The Papal System – VII. The Pope Claims to be Lord of Kings and Nations – Part 2. Pope Innocent III Abolishes the Magna Carta

The Papal System – VII. The Pope Claims to be Lord of Kings and Nations – Part 2. Pope Innocent III Abolishes the Magna Carta

Continued from The Pope Claims to be Lord of Kings and Nations – Part 1

Innocent the enemy of Magna Carta.

Magna Carta, wrung from King John by his barons at Runnymede, June 18th, 1215, has protected and expanded, if it has not directly given birth, to the liberties of England. It may be safely affirmed, that the document of Runnymede has done more to encourage freedom in all existing nations than any other instrument or effort of our race. The heroes of freedom’s battlefields, the sages of all time who meditated about liberty, must yield the palm for far-reaching and ever-expanding results to the bishops and barons of John.

Pope Innocent III. issued a Bull condemning every step taken to secure the Great Charter, and the immortal document itself, in which he says:

    “We are not inclined to cloak the audacity of so great a display of malice, tending to contempt of the Apostolic See, and the detriment of regal rights, the disgrace of the English nation, and serious danger to the whole affairs of the Crucified One, which would certainly be realized unless by our authority all things were revoked which had been extorted in such a way from so great a prince, now bearing the sign of a crusader, although he himself were willing to observe these engagements. We, on behalf of Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, also by the authority of his apostles, Peter and Paul, and by our own, with the general advice of our brethren, reprobate and utterly condemn an agreement of this kind, prohibiting, under a threatened anathema, said king from presuming to keep it; and the barons, with their accomplices, from demanding that it should be observed. WE COMPLETELY ANNUL AND QUASH BOTH THE CHARTER AND THE BONDS OR SECURITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR ITS OBSERVANCE, THAT AT NO TIME THEY MAY HAVE ANY VALIDITY.”

Innocent, in the Bull from which the above is quoted, applies to himself the words of the prophets: “I have appointed thee over peoples and kingdoms, to pluck up and destroy, to build and to plant, cast loose the bonds of wickedness, shake off the oppressor’s burden;” and Innocent gives a fair exhibition of his desire to pluck up and destroy liberty, and to fasten the bonds of wicked oppression upon a nation. There is no ground for surprise when we read in the monkish histories that Innocent was stoutly denounced all over England, and by many viewed as the infamous protector of the meanest tyrannies. The world will never forget that Pope Innocent III. ANNULLED AND QUASHED MAGNA CARTA.

Innocent hurls his thunders on the Barons for compelling John to keep Magna Carta.

    “Innocent, bishop, etc., to P. bishop of Winchester, the Abbot of Reading, and Master Pandulph, subdeacon of the church of Rome, health and the Apostolic benediction. We are very much astonished and annoyed that, although our well beloved son in Christ, John the illustrious King of England, gave satisfaction beyond what we expected to God and the Church, and especially to our brother the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bishops, some of these showing no due respect, if any, to the business of the holy cross, the mandate of the Apostolic see, and their oath of fealty, have not rendered assistance or shown good will to the said king against the disturbers of the kingdom, which, by right of dominion, belongs to the Church of Rome, as if they were cognizant of, not to say associates in, this wicked conspiracy; for he is not free from the taint of participation who fails to oppose transgressors. How do these aforesaid prelates defend the inheritance of the Church of Rome? How do they protect those bearing the cross? (John pretended an intention to become a crusader.) Yea, how do they oppose themselves to those who endeavor to ruin the service of Christ? These men are undoubtedly worse than the Saracens, since they endeavor to expel from his kingdom, him who, it was rather to be hoped, would afford assistance to the Holy Land. Therefore, that the insolence of such men may not prevail, not only to the danger of the kingdom of England, but also to the ruin of other kingdoms, and above all, to the subversion of all the matters of Christ, we on behalf of the omnipotent God, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and by the authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, lay the fetters of EXCOMMUNICATION ON ALL THESE DISTURBERS OF THE KING AND KINGDOM OF ENGLAND, as well as on all accomplices and abettors of theirs, and place their possessions under the ecclesiastical interdict: and we most strictly order the archbishop aforesaid and his fellow-bishops, by virtue of their obedience, solemnly to proclaim this our sentence, throughout all England on every Sunday and feastday, amidst the ringing of bells, and with candles burning, until the said barons shall give satisfaction to the king for his losses and for the injuries they have inflicted on him, and shall faithfully return to their duty. We also, on our own behalf, enjoin all the vassals of the said king, in remission of their sins, to give advice and render assistance to the said king in opposing such transgressors.”

Verily Innocent had a poor opinion of the men who obtained Magna Carta, and supported it after securing it. They were “Disturbers of the king and kingdom of England,” only fitted for excommunication—that is, for the tender mercies of the Wicked One here, and the worst pains of the pit hereafter. Notwithstanding this, the patriots of the world will ever rank the barons of Runnymede among the greatest benefactors of mankind.

If Innocent was infallible, as the late Vatican Council decided, then it follows that Magna Carta, with the whole British Constitution built upon it, is dead in law now, and should that country ever be restored to the popedom, its liberties would only need the application of this law to give them a death-blow.

As the infallibility of the pope rests on the supposed fact that the Holy Spirit guides him, and as that Spirit never changes, it therefore follows, that all GREAT CHARTERS OF FREEDOM ARE OFFENSIVE TO GOD, and that their friends, as the authors of such unholy instruments, have fitted themselves for expulsion out of the earthly church and the heavenly Paradise. The protracted warfare between Innocent and John, and the pope and the barons of England, presents an appalling and irresistible mass of testimony to the offensive doctrine that: “The Bishop of Rome claims to be LORD OF THE NATIONS.”

Paul III. excommunicates Henry VIII., and declares his Throne forfeited.

The Bull is very lengthy, and only the more important portions of it are quoted. It can be seen entire in Bower’s “History of the Popes:”

    “Paul, Bishop, the servant of servants of Christ. For perpetual memory.

    “We, though unworthy, being placed over all nations, and in the seat of justice, by the clemency of him so ordering it, who remaineth himself immovable, does in his providence give to all things to move in an admirable order. And we, also, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, saying: ‘Behold, I have set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, and to build and to plant;” having obtained supreme power over the kings of the whole earth, and over all people.

    “If King Henry, his favorers, adherents, advisers and followers shall not effectually hearken to these exhortations and injunctions, we declare the said King Henry, his favorers and adherents incapable of absolution; and as for his counsellors, followers, and others culpable in the premises, from our apostolical authority, and of our certain knowledge, and out of the plenitude of our apostolical power, by the tenor of these presents, and in virtue of holy obedience, and under the penalty of the greater excommunication de facto incurred, and from which they shall not be absolved, under pretense of any privilege or faculty, though in the form of a confessional one; no, not with any of the most effectual clauses anywise granted by ourselves, or the aforesaid see, and though they should be more than once reiterated. We declare them incapable of being otherwise absolved than by the Roman Pontiff himself, except at the point of death; and even then, if it shall happen that any are absolved who shall afterward recover, he shall fall under the same sentence of excommunication, except upon his recovery he shall effectually obey these our monitions and commands.

    “Moreover, we do by these presents admonish those and every of them, that we do actually intend, that thereby they should incur the crime of rebellion; and as to King Henry, the FORFEITURE ALSO OF HIS KINGDOMS AND AFORESAID DOMINIONS. And as well him as those before admonished, we will have it to be understood that they, and every one of them de ipso facto, respectively incur the penalties before, and hereafter written, if they shall not obey the monitions and commands as declared above; and we do also separately command them, and every of them, that King Henry do APPEAR BEFORE US IN PERSON, OR BY HIS LEGAL PROXY, and him sufficiently empowered, within the term of ninety days. But as to his favorers, adherents, advisers, followers, and others anywise culpable as aforesaid, whether secular or ecclesiastical, and even regulars, that they do personally appear before us within sixty days, in order lawfully to excuse or defend themselves with reference to the premises, or else to see and hear sentence pronounced against them, and every of them by name, whom we admonish, as it shall be found expedient, to be proceeded against, as to all and singular acts, even to a definitive, declarative, condemnatory, and privatory sentence, as well as to an excusatory mandate. But if the said King Henry, and others before admonished, shall not appear within the said term respectively prefixed them, and shall sustain with an obdurate mind the foresaid sentence of excommunication for three days, which God forbid, we do aggravate, and successively reaggravate the said censures, and do declare King Henry DEPRIVED OF HIS KINGDOM AND OF HIS DOMINIONS aforesaid; and as well him as those before admonished, and every of them, to have incurred all and singular the other penalties aforesaid, and that they and all that belong to them be eternally exploded by all the faithful. And if, in the mean time, he shall depart this life, out of our aforesaid authority and plenitude of power, we declare and decree, he ought to WANT CHRISTIAN BURIAL. AND WE DO SMITE THEM ALL WITH THE SWORD OF ANATHEMA, MALEDICTION AND ETERNAL DAMNATION.”

No one to obey King Henry on pain of Excommunication.

    “And further yet, we do absolve and altogether set free from the said king and his accomplices, favorers, adherents, and advisers and followers aforesaid, however deputed, and from their oath of fealty and their vassalage, and from all subjection towards the king and others aforesaid, all the magistrates, judges, castellanies (the lordship belonging to a castle), wardens and officials whatsoever of King Henry himself, and his kingdom, and all other his dominions, cities, lands, castles, villages, fortresses, forts, towns and any other his places; as also the universities, colleges, feudatories (a person holding land by feudal fee), vassals, subjects, cities, inhabitants; also denizens under actual obedience to the said king, as well secular persons as others, who by reason of any temporality recognize King Henry as their superior, and also ecclesiastical persons. Moreover, commanding them that under pain of excommunication, they wholly and altogether withdraw themselves from the obedience of the said King Henry, and of all his officials, judges and magistrates whatsoever, and that they do not recognize them as their superiors, nor obey their commands.”

Henry and his supporters cannot be Witnesses, make Wills, or inherit Property.

    “That others, being terrified by their examples, may learn to abstain from such excesses, we will and decree, by the same knowledge and plentitude of power as before, that King Henry and his accomplices, adherents, counsellors, followers, and other criminals, as to the premises, after they have respectively incurred the other penalties aforesaid, that they, and also their descendants, from thenceforward shall be, and are, accounted as persons infamous, and as such shall not be admitted witnesses, nor shall they be capable to make any wills and codicils (a supplement or appendix to a will), or other dispositions, nor to grant anything, even to those who are living, and they a rendered incapable to succeed to any estate, by virtue of any will or testament, or to any person intestate.”

No one must have any social Relations or business Transactions with Henry, or his Supporters.

    “And we further admonish all and every, the faithful in Christ, under the penalties of excommunication, and other the penalties underwritten, that they avoid all the forementioned criminals, who have been admonished, excommunicated, aggravated, interdicted, deprived, cursed, and damned; and, as much as in them lies, that they cause them to be avoided by all others, and that they have no commerce, conversation, or communion with the same persons, or with the citizens, inhabitants, or dwellers, or with the subjects or vassals of the cities, lordships, lands, castles, counties, villages, fortresses, towns, and places aforesaid, of the said king, in buying, selling or bartering, or in exercising merchandise or any business with them. And that they presume not to carry or hire, or cause to be carried or conveyed, any wine, grain, salt, or any other victuals, arms, cloth, wares, or any other merchandise or commodities, either by sea in their ships, galleys or other vessels, or by land on mules or other beasts belonging to them; as also that they presume not to receive things carried by them publicly, or by stealth, or to afford any manner of assistance, counsel or favor, publicly or privately, either by themselves or others, or indirectly, under any false color to such persons, which, if they presume to do, they likewise shall incur the penalties of the said excommunication, a nullity also of the contracts into which they have entered; and, moreover, the forfeiture of their wares, victuals, and of all their goods, so carried, which shall be free prize to the captors.”

The Nation must unite for the Expulsion of Henry and his Supporters by Force of Arms.

    “Furthermore, if the premises notwithstanding, King Henry, his accomplices, favorers, adherents, advisers and followers aforesaid, shall persist in their obstinacy, and if remorse of conscience shall not reduce them to a right mind, but they shall confide in their own power and arms, we require and admonish, under the penalties of the same excommunication, and forfeiture of their goods, which shall be the prey of the captors, as hereafter is approved, all and singular, the dukes and marquises, counts, and all others whatsoever, as well secular as ecclesiastical, and also men of the law, actually obeying King Henry, that, without delay and excuse, they, with force of arms, if need be, expel out of the kingdom and aforesaid dominions, them, and every of them, and their soldiers and stipendiaries, as well horse as foot, and all others whatsoever who shall favor them with arms.”……

All fighting Men in other Nations to attack Henry, and drive him into Obedience to the Pope.

    “Moreover, we, in like manner, exhort and require, nevertheless commanding them, in virtue of their holy obedience, as well as the aforesaid as any others, even those that fight for hire, and whatever other persons having under them such as bear arms, either by sea or land, that they take up arms against King Henry, his accomplices, favorers, adherers, counsellors, and followers aforesaid, so long as they shall remain in the foresaid errors, and in rebellion against the Holy See; and that they persecute them, and every one of them, that they MAY FORCE AND COMPEL THEM, AND EVERY ONE OF THEM, TO RETURN TO THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, AND TO THE OBEDIENCE OF THE HOLY SEE.”……
The Goods of Englishmen, disobeying the Pope, when seized, belong to the Captors; and their Owners, when they fall into the hands of the Pontif’s friends, are to be sold into Slavery.
    “And we, from the same power, knowledge, and authority, do grant license, leave and liberty, to the same persons, of converting the same goods, merchandises, money, shipping, commodities, and cattle, to their own proper use; decreeing these presents, all those things wholly to pertain and belong to the captors. And the persons deriving their origin from the same kingdom and dominions, or otherwise inhabiting therein, and not obeying our commands aforesaid, wheresoever they shall be taken, THEY SHALL BE THE SLAVES OF THE TAKERS. ……

    “Dated at Rome, at St. Mark, in the year of the incarnation of our Lord, 1535. The third of the Calends of September, in the first year of our pontificate.”

This Bull was to be read in all churches on the “Lord’s days and other festivals, when the greatest number of the people shall be assembled.” And it was to be published with awful solemnity. “The standard of the cross was to be shown, the candles were to be lighted, the bells were to be tolling, and then the candles were to be extinguished and thrown on the ground and trodden under foot.”

Surely the pontiff who could deprive Henry of his kingdom, summon him to Rome to defend himself before the pope, order his subjects to expel him from his kingdom, command the warriors of other nations to constrain Henry and his supporters to obey his holiness, and forbid all men to have anything to do with Henry in conversation, in trade, in advice, in showing him kindness, is, in his own imagination, the master of kings and empires, the lord of the world.

Continued in The Papal System – VII. The Pope Claims to be Lord of Kings and Nations – Part 3. The Excommunication of Queen Elizabeth

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart




The Papacy Proved to be The Antichrist Predicted in The Holy Scriptures

The Papacy Proved to be The Antichrist Predicted in The Holy Scriptures
THE PAPACY
PROVED TO BE
THE ANTICHRIST
PREDICTED IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
BY THE
REV. SAMUEL J. CASSELS
Introduction by the webmaster.

This is part 2 of Samuel J. Cassels’ book, Christ and Antichrist, first published in 1846. The author was a Presbyterian minister.

All true Christians know that Jesus is Nazareth is the Messiah or they wouldn’t be Christians. What most Christians today don’t know is the papacy, the office of the Pope, is the biblical Antichrist. This is unfortunate because Protestant Christians up to sometime in the 19th century did think of the Pope as the Antichrist. Why don’t most evangelical churches today hold this view? It’s the result of the Jesuit-led Counter-Reformation! Most Christians know a bit about the history of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, but how many know of the “Counter-Reformation”? The Counter-Reformation was the Church of Rome’s strategy to undo the Protestant Reformation. The term Counter-Reformation was never mentioned even once in any fellowship or church I ever attended. Because preachers today don’t know about the Counter-Reformation, their flocks don’t know either.

The Protestant Reformation began in 1517 when Martin Luther nailed to a Catholic church in Wittenberg Germany his 95 thesis which was a disputation on the power and efficacy of Indulgences. Around the year 1585, a Jesuit priest named Francesco Ribera purposely misinterpreted the prophecy of Daniel 9:27 in an attempt to attribute a prophecy referring to Jesus Christ to an end-time Antichrist. Sad to say, most evangelicals today bought the Jesuit interpretation. One reason they did is because modern English Bible translations of Daniel 9:27 are downright wrong! See Daniel 9:27 Grossly Mistranslated in Modern English Bible Translations

Daniel 9:27  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:…

Christians up till the 19th century understood the “he” of Daniel 9:27 to be Jesus Christ, and “the covenant” to be the covenant of grace through faith that God made with Abraham, the same covenant mentioned in verse 4 of the same chapter of Daniel. Francesco Ribera, in order to take Protestants eyes off the papacy as the Antichrist, cooked up a doctrine which is called Futurism, the name of the school of interpretation that puts most of the prophecies in the Book of Revelation as yet unfulfilled. Ribera claimed that the “he” of Daniel 9:27 is the Antichrist, a man who will rise in the future. Ribera ripped away the last 7 years of the 70 Weeks prophecy from the first 69 weeks (or sevens totaling 483 years) and threw it in the future! Does this seem right to you? Is there any scriptural precedent for him to do so? Do the verses before Daniel 9:27 talk about an Antichrist? My Bible talks about Messiah the Prince!

When Protestants of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries heard the doctrine of a future Antichrist reigning in the last 7 years just before the return of Jesus Christ, they rejected it as false doctrine. But by and by, due to Jesuit infiltration into Protestant churches and seminaries, and the influence in the early 20th century of the Scofield Reference Bible and the Dallas Theological Seminary which promoted Jesuit Ribera’s futurist interpretation of Daniel 9:27, it was accepted by evangelicals, mainly Pentecostals and Baptists!

My friends, please know that a future Endtime Antichrist doctrine based on prophecies in the book of Daniel is not what Christians over 18 centuries used to believe! The Pope in their eyes fit the biblical description of the Antichrist precisely. This book by Samuel J. Cassels will give you that biblical proof if you will only take the time to read it.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

WE have already remarked upon the importance of ascertaining the personal identity of Christ. Of corresponding importance is it, to discover the personal identity of Antichrist. Antichrist is the enemy of Christ. As therefore, our salvation is secured through personal union by faith with Christ, so our destruction is made certain, if at last we are found on the side of Antichrist. Here, we cannot serve two masters. If we adhere to the cause of Christ, we cannot promote that of Antichrist; and if we maintain the cause of Antichrist, we cannot promote that of Christ.

Nor is there between these two any neutral ground. “He that is not for Christ, is against him;” and he that is not against Antichrist, is for him. Christ and Antichrist are in open hostility. The struggle is great, and has been of long continuance. It is going on around us; and we cannot be idle spectators of the scene. Our views, our feelings, our conduct, must favour the one or the other of these contending parties. Let every man, therefore, select his position, and gird on his armor. Let him choose the one or the other of these two masters. Which will he serve? With which does he seek his destiny?

But how is Antichrist to be ascertained? The same way that we ascertain Christ. Search the Scriptures; examine facts. The Jews were condemned, because, with the Scriptures in their hands, they did not recognize, but rejected Christ. And so shall we be condemned and punished, if, with the same Scriptures in our hands, we do not recognize, but blindly follow Antichrist.

The times also require this investigation. Throughout Europe, throughout the world, there is a revival of the Papal system. True, this revival is not to be considered as indicative of any very great triumphs. The best days of Popery have been numbered. The notions which men now entertain of popular liberty, and of the rights of conscience, the general intelligence that prevails, the recorded history of Papal oppression, the circulation of the Holy Scriptures, and above all, the word of God, all lead to the belief, that no efforts of the crafty agents of this crafty system, can ever give it the influence it has once exerted. “Tekel” is inscribed upon it; and some Cyrus will, ere long, be raised up, who shall dry up its waters, break down its gates of brass, and let oppressed humanity go free. No; it is not the ultimate triumph of this system we fear; it is the harm it may do in its death-struggle; it is the unnatural energies of its spasmodic dissolution, that we dread.

In America, particularly, is this investigation important. In all the countries over which it has triumphed, Popery, like the anaconda, has wound around its folds of art, of cunning, of superstition and of power, until, enclosing everything in its too friendly embraces, it has, with one tremendous effort, crushed the nation to death. It sends forth its missionaries; it gathers its schools and colleges; it erects its cathedrals and builds its churches; it is patriotic, benevolent, charitable. Its alms and offerings attract the vulgar, its austerities and penances convince the skeptical. It is at first tolerated; then approved; next obeyed! But now come the dread realities of the system, taxation, passive submission, excommunications, interdicts, crusades, the inquisition, destruction. Yes, Popery has well nigh destroyed every country in which it has been predominant. The liberties and national prosperity of a people cannot coexist with such a system.

Let then, Americans — Americans, who have never witnessed a Court of Inquisition, or an Auto-da-fe, on their virgin soil; Americans, whose national liberties are still fragrant with the blood of revolutionary forefathers; Americans, whose proud eminence in the civilized world, gives them more to lose than other nations; let Americans especially examine this subject well. And if, in such an examination, the following pages shall contribute but a mite to the discovery of the truth, the author will feel himself more than compensated for the labor they have cost him.

CHAPTER 1 THE SEAT OF ANTICHRIST

THE same inspired word, which has revealed to the Church an Antichrist to come, has also specified the seat of his power, that seat is the city of Rome.

In Daniel’s vision of the four beasts, is the following language — “I considered the horns, and there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and behold in this horn were eyes, like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.” Daniel 7:8.

The beast upon whose head Daniel saw the ten horns, is generally supposed by commentators to symbolize the Roman government; the ten horns, the ten kingdoms by which that government was succeeded; and the little horn, the Papacy. The reasons, upon which this interpretation is founded, are the following:

The scope of the vision requires it. This vision was given to Daniel, to portray before his mind, those great empires, or governments, which were to precede the everlasting kingdom of the Messiah. These governments were four. The first, under the symbol of a lion, was the Assyrian. The second, under the symbol of a bear, was the Persian. The third, under the symbol of a leopard, was the Macedonian or Grecian. The fourth, which was represented by “a beast dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly” must, of course, be the Roman.

To apply this last symbol as some have done, to the kingdom of the Seleucidae, is to commit two fatal errors. That kingdom is represented in tile vision, by one of the heads of the third beast, the symbol of the Grecian empire; for it is expressly said, “the beast had four heads.” These four heads were, the Egyptian, Syrian, Thracian, and Macedonian divisions of the great Alexandrian empire. If, then, the kingdom of the Seleucidae, or Syria, were included under the third symbol, it certainly would not be also exhibited by the fourth.

The other fatal mistake is, that this hypothesis makes Syria a greater and more notable kingdom, not only than the Assyrian, the Persian, and the Grecian; but than even the Roman empire itself! It is expressly said, by the angelic interpreter of the vision, that this fourth beast “shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.” This was never true of Syria, nor has it been of any other kingdom since, but that established by Romulus.

The ultimate dismemberment of the Roman empire, and the formation from its fragments, of ten separate states, also agree with this interpretation.1 “The ten horns out of this kingdom,” says the angel, “are ten kings (i.e. kingdoms) that shall arise.” Now it is a notorious fact, that when the Roman empire was overrun and subverted by the northern nations of Europe, ten kingdoms arose out of its fragments. The following are the names of those kingdoms, as given by Machiavel, himself a Roman Catholic. “The Ostrogoths in Moesia; the Visigoths in Pannonia; the Sueves and Alans in Gaseoigne and Spain; the Vandals in Africa; the Franks in France; the Burgundians in Burgundy; the Heruli and Turingi in Italy; the Saxons and Angles in Britain; the Huns in Hungary; the Lombards, at first upon the Danube, but afterwards in Italy.”2

This interpretation is also supported by the very extraordinary agreement between “the little horn” and the Papacy. This little horn “came up among” the other horns; “it was diverse from the rest;” “it plucked up three of them by the roots;” “its look was more stout than its fellows;” “it had eyes like the eyes of man;” it had also “a mouth that spake very great things;” it made war with the saints, and prevailed against them, till the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints.” The length of time, too, during which this “little horn” should oppress the saints, is expressly stated to be, “a time, times, and the dividing of time;” that is, twelve hundred and sixty years.

All these marks indicate the Papacy so strongly, that it is difficult to conceive how they could ever have had a different application. The Papacy arose among the ten Gothic kingdoms of Europe: it was, however, diverse from all those kingdoms, being an ecclesiastical sovereignty; in its rise, it subverted three of those kingdoms, those of the Heruli, Ostrogoths, and Lombards; its “look” too, has always been more “stout,” than that of any other European kingdom; it is distinguished for craft and cunning; it is more ambitious and boastful than its neighbors, pretending to exercise absolute sovereignty over them; it has ever been a persecuting power; and it is long-lived; having not even yet exhausted the twelve hundred and sixty years of its predicted existence. What a remarkable agreement between prophecies and facts! What a perfect symbol is the “little horn,” of the Papal power! Probably, no one Messianic type in the Old Testament scriptures, is more perfectly fulfilled in Jesus, than is this little horn in the Papacy.

The commentator on the Doway Bible admits that “the little horn” is a symbol of Antichrist. “This,” says he, “is commonly understood of Antichrist. It may also be applied to that great persecutor Antiochus Epiphanes, as a figure of Antichrist.” But who is Antichrist? According to Romanists, some great enemy of Christianity, who is to arise at some future period, who will dreadfully oppress the Church, and whose duration will be very brief. Upon the expression in this vision, “a time, times, and half a time,” the same commentator says, “this means three years and a half, which is supposed to be the length of the duration of the persecution of Antichrist.”

That this papal interpretation of the symbol is incorrect, is evident. The fourth beast is admitted, even by this same authority, to be the “empire.” The ten horns are also said to represent “ten kingdoms, among which the empire of the fourth beast shall be parodied.” Now, the Roman empire has ceased to exist for many centuries past. If, then, it ever could be divided into ten kingdoms, such division must already have taken place. The “little horn,” then, or Antichrist, must, of course, have been in existence long since; for it was to “spring out of the midst” of the other horns, or kingdoms. And, here, I cannot but remark upon the unfairness of this papistical commentary. The beast, it states, represents the Roman empire; the ten horns, the ten kingdoms, into which that empire was divided. And yet, the “little horn,” which is admitted to be a symbol of Antichrist, and which was to exist among the ten horns, or kingdoms, is said to be a figure of some malignant power not yet in existence!

We have not, however, located Antichrist at Rome. Daniel places him among the ten horns; that is, among the nations of Southern Europe. He does not, however, inform us of his precise locality. This is done by the Apostle John. “And I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls; having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations, and filthiness of her fornication. And upon her forehead was a name written — ‘Mystery, Babylon the great the mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth.” And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” In explaining these remarkable symbols, the angel said to John, “The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth.” And, as if this were not sufficiently distinct, he adds: “The woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” Revelation 17.

This passage may be considered both as a commentary upon, and an enlargement of, the vision of Daniel. Here, as there, is “a beast having ten horns.” The beast, in the vision of John, as in that of Daniel, symbolizes Rome; the ten horns, the ten kingdoms which succeeded the Roman empire. Revelation 17:12. While, however, Daniel’s beast is represented as “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly” John’s is said to be “scarlet-colored and full of names of blasphemy.” The reason for this is, that Daniel referred principally to Rome Republican and Imperial, while John, as we shall see hereafter, describes chiefly Rome Papal. In Daniel’s vision there is no mention made of “the seven heads” of the beast. This figure is employed in the latter vision to identify the beast. “The seven heads” says the angel, “are seven mountains.” This refers to the seven hills on which Rome is built. The grand distinction, however, between the two visions is, that while Daniel speaks of “a little horn” rising up among the ten horns, John omits this figure, but introduces another of a different kind. He sees “a woman arrayed in purple and scarlet-color, and decked with gold and precious stones,” sitting upon the beast. The reason for this difference is, that Daniel represents Antichrist as a political, while John exhibits him as an ecclesiastical power.

Nor will it appear upon examination, that “the little horn” is a more significant type of the Papal state, than the “woman arrayed in purple and scarlet” is of the Papal church. This woman was seen “sitting upon the scarlet-colored beast.” This denotes that union of church and state, which has so long existed between the Papacy and the Civil governments of Europe. It also indicates the authority which the Roman church has so absolutely wielded over these governments. The woman was also “arrayed in purple and scarlet-color” The Pope of Rome has for ages pretended to be emperor of the whole world. As such, he not only dresses himself in purple and scarlet, but adorns with the same costly materials all around him — “Even the mules and horses,” says Bishop Newton, “which carry the popes and cardinals, are covered with scarlet cloth; so that they may be said, literally, to ride upon a scarlet-colored beast.”3 This woman was also “decked with gold and precious stones, and pearls.” This indicates the very great wealth and splendor of papal establishments. The following is an extract from a letter written by a traveler in Mexico: “In the cathedral of Puebla hangs a chandelier of massive gold and silver, of whole tons in weight. On the right of the altar stands a carved figure of the Virgin, dressed in beautiful embossed satin, executed by the nuns of the place. Around her neck is suspended a row of pearls of precious value; a coronet of pure gold encircles her brow; and her waist is bound with a zone of pure diamonds and enormous brilliants. The candelabras in the cathedral are of silver and gold, too massive to be raised by even the strongest hand, and the Host is one mass of splendid jewels of the richest kind. In the cathedral at Mexico, there is a railing of exquisite workmanship, five feet in height, and two hundred feet in length, of gold and silver; on which stands a figure of the Virgin, with three petticoats — one of pearls, one of emeralds, and one of diamonds; the figure alone is valued at three millions of dollars.” If such be papal worship in Mexico, what is it among the splendid capitals of Europe? What must it be at Rome?

This woman is also represented as a harlot; yea, as the greatest of harlots. This refers to the idolatries of papal Rome. That the fornication here alluded to is spiritual, that is, idolatry, is admitted by even Romanists themselves. “By Babylon,” says the commentator on the Doway Bible, “is meant either the city of the devil in general, or pagan Rome, which was the principal seat of empire and idolatry.” Here, however, a great mistake is committed, in supposing, that the prophecy alludes to pagan Rome. This harlot, or adulterous woman, is evidently the type of a false church. But when was any church whatever in alliance with pagan Rome? In the days of pagan Rome, the church, so far from riding on the beast, was trampled under foot, and almost destroyed by him. Evidently the reference is to papal Rome. And are there no such idolatries practiced in this apostate church, as correspond with the figure so graphically drawn by the Apostle? Is not the Pope himself worshipped? Is not the Virgin worshipped? Do not churches and altars, relics and crucifixes, pictures and statues, saints and angels, all receive divine honors? Never did pagan Rome excel professedly Christian Rome in these particulars. The papacy is the fountainhead, the source of these abominations, which from the Roman metropolis, extend almost to the whole world.4

This woman was also “drunk with the blood of saints and of the martyrs of Jesus.” It is said of the “little horn,” in Daniel’s vision, that “he made war upon the saints and prevailed against them.” We have already mentioned, that this “little horn” was a type of the papal state, while this woman is a type of the papal church. In popery, however, both church and state are employed, in the work of persecution. The spiritual court first tries and condemns the criminal; he is then delivered over to the civil authority to be executed, the venerable council first determines upon a crusade; the next step is, the enlistment in the enterprise, of the kings and potentates of the earth. In this way has the papal church been “drunken with the blood of saints.” And has not this prediction been fulfilled, to the very letter fulfilled? “Not to mention,” says Bishop Newton, “other outrageous slaughters and barbarities, the crusades against the Waldenses and Albigenses, the murders committed by the duke of Alva in the Netherlands, the massacres in France and Ireland, will probably amount to ten times the number of all the Christians slain, in all the ten persecutions of the Roman emperors put together.”5 The same sentiment is expressed by Gibbon as we shall see hereafter in his history of the Roman empire. Such are the correspondences between “the woman arrayed in purple and scarlet,” and the papal church. Evidently then, the one is the type of the other. But if so, the city of Rome itself was to be the spot where that anti-christian power was to be enthroned upon the nations of Europe. That Rome is the head of the papal world, and that a great autocrat has been presiding there for many centuries past, are facts of general notoriety; indeed it is fundamental in the whole papal scheme, that the seven-hilled city should be the metropolis of this strange and wonderful empire. Should Rome be displaced, the whole fabric would fall. Hence the seventy years, during which, through the influence of the French kings, the popes were made to reside at Avignon, are considered by all good Catholics, as a Babylonish captivity.

The radical doctrine of this system, as expressed by the Florentine Synod is, “That the Apostolic chair and the Roman high priest doth hold a primacy over the universal church; and that the Roman high priest is the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the Apostles; the true Lieutenant of Christ, and the Head of the Church; that he is the Father and Doctor of Christians; and that unto him in St. Peter, full power is committed to feed, and direct and govern the Catholic church.”6

Daunou, in his Court of Rome, represents this as “a controverted point” among Roman Catholics. — “Not one word,” says he, “in the gospel, nor even in the writings of the Apostles, indicates the city of Rome as the indispensable capital of Christendom.”7 This is very true; but it is neither the doctrine nor the practice of the Romish Church. “That the primacy of the Church is of divine right,” says Dens, “and that this primacy should continue in the Roman bishop, or pope, are points that are considered settled in the faith.”8 This doctrine may be briefly expressed thus: Christ delegated his authority to Peter; Peter established his seat at Rome; upon his decease, he transferred his office to a Roman successor: hence these Roman successors of the Apostle, are, to the end of the world, the vicegerents of Christ, and the head of his Church. In all this, locality at Rome is essential. Withdraw that idea, and the primacy falls.

It need not be mentioned here, upon how many false premises this doctrine is based. It need not be affirmed, that Peter held no office higher than the other Apostles. It need not be asserted that the very peculiar offices of Christ, could not be conferred on Peter, or on any other. It need not be maintained, that Peter’s office, as Apostle, could not be transferred to Linus. It need not be stated, that the New Testament does not even allude to the fact, that Peter ever saw Rome. It need not be suggested, that Eusebius, when mentioning the visit of Peter to Rome, although he refers to his labors and martyrdom, says not a word about his primacy in that city. It is not necessary to assume the ground, that for three or four centuries after the martyrdom of Peter, the Roman See exercised no special sovereignty over the general Church. These things need not here be affirmed. It is enough to fulfill the prophecy under consideration, that the reverse of all this has been maintained; and that upon these false premises, a potentate of extra-ordinary character, wearing at once miter and crown, wielding together sword and Bible, presiding alike over politics and religion; it is enough, we say, that such a potentate has for ages, and in the face of the whole world, occupied his seat upon the ashes of old Rome. Had the supreme pontiff of Christendom been located any where else; had he lived at Alexandria, Jerusalem, Paris, or London; had he been further removed from the power-spot of the old empire — there had at least, been one argument less in establishing his antichristian character. But, by an awful infatuation, and with a pertinacity bordering on madness, the great father of Christians has taken his seat, just where it was predicted beforehand that Antichrist should reign! We employ then the very seat and chair of St. Peter, the ashes of old Rome, and the superstitions of the new, the Vatican, the Roman tiara, and the Roman crown, Roman bulls and Roman interdicts, Roman bibles and Roman prayers; we urge all this Romanism as evidence conclusive, as proof irrefragable, that the Papacy is the Antichrist predicted in the Holy Scriptures. The seat of the Pope condemns him, and the very walls of the “eternal city,” proclaim his anti-christian character.

1 See Appendix, Note A.
2 His. Flor. i. 1.
3 On Proph.568.
4 Sec Appendix, Note B.
5 On Proph. 571.
6 Barrow.
7 P. 155.
8 Theol. c. i,v.

CHAPTER 2 THE TIME OF ANTICHRIST

NOT only the seat, but the time of Antichrist is foretold in the word of God. True, there are several events which strongly indicate the rise of this power, and which have therefore occasioned a variety of opinions among the learned, as to the precise epoch of its commencement. Like the various edicts, however, of the Persian kings, from which the seventy weeks of Daniel have been calculated, these events are, for the most part, so near to each other, as to leave but little, if any doubt, as to the proper application of the prophecies.

Those portions of Scripture which most clearly designate the rise of Antichrist, are the following.

“I considered the horns,” says Daniel, “and behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots.” Daniel 7:8.

In explaining the vision to the prophet, the angel said: “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth. And the ten horns out of this kingdom, are ten kings that shall arise; and another shall arise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first; and he shall subdue three kingdoms.” Daniel 7:24.

The Apostle Paul also says concerning the same power, “And now ye know what withholdeth, that he might be revealed in his time. Only he who now letteth will let, till he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall, consume with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8.

In explaining the symbol of the scarlet-colored beast on which the woman was sitting, the angel said to John:

“The beast that thou sawest was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth. And these are seven kings, five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven; and goeth into perdition. And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but received power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast until the words of God shall be fulfilled.” Revelation 17.

The following passage is also believed by some writers on prophecy to mark more definitely than any of the preceding, the precise period of the rise of Antichrist.

“And they (the saints) shall be given unto his hand, until a time, times and the dividing of time.” Daniel 7:25.

That the eleventh, or little horn of Daniel, the wicked power, or man of sin of Paul, and the eighth king or the beast of John, all refer to the same thing, is generally conceded by commentators, and must appear evident to any one who carefully considers these prophetic symbols. Daniel’s little horn arose among the ten horns upon the head of the fourth beast, the symbol of the Roman empire. Paul’s man of sin was to arise when that empire ceased to “let;” or, when “it was taken out of the way.” And John’s eighth king or beast, was that peculiar power which should succeed the seventh form of government at Rome. As, therefore, the little horn, the man of sin, and the eighth king, were all predicted to arise about the same time; as they were all to succeed imperial Rome, and as similar characteristics are ascribed to them all, they must mean the same thing.

But there is another reason for this conclusion, equally strong. Each of these symbols denoted a power, which was to continue the same length of time. The little horn of Daniel was to continue until “the judgment was set, and his dominion was taken away to be consumed and destroyed to the end.” Daniel 7:26.

The man of sin was to exist until he should become the son of perdition, that is, until he should be

“consumed by the Lord, and destroyed by the brightness of his coming.” 2 Thessalonians 2:8.

And the eighth king, or the beast of John, was that which was to tyrannize “until the words of God should be fulfilled;” that is, until the twelve hundred and sixty years, so often alluded to, should end; and then it was to “go into perdition.” Revelation 17. The “little horn,” therefore, “the man of sin,” and “the beast,” were not only to begin, but they were to end at the same time; viz. at some future coming of Christ. This also proves that they are the same.

As this is a point of some importance in our future calculations, it will not be amiss to introduce here the testimony of two of the ancient fathers. Irenaeus says: “Daniel, respecting the end of the last kingdom, that is, the last ten kings, among whom that kingdom should be divided, upon whom the son of perdition shall come, saith, that ten horns shall grow on the beast, and another little horn shall grow up among them, and three of the first horns shall be rooted out before him.” Of whom also, Paul the Apostle speaketh in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians, calling him the son of perdition, and ‘the wicked one.’ St. John, our Lord’s disciple, hath in the Apocalypse still more plainly signified of the last time, and of these ten kings, among whom the empire that now reigneth shall be divided; explaining what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel.”1

The following is the statement of Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century: “The first kingdom that was made famous was the kingdom of the Assyrians: and the second was that of the Medes and Persians together; and after these the third was that of the Macedonians; and the fourth kingdom is now that of the Romans. Afterwards, Gabriel interpreting, saith, Its ten horns are ten kings that shall arise; and after them shall arise another king, who shall exceed in wickedness all before him: not only the ten, he saith, but all who were before him. And he shall depress three kings. But it is manifest that of the first ten he shall depress three, that he himself might reign the eighth.”2 These quotations will show that the interpretation above given is neither modern nor protestant, but ancient and patristic.

Admitting, then, that these various symbols designate the same power, there are several strong marks furnished in these prophecies for ascertaining the period when that power should arise.

1. The first of these is, the dissolution of the western Roman empire. The propriety of restricting these prophecies to the western empire will appear from the following judicious remarks of Sir Isaac Newton: “All the four beasts are still alive, though the dominion of the three first be taken away. The nations of Chaldea and Assyria are still the first beast. Those of Media and Persia are still the second beast. Those of Macedon, Greece, and Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, are still the third. And those of Europe on this side Greece, are still the fourth.3 As therefore the prophecies refer to the fourth, and not to the other three beasts, our business is with the Latin and not with the Greek empire. Now it was some time after this Latin or western empire was subverted, that the man of sin, according to Paul, was to make his appearance. When he that was then letting (katecwn) should be taken out of the way, “then shall that wicked be revealed.”

