction the theory of Gottescalcus and overthrow the systemof Hincmar. The Valentian fathers accordingly issued sixcanons, which treated on free-will and predestination, and whichestablished election, reprobation, and particular redemption.'The third canon teaches the predestination of the elect to life,and the predestination of the wicked to death. The fourthrepresents the decision of Quiercy, in favor of universal re-demption, as a grand error, useless, hurtful, and contrary tothe truth. The sacred synod, on these points, professed tofollow Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrosius, Jerome, Augustine, andtradition,The Valentians treated Scotus with great severity. His

propositions, unfit for pious ears, contained according to theseholy bishops, ' a comment of the devil rather than an argumentfor the truth; while his silly work, full of confusion, exhibitedtrifling and foolish fables, calculated to create a disgust for thepurity of the faith," His production indeed, on this subject,was a distinguished specimen of folly and extravagance.The council of Yalence, according to the statement of Sir-

mond, Godeau, Mabillon, and even Hinemsr, condemned thefaith of Quiercy. The canons of Quiercy, says Sirmond, wereexploded by the synod ofYalence. A similar statement is givenby Godeau, Mabillon, and Hincmar himsel£' These authors,though attached to Romanism, admit the repugnance of thesynod of Valence to those of Mentz and Quiercy.The Valentian council was confirmed by Pope Nicholas.

This pontiff was highly dissatisfied with the condemnation andimprisonment of Oottescalcus. The inhumanity of Hincmar1Lea ev~ues y reconnoissent hardiment la predestination des bons a Is vie

eternelle, at eelle des mechane a Ia mort etemelle. Calmet, 3. 420. ,Fatemar prredestinationem electorum ad vitam, et p1'llldestinationem Impio-

rum ad mortem. Labb. 9. 1151. . •TIs oonfessent qu'il y s nne predestination des impies a la mort eternelle.

Godeau, 6. 150. Cabnet, 3. 489. Mabillon, 3. 46. . .Propter inutilitatem, vel etiam noxietatem, et elTOrem contrarium ventati.

Labb. 9, 1152-DB nomment un~ erreur l'opinion de ceux qui disent que Ie sang deJ_ Cluist. eta du ,{'01Il' las impies. Godeau, 6. 150.t ComJDeDtum·. • ~ti1!S quam arguInentu.m aliquod fidei. Ineptas qures·

~ lit uailea pene fablIJaB, Scottornmque pultes, pnritati fidei nauseam~ KNillm,3. 46. Labb, 10. 129. AN\

, J..UI), t. 118t. Godeaa, 6. 160. MabiIlon, 3. 46. Calma&, 3.........

Page 373: The Variations of Popery

DECISION OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. 878

and his faction excited the indignation of the hierarch. Hecited Hincmar and Gotteaealcus to Rome for the purpose offurther investigation. This, however, Hincmar evaded. ButPrudentius transmitted the canons of Valence to Nicholas forconfirmation, and these, accordingly, received the sanction ofthe pontiff"Confirmed, in this manner, by the authority of the pope, the

canons of Valence were also approved by the council of Lan-gres, The assembly met in 859, and having considered theValentian decisions on grace, free-will, and predestination, con-ferred on them the full sanction of its authority,"The controversy on grace, free-will, and election was little

agitated from the ninth till the!sixteenth century. The school-men indeed exercised their pens on these different topics, anddiscussed their knotty subjects with their accustomed subtility ;and their disputations on these points exhibited, as usual, agreat variety of sense and phraseology.s But these disquisitionswere carried on in the secrecy of the schools, rather than onthe public theatre of the world; and, in consequence, excitedlittle general interest.The reformation under Luther and Calvin rekindled the con-

troversy. Luther had studied the theology of Augustine andAquinas, and embraced their system. Calvin also adopted thesame theory, which represents predestination as entirely gra-tuitous and unconditional, and which, in general, had beenpatronised in the Latin communion. M.any of the Romishtheologians, therefore, from their aversion to alleged heresy,shifted their ground, and countenanced conditional election,founded on the foresight of human merit. Calmet acknowledgesthis variation with the utmost candor. ' This question,' saysthe learned Benedictine, 'has often changed its phasis in thechurch.' Arsdekin, with equal ingenuousness, makes & similarconfession, and admits, on this point, 'a wide diversity ofopinion even at this time among the Romish doctors." Theone party advocate the unconditional predestination which ~a.ssince been denominated Calvinism. The other faction, opposmg1Le Pape lea appl'Ouva. Calmet, 3. 490. MabiIlon, 2. 682.2Morery, 5. 45. MabiIlon, 3. 79.a Calmet, 3. 491. Bosauet, 38. _, Vette question a change de face plus d'une fois dans l'Eglise, Calmet 3. 478.Inter Doct.ores Catholicos, magna est etiam hoc tempore, I18D.tentiarum discre.

pantla. ArBdekin, 1. 360. BoII8uet, 38. Do Pin, 3. 728.. .n y avoit deux IMlIltimeDa parmi lea thllologiene de 1'Eg1iaeRomaine. Mem.sur l& Pred. 169.Luther, qui avoiUtuiWl ]a thtIoJogiedeTh_ d'A.quin, embraaBa cette doc:

trine. Calvin tomb& daDa lee mAme8 I18D.timenta. Mem. 166, 156. Ceux qUIBUivtIIltlea lIeI1timente de at. Augustin IIll fatiguen' vainement ~ prouver qu'ilane 1OIlf; pea CaJviniItee. Limiea8, 10. 72.

Page 374: The Variations of Popery

874 THE VilIATIONS OF POPERY.

the predestinarian hypothesis, support the system which hassince been called Arminianism.The celebrated council of Trent exemplified the diversi~y of

sentiment, which, on this subject, reigned in the Romish" com-munity. The Franciscans, in this assembly, opposed the Domi-nicans, and theologian encountered theologian. One party,which included the most esteemed doctors, maintained the uncon-ditional and gratuitous predestination; and, in favor of thisopinion, quoted the apostolic authority of John and Paul, towhom they added Augustine, Scotus, and Aquinas. Anotherparty accused this system of impiety, making God partial andunjust, subverting free-will, encouraging men in sin, andabandoning them to despair. These conflicting opinions had aneutralising effect on the canons of this convention. The design,in their composition, was to satisfy each party; and the resulttherefore was an unmeaning compromise. Calmet admits theiromission of any decision, on the manner and motives of electionand reprobation.'The controversy was continued after the Council of Trent with

the bitterest animosity. The Rhemists, Dominicans, and Janse-nists arrayed themselves against the Molinists, Franciscans, andJesuits. The university of Paris opened a battery against thoseof Louvain and Douay; and the French against the Belgianclergy. The hostile factions, on these occasions, fought theirtheological battles with shocking violence and fury.The Rhemists, in their annotations, have, in strong language,

advocated unconditional election. The elect, say these com-mentators in their observations on Paul to the Romans, Ephe-sians, and Thel:lSa1onians,are called according to the good-willor eternal decree of God, and not according to the purpose orwill of man, The divine foreknowledge is not a mere provisionof human works, influenced by ordinary providence or naturalstrength; but comprehends an act of God's will to Ws elect.God has predestinated these elect to a conformity with His Son.The call, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification are theeffects of free election and predestination. Jacob was a figureof the elected, and Eaau of the reprobated. God's mercy isdisplayed on the former, and His justice on the latter. Predes-tination is to be ascribed, not to man's merit, but to God'smercy. The Almighty has chosen some as vessels of election,and left others as vessels of wrath to be lost in sin. God haspredestinated His people to glory through the merits, not ofman, but of His beloved Son. He calls some, by His eternal

1holO. 1." Du Pm, 3. 438. Calmet, 3. 4tH. Mem. 164-169.

Page 375: The Variations of Popery

THE DOMINICANS AGAINST THE MOLINISTS. 375

decree, to the faith; while he leaves others to darkness andinfidelity. 1The principal persons, whose publications and opinions on

this subject excited contests, were Molina, Lessius, Hamel,J ansenius, and Quesnel. The works of these authors raiseddreadful commotions in Spain, Belgium, France, and Italy.The Spanish controversy originated in the publication of Mo-

lina's work, on the Concord of Grace and Free-will. The JesuitMolina was born at Cuenca in Spain. He became professor oftheology at Evora in Portugal, and died at Madrid, anno 1600.His book, which occasioned such angry and useless contentions,was published in 1588, and attempted to reconcile divine graceand free-will by a theory which its author called the MiddleScience. His discovery, when divested of its novel diction,founded the purposes of Ood on the divine foresight of themerit and good works of men,"Molina's work had the honor of being both approved and

condemned in an infallible communion. The Dominicans, onthis subject, encountered the Jesuits. Attached to the faith ofAugustine and Aquinas, as well as mindful of their ancientenmity to the Jesuits, the former society commenced a vigorousattack on Molinism. The Middle Science, these partisans ofpredestination represented as a system of Pelagianism. TheJesuits, on the contrary, defended Molina's Middle Science,which they extolled lIB truth and Christianity. The theorywhich the one called heresy, the other denominated Catholicism.Each party published its theses, brimful of virulence andsarcasm, The two factions vented their indignation with suchfury that the king of Spain had to interfere, for the purpose ofallaying their mutual rage and keeping the peace; while allthe royal authority was found incompetent entirely to suppreilSthe theological war.sThe university of Salamanca, on this speculation, assailed the

university of Alcala. The former seminary, in nine propositions,proscribed Molinism. The latter, having subjected the work toa rigid examination for a whole year, vouched for its catho-licism, and conformity to scripture, councils, fathers, andschoolmen," Of the two learned and orthodox colleges, the1Rhem. Annot. on Rom. viii. 22, 29, 30. et ix. 10, 14-16, 22. Eph. i. 4-

1I.Thess. ii 13.2 Arsdekin, 1. 385. Moren, 3. 568. et 6. 365. Mem. 219. .s:r- Dominicains l'attaquerent vivement. LesJesuites Ie defendirent de

m~me. CaImet, 3. 495. Lea deux ordres commencerent' ;\ s'echan1fer en~. l'un contre l'autre, d'nne :mamllre IlC&Ildaleuse. Mem. sur Predest.223r:e.J;.mtes BOnt tres-embalTasaez ;\ montrer qu'ils ne lOut iiiPelagiens iiiDemi-Pelagiene. Limier&, 10. 72.. 'L'ulliVlll'Site ~ Salarnanque Ie oensura. Mem. 222, 225. /I

Page 376: The Variations of Popery

376 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

one censured as error, the system which the other patronisedas truth and Romanism.The Inquisition of Spain, on this topic, attacked the Inqui-

sition of Portugal. The latter declared the Concord of Graceand Free wm free from all suspicion of error, But the formeralways favorable to the Dominicans, censured a number ofpropositions, extracted from Molina's celebrated production,'The Peninsular inquisitors, the professed enemies of mercyand heresy, and the avowed friends of inhumanity and Roman-ism, differed on a question of which they were the accreditedand official judges, and whose sentence entailed death, in allits horrors, on its devoted victim.Two Roman pontiffs, Clement and Paul, next pronounced

different sentences on this question. The controversy wastransferred from the holy office to the holy see, and from Spainto Italy. Clement the Eighth, who then occupied the pontifiealthrone, established the Congregation of Helps for the decisionof this contest. This assembly consisted often consultors, whowere the appointed judges, and who met for the first time in1598. The Dominicans and Jesuits argued their severalsystems before this convention, and awaited its sentence withanxiety.The Congregation, under his infallibility 'a immediate superin-

tendence, rejected Molina's theory of a middle science, and con-demned sixty of his propositions. This decision, in the eleventhsession, represented the Sp8.nish speculator's sentiments on pre-destination as consonant with those of Faustus, Uassian, and thePelagians, and contrary, not only to Augustine and Aquinas,but also to sacred writ and the canons of councils,"Paul the Fifth, who succeeded Clement in1605, proceeded in

a course widely different from his predecessor. He issued nodetermination. His design, lest he should offend the Frenchking who protected the Jesuits, or the Spanish monarch whopatronised the Jansenists, was, not the decision, but the sup-pression of the controversy. His supremacy, therefore, aftermany solemn deliberations, evaded a definitive sentence; and,Complnteusis Univlll'llitBaMo~ Conconliam per annum inf;egram rigido ex-

&mini BUbjecit. Univel'llitatis calcnlo declaratur, in Molinal Concordia con-1iineri DnIUI1 et Catholicam doctrinam. .A.ra!dekin, 1. 325.1Omni erroris BUlIpicioneliberata. Arsdekin, 1. 325. ,Calmet, 3. 495.. .L'in~uieition d'FApagne, tonjOUl'llfavorable au: Dominicaina. Mem.243.DIi,

ex MoJina) Concordia, p~tioDea ~1188modo OOI1I1llV8Ut. .Arsdekin, 1, 326.I On decJara que 1e aenti1nent de Molina, toucha1lt la pnldestination, etoit non...-eat 00Idraire • Ja doc:triDe deSaint ThOlWlllt etde Saint Auguet;in.maiaen-eote .1'~ eainte. aux d~ dee 00IlCilee, et oonforme • o8lle de CaIIlIien-' de...... CaImet. Dill. a. 486. Amour, 40, 44, ~ 100. 123-La ~ d~ Cl'!! MoliDa &it daDa del _timeaa 88JIl.blablea ..

C8lIX~ Pe18Iiea Jiem. ZlIlJ, 236. CaImet, a. 4l11. ThlUllL 6. W.

Page 377: The Variations of Popery

THE JESUITS AGAINST THE JANSENISTS. 877

advising both to modify their expressions and to abstain frommutual obloquy, left each faction to enjoy its own opinions}Each party, in consequence, as might be expected, claimed

the victory. The Dominicans averred that the decision, ifannounced, would have been in their favor; and this was thegeneral opinion. The Jesuits, on the contrary, shouted triumph,and, patronised by the greater part of European Christendom,contemned the empty boasts of the enemy.France and the Netherlands became the scene of this contro-

versy, which had raged with suchfearful animosity inSpain andItaly. The belligerents, on this occasion,were the Jesuits andJansenists, as on the former, the Jesuits and Dominicans. TheDominican ardor, through time and the suggestions of prudence,had cooled, and this party, in consequence, had, in general, leftthe field. But their place was well supplied by the fiery zealof the Jansenists, who, in the support of their system, spurnedevery idea of prudence or caution. These two leading factionssoon drew into the vortex of contention, kings, parliaments,pontiffs, prelates, doctors, nuns, universities and councils.The J ansenista, who now in place of the Dominicans, entered

the arena against the Jesuits, took their name from Jansenius,a bishop in the Romish communion, and a doctor in the Univer-sityof Louvain. His work, which he styled Augustinus, andwhich treated on ~ace, free-will, and predestination, was pub-lished at Louvain III 1640. The author, who was celebrated forhis learning .and piety, undertook to deliver not his own, butAugustine's sentiments on Divine Grace and human imbecility.He even transcribed inmany instances his patron's own words.The faith of the Roman saint was, like its author, idolised in theRomish communion. Jensenius, therefore, wished to shieldhimself under the authority of his mighty name. But themarch of events and the sap ottime had wrought their accus-tomed changes, and manifested on this topic the mutability ofhuman opinions. Many who revered Au~e's name hadrenounced his theology, though others still adhered to hisancient system.France and the Netherlands encountered each other on the

subject of Jansenism. The latter, in general, embraced thistheory, which the former as generally rejected.. Pope Urban,hut invain condemned the work entitled Augustinus, as fraughtwith sev~ errors. Many misinterpreted his manifesto, ~dstill more disregarded its authority. The ~octors.of Louvam,like the authors of Port.Royal, persevered m theU' support of1 Paul V. >.n'aToft eneore rien d4Wd'- Morery, a. 668. Litem poRea in -

~ponit Paulu Papa V. JueDiD. 6. 188. Amour, 39,40. CAlmet, a. 499.lla1IBin, 2. ..

Page 378: The Variations of Popery

378 THE V.A.RIATIOKS OF POPERY.

the condemned system. The popish population of Hollandalso, through the agency and influence of Arnold, who, in 167~,sought an asylum in that country, embraced the same sentiments.The Dutch and Belgian professors of Romanism, clergy andlaity, continued in general, notwithstanding the sentences ofpopes and inquisitions, to patronise Janeenism.' The two na-tions in this manner varied and adopted jarring systems, in theprecincts of an unerring communion.The French were divided, though the majority of its prelacy

favored Jesuitism. This nation, however, escaped the agita-tion of this controversy till 1644 ; and hostilities, till 1649, wereconfined to a literary war of polemical writers, which was suc-ceeded by excommunication, interdict, incarceration, banish-ment and confiscation.The Jansenists opened this wordy campaign with great spirit

and ability. An overwhelming phalanx of their authors, onthis occasion, seized the pen. Cyran, Arnold, Nicole, Quesnel,and Pascal displayed all the powers of learning and eloquence.All these were men of genius and erudition, and actuated withthe deepest detestation of Jesuitism. Pascal by the poignancyof his satire, rendered the enemy ridiculous. His ProvincialLetters written against the hostile. faction, are, says Voltaire,models of eloquence and ridicule, and combine the wit of Mo-liere with the sublimity of Bossuet, The production, indeed,exhibits not only the excellence of taste and style, but also allthe force of reason and raillery.'This party also assailed the foe with another weapon of a

more flashy, but more deceitful kind. This consisted in 'lyingwonders,' which their authors called thunder-peals, but theiropponent.'; fictions and fanciful convulsions, which dazzled thespectator, embarrassed the adversary, and astonished the world.The sick, who had been restored to health, the blind, the deaf,the dumb, and the lame, who had been enabled to see, hear,speak and walk,' demonstrated to the eye of superstition andcredulity, the truth oftheir heaven-attested system.The Jesuits assumed similar arms, and endeavored, 88 well

as they could, to ply counteracting argument and invective,Buta miserable want of literary talent, at this time, characterisedthis faction. Their whole array could not supply a single manof genius and learning, capable of meeting those who, in thefield of theological controversy, figured to such advantage inthe hostile ranks. Though remarkable, in general, for prudence1<>ria _ mter theol~Belgii deeaidia .. Labb.21. 1790. Lee ~ens Be

~ ~ Di8a. 3.m. :Morery, l). 22. BaUAet, 2. 91. :Mem.273.t 1M Letotree I'Jovinolales,....t pour un modele de nettete, d'e1ipDce, et de

bon Il8DII. :Mem. 3M. vol. 9. M.

Page 379: The Variations of Popery

THE JESUITS AGAINST THE JANSENISTS. 379

and caution, the infatuated men, on this occasion,also attemptedmiracles to confront those of their opponents; but were againbeaten by the enemy in this kind ofmanufacture. Their miracu-lous exhibitions only afforded a laugh to the spectator, andexposed their authors to contempt. The prodigies of theirrivals alone were in fashion. But these bunglers, as they ap-peared, in jugglery and legerdemain, were supported in the warby kings, popes, anathemas, excommunications, exile, imprison-ment, and the tangible logic of guns, bayonets, and dragoons,when the fulminations of papal bulls followed the shock oftheological discussion and miraculous display.This faction, however, notwithstanding their awkwardness in

writing and miracles, had, at this time, obtained the favor ofthe Roman pontiff and of the French king and clergy. Theirpresent prosperity in the French kingdom formed a strikingcontrast with their former adversity. The Parisian faculty oftheology, as well as the French church and parliament, opposed~his so~iety on its early introduction into France. The faculty,In 1554, accused them of every atrocity, of strife, wrangling,contention, envy, and rebellion, which endanger religion, troublethe church, and tend to destruction rather than to edification,and petitioned the parliament to expel them from the kingdom.The parliament, accordingly, in 1594, banished the wholecompany from the nation, 8B enemies of the king, corruptors ofyouth, and disturbers of the public peace.'But the society afterwards returned, and were patronised by

the French king and clergy, as well 88 by the Roman pontiff.The French prelacy in consequence, to the number of eighty-eight, favoring Jesuitism and influenced by its partiB&D8,soli-cited his infallibility, Pope Innocent the Tenth, for his officialdecision on this momentous question of Jansenism. But elevenof the bishops, notwithstanding the unity of the Romish com-munion, varied from their fellows; and for several reasons whichthey enumerated, such as the difficulty of the subject, the unfit-ness of the time, and the propriety of allowing a French synodto finish a French controversy, they deprecated papal interfer-ence. But the pontiff complied with the majority, and, in adefinitive sentence issued in 1653,denounced Jansenism, whichhad been reduced to five propositions, as fraught with rashness,impiety, scandal, blasphemy, falsehood, and heresy.'1Quere1aB, lites, dissidia, contentiones, lIlDlulationee, rebelliones, variasque

scisBuras inducere; his de calUlia, bane societatem in reJiRionis nesotio perieu-loaam videri ; ut qUillpacem ecclesiIB conturbet, et magis ad"deetruetionem quamlledificationem pertineat. Thuan11ll, 2. 430.DB forent baJmis du Roiaume, ~ co~pteUrB de 1&.i~-, perturb&-

teura du repoe public, llIIDtlDlia 'du l'OL Daniel, 10. 64. Limiers, 7. 228., Labb. 21. 1643, 1644. Mem. 318. Moreri, 5. 22. Juenin, 5. 188. Bauaet,

2. 331. Amour, 67. 425.

Page 380: The Variations of Popery

380 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY. •

An assembly of the French prelacy, in 1654, convened andinfluenced by Cardinal Mazarin, who was an enemy of theJansenists, unanimously accepted the papal decision. Thesame was also sanctioned by his most Christian majesty's royalauthority. The Parisian Faculty of Theology next receivedthe bull; but not like the clergy, with unanimity. Sixty of itsdoctors, notwithstanding popish harmony, protested and ap-pealed from the pope to the parliament.'Pope Alexander the Seventh next interposed his supreme

authority. The Jansenists distinguished between right andfact, and admitted that the five propositions were, by right,condemned; but, in fact, were not in the work of Jansenius.Alexander, in 1656, renewed his predecessor's constitution, andextended it to both right and fact. He also prescribed a for,

• mulary in ·1665, to be signed by all the French clergy; and allhe declared, who should gainsay it, would incur the indignationof Almighty God and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.Four prelates, Arnold, Buzenval, Pavilion, and Coulet, with

many of the inferior clergy, refused to sign, notwithstanding thepope's interdict and excommunications. The nuns of Port-royal also followed the example of these bishops. Dreadful con-fusion ensued. A process was commenced for the deposition ofthe refractory prelates. The nuns of Port-royal were torn fromtheir cloisters, and the feeble captives armed only with inno-cence and simplicity, and guarded by a. squadron of soldiery,were conveyed to strange convents, and their nunnery, once the. object of their fondest attachment and now their deepest regret,was razed from the foundation.But Clement the Ninth, in the meantime, proceeded, not-

withstanding papal unity/to overthrow the acts of his predeces-sors, Innocent and Alexander. His supremacy, in 1668, amidtheological commotion and war, issued an edict of pacification.He modified the formulary of Alexander, and permitted thedissatisfied clergy to interpret his predecessor's rescript in theirown sense, and to subscribe in sincerity. These accordinglysigned for the right in sincerity, and preserved for the factmental reservation and a respectful silence. This modification,which diffused joy through the nation, was called the peace ofClement, and continued with slight interruptions for thirty-fouryears..2 ,Clement the Tenth, who succeeded to the popedom, seems1Lea Docte1mtde]a SorboDne Be tironvant partagu ; aoixUlte Docteura protes·

tmm.t ef; en appellbrent au Parlement. lIem. 1l11'. Pred. 2'11; 2'18. Volt. 9. 89.~ 2. sar. Labb. 21.1M3, 1644. lIoreri, 5. 22. JueniD, 5. 188, 119.Limieat; 10. f81. 'I CJeaIiIIIt"1IIIlp _ de douer ]a pix ~1'Eglise. Koreri, 3. 4H. Bauaset,

2. 3S7-MO.

Page 381: The Variations of Popery

CONTROVERSY ON QUESNEL'S REFLECTIONS. 381•

to have countenanced the pacification effected by his prede-cessor. Innocent the Eleventh, his successor, not only concurredin the act of pacification and in the repeal of Alexander'sConstitution and Formulary, but also, notwithsta.riding papalunanimity probably adopted Jansenism and certainly patro-nised its partisans. His holiness, in the opinion of many,embraced their system, though formerly denounced in pontificalanathemas. During his whole papacy he had constant inter-course with its patrons, whom he honored with his favor andcommendation, and supported with his friendship and protection.The calumny and punishments which they had endured, heregarded as unmerited and unjust persecution. Their conduct,he respected, as far superior to that of their opponents, whomhe hated,~and who, in return, detested his supremacy. Thistreatment of the persecuted secured, as might be expected, thegratitude and attachment which they always manifested to thiSpontiff. Innocent, in this manner, retracted the decisions offormer pontiffs and displayed the variations of Bomanism.'Clement the Eleventh, in defiance of unity, overturned the

pacification of Clement the Ninth and the patronage of Innocentthe Eleventh. He also confirmed and renewed the constitu-tions of Innocent the Tenth and Alexander the Seventhagainst Jansenism, and denounced a work of Quesnel's on theNew Testament. The condemnation of this book, which he hadformerly praised, manifested papal inconsistency, and rekindledthe. theological war in ~gravated horrors, through the Frenchnation.Quesnel, a priest of the Oratory and an abettor of Janse-

nism, inwove his system with great eloquence and address inhis moral reflections on the New Testament. This theory, inhis composition, which was distinguished by its elegance andsimplicity, assumed the fairest aspect and the most pleasingform.This work on its publication was eulogized by Bossuet,

Vialart, Noailles, Urf6, the ParisianFaculty, the French king,and the Roman pontiff. Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, composeda Vindication of Quesnel's Moral Reflections. Vialart, Bishopof Chalons, respected for his wisdom and piety, having sub-mitted the work to a careful examination, approved, and, in1671, ~recommended it to the clergy and laity of his diocese.I TIs ont mllme &CC1III61ePapa d'41tre Janseniate. !.lam. 376.Inn~nt XI. haissoit lea Jesuites et tem~oit faire grand cas des Jansen-

istes. Moreri, 5.128. On aecusa ce papa de D avoir cetIIIII d'entreteniJ: com;merceavec tons lea Jansenistes, de lea avoir comb1ez de 888 graces, d'avoIr fait leureloge, d'@tre declare leur protecteur. Limiel'B, 7. 226.Tnnocent XL auroi1i retncte lea dt\cretI de 888 pr9deceue1II'B. Limiers, 7.

m,228.

Page 382: The Variations of Popery

382 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY••

The author, he attested, had long been a disciple in the schoolof the Holy Spirit. Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, praised itsCatholicism and tendency to instruct and edify the pastor andthe people. Urfe, bishop of Limoges, requested the author topublish his Reflections on the Gospels and Epistles in onevolume for the use of the clergy in the country. 'I'heParislau :Faculty vouched for its Catholicism and conformity to theApostolic Roman faith. Louis, the French king, granted aliberty of publication and conveyed the sanction of his royalauthority. The Roman pontiff, in the presence of Renaudot,extolled the work as a, matchless performance, superior to anycommentary by the theologians of Italy. Its doctrine, whichhe afterwards branded with the seal of reprobation, he hadformerly preached to the Roman people,'But these encomiasts soon changed their note, and condemned

the book which they had approved. Quesnel's .,work offendedthe king and the Jesuits. Its morality exhibited too spotlessa standard of purity for the filthy confraternity, who, accordingto the witty Boileau, lengthened the creed and shortened thecommandments, for the lrrench sovereign, who was actuatedby ambition and sunk in sensuality. Its rigor in the prescrip-tion of duty presented a spectacle of horror to the voluptuaryand to the profane and careless, which these accommodatingmoralists contrasted with the easy pliancy of Jesuitism. Hismajesty also saw, or thought he saw in J ansenism, a tendencyto Presbyterianism instead of Popery. Its faith, besides, wastoo like Calvinism for the royal and Jesuitical taste. The kingand the Jesuits, therefore, solicited and obtained its condemna-tion. The Moral Reflections were denounced by their formeradulators, Clement, Louis, the Parisian University, and theFrench clergy,"Clement, solicited by Louis and the Jesuits, censured the

work, on which, a few years before, he had lavished his fulsomeflattery. His infallibility, in 1713, denounced, in his bullUnigenitus, no less than a hundred and one propositionsextracted from Quesnel's Annotations. These, his supremacy1Bossuet compose la justification des Reflexions MOl'&1es. Moreri. 7. 13.Vialartlut cat ouvrage, I'approuva, I'adopta, esc, Moren, 7. 12. Nosilles

l'approuva. n recommeada a. son elerge et a son peup1e la lecture de celivre. Moren, 1. 13.Noailles avoit aecorde son approbation aux Refle:rions sur Ie NouvllMl Testa-

ment. Limier&. 12. 112. Bansset. 2. 109.Urfll fit prier l'auteur de faire imprimer ses Reflexions, etc. Moren, 7. 13.NouaavOllS Iu _ Reftexions Morale& Nous avons trouve qu'ellss ne con-

tierment rienque de oonforme ala foi Catholique. A,pp. inQnesn. 1. 6. 10·U doctrine de _ P~::1I8trouve dans Lls hoDie1iesque le Pape a autre-

fois 'PI'6chee. aa peupte . LUniers, l2. 1150 BausKt. 2. los.'"Bib. An. 21. <lOO. BausBe\, 2. 75. LimierI. 10- 75. et 12. 113.

Page 383: The Variations of Popery

CONTROVERSY ON QUESNEL'S REFLECTIONS. 383

convicted of temerity, captiousness, scandal, impiety, falsehood,blasphemy, sedition, schism, and heresy. The Moral Reflec-tions, according to his holiness, contained truth blended witherror, calculated to lead men to perdition.'Louis, in 1714, revoked the privilege of publication, which

he had granted, and by which he had impressed the work withthe broad seal of his royal authority. Jansenism, his majestycalled a novelty, and the Moral Reflections a false and danger-ous book; and he interdicted its publication and circulationunder pain of exemplary punishment,"The Parisian university, that had lauded the Catholicism of

Quesnel's work, accepted Clement's constitution, taxing thesame work with blasphemy and heresy. The learned doctorsstyled Jansenism a heresy, and received with submission thepontiff's condemnation of the once praised, but now vilified pI'G-positions. Truth, by such a simple process, could be transub-stantiated into falsehood,"The assembly of the French prelacy, also, which met in Paris

in 1713 and 1714, accepted the papal constitution with submis-sion and respect. The holy bishops forbade the reading of theMoral Reflections, which they said contained blasphemy andheresy, This sentence they published in a Pastoral Instruction,which was circulated through their dioceses. The decision,however, was not unanimous. Forty accepted, and eightrejected the bull. Of those who accepted, many added suchexplanations and restrictions as might protect from attaint thefaith and morality of Catholicism, the rights of the Frenchprelacy, and the discipline and liberty of the Gallican church.Many also who had subscribed afterward retracted; and someof these at the point of death!The schism on the pontifical constitution extended not only

to the Parisian council, but also to the whole French clergy.These, on this occasion, were divided into two factions, theACCEPTANTS and RECUSANTS. The former, comprehending ahundred bishops with many of the inferior clergy, were patro-l Ladoctrine de ces propositions quelifiees de fsusses, captienses, scandaJenses,

temeraires, impies, blssphematoires, se trouve ponrtant dans les homelies qne IePape a antrefois pr@cht!eBau peuple Romain. Limiera, 12. 115. Lsbb. 21. 1821.2 Nons devions commencer par revoquer Ie privilege que nons avions aecorde,

pour en permettre l'impression. Labb. 21. 1831, 1832. Limiers, 12. ISO.3 Sacra Facultas Constitutionem summa cum reverentia et obsequio recepit.

Labb. 21. 1840.4 Elle accepte avec soumission et avec respect. Labb.21. 1828. Quarante ev@-

ques acceptoient cette Bulle. Le Cardinal de N oailles et plusieurs autresev@qneBrefnserentd'accepterla Constitution. Limiers, 12. 117, 118.Quelques ev@qnes et doctenrs n'ont pas voulu y IlOU8Crire IIaIUI explication.

Moren, 5. 22. ,On varra dans 1& II'Oite lea retraetatiOD8 de plnsieura de ces prelate acceptawl.

Limiers, 12. 118, 271.

Page 384: The Variations of Popery

384 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

nised by the pppe, the king, and the Jesuits. The latter,including fifteen of the prelacy, and some of the priesthood,were supported, in general, by the parliaments and the people]but underwent all kinds of persecution from the pontiff andtheir sovereign. The pope and the monarch, indeed, forced it,in a great measure, on the clergy, the Sorbonne, and the greatbody of the people, who were influenced by royal threats andpromises,'The French varied in the explanation of the bull, as well as

~n its acceptance. Of the acceptants, some received it in puritya'nd simplicity. Such thought it so clear 8B to need no illustra-tion. Others accused it of obscurity, and accompanied itspublication with a world of explanations and restrictions, Thecardinals Bissy and Tencin loudly declared their utter inabilityto understand it, and received it, strange to say, because it wasunintelligible,"The Recusants, differing indeed in words, agreed in sense.

Harmonious in its condemnation, this party painted its meaningin varying colors. The eenvas, under their hands, uniformlybore the mark of reprobation, and W8B stamped with the broadseal of heresy. The Constitution Unigenitus, all these avowed,inflicted a mortal wound on faith and morality, and envelopedin sacrilegious censure, the canons of councils, and even thewords of eternal truth. Some reckoned it pointed againstCalvinism, and some against the Angelic Doctor ThomasAquinas, for the purpose of overthrowing his system. Othersthought his infallibility had become a patron of Molina, andintended to support the theory which had been condemned bypope Clement and the CoDa:,aregationof Helps. The condemnedpropositions of Quesnel, on the contrary, were, this factionaverred, a faithful expression of.Catholicism, couched, ingeneral,8B even Languet admitted, m the language of Augustme,Prosper, Fulgentius, and Leo.s1Lea preIata du roiaume lltoient partagez Bur BOnacceptation. Limiers,

12.269. . . e'"'Les menaces et Ies promeeses ont ete emploiees. La volonte du Prince a ""Ie motif. ApoL 1. 269. Le Roi deFrance a oblige par son autorite et le olergede France et 1a Sorbonne d'admettre 1a Constitution. Moren. 5. 22. ..

2 La CoDlltitution est si claire qu'elIe n'a pas besoin d'explieai:ion. Limie~,12. 119. Us ., donnllrent explications, avec divel'lltlll modifications at restric-tions. Moren, 7. 13. • faisanOn De peut Ie recevoir, comme lesCanlinaux de Bissy et de Tencm, en t

hautement protession de ne Ie pas entendre. ApoL 1. 169. .SLa Ccmstitution donne manifestement atteinte a plusielU'B veritez de fOl et

de momle. Limiers, 12. 120. .• "1._1:n A 1Lea 101 propoeitioDa sont UDe fid6le expression de la f01 C....... &Uf.ue. po .Adv. 7. ..Ad. LeaLa :&ne aoatrre lee esplicatiOllll lee p1118o~. Avol, __ unal'ente!II.deU cree fJl\lolutlelautl'ell de l'autre. ApoL 1. 131. On y a trouvela COJdb.omMioD c1u IyR6me de )(oJiDa, Apolog. 2. ~.

Page 385: The Variations of Popery

CONTROVERSY ON QUESNEL'S REFLECTIONS. 885

The recusant clergy were as unanimous in their oppositionto its execution, as in their condemnation of its contents. Themajority of the priesthood reclaimed a.gain.~tit. The people,the parliaments, and, in general, the universities, held it indetestation. The Cardinals Bissy and Fleury, bishops ofMeaux and Frejus, two of its defenders, were compelled toavow that a hundred thousand voices were raised against it,and that it could not have been treated with greater indignationat Geneva than in France.' /But all opposition appeared useless. The king and the pope

urged its execution by the dint of excommunication, calumny>interdict, proscription, banishment, confiscation, and the Bastile.Red hot anathemas flashed from the Vatican. Its opponentswere stigmatized with the name of innovators, rebels, schis-matics, and heretics. Somewere imprisoned, and some banished.Absolution was refused to the refractory, and even .the sacra-ments to the dying. The departing, when life was at the lastebb, were frequently outraged with reproach, instead of beingsolaced with consolation. This treatment sometimes hastenedtheir dissolution. The fury of the ruthless enemy pursued itshaplesa victims beyond the precincts of death. Their remains,deprived of ecclesiastical burial, were excluded from the sepul-chre, or consigned, with unbaptised infants, to the unhallowedtomb.'But a new revolution, on this question, was soon to be

effected in the French nation. Louis, in 1715, departed thislife, and the Duke of Orleans was appointed Regent. Theroyal declaration, therefore, obliging the French prelacy toreceive the Roman bull, was suppressed. Tellier, the king'sconfessor, and an active enemy of the refractory clergy, wasloaded with public odium, and banished to La Flesche, then toBourges, and afterward to Amiens. The exiled were recalled,and the imprisoned liberated. Freedom was restored to theclergy, the people, the parliaments, and the faculty of theology.~Iany of the clergy recanted, and the laity who had generallyopposed the constitution, enjoyed a triumph. The parliamentexulted in the. victory-. The faculty of theology, serving thetime and changmg With the scene, protested against the bull,1En France, les fid61esla d~testent. Le grand nombre des thoologiens lacom-

battant. ~ commun .des premiers pasteurs la rejettent. ApoL 1. 242.Lee Cardinaux de BllISYet de Fleury ont ete forces d'avouer, que cent mille

voix s'etoient elevees contre ce dOOret, at qu'u n'eut pll8 ete mite plus indigne'ment a Geneve qu'il ne l'a ete en France. Apol. 1. 240. Volt. 9. 110, 111.2 Ceux qui refusbrent de Ie signer furent interdits at excommunies. Moreri5. 22. 'lis fnlminbrent contre eu des anathbmes redoutables. ApoL 1. 92.On avoit !U6~e dej~ commence par des proscriptions at des em contra 161

reCllll&n8. Limiers, 12. 311, 312. Apolog. 1. 3.Y

Page 386: The Variations of Popery

88e THE V.ABIATIONS OF POPERY.

and declared their former decision a for~ery. Present declara-tions, through the kingdom, were, on this topic, opposed to for-mer decisions, and all things seemed to change, in a communionwhich vainly boasts of immutability,'But the pope, in his obstinacy, published apostolic letters, in

1717, separating from his communion all who would not acceptthe constitution. The Regent resolved, if possible, to restorepeace. The papal bull was modified, so as to give generalsatisfaction. This ..modification, the parliament, in 1720,registered with the customary reservations; and a generalpacification ensued, which lasted, with few interruptions, tillthe year 1750.2New disturbances arose in France, in 1750, on the subject

of the Bull Unigenitus. This pontifical edict, though detestedby the parliaments and execrated by the people, was cherishedwith fond attachment by the Archbishop of Paris and many ofthe prelacy and inferior clergy. This section of the Frenchhierarchy resolved to force the constitution, which was the idolof their hearts, on the people, by refusing the communion andextreme unction to all who opposed. The clergy obtained thesupport of the king, Louis the Fifteenth. Pope Benedict also,in a circular to the French episcopacy, urged the reception ofthe Roman manifesto. But the parliament and the peopleresisted with great resolution, Dreadful confusion ensued.The king tried the strength of the secular arm in alternatelybanishing and recalling the parliament and some of the mostactive of the prelacy. The parliament, however, was firm,notwithstanding banishment and the Bastile. The people alsoresisted the clergy with unshaken determination. The parlia-ment and popular firmness, in the end, gained a victory overthe king, the pope, and the clergy, who, after a long and des-perate struggle diversified by alternate triumph and defeat,submitted to a virtual repeal of the obnoxious constitution.Jansenism and Jesuitism soonlost all interest in the tranquillity

and transactions which followed. The Jansenists were no longersupported by the pen of an Arnold, a Nicole, a Pascal, and a1LOuis eta.nt mort, Ia declaration fut snpprimee, Moren, 7. 13. Volt. 9. 112,

113. ' .Lea exiles ont ate rappellez. La liberte a ate rendue aux parlemens et au

6v~uflS. Limiers, 12. 311'LIIo Facnlte de Theologie de Paris doolara que Ie deeret du einquieme Mars

1714 etoit faux. Moreri, 7. 13. Castel, 320.On lea vit opposer a ces decreta des decret8 contraires. Moren, 7. 13, LeBem- out entierement chanjt6 de face. Voila tout d'un coup un grand change-ment. Limiel'II, 12. 312. Mem. de 1ARegen. 1. 40.2 La p~ a fait pub~des Lettres apostoliq~es,par lesquelles ils6,1!are~e sa

COlllml1D101l \OU eenx qm n'OIlt pas J'891l, on qm ne ~vront pas a 1avemr, saconatitution. Limien; 12. 314. Volt. 9. 118.

Page 387: The Variations of Popery

EFFECTS OF THE JANSENIST CONTROVERSY. 387

Quesnel These had .departed, and given place to fa.r inferiormen. Peace divested their controversial writings of all popu-larity. Many, indeed, in the learned professions and in theintelligent class of society, still retain the leading principles ofJansenism, But the denomination, as a religious body, canhardly be said to exist.The Jesuits, also, on the return of peace, sunk into disrepute.

The 1088 of credit at the French court, which this faction hadlong enjoyed, was attended with the contempt of the prelacy,the hostility of parliament, and the detestation of the people ;and all these were only a prelude to their final expulsion fromthe French kingdom for dishonesty in trade, and for the immo-rality of their institution. The society committed fraud incertain commercial transactions,and the parliament, their ancientenemy, seized the opportunity of prosecuting them for theoffence. During these transactions the company were compelledto produce their secret institution, embodying the rules of theirorder. This, it was found, contained maxims subversive ofall civil government and moral principle. The document,contrary, at once, to the safety of the king and to the laws ofthe nation, completed their ruin. Their colleges were seized,and their effects confiscated. The king, ashamed or afraid topatronise such a fraternity, not only withdrew his protection,but expelled the whole order, by a solemn edict, from thekingdom.

S<> terminated the eventful existence of Jesuits and J ansenistsin France. The two rival factions arose nearly at the sametime, flourished for a short period, entertained diametricallyhostile principles in the bosom of the same community, warredduring their continuance, with deadly hatred, and then, as if todisplay the mutations of Romanism, and indeed the vicissitudesof all earthly things, sank into oblivion, or were banished thenation.Such were the dissensions of Franciscans, Rhemista, Molin-

ists, Jesuits and Janaeniats. Theologian, in these spiritualwars, encountered theol~an, pope opposed pope, and synodassailed synod. Kings, pontiffs, stltteaJIlen, and pw;liamentsen~red the field, and fought with fury in the theological cam-paIgns. The child rose against the parent, and the parentagainst the child. Fellow citizens conceived against eachothe~ dreadful suspicions and mortal hatred. The shock ofconflictmg factions in the empire of the popedom convulsedthe troubled nations, which were the scene of action. Onevolume of noisy controversy was heaped on another. 'l'hesystem which one party styled truth and Catholicism, the othercalled error and heresy. Each treated its opponent as the

Page 388: The Variations of Popery

388 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

abettor of schism and blasphemy, while a. deluge of rancorand bitterness, which rent asunder the ties of Christian charity,was poured on insulted Christendom. The channels ofphilanthropy were closed, and the flood-gates of malevolence,set wide open, discharged their pestilential torrents on dis-tracted man, contending, in many instances, for a shadow.Mutual execration, a weapon unknown in every reformedcommunion, diversified the popish war, and carried damnationinto the adverse ranks. . Protestantism, from its rise till thepresent day, affords no such example of rage and division.Bossuet, aided by learning and exaggeration, could supply noscene of equal vengeance and variety in all the annals of theReformation.

..

Page 389: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER xm.

TBA.NSUBSTA..NTIA.TION.

VABm!'Y 01.' OPINIO.Nll-!lOIlIl'Tl AIm !l'BADmONAL ABGtllIDTB-lILmDDm!IAOOOUllTJID BIGNS, PIGUllBB, AIm lDIBLXKB- BlliTADIlID THKIB OWN BUBSTANOB-NOUBIBHED TBB RUlLAN llODY-8DlILAB ORAJ.iIGBm BAPTIBK AIm BllGlIlI!llIBA'TION-OAUBBB WRIOR J!'AOILITATBD TRB INTRODUOTION OJ!' TBANB1lBSTANTIATION-IDBTOBY OJ!' TBANBUlI8TANTIATION-PABORABIU8-BIDIJl1IIGABIl18-DIVlIBBITY Ol!'OPmION8-DIVEBBITY OJ!' PBOOI'&-AlI8UBDITY OJ!' TIlA.NBUBBTANTIATION-oBIIA-TION OF THE OImATOB--!TB OA.Nl'lIllALIBK.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION,in the language of Romanism, consistsin the transmutation of the bread and wine in the communion,~to the body and blood, and by connexion and concomitance,into the soul and divinity of our Lord. The whole substanceof the sacred elements is, according to this chimera, changedinto the true, real, numerical, and inte~l Emmanuel, Godand Man, who was born of Mary, existed In the world, sufferedon the cross, and remains immortal and glorious in heaven.The host, therefore, under the form of bread, contains theM.ediator's total and identical body, soul, and deity. Nothingof the substance of bread and wine remains after consecration.All, except the accidents, is transformed into the Messiah,hhis godhead, with all its perfections, and in his manhood withall ita component parts, soul, body, blood, bones, flesh, nerves,muscles, veins, and sinews,'. Our Lord, according to the same absurdity, is not only wholem the whole, but also whole in every part. The whole God~d man is comprehended in every crumb of the bread, andm every drop of the wine. He is entire in' the bread, andentire in the wine, aad in every particle of each element. HeIS entire without division in countless hosts or numberless

1Credimus panem converti in eam camem, qwe in cmee pependit. LaDfranc.243. Sintquatuor ilIa, caro IIIUIglIis, anima, et Divinitas Cbriati. Labb. 20. 619.Domini corpus, quod ua~m ex virgine in 00l1ia eedat ad dextram Paw, hoc

sacramento oontineri. Divinitatem at totam bnmanam naturam complectitur.Cat. Trid. 122, 125. .Continetur tatum corpus Christi, BCilicit, 0IllI&, nervi at alia. Aquin. iii2.76.

c. 1. Comprehendeus oamem, 08lI&, nei'VOII,&0. Dens, Ii. 276.

Page 390: The Variations of Popery

390 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

altars. He is entire in heaven, and, at the same time, entire onthe earth. The whole is equal to a part, and a part equal tothe whole. The same substance may, at the same time, be inmany places, and many substances in the same place. Thissacrament, in consequence of these manifold contradictions, is,says Ragusa, 'a display of Almighty power;' while Fabercalls transubstantiation 'the greatest miracle of omnipotence.'!The species, in this system, exist without a subject. The

substance is transformed into flesh and blood, while the acci-dents, such as color, taste, touch, smell, and quantity, stillremain. The taste and smell continue without anythingtasted or smelled. Color remains; but nothing. to which itbelongs, and, of course, is the external show of nonentity.Quantity is only the hollow shadow of emptiness. But theseappearances, notwithstanding their want of substance, can, itseems, be eaten, and afford sustenance to man and nourish thehuman body,"Such is the usual outline of transubstantiation. The absur-

dity resembles the production of some satirist, who wished toridicule the mystery, or some visionary, who had labored tobring forth nonsense. A person feels humbled in having tooppose such inconsistency, and scarcely knows whether to weepover the imbecility of his own species, or to vent his burstingindignation against the impostors, who, lost to all sense ofshame, obtruded this mass of contradictions on man. History,in all its ample folios, displays, in the deceiving and the de-ceived, no equal instance of assurance and credulity.This statement of transubstantiation is couched in general

terms, in which ita patrons seem to hold the same faith. Thedoctrine, expressed in this manner, obtains the Ilssent of everyprofessor of Romanism. All these agree in principles, but, inJIlany respects, di1fer in details, This agreement and differenceappeared in a striking light, at the celebrated council of Trent.1Non BOlus sub toto, sed totus sub qualibet parte. Canisius,4. 468. Bin. 9.

380. Crabb 2. 946. .Ubi pars est corporis, est tomm. Gibert, 3. 331. Christus totus et integer sub

qualibet particula divisionis perseverat. Canisius, 4. 818.Totus et integer Christus sub panis specie et sub quavis, ipeius speciei parte,

item. sub vini specie et sub ejus partibus, existit. Labb. 20. 82.Idem corpus sit simul in pluribus Ioeia, Faber. 1. 128. Paolo. 1. 530. P()SII1lIlt

- - duo corpora quanta et plum in eodem &patio. Faber, 1. 136. Corpus nonexpe1lat praleXistens corpus. Faber. i. 137. .. Hoc IlIICrlUDeJ1tnm continet miracul.um maximum qnod pertinet ad omm.poten·tiam. Faber, 1. 126. Divina omnipotentia ostenditnr. Ragas. inCanisius, 4. 818.I In IIIlCrlUIUlIl.1l1ltaria, lI1lInere aceidentia sine subjecto. Faber, 1. 202.NuUit et; IIIItarat eadem modo quo ali1lll pauia, Faber, 1. 219. Non BUnt BUb-.. tie: h&ber,tt tIuDeIl viliutem 81lbetantiIB. Aquinas, iii. 2. 71. A. vi. .Lee ~~ l'~ miraculenIe de]a toute-puiBsaD.oe DiviDe prodUl'_t me ........... CJ1Ie It.~ Godeau, 5. 3'18.

Page 391: The Variations of Popery

ROMIBH ACCOUNT OJ!' TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 391

The doctors of that assembly wrangled on this topic, in tediousand nonsensical jargon. An attempt was made, but in vain,to satisfy all in the composition of the canons. None werepleased. The dogma, in consequence, had, for the sake ofpeace, to be propounded in few words and general expres-sions; and this stratagem effected an ostensible unanimity.'The Dominicans and Franciscans differed at the council of

Trent, as they do still, on an essential point of this theory.The former, following the common opinion, maintain the anni-hilation of the substance of the sacramental bread and wine,by their conversion into our Lord's body and blood. Thelatter, on the .contrary, verging on heresy, denied this annihil-ation and conversion. The substance of the sacramentalelements, in this system, remains unchanged, while thesubstance of our Lord's body and blood takes its place. Theone succeeds to the room of the other, and both, 8B neitherpossesses quantity or extension, occupy the same space.' Thiswould appear to trench on heresy, and would require a skilfulmetaphysician to distinguish it from Lutheranconsubstantiation.But our Lord, say the Frapciscans, in passing in this manner

from heaven to earth, proceeds not by successive movements,but by instantaneous change. His passage occupies no time.He is on the altar as soon as he leaves the sky; or rather, heobtains the one position, without departing from the other,"Both factions, at Trent, thought their statements very clear, andeach wondered at the other's nonsense and stupidity. TheFranciscan faction, if nonsense admit of degree or comparison,is entitled to the praise of superior absurdity. The idea of twomaterial substances being at the same time in the same place,~nd of a human being coming from heaven to earth, withoutmtermediate time or motion, seems to merit the palm ofbalderdash.I M&ia ellee ne purent contenter personne, on l'lI801ut daDllla ~on .

generale d'uller de moms de parolee qu'illlerait pouible dana l'upollition de la .doctrine, et de lie IM!rvir d'expressiona iii gener&lee, qu'ellee puuent .'MQOm-moder a1l% IIentimeJlll dee deux parties. Paolo, 1. 531. . .

2 Lee Franciacains disoient que la substance du'pain et du vm n'e&t porot !Ul:eantie, et ne fait que changer de lieu. Couny, in Paolo, 1. 531. .CorpUB Christleuecedit 1000 substantial panis et supplet vicem. Faber, iv. D. 10. Q. 1.~on que la substance du CO:rpll de Jeeua Christ lie forme de la substance. du

pam, comme Ie 8Outenoient lee DominieainB; maiB parce que la preuuere.succede Ala eeeonde. Paolo. 1. 5110. •Non fit pl'alllenll Corpus Christi expellendo subBtantium paniI, neque emm

.tIllbstantia panilI mutator de 1000 ad locum. Faber, 1. 1.32. •COrpUB Christi non Iii; pral88JI8 per iItam conver8lOllem subBtantialem.

Faber, 1. 1lI9.3 Lee J1'rancisainl soutenoient qu'j} Y va, non plUB par an mouvemont 8QC-

~ maia par an ~t d'an instInt, qui lui fait eecuper an IMOJld lieu88111 sonir du premier. Paolo, 1. 530. •. COl'pIII Chriitoi fit ~ ibi non ~ motam 1ocalem. Faber, IV. D. 10.p. 128. NOll perfinlDait omnia media. CaDi8iaI, 4. 486.

Page 392: The Variations of Popery

892 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

A third party differ from the Dominicans and Franciscans.The substance of the bread. and wine, in the theology of thisfaction, neither remains, as say the Franciscans, nor changes,according to the Dominicans, but ceases to exist either bf"8.nni-hilation, resolution, or corruption. The substance of the sacra-mental elements is reduced to nothing, or, by analysis or putre-faction, returns to its former principles. This opinion, saysFaber, was held by Henry, Cajetan, and many other abettorsof Catholicism. I

.A. fourth class, in this unerring and harmonious communion,varies from all these speculations on the substance of the sacra-mental elements. According to these theorists, the body andblood of Jesus, and something of the bread and wine after con-secration, remains united. Both exist together in the host.This notion was patronised by Innocent the Third, as well as bymany other theologians, such as Paris, Rupert, ~dius, Du-randus, Goffrid, Mirandula, and Soto."

.A. fifth division within the precincts of Popery entertains atheory different from all the former. Emmanuel's existence inthe host, according to these theologians, is the action of hisbody, effectively supporting the species. His presence isnothing but the operation of his substance. He is in thespecies in a spiritual and angelic manner, but not under themodality of quantity," His real substantial presence, there-fore, degenerates, in this scheme, into mere spiritual action oroperation.Such are the variations of popery on our Lord's sacramental

substance in soul and body. But Romish diversity does not endon the topic of substance, which refers to both soul and body, toboth matter and mind; but extends to the separate considerationof each, to th.e distinct state of his corporeal and mental exist-ence in the communion. One division in the papal connexionallows his sacramental body all the chief properties of matter,such as quantity, extension, visibility, motion, and locality: allwhich a second section deny. A third party ascribes to his soulin the host the principal powers and operations of mind, snch asunderstanding, will, sensation, passion, and action: while thistheory is rejected by a fourth faction. The chief warriors whofought in these bloodless battles, were the sehoolmem, who have

I Substantia panis non ~et, nec tamen convertitur, sed dellinit esse velper N1nibj1ationem, vel per resolutionem, &c. Faber, iv. 3. . -t PNIia manet in eucharistia post conaecrationem, et tamen aimul cum IpSO

yere .. eoIpU ~ AliquOd substAultial panis et vini reDlaDele. Faber,IV. 3. p. 183.• J:j1ia ~ Dihil alNd eue videtur q~ ejtllldem 1Rlbetan1ial aetio vel

o.pen,tio. Paller. i. 138.

Page 393: The Variations of Popery

ON OUR LORD'S SACBAKENT.A.L SUBSTANCE. 893

displayed admirable skill and heroism in the alternate attackand defence of subtilised folly and absurdity.One division allows our Lord's body on the altar all the chief

properties of matter, such as quantity, extension, visibility,motion, locality, and extension. Jesus, according to these spec-ulations, is, in the host, formed of parts, occupies space,and haslength, breadth, and thickness. He can be touched, felt, andbroken. He can also be seen, say some, by men on earth, oronly, as others allege, by spirits in heaven. This view, whichthough the more rational, is contrary to the common opinion,has been maintained by Scotus, .Aleusis,Bonaventura, Richar-dus, and their followers, who charge their opponents, if not withheresy, at least with rashness and absurdity,'A second section in the Romish communion divests our Lord's

sacramental body of the principal properties of matter. Jesusin the host, say these theologians, occupies no place, and pos-sesses no locality. He fills no space. He has no parts, nolength, breadth, or thickness. He exists not in the modality ofquantity, but of substance, and, in consequence, has no exten-sion, figure, situation, color, or dimensions. He cannot beseen, touched, felt, tasted or broken. He is motionless, or, atleast, cannot be moved by created power,"From these premises, many curious conclusions have been

deduced. One part of the sacramental elements may enter an-other, without any distinction, and all the parts,. by introsuscep-tion, exist in the same place. Emmanuel s eyes, as he lies onthe altar, are in his hands, and his hands in his feet. His mouthis not more distant from his feet than from his eyes. His noseis not separated from his chin, his neck from his belly, nor hishead from his hands. He is motionless, though the host bemoved; and, therefore, his position can neither be changed norinverted. He neither stands, leans, nor rests, though 1e mayassume these postures in heaven. However the wafer be turned,he cannot be placed with his head above and his feet beneath,or on his back or his face.S This, in all its ridiculousness and1Faber, 1. 168. Paolo, 1. 530. Aquinas, 3. 361. .2 Corpus Christi non est in loco. Aquinas, 3. 350. A nullo ~o corporali

corpus Ohristi poteat videri, prout est m hoc sacramento. Aqum. 3. 365.Oorpus Christi, nt est hie, non poteat tangi, nee approximari, nee est colora-

tum. Faber, I. 178. Du Pin, 3.475.Lee Franciscp.ins soutenoient que dana lesacrement la substance n'occupe point

de lieu. Paolo, I. 530.3 Snbintratic? unius partie ad alteram absque distincti<»:,e ~m. Faber.l.136.N!'8U non diatat ab oculis at caput a ventre. Non m&glB dmat a pede quam ab

oculia. Oculi aint in manibus, manus in ~bus. Faber, I. 134, 137.Corpus Christi non habetdift'erentias poaitionis in sacramento, ut quod caput sit

81U'IUD1 et pedee dllOmun. Quoounque modo vertatur h~ non eat corpus supi-BUm vel nlIIuJWuun. Si in cmIo stat, reeumbit, et eedet, non est _ quodreeumbat, lMldeat, et BIiet in llICI'lUDento. Faber, i. 137, 166.

Page 394: The Variations of Popery

394 THE VARIA.TION8 OF POPERY.

absurdity, is the common opinion, and was adopted by theFranciscans, as well as by Aquinas, Varro, Durandua, Alliaco,Ocham, Soto, Paludan, Bonaventura, Gabriel, Cajetan, and,indeed, by the generality of popish theologians. .,A third party ascribes to his soul in the sacrament, an the

principal powers and operations of mind. According to these,he possesses, like other men, life, sense, understanding, will,sensation, and passion. He has the same intellect and sensationon the altar as in heaven. He can, like another human being,see, hear, feel, move, act, and suffer. Some have assigned himin this situation, still more extraordinary endowments. Thesemake him sometimes sing, and warm the officiating priest'shands, which, in return, warm him in the consecrated elements,'Such was the opinion of the nominalists, as well as of Ocham,Major, Scotus, and their numerous followers. .A fourth faction, manifesting the diversity of Romanism,

rejects this theory. These strip the Son of God, as he existsin the communion, of intellect, sensation, action, passion, motion,animal life, and external senses. Like a dead body, he is, onthe altar, incapable of speaking, hearing, seeing, tasting, feeling,and smelling. He has spiritual, without corporal life, as themoon has the light of the sun without its heat. This idea wasentertained by Rupert in the twelfth century. Jacobel, in thefifteenth century, embraced a similar. opinion, which he sup-ported by the authority of Augustine, Jerome, Ambrosius,Anselm, Paschasius, and the schoolmen. This, says Mabillon,is the common opinion held by the schoolmen, and, in general,by the ancient and modem professors of popery.'Transubstantiation is a variation from Scriptural antiquity.

The absurdity has no foundation in revelation. Its advocates,indeed, for the support of their opinion, quote our Lord's ad-dress to the citizens of Ca.pernaum, recorded by the sacred his-torian John. The Son of God, on that occasion, mentioned theeating of his flesh, and the drinking of his blood; and somefriends of Romanism, chiefly among the modems, have pressedthis language into the service of their absurd systemThe metaphor, used on this occasion, is indeed of that bold1Ooeratio intellectus et voluntatis poteat inlllllleChristo ut ineucharistia. Cor-

pUB Christi eat capax hanun BeJ18ationumet paIllIionum. Faber, 1. 167.Chriatumin sacramento poeae videre,canere, audire,et facere etpatioIDDia,qure

ceterihomineBpatietagere. Uteatinaacnunento,poue propriammanum saoerdo·tum ea1efacere et ab ipsa caJ.i1ieri. Faber, 1. 178., ,Chriatam ipaum in hoc aacnunento.nullam poBBe habere BeJ18ationemaetivam

Deq1Ie paMinm. Est impauibile naturaliter ipll1lD1habere aliquam actionem velP"'[lioMm Faber: I. 1'J'1. 17~Non a1iam -m.m'8888 in'OO!'J?Ore Domini WUIl ~ Mabi11on, 4. 562.Ii.. ~~ -.Bunt. ~ in 8Ilchariatia DU11u!lXercel'e

seJlllll1llll a:IIrD.onm ftuIctlioIIeB,lIed UCl'lIIIlejul ClOl'll'l8tmonaum modo.m sacra-mento...... 1lfabil1oIa, 6... '1ADfaat. 2. 21~

Page 395: The Variations of Popery

TRANSUBSTANTIATION UNBCRIPrURAL. 895kind which is common in the eastern style j but which is lessfrequent in western language j and which, to Europeans, seemscarried to the extreme of propriety. Nothing, however, is moreusual in the inspired volume, than the representation of mentalattention and intellectual attainments by oral manducation andcorporeal nourishment. The actions of the mind are signifiedby those of the body. The soul of the transgressor, says Solo-mon, 'shall eat violence.' Jeremiah ate the words of God.Ezekiel caused his belly to eat 'a roll of a book.' John atethe little book, which was sweet in his mouth, and bitter in hisbelly. Jesus, to the woman of Samaria, spoke of men drinkingliving water, which, as 8. fountain, would spring up into ever-lasting life. He also represented the reception of the HolySpirit to the Jews, by the act of drinking living water. Theseare only a few specimens of this kind of speech, taken fromRevelation. Eating arid drinking, therefore, though acts of thebody, are often used as metaphors, to signify the operation ofthe mind in believing. Common sense, then, whose suggestionsare too seldom embraced, 'Would dictate the application of thistrope for the interpretation of the Messiah's language in John'sgospel Cajetan accordingly avows, that 'our Lord's expres-sion there is not literal, nor is intended to signify sacramentalmeat and drink.' Augustine and Pius the Second, in theirworks, as well as Villetan in the Council of Trent, and armedwith all its authority, represented it as a figure or metaphor. IThis metaphorical signification has, in general, been patron-

ised in the Romish communion by doctors, saints, popes, andcouncils. Some indeed, to show the diversity of Romanism,have adhered to the literal meaning. But these, com~red withthe others, have been few and contemptible. The figurativeis the common interpretation, and has been eancticned, not onlyby saints and pontiffs, but also, as shall appear by the ~neralcouncils of Constance, Basil, and Trent, in an their infallibility.Mauricius, supported by the authority of the Constantian assem-bly, declared this 'the authentic exposition of holy doctors, andapproved explanations. These commonly understood it to sig-ni:(v,not the sacramental, but the spiritual reception of o~Lord's body and blood.' Ragusa., in the Council of Basil,declined, on account of its tediousness, to enumerate' the seve-ral doctors who explain it principally and directly to implyspiritual manducation.' Villetan, at Trent, said to the assem-1 Pro, xiii. 2. Jer. xv. 16. ~'iL 9. Jolin iv. 10, If, et Vii 71-39.

Cor. x. 3, 4. .Non l!l9,uitur ibi Dominus ad literam de eacramentali ciho et poW. Cajetan,

T. 3. '1iict. 2. Co 1Figura lilt. A~ a. M. J8lIU8 ChriIt parloit a10n JiBun!ment. JED.

8y1 Ep. 130. 1W metaphonl. ViDet. in IAlbb. 20.616.

Page 396: The Variations of Popery

396 THE VAlUATIONS OF POPERY.

bled Fathers, (you will wonder, I well know, at the singularagreement of all in this interpretation. The universal church,you may say, has understood this passage ever since its pro-.mulgation, to mean spiritual eating and drinking by a ~vingfaith.' I .

Mauricius, on this occasion, wrote and published by thecommand and authority of the Constantine council. Ragusaspoke under correction of the Basilian assembly, and withoutany contradiction. Villetan, at Trent, spoke in a generalcongregation, and with its entire approbation. The commentsof these theologians, therefore, have been sanctioned by thethree general unerring councils; and these, in all their infallibility,together with a multitude of fathers, saints, doctors, and popes,supply the following statements.The passage in John's gospel cannot refer to the communion;

for it was not yet instituted. Such is the argument of CardinalCajetan and Pope Pius II. 'Our Lord,' says the Cardinal,'spoke of faith; as he had not yet appointed the sacrament.This, Jesus ordained at Jerusalem the night in which he wasbetrayed.' According to the pope, 'The words whoso eatethand drinketh are not in the future, but in the present time;and the expression, therefore, could not, by anticipation, referto futurity.' The inspired diction would, on this supposition,relate to a nonentity,"The language recorded by John will not agree with sacramental

communion. The instructions of our Lord, on that occasion,will not quadrate with the opinions entertained, on this topic,by the advocates of transubstantiation. The Son of God sus-pended the possession of eternal life on the eating of his fleshand the drinking of his blood. This was the condition, withoutwhich man could have no life. None can possess spiritual life,unless, in this sense, they eat and drink his body and blood.The manducation mentioned by the apostle, is necessary forsalvation. This, if it referred to the sacrament, would excludeall infants, though partakers of Christian baptism. The suppo-1Exponatnr secundum espoeitiones authenticas sanctorum Doctorum ~tap'

probatarum glOBsarum. De ilItamanducatione aut sumptione sacramentali cor-poris et sanguinis Christi, non inte:lIiltitnr allctoritas prredicta, nt docent saneDoctores communiter. Labb. 16. 1141,1144-

SLo eseet singnloe Doctores induoere, qui totum prresens capitulum de. . . manducatione principaliter et ex direeto exposuerunt. J..abb. 17. 934.~~~ .Kiraberis, sat scio, Il11DlIn&III. omnium concordiam ad hunc sensum. Dicere

poBBia p_~ illud Joannill VL de apiritnali mandicatione et bibitione perfidem mam 1U ChriBtum, jam. inde esque ab ejns promnlgatione feciBae interpre·1;atam ab ~ 1U1ivel'lla. Labb. 20. 615, 616.Dominua loquitur de fide. Nondum iDIItituerat ~m. Cajetan. T. 2.

Tract. 2. Co 1. .I.e ~ u'8Wlpu eDCON iDIItitu6. Pin. II. Ep. 130.

Page 397: The Variations of Popery

TRANSUBSTANTIATION NOT SUPPORTED BY JOHN, CH. VI. 897

sition, therefore, which would involve this exclusion,must, evenaccording to the Romish system, be rejected. Participation inthe communion is not, according to the Trentine council in thetwenty-first session, necessary for salvation: nor is it to beadministered to any till the development of reason.This agrees with the statements of Augustine, Bonaventura,

Aquinas, Ales, and Cajetan, as well as those of the generalcouncils of Constance, Basil, and Trent. If the communionwere necessary for salvation, all who do not partake of thatinstitution, say Augustine, Bonaventura, and Aquinas, 'would

~ be damned. Such could have no life, and, therefore, the wordssignify spiritual eating by faith anU love.' Ales speaks in thesame style. The literal sense of this passage, says Cajetan,'would destroy the sufficiency of baptism, and such an inter-pretation, therefore, is inconsistent with the Christian faith. 'I.The comments of the Constantian, Basilian, and Trentine

fathers, expressed by Mauricius, Ragusa, and Villetan, are tothe same purpose. The passage, taken in the literal accepta-tion, would, according to these infallible commentators, 'teachthe necessity ofthecommnnion and the insufficiency of baptism.On this supposition, children, though baptised, would perish,which is contrary to the truth. Our Lord, therefore, in John'sgospel,points to sfiritual participation in his flesh and blood byfaith, of which 801 who believe partake in baptism, and withoutwhich neither child nor adult can obtain salvation."The literal sense of this passage, limited salvation to the par-

ticipations of oral manducation, extends the blessing to all 8l;lchpersons. This comment, as it would overthrow the competencyof baptism without the communion, 80 it 'wotrld establish the~ompetency of the communion without baptism, as well asI Bonaventura arguit per Augustinam,suflioit ergo ad manduoandum,oredere.

Labb, 17. 937.Si necease eet aocedere, parvuli omnes damnarentur. Hoo sacramentum non est

de necessitate salutis. De hac etiam opinione fuisse videtur Sanctu.s Thomas.Labb, 17. 938 .. Patet per B. Thomam snperJoannem, ubi dioit, referendo literam ad manduca-tlOnem spiritnalem. Qui autem sic non manduoat, non habet vitam. Lsbb, 16.1144.· ,. Ales arguit, tunc nulIns salvaretur, si moreretur ante ejus 8lI8OOptionem. Prse-dietus Doctor dicit quod intelligitur de manduoatione spirituali et per fidem, smequa nulIus adultus salvabitur, nee etiam parvulus. Labb. 17. 937.Quia igitur idem eet a&llerere verba illa Christi, Jo. 6. intellW de eibi et potu

sacramentali encharistim et negare baptismi suflicientiam ad safutem,olare patetverbaillanecintelligi posse de ciboetpotu encharistire. Cajetan. T.3. T. 12. c.

I. l'~UB est sacramentum neeessitatis. Parvuli non possnnt sine eo conse-gui salutem. Labb.16. 1141. Enobaristia non ponitur lllI01"ameutumneeessitatis.Labb. 16. 9ti.Parvuli aic non mandncant, et habeut tamen vitam in Be. Labb. 16. ~142.SinguJi Christi fidel-.dum inbaptismate credentes inChriatum ejus manduoa.

mue camem et ~ bibimue. Labb, 20. 616 .

Page 398: The Variations of Popery

398 THE V.A.lUATIONB OF POPERY.

without faith and holiness. He who observes this duty, 'hath'everlasting life.' Such, however, is contrary even to Romishtheology. The unworthy, all admit, have often intruded onthis mystery, and partaken to their own condemnation. Themetaphorical meanin~, therefore, is necessary to reconcile thispart of Revelation WIth the avowed principles of pope1"T-The figurative interpretation, accordingly, has been adopted

by most Romish commentators. This is the expoaition ofAugustine, Cajetan, and Innocent, as well as of the generalcouncils of Constance, Basil, and Tren~, transmitted in thediction of Mauricius, Ragusa, and Villetan. The Redeemer,according to Augustine, 'refers not to the communion: f6rmany receive from the altar and die, and, in receiving, die.'Our Lord, says Cajetan,' speaks not here of the sacrament;for he, it is said, who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me and I in him. But many, it is plain, receive

" the communion, and do' not dwell in him by faith. This isoften the case with the unworthy.' Pope Innocent's reasoningis to the same purpose. The good as well as the bad, saysthe pontiff, 'partake in a sacramental manner, the good to sal-vation, and the bad to condemnation. Our Lord, therefore, inJohn's gospel, refers not to oral participation, but to receptionby faith: for, in this manner, the good only eat his body,"This interpretation was approved. by the assembled fathers at

Constanee, Basil, and Trent. The reception mentioned in thegospel, ensures everlaRting life ; and this, say the Constantians,, is not true of sacramentalmanducabion, which may take, notin life, but to their own condemnation. You shall not havelife, unless yon eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink hisblood with the teeth of faith. Such reception is necessary asbaptism. The Basilians, by their orator Ragusa, delivered asimilar comment. . Sacramental ma.nducation, according to thisinterpretation, 'does not always give life, nay, often death.But spiritual mandueation always gives life. Jesus, therefore,it is plain, speaks of spiritual reception, because he annexes lifeto it, which does not always follow, but sometimes rather death;from sacramental eating. :Many, eating sacramentally, aredamned; and many, not eating sacramentally, such as childrenand martyrs, are saved' Similar is th~ gloss admitted at Trent.John here, said Villetan to the approved synod, 'understands1Augustinus, Hom. 23. quam multi de altari accipiunt et moriuntur, et aecipi-

endo mor{antur. Labb. 17. 929.Dominus,Joann.6., non loquitur de eucharistia. Constat autem multos sumere

eucbarilltie BBOrlImentu.m.etnon manere inChriBto per fidem. Cajetan, Tom. II.P.l~ .Ad idem estlnDocentiua inLibro de OtIicio, ubi ita dicit, com.editur spirituali-

ter, idest, in·tide. .Boc modooomedun~ Christi IIOliboni. Innooen. DeOIf.IV. 10. Labb. 1'1.933.

Page 399: The Variations of Popery

TRANSUBSTANTIATION NOT SUPPORTED BY JOHN, CR. VI. 399

eating and drinking by faith. He teaches that all who believeshall not perish, but have everlasting life."These observations, in a negative manner, shew what tho

scriptural phraseology in this place does Dot mean. The fol-lowmg remarks will teach every unprejudiced mind what theexpression does signify. Eating and drinking here, in meta-phorical style, are, in literal language, synonymous with be-lieving. The manducation mentioned by the Son of Goddenotes faith. He uses believing and eating as convertibleterms, and to each he annexes the blessing of C everlastinglife.' The same effects proceed from the same causes; andeverlasting life is, according to this phrase~~f~:e conse-quence of believing or of eating his flesh and . . his blood,which, therefore, must signify the same. Jesus clearly usesthem as equivalent expressions. Faith, indeed, in numberlessrecitations that might be transcribed fromrevelation, is the gracewhich is always attended with salvation.This interpretation is not solely the offspring of Protestan-

tism, but of popery. It is not merely the child. of Luther orCalvin, Cranmer or Knox, but of fathers, doctors, theologians,schoolmen, saints,cardinaJs, popes, general councils, and theuniversal church. This.was the comment of the fathers Origen,Theophylact, and Bede, Ragusa, in the. council of Basil,quoted Origen as authority for thili explanation. Accor?ing toTheophylact, C Christians understand the expression spiritually,and are not devourers of flesh.' Bede, following Au~ustine,interprets the words to signify "spiritual eating·a.nd drinking,eatin~ not with the teeth, but in the heart." Ignatius, Cyril,Jerome, Chrysostqm, Augustine, Remigius, and Bernard, whowill a.fterwards occur as saints, are also among the fathers whoembraced this explanation. .1Non est verum de mand_tione sacramentaJi, quam multi'l1OD ad vitam, lied

ad jndicium sibi snmnnt. Labb. 16. 1143.Nisi dentibns fidei mandncaveritis camem Filii Holl)iail,et biberitis ejus san·

gninem,non habebitis vitam in vobis. Talis mandncatio corporis et lI&IIgIlinisChristi est ita necesaarie, sient baptismns. Labb. 16. 1221, 1222. ..Sacramentalis mandncatio non semper dat vitam,immo srepe mortem. 8pmtua·

lis mandncatio semper dat vitam. Quod de spiritnali mandncatione ChJ:istu~ hi:eloquitur patet,quia ubicnmqne hie de mandncatione loquitnr,semJl6r adjungit VI-

tam,qure ntiqne ad sacramentalem semper non sequitnr,immo patins mora. Mul-ti sacramentaliter non eomedentes, nt pneri et martyree;salva~ aunt et salvantnr.Labb. 17.930. Canisins,4.536. ....Ex qna mirifica ~nspiratione eontecedentinm cal'itum qma non ~e co~t.

tmte~~ aDivo Joanno spiritnalemde fide in~ ~~~tionem carms,et bibitionem san~ ejus! Ineuleans quod omms qUi credit m Ipsnm non per· .,eat, sed habeat Vitam reternam. Labb. 20. 614-, Hoc pntet per auetontatem Origenis. Labb. 16. 1144.

. 01 .......,...._, ..-rES 1/,uu ow. 1T"I''''''f'I''tO'. "'pSI. Theophylact, 1. 655.mJoann. VI. •. Spiritnalitel' manducetur, 8piritualite~ biba~. Bed&, 6. 363. Qui manducatIn corde, non qui premit dente. Beda, m I Carin. x. .•..

Page 400: The Variations of Popery

400 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Origen, Theophylact, and Bede, "have on 'this topic, beenfollowed by a 1.ong train of doctors or theologians, such asMauricius, Rawtsa, V"illetan, Guerrero, William, Gerson, Jan-senius, Biel, Walden, Tilmann, Stephen, Lindan, and manyother theologians, as well as by the schoolmen Lombard, Albert,Aquinas, Ales, and Bonaventura. The same comment wasembraced by the saints Ignatius, Cyril, Chrysostom, Jerome,Augustine, Remigius, Bernard, Bonaventura, and Aquinas,'Augustine, in particular, was, as has been shown by Ragusa

in the conncil of Basil, the distinguished patron of this opinion.'Our Lord,' says this saint,' seems to command an atrocity. Itis, therefore, a figure which is to be understood in a spiritualsense. He is spiritually eaten and drunk. Eat, not with yourteeth, but with your heart. Believe, and you have eaten: forto believe and to eat are the same.' 'This, in numberless places,is,' adds Ragusa, 'the explanation of Augustine, who, inlanguage clearer than thf) Bunor noon-day, explains the passagein John's gospel to denote spiritual reception by faith."This acceptation of the passage was also adopted by the Car-

dinals .Bonaventura, Alliaco, Cusan, and Cajetan. Bonaven-tura has been already quoted as a saint, and with him agreesAlliaco. The language, says Cusan,' is to be understood, notof visible or sacramental, but of spiritual manducation by faith.'Cajetan, on this part of holy writ, is, if possible, clearer andstronger than Cusano 'The Lord: says he, 'speaks of faith1Labb. 16. M2, 1141, 1142. et 17. 926, 928. et 20. 615,616. Canisius,4. 533.

Paolo, 2. 227. Albertin. 1. 30.De istamanducatione spirituali intelligitur illud Augustini,quod allegat Mag'

ister sententiarnm. Lallb. 16. 1142-Patet per Albertum super JOaIUlem,ubi dioit re!erendo literam ad msnduca-

tionem spiritualem. Labb. 16. 1144.Ad hoc BUntin terminis propriis Alexander deAles et Bonaventura. Labb.17.

937. "b TurrI., '10"1"'" uapE ....011 K"I'COlI. Ignatius ad Trall. CoteL 2. 23.EICE"'O. P:1/. Cl/CIICOO"I'OS ""'"IIpi1tf"tIC .. S ...... " Aff"/0P.E ...... UICIlJ1/Sa.AEl19f116OS, J1Op..(ovru 0"/"

uaplCtJ</'4'Y- cwrOllS TPO"/'PfitrE'Ta.C. Cyril, 293.~p"""" ,","TW.,."', ,"," fitS ....... 0". Chrysostom, 8. 227. Hom. 47.Hieronymus diserte dixit,quod est autem manducationem carnis at bibitionem

sanguinis Christi Joannis VL de fide intelligi debere. Labb. 20. 615.Hrec est pro!ecto vera intentio Augustini et Bemigii, Labb. 17. 951.Bernardns dicit,qnod est antem mandncare ejns camem et bibere ejus sangui-

nem, nisi communicare passionibus ejus. Labb. 17.951.Illud ~tet expresse per B. Thoma.m et per Bonaventuram. Labb. 16. 1144., Flagitium videtur jnOOre. Figura est ergo. Augustin. 3. 52. De Doct. III.

16. Augustinus at glOBBa exponunt textum istum Domini de spirituali manduca·tiona lLabb.16.1245.

.. Idem est mandllcare et biOOrequod credere. Caniaius, 4. 535. Qui manducatcorda, non ;'~~remit dente. Labb. 17. 932.Crede at ucuti. Canisius, 4. 928. Innnmerabilia IpInt loca AugoJtini in

quibuldiotamu.etori1iatem Joannis 6.de spirituali manducationeexponit. Labb.17.232.Auan..t:t....a1lOlealaiuset moe meridiana in multis locis declarant, evangelium

J~~ inte11igi de spirituaIi manducationa Labb. 17.944.

Page 401: The Variations of Popery

TlANSUBS'l'AN'l'IA.'1'ION NOT SUPPORTED BY JOHN, CR. n. 401

The sacrament W88not then appointed. The words are plain,and cannot, according to the letter, be understood of Eucha-riatieal meat and drink."The same is the explanation of Popes Innocent III. and Piusn. 'The Son of God,' says Innocent on the Mass,' speaks of

spiritual participation in faith. He is eaten, when we are in-corporated with him by faith.' Pius the Second concurs withInnocent, and, if possible, in still more explicit terms. 'Jesus,'says his infallibility, 'treats there, not of sacramental, but ofspiritual drinking. Faith isthe only means of such participa-tion; for the communion was not then instituted."The General Councils of Constance, Basil, and Trent sanc-

tioned this same comment. This is the explanation of Mauri-eius, in his Treatise written by the command of the Consta.n-tian council, and reported at Constance in the Council. Thewords, according to this work, anthorised by the unerringassembly, 'cannot signify sacramental participation, but spiritualreception by faith."The same interpretation was authorised by the General

Council of B88il. This assembly appointed Ragusa as thechampion of Catholicism against Rohana, the patron of theBohemian heresy, The hero of the faith proceeded in a longand learned speech to examine this part of John's Gospel, andhe shewed, beyond all question, that 'Our Lord never here, inany war, mentions sacramental mandueation, but spiritual eatingand dnnking by faith.' He proved to a demonstration, thatJesus meant, 'not the communion, but believing. To eat anddrink is to believe, and to believe is to eat and drink." TheIBonaventllra arguitper Auguatinum, mflicit ergo ad manducandum, credere.

Labb. 17. 237.

EN on intelligendum de visibili seu eacramentali manducatione,eed de spirituali.p. 7. p. 857.Dommua loquitilr de fide. Nondum inetituerat ll&C1'aDIentum eucharietUe.

Caj~ ~. 2. T. 2. c. 1. Clare patet verba illa nec intelligi poaee de cibo et potueu~hariatire. Non loquitur ibi Dominua ad literam de eacramentali cibo et potu.~aJetan, Tom. 3. T. 2. c. 1. De fide in ipamn, non de eacramentali manauca.tione, sermo &it. Cajet. in Aquin. 3. 394-" Ad .idem e~ Innocentius in Libro de Officio, ubi ita dicit, comeditur spiritu·

"a!i~r, id eat,.ll!' fide. De spirituali comestione, Dominua ait, nisi manducave-. ntill. Co~e?it ipsnm, quando incorporatur Christo ~er fide~. ~~b. oJ7. 933.

nne. a agtt pas Ia de boire sacrementalement, m&1S de boire spmtuellMnent.Ceux ~ croyoient en lui, ceux Ia mangoient sa chair et bnvoient son sang. On neponvoit manger, etc. .tEn. Syl Ep. 130. Lenfan. 2. 211, 242••~ 3 ~ !,erba non BUnt intelligenda de manducatione sacramentali. Oportetista m~ de manducatione spirituali. De ista manducatione spirituall seusumpti~nem~lligiturpraedictum Christi verbum. Labb. 16. 1142·1144-, Christus \JI. nulla parte prmsentis ca;pitis, nec per Be nec per accidens, faciat

quoqnomodo mentionem de sacramentali manducatione. Manducaverunt car-~ !luando ~erunt . . • . Biberunt ejns sanguinem, quando modoIimilibi,--lIeidem.~derunt. Labb. 17.931, 932. CarUsi1l5, 4. lS36. Manducare et....... Iltquod credere. Labb. 17. 926.1

z•

oj<

Page 402: The Variations of Popery

4102 THE VAlUATIONS OF POPERY.

sacred synod received his advocacy, not only without oppositionbut with approbation. The conclusion, therefore, is, accordingto the popish system, marked with the seal of infallibility.The council of Trent followed those of Constance and Basil,

Villetan was the champion of popery at this time, as Mauriciusand Ragusa on the two former occasions. ..According to hisadvocacy in a general congregation, 'the fruits of eating ourLord's flesh and drinking his blood are everlasting life anddwelling in him; and both referred to a living faith. ..All whobelieve do not perish, but have eternal life.' 'Thee, Lord,'said the orator, 'thee, we eat and drink when we believe inthee.' 'This exposition,' Villetan affirmed,:without any contra-diction before the unerring assembly, 'has always, ever sinceits promulgation, been the interpretation of the UniversalChurch.' This, therefore, is not the gloss of heretical protest-antism, but of Catholicism and the church.' Yet every modernscribbler in favor of transubstantiation, such as Milner,Challenor, Maguire, and Kinsella, cite the passage withouthesitation as an irrefragable proof of their system.The advocates of transubstantiation deduce a second scrip-

tuml argument from the words of Institution. Jesus, when heappointed the sacrament, said, 'This is my body; this is myblood' The bread and wine, therefore, say these theologians,who interpret the expression to suit their system, were trans-formed into his body and blood The argument is pitifulbeyond expression; and properly deserves nothing but con-tempt. Its whole force depends on the meaning of the term,which its patrons have taken in a sense of their own, for thepurpose of imposing a doctrine of their own on the Word ofGod. But the term, in its usual acceptation, signifies to repre-sent. The words of Institution, according to their commonscriptural signification, might be transla.ted, 'This representsmy body; this represents my blood: ..All then would berationaJ. and consonant with the original; while the monstertransubstantiation, in Cardinal Perron's language, would, evenin appearance, be excluded.Mathematicians sometimes demonstrate the truth of a propo-

sition, by shewing the absurdity of a contrary supposition.Many demonstrations of this kind are to be found in Euclid andother geometrici&na. The absurdity of the meaning which theJ)&ri.isans of transubstantiation attach to the word. used by ourLord at the celebration of the sacrament, may be exposed in the1hoe imprimiB dicatar inde percipere fructus, ut ecilioet habeat vita1n ~ •• ,. 'd JlUIt1eat in ChriBto, utrmnque fidei viVIll referri. 0mJIie qui credit Ul~ .. ~_Il.beat vitam artemam. Labb. 20. 616. _\.De~ IDIl1ld1lcatione .. bt'bitioDe fidem vivam, i&D! inde usque -eju proa ........ 1m- inteJpmatum. ~eocleaia lUIi_ Labb. 20. 616.