The western empire was overthrown by those northern barbarians, whose ravages are so significantly exhibited in the 8th chapter of the Apocalypse, under the sounding of the first four trumpets. Alaric and his Goths besieged and plundered Rome about the year 410. Attila and his Huns devastated a great part of the empire and invaded Italy about the year 452. In 455, Genseric, king of the Vandals, not only captured but pillaged Roam, for the space of fourteen days. And about the year 476, Odoacer, king of the Ostrogoths, terminated the imperial authority at Rome, by the conquest of the city, and the banishment of Augustulus to the castle of Lucullus, on an annuity of six thousand pieces of gold.4 Now it was, that “the third part of the Roman sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars.” Revelation 8:12. Antichrist then, according to Paul, was not to arise till some time after the year 476 or 479, as the event above alluded to is differently estimated.

2. A second epoch, furnished us in the prophecy, is the time when the western empire was succeeded by ten new kingdoms. The beast had ten horns, and these horns were the symbols of ten kingdoms. Antichrist, however, was not to arise at the same time precisely with these kingdoms, but shortly afterwards “and another shall arise after them.” The following is a list of these ten European kingdoms, given by Bishop Lloyd, together with the dates of each: Huns, about 356; Ostrogoths, 377; Visigoths, 378; Franks, 407; Vandals, 407; Sueves and Alans, 407; Burgundians, 407; Herules and Rugians, 476; Saxons, 476; Lombards in Hungary, 526; in Germany, 483.”5 According to these calculations, the rise of Antichrist cannot precede the year 483 or 526.

3. Another mark by which the time of Antichrist is designated, is when Rome should be under its eighth form of government. “And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come, and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.”

The expression here used, “the beast that was and is not” is thus interpreted by Bishop Newton: “A beast in a prophetic style is a tyrannical idolatrous empire. The Roman empire was idolatrous under the heathen emperors; it then ceased to be so for some time under the Christian emperors; it then became idolatrous again under the Roman pontiffs, and so hath continued ever since.”6 The beast then “that was and is not,” denotes Rome imperial in its three successive conditions of Rome pagan, Rome Christian, and Rome papal. Rome papal is that which the angel terms the eighth, and which he says, “is of the seven” — ek twn eJpta asti. This last expression is rendered by Doddridge thus, “he ariseth out of the remainders of this people.” The correct interpretation, however, seems to be, that he is to succeed the seven in a regular line; he is to arise from them. But where shall we find the eight successive Roman sovereignties, referred to by the Apostle? According to most commentators, in the kings, consuls, dictators, decemvirs, military tribunes, emperors,7 exarchs, and popes, by which Rome has been governed. Rome was originally governed by kings for more than two hundred years. It was then under the control of consuls, dictators, decemvirs, and military tribunes, about the space of five hundred and thirty years. The reign of the emperors lasted about five hundred, and that of the exarchs about two hundred. There are some writers, who prefer to substitute the Italian Gothic kingdom, which lasted over sixty years, in the place of the exarchate; considering the latter as the instrument merely of the sixth or imperial government. It is quite certain, however, from history, that the Pope did not begin to exercise political power, until the overthrow its Italy of the exarchate.

This event occurred under very peculiar circumstances. The emperor Leo the Third, usually termed the iconoclast, had ordered all sacred images and figures to be removed from Christian churches. Gregory the second, who then filled the papal chair, wrote him a letter of severe remonstrance. Among other things, we find the following sentiments in this papal epistle. Advocating the use of pictures and images, he says, “The idols of antiquity were the fanciful representations of phantoms or demons, at a time, when the true God had not manifested his person, in any visible likeness. The latter are the genuine forms of Christ, his mother and his saints, who have approved, by a crowd of miracles, the innocence and merit of this relative worship.” In censuring Leo for rebelling against papal authority, he says: “Are you ignorant that the popes are the bond of union, the mediators of peace between the east and the west? The eyes of the nations are fixed upon our humility, and they revere as a God upon earth the Apostle St. Peter, whose image you threaten to destroy. The remote and interior regions of the west present their homage to Christ and his vicegerent. Abandon your rash and fatal enterprise, reflect, tremble, repent. If you persist, we are innocent of the blood that will be spilt in the contest, may it fall on your own head.”8

Matters soon came to a crisis. By the counsel and authority of Gregory, the Exarchate was armed against the emperor; the exarch who espoused the cause of Leo, was killed by popular fury. A battle was soon fought between the army of the emperor and that of the pope. The latter was victorious. “The strangers,” says Gibbon, “retreated to their ships; but the populous sea-coast poured forth a multitude of boats; the waters of the Po were so deeply infected with blood, that during six years the public prejudice abstained from the fish of the river; and the institution of an annual feast perpetuated the worship of images, and the abhorrence of the Greek tyrant. Amidst the triumph of the catholic arms, the Roman pontiff Gregory III., convened a synod of ninety-three bishops against the heresy of the iconoclasts. With their consent, he pronounced a general excommunication against all, who by word or deed, should attack the traditions of the fathers, and the images of the saints.”9

Surely here are events, which seem almost precisely to fulfill the predictions of John. A Roman bishop, not only reprimanding an emperor, and acknowledging, that he receives through St. Peter, coordinately with Christ, the homage of the nations; not only considering himself as the bond of union between the east and the west but actually arming his subjects for battle, fighting, conquering! And for what? To establish the worship of images! To declare as heretics, all who should renounce such worship! Does not this look like the literal revival of the sixth or idolatrous beast? Does it not occur, too, at the proper period? The seven preceding administrations had all passed away. The imperial arm was broken; the exarchate subverted. Surely then, this was the time, this the occasion for the rise of the eighth Roman power, or “the beast.”

The author above quoted, gives the following account of the new organization, which succeeded the Exarchate. “By the necessity of their situation, the inhabitants of Rome were cast into the rough model of a republican government: they were compelled to elect some judges in peace and some leaders in war. The style of the Roman senate and people was revived, but the spirit was fled. The want of laws could only be supplied by the influence of religion, and their foreign and domestic counsels were moderated by the authority of the bishop. His alms, his sermons, his correspondence with the kings and prelates of the west, his recent services, their gratitude and oath, accustomed the Romans to consider him as the first magistrate or prince of the city. The Christian humility of the popes too, was not offended by the name of Dominus, or Lord; and their face and inscription are still apparent on the most ancient coins.”10

The termination of the Exarchate and the establishment of political power in the hands of the Popes, occurred about the year 730. True, the exercise of such power was disturbed by the Lombards, their former allies. The interference however, of the French kings soon subdued these troublesome neighbors, and secured the popes in the privileges, which by rebellion and war, they had obtained.11

4. A fourth sign of the rise of Antichrist is, the subjugation or rooting up of three of the ten kingdoms, in the midst of which he was to arise — “before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots.” The following extract from Professor Gaussen, will sufficiently illustrate this point. “Take now,” says he, “the map of Italy, and look for the dominions of the Pope; and see of how many of the ten first kingdoms, the pontifical territory occupies the site at this day. You will see that it has supplanted these three; the Herules, the Ostrogoths, and the Lombards. And go to Rome itself, and see the Pontiff on the banks of the Tyber in all his sovereign pomp, trampling under foot the ashes of Romulus in the Basilica of St. Peter’s, or in his own palace of the Vatican. You will see on his brow that Babylonish tiara, surmounted by the three crowns of the three horns, “plucked up by the roots before him;” those of Odoacer, Theodoric, and of Alboin, he the only king in the world who wears this prophetic headdress.”12

These three kingdoms virtually fell into the hands of the Pope, when the Exarchate was wrested from the eastern emperor. The northern portion of this Exarchate however, being invaded by the Lombards, a fit occasion was furnished, for the interposition of some foreign prince. This prince was Pepin, king of the French. The Pope had confirmed a doubtful sovereignty on Pepin and his descendants. To reward him for this service, as well as to atone for his personal sins, the son of Martel invaded Lombardy, and compelled Astolphus to transfer his territory to the occupant of the chair of St. Peter. This event occurred in the year 754. “The Pontiff,” says Daunou, “Stephen II., enters France, and there as minister of the Greek emperor, gives in 753 to Pepin and to his sons the title of Roman Patrician, which Charles Martel had borne before him; and receives, it is said, in exchange, the gift of the provinces which Astolphus occupied and which the Emperor claimed. In 754, Pepin crossed the Alps, besieged Pavia, and forced Astolphus, to promise the restoration of the Exarchate and the Pentapolis, not to the emperor of Constantinople, but to St. Peter, to the church, and the Roman republic.”13 Gibbon speaks of this grant in the following language: — “The splendid donation was granted in supreme and absolute dominion; and the world beheld for the first time a Christian bishop invested with the prerogatives of a temporal prince; the choice of magistrates, the exercise of justice, the imposition of taxes, and the wealth of the palace of Ravenna.”14

It is wonderful how ingeniously, and how gradually the successor of St. Peter became possessed of his temporal estates and influence. When the Exarchate fell, deference was still paid to the eastern emperor; the new government, too, was made to assume a sort of republican aspect, and was controlled at first only indirectly by the Pope. Even after the grant, too, of the French kings, those kings held the title of Patricians of Rome! “Such a course” says Daunou, “was in fact a method of entering furtively into the number of independent states, and of attenuating more and more the thread by which the Popes were connected with the Byzantine empire.

Commonly the Pope did not fill the first magistracy of this republic. He abandoned the insignia of power to a prefect, a duke, or to a patrician; and prepared himself to substantiate soon, for undecisive forms, a definite and pontifical form of government.”15 This mode of obtaining political power, is what some understand by the little horn’s rising “after,” that is behind, or unobserved by, the other ten kingdoms.

5. A fifth sign of the rise of Antichrist is, the deliverance into his hand of the saints of the Most High. “And they shall be given into his hand, until a time, times and the dividing of time.” “For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.”

There are two methods in which the saints may be delivered into the hand of Antichrist. The one is, by constituting him the sole head of the church; the other is, by subjecting political governments to his will, so that they shall execute the anathemas which he from time to time may pronounce. In both of these ways have the people of God been delivered into the hand of the Papacy.

The time when the Pope was constituted the sole head of the church, has, by many, been computed from the edict of the emperor Phocas in 606. The following is the statement of Baronius on that subject. “Hinc igitur, anne Christi 606, in Cyriacum Phocas exacerbatus in ejus odium imperiali edicto sancivito nomen universalis decere Romanam tantummodo ecclesiam, tanquam quae caput esset omnium ecclesiarum; solique convenire Pontifici.”16 “Hence therefore, in the year 606, Phocas provoked with Cyriacus, through hatred to him confirmed by an imperial edict, that the name universal became the Roman church only, as that which was the head of all the churches; and could only be properly ascribed to the Pontiff.”

Hallam, in a note appended to his Middle Ages, for several reasons which he specifies, gives it as his opinion, that too much importance has been ascribed by many writers to this testimony of Baronius. He believes, that the edict of Valentinian III. in 455, can be better authenticated, and is more to the point than this of Phocas. It may, however, be questioned, whether either Phocas, or Valentinian, or any other emperor, had either the right or the power to deliver the saints into the hands of the Papacy. Though joined to the state, still the church had, even in those ages, much power of her own. Such, too, was the influence of bishops and of ecclesiastical institutions, that we doubt, whether the will of any one emperor could have brought the church into absolute subjection. Nor could the edict of one emperor be perpetual: it might be abrogated even in the next reign. The prophecy evidently requires, that this subjection should be the result of many and conspiring providential causes. The spirit of the age must be such, the instruction of the people such, their passive submission such, and even their apparent necessities such, as to lead to a result of this kind. The bishop of Rome was to be constituted the sole head of the church, not by any one arbitrary act, but by the general consent of Christendom, arising from the existing state of the world. The matter of inquiry then becomes, not who did it, but when have we evidence, that the Church became subject to the Roman bishop as its supreme head?

The prophecies require, that the spiritual and temporal power of Antichrist should begin at the same time. The “beast” was to rule the nations, during the same period that he was to oppress the church. Nor is there any distinction made in the vision of Daniel, between the duration of the temporal and spiritual power of the “little horn.” They appear to be contemporaneous. If, too, the spiritual power of Antichrist should be dated from one period, and his temporal power from another, then would there be two periods of twelve hundred and sixty years, during which he was to exist! It is evident, however, that this prophetic age of the beast and little horn, is to extend over but one such period. The spiritual and temporal power, therefore, of Antichrist, must begin and end at the same time.

We have already noticed, that the temporal and. political power of the popes, began at the time when these pontiffs cast off their allegiance to the eastern emperors. The cause of this rebellion was image-worship. The emperor prohibited the worship of images as idolatry; the popes maintained the propriety of such worship as sanctioned by tradition and miracles. This was the point at issue between them; and it was the means of severing for ever the tie which bound the bishops of Rome to the court of Byzantium.

The result in this case, however, was not simply political; it was also religious. If the bishop of Rome was bound as a subject to obey the court of Constantinople, much more was he bound as a Christian to keep the commandments of God. These commandments, however, forbid imageworship in every form. The law is express, and often repeated. At the same time, therefore, that the Pope set up a political supremacy for himself, did he erect also, an independent spiritual dominion. We invite particular attention to this remarkable coincidence. In the Apocalypse it is said, “And the beast is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.” The easiest and most natural construction of this passage is the following: “The beast will be the eighth power at Rome; he will immediately succeed the seven preceding powers; and he will continue till Rome shall have no government at all: the power-line, the Roman succession, will end in him. When, then, did the Roman pastor or bishop become the “beast”? Precisely then, when he began to wield a political and an idolatrous scepter. Now, this event took place, when the popes, by rebellion against the eastern court, set up virtually a kingdom of their own upon the basis of idolatry. Then were the foundations of the Apocalyptic Babylon laid; then did Rome become “the mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth.” This event occurred near the middle of the eighth century.

But to place the saints effectually in the hands of Antichrist, it was necessary, that the political governments of Europe should also be under his control. Without this he could not enforce his will as law throughout the Christian world. As a local prince, he might rule his own Italian subjects. As the accredited head of ecclesiastical polity, he might have influence in the church. But to render his authority absolute and universal, the independence of states must bow to his will, and the kings of the earth stand ready to execute his pleasure. And here again, we are called upon to notice the extraordinary fact, that just about the time that the popes became independent princes, and began also to exercise superior spiritual control, a sort of imperial power felt into their hands. The crown was transferred from Childeric to Pepin, but a year or two before the Pope was made supreme proprietor of Lombardy! At some period then, between the rupture of the Pope with Leo III., and his decision in the case of Pepin, that is, somewhere between the year 730 and 753, we may safely locate the rise of the political, imperial, and supreme spiritual power of the popes.

As further proof of this, it may be proper here to notice the decisions of two ecclesiastical councils, which sat within or near this period. By the council of Frankfort, A.D. 742, it was decreed, “that as a token of their willing subjection to the See of Rome, all Metropolitans should request the pallium at the hands of the Pope, and obey his lawful commands.”17 “In the second Nicene council, says Mosheim, held in the year 786, “the imperial laws against the new idolatry were abrogated, the decrees of the council of Constantinople reversed, the worship of images and the cross restored, and severe punishments denounced against such as maintained that God was the only object of religious adoration.”18 The object of this council was, to suppress in the east, as had already’ been done in the west, all opposition to imageworship. Surely this looks as if the saints, all who abhorred idolatry, had now been given into the hand of the beast. The universal law was, image-worship or punishment, idolatry or death. Thus have we noticed five prophetic marks or evidences of the rise of Antichrist. This malignant power was to arise, after the dissolution of the western Roman empire. It was to arise among the ten new kingdoms, by which that empire was to be succeeded. It was immediately to succeed that brief administration, whatever it was, Exarchate or Gothic kingdom, which was to constitute the seventh form of government at Rome. In its rise, it was to root up three of the ten kingdoms around it. The saints were also to be put in its power, for a period of twelve hundred and sixty years.

Now, these events as above shown, all fall within the compass of two hundred and seventyeight years; this being the space of time from the dethronement of Augustulus to the grant of Pepin. Within this period then, are we to find the rise of Antichrist. According to prophecy, his rise could not take place earlier, nor was it to be later. We are then limited to this period; and within it somewhere, are we to find the origin of that great enemy to the church, which so filled the minds of Daniel, of Paul, and of John.

But this period may be reduced to still narrower limits. The dissolution of the western empire was to be succeeded by another political power, which was “to continue a short space.” This political power must be, either the kingdom of Odoacer, or the Exarchate. If the former, then are sixty years to be deducted from this period; if the latter, two hundred and sixty. We have already assigned reasons why we suppose the latter to be meant. This period then, will be narrowed down to the space of twenty-four years, within which we are to find the rise of Antichrist. This short period extends from the year 730 to 754.

What power, then we ask, arose within this period to which the characteristics of Antichrist may be established? Not the Mohammedan surely. Mohammed arose in Asia, not in Europe; he was too, an enemy to idolatry, not its patron; he appeared also in the seventh century, not in the eighth. Nor call Antichrist be Pepin, Charlemagne or any of the French kings. France was one of the ten horns of the beast; it could not therefore be another power rising among them. Nor have we any evidence, that even one of the traits of Antichrist was ever developed in the character of these kings! Who then we ask is Antichrist? Let history, let universal history reply. He is the Pope. No other answer can be given. It was at this very period, that the Papacy arose, as an independent and sovereign power in Europe. It was at this very time, that the Pontifical miter began to be seen among the crowns of European kings. It was precisely here, that idolatry was set up again, as the religion of the Roman world.

If then, Jacob’s prediction concerning Shiloh, and the seventy weeks of Daniel, are evidence conclusive, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, so also are the predictions, concerning the time of the “little horn,” of “the man of sin” and of “the beast,” proofs irrefragable, that the Papacy is Antichrist. And as it may be proved, that any one hereafter pretending to be the Messiah, is not such, because he appears out of time, so may it be demonstrated, that any one hereafter who may be thought to be Antichrist is not, for the very same reason. The time, then, as well as the place, determines the antichristian character of the papal throne. The Pope is Antichrist, so says prophecy; so says history; so says his own fully developed character.

1 Iren. 1, 5.
2 Cyrilli Hieros Catech. 15, c. 6.
3 Observations on Daniel.
4 Gibbon’s Rome.
5 Newton on Proph., Dis. xiv.
6 On Proph. Dis.v.
7 Tacitus i. 1.
8 Gibb. xlix.
9 Gib. xlix.
10 Ibidem.
11 See Appendix, Note C.
12 Geneva and Rome.
13 Court of Rome, 1.
14 Court of Rome.
15 Rome, ch. xlix.
16 Eccle. An. Anne 606.
17 Middle Ages, xvii.
18 Con. viii.

CHAPTER 3 ANTICHRIST A PECULIAR POWER

IN designating the person of Christ, the Holy Scriptures have specified, not only the place and time of his birth, but have also furnished certain traits of character, by which he might be distinguished from all others. The same course has been pursued in this holy volume in its description of Antichrist. Not only are the place and time of this extroardinary power given, but certain peculiar and characteristic marks are furnished, by which he may be distinguished from all other powers. In the present chapter, it is our design to consider the peculiarity of the power of Antichrist; or, some of those things in which he differs from all other political governments. In explaining to Daniel the symbol of the “little horn,” the angel said, “he shall be diverse from the rest.” Daniel 7:24. As the word which is here rendered diverse is variously translated, it will be proper, first to settle its import. The original is — Aˆm ançy awjw aymdq — and he shall be hated more than the first. So the word is literally translated, and so it is uniformly rendered in almost every instance in our English version. The seventy have rendered the passage thus, “oJv uJperoisei kakoiv pantav touv emprosqen” — who shall excel in wickedness all that were before him. The Apostle Paul seems to refer to this version, where he calls the same power, oJ anqrwpov thv aJmartiav and oJ anomov “that man of sin” and “that wicked.” The Vulgate renders the phrase in the following Latin: “Et ipse potentior erit prioribus” — “and he shall be more powerful than his predecessors.” This version is followed by the Doway Bible; “and he shall be mightier than the former.” Luther also adopts the same sense — “der wird maichtiger seyn denn der vorigen keiner” — “he will be more powerful than any that were before him.” The French agrees with our English version — “qui sera different des premiers;” — “who shall be diverse from the first.”

Probably the context will furnish us with a clue to the right meaning. The little horn is represented as having “eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things;” as being “more stout than his fellows,” and as “subduing three kings.” A horn is a scriptural symbol for a king or kingdom. Eyes denote cunning and craft, and a mouth speaking great things, indicates boastful pretensions and ambitious designs. Certainly a kingdom of this sort, growing up among other kingdoms, must be very dissimilar to its neighbors; it is likely to be more powerful, and in the end it must be hated. All these translations therefore substantially agree; and they all indicate certain peculiarities in which the power foretold, differs, not only from those around it, but from all preceding forms of government. This power we have already asserted to be the Papacy, which differs from other European governments in several respects. The Papacy is a spiritual power. Other European governments profess to be spiritual only in the sense, in which Paul asserts that “the powers that be are ordained of God;” that is, they are providentially appointed. Not so the Papacy. Its authority is professedly derived immediately from heaven. “The Pope receives power and jurisdiction,” says Dens, “immediately from Christ.” (Theol. iv.) “The authority given to St. Peter and his successors,” says the bull of Sixtus V., “excels all the powers of earthly kings and princes.”1 “One sword,” says Pope Boniface VIII., “must be under another, and the temporal authority must be subject to the spiritual power.”2 Again, Dens, in his Moral Theology, in answer to the question, “Has the supreme Pontiff a certain temporal and civil power?” gives the following answers: “There have been those, who ascribed to the Pontiff by divine right the most plenary and direct power over the whole world, as well in temporal as in spiritual things.” Others, he says, maintain that, “when the spiritual power cannot be freely exercised, nor the Pope’s object be obtained by spiritual, then he may have recourse to temporal means; and thus it has been done by Pontiffs more than once.” Here, according both to popes and doctors, the papacy is supreme in one way or another, and that by divine right, over all the kingdoms of the earth. This is certainly, one point of diversity, between this power and all others. No European kingdom, no kingdom that has ever existed, has assumed so much as this.

Another peculiarity of this power is, its awfully despotic character. In other governments there are privileges, there are checks upon power. But what privileges have Papists? What checks are there to papal tyranny? None, whatever. The supreme pontiff domineers over all. Having on his head Christ’s crown, and in his hand his rod of iron, he sets absolute defiance to all inferior orders and ranks of men. “Go and contemplate him in the Vatican,” says Gaussen, “as I have done; you will there see the painting which represents the Emperor Henry the Fourth, stripped before Gregory the Seventh, placed in the royal saloon, through which the ambassadors of all the powers of Europe pass; and in another, the heroic and powerful Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, on his knees before Pope Alexander the Third, in the public square at Venice. The Pope’s foot is on his shoulder; his scepter is thrown upon the ground, and underneath are these words, Fredericus supplex adorat, fidem et obedientiam pollicitus — “Frederic, having promised faith and obedience, as a suppliant adores,” (the Pope!) Where is the king of the west, who is carried on men’s shoulders, and surrounded by peacock’s feathers? Incense is burnt before him as an idol; he is knelt to on both knees; his slipper is kissed on his foot; and he is adored. Venite, adoremus — “Come, let us worship,” exclaim the cardinals, when they go to him.3

The following are extracts from the bishops’ and archbishops’ oath. “I.N., of the church of N., from henceforth will be faithful and obedient to St. Peter the Apostle, and to the Holy Roman Church, and to our Lord, the lord N., Pope N., and to his successors, canonically coming in. Heretics, schismatics and rebels to our said lord, or his aforesaid successors, I will to my power persecute, and oppress. The possession belonging to my table, I will neither sell, nor give away, nor mortgage, nor grant anew in fee, nor any wise alienate, no not even with the consent of the chapter of my church, without consulting the Roman Pontiff.”4 Surely, if kings and emperors, cardinals, archbishops and bishops, are thus miserably enslaved, the people cannot know what freedom is. A tyranny like this, has positively never existed besides it, on the earth. And the only wonder is, that men can be found so blinded by priestcraft, so passively tame in their tempers, as to submit to such an arbitrary and unnatural domination. And yet for ages on ages, not only the ignorant and the ignoble, but the proud and the great in Europe, have lain submissively under this galling yoke of bondage. The will of the Pope has been the fiat of the Almighty, and kings and emperors have trembled before him, as they would beneath the thunders of Jehovah.

The government of the Pope is also diverse from all other governments in the extent of its domination. Most governments have been satisfied with comparatively contracted territorial limits. Even those which have been the greatest and the most ambitious, have ruled over but a part of mankind. Neither the Assyrian, the Persian, the Grecian, nor the Roman empire filled the world. The pretensions, however, of the successors of St. Peter, have uniformly extended to the entire globe. That Christ possessed “all power on earth,” none can deny who receive the New Testament as of divine authority. But Christ gave his power to St. Peter. and St. Peter left it to his successors in the papal chair at Rome. Whatever of power therefore, Jesus Christ has over the nations, the same has the Pope.5 Nor has this result of the papal system been denied by the abettors of popery. On the contrary, they constantly maintain it. The following is the established doctrine on this point as derived from their own divines. Prima sententia est, summum Pontificem jure divine habere plenissimam potestatem in universum orbem terrarum, tam in rebus ecclesiasticis quam civilibus.6 “The primary doctrine is, that the chief pontiff possesses by divine right, plenary power throughout the whole world both in ecclesiastical and civil matters.”7 In one of the canon laws of popery, it is affirmed that, ”The Roman Pontiff bears the authority, not of a mere man, but of the true God upon earth.” (Veri Dei vicem gerit in terris.8) “Under the Pope’s nose,” says Barrow, “and in his ear, one bishop styled him, ‘prince of the world;’ another orator called him, ‘king of kings and monarch of the earth;’ another great prelate said of him, that ‘he had all power above, all power in heaven and earth!”9

Presumption like this, we hesitate not to say, has not a parallel in the history of our race. No government has aspired to a dominion so great as this, nor has the most ambitious conqueror ever conceived, that a domain so vast, was to lie beneath his victorious sword. No; such ambition, such claims were left alone for the bishops of Rome to exhibit.

Another grand peculiarity of the papal power is to be found in the nature of the sanctions by which its laws are enforced. In all other human governments, offenses are punished by ordinary and temporal punishments. A man is fined, is deprived of certain privileges, is imprisoned, or is executed. In this case, a civil offense is followed by a 153 civil punishment. But the Papacy is a spiritual, as well as a temporal power. It draws out offenses from the conscience and the heart. Its inquisitorial confessions and courts, employ their interrogatories and their irons, as a sort of priestly omniscience, to survey all the secret chambers of the soul. When, too, the crime is ascertained, it is visited not simply with confiscation and burning, but with anathema. The temporal power of the ecclesiastical monarch enkindles the fires of the auto-da-fe, while his spiritual power consigns him to those of hell.

As the power of Christ was supreme, not only on earth, but also “in heaven,” the legal heir of his power is not satisfied with a divided patrimony; he must have all. Hence his keys, his masses, his prayers, open and shut the invisible world at pleasure. “He openeth and no man shutteth, he shutteth and no man openeth.” Leo X., one of the best of the Roman pontiffs, uses this language: “The Roman pontiff, the successor of Peter, in regard to the keys, and the vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, possessing the power of the keys, may, for reasonable causes, by his apostolic authority, grant indulgences out of the superabundant merits of Christ and the saints, to the faithful, who are united to Christ by charity, as well for the living as for the dead. Wherefore, all persons, whether living or dead, who really obtain any indulgences of this kind, are delivered from so much temporal punishment, due according to divine justice for actual sins, as is equivalent to the value of the indulgence bestowed and received.”10 “You may buy,” says Dr. Sturtevant, “as many masses as will free your souls from purgatory for twenty-nine thousand years, at the church of St. John’s Lateran, on the festa of that saint. Those that have interest with the Pope may obtain an absolution in full, from his holiness, for all the sins they ever have committed or may choose to commit.”11 “Because private believers,” says Dens, “may apply their own satisfactions to souls in purgatory, therefore the Pope may apply to them the satisfaction of Christ and the saints from the treasury of the church.”12 How long, therefore, a soul shall remain in purgatory, or whether it shall ever get out, depends upon the will of the Pope, exercised either by himself, or by some of his viceregents. And when we remember, that purgatory is one of the four divisions of hell, and that Bellarmine and others maintain, that its fires are of the same nature as those of hell, the power of the keys must surely give to the successors of St. Peter no ordinary influence over the fears, the purses, and the persons of his widely extended flock. Now, all other kings and sovereigns have left the infliction of such punishment with God only. They have punished men but as the subjects of civil law, and as amenable to civil penalties. They have not followed the departed spirit to eternity, and there also haunted it with their chains and instruments of torture. They have usually supposed that their work was ended at death. Not so the Pope and his priesthood. The iron grasp of their tyranny is not broken even by the power of the grave. They hold their subjects amenable even beyond time. They torture or bless them even in eternity itself. Surely, a government like this, cannot be found besides it, in the history of the world.

The possession of absolute infallibility is another peculiarity of the Papacy. The old Latin adage, “humanum est errare” — it is human to err — has so commended itself to the experience of mankind, that it has been converted into a sort of moral axiom, which no one doubts, and every one believes. Nor is it human for individuals simply to err; governments also err. Hence, in every wise civil constitution, there is always an article provided against the mistakes which may have crept into such constitution, even despite the wisdom of its framers. And in all courts of law, even in those from which there is no appeal, it is yet believed, that there may be erroneous decisions and that the condemned must sometimes look, not to the tribunals of man, but to the judgments of God for ultimate justice. Nor can there be found in the history of the world, a solitary king, sovereign, or saint, in whom there have not been either the ebullitions of passion; or the mistakes of the understanding. One perfect or infallible man has never yet existed, save the Lord Jesus Christ, and he was more than man. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Paul, and Peter, plead no exemption from universal human frailty. Yet, this is the boast of the Roman Pontiff! As a man, it is allowed, even he may err; but as the vicar of Christ, like Christ himself, his judgments, are infallible. “The supreme Pontiff,” says Dens, “determining from the throne, matters relating to faith or customs, is infallible: which infallibility proceeds from the especial assistance of the Holy Ghost.”13 Blessed Spirit of the living God! one is ready to exclaim — are all the blunders, the errors, the follies, the madness, the persecutions, the bloodshed, of the Roman Pontiffs, many of which have disgraced mankind, are all these to be ascribed to thy direction and counsel! Yet, such are the pretensions of the Pope, such is the creed of Romanists! Poor pitiable sovereigns of Europe! How unfortunate is your condition! Ye are guilty of errors. Your blunders are on the page of history. But your venerable father, your endeared brother, the Pope, has none of your frailties, none of your human weaknesses! Why, then, do ye not all seek wisdom from him; take counsel from him? Why debate so long in your national legislatures? Why not send an express to Rome to gain infallible decisions?

Thus stands the Roman pontificate — a sui generis in fact, as well as a sui generis in vision. Well might Daniel gaze in astonishment, “because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake!” It is worthy of notice here, that this ancient seer expresses no astonishment whatever at the appearance of the other horns. Each one of them was the symbol of a kingdom as well as “the little horn.” Yet the attention of the prophet is wholly turned to the contemplation of the little horn.” This horn was to him a matter of the greatest wonder. Unlike the other horns, it had “eyes and a mouth speaking great things.” Though little, “its look was more stout than its fellows.” It seemed, too, to be filled with the most inveterate hatred to the saints. The prophet gazed and wondered when he contemplated this horn; because, while the other horns were the symbols of ordinary, political kingdoms, the little horn, in which so many contraries met, was the symbol of a kingdom, the like to which had never existed, either in the heaven above or on the earth beneath. It was to be diverse from all kingdoms.

Now, where is the king or kingdom, in which the peculiarities of the little horn are to be found? Not in Antiochus. Not in Julius Caesar. Not in Mohammed. None of these men were so peculiarly distinguished from their fellow men; nor did any of them, save Caesar, have any connection with the Roman beast. Where then shall we find the reality of which “the little horn” is the symbol? In Antichrist, says the Romanist; but Antichrist has not yet come. In Antichrist, we say; but Antichrist has already been in the world for more than a thousand years. Thus does the anomalous character of the Papacy prove it to be the antitype of “the little horn.” This power is unlike all others; is uncongenial with all others. It is a usurper, a supplanter. We can readily conceive, how a spiritual power, either associated with the state, or entirely independent of the state, may exist without discord or collision. If the church be entirely distinct from the political institutions of a people, there can of course be no disturbance, as there is no contact. And if a church be established by law, as the operations of the religious and the political systems are kept in distinct spheres, there may be but occasional evils growing out of such union. But for a government that claims its existence jure divino, that sets up a universal empire, that arrogates to itself supremacy in all civil, as well as ecclesiastical matters — for a government that considers itself infallible, and which requires absolute submission in all its subjects — for such a government to exist in the midst of other governments; in its very principles trampling upon their rights and privileges; wielding both a temporal and a spiritual sword; punishing offenders both in this world and the next — for such a government to exist in harmony with other governments, is impossible, absolutely impossible. The papal system can harmonize with no other, whether religious or political. To the religious world, it exhibits one supreme pontiff of Christendom, and requires for him universal obedience. To the political world, it presents one great monarch, whose throne is above every throne, and whose will is law throughout the globe. No the Papacy is a unit, and presents the front of positive hostility to every thing that is not consolidated in itself. It may not be able to carry out its principles and wishes, but this is its nature. It is “diverse from all other governments; it is the adversary of all other governments.

1 Barrow.
2 Idem.
3 Geneva and Rome.
4 Barrow.
5 Some may suppose that the former pretensions of the occupants of the
chair of St. Peter, have been relinquished by his more modern
successors. Such, however, is by no means the case. In a letter to his
brothers, Counts Gabriel, Joseph, and Gaetano Mastai Feretti, dated
Rome, June 16, 1846, the recently elected Pope, Pius IX., uses the
following language — “The blessed God, who humbles and exalts, has
beep pleased to raise me from insignificance to the most sublime
dignity on earth.” It is evident, therefore, that however weak the more
modern Popes are in reality, their opinions as to the exalted dignity of
their Stations, are perfectly coincident with the views of
6 Gregory VII. or Innocent III.
7 Barrow.
8 Church of Rome compared, p. 29.
9 Supremacy, 17.
10 Le Plat. quoted by Cramp, 341.
11 Letters from Rome.
12 Theol., chap. xl.
13 Theol., ch.iv
.

CHAPTER 4 ANTICHRIST AN APOSTATE FROM THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

ANOTHER mark of Antichrist as given in the Scriptures is apostasy from the Christian faith.

“For that day shall not come, except there come a falling away (hJ apostasia) first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

Several distinguished commentators, as Grotius, Whitby, Le Clerc, and Wetstein, have interpreted “the day of Christ,” — (hJ hJmera tou Cristou) in this passage as applicable to the destruction of Jerusalem, and have consequently referred the term — hJ apostasia — ”the apostasy,” to the revolt of the Jews against the Romans, previously to the destruction of that city. This opinion, however, will appear, from even a brief reflection upon this passage, to be wholly untenable. It is evident from the whole scope of the passage, that the future coming of Christ is meant; and that the apostasy referred to, is of a religious, and not of a political character. Indeed the Apostle explains his own meaning, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith.” 2 Timothy 2:1 — aposthsontai tinev thv pistewv.

Other commentators, who understand by “the day of Christ” the future coming of the Savior, yet apply the term apostasia, “apostasy,” to something which has not as yet occurred. Roman Catholic writers are generally of this opinion. Bloomfield, too, in his notes on the New Testament, has maintained the same sentiment. “Upon the whole,” says he,” there seems good reason to suppose, with many eminent expositors for the last half century, that what is here spoken of, has not yet taken place. “The man of sin,” says the commentator on the Doway Bible, “agrees to the wicked and great Antichrist, who will come before the end of the world.”

If it were meant by this, that the Papacy, the real Antichrist, will assume a more malignant and desperate character anterior to the coming of Christ, we would freely yield to this interpretation. This fact appears to be definitely and clearly revealed in the 16th chapter of the book of Revelation, verses 13,14.: But if such interpreters mean, that Antichrist is yet to arise, that he is but one person, that his dominion is to be brief, and that he is immediately to precede the coming of Christ, then do we differ from them toto caelo. The Roman Catholic comment on this passage is strangely inconsistent with itself. “This revolt (apostasy) is generally understood by the ancient fathers, of a revolt from the Roman empire, which was first to be destroyed before the coming of Antichrist.” According to this statement, if Antichrist be not already come, the prophecy must be false; for the Roman empire was subverted in the year 476. Antichrist was to succeed that empire; and yet, although more than thirteen centuries have passed, he has not appeared! The error here consists, in making Antichrist one person. It is certain, that Antichrist is to continue to some future coming of Christ. It is equally certain, that he was to arise directly after the fall of the Roman empire. He cannot therefore be one person; but must be a succession of persons filling the same office.

Our Roman Catholic annotator has also another opinion. “This revolt (apostasy) may perhaps be understood also, of a revolt of many nations from the catholic church; which has in part happened already, by the means of Mahomet, Luther, etc., and it may be supposed, will be more general in the days of Antichrist.” Mohammedanism is certainly neither an apostasy from the faith, nor a revolt from the Romish church. The Arabians were not professing Christians, nor was Mohammed a member of any Christian society whatever. It is absurd therefore, to suppose, that Mohammed, or Mohammedanism is the subject of these prophecies. Besides, where this delusion is evidently predicted under the fifth and sixth trumpets, it is not described as a departure from the faith, or a revolt from Christendom, but as an invasion of the faith, and an assault upon Christendom.

As to the reference of these predictions to the Reformers and their adherents, it is enough to answer in the language of Bishop Newton: “Who, then, is the man of sin? Luther and his followers, or Calvin and his followers? Or, who? for the Protestants are far from being united under one head. Which of the Protestant churches exalts herself above every God and magistrate? Which of them arrogates to herself divine honors and titles? Which of them pretends to establish her doctrine and discipline by miracles? These things would be ridiculously and absurdly objected to the Protestant churches, and more ridiculously and absurdly still by the members of the church of Rome.”1 If, too, Christian faith be contained in the Holy Scriptures, it certainly must be most preposterous to imagine, that those men who are doing all in their power to scatter the Holy Scriptures throughout the earth, have departed from the faith. There is a power, however, already existing, and which is destined to exist until the coming of Christ, which this prophetic description does suit, and it suits no other. “The usurpation of the Papacy in divine things is so unparalleled,” says Doddridge, “that if these words are not applicable to it, it is difficult to say, who there ever has been or can be to whom they should belong.”

If Romanism be not the apostasy (hJ apostasia) here mentioned, and the papacy “the man of sin” (oJ anqrwpov thv aJmartiav), then may we conclude certainly, that no parade of facts whatever, can prove a prophecy to have been fulfilled. With a mode of interpretation which would lead to the denial of such an application of these predictions, it would be impossible to demonstrate the Messiahship of Jesus, or the truth of the Christian dispensation. This will appear more evident, however, when we shall have shown, that the Papacy, including the whole system of Romanism, is not only an apostasy, but the apostasy, from the Christian faith. And here we lay it down as self-evident, that any body of men denying that the Holy Scriptures are the only standard of faith and practice; or, that Jesus Christ is the sole Head of the Church, and of each believer; or, that there is but one Mediator between God and man; or, that sinners are justified by faith, and solely on account of the righteousness of Christ — any set of men, we say, denying these things, must be, and are apostate.

Romanists deny that the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice. The Council of Trent, in determining the proper standard of faith and practice, uses the following language: “That this truth and discipline are contained in the written word, and in the unwritten traditions, which were received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves as the dictate of the Holy Ghost to them, and delivered as it were from hand to hand, have come down to us.”2 In Dens’ Moral Theology, are these statements: “Divine tradition has equal authority with Holy Scripture; for both are truly the word of God!” “The church, however, has not framed a catalogue of divine traditions, but sets forth, sometimes one, and sometimes another, as occasions demand.” “Divine tradition is truly a rule of faith, as it is the word of God, not less than Holy Scripture.” “There is more need of divine tradition than of Sacred Scripture, as Scripture cannot be known without tradition.” Then under the question, “Are there any special rules for ascertaining traditions?” The following answers are given: “Whatever the Roman Church holds as tradition is to be regarded as rich. Whatever the Catholic Church holds or declares as such, is to be regarded as tradition.”3 These extracts are sufficient to show, that the Romish church feels herself fully competent to give a rule of faith, not only equal, but superior to the word of God! Well has an Apostle said, “Beware, lest any man spoil you, after the tradition of men.” Colossians 2:8. And well has the Savior declared concerning such, “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Mark 7:9.

Romanists have also exalted over the church, and over the consciences of men, another head than Christ. The Scriptural doctrine on this subject is, that “Christ is the head over all to his church;” Ephesians 1:22; and that “the head of every man is Christ.” 1 Corinthians 11:3. Jesus Christ, speaking to every individual congregation of believers, and to each individual believer, through the Holy Scriptures, is alone Lord of conscience, and Head and Umpire of faith. A congregation or individual may be instructed and reasoned with, as to what Christ in the Scriptures has made known. But every attempt to interpose another authority between the congregation of the Lord, or any individual believer, and Christ, his supreme Judge, supplants the authority of Christ, and substitutes that of man in its stead. This the Romanists do, over the general church, over each congregation, and over each individual member. Over the general church, there is the Pope, deciding, determining, settling all things. Over the congregations, there is the Bishop, exercising a similar, but subordinate authority. And over each member, there is the Priest, controlling the consciences of men, and occupying a place between each member and Christ. The authority of Christ is thus removed from the church and its members, and the authority of the priesthood substituted. No better evidence need be adduced on this point than the fact, that the Romish church is so extremely unwilling that either churches or individuals should either hear, or read the Holy Scriptures. The following is a decree of the Council of Trent, in full force at the present time — “As it is manifest by experience, if the Holy Bible in the vulgar tongue [the only way in which the people can read it] be everywhere indiscriminately permitted, more injury than advantage would accrue, on account of the temerity of the people, let it abide in this point by the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, that with the advice of the priest or confessor, the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue, translated by Catholic authors, may be conceded to those, who, they apprehend, can derive no injury, but an increase of faith and piety from such reading which permission they must have in writing. But whosoever shall presume, without, such permission to have, or to read it, cannot obtain absolution of his sins, unless the Bible be first returned to the ordinary. But regulars may neither purchase nor read it, except by permission obtained from their prelates.”4 Commenting on this decree, Dens says: “This law has been received and hitherto kept, in the whole purely Catholic world: more indulgence has been granted only when it was necessary to live among heretics.” Again he says: “Observe, the power of granting permission to read the Sacred Scripture in the vernacular tongue, belongs to the bishop, or inquisitor, not to the priest, or confessor, unless this power has been conceded to them.” Again, he says: “It must be said, that in this point the discipline of the church has been changed; just as communion under both kinds, and daily communion have been changed. For formerly the faithful, more submissive to their pastors, humbly and faithfully derived the sense of Scripture from them, without danger of perverse translations; but now, through the example of the heretics, the lust of dissenting from the pastors has arisen; and it is manifest from experience, that by the promiscuous reading of the Sacred Scripture, men are made more proud, more discontented, and universally more conceited.”5 Probably, no language could more certainly express the fact, that the Holy Scriptures and the Romish priesthood are at variance, than this above quoted. Everyone who prayerfully searches the Scriptures to learn the mind and will of Christ, as a necessary consequence, perceives and forsakes these “doctrines of men” by which he was previously held. Hence the law to prohibit, except in very peculiar cases, and under a written permission, the perusal of the sacred word! This fact alone proclaims, as in letters of fire, that Christ’s Headship has been supplanted in the Romish church.

Romanists also deny the sole mediatorship of Christ. The Apostle teaches, that “there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” 1 Timothy 2:5. And Jesus himself says —

“I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me.” John 14:6.

It is also said of Christ —

“Because he continueth ever he hath an unchangeable priesthood; wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” Hebrews 7:24,25.

The Scriptures universally represent Christ’s mediation, as one, alone, and all-sufficient. The Romish doctrine, however, represents it as insufficient, and as needing auxiliary intercession. The annotator on the Doway Bible admits that “Christ is the only mediator of redemption;” and that “he stands in need of no other to recommend his petitions to the Father.” At the same time however, he asserts “that this is not against our seeking the prayers and intercessions of the saints and angels in heaven, for obtaining mercy, grace and salvation through Jesus Christ!”6

The Council of Trent passed the following decree on this subject — “The holy council commands all bishops and others who have the care and charge of teaching, that they labor with diligent assiduity to instruct the faithful, concerning the invocation and intercession of the saints, teaching them that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer their prayers to God for men; that it is a good and useful thing suppliantly to invoke them, and to flee to their prayers, help, and assistance.”7 In reference to the nature of this worship, Dens says: “It is absolute, because it is exhibited on account of the excellence, intrinsic and peculiar to the saints; yet, it may also be called respective, inasmuch as God is honored in the saints.” Again he says: “But that we implore the clemency of God through the saints, is not through the defect of the power or mercy of God; but because God is willing to grant certain blessings only through the saints.”8 The practical effect of such a tenet may be learned from the following extract taken from the Catholic Manual used in the United States. “Holy Mary, pray for us. All ye holy angels and archangels, pray for us. St. Abel, all ye choirs of just souls, St. Abraham, St. John the Baptist, pray for us: St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John, pray for us. All ye holy disciples of our Lord, pray for us. St. Sylvester, St. Gregory, all ye holy monks and hermits, pray for us. All ye holy virgins and widows; all ye saints of God, make intercession for us.”9

These extracts are enough to show that, in the doctrine and worship of Romanists, the creature is associated with the Creator, and the sole mediation of Christ is subverted through the invocation of saints. Papists are also in error on the subject of a sinner’s justification before God. The following are decrees of the Council of Trent. “Whosoever shall affirm that the ungodly is justified by faith only, (sola fide impium justificari,) so that it is to be understood that nothing else is to be required, to cooperate therewith in order to obtain justification; and that it is on no account necessary that he should prepare and dispose himself by the effort of his own will, (suae voluntatis motu) let him be accursed, (anathema sit.) Again, “Whosoever shall affirm, that men are justified solely by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, (sola imputatione justitiae Christi;) or, that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God (esse tantum favorem Dei,) let him be accursed.” “Whosoever shall affirm, that justification received is not preserved, and even increased in the sight of God, by good works, (per bona opera;) let him be accursed,” “Whosoever shall affirm, that he who has fallen after baptism, cannot by the grace of God rise again; or, that if he can, it is possible for him to recover his lost righteousness by faith only, without the sacrament of penance, let him be accursed.” “Whosoever shall affirm, that when the grace of justification is received, the offense of the penitent sinner is so forgiven, and the sentence of eternal punishment reversed, that there remains no temporal punishment to be endured before his entrance into the kingdom of heaven, either in this world, or in the future state in purgatory, (vel in hoc seculo, vel in futuro, in purgatorio,) let him be accursed.” “Whosoever shall affirm, that the good works of a justified man, are in such sense the gifts of God, that they are not also the worthy merits of the justified person, (ut non sint etiam bona ipsius jus-tificati merita;) or, that he being justified by his good works, which are wrought by him through the grace of God, and the merits of Jesus Christ, of whom he is a living member, does not really deserve, (non vere mereri,) increase of grace, eternal life, the enjoyment of that eternal life if he dies in a state of grace, and even an increase of glory; let him be accursed.”10 Any one acquainted with the Scriptures will readily perceive that these anathemas of the celebrated Council of Trent fall primarily upon the head of Christ and his Apostles! The doctrine of Paul is, that “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”11 And Christ has taught us to say, after we have done all commanded us:

“We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do.” Luke 17:10.

All ideas of human merit are entirely excluded by the teachings both of Christ and his Apostles.

“Where is boasting then?” asks an Apostle, “It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.” Romans 3. The anathema of Paul, then, and those of the Romanists, are hurled at precisely opposite persons. Romanists affirm, “If any man exclude works in our justification, let him be accursed.” Paul declares, If any man put them in, let him be accursed.

“If any man preach any other gospel unto you, than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:9.

Whose anathema, then, are we most to dread, that of the Council, or that of Paul? Whose doctrine are we to receive, that of Christ? or, that of the Pope?

Romanism, then, denies that the word of God is the sole rule of faith and practice. It denies that Jesus Christ is the sole Head of the Church. It denies that the mediation of Christ is one and exclusive. It also denies the justification of a sinner by faith only, and wholly on account of the righteousness of Christ. For these its denials of fundamental scriptural doctrines, it is, and must be apostate. Its teachings and those of Christ are at variance; its doctrines and those of the Apostles are directly opposite. Nor is this all. We hesitate not to affirm, that the papal system is the apostasy, predicted by Paul; and that in it we will find all the facts, which the Apostle to the Gentiles so graphically places upon the inspired page. Here, then, is another mark by which the Papacy and Antichrist are proved to be identical. Antichrist was to be a great apostate; he was also to preside over a great apostasy. The Pope is an apostate and he presides over an apostate church. His system excludes that of Christ, his doctrines subvert the doctrines of Christ. He is emphatically Antichrist, the opponent of Christ; and his system of doctrine is antichristianity, displacing absolutely and entirely, those doctrines of grace of which Jesus was the Herald and the Author.

1 On the Prophecies, Diss. ii.
2 Council of Trent, Sess. iv.
3 Theol., chap. xviii.
4 Decrees of Trent.
5 Moral Theol. 140-142.
6 On 1 Timothy 2:5.
7 De Invocatione.
8 Moral Theol. c. xiii.
9 Ib. page 276.
10 De Justificationc.
11 Romans 3:28,

CHAPTER 5 ANTICHRIST AN IDOLATER

ANOTHER mark of Antichrist, is idolatry. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.” 1 Timothy 4:1.

(didaskaliaiv daimoniwn.) That this passage is to be applied to Antichrist, or the Papacy, is evident from two facts. The persons, who are here represented as giving heed to “seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils,” are those who have departed from the faith; that is, they are those who constitute the great apostasy already alluded to. The species, too, of idolatry here spoken of, is precisely that which Romanists practice; it is “the doctrines of demons;” that is, it is worship rendered to the souls of departed men.

A more explicit account, however, of this Romish idolatry, is given in the following text: “And the rest of men, which were not killed by these plagues, yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils (demons, i.e. departed souls) and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood; which neither can see, nor hear nor walk.” Revelation 9:20.

That the reference here is also to Rome, is evident. The fifth trumpet describes the rise and progress of Mohammedanism. The sixth, the incursions of the Turks upon countries nominally Christian. “The rest of the men, therefore, which were not killed by these plagues,” must refer to those portions of nominal Christendom, which were not subdued by the followers of the Arabian prophet. These countries were precisely those occupied by the Papacy.

Other passages of Scripture, charging idolatry upon the Papacy, may be found in the 17th and 18th chapters of the book of Revelation. In these chapters, this apostate church is called, in reference to these idolatries,

“The great whore,” “The mother of harlots;” and it is said of her, that “all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” That whoredom and fornication refer to idolatry, any one, at all acquainted with the writings of the ancient prophets, must know. If, then, as we have already proven, these passages refer to modern Babylon, that is, to Rome, then is the sin of idolatry predicted, as one of the strongest marks by which Antichrist may be distinguished.

It is well known, that no charge brought against Papists, is more offensive, than that of idolatry. Gregory the Second, in his letter to the emperor Leo, in which he undertakes to repel the charge of idolatry, says, “The former idols were the fanciful representations of phantoms, or demons, at a time when the true God had not manifested his person in any visible likeness. The latter are the genuine forms of Christ, his mother, and his saints, who had approved, by a crowd of miracles, the innocence and merit of this relative worship.”1 Here, this kind of worship is called relative; and is said to be both innocent and meritorious. The opponent, also, of McGavin, uses the following language: “No one is ignorant, that the heathens worshipped Diana and Venus with divine honors, as deities; but, to say that the Church of Rome pays the same adoration to the blessed Virgin Mary, is contrary to truth.”2

Such statements as these, however, can deceive no one acquainted with either pagan or Jewish antiquity. It is entirely certain, that the ancient pagan idolaters uniformly recognized one Supreme Being. The gods, therefore, which they worshipped, were subordinate deities; indeed, they were, for the most part, the souls of departed sages and heroes. In speaking of the idolatry of the ancient Egyptians, from whom the Greeks borrowed most of their mythology, Shuckford says: “In time, they looked over the catalogue of their ancestors, and appointed a worship for such as had been more eminently famous in their generation; and having before this made pillars, statues, or images in memory of them, they paid their worship before these, and so introduced this sort of idolatry.”3 The following is the language of that ancient Greek poet Hesiod: “After this generation (the primitive fathers of the human race) were dead, they were, by the will of great Jupiter, promoted to be demons, keepers of mortal men, observers of their good and evil works, clothed in air, always walking about the earth, givers of riches,” etc.4 Plato also says, that “Hesiod and many other poets speak excellently, who affirm, that when good men die, they attain great honor and dignity, and become demons;” (objects of worship and veneration.) This philosopher also teaches, that “all those who die valiantly in war, are of Hesiod’s golden generation, and are made demons (gods) and that we ought for ever after to serve and adore their sepulchers as the sepulchers of demons.”5

The following is Plato’s explanation of what he means by demons: “Every demon is a middle being between God and mortals. God is not approached immediately by man, but all the commerce and intercourse between God and men is performed by the mediation of demons. Demons are reporters and carriers from men to the gods, and again from the gods to men, of the supplications and prayers of the one, and of the injunctions and rewards of devotion from the other.”6

It is just as true, then, that the demons and idols of ancient paganism have a foundation in truth and reason, as that the saints (demons) and images of modern Rome have. The demons of Hesiod and Plato, and of the ancient world generally, were the souls of departed worthies. The images and statues, too, by which they were worshipped, were also the representations of these deceased heroes and sages. Their worship was also maintained to be respective — i.e. they were worshipped as mediators between the supreme God and mortal men. Pagan idolatry, therefore, can be defended upon the very same ground which is advocated for modern Romish idolatry. If, therefore, the one be condemned, the other cannot be justified.

Is it true then, that modern Rome maintains a worship of this kind? The following are some of the decrees of Trent on this subject. All Catholic bishops and priests are required to “instruct the faithful concerning the intercession and invocation of saints, the honor due to relics, and the lawful use of images, teaching that it is a good and useful thing suppliantly to invoke them, and to flee to their help, prayers and assistance.” “Let them teach also, that the holy bodies of the holy martyrs and others living with Christ are to be venerated by the faithful, since by them God bestows many benefits upon men.” “Moreover, let them teach, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin, mother of God, and of other saints, are to be had and retained, especially in churches, and due honor and veneration rendered to them. The honor, however, with which they are regarded, is referred to those, who are represented by them; so that we adore Christ, and venerate the saints, whose likenesses these images bear, when we kiss them, and uncover our heads in their presence, and prostrate ourselves.” “Quas osculamur, et coram quibus, caput aperimus, et procumbimus.”7 This council proceeds however still farther; it authorizes representations or images of the invisible God! It gives however this caution, “that when the Deity is thus represented, it is not to be supposed, that the same can be seen by our bodily eyes, or that a likeness of God can be given in color or figure;” “non propterea Divinitatem figurari, quasi coloribus aut figuris exprimi possit.” Strictly in accordance with this permission of the council, papists frequently represent God the Father as an old man, God the Son as a young man, on his right, and God the Spirit, as a dove hovering over them!!

The following is the language of Dens. “What is meant by an image?”

“A similitude or representation of some existing thing, expressed for that thing as a copy.”

“How does it differ from an idol?”

“Because an idol is a likeness representing that, which either simply does not exist, or certainly is not such as that which is worshipped; but an image is a similitude of a thing which really exists, as of a man.”

“Prove that the images of Christ and of the saints are to be worshipped.”

“It is proven in the first place from the council of Trent.” He afterwards asserts, “however this may be, it is sufficient for us against sectarians to state, that all Catholics teach and prove that the images of the saints are to be worshipped.”

In speaking of the kind of worship to be rendered the saints, etc., Dens says, “the images of the saints are worshipped with the respective veneration of dulia; of the Divine Virgin, with the relative worship of hyperdulia, of Christ and of God, with the respective worship of latria.”

Besides, then, the decrees of Trent, which are binding upon all Catholics, here is one of their distinguished theologians, as composedly defending and illustrating the duty of image and saint-worship, as the sincerest Protestant would illustrate and enforce the duties of faith and repentance! The late Pope Gregory the XVI. in one of his encyclical letters uses the following language. “Now, that all these events may come to pass happily and successfully, let us lift up our eyes and our hands to the most holy Virgin Mary, who alone has destroyed all heresies, and is our greatest confidence, even the whole foundation of our hope!”8

When such sentiments are advocated and published by councils, doctors, and popes, it is not wonderful that the same idolatry should pervade the mass of the people. In the Ursuline Manual, designed “for forming youth to the practice of solid piety,” and having the sanction of the “Right Rev. Bishop Hughes,” among others are the following prayers, “A prayer to St. Augustine” — “O glorious St. Augustine! the light and oracle of the faithful! penetrated with veneration for thy virtues, I choose thee for my Father, my Protector, and my Advocate. I most humbly beseech thee to have compassion on my youth, and to protect me in those dangers which thou well knowest, are attendant on my inexperienced age,” etc. Next follows, “A prayer to St. Angela, Foundress of the Ursuline order.” “Most blessed St. Angela, who art now in possession of that eternal crown which is promised to those who instruct others unto justice, permit me to have recourse to thee, as to my glorious patroness, and to choose thee for my special advocate before the throne of God. In union with all those happy souls, who, under God, are indebted to thee, for the glory they now enjoy in heaven, I thank God for having raised thee up, to provide for millions the great blessings of religious instruction. O glorious patroness and mother of the weakest portion of Christ’s flock, do not abandon thy charge, now, that thou seest more clearly than ever the dangers to which youth is exposed.”9

The following are prayers extracted from the Catholic Manual, having the sanction of Archbishop Whitfield, and designed “for the use of Christians in every state of life.” “Holy Mary, Virgin, Mother of God! I this day choose thee for my Mother, queen, Patroness and Advocate; and I firmly resolve never to depart, either by word or action from the duty I owe thee, or suffer those committed to my charge to say or do anything against thy honor. Receive me therefore as thy servant forever, assist me in all the actions of my whole life, and forsake me not at the hour of my death.” The following prayer is addressed to “the Monthly Patron.”10 “O thou blessed inhabitant of the heavenly Jerusalem, who hast been appointed by the divine Goodness to be my patron during this month; defend me by thy intercession from all dangers of soul and body; obtain, that I may be a faithful imitator of thy virtues, and that the fire of divine love may be more and more kindled in my heart.”11

Here then are manuals and prayer-books, putting into the lips of youth and Christians, direct addresses and supplications to mere creatures. The knee is bent, the lips opened, and petitions expressed to absent and distant saints! What is this? All, except papists, can see that it is not only idolatry, but idolatry in one of its worst forms.

It is sometimes attempted to justify this creature-worship, by comparing it with the petitions which believers offer for each other on earth. But nothing is more unlike. We may ask our friends to pray for us without idolatry, but we cannot pray to the saints without idolatry. In the former case we commune with creatures as creatures. In the latter, we ascribe to them divine attributes, and render to them divine homage. Hence, the opponent of McGavin does not hesitate to say: “I know that the saints in heaven are in a state of perfection and glory, and that they know what passes in the hearts of men upon earth; but how is not for me to inquire or explain.”12 Here the attribute of Divine omniscence is affirmed as the property of creatures. And if such creatures possess one such perfection, of course they possess others. Hence they are even in the highest sense deified!

If then there ever has been, or can be, a system of idolatry or creatureworship on earth, the Romish system is such. True, we are to expect those men who are engaged in such practices to defend and maintain them. And inasmuch as they profess to be Christians, we must, of course, expect them so to alter, change, and interpret Scripture, as to make it consist in their view, with such modes of devotion and worship. In all this, however, Rome gives to the world the strongest possible proof of her judicial blindness, and only works out and proves the theorem, that she is “Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.” Another feature, therefore, of Antichrist is established upon Papal Rome. Antichrist was to be idolatrous. Papal Rome both is idolatrous, and has been for ages. Her system, of angel, saint, image, and relic-worship, exceeds even the grossest superstitions of ancient Greece or Rome.

1 Gibbon’s Rome, ch. xlix.
2 Protestant, vol. ii. ch. clix.
3 Vol. i. B. V. Refer. to Diod. Sie. I. see. 11.
4 Parkhurst’s Lexicon in verbo.
5 Idem.
6 Ibidem.
7 Scssio v. De Invocatione, etc.
8 Papal Rome as it is, page 136.
9 Ursuline Manual, pp. 350, 351.
10 Ursuline Manual, p. 258.
11 Ib. p. 273.
12 Prot. ii., clix.

CHAPTER 6 ANTICHRIST A BLASPHEMER

ANOTHER mark of Antichrist is blasphemy. Blasphemy refers both to the speech and actions of men. Thus the reproaches, cast by the Gentiles upon the name and character of God, are termed by the Apostle Paul, “blasphemy.” Romans 2:24. And so also Christ’s assertion, that he was the Son of God, was considered by the Jews as blasphemy.

“For a good work,” say they, “we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou being a man makest thyself God.” John 10:33.

Blasphemy is predicted of Antichrist in several passages of Scripture. It is said of the little horn, which is the symbol of Antichrist, “and he shall speak great words against the Most High.” Daniel 7:25. The beast also which John saw, and which is also a symbol of Antichrist, had upon his seven heads “the names of blasphemy.” Revelation 13:1. It is also said of this same beast —

“And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.” Revelation 13:5,6.

The Apostle Paul also gives us the following description of the same evil power:

“For that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4. Is there anything then in the actual state of the Papacy, corresponding to these predictions concerning the blasphemous character of Antichrist? To this I reply, first, that the very office of the Pope is blasphemous. What that office is, may be learned from the following Romish authorities. One of the canons of the papal Church says: “The Pope, by the Lord’s appointment, is the successor of the blessed Apostle Peter, and holds the place of the Redeemer himself upon the earth.” (Ipsius Redemptoris locum in terris tenet.) Again, “The Roman pontiff bears the authority not of a mere man, but of the true God upon the earth:” (sed veri Dei vicem gerit in terris.) “Christ, the King of Kings, ‘and Lord of Lords, gave to the Roman pontiff, in the person of Peter, the plenitude of power;” (plenitudinem potestatis.) Again; the Doway catechism asserts, that “he who is not in due connection and subordination to the Pope and general councils, must needs be dead, and cannot be accounted a member of the church, since from the Pope and general councils, under Christ, we have our spiritual life and motion as Christians.” The following language is also used: “It was becoming, since the chief pontiff represents the person of Christ, that as, during Christ’s earthly ministry, the Apostles stood around him, so the assembly of the cardinals, representing the apostolic college, should stand before the Pope.” Again: “Whenever there is any question concerning the privileges of the apostolic chair, they are not to be judged of by others. The Pope alone knows how to determine doubts concerning the privileges of the apostolic seat.”1

And who is the Pope? A man, a mere man; an uninspired man; often, an immoral and wicked man! And yet, such is his office, such his prerogatives, such his pretensions! Well has the Apostle said — “He, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” Here is blasphemy, blasphemy of the blackest die. The attributes ascribed to the Pope in this office are also blasphemous. Among others, the Pope is considered as invested with the three following powers’ inspiration, infallibility, and absolute authority. “The supreme pontiff,” says Dells, “determining from the throne matters relating to faith or customs, is infallible; which infallibility proceeds from the special assistance of the Holy Spirit.”2 He also thus describes the authority of the Pope: “Hence it follows, that all the faithful, even bishops, and patriarchs, are obliged to obey the Roman pontiff; also that he must be obeyed in all things, which concern the Christian religion, and therefore, in faith and customs, in rites, ecclesiastical discipline, etc. Hence, the perverse device of the Quesnelites falls to the ground; namely, that the Pope is not to be obeyed, except in those things which he enjoins conformably to Scripture!”3 Strictly in accordance with this teaching of the theologian, is the published doctrine of the late Pope Gregory XVI. — “Let all remember,” says he, “that the principle of sound doctrine, with which the people are to be imbued, must emanate from, and that the rule and administration of the universal church belongs to, the Roman pontiff, to whom was given the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal church by Christ our Lord.”4

Here then is a frail, erring mortal, arrogating to himself, and that by virtue of office only, the attributes of the Deity! The Spirit of God is with him, infallibility is his; and he is to be obeyed, even where he enacts laws, and teaches doctrine contrary to Scripture! Surely this is blasphemy — this is “to speak great words against the Most High.”

The homage rendered to the Pope is of the same blasphemous character. The following is the description of a scene, which took place a few years since at Rome, and which was witnessed by an American citizen. “A most superb procession took place on the morning of the festa of the annunciation, which I with thousands of others, ran to see. The Pope, riding on a white mule, (I suppose to imitate our Savior’s entry into Jerusalem,) came, attended by his horse-guards, who rode before to clear the way, mounted on prancing black horses; and accompanied by such a flourish of trumpets and kettle-drums, as to wear far more the appearance of a martial parade, than of a religious ceremony. All were dressed in splendid full uniform, and in every cap waved a myrtle sprig, the sign of rejoicing. The cardinals followed, and the rear was brought up by a bareheaded priest on a mule, with the host in a golden cup, the sight of which operated like a talisman on every soul around me, for every knee bent. The Pope himself was clothed in robes of white and silver, and as he passed along the crowds of gazing people that lined the streets and filled the windows, he forgot not incessantly to repeat his benediction, a twirl of three fingers, typical of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; the little finger representing the latter. Many tiresome ceremonies followed his entry into the church. He was seated on his throne; all the cardinals successively approached, kissed his hand, retired a step or two, gave three low nods, one to him in front, as personifying God the Father; one to the right, intended for the Son; and one to the left for the Holy Ghost!” Speaking of another procession on Palm Sunday, the same writer says: — “The Pope was clothed this time in scarlet and gold, and a most sumptuous figure he made. The cardinals were dressed in their morning robes, of a violet color, richly trimmed with antique lace, with mantles of ermine, and scarlet trains, but these were soon changed for garments of gold. The same round of ceremonies were performed as I related, on the festa of the annunciation. Two palm branches received the benediction of the Pope, after having passed through a cloud of incense. The procession then began to move off, two and two, beginning with the lowest clerical monk; and at last the Pope himself in his chair of state, under a crimson canopy, and borne on the shoulders of four men. Great pomp and splendor marked this parade. The crowns and miters of the bishops and patriarchs, white and crimson, glittering with jewels, and set with precious stones; their long, rich dresses, the slow and uniform march of the procession, and the gay crowds surrounding, presented quite an imposing appearance.”5

And this is the vicar of Jesus Christ! this the successor of the laborious and self-denying Peter! One would think that the Pope much more resembles some image of the ancient Jupiter, than either Christ or his Apostle. But look at the worship rendered to the Pope on his throne! He is adored as the personification of the Holy Trinity! And this too, not by ignorant fanatics, but by illustrious cardinals! Nor does it occur privately, or occasionally; but in the most public assemblies, indeed before the world; and on all great and solemn occasions! And is not this blasphemy? What! shall a mortal, a sinner, thus receive the worship of Jehovah? Does a man pretend to be the representation of the Trinity? All this, however, but fulfills the extraordinary predictions of Paul, concerning this same wicked power: — “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.”

The acts of the pontificate are of the same blasphemous character. Exalted as he is to the very acme of both temporal and spiritual jurisdiction, the Pope of Rome imagines himself to be a very god on earth. Bishops and kings are but his footstool, while even heaven and hell are locked or unlocked at his pleasure. The following are a few of the papal maxims ascribed originally to Gregory VII. “The Roman Church is the only one that God has founded, The title of universal, belongs to the Roman pontiff alone. He alone can depose and absolve bishops. He has a right to depose emperors. All princes must kiss his feet. No chapter, no book can be reputed canonical without his authority. His name is the only one to be uttered in the churches. It is the only name in the world. He alone has the right to assume the attributes of empire.”6 And in the exercise of these fearful prerogatives, see the Roman Pontiff, from his lofty balcony, pronouncing from year to year, the awful anathemas of the bull “In coena Domini.” The following is one of these thundering curses: “We excommunicate and anathematize in the name of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and by the authority of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own; all Hussites, Wickliffites, Lutherans, Zuinglians, Calvinists, Huguenots, Anabaptists, Trinitarians and apostates from the Christian faith, and all other heretics, by whatsoever name they are called, and of whatsoever sect they be; as also their adherents, receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders of them; together with all, who without our authority, as that of the apostolic see, knowingly read, keep, print, or in any wise, for any cause whatever, publicly or privately, on any pretext or color, defend their books, containing heresy or treating of religion; as also schismatics, and those who withdraw themselves, or recede obstinately from the obedience of us, or of the bishop of Rome for the time being.”

An Apostle has said, “judge nothing before the time:” and again — “vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.” Here, however, we see the Pope of Rome thundering his curses upon his enemies with a liberal hand; yea, “cursing, whom the Lord has not cursed.” This, however, has been predicted of this blasphemous power. “And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell therein.”

Here, then, is the antitype of the beast which John saw rising out of the sea, “having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads, the names of blasphemy.” Here is another deep and prophetic mark of the great Antichrist. The very chair of the Pope, his high pretensions, his arrogance and pride, his anathemas and curses, the worship he requires from his subjects, and the false doctrines and rules, which in the name of God, and as God, he enforces upon men, all these things prove him to be the blaspheming king, of which Daniel and Paul, and John, severally speak; all proclaim him Antichrist.

1 Bishop Hopkins’s “Church of Rome,” chap. iii.
2 Mor. Theel. on Priinacy.
3 Ibidcm.
4 Voice from Rome, p. 14.
5 Dr. Sturtevant.
6 Court of Rome — Persecutions of Popery.

CHAPTER 7 ANTICHRIST AN INNOVATOR

THE introduction of changes in divine institutions and laws, is another prophetic feature in Antichrist. Thus Daniel predicts of him; “and he shall think to change times and laws” — tdw ˆynmz hynçwhl rbsyw. The Seventy render the passage into Greek thus — kai uJponohsei tou alloiwsai kairouv kai nomouv. The Vulgate translates it into the following Latin: “Et putabit mutare tempera et legem.” The following is the English of the Doway Bible — “And he shall think himself able to change times and laws.” Daniel 7:25.

The character of these times and laws is not only to be inferred from the context, but is distinctly taught us by the Apostle Paul.

“He, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

The meaning of this passage is, that Antichrist, arrogating to himself divine authority and honors, hesitates not to make those changes and alterations in the institutions of heaven, which God alone has the exclusive right either to establish or annul. Some of these changes are definitely expressed by the same Apostle —

“forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” 1 Timothy 4:3.

These passages refer to Antichrist; and the latter teaches most clearly, who that Antichrist is. Who is it that forbids to marry? Who is it that commands a great variety of fasts and abstinences? It is the Church of Rome. While God has left both marrying and fasting as voluntary things to his people, and while the New Testament teaches that many of the Apostles, the brethren of the Lord, and even Peter (1 Corinthians 9:4,) had wives, the Papacy dares to step in between God and the consciences of men, and to interpose its authority as absolute and imperative! The following are some among the many changes which the Papacy has introduced in divine ordinances and laws. We have already noticed its denial of the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith, its perversion of the doctrine of justification by faith, its virtual subversion of the sole mediatorship of Christ, and its utter destruction of the Christian liberties of God’s people; we now proceed to increase the catalogue of alterations in the divine economy and law, which this wicked power has made, during the lapse of past centuries.

The Papacy has virtually abolished the obligation of the moral law. Not only is the second commandment made a part of the first, in the more systematic arrangement of doctrines in the Romish Church, and the tenth divided into two, to complete the number; but in their catechisms for the young, the second is entirely omitted!1 Their system too, of saint and image-worship, even where the literal law is retained, completely subverts its authority. The fourth commandment has shared a similar fate. True, it is retained verbally, but then its force and obligation are entirely destroyed. The multiplication of other holy days by this church, has caused the Sabbath as a divine institution, proportionably to sink in the estimation of all Catholic communities. Dens, in his treatise on theology, on the fourth commandment asks this question — “What is taught by this third (4th) precept in the new law?” The answer given is, “Principally these three things —

1. That certain specified days are to be kept holy. 2. That they are to be kept holy by external divine worship, by hearing masses. 3. That the same are to be kept holy by abstaining from servile labors.” He next asks, “Which days are those appointed to be kept holy?” The answer is, “In the first place, are the Lord’s days; next, festival days!” Here, saints’ days and other set days appointed by the Church of Rome, are actually placed in the Decalogue as of Divine appointment! More than one hundred of these human Sabbaths are imposed upon the dupes of Rome, under the authority of Him who spake from Sinai, and who said, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Hence the ever occurring interruptions to weekly labor in Catholic countries, hence the declension in national prosperity of all those countries. God’s economy has been abolished, and man’s substituted. But this evil also operates against the sanctity of the weekly Sabbath. This day is put on a footing with the other holy days; it is devoted to plays and sports, by those who should be taught, “not to think their own thoughts, or to speak their own words on God’s holy day.” “As to hunting, says Dens, and fishing, unless accompanied with great noise or fatigue, they are lawful recreations on the Lord’s day! Many suppose that it is not unlawful to fish with a reed, hook, or small nets, for the purpose of recreation; and they think the same of hunting on a small scale.” — He also introduces two other authorities as advocating the selling of clothes, shoes, and. other things, to servants and laborers, on the Sabbath, and represents it as doubtful whether painting is not lawful on that day! If such be the teachings of sound Roman Catholic divines on the sanctity of the Sabbath, what shall be said of the practices of the people generally? Hence in all Catholic countries, after morning mass, and certain external forms of worship, the Sabbath is spent as a day of recreation and sport.2

The fifth commandment has been set aside by the Papacy in all those numerous cases in which children have been compelled by the church to inform against heretical parents, and in which parents have been constrained to turn the accusers of their own offspring. The following is tile testimony of one who was born a Roman Catholic, and long continued such.3 “Every year there is publicly read (in Spain) at church, a proclamation or bull from the Pope, commanding parents to accuse their children, children their parents, husbands their wives, and wives their husbands, of any words or actions against the Roman Catholic religion. They are told that whoever disobeys this command not only incurs damnation for his own soul, but is the cause of the same to those whom he wishes to spare. So that many have had for their accusers, their fathers and mothers, without knowing to whom they owed their sufferings under the Inquisitors; for the name of the informer is kept a most profound secret, and the accused is tried without ever seeing the witnesses against him.”4

Here, then, according to papistical policy, the obligations of the fifth commandment are subverted by the tyrannical and interposed authority of the priesthood.

It need scarcely be affirmed, here, what effects the imposition of celibacy upon the clergy is likely to produce in reference to the seventh commandment. When such celibacy is voluntary, there is but little danger; where, however, it is forced, there is always danger to the party upon whom it is thus laid. Even Christ said on this subject, “he that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Matthew 19:12. The Apostle Paul also gives the following advice: — “to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife.” 1 Corinthians 7:2. A single life, according to Scripture, should be voluntary, wherever adopted. Every man, in this particular, is to judge, for himself. But the Church of Rome forces celibacy upon her priesthood. Can any one believe, that this arbitrary law can extinguish the propensities of nature? or, that all who have professedly submitted to it, have really led chaste and virtuous lives? Impossible! And if the seventh commandment be violated by the priesthood, is it likely that it can have its proper influence among all the multitudes who constitute the entire Catholic community? At any rate, any one can see, that the tendency of this rule is to subvert the pure morality of the church.

The sixth and eighth commandments have both been trampled under foot by the Holy Inquisition. The great object of this court seems to be to enrich the church by murdering its enemies, or suspected friends. In Spain, this Holy Court directed its energies at first, principally against the Jews. “In one year,” says McCrie, “five thousand Jews fell a sacrifice to popular fury.”5 These Jews were immensely rich, and their property became the possession of their malignant persecutors. In the very year in which Luther made his appearance (1517), in Spain alone, there were 13,000 persons burnt alive, 8700 burnt in effigy, and 169,723 condemned to various penances.6 Is it possible to imagine that a body of men, who can, on slight pretexts, accuse, condemn, and burn worthy and industrious citizens, and then take possession of their property, can have any regard for either the sixth or the eighth commandment?

But this whole law is virtually abolished by the Tax-book of the Roman Chancery. Here crimes are reduced to a regular scale of pecuniary valuation. Of course, the idea that a transgressor has of the character of his sin, is the amount of money he has to pay for its pardon. The following are a few items from this Tax-Book: “Robbing a church, $2.50. Perjury, forgery, and lying, $2. Robbery, $3. Burning a house, $2.75. Eating meat in Lent, $2.75. Killing a layman, $1.75. Striking a priest, $2.75. Procuring abortion, $1.50. Priest to keep a concubine, $2.25. Ravishing a virgin, $2.

Murder of father, mother, brother, sister or wife, $2.50. Marrying on a forbidden day, $10. All incest, rapes, adultery, and fornication, committed by a priest, with the joint pardon of the other parties concerned, $10. Absolution of all crimes together, $12.”7 According to this scale of the Roman Chancery, not only are human laws made equal, and even superior to the divine, but crimes the most atrocious are represented as venial; a few dollars and cents cancel the account, and turn the transgressor forth to commit new depredations upon the law of God, and upon human society! Thus does the Papacy virtually abolish and set aside the moral law itself.

2. We notice next the interference of the Papacy with marriage; an institution appointed directly by God, older than any other, and one which lies at the basis of society, and which is essential to the purity of any community whatever. Every reader of church history will perceive an early tendency in the church to discountenance marriage in her clergy. This tendency was farther increased by the monastic life. It was afterwards converted into an ecclesiastical law, and marriage in a priest was considered a more heinous crime, than adultery in a layman.

That such an unnatural statute has no countenance in Scripture, is certain. God himself has said, “It is not good for man to be alone.” Genesis 2:18. Even the high-priest among the Jews was expected to marry, “and he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Leviticus 21:13. The Apostle Paul also says, “a bishop must be the husband of one wife.” 1 Timothy 3:2. It is also manifest that Peter and several of the Apostles were married men. 1 Corinthians 9:4. True, Christ and Paul intimate, that under given circumstances it would be better for ministers not to marry. Neither, however, makes any law on the subject; but leaves it to the choice of ministers themselves; the Papacy, however, “forbids to marry.”

Pope Gregory VII. assembled an ecclesiastical council at Rome, in the year 1074. In this council “it was decreed,” says Mosheim, “that the sacerdotal orders should abstain from marriage; and that such of them as had already wives or concubines, should immediately dismiss them, or quit the priestly office. These decrees were accompanied with circular letters, written by the pontiff to all European bishops, enjoining the strictest obedience to this solemn council, under the severest penalties.” — “No sooner was the law concerning the celibacy of the clergy published,” remarks the same historian, “than the priests in the several provinces of Europe, who lived in the bonds of marriage with lawful wives, complained loudly of the severity of this council, and excited the most dreadful tumults in the greatest part of the European provinces. Many of these ecclesiastics chose rather to abandon their spiritual dignities, and to quit their benefices, that they might cleave to their wives.” He also remarks:

“The proceedings of Gregory appeared to the wiser part, even of those who approved of the celibacy of the clergy, unjust and criminal in two respects: first, in that his severity fell indiscriminately and with equal fury upon the virtuous husband and the licentious rake. Secondly, that instead of chastising the married priests with wisdom and moderation, he gave them over to the civil magistrate, to be punished as disobedient and unworthy subjects, with the loss of their substance, and with the most shocking marks of undeserved infamy and disgrace!”8 How powerless must have fallen upon the ear of such a Pope, the words of Christ —

“Whom God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Matthew 19:6.

Here then we see the Papacy, true to the prophecy concerning it, but in direct violation of the laws of God and of society, among a large class of persons, annulling an institution, of which it is said, “marriage is honorable in all.” The object of such a law is evident enough — it is to create the tools of papal power. By destroying all conjugal ties in her priesthood, by withering in the heart all domestic loves and affections, Rome seeks to ally to the chair of St. Peter, a vast number of willing minions, who will go at her bidding, and who shall seek in despite of all opposition, to establish her dominion over the nations of the earth. While, however, she thus seeks to increase her authority, she but exhibits her real character, and demonstrates to the world, that she is the Antichrist, predicted in the Holy Scriptures.

It has already been shown, in speaking of the apostasy of Rome, how the gospel, as a system of grace and salvation, has been corrupted by the Papacy. Rome has also perverted and changed every institution and ordinance connected with the gospel.

3. She has changed and corrupted the sacraments of the new dispensation. Any reader of the New Testament will readily perceive, that Christ appointed but two such sacraments, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. Rome, however, has ordained seven — Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony. The authority in such sacraments is thus expressed by Dens: “The primary reason of this, is the Will of Christ, as made known by divine tradition! This number of seven is also insinuated in various passages of Scripture. Thus, Proverbs 9:1, it is said, ‘Wisdom, which is Christ, has built a house for herself, that is the church, and she hath hewn out seven pillars,’ doubtless the seven sacraments, which, like so many pillars sustain the church! So in like manner, (Exodus 25,) by the seven lamps, which were on one candlestick, this is implied, for there are seven sacraments, just so many as there are lamps, which illumine the church.”9 Such is the miserable foundation on which Rome rests her doctrine of seven sacraments!