Page 403: The Variations of Popery

TRANSUBSTANTIATION NOT PROVED BY MA.TT. XXVI. 26, 28. 403

same way. Admit the accuracy of the papal exposition, andany expositor, by a simple process, could transform the God ofheaven into a sun, a shield, a rock, a fortress, a buckler, or anything. The Jewish monarch, indeed, under the afflatus of in-spiration, has designated the Almighty- by all these appellations.The Messiah, by a similar interpretation, might be transubstan-tiated into a door, a vine, a rock, a way, a foundation, a lamb,a lion, a rose, a lily, a star, a SUD, or any object, according towhim or fancy.l Jesus, in the scriptural vocabulary, is calledby all these names and many more, whose enumeration wouldbe tedious and is unnecessary. Such consequences, in loudestacclamation, proclaim the condemnation of the system.The simplicity of the process, by which all these metamor-

phoses may be effected, is admirable. Allow any popish doctora convenient interpretation of a monosyllable composed of twoletters, and he will, with the utmost despatch, transubstantiatea wafer into the Almighty; and, with equal ease, could, by thesame simple means, transform the Messiah into nearly any ob-ject of the mineral, vegetable, or animal kingdom. He performshis feats with talismanic facility. All difficulty vanishes beforehis magic touch. He works with as much rapidity as M.er-cury, in Lucian, piled Pelion on Ossa and Parnassus on Pelion.His definition enables the sacerdotal conjurer to surpass all thewonders of jugglery, legerdemain, enchantments, spells, andnecromancy. He can encase Emmanuel, body, blood, bones,nerves, muscles, and sinews, together with his soul and divinity,in a neat little piece of pastry, which he can transfer withbecoming grace, into the mouth, down the throat, and intothe stomach, and send home the devout communicant with hisGod in his belly. This conveyance, it seems, was sometimes,asmight be expected, attended with astonishing effects. I Bei~Mrmitted,' says Aquinas, {to fasten their teeth in the Lord slIesh, such rise from his table, like lions, breathing fire frightfulto the devil"The same scriptural evidence might be produced ror the

transubstantiation of the water, obtained by Adino, Elea.zar,and Shammah from the fountain of Bethlehem, as for the winein the sacramental cup. David longed to drink from this spring,and three Jewish heroes cut their dangerous way through thesquadrons of the enemy, and brought the ~ the object of hiswish, This, however, when offered, he would not drink. He, called it {the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their1Pllll1m~ 2.. andlxxxiv. H. John L 7. Johnxv. 1. Corin. x. 4. .Johni 29. Rev. v.6. MaIach. iv. 2. •

2 Utleonllll ftammam &pirantell,llie ab iDa _ dicedimus terribilel e1fectldia-bolo. Aquiuu. UL 79~vi. P. 383.

Page 404: The Variations of Popery

404 TIlE VARlATIONS OF POPERY.

lives,' and {lOuredit out as an oblation to God.' The argument,in the one instance, is as strong for the change of the water intoblood, as in the other for the transmutation of the wine.The popish meaning of the term would transubstantiate 'the

whole church into the Lord's body.' Paul, addressing the Corin-thians, Ephesians, and Colossians, says, 'the church is theLord's body.' Take the term in the Romish acceptation, andall Christians are transformed into the real and substantialbody of Jesus, comprehending, of course, his blood. The argu-ment, deduced from the Scriptural expression, is as strong forthe transubstantiationofthe church as for that of the sacrament.Grant the one, and, in consequence, the other follows.The friends of transubstantiation, in the words of institution,

declare for the literal acceptation and deprecate all figurativeinterpretation. Challenor would take the expression in 'itsobvious and natural meaning.' This statement supposes twothings. One is, that Jesus used no metaphorical language atthe appointment of the sacrament; and the other, that the popishgloss is the natural or usual sense of the term. But these areboth misrepresentations. The Institutor said: ' This cup is theNew Testament in my blood.' Salmeron acknowledges whatindeed cannot be denied, that this expression contains twometaphors. The cup, by metonymy, is put for its wine, andthe New Testament for its sign or symbol. Admit the papalor literal sense, and the cup, not the wine, would be transub-stantiated, not into the blood of the mediator, but into the NewTestament.Neither is the Romish interpretation the usual meaning of the

term. Its common acceptation, in Scriptural phraseology, cor-responds, on the contrary, with the Protestant exposition. Theopponents of transubstantiation use the word in ' its obvious andnatural meaning,' in the Sacred Volume. This was its generalsignification among the Jews, as might be shown. from the OldTestament; and the same might be evinced by many citationsfrom the Christian Revelation,"This interpretation may be corroborated by many quotations

from the fathers. The ancients patronised this exposition.All these characterised the sacramental bread and wine assigns, figures, symbols, emblems, or images of the Institutor'sbody and blood.. This, in effect, was considering them as~ifying or represent~ our Lord. Saying that the bread andWlDewere the signs of h18body and blood was, in other words,.sa~ that these sacramental elements signified or representedthe Divine author of the Institution.Yn. 81m. um. 17. Chron. xi. 19.21, CoriD. m w. ~ i 22, 23. Eph. iv. 12, Colee. 1. 24-a Gtm. xl. Ii, 18 et xli. 26,?:T. Matt. xiii. 19, 37, 38, 39, 40. Conn. x...

Page 405: The Variations of Popery

ELF..MENTS ACCOUNTED SIGNS, FIGURES, AND EMBL~S. 405

A few instances out of many, in which the sacramental ele-ments are represented as signs, symbols, figures, and emblems,may be selected from Tertullian, Ambrosius, Augustine,E~hrem, Procopius, and Bede,' Jesus, according to Tertullian,said, at the first celebration of this mystery: 'This is my body,that is, the figure of my body.' Ambrosius, Augustine,Ephrem, and Bede, characterised the sacramental elements asfigures; while Augustine and Procopius represent the bread88 ' the sign or emblem of his body.'Transubstantiation, therefore, is not to be found in the

inspired canon. This, many of its partisans, such as Erasmus,Scotus, Bellarmine, Alliaco, Cajetan, Fisher, Biel, Tanner, andCanus, have conceded. These, indeed, believe the absurdity.Their faith, however, or rather credulity, was, according totheir own confession, founded, not on the evidence of Revela-tion, but on the testimony of tradition and the authority of thechurch. Erasmus' found no certain scriptural declaration ofthis dogma,' Scotus admits' the want of express scripturalevidence in favor of transubstantiation,' and Bellarmine grants'the probability of the statement.' 'The opinion,' says Cardi-nal Alliaco, 'which maintains that the bread and wine preservetheir own substance, 'is not unscriptnral; and is more rationaland 688y of belief than the contrary.' Cajetan's admission;that 'transubstantiation is not expressly taught in the gospel,'W88 so pointed that Pius the Fifth ordered it to be expungedfrom the Roman edition of the Cardinal's works. 'The truepresence in the mass,' says Fisher, ' cannot be proved from thewords of institution.' This theory, according to Biel, Tanner,and Canus, 'is not revealed in the sacred canon." Simila.rconcessions have been made by Occam, AlphonsuB,Oantaren,Durand, and Vasquesius.TranSUbstantiation is a variation from ecclesiastical as well as

Scriptural antiquity. The church, in its days of early purity,1.Corpua suum illum fecit diceudo 'hoc eat corpus meum,' id est!lgura COlJI!>r!a

mel. Tertul. Coutra Marcian. IV. 40. p. 458. Eat figura corpona et BaDg111B18Domini. Ambros. IV. 5. Dominus non dubitavit dicere' hoo eat co~ meum,'cum daret signum corporis sui. Aug. 8. 154. Oontra Adiman. Co 12. Fregit infiguram immaculati corporis. Ephrem, De Natur. .681. ~f Ell"''''' 'f'OU13_ fT"lJfIHos~. Procop. inGen. 49. Sure carma aangumllKJue,eramen-tum in pania et vim figura aubatituena. Beda, 5. 424. in Luc. 22.2 Nullum reperio locum in Scripturis Divinia unde carlo conatet Apoatol08 con-

BeCl'a88e ~em et vinum in csrnem et sanguinem Domini. EraamUlJ, 3. 1193.~cotua dicit non extare locum ullum acripturre tam expreaaum ut sine deelara-tione eccleailll evidenter cogat ~ranBub8tantionem admittere ,et id non eat ommnoimprobabile. Bellarm. III. 33. Nee repugnat rationi nel! auctoritati Bib~ire. Al;li-aco, Xl. 6. 1. Ev~um non explicavit expresse. CaJe~,III. 75.1: lU Aqum.3. 348. N eo ullum hie verbum poaitum eat quo probetur, m noBtra mt88& veramfieri carnis et sanguinis Christi prresentiam. Fisher, c. 10. Non invenitur exprea·sum in canone .Bibfue. Biel. Loot. 40. Qual in Scriptura BOla non continentur.T&IIJler, Comp. Co 6. Non sit proditum in aacris: Canua, III. 3.

Page 406: The Variations of Popery

406 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

disowned the ugly monster. The Fathers as well as the Apostlesdisclaimed the absurdity, which insults reason, outrages Revela-tion, and degrades man. This appears from several considera-tions. Ecdesiastica.l antiquity represents the bread and the wineas retaining their own nature or substance; and as conveyingnourishment to the human body; and ascribes a transmutation,similar to that effected in these elements, to the water of bap-tism ; and to man in regeneration.The monuments of ecclesiastical antiquity represent the sacra-

mental elements as retaining their own nature or substance,without any change or transubstantiation. Such is the state-ment of Gelasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Facundus,''The elements in the sacrament,' says Pope Gelasius, whoflourished in the fifth century, ' are divine, yet cease not to bethe substance or nature of bread, and are certainly the imageand similitude of the Lord's body.' Chrysostom, the saint andthe patriarch, declares that 'the bread after consecration, isworthy of being called the Lord's body, though the nature ofthe bread remains in it.' Theodoret, in his First and SecondDialogue, is, if possible, still plainer. 'The Lord,' says thisbishop, 'hath honored the visible signs with the appellationof his body and blood; not having changed their nature, buthaving added grace to nature. The mystic symbols, afterconsecration, do not change their proper nature, but remain intheir former substance, form, and species.' According toFacundus, an African bishop, 'the sacrament of hiS body andblood, in the consecrated bread and cup, is denominated hisbody and blood; Dot that the bread is properly his body andthe cup his blood, but because they contain in them the mys-tery of his body and blood.'The authors of these quotations were men, who, in their day,

stood high in erudition and Catholicism. Their theologicallearning must have secured them from mistaking the opinionsof the age on the subject of the sacrament. Their works werewidely circulated through Christendom, and their argumentswere never contradicted or even suspected. These citations,therefore, must decide the question in the judgment of everyunprejudiced mind.1:Ee8e non desinit Bubstantia vel natura pania et vini. GelaBius. adv, Euty.

689.Dipus habitus est Domini Corporis appellatione,estiamsi natura panis in ipso

~t. Chry-wm, ad C_rium, 8. 744-0trnIs .,...- 1I'IIfAIJoM..", 'rOW' ..".fINIS /all ~ ..~ ffl"'l¥lJ1m', ov"",'

.... ~ lIMa '"P' XII(HJ' .", ",,-, fIJHH1T.e._. Theod. DiaL I •.Ouk "'flIP p.rrt:c .,.",. ..,-fMW .,.. ,...,.,... trIJfAIJOAo "'J$ 0_'" ~""""""</WIT"";a..,., '"'!~.. fIC!I -. .., .,.." "X'fIII'"0$, .., "w ~t3ouS. Theod. 4. 18. !'5.. If.~q1Qlll~ ClOl'pD8 ejue Bit pmia et pooulum BaDgIlis, sed quod m semyReriam CClI'pOrill eju et ~ contineant. Faeund. ix. I}.

Page 407: The Variations of Popery

TRANSUlJlffANTIATION NOT TAUGHT BY THE FATHERS. to7

These statements from Gelaslus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, andFacundus have sadly puzzled and perplexed the partisans oftransubstantiation. The testimony of Gelesius silenced CardinalCanta.ren in a disputation at Ratisbon. Cardinal Alan admitsGelasius's and Theodoret's rejection of a substantial change inthe sacramental elements; but maintains that these two alonein their age embraced this heresy. Du Pin, having quotedFaeundus, refers the reader to others for a resolution of thedifficulty. Harduin, Alexander, and .Arnold, however, haveattempted the arduous task. 1 The nature or substance,

• according to these authors, signifies in this case the species oraccidents, which remain unchanged in the sacramental.elements.But Theodoret, in the above quotation, distinguishing thesubstance from the accidents, represents the sacramentalelements, as retaining their former substance and species. Thesubstance is here discriminated from the species or accidents;and all these, which he enumerates, remain in the mass withoutany transmutation.The answer of these authors shews their skill at transforma.-

tiona, The substance of the sacramental bread, in their hands,becomes,at pleasare, either accidents or the body of our Lord.These theologians could not only, as priests, transubstantiate thesubstance of the elements into flesh and blood, but also, asauthors, when it served their purpose, into accidents or species.A few words from their mouths could convert the substance ofwine into blood, and a few strokes from their pens could meta-morphose the same into accidents, These jugglers should havedisplayed their extraordinary powers, in transforming accidentsinto substance as well as substance into accidents; and theywould then have exhibited the perfection of their art.The ancients represent the bread and wine as conveying

nourishment to the human body. Such are the statements 01Justin, Ireneeus, and Tertullian.t 'The sacramental bread andwine,' says Justin, 'nourish our flesh and blood by digestion:AccordiIig to Irenseus, 'the consecrated elements increase ourbody.' Tertullian represents 'our flesh as feedinz on his bodyand blood: Ludovicuslived entirely on the host for forty days;and Catharina subsisted on the same from Ash-Wednesday tillAscension. The consecrated elements therefore are food for thebody as well as for the soul; and in consequence preserve theirown substance. None surely will maintain the impiety, if not1ChEysoetom, 3. 740. .Alex. 19. 569.21:(,1,$ 1IIf&G-(J'Gf*Uur .. p.vra/JoA."., ~"'fJII'''' JUBtin, ApoL 96. A4>'

0\1 or.. 7/1W1'Ef"l avEE& (J'fIJAII"A. Iren. V. 2.Caro. C01'JlOIe et BaDgUine Christi vescitur. Tertullian, de Rell1l!' Co 8. p. ~:

~~ mventa est aliqaarldo .. die cinerom usque ad aBCellll10nemDominiJeJUDlUD1perdwtiBse, sola Eueharistial communione contenta. Brev. Rom. 763.

Page 408: The Variations of Popery

408 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

blasphemy, that the flesh of man is, by digestion and nutrition,formed of the flesh of' Emmanuel.Innocent the Third resolved this difficulty by granting that

something of the bread and wine remain in the sacrament, toallay hunger and thirst.' His infallibility, for once, was right,for which he was afterwards anathematised by the holy councilof Trent. This infallible assembly, in its thirteenth session,heartily cursed all who should say that the bread and wineremain with the Lord's body and blood, or should deny thetransformation of the whole bread and wine. This denunciationwas a retrospective dash at the vicar-general of God. Whetherthe imprecation sent his holiness to purgatory or to a worseplace, the friends of transubstantiation and the papacy maydetermine.Aquinas, Godeau, Du Pin, and Challenor endeavor to evade

the difficulty by an extraordinary distinction and supposition.aThese distinguish the substance from the species; and withthe former, which is not subject to corruption, would feed thesoul; and with the latter, which somemight perhaps think lightprovision, would sustain the body. The accidents, Aquinas andGodeau make no doubt, may, by an operation of the Almighty,produce the same effect as the substance, and nourish the humanframe. The angelic doctor confers on the host, 'the efficacyofsubstance without the reality: Du Pin and Challenor entertaina similar idea. The learned divines, it seems, have discovereda method of fattening men on accidents, such as form, quality,taste,smell, color, signs, and appearances. Signs without sig-nification, shadow without substance, show without any thingshewn, color without any thing colored, smell without anything smelled, present, it appears, an exquisite luxury, and form,according to these theological cooks, an excellent sustenancefor the human constitution. .Challoner, however, doubtful of this theory, and suspicious of

this unsubstantial food, has, by a happy invention, provided akind of supernatural meat, if his immaterial diet should happento be condemned for inefficiency. Some miraculous nourish-ment of a solid kind, he thinks, may be substituted by Omnipo-tence, when, by deglutition and digestion, 'the sacramental spe-cies are changed,' and the sacramental substance is removed.1 Innocent. III. avouoit lui msme, qu'il restoit dans l'eucharistie une certaine

paneite et vineite, qui appaisent la faim et la BOif. Innocent, in Bruy. 3. 14.8.~~~ . 77

2 Non aint aubstantia, habent tamen virtutem aubstantial. Aquin. III. Q. .An. VI. ,Le.. ccidena parl'operation miraculeuae de la toute-puisBance divine pro-

d_n' leaJdmee effata que la aubBtance. Godeau. 6. 378. Dn Pin, 2. 84.CIlal1eaor, 48. .

Page 409: The Variations of Popery

TRANSUBSTAKTU.TION NOT TAUGHT BY THE FATHERS. 409

Aquinas, Godeau, Du Pin, and Cballenor, in this manner, ratherthan renounce a nonsensical system, condescend to talk balder-dash. The credulity and blind zeal of Aquinas, Godeau, andChallenor indeed prepared these superstitionists for the recep-tion of any absurdity; and the greater the absurdity the moreacceptable-to their taste, and the better calculated for the meri-dian of their intellect. But more sense might have been ex-pected from Du Pin, who, on other occasions, shewa judgmentand discrimination.Many 'of the fathers, indeed, have been quoted in favor of

transubstantiation. Some of these express themselves in stronglanguage. A person unacquainted with the hyperbolical dictionof ecclesiastical antiquity, and the forms of speech used in thesedays, might be led to suppose that some of the fathers held adoctrine similar to modem transubstantiation. An opinion ofthis kind, however, must arise from indiscrimination in thereader, and from the exaggeration of the author. The ancients,through want of precision, often confounded the sign with thesignification. This confusion led them to exaggeration, and toascribe to the sign wha.t was true only of the signification; andthis communion and exaggeration of antiquity have been augmen-ted by the misrepresentations of the modems, in their garbledand unfair citations.Ignatius and Oyril supply a specimen of such confusion and

misstatement. Ignatiua, who so nobly faced the horrors ofmartyrdom, has been characterised as the friend of transub-stantiation. The martyr desired 'the bread of God, which isthe flesh of Jesus, and the drink, which is his blood:' and hementioned some persons, who, in his day, denied the sacramentto be the flesh of the Saviour. .The apparent force of this quotation arises from its want of

precision, and its separation from a parallel part of the author'swork. Ignatius elsewhere calls 'the gospel, and the faith that.comes by the gospel, the flesh of Jesus, and love, his blood,"A com.~son of these two citations removes every difficulty.Cyril affords another specimen. According to this saint, 'the

Lord's body is given under the emblem of bread, and his bloodunder the emblem of wine. Consider them, therefore, not asmere bread and wine; for they are the body and blood ofEmmanuel'But the same author ascribes a similar change to the oil, used

at that time in baptism. He represents 'the oil of baptismafter consecration, not as mere oil, but lIB the grace of J esus,

I npo(l'~ .,.., EVC&'YE""'-, ';'s (1'''1*' 1'1/60". Anut-rltnu1B. lmrrous EP ....o..m, ,}ftlTU1 (l'orp( TOU K",_, ." 0l')'Il'"1 0 EdTQ1 aJp4 J'I/(I'OUo Ignat. ad TraIl. et ad PhiLCote! 2, 23, 31.

Page 410: The Variations of Popery

410 THE VABlATIONS OF POPEl\T.

as the bread is not mere bread, but the body of our Lord.'!The argument, from these two words, is as conclusive for thetransubstantiation of the baptismal oil as for the eucharistiealbread. i

Cyril also represents the manducation of the Son of Man,mentioned by John, in a spiritual sense which does not implythe eating of human flesh. This communion, he adds, ' consistsin receiving the emblems of our Lord's body.'Antiquity furnishes no stronger proofs of transubstantiation,

than those of Ignatius and Cyril. But these two saints, whenallowed to interpret themselves, disclaim the absurdity. Themonster had not appeared in their day. All the monuments ofChristian antiquity, in like manner, when rightly understood,concur in the rejection of this modern innovation.The fathers ascribe the same change, the same presence of

Jesus, and the same effect upon man, to the water of baptism, asto the bread and wine of the Lord's supper. His substantialpresence in baptism, and the consequent participation of hisblood by the baptized is declared by Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome,Au.g:mtine, Fulgentius, Prosper, and Bede,"Uhrysostom represents the baptized as ' clothed in purple gar-

ments dyed in the Lord's blood.' Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria,describes men as 'made partakers of the Saviour's holy fleshby hol1 baptism.' Jerome represents Jesus as saying to allChristians, < ye are baptized in my blood.' 'The eunuch,' saysthe same saint, 'was baptized in the blood of the Lamb.' Au-gustine, on this subject, is very express. He depicts 'the faith-ful, as participating in our Lord's flesh and blood in be.ptism.'This is cited by Fulgentius, and, therefore, sanctioned by hisauthority. 'The redeemed,' says Prosper, 'are in baptism, tingedwith the blood of J esus,' .Augustine, Prosper, and Bade pour-

1 0 "l"'"0f ,",S W]("f'U1"'UU, IU"A ,",II ft'i«A'II11J1 'TOllA')'lOVI1JIwpaorOf, Ol/lCE'l'l Q(1T0S, aMa""'pta XpUM'OII, OV7'IfS '"" "'0 A')'UJ" .,.ovro p.UPO" OIIlt E'rl "'lAD" IU"A f'Jti«Afl'TIJI, aMaXpurrov XAPUTpt&. Cyril, 290, 292, l!93' 300.t,.".. ..of"I>I>paJI ... p&/laM.'ItT6. .,.. cup.crrl . /kt4>E- kIl"TOT..... Ch-ryB08. 2. 226.

ad illumin. Catech. I.rryo ... IU"OXA ,",S c£.yuu CW'TOIlt1apltOS lilA .,..11 IvyUJp. a,,;\oJrOTl /JGrrUTpaoros. Cyril,

4. 602 in John 26.Baptizemini in sanguine meo. Jerome, 3. 16. in !sa. i, Baptizatus in sanguine

agni Jerome. 3. 385. in lsa. liii .. Un!UJ1quemque fidelium corporis sangniniBque dominici participem fien,quando in baptismate membrum Christi efficitur. Fulgentius, de Bap. Underubet ~tism.us, nisi sanguine Christi consecxatus. Augustin, Tract. 11. Beda.6. 356. m I Corin. x. August. adBonif. c. 130. Labb. 17. 9«. Aquinas, 3.SQ. Pattlin'Dll, 892. August. 10. 473.Ba}ltiamo Christi in sanguine tiDguntur. Prosper, c. 2. P. 84. Per Mare Rn-

~~ IICratum Christi -.ngnine liberantur. Prosper, 2. 233.Baptiimo.Chriaii ~ CODBeCll'ato. Augustine. 1. 1206. Ascendaa de

lonte CJ'hziIR coueerata m IUIpine. Augustin. 6. ~.

Page 411: The Variations of Popery

TRANSUBSTANTIATION NOT TAUGHT BY THE FATHERS. 4011

tray I the true Israel as consecrated in baptism, with the bloodof the Lord.'The ancients also represent the same substantial change com-

municated to men, especially in baptism and regeneration, asto the elements of the communion. Such are the representationsof Cyril, Gregory, Etherius, Beda, and LeO.1 According toCyril, Iwater transforms by a divine and ineffable power.' 'Re-generation,' says the same author, I changes into the Son of God.'Gregory's statement is to the same purpose. ' r am changed,'says this author, ' into Christ in baptism.' I The faithful,' sayEtherius and Bede,' are transformed into our Lord's membersand become his body.' Pope Leo the First is still more express.I Receiving the efficacy of celestial food,' says his infallibility,, we pass into his flesh who was made our flesh. Man, inbaptism,is made the body of Christ.'Our Lord, therefore in the monuments of antiquity, is repre-

sented as present in baptism as well as in the communion. Thewater, in the one institution, is represented as changed intoblood, in the same way as the wine in the other. Man's natureor substance, according to the same authority, is transformed inbaptism and regeneration. The person who L<J renewed and bap-tised is, in these statements, changed into the nature, body,flesh, or substance of the Son of God. The language of thefathers is as strong and decided for transubstantiation in baptismas in the communion; for the corporeal presence in the formeras in the latter; and for the substantial change of man in re-generation as for the elements in the sacrament. The abettorsof the corporeal presence, notwithstanding,with awkward incon-sistency, admit transubstantiation in the communion and rejectit in baptism and regeneration.The truth, however, is, that the use of such language in the·

literary and ecclesiastical monuments of antiquity was, in ~ne.ral, the consequence of confounding the sign with the significa-tion, and ascribing to tbefoimer the attributes of the latter.The appellation and properties of the Lord'sflesh and bloodwere,by a natural tendency of the human mind, transferred to thebread, the wine, and the water of the two sacramental institu--tions. The change, however, in the elements was considered

1 T&wp 'If/UIS 8£_ -r_ IaU '¥P"I"'0" prYlID'rOlXf!rral Iw~". Cyril 4. 147. inJohn 3. Mft'llII'I"lHXEUItNI'lZ ."pos ...~ ",II. Cyril, 5. 474. Dial. Ill.Xpilrrw I"'f"-ftnJl1/IIU .,.., FWrrJllp#'1. Gregory, orat. 40. •In membriB' ejus transf01'D1JlD1us. NOB iJi illo transf01'D1JlD1ur. Ethenus ad•.

Elipan. I. Canisius, 2. 322, 324. N08 ipeius cortJl11!facti 8UJIlUB. Fideles flantcorpus Chriati. Beda, 6. 365. in Cor. x. et 5.509. m Joan. VI.Accipientes virlutem creleBtiscibi, inearnam ipeius 9~ caro nostra factus est,

trauseam1lll. InBaptismate efticiatur homo corpus ChriSti. Leo. T. Ep. 23. Labb.4. 811S,817. ,-

I

Page 412: The Variations of Popery

412 •TH~ V.A.RIA.TIONSOF POPERY.

not as physical but moral. The bread and wine altered nottheir substance but their signification, not their nature but theiruse. This may be illustrated by a citation from Cyril of Jeru-salem. 'The meat of the pomp of Satan,' says the saint,' is,in its own nature, pure, but, by the invocation of demons,becomes unholy, as the elements of communion, before conse-cration, are mere bread and wine; but afterward become thebody and blood of our Lord," The immolations of Gentilism,all will admit, might, according to Cyril, contract impurity, butnot alter their nature, and the elements in the sacrament might,in like manner, change their signification, but would retain theirsubstance.Transubstantiation, therefore, is without any foundation in

scriptural or ecclesiasticalantiquity, Many ages elapsed beforethe monster, which was the child of darkness and superstition,appeared in the world. The deformity, however, in the progressof time, the change of system, and diversity of opinion, raisedat length its portentous head in Christendom. Several causesconcurred to facilitate its introduction into the church. Themind of man, in the contemplation of emblematical represents-tions, delights to confound the sign with the signification. Thesacramental symbols, in consequence, were often, in ancientworks on Christian theology, not sufficiently discriminated fromthe objects which they were intended to notify. The ancientsin consequence used strong language and bold metaphors incelebrating this institution, and in discoursing on it in theirliterary productions. Accustomed, on all topics, to flash andrhetoric, these authors, in treating on this mystery, deslt evenbeyond their usual style, in superlatives and exaggeration.Habituated to such phraseology, men were prepared for the re-ception of a novelty, which added the corporeal to the spiritualpresence in the communion. .Man is also prone to form a material deity, whom he can see

while he worships. A pure spirit seems too impalpable and re-fined for a being like man, whose soul is embodied in matter.He seeks something, therefore, to attract and engage the exter-nal senses. This principle, deep-rooted in human nature, hasgiven rise to all the idolatry which has deformed and dishonoredPagan, Jewish, and Popish worship. The idols of Gentilismexceeded all enumeration. The Jews, though blessed with adivine revelation, and warned, in a.. special manner, againstidolatry, often forgot Jehovah, and adored Baal and other godsof heathenism. The votaries of Romanism, in like manner, andfrom the same principle, have formed a material divinity andbow to the host.

C1riJ, 281.

Page 413: The Variations of Popery

THE INTRODUCTION OF TRANSUBSTA.NTIA.TION. 413

The Aristotelian philosophy which had become the reigningsystem, facilitated the reception of transubstantiation. Thephilosopher ofStagira supposed a primary matter and substantialforma, which compose the constitution of all things. This pri-mary matter, without quantity, quality, figure, or any proprietyof body, was the subject on which substantial forms might beimpressed, and to which they might adhere. The forms werea convenient coverlet for the matter. This nonsense was exceed-ingly useful for the fabrication of transubstantiation. The inter-nal matter or substance, in the papal theology, was, in the host,changed into flesh and blood, which were inclosed in the formor species of bread and wine. A theological fiction, in thismanner, was countenanced and Illustrated by a philosophicalvision; and the philosophy, in inconsistency, yields only to thetheology. Transubstantiation annexed a few motley additionsto the airy theory of the Grecian speculator; and, in conse-quence, became the consummation of absurdity. The climaxof nonsense ended in the faith of the corporeal presence in thesacrament.The state of the Latin communion, at the introduction of

transubstantiation, was perhaps the chief reason of its origin,progress, and final establishment. The tenth century was aperiod of darkness and superstition. Philosophy seemed to havetaken its departure from Christendom, and to have left mankindto grovel in a night ofignorance, unenlightened with a single rayof learning. Cimmerian clouds overspread the literary horizon,and quenched the sun of science. Immorality kept pace withignorance, and extended itself to the priesthood and to thepeople. The flood-gates of moral pollution seemed to have been'set wide open, and inundations of all impurity poured on theChristian world through the channels of the Roman Hierarchy.The enormity of the clergy was faithfully copied by the laity.Both sunk into equal degeneracy, and the popedom appeared

one vast, deep, frightful, overflowing ocean ofcorruption, liorror,and contamination.' Ignorance and immorality are the parentsof error and superstition. The mind void of information, andthe heart destitute of sanctity, are prepared to embrace anyfabrication or absurdity.Such was the mingled mass of darkness, depravity, and

superstition, which produced the portentous monster of tran-substantiation. Paseasiua, in the ninth century, seems to havebeen the father of this de«!>rmity, which he hatched in hismelancholy cell. His claim to the honor and improvementof this paradox is admitted by Sirmond, Bellarmine, and Bruys,"1&ron.. An. 000. Platina, in Bened. Geneb. An. 901.~Genuinum eccleBiJJe Catholioal lIeDI1lum ita primua explieuit, ut viam oalteria

aperuem. Sirmon, inRadb.

Page 414: The Variations of Popery

THE VARIA.TIONS OF POPERY.

'Paseasius,' says Sinnond, 'was the first who, on this question,explai~ed the gen~ne sense of the church;' 'This monk,'according to Bellarmine, 'was the first who, man express andcopious manner, wrote on the truth of the Lord's body andblood.' 'Men,' says Mabillon, 'were from reading his work,led to a more full and profound knowledge of the subject.'Bruys candidly confesses that transubstantiation was a discoveryof the ninth century, and unknown in the darker ages of anti-quity. The celebrated Erasmus entertained a similar opinion.He represents' the church as late in defining transubstantiation,and accounting it enough, during a long period, to believe thatthe Lord's true body was present under the consecrated breador in any other way.'l Scotus acknowledges, that transub-stantiation was no articM of faith before the council of theLateran in 1215.The celebrated Arnold, in his perpetuity of the faith, has

endeavored to prove the antiquity of transubstantiation fromthe tranquillity, which, he says, always reigned on the subjectin the church. Its introduction, he alleges, had it been an inno-vation, would have been attended with tremendous opposition.The commotion and noise, he seems to think, would have beenlittle inferior to the shock of an earthquake, or the explosion ofa world. Arnold's attempt, however, proves nothing but theeffrontery of its author, who, on this occasion, must have beenat a loss for an argument, and presumed much on the reader'signorance. Maqillon, more candid than Arnold, admits theopposition of many against Pascasius, who ascribed too much tothe divine sacrament. Frudega.rd, with many others, doubted,and with Augustine, understood the words of Institution in ametaphorical sense. These, with the African saint, accountingit shocking to eat the flesh that was born of the virgin,\ and todrink the blood that was shed on the cross, 'reckoned the con-secrated elements, the Lord's flesh and blood only in power andefficacy.' ' Some,' says .Ma.billon,, assented, and many doubted.Some resisted Pascasius, and many were brought to understandthPrime.mystery.'i. . t' "t d '...... . et . .us auctor qUIaeno e eopioee scnpllI evan....... corpenB sangUID18Domini. Bel. in Pas. Ex hoc lectione ad pleniornm. peritioneJllque ejus cogni-tioneJl1 perducti merint. Mabillon, 3. 67.La dogma de 1a transubstantiation, ou de 'la prtlsence n\elle, etoit inconnu

avant Ie IX, siecJ.e. Bray. 2. 349.1Sero tnmsublltantioneJll definivit eccleBia. Diu ""tis erat credere sive sub

pule OCIIIIIIlCl'ato si,!! q~ue modo adesee vernm. OOl'pus Chriati Enuan. 6.686.. iQ Oorin. '1. .BellanDin, m. 23.t Qui dicant elBa virtuteJll camiB, non carn.em. virtuteJl1 sangninia, non san-

pi:aejI. PUClIiIillBiDMatth. xxvi PluBieuraentendoient,avecSaintA~lea .... cIe fiJultitv.tioD daDa lID __ de figure. Mo!eri, 7.68. :Multi dabi-taut. MabilloD, a. 61. P""'lIB ad Frudegard. Du Pin, 2. so.Multi ex.d:u~ lfODil~haad Dlicuit quod ~erat. Fatendam eat

QUClIda1a OOiIl_mhi ......... etI ilcripIiIIe aaftl'B1lB PlIIICUIUJD. JlabiDoD, a. 61.

Page 415: The Variations of Popery

PASCASIAN CONTROVERSY ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. .15The Pascasian innovation was opposed by nearly all the piety

and erudition of the age. A constellation of theologians rose inarms against the absurdity. Raban, Walafrid, Herebald, Pru-dentius, Florus, Scotus, and Bertramn, the ablest theologiansof the day, arrayed themselves against the novelty. All these,the literary suns of the age, resisted the Pascasian theolo~.Baban, Archbishop of Mentz, who was deeply skilled in Latin,Greek, and Hebrew, had a taste for poetry, and W88 accountedthe Glory of Germany, resisted the Pascasian theory withdetermined hostility. "Herebald and Raban,' says Marca, •wroteagainst Paseasius, while Paseasiua and Raban divided the peopleinto two factions."Sootus and Bertramn were the most distinguished opposers of

Paseasiua Scotus W88 eminent for his skill in languages andtheology. He W88 the companion of Carolus, the French sove-reign, who patronised his work against Paseasius, During hiswhole life, he incurred no suspicion of heresy; and his work,for two hundred years, circulated through Christendom withoutany mark of reprobation from pope or council, from clergy orlaity.'Bertramn, like Scotus, replied to Paseasius at the instance of

the French king. He was esteemed for his sanctity, and for hisprofound attainments in science and theology. His book on thebody and blood of the Lord; in answer to the Paseasian specu-lation was widely disseminated through the Christian world,and was never during that age, condemned for heresy.' Thefree and extensive circulation, which these publications of Scotusand Bertramn obtained without even an insinuation of error,must, to every unprejudiced mind, supply an irrefragable proofof their conformity to the theology of the ninth century. .The treatment of Bertramn's work after the Reformation

argued little for the unity of Bomaaism, This jroduction,which, during the dark ages, had lain concealed a.n unknown,was discovered in 1533, a.nd published br. the Protestants ofGermany. The Reformed, who rescued It from oblivion, ac-counted it favorable to their system. The Romish reckonedit a work of heresy, and a forgery of <Ecolompadius. Thisproduction, though afterwards extolled as the perfection oforthodoxy, was condemned as heretical by a pope, by councils,cardinals, the expurgatorian index, and a whole phalanx oftheologians.Clement the Eight exercised-his infallibility on Bertramn'a1HenDaldua et Rabanua atatim contrariia advelBllll Paecaaium scriptiB eee-

tavmmt. PlIlICaIIioet Rabano duc:ibua, Mel .. popul08 in dU08 veluti factioneleoiudllW. lIaloa, Ep. in Dachery, 3. 853.: Dd Pm. 2. f11. Daehery,4. 513. Labb. 11. 1425.. Bra,.. 2. 38. MOlW)', 7. 40.

Page 416: The Variations of Popery

416 THE VA.RIATIONS OF POPERY.

production, and denounced it, after due examination, for heresy.The synod of Treves, for the same reason, interdicted its circu-lation. The general Council of Trent, by its expurgatorianindex, pronounced its reprobation and prohibition. This assem-bly, which was clothed with infallibility, had as great a concernin the index, which proscribed Bertramn's work, as in its cate-chism. The sentence, therefore, may be considered as sanc-tioned by its supreme authority. These pontifical and synodaldecisions were approved by the cardinals Bellarmine, Quiroga,Sandoval, Alan, and Perron. The theologians of Louvain, whoconducted the Belgic expurgatorian index, submitted the per-formance, which these doctors represented as interpolated, tocorrection. These censors expunged many of the pretendedinterpolations, which, in their estimation, contained rank heresy;and allowed its publicity in this state of mutilation. This sen-tence of error and Protestantism was re-echoed by Turrian,Sixtus, Genebrard, Espenceus, M8ica, Possevin, Claudius,Valentia, Paris, and Harduin, All these, in concert indeedwith the whole popish communion, continued for the exten-ded period of more than one hundred and forty years, torepresent Bertramn's treatise as a forgery and full of error andheresy.'But this book, decried in this manner in the popish commu-

nion, ffir heterodoxy, was in procefls of time, transformed by asudden revolution in public opinion, into orthodoxy. A church,which boasts its unity and unchangeableness, proceeded, afterthe lapse of many years, to transubstantiate Bertramn's work,without any useless ceremony, into catholocism. Mabillon, in1680, by the aid of manuscripts and arguments, evinced, beyondall contradiction, the genuineness of the work; and endeavored,by partial statements and perverted criticism, to shew its ortho-doxy.s The learned. Benedictine's discovery effected, on thispoint, a sudden change in Romish Christendom. The book,which, for near a century and a half had been denounced asunsound and 8upposititious,became all at once, both true andgenuine. The church transformed heresy into Catholicism withas much facility, and in nearly as short a time, as a priest tran-substantiates a wafer into a God.The controversy, for two hundred years after the Paseasian age,

seems to have slept. The noisy polemic, on this topic, resignedhis pen, and Christendom, entombed in Egyptian darkness, sunkinto immorality and superstition. Transubstantiation, in thisdestitntion of literature, continued 'to gain ground; till, a.t last, .1:Monri,7. 40. Boileau, s. Bell L 1. DuPin, 2, 81, 86. TurriaD, I. 22.P.-y, 1.fit.2l1abi1loD, ~ G8. ».chery,4. 17.

Page 417: The Variations of Popery

BEBENGABIAN CONTROVERSY ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 417

its pestilential breath infected all orders and ranks of men. Thepriesthood soon perceived its tendency to the advancement ofsacerdotal influence and emolument. Their alleged power ofcreating God excited the veneration and liberality of the admir-ing populace. M.iracles were supposed to be wrought by theconsecrated wafer; and this, opening another source of imposi-tion and astonishment, endeared the wonder-working theologyto the clergy and laity. The dogma, indeed, is calculated forthe meridian of superstition. The idea of a visible deity mustbe ever welcome to an ignorant crowd. The innovation, be-sides, made no direct or violent attack on the popular prepos-sessions. The error effected no mutilation of the ancient faith;but an addition, which is calculated to become the idol of super-stition. The Paseasian theory superinduced the corporeal onthe spiritual presence, and tended, not to the diminution, but tothe augmentation of the fabric of faith, the structure of super-stition, and the mass of mystery. The novelty added a changeof substance to the ancient admitted change of use and significa-tion, and was fitted for becoming the food of credulity.The controversy was awakened from the sleep of two hundred

years by Berengarius in the eleventh century. This celebratedcharacter was principal in the public school of Tours, and after-ward archdeacon of Angers. He was distinguished, accordingto Paris, for genius, learning, piety, charity, holiness, and humi-lity. Following Bertramn and Scotus on the sacrament, hepublicly, in 1045, opposed Pascasiua M.any adopted and manyrejected his system. Romanism displayed a diversity of faithinconsistent with modern boasts of unity. The clergy and thelaity, in the ninth century, united, in general, against Paseesi-anism ; but "differed, about two hundred years after, aboutBerengarianism. This shews the progress, which transubsta.n-tion in this period had. made in the spiritual dominions of thepopedom. The controversy was agitated in many verbal andwritten disputations} BereD~rianism. however, according tocotemporary and succeeding historians, was the ~enera.l faith ofEngland, France, and Italy. All France, says SJ.gebett, aboun-ded in Berengarians • and the same is repeated by Matthew ofParis and William of Malmesbury. .A.la.n represents the evil~ extended, not only to France, but also to the neighbouringnations. .The heresy says Matthew. of Westminster, bad cor-rupted nearly all the French, ltaJians, aad English.'Berengarianism was denounced, with determined hostility

and tremendous anathemas, by the Roman pontiffS. Its author1Berengaria COJDUlIlD9l'. ~ de l'eucharistie eelon 1& doctrine qne

:Benrunnia.e& 1'liJlcot aTOieDt 1'10llIllI~vanll eDlCIigD.lIeo Vignier, 2. 696•• ' Contra eum ~ pro eo, IIl1I1tluD. a JD1I1tiiII.- "fUbii eI; lICIiptia, cJiapUaDdum. ..8ipben, AD. I06L

.u.•

Page 418: The Variations of Popery

418 THE VABlATIONS OF POPERY.

was persecuted by Leo, Victor, Nicholas, and Alexander. Hewas compelled to sign three different and conflicting confessions,in three Roman Councils under Nicholas and Gregory.Nicholas, in 1058, convened a council at the Lateran against

Berengarius. This assembly consisted of one hundred and thir-teen bishops; and the patron of the reputed heresy was sum-moned to attend. He complied; and supported his systemwith a strength of reason and eloquence, which, Sigonius, Leo,and Henry attest, withered all opposition. All shrunk in terror,while the Vatican resounded with the thunder of his oratory.His infallibility urged his clergy to the contest. He endea-vored to rouse his veterans to the battle. But no David ap-peared against this Goliath. No hero of orthodoxy dared, inin single combat, to encounter this dreadful son of heresy. Hisholiness, in this exigency, sent an express for Alberic, a cardinaldeacon of grea.t erudition, who, it was hoped, could face thisfearful champion of error,' Alberic, after a warm discussion,solicited a cessation of arms .for a week, to employ his penagainst the enemy,"The council, finding the insufficiencyoftheir dialectics, threat-

ened the application of more tangible and convincing arguments,which they could wield with more facility. Anathemas, excom-munication, fire, and faggot were brought into requisition. Themention of this kind of logic soon converted Berengarius, whowas unambitious of the honor of martyrdom. Humbert wasappointed to compose a confession for Berengarius, and executedhis task to the satisfaction of his infallibility and the wholecouncil. This formulary declared, that 'the bread and wine onthe altar are the Lord's real body and blood, which, not only ina sacramental, but also in a sensible manner, are broken by thehands of the priest and ground by the teeth of the faithful'ltHis infallibility and his clergy were for submitting the flesh ofEmmanuel, when created by their,power of transubetantiation,to the action of the teeth, particularly the grinders. His flesh,it appears, is, according to the saered synod, subject to mastica-tion, deglutition, digestion, and all the necessary consequences.His holiness and his council seem to have entertained the samerefined sentiments as the ancient Citizens of Capernaum, who1A1Iieiebaturomnis Galliaejus doctrina. M. Paris, 12. Scatebat omnis Gallit.

ejus doetrina. Malm. III. P. 63. Omnis pene Uallia ao vicinal ge.otes eo maloCl..uamcitiasime laborarent. .AJ.. an. de Euoh. L 21. Ornnes GallOil, ItalOil, et An-gJOIllUia jam pene corruperat pravitatibus. Westm. in Ush. Co 7.I Ei, cam nullo valemt obeiatere. AlberiC1l8 evocabatur ad synodum. Leo.m. 33. t'oOil erat, qui Bereugario reaponderet, licet Papa fortiter inst.i~t.H..,.. u 5. Null. us Berenpiio reUatere valeret. Mabil101l, 5. 139. SJgODlU8IX. BUa. 7. !73.'J'Welitua6Dll1Ju atieritur. Gibert, 3. 330. Crabb. 2. 766. Labb.}j. 46..~ _. :o.cIaer7. 4. 616. 0lmi8iu, 4. 468.

Page 419: The Variations of Popery

BERENGARIAN CONTROVERSY ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 419

understood the Lord's words in a literal sense. Christians,according to the holy Roman council, enjoy a carnival in thesacrament, similar to the festivals of the polite cannibals ofFegee and New Zealand. The confession remains a foul stainon the synod from which it emanated, and a filthy blot in theannals of the papacy.Lombard censured the grossness of this confession. Simica

denounced it, if not interpreted with caution and ingenuity, as agreater heresy than Berengarianism. Aquinas refers the attri-tion of the teeth to the species of accidents. The angelic doctorsinvented a plan, by which the jaws could chew form withoutsubstance, and masticate color, taste, and smell. The synodof Arras, however, in 1025, denied that c the Lord's body is con-sumed by the mouth or ground by the teeth.' The modernshave abandoned the absurdity. Caron characterises the Romansynod's creed, as a heresy. Challenor warns the communicantagainst' chewing with the teeth;' though, in so doing, he sub-jects himself to an anathema of a holy Roman council 1This precious specimen of blasphemy and absurdity, issued

by a Roman council headed by a Roman pontiff, Berengarius,through human frailty and horror of death, signed and sworeto maintain. The profession, however, was only hypocrisyand extorted by intimidation. Shielded by the protection ofhis ancient patrons, he relapsed into heresy, declared his de-testation of the creed which he had subscribed, and characterisedthe Roman synod as an assembly of vanity, and the popedomas the throne of Satan.Berengarius signed a second confession, in the year 1078.

Gregory the Seventh assembled a Roman council for the pur-pose of terminating the controversy. This synod differed fMmthe former in its decisions. Gregory and his clergy allowedBerengarius to renounce his former confession and substituteanother. This, in reality, was a virtual, if not a formal con-demnation and repeal of the creed prescribed by Nicholas andhis synod, and sanctioned by their authority. This new confes- •sion, which Berengarius composed and signed, merely signifiedthat 'the bread and wine, after consecration, became theLord'strue body and blood." This form of belief might have beensubscribed by Zuinglius, Calvin, Cranmer, or Knox. The,ZUinglians, in fact, at Marpurg, admitted the true presence ofthe body and blood in the sacrament. Expressions of a similar

1Attritio dentium referatur ad apeciem. Aquin. 3. 372. HlllCgratia nonCOD8umitur mol'llib1lll,nee dentibua taritur. Dachery, 1. 6lJ. Labb. 11. 1161,1£.'6. Caren, 90. Cball6ll. 61.I Profitebatur ~8J!l. aitarill pod co~onem eIlI8 venun corpua Christi.

Coeaan, 2. 28. .MabiIloII, 6. 125.

Page 420: The Variations of Popery

420 THE VARIA-TIONS OF POPERY.

f

or identical kind may be found in the reformed confessions ofSwitzerland, France, Strasbourg, Holland, and England,'The Roman clergy were divided in their opinion of this con-

fession. One party acknowledged its catholicism; while anotherfaction maintained its heresy. The latter insisted on the pre-scription of another creed, which might be free from ambiguity.Its error and inadequacy have, in modern times, been concededby Alexander, Cossart, and Mabillon. Alexander complains ofits trickery, Cossart, like many others, of its heresy, and Mabil-Ion of its equivocation and insufficiency,"Gregory seems to have embraced the same opinions as Beren-

garius on the communion. His infallibility declared 'that heentertained no doubt but Bereugarius had, on this institution,adopted the scriptural idea, and all that was necessary for thefaith of Catholicism," This, in his holiness, was an unequivocalprofession of Berengarianism.Pope Gregory was countenanced in his heterodoxy by Lady

Mary. His infallibility, actuated by hypocrisy or fanaticism,was accustomed, on every difficult or important emergency, toconsult her ladyship. Mary, on this occasion, answered withoracular decision, that' nothing should be acknowledged on thissubject, but what is contained in authentic scripture-againstwhich Berengarius had no objection," The mother of God, itappears, a thousand years after her assumption, became a here-tic, opposed transubstantiation, and patronised Berengarianism.This was a sad defection in the queen of heaven and star of thesea. The blessed Virgin should have been transported topurgatory or the inquisition, to atone for her apostasy from thefaith.His infallibility, whatever may have become of her ladyship,

was, in 1080, condemned for Berengarianism by thirty bishops,in the council of Brescia. This assembly found his holinessguilty of attachment to 'the Berengarian heresy, and callingm question the apostolic truth of the- Lord's body and blood,"

~ 1Nequenegare volunt verum corpus et B&Dg11inem ChriBti ade!uIe. Secken·dar£, 138. Chouet, 67, 109, 110, 120, 204-2 Fidei prof6llllionem edidit anbdolis verbis conceptam. Alex. 18. 24.0. Qui·

dam Catholicam agnoverunt, Bed alii latere in Illaveneni &liquid hreretici. Coss.2. 28. BerenganUB brevem fidei llWB formulam Bed insufficientem ediderat.Sub his veri corporis et sanguinis verbis requivoca latere, non immerito credere-tv. Mabillon, 5. 25, 139.a Ego ll1ane til de Christi sacrificio BeC1lJldnm sariptarlIB bene 8llntire non

dnbito."'Marten. TheB&Ul'. 4. 108. Fidei professionem _ll~ ipso BerengariaeditaaDt ad fidem Ca~ aufficere dixi8Bet Gregoriua. Mabillon, 5. 140., liihil de Christi IIIIoCrificio cogitandum, nihil teDendu:m ~ id nod babe-

rent Il1ltheD.ticat aoriptm'*'J, contra quu BereDpriuB nihil ~tint. ~inon,1.~"loa.I ~ eacharistia fidem in 1UlIlIItioaem ~ -' :BeNopzii _.q.... .....,....... VabiJ1on. 6. 141,. eo... 2. is. :r.bb. 12. G4.6.

Page 421: The Variations of Popery

BERENGARIAN CONTROVERSY ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 421

The vicar-general of God and the queen of Heaven, in this man-ner, patronised a heretic and encouraged one another in hetero-doxy.Gregory's partiality to Berengarianism ap~ also from his

treatment of its author. He honored him with his friendship,and protected him against his persecutors. He anathematisedall who should injure his person or estate, or call him a heretic.He recommended him to the protection of the Bishop of Toursand Angers against the enmity of Count Fulco. He shewed noresentment against his renunciation of his former profession.He refused to attempt anything against Berengarius, and lefthis enemies, who endeavored to overwhelm him with invectiveand perplex him with sophistry, to fret, and fume, and growlwithout a remedy or opportunity to gratify their malevolence.Gregory, however, importuned by some of the disaffected

clergy, who persecuted Berengarius and hated his theology, wasinduced, notwithstanding his predilection for this author and hissystem, to summon another council for the final settlement ofthe controversy. A Roman synod accordingly met in 1079.This assembly consisted of the prelacy from' the adjoining anddifferent other regions,' and therefore represented the faith,which, on this topic, was, in the eleventh century, entertainedin various nations of the Christian commonwealth.The holy Roman synod, however, displayed, in the Lateran,

the head-quarters of Catholicism, the utmost diversity of senti-.ment. Some held one opinion, and some another. One partymaintained transubstantiation. The other patronised Beren-garianism ; and endeavored, accordin~ to the partial accountsof these transactions, to support their error and deceive them-selves and others with cavils. The majority advocated a sub-stantial change of the elements in the communion. The minorityrepresented the bread and wine only as signs, and the substan-tial body as sitting at the right hand of God. The disputationcontinued for three days. The council, in the end, came to anagreement, which, when compared with the tw:oformerdecisions,seems to have been effected by mutual concessions. A confes-sion was imposed on Berengarius, declaring the change in thebread and wine after consecration, to be, not merely sacramentaland figurative, but also true and substantial. 2This confession differed, both by omission and addition, from

the former issued under Nicholas and Gregory in two holyRoman councils, Tbeimpiety of breaking the Lord's body withI,DuPin, 2. 199. Labb.;2.630. Dachery,.4. 514.2 Multia hrec,nonnullis ill..sentientibua. Quidam vero Clllcitate nimia etlonga

perculai,figuram tantum,aubstantiale illudcorpua indexter&. Paw sedanl_;ae at alioe decipientee quibuadam cavillationibua. Labb. 12. 629. Bin.7. 488.

Page 422: The Variations of Popery

422 THE VAIUA.TIONB OF POPERY.

the hands and grinding it with the teeth, enjoined by Nicholasand his clergy in 1059, was omitted; and the epithet substantialwas added to the prior formularly enacted in 1078. This is noconvincing proof of unity. The third is a medium between theother two, and seems to have been a compromise for the sakeof peace and harmony. Two factions opposed each other inthis theological campaign. Each, for the purpose of terminatingthe war, made concessions; and the result was a creed in ter-mediate between the two previous forms of belief.Transubstantiation, after the death of Berengarius, advanced

by slow and gradual steps to maturity. Some continued to re-sist its inroads on the truth of Christian theology. But themajority of the clergy and laity, in the spirit of perversity andthe phrensy of superstition, adopted the deformity. Its patrons,however, found great difficulty in moulding the monster intoform. Many editions of the novelty were circulated throughChristendom; and all exhibited the changes of correction andthe charms of variety. The council of the Lateran, in 1215,enrolled i~among the canons of the Romish communion, andthe Lateran decision was confirmed at Constance, and finallyestablished at Trent,'The partisans of transubstantiation, having by number, if not

by reason, defeated the enemy, quarrelled among themselves.The foreign war against the adversary was followed by internalsedition among its friends. The subject, indeed, opened a widefield for refinement and ingenuity. Some believed, somedoubted, and some speculated. Lombard could not definewhether the transmutation of the sacramental elements wassubstantial, or formal, or of some other kind. Aquinas andGabriel, says Erasmus, grant the diversity of opinions on thisquestion, even among orthodox theologians. Caj~tan admitssimilar variations. Guitmond and Algerus, in the eleventhcentury, mention many variations of opinion circulated on thistopic in their day. Some, according to these cotemporaryhistorians, imagined that the transformation extended only to apart, and some to the whole of the elements. Some allowed achange in the wine of the communion, but such as in the waterof baptism. One party fancied that the bread and wine, thoughchanged to 'the worthy, resumed their own substance when pre-sented to the wicked. Another faction, in the wild wanderingsof imagination and extravagancy, admitted a transmutaion ofthe bread and wine into flesh and blood~ but not into those ofthe Son of God. One class alleged the same union betweenthe' cODsecrated elements and the Divine Emmanuel as between1Crabb. to.. Labb. 18. 519. Bin. 9. 380. Labb. lB. 930.

Page 423: The Variations of Popery

DIVERSITY OF OPINIONS ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 423

his Deity and humanity, or a hypostatical union of the Mediatorto the substance of the bread. . Another alleged, that not thesubstance, but the entity remained, but changed into Christ'sbody. Some believed the digestion and the corruption of thebread and wine ; while others denied this theory. Some specu-lators thought that the metamorphosis ~was effected by thechange of the elements, and some by their annihilation. Thecreed-makers, on this innovation, seem, according to their tasteor fancy, to have embraced impannation, consubstantiation, octransubstantiation. Man:r of the sage and useful theologiansof the day diversified their systems with lofty speculations onthe sublime and fragrant topic of stercorsnism, with all itsattendant and lovely train of grandeur and purity,'The schoolmen subtilised theory into nonsense and hair-

breadth distinctions. These doctors brought all their attenuated.discriminations into requisition on this mystery, and dividedand subdivided without end or meaning, on the topics of mat-ter, form, substance, and accidents. The real body, accordingto Scotus, is present by circumscription; but according toAquinas and his followers, not by circumscription, but by pene-tration, and the modality, not of quantity, but of substance.'These metaphysicians, of course, knew their own meaning inthese I words of learned length and thundering sound.' Scho-lasticism, indeed, like metaphysics, is a learned and ingeniousway of talking nonsense; and of shewing an author's ignorance.The Dominicans and Franciscans, as usual, encountered each

other in theological combat on this subject, at the council ofTrent. The Dominicans contended,· that the substance of thebread is changed by transmutation into the substance of theLord's body. No new matter, according to this system, is added,but the old transformed. The Franciscans maintained thattransubstantiation is effected, not by the conversion of the breadinto the Lord's body, but by the recession of the former, andthe accession of the latter. The bread, except the species,politely retires, according to this theory, for the purpose ofgiving place to the flesh of Emmanuel. Dominican and Fran-ciscan enmity, in this manner, evaporated in mutuwnonsenseand contradiction.The jargon of the two schools on substance, form, matter,1An formaJiB, an substantialia, an alterius generie, definire non suffi.cio. Lonr'

bard, IV. Nee ipee ThoDI8B.nee hoc recentior Gabriel disaimulant varias thea-logoram,hac de re, fui8se lMlIlteniiaa etiam ort)lodoxorum. Eraam. 9, 1065.VIIrim mlll'QJlt opiDionea eruditonun. Cajetan, in AquiD. 3. 348. Alger

.ProI. Bruy. 2. 398. DB Pin, 2. 203. 00'.&bItuitiam et JUlturam pauia hyponatioe lIDire Christo. Faber, IV. D. Il,

c. 3 .Aiu dix81'1lJlt, JIAlC n.betr.ntiam paIIis lIWlere I8d entitatem pania manere ta-

IIl8Il convenam in 00l'pUII ChriBtii. Faber, 1. 188. Aq,uiDaa, 3. 385-I Aquina. m ll6. V. P. 3liO, 360, 363. Cjetem inAquiD. 3. 348.

Page 424: The Variations of Popery

424 THE VARIATIONB OJ!' POPERY.

nature, body, quantity, magnitude, locality, annihilation, andtranformation was unintelligible to all others, though clear toits several advocates, who, with reason, represented the contraryas attended with infinite absurdity. Forms of faith were com.posed, which, adoptin~ something from each, might satisfy both.But the accommodation pleased neither party. The generalcongregation therefore resolved to employ only a few words andgeneral expressions, suited, as much as possible, to the ideas orrather to the balderdash of the several contending factions.'Such, on the important subject of the sacrament, was the har-mony and management of the holy, apostolical, infallible, Romancouncil of Trent.The advocates of the corporeal presence, jarring in this way,

about the doctrine, differ also about its evidence. Some foundtheir faith on Revelation; some on tradition; some on miracles jand others again on these united. Its modern partisans com-monly endeavour to found their system on scriptural authority.The scriptural arguments, on the contrary, were resigned byScotus, Bellarmine, .Alliaco, Cajetan , Occam, Alphonsus,Durand, Biel, Fisher, Cusan, and Canus, who rest their belief,not on the Bible, but on the testimony of tradition, and theauthority of the church. The majority wish to draw theirproofs from both scriptural and traditional declarations.Many, on this subject, have called in the extraordinary aid of

I miracles. The Lord' B body and blood, according to Pascasius,the father of the deformity, has often appeared visible on thealtar. ' God, from heaven,' says BiDius,' confuted Berengariusby miracles.' , God,' says -Dens, 'hath confirmed this truth byopen and frequent miracles, wrought in various places andtimes.' Pope Gregory, in 600, convinced a Roman lady bysimilar means. A Roman matron, when his holiness was cele-brating mass, had the audacity to smile at the idea of calling amorsel of bread the body of the Lord. The pontiff, pitying thewoman's incredulity, prayed, in conjunction with the people, toGod for a sensible manifestation of the mystery, to overcomethe wornan's unbelief. The sacramental bread, in consequence,'was changed into bloody flesh." The lady, of ~ourse, couldhave no objection to an argument of this kind, and immediatelybelieved. This, the silly and superstitious Mabillon considersas a powerful corroboration of the truth .. . Odo, in 960. undeceived, by this means, se~eral unbelievingl"On lie ~t; 9'acoo.rder, lIs ne pouvoient s'entendre eti.1:-memea. Paolo, 1.

li3O. l>Q PiD,3. 475. Labb. 17. SIB.2 Deua a ClIIl10 'IlIiJoaculia R..-.........;um conmtavit. Bin. 7.> ~5. Veritatem

~ Malia. Deus ~~":"'. et frequentia miracula, variia locisef; ~ ~ Dena, 8. 2s:llOt'p:digiti B&DgUine Cl'lI8Iltam advertit.l4aW1. 'to .."1'.... AD. 10l18. D.ch. S. IS: ~ .

Page 425: The Variations of Popery

TRANSUBSTANTLlTION SUPPORTED BY PRETENDED MIRACLES. 426

clergymen. Seduced by the spirit of error, some of the clergymaintained that the bread and wine, even after consecration,retained their substance, and were only the signs of flesh andblood. But Odo prayed, and the host, in consequence, duringthe solemnization of mass in the priest's hands, , began to dropblood," The phenomenon, it may be easily conceived, silencedall opposition.Wonders of a similar description have sometimes appeared,

not to remedy unbelief, but to reward sanctity. This was thecase with .Mary, Hugo, and NatiYity. These saints had thepleasure, during the solemnity of mass, to see Jesus in the formof an infant of unparalleled beauty. The child, which sisterNativity beheld, was living and clothed with rays of light;while eager to be received, or in other terms, swallowed, hedesired, iIi infantile accents, to be devoured. This ridiculousif not blasphemous tale constitutes part of a Revelation whichhas been lately eulogized by Rayment, Hodgson, Bruning, andMilner.2 •

The variations of the transubstantiated God are diversified asthe opinions of his votaries. The Protean God of the Greeksand Romans, famed in ancient mythology and song for his mul-tiplicity of forms, has been eclipsed in his own department bytlie popish Deity. .All the metamorphoses recorded in Ovidianverse are nothing compared with the transformations of thisdivinity. His godship, in his variations in his pre-exis-tent state, prior to his deification, presents a curious speci-men of natural history. His materials 8.1:eenclosed 1D awheaten grain, and he blooms in the wheaten field.. He imbibesthe sap of the earth, sucks the dews of night, and drinks therain o~the clouds. The future god, by th~ means, ri~ns to. matunty under the suns of heaven. The flail and the mill ad-vance his deity a few more steps towards his final"apotheosis.:r'he confectioner moulds this new god into new forms, andintroduces him to new acquaintances. He is exhibited to theeye in It mass of pastry, composed of flour and water. His chiefchemical elements are carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. He ~however, in this state, near his promotion. He is rounded into3 wafer, handed to the altar, and, at the mutterin~of somesorrypriest, wonderful to tell, starts into a god. The new-madeDeity is immediately exhibited for adoration "on the bendedknee. He is then placed in the mouth, swallowed down thethroat, and safely lodged in the stomach of his manufacturer andw~hippers. He is next, )y ~tion or some other way,destined to undergo a chemical analysis, and to be resolved~~ gutWim de1laere 00lpit. Mabillon. 3. 556. Osbem, 83.

7,6408, 710. Dacbery, 1. 612., • •.-

Page 426: The Variations of Popery

426 THE Vt-RIA.TIONS OF :('OPERY.

into his constituent principles. Bnt his future history andtransmigrations may be left to the filthy historian of ster-coranism. , .Transubstantiation, varying, in this manner, from scriptural

and ecclesiastical antiquity, and diversified by the jarring opin-ions of its patrons and the transformations of its God, variesalso from reason and common sense. Nothing, indeed, inventedby man ever equalled it in irrationality. The theory present.'!the last test of human credulity, and the grand consummationof unqualified absurdity. Search the vast range of religionand philosophy; examine the wide amplitude of folly andsuperstition; and you will find no other opinion so utterly in-compatible with reason, so completely fraught with inconsis-tency, and so entirely irreconcileable with common sense. Thewhole system is like the fairy :fiction of some visionary labour-ing with nonsense, some speculator straining to invent an ab-surdity, or some satirist resolved to ridicule the faith of itspartisans.Transubstantiation varies from our ideas of matter and the

evidences of the senses, while it presents the absurdity of creat-ing the Creator, and the horror of cannibalism in eating anincarnated God. This dogma contradicts all our ideas of mate-rial substances. Matter, it represents as divested of dimension,figure, parts, impenetrability, motion, divisibility, extension,locality or quantity. Length, breadth, and thickness, accord-~ to this theology, exist without anything long, broad, orthick Matter exists without occupying space or time. Sub-stance remains without accidents, and accidents without sub-stance. The same body is in many places at the same time.-Jesus, at the same instant, is entire in heaven, on earth, and onthousands of altars; while millions of bodies are but one body.A whole is equal to a part, and a part equal toa whole. Awhole human body is compressed into a host, and remainsentire and undivided ineach of ten thousand hosts. The"personwho can digest all these contradictions, must have an extraor-dinary capacity' of faith or credulity.This popish dogma also contradicts the information conveyed

by our senses. Sight, touch, taste, and smell declare flesh andblood, if this tenet be true, to be bread and wine. No man cansee, feel, taste or smell any difference between a consecratedand an unconsecrated wafer. The senses,not merely of one, butof allmen, even when neither the organ or medium is indisposed,&re, according to this theory, deceived without any possibilityof~ thefaJlacy. ThelleD8e8 too, in tbi8case, areacting in their OW'll sphere and conversant about their-=.objecta. lrfan) subjects, such as the Trinity and the

Page 427: The Variations of Popery

ABSURDITY OF TRANSUBST~NTIATION. 427

tion, are beyond the grasp of our bodily senses, and indeed ofhuman reason. These are to be judged by the testimony ofRevelation. But bread and wine are material, and level withthe view of our organs of perception. The sacramentalelements can be seen, smelled, touched, and tasted. Ourexternal organa, say the friends of transubstantion, are, inthis institution, deceived in all men, a.t all times, and on alloccasions.The patrons of this absurdity, driven from all other positions,

have recourse to the omnipotence of God. Almighty power isa very convenient resource to the abettor of inconsistency in theday of difficulty and confusion. This shield, the advocate ofabsurdity opposes to all the assaults of reason and common sense.Intrenched behind Omnipotence, he mocks the suggestions ofprobability, and laughs at the artillery of the logician. Buteven this plea will not support irrationality, or rescue its parti-sans from the grasp of the dialectician. Scriptural language isnot to be explained so as to involve a frightful absurdity. Thepatron of the corporeal presence, for the support of his fabrica-tion, modestly requires God to work an inconsistency. But in-comprehensibility is to be distinguished from impossibility, andmystery from contradiction. God works many things incom-prehensible to man; but nothing which, in itself, is con-tradiotory, Omnipotence extends only to possibility, andnot to inconsistency, to things above, but not contrary toreason.The creation of the Creator, which, according to Urban,

Biel, and many others, is implied in this dogma. is anotherdeviation from common sense, and an inroad into the dominionsof blasphemy. •The hands of the Pontiff,' said Urban in agreat. Roman Council, •are raised to an eminence poW tonone of the angels, of crea.ting God the Oreator of all things,an~ of offering him up for the salvation of the. whole world.'ThIS prerogative, adds the same a.uthority, as It eleva.tes thepope a.bove angels, renders pontifical nbmission to kings anexecration. To all this the Sacred Synod, with the utmostunanimity, responded, Amen.1 .Biel extends this power to all priests, 'He that created me,'

says the cardinal, •gave me, if it be lawful to tell, to createhimself: His holiness not only manufactures his own God,but transfers, with the utmost freedom and facility, the same

1Dioona, Dimia execrabile viOOn, ulo manua, qwe in tian1;am emjnen1iiam ex-creverunt, quod Ilulli":qrum COIlC6ll8UlI1ee1i, ·u\ Deumcunc1ia creantem BUOsignacuJ.o creent, e1i ipBUm pro salu1ii 1io1iiuamun~ Dei Pabia ob1in1ii-bUBo1Feran1i. Elo ab omm'bUB acc1aiDatum est; 'Fiat, fia1i. Hoveden, ad AmI.1099. P. ll68. Labb. l2. 960. .8I'uy, 2. 635.

Page 428: The Variations of Popery

4!8 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

prerogative to the whole priesthood. This power, Biel shews,exalts the clergy, not only above emperors and angels; but,which is a higher elevation, above Lady Mary herself. ' Herladyship,' says the cardinal, 'once conceived the Son of Godand the Redeemer of the world; while the priest daily callsinto existence the same Deity." This is very clear. Herladyship effected only once, what the clergy repeat every day,or as often as they please: and these creators of God, therefore,excel the ~other of God. These sacerdotal artisans haveestablished a manufactory on earth, in which they can, by theeasiest process and in the shortest time, forge new gods, or, atleast, new editions of the old one. Lady Mary, in this manner,is the mother of God, and the creating priest, in Urban'ssystem, is his father.The Deity, created in this manner, is a very convenient ar-

ticle. He may be deposited on the altar, put into the pocket,carried in a box, swallowed down the throat, or used for moredetestable purposes. Pope Theodorus, in 648, anathematisedPyrrhus, the Monothelan Patriarch, and subscribed his condem-nation with the consecrated wine, which, of course, was his in-fallibility's God. This transaction was accompanied with all .that is calculated to strike the mind of superstition with terror.The pontiff, standing at the tomb of the chief of the apostles,called for the vivifying cup, and taking a drop from the livingblood of Jesus, signed, with his own hand, the excommunicationof Pyrrhus and all- his communion. Gregory the Seventh, onone occasion, committed the Host to the flames. The Councilof Constantinople, in 869, signed the condemnation of Photiuswith a pen dipped in this transubstantiated God. The EmperorMichael and Basil, his chamberlain, subscribed an oath for thesafety of Bardas on a Cretan expedition with the consecratedwine, which was supplied, on the occasion, by Photius theByzantine patriarch; and this engagement, Basil afterwardsviolated,"The popish clergy, as'they make,80 they eat their God, and

transfer him to be devoured by others. The papist adores t~eGod whom he eats, and eats the God whom he adores. ThISdivinity is tasted, masticated, swallowed, and, accidents ex-cepted, digested. The partisan of popery, in this manner,

1Qui cnam me, iiifas esf; dicere, dedit mihicreare lie. Semel concepit. DeiftJium, eundem Deiiilium advocant quotidie eorporaliter. Biel, Leet. 4-2 Amr,rnu 'I'll , ... 1rO'rI/P- IE. TIIV (-.How ..,.,-or 'nIV Xflu"'OV .... _ '"' ,3la

1:]..."."11uppov. Theoph. 219, 370.. . )eta]a'" HOIItie daDa Ie feu. Bruy, 2. 472. MabillOD, 1. 4l11: 7

_ ...... ~.oe~._JellllBgdeJ __ Moren. .201.

Page 429: The Variations of Popery

CANNIBALI8K OF TRANSUBS'l'ANTIATION. ..29

worships and swallows a God of paatry, which, if made bigenough, would furnish a breakfast for himself or for his dog.The mandueation of the sacramental elements, if transub-

stantiation be true, makes the communicant the rankest cannibal.The patron of the corporeal presence, according to his ownsystem, devours human flesh and blood: and, to show therefinement of his taste, indulges in all the luxury of cannibalism.He rivals the polite Indian, who eats the quivering limbs anddrinks the flowing gore of the enemy. The papist evenexceeds the Indian in grossness. The cannibals of Americaor New Zealand swallow only the mangled remains of anenemy, and would shudder at the idea. of devouring any otherhuman flesh. But the partisans of Romanism glut themselveswith the flesh and blood of a friend. The Indian only eats thedead, while the Papist, with more shocking ferocity, devoursthe living. The Indian eats man of mortal mould on earth.The Papist devours God-man, as he exists exalted, immortal,and glorious in heaven. Papal exceeds even Egyptian stupidi-ty. The Egyptians indeed worshipped sheep, oxen, garlic,and onions. But even these deluded votaries of idolatry andsuperstition, in all their barbarism and indelicacy, abstainedfrom eating the objects of their adoration. But the believer inthe corporeal presence at once worships and swallows, adoresand devours his Deity. This oral manducation would, shook-ing to say, make Jesus more inhuman than Saturn. Saturn,according to Pagan mythology, devoured his own offspring.Jesus, according to the Popish theology, swallowed his ownflesh. He ate the consecrated bread and drank the hallowedwine, which he administered to his apostles. Such are thehorrors which follow in the train of this absurdity .. This is the light in which the corporeal presence has beenViewed,not only by Protestants, but also by J eW8,Mahometans,and Heathens. 'Christians,' said Crotus the Jew, •eat theirGod: I have travelled over the world, said Averroes, theArabian philosopher, and seen many people; but none sosottish and ridiculous 8B Christians, who devour the God whomthey worship,' Cicero entertained a similar opinion. Whom,said the Roman orator, do you think so demented as to believewhat he eats to be God 12 Roman philosophy shames and con-founds Romish theology.Aimon, La.nfmnc, Hugo, Durand, Aquinas, Bernard, Alcuin,

Pithou, Faber, Lyra, and the Trentine Catechism have indeedI Ch.ristiani comedunt De1Im mnm. Dachery, 3. 60.

7QU adoret a&qu'ihI maugent. :Bayle, 1. 386. Perron, III. 29. :Morery 1k AqaiD. a. 1f1I••2Ecq_ tuB amm4mn ... pIdM, qai ntad quo veecatur. Deum oredat _.Cicero, De Natala. Deor. In

Page 430: The Variations of Popery

430 THE V.AIUATIO~S Oll' POPERY.

endeavored to gild the Cannibalism of Popery.' These admitthe horror of feeding on human flesh and blood in their ownforms. But the sacramental elements, say they, appear underthe speciesof bread and wine that conceal the human substance,which, in consequence, becomes, these theologians seem tothink, a great delicacy.The statements of these authors present a curious attempt to

disguise the grossness and inhumanity of eating human flesh.Aimon, in Dachery, represents' tbe· taste and figure of breadand wine as remaining in the sacrament, to prevent the horrorof the communicant.' Similar statements are found in Lan-franc. According to this author, '.The species remain, lestthe spectator should be horrified at the sight of raw and bloodyflesh. The nature of Jesus is concealed and received forsalvation, without the horror which might be excited by blood.'Hugo acknowledges that ' few would approach the communion,if blood should appear in the cup, and the flesh should appearred as in the shambles. Hunger itself, which would be dis-gusted at such bloody food.' Durand admits, that 'humaninfirmity, unaccustomed to eat man's flesh, would, if the sub-stance were seen, refuse participation.' Aquinas avows' thehorror of swallowing human flesh and blood.' 'The smell,thespecies, and the taste of bread and wine remain: says thesainted Bernard, 'to conceal flesh and blood, which, if offeredwithout disguise as meat and drink, might horrify humanweakness.' According to Alcuin in Pithou, '.Almighty God

1Propter BtUD.entiumhonorem, sapor panis at vini remanet et figura. AimoD,in Daeh. 1. 42.Reeervatis ipsarmn rerum speeiebns, at quiblllldam allia qualit&tibus, no perei-

pienteB cruda at eroent& horrerent. Lanfranc, 244-Christi natura oontegitur, et sine crtloriBhorrore a dignll lIUDlentibusin ealn-

tem aecepitur. Lanfrane, 248.Si cruor in oalioe fiem manifeBtnB at ai in macello Christi rnberet Bna caro,

rarUB in terrill ille qui hoo non abhorreret. HURO, de corp. 70. .Fragilitas humana, qUlll BUiB carnibUII nqn conaueTit veBci, ipso TiBU nihil

hanriat, quod l!.orreat. Durand, in Lanfrano, 100.Non est conauetum hominibna, horribilem cr.rnem hominia comedere et sangui.

nem bibere. Aquin. III. 75. 'V. P. 357.Odor, speeiea .. por, ponduB remanent, ut horror penituB tollatur, ne hamana

infirmitas eeenm oamiB et potum Ban~ in sumptione horreret. Bernard,1682-Conanlena omnipotena Dena infirmit&ti nonrM, qui non habemus UBUm come-dare carnem erndam et sanguinem bibere, femilut in priBtina l'llmanens fonnaina duo munera. Meuin in Pithou, 467.Similitudinem preciOlli B&DgUinia bibia, ut nullin. honor cruoriB, Pithou, 460.

N~ue decuiMet manducare cr.rnemCh:rmi.ub propria forma. Faber, 1. 127.8i daretnr in propria specie et mout laniatur vel vendiw in D1acel!o,quod

__ hDrribile. Lyra in Coaart, 4. 457..A. CIlIlIUIlUDihlminum Datara maxime abhorreat h1lllll1U8 CIlI'JJiI -. aut 1I&Il-• • pmioDe neci. . tiIIime fecit, .t lIIIDotiaimum et . lIUb::=.... .,..;.:':t mi nobia admiDiaVuetur. C:=Trid. ~

f

Page 431: The Variations of Popery

CANNmALISM OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 431

causes the prior form to continue in condescension to the frailtyof man, wh8' is unused to swallow raw flesh and blood.' Thepartaker, says Pithou in the Canon Law, drinks the likenessof blood, and. therefore no horror is excited, nor any thing donewhich might be ridiculed by pagans.' The statements of Faberand Lyra are to the same effect. According to the TrentineCatechism, 'the Lord's body and blood are administered underthe species of bread and wine, on account of man's horror ofeating and drinking human flesh and blood.' These descrip-tions are shocking, and calculated, in some measure, to awakenthe horror which they pourtray.The accidents, it appears, which remain after consecration,

are like sugar, which conceals bitter medicine from a child andrenders it pleasing and palatable. This is actually the simile ofHugo. He compares the forms of the bread and wine to theingredients with which a physician would sweeten a bitter-dranght for llo squeamish patient,' Human flesh and blood,clothed in this manner with the external appearance of breadand wine, may, according to popish divinity, be swallowedwithout any disgust or nausea i and with pleasure and goodtaste. The apology, however, is a very silly device. The samereason might excuse the Cannibals of New Zealand. TheAmerican savage might mix human gore with other food, andcover human flesh with something less offensive to the senses,so as to disguise the outward appearance, and then glut hisappetite with a full meal. He would then enjoy the substanceclothed with another exterior. All this, however, would notexemp. the barbarian from the brutality of anthropophagy.The Romanist, on the supposition of the corporeal presence,swallows human flesh and blood as well as the Indian.Algerus has suggested another reason for the manner in

which the Lord's body is administered in the sacrament.' Thisarises from a man's incapability of swallowing 80 human bodyin its natural dimensions. The capacity of the mouth, thelearned divine seems to think, would not admit 80 large a sup-ply, which therefore could not be submitted to the action ofthe teeth. The quantity would be too ~t for the expansionof the jaws or the process of mastication. A whole' humancrasis would, according to this author, exceed the powers ofdeglutition. The throat, being too contracted for its object,might fail at the swallow. But the substance being reducedto the size of 8. wafer is' managed with the utmost facility.

1Sicut mediClUl futimenti egro &U1Iteram potionem per alienaa duleedinlllltemperando .. pont. Hugo in Lufranc, 70.t Du Pia, 2. 2M

Page 432: The Variations of Popery

4132 THE V.A.RIA.TIONS OF POPERY.

The whole, when enclosed in the host, goes'down the gulletwith convenience, ease, and rapidity. ..Transubstantiation exposes the popish deity to be devoured

not only by man, but also by the irrational animals. Thisdivinity may yield a rich repast to mice, rats, vermin, worms,and every reptile that crawls on the earth. The smallest mouse,says Bernard, sometimes gnaws the species of the bread .Anevent of this kind proselyted Gage, author of the Survey, fromRomanism. A sacrilegious mouse sallied forth, seized, and, intriumph, carried off the wafer God whom the priest had made,The priest alarmed the people, who, distracted like Micahofold about his gods, began to search for the thief that had stolentheir Almighty. The malefactor that committed the depreda-tion escaped. The God, however, was found, but mutilatedand mouse-eaten. The half-devoured Jehovah was carried inprocession about the church amidst joyful and solemn music,'The transaction was the means of showing Gage, though apriest, the absurdity of his opinion, and teaching him a morerational system.

! Bernard, 1683. Gage, 197. Judges, xviii 24.

Page 433: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER XIV.

COMMUNION IN ONE KIND.

IT, CONTRARIETY TO SCRIPTURAL INSTITUTION-cONOESSIONIl-ARGUMENTIl-ITSCONTRARIETY TO THE USAGII: 01' THE EARLY AND MlDDLII AGEIl-CONOEBSIONS-ITS OONTRARIETY TO THE OUSTOM: 01' THII OIlU:NTAL OHRIIlTIANS-QBIGII!I 01'HALF'OOMMUNION-COUNOIL 01' OONST.ANOE AI!ID BASIL-INOONIlISTlII!IOY 01' THBCONeT.ANTIAI!I AND BAIlILUN OANON8-INCONIlI8TENOY 01' THE JlAIlILIAN A88BM-BLY WITH ITII OWN BN.ACTXENTII IN GRANTING THE CUP TO THE XOBA.VUI!IIlAND BOHEIl:IAN8-00UNCIL 01' TBBNT-OPPOIlITlON TO TltB T1lENTIN2 CANOn INFRANCII, GIliBMANY, BOHEMIA, POL.AI!IP AND HUNGAIIT.

COMMUNION in one kind, the child of transubstantiation, con-sists in the administration of the sacramental bread only,without the cup, to the laity and non-officiating clergy. Bothelements, indeed, are always consecrated and received hy theadministrator. The sacrificial character of the institution,acoording to papal theology, requires the distinct consecrationof the bread and the wine, in order to represent the separationof the body and blood of the immolated victim. The officiatin~priest participates in both species; but the people only in one.The cup, for the prevention of scandal and accidents, is withheldfrom the laity.'Communion in one kind is contrary to Scriptural institution.

The Divine Institutor administered both the bread and thewine to all who communicated; and commanded them to drinkas well as to eat. He neither dispensed the sacrament, norauthorised its dispensation, under one form.'This, indeed, has heen granted, in general, by popish doctors

and councils. Such is the admission of Pascal, Ragusa,Bellarmine, Erasmus, Gibert, and Cajetan. These acknow-ledge that 'our Lord instituted the sacrament under bothspecies;' and they hsve been followed, in more modern times,by Bossuet, Gather, Petavins, Challenor, Du Pin, and Milner.The council of Constance makes a similar concession. TheLord, according to this assembly, 'instituted the sacmment,

• Labb. 16. 218. et 17. 317. et 20. 122. Paolo VL Bau. §. 17. Gother, c. 21.Challenor, 52., Matt. xxvi. Zl. MRk, xiv. 23. 1 Conn. xi. 28.

BB

Page 434: The Variations of Popery

434 THE V.A.!UATIONS OF POPERY.

and administered it to his disciples in both elements of breadand wine.' The admission of the Trentine Synod, whichacknowledges' our Lord's administration of each species in theoriginal institution: is to the same purpose.'But these theologians and synods, notwithstanding their

concessions, have urged the propriety of half-communion. Theirattempts at proof, however, in which they endeavor to throwobscurity over a plain subject, and to puzzle, when they cannotreason, are of the most awkward and contemptible kind. Thisquestion was discussed in a general congregation at Trent; andthe arguments used on the occasion supply a specimen of themost egregious sophistry, trifling, and dissension that ever dis-graced the annals of theology.The manna in the wilderness, said these precious divines,

which,under the Jewish dispensation, prefigured the sacramentalbread, was used without wine. The Hebrew, wandering inthe desert was destitute of wine, and had to be contented withwater from the rock; and, therefore, according to Trentinelogic, the sacramental bread, under the Christian establishment,is, notwithstanding Christ's precept and example to the contrary,to be administered without the accompaniment of the cup. Onecannot sufficiently admire the clearness and cogency of theTrentine dialectics.The Jewish laity, according to the same theologians, were

permitted to eat the flesh of the sacrificed animals; but not, onthe occasion, to drink the offered wine. The priesthood, on thecontrary, were allowed both the meat and drink. The Chris-tian clergy, therefore, according to the infallible fathers, mayuse both the sacramental elements; whilst the laity, notwith-standing our Lord's command, are entitled only to one.The Old Testament afforded the sacred synod a third proof

and illustration. Jonathan, when in pursuit of the enemy,tasted honey from the top of his staff'; but had nothing, on theoccasion, to drink. The honey which the Hebrew prince foundin the wood was unaccompanied with wine; and, therefore,the bread in the communion is, with respect to the laity andeven the non-administering clergy, to be disconnected with thecup.' .These and a few other instances that might be added, afford1Perse pa.nem, per Be vinum, ab ipso Dominotraditum. Pascal, Ep. 32. Labb.

12. 999. ChristuB m eoeas sub duplici specie tradidit. Ragusa in Labb. 17.865.ChristuB iDstitnit sub dnplici specie. Bell. IV. 4. Prreter anetoritatem Scrip·tnrre Divinre dimidinm ejus B&CraIUentisubtraherent laiciB. Eraam. Con. Mon.1066. Gibert, 3. 331. Cajetan in Aquin. 3. 393.ChristuB inBtitnit et BUis. discipnliB administravit Bub utraque specie, panis et

vini. hoc venerabile sacramentum. Labb. 16..218. DominUB hoc sacramentumin pIUIia '" viDi ~ebns iDstituit. Labb. 20. 122., Paolo. 2... Eatitul, 1. 330.

Page 435: The Variations of Popery

POPISH ARGUMENTS FOR COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 435

a specimen of the understanding and intelligence manifested bythe Trentine doctors. .The bishops, who seem to have posseesed, rather more common sense than the divines, became weary of, the discussion. The episcopal patience was fairly exhaustedby the tedious balderdash and prolix verbosity of the theologicalorators. Courayer, on Paolo, admits the vexatious and provok-ing weakness of the arguments used at Trent by the learneddoctors. 'The statements of the Trentine divines were as discordant

as they were nonsensical. Each had his own opinion, which,however foolish or unfounded, he held with the utmost pertin-acity. The spirit of faction also actuated the learned doctors.One party, consisting of sixty-three divines, attacked the differentopinions of the rest without discrimination or mercy. Thetheological gladiators, in this manner, displayed the unity ofRomanism in the holy council by unwearied altercation, diver-sity, and debate.Gerson, followed by Bossuet, resolves the contrariety in the

Scriptural and Popish manner of administration by summoningecclesiastical exposition to their aid. Divine Revelation, whichis the rule of faith, admits, according to this author, 'someinterpretation.' Bossuet and a thousand other Bomish doctorss~ to the same tune, and subject the Lord's expression to thearbitrary explanation of the church or popish hierarchy.'This kind of theological alchemy is an easy mode of trans-

forming Revelation and removing a difficulty. Gerson andBossuet had only to assume, as right, the gloss of the popishhierarchy, which these doctors dignify with the name of thechurch. But assumption is no proof. The principle, assertedby Gerson and Bossuet, would, if admitted, substitute the com-mandments of men for the revelation of heaven, and like thetraditions of the Jewish Rabbins, 'make the word of God ofnone effect.' The gloss, in this ease, would make the inspiredlanguage mean the direct contrary of what it says. The Scrip-tural expression enjoins the use of the cup on all, clergy andlaity; while the Popish interpretation would restrict it to thepriesthood, to the utter exclusion of the people.The council of Trent, differing from Gerson and Bossuet,

arrogated, for the church, the power, not only of convenient andaecommodating explanation, but also, retaining the substance, 'of changing and ordaining the mode of administration, accord-ing to the variety of circumstances, times and places. Thisextraordinary position, the unerring doctors attempted to evinceby a quotation from the book of inspiration. The apostle calls

1Gel'llOn inDo Pin, 3. 49. BoIIIIuet, &po. I. 17.

Page 436: The Variations of Popery

436 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

the administrators of this institution, ' the ministers of Christand the stewards of the mysteries of God.' The sacred synodmust have been at a woful loss for an argument, when theyadduced this citation, which, instead of supporting, overthrowstheir whole system. A minister or steward possesses noauthority to violate the instructions of his master. His duty,on the contrary, is to execute the commands of his Lord, whohas a right to exact obedience. Pope Pascal, accordingly, inreference to this sacrament, declared that 'it is necessary forthe faithful servant always to obey his Lord, nor to depart, bya human and novel institution, from the precept and exampleof Christ his master;' and the hierarch, in consequence, en-joined entire communion on the whole church. Similar lawswere enacted by Leo, Gelasius, and Urban.' The salutarydirections of these pontiffs, had they been followed, 'Wouldhaveprevented a world of superstition.Challenor, Arsdekin, and many other doctors endeavor to

remove the difficulty by another process. All to whom the cup,at the time of institution, was presented, were not laymen, but'priests; and the use of the wine by the clergy affords no ex-ample for its distribution to the laity.: But this argument, ifitprove any thing, proves too much, and evinces that neitherelement is to be dispensed to the people. The bread as well asthe wine, at the first celebration of this institution, was givenonly to the apostles; and Challenor, therefore, might as wellinfer that the former as that the latter are to be withheld fromthe laity.The apostles, on this occasion, even on popish principles,

represented the people. Their office,when they did not act ina sacerdotal capacity, could give them no title to whole com-munion. The lay communicants and the non-officiating clergy,in this respect are, according to the general councils of Con-stance, Basil, and Trent, precisely on an equality. Thesecouncils allow the cup only to the consecrating priest, and with-hold it from the clergy, when they do not administer, as well asfrom the people. Challenor himself declares that 'no priest,bishop or pope, even on his death-bed, when not saying mass,receives otherwise than in one kind.' Another catechist statesthat' there is no priest, though in the most exalted degree, butin private communion, receives as others do, in one kind.'But the apostles, at the appointment of the sacrament, pe~-formed no official part in the ceremony. The Son of God, In

I Necelle ... Domino lIJelTllB fidalia obtemperet, nee ab eo quod Christus~ et ~t at ~t humana et novella institutione, diceditar. Labb.12. 199. Dil Pm; 2. 286. Mabillon,'. 13. BiD. 7. 507.: ChaDenOl'. e. AndekiD, c. 5.

Page 437: The Variations of Popery

POPISH ARGUMENTS FOR COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 4:l7

person, blessed and distributed the elements. He alone, there-fore, according to the popish usage, was entitled to both kinds ;while the rest, as they did not consecrate, could, notwithstand-ing their office, partake only of one element. The DivineInstitutor, therefore, showed little respect for the future councilsof Constance, Basil, and Trent; or rather, these councils, intheir retrospective canons, manifested little deference for theDivine Institutor. Our Lord, contrary to these sacred synoda,commanded and exemplified whole communion, with respectto all who partook of the sacrament,'The patrons of half-communion argue from the name, which,

they suppose, is sometimes given to this institution in the NewTestament. This ordinance, it has been alleged, Luke, in hisgospels and in the Acts, calls' the breaking of bread,' withoutany mention of the CUp.2 But this language, if it refer to thesacrament, must be synecdochal. A part must be put for thewhole. The wine as well as the other element must, even onpopish principles, have been consecrated and received, at leastby the administrator. Consecration and reception in bothkinds is indispensable, as has been shown by Boileau, Bellar-mine, Bossuet, Challenor, and Milner. Valentia characterisedconsecration in one kind as sacrilege; and the Jesuit's sentence,Mondolfo, an Augustinian, averred at the council of Trent, tobe consentaneous with all the doctors and the whole church.The person, therefore, who invented this sophism, as well asthose who have adopted it, must have been at a miserable 1088for an argument. Their situation must have been like adrowning man, who, in the moment of desperation and ex-tremity, will catch at a straw or a shadow.Milner and many other advocates of half-communion, argue

from Paul's words to the Corinthians, 'whosoever shall eatthis bread and drink this cup.' This phrase, Milner wouldrender 'whosoever shall eat this bread OR drink this cup;'and he accuses protestants of mistranslation. The distributiveor, indeed, is the usual version of the original term. But ~beAlexandrian and Royal manuscripts, as well as the ~Yrlac,Arabic, and .Ai:thiopic versions, and some ancient editions ofthe Latin Vulgate, agree, according to Bengelius, We~tein,and Whit~, with our translation. The BaJDemay be Bald ofClemens, L..'yril,and Athanasius. The disjunctive, besides, isoften, in Greek, equivalent to the copulative. Mark's expres-sion, 'and who gave thee this authority,' is, in Luke, according

1Labb. 17.370. et 20. 122. Challenor, 55.2 L~e xxiv.~ .. Acts ii. ~ et xx. 7.. Si enim una 8IJE:Ciesabsque altera

co~~, &acrilegtum comnuttetur. Boileau, c. 13. Du Pin, 3. 550. Bellar-mm. IV ••• ChaIlenor,52. Milner, 316.

Page 438: The Variations of Popery

438 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

to the original, ' or who gave thee this authority.' Matthew'sdiction, 'the law or the prophets,' is, in Luke, agreeable tothe Greek, 'the law and the prophets.' Paul, addressing theRomans, says, ' to Abraham or his seed;' but to the Galatians,the Apostle says,' to Abraham and his seed.' Many otherexamples of the kind might be added. The copulative con-junction, in like manner, is used by Paul to the Oorinthians, inthe preceding and two following verses; and this shows thatthe intermediate expression is to be taken in the same sense.'Half-communion is contrary, not only to scriptural institu-

tion, but also to the usage of the early and middle ages. Ahost of fathers might be summoned to testify for the wholecommunion of primitive times. From these may be selectedthe unquestionable authoritr of Ignatius, Justin, Chrysostom,and Jerome.t 'One bread, says Ignatius, 'is broken, andone cup distributed to all.' 'The deacons,' says Justin, 'giveto every one present to partake of the blessed bread and wine.'Ohrysostom's attestation is to the same effect. ' One body andone cup,' says the Grecian saint, 'is presented to all.' Accord-ing to Jerome, 'the priests who administer the communion,divide the Lord's blood among the people.'The authority of Ignatius, Justin, Chrysostom, and Jerome

evinces the integrity of communion in the Christian common-wealth for 400 years. Their testimony is clear and express:and might be corroborated by the evidence of many others,such 88 Dionysius, Ireneeus, Cyprian, Oyril, and Augustine.The usage of later ages will appear from Leo, Gelasius, Urban,and P88caPPope Leo, in 443, commanded the Manicheans, who refused

the sacramental cup, to be excommunicated. This denomina-tion abhorred wine, which they called 'the gall of the dragon;'1Cor. xi. 'l7. Milner,318. Bengel. 6. 70. Wetstein. 2. 149. Whitby, 2. 193.

Clem. Srom. 1. P. 318. Lyra, 6. 61. Walton, 5. 704. Mill, 2. 381. Mark xi.28. et Luke xx. 2. Matt. v. 17. et Luke xxiv. 44. Rom. iv, 13. et Gal. iii. 16.

2 'E" "'O'M/pU'" 1'01$ clAOIS 3.. ".,..'I'/fh,. Ignat. ad Philsd, Cotel. 2. 77. A_ova,&3o«o'w IxQt1'rfl> 1'01" "'4('OJ"I'0" ,..f'I'aJo.4!J.w 1111'0 1'00 EVXClplt1'r'l'jQ'J"I'OS CIp1'oo /CCI'_00. Justin, Ap. P. 96. IlCItrw ill tTl"'"," "'POX.I'I'''' ICIU I" "'OT'plO'" Chryao8. 10.568. Hom. 18. in 2 Cor. Sacerdotes eucharistire serviunt et aanguinem Dominipopulia ejua dividunt. Jerom. 3. 1671. in Sophon. c. 3.3 Sanguinem redemptionia nostrre haurire omnino declinent. Deprehensa merit

sacrilega simulatio, notati et.proditi a aanctorum societate sacerdotali auctoritatepellantur. Leo, Serm. 4. Bin. 3. 618. Labb. 5. 283.Diviaio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potellt provenire.

GellllliusinPith?u:,45f. Aquin.~II.80.~I;P. 39~. Bar?D. 496. xx. Bruy.l.26?CorptUI DoIll1D.lCUID et saaguts Dominicus 81Dgulatim accipiatur. Urban In

Oderic, VL Labb. 12. 897, 896, 905. Mabillon, 6. 13.. Novimus.per Be panem, .per Be vinum ab ipso Domino traditum, quemmoremSIC ~ m &aneta ecclesia oouaervandum dooemua et prrecipimus. PaacaJ, Ep.32. Lebb. 12. 999. lIabillon, 6. 13. n ordonne de donner to 1& communionlea deux 8eJ*es ~pariment. Brny. 2. 593. '

Page 439: The Variations of Popery

HALF-COMMUNION NO't KNOWN IN THE EARLY AGES. 489

but attended the holy mystery to conceal their infidelity; andin consequence, were the first that practised half-communion.Their disconformity, by which they were discovered, Leotermed 'sacrilegious dissimulation,' and ordered them to beexpelled, by sacerdotal authority, from Christian society.Communion in one species, which distinguished this sect fromother Christians,· his holiness accounted a sacrilege worthy ofexcommunication.Pope Gelasius, on a similar occasion, in 495, used still

stronger and more explicit langur.ge. These men, said his holi-ness in the end of the fifth century, partook of the sacred body ;but, actuated by superstition, rejected the sacred blood. Thehierarch enjoined the entire observance or the entire relinquish-ment of the institution; because 'the division of one and thesame mystery could not be effected without great sacrilege.'His infallibility, in prospective anticipation, denounced thefuture defalcation in the mystery as sacrilege and superstition;and, by his pontifical authority, enacted that the sacramentshould be celebrated in both kinds.Aquinas avers that Gelaaius, in this instance, addressed only

the clergy. He condescends, however, to give no reason forhis assertion. Baronius, on the contrary, admits that the pontiffmakes no mention of the clergy, to whom, therefore, the words,which are general, should not be confined. The Roman cardi-nal styles the angelic doctor's account a frigid solution of thedifficulty. Binius, also differing from Aquinas, represents thepontiffs enactment as a mere temporary expedient, adoptedfor a short period, on account of the present exigence, and con-trary to former usage, which was afterwards to be resumed.Thill statement, like' the other, is a mere assumption withoutevidence. The two, disagreeing in opinion, agree in Rubstitut-ing affirmation for proof Cassander grants that the deter-minations of Leo and Gelasius are conclusive for the antiquityof entire communion. The language of these pontiffs, indeed,is general, and cannot, without the utmost violence, be restrict-ed to the priesthood.Urban, in 1095, presiding with his cardinals in the council of

Clermont, consisting of 238 bishops, with a multitude of abbotsand other persons, followed Leo and Gelasius. This pontiff, ina synod more numerous than the generality of universal coun-cils, commanded' the separate reception of the Lord's body andblood: According to his infallibility, 'no 'person, except incase of necessity, is to communicate at the altar, but mustpartake separately of the bread and wine.' Baronius andBinius suppose that this canon was issued against Berengarius,who, these authors allege, interdicted the use of the cup.

Page 440: The Variations of Popery

440 THE VARIATIONS QF POPERY.

This, however, Berengarius never attempted; and if he had,he would only have anticipated an unerring communion, andhis prohibition, which would then have been heresy, wouldnow be Catholicism. Marca and Mabillon, therefore, in dia-metrical opposition to Baronius and Binius, have shown thatUrban's injunction was directed against intinction, and waspublished before the introduction of half-communion into theRomish form of dispensation.Pope Pascal, so late as 1118, issued enactments on this

topic, similar to those of Leo, Oelasius. and Urban. 'Our Lordhimself,' said the hierarch, 'dispensed the bread and the wine,each by itself; and this usage we teach and command theHoly Church always to observe.' But Popish Christendomsoon learned to disregard his infallibility's injunctions as wellas our Lord's example.The determinations of Roman Pontiffs are corroborated by

the acknowledgements of popish theologians and councils.Such have been the concessions of Bellarmine, Baronius, Lyra,Erasmus, Cajetan, Courayer, Cassander, and Petavius,' Theancient church, say Bellarmine, Baronius, and Lyra, celebratedthis institution in both kinds. Erasmus represents half-com-,munion aa contrary to the ancient ecclesiastical custom. Theancients, according to Cajetan and Courayer, made no differ-ence, on this point, between the priesthood and the people;but admitted both to the participation of the wine as well as ofthe other element. Cassander, among other strong expressions,avers that the person who has the hardihood to deny this factmust possess an abundant stock of effrontery. Similar admis-sions have been made by Bona, Salmeron, Valentia, Alphonsus,Lindan, Aquinas, La Cerda, Vasquesius; and whole files ofother popish divines and historians.The concessions of councils, on this point, correspond with

those of theologians. Similar acknowledgements have beenmadeby the Councils of Constance, Basil, and Trent.' The GeneralCouncil of Constance, in its thirteenth session, grants that' the1Ecclesia vetus ministrabat sub duplici specie. Bell. IV. 4. Fideles olim in

eeclesia BUbutrsque specie, panis et vini communicarunt. Baron. 57. XLIV.In primitiva ecelesis, populus sub utraque specie communicarnnt. Lyra inLabb. 17. 874. Erasm. Con. Mon. 1066. Tunc populus communicavit subuiraftue ~~ie •. Cajetan in ..Aquin.13. 395. L'ancienne eglise n'a j~ misaueune qistinction sur ce pomt entre Ies prlltrell et lea Iaiques. Couray. m Paolo,2,.. Non putem aliquem paulo cordatiorem tam impndensem esse. CassanoEp. 25. In prima impudentium hominum claese. Petavius, c. 5.2 1. primitin ecelesia hujusmodi sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub

uUaque specie. Labb. 16. 218. .Ab ecclesia et sanctis patribus rationabiliterintrodllcta, et haetenus diutissime observata. Labb. 17. 370. Lenfant,2. 70 ..Ab initio Cbrisma1ue ~on infrequens utriullque speciei usus fuit; ta-men ~ temporia •. e jam mutata illa conauetudine. Labb. 20. 122.GibeJ1;.l.331. Thuan. 2. 251.

Page 441: The Variations of Popery

COMMUNION IN ONE KIND NOT PRACTISED IN THE EAST. 441

faithful, in the primitive church, received this sacrament ineach kind. This lan~uage is clear, express, and decisive.The general Council of Basil in its thirtieth session acknow-

ledged that lialf-communion was an innovation. The Basilianscalled this retrenchment 'a rational and praiseworthy custom,introduced by the church and holy fathers, and observed for along lapse of time.' The usage, which, in this manner was in-troduced, though at a distant date, into Christendom, was laterin its commencement than the era of redemption.The general Council of Trent, in its twenty-first session, ad-

mitted the same in still clearer language. According to thisconvention, •both elements were often used from the beginningof the Christian religion; but, in process of time, this usagewas changed, for just and weighty reasons.' The sacred synodhere expressly acknowledges the former use and posteriorretrenchment of the sacramental cup.The hili-communion of the Latins, varying, in this manner,

from all antiquity, is also a variation from the custom of allother Christians, Eastern and Western, at the present day.The Greeks, Nestorians, Jacobites, Armenians, and Syrians,all these, in word and' deed, deprecate the popish mutilation ofthe sacrament. Some, as the Armenians, use intinction; andothers, es the Greeks, administer the two elements mixed in aspoon. But all consider both as necessary, in some way, for theinstitution. The Western Waldensians agreed on this subject,with several oriental denominations; and these again havebeen followed by the friends of Protestantism, dispersed throughthe world.' ,The only denomination of antiquity who practised half-com-

munion where the Manicheans, from whom the Latins seem tohave adopted it. The advocates of Catholicism appear to havecopied the error from the adherents of heresy. Leo and Gela-sius in the fifth century denounced the system 88 sacrilege andsuperstition, and excommunicated its partisans.' Their succes-sors, at 8t future day, transferred the heresy, with all its accom-panying anathemas, into the theology of Romanism.The Manicheans and Latins, however, in the rejection of the

cup, were actuated by different reasons. The conduct of the oneproceeded from deep abhorrence; but of the other from exces-sive veneration for the sacramental wine. The Manicheansaccounted wine the gall of the dragon, and refused to drink.The Latins reckoned it the blood of the Messiah, and relin-1Eamdem quam reliqui omnes in Oriente Chrietiani Renaudot, 2.614.

Paolo, lL M.ore, 199. Godeau. 1. 274, 275. Labb- 12. 905, 906.2 A BUDlptione calicis BUperatitioee abstiuebant. Bin. 3. 618. Lsbb, 5. 283.

AquinaB, 3. 193. Bruy. 1. 224, 265.

Page 442: The Variations of Popery

442 THE VA1!.I.A.TIONS OF POPERY.. l

quished its use through fear of profanation, effusion or otheraccidents. The two extremes, in this instance as in manyothers, met. Half-communion is the child of transubstantiation,and was the consequence of the superstitious dread or horrorwhich men began to harbor for the supposed blood ofEmmanuel.The mutilation of the sacrament entered Christendom by

slow progressive steps. These steps were intinction, suction,and then half-communion. Intinction, which consisted indipping the bread in the wine before its presentation tothe communicant, entered at an early date. The councilof Braga, in 575, condemned this superstition, which had sosoon begun tv infest the Christian commonwealth. MicrologUswrote against this error, which had become frequent in theeleventh century; and Urban, in. the Council of Clermont,issued an enactment against this superstitious mode of com-munion.'The second step to the defalcation of the cup consisted in

suction. Pipes or quills were annexed to the chalice, throughwhich the devout communicant sucked the wine, or, as it wasthen thought, the blood, with great piety-and precision. Thesesacred tubes were commonly made of silver, 88 they were thechannels through which, as was alleged, flowed the bloodofEmmanuel.'The design of this ecclesiastical instrument was to prevent

the spilling of the Divine fluid, or the irreverent intrusion ofthe men's beards. Its introduction, however, must have thrownan air of ridicule over the whole scene. The act of sucking,practised in this manner, could only tend to burlesque theinstitution, provoke the satirist to laugh, and cover the wholeceremony with contempt. The.mummery of the mass, indeed,has, in every age been a ludicrous spectacle. An apostle orprimitive Christian, could he lift his head 'from the grave andbehold such an exhibition of folly, would be wholly at a loss tounriddle its meaning ; and, if informed of ita design must befilled with indignation at the parody on the Divine ordinance,and with pity for the deluded, but ridiculous votary ofsuperstition.The era. of half-communion can be ascertained witli facility

3Dd precision. No vestige of it a.ppears in the annals of thetwelfth or any preceding century. Anno 1095, the council ofClermont enjoined the separate dispensation of the bread and1Labb. 7. 580 at 12. 832, 1000. MicrologuB, c. 26. Mabillon, 6. 13.2 Erat fistula. qua angaia Christi a communicantibna hauriebatur. Dn Cange,

2. 167. Mabillon, 4. 4t6. 'Pagillaris quibna 1lIIIlgui8. Dominico ealioe exuge·batar. 'j)n Ca1Jgtl. 5. 983. On Ie 118m' de chalumeaux comme on faiBoit autre-fois daDa }•..., &maipe Paolo, 2. 214.

Page 443: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIllD. 443

wine to the people. PlI8caJ,in 1118, enacted a similar regula-tion. Bernard, who flourished in the middle of the twelfth cen-tury, writing expressly on the subject of the Lord's supper,stated t the form of administration: which, in his account, •com-prehended bread and wine, dispensed separately and receivedby the people," The retrenchment, therefore, was unknown inhis day. The Saint of Olairvaux, in all his stores ofknowledge,had heard nothing of this innovation.The integrity of the sacrament in the twelfth century has

been acknow~edged by MabiJIon and Mezeray. Whole commu-nion, says Mabillon, flourished without any change in the year1121. He fixes the introduction of the mutilation in themiddle of the twelfth age. But its use, at that time, could ex-tend only to a few instances. According to Mezeray, •thepeople communicated in both kinds, in the twelfth century.'Similar concessions have been made by Bona, Oassander, Peta-vius, Marca, Courayer, Valentia, and. other Romish authol'8.2Communion in one kind was the child of the thirteenth cen-

tury. The deformity was ushered into life at this era, and,nourished by the belief of transubstantiation, the superstitionof the human mind, and the dread of profaning the supposedblood of God; soon grew from feeble infancy to full maturity.Its reception was partial in the beginning of the age; butextended towards its close, through nearly the whole of popishCh ristendom.Its orig.i'nand spread, during this period, appear from the

testimony of Bonaventura and Aquinas. Bonaventura, whodied in 1274, mentions its introduction t into some churches.'Aquinas, Bonaventura's contemporary, makes a similar state-ment. According to both these saints, its observance was notuniversal, but restricted, and did not extend to the whole, butonly to a part. Maroa, in consequence, remarks that t the useof one sacramental emblem did not simultaneously invade allthe Occidental churches.' Some received it at an earlier andothers at a later period. Aquinas, says Marca, was consultedon the propriety of this usage; and on his answer in the affir-native, all with emulation embraced the novelty,". 1 :Vonnreprrescriptio in pane et vino, Seorsum p~em, se~rsum. ~radens .etvmum, Bernard, inCren. Dom. 1679. Caro Christl et sangms, qUI ill altari afidelibus sumitur. Bernard in Cosn, Dom. Serm.j14. p. 1360. Du Pin, 2. 233.Mabillon, 6. 13. Labb. 12. 999.

2 Communione'll sub utraque specie adhuc inlmutabiliter viguisse, ~oMC~XI. Communio sub utraque specie jam desierat medio srecu1oduodecuno.Mabillon, 6. 14. On communioit encore en ce temps IiI. 80US lea deux eepeces.Mezeray, 2. 679, 680. Bona, II. 18. Petar. c. 5. Maroa, inLabb. 12. 905.Couray. in Paolo 2. 208. Valen. c. 10..3Adhu,: in.aliquibus ecclesiis servatum, at BOlus8~rd08 comm~?Ct san-

glIIJ1e; reltquI vero corpore. Bonaven. inJohn VI. Inquibusdam ecclesus obser-

Page 444: The Variations of Popery

THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

This usage, adopted by the people, was afterward establishedby the Councils of Constance, Basil, and Trent. ' This reason-able custom, introduced by the church and very long observed,"the General Council of Constance, in its thirteenth session,enacted into a law, and' denounced all its impugners as heretics,who should be punished by the diocesans, their officials, andthe inquisition." The space which the council accounted verylong from its adoption by the church, was about 200 years.The Constantian council, in its decision, declared the reason-

ableness of curtailing the wine in the communion of the laity.These reasons, which are ludicrous rather than convincing,have been enumerated by Gerson, Ragusa, and the council ofTrent. The expense of wine sufficient for such multitudes ofpeople; the danger of spilling it at the altar, or in carrying itit over fields, woods, and mountains, to the sick; the fear ofcontamination in dirty vessels,...or by the touch of the laity; itsliability to sour and become vinegar, and by this means tooccasion idolatry; its tendency to putrefy and produce fliesand worms; the disgust which might arise from so manydrinking out of the same cup; the dread of the holy fluid'sfreezing and becoming ice; the apprehension of the men's beardsdipping in daring and unseemly irreverence into the sacredliquor, which was accounted the blood of Emmanuel; allthese reesons and several others, were urged in favor of theretrenchment,"The reasons are better fitted to provoke laughter, than to

produce conviction. But the Cardinal of Angelo adduced areason which is shocking rather than ridiculous. The cardinal,in a Roman consistory, and without any reprehension from hisholiness, declared that 'the sacramental wine, if administeredto laymen, is poison rather than medicine; and that the deathof the patient would be better than his recovery effected by sucha remedy.' Francisco, a Jesuit, urged similar blasphemy in ageneral congregation at the council of Trent. 'Satan,' theJesuit averred; 'was tempting the synod to grant the people acup of poison, under the appearance of the Lord's blood,"The enactment of Constanee was renewed and confirmed at

vatnr, utpopulo sumendus sanguis non detur. Aqumlll!, ilL 80. XII. Con-suetudo illa unina lIymboli non statim invasit omnes eoclesias oooitientis. Marca,in Labb. 12. 905. .1Hujuamodi consuetudo habenda est pro lege, qua.m non lioot reprob&re. As·

s~nteB oppoai*um, tanquam heretici arcendi an., et ~ter puniendi IJ:ElrdtalCelJllllOBlooorum seu ofticiales eorum, aut inquiaiiorcs lueJ'",titllll pravitatlll.

• Labb. 16. 218.t!UguBa in Labb. 17.883. Paolo. 2. 212. Du Pin, 3. 552. .Andekin, 1. 223.8n De cIomleroit jamaia pour uuldecine aux 1'ran9Qi1l ua ealiee rempli de poison.

Paolo, 2. 117. a.- faieoit ~tement presenter au peupIe une coupe depoilon IIOD Ie ~ dll ca1ioe.. Paolo, 2. 212.

Page 445: The Variations of Popery

INCONSISTENCY OF THE BASILIAN COUNCIL WITH ITSELF. 445

Basil. The general council, in 1437, in its thirtieth session,, denied the obligation of the laity or non-ofticiatin~ clergy, byany divine command, to partake in both kinds j admitted theprofitableness of communion, in each way, to the worthy, accor-ding to the institution and observance of the church; and estab-lished by law the custom of participating in one element,"The Basilians varied from the Constantian decision. The Con-

etantians denounced as heresy, what the Basilians representedasagreeable to the institution of the church. The former ex-communicated as obnoxious to punishment and the inquisitionthose whom the latter described as worthy of communion andsalvation. The one authorised as Catholicism, what the othercondemned as heresy.'The Basilians differed from themselves, as well as from the

Constantians.' The sacred synod, notwithstanding their owndecision, granted the participation of the cup to the Bohemiansand Moravians. This, indeed, became in some measure, amatter of necessity. Mathias, Jacobel, and Huss had, at thehazard of martyrdom, taught and established whole communionin the kingdom of Bohemia. Determined to maintain theirfreedom, and headed by Zisca., the ablest general, though blind,that ever took the field, the brave Bohemians withstood all thetemporal and spiritual artillery of the popedom j and extortedby force the concession which was refused to reason. Theintegrity of the sacrament, which the Basilians allowed theBohemians, was a violation of their own law, issued in favorofhalf-communion.This subject, on which the councils of Constance and Basil

had decided, came before the council of Trent in its twenty-firstsession. The Trentine discussion, poll, and canons, on thistopic, as delineated by the pens of Paolo and Du Pin, opened a~ceneof diversity, contention, chicanery, and folly, unequalledIII all the annals of the Beformation, or in the records of anyassembly, civil, ecclesiastical, or literary.The Trentine discussion of this question exhibited all the

charms of variety. The divines in a general congregation,wrangled in endless altercation, and exhausted the patience ofthe bishops. A faction of sixty-three doctors opposed the opi-nions of all the rest. The prelates differed like the theologians,Cardinal Mandruccio argued in the council for the restorationof the cup, and was followed by the bishops of Otranto, Praga,Coimbra, Modena. Leria, and Ossimo. The patriarchs ofAquileis, Venice, ~nd Jerusalem, supported the contrary, andI Sive sub UDa '~, siva sub dnPlici~' commnnicet, secundum ordinatio-

nem seu oheervantiam. ecclesLe, proficit' commnnicantibns ad salutem.Labb. 17.370. 2 Bruy ... 119. 3 bb. 17. 127L Lenfant, 2. ~

Page 446: The Variations of Popery

446 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

were followed by the bishops of Rossano, Philadelphia, Lava,Braga, Leon, Almeria, Lugo, and Imola, Fifty, possessingthe greatest intelligence and piety, advocated a return to theprimeval URage. This the Spanish and Venetians, actuatedby various motives, opposed with the utmost obstinacy.'This diversity.in the discussion was succeeded by equal vari-

ety in the poll. A hundred and forty-six voted. Twenty-ninevoted for the restoration of the cup, and thirty-eight against it.Fourteen were for deferring the decision, and ten for sending a'delegation to Germany, to investigate the subject. Twenty-four would refer the question to the pontiff, and thirty-one tothe prelacy,"The majority tha.t voted againat the restoration of the cup,

was changed into a minority by legatine cabal and finesse.The legates who wished to refer all to the pope, engagedLamellino and Viscontoto use their influence for this purposewith the opposition. The patriarchs yielded to the address ofthe two bishops, and drew with them the VenetiallB, who werenumerous. Their plans, in consequence, succeeded, and adiscretionary power of granting or refusing the cup to the laitywas vested in the Roman pontiff. The majority of an unerrin~synod, in this manner, issued a decision, which was afterward'reversed by lL minority augmented by intrigue into a majority.sThe Trentine canons, notwithstanding the jarring debate and

suffrage, were strong and express in favor of half-communion.The.infallible assembly declared the lawfulness and validity ofparticipation in one species, the illegality of rejecting the syno-dal sentence or attributing error to the church, and cursed, asusual, all who dissented. Divided among themselves, andchanging their decisions at the nod of the pontiff or the cabalsof the prelacy, the holy synod launched its anathemas,with themost liberal profusion, against all who should suspect them ofelTor or resist their tyranny.' .The popish priesthood and people, dispersed through the

European nations, were, like those which met at Trent, dividedin their opinions. Spain and Italy dissented from France, Ger-many, Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary. The Spanish and Ita-lians were against the restoration of the sacramental cup. Theapplication for this purpose, the Spanish and Italian cJergyopposed with all their oratory and influence in the Roman con-sistory a.nd council of Trent: and even stigmatised the French

1Paolo, 2. 264e 265. Dn Pin. 3. 544-070.t Dn Pin, 3. 568, 569. .a Totum negotium ad PontiDcem retulit. Thuan. XXXUI. 1. Paolo.2, 290., Eoc1eeia hano couuetudiDem nb altera specie commtmicandi approbavit, et

pro lege ha1Jendamd~ .Labb. 20, 122, 123. Gibert, S. 331.

Page 447: The Variations of Popery

OPPOSITION TO THE TRENTINE CANONS. 447

and Germans, who solicited the return of this privilege, withthe imputation of heresy,'The French king, clergy, and people, on the contrary, insist-

ed on the integrity of the sacrament. The king of France, in1561, requested this favor for himself and his subjects. Thepetition was afterward renewed at Trent. The French sover-eign supplicated the renewal of the law of Leo and Gelasius,which enacted the use of both elements in the communion.The petition, indeed, was rejected; but it showed, nevertheless,the mind of the nation, on the integrity of the institution.!The Germans, clergy, and laity, supported the motion of the

French. The Emperor, the Duke of Bavaria, and the otherprinces of Germany labored for this purpose both in the Tren-tine council, and afterward at the Roman court. The Empe-ror's ambassador in the council represented whole communionas the anxious desire of Germany, Hungary, Austria, Moravia,Silesia, Carinthia, Camiola, Stiria, Bavaria, and Swabia. Allthe friends of Catholicism, in these states, which containedsuch an immense population, urged the claims with an impa-tience that bordered on rebellion. One fact, mentioned in thecouncil of Trent, will show the zeal of the Germans in thiscause. These, when asked for supplies against the Turks, whowere ready to enter not only Hungary, but also Germany andt~e neighbouring nations, refused, till the integrity of commu-mon should be restored.The people of Bohemia and Hungary showed, if possible,

still more anxiety. This appears from the strong, but indeedunwarrantable arguments which they used to effect their pur-pose. The laity, in these states, forced the clergy to dispensethe sacramental cup by threatening them, if they refused, withthe loss of life and property. Such conduct, indeed, was in-defensible. The use of menace and compulsion, on questionsof religion and conscience, is unscriptural. But the fact mani-fested their zeal, if not their knowledge, in their efforts to ob-tain their end,"Such were the variations of Romanism, on the subject of the

c?mmunion. A church boasting of immutability, changed anddisputed in reckless inconsistency. The usage of Jesus, hisapostles, and antiquity, observed for 1200 years, was repealedby the infallible council of Constance, followed by those of Basiland Trent. The change was adopted from the Manicheans,who were the partisans of heresy, and whose aversion to the

1Paolo, 2. 219, 220, 399. Thuan. 2. 416. DuPin, 3. 552.2 Paolo, 2. 116. Du Pin, 3. 522. Thuan. 2. 361.8 Paolo, 2. 220. Du Pin, 3. 551, 552, 564. Thuan. 2.361, 441. Bruy. 4.621.

Page 448: The Variations of Popery

448 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

eucharistic cup was denounced by Leo and Gelasius, as sacrilegeand superstition. The synod of Basil, which confirmed thelaw of half-communion, but admitted the utility of reception inboth kinds, varied from the assembly of Constance, whichconsi~ned the participators in the cup to the inquisitors ofheretical pravity. The council of Trent, disputing and dividedamong themselves, determined by a majority for withholdingthe cup from the people; and shortly afterward, changed bypapal intrigue, resolved, by another majority, to confer on theRoman pontiff a discretionary power of granting whole com-munion to the laity. The popish clergy and laity dispersedthrough European Christendom differed about the canonsissued, on this question, at Trent. Spain and Italy, in general,condemned whole communion, which was demanded withardor and anxiety in France, Germany, Bohemia, Poland,Hungary, and several smaller states.

Page 449: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER XV.

EXTREME UNCTION.

VARIATIONSON ITS EFl'EOTS-DISAGREEJJ1ENT ON ITS INi!TITU'fiON--'rRE i!ORll.'TURAL~ND POPISH UNCTIONS VARY IN THEIR ADJJ1INISTRATOB,SIllN, FOP, SUBJEOT,AND END-RECOVERY OF HEALTH THE SCRIPTURAL END OF ANOINTING THE SICK-TR.\DITIOl:\AL EVIDENCE-HISTORY OF EXTRlIlJJ1EUNCTION.

EXTREME unction, in the Popish system, consists in the sacra-mental application of oil to the sick, for the remission of sin.The administrator is a priest or bishop. The subject is thesick, who, to all human appearance, is at the point of death.The sign is oil, consecrated by episcopal benediction. Theform requires the application of the sign to the eyes, ears, nose,mouth, hauds, feet, and, if the patient be a male, to the reins,accompanied with prayer.Popish doctors, notwithstanding their pretended unity, vary,

as Faber, Bellarmine, Estius, and Dens have shown, on theeffect of this miction. Dens has enumerated.no less than tendifferent opinions, entertained on this point in the Romish com-munion. The chief differences, however, may be reduced tofour, which have given rise to four factions in Papal Christen-dom.One faction, patronised by Bonaventura, Fleury, Challenor,

and the Trent -Cateohism, reckon the effect of this ceremony,the remission of venial sins. But this opinion has been rejectedby others, such as Aquinas, Soto, Valentia, Seotus, Faber, andmany modems. A second party, supported by Estius, Dens,and the council of Mentz, as well as by other divines, extendits effects to the dismission of mortal transgressions. Thistheory, however, has been deprecated by Aquinas, Soto,Valentia, Scotus, Bellarmine, Faber, and many other theolo-gians, because mortal offences are pardoned in baptism, andafterwards in penance. A third class include both venial andmortal sins in the effect of this unction. This, according tothe interpretation of Estius and Calmet, was the doctrine ofthe council of Trent, which conferred on this ceremony thepower of cancelling unexpiated .and rema.j~ransgressions.This explanation, therefore, embracing both .. g and heinous

cc

Page 450: The Variations of Popery

450 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

sins, sins both of frailty and enormity, is clothed by the Tren-tine dictators with all the glory of infallibility.A fourth description ascribes the effect of this institution

neither to venial nor mortal iniquity, but to weakness,infirmity,and the remains of sin. This, which some reckon the commonopinion, has been sanctioned by Aquinas. Soto, Valentia,Durandus, and many moderns. But these doctors, differingfrom others, differ also among themselves on the meaningattached to the remains of sin. Valentia, in the remains ofsin, comprehends aversion to good and inclination to evil;while Bellarmine and others, at the expense of a little incon-sistency, extend it to venial and mortal offences,as well as tosorrow and anxiety.'Popish doctors vary in the institution of this sacrament, as

well as on its effects. Lombard, and several since his day,refers its institution to mere apostolic authority; while othersattribute its appointment to our Lord, and its promulgation tothe apostle James. Some identify' this ceremony with theanointing mentioned by Mark in his gospel. Such were Beda,Cajetan, Arsdekin., Maldonat, and the Rhemish annotators, aswell as the Trent Catechism, and the councils of Milan, Sens,and Augsburg. Many, on the contrary, distinguish betweenthe apostolic ceremony recorded by Mark, and the sacramentalrite mentioned by James. Such were Jonas, Valentia, Bellar-mine, Faber, and Dens, as well as the councils of Worms,Cologne,Florence, and Trent,"The council of Trent, puzzled and inconsistent, displayed,

on this occasion, a striking variety. This unerring assembly

1 Effectus non uno modo ab omnibus explicatur. Quidam. de remissioM venia.li~ intelligunt. ~ de peccatis mortali~ Apostolllnl e~'!1Dt: Ad o1lJI!iaCUJuscumquegenens peccata erlendendum videtnr, Peccati reliqwas abatergIt.Eatius, 2. 1l4il. Labb. 19. 1412.Peccata venialia remittit. Cat. Trid. 169. Fleury, 246. Challenor, 113.

Rivers, c. 7. Faber, 2. 262.Quidam dicuntcontra veniale ordiriatur ; sed hoc non videtur vernm. Aquinas,

3. 465. Faber, 2. 259.Aquinas, Soto, Valenti&, et multi recentiores _runt proprium effectum

hnjns sacramenti non esse abstergere et delere peccata venialia; sed esse sanareet abstergere peccatornm reliquias. Non conveniunt Doctores hujus opinionis.Faber, 2. 2511, 26i.Peccata mortalia remittit. Dens, 7. 18. Estius, 2. 114il. Non intelligitur

de peccato mortali. Faber, 2. 259.Wert 800tna illud non poteat intelligi de peccatis mortalibns. Omnes assenmt

peccatamortalia dimitti solum per pc:enitentiam. Faber, 2. 253, 261.Concilillnl Tridentinllnl inqnit effectmn hujus sacramenti esse peccata, si

quie sint, delere, et reliquiaa peccati a~re. :Faber, 2. 260.Delicta, Iiqwe adhue expianda et peocati reliqnias ab8tergit. Lsbb. 00. 98.2 UBCtiouee adhibitle ab ~postolia, non erant sacramentales. Dens, 7..2.

taber,2.2&7. Paolo, 1. 357. JOIIIIll, nL 14. Dachery, 1. 316. Arsdekm,r.!MI: Be&, o. 693. Labb. 18. 4JrT. and 19. !Ai9.

Page 451: The Variations of Popery

VARIATIONS IN THE EFFECTS OF EXTREME UNCTION. 451

had declared that this sacrament was instituted by Jesus andrecorded by Mark. But a divine who was present, and whopossessed rather more sense than his fellows, remarked thatthis ceremony could not have been observed at that time, asthe apostles, even according to the Trentine assembly, werenot then priests, and were, therefore, incapable of administer-ing it. The meddling theologian disconcerted the sacredsynod. The holy fathers, embarrassed by the inconsistency,began to invent means of disentangling themselves from thecontradiction. Extreme unction, said the infallible assemblywasnot instituted, but merely INSINUATED in Mark, and after-ward published in James. The institution was, with theutmost facility, transubstantiated by these theological jugglersinto an insinuation. The holy men insinuated what they fearedto affirm. The unction of the Evangelist became, in the handsof the wise and learned Trentines, an insinuated sacrament.But the insinuation of the sacred council was, under theauspicesof its authors, destined to make another change, andreturn to its ancient form. The insinuation was again transub-stantiated into an institution. The council's canon declaredextreme unction a true sacrament, instituted by Jesus, andpublishetl by James; and then thundered anathemas againstall who should gainsay.'The Rhemists, with a happy versatility, discovered another

plan of interpretation. These expositors, by their magic touch,transformed the anointing related in the gospel into the figureof a sacrament. The apostles, it seems, though at that timeno priests, and incapable of performing this ceremony in reality,administered it in metaphor. The Trentine insinuation be-(lamea Rhemisb trope. The sacrament of the council degen-erated, in the laboratory of these annotators, into a mereemblem. This, no doubt, was very clever and ingenious, and,though a little at variance with many other expositions in thesameunchangeable communion, removed all difficulty. Popishcouncilsand commentators, in this manner, could transform anunction into a metaphor, an institution into an insinuation, andthe insinuation hack again into an institution, with as muchease as an alchemist, in his own crazy mind, could transmutecopper into, gold, or a. priest, in the credulity of superstition,could transubstantiate a. wafer into a God.Extreme unction is a. variation from scriptural unction. The

Scriptural and Romish institutions differ in the administration,sign, form, SUbject,and end. The Popish unction requires butone administrator. This has been defined by Popes Alexander! Paolo. 1. 570. Faber, 2. 253. Cat. Trid. 167. Labb. 20. 98, 102. F.ctius,

2. J443. Rivera, c. 7.

Page 452: The Variations of Popery

452 THE VARIATIOKS OF POPERY.

and Benedict, as well as by the Trentine council. A solitarypriest, unaided and alone, can, with facility and dispatch, per-form the whole ceremony in all its diversified evolutions, andin all its modern additions and improvements,' The scripturalunction, recommended by the pen of inspiration, requires, onthe contrary, a plurality of administrators. The sick personwas to 'call for the elders of the church.' The words whichsignify the anointing and the prayer are in the plural number,indicating beyond all question, the necessity of more than onedispensator.Extreme and Scriptural unctions differ also in their sign.

The sign of both, indeed, is oil. But the oil of the popishceremonymust be consecrated by a bishop, and the ccnsecra-tion is attended with a world of superstition and chicanery,The Romish institution, celebrated with any other kind of oil,is invalid. Should- the administrator, through mistake, usechrism, he is instructed by the council of Milan to repeat theceremony,and apply the proper sign. The holy oil only is,in this ordinance, possessed of any efficacy. The primevalChristians knew nothing of these superstitions. The use ofthe ceremony, stated by the sacred historian Mark, was, accord-ing to the council of Trent, prior to the existenceof the priestlyor episcopal order; and the unguent, therefore, employedatthat time, was guiltless of episcopal benediction,"The modern and primitive unctions differ in their form, as

well as in their administrator and sign. The form of thePopish rite, consisting in anointing and prayer, is one continuedscene of superstition, balderdash, and indecency. The priestmakes the sign of the cross three times on the sick person, inthe name of the Trinity. The imposition of the sacerdotalhands, and the invocation of angels, patriarchs, prophets,apostles, martyrs, confessors,and virgins, are used for the ex-tinction of the power of the devil, and every unclean spirit inthe patient's members, marrow, and every joint of his limbs.The priest then dips his thumb in the holy ointment, andanoints the sick person in the form of a cross on the eyes, ears,nose, mouth, hands, and feet. These organs are then wipedwith cotton, which is burned, and the ashes for fear of pro-fanation, are thrown into the sacrarium. Even the water with

1 .MiniBter hnjus aacramenti est sacerdos. Labb. 20. 101. Bin. 8. 866. Nona pluribus, eed ab uno. Emus, 2. 1142.• Deus, 7. 25.2Materia est oleum olivarum. Consecratio episcopalis est necessaria. Faber,

2. 2M. Bin. 8. 866. Crabb. 3. 506. _Non nisi oleo l*' epieoopnm benedicto faaest bane sacram unctionem perag1.

EathJe. 2. 1142. BoiL~ 96.Le8 Ap3tres 11'~t-point encore pr6tres. Calmet, Con:L 19, 20.

,

Page 453: The Variations of Popery

VARIATION BETWEEN SCRIPTURAL AND POPISH UNCTION. 453

which the priest washes his hands is, for the same reason,poured into a clean and retired place.1The administration of this observance adds indecency to

superstition. The patient, except in women and monks, isanointed on the loins or reins, because, says the Roman Ritual,this is the seat of lasciviousness and pleasure," This part of'theceremony is of the most revolting description, and is expressedin the language of grossne8sand indelicacy. The whole scene,as represented in their formulas, must, to every mind possessingthe least sensibility or refinement, present a spectacle of loath-ing and disgust.The ceremony sometimes assumes a truly ridiculous appear-

ance. The sacerdotal thumb is the usual instrument in con-veying the greasy application. But when pestilence prevailsand contagion threatens, the priest may apply the sacramentaloil with a long rod. This he dips, with due gravity, into theblessedfluid; and standing at a respectful distance to avoid in-fection,he extends his waad, in proper form and in a gracefulmanner, to the sick, whom, to escape danger, he anoints withthis simple but useful ecclesiastical machine, instead of his pre-cious thumb. The rod, having by this means administered thesacrament of the dying, and communicated all the virtues ofthe holy ointment, is burned, and the ashes, with properattention, cast into some sacred place," The simplicity of theApostolical institution presents a complete contrast to thisdisplay of complicated folly, uncountenanced by one hint ofrevelation or a single monument of Christian antiquity.The Apostolic and Popish unctions differ in the persons to

whomthey are to be administered. The latter is applied onlyto those who, in all human appearance, are departing, and, inconsequence,has been called the sacrament of the dying. Thesacerdotal physician never administers this spiritual prescrip-

.•

. 1 !ntincto polIice in oleo sancto, in modum crucis ungit infirmum. Sacerdostmgat loea inuncta novo globulo bombacii, et comburat, cineresque projiciat insacrarium. Rit. Rom. 96,97.Lavat manus et lavatio non nisi in loco mundo et abdito solet effundi, Ulderic

III. 28. Dachery, 1. 700. Dens, 7. 6.2 Sel'tima in organo principali generativre. Faber, 2. 254. Renes, velut vo-

l~l?~ti,s et libidiDis aedes, unguntur. Cat. Trid. 168. Superinguinesperardoremlibldinis. Dachery. 1.'700..Quoad renes, non est deeens, prresertim in feeminis et viris religiosis. Arsde-kin, 2. 378. Rit. Rom. 93.3 Peste grassante, poteat uti virga oblonga oleo tincta, quam postes eomburat,

Arsdekin, 2. 378.Penicillo inl1ngatur corpus regrotos peste infecti. Licet, in eo casu, inungere

lllgr'O adhibita virgil, cujus extrema parte sit gusaypium oleo sacro imbutum.1)6118, S. 79, 166.

Page 454: The Variations of Popery

454 THE VARIA.TIONS OF POPERY.

tion, while there is any expectation of recovery. The sacredunction is always intended as a mittimus to eternity. IThe Apostolic unction was administered to weak or infirm

persons. Mark and James, indeed, use two different terms onthis subject; but both, according to their derivation and theirusual acceptation, signify 'without strength,' and include allwho are in a state of weakness and infirmity. The words ofthe Evangelist and the Apostle never imply that severity ofsickness or of' pain, which precludes all hopes of recovery, andwhich, in a short time, commonly issues in death. The expres-sion used by James is applied to the woman who had a ' spiritof infirmity 'eighteen years, whom Jesus healed in Judea, andto the diseased persons who came to Paul in the island ofMelita and were cured. Those who could visit Jesus and Paulcould not be laboring under severe complaints, or such aswould indicate a speedy dissolution. 2But the great and leading distinction between the Scriptural

and Romish unctions consists in the'end or effect. The effect ofthe former referred to the body; but of the latter to the soul.The ancients anointed the infirm for the expulsion of sicknessand the restoration of strength. The moderns anoint the dyingfor the pardon of sin and the conveyance of grace. The oneused it as a miraculous and temporary remedy for the recoveryof health; and the other as an ordinary and permanent sacra-ment for the attainment of salvation. The design of the primi-tive ceremony was to enable men to live; but of the presentsuperstition to prepare them to die,"The popish communion, indeed, both in its ancient and

modern rituals, refers, on this topic. to the body as well as tothe soul; and to the recovery of health as well as to the pardonof sin. But its modern usage displays a striking aberrationfrom the Scriptural model. Romanism makes the recovery ofhealth conditional, which revelation makes absolute; and theremission of sins absolute, which revelation makes conditional.The Lord, says James, without any condition, ' will raise himup.' .But the recovery, in the Romish theology, is cloggedwith the condition of expedience. The expiation of iniquity,on the contrary, is, in Scriptural language, united with thecondition, ' if he have committed sin.' But forgiveness, in the1Hoc sacramentum nisi infinno, de CUjU8 mone timetur dari non debet .

. Labb.18,.550. Exeuntibus il. corpore detur. Aquin 3. 146. Cat. Trin. 168Rit. Rom. 91. Labb.20. 98. Erasmus, 6.174.2 Mark, vi. 13. James, v, 14. Luke, xiii. n. Acts, xxviii. 9. .3 L'onction ~u'employaient les Apoatres regardoit principalement lesmaladies

du corps; au lieu que l'onction des ma1ades,qui Be fait dans 1'6glise a pour pre-mier objet lee malAdies de 1'8me. Ca1met, Comm. 19. 50. Le saIut de son Arneest l'objet de ce sacrament. Calm Comm. 24. 80.

"

Page 455: The Variations of Popery

VARIATION BETWEEN SCRIPTURAL AND POPISH UNCTION. 455

popish system, is attached to the unction without any condition.This variation and perversion are evidently intended for thepurpose of accommodating the statement of revelation to asystem of superstition,'The declaration of Mark, compared with the injunction of

James, will clearly show the truth of the protestant interpreta-tion, which refers the words to the bedy and the recovery ofhealth. The two inspired penmen, it is plain, allude to the sameceremony. Both mention the same agents, actions, patients,and effects. This has been shown by Bede, (Ecumenius,Jonas, Lyra, Cajetan, Erasmus, D'Achery, Maldonat, andArsdekin, as well as by the Rhemish annotators, and the councilsof Milan, Sens, Augsburg, and Trent. The latter assembly,in all its infallibility, identified the history of Mark and thedirection of -Iamea."The effect, therefore, of these two identical rites must be the

same. The healing ofMark and the upraising of James may bereckoned synonymous expressions. The former, it is clear,refers to recovery from disease and restitution to bodily health.This exposition is sanctioned by the authority of Bede, Jonas,CEcumenius,Calmet, Cajetan, and many other popish commen-tators. The statement of James, says Cajetan, 'does neither inword nor effect signify sacramental unction, but that ceremonyinstituted by our Lord, and applied by his disciples for the re-covery of the sick.' The cardinal, like Bede, Jonas, (Ecume-nius, and Calmet, delivered the plain meaning of the passage,which will approve itself to every unprejudiced mind," Let theRomish priest, then, in this way cure the patient, and the Pro-testant has no objection. Let him accomplish the originaldesign of the scriptural institution, and in this convincing man-ner, shew his power and authority. Let him free the sick fromthe pains of the fever, the dropsy, the consumption, or any other1Estius, 2. 1111. Rit. Rom. 90. James v, 14, 15.2 Hoc et Apoetolis feolese in evangelio legimus. Beda, 5. 693. Jonaa, iii.

14. Dachery, 1. 316.Tovro 01 A7tOUTOMI £"'010111'. <Ecumen. in loc. Ex hoc patet, quod unctio ex-

trema £nit instituta a Christo. Lyra in Mark vi. 13.Cajetan soutient qne ce paBBagene regarde que l'onction mirsouleuse, dont

les ~pI\tres Be servoient pour II' guerison des malades. Luo et Maldonat Iesoutiennent. Calmet, 19, 49. Maldonat, 754.Hoc relictum erat ex prrecepto evangelico. Erasmus, 6. 1037. Sacramentum

extremre unctiouis fundatur in Scripturis Marci 6. Arsdekin, 1. 245. Bin. 9.197, 619. Crabb. 3. 746, 855. ('at. Triden. 167.3 Nee in verbis nee in effeetu, verba hsee loquuntur de saeramentali unctione

eJ(tr~mre unetionis, sed magis de unctione quam instituit Dominus Jesus adlSClpulis exe:roendam in regrotis. Cajet. in loco. Faber, 2. 257. Beda, 5.693. Jonas, iii. 14. Dachery, 1. 316.On voit Ie mAmesentiment dans <EcumenillB. Calm. Comm. 24. 78.Cajetanus negat absolute hoc loco, Jacobum loqui de sacramento extremre

~nctionis. Faber, 2. 257.

Page 456: The Variations of Popery

456 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

of the ills that attack frail fallen man; and he will, by thetriumphs of his art or his faith, disarm all opposition. He maythen claim credit for his commission. But the constant applica-tion of a sign, which is never attended with the proper orprimitive signification, only renders its author ridiculous. Thecontinuation of the means, when the end cannot be effected,merely exposes the vain pretender, as well as his credulousdupes, to merited contempt.This healing of the diseased like other miraculous powers

granted for promoting the establishment of Christianity, wasextraordinary and temporary. This, resembling other miracles,scarcely survived the apostolic age. The oil, in this respect,was similar to the water of Bethesda. This pool, when thedescending angel troubled its water, cured the diseased whoimmediately bathed in its healing wave. But this effect wasmiraculous a,nd transitory. The efficacywas not native or

- inherent, but supernatural and communicated, and ceased onthe cessation of the angelic visits. Bethesda, at the presentday, is as cureless as any other pool. The effect of unction,in like manner, was preternatural and transient. Its application,accompanied with prayer, can at the present day effect norecovery. The use of unction and the use of Bethesda, in thenineteenth century, are equally silly. The patient, who shouldseek to dispel disorder in the pool of the holy city, would onlymeet with a laugh from the passing spectator. His simplicitymight excite a smile, but his folly would convey no health; andthe application of oil to the sick, whatever the deceiving anddeceived may fancy, is equally ridiculous and absurd.The remission of sin, mentioned by James, might, on a

superficial view, appear to militate against this interpretation,which limits the effectof the ancient ceremony to the recoveryof health. But this difficulty, on a closeinspection, will vanish.The sins pardoned through 'the prayer of faith,' were suchas in God'sjudicial or chastening providence,were punished withsickness. Infirmity, disease, and even death were sometimesinflicted by the Creator, as a punishment or correction for cer-tain offences. This has been granted and indeed proved byllede, Jonas, Lyra, Estius, and Calmet. God, as these andmany other authors attached to Romanism have shown, often,as in the case of .Ananias and Sapphira, visits flagrant trans-gression with disease and even mortality.'1Multi propter peceata in animo facta, infirmitate aut etiam morte plectun-

tur. Beda in Jacob. V. 15. Jopas, III. 14. Dachery, 1. 316.~ulti l!ropfer peccata etiam corporis pleetnntur morte. Ananias et Sap'

P~ p1l11ltifuernnt 81lbitanea morte pro peccato. Lyra, 6. 52, 217. in Corin.Xl. et J84lObV.Piurim1lDl cauIIlB mol'bOrum sint peccata. Estius. 2. 1145.Bouvellt Dieu puDiIIoit lea pechea par des maladies. Calm. OOID.24. 81.

\

Page 457: The Variations of Popery

VARIATION BETWEEN SCRIPTURAD AND POPISH UNCTION. 457

The fact, which these authors have stated, was exemplifiedand evidenced in the Corinthians, with respect to whom, asdepicted by Paul, many were weak and sickly, and manyslept. Our Lord, therefore, in allusion to this truth, said tothe man whom he healed of the palsy, 'thy sins be forgiven. thee.' He also admonished the man whom he cured of aninfirmity at Bethesda, to 'sin no more,' for fear of a severersentence. These instances show the connection in somecases,between transgression and disorder, as well as between remis-sion and recovery.James, had he meant iniquity in general, need not have used

the supposition, 'if he have committed sins.' All, in thisrespect, are guilty. But only some were visited with a par~ticularmalady, on account of a particular crime. He declared,in the expressive langua~~ of Estius, that 'the cause, whichwas iniquity, would be removed, that the effect,which wasdisease,might cease," The indisposition and the punishmenthad the relation of cause and effect,and the one was remittedfor the removal of the other. All this, however, shows thatthe institution was intended for lengthening the days of theliving, and not, as it has been falsely called, a sacrament de-signed for the use of the dying.Romanismis here guilty of another variation and perversion.

The inspired penman ascribes the recovery of health and theremission of sin to 'the prayer of faith.' But these effects,the popish theologians attribute to the application of the oint-ment. The prayers, says Fleury, may, in case of necessity,be omitted, and the unction alone used. The moderns depend,for the effect, on the unguent plastered on the patient in theform of a cross. The ancients relied on 'the prayer of faith,'offeredwith devotion for the recovery of the afflicted and thepardon of sin.This explanation of the Apostolic injunction is open only to

one objection. None of the primitive Christians, say Faberand Bellarmine, need, on this supposition, have been subject tomortality. The unction and accompanying prayer of theel?ers would have saved all from death. This argument, on aslight view, is specious. But its plausibility, on a closerexamination, will totally disappear. The objection, if it haveany weight, presses as hard on popery as on protestantism.The Romish as well M the Reformed must admit the exist-

ence of the healing gifts among the early Christians. OurLord cured the sick, and even raised the dead. His apostlesanointed and healed many. Paul, addressing the Corinthians,mentions (the gifts of healing,' communicated to the pristine1Cauea remota morbus cesset. Estiu&, 2. 1145.

Page 458: The Variations of Popery

t58 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Christians, whose possession of this extraordinary power,infidelity only would venture to deny. A belief of this fact,whatever may be the conclusion,forms, in this case,an articlein the objector's faith, as well as in that of his adversary.But the conclusion from this fact is not, that all the sick

recovered. This power of restoring to health could not, at alltimes, be exercised, even by those on whom it had beenbestowed. The prophet could not always prophesy; norcould the supernatural gift of healing always expel disorder orprevent death. The apostles themselves were enabled to com-mand this miraculous power only on some occasions. Paulhealed the father of Publius and others who had diseases inthe island of Melita; but left Trophimus, his friend, sick atMelitum. He also advised Timothy to use wine, as an ordi-nary means, and an approved medicine for his infirmity. Thissupernatural endowment, therefore, was occasional, andbrought into operation only by the permission and assistanceof God. The extraordinary power, sometimes inactive, hadto be called into energy by the Divine impulse.'This may be applied to the pastors mentioned by James.

These could wield the healing power only when actuated bythe Spirit of God. Their petition, in consequence, is styled, the prayer of faith,' because it inspired assurance of success.James, accordingly, in the English version, denominates theprayer effectual,which, according to the original, should betranslated inwrought or inspired. This miracle-working faithis the kind, which, say Jesus and Paul, is capable of removingmountains, and enabled its possessorto expel indispositions, andconvey health to the subjects of sickness and infirmity.This objection, inconsistent with the objector's own belief,

recoils also, with tremendous destruction, on his own acknow-ledged system. The modern ceremony would, even on popishprinciples, as certainly save every soul, as the ancient institu-tion would have healed every body. All, on the former suppo-sition, would as surely be transmitted to heaven, as on the latterhave, according to the objection, been restored to health. Theone would as unquestionably deliver from spiritual as the otherfrom temporal death. The modern unction, according to thecouncil of Trent, pardons remaining and unexpiated sins,which, in the interpretation of Estius and Calmet, comprehendboth venial and mortal offences; and, at the same time, con-veys grace and strength, and heals all weakness and propensityto transgress. This freedom from sin and attainment of puritywould inevitably transfer all the dying, who receive the greasy1X. gueriIon d. ma1adee par 1. OJ1CQoD8 etoit nne chose accidentelle etd'un

uAge pll88IlgW. Ca1met, 24._81.

Page 459: The Variations of Popery

SCRIPTURAL END OF ANOINTING THE SICK. 459

application, to happiness, and reserve for a worse situation, onlythe protestant who contemns the unctuous plaster, and the child,the idiot, and the executed criminal, who are incapable of be-coming candidates for this holy sacrament.!The modem ointment, therefore, must, in 1l. great measure,

unpeople purgatory. The heretic, who despises this unguent,must march, not to the middle place, but to a worse country.The Romish unction, if, according to the popish theology, itremit venial and mortal sins, heal infirmity, impart strength, andfortify the soul against temptation, will certainly transferthe recipient 'with safety, to the port of eternal happiness.'Heaven and hell, therefore, being, in this manner, ·forestalledby the use or rejection of this sacramental ointment, the princeof the intermediate district, if it have any, must want subjects,or accept of youths, madmen, or sentenced offenders," The in-termediate empire, by these means, will be reduced to a waste.Its plains will become a wilderness, and its palaces and citiesfall into ruin.Extreme unction is a variation from tradition, as well as from

revelation. The ceremony is destitute of written and un-written authority, and was unknown both to the apostles andfathers of antiquity. Fleury, Ward, Sclater, Mumford, andChallenor, in consequence, forbear, on this topic, to make anyquotations from the record of early Christianity; The omission,indeed, was dictated by prudence. Antiquity could afford noauthority for such an innovation, but which, by its impertin-ence, would have disgraced, if possible, even the popish systemof superstition and absurdity. Bellarmine endeavors to excusethe ancients for omitting the history of this sacrament in tbeirworks, by alleging their want of occasion. The cardinal, foronce,was right. The early Christian authors had no opportu-nity of discussing a non-entity.The Rhemists admit that the fathers of the first four centu-

ries make no mention of this institution. These annotatorsindeed refer to Origen, who flourished in the third century;but, at the same, insist not on his testimony, clearly from aconsciousness of its utter inadequacy. The concession, inreality, is an abandonment of the cause so far as concerns thissource of evidence. Four hundred revolving years ran theirample round, and left no trace of this sacrament. The aposto-lic men, Clemens, Hermas, Barnabas, Ignatius, and Polycarplived, and wrote, and departed, without once mentioning thesacrament of the dying. The successors of the apostolic men,

1Aquinas, 3. 467. Cat. Trid. 166. Rit. Rom. 91. Estius, 2. 1145. Calmet.2 Chiillenor, 1I3. Fleury, 246.

Page 460: The Variations of Popery

460 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

such as Justin, Irenseus, Clemens, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athena-goras, Tatinn, Epiphanius, and the apostolic constitutions are,on this theme, equally silent and disobliging. The pretendedDionysius, who has left circumstantial details on similar to-pies,has, says Aquinas, made no mention of extreme unction.'These authors have emblazoned the other sacraments in theirworks, and drawn minute delineations of baptism and thecommunion. These topics meet the reader's eye in nearlyevery page of their literary productions. But extreme unction,wonderful to tell, is never mentioned. This ceremony, which,in modern days, remits sin and strengthens the soul of thedying, forms no part of either the light or shade of the picturesketehed by the pen of antiquity. This was a woful and vex-atious omission in the good fathers, and has put many modernsto a sad puzzle.The Christian men and women of old, such as Constantine,

Helen, Anthony, Basil, Chrysostom, Monica, and Augustine,whose death-bed biography has been transmitted to the presentday, seem never to have been anointed. Their biographersnever so much as mention the sacrament of the dying. Allthese, it is to be feared, departed without the application of theblessed oil. The holy men and women, in all probability, con-trived getting to heaven without being greased for the journey.But the modern saints and sinners of Romanism are preparedfor heaven or purgatory by consecrated oil. The death ofmany, in latter days, has been recorded by Surius and Butler:and these, on their death-bed, were always complimented witha plaster of blessed ointment. The modern saints make theirexit from time and their entrance into eternity, ornamented inseven different places, with the cross-streaks of the oily figures,formed by the graceful motion of the sacerdotal thumb.The friends of this ceremony have endeavored to prop the

baseless fabric by historical testimony, extracted from theannals of the fifth and following centuries. All this evidence,worthy of any attention, is taken from Innocent, Bede, and the-eeuncfls of Chalons and Worms.Pope Innocent, who flourished so late as the fifth century, is

their first witness. Decentius, bishop of Eugubium in Italy,had occasion, on this subject, to consult the pontiff, who re-turned the following answer. 'The diseased faithful, to whom.James refers, may be anointed with the consecrated oil ofchrism. This ointment may be used not only by priests, butalso by all Christians, who may anoint not only themselves,

1DioDyaiua DOll facit aliquam mentionem de extrema unctione. Aquinas, III ..'.!9. LP. 4.62.

Page 461: The Variations of Popery

TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR EX.TREME UNCTION. 461

but also their friends. But the chrism may not be poured onpenitents, for it is a kind of sacrament."The utter ignorance of Decentius and Innocent, on this sub-

ject, irrefragably shows the non-existence of extreme unction inthe fifth century. Decentius, a dignified clergyman of Italy.knew so little of the ceremony, that he could not, without in-struction, administer the pretended sacrament of the dying.He applied, in his difficulty, to the Pope, the father and teacherof all Christians; and the pontiff, who has been eulogized forgenius and learning by Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, andBellarmine, knew no more of it, except in his own conceit, thanthe bishop. He called the rite' a KIND of sacrament.' Thisappellation would have called down on his holiness the anathe-mas of the Trentine council, that pronounced this observance, a true and proper sacrament,' His infallibility, besides, mis-took the administrator and the sign of this 'kind of sacrament,'Ita minister, in his infallibility's hands, was not only a priest,but every Christian, both for himself and his friends. The lay-man, however, who, in modern times, should make the attempt,would, says Faber, 'not only sin, but effect nothing.' The sign,according to his holiness, was chrism, which, in modern days,is utterly unfit for this use. This unction, performed now withchrism, is invalid, and the whole process, in this case, must,says the council of Milan, be repeated with the proper element.'

. His infallibility's' kind of sacrament,' administered accordingto his pontifical directions, would, in modern times, be perfectlyuseless. Innocent and Decentius, the pontiff and the bishop,were, in reality, strangers to one of the seven sacraments, andwould have needed a fugleman to show the motion of his spiri-tual exercise. ' Both would have required a modern priestto drill these two raw recruits, and teach them the manoeuvresof sacerdotal duty and the use of ecclesiastical arms,"Bede's testimony, more than 300 years later, is similar to

Innocent's. 'The sick,' says the English monk, ' is, according toecclesiastical use, to be anointed with consecrated oil and healed.This is lawful, not only for the pastors, but also, as Innocenthath declared, for all Christians, both for themselves and theirfriends." This only shows that the unction of the sick remainedin the same state in the eighth century as in the fifth, and that1 De fidelibus regrotantibus accipi vel intelligi debere, qui sancto oleo chris-

~a~ pemngi possunt. Non sol~ sacerdotibus, se~ o~bUs.uti Chris~ani~heat m sua at suorum necessitate mungendo. Premtentibus illud fundi nonpotest, quia genus eat sacramanti, Carranza, 187. Labb. 3.6. Jonas iii. 14.C'est une espeee de sacrement. Bruys. 1.175.2 Si laieus attentet, non solum peccat, sed nihil facit. Faber. 2. 254. Labb.

18. 550. et 21. 368. Bin. 8. 866. at 9. 619. Crabb. 3. 506.8 Infirmi oleo consecrato uugantur a presbyteris, at, oratione commilitante,

sanetur, etc. Beda ..5. 693. •

Page 462: The Variations of Popery

462 ·THE VA.RIA.TIONS OF POPERY.

the unction of Romanism was as little known in the days ofBede as of Innocent, and in England as in Italy. Bede andInnocent would have needed somemodern adept in superstitionto teach them the proper movements and evolutions in apply-ing the sacramental plaster. Bede, besides, represents the re-covery of health as the end or effect of this ceremony; and thisshows that the unction of the flick,in the English monk's time,was still used for the original design, and referred, not to thesoul, but to the body.The provincial synod of Chalons' testimony has been added

~o that of Innocent and Bede. This assembly met in 813, andin its forty-eighth canon enjoined the unction of the sick withoil blessed by the bishop. 'This kind of medicine,' said thecouncil, 'is not to be despised, which heals the infirmity ofsoul and body." This canon only shows that the unction ofthe sick was in the ninth century, still confined to its primevalintention. The sign is called medicine, and the effect isspiritual and corporeal health. The body, by its application,recovered its strength, and the soul obtained pardon of the sinwhich occasioned the malady. The convenient modern condi-tion of this rite being beneficial to the body, when pleasing to 'God and good for the patient, was unknown in the ninth cen-tury. Recovery of health, according to this synod, attend-ed the unction as uniformly as the remission of crime. Theonly addition which the ceremony, in the long lapse of eighthundred years, seems to have received from the spirit of su-perstition, consisted in the episcopal consecration of the oint-ment, and its indiscriminate application to the infirm. Thecouncil also erred in continuing an extraordinary and temporaryobservance, when the age of miracles had passed, and whenits administration had ceased to convey its. original and propereffect.The provincial council of Worms has been added to that of

Chalons, as evidence of this superstition, But this assemblyaffor~ no additional testimony; its sevent,-second canonmerely embodied Pope Innocent's reply to BIshop Decentius,The fathers of Worms only adopted and repeated his infallibi-lity's decision without preface or explanation. The subjectwas no better known, and the future sacrament had made nofarther progress than 450 years before, in the fifth century.The unction still remained a kind of sacrament. Hundreds ofyears had elapsed from the commencement of Christianity, andBtill the sacrament was misunderstood. Decentius, Inno-cent, -.nd Bede, as well as the councils of Chalons and Worms,1Non .. panipeadenda hnjuscemodi medicina, qwe animal oorporisque

medetur Ia1lguoribus. BiD. 6. 222. Crabb. 2. 628. Labb. 9. 370.1.

Page 463: The Variations of Popery

HISTORY OF EXTREME UNCTION. 463

were ignoranv of the administrator, the sign, and the end ofthe ceremony,which the Trentine fathers, of infallible memory,pronounced a true and proper sacrament, insinuated by Mark,published by James, and instituted by Emmanuel.The history of this innovation is easily traced. Extreme

unction in its present form, was the child of the twelfth cen-tury. The monuments of Christian theology for eleven hun-dred years mention no ceremony, which, in its varied andunmeaning mummery, corresponds with the unction of Roman-ism. The patrons of this superstition have rifled the annalsof' ecclesiastical history for eleven ages, and have failed in thediscovery of either precept or example for a rite, which, theyaffirm,was practised as a sacrament in every nation of Christen-dom since the era of redemption.The twelfth century, of which this filthy ceremony is the

offspring,was the reign of ignorance and superstition. Scienceand literature seemed, in disgust, to fly from a tasteless anddegenerated world. Philosophy refused to shed a single rayon It grovelling race, who hated or despised its light. Immo-rality, as usual, kept pace with barbarism. Moral and intel-lectual darkness commingled their clouds around man, for thepurpose of forming a night of concentrated horror and atrocity.The king and the subject, the clergy and the laity, conspiredagainst all information; while the Sun of Righteousness seemedto withdraw his beams from a wicked and a wandering worJd.Amid this intellectual and moral darkness, the apostolic cere-

mony, noticed by Mark and James, degenerated, by accumu-lated innovations, into the Romish sacrament. Superstition,from her overflowing fountain, poured her copious streams,which mingling, but not united with the scriptnral spring,formed the heterogeneous and unsightly mass. The simplerite was transformed into the clumsy sacrament. The originalunction, intended for the recovery of health to particularindividuals, continued, while the gift of healing and the powerof workinz miracles remained. 'fJut these, in process of time,ceased, and the weai:ness of man prompted many to use theexternal rite after the miraculous power was suspended. Thepatient's health, not indeed by the miraculous application ofthe oil, but by the ordinary operations of Providence, wassometimes restored: and the recovery, in these cases, wasascribed to the ointment. But many, though anointed, died:and the observance, in these instanees, though the bodysuffered, was supposed to be beneficial to the soul. Therecovery of health, therefore, was accounted conditional, andthe good of the soul was reckoned certain. Superstition, fromday to day and from age to age, appended new additions to

Page 464: The Variations of Popery

464 THE VABIATIONS OF POPERY.

the growing ceremony. The episcopal consecration of the oil,its indiscriminate application and other innovations, dictatedby the demon of superstition, were superinduced on the pristineinstitution. The filthy progeny of ignorance and superstitioncame, at last, to maturity. Bernard, Victor, and Lombard, inthe twelfth century, speak of the unction of the sick in modernlanguage, enlarged with the multiplied accessions of elevenhundred years. Albert, Aquinas, and other schoolmen touchedthe picture with characteristic subtilty. These theologicalprojectors brought the system to perfection, and exhibited it tothe world in a finished form. The novelty, in 1439, wasadapted by Pope Eugenius and the Florentine council, andstamped with the seal of their unqualified approbation andsynodal infallibility.The subject came afterwards before the council of Trent.

But the doctors who attended that assembly differed, andquibbled, and argued, and squabbled on this, as on every othersubject without harmony and often without meaning,' Eachmaintained his own opinion with warmth and obstinacy. TheLegates, therefore, in forming the canons, omitted many of thejarring opinions of the angry theologians, and inserted only thosein which they agreed. These, the sacred synod in the four:teenth session, ratified with dreadful anathemas, discharged fromtheir spiritual artillery against all who; should gainsay. Thesecanons, therefore, though hardly intelligible, became, on thistopic of theology, the professed standard of faith, and form ofexternal conformity among the patrons of Romanism. Theveering vane of popery, which had shifted in ceaseless varia-tion round all the points of the theological compass, rusted, inmotionless inflexibility, during the long sessions of the Trentinecongress, and, on this, as on every other topic of divinity, fixed,in a great measure, the modern system of superstition.

1De Ia etoientnees Ies contestations, qui les em~hoientd'~tre tous bien uniscontre 1es Lutheriens. Paolo, 1. 556. Du Pin, 3. 481. Labb. 20. 102.

Page 465: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER XVI.

IMAGE-WORSHIP.

!l'lIllBB STSTlIlHS-ONll ALLOWS THB USB 01' DlAGBS-THlII BBOOND PATBONISI8 ~UlFBRIOB OB HONOllABY WOBBHIP---THB THIBD PRBFBB8 THB IlAJ(B ADORATIONTO THB BBPBII8BNTATION AS TO THB ORIGINAL-DlAGB-WOBBHIP A VABUTION!'BOil: SOllIl'TUll.AL AUTHORITY-A VAlUATION J'BOII: BOOLlI8lASTIOAL ANTIQUlTT-IIIBAOULOUS PBQO:rs--.:-A.DII:IBBIONS-IN'hoDUOTION 0." IlfAGBS INTO TIIlI oiroBOK-TDIB WOBSHIP-IOONOOLABl[-BTZAl!l'.rINJI OOUNOIL-BBOOND NIOBNB OOUNCIL-WBSTBBN STII'.l'BH~LINB BOOJt8-J'B.ANl[J'OBDIA.N OOUNOIL-PABIBIA.N COUNCIL-MASTIIBJf VABUTIONS-J'INAL BSTABIJSHHBlfT 01' IDOLATRY BY THJIODOBA.

BELLARMINE and Juenin distinguish the Popish systems ODimage-worship into three classes,' One class recommends theuse of images, but rejects their worship. This party allowsthe superstition of Romanism, but forbids its idolatry. .A.second class patronises both the use, and the imperfect orinferior worship of these painted and sculptured representa.-tions. This faction countenances the idolatry as well as thesuperstition. .A. third class prefers the same adoration to thecopy as to the original; and, therefore, with respect to theimages of God and his Son, are guilty of the grossest idolatry.The class that permits the use of painted forms in the wor-

s.!rlp of God, have touched the subject with a deceitful pen.God only, according to these authors, is worshipped in the pre-sence of the image, which is not honored for its own lI&ke.A picture or statue is neither God, the p~ of His residence,the symbol of His presence, nor the seat of His power. Thepa.inted or sculptured representation possesse8 neither divinitynor power, and is the object of neither prayer nor confidence.The suppliant prays not to, but, before the effigy, for the pur-pose of fixing his thoughts and preventing diStraction of mind.He offers no adoration to the work of the pencil or the chisel,as if it were substituted for God. The supplication is ad-dressed not to the ma.terial representation, but to the personrepresented. The likeness, the production of the painter orthe statuary, is a mere memorial of the original, as a portrait isof a friend. The sensible resemblance, in the one case,

1Bell ii. 20. .TueDiD, t. 414-DD

Page 466: The Variations of Popery

�66 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

awakens friendship; and, in the other, kindles devotion, assiststhe memory, and communicates instruction. The copy raisesthe soul, in holy gratitude and piety, to the great exemplar, 118time, painted with its hour-glass, reminds the spectator of itsmotion and fleetness.'Pictures, in this system, are the books of the unlearned,

which, in the unlettered mind, awaken trains of holy thoughtand meditation. The effigy or painting, which, in this manner,is the book of the illiterate, is also the ornament of the temple.These partisans of modern refinement seldom use the termworship or adoration, but henor, esteem, homage, respect, orVfttleration. These allow no more respect for the materialform, than a Jew would feel for the ark, or the altar, or aChristian for the Bible or the sacramental elements,"Such, on this topic, is the refined system of many, and among

the rest, of Thomassin, Bossuet, Alexander, Juenin, Du Pin,Gother, Challenor, and Lanciano. Statements of this kind arevery convenient in the kingdoms of Protestantism and safety;but the authors were prudent in publishing their opinions at arespectful distance from Spain, Portugal, Goa, and the inqui-sition.The second class honor images with an inferior or imperfect

worship. These, however, offer no Latria or supreme adora-tion to the pencilled resemblance. This homage they ascribeonly to the ..Almighty. But the copy, they contend, is entitledto veneration, on account of its dedication and similarity to theprototype. This worship, :Bella.rmine calls imperfect, andJuenin internal or absolute. This faction include a numerousparty in the Romish communion, among whom are Bellsnnine,Baronius, Estius, Godeau, and Spondanus,"This class, :Bellarmine has shewn, maintain the same system

as the second Nicene council. The Niceans represented imagesas holy, communicating holiness, and entitled to the same vene-ra.ti~n as the gospels. The infallible synod also condemnedthose who used pictures only for assisting the memory, and notfor adoration,"The Trentine professed to follow the Nicene council. The

former, however, seems on this subject to have modified, if notcontradicted the latter. The Niceans characterised images as1Non quod cred.atur inesee aliqua DivinitU vel virtns, vel quod ab eis Bit

alicraid petendum, v~ quod fiducia in imaginibus Bit figenda. Labb. 20. 171.:8eD. 11. 20. JuemD, 4. 415. Gother. c. 1. Boss. §. 4. Fleury, 197. ChAl·

Jon. Co 'rI.tG«Jeau. So 13. Crabb. 3. 748. Fet'80nne D'adOle Ie bois. On adOle Di61l, et

c· .... oertaia ... 'on D'adore que lui seul. Bouuet, Op. 1. 445, 448.• BeD. n. II), 26. God-. 5. 612. Labb. 8. 700.fDa fSD, 2... BelL n. 21. Bin. 5. 530.

Page 467: The Variations of Popery

DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF IMAGE WORSHIP. '67

holy while the .,Trentine accounted these painted and sculp-tured forms void of any virtue. The worship and adorationof the Nicene assembly are, in the canons of Trent, reduced tohonor and veneration. The Latin synod, which met after thereformation, had, in some measure, to follow the advancedstate of literature and philosophy, and to present a more rationalview of the subject than the Grecian convention, which issuedits decisions in an age of barbarism and superstition.The third class prefer the same adoration to the representa-

tion as to the represented.' The copy, taken in connexion withthe pattern, is, according to these authors, entitled to equalveneration, as the royal robe, which adorns a king, shares thehonors of majesty. The likeness of God or his Son, in mentalconjunction with the original, is therefore the object of Latriaor divine adoration. The effigy of Lady Mary is to receiveHyperdulia or intermediate worship; while the sta.tueof thesaint or the martyr can claim only Dulia or inferior honorand veneration. This honor, however, is only relative.Bellarmine, entangled in the intricacy and absurdity of hisstatements on this topic, extricates himself by hair-breadth andUnintelligible distinctions. This is the system of Aquinas,Cajeta.n, Bonaventura, Antoninus, Turrecrema, Turrisn,Vasquez, and the sohoolmen,' .Tlie Romish communion, in general, ascribes supreme wor-

ship to the cross. Aquinas, with the utmost perspicuity andwithout any equivocation, attributes Latria or sovereign wor-ship to the cross as well as to our Lord's im~e. According tothe ~lic doctor, tthe cross is to be worshipped with Latria,which 18 also to be addressed to Jesus and his image." Theschoolmen, in general, supported the same system, and main-tained that tLatrian adoration is due to the holy CroBB and tothe image of Immanuel,' .Similar idolatry is encouraged in the Roman pontifical, mis-

sal, breviary, and processional The Pontifical expressly de-clares that 'Latria is due to the cross.' Divine worship, inthis manner, is addressed to a wooden deity. The missal,published by the authority of Pius, Clement, and Urban, enjoins,'The clergy and laity on bended knees to adore the cross.'The whole choir, in the mean time, sing, 'Thy cross, 0 Lord,we adore; for by the wood of the cross, the whole world is:filled with joy.' The breviary, revised and corrected also bypontifical authority, conta.ins the following hymns and petitions1Bell. rr, 20. Juenin, 4. 414. Aquin. iii 25. IV. P. 140.~em adOl'atione, qua adoratur prototapum, adorandum esae imaginem ejus :

et lIe unago Christi et Dei adoranda est Ja1iria. Faber, 1. 121. DeW, 5. 38,45., Saint Thomas attnDue a ]a Croix Ie eultie deLatria, qui est le cul\e supr&ne.

Bouuet,<Euvrea, 1.448.

Page 468: The Variations of Popery

468 THE V.AlUA.TIONB OF POPERY.

supplicating the cross for righteousness, pardon, and salvation.•Hail, 0 crOBB,our only hope: increase righteousness to thepious and bestow pardon on the guilty. Save the presentassembly, met this day for thy praise. 0 venerable cross, thathas procured salvation for the wretched. Thy cross, 0 Lord,we adore, and we commemorate thy glorious passion.' Similarprayers are found in the processional, edited by Urbsn, Inno-cent, .Alexander, and Clement; and stronger language ofadoration could not be addressed to God.' This homage andthese requests, offered to the wood and accompanied with allthe mummery of bowing, kissing, kneeling, lighting, incensing,and prostration, are nothing less than bare-faced idolatry,exhibited in noon-day without a shadow to screen its nakednessor deformity.Bossuet indeed would excuse the impiety, by representing

the cross, though made of wood and so denominated, as a.poetical expression, or figurative language for Immanuel, whosuffered crucifixion. The adoration, therefore, on the occasion,is, it would appear, only metaphorical idolatry. This no doubt,was a happy discovery. The learned bishop, by his superiordiscernment, might see how lifeless timber could, by a trope,be transubstantiated into the living Saviour. He might plasterhis conscience and display his ingenuity,. by such evasion orsubterfuge. But the unlettered worshipper might have lessrefinement, and possess less acquaintance with figures of speechand license of poetry. The metaphor might, to the people, behard of digestion. A plain man might, in his simplicity, thinkthat wood, though in the form of a cross, is wood, and notJehovah.The many kinds of worship, ascribed to images by Romish

doctors, show their disagreement, shufHing, and difficulty, aswell as the absurdity of their system. Latria, Dulia, Hyper-dnlia, sovereign, supreme, divine, subordinate, inferior, impro-per, relative, outwa.nl, reductive, analogical, accidental, im:per-feet and honorary worship, all these epithets and distinctions.and many more, have been used by Romish theologians, to1Crux Christi eat adoranda adoratione Latrire. Aquin. ill. t25. iv. Eadem

n'exentia e~ imagini Christi et ipei Christo; ejus imago Bit adorationelamJe adoranda. Aqum... m. Q. 25. art. ilL P. 140.SchoJaatieoe iIlos, qui Christi iInagini. atque sanctiaaimal cruci Latrilll caltum

tribuendum _. Span. 7tn. Vil.Crux Legati A.poIItiolici erif;ad dexP'am, quia Latriailli debetier. Pon. Rom.206.

. CIapoi elWei" f;erger.dbus JIexia crucem.ldon.nt. ..PlOpter Ji&num, gaudilUXlm 1UlIT8l'IIOunmdo. Mi8B. Rom. 157. 158.

o Crux. ave apes unica,AugepiiBj~

'" . B.ei8que clOD. veDiam.Saml'llllpr"...-am_bom caterYam, ID .. hodielaudibu ~ 0 CI'1lX V8D-

erabi1ia q.. IalQem utaliIti miIerilto &e.. Rom. 982, 983."1'rocea Rom. 306.

Page 469: The Variations of Popery

DUGE WORSHIP A VABIATION FROM SCRIPTURE. 469

evade difficulty or explain nonsense. These, they wield withequal resolution and fury against heretics and against eachother. The popish advocate finds himself opposed to theancients, and exposed to their heaviest artillery. But he es-capes by a distinction. His system differs from some Pope orcouncil. But all is reconciled by the mediation of some luckyepithet or some useful discrimination; and these are numerousand ready on every occasion of difficulty.Such, on this topic, is the unity of Romanism. Its councils

and doctors, like the workmen of Babel at the confusion ofspeech, are unintelligible and contradictory. Papal theologiansand schoolmen, for the purpose of reconciling their jarring sys-tems, have recourse to hair-breadth distinctions, which involvetheir works in midnight obscurity. The discrepancy of theircouncils is augmented by the war of commentators, who rivaleach other in nonsense and hostility.Im~e worship, in all its forms, is a variation from scriptural

authonty, and from Jewish and Christian antiquity. The Jewishtheology and usage excluded all pencilled, graven, and sculp-tured representations. The God of the Hebrews, in the secondcommandment, which many popish catechisms have prudentlyomitted, forbids making and adoring the likeness of any thingin heaven or earth. The Jewish legislator, actuated by inspira-tion, cautioned Israel against the formation of any graven orstony effigy, for the purpose of bowing down to such a senselessstatue. He warned the Jews against shaping the likeness ofany beast, fowl, fish, or reptile, and against worshipping thesun, moon, or stars of heaven.' Perversity itself, one wouldthink, could scarcely misunderstand or misrepresent langtJ~e,which possesses such perspicuity and precision. The interdlCo-tion comprehends every likeness or effigy,which, if worshipped,become in a scriptural sense an idol, ,Pope Adrian, the second Nicene council, a.nd many modems,

have pretended to find examples of their system in the cherubimand brazen serpent. But these, unhappily for the Romishtheology, were neither itnages of saints nor objects of worship.The cherubim overshadowed the mercy-seat in the inner courtof the temple, where they were not even seen, and, if possible,8tilliess worshipped by the Hebrews. No evidence of theiradoration indeed has been attempted. Adrian and the Niceans,as an evidence of their infallibility, have, in this case, substitu-ted an assumption for proof: Aquinas, Vasquez, Lorin, Azorius,and Viaorius, Popish theologians, admit that no adoration wasaddressed to the cherubim.'1LentiClUl uvi. 1. Deuteronomy iv. 15.'SentPbba DOn pcmebADtur ad mdtum. Aquin. 1. 328. Labb. 8. 1399.

Crabb. !.486. AIeL If. 689. Bell. n. 12.

Page 470: The Variations of Popery

470 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

The brazen serpent, typical of the healing Emmanuel, couldnot be the image of a beautiful saint. A serpent could not re-semble' the human face divine.' The beauty of the one couldnot be represented by the other's deformity, which is calcula-ted to excite horror rather than veneration. Serpentine subtiltypresents a contrast rather than a similarity to the holy men andwomen, especially to the latter, raised to the honor of Romancanonization. These, characterized, as all know, by innocenceand purity, are a foil to an animal' distinguished by its noxious-ness and deceit.The Jews, immured in barbarism, had established, it would

seem, no manufactory of saints similar to the Roman process,which has been so useful in the days of modern improvementand popery. The Hebrews were allowed to pass to heaven orpurgatory without any apotheosis or beatification. The serpent,which the Jewish legislator made of brass, was exposed to theview of Israel, but never recommended to their adoration. Noinsinuation of the kind is found in all the inspired canon. TheHebrews indeed, prone, like modern papists, to idolatry, began,in the reign of Hezekiah, to burn incense to that monument ofJewish antiquity, But the Jewish sovereign, moved, like theEmperors Leo, Constantine, and Theophilus, with holy ardorfor the honor of God, shattered the object of idolatry intofragments,' ,Gregory the Second represents Ozias, who lived eighty-four

years before the event and was great grand-father to Hezekiah,as the breaker of the brazen serpent. Ozias, says the pontUfto the emperor, was your brother and displayed the same perti-nacity. His holiness, having spent in worshipping images thetime, which he should have devoted to the reading of the Bible,was ignorant that the breaking of the serpent' was right in thesight of the Lord: His Infallibility also makes' David bringthe brazen serpent and the holy ark into the Jewish temple,though the Hebrew monarch, as all except his holiness knew,died before the erection of that sacred edifice which was builtby Solomon." This was very clever in his holiness, and afine specimen of this terrestrial god's infallibility. Few, it isprobable, could have effected. such an achievement. Hissupremacy, in his unerring wisdom, should have explained themeans by which, with so great facility, he conveyed the serpentand the ark into a house that was a nonentity. He shouldhave described the manner and wonderful machinery, whichdeposited the two Jewish implements with 80 much safety in12 Kiap, xviii f.t Dhua ~ ~ David, ua _areasaneta iD templum mve-

xit. G. iaLMb. 8. 6lI8. -BiD. 6. 006. Chroa. xxvi. 23. et xnii. 9. xxviii. 27.

Page 471: The Variations of Popery

IMAGE WORSHIP A VARIATION FROM SCRIPTURE. 4!'ll

an unbuilt fabric and under an unformed roof. Gregory WI\Sa valuable head of the church, a precious vicar-general of God,and a useful teacher of all Christlans, His infalibility, notwith-standing these and many other blunders of his own, had thehardihood to upbraid the emperor Leo. with his ignorance andstupidity. Having characterised the emperor as a mere ninny,his holiness, in his sacerdotal modesty and Christian humility,represented himself as 'an earthly deity.'Image worship is a variation from the Christian as well as

from the Jewish revelation. The superstition receives no coun-tenance from the monuments of ecclesiastical antiquity. PopeAdrian, in a letter read and approved in the second Nieenecouncil, could muster only one quotation in the New Testamentin favor of idolatry; and thill, his infallibility was obliged topervert to make it answer his purpose. Jacob, according tohis holiness, followed by the Rhemists, 'adored the top of hisrod.' The. patriarch, on this supposition, must through agehave been doting. His adoration, if his infallibility and theRhemists were not mistaken. was addressed to a very humbledeity; and was certainly the offspring of bad taste as well aslittle sense. Adrian, to maintain a silly system, makes an idiotof Jacob. All, however, is the effect of mistranslation andmisrepresentation. The patriarch was not a fool; but thePope, supported in the rear by the Nicene council and theRhemish annotators, was a knave. Hoary Israel, worn outwith age and infirmity, leaned on his staff, whilst, in faith, headored God and blessed the sons of Joseph. The pontiff, theNiceans, and the Rhemists, Unfaithful to the original, havewith unblush~ impudence and perversity, omitted the pre-position, and, m consequence, made the Hebrew proehetworship the worthless wood, the produce of the soil TheRhemists besides have, with shameless effrontery, accused theProtestants of mistranslation and corruption of the Greek,which contains the preposition,' • .The Niceans, varying on this topic from fact and reason, vary

also from themselves. Having made the patriarch worship awalking-stick, the infallible fathers wheeled to the right aboutand denied point-blank that his adoration was addressed. tothe wood. Jacob, says Adrian approved by the Nicea.ns,worship-ped not the stick, but Joseph.~ The unerring synod, in sheer1Jacob IIUlIImitatem virp filii Joseph deoecalatua 1llIt. Lallb. 8. 754. Bin.

5. 558. Hebrews, xi. 21.~Non quod virgam. illam, sed tenentem eam, in signum dilectionis, adorarit.

Crabb. 2. 480.!,.ignum non adorarit, sed per lignum, Joseph. Labb.8. 1400.Jacob,in IUmmitate rirgJeJ_ph adoraA8 dicitur, non I&Ile ligno ilium eultwa

exhibeU, Labb. 8. 1423.