But she has changed the design and character of a sacrament. The sacraments of the New Testament are but the external signs and seals of internal and spiritual grace. Rome, however, makes them the material causes of grace. The council of Florence uses the following language: “These our sacraments both contain and confer grace, upon such as worthily receive them.” The council of Trent speaks in a similar manner — “If any one shall say, that grace is not conferred by the sacraments of the new law themselves by their own power — (per ipsa novae legis Sacramenta ex opere operato non conferri gratiam) — but that mere belief of the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace; let him be accursed.”10 Dens explains the mode in which grace is conferred by these sacraments. “Sacraments act in the manner of natural agents, whose effect is more or less, according to the greater or less capacity or disposition of the subject which disposition still has no efficiency; as it is plain in fire, which burns dry wood more effectually than green, although the dryness is merely the remover of a hindrance, or an indispensable requisite, and not the efficient cause of combustion.”11 Here, it is distinctly stated, that upon the same principle that fire burns wood, sacraments confer grace! Grace is inherent in the sacrament; consequently, the application of the sacrament to the subject, as naturally sanctifies, as the application of fire to wood burns! Hence the same author says. “The power of regeneration is attributed not less to the water, than to the Holy Ghost!12

From the view thus taken by Rome, of the design of a sacrament, it is not wonderful that she considers the administration of her sacraments as essential to salvation. When his Jewish brethren placed the same false view upon circumcision, the Apostle to the gentiles exclaimed. “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” 1 Corinthians 7:19.

And when this view began to be taken also by Christians, of baptism, the same Apostle said:

“I thank God, that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius.” 1 Corinthians 1:14.

The plain and constant teaching of the New Testament is, that men are saved “by grace,” and that the gift of this grace is not dependent upon human work or merit in any sense whatever. “The wind bloweth where it listeth,” says Christ; and believers are said to be born, “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John chapter three and chapter one. Rome, however, places the gift of grace in the hands of her priesthood, and not in the hands of a sovereign God. Nor is this all; the administration of her sacraments must be accompanied with the intention of the priest, otherwise the sacrament itself becomes inefficacious. “The intention in the minister,” says Dens, “consists in an act of his will, by which he wills the external performance of the sacraments, with the intention of doing what the church does.” And Trent has decreed — “If any one shall say that the intention is not required in ministers, when they perform and confer sacraments, at least of doing what the church does, let him be accursed.”13 This of course places salvation in the intention of a priest. Who can ascertain that intention? Who, but God, can read the heart of a Catholic priest? How then can a communicant have any evidence of pardon, but the word of the priest? And yet this sort of sacrament is essential to salvation! “The effect of this sacrament,” (baptism,) says the Council of Florence, “is the remission of all original and actual guilt; also, of all punishment which is due for that guilt.” Trent decrees, that, “Whosoever shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary to salvation, let him be accursed.”14 Hence the practice of this church, to allow midwives and others to baptize children in cases of emergency. Hence the directions given about baptizing children in the womb, and of opening mothers, who die in child-birth, in order to baptize the living offspring! Hence, too, that heathenish practice of excluding from consecrated burying places, not only heretics and others, but the children of Roman Catholic parents, provided, they die before baptism can be administered!15

The same necessity is held as to the other sacraments. “Whether confirmation,” says Dens, “is necessary to salvation, is a disputed point; but the more probable opinion is the affirmative.”16 It is rather wonderful that an infallible church should be held in doubt as to a matter of this kind. As to the necessity of the eucharist, however, there is no doubt. “While the other sacraments,” say the Decrees of Trent, “then first possess the power of sanctifying, when they are used by any one, the very Author of sanctity is in the eucharist before it is used.”17This sacrament, thus changed into Christ himself, “is not,” says the Roman Catholic catechism, “like bread and wine, changed into our substance, but in some measure changes us into its own nature.” The same catechism affirms, that “it is an antidote against the contagion of sin;” and that “invigorated by the strengthening influence of this heavenly food, the recipient at death wings his way to the mansions of everlasting glory and never-ending bliss.”18 “The sin of its omission,” says Dens, “is mortal.”19

The same necessity is placed upon penance and extreme unction. “Whosoever shall deny,” says the Council of Florence, “that sacramental confession is necessary to salvation, let him be accursed.”20 “Whosoever,” says the same Council, “shall say that the sacred anointing of the sick does not confer grace, nor remit sins, nor raise up the sick, but that it has now ceased, let him be accursed.”21 Thus, these Romish sacraments are considered, all of them, and in every’ case, essential to salvation; a position contrary to Scripture, and which has no authority but the word of Rome.

The corruption which Rome has introduced into the simple, but significant ceremony of the Lord’s Supper, deserves particular attention. Any plain and honest reader of the New Testament, must perceive at once, that the object of the Lord’s Supper was to erect in the Church a memorial of that greatest of all events, the death of Christ upon the cross. That, as the feast of the passover was a memorial of the deliverance of the Israelites from the bondage of Egypt, when the first-born were slain, so this institution was designed to be a perpetual memento, or commemorative ordinance, pointing to Calvary and Christ. This simple view of the subject however, has not suited the genius of Rome. To magnify her priesthood, (for this is the object,) she has converted it into something very different, and given to her priests a power in this ordinance, which is actually higher, so far as we know, than that possessed by God himself; certainly, a power so absurd that he never employed it. This power is, the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the literal body of Christ, and of the whole substance of the wine into the literal blood of Christ; the accidents, that is, the shape, color, taste, etc., of the bread and wine remaining; not however inhering in their own substance, but in the substance of the body and blood of Christ! — ”Whosoever shall deny,” is the doctrine of Trent, “that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and consequently Christ entire; but shall affirm that he is present therein only in a sign or figure, or by his power, let him be accursed.” — “Whoever shall deny that Christ entire, (totum Christum,) is contained in the venerable sacrament, under each species (sub unaquaque specie,) and under every part of each species, (et sub singulis cujusque speciei partibus,) when they are separated, (separatione facta,) let him be accursed.”22 This is plain; it was designed to be plain. The whole Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of men, of whom it is said, “let all the angels of God worship him;” this glorious personage is actually converted by the words of a Roman priest, into the form and appearance of bread and wine! “Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego.” Nor does the priest himself really believe it; for if poison be introduced into the wine, he will refuse to drink it.23

The first effect of this monstrous dogma, is what is called the adoration of the host, that is, the worship of the consecrated and transubstantiated bread and wine: “Whosoever shall affirm, that Christ the only begotten Son of God is not to be adored in the holy Eucharist with the external signs of that worship which is due to God, (cultu latrine) and, therefore, that the Eucharist is not to be honored with extraordinary festive celebration, nor solemnly carried about in processions, nor publicly presented to the people for their adoration, (populo proponendum ut adorerut,) and that those who worship the same are idolaters; let him be accursed.”24 Here, a God is not only made out of bread and wine, but actually received and worshipped as such!

Nor is this all — the wheaten and vinous Christ is next converted into a sacrifice, and offered by the blaspheming priest, as an atonement for the sins of the living and the dead! “Whoever shall affirm, that a true and proper sacrifice (rerum et proprium sacrificium) is not offered to God in the mass; or, that the offering is nothing else than giving Christ to us to eat; let him be accursed,” — “Whosoever shall affirm, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a service of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice made on the cross, and not a propitiatory offering; (non autem propitiatorium) or, that it only benefits him who receives it, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, (pro vivis et defunctis,) for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, (pro peccatis, poenis, satisfactionibus, et aliis necessitatibus,) let him be accursed.”25 On the same subject, Dens teaches that, “The sacrifice on the cross is altogether the same as to substance with the sacrifice of the mass; because the priest in both instances is the same! and the victim, Christ the Lord is the same!” Again he says, “Next to Christ, every priest legitimately ordained, is the true and proper minister of the sacrifice, because they only can perform this sacrifice, who have received supernatural power for this purpose.” Again he says: “The value of the mass is infinite” and again, “The mass is infallibly efficacious.” “It is proper,” he says, “to receive pay for the celebration of the mass.”

“Baptized heretics, he continues, are entirely excluded from all the direct benefits of the sacrifice of the mass.” Still, however, “It is certain that the sacrifice of the mass, is infallibly of advantage to souls in purgatory, for the remission of the punishments remaining from guilt, at least as to a part.”

Thus is the simple and sublime ordinance of the Holy Supper, converted from a purely commemorative ordinance, from being the means of cherishing the believer’s faith in Christ, into a ceremony of superstition, absurdity and idolatry. Well might Christ say of such, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” Matthew 23:24.

4. Upon all the changes which Rome has introduced into the church and kingdom of God, it is not necessary to dwell. Suffice it to say, that every doctrine, every ordinance, every institution, every mode of worship, every thing, has undergone, in one form or another, some change in passing through the hands of omnipotent Rome. The church has become a temporal kingdom, the ministry not only a priesthood, but a set of earthly princes; the Bible, not a revelation from God to man, but a revelation from the priest to man; baptism, not an obligation to Christ, but an obligation to the church; confession to man, has taken the place of confession to God; obedience is no longer the evidence of faith, but the meritorious cause of salvation. Purgatory has been invented to terrify the credulous; and contributions and fasts, instead of being left voluntary to individual believers, are matters of ecclesiastical law, and of positive requirement. A system of tyranny has been erected on the ruins of freedom; and error and superstition have risen up in the place of truth and simplicity. If Peter or Paul were sent back from the world of glory, to contemplate the church of Rome; and if they were told, that the Roman church was held as the model of the system, which they originally advocated, these holy men would scarcely recognize a principle or a thing in all Romanism, identical with the church and the Christianity which they left in the world. Yea, Paul would see his “man of sin,” in all the perfection of maturity, in the awful spectacle presented before him, and misnamed The Church. Thus has Rome, lifting her hand. higher than that of the Almighty, and speaking with a voice more terrific than that of the Holy One, dared to pull down what God has erected, and to erect what God has forbidden. In all this, however, she demonstrates her true character, proves herself to be Antichrist, and awakens in the bosom of the true believer the hope, that her destruction is advancing, and that “according as she hath glorified herself, so much torment and sorrow” will an avenging God give her.

1 See Appendix, Note D.
2 See Appendix, Note E.
3 Rev. Joseph Blanco White,
4 Preservative against Popery, p. 5.
5 Reformation in Spain, 71.
6 Text-Book of Popery, p. 263.
7 Idem. p. 83.
8 Century xi. Part 2. Section 2.
9 Dens’s Theol. chapter 34,
10 De Sacramentis in genere.
11 Theol. chapter 34,
12 Ibidem.
13 Dens’ Theol. chapter 34.
14 Dens’ Theol. ibidem.
15 Dens, ibidem.
16 Dens, chapter 36.
17 Text Book, 163.
18 Idem.
19 Chapter 38.
20 Dens, chapter 39.
21 Dens, chapter 41.
22 De sacro-sancto eucharistiae Sacramento.
23 Dens’ Theol. 39.
24 Decrees of Trent, ibidem,
25 De sacrificio missae.

CHAPTER 8 ANTICHRIST A PERSECUTOR

ANOTHER mark of Antichrist, furnished in the Scriptures, is his persecuting spirit. “I beheld,” says Daniel, “and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them.” Daniel 7:21. The same is expressed by John —

“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.” Revelation 13:7.

But John is yet more explicit:

“And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints; and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” Revelation 17:6.

Again,

“In her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.” Revelation 18:24.

Persecution refers to those civil and temporal punishments which are inflicted upon men for opinion’s sake. That such punishments were employed among the ancient Israelites, especially in relation to idolatry, is certain. Deuteronomy chapters thirteen, seventeen and eighteen. Was it designed by Christ, that they should also be used in the propagation of the Christian faith? Certainly not.

1. He has prescribed a different punishment for the rejecters of his gospel. “He that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16. Eternal perdition is here denounced upon all who receive not Christ, after they shall have heard his gospel. Nor is this sentence to be executed by the minister; but simply proclaimed by him. Now if this is the punishment to be denounced against the rejecters of Christ’s gospel, the substitution of temporal or civil penalties is both inappropriate and unlawful. Error is better removed by argument, and fear excited by the threatened vengeance of the Lord.

2. Christ instituted no union between church and state. For the most part, persecution has been the offspring of the union here alluded to. Ecclesiastical censure has been enforced by the civil magistrate. The doctrine of Jesus, however, on this subject is, “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight; but now is my kingdom not from hence.” Here all connection between church and state is expressly denied; and consequently persecution, as growing out of that connection.

3. The practice, too, both of Christ and his Apostles, utterly condemns all such methods of promoting the truth. When twelve legions of angels were ready at the call of Christ to execute vengeance upon his crucifiers, he invoked not their assistance. Matthew 26:53. And when John and James desired permission to call down fire from heaven upon a certain Samaritan village, the only response their Master gave them was, in the language of rebuke,

“Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” Luke 9:55. The Apostle Paul also asserts, “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God.” 1 Corinthians 10:4.

The rule, too, which he prescribes to Timothy, in all such cases, is of similar import.

“The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God, peradventure, will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” 2 Timothy 2:24,25.

It is true, that daring offenders were excluded from the communion of the church; and being so excluded, they were said to be “delivered unto Satan,” 1 Timothy 1:20; or, “delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh;” 1 Corinthians 5:5; but the church proceeded no farther. Exclusion from her communion was her ultima poena; the rest she left in the hands of God. It is true, that in that age of miracles, the sentence of the Apostles was sometimes followed by divine and miraculous interposition, as in the cases of Ananias and Sapphira; but there were no physical punishments inflicted either by the church or the civil power. No such case can be found. If, then, Christ and his Apostles are to govern the Christian church, persecution, especially persecution followed by civil and executive punishments, so far from being agreeable to Christianity, is in direct violation both of its letter and spirit. Hence, during the first three centuries no such persecution existed in the Christian church. Christians then were persecuted, but did not persecute.

No sooner, however, was the unnatural alliance formed of church and state, than persecution began. “The administration of the church was divided,” says Mosheim, “by Constantine himself, into an external and internal inspection. The latter was committed to bishops and councils; the former the emperor assumed to himself.”1 Here the evil began. Church power being placed in the hands, or rather assumed by the hands of a civil officer, was exercised as all other civil prerogatives; and the emperor soon began to punish heretics as he would rebels and insurgents. “Two monstrous errors,” says Mosheim, “were almost universally adopted in this century; first, that it was an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by that means the interests of the church might be promoted; and second, that errors in religion, when maintained and adhered to, after proper admonition, were punishable with civil penalties and corporal tortures.”2 These are truly a monstrous pair of twins; and if such was the first offspring of the connection between church and state, is it wonderful, that bloodier and more dreadful things have resulted from this unnatural alliance?

The Donatists were the first to realize the effects of this civil administration of church affairs. The Numidians, and Donatus at their head, opposed the consecration of Coecilianus as bishop of Carthage. For this they were opposed by the rest of the church, and ultimately by Constantine. And so far did the latter carry his opposition, that he not only deprived the Donatists of their churches, and sent their leaders into banishment, but actually put many of them to death! Here we have the lamentable example of a Christian prince, yea, the first Christian prince, putting his own Christian subjects to death for matters of conscience and religion! Nor did matters assume a quiet aspect until the battle of Bagnia, under the reign of Constans, gave victory, the victory of the sword, to the imperial troops.

In the year 357, when the contest about Arianism was raging throughout the Roman empire, this same civil power in the administration of church affairs, interfered with the liberty of conscience in the Roman pontiff himself. Liberius was compelled by Constantius to embrace the Arian heresy.3 Here, then, we see an instance in which the civil ruler makes the creed of one of the predecessors of those illustrious popes, who afterwards made emperors hold their stirrups, and bow in their presence. So generally did the sentiment prevail in this and the following century, that religious errors were to be removed by the authority of the state, that even Augustine coolly and deliberately advocates it. The following is his language: “If you suppose we ought to be moved because so many thousands die in this way, how much consolation do you suppose we ought to have, because far and incomparably more thousands are freed from such great madness of the Donatist party, where not only the error of the nefarious division, but even madness itself was the law.”4

The same principle which began to produce such pernicious effects in the Roman empire, diffused itself also among those northern nations which subverted that empire. “The kings of the Vandals,” says Mosheim, “particularly Genseric, and Huneric his son, pulled down the churches of those Christians who, acknowledged the divinity of Christ, sent their bishops into exile, and maimed and tormented in various ways such as were nobly firm and inflexible in the profession of their faith. They, however, declared that in using these severe and violent methods, they were authorized by the example of the emperors, who had enacted laws of the same rigorous nature against the Donatists, the Arians and other sects, who differed in opinion from the Christians of Constantinople.”5 Charlemagne, too, in the eighth century, did not hesitate to wage a most determined war against the Saxons, principally with the design of converting them to Christianity.

Such where some of the early fruits of the pernicious principle, introduced under the reign of Constantine. Religion and the sword, the bishop and the sovereign, went hand in hand; and when piety could not attract, or argument convince, power was made to determine the controversy. No wonder that slavery was the result; and that Europe for centuries was made to exhibit the humiliating spectacle of enslaved millions, under the tyrannical rule of domineering and despotic ecclesiastics.

It was left however, for Rome, the Babylon of the middle ages, and the seeds of whose existence had been sowing for centuries — it was left for Rome to finish the tragedy, and to show to the world the cruelty of man to man, when bigotry rules in his bosom, and charity has forsaken his heart, and the sword stands ready at his bidding. Other powers may have slain the saints, but Rome alone “has been drunk with their blood.” It is this awful spectacle that we now proceed to unveil.

It may not be improper here to remark, that persecution, so far from being a mere accident upon the Romish system, is the direct result of the system itself. If Jesus Christ is “Lord of lords” and the Pope is his vicegerent on earth; if the spiritual power is either superior to the temporal, or in necessary union with it; if the Pope is the infallible interpreter of the word of God, and all men are bound to adopt his interpretations; if submission and not liberty is the duty of Christians; and if there is no salvation but in the Romish church — if these premises are admitted, then is persecution not only a result of Romanism, but a necessary result: it is the duty of the church to persecute; it would be unkind and disloyal to act otherwise. It is sometimes alleged, that other Christian bodies besides Romanists, have persecuted. This is true. But these persecutions, few in number, and feeble for the most part in their effect have been excrescences upon such Christian bodies. They have been their deformities, not their glories. — their injury, not their advancement. The fundamental principles of Protestant Christianity are, that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith, and that in examining the Scriptures and forming his conclusions, every man must be left to his own conscience. True, any particular body of men who substantially agree in these conclusions, may adopt the same symbol of faith, and may, if they deem it necessary, refuse communion with others, whom they may consider as putting an interpretation upon the word of God, radically erroneous and essentially different from their own. But here, save as to argument and moral influence, the matter ends; the former having no more right to force the latter to their conclusions, than the latter have to force the former to theirs. This leads of course to a separation between the two bodies; not, however, to a religious war, where the sword is made the umpire of Christian faith. It produces, if you please sects, not however crusades. It distributes the Christian Church into social combinations, formed upon the voluntary principle; it does not, however, drench Christian soil with Christian blood.

That this system, admitting as it does, of so many external varieties, is better, far better than the opposite one, no thinking man can deny. It places not only religion, but human nature itself upon the right basis. The acceptance of the gospel here, is what it always must be to be real, voluntary; and no one man, or set of men, are here allowed to lord it over others. We proceed, however, to consider the development of the contrary system — the system of oneness and of absolutism.

It will not be amiss to notice here the war of the Holy Crusades, as involving the general principle of persecution. In the latter part of the eleventh century, the Turks had taken possession of Jerusalem, and subjected Christian pilgrims to various oppressions. To repel these bitter enemies to Christians, Peter, a native of Amiens in France, and usually called the Hermit, aroused all Europe to engage in a holy war. Pope Urban the Second gave the scheme his most earnest support; the Council of Clermont decreed it. These crusades, therefore, had their origin in the church. Indeed, the Pope granted indulgences and dispensations to those who would engage in this enterprise. Of these crusades there were seven. Millions of lives were lost by them; the resources of nations were exhausted, and the greatest evils followed in their train. To justify them upon Christian principles is impossible. When Peter drew his sword in defense of his Master, the reply of that master was, “Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Matthew 26:52.

If then, it was not lawful to defend Christ himself with the sword, it certainly was not lawful to defend his sepulcher with the sword. To understand however, in what spirit these mis-called holy wars were carried on, let us notice the conduct of the crusaders, upon the first conquest of Jerusalem. “On a Friday,” says Gibbon, “at three in the afternoon, the day and hour of the passion, Godfrey of Bouillon, stood victorious on the walls of Jerusalem. A bloody sacrifice was offered by these mistaken votaries to the God of the Christians: resistance might provoke, but neither age nor sex could mollify their implacable rage; they indulged themselves three days in a promiscuous massacre. After seventy thousand Moslems had been put to the sword, and the harmless Jews had been burnt in their synagogues, they could still reserve a multitude of captives whom interest or lassitude persuaded them to spare. Of these savage heroes of the cross, Tancred alone betrayed some sentiments of compassion. The holy sepulcher was now free; and the bloody victors prepared to accomplish their vow. Bareheaded and barefoot, with contrite hearts, and an humble posture, they ascended the hill of Calvary, amidst the loud anthems of the clergy; kissed the stone which had covered the Savior of the world, and bedewed with tears of joy and penitence the monument of their redemption.”6

Can any one imagine, that the Apostles Paul and Peter would have promoted, as Pope Urban did, an enterprise of this kind? Can any one suppose, that Timothy, or Titus, or Luke, would have preached as the Hermit did, a war of such exterminating vengeance against the enemies of Christianity? Can any one conceive, that the primitive church would have mixed in a scene of blood like this, with anthems and praises? Is it even possible to suppose that the Prince of peace, the author and founder of the Christian system, could sanction such conduct in his professed disciples? By no means; darkness is not more unlike light, than such bloody wars are unlike the gospel of the Son of God.

This spirit of persecution, however, in the papal church, did not confine itself to Turks and Moslems, and to the rescue merely of the holy sepulcher. Professing Christians were also made to feel its severity. In the middle ages, there lived in the south of France, a people distinguished for their civilization, refinement and elegant language. The Catholic priesthood in this country was at the time exceedingly corrupt and ignorant. So much was this the case, that no situation in life was considered meaner than that of a priest. No wonder then, that a purer faith should be acceptable to the inhabitants of Languedoc, Provence, and Catalonia. This faith was preached among them, by a people usually called Albigenses. These Albigenses, who derived their name from Albigeois, a district in France, of which the town Albi was the capital, were a set of dissentients from the Church of Rome. “They considered,” says Shoberl, “the Scriptures as the only source of faith and religion, without regard to the authority of the Fathers and of tradition. They held the entire faith according to the doctrines of the Apostles’ creed. They rejected all the external rites of the dominant church, excepting baptism and the Lord’s supper — as temples, vestures, images, crosses, the worship of holy relics, and the rest of the sacraments. They rejected purgatory, and masses and prayers for the dead. They admitted no indulgences, or confessions of sin, with any of their consequences. They denied the corporeal presence of Christ in the sacrament. They held that monasticism was a putrid carcass, and vows the invention of men, and that the marriage of the clergy was lawful and necessary. Finally, they declared the Roman Church to be the whore of Babylon, refused obedience to the Pope and the bishops, and denied that the former had any authority over other churches, or the power of either the civil or the ecclesiastical sword.”7

As to their lives, the Albigenses were above reproach. Even their enemies admitted, that “they observed irreproachable chastity, that in their zeal for truth, they never on any occasion resorted to a lie; and that such was their charity, that they were always ready to sacrifice themselves for others.”8 When their Catholic neighbors were exhorted by the missionaries of Pope Innocent, to expel and exterminate them, their reply was, “We cannot, we have been brought up with them; we have relations among them; and we see what virtuous lives they lead.”

It was to this class of heretics, that Pope Innocent III. turned his sacerdotal attention. At first he sent missionaries among them. Finding this measure too tardy and ineffectual, he next published a bull, requiring their princes and sovereigns to persecute them. These princes and sovereigns being rather tardy in executing such a bloody edict upon their own subjects, the Pope next excommunicates the princes, releases their subjects from allegiance to them, and even proceeded so far as to call for a general crusade against both princes and people. To induce other European powers and Christians to enter upon so bloody an enterprise, he publishes plenary indulgences to all soldiers and others, who would engage in this war, and offers to the princes of other countries, the vanquished territories of these heretical princes. Such offers coming from such a source, were not likely to be despised. Consequently, in the early part of the thirteenth century, a general crusade was raised against the Count of Thoulouse, the Viscount of Beziers, Alby and Carcassonne, and the other princes, who had not, in every iota, complied with the bull of Pope Innocent. The Abbot of Citeaux, who was the Pope’s Legate, was placed at the head of the crusade. The number of these crusaders is variously estimated from 50,000 to 500,000. They were actuated with the greatest fanaticism; and spread ruin and slaughter wherever they went.

Raymond VI., the Count of Thoulouse, who had previously patronized the Albigenses, upon the approach of this vast multitude, attempted by concessions and penances to obtain the forgiveness of the church. He was required to surrender seven of his strongest castles, to abide the decision of his judges as to the charges preferred against him, and to be scourged upon his naked back around the altar of St. Gilles, with a rope around his neck. Roger, Viscount of Beziers, resolved to defend his territories against the fanatical hordes of the invaders. Beziers, one of his strongest fortresses, was first taken. The terrified inhabitants took refuge in the churches. These however proved but poor refuges to the fury of the crusaders. When the knights consulted the Legate, as to the proper mode of distinguishing between the heretics and catholics, his reply was, “kill them all, the Lord will know his own.” This sentence was rigidly executed; men, women, children, heretics and catholics, all being mixed in one general slaughter. In the church of the Magdalen seven thousand corpses were found; in the cathedral a greater number. “When the crusaders had slaughtered all, to the very last living creature, in Beziers,” says Shoberl, “and had plundered the houses of every thing worth carrying away, they set fire to all the quarters at once; the city was but one vast conflagration; not an edifice remained standing, not a human being was left alive.”9

When Carcassonne was captured, although the inhabitants generally escaped through a subterranean passage, yet four hundred persons were burnt alive, and fifty were hung upon gibbets. The same fate awaited the inhabitants of Lauraguais and Menerbais. When Brom was taken, Monfort “selected more than a hundred of the wretched inhabitants, and having torn out their eyes, and cut off their noses, sent them under the guidance of a one-eyed man to the castle of Cabaret, to intimate to the garrison of that fortress the fate which awaited them.”10 At the capture of Menerbe, one hundred and forty persons were burnt alive; at that of Lavaur eighty were hanged on the gallows; and when Cassero was taken, sixty more were committed to the flames.

Such was the general character of this eight years’ war against these unoffending disciples of Jesus. Princes were humbled, their cities were burnt, their fortresses destroyed, their subjects butchered, and their country wasted, to eradicate from the earth, doctrines which Apostles preached, and which the primitive church held with the strongest faith. “No calculation,” says the same writer, “can ascertain with any precision, the waste of property, and the destruction of human life, which were the consequences of the crusade against the Albigenses.” Nor let it be forgotten, that this crusade was summoned by the Pope, was conducted by his Legate, and was afterwards approved in the council of Lateran by an Assembly of Catholic divines.

In allusion to this crusade against the Albigenses, Daunou, himself a Catholic, remarks: ”We do not intend to exculpate the Albigenses from all error. But to exterminate thousands of good men, because they have committed a self-delusion, and to dethrone him who governed them, because he did not persecute them enough, is rigor to excess, and reveals he character and manifests the power of Innocent III.”11 Hallam also remarks concerning this religious war — “It was prosecuted with every atrocious barbarity which superstition, the mother of crimes, could inspire, Languedoc, a country, for that age, flourishing and civilized, was laid waste by these desolaters, her cities burnt, her inhabitants swept away by fire and sword. And this was to punish a fanaticism ten thousand times more innocent than their own.”12 Such was one of the first efforts of Rome to fill herself with the blood of the saints.

The holy wars against the Waldenses will next claim our attention. Some writers suppose that the Waldenses took their name and origin from Peter Waldo, a wealthy merchant of Lyons. Others, however, place their origin in a much more remote antiquity. The opinion of Beza was, that Peter of Lyons derived his name Waldo, or Valdo, from the Waldenses. “According to other writers,” says Hallam, “the original Waldenses were a race of uncorrupted shepherds, who, in the valleys of the Alps, had shaken off, or perhaps never learned, the system of superstition on which the Catholic church depended for its ascendency.”13 Shoberl traces their origin to Claude, Bishop of Turin, who, when image-worship was introduced, in the beginning of the eighth century, made a bold stand against both this and several other corruptions of the Romish church. Here, amid the valleys of Piedmont, had these truly primitive and Christian people lived for centuries, separated by their locality from the rest of the world, and unobserved by even the eye of popish jealousy.

The character of the Waldenses and their doctrines may be learned from the following quotations. “All they aimed at,” says Mosheim, “was, to reduce the form of ecclesiastical government, and the lives and manners both of the clergy and people, to that amiable simplicity, and that primitive sanctity, which characterized the apostolic ages, and which appear so strongly recommended in the precepts and injunctions of the divine Author of our holy religion.”14 “These pious and innocent sectaries,” says Hallam,” of whom the very monkish historians speak well, appear to have nearly resembled the modern Moravians. They had ministers of their own appointment, and denied the lawfulness of oaths and of capital punishment. In other respects their opinions were not far removed from those usually called Protestant.”15 Reinerus Sacco, an Italian Inquisitor, writes thus of them: “While all other sects disgust the public by their gross blasphemies against God, this, on the other hand, has a great appearance of piety. For those who belong to it, live justly among men, have a sound doctrine in all points respecting God, and believe in all the articles of the Apostles’ creed, but they blaspheme the Romish church.”16 Cassini, a Franciscan, thus speaks of them: “The errors of the Vaudois consist in their denial that the Romish is the holy mother church, and in their refusal to obey her traditions. In other points they recognize the church of Christ; and for my part, I cannot deny that they have always been members of his church.”17 When Pope Innocent VIII. had urged Louis XII., king of France, to extirpate this sect from his kingdom, the monarch sent two commissioners, one of them a Dominican, and the royal confessor, to inquire into their character and views. These commissioners deposed upon oath, that “having visited the parishes and churches of the Vaudois, we find no images, no trace of the service of the mass, nor any paraphernalia, used in the ceremonies observed by Catholics. But having also made a strict inquiry into their manner of living, we cannot discover the least shadow of the crimes imputed to them. On the contrary, it appears that they piously observe the Sabbath, baptize their children after the manner of the primitive church, and are thoroughly instructed in the doctrine of the Apostles’ creed and in the law of God.”18 Notwithstanding, however, the purity of the doctrines and lives of the Waldenses, they erred in the vital point, they denied the supremacy of Rome, and rejected her numerous superstitions. This was enough, this alone, to render them obnoxious to papal wrath.

Besides some previous oppressions and slaughters to which this people were subject, in 1487, Innocent VIII. published a bull against them, “denouncing them as heretics, calling upon all the authorities, spiritual and temporal, to join in their extermination, threatening with extreme vengeance such as should refuse to take part in the crusade, promising remission of sins to those who engaged in it, and dissolving all contracts made with the offenders. Even the inquisitors and monks were exhorted to take arms against them, to crush them like poisonous adders, and to make all possible efforts for their holy extermination. This bull also granted to each true believer a right to seize the property of the victims without form or process.”19 The result of this bull was, that the Vaudois were overrun and butchered for several months by a body of eighteen thousand troops, and a vast host of undisciplined attendants.

In 1540 an edict was published in France against a portion of the Waldenses to the following purport: “That every dissentient from the holy mother church should acknowledge his errors, and obtain reconciliation within a stated period, under the severest penalties in case of disobedience; and because Merindal was considered as the principal seat of the heresy, that devoted town was ordered to be razed to the ground; all the caverns, hiding-places, cellars, and vaults, in the vicinity of the town, were to be carefully examined and destroyed; the woods were to be cut down, the gardens and orchards laid waste, and none who had ever possessed a house or property in the town, should ever occupy it again, either in his own person or in that of any of his name or family, in order that the memory of the excommunicated sect, might be utterly wiped away from the province, and the place be made a desert.”20

In what manner this decree was executed, is related by Anquetil, a Catholic writer: — “Twenty-two towns or villages were burned or pillaged with an inhumanity of which the history of the most barbarous nations scarcely affords an example. The wretched inhabitants, surprised in the night, and hunted from rock to rock by the light of the flames which consumed their habitations, frequently escaped one snare only to fall into another. The pitiful cries of the aged, the women, and the children, instead of softening the hearts of the soldiers, maddened with rage like their leaders, only served to guide them in pursuit of the fugitives. Voluntary surrender did not exempt the men from slaughter, nor the women from brutal outrages at which nature revolts. It was forbidden under pain of death to afford them harbor or succor. At Cabrieres, more than seven hundred men were butchered in cold blood; and the women, who had remained in their houses, were shut up in a barn containing a great quantity of straw, which was set on fire, and those who endeavored to escape by the windows were driven back with swords and pikes.”

In 1655, Charles Emanuel, Duke of Savoy, issued what is called “the bloody ordinance of Gastaldo.” This ordinance decreed, “that such of the Vaudois as would not embrace the Catholic faith, or sell their possessions to those who professed it, must within a few days quit their native valleys.” To enforce this decree, the Marquis of Pianezza entered the valleys with an army of fifteen thousand men. One of the commanders in that expedition gives the following as a specimen of its general character: — “I was witness,” says he, “to many great violences and cruelties exercised by the banditti and soldiers of Piedmont, upon all of every age, sex and condition, whom I myself saw massacred, dismembered, and ravished, with many horrid circumstances of barbarity.” Such was the cruelty of this holy war, that all Protestant Europe was excited by it. The following are extracts of a letter written by the immortal Milton, then secretary to Cromwell, to the Duke of Savoy, remonstrating with him for such barbarities. “His serene Highness, the Protector, has been informed that part of these most miserable people have been cruelly massacred by your forces, part driven out by violence, and so without house or shelter, poor and destitute of all relief, to wander up and down with their wives and children, in craggy and uninhabitable places, and mountains covered with snow. Oh the fired houses which are yet smoking, the torn limbs and ground defiled with blood! Some men decrepit with age and bedridden, have been burned in their beds. Some infants have been dashed against the rocks; others have had their throats cut, whose brains have, with more than Cyclopean cruelty, been boiled and eaten by the murderers. If all the tyrants of all times and ages were alive again, certainly they would be ashamed, when they should find that they had contrived nothing in comparison with these things, that might be reputed barbarous and inhuman.”

Such has been the character of this unnatural war, which Popery has been waging for centuries upon these inoffensive and feeble disciples of the Savior. But for the interference of Protestant states, the very name of the Waldenses had been long since blotted out from the face of the earth. And even to the present time are they persecuted and oppressed by the same unrelenting foe; their privileges being curtailed, and their territory rendered smaller and smaller by the constant aggressions of their enemies.

Let us now turn to the persecutions waged by Popery upon the French Protestants, or Huguenots. D’Aubigne not only affirms, that the Reformation in France was independent, in a measure, of that in Germany and Switzerland, but also that it was antecedent to both. “The Reformation was not, therefore, in France, an importation from strangers; it took its birth on the French territory. Its seed germinated in Paris; its earliest shoots were struck in the university itself, that ranked second in power in Romanized Christendom. God deposited the first principles of the work in the kindly hearts of some inhabitants of Picardy and Dauphiny, before it had begun in any other country of the globe.”21 The means by which the gospel made its early progress in the French kingdom were principally these three: the translation of the Scriptures into French by Olivetan, the uncle of Calvin; the conversion of the Psalms into meter by a popular poet; and the earnest and constant preaching of the reformed pastors. “The holy word of God,” says Quick, “is duly, truly, and powerfully preached in churches and fields, in ships and houses, in vaults and cellars, in all places where the gospel ministers can have admission and conveniency, and with singular success. Multitudes are convinced and converted, established and edified. The Popish churches are drained, the Protestant temples are filled. The priests complain that their altars are neglected, their masses are now indeed solitary. Dagon cannot stand before God’s ark.” These reformers also made great use of singing, employing it not only in their churches, but also in family worship, and even at their tables.

Such a state of things was not likely to exist long without opposition from the priesthood. Hence, of all Protestant churches, that in France has been chiefly drenched in blood. “No where,” says D’Aubigne, “did the reformed religion so often have its dwelling in dungeons, or bear so marked a resemblance to the Christianity of the first ages, in faith and love, and in the number of its martyrs. If elsewhere it might point to more thrones and council-chambers, here it could appeal to more scaffolds and hill-side meetings.”22

The reason why the French church has suffered more than others, is to be found in the degree to which the reformed opinions spread in France. These opinions were not extensive enough to be universal, nor were they limited enough to be inconsiderable. In England, Scotland, Germany, and some other kingdoms, the Reformation became the dominant religion. In Spain, Italy, Portugal, and some other states, it was too feeble to endanger many lives. But France occupied a middle ground. Though whole provinces became Protestant, yet the kingdom was Catholic; and though many of the princes and nobility were numbered among the reformed, yet the government was popish. This state of things placed the French church in a situation peculiarly critical, and caused her to suffer far more than sister churches of more favored countries.

The term Huguenot, usually applied to these French Protestants, is supposed to have been derived from the circumstance, that under their persecutions many of: these godly people used to meet at night for religious worship in private places, near the town of Hugon, in Tours. From these few, the whole class were called, by way of derision, Huguenots.

Persecution to blood, commenced against the Huguenots, as early as the year 1524, and it lasted, in one form or another, till 1815. Napoleon granted them toleration and equal privileges with the Catholics. But, upon the restoration of the Bourbons, popular frenzy rose so high in the province of Gard, that several hundred Protestants lost their lives. Thus, for a period of two hundred and ninety-one years, has France dyed herself in the blood of some of her best and most loyal subjects, simply because they rejected the religion of the Pope. Indeed, even to the present time, there is a species of persecution kept up against the religion of Protestants in that country.

Previously to the year 1559, when a French General Assembly was organized, there had been one hundred martyrdoms among the French Calvinists. After this event matters became much worse. Troops were sent among them, and not less than forty towns, where Protestantism prevailed, were subject to their ravages. The Protestants were burned or killed in other ways, by the hundred, five hundred, and in one instance twelve hundred are said to have suffered at one time. It was at this period that the Huguenots fled to arms. They resolved to defend their religion and their rights by the sword. This movement, be it remembered, was not ecclesiastical, but civil. Protestants composed a considerable portion of the French population. They had rights as well as others. Many of them were of the nobility and the aristocracy of the country. When, therefore, the French government, instead of defending those rights, sought to invade and overthrow them, was it not the duty of the Protestants to defend them? How could men see their property confiscated, their wives and daughters insulted, and themselves murdered, and not resist? Self-defense is always lawful; and not even the religion of Jesus was designed to annihilate its impulses. And when a lawful selfdefense was impossible, it was the duty of French citizens to protect themselves by the means that Providence had put into their hands. Petitions to the king and parliament were of no avail; the courts gave them no protection; their fellow citizens were seeking their lives and property. What could they do? Resistance was the only alternative — and they did resist. In many battles, too, they were victorious. This course brought the government to pause. Peace was made with the Huguenots, and they were allowed certain rights and privileges. The fatal doctrine, however, that leagues and promises with heretics, are not binding, caused such treaties to be several times violated and renewed. Three civil wars preceded the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s. At length, Charles and the Catholic party, instigated by Catharine de Medicis, the queen-mother, plotted the secret destruction of those who had been found too strong upon the field of battle. Margaret, the sister of Charles, was to be married to the young King of Navarre, who was one of the Protestant leaders. For a time the Protestants were loaded with favors and caresses. To the marriage all their principal men were invited. During the week after that event, they were diverted by various entertainments and shows. The marriage took place on Sabbath, the 17th August, 1572; the massacre was decreed to take place on the following Sabbath, being St. Bartholomew’s day. An attempt was first made to assassinate Coligni, the leader of the Protestant party. He was wounded, but not killed. While this illustrious man lay in bed of his wounds, and while the Protestants were all asleep, the bell of St. Germain, the appointed signal, was rung. The house-doors of the Protestants had all been marked during the night, with a white cross. Upon the sounding of the bell, the streets were all illuminated with lights from the windows of the Catholics, and the soldiers and citizens rushed forth, sword in hand, to destroy the Protestants. The scene which followed is indescribable. Men, women, children, the noble, the vulgar, were massacred as fast as found. Some were murdered in their beds, some in their parlors, some in their doors, some in the streets, and some on the tops of their houses. Multitudes were drowned or killed in crossing the Seine. “The rising sun,” says Shoberl, “never beheld a scene of more thrilling horror than Paris presented on the morning of Sunday, the 24th of August, 1572. Blood stained the doors of houses, the interior of the apartments, the walls of the churches, the streets, the public gardens. At every step corpses, mangled fragments of human flesh, lamentations and cries of anguish, the last groans of agony, the spoils of the vanquished, traces of the passages of the conquerors, exhibited all the appearances of a town taken by storm.” This terrible scene continued the greater part of the week following. It is estimated that ten thousand Protestants, including the flower of the party, perished on this occasion. The greatest possible barbarity was exhibited in this dreadful massacre. The body of the admiral, who was killed with the rest, was treated with the greatest indignity. Its members were cut off, and the mangled trunk drawn through the streets for three days, amid the mockery and insults of the populace, after which it was suspended from a gallows. The murderers also placed themselves upon piles of the murdered, and auctioned off to their afflicted relatives the bodies of husbands, brothers, and sons!