Page 472: The Variations of Popery

THE VAlUATIONS OF POPERY.

contradiction, proceeded, on the. same subject and nearly inthe same breath both to affirm and deny.The RhemistA on this point vary from the Niceans, who had

differed from themselves. The former make the Jewish seerworship the end of a rod. The latter affirm that his adorationwas addressed to his son; though, soaring nobly above all con-sistency, they had, in the preceding sentence, represented awalking-staff as the object of his homage. Agreed in imputingidolatry to Jacob, these two interpreters differ in attempting toaccount for the impiety. Jacob, say the Niceans, acted fromregard to his son and a partiality to the staff, which, thesefathers discovered by their infallibility belonged to Joseph.The patriarch, says the Rhemists, was moved by a venerationfor the rod, which, the sage annotatera discovered withoutany infallibility, prefigured the sceptre and kingdom of theMessiah.1The council and. the annotators, jarring in this way with one

another, gainsay the ablest Jewish translators, Christian fathers,and Popish commentators. The English Protestant transla-tion agrees with those of Aquila, Symmachus, and the Targumsof Onkelos and Jerusalem.' Aquila, Symmachus, and Onkelos,in Origen, Calmet, and Walton, render the parallel passage inGenesis, ' Israel, worshipped, turning towards the head of hiscouch.' According to the Targum of Jerusalem, 'Jacobpraised God on his bed.'The Popish version, varying from the Jewish critics Aquila,

Symmachus, and Onkelos, varies also from the Christianfathers, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret, and a Parisian synod,'Jerome translates the Hebrew, 'Israel turning to the head ofthe bed, adored God.' According to the comment of Augus-tine on Paul's words taken from the Septuagint, , Jacob,leaning on the end of his staff, worshipped God' Theodoret'sinterpretation is similar to Augustine's. Israel, according tothis expositor on Genesis, 'worshipped, reclining his head onhis staff, which he held ill his right hand.' The Parisiancouncil's interpretation in 824, coincides with that of Jerome,.Augustine, and Theodoret. .The second synod of Nice and the tranalators of Rheims,

differing from Jerome, Augustine, and Theodoret, differ alsofrom the learned translators Simon, Capellus, Houbigant,1Crabb. 2. 480$ Rhem. on Reb. xi 21.t IIpolrRtJl"l/Cr8' 16fH1l71A , ""'I' -!JaA7II' 'Ff/$ 1tAJrf/.. Aquil. inOrig. Hex. 1. 52.~ IIT,.."A "0 ap_ .,.".lrA.Ir1/s. Orig. Rex. 1.52. Calm. 23.

7f2. Walton, 6. 8..SAdoravit; UraeI. COUverBua ad lectuli C&\lut;. Jerom. 1. 52.

. SIil iDclJin&vit;ad Deum adorandum, id u:a:::11116 anper cacumen virp

.... qoaan Ilie feteb&to ut; 1IUpe1' ea:m, C&pIlt; •• 0 Ildoraret. Aug. 3.418.~ ~ ." ,..,. .,.",,~. Theodoret, 1.71.

Page 473: The Variations of Popery

IMAGE WORSHIP A VARIATION PROM SClUPTURE. 473

Hesselan, C~us, Vatablus, Pagnin, and Montanus, as wellas from the Syriac, Samaritan, and Vulgate. All these representJacob as worshipping, leaning on the head of his staff or bed.The Vulgate of Genesis, faithful to the Hebrew, inserts thepreposition; and the Douay translators accordingly havefollowed the Latin, and allowed the patriarch to adore, not arod, but Jehovah. The preposition, which is found in theGreek Septuagint cited by Paul, is now omitted in the Latinof the Vulgate; though used in the days of Augustine in someof the more correct manuscripts,'. The Niceans and Rhemists, clashing with other expositorsand translators, disagree with the ablest Popish commentators,such as Bede, Lyra, Erasmus, Quesnel, and Ualmet, who per-mit Jacob to worship the Almighty.2 The patriarch, says Bede,'adored God.' According to Lyra, 'Israel, being old, held astaff on which he reclined in adoring God. The meaning is not,that he adored the top of his staff; but that he adored God,leaning on the top of his staff.' Christians, says Erasmus,, abhorred, at that time, the adoration of any created object, andkept this honor only for God: Jacob, says Quesnel, 'wor-shipped God, leaning on his sta.ff.' The Jewish prophet, says.the learned and judicious Calmet, 'adored God, supported onthe end of his staff. He leaned his head on his staff to worshipGod.'Pope Gregory, who had made Ozias break the brazen serpent

before he was born, and David bring it into the temple beforeit was built, discovered another argument in the New Testa-ment. Jesus said, 'where the carcass is, there will the eaglesbe gathered.' The Lord, says Gregory, was the carcass.The eagles were men ofpiety, who, according to his infallibility,flew aloft like eagles to Jerusalem, and yortrayed Jesus, James,Stephen, and the martyrs," The portraits, taken as they werefrom real life, being exhibited to the whole world, men, engagedby the holy representations, forsook the worship of Satan forthe worship of these striking likenesses of Jesus, James, and

1Alex. 14. 753. Simon. in Loco. Calm. 23. 7~. Eeti1l8, 2. IlK9. Houbig.1.150. Montan. 1.60. Walton, 1.214. Aug. 3. 418.

2 Adoravit Deum, Beds, 6. 811.Quia erat senex, habebat baculum,:super hujus summitatem nitebatur, in ado-

rando De1JII1. Unde non est intelligendum, quod adoravit summitatem virgmvel bacu1i, eed &doravit Damn, innixus super b8culum. Lyra, 5. 156.In tantum, eo tempore, abhorrebant ab adoranclia ullis rebus creatis, soli Deo,

hoc honoris servantes. Erasm. 6. 101It.n&doraDieu, appuy6 sur Ie biten. Quetllle1, 4. 333.n&doraDien, appuy6 sur l'erlremiU de I!IOIl bAton. 11 peneha 1& tAte BUr

IOn bAton pour adorer Dieu. Calmet, 23. 741.8 ChriatUa autem cadaver. Aqnibe, in BUblime volante&, religiOlli aunt

homines. Labb. 8. 655. 770.· BiD. 5. 503. Matt. mv. 28.

Page 474: The Variations of Popery

THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

..

Stephen. This was very sensible in the vicar-general of God.and makes the thing very clear. Some heretical critics, indeed,who are too officious, have wondered how the supreme pontiffobtained his information; while many have had the temerityto hint that the proselytism, on this supposition, was only fromone kind of idolatry to another. Some, too, supposing throughignorance or mistake that the world was converted by thepreaching of the gospel, have questioned the use of images inthe important work. But these heretics, always meddling andtroublesome, have, in these insinuations, shewn, as usual, theirinsufferable impertinence. The second Nicene council, on thesekinds of topics, deprecated, in their usual prudence, all narrowand unnecessary scrutiny. The Roman hierarch's expositioncontains a momentous discovery, which, in importance andutility, rivals those of Montanus, Swedenborg, and Southcott,.and must have been very satisfactory to himself and his friends.His infallibility's oomment is like the ra"ring of a man who iscrazy, and who has escaped from the responsibility which mightbe supposed to attend on sanity of intellect. The pontiff'sinterpretation presents an unequalled specimen of jargon. Thefather and teacher of all Christians, on this occasion, has carriednonsense to a state of unqualified perfection which fears DOrivalry. •

J Such is the specimen of arguments, for this system, takenfrom the Bible and founded on Scriptural authority. Manyothers of the same kind and equally silly might be produced.But the Nicene logic, if it deserves the name, is unworthy ofrepetition. The reasoning resembles the mockery of a Swift orsome other satirist, who, in a keen vein of irony, exposed thecause which he pretended to advocate. Gregory, Adrian, andthe Nicene council, it would seem, wished to excite a laugh attheir own expense.Symbolical worship is a variation from ecclesiastical antiquity,

as well as from Scriptural authority. The early fathers, copy-ing the example of the Jewish prophets and Christian apostles,exploded the impiety from their system. These disclaimed theworship of images as the invention of Satan, injurious to devo-tion, and deceitful, as books for the unlearned, as monitors forthe memory, or aids for piety.The partisans of emblematic worship, driven from the fort-

ress of Scriptural authority and authentic history, have in-trenched themselves behind the wonders of legendary tales andmiraculous testimony. Fabrications and miracles have, in theabsence of Scriptural and historical evidence, been sought forthe support at a system. inconsistent with reason and Revela.-tion. The second Nicene council collected a vast accumulation

Page 475: The Variations of Popery

VARIATION FROM: ECCLESIASTICAL ANTIQUITY. 475

of this rubbis1l, and have been followed in modern times byBaronius, Bellarmine, Binius, Turriano, Maimbourg, andAlexander, who have transcribed the fictions and emblazonedthe' lying wonders' of Evagrius, Nicephorus, Damaseen, andTheodorus. A few of these will show the ignorance andcredulity of the ancient and modern patrons of idolatry.The portrait of Jesus, sent to Abgarus, King of Edessa,

claims the first place. His Edessan majesty, it seems, sentAnanias to Judea to draw the Messiah's likeness. This taskthe artist attempted, but could not perform, on account of thesplendor which radiated from Emmanuel's countenance.Seeing the painter's embarrassment, Jesus washed his face,and, in a miraculous manner, impressed his sacred and divinelikeness on a linen cloth, which, with the politest attention, he.handed to Ananias. The Son of God, says Pope Gregory,sent Abgarus his glorious face, which the sovereign of Edessaworshipped with great devotion,' This portrait, wonderful totell, the work of no mortal pencil, the creation of the Divineoriginal, was lefbduring a tedious lapse of five hundred years,to slumber on the niche of a wall, from which, after long obliv-ion, it was released by the hand of superstition or credulity.The unpencilled picture, made without hands, became thepalladium of the nation's Safety, and delivered the Edessansfrom the arms of the Persians. The silly fabrication, in reality,unknown in the days of Eusebius, was the invention of thesixth century. The Syrian legend, which adorned the annalsof superstition and credulity, constituted the panoply of Gregory.Damascen, and the second Nicene Council.I~es of Lady Mary, as well as of her Son, adorned the altar

and edified the faithful. Arnold, it seems, in his peregrinationsin Palestine, saw an. extraordinary likeness of her ladyship. Thisportrait had been drawn on wood, which afterwards, wonderfulto tell, was transformed into human mould and assumed a livingform and substance. Flesh grew over the wood of the tablet,and over the colors of the pencil.' The incarnated paintingbegan to emit a fragrant oil, which healed the disorders of aUkiJids of men, Christians, J ewe, and Saracens. The medicinallI.uidcontinued, from age to age, to flow without any diminu-tion either in quantity or effect.John, who was a hermit and wholivedinaca.ve in Palestine,

twenty miles from Jerusalem, worshipped an image of LadyMary, with her Son in her arms, before which, in his cell, he1 Sacram lit glori08&JJl faciem suam ad eum miait. Greg. ad Leo. Labb. 8.

lIIili. Spon. 31. XXIII. Evag IV. '.fT. Cedren. 1. 140. Bin. 5. 716.2Pictura II1lJI81' lipum eat iDeamata. et olellDl muime odorifenun emittel'e

Clepit. SpoDdan. 870. IX.

Page 476: The Variations of Popery

�76 THE VARU.TIONS OF POPERY.

kept a candle always burning. The solitary made frequentperegrinations to Sina, to the great desert, and to Jerusalem,for the important purpose of adoring the Holy Cross. He wasalso a great votary of the martyrs ; and showing no mercy tohis unfortunate feet, which he wore for the good of his soul, hevisited Theodorus, John, Sergius and Tecla. His journeywould, at a time, occupy two, four, or six'months ; and, duringhis absence, he committed the light tothe care of her Ladyship,to prevent the Mother and Son from being in darkness. Theanchoret travelled, and left the Queen of Heaven to snuff thecandle. The mother of God executed the humble task withgreat fidelity. John, on his return from his holy and usefulpilgrimages, found the candle always burning, and, notwith-standing his long absence, remaining, through her Ladyship'sattention, not the least wasted,'The Cross, like the images of Jesus and Mary, became the

object of worship and the agent of miracles. Theodorus, accord-ing to Bede and Godeau, brought the true cross from Jeru-salem to Constantinople, and deposited it in the Temple ofSophia. This wooden deity was there exhibited on the Thursday,Friday, and Saturday of Holy-Week, for the adoration of thelaymen, the women, and the clergy. The laymen on Thursdayadored the jointed divinity, who, in all probability, was worm-eaten, but still perhaps respectable as Priapus. The women,on Friday, performed the sublime and august ceremony, andthe clergy, on Saturday, engaged, with great piety and edifica-tion, in the same duty. The god was then locked in a chest,to sleep for the rest of the year. During the display, and whilethe Cross lay on the altar, the temple was filled with a wonder-ful odor. His transverse, godship, it appears, was, amongother attributes, distinguished by the superiority of his smell.A fragrant liquor, also, like oil, which healed all kinds ofsickness, flowed in copious streams from the knots of the sacredwood, which composed the frame of this clumsy god.2The authority on which the second Nicene council as well 88

the modems, Baronius, Bellarmine, M.aimbourg, and Alexanderrest these accounts, is, as the candid Du Pin has shewn, desti-tute of authenticity, pertinence, and antiquity. Many of theirquotations for evidence are from supposititious productions.Works are ascribed to Basil, Chrysostom, and Athanasius,which these saints never saw, though cited in their name, bytheNiceans, Baronius, and Bellarmine. Some of their author-ities are impertinent as well as apocryphal. Many of theNieene citations from Basil, Cyril and Gregory, testify, saysj)u ~not the 'Worship of images, but merely their use.1 La1Jb. 8. 1461. BiD. 6. '118. 2 Beda, 323. Godeau, 6. 13'1. Honee, Sat. 2.

Page 477: The Variations of Popery

PRETENDED MIRACULOUS PROO:FS OF IMAGE WORBffiP. 477J

The authorities .of the Niceans, Baronius, Bellarmine, andAlexander are,as void of antiquity as of pertinence and authen-ticity. The sacred synod and their copyists could not, for theirsystem, produce the testimony of a single father who livedprior to the fourth century. Their chief vouchers for this su-perstition are Chrysostom, Gregory, Athanasius, Basil, Cyril,Nilus, Simeon, Sophron, Anastasius, Leontius, Germanus,Dsmsscen, and Evagrius. Chrysostom, Gregory, Athanasius,and Basil flourished in the fourth century, and the rest in thesucceeding ages of Christianity. All these, it is admitted,lived after the introduction of symbolical worship. No author,for three hundred years after the commencement of the Ohristianera, is quoted. This tedious and lengthened period elapsedwithout a single individual, iu all Ohristendom, to recommendor exemplify this impiety. The annals of these ages supplynot a solitary testimony which ingenuity itself, and much lessthe stupidity of Gregory, Adrian, and the Nicene prelacy, couldpervert into evidence for emblematic adoration.The force of truth extorted confessions to this effect from

many popish critics and historians, Many who were attachedto Romanism have admitted the exclusion of images in thedays of antiquity, notwithstanding the confident, but unfoundedassertions of Baronius, Bellarmine, Binius, Turriano, Juenin,Maimbourg, and many more of the same descri-ption. Fromamong the number who have made this acknowledgment, may,as a specimen, be selected Petavius, Daniel, Mezeray, Alexan-der, Pagius, Du Pin, Erasmus, Oassander, Gyrsldus, Mendoza,Bruys, Polydorus, Clemangis, and Crinitus. Petavius, Daniel,Mezeray, Alexander, Pagius, and Du Pin w:ant the scarcitr. Oftotal want of painted or sculptured representatioJUI in priuutivetimes, lest their use should have offended the Jews or temptedthe P~ to idola.try. Erasmus represents men of piety asexcluding painted, sculptured, and woven images from Christiantemples, till the age of Jerome in the fourth century. Christi&1W,at the commencement of preaching the Gospel, det.ested. saysOassander, the use and veneration of any likeness in the WOf-ship of God. According to GyraJ.dus, Christians, like theRomans, remained for some time without im.a.ges. Mendoza.,Bruys, Polydorus, and Olemangis make similar admissions.Crillitus reprehends Origen, La.cta.ntius, and some others of theancients for condemning symbolicaJ. WOrship.l1Imaginea, per tria priora IIlIlCU1a in oratoriis oollocataa non fuilIIIe, nee fre-

quenter etiam indomibue privatiB 1I6l'V&ta8. Petav. in Juenin, 4. 380.DaDa IeCOIIlIIlencement de 1'4Ig1i&e, l'uage des images n'etoit pas fll!quent.Du. 2. 77.:r- peintarea et 1. iJDapI de relief etoient fort r&nl8 dana 188.sgu- avant

CcJutaD.tin Ie Grand. Me.eray, Av. Clov. 461.

Page 478: The Variations of Popery

THE VABlATIONS OF POPERY.

The use of images, which preceded their worship and whichcommenced in the fourth century, was, on this topic, the firstvariation from Romanism, The Simonians, Carpocratians,Manicheans, and Collyridians, at an earlier date, had, asappears from Ireneeus, Augustine, and Epiphsnius, begun thisimpiety. The Gnostics, in succeeding times, began to worshipthe statues of Jesus, Pythagoras, and Plato, and the Simonian,Manichean, .and Gnostic absurdity of emblematic worship, wasafterwards copied by the mistaken friends of Christianity.Images, says Alexander, unknown in Christendom in the firstages, were uncommon in the fourth century, and unnumberedamong the implements of the church by Eusebius, Athanasius,Optatus and -Ierome.'The second variation of Romanism, on this subject, consisted

in the worship of images which succeeded their use. Manyadored these lifeless .forms on their first introduction into theChristian commonwealth. Their adoration, however, was notgeneral till the end of the sixth century. But the (innovationsoon advanced to maturity. The visible similitudes of Saintsand Martyrs became admirable physicians; and by applicationto diseased limbs effected astonishing cures. The credulityof thei-populace was fed with tales, miracles, visions, and thedreams of fanatical monks. The rank superstition in conse-quence had arrived at full growth, and appeared in all itsdisgusting formality in the beginning of the eighth century.The use and worship of images, adopted from Gnosticism or

Gentilism, became, in this way, an adventitious appendage ofChristianity. The ugly excrescence was affixed to a fair sys-tem, as a deformity of a wen on the cheek of beauty. Idola-try, inconsistent indeed with Christianity, is congenial with thehuman mind. The Jews under a theocracy and the immediateVix uIlum fuisse im~um UBUm, tribus prioribus BalClllis. Alex. 14. 655.

Pagius, Ann. 06. Du!'in, 2. 43.Veteres qui tanto studio obstiterunt, ne quid imaginum in templo Christiano

reperietur. Erasm. II. 1770.In templis nul1am ferebant ~em. Erasm. 5. 1187..Aliquando tempore, inter Christianos imaginum UllUD1non fnisse. Cassander,

163.Nos dieo Christianos, ut aliquando Romauos fuisse sine imaginibus, in primi·

tiva qure vocatur ecclesia. Gymldus. I.AbStinebant ad tempus. Mendoza. III. 5. Labb. 1. 1252.'ns (les Empereurs)vouloient ramener la pratique des premiers siecles. Bmys.

1.608.Simulachrorum cultum omnes fere nteres patres damnasse. Poly. Virgo VI.

13.Statnit oJim.umversa ecclesia ut nnllse in templis imagines ponerentur. Clem-

8DIt. 151. Crinitus, IX. 9.rVtt ullum fuisse imaginum UllUD1 tribus prion"bus BalC1I1is; nee admod~

quarto etUm lIlIlClI1o. Neque quarto arecuIo statim in ecclesiia omnibus obtin~t1lflC' ........... ~;JdImel'atae fuenmt icones ab Eusebio, Atbauasio,~7~ BieroDymo. Ales. 14, 8M, 656. ben I. 24. Epiph. H. ~. Augas-

Page 479: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION OF IMAGES INTO THE CHURCH. 479J

tuition of heaven, often adored idols instead of Jehovah. Theheathen, forgetting the spiritual and invisible Deity, bowed tothe sun, moon, and stars. The adoration of Gentilism, througha partiality to emblematic worship, was addressed to nearlyevery reptile of the earth and every luminary of the sky. TheChristians, awed by the authority of heaven, were, for morethan three ages, restrained from the headlong impiety. Butthe bias of the soul burst, at length, through the injunctions ofthe Creator, and launched with crowded canvas into the wideocean of symbolical and popular superstition. The venerationof the cross and of relics was first introduced. The emblemof redemption or the remains of a saint were preserved withsuperstitious devotion. The portrait or the statue of the Saintor the Saviour succeeded, as more striking memorials of holinessor salvation. The painted or sculptured effigy, introducedindeed with caution, was allowed to adorn the oratory, instructthe ignorant, warm the frigid, or gratify the prepossessions ofthe convert from Gentilism. The new portraits and statues,though executed in defiance of all taste, spread from east towest, gratified the imagination of the superstitious, ornamentedthe Grecian Temple or Roman Basilio, and finally received theadoration of the deluded and degraded votary.Symbolical worship, on its introduction, was opposed by

Synodal, Episcopal, Pontifical, and Imperial authority. Theimpiety was interdicted by a synod in the beginning of the fourthcentury. The Council of Elvira in Spain, about the year 305,decreed, that' pictures should not be in churches, lest what isworshipped or adored should belainted on walls," The deci-sion of Elvira, which condemns the superstition, is in directcontradiction to the canons of Nicrea and Trent.The popish theologians have exerted all their ingenuity to

evade this unlucky enactment. Their comments display anamusing diversity; but an odd specimen of papal unity. Baro-nius and Bosius regard the council, or at least this canon, as a.forgery of the Iconoclasts. This imputation is an admission ofits hostility to the reigning system of Romanism. The ground-less opinion, however, is now universally exploded. Vasquez,Sanderus, Turriano, and Bellarmine think that the Spanish pre-1My forbade pictures, not on wood or canvas, but on walls,

/ lest they should be defaced by the damp or profaned by theJews and Pagans. Albaspinreus and Payva represent the in-terdiction as restricted to portraits of God. Mendoza.,Pagius,a.ndBona would limit the prohibition to similitudes of the Trinity,lest that mystery should be divulged to the uninitiated. The1:Placui$ jlicturaa in eccleaia esse non debere, ne quod colitur etadoratur in

pmetibua l1epiDgatur. Bin. 1. 23lt Labbeua, 1. 995.

Page 480: The Variations of Popery

480 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Spanish episcopacy, according to Alan and Alexander, wereafraid of idolatry which then prevailed in the kingdom. Fleuryaccounted the canon a mere temporary decision, suited to thetimes of persecution. This explanation, says Bruys, is calcu-lated to afford a laugh to the adversary,'Carranza, Canus, Petavius, Alexander, Bruys and Du Pin

admit the genuineness and natural signification of the canon;but with different designs. Carranza accuses the Spanish bishopsof error, and Canus of imprudence and impiety, Petavius,Alexander, Bruys, and Du Pin candidly confess that theprimitive discipline still prevailed in Spain, to the exclusion ofthe use and worship of the portrait or the statue," This indeedis the plain meaning of the canon; and every other glOBSmakesthe words signify the direct contrary of what they say.Emblematic worship, at its introduction, waa prescribed by

episcopal as well as by synodal authority. The Empress Con-stantia sent to Eusebius of Cresarea for an image of our Lord.But the bishop, in return, objected to the painting of eitherEmmanuel's divinity or humanity. The Deity, said Eusebius,has no form, and the manhood, clothed with Divine glory, can-not be represented by the lifeless colors of the pencil,"The popish critics, in reply to this relation, display their

unity by the variety of their anawers, Petavius and Alan,without any reason, account it a forgery of the Iconoclasts.This, however, is a plain confession of its hostility to symboli-cal adoration. The Nicene council, in reply, called .Eusebiusan Arian; though, in the quotation, he acknowledges, in theplainest terms, the Godhead of the Son. Du Pin admits theweakness of the Nicene answer. Alexander, notwithstandinghis prepossessions, ~rants that the Cresarean Christians, ad-hering to primitive SJJD.plicity,used in that age no images.'Epiphanius, like Eusebius, deprecated the adoration of

visible representations. The bishop of Salamis and Metropoli-tan of Cyprus, passing through .Ana.blatha. in Palestine, saW'the image of Jesus or some saint hanging on a waD before thedoor of the church. This the bishop rent, and declared suchan abuse to be contrary to Scriptural authority, inconsistentwith the Christian religion, and unworthy of a professingpeople. Jerome, who translftted the letter, which containsthiS relation, and which was written by Epiphanius to John of1Labbeus, I. 1021. Bom1Ul, XIL I. Sanderua, m "-TarriaD. T.2. Bell.

IL 9. .AD.ap. c. 36. Mend. ill. 5. .Alan. IV. 16. Fleury. IX.t J"'1£i- .- tria priora IIIOOUla inOratoriis ool1ocatu noD fniBBc. Petav. in

Juen, "- 380. Sublatum nu.e in ...8altica . . mn 1I8tIDl e1; cultum.Ak'Ulldw. 1"- 662. DuPin, I. ~118 V. "- ~l. 1052. Bray. I. 90.

a J...... "- 390. DePin, 2. 3'1•.•p_v. XV. l"-AJex. 1"- 666.

Page 481: The Variations of Popery

J PROGRESS OF IMAGE-WORSHIP. • 481Jerusalem, throws no blame on the Metropoli~n, but, on thecontrary, calls him a pattern of J;lristine sanctity.'The worship of images was, In the seventh century, con-

demned by pontifical authority, as it had, on former occasions,been denounced by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and the council ofElvira. Serenus, the Massilian bishop, had demolished someimages, which his flock, in mistaken piety, had adored. Greg-ory the Great, in 601, wrote to Serenus on this occasion; andblamed the bishop for breaking these pictures, but praisedhim in unqualified language, for preventing their adoration.These similitudes, said his infalllbility, are erected, 'not forthe worship of any, but ONLY for the instruction of the ignorant.Allow images therefore to be made, but forbid them to be wor-shipped in any manner.' Such are the statements of Du Pin,Bruys, and Godeau. Du Pin renders Gregory's words by aFrench expression, signifying 'in any manner whatever.'Bruys translates the Pontiff's language, 'in any way,' andGodeau 'in every manner,"Dionysius, Bellarmine, Alexander, and Juenin represent

Gregory as condemning, not the subordinate veneration ofimages, but their supreme adoration. His infallibility, accord.ing to these critics, allowed the inferior homage of these pictures,but interdicted their sovereign worship. This is to'make hisholiness mean the direct opposite of what he says. The inter-pretation is a diametrical inversion of the expression. Thereasoning of these authors is a beautiful specimen of dialec-tics. Images, says Gregory, are intended only for instruction,and therefore, say Dionysius, Bellarmine, and Juenin, the,.are also designed for adoration. Pictures, according to hisinfallibility, are to be worshipped in no way, and therefore,according to modern logicians, they are to be worshipped insome way. These theologians reason like men, who Wish toridicule the subject on which they treat. The allegation ofDionysius, says Bruys, is ridiculous in the view of sincerityand impartiality.sSynodal, episcopal, and pontifical authority bewm. in the

eighth century, to be supported by imperial power. The bishop,the pontiff, and the council, attempted in vain to stem the tide!Contra anctoritatem Scripturarum. Jerom. 1.828 .. In eccleBiaChristi istiusmodi vel. qwe contra ~onem nOlltramveniunt. In-<ligna est eccleeia Christi et 'popnlis, qui tibi crediti 1lUD.t. Jerom. 4. 829. Ep110. Alex, 14. 666. Du Pin. 1. 296. Jnenin, 4, 380.2 Quia eas adorari vetuisseIl omnino landavimns. Lsbb, 6. 1156.Non ad adorandum in ecc1eeiis, sed ad iDatruendaa BOlummodo mentes fui~

nescientiUl1lcollocatum. Greg. IX. Ep. 9. .Morare veru imagines omnibus modis evita. Greg~ ad Seren. Evitez

toute maniere qu'onne lea adore. Godea. 6. 14. DuPin, 1. 574.SDioo,.. IV. 1. AleL 14. 682. Bruy. 1. :r75.

EE

Page 482: The Variations of Popery

482 • THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

of popular superstition. The current of idolatry, so congenialwith human depravity, overwhelmed or subverted all thebarriers of ecclesiastical prohibition. The clergy, like the laity,were hurried down the overflowing and headlong stream ofapostasy, and bowed with the multitude to the painted orsculptured idol. The priesthood and the people, yielding tothe inundation of error, perpetrated high treason against God,and substituted the work ofthe pencil and chiael for the Creatorof earth and heaven. The emperor, on this exigency, inter-posed the arm of power, and shattered into fragments theobjects of idolatry.Leo, the Isaurian, was the first emperor who ventured to

oppose the threatening impiety. This prince, though descendedfrom an humble origin, and devoid of literary or philosophicalattainments, possessed extraordinary vigor and intrepidity.Disgusted with the new idolatry, and stimulated by thesarcasm of the Jews and Saracens, he resolved to exterminatethe Antichristian innovation. Full of this design he convokedan assembly of the bishops and senators; and all these, exceptGermanus, concurred in the plan of eradicating the superstitionas an innovation in the church, a scandal to Christianity, and,the degradation of man. The emperor, however, proceeded atfirst with caution. He interdicted the worship of images, andremoved the idols from the altars to a higher place in the tem-ples. This remedy proving insufficient, Leo ordered theirdemolition without delay or restriction.'The execution of the imperial edictwas attended with dread-

•ful commotions. Leo, stigmatised for irreligion and heresy, wasresisted by Germanus and Gregory, the patriarch and thepontiff. The partisans of superstition, priests and laymenflew to arms. The Byzantine citizens, men and women,attacked the imperial army and massacred several of thesoldiery. Some of the women fell in arms, and received, saysAlldilly, a glorious death as the reward of their piety.Pope Gregory, in the meantime, attacked Leo with the pen,

as the Byzantines had assailed him with the sword. The pon-tiff, in his letter characterised the emperor as stupid and igno-:rant, and in the waaanth and benevolence of his zeal, t prayedthe Lord to set the devil upon his majesty." His infallibility'spetition, no doubt, showed great piety. But the holy viceroyof heaven, while he described the emperor as a ninny andinvoked the aid of Satan, took special care to mention his own1LeeD, d'tme naiBBanceobscure, ne devoit l'empire qu'a sa rare valeur. Vet-

~ 7. Theoph. Z12. Labb. 8.646. Giannon, V. §. 2. Alex. 14. 70.s IAbb. S. 646. .AD.dilly, 381.• Ia1"OCAmUll CJazidam at iJrImitW Rbi Daemonem. Labb. S. 671. Bin Ii,

.. lJruya, 1•••

Page 483: The Variations of Popery

JIMAGE-WORSHIP OPPOSED BY THE EMPEROR LEO. . 488

dignity, and represented himself as an earthly God. Grego?,.in his supplication for Leo, had evinced great piety, and Inlike manner, in his report of himself, displayed equal modest:y.Theophanes, Alexander, Baronius, Maimbourg, and P~U8

have flattered Gregory with the grossest adulation, notwith-standing his invocation of his infernal majesty. Theophanesrepresents his holiness as 'excelling in word and deed.' Alex-ander calls the superstitious blasphemer a 'holy pontitf.' Gre-gory's letter, says Baronius and Maimbourg, was worthy of thehigh pontiff who was its author,' The pontifical production, inits politeness and devotion was quite sati.sfactory to the Jesuits.The epistle remains a Iasting monument of the earthly God'serudition and infallibility. Gregory's devotion, in his reply toLeo, far surpassed Luther's in his answer to Henry. The Ger-man reformer certainly did not spare the English king. Hiszeal often evaporated inabuse and scurrility. But the reformer,in the use of these weapons, was far excelled by the pontiff.Gregory's devotion also outshone Luther's as much as his zeaJ.Luther, though he used language which did not exceed inurbanity, never ventured to solicit the interference of the devil.But the vicar-general of God prayed that Satan might be letloose on Leo, and this was the pontiff's best supplication for theemperor.His holiness wielded not only his r.en, but, if credit may be·

attached to Theophanes, Oedrenus, Zona.rus, and Nicephorus,plied, on this occasion, his spiritual artillery, and excommunica-ted his majesty. He circulated apostolic letters through theempire, stimulating all to resist the imperial edict for thedestruction of images. The Romans, Italians, Venetians, andLombards flew to arms, in support of the pontiff and their idols,against their sovereign, whom they accounted guilty of 8opostaayand a d~ of substituting Judaism for ~"'hrist.ianity. Theseholy wamors, who contended for the faith which was idolatry,overthrew Leo's statues, rejected his authority, withheld, a.tGregory's command, the public revenue, elected 80 new magia-tracy, and finally separated Ravenna, Venice, Pentapolis, andthe Roman dukedom from the imperial dominions.IEcclesiastical was mingled with military war, and the fulmi-

nationa of councils with the tangible logic of the legions. .O:re-gory the Second, in 726, assembled a. Roman synod, cODS18tmgof the neighbouring bishops. His holiness presided in person,and opened the convention with speech fraught with sillysophistry. The assembled prela.cy, as in duty bound, acquiee-1Theoph. 272. Alex. 14. 68. Baron. An. 726. Pagi. Brev. 528. Maimb. 282.I Gr9goire dieoit aux peup1els qu'ila ne ~uvoient en collllciencepayer des tri-

bute! un prince hlSretique. Vertot, 13. GiaDnon, V. §. 2.Bray. 1.520. Lib.POll. 156. .

Page 484: The Variations of Popery

THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

ced in his infallibility's dialectics, and issued an enactmentenjoining image-worship, and denouncing iconoclasm, as pes-tilence and heresy. Gregory the Third followed his predeces-sor's example; His holiness, in 732, headed a Roman synodof ninety-three bishops, who issued a constitution establishingthe apostolic practice of symbolical worship, and denouncing theprofane atrocity of Iconoclasm.'These western synods, superintended by the Roman pontiff,

were opposed by an eastern, sanctioned b,y the Byzantinepatriarch and the Grecian emperor. Leo had designed ageneral council for the decision of this point, which had excitedsuch commotions through Christendom. This, however, wasopposed by the pope, and finally relinquished. Oonstantine, hisBonand successor, having subdued the Saracens, Bulgarians,and other barbarians, turned his attention to the ecclesiasticalstate of the empire. He resolved to assemble a general councilfor the final settlement ofthe contested topic of Iconoclasm. Heaccordingly summoned the eastern bishops to meet at Constan-tinople, for the purpose of deciding the long-agitated contro-versy. The metropolitans were instructed to hold provincialcouncils of their suffragans for discussion, and for the attainmentof information on the subject of disputation.The imperial directions were obeyed ; and the Grecian pre-

lacy, to the amount of 338, met in Constantinople in the year754t. .Anastasius being dead, Theodosius, exarch of Asia, andPossillus, metropolitan of Paraphilia, presided; and the assem-bled fathers were left free of all imperial control. The sessionlasted six months; during which time, the subject was investi-gated with perseverance and deliberation. The result was asmight be expected. The council condemned both the use andthe worship of images. Their use was represented both as dan-gerous and hurtful. Their worship was stigmatised as theinvention of Satan, the sin of idolatry, and the restoration ofpaganism under the name of Christianity. The adoration ofimages, the Byzantine Synod pronounced blasphemy. Depo-sition was pronounced againt the clergy, and excommuniationagainst the laity, who should be guilty of the impiety. Thisdecision was delivered as founded on .the word of God, thedefinitions of councils, the usage of the church, and the faithof the fa~e1'8. The chief fathers, whom the Byzantines quoted,were Eusebius, Epiphanius, Amphilochius, and Theodotus.2The abettors of emblematic substitutions in the worship of

• God have made the Byzantine synod the mark of insult ~ndobloquy. Damascen. represented it 88 destitute of authonty.lloabb.8.191. Bin. 6. 460. Labb. 8.217., TIleopIa... Zouru,. ~ 85. Bruy. 1. 554.

Page 485: The Variations of Popery

IlUGE-WORflHIP CONDEHNED BY THE BYZANTINE (lOUNeIL. 485

The Niceans and monks accused it of heresy, Judaism,apostasy, Mahometanism, and blasphemy. Labbeus calls it amad conventicle; whilst Baronius and Bellarmine found itguilty of folly, absurdity, irreligion, and profanity. The By-zantine fathers, says Andilly, 'worshipped the Devil.' Theseallegations, however, are all slanders. The mutilated acts ofthe assembly display decided evidence of sense and piety.The Niceans only showed then: weakness in their attempts toconfute its arguments. No good reason can be alleged againstits universality. .Its bishops were convened by the emperor;and were free and unanimous. The patriarchs of· Rome,Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, did not indeed assisteither in person or by delegation. But the Roman pontiffassisted neither by personal or deputed authority in the secondand fifth general councils. The patriarchs of Alexandria,Antioch, and Jerusalem were under the control of the Saracens,and, in consequence, prevented from attending the Byzantinesynod. But the Caliphs, in the same manner, hindered thesedignitaries from appearing in the second Nicene council, which,nevertheless, was in the end vested with the honor of eeeu-menicity.lThe emperor, having by rigor and severity repressed the

opposition of the monks, who were the great patrons of thissuperstition, and, in the end, suppressed the whole lazy order,succeeded in establishing the enactments of the Byzantineassembly and restoring the purity of Christian worship. Idol-atry fled from the sanctuary of the church and retired to thecaves of the wilderness. Andilly complains that t the wholeworld had embraced the heresy of Iconoclasm." The orientaJor Grecian communion, clergy and laity, submitted to the Con-stantinopolitan decisions, rejected idols, and returned to thesimplicity of pristine purity.The ancient and modern partisans of Popery have exhausted

language in abusing the emperor's character, a.ndcontended, onthis topic, for the palm of scandal and calumny. Theophanes,Cedrenus, Zonar&S, Baronius, .Alexander, Petavius, .Maim-bourg, and Labbeus in their zeal for orthodoxy and in theirrivalry of detestation to heresy, have compared Copronymus,~hile living, to Nero, Domitian, and Dioeiesian, and consignedhim, when dead, to unquenchable fire in the lowest abyss ofperdition.3 ,

1Labb. 8. 650. Andilly, 389. Labb. 8. 648. DR Pin. 2. 36. Alex. 14. 688.2 Tout Ie monde avoit emb~ cette herMie. Andiliy, 413.3. IWp. atll!£t1'NII1rlIpE3081Jp. Theophan. 300. •Ad que migraret BUJlplicia non obscure JJWl1lItravit. Labb. 8. 649.lEtemo daDmatum lD08Ddio. Petav. 1.394. Ced.ren. 370. Zonaras, 2. 89.

Alex. 14. 74. Andilly, 401.

Page 486: The Variations of Popery

486 THE VARU.TIONB OF POPERY.

The emperor not only destroyed images and relics, but alsodeprived saints of their titles, Paul and Peter, Georgius andTheodorus were, by imperial authority, divested of saintship.The two former were to be denominated apostles, and the twolatter, martyrs; and this regulation he extended to the wholecanonised confraternity. The mother of God herself did notescape the emperor's impiety. He proscribed the invocation,intercession, and holy-days of her ladyship, whom he repre-sented as destitute of all power either in heaven or on earth.He would not even allow a petition to be preferred, or a holyday kept, in honour of the queen of heaven. This, which Alex-ander calls execrable blasphemy, was, to be sure, a shockingsin and a pestilent heresy, for which his name deserved to beconsigned to ignominy and his soul to Satan.The accession of Constantine and Irene, who succeeded Leo

and Copronymus,diversified Christendom with another variationfrom Iconoclasm to Idolatry, Irene, who during Constantine'sminority executed the Imperial power, was the patroness andprotector of emblematical adoration. This woman possessedthe ambition of Lucifer and the malignity of a demon. M.anyhistorians ha.veaccused her of being instrumental to the murderof her husband; and the circumstances of his death createstrong suspicions. She swore against the worship of images,which she revived, and therefore was guilty of perjury. Sheput out the eyes of Nicephorus, and amputated the tongues ofChristopher, Nicetas,Anthen;lUs, and Eudoxas, Constantine'ssons, for suspicion of conspiracy. She destroyed the eyes ofher own son with such barbarity that, according to Theopha.nes,he expired in agony. The sun, avenging the deed of cruelty,continued, say the Greek historians, to withhold his rays forseventeen days; while ships, deprived of light, wandered onthe darkened ocean. Heaven, says Moreri, felt a horror atthe work of inhumanity. An ambiguity in Theophanes de-ceived some modems, whose error has been adopted by thecredulity of Popery and copied by the zeal of Protestantism.The Bon of Irene, blinded indeed by the maternal tendernessof his parent, survived many years, oppressed by the court andforgotten by the world. 'No woman,' says Bruys, 'was everless worthy of life than this p'rincess.' 'Her ambition; saysGodeau, 'made her violate all * the laws of God and men."These accomplishments fitted the empress for the agency ofSatan in the restoration of idolatry. She was worthy of thetask which she undertook and executed.:Many, indeed, both Greeks and Latins, have praised Irene's1~ 2. 85.95. Theoph. 317. Petav. 1. 396. Moren, 5. 168. B1'1ly. 1.

eo&.. GodeSu, 5. 649.

Page 487: The Variations of Popery

IMAGE-WORSHIP PATRONISED BY IRENE. 487

purity, zeal, piety, and constancy. Theodorus and Theophanesextol her virtue and excellence. The Greeks placed heramong the saints in their menology; and, in holy festivity, cele-brate her anniversary. Hartmann and Binius, Inmoremoderntimes, flatter her prudence and piety. Alexander lauds chefreligion and faith, as worthy of immortal honor,' though herambition and the blinding of her son, he admits,' exposed herto reprehension.' Andilly eulogises C the virtue and devotionof this princess, who soared above the weakness of her sex,and restored the church to its primeval beauty.' Baroniusjustifies 'the assassination of her son.' He commends ctheinhumanity which arose from zeal for religion.' The annalisteven dares, in shocking and blasphemous misapplication, toabuse scriptural language in support of the atrocity.'The empress, in the prosecution of her plan, began with an

act, which in itself may be commendable, but which, in Ireneas afterward in the papist, James II. King of England, wasonly an ostensible step to the accomplishmentof a secret design,destructive in the end of the pretended project. She proclaimedliberty of conscience to all her subjects, which, in this deceiver,was only preparatory to the total destruction of all freedom ofworship. She next, in furtherance of her scheme, promotedTarasiua her secretary, who was devoted to idols, and whopossessed resolution and address, but a layman, to the patri-archal dignity. She summoned a general council for thesettlement of the controversy and the restoration of peace.Adrian, the Roman pontiff, delegated two sacerdotal represen-tatives of his holiness. The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch,~nd Jerusalem, oppressed by the Saracens, could attend neitherm person nor by representation. But two vagabond monks,without any commission, assumed for the occasion their autho-rity; though undeputed, say Baronius and Godeau, by theseoriental prelates," The bishops, amounting to three hundred,met at Nieeea, and were all from the ea.'3ternempire, which, .owing to the incursions of the Saracens and the separation of~e western provinces, was exceedingly con~racted. Nobishops attended from Africa, Italy, France, SpaID,Germany,or Britain.The council, after its convention, soon despatched the busi-

ness for which it had assembled. Eighteen days of uproar and1M~er prudentissima et religiosa. Hartmann, in ..Etat. VI.Religione et pietate florentissima mulier. Bin. 5.583.4cE'lrpnE" EVUEjJEUJ. Theoph. 273. Launoy,4. 227.Ob religionem, fidem et pietatem, immortali laude digna Irene. Alex. 14.

413. AndiDy,451. Spon. 7fYl. 1. . .Lea patriarchea ne lea avoient ~ proprement deputez. Oodeau,5. 597.

Baon. Ann. 785. Theophanea, 309. Platina, 107. Bin. 6. 151. Crabb. 2. 408.

Page 488: The Variations of Popery

488 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

cursing ended in a definition of faith in favor of idolatry.Painted, woven, and sculptured images of Jesus, Mary, angels,saints, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and all holy men, were,according to the Nicene enactment, to be erected in churches,pouses, and highways; on walls, tablets, holy vestments, andsacred vessels; and these were to be worshipped not with sove-reign but honorary adoration. The person who should dissent,was, if an ecclesiastic, to be deposed, and, if a layman, to be ex-communicated. This definition, which the good bishops in loudvociferation declared to be the faith of the apostles, the fathers,and the church, was signed by the council, the empress, andafterward by pope Adrian.The sacred synod, having issued this Christian definition, had

only one other duty to perform. This consisted in the cere-mony of the parting benediction. The holy fathers, on this ason similar occasions, always concluded their sessions with be-stowing their blessing in very evangelical terms, on all whoshould have the assurance to reject their infallible authority.This benediction consisted in an anthem of execrations, notindeed sung but shouted in concert,and indeafeRing yells,againstall who should deny or oppose their oracular decisions,' 'Curs-ed,' roared the holy men, 'cursed be all who do not salute,honor, venerate, worship, and adore the holy images. Cursedbe they who call images idols. Cursed be all those whodissent. Cursed be all who gainsay. Cursed be all Iconoclasts,Cursed be all who hold communion with Iconoclasts.' Theholy men certainly showed themselves adepts in the Christianaccomplishment of cursing, and delivered their maledictionswith wonderful freedom and precision. The infallible fathers,whateves might have been their skill in theology, were mastersin the art of launching imprecations. It is well they did notburst their precious lungs in pronouncing these anathemas.Their shoulders, after being delivered from such a load ofdenunciations, mast have felt relieved, light, and easy.'The Nicene council was an intriguing cabal of knaves and

superstitionists. 'Its acts,' says Gibbon, 'remain a curiousmonument of superstition and ignorance, of falsehood andfolly.' The French king and prelacy, in the Caroline Books,pronounced the Nicene assembly destitute of eloquence andcoinmon sense. The eighteen general councils indeed are ElO

many instances of human perversity. But the Niceans, in thisrespect, seemed to have eclipsed .all their predecessors andsuccessors, and to have fairly carried away the palm of credu-lity, ignorance, jargon, and knavery. Partial 88 weak, the1CaroB. 490. Crabb. 2. 599. Bruy. 1. 084.. Mabillon, 2. 280•• 0ra1tb. 2. 6OG. BiD. IJ. 7i2. c.ron, 401. 'Labb. 8. 1226.

Page 489: The Variations of Popery

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND NlCENE COUNCIL. 489

Nicene fathers were the mere tools of a superstitious- empress,and were assembled not to examine but to dogmatise, not totry the cause, but to pronounce sentence. Their decision de-noted ' a foregone conclusion.' The council were the passivecreatures of an arbitrary and wicked woman, and submitted:with crouching imbecility to imperial dictation.'The Byzantine and Nicene councils of the Greeks were re-

jected by all the Latins, except the Italians, and exhibit instriking colors the diversity of Romanism. The Greeks weredivided into two factions, the Iconolatrians and Iconoclasts.The former were devoted to the use and worship of images :both of which the latter rejected. The Iconolatrians bowed tothe decision of the Nicene Synod sanctioned by Irene; and theIconoclasts submitted to the Constantinopolitan council sanc-tioned by Oonstantine. The Latins, except the mere creaturesof the pope, patronised a third system, and admitted the useof painted and sculptured representations, but deprecated theiradoration. These steered a middle course between the adora-tion and the destruction of the portrait and the statue, whichthey admitted into the temple, not as objects of worship, but asornaments of the sanctuary, and memorials of devotion andhistory. This system, which is a medium between the worshipand abolition of symbolical substitutions, was adopted inFrance, Germany, Spain, and Englll.nd.2 This appears fromthe opposition of the Caroline Books, the English Clergy, andthe Frankfordian and Parisian councils.The Oaroline Books, which were the composition of the

French clergy in the name of the French monarch, Charle-magne, who published the work as his own production, depre-cated Iconoclasm and Iconolatrianism, and censured theByzantine and Nicene councils. .The imperial critic and theo-logian arraigned the Byzantines for ignorance and temerity, inconfounding images with idols, and banishing these ornamentsof the temple, these memorials of piety, and helps of instruc-tion.8The royal disputant, however, stigmatised the Niceans with

the deepest marks of reprehension. He disclaimed their au-thority, and deprecated, in the strongest terms, their anathe-mas and erroes, He called the Nicene council the false synodof the Greeks, and ridiculed its assumed universality as a meredotage; while he exposed the madness of their imprecationsagainst all who rejected their superstition. These o~rvations.the Western emperor accompanied with many cuttmg reflec-1Gibbon, 9 146. Du Pin, 2. 39.I Dan 2. 79. Moren. 4.171. Alex. 14. 750. Du Pin, 2. 43.3 Lib. Carol 1. 1. Du Pin, 2. 39. Velly. 1. 438.

Page 490: The Variations of Popery

490 THE VAIUATIONS OF POPERY.

tions on the Eastern empress and the Byzantine patriarch, whohad patronised the impiety.The French sovereign refuted all the arguments of the Nice-

ana, and proscribed all image-worship of every description.He condemned this kind of adoration in all its forms ; whetherdenominated veneration, worship, salutation, honor, homage,or invocation; while, in diametrical opposition to the Nicenedefinition, he prohibited the lighting, incensing, and kissing ofthese senseless productions of the pencil or' chisel. The sove-reign, in direct opposition to the holy oscumenical assembly ofNicea, interdicted the honoring of images even with relativeworship, or the veneration due under the Jewish establishmentto the ark, or under the Christian dispensation, to the Bible.Image-worship in all its forms, he characterised as superfluity,superstition, vanity, sacrilege, and superlative absurdity.'The opposition to the Nicene council, in the Caroline Books,

has been acknowledged by all the candid critics of Romanism,such as Daniel, Du Pin, Moreri, Bruys, and Mabillon. TheCaroline Books, says Daniel, 'represent the Nicene conventionas the object of execration, and turn all its arguments into ridi-eule.' Similar statements are found in Du Pin, Moreri, Bruys,Mabillon, and many other historians.These statements are corroborated by the admission of those

who deny the genuineness of the Caroline Books, such asBellarmine, Surius, Sanderus, and .Alan.S These critics ac-count the Caroline publication a forgery, composed by somefriend of Iconoclasm and transmitted by Charlemagne toAdrian for refutation. The insinuation of forgery has beenamply confuted by .Alexander and Juenin; and is now aban-doned. But the patrons of this opinion grant, that the designand tendency of the imperial production was to overthrow theNicene council and symbolical worship.The Nicene council, rejected in this manner by the French,

was also disclaimed by the English. Offa, king of the Mer-clans, transmitted a copy of its acts to the British clergy, who,according to Hoveden and Westminster, condemned its defini-tion as contrary to the faith, and worthy of execration by thewhole church of God! .Alcuin,at the instance of the Englishepiscopacy,confuted the Nicene dogma on scriptural authoritity,1Lib. Carol n. 21, 23,24, 25, 28, 29, 30. Juenin, 4. 396. Alex. H. 6!H,

737. Bmy. 1. 586. Du Pin, 2, 40.J Dana cet"puvrage Ie eoneile de NicCe tenu contre les Briee-imsges est ":pri-.me comme un objet d'execration, nne affectation de tonrner en ridiculetolliealea preuvesdu dozme, Dan. 2.81.a Be1l. 11 15. Saud. fl. 5.4 0uuWw eooleeia Dei execmtur. Hoveden, Ann. 792. We8t. Ann. 793.

Alex. 1" 739. Spelm. 1. 308.Contempeerunt atque CODIeIltienieacondemnavemnt. Labb. 9. 101.Alex. 14.

206.

Page 491: The Variations of Popery

I

THE SECOND mCUB COUNCIL CONDEKNBD AT I'RA.ND'OBT. 491

in a work which W8Bafterward presented in their name toCharlemagne the French king.The Nicene council, disclaimed in this manner by the French

and British clergy, W8B,in 194, condemned at Frankfort, bythe whole western prelacy. This synod W8Bassembled bythe Western emperor from all Italy, France, Germany, Spain,and England, and consisted of three hundred bishops with theRoman pontiff's vicars Theophylact and Stephen. The.Frankfordian council, Baronius admits W8B,from its numbersand the presidency of the papal legates, called plenary orgeneral.'Its secondcanon condemnedthe definitionofthe secondNicene

council on the worship of images. The Frankfordians calledthe Nicene the Byzantine council, because it began and endedat Constantinople. In order to reconcile the jarring councils,Alan, Valentia, Vasquez, and Binius, have alleged that thefathers of Frankfort condemned, not the assembly under Irenein favor of image-worship, but the synod under Constan-tine in favour of Iconoclasm. But the supposition is unfounded,and, .at the present day, is rejected by the ablest popishcritics. The Frankfordian canon condemns emblematicadoration; and therefore is in direct hostility to the Nicenedefinition. This condemnation of the Niceans by the Frank-fordians W8Bmaintained by all the contemporary historians,and has been admitted by all the papal authors possessingany candor till the present day. The fact is attested byEginhard, Hinemar, Adhelm, Ado, Conrad, Regina, Aimon,Herman, and Aventinus, 8Bwell 8B by Mabillon, Bellarmine,Velly, Platina, Baronius, Perron, C8Bsander,Moreri, and DuPin," 'The second canon of Frankfort " says Mabillon, 'wasenacted against the Byzantine or Nicene Synod of the Greeks,which the French, at that time, did not account universal,because it was composed of the Orientals and not yet receivedby the Westerns.' According to Bellarmine, 'image-worshipand the sixth general council were proscribed at Frankfort.'The Frankfordians, says Velly, 'unanimously rejected theauthority and universality of the second Nicean assembly.'The statements of Platina, Baronius, Perron, Cassander, Moreri,and Du Pin, are similar to those of ¥abillon, Bellarmine, andVelly.1Bin. 6. 184. Labb. 9.57. Span. 704. III.

• 2 Secundus est contra novam synodum Gl'\IICOrnmCoIlllta;ntino~li habi~Id est, contra secnndam Nicamam, qnam Galli tunc pro umversali haben nonferebat. Mabillon, 2. 311. In synodo Francfordiensi esse definitum ut imaginesnon adorenter. Bellarmin lL 14. Lea peres de Francfort Ie rejetterent d'un con-sentement 11lWIimeet defendirent de Ie regarder comme <Ecumenique. Velly, 1438. Godeau, 5. 635. .Alex. 14. 730,732. Platina, 107. Bin. 6. 186. Moreri,t. 171.

Page 492: The Variations of Popery

-4192 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

The Frankfordians, besides condemning the Niceans, 'pro-hibited all kinds of image-worship,' without any exception orlimitation. 1 The assembly, in the second canon, interdictedthis kind of homage, 'in all its forms,' whether denominatedrespect, honor, invocation, worship, or adoration. One indeedcan hardly help feeling some pity for Baronius, Alexander,Maimbourg, Pagius, and Juenin, in their attempts to elude theunqualified and unsparing prohibition contained in this unyield-ing and unmanageable canon. The Frankfordian council alsoadopted and sanctioned the Caroline Books, which had proscribedevery species of symbolical adoration. The Caroline Booksbesides had approved the sentiments of Gregory the Great,who in his epistle to Serenus, had denounced every descriptionof image-worship. The language of the pontiff, the emperor, andthe council on these occasions is so clear and ueambiguous, asto defy all the efforts of evasion and chicanery.The Frankfordian COW1\lil was followed by the Parisian

synod under Lewis in 825. This assembly met at the suggestionof Michael, the Grecian emperor, by permission of Eugenius, theRoman pontiff, and by the authority of Lewis, the French kipg.Michael sent a solemn embassy'to Lewis, requesting his inter-ference with Eugenius for the settlement of the protracted divi-sions respecting emblematic worship. Lewis interposed hisinfluence, and endeavored to engage Eugenius against the newidolatry, but without success. The Roman hierarch, however,granted the French prelacy the liberty of assembling for theexamination of the controversy. A. synod therefore met atParis ill825, and consisted of the most learned and judiciousof the French clergy; such as A.gobard, Jeremy, Jonas, Fre-culf, Theodomir, A.malarius, and DungaPThe sacred synod assembled in consultation, decided against

the Roman pontiff, the Nicene council, and symbolical adora-tion. The Parisians, it must be confessed, treated A.drian,God's vicar-general, with very little ceremony. The French-episcopacy, in Daniel's statement, , spoke of the Roman pontiff,.as well as of the Nieene council, with the utmost contempt j'and had the assurance, according to Bruys, Labbeus, and.Alexander, to charge his infallibillity with ignorance, supersti-tion, impertinence, indiscretion, absurdity, falsehood, impiety,-error, obstinacy, and opposition to the truth." This was hardly1SaDctiaaimi Patree nostri onmimodia adol'lltionem et aervitutem renuentes

~~]lIlll1mt. Labb. 9. 101. Alex. 14. 205. Bruy, 4. 397.t Mabill<m, 2. 495. Alex. 14. 749. Bruy 2. 9. .s:u. )I8doield avec beauooup de mepria de celle que Ie Pa.pe Adrian I. avoU

.eepte qti]q1l8lllUlDAel au~vant a l'lmpmatrice Irene. DB ne traitoieut pallIDIeU 18, ~ ClGIMliJed,e Nic4e, et l'Oll~ que Ie m~me Pape avoit fait pourIe ~ 00Iltre lea Linea CaroliDa. DeiD. 2. 211.

Page 493: The Variations of Popery

DECREE OF THE PARISIAN COUNCIL. 493civil to the head of the church, and is calculated to convey nohigh opinion of French politeness in the ninth century.The Parisian assembly censured the holy, infallible, Nicene

synod with equal freedom. The Niceans, these refractoryPariaians found guilty of presumption, ignorance, error, andsuperstition. The Grecian council also, according to theseFrench critics, tortured revelation and tradition to extort evi-dence in favor of emblematic adoration. The Nieenedefinition was represented as contrary to reason, revelation,and tradition; and many passages, in proof of this allegation,were collected from the fathers and other ecclesiastical monu-ments. The Caroline Books against the Nicene council andsculptured adoration were approved and sanctioned.' TheFrench clergy, it seems,were insensible to Nicene infallibility.The French convention, in unequivocal language, condemned

image worship, and in Tery unflattering terms,' traced theorigin of this pestilential superstition in Italy to ignorance andthe wickedest custom.' The Parisian prelacy would allowthis plague no better origin than Roman and Italian usage,ignorance, and atrocity. The likeness of the saint, theydescribed as unworthy of adoration, and inferior to the crossand the holy vessels of the sanctuary.2The Latins, in this manner, through Germany, France, Spain,

England, Ireland, and Scotland, rejected the new form of idol-atry. The French, in particular, resisted the novelty withfirmness and freedom. This, in consequence, Sirmond calledthe French heresy. The impu~ers of the superstition inFrance, Mezeray describea as superior in number and erudition.Daniel, followingMezeray, represents the innovation 88 depre-cated by the more numerous and learned of the French nation.These, in the strongest language, denounced the &dorationofimages; though, steering a middle course between their wor-ship and abolition, they permitted their use for the ornament oftemples, the instruction of spectators, and the encouragementof devotion.TIs jugerent impiesles reponses du Pape. n y a certaines ehcH.es qu'U y a

oppose a 1& verite. Brny. 2. 9, 10.Ignoranter in eodem facto a recto tamite deviaverit. Indiscrete fecisse in eo

quod superstitiose eas adorari juBBit. Labb. 9. 640, 646.Eum inaeruisse in eadam epiBtola quredam testimonia Patrum valde absona, et,

ad rem de tua aglIbatur minime pertinentia. j,J.ex. 14. 749.1TIs passerent jUBqu'aoondamner Ie septieme synode. Godea. 6. 65.lstl. non mediocriter erraverunt. Qumdam Scripturarum testimonia at Pat-

~ dicta ad suum superatitiosum em,rem oonfirmandum violenter sumpseruntat eldem suo operi inoompetenter aptavarunt. Alex. 14. 749. D.s approu-ii6rent la censure que Charlemagne avoit faite du concile de Nictle dans lel1vres Carolins. Bray. 2.9.2J1 ne falloit point permettre Ie cmlte des images. Mezeray, 1. 409. Partim

veritatiB ignorantia, partim peuimAe oonnetudiniB usn, hnjus superstitioniBp8IItia in ipea etiam ltalia inolevi&let. AIeL 14. '150. Juenm, 4. 394. 412.

Page 494: The Variations of Popery

494 THE VABlATIONS OF POPERY.

Charlemagne, Agobard, Jonas uud Walafrid, in particular,resisted the novelty with distinguished ability. This has beenstated in clear terms by Godeau, Mabillon, and Mezeray.Godeau remarks that the French king wrote a work against thiskind of worship to Pope Adrian. The Caroline Books also)were pointed. against the rising superstition. Agobard, Arch-bishop of Lyons, acted a distinguished part in the controversy.This prelate, Mabillon observes, recommended the destructionof images rather than their adoration. This description ofhomage, even when relative, Agobard, says Godeau, 'declareda violation of the faith, a change of forms rather than a renun-ciation of idols, and an act inconsistent with the sincere worshipof God.' Jonas, bishop of Orleans, according to this historian,'entertained the same opinion.' Mezeray delivers the sameaccount of Jonas and Agobard, and relates their hostility tothe new mode of worship. Walafrid, though more moderate,avowed, on this topic, similar sentiments. The French,Mabillon grants,' persisted in this system till the end of theninth century,"Such was the hostility in the West against image worship.

Its destiny, in the East, was less uniform. The propagation ofthe impiety among the Greeks, with whom it originated, WMfor half a century after as well as before the Nicene council, at-tended with many vicissitudes and variations, The EmpressIrene had, during the minority of her son Constantine, estab-lished the superstition by an eeclesiastical decision, which shesupported by civil enactments. Idolatry, in consequence, gaineda temporary triumph. The victory, however, was transitory.Constantine, on obtaining a shadow of 'power, proceeded, saysPlatina, to repeal the synodal and imperial laws in favor ofemblematic worship. But Constantine's authority was alsotemporary. The orthodox mother deprived the heretical sonof his power and his eyes; and, by these means, restored thepainted, woven, and sculptured gods to all their glory. Theiradoration, however, was destined soon to experience anotherrevolution. Irene, the tender parent and pious empress, depar-ted, and was enrolled as a saint in the firmament of GrecianMenology, in which, to the present day, she shines as a starof the first magnitude. Nicephorus, her successor, allowed ageneral liberty of worship, which, according to the monks,

1 Plullieurs et des plus doctes, entr'autres JODall d'Orlea.us at Agobard deLyOD, De pouvoient 8Ouft'rir qn'on adorat les images. Mezeray, 1. 409. Pln-Ilieurs ew.ent. d'avis :e'il De falloit point leur rendre de culte. Ce parti, quitenoit Ie milieu entre ladoratiOD et l'abolitiOD des images, paroit avoir eU oe1uidela plus grande pR'tie dee .vans de France eli de la oour. Da,uiel, 2. 79.ChIIIemiIpe en'VO)'& 1111Line contre Ie culte dee ima£ee au Papa. Godea. 5.

Page 495: The Variations of Popery

VARIATIONS IN THE EAST ON IMAGE-WORSHIP. 495

caused his temporal and eternal perdition.' Michael's reignwas marked by superstition and idolatry; whilst the monksand idols thaJ; he patronised were incapable of supporting theirvotary on the throne.The accession of Leo the Armenian again changed the scene.

He assembled a council at Constantinople in the year 814.This synod approved and confirmed the Byzantine council, and,at the same time condemned and anathematised the Niceneconvention. The emperor, in consequence, was assailed with allkinds of vituperation and obloquy. A Byzantine synod of 270bishops called his majesty the harbinger of antichrist and thefiery oven of blasphemy," The imperial hostility to image-worship, these holy men compared to the fury of a lion roaringin the forest for his prey.Michael, Leo's assassin and successor, granted universal tole-

ration, which he hoped would be attended with general tran-quillity. But his clemency only provoked the insolence of thefaction that abetted idolatry, who refused to grant the libertywhich they claimed Their fury aroused imperial vengeance.Michael, in 821, called a council to determine the controversy.But the partisans of the idols, pretending that it was unlawfulfor the patrons of Catholicism to meet the abettors of heresy, re-fused to attend. The emperor afterward treated the haughtyfaction with rigor. Michael's timidity, however, mitigated hisseverity. But Theophilus, his son and successor, regardless offear or pity, was the determined and uncompromising patron ofIconoclasm. His energy restored tranquillity to the state, andbanished idolatry in a great measure from the church. Theclergy and laity submitted to the imperial authority; while theeastern and western Ohristiens seemed again to relinquish idola-try.a The Grecian monks alone in the east, and the Latinpontiff with his immediate dependents, continued to murmurand support the honor of the idols.Such were the dissensions which raged in Christendom, for

a century, on image-worship. This diversity has been admit-ted by Tarasius, Adrian, and Daniel' Tarasius, the Bv-an-tine patriarch in 784, lamented the schisms and divisions' in the&12. Satius putat abjicere et comminuere. Mabillon, 2. 614. AES0bards'efforQede prouver qu'il n'eat point ~nnis aUKChrestiens d'avoir dee lIIllIglllI par lea-queUea la foi est vlolee, 81 lea Chrestiens etoient obligez de lea honorer ils~uroient plutOt change lea simulacres qu'abandnnne l~ id.oles. J0IUll!' ~vaqued Orleans, fut de m&ne opinion. Godean, 5. 612.. GalliC&D& eccleeia ill Il1l&sententia perstitit usque ad finem lIIBCU1i nani. Mabillon, 2. 495.1Crabb, 2. 4lj7. Platina, 107., Antichristi pl'lllC1U'llOr,cujus ex ore egreditur ignens blasphemile cliban1lll.

Labb. 9. 386, 300. Bin. 6. 232. Coss. 1. 781.aBill. 6. 295. Cosa. 1. 821. Theod. II. Ep. 86.'V"1deo eccleeiam eciaaam et divisam, et nos alias atque aliter loquenteB, et

alitereoe <IlriItianoe qui in Orienw unius nobiscum lIUIl1; fidei, Iled et his COIl-

Page 496: The Variations of Popery

496 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Christian Commonwealth. He represented the Byzantinechurch as having embraced, on this subject, a different systemfrom the other oriental Christians, and the result, he added,was mutual anathemas. Adrian, the Roman pontiff, declared,in his letter to the emperor, that all the eastern world on thistopic had erred, prior to the accession of his Grecian majesty.Daniel acknowledges the prevalence of this heresy in orientalChristendom, as well as in the western communion. Amidstthis diversity, however, an overwhelming majority, accordingto the confession of Tarasius, Adrian, and Daniel, disclaimedthe faith of symbolical worship.Image-worship, after the revolutions of more than a century,

was finally established in the east by the Empress Theodora.Theophilus dying, left Theodora his widow guardian of the em-pire during the minority of his son MichaeL This delegatedpower she used for the restoration of idolatry. Her measureswere bold, summary, and decisive. John, the Byzantine Patri-arch, who was an Iconoclast, Theodora deposed; and Metho-dins, who was an Iconolatrian, she raised to the patriarchaldignity. A council, in 842, was assembled at Constantinople, inwhich Iconoclasm was condemned, and image-worship, in allita heathenism, was sanctioned. John, who had. been pam-arch, received 200 lashes for being in the right. The punish-ment of the patriarch had a happy effect on the inferior clergy.The empre'lSknew the proper argument for the occasion. Thelogic of the lash possessed wonderful efficacy in enlighteningthe episcopal intellects, regulating the prelatic consciences,and teaching the proselyted priesthood the duty of idolatry.Many who had been the devoted friends of Iconoclasm changedtheir minds, and anathematised in loud vociferation, the patronsof that heresy. .All, with unvarying unanimity, shouted forthe restoration of the idols. The festival of orthodoxy wasinstituted as a trophy of their triumph, and an annual com-memoration ef their victory. A heresy, say the historians ofthis controversy, was in this manner suppressed, which burst-ing from the portals of hell, had, for a hundred and twentyyears, raged against the church of God}This superstition was imposed on Christendom, not by syno-

dal or ecclesiastical authority, but by civil and imperial despo-tism. Only a despicable minority of the clergy had, on anyoccasion, voted for the impiety. The Christian community, atthe accession of Constantine the first Christian emperor, con-sisted, according to Paolo, Holstenius, and Bingham, of 1800OOI'danteaOccidentaleset nee ab omnibul illia alienatoe etper Iingnlas dies anathe-mMiatos habere. Labb. 7. 679. Theophanes, 308. Omnia populus qui est in0rieDWibQa partl"bu erravmmt. Adrian adConstan. Labb. 8.746. Dan. 2. 214-1BiD. 6. ate. Labb. 9lt, 9'JO.

Page 497: The Variations of Popery

IDOLATUY FINALLY ESTABLISHED BY THEODORA. 497

bishops. One thousand were Greeks and eight hundred Latins.These must Kave been much increased under Theodora in theninth century. But the greatest number that, on any occasion,voted for symbolical worship, amounted onll to 350 in theNicean council. These were all the ecclesiastical troo~ whichIrene could bring to the field in favor of her darling Idolatry ;and, at a fair calculation, could amount only to about a sixthof the whole, and therefore only a small minority. Threehundred and thirty-eight Grecian bishops under Constantine,voted for Iconoclasm; and only the monks of the east opposed.The Roman Pontiff alone and a few of his mere creatures in.the west supported the superstition. All the Latins, theseexcepted, opposed the impiety. But the tendency of idolatryIS headlong and downhill. Man, led by sense and imagination,delights in a visible Deity or his effigy, before whom he maybow and prefer his adoration. This tendency of the humanmind prevailed, and idols were introduced in opposition toreason, revelation and common sense.

PI'

Page 498: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER XVII.

PURGATORY.

ITS SITUATION AND PUNISHMENTS-DESTITUTE OF 'SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY-ADMIS-SIONS-SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS-DB8TITUTE OF TRADITIONAL AUTHOll!TY-ADMI8SIONS.l....pRAYERFOR THE DEAD-PAGAN, JEWISH, AND MAHOMETANPURGA-TORY-ITS INTRODUCTIONINTO THE OHRISTIAN OOMMUNITY-ITS SLOW PROGRESS--COMPLETED BY TH1IlSOHOOLME.N-FLoRENTINE OOUNOIL--TRll.NTINJIiOOUNCIL.

PURGATORY,in the Rornish theology, is a middle place or state,in which departed souls make expiation for venial faults, andfor the temporal punishment of mortal sins. Romanism repre-sents sin as venial or mortal, or, in other terms, as trivial oraggravated. Those who depart this life guilty of mortal or ag-gravated sin go direct to hell, from which there is no redemp-tion. Those who die guiltless of venial or trivial sins, and, atthe same time, of the temporal penalty of aggravated transgres-sian, go immediately to heaven. But many, belonging toneither of these two classes, are, at the hour of death, obnoxiousto the penalty attached to venial faults and the temporal painsof heinous iniquity. These, in purgatory, undergo the duepunishment; and, purified by this means, are admitted intoheaven. All mankind, says the Florentine council, consist ofsaints, sinners, and an intermediate class. Saints go to heaven;sinners go to hell; and the middling class to purgatory,'.Agreed, in accordance with the councils of Florenee and

Trent, on the existence of a middle state, the Popish theologiansdiffer 'On the place and medium of punishment. Bellarminereckons eight variations of opinion on its situation. Augustine,accordingtoBellarmine and Aquinas, divested this intermediatemansion of all material locality ; and characterised it 118 a spiri-tual residence for spiritual souls.' The middle receptacle of

1Labb. 18. 533. et 20. 170. Orabb. 3. 476, 939. Bin. 9. 322. Arsdekin,I.227. Paolo, 1. 280. AIeL 9. 352-Tria esse loca, mempe, sanctornm animas esse in Ccelo, peccatornm in infer-

no. Medium vero locuJn _ habentium poocata venialia. Labb. 18. 2&.Ad pugaWrium deferuntur jUlltorum animal, obnoxie prenis temporalibus.Deaa.7.a7.'lWl. 11. 6. Aquin. 3. MI. Cerium eat, purgatorium esse _liquem locum

oo~ Faber. i.448. ' j

Page 499: The Variations of Popery

SITUATION OF PURGATORY. 499

human spirits, the African saint alleged, is an ideal world. Butthis notion, it appears, he afterwards retracted.Alexander is doubtful whether the purgatorial realms are in

this world; under the earth; in the dark air with devils; inthe hell of the damned; or in its vicinity.' Chrysostom,GregoryNyssen, and Furseus, say Bellarmine and Bede, place it withdevils in the air between heaven and earth. Chrysostom andGregory Nyssen however, saints as they were, had. no oppor-tunity beyond other mortals of ascertaining the fact; nor wasthe fiction invented in their day. But Furseus, in a vision,saw the place of expiation, and therefore had a right to know.Many identify purgatory with hell. The punishments, in-

deed, of the former are temporary, while those of th.e latter areeverlasting. But the situation and severity of the pains, in theidea of these speculators, are the same.The majority, however, make this earth the scene of posthu-

mous expiation. Gregory and Damian, with glaring inconsis-tency, lay the scene in different parts of the world, where con-science accuses or where the criminal offended. His infallibilityand his saintship could drill a luckless ghost in any convenientplace, such as an icy stream, a warm bath, a flaming cavern,or a burning mountain. Aquinas and Bellarmine show a stronginclination to the theory of Gregory and Damian.'The schoolmen place this intermediate state of punishment

in the bowels of the earth. The vast cavity in the central regionof the world is, according to these theologians, divided into fourapartments, which form hell, purgatory, and the limbo of infa.ntsand of the fathers. The two former, it appears, are in the 8AIl1eneighborhood. 'Purgatory,' says Faber, 'is on the brink ofhell," The prison of children is raised above purgatory, ear theschoolmen and Innocent the Third, so that the flames of thelatter come not near the establishment of the former! Theprisonof the fathers was left empty at the descent of the M.essiah,.who liberated the Jewish saints. Its dominions, therefore, arenow uninhabited, and its cities, if it have any, are useless and

Utrum vel in hoc mundo et super terram ; vel in &lirecaliginosa ubi dlemonesversantur, vel in inferno daumatorum, vel in vicino terram subtns loco. Alex.9. 352. Beda, III. 19.: Greg. Di:u. IV. 40. A<J.uin.3. 54.4. •Purgatonum ell86 infra VlIIC6r& teme. Alex. 9. 352. Habem1lll Purltatonum,.

Infemum, et limbos pe.trum, at puerorum loea 8ubterranea eIIIlll. Infernum atpnrgatorinm aunt loeo vicina. Bell IL fl. Aquin. ilL 69. VIL~ sub terra, vicinus inferno. Dens, 7. 353. Est sub terra, ve:rsus centrum,

ad npam inferni. Faber 2. 448 449.~Inf/lrnum damnato~ ~dmn omnes, eat in ipso centro tame. Ultra in-

fernum et purgatorimn est at limbu8 puerorum, at fuerit limbus sanetorumpatruIn. LimbU8pe.ira.merairemotus a oeniro at propeterram. Locus puerorumeet super purgatorimn at infra limbum eanotorum patrum. Faber, 2. 449.

Page 500: The Variations of Popery

500 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

may fall into ruin. Purgatory, in like manner, will, at theresurrection, be evacuated and fall into similar dilapidation.'Gregory the Great, the universal pastor, sanctioned this specu-

lation by his unerring authority. Believing this place of tem-porary and eternal punishment to be in the central regions ofthe earth, his infallibility considered the volcanic eruptions ofVesuvius, 1Etna, and Hecla, as flames arising from hell andpurgatory, which, according to his holiness, lay in the sameneighborhood, in the hollow bosom of the world. Thesevolcanoes, said the Vicar-General of God, are an evidence ofthe Mediterranean position of the purgatorian prison and thefiery punishment of its inhabitants. Theodoric the Arian kingof the Goths, says the viceroy of heaven, was, at the hour ofdeath, seen descending into a flaming gulph in Sicily. Souls,says Surius, appear amid the conflagration and thunders ofHecla, and proclaim their sufferings in the flaming fulminationsof that mountain.'The medium of punishment is as uncertain as the situation of

the place, The general opinion, however, favors the agencyof fire. This was the idea entertained by the schoolmen, TheLatins, in the council of Florence, maintained, with the utinostperspicuity, the same theory, though in complaisance to theGreeks, the term was omitted in the synodal definition. TheFlorentines were followed by the synod of Diamper, which isreceived in the Romish communion. The catechism of Trentcopied after the schoolmen and the councils of Florence /IDdDiamper, The Cardinal of Warmia and the theologians ap-pointed to frame the Trentine canon, though they resolved toavoid every difficulty, differed on the place and medium of pur-gation. Some, like the council of Florence, wished to mentionfire as the means of punishment and expiation; while others re-jected this idea. This disagreement caused the omission of theterm, and the substitution of a general expression. But theword was introduced into the catechism of Trent, published bythe authority of the council and the agency of the pontiff. Thesame has boon sanctioned by the majority of the popish theolo-gians; such as Gregory, Aquinas, Surius, and Bellarmine.Bellarmine, however, is doubtful whether the fire is proper ormetaphorical," Venial impurity, the cardinal thinks, may be1Nunc vacuns reInanet. Bellarmin. II. 6. Post Judicium novisllimum non

fore purgatorium. Bellannin. I. 4. Le PlJrgatoire sera aboli au jour du jugement.CaJmet. 22. 362. Aquin. 3. 544.IIG~. DiaL IV. 30. 35. Bell. II. ll. Bunus, Ann. 1537. . ., ltali fatemur :Purgatorium per ignem. Labb. 18.27. Inter Latinos, certlBSl-

mum en, ~ ilhml_ corporeum. Fabel', 2. 453.l.atiDi diCentee ~um ignem esse. Bin. 8. 564. Hi, dubio, prooul, in

mpradioto ipe quod purgatorium appellari solet, purgantur. Crabb. 3. 376. Eat

Page 501: The Variations of Popery

,;PRETENDED PUNISHMENTS OF PURGATORY. 501

expunged by the application of allegorical or figurative flames.Many have represented water, accompanied with darkness,tempest, whirlwind, snow, ice, frost, hail, and rain, as themeans of purgatorian atonement. Perpetua, in a vision, sawa pond in this land of temporary penalty, though its water wasinaccessible to the thirsty inhabitants, whom it only tantalizedwith illusive mockery. Gregory, the Roman pontiff, sousedPascasius, a Roman deacon, in the warm baths of Angelo, forthe expiation of his venial sins. Severinus of Cologne ap-peared to Damian, immersed in a river in which he was steeped,as an abstergent for his trifling contaminations. The water ofthis country, in the most authentic accounts, is both hot andcold; and the wretched inhabitants pass in rapid but painfultransition from the warm to the frosty element, from the toridto the frigid zone. The purgatorians enjoy, in succession, the:0001 and the tepid bath; and are transferred, without any use-tess ceremony, from the icy pond to the boiling caldron,'These accounts have been authenticated by travellers, who

Visitedthis subterranean empire, and who were privileged tosurvey all its dismal scenery. Ulysses, Telemachus, andiEneas were admitted to view the arcana of Tartarus; andDrithelm, Enus, and Thurcal, in like manner, were permittedto explore the secrets of purgatory. The visions of the threelatter are recorded in the prose of Bede and Paris, as thegloomy path of the three former had been blazoned in -thepoetry of Homer, Virgil, and Fenelon. The travels of theheroes, however, were attended with greater difficulty thanthose of the saints. UlY8Ses,Telemachus, and 1Eneas were-entangledon their journey, with the encumbrance of the body;while Drithelm, Enus, and Thurcal, unfettered by that re-straint, winged their easy way and expatiated in spirit through'purgatory in all its sulphureous walks and roasting furnaces.Drithelm, whose story is related by Bade and Bellarmine,

was led on his journey by an angel in shining raiment; andproceeded,in the company of his guide, towards the rising ofthe sun. The travellers, at length, arrived in a valley of vastdimensions. This region, to the left, was coveredwith roastingfurnaces, and, to the right, with icy cold, hail, and snow. Thewhole valley was fined with human souls, which a tempestseemedto toss in all directions. The unhappy spirits, unablepurgatoriuB ignis. Cat. Trid. 50. Per ignem&li&Bqne pamas ablutlDtl1l'. Syn.Di&i.n. in CoIIB&l't, 6. 20. Paolo, 2. 633.Non Bit met&phorice dietus, sed versus ignis corporeus, Aquin. P&rB. III. Q.

70. Art. nr, P. 547.In p~torio sicut eti&m ininferno esse poenam ignis. Sive iBte ignis aeeipia-mr propne sive metaphorice. Be1I&rmin, II. 10. .1Alex. 9.393. Gregory, IV. 40. Beliarmin, II. 6.

Page 502: The Variations of Popery

502 THE VAlUA.TIONS OF POPERY.

in the one part to bear the violent heat, leaped into the shiver-ing cold, which again drove them into the scorchin~ flameswhich cannot be extinguished. A numberless multitude ofdeformed souls were, in this manner, whirled about and tor-mented without intermission in the extremes of alternate heatand cold. This, according to the angelic conductor whopiloted Drithelm, is the place of chastisement for such as deferconfession and amendment till the hour of death. All these,however, will, at the last day, be admitted to heaven: whilemany, through alms, vigils, prayers, and especially the mass,will be liberated even before the general judgment,'The story of Enus is told by Paris} This adventurer was

a warrior and had campaigned under Stephen, king of England.Resolved to make reparation in St Patrick's purgatory forthe enormity of his life, Enus visited Ireland. The Son ofGod, if old chronicles may be credited, appeared to the Saintwhen he preached the Gospeltothe BESTIAL Irish, and instructedthe missionary to construct a purgatory at Lough Derg; andpromised the plenary remission of sin to all who should remaina day and a night in this laboratory of atonement. Fortified bythe holy communion and sprinkled with holy water, the fearlesssoldier entered the gloomy cave.Protected, by invoking the Son of God, Enus beheld the

punishments of the wretched purgatorians. The groans of thesufferers soon began to stun his ears. Numberless men andwomen, lying naked on the earth and transfixed with red-hotnails, bit the dust with pain. Devils lashed some with dread-ful whips. Fiery dragons gnawed some with ignited teeth jwhile flaming serpents pierced others with burning stings.Toads of amazing size and terror endeavored, with uglybeaks, to extract the hearts of many. Monstrous deformedworms, breathing fire from their mouths, devoured some w~thinsa;tiable voracity. Some hung in sulphureous flames,~thchains through their feet, legs, hands, arms, and heads, or :w>thiron hooks in a state of ignition through their eyes, nose, Jaws,and breasts. Some were roasted on spits, fried in pans, orbroiled in furnaces. Many were hurled headlong into a fetid,tumbling, roaring river, and, if any raised their heads abo~ethe surface, devils, running along the stream, sunk. them agaminto the cold element. A sulphureous well, emitting flameandstench, threw up men like sparkling scintillations, into the air,and again received them falling into its burning mouth.Thurcal's adventure is also related by Paris. Julian. who

officiated as guide on the occasion, left the body of Thurca1

1Bed.a. V. 12. lWL I. 7. Faber,2. 449. , M. Paris, 83, 180, 270.

Page 503: The Variations of Popery

;,

PRETENDED PUNISHMENTS OF PURGATORY. 503

sleeping in bed, and took only the soul as the companion of hisjourney to the nether world. He wisely, however, breathed lifeinto the soulless body, lest, in the spirit's absence, it shouldappear dead. Having settled these necessary preliminaryarrangements, the two spiritual travellers departed, at night,from England for purgatory. The two disembodied companionssoon winged their aerial way to the middle of the world towardsthe east, and entered a spacious fabric of wonderful structure.This edifice was the general rendezvous of departed souls, andwas built by Jesus the Son of God, at the intercession of LadyMary, his mother. The palace, of course, had a respectablearchitect.Many souls in this dep6t of spirits, and many beyond the north

wall, were marked with spots indicating their venial sins. Theapostle Paul sat in the palace at the end of the north wallThe Devil and his guards sat without the wall opposite theapostle. A balance was affixed to the wall between the apostleand the Devil, in which Paul and Satan, with precision andcare, weighed the souls. The former had two weights, whichwere bright and golden; and the latter two, which, as might beexpected, were dark and smoky. When the beam inclined toBeelzebub, the guards threw the soul, wailing and cursing, intoa Hamy gulph, which of course, was hell. This unceremonioustreatment of sinners afforded fine fun to the devils, whose duty,on the occasion,was attended with loud peals of infernal laughter,When the beam inclined to Paul, the apostle introduced the soulthrough the eastern gate to purgatory, to make compensationfor its venial crimes.Purgatory, according to our subterranean traveller, consists

of a vast valley between two walls, the northern and southern.The entrance into tliis ancient domain is occupied with purga-torian fire; caldrons, filled with flaming pitch, blazing sulphur,and other fiery materials, boil or roast the souls for the expiationof their siris. These furnaces also exhaled a stench, which wasnot very pleasing to the olfactory nerves; and which causedeven the disembodied souls that on earth had wallowed infilthy, gratifications to cough, hiccup, and sneeze. Havingenjoyed the warm bath, the souls, for the sake of variety, wereintroduced into the cold one. The unhappy spirits exemp~edth~ variations of Popery, and passed into a frosty pool, whic~skirted the eastern extremity of the valley. The water of thispoo! was icy, salt, and shivering. The spirits, according. totheir crimes, were immersed in this lake to the knee, the mid-dle, or the neck. Removed from this shivering situation, thesufferer had to undergo another trial. A bridge, studded withsharp nails and thorns with their points turned upwards, had

Page 504: The Variations of Popery

504 THE V.A.lUATIONS OF POPERY.

to be crossed. The souls walked bare-footed on this rough road,and endeavoring to ease their feet, leaned on their hands; andafterwards rolled,with the whole body, on the perforating spikes,till, pierced and bloody, they worked their painful tedious wayover the thorny path. Passing this defile was often the laborof many years. But this last difficultybeing surmounted thespirits, forgetful of their pain, escaped to heaven,called the mountof joy.Perpetua's vision may, for the sake of variety, be added to

the Tartarean travels of Drithelm, Enus, and Thurcal. Thisholy martyr had a brother called Dinocrates, who died of anulcer in his face in the seventh year of his age. His sister, in avision of the night, saw the boy after his death going out of adark thirsty place, with a dirty face, a pale color, and the ulcerof which he died remaining in his visage. The smoky thirstyenclosure, in which he was confined, contained a pond full ofwater, which, however, being inaccessible, only tantalized thethirsty child.Perpetua knew this prison to be purgatory; and her prayers

and tears, day and night, for his deliverance were attended withtheir usual success. She soon had the pleasure of seeing herbrother clean, dressed, and joyful. The malady, which haddisfigured his face, was healed. He had obtained access to theTartarean pool, and, from a golden cup, swallowed copiouspotations; and then played, like a child, through the plain.'Perpetua awaking, understood that the youth was releasedfrompunishment. All this is very clear and satisfactory. The visionpresents a graphic description of purgatory, as a place of dirt,paleness, disease, heat, thirst, smoke, and tantalizing water; and,at the same time,opens a pleasing prospect ofheaven, as a countryof cleanness, dress, health, water, cups, joy, and, at least withrespect to boys, of fun and frolic.Perpetua's dream was eulogized by many of the ancients. Its

truth and fidelity, in a particular manner and on several occa-sions, was applauded by Augustdne of sainted memory. Thereport has also extorted an encomium from .Alexander,who,moreover, discovered that those who deny purgatory are neverprivileged with such visions. Dreams of this kind, the learnedSorbonnist found out, are peculiar to the faithful friends of amiddle state of expiation. He must have been a man of geniusor inspiration to nave made such a prodigious discovery. Bel-lannine sings to the same tune. These holy men, says thecardinal, could neither deceive nor be deceived; as they pos-

I Ladeze more infaDtium gaudeD8. Alex. 9. 393. Augustin, 5. 11M, et 10.401. BelL U. 6.