Nor was it alone at Paris that the massacre occurred. The command of Charles was sent to every part of the kingdom, to destroy in a similar manner and at the same time, all the Protestants. “At Meaux, Orleans, Troyes, Lyons, Bourges, Rouen, Toulouse, and many other places, says a historian, “the cruelty of the Parisians was emulated, and thirty thousand persons were murdered in cold blood.”23

The question now arises, what part had the Church, or rather the Pope, in these transactions? The proper answer is, every part. Charles was a Catholic, his court were Catholic, and the massacre was designed to defend Catholic principles. But more than this is true. In a letter addressed to Catharine, just after the battle of Jarnac, Pius V. “assures her, that the assistance of God will not be wanting, if she pursues the enemies of the Catholic religion, until they are all massacred, for it is only by the entire extermination of the heretics, that the Catholic worship can be restored.” It also appears, from what M. Daunou affirms, that the Pope furnished money for the destruction of these heretics. His language is, “Catherine de Medicis boasted of the devotion of her son Charles to the holy church; and she asked money, a great deal of money, because the war against heresy could not be waged without money.”24 In a letter to Charles in 1570, and just after the battle of Montcontour, the Pope urges upon the king the entire destruction of all dissenters from the Catholic faith. “The fruits,” says he, “which your victory ought to produce, are, the extermination of those infamous heretics, our common enemies. If your majesty wishes to restore the ancient splendor, power and dignity of France, you must strive most especially to make all who are subject to your dominion, profess the Catholic faith alone.” Such were the exhortations of Pope Pius V., to the immediate instruments of this massacre, just two years before it occurred.

This Pope, however, died a few months before the event occurred for which he had been preparing the minds of Catharine and Charles. How the consummation of the matter affected Gregory XIII., his successor, may be learned from the following facts. When he heard of the massacre, he exclaimed — “good news, good news, all the Lutherans are massacred except the Vendomets (King of Navarre and Prince of Conde,) whom the king has spared for his sister’s sake.” The same night the event was celebrated by bonfires and the firing of cannon in the Castle of St. Angelo. “Gregory also ordered a jubilee and a solemn procession, which he accompanied himself, to thank God for the glorious success.”25 “History speaks of a painting,” says Daunou, “which attests the formal approbation which the Pontiff gave to the assassins of Coligni, containing the following inscription: ‘Pontifex Colignii necem probat.’”26 “To this day (1790)” says Brizard, “the French, who visit Italy, behold not without indignation, this picture, which though half effaced, still portrays but too faithfully our calamities and the excesses of Rome.” Nor was this all; medals were struck at Rome having on one side an image of the Pope; on the other, the destroying angel, holding a cross in one hand, and slaughtering the Huguenots by a sword with the other; bearing also the inscription, “Hugonotorum strages.”

This whole work then of slaughter and death is to be ascribed to the Papacy, to the Roman Pontiff and his colleagues. Roman principles, Roman craft, Roman hate, and Roman instruments, produced this whole scene of woe and desolation. The cry of all this blood is against Rome, against Rome chiefly. And it is a cry, which will in time, be heard; for this city not only has in her “the blood of saints and of all that were slain upon earth;” but we are expressly told, that, in the day of wrath, that blood will be “found.”

The massacre of St. Barthlomew’s, although it destroyed, according to different estimates, from forty to one hundred thousand Protestants, yet did not annihilate the party. Many Catholics, too, shocked with the wickedness of the government and the Pope, united with them. Henry III., the brother of Charles, formed an alliance with them against the Catholic party’, called the Holy League. The successor of Henry III., was Henry IV., the King of Navarre, who had been educated a Protestant. Although Henry became a professed Catholic from political motives, yet, he did not forget the interests of his Protestant subjects. It was this sovereign, who published in their behalf, the famous Edict of Nantes. According to this edict, which was published in 1594, the government allowed to the Reformed “all the favors in which they had been indulged by former princes, and added, a free admission to all employments of trust, profit and honor; also an establishment of chambers of justice in which the members of the two religions were equal in number; and permission to educate their children in any of the universities without restraint.” Under the influence of this edict, which continued in force for ninety-one years, the Protestants enjoyed considerable prosperity. Urged however, by his Catholic subjects, and especially by the Jesuits, Louis XIV., revoked this wise and Christian Edict, on the 8th October, 1685. The removal of this protection exposed the Protestants again to all the evils, losses, insults and persecutions of the Catholic priesthood. Their churches were demolished, their preachers were banished, and their children were taken from them at an early age to be educated as Catholics. It was at this time, that from five hundred to eight hundred thousand Huguenots emigrated from France to other countries, where they could enjoy the free exercise of their religion. Even this relief, however, was soon taken from them, emigration being forbidden upon pain of death. The sufferings of the Protestants at this time are inconceivable.

Bishop Burnet, who was at that time traveling in France, gives the following account of this persecution. Writing from Nimmegen he says — “I have a strong inclination to say somewhat concerning the persecution which I saw in its rage and utmost fury, and of which I could give you many instances, that are so much beyond all the common measures of barbarity and cruelty, that I confess they ought not to be believed, unless I could give more positive proofs of them than are fitted now to be brought forth. In short, I do not think that in any age, there ever was such a violation of all that is sacred, either with relation to God or man. Men and women of all ages who would not yield, were not only stripped of all they had, but kept long from sleep, drawn about from place to place, and hunted out of their retirements. The women were carried into nunneries, in many of which they were almost starved, whipped and barbarously treated. I went over a great part of France, from Marseilles to Montpelier, and from thence to Lyons, and so to Geneva. In all the towns through which I passed, I heard the most dismal account of things possible. To complete the cruelty, orders were given that such of the new converts as did not at their death receive the sacrament, should be denied burial, and that their bodies should be left, where other dead carcasses were cast out to be devoured by wolves and dogs. The applauses that the whole clergy give to this fray of proceeding, the many panegyrics that are already writ upon it, and the sermons, that are all flights of flattery upon this subject, are such evident demonstrations of their sense of this matter, that what is now on foot may well be termed the acts of the whole clergy of France, who have yet been esteemed the most moderate part of the Roman communion.”

The above was written but eighteen months after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. But matters became much worse. The following is the account of Quick, the statistical historian of the French church, and whose work was published in London in 1692.

“Afterwards,” says he, “they fell upon the persons of the Protestants, and there was no wickedness, though ever so horrid, which they did not put in practice, that they might force them to change their religion. Amidst a thousand hideous cries and blasphemies, they hung up men and women by the hair or feet to the roofs of the chambers, or hooks of chimneys, and smoked them with wisps of wet hay till they were no longer able to bear it; and when they had taken them down, if they would not sign an abjuration of their pretended heresies, they then trussed them up again immediately. Some they threw into great fires, kindled on purpose, and would not take them out till they were half roasted. They tied ropes under their arms, and plunged them into deep wells, from whence they would not draw them till they had promised to change their religion. They bound them as criminals are when put to the rack, and in that posture, putting a funnel into their mouths, they poured wine down their throats, till its fumes had deprived them of their reason, and they had in that condition made them consent to become Catholics. Some they stripped stark naked, and after they had offered them a thousand indignities, they stuck them with pins from head to foot; they cut them with penknives, tore them by the noses with red hot pincers, and dragged them about the rooms till they promised to become Roman Catholics, or that the doleful cries of these poor tormented creatures, calling upon God for mercy, constrained them to let them go. They beat them with staves, and dragged them all bruised to the Popish churches, where their enforced presence is reputed for an abjuration. They kept them waking seven or eight days together, relieving one another by turns, that they might not get a wink of sleep or rest. In case they began to nod they threw buckets of water in their faces, or holding kettles over their heads, they beat on them with such a continual noise, that those poor wretches lost their senses. If they found any sick who kept their beds, men or women, they were so cruel, as to beat up all alarm with twelve drums about their heads for a whole week together, without intermission, till they had promised to change. In some places they tied fathers and husbands to the bed-posts, and ravished their wives and daughters before their eyes. And in another place rapes were publicly and generally permitted for many hours together. From others they plucked off the nails from their hands and toes. They burnt the feet of others. They blew up men and women with bellows till they were ready to burst in pieces. If these horrid usages could not prevail upon them to violate their consciences, and abandon their religion, they did then imprison them in close and noisome dungeons, in which they exercised all manner of inhumanities upon them. They demolished their houses, desolated their lands, cut down their woods, seized upon their wives and children and shut them up in monasteries. When the soldiers had devoured all the goods of a house, then the farmers and tenants of these poor, persecuted wretches, must supply them with new fuels for their lusts, and bring in more substance to them. If any endeavored to flee away, they were pursued and hunted in the fields and woods, and shot at as so many wild beasts.”

The numbers who perished in this persecution will not be known till that day when the “books shall be opened.” Multitudes perished by torture, multitudes in the galleys and in dungeons, and multitudes by the sword. For the accomplishment of this work of inhumanity and blood, Pope Innocent XI. thus addresses Louis XIV. “The Catholic church shall most assuredly record in her sacred annals a work of such devotion towards her, and celebrate your name with never dying praises; but above all, you may most assuredly promise to yourself, an ample remuneration from the Divine goodness for this most excellent undertaking, and may rest assured, that we shall never cease to pour forth our most earnest prayers to that Divine goodness for this intent and purpose.”27

We have thus noticed popish persecutions in but one of the many European kingdoms. What if we could give the exact statistics of this persecution in all the rest? What if Germany, if the Netherlands, if Spain, if Italy, if Portugal, if Switzerland, if Scotland, if Ireland, if England, should all exhibit their bloody books? Surely, we might say with John, “the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” These books, however, would not contain the history of the benevolent deeds of Christ, but accounts of the malignity and blood-thirstiness of Antichrist.

Mede has calculated from good authorities, “that in the war with the Albigenses and Waldenses there perished of these people, in France alone, 1,000,000. From the first institution of the Jesuits to the year 1580, a little more than thirty years, 900,000 orthodox Christians were slain. In the Netherlands alone, the Duke of Alva boasted, that within a few years he had. dispatched to the amount of 36,000 souls, and those all by the hand of the common executioner. In the space of scarce thirty years, the Inquisition destroyed by various kinds of torture, 150,009 Christians.” Gibbon states it as a fact, though a melancholy one, that Papal Rome has shed immensely more Christian blood, than Pagan Rome had ever done. He gives but one illustration; that, however, a fearful one. “In the Netherlands alone,” says he, “more than 100,000 of the subjects of Charles V., are said to have suffered by the hands of the executioner.”28

Nor let it be said, that much of this bloodshed is to be ascribed to European princes’ and magistrates. With equal justice might the Jew affirm, that Jesus of Nazareth was condemned by Pilate, and executed by Roman soldiers. God, however, has charged the blood of his Son upon the Jews, by whose malignity and devisings Christ was crucified. Much more then, are the torrents of blood shed in Europe to be ascribed to the Papacy, to the Catholic church. These princes and magistrates were Catholic subjects, and they only executed the mind and will of the church. They were instigated by priests, yea, by the Pope himself. They were often complained of as being too tardy and too merciful; yea, some of them were involved in ruin, along with their heretical subjects, for their forbearance. Those of them too, who were most ferocious, who effected most brutally the work of ruin, received from Catholic dignitaries, and even from the Pope, the greatest amount of commendation. Thus Monfort, Catharine de Medicis, Charles IX., (whose remorse before death caused the blood to ooze from the pores of his body!) Louis XIV., etc., were congratulated by the Gregories, and innocents of their times, as faithful and zealous sons of the church, and as worthy the peculiar favor of heaven. This alliance, however, or rather identity, between the Papacy and policy of Europe in persecuting the saints, is matter of express and repeated prophecies. “These have one mind,” says John, “and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.” Again, ”For God has put it into their hearts, to fulfill his will, and to agree and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.” Revelation 17.

Whether, then, the Papacy be, or be not the subject of the prophecies alluded to in the first part of this chapter, let each one judge for Himself. Was the power predicted, “to make war with the saints and overcome them?” This Rome has done. Was it to “be drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus?” No other kingdom nor power has drunken so deeply of this blood, as Papal Rome. Was the blood of all that were slain upon the earth to be found in the subject of these prophecies? Rome has been, either directly the originator, or indirectly the associate, of nearly all the wars which have desolated Europe for a thousand years past. Thus, as streams may be traced to the fountain, and rays of light to the sun, so may these prophecies be traced to the Papacy, and applied only to it. This is the “beast that made war with the saints,” — this “the woman in scarlet, drunk with their blood,” — this is ANTICHRIST.

1 Century iv.
2 Cent. iv., chapter 3.
3 Mosheim, i. 329.
4 Contra Gaudentium, Ep. i.
5 Century v., chapter 5.
6 Rome, chapter 58.
7 Persecutions of Popery, p. 20.
8 lbidem.
9 Persecutions of Popery, p. 20.
10 Idem.
11 Court of Rome, p. 129.
12 Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 1.
13 Middle Ages, chapter 9, part 2.
14 Ecclesiastical Hist. Cent. 13.
15 Shoberl, p. 60.
16 Middle Ages, ix. 11.
17 Ibidem.
18 Shoberl, p. 60.
19 Ibidem.
20 Shoberl.
21 History of the Reformation, Book xii.
22 History of the Rcformation.
23 Grimshaw.
24 Court of Rome, p. 209.
25 Court of Rome, p. 210.
26 Shoberl.
27 Lorimer’s Protestant Church of France, p. 242.
28 Rome, chapter 16.

CHAPTER 9 ANTICHRIST THE POSSESSOR OF GREAT RICHES

ANOTHER scriptural mark of Antichrist is, the possession of great riches. “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornications.” Revelation 17:4.

Again in chapter 18, verses 16, 17, John represents her merchants as exclaiming, upon her destruction, “Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stones, and pearls, for, in one hour, so great riches is come to naught.” Bloomfield and Stuart apply the symbols in these chapters to pagan Rome; so, also, does the commentator on the Doway Bible. “By Babylon,” says this Roman Catholic interpreter, “is meant, either the city of the devil in general; or, if this place be to be understood of any particular city, pagan Rome, which then, and for three hundred years persecuted the church, and was the principal seat both of empire and idolatry.” Even this popish annotator, however, suggests another meaning: “The beast which supports Babylon,” says he, “may signify the power of the devil, which was and is not, being much limited by the coming of Christ, but shall again exert itself under Antichrist.” This is certainly preferable to the following: “The beast means the Roman emperors, specially Nero, of whom the report spread throughout the empire is, that he will revive, after being apparently slain, and will come as it were from the abyss, or hades.”1 This is certainly jejune and far-fetched enough! and I am sorry to say, that many of the interpretations of this learned expositor, are of a similar character.

That papal Rome is chiefly intended in each of these chapters, is almost absolutely certain. The whole prophecy is strikingly applicable to papal Rome, while but little of it can have any application to pagan Rome. The prophecy ends with a particular description of the entire destruction of the city spoken of: “The voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers and trumpeters, was to be heard no more at all in her; the light of the candle was to shine no more at all in her; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride was to be heard no more at all in her.” But the city of Rome has never to this day, been thus entirely destroyed. Similar prophecies are used in the Old Testament in reference to Nineveh, Babylon, Tyre, and other cities. But such prophecies have been literally fulfilled. Where is Babylon? where is Nineveh? Their very sites can scarcely be found. But Rome still has music, and dancing, and the light of the candle, and the voice of the bride! These prophecies, then, have not all of them been fulfilled. But, if ever fulfilled, they must be in papal, and not in pagan Rome.

If, then, papal Rome be here meant, she is described as exceedingly rich. And that this part of the prophecy is as applicable to the Papacy, and has been as literally fulfilled as any other, we shall presently show. That the ministers of religion should be supported by those for whom they minister, is a dictate of common justice. If religion be without any foundation in truth, if indeed there be “no God,” then should the whole system be abolished as unnecessary and pernicious. If, however, there is a God, and if it is the duty of all men to worship and serve him, then ought the principles of religion to be taught, and its teachers, like all other citizens, should derive their support from the business to which they are devoted. Hence, among all nations, provisions have been made either by the state or by independent societies, for the support of the ministers of religion.

This principle was incorporated into the Jewish law, and has also been sanctioned by Christ and his Apostles.

“Even so,” says Paul, “hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” 1 Corinthians 9:14. The Catholic priesthood, however, have turned the Christian ministry into the means of acquiring wealth. Originally, its object was to instruct and save men; support was only incidental to it. It was so among the Israelites; it was particularly so among the Apostles and ministers of Christ. Who has ever heard, that Peter or Paul, Timothy or Luke, was enriched by preaching the gospel? The first Christians

“took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing that they had in heaven a better and an enduring substance.” Hebrews 10:34.

In those days, a profession of Christianity subjected men to the loss of their goods, and its official publication was attended with poverty, persecution, and even death. “At first,” says Neander, “it is highly probable, that those who undertook the church offices in various congregations, continued their former calling, and maintained themselves and their families by it afterwards, as they had done before. But when the members of the churches became more numerous, and the duties of the church officers were increased, it was often no longer possible for them to provide at the same time for their own support. From the church fund, which was formed by the voluntary contributions of every member of the church, at every Sunday service, or, as in the north African church, on the first Sunday of every month, a part was used for the pay of the spiritual order.”2 Such was the simple and moderate way in which the first ministers of the Christian religion gained their maintenance. Splendid endowments, large estates, vast incomes, were then not even thought of, as a compensation for ministerial labors. A support was all the spiritual teacher asked; it was all that the congregation provided. In after times, However, matters were reversed, and, by the indefinite multiplication of the ceremonies of Christianity, the means of wealth to the clergy became proportionally increased: the people thus became poor, and the clergy rich.

This change in the original economy of the church, began in the third century, when the church was united to the state by Constantine. “The bishops,” says Mosheim, “assumed in many places a princely authority. They appropriated to their evangelical function the splendid ensigns of temporal majesty. A throne, surrounded with ministers, exalted above their equals the servants of the meek and humble Jesus, and sumptuous garments dazzled the eyes of the multitude into an ignorant veneration for their arrogated authority.”3 “From the year 321,” says Daunou, “Constantine permitted the churches to acquire landed property, and he allowed individuals to enrich them by legacies.”4 Here was the commencement of that wealth which afterwards drained the resources of nations, and was one principal means of both power and corruption in the Christian church.

Monastic establishments were also another source of wealth to the papal church. These institutions were originally designed as sacred retreats from the fashions and pomp of the world; they soon, however, degenerated into the abodes of vice and crime, and became the banking-houses of all Catholic Europe. The novice was required to surrender, not simply himself, but also his possessions to the care of the holy brethren. Great sums were appropriated to them by the wealthy, and even governments assisted in annexing to them rich domains of landed properly. “Time,” says Gibbon, “continually increased, and accidents could seldom diminish, the estates of the popular monasteries; and in the first century of their institution, the infidel Zosimus has maliciously observed, that for the benefit of the poor, the Christian monks had reduced a great part of mankind to a state of beggary.” And yet he adds in a note, “the wealth of the eastern monks (of whom the above remark was made) was far surpassed by the princely greatness of the Benedictines.”5

State patronage, however, and monasteries, will by no means account for the vast wealth of the Roman Catholic communion. To ascertain this, we must descend into the deep caverns of superstition — we must follow all the windings of papal fraud and imposition — we must dig into her mines of relics — we must descend into purgatory, and look amid its fires; and, as if this were not enough, we must ascend up into heaven, and there, from amid the thrones of saints and intercessors, we must follow the golden streams that issue forth, and which, by means of priestcraft, are poured into the coffers of the Papacy; yes, heaven, earth and hell, are all laid under contributions by the inventions of this tyrannical religion, to sustain the power and increase the wealth of the hierarchy.

The following is the testimony of one who had for years been a Roman Catholic priest. “Look,” says he, “at all the Roman institutions; from its chief tenets, the real presence of God in the eucharist, and the infallibility of the church, down to the holy water and the wax-taper, and there is not one of them which is not either a means of grasping money, or power, or of entrapping the female sex! Ask,” continues he, “of popery, who instituted the belief of the real presence of God in the wafer? He will answer, Christ himself, when he said in the last supper — ‘hoc est corpus meum.’ Popery knows well the falsity of this answer; but in accordance with this creed, it has established the mass, which produces immense sums of money to the whole priesthood. Why has popery established indulgences? In appearance, it is a means of atoning for one’s sins; but in reality, it is to coin money from the sins of men. Why has popery instituted those thousand corporeal mortifications? In appearance, to show a great aversion to earthly pleasures; but in reality, to have an occasion for selling dispensations to many people, who have neither the courage nor desire to practice mortifications. Why has popery established those intimate relations between saints and men upon the earth, through relics, images, adorations, and a thousand other superstitions? In appearance, to help us in the great work of our salvation; but in reality, to place itself as an intermediate between saints and men, and to sell their intercession; to make money with all these practices and beliefs, and root more deeply its power in each mind.”6 Nor are facts like these supported by the testimony of a single priest — it is the testimony of all history. “Many of the peculiar and prominent characteristics in the faith and discipline of those ages,” says Hallam, “appear to have been either introduced, or sedulously promoted, for the purposes of sordid fraud. To those purposes conspired the veneration for relics, the worship of images, the idolatry of saints and martyrs, the religious inviolability of sanctuaries, the consecration of cemeteries — but above all, the doctrine of purgatory, and masses for the relief of the dead. A creed thus continued, operating upon the minds of barbarians, lavish though rapacious, and devout though dissolute, naturally caused a torrent of opulence to pour in upon the church. Donations of lands were continually made to the bishops, and still, in more ample proportions, to the monastic foundations. Large private estates, or, as they were termed, patrimonies, not only within their dioceses, but sometimes in distant countries, sustained the dignity of the principal sees, and especially that of Rome. The French monarchs of the first dynasty, the Carlovingian family and their great chief, the Saxon line of emperors, the kings of England and Leon, set hardly any bounds to their liberality, as numerous charters still extant in diplomatic collections attest. Many churches possessed seven or eight thousand mansi: one with only two thousand, passed for only indifferently rich. And, as if all these methods for accumulating what they could not legitimately enjoy, were insufficient, the monks prostituted their knowledge of writing to the purpose of forging charters in their own favor! If it had not been,” says the same author, “for certain drawbacks, the clergy must one would imagine, have almost acquired the exclusive property of the soil. They did enjoy nearly one half of England, and, I believe, a greater proportion in some countries of Europe.” In a note he also states, that “according to a calculation founded on a passage in Knyghton, the revenue of the English church in 1337, amounted to seven hundred and seventy thousand marks per annum;”7 that is, according to the estimate of the same author, about fifty-three million nine hundred thousand dollars! Nor is this all: the Pope came in for his share of the spoils. Besides tithes, Peter-pence, etc., which he usually received from the English church and government, in his war with the Emperor Frederic, he laid a special tax upon the church of England. “The usurers of Cahors and Lombardy,” says Hallam, “residing in London, took up the trade of agency for the Pope; and in a few years, he is said partly by levies of money, partly by the revenues of benefices, to have plundered the kingdom of nine hundred and fifty thousand marks; a sum, equivalent, I think, to not less than fifteen millions sterling at present.”

But let us adduce other testimony. Hume, in his History of England, states, that “among their other inventions to obtain money, the clergy had inculcated the necessity of penance, as an atonement for sin; and having again introduced the practice of paying them large sums, as a commutation, or species of atonement for the remission of those penances, the sins of the people by these means had become a revenue to the priests; and the king computed, that by this invention alone, they levied more money upon his subjects, than flowed by all the funds and taxes into the royal exchequer.”8 The same author states, that during the reign of Edward III., A.D., 1253-55, Otho, the Pope’s legate, “carried more money out of the kingdom than he left in it.” About this time, the chief benefices in England were conferred upon Italians, most of whom were non-residents. A complaint was consequently entered by the king and nobility before the Pope, at a general council held at Lyons, “that the benefices of the Italian clergy in England, had been estimated, and were found to amount to sixty thousand marks a year, a sum which exceeded the annual revenue of the crown itself.” Instead, however, of this complaint arresting the rapacity of the Pope, “Innocent exacted the revenues of all vacant benefices; the twentieth of all ecclesiastical revenues without exception, the third of such as exceeded a hundred marks a year, and the half of such as were possessed by non-residents. He claimed the goods of all intestate clergymen; he pretended a title to inherit all money gotten by usury; he levied benevolences upon the people; and when the king prohibited these exactions, he threatened to pronounce upon him the same censures, which he had emitted against the Emperor Frederic.”9

During the reign of Henry IV., A.D., 1413, “the Commons,” says the same author, “made a calculation of the ecclesiastical revenues, which, by their account, amounted to four hundred and eighty-five thousand marks a year, (about thirty-three millions nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars,) and contained eighteen thousand four hundred ploughs of land. They proposed to divide this property among fifteen new earls, one thousand five hundred knights, six thousand esquires, and a hundred hospitals; besides twenty thousand pounds a year which the king might take for his own use. and they insisted, that the clerical functions would be better performed than at present, by fifteen thousand parish priests, paid at the rate of seven marks a piece of yearly stipend.” According to this estimate of the House of Commons, the Roman Catholic religion taxed the English public in the reign of Henry IV., about twentysix millions six hundred thousand dollars of our money more than the support of the gospel in that kingdom required! This is also exclusive of the proceeds from the lands! Can any one imagine a greater oppression? Can any one conceive of a wider departure from the simple and unpretending religion of Jesus? And to make the picture still more dark, all this went to a priesthood, who, for the greater part, led vicious and dissolute lives.

The fiscal condition of the Catholic church in England during the reign of Henry VIII., and in the year 1538, when the monasteries and other religious institutions were suppressed, may be learned from a work in the British Museum, published in 1717. This work is termed, “A summary of all the religious houses in England and Wales, with their titles and valuations at the time of their dissolution.” The number of such houses “is stated to be one thousand and forty-one; the aggregate annual valuation of them at the same period was 273,106 pounds, reckoning only the rent of the manors and produce of the demesnes, and excluding fines, heriots, renewals, dividends, etc. This sum would be represented in 1717, a little less than two hundred years afterwards, as stated by the same authority, by 3,277,282 pounds, as a consequence of the decrease in the value of money. Assuming that the decrease has been the same in the last century, it would now be represented by about 20,000,000 pounds; or $96,000,000.

“The proportion of the land of the country, held by the church at that time and of which the monks were lords, is stated at fourteen parts in twenty. In 1815, the annual assessed value of the real property of England and Wales, as stated in parliamentary records was 51,874,490 pounds. Fourteen twentieths of this sum, being the ancient proportion of the church revenues, would be about 34,500,000 pounds, or, $166,987,168! a sum, three fourths as large as the present annual revenue of the government of Great Britain, from all its sources and for all its purposes. Besides, too, this amazing absorption of the public wealth by the regular orders of the priesthood, there were four orders of mendicant monks, who not only lived on the residue of the property of the country, but abstracted large sums for their pious purposes. It is also stated by the same authority, that the Grand Duke of Tuscany — which is a district of Italy one hundred and fifty miles by one hundred — once ascertained and published, that the Church of Rome absorbed seventeen parts in twenty of the revenue of the land within his jurisdiction”!10

Here then, is the state of things, at the time of the Reformation. Was ever an event more needed than that Reformation? Here we see the professed ministers of Christ, who himself “had not where to lay his head,” not only lording it over princes in power and authority, but actually undermining their thrones and all national prosperity, by an accumulation of wealth truly fearful.

But it is alleged, that Popery has changed, that it is not now so exorbitant. Let us see. “In France,” says the same author, “under the old regime in 1789, the annual revenues of the church were 405,000,000 francs; or, 16,200,000 pounds; or, $77,760,000. Under the present system it is but $6,182,400, and divided among Catholics and Protestants according to their numbers.” That is, when the Catholic church in France had full sway, and only as late as 1787, that church levied upon the country, 71,577,600 dollars, beyond the sum which is appropriated at present for the support of religion in France. The state of things is no better in Spain. “The sum which the church property of Spain would yield, after providing for the decent maintenance of the clergy, was calculated by the Cortes of 1822, when joined to certain royal domains, lying useless to the state, to amount to 92,00,000 pounds; or, $441,600,000! The present entire annual revenue of the Spanish church, is 10,514,000 pounds; that of the state as lately reported by Count de Toreno, is about 5,000,000 pounds;”11 that is, the Spanish church absorbs twice the income of the kingdom of Spain! The question naturally rises here, what becomes of so much money? The proper answer, no doubt is, that it requires all this capital to forge the bolts and bars, and to weld the chains, by which 200,000,000 of people are kept subject to a system of priestcraft and superstition, the most monstrous and terrific that has ever existed upon the earth. There is probably not a country on the globe, where the power of such capital is not felt. See at present, even in these United States, what European and priestly-gotten wealth is accomplishing! See the splendid cathedrals, the noble churches, the costly buildings, which these hidden streams of money are starting up among us!

Besides this general use of such funds, it requires vast resources to support Popery. Superstition is always an expensive system. Truth is simple; and requires but small means. Error, however, is complex and involved, and demands the glitter of much gold and silver to sustain it. The number of ecclesiastics in Spain as estimated within a few years past, is 160,043. Besides these, there are lay-assistants to the amount of 90,346; making a total to be provided for of 206,002. When the population of Spain is divided by this sum, it will give one ecclesiastic or lay-assistant, to about every sixty-seven persons. Now, how is it possible for sixty seven persons, large and small, either to take up the whole time of a religious teacher, or to render him a support? Add to this the princely mode of living among bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and popes, and we shall soon see, that the popish system is and must be, not only the most tyrannical system on the globe, but also, the most expensive.

But let us go to Rome itself. See there the successor of St. Peter occupying the throne of the Caesars — not only the king and sovereign of the States of the Church, but the emperor over far and distant nations. Look at the Vatican, look at St. Peter’s! What wealth, what immense wealth exhibits itself around the very seat of him, who styles himself, the vicegerent of Christ on earth! Nor is this all; all kinds of superstitions are practiced in Rome for the sake of getting money. “I thought,” says, Dr. Sturtevant, writing from Rome, “when I last wrote to you, that I had some faint glimpse of the deceits and delusions practiced on the followers of popery. I could see depths, frightful and immense, of treasures of gold and silver, which papal imposition had extorted from the ignorant and superstitious, to pamper and uphold the dominion of the prince of darkness; but I had not fathomed the greatest reservoir of all, I mean indulgences. No measures also are untried, that crafty policy suggests, to solicit contributions for the relief of suffering souls in purgatory. Agents bearing lanterns with a painted glass, representing naked persons enveloped in flames, parade the streets and enter houses with tales that alarm, and appeals that excite the compassion of these holy souls. So great is the dread of purgatory, that besides the satisfactions they make in their lifetime, many deluded souls leave large legacies to the church to procure masses daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly, as far as their money will go. Many would rather starve their surviving families, than neglect the souls of the departed. This doctrine is a mine as profitable to the church as the Indies to Spain.”12 All this takes place under the eye, and by the authority of the Pope; yea, he himself is the chief tradesman in such things. The same writer speaks of the Pope himself, as at one time clothed “in robes of white and silver;” at another as decked “in scarlet and gold.” The crowns and miters of the bishops and cardinals who attended his Holiness, were also “glittering with jewels and set with precious stones.” Surely, we have here almost the exact counterpart of what John predicts — “And the woman was arrayed in purple, and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls.” And if we consider the vast treasures of the Roman Catholic priesthood in all countries, and the wonderful resources of Roman Catholic institutions, the exclamation “so great riches!” used by the inspired writer, will not be found inappropriate.

Thus have we ascertained another coincidence between Antichrist and the Papacy. Antichrist was to revel in wealth, and glitter in jewelry and pearls. He was to possess the riches of the nations. Rome has enjoyed all these for centuries. Seated as a queen, this idolatrous church has decorated herself for the espousals of all the kings and princes of Europe, and of the world. She has had no mean lovers; for the great and the noble, conquerors and sovereigns, have all bent at her feet and reveled in her smiles. But this very glory in which she arrays herself, these meretricious ornaments in which she displays herself before the nations, only proclaim with the tongue of living thunder, that she is not the spouse of Christ; and that the day of her doom is approaching, when “the voice of the bride will no longer at all be heard in her; and when the light of a candle shall no longer at all shine in her.” Hasten it, O Lord, in its time, and let all the powers of Antichrist fall before thy victorious truth!

1 Stuart.
2 Church Hist., part 2. sect. 2.
3 Century iii.
4 Court of Rome, p. 3.
5 Rome, chapter 37.
6 Con. Cath. Priest, pages 5-7.
7 Middle Ages, chapter 7.
8 Henry II., A.D. 1163.
9 Henry III.
10 Colton’s Four Years, ii. 113.
11 Colton’s Four Years, p. 115.
12 Letters from Rome.

CHAPTER 10 ANTICHRIST THE POSSESSOR OF GREAT POWER

A LARGE number of scriptural predictions concerning Antichrist, refer to the extent and greatness of his dominion. Daniel asserts that “his look was more stout than his fellows:” that is, that the evil power spoken of, should be an object of greater notoriety, than the other ten kingdoms, with which it was to be associated. The saints of the Most High were also to be “given into his hand,” for a period of twelve hundred and sixty years; and even then, were to be delivered from his hand only by some remarkable interpositions of God himself. Daniel 7.

The Apostle Paul describes the same wicked king, as “opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped,” 2 Thessalonians 2:4: that is, as elevating himself to the very pinnacle of power both in church and state. The Apostle John, however, is more explicit in his description. In reference to this same evil king, or Antichrist, represented as a beast rising out of the sea, he says: “And the dragon gave him his power, and his seat and great authority.” The dragon here referred to, is pagan Imperial Rome. Antichrist, therefore, occupying the very metropolis of the old Roman Empire, was to possess both its authority and power. But this is not all; “power was given him,” says John, “over all kingdoms, and tongues and nations.” Since the previous description represented the power of Antichrist, as coextensive with that of the Roman Empire, it is probable, that the “kindreds, and tongues and nations,” here spoken of, were such as were previously subject to Roman authority. But the direct power of Antichrist was to be as absolute as his dominion was extensive. “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads; and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” All the offices and privileges of society, were to be interdicted to all, be they sovereigns or subjects, high or low, who should not yield implicit obedience to this tyrannizing power. The means, too, by which this evil king was to exercise such dominion is also foretold.

“The ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings; these have one mind, and shall give their power and strength to the beast.” Revelation 13:17.

Antichrist is himself but “a little horn,” — his regal power is small; but, by means of the ten greater horns, or kingdoms, which with himself arose out of the ruins of old Rome, he exercises an absolute sovereignty over the earth. Such are some of the many predictions concerning the power and dominion of Antichrist. Nor can one well avoid exclaiming while reading such prophecies, Surely John must be the historian and not the prophet, of modern Europe! But the infatuation of the human mind, when under the influence of error, is amazing. The Jews, even while crucifying the true Messiah, were looking for a messiah to come and Papists, while exhibiting in their own system, and especially in their head, all the full-drawn features of the scriptural Antichrist, are yet speaking of Antichrist as something future.

We are now prepared to meet the Papist on his own ground. He boasts of antiquity, of universality, of authority, and of unity. All these in a certain sense we grant him. But, then, these very things are the evidences of the antichristian character of his whole system. They are the marks of “the beast,” they are the boastings of the “little horn;” they are the exaltations of “the man of sin;” they are the divinely inspired criteria, by which the people of God are to know and avoid Antichrist.

That Jesus Christ did not lodge either supreme spiritual, or supreme temporal power, in the hands of any one man, must appear evident to every candid reader of the New Testament. It is true, that during the lifetime of our Lord, and for some time afterwards, Peter, because more bold and fervid, and because he was older probably than the other Apostles, acted a more conspicuous part than his brethren. Equally true, however, it is, that the Apostle Paul, because yet bolder and more daring than even Peter, and possibly more endued from heaven, is represented in the later periods of the inspired history, as taking the lead of all the Apostles in the Christian ministry. But neither of these Apostles is spoken of as being the head over the other. Nor were they, or either of them, promoted in the apostolic office, above their fellow Apostles. As witnesses of the life, character, doctrines, death and resurrection of their common Master, the Apostles were all on an exact equality. As publishers of his gospel to mankind, they had all received, not a similar, but the same commission. As sharers in the influences and gifts of the Holy Spirit, they had all partaken of one common baptism. And as planters of churches, and overseers, of the flock of Christ, they were all equally interested, equally esteemed. No disparity is there among them, except in gifts and natural endowments, except in grace and its manifold operations. In office they were one, in honor one, in love one. They were one family, one brotherhood, one Apostolate.

Much less did Jesus entrust to the hands of any one, or even all of his Apostles, supreme temporal authority. He taught them, that “his kingdom was not of this world,” and “to render unto Caesar the things that were Caesar’s.” The Apostles, too, following the instructions of their Master, enjoined it upon their disciples, “to be subject to the higher powers,” assuring them, that “the powers that be are ordained of God,” and were therefore entitled to obedience and respect from all Christians. Romans 13. “Whoever has read the gospel,” says a Catholic writer, “knows, that Jesus Christ founded no temporal government, no political sovereignty. St. Peter and his colleagues were sent, not to govern, but to teach; and the authority with which they were invested, consisted only in the light and benefits which they had to diffuse. Every one knows, he continues, that before Constantine, the Christian churches were only particular associations, too often proscribed, and always strangers to the political system. The popes (bishops) in those times of persecution, and of fervor, certainly did not aspire to the government of provinces. It was enough for them to have the power of being virtuous with impunity. They obtained on earth no crown, but that of martyrdom.”1

Such was the state of original Christianity. No supreme spiritual, or supreme temporal power, was placed in the hands of any one man. The Apostles, as such, were on a perfect equality. The same equality was maintained among the ministers who succeeded them. The churches were separate associations, each possessing its own local officers, and each independent of the rest. Nor was Christianity united to the state; it was enough, that it was tolerated by the civil authority.

It is a singular phenomenon, however, in the history of the world, that the system of religion which Jesus taught, of which he was himself the pattern, and which he left to mankind as a rich legacy — that a religion so pure, so unostentatious, so separated from the insignia of power, that such a religion should have been so perverted in the hands of wicked men, as to become the greatest engine of power, the world has ever known; that its very doctrines, and promises, and revelations, its officers and organization, its rewards and its hopes — that all these, so full of grace, so redolent of heaven, should be formed into a great system of terror, in which the powers of three worlds are made to rest in fearful suspense upon the consciences of mankind! This transformation, we say, is wonderful, is wonderful indeed. And yet it is a transformation which has actually taken place; yea, upon which the eyes of men for more than ten centuries have been quietly gazing.

The power of the Papacy is three-fold, indicated, as some say, by the triple crown, which the Pope wears as the badge of his dominion. The first of these is regal, or that which he wields over the “states of the church.” The second is pontifical; or that which he exercises as supreme head of the church. The third is imperial, or that which he would exercise over the nations of the earth.

It is not intended to dwell upon the first of these powers. According to most historians, the Pope became a temporal prince in the year 754, by a grant from Pepin, king of France. This temporal dominion, the Pope has possessed ever since. In itself it may be considered a small matter; the prince of a petty state, is not likely to exert any great influence any way, upon the history and destiny of nations. Even this fact, however, has in it a remarkable fulfillment of prophecy. “I considered the horns,” says Daniel, “and behold there came up among them another little horn; before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots.” This prediction accurately describes the Papacy as a temporal sovereignty. It came up among, or as some say, behind, or according to others after, the first ten horns upon the Roman beast. The Pope as a temporal prince, is located on the very apex, if we may so say, of the head of the beast, he is the central power. He came up too, later than the rest; the ten Gothic kingdoms, having been previously formed. He also arose imperceptibly into this condition. Even to this day is it debated, precisely when the Pope became a temporal prince. The fact then, that the chief pontiff of Christendom is the sovereign also of a petty kingdom, though in itself unimportant, yet is essential to the scriptural evidence, that the Papacy is Antichrist. It is one of those personal and smaller matters, which as strongly as any thing else, indicate the fulfillment of a particular prophecy. It is, however, the possession by the Papacy of the supreme spiritual, and the supreme temporal power, which must chiefly engage our attention. We are to survey the Pope, not as a petty Italian prince, but as the chief pontiff and the august emperor of Christendom. It is in the occupancy and exercise of these two offices, that the Papacy has disturbed, or rather molded, all the political and religious systems of Europe; and it is in its assumption of these fearful powers, that its antichristian character is most discernible.

The spiritual government at Rome may be divided into four periods — the congregational and presbyterial, the episcopal, the patriarchal, and the papal.

The original church government at Rome was congregational and presbyterial. The supreme power was in the church, or body of believers; the officers of the church were presbyters and deacons. The Epistle to the Romans is addressed by Paul “to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints.” Romans 1:7. Again the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is from “the church of God which is at Rome.”2 If then, Paul wrote not to one man, or to a body of men, but to the church generally; and if Clement wrote not in his own name, but in the name of the church at Rome, it is evident, that at that time, the supreme spiritual power at Rome, was in the Roman church; that is, in the body of believers in that city.