Page 505: The Variations of Popery

PURGATORY DESTITUTE OF CHRISTIAN AUTHORITY. 505

sessed the spirit of discrimination, and were the particularfriends of God.Such are the visions of purgatory, recorded by Bede, Paris,

and Perpetua. The tales are as silly as the Pagan mythologyof Charon and his fabled boat. The relation is as ridiculousas any of the sarcastic dialogues of Lucian, concerning the'ferryman of Tartarus, which were designed to ridicule theabsurdity of gentilism. The Protestantism and philosophy ofmodem days have exposed such notions, and made the patronsof Romanism shy in recognising the ridiculous delineations.But the statements, however risible, obtained the undividedbelief and unqualified respect of our Popish ancestors. Thedenial of these details would once have been accounted rankheresy. Bellarmine, in later days, swallowed the reports withavidity, in all their revolting fatuity. The modems, who maychoose to reject the tales of folly, will only add another in-stance to the many variations of Popery.Purgatory, in all its forms, is a variation from scriptural

authority. Revelation affords it no countenance. No otherdogma of Romanism, except image-worship and the invocationof saints, seems to borrow so little support from the Book ofInspiration. The Bible, by certain management and dexterity,may appear to lend some encouragement to transubstantiationand extreme unction. But the ingenuity of man has never beenable to discover a single argument for a middle place of purifi-cation, possessing even a shadow of plausibility. The nameitself is not in all the Sacred Volume, and the attempts whichhave been made to find the tenet in its inspired contents haveonly shown the fatuity of the authors. The Book of God, onthese occasions, has been uniformly tortured, for the purposeof extorting acknowledgements of which it is guiltless, andwhich, without compulsion, it would obstinately deny. Thebody of an unhappy heretic was never more unmercifullyman-gled and disjointed in a Spanish inquisition, with the design offorcing confession, than the Book of Divine Revelation, withthe intention of compelling it to patronise purgatory. The soulof a venial sinner never suffered more exquisite torments inpurgatory itself, even if its existence were real, for the expiationof venial iniquity, than the language of the inspired volume forproof of a place of posthumous purgation.The uselessness of attempting scriptural evidence for this

opinion, indeed, has been acknowledged by many popishauthors. M!IDydistinguished theologi~ have, ~th l~udablecandor, admitted the silence of Revelation on this toPIC; andamong the rest, Barns, Bruys, Courayer, Alphonsus, Fisher,Polydorus, Soto, Perionius, Picherel,·Wicelius, Cajetan, and

Page 506: The Variations of Popery

506 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Trevern. Barns declares 'purgatorial punishment a matter ofhuman opinion, which can be evinced neither from Scripture,fathers, nor councils.' The belief of this intermediate place,according to Bruys, ' was unknown to the Apostles and originalChristians.' Courayer, in his annotations on Paolo, admits, the incorrectness of ascribing this dogma to Scripture, or evento tradition. Alphonsus, Fisher, and Polydorus 'grant thetotal omission or rare mention of this tenet in the monumentsof antiquity.' Similar concessions have been made by Soto,Perionius, Picherel, Wicelius, Cajetan, and Trevern.'Bellarmine and Alexander, the two celebrated advocates of

this theology, have between them, rejected all its scripturalproofs, and agree only in one apocryphal argument. Alexan-der explodes all Bellannine's quotations for this purpose, fromthe Old and New Testament, but one-and this, Bellarmineadmits, is illogical," The Sorbonnist, without any hesitation orceremony, condemns seventeen of the Jesuit's citations, andreduces his evidence to a mere shadow. He combats the cardi-nal's sophistry with learning and fearlessness. The single argu-ment, which the former represents as demonstrative, the lattercharacterises as sophistical and inconclusive. The two cham-pions of purgatory contrive, in this manner, to free Revelationfrom all tendency to countenance the unscriptural and ridicu-lous invention. Both these polemics, indeed, quote the Macca-bean history as demonstrative in favor of a middle state. Butthis book is uncanonical ; and is disclaimed, Bellannine grants,by the Jews, and was formerly doubted by Christians." Theproof, besides, taken from this work, is founded on intercessionfor departed souls, which by no means supposes a place of pro-pitiation between death and the resurrection.Calmet, the Benedictine, offers three citations, canonical and

uncanonical, on this topic. Two of these agree with Alexan-\ der's. One is apocryphal; and another led Bellarmine, accord-ing to his own concession, in pressing it to favor his system,into sophistry. Calmet, in the third, supposes, that Paul prayedfor.Onesiphorus when the latter was dead. But the suppositionis unfounded; and, even if true, supplication for the dead, as1Punitio ergo in Purgatorio est res in opinione humana posita, qUal nee ex

Scripturia, nee Patribus nee Coneiliis dedueere poteat. Barns. §. 9. Ce queron croit aujourd'hni du Purgatoire avoit ete inoonnu aux Aplltres et aux l'~-miers fidelea, Bruys, 1. 378. Ce n'est done pas parler exactement que de ~que 1'00riture et Ia tradition enseignent Ie Purgatoire. Couray. in Paol 2. ~In veteribus de :Puntatorio fere nulla potissimum apud Gr.ooos scriptores menl:i0est. AlphOIllua, VIII. De Purgatorio, apud priscos illoa, nulla, vel quam rans-BiIna fiebat mantio. Fisher, Art. 18. Polydorua, 'VIII. Pieh. c. 2. Trevel'D!.242.I Non ~ui eecundum regulas dialecticarum. BeJlarmin. 1. 4. Matth. xu. 32.I Lib. ~haba!orum non esse canonicum apud JuWooe. Libri Macha~orum

sunt ex eoium numero, de quibus aliquando etiam inter Catholicos dubltatum.~La.

Page 507: The Variations of Popery

ROMISH ARGUMENTS FROM SCRIPTURE REFUTED. 507

shall afterwards be shown, supplies no evidence for purgatory.Challenor, always insidious and soothing, adduces seven quota-tions, without hinting at their inadequacy or the opposition ofancient fathers or modern theologians. IThe ancients, in scriptural interpretation on this subject,

differ, even according to Bellarmine, Alexander, and Calmet, asmuch as the modems. The cardinal, the Sorbonnist, and thebenedictine have cited Augustine, Jerome, Gregory, Cyril,Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Ambrosius, Anselm,and Bede. All these have been quoted, and quoted againsteach other. Bellarmino, Alexander, and Calmet have, at greatlength and with extraordinary patience, shown that theseauthors are at utter variance on the inspired proofs for thesupport of a middle state of purification. The interpretationwhich one adopts another rejects. One approves the exposi-tion which another condemns," The collector of their varia-tions, which, on this question, are nearly past reckoning, wouldrequire the learning of Lardner, and their reader the patienceof Job.The patrons of this system have urged four scriptural quo-

tations, which are worthy of attention, and will, on this subject,show the inconsistency and variations of popish advocacy.These proofs are taken from Matthew, Paul, and Peten Thesacred historian Matthew records our Lord's sermon, whichmentions a prison, from which the debtor shall not escape tillhe pay' the uttermost farthing.' Bellarmine, Challenor, Milner,and the Rhemists say, this prison is purgatory, which detainsthe venial transgressor till he satisfy for his trivial impurity.Many Romish saints and commentators, how~ver, give a

different explanation. Augustine, Jerome, Bede, Maldonat,and Alexander say, the prison is hell, and the punishment ever-lasting.a Augustine, a saint of superior manufacture, patron-ised this expositioni Jerome, another saint overflowing withgall and superstition, maintained the same opinion. Accordingto the canonised commentator of Palestine, 'The person, whodoes not, before the end of his life, pay the last farthing, men-I Calm. Diet. 3. 746. Alex. 9. 365. 2 Tim. I. 18. Challenor, Co 14.2 ~ 1. 4. Alexan. 9. 353. Cal. Com. 12.361.a ~mrr non exiturum esse qui semper Bolvit.noviesimumq~te~. Au-

gustin. • 177. Nunquam solvitur a carcere, qm quadrantem verbi noVlll8llll~non lI01veretante finem vitro. Jerom, 5. 895. et 4. 133. Donee Balveapro ill-~to, I?Onitur siont alibi 'donee pamam inimiOOll ~oa.' ~ 5. !~.Yia eathUJU8 VItro tempUll, career infemus. Nunquam enturua, qma qm ill infernoBunt nunquam persolvunt. Maldonat, 1~1. .Non Bignifi~t unde nOB.exituroa~ sed nunquam. Quia cum pcenaII infinitas pro q~olibet. mortali pe<:ca~auuant damnati nunquameaa persolvunt; Nunquam ex inferm careere elUtunaunt de quibus hoc dictum est. AIeL 9. 380. Matt. v. 26. Psal. ex.I. Corin. xv. 25. Rhem. On Math. v. 25.

Page 508: The Variations of Popery

508 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

tioned in the words of the inspired penman, will never bereleased from the prison.' The two Roman saints werefollowed by Bede, an English monk of learning and orthodoxy.He makes the term UNTIL signify endless duration as in theexpression of David, cited by Paul, 'till I put all your ene-mies under your feet.' Maldonat concurs with Augustine,Jerome and Bede. The learned Jesuit interprets the' prisonto signify hell, from which the debtor, who will be punishedwith the utmost rigor, will never escape, because he willnever pay.'Alexander delivers a similar interpretation, in a more length-

ened and detailed form. 'The inspired phraseology,' says thisdoctor, 'signifies not whence he will afterward depart, butwhence he will never depart. The words are spoken of hell,from which the condemned, who undergo the infinite punish-ment of mortal sin, which they can never pay, will never bereleased.' He quotes David and Paul for illustration andconfirmation of his comment. The word until, in Scripturallanguage, often denotes that the event, to which it refers, willnever happen. God invited his Son to 'sit at his right hand,till his enemies should become his footstool' But he will notthen leave his seat. The king of Zion will reign till every foeis subdued. But he will not then cease to reign. The ravenreturned not to Noah,' till the waters were dried.' But noreturn succeeded. Apply this to the words of Jesus inMatthew, and all is clear. The person imprisoned, unable topay, will never be liberated. Augustine quotes the samepassages from David and Paul for proof and illustration. TheRhemists against Helvidius, on another part of Matthew's gos-pel, give a similar explanation of the phrase; and in thismanner, furnish arms against themselves. \Such is the genuine signification of the passage. Popish

commentators, in modern times, may be dissatisfied 'With theexplanation; and, if they please,call it a heresy. The inter-pretation, however, is not the production of Luther, Zuinglius,Calvin, Cranmer, or Knox; but of Augustine, Jerome, Bede,Maldonat, and Alexander: two saints, a monk, a jesuit and aSorbonnist.The. partisans of purgatory argue from another passage in

Matthew. Sin ~ the Holy Ghost, it is said, shall be for-given, < neither III this world, nor in the world to com~.'This the Romish doctors account their strong-hold. Thjsthey reckon the impregnable bulwark of their system. This,.Alexander who condemns all other arguments taken from theNew Testament, caJls demonstration.. Calmet accounts it themain pillar of the mighty snperstrueture ; and in this opinion

Page 509: The Variations of Popery

ROMISH ARGUMENTS FROM SCRIPTURE REFUTED. 509

modern Romish commentators, in general, seem to concur.'Sin, say these critics, committed against the Spirit, will not bepardoned 'in the world to come,' and this implies, if it doesnot express, that some sins will be remitted in a future world.But forgiveness can have no reference to heaven or hell, and,therefore, there must be a middle state of pardon, and this iscalled purgatory.The least discernment might enable any person to see the

futility of this argument. The Romish dogma is a variationfrom the words of the sacred historian. Matthew mentionsforgiveness. But the intermediate state of popery is not a placeof pardon, but of punishment and expiation. The venial trans-gressor cannot be released from that prison, till he pay theuttermost farthing. This is plainly no remission. No sin, saysAlexander, can be remitted by ordinary law without satisfactionand due punishment. Full expiation is made in the purgatorialstate; and, therefore, there is no remission in the world \0 comeon popish any more than on protestant principles.The irremission of the sin against the Holy Ghost in a future

state, does not imply the remission of other sins. The unpar-donableness of one sin infers not the pardonableness of aaother,The conclusion, .in this syllogism, is not contained in the pre-mises. This, Bellarmine had the discernment to see and thecandor to confess. He quotes the text, and, from it, concludesthe existence of a middle state of pardon, and then, ingloriousinconsistency, admits the conclusion to be illogical. The car-dinal, in this instance as in many others, varies from himself:His boasted argument, he grants, as he well might, is a. pitifulsophism.2 Mark and Luke have explained Matthew with moreconsistency than Bellarmine, The two inspired historians say,this kind of blasphemy will never be forgiven, and their lan-guage, which only prejudice could misunderstand, is synony-~ous with Matthew's, and explodes the silly and unfoundedIdea of purgatorian remission.The statements of Mark and Luke, as explanatory ofMatthew,

have been adopted by Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theo- .phylact, Basil, Calmet, and Maldonat.3 This blasphemy, says1Matth. xii 32. Alex.9. 374. Calm. Diet. 3.746.2 Bel1armin, 1. 4. Mark iii 29. Luke xii. 10.aNon habet remissionem inretemum ..Allis verbis et .lio loqaendi modo eadem

ipsa est expressa sententia. Augustin, 5. 890. Serm. 71. Remitti nobis hocpecc.~ omnino non possit. Augustin. ad Bon. 2. 662. Nullo tempore blas-phemia reIII1ttetur. Jerom. 4. 50.

El'"rcwe.. IC... EICE; a..Uf?I"E ilIOn",. E...rcw6lI 1C0All'0....... /(... E/(EI. Chrysos. 7. 449.~ .... 8aICtu EICE,T~OT"'. Theophylact in Matt. xii. AovrX""""'o~ E"'''' 'I"7lElf TO 'JIJ'EVjUITO "'Y"'JI /!Julatfn/iWL Basil, So 5!'.. . . ,. .Ce JM\chtl ne sera remis, ni en ce monde, men 1 autre, e est a dire qu ilest irre-

miBBibIe par sa nature. Calmet, Diss. 3. 389. Non ignoramus phrasim eBB8 queeidem valeat quod in retemum. Maldonat, 264.

Page 510: The Variations of Popery

510 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Augustine, 'shall never be remitted. Matthew and Mark varyin expression, but agree in signification. This sin cannot at allbe forgiven.' Jerome, concurring with Augustine, says, 'thisblasphemy shall, at no time, be remitted.' Chrysostom's com-ment is, if possible, still plainer and more explicit than those ofAugustine and Jerome. The scriptural diction, in his expla-nation, means that the perpetrator of this atrocity shall bepunished bereand hereafter: here, likethe Corinthian fornicator,by excommunication, and hereafter, like the citizens of SOdOIIl,by suffering 'the vengeance of eternal fire.' Calmet, in hisDissertations, observes according to the same exposition, 'Thissin shall be pardoned neither in this world nor in the other, thatis to say, it is unpardonable in its nature.' Maldonat, thoughhe strenuously maintains the purgatorial system from ourLord'swords, admits that the phraseology of Matthew and that ofMark are synonymous, and signify the eternal irremission ofblasphelhyagainst the Holy Spirit.The original term, translated world, signifies time, age, or

duration. Jerome, accordingly, has rendered the Greek by 8.Latin word denoting time. This sin, in the commentary ofthis saint, shall be forgiven neither in the present nor at a futuretime.' This expression seems to confine the meaning to thepresent life. The inspired language simply states, that thisblasphemy would be pardoned neither at the present nor at afuture period. The word sometimes signifies the Jewish estab-lishment and sometimes the Christian dispensation. Matthew,in his Gospel, used it in the former s~nse. Paul, addressingthe Corinthians and Hebrews, takes it in the latter acceptation.The blasphemy, according to this explanation, would be for-given neither under the Jewish or Christian economy, thoughthe latter was to be an age of mercy.Paul's words to the Corinthians have also been pressed into

-the service, for the support of purgatory. The Apostle ofTarsus taught the Christians of Corinth tllat the professor,building «wood,hay, or stubble,' on the foundation, though his•work shall be burnt, shall be saved, yet so as by fire;' Thisfire, say Bellarmine, Ward, Challenor, the Council of Sens, theLatins in the Council of Florence, and many other advocates ofRomanism, awaits the perpetrator of trifling trangressions inthe middle state.'The difliculty of this passage might have caused some hesi-

tation in making it the basis ofany system.. Its difficulty hasbeen acknowledged in.emphatic language, by Augustine, Bede,1Neque inpzawenti tempore DllqU8 infuturo. Jerom, 4. 50. Matth. xxiv. 3.

1CoriJL ix.lL Reb.L 26.2 1 Coria. iii. 12. BIititaB. 1. 215. Crabb, 3. 747. Bell, 1..4. Challen. 128.

Page 511: The Variations of Popery

ROMISH ARGUMENTS FROM SCRIPTURE REFUTED. 511

Bellarmine, Alexander, and Estius, Bellarmine represents it asone of the obscurest, and, a,t the same time, one of the mostuseful passages in all revelation. Its obscurity, in Bellarmine'sopinion, contributed to its utility,as it enabled the Jesuit, witha little management, to explain it as he pleased. But Alexan-'der, with more sense and honesty, has, on account of its wantof perspicuity, rejected it as a demonstration of purgatory.l, Its obscurity/says Estius, 'has occasioned many and various

expositions.' 'This authority,' observes Faber, ' is very obscure,and variously explained, not only by different fathers and doc-tors, but by the same doctor. Augustine interprets this placein various ways.' Bellarmine, Alexander, and Calmethavecollected a copious specimen of the jarring interpretations ofexpositors, on this part of the inspired volume, and their collec-tions afford no very flattering view of the unity ofRomanism.The principal significations which have been attached to the

apostolic expression, are three. Gregory, Augustine, Bernard,and Bede account the fire a metaphor for tribulation or trial inthis life. The Roman pontiff and saints, as well as the Englishmonk, refer the expression to the pains endured not after butbefore death; and so exclude posthumous expiation. Similarto this is Cajetan's explanation, who makes it signify severejudgmenta? .Origen, Ambrosius, Lactantius, Basil, Jerome, and Augus-

tine, according to Estius, reckon the language literal, and referit to the general conflagration on the day of the last judgment;though purgatory, at that period, will, according to Bellarmine,be evacuated and left empty. This ancient interpretation hasbeen followed by Lombard, Aquinas, Haimo, Alcuin, andEstius. This party make saint and sinner p8.8Sthrough thefiery ordeal, which will try the work of every one, 'whether hebuild gold and silver on the foundation, or wood, hay, and stub-ble," But the intermediate place of JI:rtion, in the theologyof Romanism, contains only the mid' class, who are guiltyof venial, frailty.1 Pauli ilia 86ntentia plane ad intelligendnm difficilis. Augustin. 6. 124-

Beda, 6. 285. Unum ex difficilimis at utilissimis totius Scriptural. Bell. I. 5.Locus obscurissimus est, cujus sensum vixassequi liceat. Alex. 9.378. Estius,1. 214, Non demonstrative contra hleretic08 ostendi. Alexander, 9. 378.Hrec auctoritas est certe valde obscura, et varire explicationes offeruntur, nonsolum a. di.!ersis ~tribus et doctoribus, sed ab eadem Doctors. Augustinus hunclocum varus modis interpretatur. Faber, 2. 444-

2 Hoc de igne tn'bulationis, hac nobis vita adhibito, possit intelligi. Greg.Dial. IV. 39. Eamdem tribulationem ignem vocat. A~. C. D. XXI. 26.Sentiat Pamitentire tn'bulationem. Bemar. 411. Ignis tribulationis. Beds,6. 287. Pro severo judicio Cajetanus exponit. , Estius, 1. 216.3 Excepturus Bit omnes etiam 80S qui aurum et argentum superredificant fun-

damenta. Probaturus opus uniuscuJUBque. Estius, 1. 216. Ambos probat.Aug. 7. 648. Ambo a. 350. Aquin. 3. 563=

Page 512: The Variations of Popery

512 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Chrysostom and Theodoret interpret Paul's diction to signifythe'unquenchable fire of hell, and these two Grecian commen-tators have been followed, says Bellarmine, Calmet, andAlexander, by Theophylact, Sedulius and Anselm.' This wasthe op'inion of the whole Grecian communion. The Greeksaccordingly, in the council of Florence, represented the fir~mentioned by the apostle, not as purgatorian but eternal.Alexander and Erasmus also declare, against the popish exposi-tion of Paul's language; and display the singular unanimity ofRomish commentators. Gregory, Augustine, Bernard, andBede appear, on this topic, against Origen, Ambrosius, Hilary,Lactantius, Jerome, Lombard, Aquinas, Haimo, Alcuin, andEstius ; and all these against Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophy-lsct, Sedulius, and Anselm. Saint encounters saint, and com-mentator attacks commentator; and all these, formed in deepphalanx, explode from Paul's words the modern fabrication ofpurgatory.The searching fire, mentioned by the apostle, is not purgato-

rian but probatory. Its effect is not to purify but to try. Thetrial is not of persons, but of works. The persons, in thisordeal, shall be saved; while the works, if wood, hay, or stub-ble, shall, as the Greeks observed at the council of Florence,[beconsumed. The popish purgatory, on the contrary, is not fgrprobation, but expiation, and tries, not the action but the agent,not the work but the worker,"The scriptural language, in this case, is metaphorical. The

foundation and the superstructure, coasisting of gold, silver andprecious stones, or of wood, hay, and stubble, 88 well as thescrutinising flame, all these are not literal but figurative.The phrase,' so 88,' it is plain, denotes a comparison. Thesalvation, wHich is accomplished so as by fire, is one which, ascritics have shown from similar language in sacred and profaneauthors, is effected with difficulty. Amos, the Hebrew prophet,represents the Jewish nation, who were rescued from imminentdanger, 'as a fire-brand plucked out of the burning.' Zacha-riah, another Jewish seer, in the same spirit and in similarstyle, characterises a person who was delivered from impendingdestruction, as a brand snatched ' out of the fire.' Diction of1 ~O$ ElCfW7/ '"l ",Jury.. Chrysos. II, 243. Hom. 6. Gis 7JVI"p~urra< 1'1Js

'Y.... "'IS '7'0 '"'P. Theod. 3. 134. in 1. Cor. iii. 12. 13. Chry_tome, Theophy:.Jacte, at d'autreB Grecs l'expliquent du feu de l'enfer dans lequeI lea reprouvezdfl1lllll1nlnt sans pouvoir de mourir. Calm. 22. 363. !pis ipse non purgator.ius, verum mternum supplicium sit. Crabb. 3. 3T1. 1'heoph. in Corin. iii.BelL 1. 4. Alex. 9. ¥l8. 381. '

2 NonnuDi inter quos Cajetanus dictum putant de opere non de operaute.Eatiua, 1. 213-Pia quidem opera manen~ et non comburantur. Prava vero comburantur.

Ipse }lermanebit igne. palDa8 1uendo 8lternas. Libb. 18. 'l7.

Page 513: The Variations of Popery

ROKISH ARGUMENTS FROM SCRIPTURE REPUTED. 513"a similar kind, Calmet, Wetstein, and other critics have shown,

has been used by Livy, Cicero, and Cyprian, for denoting grenthazard and difficulty. Paul, in like manner, designed to tellus, that he who should blend vain and useless speculations withthe truths of the gospel, but should rest, nevertheless, in themain, on the only basis, would, in the end, be saved j but withthe difficulty of a person, who should escape with the possessionof his life, but with the loss of his property, from an over-whelming conflagration; or, according to Estius, like themerchant, who should gain the shore with the destruction ofhis goods, but the preservation of his life, from the tempest ofthe sea,'Peter has also been quoted in favor of purgatory. 'Our

Lord,' says the Galilean fisherman,. 'preached to the spirits inprison.' This prison, according to many modern abettors of:Romanism, is the intermediate state of souls, into which theSon of God, after his crucifixion and before his resurrection,descended, for the purpose of preaching the gospel to its suffer-ing inmates. .The obscurity of the text shows the folly of making it the

foundation of any theory. Augustine, Bellarmine, and Estius'confess its difficulty, which, as might be expected, has occa-sioned a variety of interpretations. Lorinus, without exhaust-ing the diversity, has enumerated ten different expositions.Some, by the prison, understand hell, into which, they allege,Jesus descended to preach the gospel to pagans and infidels."I'hiainterpretation, Calmet and Estiu8 call error and heresy.Some say our Lord preached in the prison both to the goodand the bad. Some maintain that he preached only to thegood, while others aver that he preached only to the bad, towhom he proclaimed their condemnation.'The principal interpretations of this difficult pusage are

two. The prison, according to one party, is the limbo ofthe fathers or the bosom of Abraham, into which the Son ofGod, some time between his crucifixion and resurrection, de-scended to liberate the Jewish saints. This, say Calmet andthe Bhemists, was the common opinion of the ancients: suchas Justin, Clemens, Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphaniu8, Jerome,Ambrosius, and Hilary. The schoolmen, at a later period,1Quemadmodum mercator non nisi cum jactura rerum narumquaa amat, nee

.sine dolore ammittit e tempel'tate maria evadit. EetiUll, I. 218. Amos, iv.11.Zach. iii. 2. Calm. '22. 363. Wet.in in Corin. iii. 15. ., LQcua hie omnium pene interPretum jndicio difficillimUll, idemqne tam vane

expotlitu& FAtiUll, 2. 1182. Angus. adEvod. LeSauveur avoit p~che m~me.au. Jl&yena et AUX infideles. Calmet,!U. 146. Eeti1l8, 2. 1183. -:Bell. 1. 416.Quidam solos bonos apiritua inte11igunt; alii solos malos, alii deniqne tam bonos~uam malos. Eati1l8, 2. 1183.

00

Page 514: The Variations of Popery

514 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

adopted the same belief. This interpretation has been followedby the Trent Catechism, the Rhemish annotators, and indeedby the generality of modern popish theologians.The prison, according to a second party, is hell, in which

those who, in the days of Noah, were incredulous, were, in thetime of Peter, incarcerated for their unbelief,' These spiritswere prior to the flood, in the body and on earth; but, in theapostolic age, were consigned to the place of endless punish-ment. To these, Jesus, before their death, preached not in hishumanity but in his divinity; not by his own but by Noah'sministry. He inspired the antediluvian patriarch to preachrighteousness to a degenerated people. He officiated, saysCalmet, 'not in person but by his spirit, which he communica-ted to Noah.' Augustine among the ancients, and Aquinasamong the schoolmen, were the great patrons of this interpre-tation; and the African saint and the angelic doctor have beenfollowed by Bede, Hassel, Calmet, and many other commen-tators both in the Romish and reformed communions,"The interpretation, which would make the prison to signify

purgatory, is entirely modern, and was utterly unknown to theancients. The exposition is not to be found in all the ponderoustomes of the fathers. Bellarmine and Alexander, in their la-bored attempts to evince posthumous purgation, omit this pas-sage. The cardinal has adduced many scriptural quotations toprove an unscriptural absurdity; and the Sorbonnist has endea-vored to support the same supposition from the pages of reve-lation. Both, however, omit the words of Pope Peter. Theomission is a silent confession of the argument's utter incompetency, in the opinion of these distinguished authors, and a eon-firmation of its novelty as an evidence of purgatorian purificationafter death. Bellamrine's nineteen quotations comprehend all.that were alleged for this theory in his day. Alexander re-viewed all the scriptural proofs, which had been formerly urgedon this controversy. But neither Bellarmine nor Alexandermention this prison of the antediluvians. The .citation waspressed into the ranks by some modern scribblers, who wereat a loss for an argument.1Christ descendit dans Ie lieu oa Ies Ames des saints Patriarches etoient dete-

nues. Calm.24. 146. Cat. Trid. 35.2 Auguatinus melius exponit ut referatnr non ad descensum Christi ad infares.

Hill pnedicavit qui increduli fuerant aliquando. Noe pnedicanti. Aquin. Par.in. Qu.alst;. 52. Arl. 11. P. 145. Augustin,2. 579. Ep. 164. Ipse antedilutium Us, qui tunc mcreduli erant et carnaliter vivebant, spiritu veniensPJ'IBdicavit. Ip118enim pet'Spiritum Sanctum erat in Noe et pravis illi1l.shomini-baa at ad meliora converlerentur,pr1ledicavit. Beda,5.706. Christ par son esprit,cIonl ilNBllllit Nee, ~ aax hommetl inCl'Ildules de oe temps Ia. Christ p'~ch&dou.o -. .. lncredu1ell, DOIl'en personne ni visiblement, maispar son Esprit qu'ilavoit CODI.1Il1IDiqv.' A N~ Ca1met, 24. 159. Du Pin, 1. 386.

I

j

Page 515: The Variations of Popery

PURGATORY DESTITUTE OF TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY. 515

The prison, therefore, according to some, WRS hell; and,ac-cording to others, the limbo of the Jews. None, except a fewinfatuated, scribbling, nonplussed moderns, make it signify pur-gatory. Bede and Bellarmine, however, have placed hell,purgatAry, and the gaol of the Hebrews in the same neighbor-hood; and our Lord, when he descended to the subterraneanlodgings of Abraham, Isaac, and Ja,cob, and their companions,had perhaps given the citizens of purgatory a call and anexhortation.' He might, when he was in the vicinity, havepaid these suffering subterraneans a visit and preached them asermon; though a mass, if modern accounts may be credited,would have been more useful. But the Son of God, it wouldappear, was some way or other unaccountably guilty of neglect-ing the latter ceremony.Purgatory is a variation from tradition as well as from revela-

tion. None of the ancients, for 400 years after the Christianera, mention any such place. The intermediate state of'purifl-cation of souls between death and the resurrection, is unknownland in the monuments of Christian antiquity.Many of the fathers testify, in the plainest language, against

an intermediate state of expiation. From these may, as aspecimen, be selected Augustine, Ephraim, and Epiphanius.'Augustine, while he owns a heaven and a hell, rejects in un-qualified and empbatical language, 'the idea of a third place,as unknown to the church and foreign to the Sacred Scriptures,'Ephraim, like Augustine, 'acknowledges a heaven and a hell.but disclaims, in the clearest terms the belief of a middleplace: 'To avoid hell is,' he avers, 'to obtain heaven, and tomiss heaven is to enter hell.' Scripture, he adds, teaches nothird region. Epiphanius admits I no use or advantage of pietyor of repentance after death.'The silence of the ancients on this theory has been granted

by many moderns; such as Cajetan, Barns, Alphonsus, Fisher,and Polydorus. Cajetan remarks the omission of this topic,in the scriptural canon, as well as in the works of the ancientGreek and Latin theologians. Barns, on this subject, admits

! Purgatorium est lid ripam inferni. Faber. 2. 449. Est BUbterrm vioinus in-ferno. Dens. 353.Iniernum et Purgatonum aunt 1000 vicina. PUrgatorium esse infra viscera

terrm inferno iptli vicinum. Bellarmin. 11. 6. Beds, V. 12., Tertium penitus ignoramus, immo nee esse in scrirturis sanctis inveniemns.

Aug. 10.40. Hyp. V. 5. Extra duos hosee ordines, alius non est ordomedius. Loquor autem de altero quidem superno, altern vero inferno. Effu-gere gehennam, hoc i~ sit regnum crelorum ingredi qnemadmodnm et eoexcidere in gehennarn rotrare. .Ephraim 19, 20.Oulk 1"'''' yopU1/lGS EVO'.~ ovll. J&nlU'OtIlS I'f'I'lI 6tzN'f'OV. Epipb. 1. 502.

Page 516: The Variations of Popery

5It): THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

the silence 0f revelation, tradition, and councils. Similar con-cessions have been made by Alphonsus, Fisher, and Polydorus.'The advocates of this dogma do not even pretend to the

authority of the earlier fathers; such Il8 Barnabas, Clemens,Hennas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Tatian,Irenreus, Melito,Athenagorll8, and Theophilus. Its abettors appeal to no writers,who flourished for 200 years after the Christian era ; nor, if weexcept those who found their speculatioft on the illogical argu-ment of prayer for the dead, till the fourth century. Theseauthors had often occasion to treat on the subjects of heaven,hell, death, judgment and the resurrection. Future happinessand misery were frequently, in their works, made to pass inreview before the mind of the reader, amid an entire omissionof any temporary state of punishment or expiation. Ignatius,addressing the Magnesians, teaches a state of death and of lifewithout the slightest allusion to a middle place. Polycarpwrote on the resurrection; Athenagorll8, the .Athenian philoso-pher, composed a whole treatise on the same topic; and yetneither ofthese authors betrays a single hint or offersa solitaryobservation on the subject of purgatory. This theme, solucrative and notorious in modern times, was unknown to thesimple authors and Christians of antiquity.The Latins, on this question, in the council of Florence,

quoted' for authority Athanaeius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, .Am-brosius, Augustine, Gyru, and Leo. Bellarmine, Alexander,and many other modems refer to the same authors." But theearliest of these flourished in the end of the fourth century,when. error and superstition began their reign, and after aperiod ofnearly four hundred years had elapsed from the intro-,duetion of Chrj.stianity. These writers, besides, only testifythe prevalence of intercession tor the dead. But this super-stition,notwithstanding its absurdity, implies, Il8 shall afterwardbe shown, no middle place of purification between death and,the resurrection.Bellarmine, nevpe~, and ma,ny who follow his steps,

have endeavored to:find this theory in the fathers. This theyattempt in two ways. One consists in confounding the Orige-nian ordeal with the popish purgatory. Origen, ca.rriedonthewings of vain speculation, imagined that all, saint and sinner,prophet, martyr, and confessor, would, afrer the resurrectionat the·la.st judgment, pass through the fire of the general con-flagration! This paSsage through the igneous element, in thescheme of the Grecian visionary, would try and purify men aslCa~ c. 2. BirDs,.§ 9. AlphOD.viii. Fish. Art. 18. Polydor. viii'1Albb, 1& 11.... BelL 1.6; Alex. D;··U..IH..u. ..- ipe eumjnati-..Dia iii 4etiDit. Huet. 1. 139. Bell, 1. H,EaiUl, 1. 211: 0atDr. 2Z. 362. •

Page 517: The Variations of Popery

� ADMISSIONS OJ!' ROMISH WRITERS. 517

the furnace separates the alloy from the precious metals, suchas silver and gold. This chimera, broached by Origen, wasadopted by Hilary, Ambrosius, Gregory, Lactanfius, Jerome.Ephraim, Basil, and many of the schoolmen,But the ordeal of Origen differs widely from the purgatory

of Bellannine. Origen's scrutiny begins after the generalresurrection, and will J>e accomplished in the universal confla-gration. Bellarmine's purgatory begins at the day of death,and will terminate at or before the day of general judg-. ment. Its inhabitants will then be translated to heaven, andthe habitation left empty. These two states of purgation,therefore, will not exist even at the same time. The one endsbefore the other begins. .Origen's process differs from Bellarmine's slso in the ~rsoD8

exposed to the refining operation. The Grecian fanatic's hotbath extends to all, soul and body, good, bad, and indifferent.The saint, the sinner, and the middling class, whether guiltyof venial or mortal delinquency, must submit, in this specula-tor's system, to the devouring and scrutinising flame. HolyMary herself must fry, in undistinguished torment, with lessexalted mortals. Even her God-bearing ladyship can claim noexemption. The only exception will be Immanuel, who is theRighteousness of God. The Roman superstitionist's labora-tory, on the contrary, is only for the intermediate class, whoare bespattered with venial pollution. His furnace, howeverwarm and capacious, will not be allowed to roast the saint, themartyr, or confessor, and, much less, the mother of God.These distinctions will appear from the works of Ori2en. Hi-

lary, Ambrosius, Augustine, LactantiuB, Jerome, llrphraim,Basil, Aquinas, Paulinus and Isidorus,' Origen represents all,

I POBt resurrectionem ex morte, indigeamU8 sacramento eluente 1101 et eur·gante. N emo enim absque sordibue resurgere v.?terit. V eniendum est ommbas~ ignem, Omnes nos venire necesse est ad ilium ignem, etiamsi Paulus sitaliQU18 vel Perms, Origen, Hom. 3, 6, 14. .An diem judicii concnpiseimue, in quo nobis est iDe indefessu8 obeund.l18, mquo

snbennda 8u~t gram illa expiandlll n peccatis anmlll~.~Dlicia 1 Bl;a~ ~Ueammem gladius pertrausivit. Hilary in Pealm cxvui. tt. 856. Hilarius 1U8m.uat etiam, beatam Mariam transire debuisse per ilium ignem. Be1lannin, n. ~.Igne pur8J'buntur filii Levi, ~e Ezechiel, ignt: ~e1. Amb •.1. ~93..m

~Ba1m XXXVl. Omnes oportet transire per fiammaa, 81ve ilie Joannes 81t, 81ve illeSit Petrus. Amb. 1. 1064. in Psalm cxviii.Per judicium purgata novilllrimum eis q,uoque igne mundlP:tis. Augustin, C.D.

XX.. 25. J~stos cum judicaverit etiam 19De_ examinablt. ~ VII. ~1.Dommu8 ad Ignem judicium vocare sa moDBtrat. Ad ~ctos il1ius.perve~t.Jerom~, 2. 1434. in Amos vii. TransibimU8 ignem .. Per Ignem translturuS SIt.Ephraun, 91. 441.101 .,.., 1r1Ipl ,",S __ltpurfflfS (ilaDlUIOS. AEO,mrcu ,",S EJI '"" -JU'F' qur_. BaW.

1. 475. in Eaa.. lV.WUs ille finaIis ~nflagrationis aget in malos et bonos. Elementa purgabuntur

per JgDem etiam in corporibus electorum. Aquin. III. 74. VIII P. 1i63,5M.

Page 518: The Variations of Popery

518 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

after the resurrection, as needing and undergoing the purifyingflame. He excef.ts not even Peter and Paul. Hilary subjectsevery individual, even Lady Mary, to the burning scrutiny.His saintship transfers even the fJueen of heaven, without anyceremony, to the rude discipline. Ambrosius, like Origen andHilary, urges the necessity of such an examination, and con-signs, to the common conflagration, the Jewish Prophets andChristan apostles, Ezekiel, Daniel, Peter, and Paul. Similarstatements may be found in Augustine, Lactantius, Jerome,Ephraim, Basil, Paulinus and Isidorus. The same system,according to Bellarmine, Calmet, and Estius, was patronisedby CEcumenius, Rupert, Eucherius, Alcuin, Haimo, andLombard.Bellarmine, on this subject, acts an inconsistent and uncandid

part. He first cites Origen, Hilary, Ambrosius, Lactantius,Jerome, and Basil, in favor of his purgatorian theory; andafterward without any hesitation admits and even exposes theirerror. The Jesuit transubstantiates the Origenian ordeal intothe popish purgatory; and then, in sheer inconsistency,shews,with clear discrimination, the distinction between the two sys-tems and the two kinds of purgation; and characterises Origen-ism as a mistake, if not a heresy.' This was to vary from him-self, and to give up the authority of these authors, whom hehad quoted in support of his darling superstition.Bellarmine, in these concessions, has been followed, and with

reason, by Calmet, Esthis, Oourayer, and Du Pin.' Oalmet,in his comment, represents Origen, Hilary, Ambrosius, Lactan-tius, Basil, Rupert, Eucherius, and Alcuin as teaching the ne-cessity of those who are the most holy to pass through the fireto heaven. Estius states the same, and adds the names of Au-gustine, Raimo, Lombard and Aquinas. Oourayer on Paolo,as well as Du Pin, in his account of these authors, gives asimilar representation. Oalmet, Estius, Oourayer, and Du Pin,therefore, like Bellarmine, abandon this argument for an inter-mediate place of expiation.The patrons of 'komanism argue also from the prayers, pre-

ferred by the ancients for the dead, which, they suppose, implypurgatory. The argument, taken from supplication for depar-Opus per omne curret ignis arbiter. quod non cremarit tlamma, sed probe-

vent. Nostraa illo punget in igne animas. Paulinus, 345,686.Sunt qumdam. crimina, qual pel' ignem jodicii porgari possunt. Isidorns, c. 13.I Bell. 2. 1. et 1. 6.2Lee nne croyent que toutee Iea lmll8, memes eellea des plus justes, aortant de

ce monde, paasent par Ie feu avant que d'arrivel' au Ciel. Calmet. ~ 362.\Tnuat idem ~ pl'Obabit omnes. De. igne noviesimi diei, senserunt veteres.'ZBtiaB" 1. 216. Oiigenes, Lactance, Hilaire, et quelques autreIJ avoient c~qu'au jOlU' .dll jugemeat, tons sel'Oient purifiez par Ie feu. Courayer. mhalo.'lL '"'

Page 519: The Variations of Popery

A.RGUME~T FROM PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD REFUTED. 519

ted souls, has been urged with great confidence but littlesuccess. The fact is admitted, but the consequence is denied.The Maccabean history has been cited, to evince the belief

of the Jews in purgatorian expiation. But this book is unca-nonical. Its canonicity, doubted, says Bellarmine, by the ancientChristians, was rejected by the Jews, and denied by Cyril,Jerome, Hilary, Ruffinus, Gregory, and the council of Laodicea,'This authority, if prejudice were not blind, might decide thecontroversy.The apocryphal work has a greater want than that of canoni-

city. and is deficient in morality and, in this instance, in mean-ing. The author commends suicide. He eulogised Razis fora bold attempt to kill himself with his sword, rather than fallinto the hands of the enemy. This act, the historian callsnoble,though contrary to the law of God,"His reason for praying for the dead is senseless, as his enco-

mium on self-assassination is immoraL Judas collected moneyfor this purpose, because ' he was mindful of the resurrection.'Intercession for departed spirits, if the slain should not. riseagain, would, he said, be 'superfluous and vain," But theresurrection refers to the body; while supplication for thedeceased refers to the soul. The body, at death, goes not topurgatory, even according to Romish theology; but to the tomb,there to wait the summons of the archangel. The immortalspirit, if in a place of punishment, might need the petition ofthe living; though the body remain in the grave. The 'designof mass and supplication for the departed is not to deliver thebody from the sepulchre, but the soul from purgatory, whichwill be entirely unpeopled at the resurrection, of which Judaswas so mindful.The Jews, who fell in the battle of Idumea, were guilty of

idolatry, which is a mortal sin. The coats of the slain containedthings consecrated to.the idols of Jamnia. These votive offer-ings, the unhappy men retained till their death; and must,therefore, as guilty not merely of venial frailty but mortal trans-gression, have been in a place not of temporary, but everlastingpnnishment ; and, therefore, beyond the aid of sacrifice orsupplication. The Maceabean historian was as bad a theolo-gian as a moralist. .The modest author, however, makes no high pretensions.

He wrote his history, he remarks, according to his ability. This,if well, was as he wished; but if ill, would, he hoped, beexcused. He did, it seems, as well as he could, which, nodoubt, is all a reasonable person would expect. This, how-.1 II Maccab. :xii. 44. Oyril. 66. Jerom, 5. 141. Hilary. 615. Crab. 1. 380.Maccab. xiv. 41.11 Maccab. xii. 43.

Page 520: The Variations of Popery

520 THE VARUTIONS OF POPERY.

ever, as the author suggests, is one part of his history, whichcertainly does not discover the hand of a. master,'The argument, at any rate, is in this case, taken from prayer

for the dead, which is inconclusive. Intercessions were prefer-red for the good and the bad, for the saint and the sinner, in thedays of antiquity. The supplications, says Courayer inPaolo, 'are much more ancient and general than the doctrineof purgatory, and were offered for martyrs and confessors.'The dogma, therefore, being more recent than such supplications,cannot be founded on this h.asis.' The supposition does notnecessarily imply a temporary state of punishment, hut maybe performed for enhancing the eternal joys of the blessed, oralleviating the endless sorrows of those who are sentenced todestruction.The Christian fathers, from the days of Tertullian, who is

the fi1."8twho mentions this custom, prayed for their friends aftertheir departure from this earth and their entrance on a worldof spirits. Tertullian, about the end of the second century,admonished a widow to pray for her late husband, and tocommemorate the anniversary of his death. This, however,was after his apostasy to Montanism. But the superstition isnatural, and soon, in consequence, became general. The people,says Eusebius, 'wept at the funeral of Constantine, and sup-plicated God with tears and .lamentations for the emperor'ssoul," Augustine, in a similar manner, prayed for Monica;and Ambrosius for Valentinian and Theodosius.All this, however, affords no argument for purgatory. The

ancient Christians supplicated for those, who, the moderns willadmit, could not be in a place of purgatorian punishment orpain. Constantine's spirit, while the pe<?pleprayed, had, saysEusebius (ascended to its God.' Moruca's soul, before Augus-tine's intercessions, was, the saint believed, in heaven. Shealready enjoyed what he asked VaJentinian had ascended tothe flowery scenes of delight, while he enjoyed the fruition ofeternal life, and borrowed light fromJthe (Sun of Righteousness.'Theod08ius, while Ambrosius petitioned, (lived in immortallight and lasting tranquillity.' The saint, nevertheless, resolvedthat no day or night should pass without supplications for thedeceased and glorified emperor.'1Maccab. xii. 4.0. et xv. 33.2 Cee prieree etant bien plus'anciennea et plus g6n8rales que ladoctrine du pur-

ptoile puiequ'el1ee Be faiaOient pour lea ma.rtyrs etIee oonfesaeurs. Paolo, 2. 633.8 Tas fVXlU """ nil ~ ~$, _dtIoo'ar .,....... Eusebius, iv. 71.

TertuWau, iOl. '•n,......- .....~ Euseb. iv. 64. Credo jam feoem quod

til !'lflO. Aug. eom-. IX. 13. p. 170.51U1O.tameD ... Juf;itie mutuata cJanun diem ducia. Ambo G. 11~Pnitlar'l'heodoeiva luoe perpetua et traDquiJlit&tediuturDa. Ambrolius, G. 121.

Page 521: The Variations of Popery

.i

ARGUMENT FROM PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD REFUTED. 521

The ancient Liturgies, collected by Renaudot, and ascribed toJames, Mark, Clemens, Cyril, Gregory, Chrysostom, and Basil,contain forms of prayer for prophets, patriarchs, apostles, evan-gelists, martyrs, confessors, and the mother of God. TheLiturgy of James contains a 'commemoration of the departedfaithful, and a prayer to God who received their souls, for amerciful pardon of their sins.' Mark's Liturgy 'asks rest andremission for all who had slept in the faith, left this world, goneto God, and arrived at the mansions of felicity.' The Liturgyof Clemens 'supplicates God to bless all, who, having run theCOUI'8eof this life, had come to heaven, with tranquillity in hisspiritual bosomand gladness in the habitations of light and joy.'Cyril's comp/ehends 'a commemoration of all the holy patri-

• archs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, and especiallythe most glorious god~bearingvirgin, and a prayer for the peaceof all their souls in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.'Gre~ory's contains 'a prayer, used in presenting the unbloodysacrifice,for the repose of the fathers who had slept in the faith,a supplication for their refreshment, and a memento of LadyMary, mother of God.' Chrysostom's' mentions those who hadleft this world, and gone in purity of soul and body to God,and prays for their repose in the celestial habitations.' Basil's, remembers all the departed clergy and laity, particularly themost holy, glorious, immaculate, blessed, god-bearing lady, andprays for the tranquillity of their souls in the bosom of Abra-ham, Isaac, and Jacob, and in the bowers of bliss in theparadise of pleasure, whence, in the light of the saints, flysorrow, sighing, and sadnesa."Intercessions, in these prayers, were, in this manner, pre-

•1Deprecamur ChriBtum, ut pnestet ill08 dign08 venia deliotorum at remie-Ilone peccatorum.. Renaudot, 2. 37.ID;ia quietem tribuas, qui a nobie pl'ofecti, ad te nUgraverunt. RemitteOlJlD1a pecc&ta eorum. Renaudot, 2. 37.Illis omnibus, qui Btadium vitls decurrentea. perfecti at pracelari coram te

apparuerunt, qui~ pnestA. Domine, in .Binn illo spirituali Da illiJ .piri.wm gaudii in babitabuliJ et lllltitile. .Renaudot, 2. 196.Memento omnium 8&Uctorum, patriarcharum, 'prophetarum. AlJ(lItolorum,

• evangeliatarnm, martyrum, couf8880rum,pl'lllCi.pueautem Illmtlie gforiosi.8lliuueDeipat? eemper virginis sanctre Manlll. Requiescant animee illorum.omnea in ainupatnmtnostrorum Abraham, Isaac, et Jacob. Renaudot, 1. 41. 42.Offeram tibi hoc IIIlCrificiumrationabile incruentum in requiem et refrigerium

patrum nOstrorum, qui olim obdormierunt in tide orthodoX&. J>ianare, Domine,recordari. omniumsanctorumpatri&rch&rom, prophetarum, apostOlorum, evange-liastarum, martp;um, COnf8880rum,p1'lllOipuevero sanctlll gloria pleDlll eempervirginia genetriciJ Dei Illm~ Da i.J.liJ omnibU8 requiem. Renaudot, 1. 26.33.34-Memento illorum, qui, cum puritate cordie et IllmCtitate animal et corporl8,

ex llIIIlCU10iJto ~ IlUJltet lid te Deoa, pervenerunt. Quietem illiJ Pl'lll8ta.in babitaculia tui8 COlleatibU8. Renaudot, 2. 250.Memento etiam,Domine, omnium qui dormierunt et quieverunt in sacerdotio et~ ordine Jaicorum. Dignare, Domine, auimaa eorum omnium quieta donarem lIUlU II&DctorumAbrahalD. baao, at Jacob. Renaudot, 1. 18. 72.

Page 522: The Variations of Popery

522 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

ferred for Lady Mary herself. Some of these forms had beenin use for hundreds of years and, therefore, if petitions for thedead suppose a state of purgatorian punishment, her ladyship,during all this time, must. have been in a pretty situation. TheRoman pontiff and priesthood, who wield all the treasury ofthe church and all the efficacyof the mass for departed souls,had, it would appear, neglected the goddess of Romanism.These, it seems, have shown little respect for their virginpatroness, when they left the mother of God for ages in suchvulgar and smoky apartments. His supremacy to whom, itappears, this gloomy territory belongs, and who has authorityover its imprisoned spirits, should have paid some attention toher ladyship.' His holiness surely might have spared some-thing from the fund of supererogation for such a particularfriend. The ecclesiastical bank must have been sadly ex-hausted, when her god-bearing ladyship could not, for so long atime, be purchased out of purgatory. The clergy should haveplied the mass and the Latin liturgy, which, if wielded withthe precision of modern times, would, in their amazing potency,soon have enabled Holy Mary to scale the wall of the purga-torian prison, which is said to be in a very warm climate, andto breathe a cooler atmosphere in some more respectable andhealthy seat. The prison of purgatory was certainly a verysorry accommodation, during so long a period, for the queen ofheaven.The ancient Christians prayed for those in hell, as well as

for those in heaven. This fact is stated, and the reasons areassigned by Cyril, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Augustine.'These supplications, it was alleged, increase celestial harPi-ness and diminish Infernal misery. The torments of the guilty,though, in the world of spirits, they could not be extinguished,

• might, it was believed, be extenuated; and the joys of thejust, though great, might be augmented. No sufferer indeedcould by any advocacy, be translated from punishment tofelicity. No transmisssion could be effected from the regions ofsorrow to the mansions of joy. But the enjoyment of heaven.might be enhanced, and pains of hell be alleviated bl theintercessions of the faithful .Purgatory therefore formed no part in the faith of Christian

antiquity. The idea, however, though excluded from Chris-tianity, may be found in the monuments of Pagan, Jewish, and1 Papa habet auctontatem super anim08 purgatorii Fabet, 2. 501.2 ME')'UI'nJJ' 0"'lG'lJI 'B'IO'TAHlJ'TES~/TE(T//," Tau +vxau brr~p "''' f/ 3~lS IlI1fU/lEP"1I"'

Cyril, Kyat. V. p. 2!Y1. A_" 'B'~ .,."" p.1f'Ifp:JI'" ICIIl brr~p ~,,1W11.~ h - I, 6np -.,." ~ fllX'I. EpiJ>h. B. 75. p. 911. Dpoo'6rJICf/')'....... ,.,...., - arrl3cNr... s. ChryB. 7. 362. {it tolerabilior flat damnatio.Aug.'. 2. 289. Non lIBtemo suppJicio hem dando, sed levamen adhibendo.Aug.'••.

Page 523: The Variations of Popery

-",PAGAN AND JEWISH PURGATORY.. 523Mahometan mythology. A purgatorian region and processobtained a place in the Platonic philosophy, near four hundredyears before the commencement of the Christian era. Platotaught this theory in his Phsedo and Gorgias. The Greciansage divided men into three classes, the good, the bad, and themiddling. The good comprised men distinguished for tempe-rance, justice, fortitude, liberality, and truth. Philosophersand legislators, whose wisdom and laws had conferred im-provement and happiness on mankind, were all comprehendedin this division. The bad included all who had spent theirdays in the perpetration of aggravated crimes, such aa sacrilegeand murder. The middling kind occupied the space betweenthe patrons of sanctity and atrocity; and their neutrality, at adistance from both extremes, left them open to purgation andamendment. The good, at death, passed, without pain ordelay, 'to the islands of the blessed, and to the habitations ofunparalleled. beauty.' The bad, at death, sunk immediatelyinto endless torment in Tartarus. The intermediate descrip-tion, 'purified in Acheron, and punished till their guilt wasexpiated, were at length admitted to the participation offelicity.'lThis fiction, Plato embellished with all the pomp of language

and metaphor. The Athenian sage possessed perhaps thegreatest luxuriance of imagination and elegance of expressionwhich have adorned the annals of philosophy. His theory, inconsequence, though chimerical in itself assumes an interestand borrows a charm from the witchery of its author's style,the grandeur of his conceptions, and the coloring of his fancy.The Grecian philosophy, on this subject, has been decoratedwith the fascinations of Roman eloquence and poetry. Cicero,in his dream of Scipio, has clothed Plato's speculation with allthe beauty of diction. The soul, says the Roman orator, whichhas wallowed in sensuality, submitted to the dominion of licen-tiousness, and violated the laws of God and man,will not, afterits separation from the body, attain happiness, till it shall, formany ages, have been tossed in restless agitation through theworld. Virgil has inwoven the Platonic fiction in his immortalJEneid; and represented. souls, in the infernal world, as makingexpiation and obtaining purification by the application ofwater,wind, and fire.'Such is the dream of Platonic philosophy, Ciceronian elo-

quence, and Virgilian verse. The existence of a Purgatorianworld, if Plato, Cicero, and Virgil were canonical, could be101 #W' cur til ~l JASTfif /Hflu»It.UfIU tropEVBwru nl 7'01' AX~ It.lU ItIIhJpD-

JUI'fH- Plato, Pheed, 84. Aug. 733. Brag. 1. 378. Bell. 1. 7.2 Cicero, 3.m. Virgil &n. VI.

Page 524: The Variations of Popery

524 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

eMily evinced. The proofs, omitted in the Jewish and Chris-tian revelations, might be found, with great facility, in the Gre-cian and Roman classies. The topography and polity of thepurgatorian empire, which are unmentioned in the sacred annals,are delineated in the heathen poetry and mythology. Thecouncil of Trent was silly, or it would have adopted the worksof Plato, Cicero, and Virgil into the canon, instead of the Apo-crypha. These had as good a title to the honor of canonicity:as the apocryphal books, and would have supplied irrefragable'evidence for posthumous expiation as well as for many otherRomish superstitions.The modern superstition, therefore, which has been imposed

on the world for Christianity, is no discovery. Platonism, onthis topic, anticipated Popery at least a thousand years. TheAthenian embodied the fabrication in his philosophical specu-lations, and taught a system, which, on this subject, is similarto Romanism. The absurdity has, with some modificationsadapting it to another system, been stolen without being ac-knowledged from heathenism; and appended, like a useless anddeforming wen,to the fair form of Christianity. ,The Jews, like the Pagans, believe in purgatory. The He-

brews, though after the lapse of many ages, became acquaintedwith the heathen philosophy. Alexander the Great planted aJewish colony in Egypt i and these, minglin~ with the nations,be~n, in process of time, to blend the OnentaJ and Grecianphilosophy with the Divine simplicity of their own ancienttheology. This perhaps was the channel through which thisancient people received the Pagan notion of clarification afterdeath. The soul, in the modern Jewish system, undergoes thisprocess of expiation for only twelve months after its separationfrom the body; and is allowed, during this time, to visit thepersons and places on earth, to which during life it was attached.Spirits, in this intermediate state, enjoy, on the Sabbath, a tem-.porary cessation of punishment. The dead, in this system,rested on the seventh day from pain as the living from labor.The Jewish, like the popish purgatorians, obtained consolationand pardon from the intercessions of their friends on earth.'The Mussulmen adopted the idea of purgatorian punishment,

in all probability, from the popish and Jewish systems. TheArabian impostor formed his theology from Judaism and Popery ..The unlettered prophet of Mecca, it is commonly believed, wasassisted by an apostatisedChristian and a temporising Jew inthe composition of the Koran and in the fabrication of Is-lamism. The notion of posthumous purification had, at thecommencement of the Hegira, obtained a reception into. thel~, lV, 32. CaJm.. Diet. 3. 74,7. :Morery, 7. 396.

Page 525: The Variations of Popery

INTRODUCTION OF PURGATORY. (,25

church and into the synagogue; and, from them, into Mahom-etanism. "Gentilism also, in all probability, was, in this amal-gamation of heterogeneous elements, made to contribute a part jand all again were, as might be expected, modified accordingto the dictation of prejudice or fancy.'Such, on this question, were the notions of Pagans, Jews, and

Mussulmen. A similar appendage was, in the progress of su-perstition, obtruded on Christianity. Augustine seems to have.been the first Christian author, who entertained the idea of pu-\rifying the soul while the body lay in the tomb. The African,s~int, though, in some instances, he evinced judgment and piety,displayed, on many occasions, unqualified and glaring inconsis-tency. His works, which are voluminous, present an oddmedley of .aenseydevotion, folly, recantations, contradictions,.and balderdash. .Hiaopiniona on purgatorian punishment exhibit many in-

stances of fickleness and incongruity. He declares, in manyplaces, against ,any intermediate state after death betweenheaven and hell. He rejects, in emphaticallanguage, ' the ideaof a third place, as unknown to Christians and foreign to reve-lation.' He acknowledges only two habitations, the one ofeternal glory and the other of endless misery. Man, he avers., will appear in the last -day of the world as be was in the lastday of his life, and will be judged in the same state in whichhe had died."But the saint, notwithstanding this unequivocal language, is,

at other times, full of doubt and difficulty. The subject, hegrants, and with truth, is one that he could never clearly under,stand. He admits the salvation of some by the fire mentionedby the Apostle. This,how.ever, he sometimes interprets tosignify temporal .tribulatien before death, and sometimes thegeneral coxUlagration after the resurrection. He generally ex-teI\ds this ordeal to all men without any exception; and heconjectures, in af.ew instances, that this fire may, as a tempo-rary purification, be applied to some in the interval between'death and the general judgment, This interpretation, however,he offers asa mere hypothetical speculation. He cannot tell'whether the temporary punishment is here or will be hereafter:or whether it is here that it may not be hereafter.' The idea,he grants, is a suppositionw.ithout any proof, and' unsupportedby any canonical ~uthority.' .He ~ould not, however, ' cont;a.-dict the presumption, because It nug~t perhaps be the truth.1Sale, 76. Calmet, 3. 748. ¥orery,~.. .., Inquo euim quemque inveneri~ BUUllll~~US. dies, I1;l hoc eum.compre~e~'

det mundi noviBBimWldies; qoomam qualia m die i8to-!lUllKJ.uemontur, talis m. die illo judicabitur •. Au~, lid Heaych.2. 743. et ,Hypog. V. 5. P. 4.0.,.8 Eamdem-tribulationem IgDeDl voeat. Aug. C. D. XXI. 26. AmboBprobat.

Page 526: The Variations of Popery

526 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

Augustine's doubts show, to a demonstration, the ~velty ofthe purgatorian chimera. His conjectural statements and hisdiffieulty of decision afford decisive proof, that this dogma, inhis day, was no article of faith. The saint would never havemade an acknowledged doctrine of the church a subject ofhesitation and inquiry. He would not have represented areceived opinion as destitute of canonical authority: much lesswould he have acknowledged a heaven and a hell, and, at thesame time, in direct unambiguous language, disavowed a thirdor middle place. Purgatory therefore, in the beginning of thefifth century, was no tenet of theology. Augustine seems tohave been the connecting link between the exclusion and the re-ception of this theory. The fiction, after his day was, owingto circumstances, slowly, and after several ages, admitted intoRomanism.Augustine's literary and theological celebrity tended to the

propagation of this superstition. The saint's reputation washigh, and his works were widely circulated. His piety indeedwas deservedly respected through Christendom. His influenceswayed the African church. The African councils, in theiropposition to Pelagianism, were, in a particular manner, con-trolled by his authority. His fame extended to the Europeannations, and the Bishop of Hippo, from his character for sane-tityand ability, possessed,through a great part of his life,morereal power than the Roman pontiff. A hint from a man of hisacknowledged superiority would circulate with rapidity, andbe accompanied with a powerful recommendation through theChristian commonwealth.This superstition, like many others that grew up in the dark

ages, was promoted by the barbarism of the times. Italy,France, Spain, and England were overrun with hordes ofsavages. The Goths and Lombards invaded Italy. Francewas subdued by the' Franks; while the Vandals. desolatedSpain. The martial but unlettered Saxons from the forests ofGermany wasted the fairest provinces of Britain. The rudeinvaders destroyed nearly every vestige of learning, and, in itsstead, introduced their own native ignorance and uncivilisation.Cimmerian darkness, in consequence,' seemed to overspreadthe world. Art, science, philosophy, and literature appeared,in terror or disgust, to have fled from barbarised man, andfrom the general wreck of all the monuments of taste andChristianity. The clouds of ignorance extended to the AsiansAJl&.4. M8. Ambo per eum ~t. Iste ignis in hac interim vita facit quodA~ dixit. Aug. 6. 127, 128. Sive ibi tantum, sive et hie et ibi, sive ideohie -at .. ibi DOll red.r.rguo, 9,uia fOJ'llitan verum est. Aug. C. D. XXI. 26, P.649. Intris nulla ve1utcanomca coastituitur &uctoritas. Aug. Dul. 6. 131. 132.

Page 527: The Variations of Popery

SLOW PROGRESS OF PURGATORY. 527

and Africans as well as to the Europeans, prepared the worldfor the reception of any, absurdity, and facilitated the progressof superstition.The innovation, however, notwithstanding the authority of

A.ugustine and the Vandalism of the age, made slow progress.A loose and indetermined idea of temporary punishment andatonement after death, but void of system or consistency, began. to float, at random, through the minds of men. The supersti-tion, congenial with the human soul, especially when destituteof religious and literary attainments, continued, in gradual andtardy advances, to receive new accessions. The notion, in thiscrude and indigested state, and augmenting by continual accu-mulations, proceeded to the popedom of Gregory in the end ofthe sixth century.Gregory, like Augustine, spoke on this theme with striking

indecision. The Roman pontiffand the African saint, discours-ing on venial frailty and posthumous atonement, wrote withhesitation and inconsistency. His infallibility, in his annota-tions on Job, disclaims an intermediate state of propitation.'Mercy, if once a fault consign to punishment, will not,' saysthe pontiff, 'afterward return to pardon. A holy or a malignantspirit seizes the soul departing at death from the body, anddetains it for ever without any change." This, at the presentday, would hardly pass for popish orthodoxy. This, in moderntimes, would, at the Vatican, be accounted little better thanProtestantism.His infallibility, however, dares nobly to vary from himself.

The annotator and the dialogist are no_ the same person or, atleast, do not teach the same faith. The vicar-general of God.in his dialogues, 'teaches the belief of a purgatorian fire, priorto the general judgment, for trivial offences." This, it mustbe granted, is one bold step towards modem Romanism. Buthis holiness is still defective. He mentions trivial failings; butsays nothing of the temporal punishment of mortal delinquency.This, to the sovereign pontiff in the sixth century, was un-known land.His holiness is guilty of another variation from modem Ca-

tholicism. He had no common receptacle or common meansof punishment, as at the present day, for the luckless souls satis-fying for venial frailty. He consigns the unhappy purgatoriansto various places, and refines them sometimes in fire and some-I Si semel culpa ad posnam pertrahifo, misericordia ulterius ad veniam non.

J:educeto..Greg. m Job viii. 10. Humani ca8Il8 f;empore, sive sanctus sive malig-nus spiritus, egredienfoemanimam claustra carnis acceperit, in retemum seeum,lline ulla ~rmutatione retinebit. Greg. in Job viii. 8., Deqmbusdam levibus culpis, esse. &11foejudicium, purgatorius ignes ereden-

dus est. Greg. Dial. IV. 39. .

Page 528: The Variations of Popery

528 THE VA.lUATIONS OF POPERY.

times in water. He accordingly boiled the spirit of Pascasiusfor this purpOlle, in the hot baths of Angelo. Germanus,bishop of Capue, saw the Roman deacon standing in the scald-ing steam, as the punishment of supporting Laurentius against:Symmachus in a contested election for the popedom.' This"Vapor,his infallibility seems to have thought the proper men-.struum for the solution of ahardened soul, and for the precipita--tien -or sublimation of moral pollution. Steam, which now inthe improvement of science and in the march of mind, propels,'by its ehemical power, the ship, the coach, and other kinds ofmachinery, was used in the days of old for its moral effects incleansing purgatorian ghosts from venial stains. The ancients,it appears, had a steam purgatory, as the moderns have steamengines. Posterity, therefore need not boast of superiorityover their ancestora, who ingeniously applied this element for anobler purpose than any discovery of the nineteenth century.Germanus prayed for Pascasius, who therefore escaped fromthe purifying steam, But no mention is made of any mass.This sublime mummery, which is the invention of a later age,had not in Gregory's time come into fashion,"Damian, on the contrary, in the eleventh century, represen-

ted the soul of Severinus, bishop of Cologne, as steeped, for.somemisdemeanors, in a river, which, he was satisfied, wouldyield the necessary abstersion for removing the stain of moraldefilement. He soused the departed spirit in water, as a morallotion of approved and unfailing efficacy, Caloric, it seems, isnot the only solvent for decomposing the defilement of sin.The cold element as well as the hot steam, in the theory ofGregory and Damian, the pontiff and the saint, will effect thispurpose.. N,idhard, quote~ by ~ott~ger, ~en?ons another mode of pu-rifymg souls. ThISconsists m conslgnmg them to cold lodgings.Some fishermen, it seems, during the time of a violent heat,found in the water a ma&B of the coldeetice. This, the fisher-men having presented to bishop Theobald, a naked, shivering,frozen ghost, which Bufferedthe pains of purgatory in this con-gelation, revealed, in loud outcry from its icy tenement, its dis-tress, and begged the aid of Theobald's prayers," The bishop'sintereessiona soon thawed the congealment, and liberated the.ice-imprisoned spirit. According to Gregory, Damian, andNidhard, therefore, not only fire, but also water in its fluid,frozen, and steamified state, will serve 88 a wash in a purgatorian1Pucaeium in caloribus lItantem invenerit. I.bb. 5. 419. Greg. Dial IV. 40.

Paecuiue inTher:mill .Angelania pUDiebatur. Faber, IV. p. 448.., Bell. n. 6. Godeau, 3. 7".• Epieoopua lIIldi'9'eritqlJAllClamaDimam cJamautem de iri& glacie. Nidhard.91.

Hottiilg. i. 1366.

Page 529: The Variations of Popery

SLOW PROGRESS OF PURGATORY. 529process for purging venial transgressors. These authors there-fore had discovered or invented no common depot or mediumof execution for the unfortunate ghosts doomed to satisfy fortrivial misdemeanors.Platina, in his life of Benedict, presents a view of purgatory

in the eleventh century. His posthumous infallibility popeBenedict appeared to a traveller, decorated with the beautifulears and tail of an ass, and dignified with the graceful counte-nance and limbs of a bear. The traveller, whoever he was,took the liberty of asking the cause of the unholy transforma-tion. My deformity after death, replied his holiness, is the. reward of my pollution in life. The pontiff according to thehistorian, was doomed to be dragged till the day of judgmentthrough thorns and filth, in regions exhaling stench, and sulphurand fire.Gregory has, by several authors, been represented as the dis-

coverer or rather the creator of purgatory. Otho, a learnedhistorian ofthe twelfth century, and a man of extensive informa-tion, accounted this pontiff's fabulous dialogues the foundationof the purgatorian fiction. Bruys, in modern times, agreeingwith Otho, represents Gregory as the person who discovered thismiddle state for. venial sinners. His infallibility certainlysanctioned the fabrication, with his pontifical authority; and hisname gave it circulation. He enriched the meagre figure withseveral additions, and has the credit of becoming the early patronand improver of the innovation. He did not indeed perfect thesystem. This honor was reserved for the schoolmen, who, inmany instances, completed the inventions of their predecessors.But the unfinished portrait received several new touches from hispencil, whlch was always the willing instrument of'superatition.'The pontiff himself seems to confess the novelty of the system.

Many things, says his infallibility, have in these last times M-come clear which were formerly concealed 2 This declarationis in the dialogue that announces the existence of purgatory;which, he reckons, was one of the bright discoveries that dis-tinguished his age. This consideration perhaps will account forthe pontiff's inconsistency. The hierarch, as already shown,both opposed and advocated the purgatorian theology. His{)pposition perhaps preceded the happy moment, in which theflood of light burst on his mind, and poured the knowledge ofthe new-born faith with overwelming illumination on hisastonished soul

1Gregoire en fit la decouverte dans see beaux dialogues. Bruys, 1. 378.Otho, Ann. 1146.2 In his extremis temporibuB, tam mula animabUII clarescunt, que ante

Ja.tuerunt. Gregory, Dial. IV. 40.RB

Page 530: The Variations of Popery

.530 THE VARIATIONS OJ' POPERY.

The innovation mentioned in this manner with doubt byAugustine, and recommended with inconsistency by Gregory,men of high authority in their day, continued to spread andclaim the attention and belief of men. The names of the Mri~can and Roman saints were calculated to influence the faith ofthe Latins, among whom the invention advanced, though withtardy steps to perfection. Its bulk, like that of the Alpine ava-lanche, increased in its progress. This terror of the Alps, as itproceeds on its headlong course, acquires new accessions ofsnowy materials; and the opinion, patronised by a saint and apontiff, received, in like manner, continual accretions from con-genial minds. The shallow river, advancing to the main, swellsby the influx of tributary waves, and the recent theory, in asimilar way, lUI it flowed down the stream of time, augmentedits dimensions from the unfailing treasury of superstition.The progress of the fabrication, however, was slow. Its move-

ments to perfection were lUI tardy as its introduction into Chris-tendomhad been late. This opinion, says Courayer, 'did notbegin to assume a form till the fifth century.' Fisher admitsthat' all the Latins did not apprehend its truth at the same timebut by gradual advances. 'The universal church,' he admits,'knew and received purgatory at a late period," Its belief ob-tained no general establishment in the Christian commonwealthfor ages after Gregory's death. The council of.Aix la Chappelle,in 886, decided in direct opposition to posthumous satisfactionor pardon. This synod mentioned ' three ways of punishmentfor men's sins,' Of these, two are in this life and one afterdeath. Sins, said this assembly, 'are, in this world, punishedby the repentance or compunction of the transgressor, and bythe correction or cha.stisement of God. The third, after death,is tremendous and awful, when the judge shall say' depart fromme, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil andhis angels. '2 The fathers of this council knew nothing of pur-gatory, and left no room for its expiation.The innovation, in 998, obtained an establishment at Cluny.

Odilo, whom Fulbert calls an archangel, and Baronius thebrightest star of the age, opened an extensive mart of prayersand masses for the use of souls detained in the purgatorianretort. 'Fuloort's archangel seems, in this department, to have'i. 1Ce n'est proprement que dana Ie cinquillme siecle, que cette opinion a com-mence a prendre nne forme. Couray. in Paolo. 2. 644. Neque Latini simul_ sed sensim hujus rei veritatem concerpernnt. Purgatorium tam seNcognitum ac receptum univel'llal eccleaim merit. Fiah. Con. Luth. Art. 18.Geddis. no.I Tn'bus modis peecata mortalium vindicantur; duobus in hac vita: tertio

"l'O in futua vita. Tertia autem extat valde pertimescenda et terribilis, qUIllDIlIl ia hoc. m futuro jutiaBimo Dei judicio fiet BteCU1o, quando juatUI ju-dex diotuu en. dillcredite a me, malediCiti, in ignem 1Ilternum. Labb. 9. 8«.Crabb. 2. 711.

Page 531: The Variations of Popery

PURGATORY COMPLETED BY THE SCHOOLMEN. S81

excelled all his predecessors. A few, in several places, had be-gun to retail inter,cessions for the purgatorians, But Odilocommenced business as a wholesale merchant. 1 The traffic,no doubt, was as beneficial as it was benevolent, and gratifiedat once the selfish and social passions.Odilo's exertions, in his spiritual emporium, gained the grati-

tude, if not the money, of Benedict the Eighth. His infalli-bility,;notwithstanding his holiness and supremacy in life, had,after death, the mischance of falling into the place of posthu-mous punishment. His holiness, however, through the media--tion and masaes of the Abbot, escaped from the smoke and fireof purgatory," All this must have been very satisfactory toBenedict, and also, as he died rich, to Odilo.The purgatorian novelty, however, though admitted by many,

had not obtained a general reception in the middle of the twelfthcentury. This is clear' from Otho the historian, who was aman of profound erudition and research. This author repre-sents ' some as believing in a purgatorian place situated in theinfernal regions, where souls are consigned to darkness or roastedwith the fire of expiation," This testimony is very explicit.The opinion WaB not entertained by all, but asserted by some.The historian, who possessed enlarged information, wouldnever have used such language, had purgatory, in his day, beenthe common belief of the ecclesiastical community. The peo-ple were divided. Some maintained, and some rejected thedogma of a temporary expiation after death. Those whobelieved in the posthumous satisfaction could not agree whetherthe medium of torment was darkness or fire. The innovation,it is plain, had not, in Otho's day, become the general faith ofChristendom. Bernard, who flourished in the same age aaOtho, could not, with all his saintship, determine whether theposthumous punishment 'WaB by heat, cold, or some otherinfliction."The speculation of Augustine, Gregory, and Odilo fell, after

Otho'a time, into the hands of Aquinas and other 'sehoolmen,The angelic doctor and the rest of the confraternity finishedthe fabric, which others had founded. These, on this subjectas on others, gave the finishing touch to the outline of former1Odilonem hoo anno oommemora.tionem omnium defunctoruin inBtituisse :

cujus exemplo ad ClIlteras ecclesias hlIlc :institutio promanavit. Mabillon, 4.125. Spon. 1047. II, III. Bruys. 2. 240.2 Vir Dei pl'lllOOpit, ut pro defuncto pontmce, preces fiermt. Mabillon, 4. 312.

313.3 ~ apud Inferoe loeum purgatorium, in quo salvmdi vel tenebraa tantum:1t.m;,tur, vel expiationia igne detorqnentur, quidam allIMll'UIlt. Otho, Ohron,

. '.Qui in :purgatorio BUnt, expectant redemptiODem prius oruciandi aut caloreJgIUa, aut ngore frigoria, aut a1icujus gravitate doloris. Bernard, 1719.

Page 532: The Variations of Popery

532 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

days, and furnished the skeleton with sinews, muscles, form,and color. Their distinctions on this topic exhibit a displayof superero~tion in subtilty, metaphysics, and refinement.Their attention fixed the place and the punishment of the pur-gatorian mansions.'The plan, finished in this manner by the schoolmen, came

before the general council of Florence in its twenty-fifth session,in 1438, and received its sanction. This decision was ratifiedby pope Eugenius; and the opinion, after a long successionofvariations, became at length a dogma of faith in the Latincommunion.'The Greeks, however, opposed the Latins on this question in

the Florentine council, and the discordancy occasioned longand nonsensical discussions. The Greeks, with impregnableobstinacy, disclaimed the idea of fiery pain or expiation.Each, however, actuated with the desire of accommodation,yielded a little to the other. The Latins' waved the idea ofpurgatorian fire: and the Greeks, in their turn, politely ad-mitted a posthumous atonement by darkness, labor, sorrow,and the deprivation of the vision of God. A temporary uniontherefore was formed without sincerity, but soonafterward viola-ted. The Grecian disbelief of purgatory has been granted byGuido, Alphonsus, Fisher, More, Prateolus, Renaudot, andSimon. Bellarmine himself here suspected the Greeks ofheresy; and supported his surmises with the authority ofThomas Aquinas, the angelic doctor. The disbelief of thistheology was also entertained by the other oriental denomina-tions, such as the Abyssinians, Georgians, Armenians, andSyrians.sThe city of Trent witnesaed the last synodal discussion on

this topic in a general council. The decision, on that occasion,presented an extraordinary demonstration of unity. The pre-paration of a formulary was committed, says Paolo, to theeardinaJ. of Wanoia and eight bishops, or, according to Pala-vicino, to five bishops and five divines. These, knowing thedelicacy of the task, endeavored to avoid every difficulty, yeteoald not agree. Terms, says Paolo and Du Pin, could notl>e found to express each person's mind.' Language, incapa-ble of representing their diversity of opinion, sunk under thel.Aquin. III. 69, 70. P. 544, 547, 565.t Labb. 18. 526. Bin. 8. 568. Crabb, 3. 476. .I Bin. 8. 561. Crabb. 3. if16. COBS. 6. 20. Bell 1. 2. .Alphon. VIII. Fish.

A. 18.·More, 63. Prateol vn. Renaud. 2. 105. Simon, c. 1. BeD. 1. 1370., 'N'tStimt Pu JIO'Sl"blede trouver des termes propres a exprimer les choses auare de chaciIJl. ilvaloit mieux n'en dire autre chose sinon que bonnes Qluvresiles a.w. 1IllIIftDf; au:mons pour ]a remill8ion de lell1'llpeine&. PaoL 2. 633,1M. Pa11&T. XlV.2.. Du pm, 3. 633. Labb.20. I7().l

Page 533: The Variations of Popery

PURGATORY COMPLETED BY THE SCHOOLMEN. 533

mighty task of enumerating the minute and numberless varia-tions, entertained by a communion which boasts of perfect andexclusive agreement and immutability. This, in variety, out-rivalled the patrons of .Protestantism. These, in the utteranceof heresy, have sometimes evinced ample want of accordancy;but never, like the Trentine fathers, exhausted language instating their jarring notions. The theological vocabulary was-always found sufficient to do justice to heretical variety. But• the universal, infallible, holy, Roman council, through want ofwords or harmony, was forced to admit, in general terms, theexistence of a middle place, disengaged of all particular cir-cumstantial explanation. This, the council pledged their word,is taught by revelation and tradition, as well as by the mightyassembly of Trent. The holy unerring fathers, however,though they could not agree themselves nor find expression fortheir clashing speculations, did not forget to curse, with cordi-ality and devotion, all who dissented from their- sovereigndecision. The cursing system, indeed, was the only thing onwhich the sacred synod showed any unanimity .

Page 534: The Variations of Popery

CHAPTER· XVIII.

CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.

VARIETY OP SYSTDB-JEWISH TlIEOOBAOY-oHRISTIAN ESTABLISHlONT-AlfClEN'l'TRADITION-INTBODUCTION OF CLERIOAL CELIBACY-BEASONS-GRBBKS-LATINB-EJ'FECTS OF SACEBDOTAL CELlllAOY-DODSTICISM:, OOKCUBINAGB, AND ](ATBI-JlONY-llBCOND PBBIOD Oll' CELIBA.CY-OPPOSITION TO GBBGOBY--TOLBBATIOll'OJ'POBNIOATION-PRBJ'BB.BNCB OF POBNICATIOll' TO JlATBIJlONY AJlONG THB CLBBGY-PBBJlISSIOll' OF ADULTERY OB BIGAJIY TO THE LAITY-VIEW OF PBIESTLY PRO-FLIGACY IN DGLAND, SPAIN, GBBMANY, SWITZBBLAlfD, J'BABCB, ITALY, ANDPBBU-OOUNCIL8 Oll' LYONS, COll'STAlfCB, AND BASIL.

THE celibacy of the clergy has, for a long series of time, beenestablished in the Romish communion. The bishop, the priest,and the deacon are, in the popish theology, forbidden to marry.This eonnexion indeed is allowed to the laity. The institution,in the system of catholicism, is accounted.a sacrament, sndtherefore the sign and means of grace and holiness. The councilof Trent, in its twenty-fourth session, declares this ceremonyone of the sacraments, by which, according to its seventh ses-sion, 'all real righteousness is begun and augmented.' Thesame is taught in the Trent Catechism, published by ~e com-mand of Pope Pius.' But, wonderful to tell, the council aswell as the catechism prescribes, in sheer inconsistency, a re-nunciation of an institution which conveys true sanctity, as anecessary qualification for the priesthood.The advocates of Romanism, however, vary on the decision

of the question, whether this celibacy be divine, or human, oreven useful. One party in the popish community account theinterdiction a divine appointment. These make the prohibitiona matter of faith and moral obligation, which, unlike a questionof mere discipline, neither the pope nor the universal churchcan change or modify. Commanded by God, and sanctioned byhis Almighty fiat, no earthly power can repeal the enactment,which, according to this system, must remain for ever withoutalteration. This opinion was patronised by Jerome, Epipha-

1Per 1&ClI'aDmta, oDJDisvera justitia vel incipit, vel 003pta augetur, velomi-.~. Bin. 9. 867,411. Labb.20. 150. Gratiamquoque hoc pC1'a1ll8IlW~ .. tri.bai. Cat. Trid. 187· Aquin.3. 486. Gibert, 3. 315.

Page 535: The Variations of Popery

VARIETY OF SYSTEMS. 535nius, Major, Clichtovius, Gabutius, Siricius, and Innocent ..Th~s party, however" was never considerable either in numberor influence.A second party reckons the celibacy of the clergy a human

constitution. These, in general, esteem the prohibition a ques-tion not of faith but of discipline, prescribed not by God but, by man, and capable of being altered or even repealed byhuman authority. These are numerous, and include the ma-jority of the popish communion; and the opinion has beenpatronised by many theologians of influence and learning, suchas Aquinas, Cajetan, Soto, Bellannine, Valentia, Bossuet, DuPin, Gother, Challenor, and Milner.The partisans of this opinion, however, are subdivided into

two factions, distinguished by a slight shade of difference. Oneof these factions accounts the matrimonial interdiction, apos-tolieal, established by the inspired heralds of the gospel; andcontinued in uninterrupted succession till the present day. Thisforms a close approximation to the former system; and seemsto have been advocated, with some variation and inconsistency,by Jerome, Chrysostom, Siricius, Innocent, Gregory, Bellar-mine, Godeau, and Thomassin.' The other faction reckonsthe regulation merely ecclesiastical or human, and a matter ofmere expediency, and' capable of dispensation- or recissionaccording to utility. This system has been countenanced byAquinas, Cajetan, Antonius, and Gratian. The marriage ofthe clergy, says Gratian, is forbidden neither by evangelical norby apostolical authority. Similar statements have been made by.Aquinas and Cajetan.'A third party account sacerdotal celibacy not only, ecclesias-

tical or human, but also useless or hurtful. The opposition tothe prohibition, even in the bosom of the Romish communion,has in every age been persevering and powerfuL This hosti-lity will, in glowing colors, appear in the ensuing details. Theprivation has been discountenanced by many of the ablest pa-trons of Romanism, such as Panormitan, Erasmus, Durand,Polydorus, Alvarus, and Pius. The celibacy of the clergy, saysPius the Second, is supported by strong reasons, cut opposedby stronger. The edicts of Siricius and Innocent, by whichthe privation was first enforced, were rejected by many of the

.1 Jerom. adv. Jov. Epiph. II. 48. Major, D. 24. Clich. c. 4. Bell, I. 18.GIbert, 1. 109. Gabut. 21. •I Cette loi est au.saiancienne que 1'6gIi8e. Thomalmin, I.43. Anton. e.21.f .Noneat _ntialiter annexum debitum conf;iaentire ordini ssero, sed ex sta-

tuto eeelesire. Aquin. II. Q. 88. A. II. P .. 31h Potest Summus Pontifex dis-pensare inmatrimonio cum _:nIote. Nee ratione nee auetoritate probatur quod,absolute loquendo, _MOB peeeet eontrahendo matrimonium, quin ratio potiuset ad OpposIw.m ducit. Cajetan. I. 121. Bell. 1. 19. Godea. 2. 154.

Page 536: The Variations of Popery

536 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

clergy. Gregory's tyranny on this topic met with decided hos-tility. His attempt was, by many, accounted an innovation andproduced a schism. Many chose to renounce the priesthoodrather than submit to pontifical despotism, violate their conjugalengagements, or relinquish the objects of their affections. TheGerman emperor and clergy supplicated Pope Pius the Fourth,for a repeal of the enactments against sacerdotal matrimony, andsupported their petition with the most irrefragable arguments,such as the novelty of privation, and its dreadful consequenceson morality. Augustine, the Bavarian ambassador at Trent,petitioned against clerical celibacy, which, he declared, 'wasnot of divine right or commanded by God.' His speech, onthe occasion,met, even in the council of Trent, with attentionand even applause. The French king and clergy at Poissyissued a similar petition to the pope in 1561, enforced by similarreasons,' Many of the popish errors indeed may, in theory, beas absurd as clerical celibacy; but none, in practice., has beenattended with such odious arrd appalling effects in the demor-alisation of man. The rankest and most disgusting debauchery,originating in the unnatural interdiction, has, in the Romishcommunion, disgraced sacerdotal dignity, and stained the annalsof civil and ecclesiastical history.The celibacy of the clergy, in all its forms, is a va$tion

from the Jewish theocracy, delivered in the Old Testament.The Jews countenanced neither celibacy nor maidenhood, andthe Jewish nation contained neither unmatrimonial priests norcloistered nuns. The patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and JaCob,were married, and had a numerous offspring. Prior to Moses,the first-born of the Hebrews possessed both civil and ecclesi-astical authority, and was prince and priest; but was notdebarred connubial enjoyments. Moses, the celebrated legisla-lator of Israel, was married and had a family. The holy prophetsof Palestine, such as Noah, Joseph, Samuel, David, Isaiah, andEzekiel, formed this connection, and became the parents of sonsand daughters. The Levitical priesthood "were allowed thesame liberty. Matrimony indeed, among the Israelitish clergy,could hardly be called a bare permission; but amounted in onesense to a command. The priesthood, among the descendantsof Abraham, was hereditary. The sons of the Aaronicalpriests succeeded, in consequence of their birth-right, to theadministration of the sacerdotal functions," An injunctiontherefore seems, in this manner, to have been laid on the min-"ister of the J ewish establishment in favor of that institution,1Bru)'ll, 3. 398. Bell. 1. 1110. DuPin, 3. 336,522. Eraam. I. 422. Pla-

tina inPius. 2. Paolo, 2. 680. , .2 Crabb. 1. 417. ChryJostom, 1. 268, 568, et 2. 298. :Bell. 1. 18.

Page 537: The Variations of Popery

CELIBACY A VABlATION FROM THE JEWISH THEOCRACY. 537

by which, according to the Divine appointment, the priestlyofficewas transmitted to their posterity and. successors, whopresided in the worship of Jehovah and the religion of Canaan.Sacerdotal celibacy is a variation from the Christian dispen-

sation revealed in the New Testament. The Christian Reve-lation affords express precept and example for the marriage ofthe clergy. Paul, addressing Timothy and Titus, representsthe bishop as 'the husband of one wife.' The same is said ofthe deacon. Matrimony, therefore, according to the book ofGod, does not disqualify for the episcopacy or the deaconship,The inspired penman also characterises 'forbidding to marry'as 'a doctrine of devils.' The interdiction of the conjugalunion, according to apostolical authority, emanated not fromGod but from Satan. The prohibition and its practical conse-quences among the Romish clergy are worthy of their author.All who are acquainted with the annals of sacerdotal celibacyreflect with disgust on an institution, which, in its progress,has been marked with scenes of filthiness, that have disgracedecclesiastical history, the popish priesthood, and our commonspecies. 'Take 'away honorable wedlock,' says Bernard,'and you will fill tlie church with fornication, incest, sodomyand all pollution.' Erasmus, who was well acquainted yithits ~ects, compared it to a pestilence.' These 'authors havedrawn the evil with the pencil of truth, and emblazoned thecanvas with a picture taken from life.The apostles have left examples as well as precepts in favor

of matrimony. .A,llthe apostles, says Ambrosius, except Johnand Paul, were married. Simon, whose pretended successorshave become the vicegerents of heaven, was a married man,and the sacred historians mention his mother-in-law. Peterand Philip, say Clemensand Eusebius, had children. Paul wasmarried, according to Clemens, Ignatius, and Eusebius; thoughthe contrary was alleged by Tertullian, Hilary, Epiphanius,Jerome, Ambrosius, and Augustine.!The celibacy of the clergy, varying in this manner from the

Christian dispensation, is also a variation from ancient tradi-tion. The interdiction of sacerdotal matrimony is unknown tothe oldest monuments of the church, the mouldering fragmentsof Christian antiquity, and the primeval records of ecclesiastical1Tolle de ecclesia honorsbile connubium et thorum immaculatum, nonne re-

pIes earn concubinariis, ineestuosis, seminifiuis, mollibus masculorum eoneubi-toribus, et omni denique genere immundorum? Bernard, Serm. 66. P. 763.Tim. III. 2. 12. et IV. 3. Titus, I. 6.QUai pestis aut lues a suparis aut infemis imn!itti posait nocentior. Erasm.

1.422.2 Omnes Apoetoli, excepto Johanna et Paulo, uxores habueruut. Amb. in 2

Corin. ii. Matth. viii .14. Clem. 535. Strom. 3. Euseb. iii30. 31. Calm.22. 410.

Page 538: The Variations of Popery

588 THE VAlUATIONS OF POPERY.

history. No vestige of the prohibition is to be found in the longlapse of three hundred years after the era of redemption. Itswarmest patrons can produce no testimony of its existence forthree ages after the epoch of the incarnation; nor any indeedpossessing the least authority till the days of Jerome andEpiphanius in the end of the fourth century. The monk ofPalestine and the bishop of Salamis are the first witnesseswhich could be produced by all the learning and research ofBellarmine, or Thomassin; and even their attestation is contra-dictory and inconsistent with cotemporary history.This lengthened period was enlightened and adorned by a

succession of Apostolieal and Christian authors; and all aresilent on this theme, or bear testimony to the unconfined free-dom of matrimony. The inspired writers were followed bythe apostolical men, Hermss, Clemens, Barnabas, Polyesrp,and Ignatius. These again were succeeded by a long train ofecclesiastical authors, such as Justin, Ireneeus, Clemens, Ori-gen, Tertullian, Minucius, Athenagoras, and Cyprian. Butnone of these mention, in express or implied phraseology, &nyconnubial restriction on the clergy; and the omission is notsupplied by a single pontifical edict or synodal canon prior tothe fourth century.Many documents of antiquity, on th~ contrary, reVlain,

which testify their unrestrained liberty to form and enjoy thenuptial eonnexion, and which are conclusive and above allsuspicion. A few of these ~ay be subjoined, taken fromDionysius, Olemens, Origen, and the Apostolic canons.Dionysius, about the year one hundred and seventy, affords

one decisive testimony to the marriage of the priesthood in hisday. The interesting relation is preserved by EusebiuB. Dio-nysius, according to the father of ecclesiastical history, wasbishop of Corinth. He was esteemed for his wisdom andpiety; and did not confine his valuable labors to his owndiocese, but extended them to other parts of Christendom. Hewrote to the Lacedemonians, Athenians, Nicomedians, Garti-nians, Amastrians, and Gnossians, for the purpose of enforcingtruth and peace. His letter to the Gnossians was on the sub-ject of sacerdotal celibacy. Pinytus, a Cretan bishop, actuatedby ignorance or presumption, urged the necessity of abstinencein all its rigor on the clergy of his diocese. Dionysius, hav-~ heard of the unconstitutional attempt, wrote to theGnossians and admonished Pinytus to regard the weakness ofman, and to lay no such heavy burden on the clergy. Pin~,convinced of his error, bowed to the wise and well-timedcounsel, and replied to his Corinthian monitor in strains ofeulogy and admiration. The relation is conclusive against

Page 539: The Variations of Popery

PROOFS THAT THE CLERGY ANCIENTLY WERE MARRIED. 539

sacerdotal celibacy in the days of the Cretan and Corinthianbishops, Dionysius, famed for superior information on ecole-siaatical laws, condemned the injurious and unwarranted inno-vation. Pinytus pleaded no authority for his opinion, andacquiesced in the other's decisionwithout hesitation. Had theinterdiction of priestly wedlock been apostolical or even eccle-siastical, and continued in the church in uninterrupted succes-sion from the establishment of Christianity, the one would nothave advised its abolition, or the other have admitted hisdetermination with so much submission.'Clemens, who flourished about the year 200, testifies to the

same effect. 'God,' says the catechist of Alexandria, 'allowsevery man, whether priest, deacon, or layman, to be the hus-band of one wife, and to use matrimony without reprehension.What can the enemy of matrimony say against procreation,when it is permitted to a bishop, that ruleth well his own house,and who governs the church." This is clear and satisfactory'.The use, as well as the contract of marriage was, in the begin-ning of the third century, lawful both for the clergy and for thelaity. The connubial state and its enjoyments extended in thedays of Clemens to the pastor as well as to the flock. Clemenswas a man of extensive erudition both in philosophy and the-ology, and therefore could not, on this topic, bemistaken in theexisting regulations of his day.Origen, who flourished about the middle of the third century,

is another witness. Origen's testimony is quoted by Bellar-mine in favor of sacerdotal celibacy; but certainly with littlejudgment. His argument recoils on its author. 'The dutiesof matrimony,' says Origen, cited by Bellarmine, 'hinder thecontinual sacrifice,which, it appears to me, should be offeredonly by such as devote themselves to constant and perpetualeontineney." This evinces just the contrary of what the car-dinal intended. Some who ministered at the altar, accordingto Origen's words, were married, and he complained thltt theirconnubial engagements prevented their due and regular attend-ance on the sacred duty. He does not mention or pretend anyecclesiastical law or injunction, requiring the observation ofclerical celibacy. He only speaks his own private opinion asa matter of expediency. His language bears testimony to thefact, that married men, in the third century, officiated at thealtar, and to the non-existence of any ecclesiastical canon or1Euseb. IV. 23. Niceph. IV. 8. Mendoza, n. 60.'TOI' ,",S IU4S ")MG«OS IU'Ipta ...__ 03g:...,.... _lIpftr/Jvnpos, " _ AlalcoJlOs, ...CU'

MaoS, -<A."..rAlS "'/GPM X/*I'D'OS. Clem. Alexan. 1. 552. Tim. m. 4.a ImJ.M!ditur ~cium indeein~U8 iis qui conj~1?us ne~tati~u8lJ!lrviunt.

UndeVldetur mihi, quod illius aolius est oft'ere sacrific1Um qm mdesmenti et per-petwe lie de.overit castitati. Origen. Hom. 23. Bell. I. 1114.

Page 540: The Variations of Popery

540 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

usage enforcing clerical abstinence. He pleads only his privatejudgment in behalf of his opinion. His prepossessions againstall nuptial engagements are well known, and prompted him touse a remedy in his own person, contrary to all law, humanand divine. He armed himself against temptation, by amutilation which was interdicted by the twenty-second apos-tolical and first Nicene canons; and one would expect by self-preservation. This shows the insignificance of his opinion onthis, as on other topics of faith and discipline. Bellarmine musthave been possessed by the demon of infatuation, when heappealed to Origen's judgment.The fifth apostolical canon is to the same purpose. This

enactment 'pronounces excommunication, and, in case of con-tumacy, deposition against the bishop, priest, or deacon, who,under pretext of religion, puts away his wife." The canon,notwithstanding the scribbling of Binius, plainly supposes cler-ical matrimony and forbids separation. These canons indeedwere compiled neither by an apostolic pen nor in an apostolicage. Turriano, it is true, ascribed them to the apostles.Baronius and Bellarmine retained fifty of them, and rejectedthirty-five. The ablest critics, however, such as Du Pin,Beveridge, Albaspinoous and Giannone, have regarded them 118a collection of canons, selected from synods prior to the councilof Nice in 325. This seems to be the true statement. Thecanons are often cited by the councils and authors of the fourth. century. John of .Antioch inserted them in his collection in thereign of Justinian, and the emperor himself eulogised them inhis sixth Novel; whilst their authority, at a later date, wasacknowledged by Damascen, Photius, and the Seventh GeneralCouncil,"The celibacy of the clergy, however, in consequence of the

march of superstition, obtained at length in the west, thoughalways rejected in Eastern Christendom. The mind of super-stition seems inclined to ascribe superior holiness to virginityand celibacy, and to venerate abstinence of this kind with blinddevotion. Men, therefore, inall ages, have endeavored to drawattention by pretensions to this species of self-denial and itsfancied purity, and abstraction from sublunary care and enjoy-ment. Its votaries, in every age, have, by an affected singu-larity and ascetic contempt of pleasure, contrived to attract theeye of superstitions deceive themselves, or amuse a silly world.This veneration for celibacy has appeared through the nations,and in the systems of Paganism, Heresy, and Romanism. .1 Epiacoptlll, vel presbiter, vel diaeonua uxorem suam ne ejiciat religioni8

pnetextu, sin atlteDi ejiceret segregetur, et 8i pel'8llveret deponatur. Labb. 1.20 Bill. 1. 6. Crabb. 1. 15.t DB Pm. c. 10. Giannon. II. 8. Cotel. 1.429.442.

Page 541: The Variations of Popery

CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY REJECTED IN THE EAST. 541

Clerical celibacy is the child, not of religion or Christianity, butof superstition and policy. .Austerity of life and abstinence from lawful as well as unlaw-

ful gratifications, the heathen accounted the summit of perfec-tion. The Romans, during their profession of Gentilism, thoughtheir Pontifex Maximus was a married man, had their vestalvirgins, who possessed extraordinary influence and immunity.The Athenian Hierophants, according to Jerome's expression,unmanned themselves by drinking cold hemlock. Becomingpriests, they ceased to be men. The Egyptian priesthoodobserved similar continency. These, says Cheremon the Stoic,quoted by Jerome, were induced, for the purpose of subduingthe body, to forego the use of flesh, wine, and every luxury ofeating and drinking, which might pamper ·passion or awakenconcupiscence. The priests of Cybele, in like manner, inentering on their office, vanquished the enemy by mutilation.The Gnostic and Manichean systems also declared against

matrimony and in favor of celibacy. The Manicheans, indeed,according to Augustine, allowed their auditors, who occupiedthe second rank, to marry, but refused the same liberty to theElect, who aimed at the primary honors of purity. The gro-velling many, who were contented with mediocrity, indulgedin nuptial enjoyments, whilst the chosen few, who aspired atperfection, renounced these degrading gratifications, and roseto the sublimity of self-denial and spirituality.'Popery followed the footsteps of heathenism and heresy.

The imperfect laity, like the Manichean auditors, may attachthemselves to the other sex, and enjoy connubial gratifications.But the clergy and sisterhood, who aim at perfection, must, likethe Manichean elect, soar to the grandeur of abstinence andvirginity.This admiration of virginity began at an early period of

Christianiby. Ignatius, who was the companion of the inspiredmessengers of the Gospel, commenced, in his epistolary addressto Polycarp in the beginning of the second century, to eulogise,though in very measured language, the haughty virgins of theday. This affectation of holiness, which was then in its infancy,had presumed to rear its head above unpretending and humblepurity. Ignatius was followed by Justin and Athenagoras ; butstill in the language of moderation. Their encomiums, however,were general, and had no particular reference to the clergy.Tertullian, led astray by the illusions of Montanism, forsook. the moderation of Ignatius, Justin, and Athenagoras, and ex-tolled virginity to the sky. He exhausted languagein vilifying

1Jerom, 4. 192. B1"1lyB,1. 142. Moren, 4. 142, Augustin, 1.739 et 8. 14.

Page 542: The Variations of Popery

542 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

marriage and praising celibacy. Tertullian, in his flattery ofthis mock purity, was equalled or excelled by Origen, Chrysos-tom, Augustine, Basil, Ambrosius, Jerome, Syricius, Innocent,and Fulgentius.' These saints and pontiffs represented virginityas the excellence of Christianity, and viewed with admirationthe system which Paul of Tarsus, under the inspiration of God.characterised as a 'doctrine of devils.'The reason of this admiration may be worth an investigation.

One reason arose from the difficulty of abstinence. Virginity,Jerome admits, 'is difficult and therefore rare.' The Monkof Palestine was a living example of this difficulty. Sitting, thecompanion of scorpions in a frightful solitude, parched with therays of the sun, clothed in sackcloth, pale with fasting, andquenching his thirst only from the cold spring, the saint, in hisown confession, wept and groaned, while 'his blood boiled withthe flames of licentiousness.' Bernard prescribes 'fasting, as anecessary remedy for the wantonness of the flesh and the inflam-mation of the blood.' Chrysostom [makes similar concessionsof diffleulty," The passion indeed, which prompts the matri-monial union, being necessary for the continuation of the species,has, by the Creator, been deeply planted in the breast, andforms an essential part of the constitution. The prohibition ishigh treason against the laws of God, and open rebellion againstthe spring-tide of human nature and the full flow of humanaffection. An attempt, therefore, to stem the irresistible currentmust ever recoil with tremendous effect on its authors. Butthe affectation of singularity, the show of sanctity. and the pro-fession of extraordinary attainments, which outrage the senti-ments of nature, will, like Pheeton's attempt to drive the chariot.of the sun, attract the gaze of the spectator, gain the applauseof superstition, and figure in the annals of the world.Jerome and Chrysostom, quoted by the Rhemists, Say that

continencymayalways be obtained by prayer. The attainment.according to the Grecian and Roman saints, is the uniform re-ward of supplication to heaven. Theodolf makes a similarstatement. But the allegation of Jerome and Chrysostom aswell as Theodolf, is the offspring of inconsistency, and whollyincompatible with their usual sentiments. Chrysostom, like J e-rome, gives, in another place, a different view of the votaries ofvirginity in his day. Some of these, to counteract the move-ments of the flesh, cased the body in steel, put on sackcloth.ran to the mountains, spent night and day in fasting, vigils, andin all the rigor of severity. Shunning the company of women.1Ipal 0. 6. 00teL ii. 92. Justiu, 22.ISOJah'bidinum baoendia bulliebant, Jerome,4. 90.177. 101_ est, lasciviene

earo 8GnQIl cerebria fnDptur jejuniis. Calor ~ata, ut evaderepouit 0IDDi iDdiget C1J8tOdia. Bemard, 1. 114. 1. 249.

Page 543: The Variations of Popery

PROGRESS OF CLERICAL CELIBACY IN THE ROKISH CHURCH. 5'3

the whole sex were forbidden access to their solitary retreat.All this self-mortification, however, could scarcely allay therebellion of their blood.' The relation must convey a singularidea of these victims ef superstition, and the manners of the age.The portrait is like the representation of a Lucian or Swift,who, in sarcastic irony, 'Would ridicule the whole transaction;while it displays, in striking colors, the difficulty of the attemptas well as the folly of the system.The difficulty of continence, if reports may be credited, .was

not peculiar to Chrysostom's day. Succeeding saints felt thearduousness of the mighty attempt. A few instances of thismay amuse, as exemplified in the lives of Francis, Godric,Ulfric, .Aquinas, Benedict, an Irish priest, the Bishop of Sher-burn, and related by Bonaventura, Paris, Malmesbury, Mabil-Ion, Ranolf, and the Roman Breviary.The Seraphic Francis, who flourished in the thirteenth cen-

tury, was the father of the Franciscans. The saint, though de-voted to chastity and brimful of the spirit, was, it seems, some-times troubled with the movements of the flesh. An enemy thatwrought within was difficult to keep in subjection. His saint-ship, however, on these occasions, adopted an effectual way ofcooling the internal flame, and allaying the carnal conflict. Hestood, in winter, to the neck in a pit full of icy water. One day,being attacked in an extraordinary manner by the demon ofsensuality, he stripped naked; and belabored his unfortunateback with a disciplinarian whip; and then leaving his cell, heburied his body naked, as it was, in a deep wreath of snow!The cold bath, the knotted thong, and the snowy bed werenecessary for discharging the superabundant caloric of hissaintship's constitution.Godric, an English hermit, was troubled with the same com-

plaint and had recourse to the same remedy. He was a nativeof Norfolk, but had visited Jerusalem, wept over the sacredsepulchre, and kissed, in holy devotion, the tomb of Emmanuel,and the monument of redemption. He lived on the banks ofthe Werns, and was th"ecompanion of the bear and the scorpion,which were gentle [and obliging to the man of God. But hehad to contend, even in his solitude, with temptation. Satan,assuming the form of a lion or a wolf, endeavored to allurehim from his duty. These outward trials, however, were

1MoAunpry_ ,",S la&ft .,.", w&fhJpJtIII p4P_. CJ1nrIoBtom. 1. 235.A Deo datur colltinen\ia, Bed petiteet a.ccipietis...Theod. in Dachery, 1•.255.2nBe jettoit BOUVeIlt en hyver dans une fosae pleme de glace, afiJl de .vau:'cre

P&rl&itemeIlt Pennemi domeatique. Bmy. 3. 151. Et&nt attaqu6 nn )0111'~'une grande tentation de la chair, ilse depouilla et Be donu nne mde <liscip-line. Puis ilBe je~ dans laneige. Morery,4. 179.

Page 544: The Variations of Popery

THE VARIA.TIONS OF POPERY.

nothing compared with the inward conflicts, arising from thefennent of concupiscence and 'the lusts of the flesh.' Hecounteracted the rebellion of his blood, however by the rigorof discipline. The cold earth was his only bed, and a stone,which he placed under his head, was his nightly pillow. Theherb of the field, and the water of tlie spring, were his meatand drink, which he used only when compelled by the assaultsof hunger and thirst. Clothed in hair-cloth he spent his daysin tears and fasting. The hermit, with these applications forkeeping the body under, used a sufficiently cooling regimen.During the wintry frost and snow he immersed himself, sayshis historian, in the stream of the Werus, where, pouring forthprayers and tears, he offered himself a living victim to God.'The flesh, it is likely, after this nightly dip, was discharged ofall unnecessary heat and became duly cool But the Devil, itseems, played somepranks on the hermit, while he was enjoy-ing the cold bath, and freezing his body for the good of hissoul. Satan sometimes ran away with Godric's clothes whichwere on the banks. But Godric terrified Beelzebub withshouts, so that, affrighted, he dropped his hair-cloth garmentand fled. A relic of Godric's beard, says Bede, was, after hisdeath, transferred to Durham, and adorned the church of thatcity .. Ulric's history is of a similar kind. He was born nearBristol, and fought the enemies of the human race for twenty-nine years. He was visited, notwithstanding, by the demonof lice'ntiousness. The holy man, in his distress, applied theremedy of fasting and vigils, and endeavored to subdue thestimulations of the flesh by the regimen of the cold bath. Hefasted, till the skin was the only remaining covering of hisbones. He nightly descended into a vessel filled with freezingwater, and during the hours of darkness, continued, in thiscomfortable lodging, which constituted his head quarters, tosing the psalms of David." This Christian discipline, in allprobability, delivered his veins of all superfluous caloric, andenabled him to practise moderation during the day.Thomas Aquinas, the angelic doctor, required angelic aid to

counteract the natural disposition of the mind or rather theflesh. He was born of a noble family, and enjoyed the benefit

1Insultue 1ibidinis lacrymis areebat at jajuniis. Ut ca.rnis incenda su~raretcilicio carnem domaba't asperrimo. Hieme, geln, et nive riKenti, nndus :Ilumenin~ noote ibi tota et usque ad collum 8ubmll1'SU8, orationea at paalm08cum lacrymisprofundebat. M.. Paris, 114. Beda, 741.t N'0Ck'bue,mvaa qUoddam cum frigore nudus, aqua plenum fripda, ~eaceD-

4ere 101ebU, in '1110pea1m08 Davidicoa Domino o:tferebat, et sic aJi.quamdiu pe!-~ ·eanda moeatin, cujuB aocerrim08 patiebatur atimulO8, mortificabat 1D*luilI. M.PariI, 89. .

Page 545: The Variations of Popery

•PROGRESS OF CLERICAL CELIBA.CY IN THE ROMISH CHURCH. 545•of a Parisian education. His friends opposed,but in vain, hisresolution of immuring himself in the retreat'! of monkery.He resisted their attempts with signal success,though, it seems,not always with spiritual weapons. He chased one woman,who opposed his resolutwn, with a fire-brand. The blessedyouth, says the Roman breviary, praying on bended kneesbefore the cross, was seized with sleep, and seemed, through adream, 'to undergo a constriction of a certain part by angels,and lost, from that time forward, all sense of concupiscence.'!His angelic saintship's natural propensity required supernaturalpower to restrain its fury. The grasp of angels was necessaryto allay his carnality and confer continence.Benedict, in his distress, had recourse to a pointed remedy.

This saint, like Aquinas, was born of a noble family. He waseducated at Rome, and devoted himself wholly to religion orrather to superstition. He lived three years in a deep cave;and, in his retreat, wrought many miracles. 'He knocked theDevil out of one monk with a blow of his fist, and out ofanother with the lash of a whip.' But Satan, actuated bymalice and envious of human happiness, appeared to Benedictin the form of a blackbird, and renewed, in his heart, the imageof a woman whom he had seen at Rome. The Devil, in thismatter, rekindled the torch of passion, and excited such a con-flagration in the flesh, that the saint nearly yielded to the temp-tation. But he soon, according to Mabillon and the Romanbreviary, discovered a remedy. Having undressed himself,, he rolled his naked body on nettles and thorns, till the lacera-ted carcass, through pain, lost all sense of pleasure." Thefather of the Benedictines, it appears, had his own difficulty inattempting to allay the ferment of the flesh, notwithstandingthe allegations of Jerome and Chrysostom.An Irish priest, actuated like Francis, Oodric,Ulric, Aquinas,

and Benedict, by a carnal propensity, had recourse to a differ-ent remedy. The holy man lived near Patrick's purgatory inIreland, and spent his days in official duty and in works ofcharity. Rising early each morning, he walked round theadjoining cemetery, and preferred his orisons for those whosemortal remains there mouldered in the clay, and mingled withtheir kindred dust. His devotion, however, did not place himbeyond the reach of temptation. Satan, envying his happiness

1Sentire viaus est sibi ab angelis constringi lumboa, quo ex tempore omnipostea libidinis sensu caruit. Brev. Rom. 702.2 Alapa monacho infiicta infestum hoepitem expulit, quem alia8 tlage110 a mo-

nacho vago ejecerat. Mabillon, 1. 89. Nndum sa in urticas ac veprea tamdiuvolutaverit, dum voluptatiB lI8D8l1Il dolore penitus opprimeretur. Mabillon, 1.8. !hev. Rom. 724-

II

Page 546: The Variations of Popery

,.THE VARIATLONS OF POPERY.

and hating his sanctity, tempted the priest in the form of abeautiful girl. He was near yielding to the allurement. Heled the tempter into his bed-chamber, when recollecting him-self, he resolved to prevent the sinfulFtification for the presentand in futurity. He seized a scalpellum, and adopting, likeOrigen, the remedy of amputation, he incapacitated himselffor such sensuality in time to come.'Adhelm, bishop of Sherburn, had two ways of subduing the

insurrections of the flesh. One consisted in remaining, duringthe winter, in a river which ran past his monastery. He con-tinued, for nights, immersed in this stream, regardless of theicy cold. The frosty bath, in all probability, extracted thesuperfluous and troublesome warmth from his veins, and stop-ped the ebullition of his rebellious blood. But the other remedyseems to have been rather a dangerous experiment. When thepulse began to beat high, his saintahip called for a fair virgin,who lay in his bed till he sung the whole order of the Psalms,and overcame, by this means, the paroxysm of passion.2 Thesacred music and this beautiful maid, who, notwithstanding hervirginity, was very accommodating, soothed the irritation of theflesh, and castigated the oscillations of the pulse, till it beat withphilosophical precision and Christian regularity.A second reason for the preference of virginity arose from the

supposed pollution of matrimony. Great variety indeed has,on this subject, prevailed among the saints and the theologiansof Romanism. Some have represented marriage as a meansof purity, and some of pollution. Clemens,Augustine, Ambro-sius. Chrysostom, Fulgentius, Harding, and Calmet characterisethis Romish eaerament as an institution of holiness, sanctity,honor, and utility. The council of Gangra a.nathematised allwho should reproach wedlock; and this sentence has beenincorporated with the canon law," Augustine, Chrysostom,Ambrosius, and Fulgentius, however, in 'self-contradiction,sometimes speak of the matrimonial institution in terms ofinvective and detestation.1Cultrum arripuit et propria membra virilia abecindens, fOrallprojecit. M.

Paris. 92.2 Quando carnis sentiret incentiva, virginem pulchram.in suo strata tamdiu

secum retineret, quousque Psalterium ex online diceret. RanoIf, 245.Oubileae, aIiquam freminam detinebat, quoad carnia tepescente Iubrico quieto

et immoto discedcret animo. Malmesbury. 13.Ut lim rebelli corpori concisseret, fonti se humero tenus immergebat. Maim.

de vita AdheIm. Wharton, 2. 13.3 A-pa a. • '.,_as. Clem. Strom. III. P. 559. Concubitus conjugalis non

80lumest lici,tus,TCruDl est utiliB et honestus.Aug. con. Pelag, 16. 270. Mundaest oonjugia. Amb. 2. 364. in Corin. VII. A_ II 'YfIIAOS. <.Jhrysos. 1. 38.&1lClta~ Christianorum conjugia. Fulg. ad. Gall. Le lit nuptial est puret h6Jlorabllt. Cabnet, 23. 766. Si quis matrimonium vituperet, et earn qUlllcum JDari.to auo dormit, lit anathema. Labb. 2. 427. Crabb. 1. 289. Pithou, 42.

Page 547: The Variations of Popery

VITUPERATIONS OF MATRIMONY BY POPISH DOCTORS. 647

Many saints, doctors, pontiffs, and councils, on the contrary,such as Origen, Jerome, Siricius, Innocent, Bellarmine, Eatius,Pithou, the canon law, the Rhemish annotators, and a party inthe council of Trent, hav~ represented this Popish sacrament,especially in the clergy, as an appointment of pollution anddegradation.' Origen, who is quoted by Pithou, reckoned' con-jugal intercourse inconsistent with the presence of the BolySpirit.' Jerome, if possible, surpassed Origen in bitterness. TheMonk of Palestine growled at the very name of matrimony, anddischarged against the institution, in all its bearings, whole tor-rents of vituperation and sarcasm. Surcharged, as usual, withgall and wormwood, which flowed in copious efflux from his pen,the saint poured vials of wrath on this object of his holy aver-sion. 'Marriage,' according to this casuist, 'effeminates the manlymind.' 'A man,' says the monk, 'cannot pray, unless he refrainfrom conjugal enjoyments.' The duty of a husband is, in hiscreed, 'incompatible with the duty of a Christian.' This is asample of his acrimony. Those who would relish a full banquet,may read his precious production against Jovinian.Siricius, the Roman pontiff, called marriage filthy, and char-

acterised married persons, ' as carnal and incapable of pleasingGod.' Innocent adopted his predecessor's language and senti-ment, and denounced this Romish sacrament as a contamination.Conjugal cohabitation, says Bellarmine, is attended with impu-rity, 'and carnalises the whole man, soul and body.' Estiuaaffirms that 'the nuptial bed immerses the whole soul in car-nality.' Gratian and Pithou incorporate, in the canon law, thetheology of Origen, which represents the matrimonial sacramentas calculated to quench the spirit. The statements of the Rhe-mists are equally grOBSand disgusting. Wedlock, according tothese dirty annotators, is a continued scene of sensuality andpollution. The marri~e of the clergy, or of persons who havemade vows of chastity, is, these theologians aver, the worst kindof fornication. A faction in the council of Trent characterisedmarriage, which they defined to be a sacrament, as •a state ofcamality ,' and these received no reprehensions from the holyunerring assembly.The abettors of Romanism, in this manner, condemn the con-

jugal sacrament as an abomination. These theologians, on this1Non datur prresentia Sancti Spiritllll, tempo:re quo conjugales 8.ctull geran-

tnr, Origen, Hom. 6. in Pithou, 383. Animum virilem elJ<eminat. Jerom.4. 170. LaiCUB et quicunque fidelis orare non poteat, nisi oareat officioCODj~Jerom. 4. 150, 175. Obscwnis cupiditatibua inhiant. In carne 8UIli;; 1>eop1acere non possunt. Siriciua ad Him. Crabb. 1. 417,456. Propter actum.conjugalem qui hominem reddit totum ca.rnalem. Ani.mam ipBam ~quodadmodo f&cit. Bell. 1. 18, 19. Conjugalis actus quo animus quodadmodo",ami totus immergitur. Estius. 252. :Mariage etoit un etat charnel, Paolo.:2.449. RhelIUsta on Corin. vii. •

Page 548: The Variations of Popery

548 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

topic, entertained the grossest conceptions. Their own filthyideas rose no higher than the gratification of the mere animalpassion, unconnected with refinement or delicacy. Their views,on this subject, were detached from-all the eomminglings of theunderstanding and the heart, and from all the endearments offather, mother, and child. Their minds turned only on scenesof gross sensuality, unallied to any moral or sentimental feeling,and insulated from all the reciprocations of friendship or affec-tion. Celibacy and virginity, which were unassociated with thesecarnal gratifications, and which affected a superiority to theirallurements, became, with persons of this disposition, the objectsof admiration.Matrimony, however, though it were gross as the concep-

tions of these authors, is far purer than their language. Thesentiments and phraseology of the Roman saints on virginityare, in point of obscenity, beyond all competition. The dictionas well as the ideas of Ohrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, andBasil, would call the burning blush of shame into the cheek ofa Juvenal, a Horace, an Ovid, or a Petronius, Chrysostom,though disgusting, is indeed less filthy than Jerome, Augustine,or Basil Jerome, bursting with fury against wedlock, followsin the footsteps of Chrysostom, and improves, but the wrongway, on the Grecian's indecency: Au~stine, in pollution, excelsboth Chrysostom and Jerome. But Basil, in impurity, soarsabove all rivalry, and, transcending Chrysostom, Jerome, andAugustine, fairly carries off the palm of filthiness. The unalloyedobscenity of Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, rises, in thepages of Basil, to concentrated blaekguardism, Du Pin con-fesses that Basil's treatise on virginity contains 'some pa.'il-sages which may offend nice ears.' Basil's Benedictine editoradmits its tendency to sully maiden modesty with images ofindecency.'These saints must have had a practical acquaintance with the

subject, to which they have done so much justice in description.Speculation, without practice, would never have made them suchadepts. Their sanctified contamination is 80 perfect in its kind,that it could not be the offspring of mere theory without action.This charge aginst their saintsbips may be substantiated bymany quotations from their works, which, however, shall, forthe sake of decency, be left in the obscurity of the original.Greek and Latin.21Bui1, 3•. 588. Dn Pin, 1. 224-2 .., ~ '"' f.'I(E' "'011 ,,08011. .Ohrys. 1. 229. APT,rrpoPoMw 7tpfXl'T1/lll1oS

........... f.'I( .. , • .• • • EII'l'M.1JJ'II 1FoM!I '""""""'''' ",pIU. Chey_. J. 274de Vhog. c. 9. •

~ ~ 'f'U1Ff")'<U''''0 1T"-t'fA4 TO Ell "'fUll, ICfU E'f'EfJf"*II "1fUID'R. Chr>'-.• Hom. 62. p. 62f.

Page 549: The Variations of Popery

PAPAL POLICY, A CAUSE OF CLERICAL CELIBACY. 549

Dens, in modern times, has outrun Basil, and all the. saintsof antiquity, on the stadium of blackguardism, This authorjustly claims the honor of carrying this sublime branch ofscience to perfection. His theology, in which contaminationlives and breathes, is a treasury of filthiness that can never besurpassed or exhausted. He has shown an unrivalled geniusfor impurity; and future discovery can, in this department oflearning, never eclipse his glory, nor deprive this preciousdivine of his well-earned fame and merited immortality. Thephilosophy of Newton has been improved. His astronomynotwithstanding its grandeur, has received many accessionsfrom a Herschel and a La Place. But the sublimated obsce-nity of Dens, finished in its kind, admits of no advancement orprogression. This doctor, however, does not bear' his blushinghonors' alone. The Popish prelacy of Ireland, by adopting hisrefined speculations to promote the education of the' priest-hood, share in his triumphs; and the inferior clergy who aredoomedto study his divinity, will no doubt manifest the valueof his system by .the superiority of their theological and holyattainments.A third reason for the injunction of sacerdotal celibacy arose

from pontifical policy. Cardinal Rodolf, arguing in a Romanconsistory in favor of clerical' celibacy,affirmedthat the priest-hood, if allowed to marry, would transfer their attachment fromthe pope to their family and prince; and this would tend to theinjury of the ecclesiastical community. The holy see, the ear-

Creata sunt genitalia, ut gestiamus in naturalem copulam. Genitalium hooest officium ut semper fruantur natura sua, et uxoris ardentissimam gulam for-tuita libido restinguat. Frustra hrec omnia virorum habes ai complexu non uteri,freminarum. Jerom. adv. Jovinian. 4. 177.Obstetrix virginis cujusdam integritatem, manu velut explorans dum inspicit,

perdidit. Totum commovet 'hominem animi aimul affectu.cum carnie appetituconjuneto et permixto, ut ea voluptaB sequatur, qua major, in corporis Yolupta-tibus nulla est, ita ut momento ipeotemporis quo ad ejus perveniturextremumpene omnia acies et quasi vigilia·cogitationis obrnstnr; Seminaret prolem vir,susciperet fremina genitalibus membris, quando ido\,us esset. Tunc potuis8eutero conjugis, salva integritate, foominei genitales VIrile semen immitti, aicntnunc potest eadem integritate salva ex utero virginis fluxus menstrui ernorisemitti. Eadem quippe via possit Illud injici, qua hoc poteat ejici. Augustin.de civit. Dei, 1. 18 et XlV. 16, 24,26. P. 18,368,374, 377.

A'lrOIC01fE".,.OIII ICII'rOI6El1 'r0l1l lI.lIuJW", 6. '"IS 'Y0""'S _0 lHTrpvos '"" IIE<f>pow W. 'rO.;>'0''lr01l JWp&OlI lI'QlCollo. 'YU'O........ IU'IJ'T' /0'." /o'nll '"Ill 'r0/o''l/1I IJJIOI 6< 'lrOPO" (EO""f lI~EJ' 'rOIS IIE.ppO.S '"IS w.6vJo'UU ltd. '"Ill oyo""" IJ'rOIS ~tJ4>p,(,"""s, OurrpE ....1Il HEll "pos /C/l'r<l-fJoM/JI '"IS "(tTv6s 1/ IJlIf/P • • • • • .."."p.;3uJE~a,uE""'" 'rOI" 3&311Jo'C'd' IJJIOI6EII '"I"'Y01l7jJ', '"" 'lrpos tT'Iropoll E".,.w6EJ' 'lrIlplJ'lrE/o'''''''''''''"' o~s E/C'IrEtTOvrOS'roo flTopov lIlJII/>Op7I-6EIS '"Ill w&6vp.&41f 1CIJ'r"l'4f""Jlft"tU. '0 liE lIIC ex"" 060 'ro 'Y"P"f1J1u( Oil ICE"","" JW'YIS'rll 'rOJlOU {j,p''t/f1&11 • • • • • • l1ap6fl1OS lI'lrdvpno O'r' K' '"IS /Co''"IS ,",",S"(EJIO/o'EIIOS 'r1S EUII<lXOS, 'lrEp.nrnH1tTETO /o'ElI II""IJ' E,.,....e..S. ICIIl EJIo'I>USO;>'Of oA'I/, WE' /0''1/E'XEJI O'IrOIS 'rll '"IS E'Ir&6Vp.uu EP"f'III"I".... .,.015 03_&11 EICE"XJ'1I'rO. (EOV<TIJJIEll '"I IT<JPIC& '"IS

~EOIS '"Ill AlltTtTlJJI_'rOd &rrypIIITUI GAp"'S E~. Basil, De Virgin. 3. 646.

Page 550: The Variations of Popery

550 THE VA.RIATIONSOF POPERY.

dina! alleged, would, by this means, be soon limited to theRoman city. The Transalpine party in the council of Trent,used the same argument. The introduction of priestly matri-mony, this faction urged, would sever the clergy from their closedependance on the popedom, and turn their affections to theirfamily, and consequently to their king and country.' Marriageconnects men with their sovereign, and with the land of theirnativity. Celibacy, on the contrary, transfers the attention ofthe clergy from his majesty and the state, to his holiness andthe church. The man who has a wife and children is boundby conjugal and paternal attachment to his country; and feelsthe warmest glow of parental Iove, mingled with the flame ofpatriotism. His interests and affections are entwined with thehonor and prosperity of his native land; and this, in conse-quence,. he will prefer to the aggrandizement of the Romishhierarchy, or the grandeur of the Roman pontiff. The dearestobjects of his heart are embraced in the soil that gave thembirth, the people among whom they live, and the governmentthat affords them protection. Celibacy, on the contrary, pre-cludes all these engagements, and directs the undivided -affec-tions of the priesthood to the church and its ecclesiasticalsovereign. The clergy become dependent on the pope ratherthan on their king, and endeavor to promote the prosperity ofthe papacy rather than their country. Such are not linkedwith the state by an offspring, whose happiness is involved inthe prosperity of the nation. Gregory the Seventh, accordingly,the great enemy of kings, was the distinguished patron of sacer-dotal celibacy.The history of clerical celibacy, which will show its varia-

tions, may be divided into two periods. The one. begins withthe edict of Biricius in 385, and ends at the popedom of Gre-gory. The other commenceswith the papacy of Gregory, andcontinues till the present time.The :firstperiod contains the history of celibacy among the

Greeks and Latins for near seven hundred years. The easternand western communions varied on this point of discipline.The Latins in the west, exclude the whole clergy from theirsacrament of matrimony. The Greeks in the east, forbid theprelacy, but allow the priesthood and deaconship to cohabit1Si ron permettoit aUI priVes de Be marier, l'inMr3t de leurs families, de

1enJ'll femmes, et de leul'lJ enfaDll, Ies tireroit de ]a dependance dn Pape, pour l~III8ttnt IOU celle de leurs princes, et que ]a tendresse pour leurs enf&Illlles.ferOlt~ a tout, au prejudice de l'Eglise. En peu de temps, l'auto~M du.Bliut .. lle bomeroit a ]a ville d(l Rome. Paolo, 2. 118. .L'iIdIOdumon du mariage dana Ie Clerge, en tournant toute l'affeeti~ des

prttra" .. leara femmes, et leurs enfana at par OODlIequent,vera leurs families,et leur --. .. ~ en mAme &iempe de la dependance etroite, ()l\ ils"oi_ eta -.mt-.. Paolo, 2. 449.

Page 551: The Variations of Popery

PROGRESS 01' CRLIBACY IN THE EAST. 551with the women whom they had married prior to their ordina-tion.'This usage, which crept into the oriental communion by

slow and gradual steps, commenced with a bigoted and super-stitious respect for celibacy and virginity. Superstition, at theintroduction of this custom, began to entertain a blind andunmeaning veneration for abstinence in man and woman. Thepopulace, therefore, preferring sacerdotal celibacy, separatedin some instances from the communion of the married clergy.The evil, from its magnitude, required a synodal enactment tocheck its progress. The council of Gangra, therefore, aboutthe year 324, declared 'its esteem for the chaste bond of wed-lock, and anathematised such as left the communion, or refusedthe benediction of a married priest." This assembly deposedEustathius, of Sebastia, for encouraging this superstition, andfor representing the oblations at' wedded clergy as an abomina--tion. The Gangran Synod possessed great ahthority. Itsdecisions were confirmed by many pontiffs and councils, andwere received into the ancient code of the church.The clergy, therefore, like the laity, married, 8.<; is attested

by Socrates and. Nicephorus, and acknowledged by Gratianand Mendoza, and had children. A few might abstain throughsubmission to the prepossessions of the people; and a few froma supposed sanctity, which, in many instances, the pastor, likethe flock, ascribed to celibacy. The superior purity, indeed,which superstition attached to a single life, influenced many ofthe clergy. The sixth apostolical canon, therefore, to repressthis error, excommunicated, and, in case of contumacy, deiVa-ded the bishop, priest, or deacon, who, under a show of religion,should put away his wife. Those who remained single, now-ever, as the above-mentioned Greek historians relate, actedfrom the choice of their own mind, and not from the obligationofa law. No canons had been enacted against matrimony orin favor of abstinence. The clergy, Oratian affirms, were, atthe time of the Gangran council, unfettered by the law of con-tinence. Mendoza admits the liberty, which the easternpriesthood enjoyed, of cohabiting with the women whom theymarried before their ordination,"Thessaly, Thessalonica, M.acedonia, and Achaia, however,

became, at an early period, an exception to this regulation.1Pithou, 42. Dist. 31. c. 14. Paolo, 2. 446., :JSuptiarum castum vinculum honorsmue, Crabb. 1.291. Siquis diacernit

de obligationibua non conimunicans, qn88 presbyter celebraverit conjugatua,anathema sit. Labb. 2. 438. Bin. 4. 453.. Socrat. II. 43. Do Pin, 1. 612-

S IJDMoI ..,. .....- 9 .,., IUII(IfI ,",S """""'S '"" -acu EIC ,",S """""'s '1f&/AE'M/STWonr-U'. Soorat. V.22. Oratian, D. 31. Pith. 41. NiCt'ph.XII. 34. Labb.1. 26.

Page 552: The Variations of Popery

552 THE VABlATIONS OF POPERY.

The obligation of a single life was introduced into these regionsby Heliodorus of Tricca.! This bishop, in his youthful days,had composeda work called Ethiopics, which, says Socratesand Nicephorus, proscribed the marriage of' the clergy in thediocese under his superintendence.A second step in the progress of sacerdotal celibacy among

the Greeks consisted in the interdiction of' matrimony afterordination. The Grecian clergy were allowed to ,cohabit withthe womenwhom they had married while laymen; but not toenter on the nuptial engagement after ordination. The councilof' Ancyra about 315, in its tenth canon, allowed only thosedeacons to mar!'I, who, at their ordination, should declare theirconstitutional in~apacity for abstinence. The ministers of thealtar, according to Gratian, were, when this assembly as wellas that Of Gangra met, free to marry," The continence ofecclesiastics had not, at that time, been introduced into Chris-tendom. The ·council of Neoeeesarea,indeed, about this period,ordered the priest, who should form the conjugal contract afterordination, to be deposed. But this was only a small provincialsynod, unnoticed and unratified by any ensuing council orpontiff till the middle of the ninth century. The generalNicenecouncil, in its third canon, forbad. unmarried ecclesiastics tohave any women in their houses except a 'mother, a sister, oran aunt. This canon, as the words show, was directed againsta kind of women, who, as domestics, infested the habitationsof the unmarried clergy.The Nicene council was near passing a new law, forbidding

bishops, priests, and deacons to sleep with the women, whomthey had married before their taking of holy, orders. This at-tempt, however, was crushed by Paphnutius of Thebais; aman, who, according to Socrates and Sozomen, was loved ofGod and had wrought many miracles. He had been a confes-sor in Maximiu's persecution, in which, having lost an eye anda leg, he was condemned to the mines. He had led 8, life ofcelibacy, but opposed the enactment of this innovation., Marriage,' said the confessor with a loud voice, 'is honorablein all, and the use of the. nuptial bed is chastity itself Suchexcess of abstinence would be detrimental to the church, andmight, by its rigor in imposing too weighty a burden, become1 Socrat. V. 22. Niceph. XII. 34. Mendoza, II. 66.2 Grmci utuntur nxoribus cum quibus ante sacros ordines contraxerunt.c.nmus, 4. 433.Quicumque diacoui constituti, in ipsa cOllstitutione dixerunt, oportere se

uxores ducere, cum non possint sic manere, ii, si uxorem postea duxerint, sintinminisierio. Labb, 1. 1490. Pithan, 38. Du Pin, 1. 598. Nondum eratintroducta continentia ministrorumaltaris. Gratiau, Dist. 28. c. 13. Pithou,41. Crabb. 1. 201. Bell I. 19.

Page 553: The Variations of Popery

PROGRESS OF CELIBACY IN THE EAST. 553

fatal to the chastity of men and women. Allow the clergy,according to the ancient tradition, to enjoy the wives whichthey married before their entrance on the priesthood, and theunmarried after ordination to remain, in celibacy,' The cpuncilassented, ' and extolled the wisdom of his speech,"The speech ·of Paphnutius, and the concurrence of the coun-

cil, supply an answer to an unfounded criticism of Challenor.He accuses the Protestant translation of straining the words ofPaul, when he represented marriage as honorable in all. Theword, which unites marriage to the epithet honorable, isomitted in the original, which, according to Chailenor, is notindicative but imperative, and should be rendlij"ed, '.Let mar-riage be honorable in all.' The English version, however,agrees with the Egyptian confessor and the" Nicene council inall its infallibility. Paphnutius, like Luther, Calvin, Cranmer,or Knox, used the apostolic expression in the refoJPled accepta-tion, and the Nicene fathers acclaimed.' A host of Romishsaints might be mustered, who took the words in the same sense, .and applied them in the same manner. Ohallenor has at-tempted several criticisms of a similar kind, which argue littlefor his learning or his honesty. .Baroni us, Bellannine, Valesius, Thomassin, and Turriano

have endeavored to overthrow the truth of this relation. Theattempt, however, is vain. These cavillers could adduce noreason,possessing any validity, to countenance their inainuation.The relation is supported by the testimony, not only of Socratesand Sozomen, but also of Nicephorus, Suidas, Ivo, Cassiodorus,Gratian, and Gelasius. The fact is admitted in modern times,by Mendoza, Du Pin, and MoreTi. Mendoza wonders at thescepticism and hostility of Turriano; and shows, with theutmost perspicuity, not only the truth of the statement, but alsothe liberty of the oriental clergy, who, at the time of the Nicenecouncil, were un trammelled by the vows of chastity, and, likethe laity, were allowed to enjoy the consorts whom they hadmarried prior to their assumption of the sacred office. Du Pin,in his usual candor, represents the opposition to the account asarising from the fear of prejudici ng the present discipline; ratherthan from any solid proof. Baronius, says Moreri, controvertsthe truth of the history, but without foundation, as the law ofcelibacy had, at that era, obtained no universal establishmentin the Eastern communion,"1T'I'lO" 0'_ lea. ,",II le0l'l"'tJ" Ie'" tlVTO" /JI'ltlnO" 'ro" "'If1+'D" AE"Y"'''' Socrat. I.

11. Sozom. 1. 23. Labb. 1233. Pithou, 42.2 Semper in oriente, ea. impnnitas et lieentia permissa merit. Uxores.antea due-

tll8 domi retinebant; et liberis tanquam seculares operam dabant. Mendosa, II.1/16. Beroniua et quelques autres auteurs ont voulu contester la veri~e de cette

Page 554: The Variations of Popery

554 THE VARIA.TIONS OF POPERY.

The testimony of Epiphanius and Jerome has been contrastedwith the relation of Socrates and Sozomen. The ecclesiasticalcanons, says Epiphanius, enjoined celibacy on bishop, priest,deacon and subdeacon. Some of the clergy, he admits, evenin his day, violated the laws of abstinence. But this violation,the saint contends, was an infraction of the canons, and arosefrom the licentiousness of the priesthood, and the connivanceor neglect of the people.'But the authority of Epiphanius is unavailing against that of

Socrates and Sozomen. View his character as an historian anda logician, drawn by Photius, Du Pin, Moreri, and Alexander.Photius represents Epiphanius as weak in his arguments againstimpious heresy. Du Pin characterises the saint as void ofjudgment and full of credulity. He credited false records anduncertain reports, and, in consequence, is often deceived in his-tory. Moreri follows in the train of Du Pin, and draws asimilar portrait. Alexander, if possible, loads the canvas withstill darker colors. The Sorbonnist describes the saint" "asvery often mistaken in history and chronology: and in man)"instances wandering entirely from truth." .His statement, on the topic of priestly celibacy, contains one

of his gross mistakes. He extends the prohibition of matrimonyto the subdeacon. But Jerome, his cotemporary, extends it onlyto the deacon; and Leo, who flourished half a century afterEpiphanius, was the first, who, according to the uniform testi-mony of history, comprehended subdeacons under the interdic-tion. This, Thomassin, Pithou, Bruys, and Du Pin have ad-mitted and indeed proved. Siricius and Innocent, as well asFerrand and Cresconius in their compilations, impose the obli-gation of abstinence only on bishops, priests, and deacons. Leo.besides, on this topic was not obeyed. Subdeacons, in hispapacy, were allowed to marry even in suburban Sicily, and toenjoy connubial society. The fifth Carthaginian council in 438exacted abstinence only from bishops, priests, and deacons; butleft the rest of the clergy, on this point, at liberty. Gregorywas the first who enforced the celibacy of subdeacons; andeven his enactments had no retrospective effect; but relatedmerely to such as should be afterward ordained," Epiphanius,hiatoire ; mais IIaI1II anoun fondement, Moreri, 7. 42. Spon. 325. XL. BellL 20. Thom. 1. 23. Socrat. I. 11. Sozomen I. 23. Du Pin, 1. 600.1EJ)iph. i. 490. et 2. 1104. Godeau, 1. 602.J lJi liiatoria et chronologi8, lIlBpi$lime lapsus est. Ab hiaWrica veritate toto

eatlo aberrat. .Alex. 7. 630. PhOtiU8, 304. Codex, 122. Du Pin, 1. 298. Mo-ren, 3. fH.aLe plIlpe (Leon} est le premier qui &it etendu ]a loi du etUibat aux IIO~

di--. Bnty, 1. 221. Thom. 1. 138, 140. Cll!teros clericos ad hoc non cogJ.Orabllf 1.4C6. Pithoa, 41,43. Du Pin. 1. 571.' adLi«lt adult. sit lieet lOdomitia, lioot ftagitiis omnibus coopertus. JerolD,

Page 555: The Variations of Popery

ABSURD EULOGIES OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 555

therefore, is, in this instance, convicted of falsehood, and there-fore is unworthy of credit in the rest of his evidence.Epiphanius is guilty of another egregious blunder on the sub-

ject of ma.trimony. The perBQn, said he, who has obtained adivorce for adultery, fornication, or any other crime, and haamarried another, is, according to scriptural authority, free fromsin, and worthy of ecclesiastical communion and eternal life.This is in direct opposition to AugustinQ, Jerome, the canonlaw, and the council of Trent; and exposes its author to all thetremendous fulminations of the Trentine anathemas, The canonlaw and the council of Trent, in its twenty-fourth session, teachthe indissolubility of marriage, even on account 'of heresy,infirmity, malevolence, desertion, fornication, adultery, sodomy,or a.ny other atrocity; and pronounces shocking execrationsagainst all who gainsay. The nuptial chain, a.ccording to thatcelebrated assembly, can be dissolved only by death; and theinnocent party, even in case of adultery, must forego all furthermatrimonial engagements during the life of the guilty. Epi-phanius, therefore, was both worshipped and execrated by thegood fathers of Trent. He is exalted to glory and consignedto Satan by the same communion. He is a saint and, as such,is invoked. He is a heretic and, as such, is anathematised.His saintship, in this manner, enjoys all the charms of variety.He has the pleasure of being alternately in heaven and hell ;and the satisfaction of being blessed and cursed, adored andanathema.tised, by an infallible church and council.Epiphanius, therefore in two instances, stands convicted of

misrepresentation. His testimony, in consequence, deserves nocredit. His mental imbecility, besides, which approximated toidiotism, proclaims, saint as he was, the inadequ&Cl of hisevidence even in a matter of fact. One specimen of his weak-ness, taken from his eulogy on Lady Mary, is worthy of atten-tion, 88 illustrating the intensity of his silliness; though, on the.SCOreof its indecency and profanity, it must be left in itsoriginal language,'Bernard's imitation of Epipbanius, is worth a digression, and

~ form a suitable episode. Bernard addresses Lady MaryIn the following sensible and beautiful style ;-' 0 firmament,firmer than all firmaments. Him, whom the heavens ofheaveIiscould not contain, you, 0 lady, contained, conceived. begot,Amand. 4. 162. Epiph. 1. .fB7. Angustin, 6. 4()1. Pitb,ou, 389. Gibert, 3-40'1. Bin. 9. 411.1To tllnfWlI' "'1'0"'01', .... .,-w '!"E_A XpurrO/1, ;, ~. _ ..IpO{IryOS,'; 'TOI'

/UHlX01' ~ • • • 1ttMpt' .-.ylll .".,,_,;, 'TO '"'P 'l"l/S tlt'onrrol lJA/lA"IC-,",I .'Ji'OIEflll/3tlrros __ ~ • • • TGf'~"""A,"'~ ~lIt1llfU"1fIII"r..". apD1wnol'. • , • Q,.,.,.."p fllAl'l\wf'Ol I1IJfHII'OJI ~ ~ 8t'OJl"X"P'I'bJI, IEI' 0'01 a.. ](.WfWfrOII~. Q'1tIII1"f'7IP 0lIfIU0I1 ."AlmrrIEpe, e..o.. 'TOil

eo 0'0& P'I rr_)(fIfI'ItO'DJIL Eplph. de Laud. 2. 294, 295, 296, 297.

Page 556: The Variations of Popery

556 TIlE VABIATIONS OF POPERY.

fed, suckled, and educated. Thou in the midst of the waters,dividedst the waters from the waters. The light of your eyesdispels darkness, expels squadrons of devils; purifies the vicesof the mind, and warms the coldness of the heart. Happy, 0lady, are they whom your eyes behold. Turn, therefore.Dlady, those eyes to us, and show us, * if. * * [here we mustagain refer the reader to the original, which he will find in thenote']. 0 elevation of minds, intoxication of hearts, and salva-tion of sinners! 0 lady, gentle in consoling, mild in soothing,and sweet in kissing.'His saintehip, in the same elegant and edifying style, calls

her ladyship, heaven, earth, pasture, paradise, bread, drink,manna, oil, wine, cinnamon, balm, myrrh, frankincense, olive,. spikenard, saffron, gum, a temple, a house, a bedroom, a bride,a lamp, a trumpet, a mountain, a wilderness, a field, a vine, afloor, a barn, a stable, a manger, a warehouse, a hall, a tower,a camp, an army, a kingdom, a priesthood, a bird, a palm, a-rose, a river, a pigeon, a garment, a pearl, a candlestick, atable, a crown, a sceptre, a tree, a cedar, a cypress, a .reed,a daughter, a sister, a mother, a sun, a moon, a star,; the cityof God, the rod of ,Aaron, the fleece of Gideon, the gate ofEzekiel, the star of the morning, the fountain of gardens, thelily of the valley, and the land of promise flowing with milkand honey.Such are a few extracts from the balderdash and blasphemy

of two full-length Roman saints. one of whom, Bellarmine,Valesius, Thomassin, and Turriano bring as a witness for theperpetual celibacy of .the Grecian clergy. His saintship of.Salamis, as well as of Clairvaux, certainly qualified himself forthe presideney of fools, and fairly carried off the palm of non-sense from Montanus,. Swedenborg, and Southeott, This,notwithstanding, is the man whom the Greeks and Latins, inin their menology and martyrology, celebrate every year as anillustrious confessor.Jerome has been summoned as another witness for the perpe-

tual celibacy ofthe Grecian clergy. J~rome's testimony, how-ever, clashes with that of Epiphanius. Epiphanius alleges the1Omnibus firmamentis firmius finnamentnm, tu, Domina, quse eum quem

ooeli ccelomm oapere DOD poterant, eepisti, et concepisti, ~enuisti, aluisti, ~a·visti, IIl&IlllIlMti, et educasti. Tu, in medic aquarum, divisisti aquas ab aqUls.&Inn. m. SUOJ'llDl charitas oculomm tenebtas expellit, et etfugat catervllBDalmOJlum. pnrgat vitia mentium,oorda congelata accendit .. ·0 quam beati,o domina, quos tni viderent oculi. Hos ergo ocnlos ad nos, domina, eonverteet Jenm benedictum frue~m ventristui nobis ostende. 0 vantel' mirabilis,qlli potuit capere Balvatorap. 0 venter laudabilis, qui potuit recipere redemp-tonlm... 0 veIlter desiderablis, e 'quo emanavit desiderium meniium, gratiarUf:D1lll.rlaJ, glorie .F-miuJn.O venter.lI.tDabilia et dulcedo animte. 0 eleva~ome:rttium. inebriato oo1'di1Ull,aanitas pecoatOJ'llDl, 0 olemena couBolando, p1Ablandiando, dulcisoeculando I Bernard, Serm. IV. p. 1739,1740, 17017.

Page 557: The Variations of Popery

SUICIDE OF VIRGINS COMMENDED. 557

authority of ecclesiastical canons in favor of clerical continence.Jerome, on the contrary, refers merely to the usage of his day.Epiphanius extends the prohibition to subdeacons. 'Jeromecomprehends in the interdiction only bishops, priests, and dea-cons.' These contradictions destroy the evidence of both thebishop of Salamis and the monk of Palestine.Jerome's bias in favor of virginity led the saint into error,

which degraded his character and lessened his authority. Hisdeclamation against wedlock, in his refutation Of Jovinian, in-curred the disapprobation of many; and, among the resb, ofPope Siricius, The murmur was so great 'that Paniachius hisfriend endeavored, though in vain, to suppress his writings onthis subject. He was accused of countenancing the Manicheans,who, at least to the elect, entirely proscribed matrimony. Hewas obliged, in consequence, to write an apology. He con-fessed that, on this subject, he had indulged in declamation.His prepossession, on this topic, induced him to reflect on theconjugal duty even in the laity. The layman, says the saintof Palestine, 'cannot pray, who indulges in nuptial enjoyments.The person,' he adds, 'who fulfils the duty of a husband, cannotfulfil that of a Christian," His language is a libel on thedivine institution, which, in the popish system, is a sacrament.Jerome's prejudices in behalf of virginity caused his approba-

tion of suicide and assassination. Many instances might beproduced, and, as a specimen, those of the Beeotian, Milesian,and Theban virgins. Two young men, flushed with wine, had,during the night, violated the Beeotian maids, who, unwilling tosurvive their virginity, fell by mutual wounds." Jerome, on theoccasion, is at a loss fOT expression in favor of the ~hockingaction. He seems to labor for language to utter' his admirationof the suicidal deed.The Milesianmaids were still more blameworthy. These;

lest, on the invasion and devastations of the Gauls, they should-undergo any indecency from the enemy, escaped from defile-ment by death. ' The heroines" says Jerome, ' left an example •to all virgins of honourable mind to prefer chastity to life.'4Thesuicide, in all its enormity, challenged the unqualified approba-tion of the Roman saint.A Theban girl, whom a Macedonianhad deflowered, dissem-1Epiph. Heer, 59. Thom. 1. 135, 136. Jerom. ad vig.2 Plnaieurs entre lea Catholiques furent oft'ensezde que1queaendroits tro:p rudes.

Lej>ape meme en eut quelque mauvaise opinion. Godea. 2. :>81. Moren, 5. 99.Rhetoricati sumus et inmorem decIamatorum paululum 1ll81IIlUB. Jerom 4. 143.

Laicus et quicumquefidelis orare non poteat, nisi careatofficio conjuga1i.Quarndiuimll1eomariti officiUIll,non impleo Cbristiani. Jerom. adv. Jo~ Pithou, 42.

Quo ore laudandre sunt Scedasi filile. Jerome, 4. 186. Moren, 7. 159.4 Turpitudinem morte f~t, excmplum sui cunctis virginibus relinquen-

tea. J~me, 4. 186. Lopex, III. 3. .

Page 558: The Variations of Popery

558 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

bled her grief, and afterward cut the violator's throat when hewas sleeping; and then slew herself with his sword.' Themurder and self-assassination became a theme of exultation toJerome.Ambrosius, who is often associated with Jerome as a witness

of sacerdotal celibacy, recommended the same impiety of sui-cide. Pelagia, of Antioch, during Maximin's persecution in thefourth century, with her mother and sisters, lest they shouldsuffer violation, escaped by a voluntary death. Pelagia, adornednot like a person going to death but to a wedding, leaped, asshe was inspired of God, from a lofty window on the pavement,and by her fall, says Godeau, mounted to heaven. Her motherand sisters, says the same historian, jumped into a deep river,where they found a baptism which purified them from everystain. The water, concealing their bodies, respected the bridesand martyrs of its Creator. Marcellina asked the opinion ofAmbrosius on this melancholy but unwarranted action. Thebishop eulogised the dreadful deed as a duty owed to religion,a remedy inoffensive to God, and an achievement which enti-tled these virgins to the crown of martyrdom.' •These are the men, who are invoked as gods in the Romish

communion, and whose festivals and fulsome encomiums areregistered with ostentation in the Romish missal, processional,and breviary. The holy Jerome, on the thirtieth day of Sep-tember, is designated as 'the light of the church, the lover ofthe divine law, the greatest doctor in scriptural explanation,who despised this world and merited the celestial kingdom,and whom God loved and clothed with the robe of glory. Hismediation and intercession are devoutly supplicated, that men,through the blessed saint's merits, may be enabled to performwhat he taught in word and deed," This, of course, is a peti-tion in favor of self-assassination, which holy Jerome recom-mended. The faithful, on this festival pray that they may,through the monk's merits, be enabled to murder themselves.

• This is very well for an infallible church.Ambrosius is invoked with similar impiety and idolatry. The

Lord, if the Missal may be credited, 'filled the saint with thespirit of wisdom, and clothed him with the robe of glory.'The sacred oblation is offered in his honor, and the people of

1Nee vivere voluerit perditam castitatem,nec anti mori quamllli ultrixexis-teret. Jerom.e.4. 186. Lopez, III. 3.2Deus remedio Don o1fenditur. Martyres reddit. Religioni debitum 1lO1verat.

.Amb. 4. 478, 479. EuBeb. VIII. 23. Oodea. 2. 65.'0 doctor optime, eccesire sanetre lumen. Beate Hieroni:me, Divinre legis

~J'. }>rseata, lJUQIll1Ilus, uti ejuB sufCragaDtibua meritis, quod ore eul etopet8 ~~~)UVante exercere vplumUB. Miss. Rom. 503. Ploceas. Rom.Z1O. Bftv. 1013.

Page 559: The Variations of Popery

SUICIDE OF VIRGINS COMMENDED. 559

God, on the seventh of December, addressing the bishop ofMilan, 'as the minister of eternal salvation on earth, pray foreverlasting glory through his mtercession in heaven," Onepart of the salvation which he recommended on earth, consistsin self-murder. He must, therefore, be a hopeful mediator inheaven.Men, biassed and mistaken in this manner.-could not be im-

partial witnesses. These, so prejudiced in favor of a systemas to recommend suicide to preserve virginity, or murder torevenge violated chastity, could not deliver a fair or candidtestimony. The report of Socrates and Sozomen, respectingthe speech of Paphnutius and the decision of the Niceancouncil, remains unattainted, The fact is embodied in theTheodosian code and in the canon law; and bas, at the presentday, obtained general belief.' .The Trullan or Quinsextan council, in 692, seems to have

put the finishing hand to the matrimonial regulations of theGrecian clergy. Thil::lassembly, in ibs twelfth canon, enjoinedcelibacy on bishops. But the inferior clergy were permitted tomarry before ordination, and afterward to enjoy connubialsociety.The Greeks, differing in this manner from the Latins, in- ,

veighed against the Western discipline as contrary to Scriptural,traditional, and synodal authority; and used, on the occasion,very free and strong language. The latter, notwithstanding,remained for many ages in the communion of the former,without any apparent reluctance. .TheLatins, says Thomassin,suffered the incontinence of the Greeks with patience andcharity; while the Greeks, on the contrary, could not sufferthe strict purity of the Latins. a The strict purity of the Latins,as will soon appeal', consisted in fornication, adultery, incest,and every filthiness.The Greeks, in these regulations, were, in general, joined by

the other Eastern denominations. The Syrians adopted asimilar usage. The Armenian and Geor~a.n e?cl~siastiC8,~ysBrocard, are all married.' The Western interdiction of clericalmatrimony, therefore, was a variation from oriental liberty.Such is the history of sacerdotal celibacy a.mong the Greeks.1 Implevit eum dominus 8{'iritu eapientiee, 8tolam glorire induit eum. Deus,

qui populo tuo reternre salutiB Beatum AmbroBinm ministrum tribuisti, pl1ll8taq1lleBUmua,ut quem doctorem vitlll habuimu8 in terris, int.n'ce88orem haberemereamur in crew. Mis. Rom. 348. Process. Rom. 247. Brev. Rom. 699., Cod. Theod. XVI. Pithou, 42.3 Lea Grees ne pouvoient 8Ouft'rir l'exacte pnrete des Latins. Thom. 1. 28.

Part. II. Du Piu, 2. 24. Bell. 1. 1109. .4 Sacerdotes et diaconi utuntur uxoribus; cum quibus ante llll~ ordmes ~-

traxerunt. Canisius, 4. 433. SacerdoteB omnes aunt uxorati. Brocard, mCanisiu8, 4. 25.

Page 560: The Variations of Popery

560 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

But the Latins on this subject, varying from the Greeks, usedgreater rigor, and enjoined perpetual continence on all ordersof the clergy. This enactment, however, was an innovation ofthe fourth century. No law of the kind is found in any of theearlier monumentseof antiquity. Many documents, on the con-trary, remain, which, as has been shown, testify the freedom ofthe clergy on this topic in primitive times. Jerome, whoflourished in the end of the fourth century, is the earliest witnessfor clerical abstinence in the Western communion, who could beproduced by all the learning of Bellarmine, Baronius, andThomassin. This was about four hundred years after theChristian era. Had any law of celibacy been in use in the earlydays of antiquity, some monument of the kind, one might expect,would indicate its former existence. Jerome, besides, from hisprepossessions against wedlock, was a partial witness. Suicide,which, according to Jerome, is a sin to be deprecated in anyother case, is lawful for the preservation of chastity. The testi-mony of such a prejudiced evidence is utterly inadmissible.Thomassin admits that in the primitive church there was nolaw of celibacy or penalty against marriage; though' he main-tains'that charity enforead abstinence on the clergy of antiquity.

• A time was, says Gratian, when there was no institution enjoin-ing the continence of the clergy.'The decretal of Pope Siricius, addressed in 385 to Himerius,

contains the first general interdiction of clerical matrimony.Its priority, as a general prohibition, is acknowledged by Clithouas well as by Bruys, Espep.sreus, Cassander, and many otherpatrons of popery," No authority of an earlier date can beproduced for the enactment. Siricius pleads no Christiancanon, but merely an old Jewish regulation. The Spanishcouncil of Elvira, indeed, in the year 300, issued its twenty-third canon to this effect. Gibert, in the canon law, allowsthis regulation the priority as an injunction of sacerdotalcontinence. The Elviran canon, indeed, in its granimaticaJconstruction, contains a prohibition of abstinence. The wholeministry were commanded by a Spanish council to exercisewithout interruption their powers of reproduetion," No suspen-sion of the task was permitted-byths sacred synod, who wouldallow no cessation of arms on pain of expulsion from theI Non licet propria perire manu, absque eo ubi castitas periclitatur. Jerom.

inJon. 3. 1478. La senle charita avoit fait observer. ThomaBllin, 1. 140.Gratian, D. 21. Pithou, 41. . .2 A Siricio Papa primum editum. Clithou. c. 4. inBell. 1. 18. 11osebien f&lre

deB UQ1lve1lel 101X. Je parle du oelibat des ecclesiastiques. Bruy. 1. 142-811l11Clprohibitio primum facta eat a eoneilio Elibentano. Gilbert, 2. 312.e-bb. 1. 417, DnPin, 1. 236. PIa.cet, in totum prohiberi episoopis, presby-teria, diaeoDD. ab8tinere sa • conjugibul luis at non generare ID.i0ll. Labb, 1.996, 1020. Pithou, 102.

Page 561: The Variations of Popery

DOMKSTIClSM:. 561honors of the priesthood. This ill the literal and verbal mean-ing of the words; but was not, it is likely, the design of iliacompilers. The blundering authors, in all probability, expresseda sense directly contrary to their intention.The Elviran synod seems, in every respect, to have been ex-

ceedingly silly. The sage prelacy, in the thirty-fourth canon,forbade the lighting of wax-candles in grave yards during theday, lest the souls of the saints should be disquieted.' Thelight or the smell of the tapers might have frightened the un-fortunate ghosts which hovered over the tlombs. The body ofmen, who could, in solemn council, enact such a law, must havebeen beneath contempt.The council of Elvira, as it was despicable, was also partial,

and differed, in this respect, from the bull of Siricius which wasgeneral. The Elviran canon, at most, was national and con-fined to Spain. The pontifical edict was general and extendedto Christendom, or, at least, to the Latin communion. TheElviran enactment was evaded by the Spanish clergy, and unra-tified by any pope or council. The papal decision was enforcedwith rigor, and confirmed by the sanctions of Innocent, Leo,and Gregory, as well as by the councils of Carthage, Orleans,Tours, Toledo, Aix la Chapelle, Worms, and Mentz, in Africa, •France, Spain, and Germany.The law ran counter to the tide of human nature, and to the

stream of human affection. The clergy, in many instances,resisted the mandate; and the exaction of obedience, in conse-quence, became a difficult task. A variety of plans was inven-ted to evade or violate ita severity. One variety of evasionconsisted in DOME8TICISM. A second party engaged in openor concealed concubinage. Many displayed a third variety,and in bold violation of unjust and unscriptural canons, married, .and lived, not indeed in abstinence but 1D chastity, with theirlawful wives.Many of the'cler~ had recourse, in this extremity, to domes-

ticism. This consisted in keeping female inmates in theirdwellings. These were women devoted in profession, thoughnot by vow, to virginity. Their ostensible duty was to superin-tend the domestic concerns of the house. The clergy enjoyedtheir society; while these maidens, in return, shared the clergy'sbed and board. Cyprian, Jerome, .snd Chrysostom havedepicted t.he cohabitation of these holy domestics with a boldbut faithful pencil. Cyprian mentions, in language of strongcondemnation, their domestic familiarity by day, and theiroccupation of the same bed during the night. Jerome imitatesthe description of Cyprian; but .gives more poignancy to his

1 Inquietandi aanctorum spiritus DOD lI1IJlt. Bin. I. 235.JI

Page 562: The Variations of Popery

562 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

style and relievo to his colors. These holy men and women,if the saint's statement may be credited, occupied the samehouse, the same chamber, and the same 'nightly couch." Anecclesiasticwould admit one of these fair saints to the partici-pation of his bed; but under solemn declarations of the strictestchastity. These hallowed friends slept in each other's arms,and their heads rested on the same pillow. Their society andaffections, however, were quite spiritual and platonic, andpurified from all the grosser elements which sometimes attendon ordinary mortals.Jerome, however, had, notwithstanding their pretensions, no

very high idea of their purity. These virgins professed to seekspiritual consolation; but, in reality, pursued something whichthe saint, as usual, expresses in very coarse language, that willscarcely bear a literal translation. Their spiritual consolation,in Jerome's account, had some relation to the flesh. The ex-pansion of the women's waists and the cry of infants, which, itseems,were phenomena that sometimes attended this kind ofPlatonism, provoked the hostility of the monk of Palestine, whoin consequence, characterised the whole system as a pestilence.Some of these sentimental Platonics endeavored to conceal.. heir frailty by a free use of medical applications."The conduct of the clergy also awakened Jerome's holy

indignation. These affected the sacred officefor the gratifica-tion of licentiousness in the company of women. Their wholeattention was engaged on dress and perfumery. Their fingerssbone with rings, their hair was frizzled by the curling tongs,and they walked on tip-toe lest the damp should sully theirfeet,"Chrysostom alsogives an animated. description of the society

of these spiritualised parsons and dames. He portrays, inglowing language, 'their smiles, their laughs, their free conver-sation, their soft words, their communications at table duringthe day, their supping together at night and other things im-

• proper to name." Chrysostom, weak man! suspected the

1Eadem domo, uno cubiculo, srepe uno tenentur et lectulo. Jerom. ad Eust.4. 33. Cyprian ad Porn.

S Qurerunt alienorum spirituale 80latium ut domi habeantcarnale commercium.Tumor uteri et infantum prodiderit vagitus. lJnde in eceleeias Agepatarum pes·till introiit? Nonnullre abortii venenameditantur. Jerom. adEustach. 4, 32,33.3 Preabyteratum et diaoonatum ambiunt, ut mulieres licentiuB videant. Om-

nis his cura de vestibus Hi bene oleant Crines calemestri vestigio rotantur.Digiti de annulis radiant; et ne plantus humidior via ~ vix imprimuntnmma veetigia.Jerom. 4.40•• If.., 1I'fprt'" .,... _p.wn IWp'I/ owo~J'...",s-, IllU '"'YICG8tlIUJ'OS, IllU CI'llI'3E_r,

ICfU ~1NJ'Os, .,.ow...,ovs ~~s ""s -xvnas '"" p.tIAMA P"I,..wra, ,"".,.allMa, AI&1fk A~"_J~. Chryaostom, De Subin, 1, 231.

Page 563: The Variations of Popery

CONCUBINAGE AND ITS ENORMITIES. 563chastity of a wanton youth, living in this manner with a kindgirl. But the saint, it appears, had another reason for his sus-picions. He had seen a constant running of midwives to theabodes of these virgins. The driving of these beldamsalarmed his fears. The saint, in his simplicity, doubted whetherthese ladies of the obstetric art would gallop 88 fast withouturgent business.A second variety of evasion, or violation of these canons,

consisted in concubinage. This was a native result of theunnatural regulations against wedlock. The accounts, on thissubject, transmitted by the historians of these times, are appall-ing. Profligacy, says Giannone, prevailed among the clergy,who practised all kinds of lewdness. Ratherius, bishop ofVerona, represents the clergy as guilty of bigamy, drunken-ness, and fornication. His representation of priestly inconti-nence is expressed with strong sarcasm and emphatical diction.The Italian priesthood, in particular, fomented their passionsby excess of food and wine. These aggravated their con-stitutionallicentiousness by luxury in eating and drinking.'Atto's language, on this topic, is equally striking. He re-

presents some of the clergy as sold in such a degree to theirlusts, that they kept filthy harlots in their houses. These, ina public manner, lived, bedded, and boarded with their conse-4crated paramours. Fascinated with their wanton allurements,the abandoned clergy conferred on the partners of their guilt,the superintendence of their family and all their domesticconcerns. These courtezans, during the lives ·of their com-panions in iniquity, managed their households; and, at theirdeath, inherited their property. The ecclesiastical alms andrevenues, in this manner, descended to the accomplices of vileprostitution." The hirelings of pollution were adorned, thechurch wasted, and the poor oppressed by men who professedto be the patrons of purity, the guardians of truth, and theprotectors of the wretched and the needy.Damian represents the guilty mistress as confessing to the

guilty priest," This presented another absurdity and an ag-gravation of the crime. The formality of confessing what thefather confessor knew, and receiving forgiveness from a partnerin sin, was an insult on common sense, and presented one ofthe many ridiculous scenes which have been exhibited on the1Giannon. V. 6. Dachery, 1. 3M. Bruy. 2. 268.2 Quod dicere pudet. Quidem in tantum libidini mancipantur, ut obecoenas

meretriculaa 8U& simul in domo seeum babitare, uno cibum sumere, all publicedeaere pennittant. Unde meretrices ornantur, eeelesiee vestantur, psuperestriImIaDtur. Atto, Ep. Dachery, 1. 439.31AlBcoupablee lie confessent a leurs complices, qui ne leur imposent point de

penitences convenables. Damian in Bruy. 2. 356. Giannon. X. § I.

Page 564: The Variations of Popery

564 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

theatre of the world. Confession and absolution in this waywere, after all, very convenient. The fair penitent had not farto ~o for pardon, nor for an opportunity of repeating the fault,which might qualif, her for another course of confession andremission. Her spiritual father could spare her blushes j andhis memory could"supply any deficiency of recollection in theenumeration of her sins. A minute recapitulation of time,place, and other circumstantial trifles would be unnecessary.The rehearsal of the delicious sin might, to both, be veryamusing. The sacrament of confession, in this manner, would,by recalling the transaction to mind, become very edifying, andafford a renewal of the enjoyment. This mode of remissionwas attended with another advantage, which was a great im-provement on the old plan. The confessor, in the penancewhich he prescribed on these occasions, exemplified the virtues. of compassion and charity. Christian commiseration andsympathy took place of rigor and strictness. The holy fatherindeed could not be severe on so dear a friend j and the ladycould not refuse to be kind again to such an indulgent father.Damian, however, in his want of charity and liberality, sawthe transaction in a different light j and complained in bitter-ness of this laxity of discipline, and the insult on ecclesiastical)urisdiction and on rational piety.This adultery and fornication of the clergy degenerated, in

many instances, into incest and other abominations of the grossestkind. Some priests, according to the council of Mentz in 888,'had sons by their own sisters," The council of Niceaa andsome other of a later date, through fear of scandal, deprivedthe clergy of all female company, except a mother, a sister, oran aunt, who, it was reckoned, were beyond all suspicion. Butthe means intended for prevention were the occasion of moreaccumulated scandal and more heinous criminality. Theinterdiction was the introduction to. incestuous and unnaturalprostitution. The council ofMentz, therefore, in its tenth canon,all well as other cotemporary and later synods, had to forbidthe clergy the society of even their nearest female relations.A third variety for the evasion, or rather for the infraction of

these canonical interdictions, was clandestine or avowed matri-mony. Some of the priests, though they could ill afford it,wished to keep a conscience. These, of course, would shudderat the commission of fornication or adultery, and had recoursetherefore to the honorable institution of heaven for the preven-tion of such pollution. These, intrenched behind the authorityof God, withstood the commandments of men. The number of1Qaidam eacerdotuin cum propriil IOI'Onlnu concumbentes, filioe ex eiaren... .. 7.1a'1. Labb. 11. li86.

Page 565: The Variations of Popery

OPPOSITION OF THE MARRIED CLERGY TO GREGORY. 565

these continued to increase in opposition to the decretals' ofpopes, the canons of councils, and the prepossessions of thepeople. The frequent repetitions of these prohibitions showedtheir inefficacy, and clerical obstfuacy. The interdictorycouncils were all provincial; many of them eontemptible ; andecclesiastics continued to marry in despite of their regulations.The priesthood, in general, at the accession of Gregory theSeventh, in defiance of obsolete laws, lived in a state of mat-rimony.'Such was the state of clerical matrimony, at the accession of

Hildebrand, or Gregory the Seventh, to the popedom in 1074.The reign of this hierarch commenced a new era in the annalsof sacerdotal celibacy. Gregory enforced celibacy with a highhand among the Latin ecclesiastics; and was supported in theundertaking by many of the laity. The attempt, however,was long opposed by the priesthood; and its success termin-ated in the general concubinage and debauchery of the westernclergy. ,Gregory succeeded, to a great extent, in the suppression of

priestly marriage. Several of his predecessors had made asifnilar attempt, but in vain. Stephen, Nicholas, and Alexan-der had labored for this purpose, and failed. But Gregoryproceeded in this, as in every other design, with superior abil-ity and resolution; and his efforts were crowned in the endwith wonderful success. He summoned a council and issuedcanons, separa.ting the married clergy from their partners, and'forbidding the ordination of any who would not vow perpetualcontinence. He prohibited the laity from hearing IDa88, whencelebrated by a married priest," These enactments he enforcedwith his usual obstinacy and with his usual success.The laity, in general seem to have seconded the efforts of the

pontiff. These, in many instances, refused the a~tionof baptism and the communion from the married clergy. Lay-men administered baptism; and often trampled the bread andspilled the wine which had been consecrated for sacramentaluse by married clergymen. 3The clergy opposed the poll.tiff'with all their might. These,

Paris relates, characterized priestly celibacy and continence asan innovation and a rash judgment, contrary to the sentence ofthe holy fathers. One, says the English historian, coutended forequity and the other against it; while the consequence wasscandal and division in the church; so that no greater schism wasl~. H. 59. Jerom. adv. Vig. Thom. I. 43. 1 Coain. VII. 2.2:om: 7. 473. Bruy. 2. 388, .418. Labb. 12. 547. DuPin, 2. 244.3 Infante. baptizant. Corpua Domini a ~byteria uxorati8 CODBeCra.um

pedibua 8lllpe conculcant, et aanguinem Domini voluntarie frequenter in terrameifund1Jnt. M. Paris, 8. Bin. 7.288.

Page 566: The Variations of Popery

566 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

produced by any heresy. Lambert and other historians havetransmitted similar accounts. The clergy, says the annalist,raged and called Gregory the patron of heresy, and the abettorof a mad system, who by violence would compel men to live likeangels, stop the course of nature, and give the slackened reinsto all pollution. The clergy also, in retaliation, accused thepontiff of incest with Matilda, countess of Mantua, who, sayMarius and Caron, was a woman of extraordinary superstition,and greater effrontery than became her sex.'Similar dissensions, on this question, took place in 1075 at

the council of Erford in Germany. The archbishop of Mentz,prompted by the pontiff, required the assembled clergy either toabandon their wives or the ministry of the altar. The ecclesi-astics, who sat round the arch bishop, chose neither alternative.They first confounded their diocesan with words, which againwere soon followed by blows as the more efficient argument.The archbishop, in the end, was so maltreated that he despairedof his life, and wisely resolved to consign the enforcement ofcelibacy to his holiness,"But resistance to Gregory was vain. He projected the sub-

jugation of Christendom, and executed his plan with matchlessresolution and success. He employed all means, foul and fair,and wielded in tum, canons, decretals, threats, violence, arms,fraud, flattery, anathemas, and excommunication. Pretendedmiracles too were made the agents of his ambition. These, inan age of ignorance and barbarism, when forgery and nonsensepassed for truth and reason, possessed, in the hand of supersti-tion, irresistible power and efficacy. His infallibility's • lyingwonders,' ridiculous in themselves, were irrefragable, when ad-dressed to an unlettered and superstitious populace. The clergyhad to yield to the pontiff, and reason to tyranny.Such was the rigour of ecclesiastical laws in the popish com-

munion against sacerdotal matrimony. But this communion,which was so severe against wedlock in the clergy, was, in avery extraordinary degree, indulgent to concubinage both in theclergy and laity. Any person, clergyman or layman, accordingto the council of Toledo in its seventh canon, who has nota wife but a concubine, is not to be repelled from the commu-1Novo exempIo, et ut rouitis visum eat, contra sanctorum patrum sententiam

M. Paris,8. Bruy. 2. 431. Infremuit tota. factio c1ericorum hominem planehrereticum et veaani dogmatis ease clamitans. Fomicationi et immunditieiframa laxaret. Lambert, Ann. 1074. Labb. 12.547. Pontdfleem de inceatocum es amore infamare non veriti fuerint. Spon. 1074. III. IV. Mulier insi-gnia euperatitionis et majoris audacire quam sexum muliebrem deceret. Caron,142. .2 :Exur2entea qui undique assidebant clerici, ita. cum verbis confundebant, ita.

matlibus'ilebaccliantur, ut lie vita. comite e synodo diceasurum desperaret, Bin.7. 281. I.amb. Anh. 1075. Bruy. 2. 438. Labb. 12. 582.

Page 567: The Variations of Popery

CLERICAL FORNICATION PREFERRED TO MATRIMONY. 5~7

nion, if he be content with one.' The holy bishops, indeed, intheir wisdom, would not allow two women to one man. Butany Christian, according to the prelacy of Spain, might, atpleasure, keep either a wife or ~ mistresa This, no doubt,was very liberal and obliging in the sacred synod. But hisholiness pope Leo was not to be outdone by the episcopacy, incomplaisance and liberality. His infallibility, the vicar-generalof God, confirmed, in the kindest manner and with the utmostcourtesy, the council of Toledo and the act of the Spanishprelacy,"The Toledan canon and ita pontifical confirmation .were

equally wicked and ridiculous. The wickedness of the enact-ment appears in its contrariety to the law of God, and, indeed,in general, to the code of all civilised nations. Its ridiculousnessis also apparent. The permission extends to every person, or,according to one edition of the sacred canon, to the faithful,comprising all Christians. The expression, Giannone has ob-served, comprehended, at one time, the clergy as well as thelaity," A man, at will, might keep a woman of either character,and he might therefore show his taste in this freedom of variety.But the holy legislators would not allow two women to oneman. Two, the Spanish fathers thought would be a super-abundance of this species of live stock. But the Christian,whose humor inclined him to an unmarried rather than to amarried mistress, might gratify his taste, and, at the same time,continue one of the faithful and be admitted to the communion.Such was the hopeful decision of a Spanish council and aRoman Pontiff; but, ridiculous as it is, this is not all. Theenactment of the council and the pope has been inserted in theRomish body of the Oanon Law edited by Gratian and Pithou.Gratian's compilation indeed was a private production, unau-thenticated 'by any pope. But Pithou published by the com-mand of Gregory the Thirteenth, and his work contains theacknowledged Oanon Law of the Romish church. .His editionis accredited by pontifical authority, and recognised throughpopish Christendom.' Fornication therefore is sanctioned by aSpanish council, a Roman pontiff, and the canon law.Fornication, in this manner, was, in the clergy, not only tole-

rated, but also preferred to matrimony. Many of the popish •casuists, such as Oosterus, Pighius, Hosius, Oampeggio, andthose reported by Agrippa, raised whoredom above wedlock inthe Hierarchy. Oosterus admits that a clergyman sins, if he1Christiano habere licitum est unam tantum aut uxorem, aut eerte loco

\\Xoriaconcubinam. Pithou.47. Bin. 1. 739,740. Crabb. 1.449. Giannon.v.5. Dachery, 1. 528. Canisius,2. Ill.

2 Confihnatum videtur auetoritate Leonia Papal. BinvI. 737,3 Giannon, XI. 7. t Diat. 34. c. 4. Pithou, 47..'

Page 568: The Variations of Popery

568 THE VARlATIONS OF POPERY.

commits fornication; but more heinously if he marry. Concubi-nage, the Jesuit grants, is sinful; but less aggravated, hemaintains, than marriage. Costerus was followed by Pighiusand Hosius. Campeggio proceeded to still greater extrava-gancy. He represented a priest who became a husband, ascommitting a more grievous transgression than ifhe should keepmany domestic harlots.' An ecclesiastic, rather than marry,should, according to this precious divine, keep a seraglio. Thecardinal gives an odd reason for his theory. The clergyman,he affirms, who perpetrates whoredom, acts from a persuasionof its rectitude or legality; while the other knows and ac-knowledges his criminality. The priesthood, therefore, inCampeggio's statement, are convinced of the propriety offornication. ..Agrippa draws a similar character of the legislators, who

enacted the laws of celibacy, and who, according to this author,would rather have clergymen fornicators in infamy than husbandsin honesty. This, in this sixteenth century, was a frightfulfact, of, which the Emperor Maximilian and other Germanprinces complained, and which with good reason they denomi-nated a glaring absurdity. The clergy who married were dis- ,missed from the exercise of the sacred functions; while the sa-cerdotal fornicators, who violated the laws of God and man,were allowed to retain the holy ministry," Sacerdotal concu-binage, accordingly, prior to the reformation, was the commonusage, and less offensive in the eyes of the papacy and thepopulace than clerical matrimony. The ecclesiastics of thepapal communion, indeed, since the days of Luther and Calvin,are, in appearance at least and in most nations, become morecircumspect, and aim at a character of decency. This is oneglorious effect of the reformation.The popish doctors, in this way, not only indulge priestly

fornicators, but also, to encourage business, honor their part-ners in trade. These useful allies of the priesthood are,according to Pope Paul the Third and all the Romish doctors,comprehended in the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. These privi-leged patrons of prostitution belong to the sacred hierarchy,and enjoy the right of exemption from secular legislation andauthority. Charles the Second of Anjou, accordingly, ordained

1Gravius peccat, Iicoutrahat matrimonium. Coat. c. 15.Qaod eacerdotee fiant mariti, multo esse gravius peccatnm quam si 'plurimaa

domimeretricea alnnt. Nam illos habere pet'8USIl1lD1 quasi recte famant, hoeaute1n scire et peccatnm agnoscere. Campeggio; in Sleidan, 96.. I'Maluernnt illi legial&tores saeerdotea 8uaB emu infamia. habereconeubinu,q1Ullll eum honesta fama nxores. Agrippa in Bayle, 1, Ill. •Abeudum e-e IIIICIlI'dotea conjuptos removere, scortatores vero qni contra

lepm cJiviDam et ~ aimul peccant, delinqnenttl8 patio Thnan. 2. 417.