The church at Rome, however, was organized as other apostolic churches, with bishops, or elders, and deacons. First, there is no good reason, why this church should be organized differently, and we know that other churches were so constituted. Philippians 1:1. Acts 20; 1 Timothy 3. Secondly; we have the testimony of Clement that this was the case. “The Apostles thus preaching,” says he, “through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits of their conversions to be bishops and ministers (elders and deacons) over such as should afterwards believe, having first proved them by the Spirit.” This however was done by the vote of the brotherhood. “Wherefore,” continues Clement, “we cannot think that those can justly be thrown out of their ministry, who were either appointed by them, (the Apostles) or afterwards chosen by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church. But we see how you (the Corinthians) have put out some from the ministry, which by their innocence they had adorned.”3 The original ecclesiastical government then at Rome, as in all the early churches, was congregational and presbyterial; that is, the power was in the people, but was ordinarily exercised by presbyters or elders.

The next form of this government was episcopal. It is evident, that between the close of the first century and the beginning of the fourth, most, if not all, of the early churches assumed the episcopal form. Some one of the congregational presbytery had been made permanent moderator, or sole head over the rest. As proof of this, let the following testimony of Jerome be considered: we quote from Bishop Hopkins’s “Church of Rome in her primitive purity.” “With the ancients,” says this learned father, “presbyters and bishops were the same; but, by degrees, in order that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, the care of government was committed to one. Therefore, as the presbyters know themselves, by the custom of the church, to be subject to him who may be set over them, so should the bishops know, that they are superior to the presbyters, more by custom, than by the truth of out Lord’s disposition; (magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate) and that they ought to govern the church in common:” (et in commune debere ecclesiam regere.)4

The fourth form of the spiritual government at Rome, was patriarchal. Constantine, wishing to adapt the ecclesiastical to the civil polity, introduced a new arrangement in ecclesiastical government. This gave rise to the appointment, throughout the Roman empire, of bishops, archbishops, metropolitans, exarchs, and patriarchs. Under this new economy, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and afterwards Constantinople, became each the seat of a patriarch. Between these patriarchs, there arose of course some rivalry. The Roman patriarch, however, was generally superior, chiefly because he lived at the capital of the empire. When, however, ancient Byzantium, under the new name of Constantinople, became also the seat of civil authority, the two patriarchates of the two capitals of the empire, soon overshadowed those of Alexandria and Antioch. Rome, then, had but one rival, the patriarch of the eastern empire. As that patriarch was powerfully supported by the eastern court, it was far more difficult to gain ascendency over him, than it had been over other rivals. Power between these two ecclesiastical potentates was well nigh balanced for several centuries. At length, however, in the ninth century, a rupture took place between them, which divided Christendom into the eastern or Greek, and the western or Latin church.

Besides the rivalry here alluded to, the Roman patriarch had other obstructions to his absolute headship over even the western church. These obstructions were found in the rights of metropolitans, and other subordinate presiding church officers. Each bishop and archbishop had his prerogatives: each state claimed for the church established in it, certain privileges. All these must be removed before the Roman bishop could become the absolute autocrat of the Latin church. “Their first encroachment of this kind,” says Hallam, “was in the province of Illyricum, which they annexed in a manner to their own patriarchate, by not permitting any bishops to be consecrated without their consent. This was before the end of the fourth century. Their subsequent advances, however, were very gradual. About the middle of the sixth century, we find them confirming the elections of the archbishops of Milan. They came by degrees to exercise, though not always successfully, and seldom without opposition, an appellate jurisdiction over the causes of bishops, deposed or censured in provincial synods. Valentinian III., influenced by Leo the Great, one of the most ambitious of pontiffs, went a great deal farther, and established almost an absolute judicial supremacy in the Holy See. ‘We decree this,’ says the emperor, ‘by’ a perpetual sanction, that it is lawful for French bishops, as well as for those of other provinces, in violation of an ancient custom, to attempt nothing, without the authority of that venerable man, the Pope of the eternal city; but, let whatever the Apostolic Seat has sanctioned, or may have sanctioned, be to them all for law.’”5 This occurred in the year 455; and although there was resistance to this imperial decree, yet it shows what the designs both of the Emperor and the Pope were.

Gregory I. greatly increased the power of the Roman See. “He dwelt,” says Hallam, “more than his predecessors, upon the power of the keys, as exclusively, or at least principally, committed to St. Peter. In a letter to the Spanish churches, he uses the following language. — “a sede apostolica, quae omnium ecclesiarum caput est” — “from the apostolic seat, which is the head of all the churches.” This was at the close of the fifth century. The celebrated edict of Phocas, in 606, constituting the Roman bishop the head of the church, is well known. In that decree it is asserted, that “the name of universal becomes only the Roman church, as that which is the head of all the churches, and is appropriate to none but the Roman pontiff.”6

It is strange to observe here, that the very supremacy which emperors and popes were pressing upon metropolitans and other bishops, those bishops were themselves inviting, In a synod of French and German bishops held at Frankfort, in 742, it was decreed, that as a token of their subjection to the See of Rome, all metropolitans should receive from the hands of the Pope, the pallium, as a badge of office — “metropolitanos pallia ab illa sede quaerere, et per omnia praecepta S. Petri canonice sequi.” It was in the latter part of this century, that one Isidore Mercator, or Peccator, who was either a sycophant of the Pope, or the rival, possibly, of some metropolitan or other church dignitary, issued the Decretals of the early popes or bishops of Rome. These Decretals were a summary of the pretended decrees which Anaclet, Clement, Euaristus, and other popes, to the time of St. Sylvester, had passed. They were all fabrications of the grossest kind. In them, however, the greatest possible amount of power was conceded to the popes of Rome. “Every bishop was amenable only to the immediate tribunal of the Pope. Every accused person might appeal directly to the chief pontiff. New sees were not to be erected, nor bishops translated from one see to another, without the sanction of the Pope.” “They also forbid the holding of any council, even a provincial council, without the permission of the Pope.”7 “Upon the so spurious decretals,” says Hallam, “was built the great fabric of papal supremacy, over the different national churches; a fabric which has stood after its foundations crumbled beneath it.” It is evident, however, that the churches of Europe must have been previously prepared for the yoke, or such gross fabrications never could have been made the means of enforcing such bondage.

But one more step was needed to complete the spiritual ascendency of the Roman hierarch; he needed agents, amenable only to himself, and who should go or come according to his will. These he found in several monastic orders, whom he freed from all subjection to metropolitans and bishops, but held in entire subserviency to himself as sole head of the church. These were his most faithful and devoted allies; and as many of them had great power over the people, and even over kings, the authority of the Roman prelate became supreme throughout Christendom. Thus did the little church planted in apostolic days beside the throne of the Caesars, struggling itself through centuries for a bare existence, watered by the tears and cemented by the blood of martyrs — thus did this little church, prostrate at first before the imperial throne, climbing up afterwards around that throne, and subsequently occupying the seat of that throne, thus did it become mistress of Christendom, and its pastor, monarch of the world! How little did the first band of Christian disciples at Rome, meeting, it may be, in a garret, or a retired chamber, how little did they anticipate a result like this! How little did they desire it! Their form of government was entirely different. With them, power, (if it deserved the name) was in the hands of the brotherhood. The church as composed of individual members, was supreme. Their discipline was exercised by faithful presbyters; men chosen by themselves, and under whose teachings and control, they enjoyed both liberty and order. With them, there was no pomp, no show. No St. Peter’s excited the wonder of travelers; no Vatican received their humble pastors. The crown was on no head, the sword in the hand of none. Nor did they boast of supremacy over their brethren; they were satisfied to be themselves Christians. Such was the Roman church in her infancy; such in her purest, and really apostolic days. With this church, we claim fraternity; and although Rome to us is no more a veneration, than Ephesus or Antioch, or any other of the early churches; yet, amid all the rubbish of the Papacy, and the solemn mockeries of Antichrist, yea, beneath, it may be, the very chair of St. Peter, there is dust, forgotten dust, that we do esteem. It is the dust of those tried and worthy men, who planted the Roman church; who were living examples of Christian doctrine and practice in that church; who studied the Scriptures daily, and met each night for prayer; who despised tyranny, but rejoiced in the freedom of the gospel; who lived in love and fellowship with Christ; such men, we repeat it, we love; their principles we love; their names we venerate. But, with Rome as she now is, with Rome as she has been for more than a thousand years, we can have no sympathy, no fellowship, no common interest. Our prayer is, that she may be overthrown, and that her arm of iron may be removed from oppressed Christianity.

We are now to consider the imperial, or supreme political power of the Papacy. This power was the result chiefly of the spiritual headship of the Papacy over Christendom. Had the popes been but the temporal lords of their own small territory, or but the metropolitans of a particular district, their authority would have been limited. As temporal princes, they could have claimed obedience only from their own subjects; and as the occupants of an episcopal see their supervision could have extended over none but the churches of their own diocese. But when the Pope was constituted supreme pontiff, especially when he was considered as the Vicar of Christ upon earth, and his decisions regarded as final and infallible, a supremacy over thrones and kings was the inevitable result. Politics and religion cannot be kept entirely separate. There are many points at which the state must touch the church, and there are many moral questions which must relate to princes and cabinets. Even were the church and state entirely distinct in their general administrations, one infallible and supreme head of the church, would be at least liable to interfere with the free and regular exercise of the civil government. In cases, however, where church and state are united, the interference is inevitable, and must be frequent. Now in Europe, from the days of Constantine, there was the closest union between religion and politics. Long before the downfall of the Roman Empire, this system was adopted. And when that empire sunk, and the modern kingdoms of Europe arose on its ruins, neither prince nor bishop thought of a separation between these two systems. A national, or rather an imperial religion, every where existed. The consequence of this was, that while popes and bishops were in a certain sense, held as the subjects of kings and princes, the latter were also considered spiritually as the subjects of the former. Possibly, some might imagine, that such mutual subjection might be maintained without detriment to the peace of society. Such, however, the history of Europe has proved, is not likely to be the case. Especially is it not likely to succeed on such a magnificent scale, as was attempted in Catholic Europe. There are too many national interests and prejudices, too many kings and bishops, too many passions and motives to ambition, for a scheme like this to exist without agitation, without tyranny and rebellion. Hence, the history of Europe throughout the papal supremacy, exhibits not the smoothness of a lake unruffled by the passing breeze, but the turbidness of a sea, dashed and tossed by conflicting winds. Papal unity in these times was but one perpetual struggle; and papal harmony, but the symphony of uninterrupted discords. The result, however, of such struggles and agitations, at least for centuries, was the gradual but complete ascendency of papal power over the sovereigns of Europe.

Nor was the high political power of the Pope, the result alone of his pontifical station; that station itself was made the abode of certain divine attributes. The popular idea was, that God and St. Peter were ecclesiastically one. The Pope, personally, might be but a man; he might have faults, yea great faults; yet, as Pope, he was God’s representative, Christ’s vicar; he could not err; and his will was supreme in heaven, as well as on earth. His anathema was held in the utmost dread; and his interdict subjected even the greatest princes to the deepest humiliations. At his command all the services of religion were arrested; marriages, masses, and even burials were prevented. Subjects were freed from their allegiance to their lawful sovereigns, and even the assassination of the prince was considered a virtue.

Among the proximate causes which advanced the power of the Pope, Daunou, mentions the following. “The political revolutions which followed the dethronement of Augustulus, the accession of Pepin to the throne of France, and of Charlemagne to the Empire; the weakness of Louis le Debonnaire, the division of his states among his children, the imprudence of some of the kings who invoked the thunders of the Holy See against each other; the fabrication of the Decretals, the propagation of a canonical jurisprudence, quite contrary to the ancient laws of the church; the rivalries between the two houses of Germany, the projects of independence conceived by several of the Italian cities, the crusades, the inquisition, and the innumerable multitude of monastic establishments; these,” says this Catholic authority, “are the causes which brought on, established, aggrandized, and so long sustained the temporal power of the Popes, and facilitated the abuse of their spiritual functions.”8 Thus did the state of things both without and within the church, the agitations of the political system, and the doctrines of the religious, unite in the elevation of the Papal See above the capitals of Europe. Nor should we omit in this catalogue of causes, the ambition of the Roman Pontiffs themselves. Gregory VII., Innocent III., Julius II., and Boniface VIII., were as ambitious of power, as all Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon. Their desire was, not simply supremacy in the church, or even in Europe, but supremacy throughout the world.

The gradual development of this wonderful system of power, will now be considered. From the days of Constantine, Christian bishops, and especially Roman bishops, exerted more or less influence upon the policy of the country. “Even under the Roman Emperors,” says Hallam, “they had found their way into palaces; they were sometimes ministers, more often secret counselors, always necessary but formidable allies, whose support was to be conciliated, and interference respected.”9

After the fall of the throne of the Caesars, the civil obedience of the bishop of Rome became after a short interval, subject to the eastern Emperor, and to the Exarch of Ravenna, as his lieutenant. The veneration, however, of the new Gothic kingdoms for their spiritual head, and the ancient habit of the west in rallying around a western political center, together with some difference of doctrine between Rome and Constantinople, well nigh counterbalanced the authority of the successors of Constantine; and while they exalted the Pope, made his subjection to a distant sovereign, rather tacit, than efficient. Hence the readiness of the Papal See to constitute a western emperor in the person of Charlemagne; and hence the haughty language it sometimes employed toward the eastern court. The following is an extract of a letter to Leo III., from Gregory II., whom Gibbon styles, “the founder of the papal monarchy,” and whom also Catholic writers are in the habit of representing as a mode of patience and loyalty. “You now accuse,” says Gregory, “the Catholics of idolatry; and by the accusation you betray your own impiety and ignorance. To this ignorance we are compelled to adopt the grossness of our style and arguments. The first elements of holy letters are sufficient for your confusion; and were you to enter a grammar school, and avow yourself the enemy of our worship, the simple and pious children would be provoked to cast their hornbooks at your head. You assault us, O tyrant, with a carnal and military hand; unarmed and naked, we can only implore Christ, the Prince of the heavenly host, that he will send unto you a devil, for the destruction of your body and the salvation of your soul. Abandon your rash and fatal enterprise, reflect, tremble, repent. If you persist, we are innocent of the blood that will be spilt in the contest; may it fall on your own head.”10 Such was the language of Gregory II. to the greatest emperor of Christendom, and also his own lawful sovereign. Gregory III. his immediate successor, went still further, and excommunicated the whole sect of the Iconoclasts, and Leo among them.11

The authority of the popes over the new kingdoms was of a more decisive character. The first remarkable interference of this authority in political matters occurred in France. Pepin, the son of the celebrated Charles Martel, was exercising the authority, but durst not usurp the name, of king. This name belonged to Childeric, a regular descendant from Clovis, who had established the French monarchy. The case was referred to Pope Zacharias. He decided that Childeric, the lawful sovereign, should be shorn and placed in a convent; and that Pepin should assume both the name and the insignia of royalty. True, the decision in this ease was but that of a supreme judge, giving his opinion in a question of doubt and perplexity.

But what right had a Christian pastor to decide who should reign over a political kingdom? If the reference was a matter of policy on the part of Pepin, and of conscience on the part of the French, it was also one of power in the hands of the Pope. His sentence was authoritative, and it was final. Hence Eginhard, the biographer of Charlemagne, says that Pepin was made king — “jussu et auetoritate Pontificis Romani” — “by the command and authority of the Roman Pontifex.” This occurred about the middle of the eighth century.

Fifty years after the important decision above alluded to, that is, on Christmas day, A.D. 800, Pope Leo III. crowned Charlemagne, the son of Pepin, Emperor of the West. Daunou affirms that this was done, not by the Pope, alone, but by “all assembly of the clergy, of the nobility, and of the people of Rome.”12 Anastasius, however, affirms, that Charles was made emperor — “Dei nutu atque B. Petri clavigeri regni coelorum” — “by the will of God and of the blessed Peter, the keys-bearer of the kingdom of heaven.” “On Christmas day,” says Grimshaw, “when the monarch was attending mass in St. Peter’s church, at Rome, the supreme Pontiff advanced, and placed upon his head an imperial crown; and having conducted him to an imperial throne, declared, that he should thenceforth be styled Emperor and Augustus.”13

As the chair of St. Peter had virtually made both a king for France, and an emperor for the west, the subsequent subjection of these thrones to the dictation of the Pope, would seem to be a matter of course. The son and successor of the late emperor, was the first to experience evils of this kind. Louis I., surnamed Le Debonnaire, divided his kingdom among his three sons, Lothaire, Pepin, and Louis. The birth of a fourth son, by a second marriage, Charles the Bald, was the means of associating the three first against their father and the last. In these royal controversies, not only the prelates of France, but the Pope also took a prominent part. Gregory IV. allied himself to the three rebellious sons. He entered France in person, and without the permission of Louis. He caused the army of Louis to desert him, and became thus the means and instigation of the dethronement of the son of Charlemagne. It was at this time, that in a letter to the bishops, he uses the following insolent language: — “Know ye that my chair is above the throne of Louis.” “It would be painful” says Daunou, “to trace the details of the well known humiliations of Louis I. How Hebo, his creature, and other bishops condemned him to a public penance; how upon his knees before these prelates he recited publicly a confession of his crimes, among which he enumerates the march of his troops during the carnival, and the convocation of a parliament on holy Thursday; how, dragged from cloister to cloister, to Compeigne, to Soissons, to Aix-la-Chapelle, to Paris, to St. Denis, he seemed destined there to terminate his days.” Such was the son of Charlemagne in the hands of the ecclesiastics, who had aspired to control the throne of France and of the empire.

Louis II. was equally subservient to the power of the Pope. “He went on foot before the pontiff, served him as an esquire, and led his horse by the bridle!” Charles the Bald, in a submissive letter to the clergy, affirmed, that, “the bishops are the throne where God sits to render his decrees!” The power of the Pope, however, was far superior at this time to that of either bishops or kings. An experiment was made of that power. Lothaire, king of Lorraine, and great grandson of Charlemagne, had repudiated his wife, Theutberge. This repudiation had occurred after a lawful examination before a council of bishops. The Pope, however, Nicholas I., thought proper to annul the whole proceedings. He ordered the king to take back the wife from whom he was lawfully divorced; threatened him with excommunication if he refused; sent a legate to compel compliance with his mandate; and even proceeded so far as to depose two of the bishops, who sat in one of the councils by which the divorce was granted. Lothaire was forced into obedience, although ably defended by his brother, the Emperor Louis. Thus did the arbitrary will of the new sovereign of the Seven Hills, control at once, emperors and kings, councils and bishops! This occurred about the year 863.

Under the Pontificate of John VIII., Charles the Bald was made emperor, when his brother, the king of Germany had superior claims to that office. The language used by the pontiff on the occasion, is significant: “We have judged him worthy of the imperial scepter — we have elevated him to the dignity and power of the empire — we have decorated him with the title of Augustus.”14 In a council at Troyes, in France, over which this same pope presided, besides various excommunications against persons of distinction, it was decreed, “that bishops shall be treated with respect by the secular powers, and that none shall be so bold as to sit in their presence, unless they shall be directed to do so.”

Such were the perpetual collisions between the civil and ecclesiastical powers in France, during the Carlovingian race of kings. The officers of the church, instead of being subject to civil rulers, arrogated to themselves a vigilant supervision over those rulers, crowns were conferred by popes; and thrones made vacant by their simple volition. No doubt, the contests between the descendants of Charlemagne had a powerful tendency to promote the frequent exercise and gradual ascendency of ecclesiastical power. There were many other causes, however, conspiring to the same result. The general ignorance that prevailed, the gross superstitions that were practiced, the erroneous notions entertained of the office and prerogatives of church-officers — especially the almost divine homage paid to the Pope — all these tended to lower the civil and exalt the ecclesiastical authority. The Papacy had not as yet, however, reached its full grown stature. Other centuries were required for this.

Before we trace its fuller developments, however, through these centuries, it will be proper to notice an event which powerfully accelerated its advancement. This event was the fabrication of two documents, the objects of which were to elevate the power of the Pope to the highest possible pitch. The Decretals and the Donation of Constantine were both invented, it is thought, in the eighth century. The former, which we have already noticed, was designed to establish the absolute supremacy of the Pope in the church, the latter to give him supreme control in the state. The following is a quotation from the latter document. It employs the language of Constantine the Great. “We ascribe to the See of St. Peter, all dignity — all power — all imperial power. Besides, we give to Sylvester and his successors our palace of Lateran — we give him our crown, our miter, our diadem, and all our imperial vestments — we remit to him the imperial dignity. We give, as a pure gift, to the holy pontiff, the city of Rome, and all the western cities of Italy, as well as the western cities of other countries. In order to give place to him, we yield our dominion over all these provinces, by removing the seat of our empire to Byzantium, considering that it is not right that a terrestrial emperor should presume the least power, where God has established the head of religion.”15 This document is admitted, by all Catholic writers at the present time, to be a mere forgery; and yet, so ignorant were men in the middle ages, and so blinded by papal authority, that it was universally received as authentic. “This donation,” says Daunou, “obtained belief so long, that in 1478, Christians were burnt at Strasburg for having dared to doubt its authenticity!” It is easy to see what an exaltation of papal power, what a stretch of papal ambition, would naturally arise from a popular and general belief like this.

In the tenth century, we have another most painful instance of the deep humiliations to which the throne of France was again subjected by the Pope of Rome. Hugh Capet had supplanted the Carlovingian line of kings, and established the Capuriah — that which continues to the present time. His son and successor, Robert, had married Bertha, his cousin of the fourth degree, to whose son also, by a previous husband, he had stood as god-father. The validity of this marriage, although authorized by seven bishops, was denied by the Pope. As the king was unwilling to put away his wife, he incurred from the holy see the sentence of excommunication, and his kingdom was laid under an interdict. “It was the first time,” says Daunou, “that the church of France saw herself under an interdict, or received the injunction to suspend the celebration of divine offices — the administration of the sacraments to adults — the religious burial of the dead.” Such was the effect of this sentence of excommunication, that the king of France was deserted by all his attendants and domestics, save two servants, who are said, on the authority of a cardinal,16 to have cast to the dogs what provisions were left from the royal table, and also to have purified by fire every vessel the excommunicated monarch touched! Humbled by such rigorous treatment, Robert was compelled to yield, and Gregory V. had the satisfaction to see both bishops and king subservient to his pontifical mandate.

Thus were matters preparing for a universal Theocracy. The full conception of that theocracy, and its partial completion, was the work of the celebrated Hildebrand. “The idea,” says Daunou, “of a universal theocracy, had taken in his ardent and severe mind, the character of a passion. His whole life was consecrated to this enterprise.”17

To accomplish this vast scheme, Hildebrand attempted, first, to make the church independent of the state, and next to extend the power of the church gradually, but universally over the state. To render the church less dependent upon civil authority, he virtually abolished the right of layinvestiture required every bishop to come to Rome for consecration, and. established a new mode of electing the Pope. The power of nominating a successor in the chair of St. Peter was at this time in the emperors of Germany. According to the decree however, of Nicholas II., of which Hildebrand was the real author, “the cardinal bishops were to choose the supreme Pontiff, with the concurrence, first of the cardinal priests and deacons, and afterward of the (Roman) laity. Thus elected, the new Pope was to be presented to Henry, and to such of his successors, as should personally obtain that privilege.”18 To render his authority yet more efficient, Gregory had a special legate or representative, clothed with extraordinary powers, in each country of Europe. These legates collected taxes, intimidated bishops, and kept even kings in awe. They were ready at any moment, either to report misconduct to Rome or to fulminate from their own seats, in the name of the Pope, the anathemas of the Holy See.

There are twenty-seven maxims, ascribed to Gregory VII., from which the character of his administration may fairly be inferred. The following are a few of them: —

“That the Pope has the right to depose all princes, to dispose of all crowns, to reform all laws. That he can never err, that he alone can nominate bishops, convoke councils, preside at them, dissolve them: that princes must kiss his feet, that by him subjects are absolved from their oath of allegiance; in a word, that there is but one name or power in the world, viz., the Pope.”

Nor did Gregory simply write maxims. His acts corresponded with his creed. “It would be necessary,” says Daunou, “to enumerate all the princes who reigned during the time of this Pope, in order to furnish the list of those, who were smitten, or menaced by him with excommunication. Sardinia and Dalmatia, he considered only as fiefs, dependent on the tiara. To Demetrius of Russia, he wrote: “We have given your crown to your son.” Nicephorus Botiniares, the Greek emperor, he commanded to abdicate his throne. Boleslas, king of Poland, he declared fallen, adding that Poland should no longer be a kingdom. Solomon, king of Hungary, he bid go to the Hungarian old men and learn, that their country belonged to the Roman Church. To the Spanish princes he wrote, that St. Peter was their lord paramount, having the right to the revenues of all their little states. Robert Guiscard he punished by anathemas. From the Duke of Bohemia, he exacted the tribute of a hundred marks of silver. Philip I. of France he denounced as a tyrant, plunged in crime and infamy; and upon William the Conqueror, he enjoined it as a duty, to render homage for his kingdom, to the Apostolic See. The greatest trophy, however, of the ambition of Gregory, was the Emperor Henry IV. Contrary to the new doctrines of Papacy, Henry had made some investitures; this was a capital offense. Gregory dispatches two legates to Germany, to summon the emperor to appear at Rome, to answer in person to the Pope, for the crimes alleged against him. The emperor refused. This refusal led to a rupture between the two potentates, in which Henry was excommunicated by the Pope in the following words: —

“On the part of God Omnipotent, and by my plenary, authority, I forbid Henry, the son of Henry, to govern the Teutonic kingdom, and Italy. I absolve all Christians from the oaths which they have made to him, or which they shall make to him. It is forbidden to every person to render him any service as to a king.”

The humiliations of Henry, consequent upon this sentence of excommunication, are thus described by Hallam. “Gregory was at Canossa, a fortress near Reggio, belonging to his faithful adherent, the Countess Matilda. It was in a winter of unusual severity. The emperor was admitted, without his guards, into an outer court of the castle, and three successive days remained from morning till evening, in a woolen shirt, and with naked feet, while Gregory, shut up with the countess, refused to admit him to his presence. On the fourth day he obtained absolution, but only upon condition of appearing on a certain day, to learn the Pope’s decision, whether or no he should be restored to his kingdom, until which time he promised not to assume the ensigns of royalty.”19 Such was the height of power, to which the Papal See had advanced, towards the close of the eleventh century. Gregory VII. however, only drew the outlines of a dominion, which his successors, and especially Innocent III., were to establish and complete. We have already noticed how the Donation of Constantine and the Decretals of Isidore tended to augment papal power. We must now notice another instrument of the same kind. This instrument is “the Digest of Gratian.” This Digest consists of a compilation of various canons for the regulation of ecclesiastical polity. It was divided into three parts, the first treating of ecclesiastical persons, the second of judgments, and the third of sacred things. Its popularity and influence were wonderful. “It was explained,” says Daunau, “in the schools, cited in the tribunals, and invoked in treaties. It had almost become the public law of Europe, when the return of light dissipated, by slow degrees, the gross imposture.” The character and design of this celebrated Digest may be learned from the following.

“By it,” continues the same author, “the clergy were held not to be amenable to answer in the secular tribunals: the civil powers were subjected to ecclesiastical supremacy: the state of persons, and the acts which determine it, were regulated, validated, or annulled, by the canons and the clergy; the papal power was enfranchised from all restrictions; the sanction of all laws of the church was ascribed to the Holy See, that See itself being independent of the laws published and confirmed by itself.”

Such was the jurisprudence, by which papal authority was carried to its summit, throughout Europe, a jurisprudence, whose origin was fraud, whose popularity was based upon ignorance and superstition, by which all civil rights were trampled in the dust; and whose sole object was, the independent establishment of one vast papal monarchy. This new system of law was first published by a Benedictine monk, in the year 1152. Pope Eugene III. gave it at once his pontifical sanction, and thus constituted it the law of the church; and virtually the law of Europe.

We are now about to stand upon the summit of papal ascendency. For nearly nine hundred years, that is, from Constantine the Great, to Pope Innocent III., the bishop of Rome had regularly been rising in influence and power. For about six hundred years, that is, from the grant of Pepin to the same pontificate, had this bishop not only been a temporal prince, but had been gradually establishing his authority over the thrones and crowns of all other temporal princes. At that period, when other kingdoms have usually begun to wane, and to feel the decrepitude of age, the papal power was only in its strength, exhibiting a healthfulness which indicated the absence of decay, and wielding an influence at once absolute and formidable to the kings of the earth. “The noonday of papal dominion,” says Hallam, “extends from the pontificate of Innocent III. inclusively, to that of Boniface VIII.; or in other words, through the thirteenth century. Rome inspired during this age all the terror of her ancient name. She was once more the mistress of the world, and kings were her vassals.”

The empire of Innocent III. and of the popes of the thirteenth century, was as great, if not greater, than that of the old Romans under Trajan and Adrian. By the conquest of Constantinople, the east had been brought into subjection to the Pope. Nations farther north than ever acknowledged an emperor or a consul, bowed to the chair of St. Peter; while westward, the broad Atlantic only was the boundary of the Pope’s dominion. Africa was in possession of the infidels, but even here the crusaders took several of their strong holds.

But the dominion of the popes was as powerful as it was extensive. Innocent established himself in Italy more firmly than his predecessors. “He abolished the consulate, and arrogating to himself imperial rights, he invested the prefect with his powers. He installed public officers, and received the oaths of the senators. Out of Rome also, Orbitello, Viterbia, Ombria, Romagna and the Marche d’Ancona, acknowledged Innocent III. as their sovereign. Reigning thus from sea to sea, he conceived the hope of conquering Ravenna, of getting fully the inheritance of Matilda, and of getting more in subjection to him the two Sicilies.”20

The authority of Innocent, however, extended beyond Italy. “In one year” says Daunou, “Innocent III. gave three crowns, that of Wallachia, of Bohemia and of Arragon. He also conferred that of Armenia.”

The power of this pontiff, however, was more felt in abasing than in giving crowns. The three most powerful sovereigns during the pontificate of Innocent, were Otho IV. Emperor of Germany, Philip Augustus, king of France, and John, king of England. Otho he excommunicated, Philip he not only excommunicated, but laid his kingdom under an interdict; and John he brought to the deepest possible humiliation. The crime of John was his opposition to an appointment, which the Pope had made, of an archbishop of Canterbury. The pontiff first laid an interdict upon the kingdom of John; he next excommunicated the monarch, delivering him over to the wrath of God; he then deposed him, as no more fit to occupy the throne of England. And as if this were not enough, he even ventured to cede to his rival Philip, the entire dominion of the English monarch. The Pope however, had in England one of his “legates.” Pandolph undertook to effect a reconciliation between the pontiff and the king. He advised John to receive from the Pope as a pure gratuity and in the most humble manner, the kingdom from which he had been deposed. The following is the account which Daunou gives of this affair. “John upon his knees before Pandolph, put his hands between those of this priest, and pronounced, in the presence of the bishops and lords of his kingdom, the following words: “I, John, by the grace of God, king of England, and lord of Ireland, for the expiation of my sins, of my free will, and with the advice of my barons, give to the Roman church, to the Pope Innocent and his successors, the kingdom of England and the kingdom of Ireland, with all the rights attached to the one and to the other. I will hold them hereafter of the Holy See, of whom I will be a faithful vassal, faithful to God and to the Church of Rome, to the sovereign Pontiff, my lord, and to his successors lawfully elected. I bind myself to pay every year a rent of a thousand marks of silver (about sixty three thousand dollars,) that is. to say, seven hundred for England and three hundred for Ireland.”21 The money was immediately paid. The legate having kept the scepter and crown of the monarch five days, returned them as a pure gift. He then left England, and entering France, forbade Philip to wage war upon England, as now a fief of the papal autocrat.

But Innocent went further. As if the powers of excommunication and interdict, were not adequate to his purposes, he employed two other modes of executing his will. These were, crusades and the inquisition. The crusades had hitherto been employed only against Mohammedans. Innocent turned them against Christians. The Greek church was the first to experience the dreadful effects of this mode of conversion. Constantinople was taken, its palace rifled of its treasures, French emperors appointed, while Innocent congratulated himself by saying — “God, wishing to console the church by the union of the schismatics, has caused the empire to pass from the proud, superstitious, and disobedient Greeks, to the humble and submissive Latins.”

The Albigenses were the next class of Christians to experience the vengeance of a crusade. Innocent ravaged their country, transferred the territory of Raymond, their protector, to Monfort, and reduced to desolation and ruin, these once flourishing provinces. Nor was this all. Whatever Christian prince now began to prove refractory, was threatened, not simply with excommunication and an interdict, but with a crusade. Thus did this Pope ingeniously turn toward the household of faith, that tremendous power, which had hitherto been directed only against the infidels of Asia.

But there was another instrument wielded, indeed originated, by this sagacious pontiff — the Inquisition. The object of this barbarous tribunal, was not simply to ascertain heresy, but to eradicate it from the conscience and heart. For accomplishing this work, the Apostles had depended upon truth accompanied by the Spirit of God. Not so Pope Innocent and his illustrious successors. They resorted to torture, and to torture of the most dreadful character. The suspected person was confined to a most loathsome dungeon, from which the light was excluded. He was subjected to the most rigorous treatment. He was frequently brought before his spiritual judges, and every effort was made to force him to the confession of his heresy. If obstinate, he was tied, suspended by a pulley and suddenly dropped down, often to the dislocation of his bones, or the fracture of his limbs. He was compelled to drink great quantities of water, until unnaturally distended, when an iron bar was placed across his stomach and pressed by great weights. Or, if this kind of torture did not answer, he was gradually roasted before slow fires. These tortures were varied, according to circumstances, and they were also protracted more or less according to the perseverance or timidity of the subject. In all cases however, they were horrible and excruciating to the last degree. Multitudes perished under them, and multitudes who endured them, were only transferred from this dreadful court, to meet a yet more terrible death. Innocent was the author of this institution. “The friars Raynier, and Guy, and the arch-deacon Peter of Castelnau, are the first inquisitors,” says Daunau, “known in history. Innocent enjoined it upon princes and people to obey them; upon princes to proceed against the heretics denounced by these missionaries; upon the people to arm themselves against princes who were indocile, or had too little zeal.”22 The first inquisitorial commission was sent by Innocent into Languedoc,: o extirpate the heresy of the Albigenses. Proving useful here, it was subsequently introduced into all the countries of Italy, except Naples; into the kingdoms also of Spain and Portugal, and attempts were made to erect it in all the other kingdoms of Europe.

Such was the pontificate of Innocent III., the haughtiest, and probably the most successful of the popes. “A pope,” said he, “a vicar of Christ, is superior to man, if he is inferior to God. He is the light of day; the civil authority is but the fading star of night.”

We cannot here pursue a minute history of the popes, or point out the almost innumerable instances in which they domineered over the princes of the earth. We refer the reader on this subject to the standard histories on modern Europe, and to authors who have made it their business to delineate the usurpations and blasphemies of this proud and insatiable power. Let us, however, notice some of the doctrines taught by those famous instruments called papal bulls.

In a bull of Boniface VIII., against Philip IV., is the following language. “God has established me over the empires to pluck up, to destroy, to ruin, to dissipate, to edify, to plant.” In another, called Unam Sanctum, Boniface thus expresses himself: “The temporal sword ought to be employed by kings and warriors for the church, according to the order and permission of the Pope. The temporal power is subjected to the spiritual power, which institutes it, and judges it, and which God alone can judge. To resist the spiritual power, then, is to resist God, unless we admit the two principles of the Manicheans.”23 Pope Pius V., in the bull in which he excommunicated Queen Elizabeth, expresses himself thus: “He that reigneth on high hath constituted one (the Pope) prince over all nations, and all kingdoms, that he might pluck up, destroy, dissipate, ruinate, plant, and build.”24 Sixtus V. also, in the bull in which he excommunicated the King of Navarre, and the Prince of Conde, asserts, that “the authority given to St. Peter and his successors, excels all ‘the powers of earthier kings and princes.”25

Such have been the gradual development, and the ultimate height, of the papal empire. Presiding at first, but as a Christian pastor, over a small congregation, the Roman bishop rose by degrees, and under a great change of circumstances, became the supreme political, as well as the supreme spiritual, head of Christendom. Indeed, much more than this is true; as vicar of Christ, as the sole and supreme representative of the Eternal, the Pope has arrogated to himself honors and prerogatives not less than divine.

Were this system carried out, the world would be subject to one man, and that one man would become the universal object, not only of civil and ecclesiastical, but also of religious homage. Every throne on earth would be extinguished but that of the Pope; every capital would be destroyed but that of the Pope; every system of religion would be annihilated but that of the Pope. It is impossible that a system of this kind should always exist. Man could not bear, God would not suffer, its perpetual continuance. Such a system is monstrous, is unnatural, is contrary to every political, social, moral, and religious interest of mankind. It withers the heart, it paralyzes society, it degrades man, it insults God. Hence, about the beginning of the fourteenth century, causes began to work, whose tendency was the gradual, but ultimate overthrow of this whole system. These causes began in politics, began in education, began in religion, began in everything. Public sentiment, that had long favored the Papacy, had come to its flood, and an ebb of human opinion began, adverse to the whole system of spiritual despotism. These causes, with great and powerful auxiliaries, are still at work; and although there have been obstructions in their way, still are they destined to operate till the entire papal fabric shall only be among the legends of the past. Cold, and long, and dreary, it is true, has been the winter, through which the church and society have passed. But the spring has dawned, the summer is approaching, the warming sunbeams are falling, the earth is relaxing, the fields are smiling, and no power of man can prevent the rich harvest of blessings, that God is about to bestow on a ransomed and love-lit world. True, the papist would still carry us back to his dreary Decembers — to his dark and gloomy winters; he would still surround us with snow, and frost, and death. But no, the voice of God has gone forth; the Spirit of the Eternal is moving on the hearts of men, and retrogression is impossible. Onward is the watchword, and onward all things will go; the Papacy to destruction, the church and society to liberty, salvation.

But let us now apply to our subject the facts we have here contemplated. The book of God foretells, that after the apostolic days, somewhere in the approaching future, a great power should arise, arrogating to itself divine honors, “exalting itself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped,” possessing “great authority,” having “power over all kindreds, and tongues and nations; and causing all, both small and great, to receive a mark in their right hands or in their foreheads; and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark.” This power was also to have its seat at Rome; it was to be a nominally Christian power, for it was “to depart from the faith.” It was to be in itself a small power, “a little horn.” but to derive its strength from the kingdoms around it; “these kingdoms having one mind to give their power and strength to the beast.” Such are the predictions; but where shall we find the facts? We cannot find them in imperial Rome; for this power was to arise upon the ruins of the empire, and it was to continue in existence twelve hundred and sixty years, which the Roman empire did not. We cannot find them in any one, or even in all the kingdoms of Europe; we cannot find them among the Lutherans or the Calvinists. Hence Romanists, dissatisfied with all applications of these prophecies to the past, refer them to the future. They speak of Antichrist as yet to come. But, then, they forsake the prophecy; for it is certain that Antichrist was directly to succeed the downfall of the Roman empire. Where, then, is Antichrist? Let facts speak; let Europe, which has been down-trodden so long by papal power, testify. Let prostrated crowns, and abased monarchs, bear witness. Let the blood of martyrdom be heard — all these declare, that if there can be an Antichrist, the papal autocrat is he.

1 Daunou, p. 1-3.
2 Epis. Ciera.
3 Epist. to Cor.
4 Page 305.
5 Middlo Ages, chap. vii.
6Baronius.
7 Daunou, p. 97.
8 Court of Rome, 253.
9 Middle Ages, chapter 7.
10 Rome, xlix.
11 Daunou, p. 13.
12 Court of Rome, 24.
13 Hist. France, 31.
14 Court of Rome, 47.
15Court of Rome, 4.
16 Peter Damiere.
17 Court of Rome, 77.
18 Hallam. — Under Alexander III., the laity were excluded, and tho
consent of the sovereign not required in the election of a Pope. Two
thirds of the college of cardinals decided the choice. This is the present
mode of electing the Pope.
19 Middle Ages.
20 Court of Rome, 125.
21 Court of Rome, 123.
22 Court of Rome, 130.
23Court of Rome, 149.
24 Barrow, 19.
25 Ibid. 18.

CHAPTER 11 ANTICHRIST DISTINGUISHED FOR CRAFT AND PRETENDED MIRACLES.

In the “little horn” upon the head of the fourth beast in Daniel’s vision, were “eyes like the eyes of man.” This peculiarity was seen by the prophet in none of the other ten horns. These eyes were the symbols of knowledge and sagacity. And as the “little horn” indicated not a good, but a wicked power, they were designed to express the cunning and craft, which such wicked power would employ, in persecuting the saints and in opposing God. The Apostle Paul gives us the idea more literally. He describes the man of sin as coming “with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” (en pash spath thv adikiav), and as “speaking lies in hypocrisy, (en uJpokpisei yeudologwn.)