Page 569: The Variations of Popery

•BIGAMY .ALLOWED BY POPE GREGOHY II. 569

that these polluted companions of the clergy should not; likethe laity, forfeit the fourth of their possessions.' The basefornicatress, in this manner, enjoyed, it} the IJerpetration offilthiness and in the bosom of an 'infallible church, the ex-emptions and immunity of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.All this, however, is not the end of the comedy, or rather

tragedy. The Roman pontiff and the Roman clergy have, onmany occasions, proceeded to deeper enormity and authorisedadultery or bigamy. Bossuet has accused Luther, Melancthon,Bucer, Adam, Lening, Winfert, and Melanther, of encouragingbigamy in the Landgrave Philip; and has, in the imputation,been followed by Varillas and Arnold. Luther and Melanc-thon erred in their instructions to Philip. But the directionsof the reformers, have, in this instance, been misstated andexaggeb.ted by the Bishop of Meaux. Perceiving the obsti-nacy of the Landgrave, seven Theologians, who had patronisedthe reformation, represented bigamy as less heinous thanadultery; and advised, in this case, the closest secrecy. Ama-dorf and Justus, however, as well as all the other reformers,deprecated even this advice or connivance," And Lutherlearned this theology in the school of. the Roman pontiffs andclergy. A few specimens may be selected out of many forillustration.Gregory the Second, in all his infallibility, authorised bigamy,

which, in the popish system, is tantamount to adultery. Boni-face, the celebrated Apostle of Germany, had, in 726, inquiredof his holiness, whether men, whose wives were not dead, butincapacitated by infirmity, might again marry. His infalli-bility's reply .isworthy of perpetual memory. He recommendedcontinence indeed to such as possessed the gift. But thoseunendowed with continence, which is a great attainment, might,according to the viceroy of heaven, again. marry. This 18 aprecious sample of pontifical casuistry. His infallibility re-solved the difficulty by sanctioning bigamy and adultery.Epiphanius, as has been already noticed, had taught the sameinconsistency as Gregory; and the Roman pontiff followed thefootsteps of the Grecian saint. • Bellarmine, in this case, iscontrary to bis avowed system, constrained to grant the igno-rance and error of Gregory,"1Au Belltiment de tous ]es Docteurs les concubines m41meedes pritres res-

IIOrtiAoient au jagement du fort ecclesiastique. Paol. 1. 133. Non seulementlea eccll!Biastiquee etoient exempts de 1a jurisdiction seculiere, mais encore Ienrafamilles, e~m41meleurs concubines, au sentiment de tous lee Doetenrs. Bruy. 4._ Gialmon. X. § 1.

2 :Boauet, VI. Seckendorf, 278-SNam qnod propoenisti, qaod si mnlier infirmitate correpta non valuerit debi-

tum Tiro reddere, quid ejus faciat jngalis! Bonum esset si sic permaneret ut abeti·Dentia! vacaret. Sed quia hoc magnorum est, ille qui Be non poterit continere,

Page 570: The Variations of Popery

570 •THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

His holiness, no doubt, was very accommodating. He deser-ves the thanks of all husbands, whose partners are disabledby debility, He was so liberal as to allow the man to judgewhen the woman, to whom he is married, is, through.weakness, unfit for action. All, therefore, according to hisinfallibility's system, may take a second companion when theythink proper. Gregory's doctrine, however, is now rank heter-odoxy in the Romish communion. The Council of Trent inits twenty-fourth session, declared against the vicar-general ofGod. The sacred synod, without any ceremony, launched itsanathemas against Gregory and his pestilential heresy; andsent the vicegerent of heaven, eight hundred years after hisdeath, to the abodes of the lost.The Roman pontiff's case was far more aggravated than the

German reformer's. The Lutheran pastor's opinion related toonly one person; and its author had no more authority thanany other individual. The former referred to many and wasdelivered by the vicar-general of God, the head of the church,and the teacher of all Christians. Gregory's decretal wascouched in general terms, and may, in its wide extension, com-prehend all men. Many have invested its author with theattribute of infallibility; though the Council of Trent, in fine'style, and in the exercise of its inerrability, tossed an anathemaat his devoted head.This pontiff's theory was, in 752, adopted by the council

of Vermeris. or Verbery. Pepin, the French king, with theFrench prelacy, was present in this assembly, which, say Danieland Velly, gave a mortal blow to the indissolubility of thematrimonial chain.1 The Gallican clergy allowed the privi-lege of repudiation and subsequent wedlock to the person whoshould marry a slave, who, before the nuptial ceremony, hadpretended to be free. The sacred synod granted the sameliberty to the man, whose wife should conspire against hislife or refuse to accompany him to a distant country; and tothe woman whose husband should defile her sister or mother,or should, through aversion or impotency, neglect herself.Such were the decisions of a'popish synod. These, unlike theLutheran instructions to the~essian Landgrave, extended notmerely to one but to many. The Saxon reformer, though heerred, was, as even the partial Bishop of M.eaux might haveseen, far less guilty than a Roman pontiff and a Romish council.Charlemagne, with the contemporary Roman pontiff and

. lubat magis. Greg. II. Ep. 13. Labb. 8. 178. BiD. 5. 4M. Pontifleemex iporantia lapeum esse, ut hoe 1000 videturGregorius fecisae. Bell. IV. 12.1Qui dODDent de grandee atteiDtes a l'iDdiBlIolubilite du mariage. Daniel,

2. n. Velly, 1. 387. Labb. 8. 405. Cotel 1. 88.

Page 571: The Variations of Popery

ADULTERY OR BIGAMY PERMITTED TO THE LAITY. 571

French clergy, exemplified the theory of pope Gregory and theVermerian council. The French sovereign divorced Himil-trud, the daughter of a French nobleman, and married Bertha,• a princess of Lombardy. This ma~h, pQpe Stephen feared,would ally the French and Lombards against the Roman pon-tiff. He applied every means therefore, reason, invective, menace,and flattery, to prevent the union. His letter to Charles andCarloman on the occasion is one of the most senseless, silly,ridiculous, and disgusting monuments of antiquity. His infalli-bility warned the emp~ror of the pestilential blandishments ofwoman, which had expelled man from paradise, and entaileddeath on the human family. He eulogised the grandeur andcelebrity of the Franks, who would be polluted by an alliancewith the contemptible, leprous, and STINKING Lombards; anation without faith or religion. He mentioned the indissolu-bility of marriage, and denounced the intended union as adiabolical confederacy. Charles and Carloman he adjuredagainst the pending negotiations by the living God, the day ofjudgment, and the sacred body of Peter, the prince' of theapostles. Any who should disregard his adjuration, he ana-thematised by apostolical authority, banished from the kingdomof heaven, and consigned to the devil to burn in everlastingfire.'The king of Lombardy, however, soon pacified his holiness.

He restored some places, which he had taken from the ecclesias-tical states, and this sop soon quieted the pontifical Cerberus.Be discontinued his opposition: and talked no more of theallurements of women, the STENCH of the Lombards, the indis-solubility of marriage, or the thunders of excommunication.Charles was united, in peace, to the princess of Lombardy."Bertha, however, like Himiltrud, was soon divorced, to make

way for Hildegard, a Suevian princess. Bertha, through infir-mity, was unfit for having children. This debility, the Frenchclergy, like Gregory, reckoned a sufficient reason for repudi-ation. Her impotency, in the ingenuous and honest interpre-tation of the Gallican clergy, was equivalent to death. 3Bertha, a year after her nuptials was sent to Lombardy, andHildegard, as queen, placed on 'he throne. The repudiation,however, of both Bertha and Himiltrud, in the present popishI A regno Dei alienum, atque cum disbolo mternis incendiis concremandum

deputatum. Steph. ad Carol Labb. 12.481. VelIy, 1. 387.n leur represente cette alliance comme l'ouvrage du Demon, at lea Lombards

comme une nation meprisable, perfide, infectee de la Iepre- Vertot, 63.2 On contenta pour adoucir son c~ de lui f&ire restituer quelques pl&qjlS.

Velly, 1..389. II n'est plus un perfitIe, un Iepreux. Vertot, 71.• 3 Bertha esset clinica et ad propagandam prolem inhabilis, ideoque judicioepiscoporum, earn relictamabillo esse velut mortuam. Porro reddita esset exmorbopenitusimpotensadconcubitum. Spon.771. III. Velly.1. 389. Moreri, 2. 299.

Page 572: The Variations of Popery

572 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

system, was invalid; and the French king, like the Germanlandgrave, had at one time, not merely two but three wives.Baronius, nevertheless, calls Hildegard a princess of exemplarypiety. The French episcopacy sanctioned the divorce and-consequent marriage, while Adrian, the contemporary pontiff,the universal bishop, whose duty it was to enforce the obser-vance of the canons through Christendom, expressed not,during the whole transaction, a single hint of disapprobation.The French monarch, unlike the Hessian prince, was, after hisdeath, canonised by pope Pascal; and. many worshipped theimperial saint.Pope Celestine, in the end of the twelfth century, defined

heresy to be a reason for the' dissolution of marriage, as Greg-ary and the French clergy had admitted the plea of debility.The person, according to this pontiff, whose partner in lifebecomes guilty of heterodoxy, may, an account ofthis error in

• faith, choose another,' Philip, could he have proved thelandgravine a heretic, would have had pontifical authority totransfer his hand and affections to an orthodox companion.Celestine's definition, however, is now, according to the councilof Trent, in its twenty-fourth session, a pestilent heresy.Innocent the Fourth sanctioned bigamy, without even the

plea of heresy. Alphonsus, of Portugal, about 1243, divorcedhis queen, and espoused the princess Beatrix. The repudiationand nuptials were authorised by a bull of his holiness," TheRoman pontiff, remarks Charenton, 'Mariana's translator, withamusing simplicity, permitted such transactions at that time,with much greater facility than he would at the present day.The popish clergy, in the beginning of the fifteenth century,

though superintended by the Roman pontiff, the universal pastor,permitted bigamy in Livonia A man, says Henry, canon ofWorms, was in the Livonian dominions, allowed to have twoliving wives, and a woman plurality of husbands," Thebishop of :Meaux, had it agreed with his taste, might havediscovered exemplifications of bigamy in his own communionwithout having recourse to the Reformation.Alexander, following the fljftsteps of his predecessors, issued

bulls of repudiation and dispensation of marriage to Ladislasand Philip. Ladislas, king of Hungary, divorced Beatrix ofArragon and married Anne of Foix. The separation from the

1 CeIemnU8 definivit pel' hrereaim ita matrimonium soin. ut liceat ei aliud·COI~ inire, cujuspriol' conju in halresiJB lapan8 sit. Alph~. 1. 4. WaJah.~~Lm •

I n~ eah un decre1; du Pape qui declal'a BOD mariage nul. Marian. 3. ~ .•Ia ~ • duas UOJ'e8 vina habeat et mulier pJures marito&. Hen. ta

LeDfIm.l ...

Page 573: The Variations of Popery

PROFLIGACY OF THE ROMISH PRIESTS. 573

one and the union with the other were, according to Mariana,by the express authority of his holiness.' <'

Alexander was as kind to Lewis as he hqd been to Ladialss.Lewis, the French king, disliked queen Jeanne, who, it seems,was crooked, infirm, barren, and deformed.' •He resolved,therefore, on a separation, which, Daniel remarks, was rather aviolent remedy. His majesty, accordingly, divorced Jeanne,and espoused.Ann. His infallibility, in the most obliging man-ner, granted a bull of dismission and a dispensation for thedesired union. His holiness, however, did not, on this ocea- 'sion, work for nothing.' Thirty thousand ducats; the title andduchy of Valentino, with a revenue of twenty thousand pounds;the princess Charlotta, sister to Jihe queen of Navarre; allthese, with a few other trifles, which Philip gave to Alexander'shopeful son Borgio, were the reward of iniquity. The moneyand the dukedom, Daniel admits, facilitated the dissolution ofmarriage. Guicciardini, with more candor, represents theseconsiderations as the sole means of attainment. Lewis, not-withstanding, was, observes Moreri, called the just and thefather of his people; and has been characterised as religious,chaste, liberal, and the friend of Ietters,"The laxity of Romanism on the one hand, and its privations

on the other, introduced shocking impurity into its communion.The interdiction of marriage, and the connivance at concubinagein the priesthood, became the polluted fountains of multipliedabominations, which inundated the popedom and swelled theannals of ecclesiastical history. The clergy forsook the sanc-tuary of wedlock for the sty of fornication and adultery. Gre-gory's enactments, according to Aventinus, afforded signalgratification to the wandering votary of sensuality, who, in therestlessness of unsettled libertinism, relinquished one womanfor the sake of a hundred. But men, who were actuated byconscience or a sense of propriety, regarded the innovation asa pestilential heresy which arose to trouble Ohristendom. Theclergy, who resisted Gregory's enactments against marriage,declared that the tendency of such interdictions was to open theflood-gates of filthiness, and give the slackened reins to forni-cation and defilement. Agrippa, iIftmore modem days, drawsa similar picture, and represents whoredom as the necessaryeffect of prohibiting honorable marriage. Polydorus, 19rooingwith Agrippa and Gregory's clergy, depicts celibacy as calcu-lated to dishonor the priesthood, injure religion, and grieveall good men. Matrimony, he remarks, ~s far more useful to,the Chris~an commonwealth.'1Le Pape 00Dfirma par un bref exprea Ie divorce de LadiBlas. Marian. 5. 299., Dan. 7. 10. Guicia. m. Bru,.. 4. 306. Moren, 5. 246.• AV8IltiD. V. Lab':'. 12.~. Bruy. 2.431. Bayle. 1. III. Polyd. V. 4-

Page 574: The Variations of Popery

574 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY.

These observations have been verified by sacerdotal protli-gacy in popish Christendom; as will appear from the frightfulrelations of Bernard, Agrippa, Henry, Clemangis, and Meze-ray. Bernard, the saint of Clairvaux, in the twelfth centuryadmitted and. lamented the impropriety of the prelacy andpriesthood; 'who committed, in secret, such acts of turpitudeas would be shameful to express."Agrippa accuses the prelacy of taxing the inferior clergy for

liberty to violate the laws of chastity. A bishop, on one oeca-'sion, boasted of having in his diocese eleven thousand priests,who severally paid their superior, every year, a guinea for leaveto keep concubines.' Licenses of this kind indeed were com-.mon in many of the European kingdoms. Compelled by theenormity of the evil, the council of Basil, at leagth, in itstwentieth session, issued a canon interdicting such abomina-tions, on pain of excommunication and the eternal maledictionof God,"Henry, a Viennan professor of theology and vice-chancellor

of the Parisian university, draws, in the fifteenth century, asimilar portrait. His description, copied by Lenfant, extendsto the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, the priests, and themonks. He depicted the ignorance, pride, simony, and licen-tiousness of the pontiff, the cardinals, and the prelacy. Thepriests, in his sketch, practised fornication, and the monks wal-lowed in debauchery. Cathedrals became dens of thieves,while monasteries were erected in taverns and places ofprostitution. The dissipation of the clergy, in Henry's estima-tion, caused the corruption of Christendom and the obduracy ofinfidels.'Clemangis reckoned the adultery, impurity, and obscenity of

the clergy beyond all description. These frequented the stewsand taverns, and spent their whole time in eating, drinking,revelling, gaming and dancing. Surfeited and drunk, thesesacerdotal sensualists fought, shouted, roared, rioted, and blas-phemed God and the saints; and passed shortly after from theembrace of the harlot to the altar of God. The canons, likethe priests, were ignorant and drunken. Clemangis, throughshame, drew the curtain over the abominations that the nuns1Epillco.2i et eacerdotes faciunt qure non conveninnt. Qwe enim in occulto

Hnnt ab epTBcopisturpe est dicere. Bemard inCon. Rhem. 1728.2 LegimU8 gloriatum in oonvivio queudum episcopum habere se undeeem

millia sacerdotum conenbinariomm, qui in singulos aunos illi aureum pendunt.~ppa, in Bayle, 1. IlL. NonnulJi jurisdictionem ecclesiasticum habentes, pecuniarios qUlllstll8 con-cubiDariie percipere non erubescunt, patientes eos in sua freditate sol'descere.Crabb, 3. 833. Dachery, 1. 757. .Bruys, 4. m.• La il trouve des pretrea concubinares, ici des moines debanchez, des mon-uten.. erigez.en c:abaiets at lieu: de prostitution. Henry in Lenfan. Pise, 1.53.

Page 575: The Variations of Popery

SACERDOTAL PROFLIGACY IN ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND SPA.IN. 575

practised in their convents, which he called brothels of Iicen-tiousness. To veil a woman was in that age to prostitute her.'Mezeray's portrait of clerical profligacy, prior to the reforma-

tion, is similar to those of Bernard, Agrippa, Henry, and Ole-mangis. The ecclesiastics, in the statement of the Frenchhistorian, were nearly all fornicators and drunkards. Theclergy held their offices in taverns, and spent their money indebauchery," ,These general details may be corroborated by a particular

retrospect of priestly incontinence, before the rise of Protest-antism, in England, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, France,Italy, and Peru. The accounts are furnished. in abundance,by the contemporary Popish historians and councils.England, as appears from the relations of Gildas, Fordun,

and Paris, drunk deep of the abominations flowing from sacer-dotal celibacy. Gildas, in the sixth century, represents theEnglish priesthood as a confraternity of the filthiest fornicators.The British pastors, according to the historian's account, werethe patrons of folly; and wallowed, like swine, in the sinks oflewdness and gluttony. These men, who should have beenexamples of holiness, were characterised by drunkenness andimpudicity,"Fordun has copied the description of Edgar the English

sovereign, from Aildred of Rieval. This is similar to the outline ofGildes, The British monarch, in the tenth century, assembledthe British clergy; and in a speech addressed to the full con-vocation, drew the frightful portrait. These churchmen, hisMajesty told them to their face, were lascivious in dress, inso-lent in manner, and filthy in conversation. The time of theseheralds of the gospel was devoted to revels, inebriation, de-bauchery, and abomination. Their abodes were the haunts ofharlots, and the scenes of the play, the dance, and the song,which, in noisy dissipation, were prolonged till midnight or tillmorning!1FOl'J.liceset oauponulas seduli frequent, ut potando. comme.a.ndo, pransiB

tando, camitando, tempora tota consumunt. Crapulati vero et inebriati pugnant,clamant, tumultuantur, nomen Dei et sanctorum suorum pollutissimis labii-execrantur; sieque tandem compolliti ex meretricum suarum complexibus addivinum altare nwunt. Cleman. 26. Lenfan. 1. 70.Par pudeur, il aime mienx tirer Ie rideau sur les abominations, que Be commet-

tent dans leurs convents, !Ju'il appelle des bordels de Ven.U8. .t\pjourdhui.,.oiler une tille c'eat la prostituer. Bruy. 3. 610, 611.

2 De tenoient leurs bureaux dans des cabarets. On voyait qu'ils conan-moient en debauches nne partie de l'argent. Paateura presque tOns concubiDaires,ivrognes. usuriel'B. Mezeray, 4. 490.8 Sacerdotes habet Britannia, sed insipientes, proprii plenitudinem ventris

qUlllleDtes, et _ libidines votis omnibUs imp1ere cupientes, porcorum more.,.o1utantes, CIerici impudi.ci, bilingues, ebrii. Gilda&, Ep. 23, 38.I Investe laacivia, insolentia in~ in verbis ~itudo. Detluunt in com-

_tionibu. et ebrietatibus, in cubilibns et impudicitiis, ut jam d9Jllus clerico-J'1Im putentur prostibula meretricum. Fordun, c. 30. Bruy. 2. 219.

Page 576: The Variations of Popery

576 THE VARU.TIONS OF POPERY.

Paris, in the eleventh century, at the accession of Gregorythe Seventh, gives a report similar to those of Gildas and For-dun. He represents a few as observers of continence. But hecharacterises the majority as adding incontinence to perjuryand multiplied adultery.'Spain was as defiled as England. This is testified by many

historians, and, among others, by Alvarus and the councils ofValladolid and Toledo. One fact, noticed by Alvarus, aSpanish author on this subject, conveys a striking idea of theSpanish nation and priesthood. The sons of the Spanish clergy,in the beginning of the fourteenth century, were in numbernearly equal to those of the laity. 2 The ecclesiastics and their,mistresses, it seems, were sufficiently prolific. The clergy, inall likelihood, were as successful in the production of naturalprogeny as of spiritual offspring. These priests would risefrom the harlot's embrace, and proceed, without delay or evenconfession, to the altar of God.The testimony of the council of Valladolid, in its seventh

canon in 1322, is to the same purpose. The clergy, prodigalof character and salvation, led, according to this assembly, livesof enormity and profligacy in public concubinage. The canonof Valladolid was renewed in 1473, in the council of Toledo.This synod represented the clergy as living in the filthiestatrocity, which rendered them contemptible to the people.Some of the priests, guilty of fornication, feared not to touch thebody of the Lord with polluted hands,"The measureless intemperance of the Spanish clergy appears

in the history of sacerdotal and monkish SOLICITATION in thatkingdom. These solicitors were Spanish monks and priests,who, abusing the privacy of sacramental confession, temptedwomen, married and unmarried, to a violation of chastity, and, .in the language of pope Gregory, 'administered poison insteadof medicine.'. This kind of solicitation became so prevalentas to demand pontifical interposition. Its notoriety, accordinglychallenged the interference of Pius, Clement, Gregory, Alexan-

s ,del', and Benedict, who issued their bulls against this kind ofseduction.The publication of the penal enactments showed the extent

-of .the evil. The execution of the Roman mandates was con-1Paucis continentlam observantibul, multis incontinentiam perjurio multipli-

ciori adulterio cumulantibus. Paris •.8., •2 Oa voit preequ'autr.nt d'enfallll de clerca que de !aiques. 1111161evenli d'au-

prie de leura concubines pour aIler a l'auteL Brll¥. 3. 3Q8. Alvar. n.21.• 0Ieric0nun nonnulli famle lI\tll) p~ et salutis, in concubinatu publico vi-

1a1n lInoaat enormner di8eolutun. LaOb. 16. 247. Christi corpus, ~poihltis DUlDibua tnctue non formidat. Labb. 19. 389. Bin. 8. 907., Flo l'lll4ici:rta. ~ porriguat. Dena, 3. 412, 4lS, et 6. 292, 293. BulL

Ole. a._.

Page 577: The Variations of Popery

SACERDOTAL PROFLIGACY IN GERMANY. 577

signed to the inquisitors, who summoned the attendance, at theholy office, of all that could inform against the guilty. Theterror of the inquisition commanded obedience, Maids andmatrons of the nobility and peasantry, of every rank and situa-tion, crowded to the inquisition. Modesty and shame inducedmany to go veiled. The alarm awakened jealousy in the mindof many husbands. The fair informers in Seville alone were,according to Gonsalvus and Lorente, so numerous, that all theinquisitors and twenty notaries were insufficient in thirty days,to take their depositions. Thirty additional days had, threeseveral times, to be appointed for the reception of informations..But the multitude of criminals, the jealousy of husbands, andthe-odium which the discovery threw on auricular confessionand the popish priesthood, caused the sacred tribunal to quashthe .proaecution, and to consign the depositions to oblivion.'The German clergy were as debauched 8.0:; those of Spain or

England. Their overflowing and unrestricted licentiousnessappears with transparent evidence in the unsuspicious testimonyof German councils, princes, emperors, and clergy.A German council, in 1225, accused the priesthood of un-

chastity, voluptuousness, and obscenity. Some, addicted tofilthy enjoyments, lived in open and avowed concubinage. Someof the clergy as well M the laity committed incest with the holynuns, and 'wallowing in sensuality, plunged, with slackenedreins, into the lake of misery and mud of filthiness."The council of Cologne, in 1536, characterised the monas-

teries, which had formerly been the schools of virtue and thehospitals of the poor, as the taverns of soldiers and ravagers.The nunneries, according to the same authority, had, to say noworse, become the alleged scenes of incontinency. Anothercouncil of Cologne, in 1;)49, convicted the' clergy of concubin-age and the monks of whoredom. The sacred synod thenprescribed a course of penance to the holy fornicators, 'to mortifythe petulance of the flesh."Albert, Duke of Bavaria, in 1562, by Augustine, his ambassa-

dor, depicted in glowing colors before the council of Trent, thelicentiousness of the German priesthood. The contagion ofheresy, the ambassador said, had, on account of sacerdotal pro-fligacy, pervaded the people of Bavaria even to the nobility.A recital of clerical criminality would wound the ear of chastity.1GonsaL 185. Lorent. 355. Limborch. Ill. 17.2 Nonnulli clerici lumbos BUOB cingulo continentite, ut accipimus, non prseein-

gunt. Bin. 8. 834, 835. Obscrenis voluptatibus inhaintea, coneubinas usque adhale tempora publice ten~enmt. Quidam relaxatis voluptatnm habeuia in lacumIIliserile et in lutum flecis ae immergnnt. Labb. 13. 1095, 1098.3 Indivenoria JDilitum et raptorum. In suspeetas de incontinentia domoa

ease cornmutata. Labb. 19. 1280, 1384-KK

Page 578: The Variations of Popery

578 THi; VARIATIONS OF POPEltY.

Debauchery had covered the ecclesiastics with infamy. Auhundred priests, so general was the contagion, could hardlymuster three or four who obeyed the injunctions of chastity',/The French applauded the ambassador's speech. The councilalso, by its promoter, joined in the French eulogy, and styledthe Duke of Bavaria the bulwark of the popedom.The emperor Ferdinand, though without success, applied to

the pope, in 1564, for a repeal of the laws against sacerdotalmatrimony. Maximilian also, with many of the Germanprinces, importuned Pius the Fourth for the same purpose. Thereason, urged by the emperor was the profligacy of the priest-hood. His majesty declared that among many of the clergy,scarcely one could be found who lived in chastity. All, withhardly an exception, were public fornicators, to the greatestdanger of souls and scandal of the people.' A repeal of clericalcelibacy, Maximilian stated, would gratify the populace ofBavaria, Bohemia, Bilesia, Moravia, Austria, Carinthia, Carntola,and Hungary. All these vast regions would have rejoiced inthe restoration of marriage among the clergy. .The emperor's application was supported by the popish priest-

hood of Germany. These, in maintenance of their petition,alleged various reasons. The frailty of man ; the difficulty ofabstinence; the strength of the passion that prompts to mar-riage; the permision of clerical wedlock by the Old and NewTestament under the Jewish and Christian dispensations; itsuse, with few exceptions, by the Apostles; the instructions ofDionysius to Pinytus; the decision of the Nicene council sug-gested by Paphnutius, the usage of the Greeks and Latins inthe East and West, till the popedom of Calhrtus; all these argu-ments, the German ecclesiastics urged for the 1&wfulness ofsacerdotal matrimony. A second reason the Germans deducedfrom clerical profligacy. Fifty jriest.q, these churchmen con-fessed, could with difficulty affor one, who was not a notoriousfornicator, to the offence of the people and the injury of piety.'Sacerdotal logic and learning, however, were unavailing, whenweighed against pontifical policy and ecclesiastical utility.Switzerland was the scene of similar profligacy. One fact

will sufficiently mark the state of this country. The Swiss, priorto the Reformation, compelled every priest to take a concubineof his own, lest he should attempt the chastity of virgins or1Dont il ne pourroit l'IICOnterlea crimea sans b1ellllerlea oreillea chaetes de son

auditore. Le clerge s'etoit rendu infame par son impudicite. De cent [email protected]'en trouvoit apeine trois on quatre qui n'entretinssent une concubine. PaoL2, 217. DuPin, 3. 551.t ViI inter multos unns reperiatur, qui castum erelibatum p1'leltat: nam omnes

fen pubJicoe _ soortatores. Thuan. 2.417. Bruy,4. 681. Gabutius, 21.SDe ciquaate ~ Catholiqutll, a peine s'en trouYoit il un qui Defut notoire-

ment C01lCUbinain. Paolo 2. 680, 681. Thuan. XXXVI. 38.

Page 579: The Variations of Popery

PROFLIGACY OF THE ROMAN CLERGY. 579

matrons. Scandalous indeed must have been the incontinenceof the Swiss clergy, when the cantons were necessitated to usesuch a remedy for protecting women of character.A fact of a similar kind is mentioned by Clemangis. The

laity tolerated the clergy only on condition of their keeping con-cubines." This caution was suggested by the married women,who, protected even by this expedient, were not wholly out ofdanger.The French clergy were as debauched as those of England,

Spain, Germany, and Switzerland. All the French eeelesiasfiossaccording to Mezeray's relation, were in It state of extreme ir-regularity. The majority had concubines. Some of the deaconsentertained four or five of these female companions. The nunskept neither their cloisters nor their vows,"The Italian and Roman clergy appear, of all others, to have

been the most licentious. This, in the ,tenth century, wasstAted in emphatical language by Ratherius, bishop of Verona.Arnolf, who was an excellent preacher of righteousness, saysPlatina, was, in the popedom of Honorius, murdered at Romeby the agency of the priesthood, because he inveighed againsttheir incontinence and sensuality.A select council of cardinals and bishops assembled by Paul

the Third, in 1538, has drawn a picture of the Roman courte-sans, and the attention paid them by the Roman clergy. Thesecourtesans lived in splendid palaces, walked or rode as matronsthrough the city, and were attended at noon-day by a train ofthe clergy and the nobility, the friends of the cardinals." TheRoman priesthood, in this manner, made a public exhibition oftheir filthiness and infamy.The Roman pontiffs were often as filthy as their clergy, and

exemplified every species of licentiousness and pollution. Someof these hierarchs licensed stews, and raised a tax on these housesof iniquity. These .vicegerents of heaven exacted a tribute forthe permission of impurity. The pope's marshal, in manyinstances, received a revenue from the Roman courtesans; andenriched the sacred treasury with the wages of prostitution.1 L'n ancien edit etoit donne par leurs predecesseurs pour ob~er tousles

pritres l avoir leur propre concubine, et les empecher par la d attenter lapudeur des honnlltes femmes. Paolo 1. 32.

2 Laici nen aliter velint presbyterum tolerare, nisi concubinam habeat. Cleoman. De Praesul. 168. Bayle, 2. 1392-3 Tout Ie clerge etoit dans un extreme deregIement. La pluapart avoient des

concubines. n se ~voit des Wacres qui en entretenoient jusqu'a quatre oucinque. Lea religieuses n'observoient ni leur cl6ture ni leurs voeux. Mezeray,1.263., • Dachery, 1. 3M. Platina in Hon. 2. Bmy. 2. 208. Dn Pin. 2. 165.6 In hac etiam nrbe, meretrices, ut matronre incedunt per urbem, sen mula

vehuntur, quu assectantur de media die nobiles familiares cardinalium cleri-cique. Habitant etiam i.JlsiRnessedes. Crabb. 3. 823. Coss. 5.547.

Page 580: The Variations of Popery

580 THE V.ABlATIONS OF POPERY.

SOIneof the pontiffs converted the Roman court into a scene ofpollution. The Lateran palace, which had been a sanctuary,became a brothel.'A John, a Boniface, a Sixtus, an Alexander, a Julius, and a

Leo were notorious for adultery, incest, or the sin of Sodom.A Roman council convicted John the Twelfth of adultery andincest. His holiness committed incest with two sisters. Johnthe Twelfth was imitated, in the career of miscreancy, by Johnthe Twenty-third, as well as by Boniface, Sixtus, Alexander,Julius, and Leo.'Gregory, who perfected the system of sacerdotal celibacy,

disobeyed his own laws. His infallibility excelled in the theoryof chastity rather than in the practice, and could prescribe toothers more easily than to himself. He was openly accused offornication, adultery, and incest. The council of Mentz tookthe liberty of calling his holiness a fornicator. Many, both ofthe clergy and laity, reckoned the vicar-general of God guiltyof incest with .Matilda, princess of Tuscany, after her repudiationfrom Godfrey, duke of Lorraine. Binius admits the notoriety ofthe report, though, without any good reason, he denies ita truth.Maimbourg, in modern days, acknowledges Matilda's impru-dence in her devotion to Gregory, who styled the princess hisdear daughter,"Priestly profligacy crossed the .Atlantic, and appeared in

America as well as on the European continent. The debauch-ery of the Peruvian priesthood has been described in glowingcolors by Ulloa; and the picture is frightful. Frailty, remarksthis candid author, accompanies man in every nation of theearth ; but seems, in an extraordinary manner, to have debasedthe monks and clergy of Peru, who surpass every other class insensuality and libertinism. The men, who, in this country,should be examples of holiness, have degenerated into patternsof impurity. Concubinage flourishes and fattens among theseprofessors of abstinence. Ulloa mentions many instances of thisenormity in the Peruvian ecclesiastics. One priest, among therest, celebrated mass in patriarchal sty Ie ; while his fifth mis-tress was seated in the church. He was assisted at the altar byone son, while So brood of his spurious children witnessed thea.ugust ceremony!1Sen Marichal tiroit un tribut des femmes prostitu6es. Bruy. 3. 374. et 2. 244.Lateranense palatium, sanctorum quondam hospitium, nunc est prostibulum

meretricum. Luitprand. VI. Labb. 11. 881.2 Viduam Rainariiat Stephanam et Annam viduam cum nepte sua abuaum

-. Labb. 11. 881, 882. TI1Uan. 1. 215. Platina, 132.• Pontitu :MathiJdia complexibua furtivia frue:retar. Bin. 7. 309. Labb. 12.-. m Ull peu moina de prudenee et de discretioD, qu'elle ne devoit.

MaimlJoura, :Decad. ~ Spon. 10'14. IV.•una.. 141, llO3. Quar. Rev. 70. 330.

Page 581: The Variations of Popery

PROFLIGACY OF THE COUNCILS OF CONSTANCE AND BASIL. 581

General councils, as well as Romish pontiffs and popish priests,outraged the laws, not indeed of celibacy, but of abstinence,This was exemplified in the universal councils of Lyons, Con-stance and Basil. The council of Lyons demoralised the city inwhich, it was convened. Cardinal Hugo, in a speech to thecitizens immediately after the dissolution of the sacred synodboasted that Lyons, at the meeting of the assembly, containedtwo or three stews; but at its departure, comprehended onlyone; which, however, extended without interruption from theeastern to the western gate. The sacred convention, by the per-petration of licentiousness, converted the whole city into onevast, fermenting, pestilential, overflowing sink of accumulatedpollution. The holy fathers, it appears, were men of businessand industry, and did not confine their valuable labors to thestudy of musty theology,The general council of Constance imitated the incontinence

practised at Lyons. Seven hundred public or common womenfollowed in the train of the Constantian fathers. The Viennanmanuscript augments the number of these female attendants,whom it calls vagrant strumpets, to fifteen hundred.' This wasa reasonable supply for the thousand learned divines that com-posed the infallible assembly. The procuring of these ladies,who, no doubt, were trained to their profession, showed thesacred synod's provident foresight as well as their good taste.Constance might not have :afforded a competent supply; and.therefore, the thoughtful theologians, mindful of their own com-fort, imported a few hundreds of the sex. The sacerdotal fornicators, it seems, were very liberal to these professional ladiesOne courtesan, it is said, gained eight hundred florins, an im-mense sum in those days," She was treated very differentlyfrom John Huss, The reverend debauchees enriched the pros-titute and burned the reformer, These fair companions evincedthe holy men's relish for spiritual enjoyments, and refreshed theinfallible doctors at night, after being exhausted during the day,by making speeches in the council and burning the hereticsH uss and Jerome.The general council of Basil taught the theory of filthiness,

as those of Lyons and Constance had displayed the practice.Carlery, the champion of Catholicism in this assembly againstNicholas the Bohemian heretic, advocated the propriety ofpermitting brothels in a city. The speculation, the hero of thefaith maintained by the authority of the sainted Jerome,

1M. Paris, 702.2Mulieres communes quae reperi in domibns DCC. Labb, 16. 1436. Bruys,

4. 39. Item XVC meretrices vagabundre. Labb. 16. 1435. .8 Item dicitur quod UDameretrix lucrata est VInC ftorenos. Labb. 16. 1436.

Page 582: The Variations of Popery

582 THE VABIATIONS OF POPERY.

Augustine, Thomas, and Gregory. Simple fornication, the sageand precious divine discovered, does not disturb the common-wealth; and the populace, addicted to voluptuousness andpleasure, are unwilling to abstain. He concluded, therefore, bythe most logical deduction, that stews are to be tolerated in acity. This theory the holy fathers heard with silent approbation.The vile atrocity therefore was sanctioned by the holy, unerring,apostolic, Roman council.'

1 Per simplicem fornicationem non tUl'batur politia, nee plebium multitudinemlnsibus, deliciis, voluptatibus deditam, facile est abstinere, Labb, 17.980.988.Caniains, 4, 457.

Page 583: The Variations of Popery

APPENDIX.

..

SINCE the publication of former editions of this volume, newand startling illustrations have been furnished of the variationsof Popery, especially by the promulgation by Pius. IX. of thedoctrines of the Immaculate Conception of Mary; and of theabsolute Supremacy and Infallibility of the Popes of Rome.It was formerly permitted to Roman Catholics to receive, toreject, or to question these doctrines, but now they must bereceived as doctrines de fide, that is, doctrines necessary to bebelieved in order to salvation. AE. a matter of fact these doc-trines were, in former times, rejected by many whom Romanistsvenerate as fathers and saints in the Church; but now, ac-'Cording to the decisions of the reigning Pontiff, none can re-ject them except under penalty of eternal perdition. The im-portance of these recent variations of Popery, and especially ofthe new decisions respecting Papal Supremacy and Infallibilityentitle them to be noticed in this volume, and accordinglya brief notice of some particulars respecting them is nowsubjoined.Pope Pius IX. ascended the Papal throne in 1846. He is

reputed to be a man of amiable disposition, and, 88 regardshis private character, he is said to be worthy of being classedwith the bast of his predecessors. But he lias suffered himselfto be guided by Jesuit influences, and under this ~idance hasadopted a course at once unscriptural and SUIcidal. Onenotable example of this was his procedure in regard to thepromulgation, as a doctrine de .fide, of the dogma of Immacu-late Conception. According to this doctrine, Mary, the mother of..resus, was, both as regards body and soul, conceived, entirelyfree from any taint of sin. Previous to the promulgation ofthis doctrine, which involves in principle one of the leadi~errors of Pela.gianism, Pope Pius sought counsel from theprelates of his Church., respecting the doctrine itself, and re-speeting the expediency of his proclaiming it as an articlenecessary to be believed in order to salvation. The responses of'the prelates disclosed great varieties of opinion. It :appeared

Page 584: The Variations of Popery

584 APPENDIX.

that the doctrine was now generally believed by Romanists;but some leading theologians acknowledged that in the earlycenturies it was rejected by leading Fathers of the Church.Many were of opinion that the promulgation of the doctrine,as an article de fide, would be unwise, inasmuch as it wouldneedlessly prejudice Romanism in the minds of Protestants;and advised that the matter should be left an open question,as it had been left by the council of Trent. On the otherhand some prelates were of opinion that not only was the doc-trine true, but that it ought to be promulgated as an articlede fide.From among the responses unfavorable to the promulgation

of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the following arequoted in the Appendix to Dr. Pusey's Eirenicon. The Arch-bishop of Paris thus wrote,-' I have consulted the gravest men,the most able theologians of my diocese. I have subsequentlymyself examined and weighed all things before God with thegreatest care. From all this has resulted a work of whichthe conclusions are-(l) In conformity with the principles oftheology, the Immaculate Conception: of the most OOly Virginis not a matter which can be defined as a truth oj the Catho-lic Jaith, and, Vn '1/.0 case, can be imposed as a belieJ obligatoryunder pain of ete1"1Laldammatiot«: (2) That any definitionwhatsoever, even if the Church or the Holy See believed thatthey could frame it, would not be opportuue, for it would addnothing to the glory of the Immaculate Virgin, and it might behurtful to the peace of the Church, and the good of souls, es-pecially in my diocese.' The Arch bishop of Rouen thus wrote,-, I consider that this belief is not clearly contained in the de-posit of the Holy Scriptures. I consider that tradition in this re-pect is wanting in precision and unanimity. Had the traditionbeen clear.could S.Anselm, S.Bonaventura, S.Bernard, S.Thomas~Bellarmine, and so many others have been ignorant of it 1 IctYn8ider that the belief of the Immaculate CO'TWe'ptiO'1/.does '1/.Otreach, in a way at all explicit or imposing, above the eleventhcentu1"'!Jj and that if new beliefs or devotions, favorable to pietyand nowise contrary to order, may be wisely tolerated and evenencouraged, it is still advisable to leave them as free beliefs andsimple devotions.' The Bishop of Constances thus wrote,-,If what was hitherto a mere opinion is to-morrow, at the goodt:~~of certain bishops, to be believed defide under pain of . <

tion j if what the S. Council of Trent itself (as Pallavi-cini attests) would not decree, although then controverted andtJtrungly impugned; if wha.t Pope Pius V.', of holy memory,!hegOry XV., and Alexander VII., declared to be, 'flOta dogma,but a mere piO'U8 opinion, what might be contradicted with()Ut

Page 585: The Variations of Popery

APPENDIX. 58.5

note of heresy, should be delivered as a doctrine by decree ofthe present Supreme Pontiff, would not the aforesaid Ration-alists, and all uncatholics take occasion for assailing anew andmore fiercely all our doctrines with their impious speeches l'In spite, however, of these and other similar strong protests

by prelates of his own Church, Piue IX., in the year 1854,issued a decree requiring all Roman Catholics to believe underpain of eternal damnation the dogma of'the Immaculate Con-ception of Mary, the Mother of Jesus -a dogma which otherPopes permitted the faithful to question or reject, a doctrinewhich was rejected by the most distinguished Fathers of' theChurch, and a doctrine which is not only unwarranted byScripture, but opposed to its teachings. The monstrous char-acter of this dogma can only be fully understood when takenin connection with other doctrines held by Romanists, accord-ing to which Mary is regarded as co-redemptress of mankind,and the Mediatrix and Dispenser of all grace; and who istherefore to be venerated and invoked in a manner whichcan scarcely be distinguished from that in which God himselfis venerated and invoked. The proclamation of 1854 is thecrowning act by which Mary is exalted to a position of virtualequality with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.Not content, however, with exalting Mary to the virtual

position of a Divine person in heaven, Pope Pius Ix.. hasasserted for himself' a similar position on earth by the subse-quent declaration of his own .Absolute Supremacy and Infalli-bility. His claim to Supremacy and Infallibility was impliedin the fact of his proclamation of the Immaculate Conception asan article de fide,without the consent of a general council, andin the face of protests by numerous distinguished dignitariesof his Church. It was further implied in his famous Encyclicalof 1864, containing a Syllabus of Errors which, by his ownauthority, he had condemned in various letters and allocutionsduring the course of his Pontificate. But the crowning act bywhich he seated himself in the temple of God, 'showing him-self that he is God,' was perpetrated with the consent of theVatican Council on the 18th July, 1870. In the year 1867, heannounced his intention of calling this Council under the aus-pices of the Virgin Mary, who, as he alleged, had t crushed theserpent's head and was mighty to destroy alone all the heresiesof the world.' By an Encyclical, dated 29th June 1868, theCouncil was summoned to meet in the Basilica. of the VaticanPalace on the festival of the Immaculate Conception (~th Dee.),1869. .Although no distinct intimation was given of itS leadingpurpose, it was well understood that the chief object of call-'mg the Council was to secure its assent to a declaration as

Page 586: The Variations of Popery

586 APPENDIX.

articles de fide, of the doctrines of the Absolute Supremacy andInfallibility of the Pope. So well was this understood thatanticipatory protests were presented by theologians and dig-nitaries of the Church of Rome, especially from Germany andFrance i but these were unheeded.Although the Council, which assembled in 1869, was, ac-

cording to Romanists, an (Ecumenical one, it was not reallyentitled to be so regarded. It contained no representativesfrom the eighty-two millions of the Greek Church; ~r from thehundred and five millions of the various Protestant Churches.The Greek prelates were indeed invited, but they contemptu-ously declined the invitation. Protestants also were invitedto avail themselves of this opportunity of being reconciled toRome, but were given to understand that they would not be per-mitted to take part in the debates. Half of nominal Christen-dom was thus unrepresented. The Council was notwithstandingnumerously attended. Of 1049 Romish prelates entitled to seats719 were actually present. The Roman Catholic populations,however, were by no means fairly represented. Thus, whileItaly was represented by 276 members, France had only 84,and Germany only 19 representatives. It is possible that atsome future day Romanists may endeavor to extricate them-selves from the fearful dilemma in which the Vaticnn decreeshave involved them, by alleging that the Council of 1869-70was a packed assembly, and that therefore its decisions cannotbe held as binding. This may be the wicket gate by whichthey shall endeavor to escape from their embarrassing po-sition. This gate, however, they will find to have beenlocked and barred by the fact that the Vatican decrees havebeen already accepted by the prelates and priests of the Churchof Rome.Reports of the proceedings of the Council have been fur-

nished by various Roman Catholic writers, and particularly inthe collection of letters by 'Quirinus.' It appears that but littlefreedom of discussion was allowed. Nevertheless some prelatesventured to give bold expression to their opposition to the uni-versal Supremacy and Infallibility ofthe Pope. Thus, Dr. Conolly,.Archbishop of Halifax, Nova Scotia, is reported to have said,-'We bishops have no right to renounce for ourselves and forour successors, the hereditary and original rights of the episco-pate, and to give up the promise of Christ, "I am with you tpthe end of the, world." But now they want to reduce us tonullities, to tear the noblest jewel from our pontifical breast-plate, to deprive us of the highest prerogatives of our office, andto transform the whole Church, and the bishops with it, into arabble of blind men, among ....hom is one alone who sees, so

Page 587: The Variations of Popery

APPENDIX. 587

,that they must shut their eyes, and believe what he tells them.Da.rboy, Archbishop of Paris, is reported to have declared dis-tinctly and repeatedly that a dogmatic decree, not accepted bythe whole episcopate, could not have any binding force; he.thus directly opposed the decrees afterwards adopted that, irre-spectively of the consent of the bishops, the decisions of theI'ope were binding on all. Bishop Strossmayer, in a speech ofsingular power, maintained that the doctrine of papal infalli-bility was opposed to the constitution of the Church, to therights of bishops and councils, and the immutable rule of faith.He quoted the authority of Cyprian and Augustine who re-fused to admit the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. Heshewed that if the personal infallibility of the Pope were ac-knowledged, Councils would be useless, and Bishops would berobbed of their rightful authority. He pointed out also theevils which would result from the proposed decree which healleged was as earnestly desired by the worst enemies of theChurch, as by the prelates of the Council who pressed itsadoption. Several speeches of a similar character were de-livered by other eminent members of the Council Manyspeeches also on the same side were prepared, but from want·of time, and other causes, were not delivered.On the 13th July, 1870, the vote was taken in secret session

on the decrees respecting the Supremacy and Infallibility of thePope. There were present 601 members, of whom 451 votedapproval (Placet), 62 a modified approval (Placet juxta mo-dum) i while 88 had the courage to vote disapproval (Non pla-cet). Among those who voted disapproval were the Arch-bishops of Prague, of Vienna, of Paris, of Besancon, of Lyons,of Gran, of Kalosca, of Breslau, of Munich, Machale of Tuam,Conolly of Halifax, Kenrick of St. Louis, also Bishops Dupan-loup, Maret, Ketteler, Hefele, and Strossmayer. About 80 or90 members of the Council, who were in Rome or its neigh-bourhood, abstained from voting. On Sabbath, the 17th July,56 bishops sent a written protest to the Pope declaring theircontinued adherence to their negative votes, but intimatingthat from personal regard to the Holy Father, they did notwish to give an open vote, in his presence, against him; andthat, therefore, they had resolved to leave Bome and return totheir flocks. These, therefore, with 60 other dissatisfiedBishops, left Rome the same evening. When a public meetingof the Council was held on the following day (18th July) therewere only 585 members present, and all these voted for theabsolute Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope, with theexception of Bishop Riccio of Sicily, and Bishop Fitzgerald ofArkansas, who, however, before the session closed acquiesced

Page 588: The Variations of Popery

588 APPENDIX.

with the majority. On the result of the voting being intimatedto the Pope, he rose up in the assembly, and announced hisabsolute Supremacy and Infallibility as doctrines de fide-necessary to be believed under pain of eternal damnation. Itis said that during the voting and promulgation a stormburst over Rome, and made the Council hall so dark that thePope could not read the decree of his infallibility without hav-ing a candle brought; and that the decree was read to an ac-companiment of thunder and lightning-suggestive of the pre-ternatural signs which accompanied the Saviour's crucifixion.Itmay here also be stated that by a singular providence, asancient Babylon was taken, while Belshazzar and his princeswere engaged in daring acts of profanity and idolatry, so theblasphemous decrees of Pius IX. and his prelates were speedilyfollowed by the capture of the mystic Babylon. Before theVatican Council was prorogued, Rome was in possession ofVictor Emmanuel, and the temporal sovereignty of the Pope isat an end. .In the earlier sessions of the Vatican·Council various decrees

and canons had been adopted and sanctioned respecting God,Revelation, Faith and Reason, which need not now to be par-ticularly quoted. Itis of greater importance to place on recordthe decree adopted and published in the Session of the 18thJuly, 1870. The following is the Latin text, with an Englishtranslation by Archbishop (now Cardinal) Manning.

CONSTITUTIO DOGMATWA PRIMA DE FIRST DOGMATIC CONSTJUTJON ONEcCLBSIA CHRISTI. THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

Edita in &ssiO'llt Quarla &cro6ancti P.ublished i1~the FOflrth Se8sion of thelEcumenici Coociiii Vaticani. holy lEc'umenical CO'Imcil of the Va-

tican.

PIUS EPISCOPUS, SERVUS SERVORlJM PIUS BISHOP, SERVANT OJ!' THE SKR-DEl, SACRO APPROBA.NT1!l CONCILIO, VANTS OJ!'GOD, WITH THlI APPROVALAD pERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM. OF THE SACRED COUNCIL, FOR AN

EVERLASTING REMEMBRANCE.

Pastor seterrms et Episcopus ani-mariun nostrarum, ut salutiferumRedemptionis opus perenne redde-ret, sanetam redifieare Ecclesiam de-crevit, in qua veluti in domo Dei vi-ventis :fideles omnes unius fidei etcaritatis vinculo continerentnr. Qua-propter, priusquam clarificaretur,rogavit Patrem non pro Apostolistantam, Bed et pro &is, qui crediturier.nt •.per verbum eomm in ipsnm,lIt·..-mea unum essent, sicut ipse

The eternal Pastor and Bishop ofour souls, in order to continue forall time the life-giving work of his~emption,dclerminedtobuildupthe holy Church, wherein, as in thehouse of the living God, all who be-lieve might be united in the bond ofone faith and one charity. Where-fore before he entered into his glory,he prayed unto the Father, not forthe Apostles only, butfor those alsowho through their preaching should

Page 589: The Variations of Popery

Filius et Pater unum sunt, Quem-admodum igitur Apostolos, quos sibide mundo elegerat, misit, sicut ipsemissus erat a Patre : ita in Ecclesiasua. pastores et doctores usque adconsummationem sreculi esse voluit,Ut vero episcopatus ipse unus et in-divisus esset, et per coheerentes sibiinvicem saeerdotes credentium mul-titudo universa in fidei et communi-onis unitate conservaretur, beatumPetrum ceeteris Apostolis prreponensin ipso instituit perpetuum utrius-que unitatis principium ac visibilefundamentum, super cujus fortitudi-nem reternum extrueretur templum,et Ecclesire ecelo inferenda sublimi-tas in hujus fidei firmitate consurge-ret. Et quoniam portre inferi adevertendam, si fieri posset, Eccle-siam, contra ejus fundamentum di-vinitus peaitum majori in dies odioundiqne insurgunt. Nos ad Oatho-lici gregis custodiam, ineolumitatem,augmentum, necessarium esse judi-camus, saoro approbante Concilio,doctrinam de institutione, perpetui-tate ae natura sacri Apostolici pri-nratus, in quo totius Ecclesire vis acsoliditas consistit, cunetis fidelibuscredendam et tenendam, secundumantiquam atque constantem univer-salis Ecclesire fidem, proponere, at-que contrarios, dominico gregi adeoperniciosos, errores proscribere etwndemnare.

CAPUT I.

APPENDIX. 589,

come to believe in him, that allmight be one even as he the Son andFather are one. As then he sent theApostles whom he had chosen to him-self from the world, as he himselfhad been sent by the Father; so hewilled tha.t there should ever be pas-tors and teachers in his Church to theend of the world. And in order thatthe Episcopate also might be oneand undivided, and that by means ofa closely united priesthood the mul-titude of the faithful might be keptsecure in the oneness of faith andcommunion, he set blessed Peterover the ~st of the Apostles, andfixed in him the abiding principle ofthis twofold unity, and its visiblefoundation, in the strength of whichthe everlasting temple should arise,and the Church in the firmness ofthat faith should lift her majesticfront to Heaven. And seeing thatthe gates of hell, with daily increaseof hatred, are gathering theirstrength on every side to uf.heavethe foundation laid by God s ownhand, and so, if that might be, tooverthrow the Church: we, there-fore, for the preservation, safe-keep-ing, and increase of the Catholicflock, with the aJ?proval of the sa-cred Council, do Judge it to be ne-cessary to propose to the belief andacceptance of all the faithful, in ac-cordance with the a.ncient and con-stant fa.ith of the universal Church,the doctrine touching the institn-tion, perpetuity, and na.ture of thesa.cred Apostolic Primacy, in whichis fmmd the stren/{th a.nd solidity ofthe entire Church, and a.t the sametime to proscribe and condemn thecontrary errors so hurtful to theflock of Christ.

CHAPTER I.

De Apostolici Primahu ,,. beatQ Of tM Imtitutioo of the ApostolicPetro i'll3titutwne. P,imacy in ble.t3edPete?'.

. Docemus itaque et declaramus,~ux.taEvangelii testimonia primatumJunsdictionis in universam Dei Ec-clesiam immediate et directe beatoPetro Apostolo promiuum atque

We therefore teach and declarethat, according to the testimony ofthe Gospel, the primacy of jurisdic-tion over the universal Church ofGod was immediately and directly

Page 590: The Variations of Popery

590 APPENDIX.

collatum a Christo Domino fuisse.Unum enim Simonem, cui jam pri-dem dixerat: Tu vocaberis Cephas,postquam ille SHam edidit eonfessio-nem inquiens : Tu es Christus, FiliusDei vivi, solemnibus his verbis allo-eutus est Dominus: Beatus es, Si-mon Bar-Jona, quia caro et sanguisnon revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus,qui in eoelia est: et ego dieo tibi,quia tu es Petrus, et super hane Pe-tram eedifleabo Ecclesiam meam, etportre inferi non prrevalebuntadver-sus eam: et tibi dabo claves regniooelorum : et quodcumque Iigaverissuper terram, erit ligatum et in ere-lia : et quodeumque solveris superterram, erit solutum et in ccelis,Atque uni Simoni Petro contulitJ eBUB post suam resurrection emsummi pastoris et rectoris jurisdic-tionem in totum suum ovile dicens :Pasce agnoe meos : Pasce oves meas :Huie tam manifestre sacrarum Scri~turarum doctrinre, ut ab EccleslaCatholica semper intellecta est, aper-te opponuntur pravre eorum senten-tire, qui, constitutam a Christo Do-mino in sua Ecclesia regiminisformam pervertentes, J)egant, solumPetrwn pre C&lteria Apoatolia, siveseorsum singulis live omnibus simul,vero proprioque jurisdictionis pri-matu fuisse a Christo instructum;aut qui afJirmant, eundem primatumnon immediate directeque ipsi beatoPetro, sed Eoclesire, et per hane illiut ipsius Ecclesial ministro delatumfuisse.

promised and given to blessed Peterthe Apostle by Christ the Lord. Forit was ~ Simon alone, to whom hehad already said: 'Thou shalt becalled Cephas,' that the Lord afterthe confession made by him, saying:, Thou art the Christ, the Son ofthe living God,' addressed these so-lemn words: 'Blessed art thou, Si-mon Bar-J ona, because flesh andblood have not revealed it to thee,but my Father who is in heaven.And I say to thee that thou art Pe-ter; and upon this rock Iwill buildmy Church, and the gates of hellshall not prevail against it. And Iwill give to thee the keys of thekingdom of heaven. And whatsoeverthou shalt bind on earth, it shall bebound also in heaven; and whatso-ever thou shalt loose on earth, itshall be loosed also in helWen.'And it was upon Simon alone thatJesus after his resurrection bestowedthe jurisdiction of chief pastor andruler over all hiir fold in the words:'Feed my lambs; feed my sheep."At open variance with this clear doc-trine of Holy Scripture as it has beenever understood by the CatholicChurch, are the perverse opinions ofthose who, while they distort the-form of jitovernment established byChrist the Lord in his Church, denythat Peter in his single person, pre-ferably to aU the other Apostles,whe-ther taken separately or together,was endowed by Chriat with 8 trueand proper primacy of jurisdiction ~or of those who assert that the sameprimacy waS not bestowed immedi-ately and directly upon bleBBed Pe-ter himself, but upon the Church,and through the Church on Peter as·her minister.

If anyone, therefore, shall saythat blessed Peter the Apostle wasnot appointed the Prince of all theApostles, and the visible Head ofthe whole Church Militant ; or thatthe same directly and immediatelyreceived from the same our LordJesus Chriat a primacy of honoron1r. and not of true and proper-junsdiction; let him be anathema.

Si quis igitur dixerit, beatum Pe-trum Apostolum non esse a ChristoDomino constitutum .Apoatolorumomnium principem et totiusEcclesiremilitantis visibile caput; vel eundemhonoris tantum, non &utem venapropri .que jurisdictionia primatumall eodem ·Domino noatroJeau Chria·to ~ et immediate accepisse;anathema sit. .

Page 591: The Variations of Popery

APPENDIX., .591

CAPUT II. CHAPTER II.

De perpetuitate Primatus beaU Petri On tke Pel-petuity of the P~y ofin Romania PO'/ltijicib12ll. blessedPeter in the Roman Pontiffs.

. ~i quia ergo dixerit, non esse exIpslUB Chri8ti Domini institutione,aeu jure divino, ut beatus Petrus inpriInatu super universam Ecclesiamhabeat perpeto08 SUCOOIIIIOreII; aut

That which the Prince of Shep-herds and great Shepherd- of thesheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, estab-lished in the person of the blessedApoatlePeter to secure the perpetualwelfare and lasting good of theChurch; must, by the same institu-tion, necessarily remain unceasinglyin the Church; which, being foundedupon the Rock, will stand firm to theend of the world. For none candoubt, and it is known to all ages,that the holy and blessed Peter, thePrince and Chief of the Apostles,the pillarof the faith and foundationof the Catholic Church, received thekeys of the kingdom from our LordJesus Christ, the Saviour and Re-deemer of mankind, and lives, pre-sides, and judges, to this day andalway, in his successors the Bishopsof the Holy See of Rome, which wasfounded by him, and consecrated byhis blood. Whence, whosoever suc-ceeds to Peter in this See, does bythe institution of Christ himself ob-tain the Primacy of Peter over thewhole Church. The disposition madeby Incarnate Truth therefore re-mains, and blessed Peter, abidingthrough the strength of the Rock. inthe power that he received, has notabandoned the direction of theChurch. Wherefore it has at alltimes been necell8&l'1that every par-ticular Churcn-that is to say, thefaithful throughout the world-should agree with the RomanChurch,on account of the greater authorityof the princedom which this has re-ceived ; that all being associated inthe unity of that See whence therights of commUDion spread to all,might grow together as members ofone Head in the compact unity ofthe body.

H then any should deny that it isby the institution of Christ the Lord,or by divine right, that blessed Petershould have a perpetual line of suc-ceBSOrsin the Primacy over the uni-

Quod autem in besto Apostolo Pe-tro princeps pastorum et pastor mag-nus ovium Dominus Christus Jesusin perpetua.m salutem ac perenne bo-num Ecclesire instituit, id eodemauctore in Ecc1esia, qure fundata su-per petra.m ad finem sseculorum us-que firma stabit, jugiter durare ne-cesse est. Nulli sane dubium, imoseeculia omnibus notum est, quodsanctus beatissimusque Petrus Apos-tolorum princeps et caput fidei quecolumna, et Ecc1esire Catholicre fun-da.mentum, a. Domino nostro J esuChristo Salvatore humani generis acRedemptore, cleves regni accepit :qui ad hoc usque tempus et semperin suis aueceeaoribua episcopis sane-tte Romanre Sedis, ab ipso fundateeejusqne consecratre sanguine, vivit etpnesidet et judicium exercet. Undequicumque in hac Cathedra Petrosuccedit, is secundum Christi ipsiusinstitutionemprimatumPetri in uni-versam Ecclesiam obtinet. Manetergo dispositio veritatis, et beatusPetrus, in a.ccepta fortitudine petrreperseverans, suscepta Ecclesire gu-bernacula non reliquit. Hac decausa ad Romanam Ecc1esiam prop-ter potentiorem principalitatem ne-cease semper fnit omnem convenireEcclesipm, hoc eat, 608, qui sunt un-diqua fideles, ut in ea Bede, e quavenerandm commumonis jura in om-nes dimanant, tamquam membra incapite consoclata, in unam oorporiscompa.gem coalescerent.

Page 592: The Variations of Popery

592 APPENDIX.

Romanum Pontificem non esse beati versalChurch, or that theRomanPon-Petri in eodem primatu successorem: tiff is the successor of blessed Peteranathema sit. in this primacy: let him be anathema.

CAPUT III.

De 17£ et ratiene Primatus RomaniPontifieis.

Quapropter apertie innixi saerarumlitterarum testimoniis, et inheerentestum Preedecessorum N ostrorumRomanorum Pontificum, tum Con-ciliorum generalium disertis perspi-cuisque decretis, innovamus secu-meniei Concilii Florentini defini-tionem, qua eredendum ab omnibusChristi fidelibus est, sanctam Apos-tolica.m Sedem, et Romanum Ponti-Deem in universum orbem tenereprimatum, et ipsum PontificemRomanumsucoossorem esse beati Pe-tri, principia Apostolorum, et verumChristi Vica.rium, totiusque Ecclesirecaput, et omnium Christianorum pa-trem ac doctorem existere ; et ipsi inbeato Petro pa.scendi,regendi se gub-ernandi universaJem Ecclesiam a Do-mino nostro Jesu Christo plenampotestatem traditam esse ; quemad-modum emm in gestis oecumenicor-urn Conciliorum et sa.crilr ca.nonibuscontinetnr.Docemus proinde et declara.mus,

Ecclesiam Romanam,disponente Do-mino, super omnes alias ordinarirepotestatis obtinere pnncipatum, ethanc Romani Pontificis jurisdietionispotestatem, qure vere episcopaJis estimmediatam esse: ergo. quam cujus-cumque ritus et dignitatis paatoresatque fideles, tam seorsum singuliquam simul omnes, officio hierarchireobstringuntur, non solum in rebus,qure ad fidem at mores, sed etiam inus, qure ad disciplinam et regimenEcclesire per tatum orbem diffusrepertinent; ita ut, custodita cumRomano Pontifice tam. communionisquam ejusdem fidei professionis uni-tate, Eoolesire Christi sit uuus grexsub :uno sUDlIDO ~re. HlllC estC"thoJielie veritatiIJ doetrina, a quade... .uva atque salnte Demo po-ten.

CHAPTER III.

On the Power and Nature of the Pri-.macy of the Roman Pontiff.

Wherefore, resting on plain testi-monies of the Sacred Writings, andadhering to the plain and expressdecrees both of our predecessors,the Roman Pontiffs, and of the Gen-eral Councils, we renew the defini-tion of the cecumenical Council ofFlorence, in virtue of which all thefaithful of Christ must believe thatthe holy Apostolic See and the Rom-an Pontiff possesses the primacy overthe whole world, and that the Rom-an Pontiff is the successor of blessedPeter, Prince of the Apostles, an,d isthe true vicar of Christ, and head ofthe whole Church, and father andteacher of all Christians ; and thatfull power was given to him inblessed Peter to rule, feed, andgovern the universal Church byJesus Christ our Lord; as is alsocontained in the acts of the GeneralCouncils and in the sacred Canons.

Hence we teach ~d declare thatby the appointment of our Lord theRoman Church possesses a superior-ity of ordinary power over all otherchurches, and that this power ofjurisdiction of the Roman Ponti1f,which is truly episcopal, is immed-iate; to whick all, of whatever ritea.nd dignity, both pastors and faith-ful, both individually and collec-tively, are bound, by their duty ofhierarchical subordination and trueobedience, to 8ubmit not only inmatters which belong to faith andmorals, but also in those that apper-tain to the discipline and govern-ment of the Church throughout theworld, 80 that the 9hurch of Christmay be one lock under one 8Uprelllepastor, through the preservation ofunity both of communion and of

Page 593: The Variations of Popery

APPENDIX., 593

Porro ex suprema illa RomaniPontifieis potesta!e gubemandi uni-versam Eoolesiam jus eidem esseconsequitur, in hujus sui munerisexercitio libere communicandi cumpastoribus et gregibns totius Eccle-siee, ut iid#m ab ipso in via salutisdocori so regi P088int. Quare dam-namus acreprobamus illorum senten-tias, qui hanc supremi capitis. cumpastoribus et gIllgibus communica-tionem licite impediri posse dicunt,lint eandem redciunt SlBCU1ari potee-tati obnoxiam, ita ut contendant,qwe ab Apostolica Sede vel ejusauctoritate ad regimen Eccleaile con·atitunntur, vim ac valorem nonhabere nisi poteatatis S8lCUlaris pIa.cito confirmentur.

profession of the same faith with theRoman Pontiff. This is the teachingof Catholic truth, from which no onecan deviate without loss of faith andof salvation.But so far is this power of the

Supreme Pontiff from being any pre-judice to the ordinary and immediatepower of episcopal jurisdiction, bywhich bishops, who have been sentby the Holy Ghost to succeed andhold the place of the Apostles, feedand govern, each his own Hock, astrue pastors, that this their episco-pal authority is really asserted,strengthened, and protected by thesupreme and universal Pastor; inaccordance with the words of St.Gre1{ory the Great: ' My honor is thehonor of the whole Church. Myhonor is the firm strength of mybrethren. I am trnly honored whenthe honor due to each and all is notwithheld.'Furth~,fromthissupremepow~

posseaaed by the Roman Pontiff ofgoverning the universal Church, itfollows that he has the ~ht of freecommunication with the pastors ofthe whole Church, and with theirHocks, that these may be taught andruled by him in the way of salvation.Wherefore we condemn and reject theopinions of those who hold that thecommunication between the supremehead and the pastors and their flOODcan lawfully be. impeded; or whomake this communiC&tion subject tothe will oj the aecalar pow~, 80 as tomaintain that whatever is done bythe Apostolic See, or by ita authority,for the government of the Church,can not have force or value unle88 itbe confirmed by the assent of the se·cular power.

Et quoniam divino Apoatolici pri· And since by the divine rillht ofmatus jure Romanus Pontifex URi- Apostolic primacy the Roman PontiffV81'Ble Eooleeial Pl'lOOllt, docemus is placed ov~ the universal Church,eiiam et declara.mus, ewn ease judi- we further teach and declare that hecem supremum fidelium, et in omni- is the SUpr6Dle judge of the faithful,b .. causia ad exa.men ecclesiasticum and that in all causes, the decision ofapectantibus ad ipaius posse judiciwn whiob beloDgIIto theOhureh, recourserecuni; 8edia V8l'Q ApoatoliCll9, cujua may be had 1;0 hia tribunal, and thata1lCtoritate major non eat, judicium none may re-open the judgment of" ~ fore reVactandum, nequ8 the Apostolic See', than whose au-Cll1qaam. de ejus lioere judicare judi- thority there is no greater, nor can

LL

Tantum autem abest, ut heec Sum-mi Pontificeis potestas officia.t ordin-aries ac immediatee illi episcopaliajurisdictionis potestati.qua Episcopi,qui positi a Spiritu Ssneto in Apostol.orum locum successerunt, tamquamveri pastores assignatos sibi greges,singuli singulos, pasount et regunt,uteadem a supremo et universali Pas-tore asseratur, roboretur ao vindioe-tur, secundum illud santi GregoriiMagni : Meus honor est honor uni-versalis Ecclesioo. Meus honor fra-trum meorum solidus vigor. Tumego vere honoratus sum, cum sin-gulls quibusque honor debitus nonnegatur.

Page 594: The Variations of Popery

594 APPENDIX.

cio. Quare a recto veritatis tramiteabemmt, qui affirmant, lieere ab judi-ciis Romanorum Pontificum ad oeou-menicumConcilium tamquam ad aue-toritatem Romano Ponti1ice superio-rem sppellare.

Si qnis itaque dixerit, RomanumPontificem habere tantummodo offi-cium inspectionia vel direetionis, nonautem plenam et supremam potesta-tem jurisdietionis, in universam Eo-olesiam, non solum in rebus, quee adfidem at mores, sed etia.m ill Us, qusead diBciplina.m et regimen Ecclesireper totem orbem diffusee pertinent;aut eum habere tantum potiores par-tea, non vero totam plenitudinemhujus supremse potestatiB ; aut hanoejus potestatem non esse ordina.ria.met immediatam. sive in omnes ao sin-gulas eccleaiaa, sive in omnes et sin-gulos pastores et fideles: anathemasit.

CAPUT IV.

a.ny lawfully review its judgment.Wherefore they err from the rightcourse who assert that it is lawful toappeal from the judgments of theRoman Pontiffs to an <ecumenicalCouncil, as to an authority higherthan that of the Roman Pontiff.If, then, any shall say that the

Roman Pontiff has the office merelyof inspection or direction, and notfull and supreme power of jurisdic-tion over the universal Church, notonly in things which belong to faithand morals, but also in those whichrelate to the discipline and govern-ment of the Church spread through-out the world; or aa.aert that he pos-sesses merely the principal part, andnot all the fulneas of this supremepower; or that this power which heenjoys is notordina.ry and immediate,both over each and all the churches,and over each and all the pastors andthe faithful: let him be anathema.

CHAPTER IV.

De Romani Pontificis mfallibili ma- OO'Meroing the Infallible Teach"~ 'OfgiBterio. the Romatl Pontiff,

lpao autem Apoetolico prlmatu, Moreover, that the supreme powerquem RomanUI PontUex, tamquam of teaching ia also included in thePetri principia Apoetolorum succes- Apostolic prijnacy, which the Romansor, in univeraam -xccJ.eaiam obtinet, Pontiff, as the SUllCeBllOl" of Peter,supremam quoque magiaterii potes- Prince 'of the A])OIIt1ea, posseeeestatem comprehendi, hleC Sancta over the· whole Church, this HolySedes semper tenuit, perpetuus Eo- See has always held, the perpetualcleo UBUB comprobat, ipaaque <Ecu- practice of the Chnrch confirms, andmeDica Cancilla, ea imprimis, in <Ecumenical Conncila also 'have de-quibia Orlena cum Oecidente in fidei clared, eepecially thQee in which th&caritatiaque nnionem conveniebat, East with the West met in the uniondeclaravernnt. Patres enim Concilli of faith and charity. For the FathersConstantinopolitani quarti, majornm of the Fourth Council of Constanti-vestigiis inhrerentes, banc IOlemnem nople, following in the footsteps ofedidernnt professionem: Prima salus their predecessors, gave forth thiseet, ~ fidei regnlam custodire. solemn profession: The first candi-Et quia non poteat Domini nOBtrl tion of salvation ia to keep the ruleJeau Ohriati prretermitti sententia of the true faith. And becal1le thedioentiB: Tn ee Petrus, et super bane sentence of our Lord J ems Christpetram Illdifieabo BoclesWn meam, can not be pasaed by, who said :hlllO, qwe dicta 8UI1~ rerum proban- •Thou art Peter, ancl upon this rocktur eifectibu, quia m Sede Aposto- I will build JUy CI1ul"ch.' theee thingalica ~ est IleJUper Oatnolica which have been wcl are approvedr&lIerV&ta :reliaio, et sancta eelebrata by events, becallle in the A~cdootrina. Ab aujua ergo ide et doc- See the O~lic religion and hertrina aepuwi milWne cupientes, holy and. well-known doctrine baa

Page 595: The Variations of Popery

APPENDIX. 595speram\18, ut in una communione,quam Sedes Apostolica prredicat, essemereamur, in qua est integra et veraChristianre rellW.onis soliditas. Ap-probante vero 1..ugdunensi Conciliosecundo, Grseei professi sunt: Sane-tam Romanam Ecclesiam summumet plenum primatum et principatumsuper universam Ecclesiam Catholi-cam obtinere, quem se ab ipso Do-mino in beato Petro, Apostolorumprincipe sive vertice, cujus RomanusPontile x est successor, cum potesta-tis plenitudine recellisse veraclter ethumiliter recognoscit ; et sicut preecreteris tenetur fidei veritatem defen-dere, sic et, si qure de fide subort83fuerint qusestiones, suo debeut judi-cio definiri. Florentinum deniqueConcilium definivit: Pontificem Ro-manum, verum Christi Vicarlum,toti~ue Ecclesillil caput et omniumChristlaDorum patrem ao doctoremexistere ; et ipsi in beato Petro paa-cendi, regendi ac gubernandi univer-salem Eoolesiam a Domino nostroJesu Christo plenam potestatem tra·ditam esse.

a.lwaya been kept undefiled. Desir-ing, therefore, not to be in the leaatdegree separated from the faith anddoctrine of that See, we hope thatwe may deaerve to be in the one com-muaion, which the Apostolic Seepreaches, in which is the entire andtrue solidity of the Christian religion.And, with the approval of the Se-cond Council of LYOIlll, the Greeksprofessed that the holy Roma.nChurch enjoys supreme and fullprimacy and pre-eminence over thewhole Catholic Church,. which ittruly and humbly acknowledges tha.tit haa received with the plenitudeof power from our Lord himself inthe person of blessed Peter, Princeor Head of (the Apostles, whose sue-cesaor the Roman Pontiff is; and asthe Apostolic See is bound before allothers to defend the truth of faithso also, if any question regardingfaith shall arise, they muat be de-fined by ita judgment. Finally 1..theCouncil of Florence defined: Tha.the Roman Pontiff is the true vicarof Christ, and the head of the wholeChurch, and the father and teacherof all Christiana; and that to him inblessed Peter waa delivered by ourLord Jesus Christ the full power offeeding, ruling, and governing thewhole Church.

Huic putonli munen ut lIatisfa- To lIatisly this pastoral dut,', ourcereut, 'Prledeceasores NOM inde- predecesaora ever made unweariedf88llaID aemper operam dederunt, ut efforts tba.t the Baluta1'f doctrine ofBalutariaChristi doctrina apudomnes Christ migllt be proPlfP;ted amongteme ~pulOB pro~, parique all the nationa of the· earth, andcura vigilarunt, ut, ubi reeepta esset with 'equal care watched that itsincera et pura oonservaretur. Quo- might be preserved genuine and purecirca totius orbis Antistites, nunc where it had been received. There-singuli, nunc in Synodis congregati, fore the bishops of the whole world,longam ecclesiarum conauetudinem now singly, now aaaembled in Synod,et antiqWll regu1al fonnam aequentis, following the long-eatablished CUI-ea PrllilBertim pericu1a, qUill in nego- tom of churches, and the fonn of thetiis fidei etn~bant, ad hancSedem ancient rule. seat word to thi.=:J~:n~:':~:i~ ~~J{; w\reb ~~OS:p ~::~ubi tides non potoat lI8Il~ dofectum.tem of faith, that there the 10BlJesofRoJ:Dalli autam Pontifi~ prout faith miJcht be m~ eB'ectuaDy re-teD1porum et rerum conditio BUade- paired where the faith can not fail.bat, nlJDC convocatia OlCllmenicis And the RoIllNl PontifflS, accordingConciliill aut ~ta :Bccleebe per to the exigencies of times and' cir-orbem diaperue sea_tia, nunc per CUJDttanoea, sometimes aaaembling

Page 596: The Variations of Popery

596 APPENDIX.

<Ecumenical Councils, or asking forthe mind of the Church scatteredthroughout the world, sometimes byparticular Synods, sometimes usingother helps which Divine Providencesupplied, defined as to be held thosethings which with the help of Godthey had recognised as conformablewith the Sacred Scriptures and Apos-tolic traditions. For the Holy Spiritwas not promised to the successorsof Peter, that by his revelation theymight make known new doctrine;but that by his assistance they mightinviolably keep and faithfully ex-pound the revelation or deposit offaith delivered through the Apostles.And,indeed,all the venerable Fathershave embraced, and the holy ortho-dox doctors have venerated andfollowed, their Apoatolic doctrine :knowing most fully that thie See ofHoly Peter remains ever free fromall blemish of error according to thedivine promise of the Lord ourSaviour made to the Prince of hisdisciples: tI have. prayed for theethat thy faith fail not, and whenthou art converted, confirm th1brethren.'

Bone igiturveritatis et fidei num- This gift, then, of truth and never-quam deficientis charisma Petro failing faith was conferred by heavenejusqne in hacCathedrasuceesaoribus upon Peter and his successors in thisdivinitus collatnm est, ut excelso chair, that they might perform theirsuo munere in omnium saiutem high office for the salvation of all ;fungerentnr, ut universus Christi that the whole flock of Christ, keptgrex per 60S ab erroris venenosa 61lCa away by them from the poisonousaversus, coolestis doctrinal pabulo food of error,. might be nourishednutriretur, ut sublata schismatis with the pasture of heavenly doc-occaaione, Ecclesia tota una con- trine; that th' occaaion of schismservaretnr, atque suo fundamento being removed, the whole Churchinn.ixa, firma adversus inferi portas might be kept one, &,lld, resting oncon8iJteret. ita foundation, might stand firm

against the gates of hell.At vero cum. hac ipsa lBtate, qua But since in this very age, in

salutifera ApoBtolici muneris efficacia whick the salutary efficacy of thevel ma.xime rel\uiritnr, non pauci Apostolic office is most of all re-inveniantur, qUI iUius auctoritati quired, not a fdare found who takeobtrectant; Il8OeI8arium omninoeese away from its authority, we judge itceuemua, ~ftJIl, quam ani- altogether neceua.ry solemnly togenitua Dei Filius cum. IUlDJDO paato- aaaert the preJ:Optive wbich theWi oJlicioo onjurasere dignatus est, only-begotten, Son of God vouch-II01e.JJmiter ....... aafeel to join with the supreme pasto-

1 __ .: H. <Nf t'raditioni a fidei ral oSee.~ exordio ~ Meli· 'l'henfore faithfully adheriDg totet ~o, ad -Dei &1vat0ri8 the tradition reeeiYed from the be-

S~odos particulares, nunc allis, qUll:ldivina suppeditabat provilientia, ad-hibitis auxiliis, ea tenenda definive-runt.quee sacris Scripturis et aposto-licis traditionibus consentanea, Deoadjutore, oognoverant, Neque enimPetri succeeeoribus Spiritus Sanctuapromissua est, ut eo revelJi.nte novamdootrinam patefacerent, sed ut, eoassistente, traditam par Apostolosrevelationem seu fidei depositumsancte eustodirent etfideliter ezpone-rent. Quorum quidem apostolicamdoctrinam omnes venerabiles Patresamplexi et sancti doctores orthodoxivenerati atque seeuti sunt; plenissimeseientee, hane sancti Petri Sedem abomni semper errore illibatam per-manere,secundum Domine Salvatorisnostri divinam policitationem dis-eipulorum suorum principi factum ;Ego rogavi pro te, ut non deficiatfides tullo, et tu aliquando eonversusconfirma fratrea tuos.

Page 597: The Variations of Popery

APPENDIX. 597

nostri gloriam, religionis Catholicre Iginning of the Chris~ faith, forexaltationem at Christianorum popu- the glory of God our Saviour, thelorum salutem, sacro approbante exaltation of the Catholic religion,Oonoilio,docemus et divinitus reve- and the salvation of Christian peo-latum dogma esse definimus; Roma- pIe, the sacred Council approving,num Pontificem, cum ex Cathedra we teach and define ,that it is aloquitur, id est, cum omnium <JbIris- dogma divinely revealed: that thetianorum pastoris et doctoris munere Rom.anPontiff, when he speaks e:l:fungens pro suprema SUllo Apostolica cathedra, that is, when in dischargeauctoritate doetrinam de fide vel of the office of pastor and doctormoribus ab universa Ecclesia tenen- of all Christions, by virtue of hisdam definit, per assistentiam divi- supreme Apostolic authority, hensm, ipsi in beato Petro promissam, defines So doctrine regarding faithca infallibilitate pollsre, qua divinus or morals to be held by the nni-Redemptor Ecclesiam SU&Dl in defini- versal Church, by the divine as-enda doctrina. de fide vel moribus sistance promised to him in blessedinstructam esse voluit; ideoqne Peter, is possessed of that infalli-ejusmodi Romani Pontificis defini- bility with which the divine Be-tiones ex sese,non autem ex eonsensu deemer willed that his Church shouldEcclesile, irreformabiles esse. be endowed for defining doctrine

regarding faith or morals; and thattherefore such definitions of theRoman Ponti1f are irreformable ofthemselves, and not from the eon-sent of the ChurcJl.

Si qwa .utem hnio Nostral defini- But if anyone-which may GodtioDi contradicere, quod Deus aver- avert--presume to contradict thistat, prmsumpserit : anathema sit. our definition : let him be anathema.Datum RoJllalz in publica8euione Given at Rome in Publio Seuion

in Vaticana Basilica solemniter oel~ solemnly held in the Vatican Basi-brata, anno Inoarnationis DominiO&llica, in the yllal' of our Lord one •milleaimo octingentesimo septuage- thousand eight hundred and seventy,simo,die decim. octs.vaJulii. Ponti- on the eighteenth day of July, m theficatua Noatri. anno_vigesimoquinto. twenty-fifth year of our Pontifioate.

From an examina.tion of these decrees on the Constitution of'the Church it will be seen tha.t they involve the following lead-ing points. First, it is required of the fa.:thfu1 to believe,under pam of eternal damnatIon, that to the Apostle Peter WtlScommitted by Christ the primacy of jurisdiction over the uni-versal church of God, a doctrine for which there is no warrantin the word of Ood. &eondly, it is asserted tIS Somatter whichnone can doubt, and tIS known to all ages, that Peter lives,presides, and ju~ in his successors, the bishops of the HolySee of Rome, whIch was founded by him, and consecrated byhis blood, and tha.t a denia.l of the primacy of the Roman Pontiffas the divinely apP:O~¥ successor of Peter expoEIElIS to eternalda.mnation. The ~ give not the slightest warrant forthis a.ssertion, which is also in conflict with the teachings andpractice of the ancient church. Thirdly, it is decla.redthat bydivine appointment the Roman church possesses superiority of

Page 598: The Variations of Popery

598 APPENDIX.

ordinary power over all other churches, and that this power ofjurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, isimmediate; that all, whether bishops or people, are bound toyield submission to him not only in faith and morals, but alsoin all things pertaining to the discipline and government of theChureh, and that none can deviate from this declaration withoutloss of faith and salvation. It is needless to state that no traceof this teaching is found in the Scriptures, and everyoneacquainted with the history of the early church is aware thatthe superiority of the Roman church or of the Roman Pontiffwas not acknowledged .by the ancient presbyters, bishops,patriarchs, or CEcumenical Councils. It is a matter of historyalso that the immediate jurisdiction of the Popes has beenquestioned in all ages, and resisted by many distinguisheddignitaries of the Church of Rome, especially by the FrenchBishops. Fowrtkly, a condemnation is pronounced on all thosewho hold that the communication between the Roman Pontiffand the pastors and people of the universal church can be law-fully impeded, or made subject to the will of the secular power,or confirmed by the assent of the secular power. It is wellknown that the Popes have claimed and exercised the right todepose kings, to release subjects from their allegiance, to deprivenations of the ordinances and means of grace, to dispose of tbeproperty and revenues attached to various ecclesiastical institu-tions, -and. tMt the princes and rulers of Christian nations, bothRoman Catholic .and Protestant, have fett it. necessary to pro-hibit the introduction or communication within their territoriesof such bulls, briefs, or mandates as interfere With civil jurisdic-tion and national independence. Thus England adopted theconstitutions of Clarendon, and the statutes of P'I'armwniJre.Th,e Roman Pontiff however still claims the utterlyunwarrant-able right to unimpeded communication with all the pastorsand people of the universal church, in such a way.as to interferewith the prerogatives of rulers, and with the property and thecivil and religious liberties of their people. Fifthly, it isdeclared that by divine right the Roman Pontiff' is the supremejudge of the universal church, that t1&6'JI err from. the rightlJOtU'I'Be wko a88e'I't that it is lawful to ~l'1'O'm the j'UdgmenfJIoj the IJ.o:mp,n Pontiffs to an (Etwlm-6nW#. Oquncil, or to ana'/l.tlwritll Aighf'l' t/ui"". that oj the 1WmaJil, P(Yff,tif, eitker in mat-ws-oj Ja4tJt.wniJ,'fMt'als, O'l'inmafttIr8.pert.ami'nfJ. to tM. gOV6'l"n-'ma11rt atul d~ QJ the church. and all..anathema iBpro~9un-ced ~n aU who~~ny the, absolute sup~ and jurisdiCtionof,~. Boman Pontift' as thus declared. This. is a new adeleot.~.~.a.J:¥l involves a claim whiChbas been denied and resistedfor 'aies. The judgments of Popes have been again and ~n

Page 599: The Variations of Popery

APPENDIX. /599

appealed from and reversed by Councils; and Popes haveacquiesced in the decisions of Councils who have sat in judg-ment upon and reversed the decisions of preceding Popes.This new dogma must be peculiarly galling to/ the FrenchRoman Catholics, who have, strepuously, in past· centuries,resisted the encroachments of Rome and maintained the preroga-tives of bishops and the right of appeal to and the authority of<Ecumenical Councils. They must now feel their position tobe exceedingly humiliating. Sixthly, it is declared that theRoman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when indischarge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, hedefines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to ' be heldby the universal church, is possessed of that infallibility withwhich the divine'Redeemer willed that his Oh'Urch 81w'Uld be~ndowed for defining doctrine regarding faith and moral«,and that there/ore such definitions 0/ the Roman Pontiff areirrefO'Ymable of themselves, and not from. the coment of theChurch, and an anathema is denounced upon all who presumeto contradict this declaration, or definition. Thus all rightof private judgment or of interpretation of the revealed will ofGod is taken away, not merely from the people generally, butfrom the priests, pastors and prelates of the Church. All arebound to submit to the interpretations of the Scriptures, of theapocryphal books, and of oral traditions given by the RomanPontiff. .Not even a synod or council may revise or sit in judg-ment on his alleged infallible interpretation of any doctrine orprecept. ABby his assumed supremacy he destroys the libertyof conscience, so by his assumed infallibility he destroys, notonly the right of private judgment, but the right of church ralersgenerally, and of church courts and assemblies; to review anyformal interpretation he may give on questions of faith andmorals. He is thus; with the consent of the Vatican Council,invested with an a.uthority which subverts the constitution ofthe old Roman Catholic Church. In fact, a new church, withthe Roman Pontiff as its absolute ruler and infallible teacher,was o~ted by the decrees of the 18th July, 1870.ABIDlght have been anticipated,the pnblicationofthe Vatican

Decrees has created intense excitement, and elicited keen con-.troversy. In Germany a secession from the Roman CatholicChurch has taken place under the leadership of Dr. Dollinger,the most learned Roman Catholie of t.hiH age. The FrenehRomanists submit in sullen discontent. In Britain and Ameri-ca Romanists are scandalized, feeling ashamed to confess toProtestants that ·they are required to 8ubmittheir conscienceand reason, more completely than ever, to the authority andteaching of the Pope. Infidels and Jesuits are alike jubilant-

Page 600: The Variations of Popery

600 APPENDIX.

the latter rejoicing in the triumph of their policy, the formerthankful for the new argument against Christianity which thistriumph affords. Protestants, on the other hand, however)much they deplore the blasphemy of the Vatican Decrees, can-not but feel that their very extravagance will help to arrest allRomeward tendencies among themselves, and to aid them intheir efforts to bring Romanists to receive the true Gospel ofChrist. The excitement has extended to political circles. Someof the great statesmen of Europe look upon the Vatican Coun-cil as a conspiracy against the prerogatives of rulers, and theindependence of nations, and regard the reception of the decreesas inconsistent with civil allegiance. Germany has already takenstrong measures to counteract their effects. The Jesuits havebeen expelled, and State support has been withdrawn from theRoman Catholic clergy, who have set themselves in oppositionto civil enactments,In England, Mr. Gladstone, for several years prime minister,

and most distinguished both as a statesman and scholar, hastaken a prominent part in the controversy. He has criticisedwith great power, not only the Ya~ican Decrees, but the Ency-clical ofl864,and the accompanying syllabus of errors condemnedby Pope Pius IX. In the pamphlets he has written,thevaria.tionsof Popery are strikingly illustrated. The following examplesmay be quoted as shewing how different were the professeddoctrines of Roman Catholics in Great Britain and Ireland,from thoee they are now required to believe under pain ofeternal damnation. When efforts were made to relax thepenal laws against Roman Catholics. it became necessary to as-certain what were their views in regard to the authority of thePope. Accordingly the English Roman Catholic clergy andlaity subscribed a; protestation in which they declared thatthey t acknowledged no infallibility in the Pope,' and that noecclesiastical power whatever can •direcUl or mdirectly affector interfere with the independence, sovere.tgnty, laws, constitu-tion, or government' of the realm. In the year 1793, an Actwas passed for Ireland, in which an oath was inserted, contain-~ the words :-' It is not an article of the Catholic faith,neither am I thereby required to believe or profess that thePope is infallible,' and with reference to this oath and a declar-ation made in 1757, disavowing the Pope's deposing andabsolving power, a synod of Irish bishops, in 1810, declared,•that the said oath, and the promises, declarations, abjurations,and protestations therein contained are notoriously, to theRoman Catholic Church at large, become a part of the Romancatholic relia:ion as taught by us, the bishops, and received andmaintained by the Roman Catholic churches in Ireland: and

Page 601: The Variations of Popery

APPENDIX. 601

a.ssuchareapproved and sanctioned by the other Roman CatholicChurches.' In 1826 the Irish prelates again declared on oath,'their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic faith,neither are they thereby required to believe that tIle Pope isinfallible.' Well might Archbishop- Kenrick say, with refer-ence to these declarations, in a speech Rrepared for the VaticanCouncil, , In what way the pledge thus given to the EnglishGovernment can be reconciled with the definition of the Papalinfallibility, let those of the Irish bishops consider, who,' likemyself, have taken the oath in question.' One other fact maybe selected from }Ir. Gladstone's pamphlet. The details aretaken by him from a communication to the Oornish Telegraph,signed Clericus. In former editions of Keenan's Controversialcatechism, which has been highly recommended by Romishdignitaries, and extensively circulated, the following ques-tion and answer, appeared. 'Q. M.ust not Catholics believethat the Pope is himself infallible 1' 'A. This is a Protestantinvention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision ofhis can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received andenforced by the teaching body-that is, by the bishops of theChurch: But while 80 new edition of this Catechism was pass-ing through the press the Vatican Decrees were published, anda change became necessary. Accordingly while the earliercopies contained the above question and answer, these werequietly and without note or comment, dropped from the latercopies, the omission being skilfully effected by a slight widen-ing of the spaces between the questions and answers on page112 and the beginning of page 113. 'With reference to the new doctrines of the Immacula.te Con-

, ception and Papal Infallibility, it may be p)'oper to add thatspOOialpains have been taken to enforce them on the faithful'thus Archbishop Manning, in, a circular to the clergy of hisdiocese, gives the following warning, C Events which, UnhappilyaJll notorious, induce us to make known to the faithful, lest anyshould be misled by the words or eXample of one or two whostill profess to be Catholics, that whosoever does not in hisheart receive and believe the doctrine of the JIJ1D18,CUla.teCon-ception, and the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Vicar ofJesus Christ, as they have been defined by the supremeauthority of the Church, does by that very act cease to be aCatholic.' Again he says, •It has come to our knowledge thatsome who openly refuse to belie..-e the said doctrines, persistnevertheless, in calling themselves Catholics, and give out thatthey go to confession and to holy communion in the CatholicChurch. We, therefore, hereby warn them that inso doing, theydeceive our clergy by concealing their unbelief, and that in

Page 602: The Variations of Popery

602 APPENDIX.

every such confession and communion, they commit a sacrilege totheir own greater condemnation.' If Archbishop Manning hasiwritten the truth, it can hsrdlj' be doubted but that millionshave ceased to be Roman Cath~lics in consequence of the de-crees of Pope Pius IX. It is well for them, however, that theirsalvation is not dependent on their belief of any doctrine nottaught in the Word of God, but on their faith in the Lord JesusChrist, the sole Mediator between God and man, and the onlyKing and Head of the Church. ' He that believeth on the Sonhatli everlasting life, but he that believeth not the Son shall notsee life' (John iii. 36).