That these passages refer to Antichrist, even Romanists themselves admit. “The little horn,” says the Commentator on the Doway Bible, “is commonly understood of Antichrist.” The same authority says, “The man of sin agrees to the wicked and great Antichrist, who will come before the end of the world.” The difference between this commentator and ourselves is, that, while he considers Antichrist as yet to come, we affirm, that he is even now in the world.”

If then, these passages refer to Antichrist, they teach, that cunning and craft are to be among his chief characteristics. That these traits are more notorious in the papal church, than in any other establishment ever known among mankind, needs scarcely to be affirmed. The evidences of their existence have filled its history for more than a thousand years.

The first instance we notice of the craft of this church is, in its mode of interpreting the holy Scriptures. That the Scriptures are to be interpreted like all other books, is evident. Although the truth in them is inspired, that is, delivered from heaven, yet the language is human. The very object of this volume is, to make known to man, in his own modes of speech, the will of God for his direction and salvation. The Papacy, however, considers this book of such difficult interpretation, that, withholding it from the people generally, it only furnishes such portions as its forced, though infallible interpretations, have so far glossed, that the original meaning is entirely concealed.

We shall notice only two of the unnumbered perversions of this kind. In Matthew 16:18, Christ addresses Peter in the following language: “And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This text has been used by Catholic writers as the very foundation of their papal system. “It is proved,” says Dens, “that Peter received supremacy from Christ above the other Apostles from Matthew 16:18, where the supremacy is promised, and John 21 where it is conferred.”1 The passage referred to in John is the following: “Then said Jesus unto them again, Peace be unto you; as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained unto them.” This latter passage, in which Christ addresses the apostles in a body, and in which he conferred upon them, if anything, equal authority, is said to teach Peter’s supremacy above his brethren. Surely, if this was the time, when Peter had conferred upon him the supremacy previously promised, he never received it at all. And as the text quoted to prove that Peter received the supremacy has failed, so, no doubt, will the text said to contain the promise of supremacy, also fail.

1. This supremacy is not contained in the words of this text. There is evidently a wide distinction between the word Peter (Petrov) and the two words, “this rock (tauth th petra) used in this verse. They are not the same, either in our English version, or in the original Greek.2 The nearest that these words can approximate to identity, is in the following version of the text — ‘Thou art a stone, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ Now it is certain, that if Christ had intended to say, that his church should be built upon a stone, he would have used the same word in both parts of the sentence. But he affirms that his church shall be built, not upon a stone, but upon a particular rock. Nor is this all — the word Peter here is evidently used as a proper name, and not as a collective noun. If then Christ had intended to affirm, that he would build his church upon the apostle he would have used the following mode of address: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build my church.’ Where that apostle is meant in the next verse, this is the mode of expression: “I will give to thee the keys, etc.” Besides the fact, too, that these words are really different in themselves, the sense of the passage requires, that they should be different. Suppose them identical; then Christ is made to say, that his Church shall be built on Peter. Now, besides the positive falsehood, if not blasphemy, of such a declaration, there is absurdity in the very idea. How can a church, or government of any kind, be built upon a man? Romulus, though the first king, was not the foundation of the Roman government.

Nor are the kings of England or France the foundation of the respective monarchies in those countries. The foundation of a government is its constitutional laws; the foundation of a church is its fundamental doctrines. It is absurd to speak of any man as the foundation of either church or state; a man may be a founder, or a builder, or a ruler, but never a foundation. But admit this absurdity; place Peter as the foundation of the church; then we deny that he can be its ruler. There certainly is some difference between the foundation of a house, and its master. If Peter therefore be at the foundation, he cannot also be at the head of the church. The very ground therefore, which these critics take, defeats their object, and renders Peter’s primacy, as contained in this text, impossible.

2. Nor does the context show that the primacy of Peter is contained in these words. The following verse has been quoted with this intention: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Now, there certainly must be a wide difference between occupying the foundation of a house, and carrying its keys. The two offices cannot be performed by the same person;3 if Peter therefore be the foundation, he cannot be the keys carrier, and if he be the keys-carrier, he cannot be the foundation. To suppose therefore, that our Lord intended to convey the same idea, by two such different and opposite figures, is to suppose him ignorant of the meaning of language. Nor can such supremacy be inferred from the preceding verses. Christ had asked the question — “Who do men say, that I, the Son of man, am?” The reply of the apostles was, “some, John the Baptist, some, Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” He then asked the apostles themselves, as to their belief in the matter, — “But who say ye that I am?” Peter, more promptly than the rest, exclaimed: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” — “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona;” says Jesus, “for flesh and blood hath not revealed it (viz. that I am the Christ, the Son of the living God) unto thee, but my Father, which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, thou art Peter, (that is, by this confession, thou well deservest the name I have given thee) and upon this rock (the truth which thou hast confessed, that I am the Christ) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Such is evidently the meaning of the passage. Hence at the conclusion of the conversation, Jesus charged his disciples, that “they should tell no man that he was Jesus, the Christ.” This was the truth after which the Savior was inquiring; it was the truth which Peter confessed; it was the truth which Christ affirmed had been revealed to him by his Father; it was the truth which he wished, for the present, to be kept secret; — and it is the truth upon which the Christian church, both was to be, and is founded.

Roman Catholic writers tell us, that Christ used the Syriac word, Cephas, which has no variety of gender. Admit it. They still have to prove, that by the use of the word Cephas in the second instance, Christ did not mean a rock, but the apostle of that name. Matthew, however, must have understood the Syriac. He was also inspired in writing the Greek. Why, then, does he render the second Cephas by petra, and not by petron? If he believed his Master meant the same thing, in the twofold use of the term Cephas, why did he use, in the second instance, a word which always signifies a rock, but never the apostle Peter? This supposition makes even this inspired writer to err, worse than a mere tyro in the use of language. Thus, it is impossible, upon any rational mode of criticism, to wrest out of this passage the primacy of the apostle Peter. It is not there, nor the promise of it.

3. Nor can such primacy be educed from this passage through the analogy of Christian doctrine. Were the primacy of Peter of the importance ascribed to it by Papists, then might we expect to find it so interwoven with Christian doctrine in the Holy Scriptures, as to leave no doubt of its reality. We find it, however, not even hinted at in the doctrinal portions of the New Testament. “Other foundation,” says Paul, “can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 3:11. In the book of Revelation, too, where John speaks of the twelve foundations of the holy city, he does not represent the name of Peter as the only one written on those foundations; but “the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Revelation 21:14. The apostle Paul also represents converted gentiles, as being built, not upon Peter, but

“upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” Ephesians 2:20.

Let it be observed here, too, that neither John nor Paul represents the apostles, or the apostles and prophets, as the foundation either of the church or holy city. John speaks of the names of the apostles only as being written on the twelve foundations. And Paul draws, in 1 Corinthians 3, a very broad distinction between the foundation, which all apostle lays, and an apostle himself. The primacy of Peter, then, is no such article of Christian faith, that one must infer it from Matthew 16:18, because, by a great perversion of language, it may be inferred from that passage.

4. Nor can the primacy of Peter be inferred from this passage, from any thing afterwards recorded, either in the life of this apostle, or in the history of the early church. What sovereignty did Peter exercise, either at Jerusalem, at Antioch, or anywhere else? Was he a very Pope, and were the other apostles but cardinals around him? Every one knows the entire falsehood of such a supposition. The apostle Paul declares, that “he was not a whir behind the very chiefest of the apostles.” 2 Corinthians 11:5. And in enumerating church officers, he places at the head of the list, not Peter, but the “apostles” jointly. “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles.” 1 Corinthians 12:28.

Thus have we shown, from the words themselves, from the context, from the analogy of Scripture doctrine, and from subsequent facts, that the primacy of Peter is neither contained nor promised in this text. Yet, Papists deduce from it the three following conclusions: — that Peter was constituted head of the church, that this supremacy was set up at Rome, and that it has been left in that city as a legacy to all succeeding — I know not whether to say — apostles, bishops, or popes!

The other passage of Scripture which Papists have forced into their service, is that contained in Matthew 26:26-28.

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” To most readers this passage is perfectly simple and of easy comprehension. No one but a Papist would ever imagine, that by the expressions, this is my body, (touto esti to swma mou,) — this is my blood, (touto gar esti to aiJma mou) — that Christ meant his literal body and blood. The body of Christ was then before the very eyes of the disciples unbroken; his blood was in his veins unshed. It must therefore, have been perfectly manifest to the apostles that their Master was speaking figuratively, and not literally. But, upon this simple language, have Romanists founded the monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation! The following is a decree of the Council of Trent: “Whosoever shall deny that in the sacrament of the most holy eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the entire Christ, but shall say that he is in it only as in a sign, or figure, or virtue; let him be accursed.”4 Here, not only are the words of Christ literalized, which they were not intended to be, but they are transcended. The most rigid interpretation that can be adopted, would only require that the bread should be the body, and the wine the blood of Christ. But even this literalism did not satisfy Rome. She must have also the “soul” and “divinity” of our Lord — yea, the “entire Christ.” Nor is this all: the entire Christ, she teaches, is contained in each fragment of the bread, and in each drop of the wine. Nor is even this all; the bread and wine, thus converted into the entire Christ, even in their minutest particles, are offered to the people to be adored with the worship of latria, that which is paid to God only! Nor is even this all. The sacrifice of the mass is next offered, for the living and the dead. Here is certainly one of the most extraordinary bundles of absurdities, which ever entered into the head of mortal. Bread and wine, converted by a priest into something like a thousand Christs at a time! And as this is a daily. service, performed in many places over the earth, and also in past generations, many millions of times, almost as many Christs have thus been formed, as there are particles of sand on the banks of the Tiber! How shocking to common sense is such a doctrine! And yet, this is the Papal mode of interpreting Scripture! No wonder that Papists prohibit the common reading of the word of God; for even the most superficial acquaintance with this holy volume, would be sufficient to overthrow their entire System.

The two texts of Scripture we have been considering, through the gross perversions of their meaning by Papists, have given rise to the Pope and the Mass, those tremendous agents of papal power and papal superstition. The same mode of interpretation is pursued, in deducing from the oracles of God, scriptural authority for all their various inventions and superstitions. Thus it is coolly affirmed; by Dens, that since the candlestick in the Jewish tabernacle had seven branches, therefore, there are seven sacraments; and that since Peter alone of all the apostles walked with Christ on the water, therefore, we may infer his primacy.

A second instance of the craft of the Papacy, may be found in its use of tradition as a divine rule of faith. One would imagine, that its convenient mode of interpreting Scripture would answer all its purposes. But no, the Bible, even when eclipsed and surrounded by papal interpretations, still emits too much light upon the consciences of these crafty men, to allow all their gross departures from its teachings. They need, therefore, another and a yet more flexible rule of faith. Hence, tradition is placed upon equal footing with Scripture in matters of faith and practice. But even tradition, and especially early tradition, is too inflexible for them. They must, therefore, invent some method to divest it of its power of reproof. What is that method? Peter Dens shall inform us: “Whatever the Catholic church holds, or decrees as such, is to be regarded as tradition.”5 This is perfectly legitimate; for if the church has the right to make tradition its rule of faith, instead of the Scriptures, it certainly must have the right also, to mold and fashion that tradition as it pleases. Here then is another abyss of papal fraud. This crafty power passes off to hundreds of thousands of men, its own fabricated traditions, as containing that will of God, which they are bound to obey! Here are the eyes of “the little horn,” where “the man of sin,” coming in “all deceivableness of unrighteousness.”

But neither perverted Scripture, nor perverted tradition could give to this wicked power sufficient liberty. It had recourse, therefore, to positive and barefaced forgeries. The chief pillars of papal usurpations in the middle ages were the false Decretals, and the Donation of Constantine. These two instruments gave to the Pope unlimited power, in both church and state; and yet, they were both mere fabrications! “No one,” says Hallam, “has pretended to deny for the last two centuries, that the imposture of the Decretals is too palpable for any but the most ignorant ages to credit.”6 “The falsity of the Donation,” says Daunou,” according to Fleury, is more generally admitted, than that of the Decretals of Isidore; and if the Donation of Constantine should yet obtain any credit, it would be sufficient to transcribe it, in order to show it to be unworthy of belief.”7 Here, then, are two celebrated forgeries, known to be such by the papal hierarchy, and yet for centuries appealed to, for the support and extension of papal authority over the liberties both of church and state!

But the power of the Pope needs to be extended in another direction. It is not enough to annihilate the independence of thrones, and the freedom of the people of God; the infernal regions must be entered, and the fires of purgatory kindled. “Purgatory,” according to Beilarmine, “is situated in the center of the earth; it forms one of the four compartments into which the infernal regions are divided. In the first of these the damned are placed; the second is purgatory; in the third reside the spirits of infants who died without baptism; the fourth is limbus, the abode of the pious who departed this life before the birth of Christ, and were delivered by him when he descended into hell. The pains of purgatory are so horribly severe that no sufferings ever borne in this world can be compared with them. How long they continue is not known; but it is thought that the process of purification is very gradual, and that some will not be thoroughly cleansed till the day of judgment.”

This is the doctrine which the Council of Trent enjoins, shall be “everywhere taught and preached” (doceri et ubique praedicari). But no such doctrine as this, is contained in the word of God. The blood of Christ, we are there assured, “cleanseth us from all sin.” 1 John 1:7. The apostle Paul also teaches that “there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” Romans 8:1. He also asserts that for such “to be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord.” 2 Corinthians 5:8. A wonderful salvation would that of Christ be, indeed, if after souls had taken refuge in him as their Savior, they must still be sent down to the infernal regions, to suffer in the fires of purgatory, the expiation of their offenses! Such a doctrine is a reproach upon Christ, is contrary to the whole teaching of the Scriptures, is calculated to enslave even those who are pardoned, and is, moreover, subversive of the entire scheme of salvation by grace. There is no grace in it, as certainly there is no truth. Why then such an invention? Simply to increase the power and wealth of tile Roman priesthood. These are the motives; and if these could cease to operate, the fires of purgatory mold long since have been extinguished. Look next at the long catalogue of sacred relics. The apostle Paul taught, that in his day, as now, “the fashion of this world passeth away.” And Isaiah had affirmed even before Paul, that “all flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof as the flower of the field.” Moses too had declared earlier still, “dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return.” These physical laws, however, seem to have had no application to the bones of saints, the wood of the Savior’s cross, or even to his coat. All these, and tell thousand others like them, are carefully preserved by pious Roman Catholics, as mementos of ancient piety, and objects of religious homage! “They show at Rome,” says a modern traveler,” the heads of St. Peter and St. Paul encased in silver busts and set with jewels; a lock of the virgin Mary’s hair, a vial of her tears, and piece of her green petticoat; a robe of Jesus Christ sprinkled with his blood, some drops of his blood in a bottle, some of the water which flowed out of the wound in his side, some of the sponge, a large piece of the cross, all the nails used in the crucifixion; a piece of the stone of the sepulcher on which the angel sat; the identical porphyry pillar on which the cock perched when he crowed, after Peter denied Christ; the rods of Moses and Aaron, and two pieces of the wood of the real ark of the covenant.”8 Now can anyone imagine, that Papists who have the least intelligence can possibly believe that these are bona fide relics! They know that they are not. Why then are they employed as objects of religious veneration? To delude the vulgar, to extort money from them, and to deepen the shades of that already too dark superstition, in which Catholic ecclesiastics are made to move, as supernatural beings! O Popery! Popery! Thou hast an awful doom before thee, when the Judge of all shall tear off thy mask, and reveal thy nakedness to an abhorring world! These are only a few of the many “lies spoken in hypocrisy” by which this unnatural and wicked system is sustained. This whole papal fabric is based in fraud, is pillared on falsehood, is defended by deceit, and propagated by hypocrisy.

We now proceed to consider the miracles performed by the Papacy, as proof of its antichristian character. The Apostle Paul represents Antichrist as coming “after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs and lying wonders.” — (shmeioiv, kai perasi yeudouv. ) It is a remarkable fact, that while all other sects and religious parties believe that miracles have long since ceased, the ends having been answered for which they were appointed, papists still pretend, that miracles are performed in their communion. Were such miracles real and not pretended, and were they, moreover, performed by holy men, and in the cause of truth, the Romish church would stand out before the world, as a divinely constituted body, and as having the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. But, if these miracles are base impostures, and if they are performed by wicked men in defense of error, then do they proclaim with the voice of thunder, that the Papacy is Antichrist, and that the Roman church is but marking herself with the signs of the beast.

That the Papacy sanctions modern miracles is certain. What is the doctrine of transubstantiation, but a standing recognition of miraculous power in the Romish priesthood? Can we imagine a greater miracle, than the formation of a “whole Christ,” from a piece of bread? Neither Moses, nor Elijah, nor Peter, nor Jesus, performed so wonderful a miracle as this. Extreme unction is also attended with miraculous effect. “Whosoever shall alarm,” says Trent, “that the sacred unction of the sick does not confer grace, nor forgive sins, nor relieve the sick, (nec alleviare infirmos,) but that its power has ceased, as if the gift of healing existed only in past ages; let him be accursed.” Every saint, too, who is canonized at Rome, must have performed miracles, previously to his being admitted to such exalted honor. “Before a beatified person is canonized, the qualifications,” says Buck, “of the candidate are strictly examined into, in some consistories held for that purpose; after which one of the consistorial advocates, in the presence of the Pope and cardinals, makes the panegyric of the person who is to be proclaimed a saint, and gives a particular detail of his life and miracles; which being done, the holy father decrees his canonization, and appoints the day.”9 Such canonization, however, cannot take place until fifty years after the candidate’s death; when, as one would think, it must be a pretty difficult task, either to establish or disprove the reality of his miracles.

As specimens of the miracles performed in the papal church, we give the following. “At Hales,” says Hume, “in the county of Gloucester, there had been shown, during several ages, the blood of Christ brought from Jerusalem; and it is easy to imagine the veneration with which such a relic was regarded. A miraculous circumstance also attended this miraculous relic; the sacred blood was not visible to any one in mortal sin, even when set before him; and till he had performed good works, sufficient for his absolution, it would not deign to discover itself to him. At the dissolution of the monastery, the whole contrivance was detected. Two of the monks, who were let into the secret, had taken the blood of a duck, which they renewed every week: they put it into a vial, one side of which consisted of thin and transparent crystal, the other of thick and opaque. When any rich pilgrim arrived, they were sure to show him the dark side of the vial, till masses and offerings had expiated his offenses; and then finding his moneys or patience, or faith nearly exhausted, they made him happy by turning the vial.”

This is a specimen of a bona fide Roman Catholic miracle! For several generations, had our English ancestors paid their homage at this celebrated monastery. They revered the very earth on which such a holy building stood. They venerated the monks resident here, as men of peculiar sanctity, and as the intimate friends of the Deity. They especially worshipped the holy relic, and felt, whenever they saw the precious blood, that their sins were all forgiven. They left their offerings and gifts with a cheerful heart, and returned to their homes, not only to tell the glad story, but also to forward other pilgrims to the holy spot. And what does the whole turn out to be? The blood of a duck every week renewed! A base trick of designing and covetous monks! Surely, we must blush for humanity at a scene like this. All this is done, too, under the holy sanctions of religion, and as carrying palpable evidence to the heart of every beholder, of the truth of the gospel, and the authority of the papal church.

The same historian furnishes another example of the same kind of miracles. “A miraculous crucifix,” says he, “had been kept at Boxley in Kent, and bore the appellation of the ‘rood of grace.’ The lips, and eyes, and head of the image, moved on the approach of its rotaries. Hilsey, bishop of Rochester, broke the crucifix, at St. Paul’s cross, and showed to the whole people, the springs and wheels by which it had been secretly moved.”10 Here was another papal wonder. Multitudes had worshipped this crucifix, as they would Christ himself. They had felt all the emotions of joy and astonishment while gazing upon it. They had enriched its keepers, and blessed their own consciences with the tokens of pardon and salvation. And what is this great wonder? The mere mechanism of Romish priests, to enforce superstition, to exalt themselves, and to enrich their fraternity. And yet these are the proofs incontrovertible — the miracles which papists boast as affording divine testimony to the purity and authority of their system! From the benefits of such miracles, may God ever deliver his church and people!

The two following miracles are taken from the Roman Breviary. “St. Francis Xavier turned a sufficient quantity of salt water into fresh, to save the lives of five hundred travelers, who were dying of thirst, enough being left to allow a large exportation to different parts of the world, where it performed astonishing cures! St. Raymond de Pennafort laid his cloak on the sea, and sailed thereon from Majorca to Barcelona, a distance of a hundred and sixty miles, in six hours!”11

These are but a few of the myriads of similar miracles which Popery tolerates, which Popery practices, and of which Popery boasts! That they are incredible, every one can at once perceive — that they are not only superstitious, but fraudulent, none can doubt. Why then their existence? Why, they were invented, ages past, to support the church and to make gain. They are a part of the transmitted commerce of mystical Babylon. But for such miracles, much of the trading capital of Rome would be left in the market. The business, therefore, must be kept up; and as long as there are devotees simple enough to credit such things, there will, of course, be found priests wicked enough to defend and practice them. And there is another reason: — Rome must fulfill her destiny; she must correspond to every prophecy concerning her; and one of these prophecies is, that she will practice, through the working of Satan, “signs and lying wonders.” Here, then, we have two additional marks of Antichrist most strangely meeting in the Papacy. Antichrist was to practice craft and deceit, above all other powers. For these things Rome has been unrivaled in the history of human governments. Antichrist was also to perform “lying wonders,” and “signs;” he was to be notorious for false miracles. Such miracles are every where characteristic of the Romish communion. If, then, scriptural predictions are expected to have their fulfillment in corresponding facts, what set of facts can more clearly indicate the fulfillment of prophecy, than these to which we have alluded? Strange, strange indeed, must it be, that all the prophecies concerning Antichrist, should point directly to Rome, and yet Antichrist not be at Rome! But these prophecies do not lie; nor can we well be mistaken in their application. They refer to the Papacy — they proclaim the Pope as Antichrist. The conclusion may be personal, it may appear invidious, but it is inevitable: the Pope is as truly Antichrist, as Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ.

1 Theol.iii.
2 See Appendix, Note F.
3 See Appendix, Note G.
4 De sacro-sancto eucharistira Sacramento.
5 Theol. chapter 18.
6 Court of Rome, 3.
7 Middle Ages, chapter 7.
8 Cramp. 361.
9 Hist. Eng., chapter 31.
10 Hist. of Eng., chapter 31.
11 Cramp. 365.

CHAPTER 12 ANTICHRIST A REPROBATE

BY reprobation, we mean that judgment of God whereby some men, on account of their sin, are given up to a course of presumptuous wickedness and to final destruction. Reprobation refers both to individuals, and to whole classes of men. Pharaoh was a reprobate; for this is what is meant by God’s “hardening his heart.” Exodus 14:4. Judas was also a reprobate; hence he is called by Christ, “the son of perdition.” John 17:12. The Canaanites were reprobates; hence they were doomed by God to utter destruction. Deuteronomy 7. The apostle Paul also represents the gentile world generally, as in a state of reprobation. Romans 1. He also speaks of the unbelieving Jews as in a similar condition. Romans 11. Reprobation, however, as applied to the Jews and gentiles in these passages, refers not to races, but to generations of men. The gentile world was ultimately brought under the light of the gospel, and multitudes of them became the children of God. The Jews are also to be reclaimed; for blindness has happened to them only “in part;” that is, for a certain fixed period. The reprobation, however, of Antichrist is of a worse character. Like Pharaoh, like Judas, like the ancient Canaanites, his reprobation is unto perdition. Hence he is called “the son of perdition,” 2 Thessalonians 2:3; and is said to “go into perdition.” Revelation 17:11. We are not to understand by this, that all the individuals attached to this Antichristian system will perish. By no means. As the apostle Paul said of his Jewish brethren, even so say we of Papists, that “there is a remnant among them according to the election of grace.” Romans 11:5. “The apostle,” says Dr. Hill, “is not to be understood as meaning, by the strong expressions he has subjoined to this prophecy, that all who ever believed the errors of Popery are certainly damned. We believe that many worthy, pious men, by the prejudices of education and custom, have been so confirmed in doctrines, which we know to be erroneous, as to be unable to extricate themselves.”1 Still, however, the errors of Antichrist are so radically subversive of the gospel, the whole system is so extravagant and enormous, that the great body of its adherents are not only given up of God now, but will hereafter suffer his severe wrath. This is a matter of express and positive prediction —

“and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all may be damned, who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thessalonians 2:11,12.

Reprobation, so far as it is accomplished in this life, relates to the mind, the heart, the will, the conscience and the actions of men. In his description of it in Romans 1, the Apostle represents God as giving men up to “a reprobate mind;” to “vile affections;” and to “do those things which are not convenient.” In 1 Timothy 4:2, he also includes in reprobation, “a seared conscience;” and in Romans 9:l8, a hardened heart, of powerful self-will. These are apt, all of them, to follow each other in regular order. Where the mind is “reprobate,” the affections will be “vile;” where the conscience is “seared,” the will will be stubborn; and where all these exist, the actions will be wicked. What a catalogue of crimes arises from a fountain like this, any one may learn, by reading the latter part of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.

The reprobation of Antichrist is contained in these words — “and for this cause, God shall send them strong delusion (energeian planhv) that they should believe a lie.” Macknight renders the passage thus: “And for this cause God will send to them the strongworking of error to their believing a lie.” Doddridge paraphrases it thus — “God will in righteous judgment give them up to a reprobate and insensible mind, and will send upon them the energy of deceit; he will suffer them to deceive others, till they are themselves deceived, so that they shall believe the lie they have so long taught.” The expression is remarkably strong; and it teaches, that those who are involved in this judicial sentence of God, will be buried in an almost hopeless delusion.

We have already shown that the previous part of these predictions refers to the Papacy. Of course then this passage must have the same application. Nor will it be found upon examination, that other features in this system of evil have been better described by the apostle than that of its actual reprobation. God has sent upon the champion, and abettors of this system “strong delusion,” and there can be but little doubt, that they have been permitted to believe “a lie.”

1. The first mark of reprobation is, a darkened or reprobate mind. The evidence which the apostle gives of the existence of such a state of mind, is idolatry. “Professing themselves to be wise, they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man.” Now whatever plea Papists may employ for using in their acts of worship images of the saints, and even of Christ, there certainly can be no apology for representations of the “incorruptible God.” But they do make and tolerate such images even of the Deity himself. “When the Deity is thus represented,” says a decree of Trent, “it is not to be supposed that the same can be seen by our bodily eyes, or that a likeness of God can be given in color or figure.”2 The catechism uses the following language:- — “To represent the persons of the Holy Trinity by certain forms, under which, as we read in the Old and New Testaments, they deigned to appear, is not to be deemed contrary to religion or the law of God.”3 Peter Dens also asks the following question: “Are images of God, and of the most Holy Trinity, proper?” The answer given is — “Yes: although this is not so certain as concerning the images of Christ and the saints; as this was determined at a later period.”4 Here then, are three respectable witnesses, yea, standard authorities, proving that the church of Rome does “change the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man.” Now, Paul declares, that such conduct is evidence of a darkened mind, and that it is a characteristic feature in God’s judicial reprobation. As certain then, as that Rome sanctions this gross idolatry, is it that she is reprobate in mind.

2. Another mark of reprobation is vile affections. “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies.” Probably no three causes have ever led to more fearful scenes of licentiousness, than monasticism, nunneries, and the celibacy of the Roman clergy. And if to these causes we add the virtual subversion of the law of God by the Papacy, and the facilities of absolution, and even of indulgences, we shall at least see a machinery at work, which under ordinary circumstances, would inevitably lead to fearful results; and if we are to credit history, and especially the testimonies of many, who have themselves been behind the curtains, our inferences will scarcely reach the realities that occur under this dreadful system of delusion. Those who may wish to know more on these subjects, we refer to Peter Dens, “De Pollutione,” etc., to the narratives of Gavin, “the Confessions of a Catholic priest;” and other works of a like nature. They will here find specimens of “vile affections,” strong enough certainly, to show that this feature of reprobation is not wanting in the papal system.

3. A third mark of reprobation is great perversity of which an invincible adherence to error. This is the cardinal feature, in the reprobation, predicted of Antichrist. “And for this cause, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” Nor can there be found on earth, a people more fixedly set in their errors and superstitions, than papists. This is the boast of their church. And even, when contradicted by innumerable facts, they still repeat in triumph the adage, “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.” To any one who considers the papal system, and who reflects upon the mode of education employed by Romanists, such rigid adherence to their system can be readily accounted for. indeed, it is wonderful, that any of them are ever converted. They are born and raised behind walls of error heaven-high. How then are they to escape? This very boast however, of papists, is but another indelible feature of their judicial reprobation. If their system held them with a less grasp — if there were only a little liberty granted, there might be some hope. But “the strong delusion” is upon them; and God only can so far remove it, as to call some of his elect even from these iron walls of Satan.

4. A fourth sign of reprobation is a seared conscience — “Having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” Conscience has more or less restraint upon most men. It often makes even the daring transgressor quail beneath its just and retributive scourges. But human nature may proceed to that degree of wickedness, that even conscience will neither upbraid nor admonish. This is always the case under God’s fearful sentence of judicial reprobation. A long course of sin, like iron, heated seven times, sears the sensibilities of this inward monitor, and destroys its power of vital action. No condition of the soul is worse than this; yet, this is the predicted state of conscience in Antichrist. And what conscience, pray, have the leading actors of the Papacy had, for centuries on centuries past? Can there be any conscience in men who openly set aside the revealed authority of Jehovah? Any conscience, where a mere man is made to exercise the prerogatives of the Son of God? Any conscience, where the most barefaced idolatry is set up under the sanctions of Christianity? Any conscience, where every sort of fraud is used to obtain the money of poor deluded mortals? Any conscience, where men are deliberately seized, and tortured, and killed, in the name of Christ! Any conscience, where crimes of the blackest dye are perpetrated under covert of oaths, and vows, and the mask of religion? Surely, if ever conscience were “seared with a hot iron” — if it were ever destroyed, it must be in the breasts of such men.

5. A fifth mark of reprobation as given in the Scriptures, is depraved and wicked actions. The following is a list of those actions as furnished by the Apostle Paul. “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents; with. out understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.” How far the crimes, here specified by the Apostle, are to be found amid papal influences and institutions, let those judge who are best acquainted with this system of priestcraft and oppression. Some of these crimes are written upon the front of Popery in bold relief. Among these are the following — covetousness, malignity, murder, deceit, boasting, inventing of evil things, disobedience to parents, covenant-breaking, and unmercifulness. With these sins the history of the Papacy abounds. Thus have we discovered in the Papacy, all the marks of God’s judicial reprobation. The understanding has here been darkened, the heart given up to vile affections, the will has been rendered stubborn, the conscience has been seared, and the life filled with unrighteous deeds. But is this reprobation to be final? Is there to be no reformation, no return to right principles? The prophecies answer these questions in the negative. Antichrist is “the son of perdition” — the “Lord is to consume him with the spirit of his mouth, and to destroy him with the brightness of his coming.” When too, we consider the actual state of Popery, we discover in it those fixed elements which at once render the hope of reformation fruitless, and ultimate destruction inevitable. Popery itself, as well as prophecy concerning it, declares, that it is to be destroyed, not reformed.

If Popery be ever reformed, such reformation must arise from one of three sources — it must either originate in the system itself, or it must arise from without that system, or it must come from heaven.

1. Such reformation cannot arise from within the system of Popery itself. The principles, the very frame-work of this system are such, that its reformation is utterly impossible. True, Papists may be more moral in one age than in another, they may be less superstitious in some countries than in others, and there may be made some external and unimportant changes in some of its ceremonies and customs; but a radical and thorough reformation, such as the word of God requires, never can be made in it, without the abandonment of the whole system. Take its fundamental doctrine, that the Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth. How can this article be changed, so as to agree with Scripture, without destroying the very fulcrum of the papal system? Take the doctrine of transubstantiation. How can this creed be reformed, but by denying the doctrine itself? Look at the doctrines of purgatory, of absolutions, of indulgences. What reformation can be made with respect to these, but to renounce them? Consider the whole system of saint and image worship. How can this be reformed? In no manner whatever. It can only be abandoned. What are we to say, too, of its traditions and seven sacraments? How are they to be reformed? They cannot be. What is here needed is a forsaking of the ground taken by Romanists. And so throughout. The position assumed by the church of Rome, ensures the destruction of that church, in one or the other of two ways. Either its advocates, as Luther and the Reformers, must forsake the establishment and thus let it perish, by desertion, or they must adhere to it, till God shall vindicate the rights of his own truth and name. Many, no doubt, will pursue the former method; but the body will perish with the system.

2. Nor can the Papacy be reformed from any thing without itself, Even in the freest countries on the globe, the Papacy is a consolidated and isolated system. Its arms of iron grasp all its own interests within itself, and it seeks seclusion from all others. Civil governments can have but little influence in changing its character. Older than all modern systems of civil polity, compactly framed together, claiming even superiority above the state, Popery receives upon its indurated exterior the influences of civil government, as the massy rock does the passing stream: such waves come, meet, are broken to pieces and fall backward, leaving the unmoved rock still cold and fixed on its original basis. Nor can Popery be reformed from the influence of Protestant churches. There is literally “a great gulf fixed” between it and them. It is not only forbidden to other ministers to enter a popish pulpit, but even their members are forbidden to enter the doors of other churches. Nor can Popery be reformed by the Bible; — that word is itself a prisoner within the iron walls of this dreadful system. Nor can Popery be reformed by’ the circulation of tracts and books; — all tracts and books, containing any thing contrary to its own system, are strictly forbidden in their Index Expurgatorius. When a pope can say, even in relation to the circulation of the Holy Scriptures: “Bible societies fill me with horror; they tend to overthrow the Christian religion; they are a pest which must be destroyed by all possible means:”5 when even a pope can speak thus, and speak thus of the Bible, what hope can we have for Papists in the circulation of books? True, individuals may thus be converted; but the Papacy will remain unchanged. Nor can philosophy and science reform the Papacy; if so, the doctrine of transubstantiation had long ago been renounced as unphilosophical and absurd. Nor can the general intercourse of other Christians, and of citizens generally, reform the papal system. All this is counteracted by the confessional, whose province it is to guard the entrance-doors of heresy and change. Thus is there no external source, from which influences may come to reform this monstrous system of error and tyranny. A stone may now and then be removed from its place in this great temple of error; occasionally a pillar may fall; but the old building stands, sunk, like the pyramids of Egypt, in the sands of its own superstitions, venerable for age, a monument of oppression and of pride; the gray relic of the past, the wonder of the present, and the prophet of the future; there it stands, and will stand, till God shall shake the earth, and thus, by his power dash it to pieces.

3. Nor will the Papacy be reformed from heaven. The conversion of the gentiles to Christianity, took place, according to the previous decree and promise of God. Long before Peter preached to Cornelius, had the Spirit of God said concerning the Messiah, “I will give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the gentiles.” Isaiah 12:6. And the ingathering of Israel to the same Messiah, which is yet to take place, is also included in the purposes of God. Romans 11. But the decrees and purposes of God, concerning Antichrist, have no such promises of grace and mercy. Here the cloud is without a bow, the night without a star.

“And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great mill-stone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.” Revelation 18:21

Utter destruction is to be the end of this system, and of all who adhere to it. As Sodom and Gomorra, the old world and the Canaanites, were all made so many examples of the righteous judgments of God, so will it be with Rome. Unreformed, and unreformable, she will go “into destruction,” to meet the solemn doom from that righteous Judge, whose truth she has despised, whose name and authority she has trampled under foot, and whose “glorious gospel” she has made but the theater of her pride, her avarice, and her various abominations.

Here, then, is another mark of Antichrist, deeply branded upon the forehead of the Papacy. Antichrist was to be a reprobate, given up of God to a course of the most presumptuous wickedness, and doomed to ultimate destruction. The Papacy, we have seen, is reprobate, and its advocates are under “strong delusion;” they believe “a lie,” and seem to be left of God to wander in the mazes of superstition and error, to that fearful doom which is before them. From that doom, with which the body is to meet, may God by his grace, avert the wandering feet of many a poor, benighted victim of this unnatural and unchristian system!

1 Divinity, 716.
2 Sessio v.
3 Catechism, p. 360.
4 Chapter 33.
5 Letter of Pope Plus VII. to Guesen, Primate of Poland, dated 1816.

CHAPTER 13 THE DOWNFALL OF ANTICHRIST

PROPHECY never leaves the church in despair. Whatever evils it may foretell, it always represents them as in the hand of God, and as overruled by him to ultimate good. Hence, it predicts not only the rise and character of evil powers, but also their overthrow. This rule has special application to Antichrist. The holy prophets of old saw this power arise; they saw it arrogating to itself all dominion and rule; they saw it trampling upon the earth, and destroying the saints; they saw it arrayed in purple and enriched with jewels. But the Spirit carried their minds further, and revealed to them its utter destruction, and the subsequent triumph of the glorious kingdom of the Son of God. Indeed, the prophets, like ancient Israel, seem to have been traveling through a dreary wilderness, while wandering over the domains of the man of sin, only, that they might rest themselves, and teach the church to rest in that promised country — that Immanuel’s land — which lay beyond those barren wastes. Their prophecies ultimately terminate in Christ, and are lost only in the blaze of his everlasting reign.

1. In predicting the downfall of Antichrist, the sacred prophets teach us, first, who is to be its author. This is the Lord Jesus Christ. “Whom,” says Paul, “the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” John also declares — “These (the beast and his allies) shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings; and they that are with him, are called, and chosen, and faithful.” Revelation 17:14.

Daniel also refers to the same thing, when he speaks of “one like the Son of man,” receiving at the overthrow of the “little horn,” dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him. Daniel 7:14. The great adversary, then, of Antichrist is Christ himself. True, the Son of God, for wise purposes, has permitted Antichrist to usurp great authority; he has suffered him, for a long period, to trample upon his truth, and to persecute his church. But the day of vengeance will come at last, when he shall receive double for all his pride and wickedness, and when the insulted Redeemer will pour upon him the just retaliation of that wrath, with which he has been anathematizing the saints of the Most High.

1 While, however, the Lord Jesus Christ is to be the immediate author of the overthrow of Antichrist, still here, as elsewhere, he will employ various instruments for that purpose. The first of these instruments will be his own glorious gospel. “Whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth” — (tw pneumati tou stomatov autou) Macknight renders the passage thus — “Him the Lord will consume by the breath of his mouth;” and remarks, “so pneuma should be translated in this passage, where the preaching of true doctrine, and its efficacy in destroying the man of sin, are predicted.”

The errors of Popery arose, for the most part, in times of great ignorance. And as from their very nature they could not stand the light, it became the settled policy of Romish ecclesiastics, to exclude that light as much as possible from the minds of men. The conversion of the preacher into the priest, the saying of mass in the stead of proclaiming salvation, the invention of numerous and burdensome ceremonies, the introduction of saint and image worship, and especially the interdicts placed upon the reading of the Scriptures; all these were so many means invented by crafty men, to shut out the light of the gospel from the dupes of this dreadful delusion hour, the remedy, and the only remedy for evils of this nature, is the general diffusion of the Holy Scriptures and their glorious doctrines, through all those countries where these delusions exist. This is the first step; and it is that which God usually employs first in the overturning of the kingdom of darkness. Previous to the overthrow of Judaism, as a system of error, an unusual amount of light was poured upon the national mind. John, Christ, the apostles, all labored, and the most of them died in this work. A chosen number were thus called out, from the great body of the nation, in whom the succession of truth was to continue, and a fuller vindication was thus given to the providence of God, in the overthrow and dispersion of the rest. Christ could thus say, without the possibility of contradiction, “This is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.”

It was, too, by this means primarily and chiefly, that the Reformation from Popery in the sixteenth century occurred. A few individuals, by the Spirit of God became experimentally acquainted with the truth of God’s word. This truth they began to proclaim to others. This truth, by the translation of the Scriptures into the language of each nation, they placed in the hands of others. This truth, in every possible way, they defended and maintained; and for it many of them were carried to the stake, or perished in dungeons.

There can be but little doubt, therefore, that in the final overthrow of the Papacy, the word of God will precede all other agents. And is not this word going forth at the present time? Are not Bible Societies and their agents, missionaries and their assistants, publishing and scattering the word even within the dominions of the Pope? Is not this word, too, producing its effects? Like its Author, has it not already begun to “purge the papal floor, gathering the wheat into the garner, and preparing the chaff to be burnt with unquenchable fire?” Go forth, thou mighty instrument of the Lord, thou forerunner of his power, thou leveler of the nations; go forth, and accomplish thine own most glorious work!

It is evident, however, that the Lord Jesus will employ other, and more coercive instruments in the overthrow of Popery. The Romans were employed to disperse the Jews; Constantine was called forth to uproot paganism; Frederick, the Elector of Saxony, the Landgrave of Hesse, Henry VIII., and other European princes, were also employed to protect and extend the great Reformation. Thus is fulfilled the word of Isaiah, “kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and queens thy nursing mothers.” Indeed, it would seem but a just retaliation, that as Antichrist has employed the civil powers to persecute and destroy the Church, so God, in his providence, should also use the same instruments to afflict and overturn his unrighteous administration.