Page 603: The Variations of Popery

INl}EX., .

ABBAS,the Persian monarch, invites the Armenians to settle in hisdominions, '10.

Abgarus, king of Edessa, Syrian legend on the portrait of Jesussent to, 4-75.Abyssinians, a branch of the Monophysites, disbelieve any commix-ture of Deity and humanity in the Son of God, 70.

Acacius, signal cursing-match between him and Felix, 339.Acceptants, a faction of the French clergy, who received the Bull"Unigenitus," 383.

Act of Faith, what, 269.Adhelm, Bp. of Sherburn, remedies of, to preserve himself con-tinen~ 546. '

Adrian IV. [Nicholas Brekespere] pope, 1162. A striking exam-ple of the vicissitudes of human life, 229-his actions, ib.-hisreply to Henry the Second, who had requested his permissionto invade Ireland, ib.-transfers Ireland to Henry, 230.

Adultery, or bigamy, permitted to the laity, 571.lEIrldins, his account of the immorality of 'the Romish Church, 211.Mums, partisan of Monophysitism, substituted for Proterios aspatriarch of Alexandria, 336-banished to Cherson, but restoredand poisons himself; ib,

African clergy, enact eight canons against Pelagianism, 367-theirfirmness the means of preventing the Pelagian theology frombecoming the faith of Christendom, ib.

Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, recommends the destruction ofimagee rather than their adoration, 491.

Agricola accompanies Luther to the conference at Marpurg, 37.~v, signification of the term, 510.

Albani, (J. F.) see Clement XI.Albert, Duke of Bavaria, his picture of the licentioumess of theGerma,n priesthood, 577.

Albigensianism ; often unjustly accused of Manicheanism and Arian-ism, 57-vindicated from this slander by Moreri,ib.

Albigensians; a branch of the W aldensians,. ,58-untain~ with theManichean or Arian hereIJY,ib.--ol)tline of,their theology containedin .. ~,on An~ 1Vrittenin 112(), ib.-how confoundedWith the,Jlanieheans and ,Arlans, 59-number of, equipped againa~the Croaaders, 61~1IUI8BlWe of, by the holy warriors, 265.

Alcala, University of, vouches for the catholicism, &c. of Molinism376.

Page 604: The Variations of Popery

604 INDEX.

Alcoran, see Koran.Alexander, patriarch of Alexandria, ascribes consubstantiality andequality to the Son, 30o-is opposed by Arius, ib.-admonishesArius, but finding him obstinate, convenes a council, who expelhim and his faction, 306. •

Alexander V. [Philarge] pope 1409, elected by the French andItalian cardinals, 98.

Alexander VI. [Roderic Borgia or Lenzuoli] pope 1491, surpasses allhis predecessors in atrocity, 125-dies by a stratagem which hehad prepared for the murder of his friends, 126.

.Alexander VII. pope 1599, prescribes a formulary respecting Jansen-ism, 380.

Algerus, reason suggested by, for the manner in which the Lord'sbody is administered in the sacrament, 431.

Alliaco, Card. his description of the moral traits of the 14th and 15thcenturies, 211.

.Altieri, Emilius, BeeClement X.Alva, Duke of, causes eighteen thousand persons to be executed insix weeks for the crime of Protestantism, 275.

Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, after forty years, resigns his ducal admin-istration to his sons, 103-retires to his villa of Ripaille, ib.-a de-putation sent to him conveying the triple crown, which withreluctance he accepts, ib.

Ambrosius, St., recommends suicide, 558 ..Ammianus, his description of the affluence and ostentation of theRoman pontiff, 221.

Amurath, Sultan, defeats Ladislaus, king of Hungary, who hadbeen induced by Eugenius VI. to break his treaty with him, 291--displays a copy of the violated treaty in the front of the battle,ib.

Anabaptism : opposed by Luther and Calvin, 42-also by the Swiss,French, English, and Scottish Reformers, ib,

Anacletus, or Cletus, succeeds Linus in the Roman episcopacy, 78-but doubtful whether Anacletus and Cletus were identical or dis-tinct, 81.

Anastasius, excommunicated for heresy by Symmachus, 336.Angelo, Cardinal, declaration of, that the sacramental wine, if admin-istered to laymen, is poison rather than medicine, 444.

Anointing the sick, scriptural end of, 458.Ante-Nicene Fathers, remarks on, 55.Antiquity, in the abstract, no criterion of truth, 53-papal supre-macy unknown to, 182.

Antitrinitarians, several factions of, 307.Antonius, his picture of the sixteenth century, 212.Apostles: founded and organised churches, and then consignedtheir superintendency to fixed pastors, 18-word ' apostles' inter-preted by some theologians to signify' the rock,' 170.

Apostles' Creed, general reception of in Christendom, M.Aquinas, Thomas, his opinion on -transubstantiation, 419-methodsadopted by him, to preserve himself continent, 544.

Page 605: The Variations of Popery

INDEX. 605

Arbitration, proposed as a means for the extinction of the schism inthe papacy, 94.

Arianism: patronised by Liberius, and by the councils of Sirmium,Seleucia, and Ariminum, 42-also by Zosimus ana Honorius, 110-heresy originated in Alexandria, 305-its prevalence, 316.

Ariminum, council of, its meeting and proceedings, 313-4.Aristotelian philosophy, why it facilitated the reception of transub-stantiation, 413.

Arius, the first innovator on the faith of antiquity, whose error ob-tained extensive circulation, or was attended with important con-sequences, 3G5-masterly portrait of him by Epiphanius, ib.-isexpelled from the church by a council convened by Alexander, thepatriarch of Alexandria, and goes to Palestine, 306.

Arles, synod of, hostile to consubstantiality, 308.Armenians: scattered through Armenia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Syria,Persia, India, Cyprus, Poland, Turkey, Transylvania, Hungary,and Russia, 70-their merchants distinguished for industry, fru-gality, activity, and opulence, ib.-have repelled Mahometan andRomish superstition beyond all the Christians in Central Asia, 71-their faith a transcript of biblical purity, ib.-invited by Abbas;the Persian monarch, to settle in his dominions, 70.

Arnold (Ant.) endeavors to prove the antiquity of transubstantiation,414-remark on this attempt, ib.

Arnolf, a preacher at Rome, murdered by the agency of the priest-hood, because he inveighed against their incontinence and sensu-ality, 579.

Ass, absurd Festival of, celebrated at Beauvais in Burgundy, 51.Assassination, approbation of, by Jerome and Ambrosius, 557-8.Astolf, king of Lombardy, forms the project of subduing Italy, 222-defeated by Pepin, and compelled to fulfil his treaty withStephen II. ib.

Athanasian Creed : its general reception in Christendom, 55.Athanasius, supremacy bestowed on him by Gregory a.nd others,J82-eompelled to appear before the Tyrian council,307-vindi-cates his innocence and exposes the injustice of the council, ib.-is rescued by the soldiery and escapes, but is excommunicatedand banished, ib. •

Atheism, displayed in the lives of the Roman hierarchs of themiddle and succeeding ages, 116.

Augsburg or Augustan Confession, the production of Melancthon,reviewed by Luther, presented in 1530 to the Emperor ofGermany, 34-became the standard of Lutheranism throughGermany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norwa.y, ib.

Augustine (St.) taught the doctrine of gratuitous predestination, 370-seems to have been the first Christian author, who entertainedthe idea of purifying the soul while the body lay in the tomb, 525-remarks on his works, 525-6 .

.., Augustine," & work 80 called, published by Jansenius, object of, 377.Auto da Fe, see Faith, p<1St.

Page 606: The Variations of Popery

606 INDEX.

Averroes, his opinion of Christians, 429.Avignon: removal of the papal court from, by Gregory XL, 39.

B

Bailly (L.) ascribes to the church a power of dispensing in vows andoaths,286..

Baptism: errors on the subject of, 109-validity of, on what itdepends according to' the Romish system, 110-same changeascribed to the water of, as to the bread and wine of the Lord'sSupper, 411.

Baptista: his portrait of the Constantine council, 307.Barbarossa, Emperor, compelled to officiate as equerry to AdrianIV., 229.

Barsumas, a Syrian, active in the assassination of Flavian, 326.Barthelemi de Prignano, see Urban VI.Bartholomew, massacre on St. Bartholomew's day, 278-not con-fined to Paris, but extended in general through the Frenchnation, 279-medals coined to perpetuate its memory, 280-ap-proved by the pope and the Roman court, ib.-Spain rejoices inthe tragedy, ib.

Basil, council of, decrees the superiority of a general council to apope, 102-and the obligation of all to obey the synodal authorityin questions of faith, schism, &c., ib.-two bulls of dissolutionissued against it by Eugenius, ib.-new dissensions between them,ib.-deposes Condalmerio, ib.-appoints Amadeus, Duke of Savoy,l03-recognised by the French school as general, 142-declaimedagainst by some, ib.-ealled by Leo X. a conventicle, l43-ac-knowledges that half-communion is an innovation, 44l-incon-sistency of, with itself, 445-profligacy of, 581.

Basiliscus, emperor of Constantinople, both denounces and patronisesthe synod of Chalcedon, 335-is driven from the imperial dignityby Zeno, and banished to Cappadocia, where he dies of hungerand cold, 336.

Beata, of Cuenza in Spain, aspires to the celebrity of a Romansaint, 42-invents a most extraordinary fiction, ib.-declaring thather body was trari'Bubsta.ntiated into the substance of our Lord's,ib.-this absurdity divides the Spanish priests and monks, ib.-procession of her through the streets, accompanied with prostra-tion and burning of incense, 43.

Bede, Venerable, remark of, on the unction of the sick, 461.Belgic Confession, see Dutch confession.Belisarius, suborned by the empress Theodora, and bribed by Vigilius,to expel Silverius from the papal chair, 85.

Bellarmine (Rob.), his distinctions and decisions badly calculated to-establish the authority of councils, l32-affirms that the Pope cantransubstantiate sin into duty, and duty into sin, 167-urges theeradication of heretics, where it can be effected with safety, 271.

Benedict, St., his remedy to preserve himself continent, 545.Benedict VI. [son of Hildebrand] pope, 981-strangled by Orescen-tiuB, lI8.

Page 607: The Variations of Popery

INDEX. 607

Benedict VII. Pope (975) substituted by universal suffrage in thestead of Boniface VII., 119-holds the papacy nine years, ib.

Benedict [XI. Theophylactus] promoted in 1033 to the papacy by /simony, 87-in 1044 is expelled by a Roman faction, ib.-':isrestored, ib.-resigns the papacy to John for 15(')0l. and retires,88-weary, however, of privacy, he renews his claim, and seizesby dint of arms on the Lateran, ib,

Benno, cardinal, his character of Gregory the Seventh, 119.Berengarius, allowed by Gregory VIII to profess that the breadand wine of the altar after consecration are the true body andblood of our Lord, 39-opposes Pascasius, 417-Berengariancontroversy, 419.

Bernard (St.) affirms that none, except God, is like the Pope, eitherin heaven or on earth, 165.

'Bernardin, his adventure with a female citizen of Sienna, 47.Bertrand de Got, see Clement V.Bertram replies to Pascasius, 415-different treatment which hiswork received, ib,

Bethesda, pool of, remarks on, 456.Beziers, storming of, 264.Bible, forbidden to the laity, by the council of Tolosa, 258.Biel, cardinal, opinion of, on the creation of the Creator, as implied intransubstantiation, 427-28. .

Bigamy, allowed by Gregory the Second, 569.Bohemian Confession, presented in 1535 to the Emperor Ferdinandby the nobility of Bohemia, 34.

Bohorquis, a victim of the inquisition, 275.Bonaparte, excommunicated and anathematised by Pius the Seventh,24:3.

Boniface VII. (Francon) seizes the papal chair in 974, having mur-dered his predecessor and successor, 118-is deposed and expelled,ib.-replacecl on the pontifical throne by bribing his partisans, ib.-imprisons John XIV. who had succeeded during his absence,in the castle of Angelo, where he dies of starvation, 119-his bodyexposed by Boniface, ib.-dies suddenly, and his body draggedwith indignity through the streets, ib,

Boniface VIII. [Cardinal Cajetan] pope, 1294, forms a plan to induceCelestin to resign, succeeds, and is chosen in his stead, 121-im-prisons him, ib.-his character, 122-tanght the necessity of sub-mission to the pontiff for the attainment of salvation, 163.

Borgia, see Alexander VI.Bossuet, (J. B.) bishop of Meaux, his misrepresentation of Protest-anism, 33-eulogises the Helvetian Confession of faith, ib,

Brazen serpent, remark on, 469, 470.'Breaking of Bread,' phrase, as used by St. Luke, remark on, 437.Brekespere, (Nicholas) see Adrian IV.Brent, (John) accompanies Luther to the conference at Marpurg, 37.Breviary, Roman, approves of self-flagellation, 45.Britain, continued independent of papal authority till the end of thesixth century, 188.

Page 608: The Variations of Popery

60S INDEX.

Brothels, established in Rome by Sixtus the Fourth, 125.Brunon, see Leo. IX.Bncer, accompanies Zuinglius to the conference at Marpurg, 37.Buchanan (Dr.) antiquity of Syrianism acknowledged by, 74.Bulls, papal, remarks on the bull 'in Crena' issued in 1567 byPaul the Fifth, 242-a papal bull received by open or tacit assent,and by a majority of the popish clergy, forms a dogma of faith,263-observations on the bull' Unigenitus,' 216-bull of PaulV. against the oath of allegiance to James the First, 242- -buMof Adrian, transferring Ireland to Henry the Second, 230-opinionof M. Caron on it, 231-of Clement the Fifth, 290.

Byzantine synod, proceedings of, in the year 360, 315.

CCajetan (cardinal) see Boniface VIII.Calendion, patriarch of Antioch, banishment of, 338.Calvinists, modified the severity of predestination, 38-unite withthe Lutherans, ib,

Canon law, extends the spirit of persecution even to the dead, 274.Canute, king of Denmark, used self-flagellation, 45.Caraffa (John Peter) see Paul IV.Carlerius, advocates the propriety of tolerating stews in a city, 207.Caroline books, a composition of the French clergy in the name ofCharlemagne, 489-their genuineness denied by some, 490.

Caron (R.) his opinion of the bull of Adrian IV. transferring Irelandto Henry the Second, 231.

Celestin, a visionary monk, transferred from a mountain cavern ofApulia, to the holy chair of St. Peter, 121-is induced by BonifaceVIII. to resign, is imprisoned by him and dies, ib,

Celestius, a Scotchman, or as some say, an Irishman, attached to thePelagian school, 362-condemned by the Carthaginian prelacy,364-llies to Ephesus and Constantinople, but is expelled fromboth these cities, 365-presents himself before Zosimus, anddeclares his innocence, ib.-is acquitted by Zosimus, 367.

Celibacy of the clergy, 634-two parties on the subject, ib.-a varia-tion from the Jewish theocracy, 536-a variation also from ancienttradition, 547-rejected in the East, 540-progress of, in the'Romish church, 542-papal policy, cause of, 549-progress of, inthe East, M2.

Cession of the Papacy, a plan suggested by the Parisian Universityto put an end to the schism between the reigning Pontiffs Benedictand Gregory, 95-this, however, defeated by the selfish obstinacyand perjury of the competitors, ib,

Ohalcedon, general council of, convened, 329-description of it, ib.-passes three distinct creeds on the subject of monophysitism, 330-conduct of, 333.

Charenton, national synod of purity of the Lutheran faith andworship acknowledged at, by the French reformed, 38.

Charles, king of Naples, his kingdom bestowed upon him by Urban,

Page 609: The Variations of Popery

INDEX. G0992-quarrel between them, 93-offers a reward for the Pontiff'shead, ib.-Ieads an army against him, and besieges him ill thecastle of Nocera, ib.-is assassinated in Hungary, ib,

Charles V. Emperor of Germany and King of Spain, proscribes ~Luther, his followers, and books, 274-begins the work of perse-cution in Spain, and with his latest breath recommended its com-pletion to his son, Philip the Second, 275.

Charles IX. King of France, part he took in the massacre on St.Bartholomew's day, 27S-his unfeeling witticism on seeing the bodyof Admiral Coligny, 279.

Childeric, King of France, deposed in 751, for inefficiency, 224.Christian Commonwealth, original state of, 220.Ciaconia, a Dominican, urges the extermination of heresy, 273.Cicero, his opinion of Christians, 429.Clara, at Madrid, aspires to the distinction of a prophetess, 4S-herclaims obtain general credit, ib.-feigns a paralytic affection, andis visited by the most distinguished citizens of the capital, ib.-the sick implore her mediation with God for their cure, and judgessupplicate light to direct them in their decisions, ib.-announcesthat by a special call of the Spirit she is destined to become aCapuchin nun, but wants the health and strength necessary for thismode of life, ib.-Pius VII. grants her a dispensation from this,ib.-an altar erected opposite her bed, mass often said in her bed-room, and the sacrament left there as in a sacred repository, ib.-at length, in 1802, mildly punished by the inquisition, 44.

Clemens, of Alexandria, testimony of, to the marriage of priests, 539.Clemens II. succeeds Anacletus or Cletus in the Roman episcopacy,79.

Clement V. [Bertrand de Got] pope, 1305, emancipates Edward I.from his oath in confirmation of the great charter, 290.

Clement VII. [Robert de Geneve,] pope, 1378-1394, Christendomdivided between him and Urban VI., 89-absolves Francis II., theFrench king, from a treaty which he had formed in Spain, 292.

Clement IX. [Jules de Rospigli08i,] pope, 1661, issues an edict ofpacification in 1668, modifies the formulary of Alexander VII.,and permits the dissatisfied clergy to interpret his predecessor'srescript in their own sense, and to subscribe in sincerity, 380-this modification, called the peace of Clement, continues for 34years, ib,

Clement X. [Emilius Altieri,] pope, 1670, countenances the pacifica-tion of his predecessor, 380.

Clement XI. [John Francis Albani,] pope, 1700, overtures the pacifi-cation of Clement IX. and the patronage of Innocent Xl, confirmsthe constitution of Innocent X. and Alexander VII. against Jan-senism, and denounces Quesnel's Reflections, 381.

Cletus and Anacletus, doubtful whether they were identical or dis-tinct,8I.

Clergy, celibacy of', 534-a variation from the Jewish theocracy,536-and from the Christian dispensation, 537-also from ancient

M][

Page 610: The Variations of Popery

610 INDEX.

tradition, ib.-proofs that the clergy anciently were married, 538-celibacy of the clergy rejected in the East, 540-progress of,in the Romish church, 541-papal policy a cause of, 549-progressof in the East, 552-domesticism or sunisactanism, had recourseto by many of the clergy, 56I-concubinage of, 563-incestcommitted by, 564-clandestine matrimony of, ib.-profligacy ofin Germany, 577-in Switzerland, 578-in France, 579-in Italyib.-in America, 580.

Coleta, St., often complimented by Satan with a whipping, 48.Coligny, Admiral, massacred on St. Bartholomew's day, 279-unfeel-ing witticism of the French king on seeing his hody, ib,

Cologne, council of, how it characterised monasteries and nunneries,577.

Communion in one kind, 433-popish arguments for, 435-eontrarynot only to scriptural institution, but also to the usage of the earlyand middle ages, 438-not practised in the East, HI-its introduc-tion, 443.

Compulsionon questions of religion awl conscienceunscriptural, 447.I Concord of Grace and Free-will,' by Molina, design of this work,375-by whom approved and condemned, ib,

Concubinage, and its enormities, 563.Condalmerio, assumes the name ofEugenius, IOI-his contest withFelix respecting the papacy. ib.-deposed, and all his constitutionsabrogated by the council ofBasil, l02-induces Ladislaus, KingofHungary, to break his treaty with the Sultan Amurath, 291.

Confessionsof Faith, harmony of those of the Reformers, 33- Varietyo~ 315-800 also Augshurg or Augustan-Bohemian-Dutch_English-Frencb-Heivetian-Palatine - Polish-Saxon - Scot-tish-Tetrapolitan and Wittemberg Confessions.

Confessor, duty of, according to Dens, 287.Confirmation not a sacrament, 73.Congregation of Helps, established by Clement VIII., 376.Constance,general conncil of, how characterised by Baptista, one ofits own members, 207-conflicting opinions on its ecumenicity, 142-proceedings of, 240-profligacy of, 58l.

Constans, Emperor, issues the Type or Formulary, 353-design of,ib.

Constantine, Emperor, confers the appellation of God on the Pope,166-gives legal security to the temporal possessionsof the Chris-tian republic, 220-'1-the patron of iconoclasm, 155-supremacybestowed on him by Gregory and others, 182.

Constantius adopts Arianism, 154.Consubstantiality, of the Son, declared by the council of Nice, 306-when the word first came into use, ib,

Consubstantiation, absurdity of, deformed for some time Lutheran-ism, 37-and this opinion the Saxon Reformer retained with obsti-nacy during his whole life, ib.

Continence, difficulty of, and instances of remedies pursued to pre-serve it, 543. .

Page 611: The Variations of Popery

INDEX. GIlConvulsionarianism, frightful displays of, 49, 50.Convulsionaries, Popish fanatics, who pretended to extraordinaryvisitations of the Spirit, 49.

Corporeal presence, jarring of the advocates of, 424-light in whichit has been viewed by different denominations, 429.

Cossa (Balthasar), see John XXIII.'Councils: those of Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople,promulgated the principles of Protestantism, 56-general, inecclesiastical history as uncertain as the Roman pontiffs, 131-six,marked now with the seal of approbation and infallibility, werefor a long series of time in whole or in part rejected by a part orby the whole of Christendom, 132-these are, the second, third,fourth, fifth, seventh, and twelfth, ib.-variations in the receptionof, 131-l39-and in their universality, 146-sq. differencerespecting their legality, 149-sq. presidency of, 150-a varietyof opinions entertained with respect to the persons who shouldform a general council, 15l-also respecting the manner of syn-odal decision, 152-want of unanimity in councils, 152, 153-andof freedom in, 153, 159-persecuting councils, 259-sq. councilsopposed to councils, 37l-profligacy of, 581-8ee also Ariminum,Basil, Cologne, Constance, Lateran, Lyons, Pisa, Seleucia, Trent,Tyrian, Vienna.

Creeds: the Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian, generally receivedin Christendom, 55.

Crescentius, instigated by Boniface VII., strangles Benedict VI., andplaces Boniface in the Papal chair, 118.

Cross, the, supreme worship to be ascribed to, 467-observation on,468-the agent of miracles, 476.

Cruc:i1ixion: two instances of, in order to exhibit a lively image ofthe Saviour's passion, 50.

Crusade against the Albigenses, 263.Cup, sacramental, use of, to all, enjoyed by the Scriptural expres-sions, 435-restricted to the priesthood by the Popish interpreta-tion, ib.-refUsed by the Manicheans, 438-enjoined by Leo,Gelasius, and Urban, 438-9-and by Pascal, 440.

Cursing, specimens of the Pontifical art of, 92.Cyprian, supremacy bestowed on him by Gregory, and others, l82~

DDamian (Cardinal) introduces the practice of self-flagellation, 45."Dead, prayer for the, remarks on, 519.Decretals, false, publication of, about the year 800, aided tb.eusurpation of the papal hierarchy, 186-this fabrication displaysin a strong light the variations of Romanism, ib.-oountenancedby the sovereign pontiffs, ib.-its genuineness and authenticitygenerally admitted from the ninth century till the Reformation,ib.-list of authors who have admitted its forgery, ib.

Definitioos, pontifical as well as synodal, have been misunderstood,and subjected to contradictory interpretatioos, 216.

Deivirilian operation, what, 34:7.

Page 612: The Variations of Popery

612 INDEX.

Demi-Eutychians, who so denominated, 70.Dens, (Dr.] his system of theology fraught with the most revoltingprinciples of persecution, 282-its Catholicism and moralityacknowledged, in whole, and in part, by the Popish clergy andpeople, 283-unanimously agreed by the Popish prelacy to be thebest work and safest guide for the Irish clergy, ib.-remarkson, 549.

Deposition of Kings: difference of opinion respecting the Pope'spower of, 218-deposition of continental sovereigns, 219-madean article of faith, 228.

Diamper, synod of; its statement of the distinctions which discrimi-nated Syrian ism from Popery, 72, 73-invalidates the oaths takenby the Indian Christians, 293.

Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, decisive testimony of, to the marriageof the priesthood in his day, 538.

Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, presides in the Ephesiancouncil, 324-his cruelty to Flavian, 326-excommunicates Leo,328-is anathematised by him, ib.-a few of his practical foibles,333.

Disciplinarian variety: exists among the Romish as well as theReformed, 42-instances of, ib.

Disjunctive in Greek often equivalent to the copulative, 437-in-stances of, 438.

Dissensions, ecclesiastical, 317.Dissimilarity of the SONmaintained by the Arians, 307.Domesticism or Sunisactanism, recourse had to by many of theclergy, 561.

Dominic of the iron cuirass, the great patron and example of self-flagellation, 46-makes several improvements in it, ib.

Dominic, inventor of the inquisition, 266-well qualified for hisoffice of Inquisitor-General, ib.-proofs of his inhumanity, 267.

Dominicans, their dispute with the Jesuits, 376.Drithelm, story of, as related by Bede and Bellarmine, 601.Duelling, decree of the Council of Trent against, 241.DuIia, or inferior honor and veneration, to be paid to the statuesof saints and martyrs, 467.

Du Pin, (Dr.) proposes to Dr. Wake to omit the word Transubstan-tiation, and profess a real change of the bread and wine into theLord's body and blood, 40.

Dunstan, (St.) his reported contests with the Devil, 48.Dutch or Belgic Confession, written in French in 1561, and in Dutchand Latin in 1581, confirmed in a national Synod, 1579, 35.

EEcclesiastical dissensions, 317.&thesis or Exposition of Faith, publication of by Heraclius, 351-rejects Arianism, Nestorianism, and Eutycbianism, ib.-teachesthe unity of the Mediator's will, ib.-and interdicts all controversyon the operations, ib.-received by the oriental patriarchs and

Page 613: The Variations of Popery

INDEX. 613

prelacy, ib.-in what it differed from the Type issued byConstans, 353.

Edgar, king of England, his portrait of the British clergy, 575. /Edmond, Archbishop of Canterbury, his curious treatment of aParisian lady, who solicited him to unchastity, ,47.

Edward the Oonfessor, absolved by a Roman Counsel from avow which he had made to visit Rome and the tombs of theapostles, 292.

Election, controversy on, little agitated till the sixteenth century,373-unconditional, advocated by the Rhemists, 374.

Electoral Variations as to the Pontifical succession, 82.Elements, sacramental, accounted signs, figures and emblems, 404-406-retain their own nature and substance, 406-nourish thehuman body, 407.

Elizabeth, Queen, deposed by Pius the Fourth, 233-oath ofallegiance to her annulled by Pius the Fourth, 292.

English Confession, edited in the Synod of London in 1562, andprinted by the authority of Queen Elizabeth in 1571, 35.

Enus, story of, as told by Matthew Paris, 502.Ephesian council, in 449, reverses the Byzantine decree concerningEutychianism, 324-what this synod has been denominated, ib.-validity of, 327. •

Epiphanius, remarks on his character as an historian and logician,oM-blunder of, on the subject of matrimony, 550-his sillyaddress to the Virgin Mary, ib.

Episcopacy; in its proper sense, incompatible with the apostleship,78- a bishop's authority being limited to a city or nation, hut anapostle's commission extending to the whole world, ib,

Erasmus, (Des.) his opinion of transubstantiation, 414-of half-communion, 440.

Eugenius, see Condalmerio.Eusebius of Dorylseum, arraigns Eutyches for heresy, 323-anathe-matised by the council of Ephesus, 324.

Eutyches, superior of a Byzantine convent, his faith, 320-originator'llof Eutychianism, ib.-how characterised by Leo and Petavius,ib.-declared guilty of heresy and blasphemy by a council atConstantinople, 323-pronounced orthodox, and reinstated by theEphesian synod, 325.

Eutychianism, a verbal heresy, 321-its prior existence, 322-denominated Monophysitism, ib.-see Monophysitism.

Exposition of Faith, see Ecthesis.Extreme unction, not a sacrament, 72- variations on its effects, 449a variation from Scriptural unction, 451-and from tradition, aswell as from Revelation, 459-traditional evidence for, 460-history of, 463.

FFaith, confesssions of, 33, &c.-act of, convicted, sentenced to, bythe Inquisition, 269-violation of, 285-taught by RomishDoctors, 286, &c.-by popes, 288-by councils, 292.

Page 614: The Variations of Popery

614 INDEX.

Faithlessness, one of the filthy elements of Romish superstition, 285.Fanny, Sister, account of her crucifixion, 50.Fathers: who have been denominated, 54-their errors and igno-rance have been acknowledged by Erasmus and Du Pin, 55-post- Nicene may be consigned to the Vatican, to rot with the lum-ber of a thousand years, ib.-ante-Nicene exhibit a view of Pro-testantism in all its prominent traits, ib.

, Feed my sheep: 'torture by Bellarmine and others of the admoni-tion, 177.

Felicite, Sister, suffers crucifixion for the sake of exhibiting a livingimage of the Saviour's passion, 50.

Felix, Pope, elected by the Arian faction in the room of Liberius,82-at length overthown, retires to his estate at Ponto and dies,83-canonised and worshipped, ib.

Flagellation, called by Baronius 'a laudable usuage,' 44-recom-mended also by the Roman Breviary and various Pontiffs, 45-adopted by the monks in the time of the crusades, ib.-notpeculiar to men and women, but, it seems, Satan himself enjoyedhis share of the amusement, 48-names of those who have need it,45, sq.

Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, condemned and assassinatedfor his monophysitism, 326.

Florence, council of, rejected by the French, 138.Formosus, in 893 gains the Pontifical throne by bribery, 86-guiltyof perjury, ib.

Formulary, see Type.Fornication, clerical fornication preferred to matrimony, 567-practised by pontiffs, councils, and clergy, 577-582.

Fortunatian constrains Liberius to the SUbscription of heresy, 311.Frances, Sister, curious comedy enacted by her of burning thegown off her back, 50.

Francis, (St.) plan adopted by, to preserve continence, 543 .• Francis I., King of France, enacts laws against the French Protest-

ants, and causes many Lutherans to suffer martyrdom, he, himselfbeing present at the execution, 275.

Francis II., King of France, absolved by Clement VII. from a treatywhich he had formed in Spain, 294.

Francisca, (St.) uses frequent self-flagellation, 45.Francon, see Boniface VII.Frankfort, council of, exhibited a representation of the westernclergy from England, Italy, France, and Germany, 136.

Frederic III., Elector Palatine, issues a formulary in 1576, 34.Free-will controversy on, little agitated from the ninth till the six-teenth century, 373.

French clergy, profligacy of, 579.French confession of Faith drawn up at Paris in 1559, 35-pre-sented by Beza to Charles IX. ib.

Friar Matthew, his adventure, 47.Fullo, Patriarch of Antioch, impiety of, 337-maintains the Euty-

Page 615: The Variations of Popery

INDEX . 615

.chian t~eory, i~-adds a supplement. to the Trisagion, or sacred,nymn, lb.-bamshed by Zeno, but again restored to his patriarch-ate, 338-how denominated by Felix, 339.

G.Gage, (Thos.) author of the Survey, what proselyted him fromRomanism, 432.

Gelasius, Pope, enacts that the sacrament should be celebrated inboth kinds, 439,-observation of, on the Manicheans, 438.

Geneve, (Robt, de.) see Clement XI.Geoffrey of Monmouth, allusion to his story ofthe Trojan Brutus, 80.German clergy, profligacy of, 577.God: supposed equality of the Pope with, 165-His works as well asname ascribed to the Pope, 167-alleged superiority of the Popeto, 167-177-His omnipotence had recourse te by the patrons oftransubstantiation, 427.

Godric, an English hermit, remedy of, to preserve continence, 54-3.Gottescalcus, a monk distinguished for his learning, maintains thesystem of predestination, and particular redemption, and of elec-tion and reprobation, 370-is opposed by Raban (which see), 311-Uftried in the council of Mentz, and condemned for heresy, ib.-is next tried in the council of Quiercy and convicted of con-tumacy and heresy, ib.-is deposed, scourged, and thrown into pri-son, 372.

Grace, controversy on, little agitated from the ninth to the sixteenthcentury, 373.

Gratian (John), see Gregory VI.Great Western Schism, began in 1378, and continued for half a een-tury,89--101.

Greek Church: its religion that of European and Asiatic Russia, 66-does not agree in all things with modern Protestants, ib.-as itcontinued longest in conjunction with the Latin, so it has imbibedmost corruption, ib.-opposes, however, Papal usurpation, deniesthe Romish to be the true church, and condemns the dogmas ofpurgatory, supererogation, half-communion, human merit, clericalcelibacy, prayers for the dead, and restricting the circulation of theBible, 66-67.

Greeks, their dispute with the Latins on monothelitism, 351, sqq.Gregory II. [Marcel], Pope, 723, introduces dissension betweenRoman emperors and Roman pontiffs, 194-authorises bigamy,529-errors of, in making David bring the brazen serpent and theholy ark into the Jewish temple, 4-33-and representing Ozias asthe breaker of the brazen serpent, ib,

Gregory' VL [John Gratian], 1045, purchases the papacy from Bene-dict, Silvester and John, 88.

Gregory VIL [Hildebrand], 1073, obtains the papacy by force andbribery, 119-his character, ib.-prescribes a form of belief onthe subject of transubstantiation, 39-subjected not only thechurch, but the state, and monopolised both civil and ecclesiasti-

Page 616: The Variations of Popery

616 INDEX.

cal power, 163-the first who attempted the degradation of civilpotentates, 225-his description of monarchy, ib.-asserts hisauthority to dissolve the oath of fealty, 288-absolves all Chris-tians from their oath to the Emperor Henry, 292-succeeds to agreat extent in the suppression of priestly marriage, 565-openlyaccused of fornication, adultery and incest, 540-his opinion onthe site of purgatory, 500.

Gregory IX. [Hugolin], Pope, 1227, declares that none shall keepfaith with the person who opposed God and the saints, 289-absolves from their oath all who had sworn fealty to Frederic, the. Roman emperor, 293.Gregory XI. [Peter Roger], Pope, 1370, restores the papal court toRome, after its having been continued at Avignon for seventyyears, 89.

Gregory Nazianzen, remark of, on the contentions of the clergy insynods, 318-resigns and retires through an aversion to the alter-cations of the ecclesiastics, ib.

Guido, a Dominican persecutor, wrote in the Tolosan Chronicle, 59.Guise, Duke of, massacre on St. Bartholomew's day entrusted tohim, 278.

HHsedio, accompanies Zuinglius to the conference at Marpurg, 37.Half-Communion, see Communion in one kind.Hedwick, Duchess of Silesia and Great Poland, uses self-flagellationto an unusual degree, 46.

Helvetian Confession, issued in 11>36at Basil, 34-this enlarged andimproved again published in 1566, 35.

Henoticon, or edict of union, published by Zeno, 342-its design toconciliate the partisans of Monophysitism and Catholicism, ib.-subject of it, ib.-augments the evil it was designed to remedy,343-treatment it met with, ib.-differences of opinion as to itllorthodoxy, ib.

Henricians, held nearly the same dogmas as the Calvinists, 63.Henry II., King of England, despatches messengers to Adrian IV.requesting his permission to invade Ireland, which is transferredto him, 230-his persecution of the Waldenses, 257.

Henry II., King of France, indulges his taste in viewing the expiringstruggles of his heretical subjects in the pangs of dissolution, 276.

Henry VIII., King of England, withdraws 'from the papal jurisdic-tion, 232-is excommunicated and deposed, &c., by Paul theThird, ib.

Heraclius, publishes the Ecthesis or Exposition of Faith, 351.Heresy, persecution of, 253.Higgins, (Dr.)' his assertion in the Maynooth examination, that nopontiff defined for the belief of the faithful, that the pontificalpower of dethroning kings was founded on divine light, 235.

Hilary, remark of, on the variety of confessions among the Roman-ists,318-the severest satirist in this age on the variations ofpopery, ib. ..

Page 617: The Variations of Popery

INDEX. 617Hildebrand, see Gregory VII.Hincmar, a French bishop, advocates in 865 the canons of Nicea andSardica, and explodes the novelty of the decretals, 188.

Hugolin, see Gregory IX.Holy Ghost, sin against, observations on, 508.Honorius patronised Arianism, Pelagianism, and Monothelitism, 110.Host, the, pretended miracles respecting, 425.Huss, Jo~n, summoned to the city of Constance on a charge of heresy,296-hlS safety and return guaranteed by the Emperor Sigismund,ib:-~as tried, however, condemned and burnt, ib-his magnani-mity, lb. .

Hyperdulia, or intermediate worship, 467.

IIconolatrians, a faction of the Greeks, devoted to the use of images,489.

Iconoclasm, edict in favor of, issued in 726, 224.Iconoclasts, a faction of the Greeks, 489.Images, not to be venerated, 73-introduction of, into the church,478.

Image-worship, three systems, 465-one allows the use of images, butrejects their worship, ib.-the second honor images with inferiorworship, 466-the third prefer the same adoration to the represen-tation as to the represented, 467-different systems of image-wor-ship, 4068-image-worship a variation from scriptural authority, andfrom Jewish and Christian antiquity, 469-also from ecclesiasticalantiquity, 474-pretended miraculous proofs of, ib.-progress of,4079-80-opposed by the Emperor Leo, 482-condemned by thoByzantine council, 484-patronised by Irene, 486-vanations inthe East on, 494.

Incest, committal of, by the Romish priests, 564.In Ocena, bull of, issued by Paul V. in 1567, subject of, 242.Incomprehensibility to be distinguished from impossibility, 427.India, from time immemorial contained a church which was unknownto the rest of Christendom, 74-and which held the same theologythat was promulgated by Luther and Calvin, ib,

Indian, parallel between, and Christian, 429.Infallibility: impossibility of, 205-moral impossibility of, 215-ecclesiastical absurdity of,203-pontifical, its object, 197- its form,198-its:uncertainty, 199-pontifical and synodal, 201-absurdityof, 203-infallibility would require a continued miracle and per-sonal inspiration, 217.

Innocent I., pope, 402, first sent a missionary expedition against theAlbigenses, 263.

Innocent Ill. [Card. Lothaire] pope, 1198, discovered the popedomin the book of Genesis, 179-according to him, the firmament men-tioned by the Jewish legislator signifies the church, ib.-and thegreater light denotes the pontifical authority, the less, representsthe royal power, ib.-seems to outrival Gregory in usurpation and

Page 618: The Variations of Popery

(;18 INDEX.

tyranny, 194-obtains the three great objects of his pursuits,sacerdotal sovereignty, regal monarchy, and dominion over kings,ib.-divests King John of England, 231- proclaims a crusadeagainst the Albigenses, 264.

Innocent IV., pope, 1243, his treatment of the Albigenses, 256.Innocent X., [Card. PanfiliJ pope, 1644, declares that the Romanpontiff could invalidate civil contracts or oaths made by the friendsof Catholicism with the patrons of heresy, 289.

Innocent XI., [Bened.Odesealchi] pope, 1676, patronises the partisansof Jansenism, 381-retracts the decisions of former pontiffs anddisplays the variations of Romanism, ib.

Inquisition, who the inventor of, 266-where first established, 268-admitted all kinds of evidence, ib.-eruelties of, 269-driven outof many kingdoms, 27O-encouraged by the Romish clergy, ib.-evidences the deepest malignity of human nature, ib.-accountedby Paul IV. the sheet-anchor of the papacy, 273.

Inquisitor, contrast between, and the Messiah, 248.Intinction, a mutilation of the sacrament, of what it consisted, 442.Intolerance, a manifest innovation on the usage of antiquity, and oneof the variations of Romanism, 248.

Ireneeus, attacks the errors of his day, 41.Irene, Empress, jurisdiction of the whole ecclesiastical communityascribed to her by Paulus, the Byzantine patriarch, 183-her crueltyand character, 486.

Ireland: maintains its independency of the Pope still longer thanEngland, 190-rejects the papal supremacy, and indeed all foreigndomination, till the end of the twelfth century, ib.-was for manyages a school of learning for the European nations, ib.-but theDanish army invading her, darkness, literary and moral, succeededand prepared the way for Romanism, ib.-transferred by AdrianIV. to Henry II., 229.

Italian Clergy, profligacy of 579.J.

Jacob, different interpretations of his worshipping God, as mentionedin Reb. xi. 26, 471, &c.

Jacob or Zanzal, the restorer of the denomination called Jacobites,321.

J acobites or Monophysites, diffused through Syria, Mesopotamia,Armenia, Egypt, Nubia, and Abyssinia, 68 - reject supremacy,purgatory, transubstantiation, half-communion, auricular confession,extreme unction, the Latin Liturgy, and the seven sacraments, 69-do not confound the godhead and manhood of the SOD, ib., 321-whence denominated, 320 .

.James L, oath of allegiance to, papal bull against, 243. •Jansenists, their dispute with the Jesuits, 377~ffects of their. con-troversy, 387.

Jansenius, publishes his work, styled' Augustine,' 377..Jerome, trepanned by the mockery of a safe conduct, goes to Constancefor the purpose of supporting John Huss, and is, like him, burnt,296-his heroism, 297. ..

Page 619: The Variations of Popery

INDEX. 619Jesuits, in general would extend infallibility both to questions of rightand of fact, 197-defend Molina's 'Middle Science,' 375-their /controversy with the Dominicans, 376-and with the Jansenists377-379-sink into disrepute and are expelled from the Frenchkingdom for dishonesty in trade and immorality, 387.

Jesus Christ, in the theology of Christian antiquity united in' oneperson, both deity and humanity, 3I9-difference of opinion re-specting his natures, 320-see also, Son of God.

Joan, Pope, her reign circulated without contradiction till the era ofthe Reformation, 81.

Joanna, Queen of Naples, deposed by Urban, 90-betrayed andmurdered by Charles, King of Naples, and Urban, 93.

John XII., (Octavian) pope, 955, surpasses all his predecessors incrime, 117-is deposed by the Roman council, but afterwards re-gains the Holy See, ib.-being caught in adultery, is killed, ib.

John XIV., Pope, 984, succeeds Boniface VII. on the expulsionof the latter, 119-is, however, imprisoned by Boniface, who hadregained the papal chair, and dies of starvation in the castle ofAngelo, ib.-his body exposed at the castle gate, ib.

John XXII., Pope, 1316, distinguished for patronising heresy, 113-denied the admission of disembodied souls into the beatificvision of God during their intermediate state between death andthe resurrection, ih---his belief concerning the spirits of the just,ib.-sends a mission to the Parisian faculty to effect their prose·lytism to his system, 114.

John XXIII., (Balthasar Cossa) Pope, 1410, exceeds all his prede-cessors in enormity, 122-atrocity of his life ascertained andpublished by the general Council of Constance after a tedioustrial, ib.-his character, 122-123.

John, King of England, divested of his kingdom by Innocent theThird, 231-excommunicated, ib.-submits to the pontiff, anddelivers up his crown to Pandolph, the Pope's nuncio, 232.

Jonas, (Justus) accompanies Luther to the conference at Marpurg, 37.Juliana (St.), her contest with Satan, 48.Julius II. (1503) succeeds Alexander VI. in the papMY and in ini-quity, 127-his character, ib.-grants a pardon of all sins toany person who would murder an individual of the Frenchnation, ib.

KKeys: donation of the, mentioned by St. Ma.tth~w, ad~uc~ bysome writers in proof of the supremacy, a topic of diversifiedopinion among the friends of Romanism, 176-the ancients,however, and many learned moderns in the Romish communion,ascribe the reception of the keys to the uniyersal chuf?h, ib,

Kings, deposition of, by popes, 218-sanctIoned by eight RomanCouncils, 237-dethronement of taught by the popes, 235-madean article of faith, 231.

Koran (the), Mohammed assisted in the composition of, by an apostatised Christian and a temporising Jew, 524.

Page 620: The Variations of Popery

620 INDEX.

LLanguedoc, devastation of, by the holy warriors, 265.Lateran, fourth council of, enacted formal regulations for thedethronement of refractory kings, 237-surpassed all its prede-cessors in severity, 259-freed the subjects of such sovereigns asembraced heresy from their fealty, 294-twelfth general councilhas, in latter days, occasioned a wonderful diversity of opinion,136-its canons whence extracted, 137-fifth council of, dis-claimed by the French, 138.

Latins, their dispute with the Greeks on Monothelitism and theExposition of Heraclius, 351.

Latria, or supreme adoration, 466-to whom due, according to theschoolmen, 467.

Lavaur, storming and taking of, in 1211, horrors attending, 265.Lenzuoli, see Alexander VI.Leo IX., (Brunon) pope, 1049, represents the church as built on therock, which is Emmanuel, as well as on Peter or Cephas, 176.

Leo X, (John de Medici) 1513, pope, succeeds Julius II. in thepapacy, and in enormity, 127-orders all to shun Luther and hisadherents, 273.

Liberius, pope, 352, opposes Arianism for a time, 82-banished bythe Emperor Constantius, ib.-signs the Arian creed, and is re-called from banishment, ib.-proofs of his Arianism, 310.

Linus: represented by Eusebius, Ireneeus, Ruffinus, &c., as the firstRoman bishop who exercised the Roman prelacy, 78-at thepresent day, however, accounted by Greeks and Latins, the secondpontiff, 81.

Literature, diffueion of, change effected by, 281.Liturgies, ancient, different forms of prayer contained in them, 521.Lord's Supper, elements accounted signs, figures, and emblems,404-5-retain their own nature and substance, 406-nourish thehuman body, 407.

Lothaire, Cardinal, see Innocent III.Louvain, University of, a beautiful specimen of its Jesuitism, 282.Lucius III. fulminates anathemas against the Waldenses, 256.Luther, Martin, his pertinacity on the subject of consubstantiationawakened a series of noisy, useless disputations, 37-his hostilityto Zuinglianism often overrated, ib.-his answer to Henry theEighth, 483.

Lutherans: renounce the absurdity of consubstantiation, 3S-andunite with the Calvinists, ib.--conference between them and theZuinglians in 1559, at Marpurg, 37.

Lyons, general council of, pronounced sentence of depositionagainst Frederic the Second, 237 -absolves his vassals from theiroath of fealty, 294-this council rejected by the French,137-profligacy of, 579.

MMacarius, patriarch of Antioch, expelled from the sixth generalcouncil of Constantinople, as a monothelite, 356.

Page 621: The Variations of Popery

lNDEX. 621

Maccabees, beok of, uncanonical, and deficient in morality, 519-observations on, 520.

Mageoghegan (Mr.), his opinion of the Bull of .,I\.drianthe Fourth,transferring Ireland to Henry the Second, 230.

Mahomet, see Mohammed.Manducation of the sacramental elements, 429.Manicheans, the first who practised half-communion, 438-expelledby Leo the First, 439-observation of Pope Gelasius on them, ib.

Manna, in the wilderness, said by the Romanist divines, in a generalcongregation at Trent, to prefigure the sacramental bread, 434.

Marcel, see Gregory II.Margaret, daughter to the King of Hungary, uses self-flagellation, 47.Mariana, John, eulogises persecutions and the inquisition, 271-hisdelineation of the moral traits of the 14th and 15th centuries, 211.

Marozia, mistress to Sergius III., with her mother Theodora,assumes in a great measure the whole administration of thechurch, 117.

Marpurg, conference in 1529, between the Lutherans and Zuing-lians at, 37.

Marriage, its influence on mankind, 550-See also Matrimony.Mary, Sister, suffers crucifixion, but wanting faith or fortitude, istaken down in less than hour, 50.

Mary, Queen of England, professes her resolution to supportOatholicism, and to eradicate error and heresy, 280-her deaththe only favor she ever conferred on her unfortunate and perse-cuted subjects, 281.

Mary, Virgin, absurd eulogies of, 555-invoca.tion, intercession, andholy-days of, proscribed by Constantine, 486-images of, adornedthe altar, and edified the faithful, 475.

Mass, mummery of the, a ludicrous spectacle, 442.Materialism, hateful and degrading doctrine of, patronised by thecouncils of Nice, Vienna, and the Lateran, 208.

Matrimony, no sacrament, 73 -among the Israelitish clergy a~ountedin one sense, to a command, 536-examples and precepts ill favorof, left by the apostles, 537-vituperation of, by popish doc-tors, 047.

Matthew, Friar, his adventure with a young nymph, 47.Meaux, Bishop of, see Bossuet (J. B.)Medici (Oatharine de), plans the massacre of St. Bartholomew'sday, 278.

Medici (John de), see Leo X.Medici (J. A. de), see Pius IV.Melancthon accompanies Luther to the conference at Marpurg, 37.Melun, synod of, for what purpose convened! 153.Menndol massacre of, executed by the president Oppeda, 276.'Middle Science,' a theory by which Molina attempted to reconciledivine grace and free-will, S71)..

Miletius supremacy bestowed on him by Gregory and others, 182.Militia ~f Jesus, who so called, 266-called also the militia of

Page 622: The Variations of Popery

622 INDEX.

Dominic, the warriors of the captain of salvation, in Italy theknights of the inquisition, and in Spain the familiars of the holyoffice, ib.

Milennium, exploded both by the Romish and reformed, 55.Mind, actions of the, signified by those of the body, in scripture, 395.Mingrelians, belong to the Greek church, and appear to disbelievetransubstantiation, 67.

Miracles, pretended, to support transubstantiation, 424.Mirandula, his picture of the immorality of the Romish church, 212.Missions for the purpose of proselytism, supported on an extensivescale by the Roman pontiff, 187. -

Mohammed, assisted in the composition of the Koran, it is believed,by an apostatised Christian and a temporising Jew, 524.

Molina (John), publishes his 'Concord of Grace and Free-will,'375-attempts to reconcile divine grace and free-will by 'theMiddle Science,' ib.

Molinism, its catholicism, &c., vouched for by the university ofAlcala, 375-proscribed by the university of Salamanca, ib.

Molinos (John), see Molina.Monasteries, how characterised by the council of Cologne, 577.Monks, absurd demonstration that they are angels, and thereforeproper ministers of the gospel, 52-suppression of, 485.

Monophysites, or Jacobites, divided into Asiatics and Africans, anddiffused through Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Egypt, Nubia,and Abyssinia, 68-their doctrines, 69.

Monophysitism, no novelty, 322-only a nominal or verbal heresy,ib.-its prior existence, ib.-condemned by the Byzantine council,323-approved by the Ephesian council, 324-three creeds onthe subject of, passed by the council of Chalcedon, 330-state of,after the council of Ohalcedon, 335.

Monothelitism, ascribed only one will and one operation to the Sonof God, 347-its author, ib. -its general reception, 348-su~ported by the Roman emperor, and by the Antiochian, Alexan-drian, Byzantine, and Roman patriarchs, ib. et sq.-its degradationfrom catholicism to heresy, 351-its second triumph, 355-synodaldecision against it by the sixth general council of Constantinople,ib.-its total overthrow, 359-its temporary revival, ib.-itsuniversal extinction, 361.

Montanism, rivals the fanaticism of Swedenborgianism, 42.Montfort, Earl of, army against the Albigenses led by, 264-hischaracter, ib.

Moral variations of the popedom, 115.Mussulmen adopted the idea of purgatorian punishment, in all pro-bability, from the popish and Jewish systems, 524.

Mythology, Egyptian, Grecian, Roman, and Scandinavian exhibitsome faint traces of the Trinity, 304.

NNativity, Sister, Revelations of, recommended by Rayment, Hodson,Bruning, and Milner, 44-her visions, ib.-self-tlagellation theamusement of her leisure hours, ib.

Page 623: The Variations of Popery

INDEX. 623Nestorians: overspread Asiatic Turkey, Arabia, Persia, Tartary,India, and China, 68-their churches represented by Cosmas asinfinite or unnumbered, ib.-said to divide the person of the Son,but this controversy a mere dispute about words, 70. /

Nestorius, accused of denying our Lord's humanity, and of renew-ing the errors of Gnosticism and Apollinariahism, 320.

New Jerusalem, its foundations, the names of the twelve apostles,175.

Niceea, council of the first general council, the most celebratedcongress of antiquity, 306-assembled to settle the Trinitariancontroversy, ib.-proceedings of the second, 487-8-condemnedat Frankfort, 491-decree of the Parisian council respecting,492-3.

Nicea, canons of, advocated by Hincmar, the celebrated Frenchbishop, 18~.

Nicene Creed: its general reception in Christendom, 55.Nicholas I., pope, 866, his annoyance respecting the Chalcedoniancanon relative to appeal, 184-his curious explanation of it, ib.

Nicholas V. (Thomas Parentucelli or de Sarzana] pope, 1447, suc-ceeds Eugenius in the Papacy, 105-denominates him the supremehead of the church, but excommunicates Felix and all his adher-ents, ib,

Nunneries, how characterised by the council of Cologne, 577.Nuns of Port Royal refused to sign the,J'ormulary of Alexander theSeventh, 380-treatment they received in consequence, ib,

oOaths, invalidation of, 285-taught and practised by popes, 288, sqq.-and by popish Councils, 292, 293, 297-pontiffs by whom thepractice of annulling oath was exemplified, 289.

Octavian, see John XII.Odecsalchi, Benedict, see Innocent XI.Odo, undeceives several unbelieving clergymen on the subject of thehost, 424.

<Eoolampadiu8, accompanies Zuinglius to the conference at Marpurg,37.

Omnipotence of God, recourse had to, by the patrons of the absurdityof transubstantiation, 427-omnipotence extends only to possibi-lity, and not to inconsistency, to things above, but not contraryto sense, ib.

Oppeda massacres the Waldenses, 276.Orange, massacre of, horrors attending it, 277. .Origen, remarks on the ordeal of, 517-testimony of in favor of sacer-dotal celibacy, 539.

Orobio, endured the rack for Judaism, 269.Orphic theology, Trinitarianism appears in a misshapen form. in, 30~.Osca: his confession, which contains an outline of Protestantism, stillextant, 58. ,

Osiander, accompanies Luther to the conference at ~urg, 37.Oxf'qrd, conncil of, condemns the Waldenses, and consxgns them tothe secular arm, 251.

Page 624: The Variations of Popery

624 INDEX.

PPaganism, persecution of, 251.Palatine Confession: Frederic Ill., Elector Palatine, issued in 1576a Formulary of Faith, 34.

Pandolphus, nuncio to Adrian IV., receives the crown from KingJohn as a token of subjection, 232.

Panfili, Cardinal, see Innocent X.Papacy: schisms in the, 82, sqq.Papal church guilty of general apostasy, 313-sanctions Arianism,316.

Papal court, removal of from Avignon to Rome, 89.Papal supremacy, four variations of, 160-1-silence of tradition con-cerning, 180-unknown to antiquity, 182-ascribed to other Seesbesides Rome, l83-asserted by false decretals, 186-rejection ofin various countries, 187.

Papias, seems to have originated the whole story of Peter's Romanepiscopacy, 8l.

Paphnutius, of Thebais, character of, and his observation on marriage,552.

Parisian council, decree of, 493.Pascal (Blaise), opinion of Voltaire on his' Provincial Letters,' 378.Pascal, the Second, perjury of, 128-freed from an oath by a councilof the Lateran, 293-enactments of on the administration of thesacrament, 440.

Paseasius, the father of the deformity of transubstantiation. 4ls-.-:-Pascasian controvery, 414--0pposed by Scotus and Bertramn,415.

Paschal festival, controversy respecting the observing of, 188.Paul (St.) in his epistles supplies no proof of the supremacy, but on thecontrary, 178.

Paul III. issues a sentence of deposition against Henry VIII., 232-forbids all sovereigns to lend any aid to him, 292.

Paul IV. (John Peter Caraffa] , Pope, 1555, a model of pontificalambition, arrogance, haughtiness, and tyranny, 163--contemnedthe authority of councils and kings, ib.-his power unbounded andabove all synods, and this he called an article of faith, and the con-trary he denominated a heresy, 164-aceounted the inquisition thesheet-anchor of the papacy, and recommends it for the extermina-tion of heresy, 273-absolves himself from an oath, declaring thatthe pontiff could not be bound by an oath, 289.

Paul V., Pope, in 1567, issued the bull 'in Crena,' 242-in 1609issued a bull forbidding the English attached to Romanism, totake the oath of allegiance, 242-canonised Gregory the Seventh,243.

Pelagia, of Antioch, escapes persecution by a voluntary death, 558-is eulogised by Ambrosius, ib. . .

Pelagianism patronised by Liberins, Honorius, and Zozimus, 110-design ot: 362-its author and dissemination, 362, 363-patronisedby the Asians, 364-0pposed by the Africans, ib., 367---condemnedby Innocent, 364-approved by Zozimus, 365-anathematised by

Page 625: The Variations of Popery

INDEX.

him, 368-approved by the Franckfordians, 367-condemned bythe Asians, 369-denounced by the general council of Ephesus, ib.-its declension, 370.

Pelagius, an Englishman, author of the heresy called Polagianism,accused in the synods of Jerusalem and Diospolis, 363 -acquittedin the latter, ib.-anathematised by the Carthaginian prelacy, 364.

Penance, an improved species of, 45.Pepin, King, assists Stephen II. against Astolf, King of Lombardy,222-crowned in 751, King of France, 224.

Perjured Pontiffs, list of 127, 130.Perjnry, seventeen of the Roman pontiffs guilty of, 127-list of themib, and sq~

Perpetua, her vision, 504.Persecuting councils, 259.Persecution, three periods of, first period, 247-second, 249-third,27l-chief victims of, 252-enjoined by pontiffs, as well as theo-logians, 272-persecution of paganism, 25l-of heresy, 253-per-secutions in Germany, 274-in the Netherlands, 275-Spain, ib.-in France, ib.-in England, 280.

Peter-pence, what they were, 230.Peter, St., evidence of his visit to Rome, not historical, but tradi-tional, 76-as not a single hint is afforded on this subject byhimself, nor by Luke, James, Jude, Paul, or John, 73-po1' is itmentioned by the Apostolic men, Clemens, Barnabas, Hennas,Ignatius, or Polycarp, ib.-the fiction began to obtain credit aboutthe end of the second century, ib.-Irenoous the first who recordedit, ib.-great discordancy as to the length of his episcopacy, 80-story of his episcopacy seems to have originated with Papias, 81.

Philarge, see Alexander V.Phillip II. king of Spain, kindles the fires of persecution at Valla.do-lid and Seville, and consigns the professors of Protestantism tothe t1.ames,275.

Philip VI. king of France, threatens to roast pope John XXII. ifhe do not retract his heresy respecting disembodied souls, 115.

Philip and Mary issued a commission for the burning of heretics, 280.Philippicus, emperor of Constantinople, convenes a council for thepurpose of substituting Monothelitism for Catholicism, 359-com-piles a confession, 360-is driven from his throne, ib.

Phocas, a centurion, assassinates the royal fa.milyand seizes the throne,192-instances of his cruelty, ib.- is celebrated for his piety and be-nignity by Gregory, ib.-'-title of universal bishop conferred by, ib.

Pinytus, Bp. of Crete, urges the necessity of abstinence frommatrimony on the clergy of his diocese, but is convinced of hiserror by Dionysius, Bp. of Corinth, 538.

Pisan council, dismiss Gregory and Benedict from the papacy, andappoint Alexander V., 97-forbid all Christians to obey the twoformer, 240-its universality denied by some, HI-the secondcouncil of, acknowledged by the French in opposition to the fifthof the Lateran, 143.

NN

Page 626: The Variations of Popery

626 INDEX.

Pitt, William, question of, to the universities of Louvain, Salamanca,and Valladolid, whether persecution were a principle of Roman-ism, 282.

Pius IV. [J. A. de Medici or Medi(;hino1 pope, 1559, offers to confirmthe English Book of Common Prayer, if Queen Elizabeth wouldacknowledge the pontifical supremacy, and the British nation jointhe Romish communion, 40-writes to her and professes ananxiety for her eternal welfare, and the establishment of her royaldignity, ib.-his overtures for union refused by the Queen andnation, ib.-deposes and anathematises the Queen, 233-annulsthe oath of allegiance to her, 292.

Pius VII. though in captivity, excommunicates and anathematisesBonaparte, 243.

Plato, taught the theory ofpurgatory, 523-remarks onhis style,&c.,ib.Platonic philosophy, Trinitarianism, in a misshapen form, appearsin,304.

Polish Confession, formed in the General Synod of Sendomir in1570, and recognised through Poland, Lithuania, and Samogitia, 34.

Pontiffs, perjured, list of, 127, 130-profligacy of, 579.Pontifical Infallibility, boasted unity of pretended Catholicism hason this, as on every other question diverged into a medley ofjarring opinions and contending systems, 195-its object, 197-itsform, 198-its uncertainty, 199.

Pontifical maxims, 288.Pontifical royalty, 223.Pontifical succession, difficulty of, whence it arises, 76-historicalva.riations respecting, 77, sq.--electoral variations on the samesubject, 82. sq.

Pope, his presidency, 160-his sovereignity or despotism, 162-hissupposed equality with God, 165-his alleged superiority to God,167, sq.-when first raised to royalty,.222.

Popery, never embraced by more than a fifth part of Christendom,74-may be compared to a field of wheat, overrun with tares, 56-nothing, perhaps, presents a more striking image of than aperson laboring under a dreadful disorder, ih.

Pope, see Adrian IV. 229-30-Alexander V. 98-Alexander VI.125-26-Alexander VII. 380-Anacletus, 78, 81-Benedict VI.1I8-Benedict VII. 119-Boniface VII. 1I8-Boniface VIII.121, 163-Clemens, 78-Clement VII. 89, 292-Clement IX.380-Clement X. 380-Clement XL 381-Felix, 82, 84-Greg-ory II. 223-Gregory VI. 89-Gregory VII. 225, 288, 292-Gregory IX. 289, 293-Innocent 1. 263-Innocent III. 179, 194,231, 264-InnoCent IV. 256-Innocent X. 289-Iunocent XI. 381-John XII. 117-John XIV. 119-John XXII. 1I3-JohnXXIII. 122-Leo IX. 176-Leo X. 273-Liberius, 82, 310-Nicholas I. 184-Nicholas V. 105-Paul III. 232, 292-Paul IV.163, 289-Pius IV. 40, 233, 292-SilveriuB 83, 84,-Silvester, 87-Sixtus IV. 124-Stephen, 86, 87-Urban II. 288-Urban VI.89, 90, 92- Vigilius, 85, 112.

Page 627: The Variations of Popery

INDEX. ~27

Posen, Synod of, compact between the reformed of Germany,France, &c. confirmed at, 38.

Post-Nicene Fathers, may, without regret, be consigned to theVatican to rust with the lumber of a thousand years, 55.

Prayers for the dead, remarks on, 518-argnment from, in favor ofpurgatory, refuted, 519. . •

Predestination, gratuitous taught by St. Augustine, 370-30 fertilesource of contest among the French clergy, ib,

Priesthood, marriage of, testimonies to, 539.Priests, profligacy of the Romish, 573.Prignano, see Urban VI.Prison, different interpretations of the word, as used by St. Peter,513-14.

Proterios, patriarch of Alexandria, assassinated by the populace,and his mangled body dragged through the city, 336-7.

Protestant Faith, antiquity of, easily shown, 54.Protestantism, its name originated in the sixteenth century, 54-iscontained in the word of God, ib.-its theology to be found in theearly fathers, ib.-its principles taught in the ecclesiastical pro-ductions of three hundred years after the Christian era, 55-astriking image of, 56.

Protestant name, its origin, 54.Protestant theology, contained in the word of God, 54.Protestants, persecution of by Charles the Fifth, 274-massacre ofthe French. 276.

Public women, number of, who attended the Constantine Council, 207.Purgatory, what it is in the Romish theology, <i!l8-its situation, 499-its punishments, 500-504--destitute of scriptural authority,505-admissions, ib.-Romish arguments from Scripture refuted,507-514-destitute of traditional authority, 515-admissious, ib.-formed no part in the faith of Christian antiquity, 522-Paganand Jewish purgatory, 524-Mahometan, ib.-its introduction,525-its slow progress, 527-completed by the schoolmen, 532.

Pythagorean philosophy, Trinitarianism appears in a misshapenform, in, 271.

QQuesnel (Pasquier), remark on his 'Reflections,' 381-controversyon, ib., 382, 483. .

Quinsextan, or· Trullan council, enjoins celibacy on bishops, butpermits the inferior clergy to marry before ordination, and after-ward to enjoy connubial society, 559.

R

Raban, archbishop of Mentz, opposes Gottescalcus, 31l-seems tohave admitted election, but denied reprobation, ib.-acknowledgedpredestination to life, but. not to death, ib.-misrepresents hisadversary, and characterises him as a perverter of religion, and aforger of heresy, ib.

Page 628: The Variations of Popery

628 INDEX.

Rachel, Sister, suffers crucifixion in order to exhibit a lively imageof the Saviour's passion, 50.

Rack, the, used by the Inquisition, 268.Ratramnus, see Bertramn,Recusants, a faction of the French clergy, who condemned the bullU nigenitus, 383, 384.

Reformation, the, era and influence of, 302.Reformers, doctrinal unity of, apparent in their confessions offaith,33.

Regeneration, the same substantial change communicated to men in,as to the elements of the communion, 41I.

Regulatus, a self-flagellator, 45.Religious liberty of the first three centuries, 249.Remission of sin, as mentioned by St. James, remark on, 456.Revelation, its truths contained in the early fathers, 54.Rheims, college of, remedy commended by, for the extinction ofheresy, 272.

Rhemists, advocate unconditional election, 344.'Rock,' a variety of interpretations of the word, 169, fill.Roger (Peter), see Gregory XI.Roman ritual extends the spirit of persecution even to the dead, 274.Romanism, its superstition forms no part of Ohristianity, 56-de-forms the gospel, and counteracts its utility, ib.-a striking imageof, ib.-boasted unity of, displayed in the ·diversified councils andconfessions of the fourth century, 317.

Romish church, immorality of, 209, sq.-general apostacy of, 313.Romish priesthood, in every age the fosterer of fanaticism andabsurdity, 42-impiety, malevolence, inhumanity, &c., oi, 116-profligacy of, 579.

Rospigliosi (Guil. de), see Clement XI.

SSacramental elements accounted signs, figures, and emblems, 405,407-retain their own nature and substance, 406-nQurish thehuman body, 407-manducation of, by the papist, 429.

Sacramentarian controversy, account of, 37, sq.Salamanca, university of, proscribes Molinism, 375.Sardics, canons of, advocated by Hincmar, the celebrated Frenchbishop, 188-council of, declare for Athanasius and Trinitarianism,308. .

Saxon confession, issued in the Synod of Wittemberg and presentedin 1551 to the council of Trent, 34.

Scandinavian mythology, some faint traces of the Trinity exhibitedin,304.

Schism, great western schism, 89-101... .Schisms in the papacy, the second began lD the reigns of Libenusand Felix, 82-the seventh distinguished the reigns of Silveriusand Vigilius, 84-the thirteenth disgraced the papacy of Forma-sus and Sergius, 86-the nineteenth deformed the reigns of

Page 629: The Variations of Popery

INDEX. 629Benedict, Silvester, and John, 87-the twenty-ninth troubled thereigns. of Urban, Boniface, Innocent, Gregory, Clement, andBenedict, 89-the thirtieth troubled the reigns of .Eugenius and. Felix, 101. .Schoolmen, their nonsense and hair-breadth distinctions on transub-stantiation, 423-purgatory, where placed by, 499.

Scientia Media, see Middle Science.Scottish confession, composed by Knox in 1560, and ratified byParliament, 35-this, however, sunk into neglect on the appearanceof a formulary compiled at Westminster, which was ratified bythe Scottish Parliament in 1649 and 1690, ib.

Scotus (Duns) severely treated by the Valentinians, 372-his produc-tion on election a distinguished specimen of folly and extravagance,ib.-opposes Pascasius, 415.

Sectarianism, its prevalence since the rise of Protestantism, 41.Seleucia, council of, its meeting in the year 359, p. 317-how char-acterized by Gregory Nazianzen, ib.-its proceedings, ib.

Self-flagellation, by whom introduced and practised, 45.Semi-Arians, assert the similarity of the Son, 307-dispute with theArians, ib,

Sendomir, formal ecclesiastical union between the reformed ofGermany, France, &c., effected at, in 1570, p. 38.

Sergius opposes Formosus in the papacy, but is expelled, 78.Sigismund, emperor, guarantees a safe-conduct to Huss, 296-butnotwithstanding, consigns him to the Duke of Bavaria, 298-remarks on this breach of' faith, ib.-see Huss,

Sign, changing of,does not change the signification, 54-instance of, ib.Silverius, pope, elected in 536 by simony, 84-is soon supplanted byVigilius by similar means, ib.-accused by falaewitnessee of a designto betray the city, 85-is banished to Palmaris, where he dies, ib.

Silvester, is substituted in the papacy for Benedict, 87-is soonexpelled, ib.-re-asserts his right, and takes possession of theVatican, 88.

Similarity of the Son, asserted by the Semi-Arians, 307.Simon, St., different statements as to his episcopacy, 79.8in, remission of, as mentioned by St. James, remark on, 456-against the Holy Ghost, observations on, 508.

Siricius, pope, his decretal addressed to Himerius, contains the firstgeneral interdiction of clerical matrimony, 521..

Birmians, their three forms of faith, 309.Sixtus IV. [Francis d'Albescola della Rovere], elected to the papacyin 1471, his character, 124-established brothels in Rome, 125.

Slevin, Dr., his quibbling, &c., in the Maynooth examination, 235.'So as,' remarks on the phrase, 512.Solicitation, sacerdotal and monkish, in Spain, description of, 576-so prevalent as to demand pontifical interposition, ib,

Son of God, his deity and humanity united in one person, in thetheology of Christian antiquity, 319-his divinity acknowledgedin opposition to Arianism, and his humanity in contradiction to

Page 630: The Variations of Popery

630 INDEX.

Gnosticism and Apollinarianism, ib.-his natures confounded byEutyches, as his person was divided by N estorius, 320-opinionof the -Iacobites or Monophysites, 32I-controversies upon hisnatures by the councils of Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon,&c., 323-346-one will and one operation ascribed to him by theMonothelites, 347.

Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, opposes Monothelitism, 350.Sorbonnian faculty propose to modify the doctrine of transubstantia-tion, 40.

Southcott (Joanna), her mania eclipsed by the dreams of Beata, Clara,and Nativity, 42.

Spain, remained free of pontifical dominion till the beginning of theninth century, 188.

Stephen II. applies to King Pepin for assistance against Astolf, Kingof Lombardy, 222.

Stephen VI. succeeds Formosus in the papacy in 896, and commitsatrocities on his dead body, 86-rescinds his acts and declares hisordinations irregular and invalid, ib.-is immured in a dungeon,and strangled, 87.

Stephen, Abp. of Petrarca, his declaration that Leo possessed powerabove all powers, both in heaven and in earth, 167,168.

Stews, propriety of tolerating, advocated by Carlerius, 207.Suction, the second step to the defalcation of the cup, in the sacra-ment, 442-its design, ib,

Suicide, approbation of, 55T-suicide of virgins commended, 558.Sunisactan women, who infested the habitations of the unmarriedclergy, canon directed against them, 552.

Sunisactanism or domestieism, an evasion of the injunction of clericalcelibacy, 561.

Superstition, nearly as old as religion, and originated in the remotestperiod of time, in the darkness and profanity of the antediluvianworld, 53.

Supremacy, four variations in the papal supremacy, 160, 161-silenceof tradition concerning, 180-unknown to antiquity, 182-ascribedto other sees, besides Rome, 183-asserted by faIse decretals, 185-rejection of, in various countries, 187, sq.

Swedenborgianism, fanaticism of, rivalled by the extravagance ofMontus, 42.

Swiss confession, see Helvetian confession. .Switzerland, profligacy of her clergy, 578.Symbolical worship, a variation from ecclesiastical antiquity, 474-opposed by synodal, episcopal, pontifical, and imperial authority,479.

Symmachus excommunicates Anastasius for heresy, 336.Syrian Church, its antiquity, 72-purity and simplicity of its, theo-logy, ib.-its opposition to popery and agreement with protestant-ism, 73.

Syrianism, its antiquity and identity with protestantism acknowledgedby Dr. Buchanan, 74.

Page 631: The Variations of Popery

INDrx. oS1T

Teresia, merits particular attention for her self-flagellation, ·15- herbody, circumfused in a fragran; fluid, remains the undecayed ob-ject of religious worship, ·16.

Tertullian, the first who mentions the custom of praying for the dead,520.

Tetrapolitan confession, why so named, 34-compiled by Bucer andCapito, ib.-presented in 1530 to the Emperor of Germay, ib.

Text of Scripture :-

OLD TESTAMENT. NEW TESTAMENT.GENESIS. MATTHEW.

Chap. Page. Chap. Page.xl, 12, 18 404 ii. 8, 19 171xli, 56, 27 404 v. 26 507

LEVITICUS.v.25 507v. 17 438

xxvi. 1 . 469 viii. 14 537JUDGES. xii 32 506

xviii. 24 432 xiii. 19, 37-40 4042 KINGS. xiii. 29 . 2a

xviii. 4. 470 xvi. 16 235xvi. 18". 169, 171

1 CHRONICLES. xxiv, 28 473xi. 19 403 xxvi, 27 433xxvi. 23 470 xxvi. 28 403xxvii. 9 470 xxvi .. 51, 52 248xxviii, 27 470 MARK..

PSALM. vi. 13 i54,5cx.l. 507 xi. 28 438

JOB. xiv. 23 . 433

viii. 8 527 xiv. 47 248

viii 10 527 xvi. 15 . 177

ISAIAH.LUKE.

i. . 410 ix.56 248

Uii.3 410 xii. 14 220xiii. 11 454

HABAKKUK. xx. 2 438i, 13 214 xxii. 51 248

xxiv. 44 438APOCRYPHA. xxiv, 47 1772 MACCAB. JOHN.

xii. 40 520 x.7 403xii. 43 519 xv. 1 403xii. 44 519 xvii, 16. 220xiv. 41 519 xviii. 10, 36 248xv. 33 520 xxi, 16 . 177

Page 632: The Variations of Popery

632 INDEX.

ACTS. COLOSSIANS.Chap. Page. Chap. Page.i. 26. 178 i. 24. 404vi. 1-6 . 178 IV. 77xv. 1-22 178 2 THESSALONIANS.xx. 28 177 ii. 4 . 166xxviii. 9 454xxviii. 15 80 1 TIMOTHY.

ROMANS. iii. 4 539iv. 13 438 2 TIMOTHY.xiii. 1 220 i. 18. 507xvi. 77 IV. 77

1 COIUNTHIANS. TITUS.x .. 411 '" ') 12 537x. 4 403, 404 Ill. '"'iv.3 537xi. 27 438

xi. 28 433 HEBREWS.xii, 27 404 xi. 21 471,472xv. 25 507 xii. 14 214

.', '

2 CORINTHIANS. JAMES,xi 5 178 v, '14: . 454xii, 11 178 v. 14, 15 455

GALATIANS. 1 PETER.ii. 11 • 178 v.2 . 177iii. 16 438 v.13 80

EPHESIANS. REVELATIONS.iv. 12 404 v.5 . 403

Theondrian or Deivirilian operation, what, 347.Theodora, Empress, friendly to Monophysitism, 84-aims to degradeMennas, the Byzantine Patriarch, who adhered to the Chalcedo-nian faith, 85-and to restore Anthimus, Theodosius and Severusdeposed for their Monophysitism, ib.-applies to Silverius to assisther, but is refused, ib.-turns her attention to Vigilius, who isbribed by her, ib.-Suborns Belisarius to expel Silverius and raiseVigilius, and succeeds, ib, .

Theodora, a courtesan, raises John X. to the pa:pacy, 117.Theodorus, of Pharan, the author ofMono the lit Ism, 347.Theophylactus, see Benedict IX.Thurcal, adventure of, as related by Matthew Paris, 502.Tolosan Chronicle :-contalls an account of tlie processes against theAlbigensians, 58. .

Torquemala, on being made Inquisitor-General, burned alive twothousand sons of heresy, 270.

Tradition: its silence concerning the papal supremacy, 180.Transubstantiation not accounted by the friends of popery as essen-tial in their system, 39-instances of fluctuation on the subject,39, 40-diversity of opinions on, 423-unscriptural, 396-not

Page 633: The Variations of Popery

INDEX. G33supported by John, ch. vi., 397, 4(H-nor by Matt. xxvi., 26, 2840::l-not taught by the Fathers, 40~, 4l1-its introduction 413~Pascasian controycrsy on, 415-llerel~garian, 417, 422-sui>portedby pretended miracles, 425-absurdltyof, 427, 28-its cannibal-ism, 429, 432.

Trent: her disciplinarian canons rejected in France and in part ofIreland, 41, 140-and even in Spain admitted only so far as con-sistent with regal authority, 41-rejection of the council of, 139-reception of, 14I-council of, patronised persecution, 273-cate·chism of, remark on, 534-language used by, concerning theadministration of the sacrament, 441-declaration on extremeunction, 450.

Tri~itarianis~, the faith of Chri~t~an antiqu~ty, 304-;-and may bediscovered III the annals of gentIhsm and philosophy, lb.-as in thePersian, Egyptian, Grecia.n, Roman, and Scandinavian mythologyib.-and in the Orphic theology, and in the Zoroastrian, Pythago:rean, and Platonic philosophy, ib.

Trullan, or Quinsextan council, its canon on matrimony, 559.Type or Formulary, issued by the Emperor Constans, 353-purportof, ib.-in what it differed from the Ecthesis, ib.

Tyrian council, pronounces sentence of excommunication and banish-ment against Athanasius, 307.

U

Ulloa (Ant. de), his frightful picture of the Peruvian priesthood, 580.Ulric, history of, and remedy adopted by him, to preserve contin-ence, 544.

Unction, extreme, not a sacrament, 73-of what it consists, 449-variations in its effects, ib--disagreement on its institution, 450-a variation from scriptural unction, 451-form of, 452-apostolicand popish unctions differ in the persons to whom they are to beadministered, 453-and in the end or effect, 454-extreme unctiona variation from tradition, 459-traditional evidence for, 461-history of, 463.

Unigenitns, observations on the bull issued by Clemens XI., 216.Universal bishop, title of, conferred by Phoeas, 191.University, Parisian, 1589, declared the French entirely freed fromtheir oath of allegiance to their king, Henry III., 288.

'Until,' in scriptural language, what the word denotes, 508.Urban II. [Eudes or Odo], pope 1088, declares that subjects are byno authority bound to observe the fealty which they swear to aChristian prince who withstands God and the saints, and contemnstheir precepts, 288-commands the separate reception of the Lord'sbodv and blood, 439.

Urba;VI. [Bartolomo di Prignano], pope 1378, divides Chri~tendom. with Clement, 89-his summary treatment of seven cardinals, 91-a few specimens of his ability in the art of cursing, 92.

Usurpation of the popes, 193.00

Page 634: The Variations of Popery

634 INDEX.

vValentinian, Emperor, enactment of a law by, forbidding monks orecclesiastics to accept any donation or legacy from maids, matrons,orphans or widows, 22l.

Variations as to the pontifical succession: historical, 77, sq.-electo-ral,82.

Vienna, general council of, declared that the Emperor was.bound tothe pope by an oath of fealty, 239.

Vigilius [537] assumes the pontifical authority, through simony, 84-his character, ib.-his papacy presents a, scene of fluctuationunknown in the annals of protestantism, 113-shifted his groundsix times, ib.-sanctioned Eutychianism, and' afterwards retracted,ib.-withstood Justinian's edict, and afterwards recanted, ib.-shielded Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodorus, and afterwards con-firmed the general council, which condemned them-for- blasphemyand heresy, ib, .' . "'. ,,, : ,-,

Virgin Mary, absurd eulogies of, 555, etc.l , 1.I!r!t'Virginity, admiration of, whenit began, 541~reagoll'1gf thisj'54:2-second reason for the preference of, 546.

wWake, Bp., his correspondence with D~.DuPin ~n-'the subject ofanunion between the English and French ChuJ.ch~'4:0; .

Waldensianism, its theatre, Western or European Christendom57-its patrons, ib.-its principal branches, ib.-antiquity ofbeyond all question, 59-in anticipation, a system of the purestProtestantism many ages before the Reformation, -61-portraitof, 62.

Waldensiane, spread through nearly every country, 59, 60-theirbravery, 61-portrait of them by Alexander, 62-their confessionsshow the conformity of their principles to the Reformation, 63-their morality corresponded with the purity of their faith, 61-their piety, benevolence, and holiness have extorted the appro-bation of friend and foe, ib.-notwithstandillg the persecution ofRomanism, still exists, 66-persecution of them, 257,

Wido, Marquis of Tuscany, deposes and, in all probability, stranglesPope John the Tenth, 117.

'Vine, sacramental, what accounted by the Manicheans, 441-by theLatins, ib.-why curtailed by the Constantine Council in the com-munion of the laity, 444-intinction and suction two methods usedin partaking it, 442.

Wittemberg confession, composed by Brent, published in 1552, 34,

xXavier (Francis), the Indian apostle, uses an iron whip to flagellatehimself, 45.

Page 635: The Variations of Popery

INDEX. 635Z

Zanzal, or Jacob, restorer of the demonstration called Jacobites, 32l.Zeno, publishes the Henoticon, 342-his design in doing so, ib,Zisca, a Bohemian general, the ablest, though blind, tlfat ever tookthe field, 445.

Zoroastrian philosophy, Trinitarianism appears in a misshapen formin,304.

Zozimus, Pelagianism at first approved by, 365-but afterwardsanathematises Pelagius and Celestius, 368 - a profound adept inthe art of cursing, 369-lived a tyrant and died a saint, ib.

Zuinglians, at the conference at Marpurg, 1529, admit the presenceof the body and blood of Jesus in the sacrament, and their recep-tion by those who approach the communion, 39.

Zuinglians and Lutherans, conference between, at Marpurg, in 1529,37-were agreed on all topics but the communion, ib.-but evenon this, though a formal union was not effected, there existed apeaceful and amiable concord, ib.

Zuinglius, appears at the conference held at Marpurg in 1529, 37.

THE END.

Page 636: The Variations of Popery

THE LIFE, EXTRAORDINARY ADVENTURES,UNTIlilllG PERSEVERANOE, AND INVALUABLE DISOOVERIES

~OF TUB LA.MKNTED-

DR. LIVINGSTONE,DURING ABOUT THIRTY YEARS TRAVEL IN AFRIOA;

BEING A CONN!tCTED NARRATIVE OF TUE

Great l!Jxplorer's Life from his Birth down to the Closiny Scenes in WestminSterAbbey, in 1874.

ONE VOLUME, CROWN OCTAVO, ILLUSTRATED.

P:RICE :z 7t'O :LJO.LL.7'.1.:B8.Thi" volume contain" a well-written Life of DR. LIVINGSTONE, which h... commanded the

warmest approval of the literary world for years; Dr. Livingstone's letters to members of HerMajesty's Cabinet, Scientific Men, &c., in England and the United States; his letters to his ownfamily at home, as well as to his brother In Canada, .

EVERYBODY'S OWN 'PHYSICIAN;OR, HOW TO ACqUIRE AND PRESERVE HEALTH!

B'Y DR. GLE.A.SON.

ABOUT 500 PAGES OCTAVO, 250 ENURAVINGS. PRICE, $3.00.

" Written on sound moral principles, by an experienced Christian getttlei'nan. Every adultshould. baTe it."

TBB GOD OF THIS WORLD; OR, TBE DEVIL IN HISTORY,Also called (" THE FOOTPRINTS OF SATAN.")

By REV. HOLLIS READ, A M., Author of "GoD IN HISTORY," of which 400,000 copies havebeen sold. bOOPages, Orown Octavo, Illustrated. ~.OQ •

.. Yo one can IOTm any estimate 01 tAw worle WM luu not read it."

CAPTlVlTY AMONG tal 8l0UXINDlAN8.I-

With a brief account of General Sully's Indian Expedition In1864, bearing upon events occurringin my Captivity. One Volume, Crown BVo, Price, $1.50.

B'Y FANN'Y X:E:LL'Y,

... .Agents wanted in every part of Oanada, for the above and other Works.Term« very liberal. Send for Oitrcular. to

MACLEAR & 00., Publishers, Toronto.Establiahed inc~ in 1843.