We are, however, not left, to conjecture on this subject. “But the judgment shall sit,” says Daniel, “and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it unto the end.” (7:26.) Gesenius understands by the word anyd (dhinaa), not judgment, but judges; “but the judges shall sit.” The reference evidently is to those cabinets or councils, which European princes were to assemble in opposition to the pretensions of the Pope. Some such councils have already been held, and by means of them, several states originally papal, are now protestant, and seem destined so to remain. But others will yet be held, whose results will be still more decisive and overpowering to the dominions of the Man of Sin; for Daniel declares that his dominion will thus be “consumed and destroyed to the end.”

If, however, any doubt should remain, as to the agency of European princes in the destruction of the Papacy, it will be enough to remove such doubt, to refer to the testimony of John: —

“And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire.” Revelation 17:16.

The beast here alluded to, is papal, or rather political Europe; its horns the sovereigns of the several European states; and the whore, the Romish church, which by forsaking Christ and worshipping idols, has become like an adulterous woman, who has departed from her own husband to seek other lovers. These horns, says John, that is, these kings, shall hate the whore, that is the papal church, and shall make her desolate.

It is then among the decrees of heaven, that the princes of Europe are to be the agents whom God will employ in overturning and utterly destroying the papal power. A sort of friendship may be maintained between these princes and the Autocrat of Rome; toleration may for a time be given to papal doctrines, the armistice of centuries may continue a little longer. But when “the words of God are fulfilled,” that is, when the prophetic period of twelve hundred and sixty years shall have expired, there will be a crisis, a tremendous crisis. Antichrist will then put on all the remainder of his strength; he will call to his aid those that are still devoted to his cause; he will use stratagem and deceit. But all in vain; for tile battle will be the Lord’s; and the triumph of Antichrist will be forever destroyed. It is supposed by many expositors, that it is this scene which is described in Revelation 14:19,20: “And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great wine-press of the wrath of God. And the wine-press was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horses’ bridles, by the space of a thousand six hundred furlongs.” When God overthrew the Jews, it so happened, that they were for the most part, within their capital. The destruction was thus more complete and sudden. So will it be with Antichrist, only a far more dreadful scene will follow. Driven probably, from post to post, the deluded advocates of this system, will, at last, plant themselves upon the strictly papal territory. Rome will be their headquarters. That city, however, will not only be captured but burnt, while a scene of slaughter will follow, truly dreadful to behold. It was not easily, that the bigoted son of Abraham yielded to the Roman arm; and it certainly will not be easily, that the proud vicegerent of Christ, the successor of apostles, the head of the church, the sovereign of kings — it will not be easily, that he and his followers will resign their high pretensions. Resign them, however, they must and will — “for strong is the Lord God who will judge them.”

3. The Scriptures also teach the manner in which Antichrist shall fall. He is to fall gradually, but utterly. “And they shall take away his dominion,” says Daniel, “to consume, and to destroy it unto the end.” The Vulgate renders the latter part of the passage thus, “ad delendum et ad perdendum usque in finem” — “for consuming and destroying it even to the end.” The two cardinal ideas in the passage are, that the power of Antichrist is to be destroyed by successive blows, and that that destruction will be in the end complete. The destroying agents are to proceed from destruction to destruction, from uprooting his power at one post, to uprooting it at another, and they are to continue till the work shall have been finished. The apostle Paul also, in the passage already cited, expresses himself in a similar manner. “The word, analwsei (consume)” says Chandler, “is used to denote a lingering, gradual destruction; being applied to the waste of time, the dissipation of an estate, and to the slow death of being eaten up of worms.” “If St. John and St. Paul,” says Benson, “have prophesied of the same corruptions, it should seem, that the head of the apostasy will be destroyed by some signal judgment, after its influence or dominion hath, in a gradual manner, been destroyed by the force of truth.”1 In the sixteenth chapter of the Apocalypse we have, in the pouring out of the seven vials, seven periods, or gradations, in this progressive destruction of Antichrist.

And how remarkably have these predictions, so far, accorded with the facts! The papal power was at its zenith in the thirteenth century. Every event almost that has occurred since that period, has tended to its gradual subversion. Among the causes of its decline, Daunou mentions the following. “The praiseworthy resistance of Louis IX., the firmness of Philip-le- Bel, the madness of Boniface VIII., the vices of the court of Avignon, the schism of the west, the pragmatic sanction of Charles VII., the revival of learning, the invention of printing, the nepotism of the popes of the fifteenth century, the bold attacks of Sixtus IV., the crimes of Alexander VI., the ascendency of Charles V., the progress of heresy2 in Germany, in England, and other countries, the troubles of France under Henry II., the wise administration of Henry IV., the Edict of Nantes, the Four Articles of 1682, the dissensions which grew out of the formulary of Alexander VII., and of the bull, Unigenitus, of Clement XI.; finally, the senseless enterprises of such popes as Benedict XIII., Clement XIII., and some other pontiffs of the eighteenth century.” The same author adds: “The papal power cannot survive such shame: its hour is come, and it remains to the popes only to become, as they were during the first seven centuries, humble pastors, edifying apostles. It is a dignity sufficiently honorable.”3 Remarks similar to these last, were made by’ Machiavelli as early as the sixteenth century. “We shall see,” says he, in allusion to his history, “how the popes, first by their ecclesiastical censures, then by the union of temporal and. spiritual power, and lastly by indulgences, contrived to excite the veneration and terror of mankind: we shall also see, how, by making an ill use of that terror and reverence, they have entirely lost the one, and lie at the discretion of the world for the other.”4 There can be but little doubt, that this celebrated historian has specified the primary cause of the overthrow of papal tyranny. That tyranny became itself so burdensome, that a change was demanded for the security, if not for the very existence of society.

In the latter part of the fourteenth century, Wickliffe, commenced his opposition to the Pope. In the early part of the fifteenth century, John Hues and Jerome of Prague were put to death for advocating his sentiments. A century after, Luther began his great work; and from that period till now, a uniform and constant resistance has been given by several nations of Europe to papal power. It is true, that some things have happened favorable to its temporary advancement. The organization of the society of Loyola may be specified as the principal one. But even this society, by its dangerous operation, by its pliable morality, by its very prevalence — yea, by its crimes, has only made Popery more odious in the eyes of mankind. Even the infidelity of France, the French revolution, and the wars of Napoleon, have all tended to the downfall of the Papacy. Thus have the moral and political movements in Europe, for five centuries past, proceeded ad delendura et ad perdendum, to the gradual overthrow of the papal power. And although matters have not as yet reached, usque in finem, to its entire subversion; yet that result cannot be very far distant.

4. The precise period of the final overthrow of Antichrist, is predicted in the Scriptures in such a manner, as to leave the calculations of even the best qualified persons in some doubt. There can be no question, but that in the Divine mind, the period is accurately fixed; but its revelation is partially obscure, as all such revelations usually are in the holy volume. If prophecy were perfectly plain in all its parts, it would rather be history than prophecy. If therefore our minds cannot know precisely “the times which the Father hath put in his own power,” we should rejoice, that even an approximation to those times may be reached by us. In the mean time, we should patiently wait and hope for the coming of the Son of Man.

In Daniel 7:25, it is said, the saints shall be given into the hand of the “little horn,” until “a time and times and the dividing of time.” In chapter twelve of the same prophecy, the wonders seen by Daniel, were to end at the expiration of “a time, times and an half, and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.” John teaches us also, that “the holy city shall be trodden under foot by the gentiles forty and two months.” (Revelation 11:2.,) that the two witnesses were to prophesy clothed in sackcloth, “a thousand two-hundred and three-score days,” (verse 3); the woman also who fled into the wilderness, was to be nourished there, “a thousand two-hundred and threescore clays,” (12:6;) or for “a time, times and half a time,” (verse 14.) The beast also was to continue “forty and two months,” (13:5.) Here are no less than seven times, in which the same number is used, and applied substantially to the same event. The period noted in these prophecies is 1260 prophetic days, that is 1260 years. Now, if we could only ascertain the precise point at which these 1260 years began, there would be no difficulty in ascertaining the date of their termination. Writers of prophecy, however, beginning at different periods, end also at different periods. On this subject we refer to the second chapter of this work. There we have ventured the opinion, that between the years 730 and 754 — that is, between the overthrow of the Exarchate and the grant of Pepin, we are to date the rise of the Papacy, as a political power. Daunou fixes it in the year 800; he admits however, that before this, the Popes did exercise a power that was at least “efficient,” if not “independent.” Machiavelli dates the papal power from the subversion of the Exarchate; or at least, from the time that the Exarchate fell into the possession of the Popes. His language is — “No more Exarchs were sent from Constantinople to Ravenna, which was afterwards governed by tile will of the Pope.”5

According to this calculation, the final overthrow of the papal power will take place in the latter part of the next century. The author however, does not insist upon these dates as correct. It may occur sooner, it will scarcely be delayed later. It is enough to know, that the work of gradual subversion is now in progress; and that the final catastrophe, will take place ere long. “Amen, even so, come Lord Jesus.”

5. The result of the overthrow of Antichrist will be, the establishment upon earth of the glorious kingdom of Christ.

“And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” Daniel 7:27.

As the destruction of the Jewish temple and the dispersion of the Jewish nation, were to precede the universal spread of the gospel, and seemed necessary to its general reception, so the overturning of this nominally Christian, but really antichristian power, appears to be demanded in the providence of God, to the general enlightenment of the world. Nothing, too, especially in Europe, can possibly be conceived of, more favorable to the universal triumphs of truth, than such an event. Were the Pope displaced, were Romanism destroyed, were the worship of saints and relics discontinued, were priestcraft abolished, how rapid, how glorious would be the flight of the true gospel! How would the nations welcome it! How would a liberated world bask in its sun-beams! There can, too, be but little doubt, that the manner in which the Papacy will be overthrown, will give the nations a greater relish for pure doctrines. This power is yet to exhibit some dreadful deeds of oppression. Its iron yoke will yet gall more deeply, its prisons yet groan more dreadfully. And when too, God, in a way remarkably providential — in a way to be seen and known of all, shall so interpose, as to deliver mankind from these, the last struggles, the dying efforts of an old tyranny; how sweet upon the ear will fall the notes of gospel truth! How precious to the heart will be the influences of gospel grace! What countless multitudes will then crowd the temples of salvation, and what marshaling millions will then bend before Him, who is “the Lord of lords, and King of kings.”

Thus will the downfall of Popery be the signal for the universal triumph of pure Christianity. “The man of sin,” will thus yield to the Man of grace, even Christ our Lord, and the long reign of wickedness be supplanted by the peaceable and righteous kingdom of the Son of God. Scattered Israel will, in the mean time, be regathered, and Jew and gentile, yea, a ransomed world, will rejoice in him, who is the “Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last.”

Thus have we attempted to prove, from its location at Rome, from the time of its rise, front the peculiarity of its character, from its apostasy, from its idolatry, from its blasphemy, from its innovations, from its persecutions, from its riches, from its power, from its craft and pretended miracles, from its reprobation, and even from its begun downfall, that the Papacy is the Antichrist predicted in the word of God. The very same kind of evidence, derived too from the same source, which proves that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, also demonstrates that the Papacy is the Antichrist. The two sets of testimonies stand or fall together. The prophecies that are fulfilled in Jesus are scarcely more numerous, as they are not more explicit, than those fulfilled in the Roman hierarchy. The light of heaven marks out the Roman High Priest as Antichrist; it converges there, and if it finds not there its object and completion, it is difficult, if not impossible to prove the actual fulfillment of any set of predictions whatever. We do not affirm that every individual pope either has been or will be lost. Much less would we affirm, that all who are attached to this dreadful system must perish. We leave individual men in the hands of a just and righteous Judge. He knows their hearts, and will reward them according to their works. It is possible, that even in Rome itself, there may be a “remnant according to the election of grace.” The Spirit of God may pluck souls from perdition, even under the hands of Antichrist. Many too, no doubt there are many in America, many in most papal countries, who are ignorant of the real nature of Popery. They see only its exterior; they have not examined its principles. The condition of such we sincerely pity; and we earnestly pray, that the God of grace may bring them to the light. It is, however, the papacy, the hierarchy, the priesthood of this system, that we designate as Antichrist — that we have proven from the Scriptures to be Antichrist. Just so far as this hierarchical influence extends, just to the degree to which its essential principles go, does Antichrist reign. May that influence be destroyed; may those principles perish; especially, may our free country be resettled from a system, whose dilapidated tyranny in the old world, is seeking its repairs in the new.

1 Macknight.
2 Reformation.
3 Court of Rome, 254.
4 Hist. Flor. p. 33.
5 His. Flor. 35.

NOTES

NOTE A

MANY critics suppose, that what is indicated in Daniel’s vision, by the ten horns on the head of the fourth beast, is also signified by the ten toes on the feet of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar. These ten toes were seen in the vision to be “part of iron and part of clay;” which was interpreted to mean, that the ten kingdoms, indicated by the ten toes, should be “part strong and part broken.” Some of these ten kingdoms were to possess the Roman iron, but others were to be like “potter’s clay.” The following statements of Daunou, will cast some light upon this subject. “It was,” says he, “in the eighth century, that we perceive the first symptoms of the temporal power of the Roman prelates. The different causes which were to terminate in this result, then began to be perceptible.” Among these causes he specifies the weakness of many of the new governments. “In the mean time, the new thrones which had here and there been erected by some conquering barbarians, began already to totter under their successors, whose ignorance, often equal to that of their people, seemed to invite the enterprises of the clergy.”1 Here seems to be the clay alluded to in the vision. The firm principles of old Roman character, and the ignorance and impetuosity of the new invaders, constituted, when mixed together, a medley, “part strong and part weak,” which was exceedingly favorable to the triumphs of clerical ambition.

NOTE B

Romanists pretend to make a wide distinction between the homage they pay to God, and that they render to images, relics, saints, etc. They call the one latria, the other doulia. They have also invented an intermediate degree, which they render to the Virgin, called hyperdoulia. These again are divided into absolute, respective, etc. It is evident, however, that such distinctions as these can better be recorded in a theological treatise than observed in daily practice. The heart is deceitful, is fickle. And when the worshipper bows to the cross or an image, or prays to a saint, it is not likely that the nicely distinguished ideas, contained under the words doulia and latria, can be very strongly apprehended by him. At any rate, such words, being also in a foreign language, must constitute a very thin veil between him and idolatry.

But the distinction here drawn between doulia and latria, is not tenable. The same Hebrew word db[ which means to serve or worship, is rendered both by latreuo and doulevo. And in the New Testament these words are both applied to the service or worship which is rendered to God. In Matthew 6:24; Romans 7:6; Galatians 4:8; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; are instances in which douleuo is employed to express the homage which is to be rendered to the supreme Being. The words are very nearly synonymous, both in their derivation and meaning. Latreuo, from which latria is derived, according to Wahl and others, has its root, latria, which means a hired servant. Douleuo, from which doulia is derived, has doulos, a slave, as its root. If then, there be any difference between them, douleuo and doulia are certainly words of stronger import than latreuo and latria. Surely a system must be straitened for authority, when it establishes the worship of images upon a basis of this kind. This is the predicament of men, who violate, and teach others to violate, the express law of Jehovah “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them.”

NOTE C

Professor Stuart in his late work on the Apocalypse, gives a very singular interpretation to this whole subject. According to him, “the beast that was and is not” refers to Nero; the woman in scarlet is pagan Rome; and the ten horns are ten dependent kings, the subjects of Nero’s authority. He supposes the expression, “the beast that was and is not,” to be an ingenious method employed by John to indicate Nero; and he gives a very learned Excursus to show, how prevalent was the report, that alter the death of this Emperor, he would revive again. It is very probable, to say the least, and notwithstanding all that the learned Professor has advanced to the contrary, that the banishment of John took place under Domitian, and not under Nero. If so, of course there can be no prophetic allusion at all to the latter emperor in the visions of John. But, admitting that the Apocalypse was given under Nero, is it probable that a reigning emperor would constitute so important a figure in a prophecy evidently designed for future ages? As to the report about Nero’s resurrection, is it not much more natural to suppose that a misunderstanding of the prophecy originated the report, than that the report suggested the prophecy? But there are other and stronger objections to this interpretation. Some no doubt will object to it, because it departs so widely from the interpretations given of this vision by English expositors for many centuries past. This, however, we will not urge. The learned professor in his very great zeal to make Nero the hero of these prophecies, makes not only the beast, but one of his heads also, to symbolize him! On verse 8th chapter 17, he says, “Plainly here the reigning Emperor is characterized. The well known hariolation respecting Nero, that he would be assassinated and disappear for a while, and then make his appearance again to the confusion of all his enemies, solves the apparent enigma before us.” Here he makes the beast, the symbol of Nero. The symbol, however, is changed in his commentary on verse 10th. “Five are fallen viz.: Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius; Nero is the sixth!” Here is certainly a strange confusion of prophetic imagery. The beast represents Nero, and yet his sixth head, also represents him! Nor is the commentary any more satisfactory, where he explains the import of the ten horns. These he affirms are symbols of “ten contemporaneous kings, the dependents of Nero.” When, however, he attempts to reconcile with this explanation what is said of the ten horns in verse 16, he appears to be greatly at a loss. “And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.” In commenting on this verse, the Professor, and possibly for good reasons, adopts the text of Scholtz and Griesbach. This text represents the horns and beast, as confederate against the woman. And the ten horns and the beast — kai qhrion. The common text is, and the ten horns upon the beast — epi qhrion. The common text is that which has been followed by Wickliffe, Tyndale, and Cranmer; and which is also adopted by the versions of Geneva, Rheims and King James. We pass this by, however. That this prophecy foretells the utter destruction of Rome is conceded. “At all events,” says he, “heathen and persecuting Rome is to be utterly destroyed.” It is evident, however, that neither Nero nor his “contemporaneous kings,” utterly destroyed Rome. How is the difficulty to be gotten over? First, an interpretation by Ewald is supposed to be satisfactory. This writer presumes that verse 16 refers “to the predicted return of Nero from the east, after his exile thither and his reunion with the confederate kings of that region, in order to invade Italy, and destroy its capital, where he was assassinated!” With this worse than mythological interpretation, however, the Professor is not altogether satisfied. He, therefore, gives one which he considers better. “The sentiment seems to be, that tyrants like Nero, and persecutors such as his confederates, would occasion wasting and desolation to Rome even like to that already inflicted by Nero, who had set Rome on fire and consumed a large portion of it? Rome is to be utterly destroyed. The ten horns and the beast, that is, the confederated kings and Nero, were to be the authors of this destruction. When, however, we ascertain the facts, it is tyrants like Nero, and persecutors such as his confederates, who are to accomplish this destruction. Surely, after such an expenditure of learning and pains, one is at least disappointed in a result like this. But even this is not true. What tyrants or persecutors destroyed pagan Rome? If any, they must have been Constantine and Christian bishops! So that, this interpretation fails at every point.

There is another inconsistency into which this learned author falls. In his preface he tells us, that a right interpretation, the Apocalypse can never be given so long as this book is considered as an “epitome of civil and ecclesiastical history.” But in his commentary on chapter seven he says, “if we adopt the explanation made out by appeal to historical ground, then all is plain and easy.” While thus the Prosessot condemns in others the explanation of these prophecies by an appeal to history, he still makes the same appeal himself, and considers it the only method of arriving at certainty.

NOTE D

The Following is a list of the commandments as used at the confessional. “I. Thou shalt love God above all things. II. Thou shalt not swear. III. Thou shalt sanctify the holy days. IV. Thou shalt honor thy father and mother. V. Thou shalt not kill. VI. Thou shalt not commit fornication. VII. Thou shalt not steal. VIII. Thou shalt not bear false witness, nor lie. IX. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife. X. Thou shalt not covet the things which are another’s.”2 The fact that the second commandment is left out in this list, would seem to indicate, that the Romish priesthood are self-conscious that the practices of the church are contrary to the express law of God.

NOTE E

The following particulars are given by a traveler, as to the manner of spending a Sabbath in the city of Mexico. “At a corner of the great square are suspended huge placards, on which the nature of the day’s amusements is depicted in every variety of color. Here is a pictorial illustration of the most prominent attractions of the great theater, which, in common with all the rest, is open twice on this day. A little further on is a full length figure of Figaro, which draws your attention to the fascinating allurements of the opera. The bull-fights next solicit your notice, announcing the most terrific particulars. Endless varieties of other, exhibitions put forth their claims. A balloon ascension is advertised for the afternoon. One would suppose, too, that the old Roman gladiatorial shows were revived; for at one spectacle is a contest between a man and a bear. Cock-fights, dog-fights, and fandangoes are announced in every part of the city. Horse-racing, the circus, jugglers, posture-masters, turn-biers, fireeaters, concerts, fencing matches, pigeon shooting, gymnastic exercises, country excursions, balls graduated to every pocket, form but a fraction of the entertainments to which this day is devoted. The finale of the day is generally wound up by a splendid display of fire-works, and thus ends a Mexican Sabbath!” And yet the same writer speaks of a “crowded cathedral,” and of “unaffected attitudes of devotion!” Jupiter or Mars might be worshipped in this way, but not the God of heaven.

NOTE F

Schleusner defines the literal meaning of petrov (petros), to be, “Lapidem qui e loco in locum moveri potest” — “a stone which can be moved from place to place.” In this sense the word is not used in the New Testament. The only sense in which it is here employed is, as an appellative, or proper name. In this sense it is always and exclusively applied to the Apostle Peter.

The word petra (petra,)on the contrary, is in no case whatever used as a person’s name. To suppose, therefore, that in Matthew 16:18, it refers to the apostle, is to give it an application which it never has, and of which, considering the gender, it is incapable. In Mark 15:46, this word expresses the rock out of which Joseph’s tomb had been hewn. In Luke 8:6, it expresses the rock on which a part of the seed fell. In Matthew 7:24,25, it is used to denote the rock on which the wise man built his house. In Romans 9:33, and 1 Corinthian 10:4, it is put for Christ himself. It is here, however, not used as a proper name, but as a figure, and applies more to the divinity than to the humanity of Christ. Schleusner says, it is used here “metaphorice et modo plane singulari” — “metaphorically and in a sense evidently peculiar.” Not a solitary instance can be found in which it refers to the apostle Peter, not one.

NOTE G

This position may seem to be contradicted by comparing 1 Corinthians 3:11, with Revelation 1:18, This contradiction however is only apparent. In the first place, it is evident, that many things may be said of Christ, which could be applicable to no other being in the universe. He is divine, yet human — was dead, yet lives; exercises the highest prerogatives, yet has endured the greatest humiliations. Language therefore, which the Scriptures uniformly apply to him, they never apply to another. It is also evident, that the two texts under consideration, apply exclusively to Christ. The first refers chiefly to his atoning sacrifice for sin, the latter to his regal authority in heaven. When the Apostle too, says, “Other foundation (qemelion) can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” he evidently refers to the doctrines and work of Christ, and not to Christ personally. It was by his preaching that he laid the foundation of Christianity at Corinth. That preaching however referred to facts and truths. It was therefore, these facts and truths, all of which related to Christ, that he calls “foundation already laid.” Henry explains this language as applicable to “the doctrines of our Savior and his mediation.” Scott refers the phrase to “the person, mediatorial office, righteousness, atonement, intercession and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Bloomfield says, “The sense of Jesus Christ here is,” as the best commentators have said, “the history of Jesus Christ, comprehending the doctrines and precepts, the promises and threatenings of the gospel.”

These texts therefore present no objection to the general truth we have here laid down. It certainly is an incorrect mode of speaking, to affirm, that a man is the foundation of a society and yet its ruler. Nor do we recollect, either in common parlance, or in books, to have heard or read a solitary expression of this sort.

THE END




The Papal System – VII. The Pope Claims to be Lord of Kings and Nations – Part 1

The Papal System – VII. The Pope Claims to be Lord of Kings and Nations – Part 1

Continued from The Papal System – VI. Steps to Papal Sovereignty Over The Churches – Part 2

Systems of religion may teach contradictory opinions about the persons of the Godhead, the character of the Divine government, the nature of the Saviour’s sacrifice, and about the freedom of the will; and yet those who receive these diverse opinions may live in perfect harmony with each other. But it is otherwise when the head of one sect claims the scepters and nations as his own, asserts a right to dethrone sovereigns, to act as the vicar of the Almighty in this world, in confirming or overturning at his pleasure its laws, institutions, and chief magistrates. The conviction is universal, over the Protestant world, that the head of the Catholic Church claims this power, would exercise it if he could in every nation, and has employed it in many instances.

This conviction has prompted the enactment of laws excluding Catholics from state offices, and of oaths requiring them to renounce the supremacy of the pontiff in civil affairs; and it has occasionally led to popular outbreaks in Protestant countries against the adherents of the papal Church. It must be confessed that there is a chronic apprehension among all the peoples whose fathers threw off the Roman yoke in the sixteenth century, that the Bishop of the Eternal City is only awaiting an opportunity to subjugate their souls to his superstition, and their governments to his tyrannical will. The history of the Bishops of Rome compels the existence of this fear.

The Pope gave England to William the Conqueror

Harold (Anglo-Saxon English King Harold Godwinson A.D. 1022 – 1066), whatever may have been his faults, or the defect of his title to the English crown, was accepted by the nation as its ruler; the land enjoyed peace in all its borders; the hopes of the people, based on the character and ability of the new sovereign, were high. William, Duke of Normandy, born out of wedlock, was a special favorite of Pope Alexander II. The Duke was full of ambition, a man of extraordinary courage, and of great military ability. His passions were unrestrained, his cruelty was nearly unbounded, and the only rights which he saw or respected were those which an invincible sword defended. Bent upon wearing the English crown, he made all possible warlike preparations. He was encouraged, secretly or openly, by Germany and France. But he needed another ally to sow discord in the British ranks, and give him a title to the throne which the islanders would respect, and he appealed to Pope Alexander.

The Roman pontiff had nearly reached the lofty position of Deity in the estimation of western Europe; never in all human history did a mortal receive such unquestioning homage from so many millions. His word was the voice of the Ancient of Days; his decision was authoritative, as the decree of the Almighty; his favorite was guarded by angels, and attended at every step by the assistance of the very elements; the legions of monks who swarmed throughout Europe upheld his friend against all the world, and Alexander drew his spiritual sword in William’s favor; he excommunicated Harold and all his supporters, denounced him as a perjured usurper; he sent William a banner which he had specially blessed, and which was sure to lead to victory, and a ring with one of the hairs of mighty St. Peter in it. And, thus armed, he went forth to slaughter the spiritual children of Alexander in the kingdom of England. William felt that he could have no more exalted sanction; that failure, with such means as he possessed, was impossible; and, from the hour in which he was assured of the pope’s approval, he never wavered, not even on the dark and gory day that placed the crown of England at his feet.

On the bloody field of Hastings, when William had vainly made every effort to break the ranks of Harold, when success seemed to many to be impossible, he ordered a pretended retreat, seeing which the English scattered to pursue the flying Normans; that act cost Harold his crown, and England its independence. William quickly reformed his men, who fell with fury upon their pursuers, and, after a desperate struggle, the Duke of Normandy was master of England.

But, from the commencement of the battle, his army was confident of victory from the assurances of the pope—the earthly voice of God. The troops of Harold were sure of defeat from the utterances of the same oracle. It was with the battle-axe of Pope Alexander that William broke the arm and heart of England on the fatal field of Hastings. This faithful son of the Church lived to rob nearly every leading Saxon of his homestead; to lay waste whole counties; to slaughter entire communities with pitiless barbarity; to plant lasting hatreds between the Norman conquerors and their English vassals—hatreds which produced harvests of burned dwellings, infamous oppressions, and sickening murders. William inaugurated in England a reign of iniquity, whose atrocious deeds cursed long centuries.

Ireland a Papal gift to England.

Matthew Paris tells us that Henry II., king of England, sent a solemn embassy to solicit Pope Adrian’s permission to invade and conquer Ireland, and to bring into the way of “truth its bestial inhabitants,” by extirpating vice among them. This request was gladly granted by his Holiness, who sent Henry the following bull:

    “Adrian, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his dearest son in Christ, the illustrious king of England, health and his apostolical blessing. Laudably and advantageously does your majesty plan to secure a glorious name on earth, and to increase the reward of everlasting felicity in the heavens, whilst as a Catholic prince you strive to extend the boundaries of the Church, to proclaim the truths of Christianity to an uneducated and rude people, and to banish the seeds of vice from the field of the Lord; to secure this object more conveniently, you demand the advice and favor of the Apostolic See. In this project, the higher your aim, and the greater your discretion, so much happier, the Lord preparing the way, we are confident, will be your success in it. You have signified to us, dearest son in Christ, that you wished to invade the island of Ireland, to subdue its inhabitants to the laws of Christ, and to banish from it the seeds of vice; and that you wished to pay annually for every house to blessed Peter one denarius (fifteen cents— ‘Peter’s pence’); and also to preserve the rights of the churches in that land pure and unbroken. Now, we, regarding your pious and praiseworthy desire with deserved favor, and giving a kind assent to your petition, reckon it agreeable and welcome that, to enlarge the borders of the Church, to restrain vice, to correct morals, to introduce virtue, and to increase the Christian religion, you should invade that island, and do whatever may seem to advance the honor of God and the salvation of that land. And let the people of that land receive you and venerate you as their lord, provided that the rights of the churches shall remain pure and unbroken, and that the annual payment of one denarius to blessed Peter from every house be made secure. Truly, it is not to be doubted that all the islands upon which Christ, the Sun of Justice, has shone, and which have received lessons in the Christian faith, are SUBJECT TO SAINT PETER AND THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH, as even your own nobles confess. If, therefore, you intend to complete the plan you have conceived in your mind, aim to teach that nation good morals, and act so by yourself, and through those whom you shall deem to be qualified for this work, in faith, conversation, and life, that in that land the Church may be adorned, and that the Christian religion may be planted, and may increase there, and that whatsoever tends to the honor of God and the salvation of souls; may be so ordained that you may be worthy to receive from God the treasures of an eternal reward; and even on earth that you may secure a glorious reputation throughout the ages.”

This Bull is given by Giraldus Cambrensis, a Romish ecclesiastic of the twelfth century, as well as by Matthew Paris, with only a few verbal differences from the version of Paris. Giraldus gives five claims which the king of England had upon Ireland, the last and strongest of which was the gift of the pope. “Finally,” says he (Giraldus was with the first English invaders of Ireland), “we have the authority of the pope, the prince and primate of all Christendom, who claims a sort of especial right in all islands whatsoever, and that is enough to complete the title, and give it absolute confirmation.” Nor was the opinion entertained by Giraldus of the pope’s power to give Ireland to the English peculiar to him and his English friends. The papal Bull was solemnly accepted at a synod of Irish bishops held in Waterford, shortly after it was issued; and the entire ecclesiastics of Ireland acknowledged his Holiness as the absolute master of their island.

At another synod, held in Dublin soon after the convention at Waterford, Vivianus, the papal legate, “made a public declaration of the right of the king of England to Ireland, and the confirmation of the pope; and he strictly commanded and enjoined both the clergy and the people, under pain of excommunication, on no rash pretense, to presume to forfeit their allegiance.” The synod offered no objection to the decree of the pontiff: it appeared to be conceded by ecclesiastics of all nations, that the Bishop of Rome was master of islands and kingdoms, and could bestow them upon any one acceptable to himself.

The Bull of Adrian speaks with great contempt of the Irish Church and people. The Irish had been converted to Christ centuries before, chiefly through the instrumentality of St. Patrick, and yet the pontiff describes Henry’s proposed invasion as an effort to extend “the boundaries of the Church,” that is, the Roman Church, whose authority was recognized then for the first time in Ireland. Evidently the seeds of vice in the “field of the Lord,” which Henry was to pluck up, were the independence of the Church of St. Patrick, and the doctrines or practices in which it differed from the Church of Adrian. Henry’s proposition to pay Peter’s pence shows that the Irish had been entirely free from papal taxation and jurisdiction down to the hour when English soldiers landed in their country, and gave protection to Romish legates, and supreme authority to the pope over the entire Irish Church.

To us, in the nineteenth century, it looks singular to see a Roman bishop give away an island upon which a standard of the Eternal City, Republican, Imperial, or Papal had never been planted; an island to which he had as good a title as he possessed to the government of the sun, or to the scepter of the Almighty. We are partially inclined to suppose that the tempter who offered Christ all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory, ages later presented the same donation to the Roman bishops; and they, unlike their Master, immediately accepted the gift, together with the conditions prescribed by the assumed owner.

Adrian seems to have fully believed that the kings of the world received their scepters by his good-will, and reigned by his pleasure. A Swedish bishop was held in captivity by German knights who had robbed him; Adrian wrote to the Emperor Frederic, demanding his release, and giving as one reason why he should grant his request, that “He had bestowed upon him the imperial crown.” The letter excited the wildest indignation in the Emperor’s bosom, and in the diet at Besangon, one of the legates who brought the letter, Cardinal Roland of Sienna, on observing the excitement produced by the pope’s letter, asked in apparent astonishment: “From whom, then, did the Emperor obtain his government, if not from the pope?” When Frederic was approaching Rome, to be crowned by Adrian, he visited the Emperor’s camp, and as he drew near the royal tent, Frederic did not hold his stirrup as his servant, and assist him to dismount. For this affront Adrian refused him the kiss of peace, nor would he be reconciled till the greatest prince in Europe, in the presence of his whole army, attended his holiness as equerry (an officer of honor)—holding his stirrup about the distance of a stone-cast. Such was the opinion of his greatness cherished by the pope, who, as master of kingdoms, continents, and islands, gave Ireland to the English, and began as the aboriginal Irish suppose

The worst oppressions ever borne by a nation.

Without attempting to inquire about the measure of peace and happiness which Roderie O’Connor, King of Connaught, Dermot Macmorrogh, King of Leinster, O’Ruarke, Prince of Breffny, Oniel, Prince of Ulster, and the other princes of Ireland, and their successors, would have given to “The island of saints,” we shall take it for granted that they would have made their country free, happy, wealthy—the glory of all lands. Then it follows, if that supposition is true, which is only taken for granted, that at the door of Pope Adrian is to be laid all the oppressions, real or imaginary, endured by the Irish nation for seven hundred years. He, as the vicar of Christ, gave the island to the English, and upon his head should the curses of Irishmen, who feel the government of England a burden and a tyranny, be liberally poured.

Had it not been for Nicholas Brakespeare—Adrian IV.—Ireland, today, the land where the pope’s most loyal friends live, might still be ruled by her Roderic O’Connors and Dermot Macmorroghs. A pope destroyed the independence of Ireland.

Paul IV. makes Ireland a Kingdom.

The sovereigns of England for ages were only called “Lords of Ireland.” But Paul IV. has just been seated upon the chair of the Fisherman. No mere mortal ever had such extravagant ideas of his power; he can turn this world upside down when he wishes; princes to him are rubbish to be swept from under his sacred feet; he owns all kingdoms; he is master of all things visible, and of many things that cannot be seen. Sarpi tells us that this insolent old man never spoke with ambassadors but he thundered in their ears: “That he was above all princes, that he did not wish any of them to be too familiar with him, that he could change kingdoms, that he was successor of him who had deposed kings and emperors. In the consistory, and publicly at his table, he declared that he would have no prince for his companion—he would have princes under his feet (and he stamped his foot against the ground), as it is fit, and as it is his will who built the Church, and has placed them in that degree.”

And as a Catholic, Mary, has ascended her father’s throne in England, whose husband is Philip II. of Spain, the most unscrupulous Romanist among the living; as the nation of Henry VIII. is knocking at the palace of Paul for the honor of kissing his toe, the country of Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley, of Tyndale and his Bibles; where monasteries and nunneries were thrown down, and the holy drones who tenanted them were scattered to the four winds of heaven to follow useful pursuits; where sacred images were dashed to pieces by the rough hands of unholy mobs; where ribs, sculls, thigh-bones, hands, toes, and pieces of the skin of holy virgins, martyrs, and saints were torn from gold and silver shrines, and were flung into rivers or obscure graves; where relics of the greatest saints of all time were barbarously outraged; where the king, a stupid and vile layman, had thrust himself into Peter’s chair, and declared himself, “The head of the Church;” where a parliament of mere laymen had laid sacrilegious hands on the consecrated property of the holy Church; where men and women of the highest rank and of the greatest sanctity had laid down their lives for the Scarlet Lady; where it was supposed that the Catholic religion was forever destroyed; and where yesterday the papal world saw only causes for despair;— as Paul hears of the approach of ambassadors from that country coming to offer him the English nation, he is in raptures; no other occurrence on earth could give him such joy, or reflect upon him such honor. And as he thinks of some token of regard for the daughter of Henry VIII., he finds it in Ireland. Mary recognizes that country as a kingdom; the pope has never bestowed that dignity upon it. And in his estimation no sovereign has a right to make a kingdom out of a mere lordship; that is an act of flagrant usurpation in the loftiest of our race, unless he wears the triple crown. So to exhibit his semi-divine authority, and to gratify “Bloody Mary,” he erected the country into a kingdom, which Adrian had bartered to Albion for Peter’s Pence, and enforced obedience to the pontiffs; and having crowned it with royal honors, he handed it over in chains to the daughter of Catherine of Arragon; as if Paul had been the owner of all things mundane and celestial, and could exalt or degrade according to his imperious pleasure. The proud chieftains, and wild, warmhearted tribes of Ireland in the sixteenth century, owed little gratitude to the popes.

Innocent III. compels King John to surrender the Crown of England to the Bishops of Rome.

John was destitute of honesty, truthfulness, courage, chastity, respect for human life, or for the good opinion of mankind, He was impulsive, irritable, short-sighted, vindictive, and about equally free from mental powers and moral qualities. Seldom has a baser man occupied a throne. It was his misfortune to be the brother of Richard the Lion-hearted, as noble a king as ever swayed a scepter, as brave a soldier as ever drew a sword. The contrast between the brothers was highly injurious to John.

Innocent III. had a master mind; for keenness of penetration, for adapting means to ends, and for concentration of resources on the right point, Innocent was not surpassed by any living man. Only one of Rome’s two hundred and fifty-three popes, many of whom had talents of a high order, equaled Innocent in ability. The controversy between John and him was like one between an eagle and a hawk. At his coronation, Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, put his elevation to the throne to the vote, and after the assembled bishops, nobles, and others, elected John by crying, “God save the king,” he placed the crown on his head with the usual ceremonies. And, on being questioned about his motive for departing from the regular custom in adding the election of the king to the coronation observances, he replied, that “he knew John would one day or other bring the kingdom into great confusion, whereupon he determined that he should owe his elevation to election, and not to hereditary right.”

On the 13th of July, Hubert died, and his vacant see created

The greatest strife between England and Rome.

The junior monks of the conventual church of Canterbury elected Reginald, their sub-prior, to fill the vacancy; and as they had not obtained the king’s consent, they were afraid that John would hinder farther proceedings if the election was published; and, to complete the work, in the middle of the night, they chanted the Te Deum, and placed him first upon the altar, and afterwards in the archbishop’s chair. The same night, he started for Rome to obtain the ratification of Innocent.

Soon after, at the suggestion of the king, the monks unanimously elected John de Gray, Bishop of Norwich, to the throne of St. Austin. The monks inaugurated him, as they had been accustomed to invest his predecessors with the archbishop’s authority. The king immediately gave him possession of all the revenue and property of his see.

Not long after, Innocent rejected Reginald, the sub-prior, and John de Gray, and, under pretense of an election by certain monks of Canterbury, on business in Rome, he appointed Cardinal Stephen Langton, an Englishman, who had been long absent from his native country, Archbishop of Canterbury; and commanded the king and the monks of Canterbury, under great penalties, to receive him as their archbishop. Stephen was a man of superior mind, with a character far above the common herd of ecclesiastics in his day; and he loved his country more than he respected even Pope Innocent himself. He was one of the most active patriots in securing Magna Charta in opposition to the pope’s wishes, for which Innocent suspended him.

To appease John at this time, Innocent sent him four rings and the following letter:

    “Pope Innocent III., to John, king of the English, greeting, etc.: Amongst the riches of the earth, which the eye of man desires and longs for as more precious than others, we believe that pure gold and precious stones hold the first place. Although, perhaps, your royal highness may abound in these and other riches, however, as a sign of regard and favor, we send to your highness four gold rings, with divers jewels. We wish you specially to remark in these the shape, number, material, and color, that you pay regard to the signification of them rather than to the gift. The rotundity signifies eternity, which has neither beginning nor end. Therefore, your royal discretion may be led by the form of them to pray for a passage from earthly to heavenly, from temporal to eternal things. The number, four, which is a square number, denotes the firmness of the mind, which is neither depressed in adversity, nor elated in prosperity; which will then be fulfilled when it is based on the four principal virtues, namely, justice, fortitude, prudence, and temperance. In the first place, understand justice, which is to be shown in judgment; in the second, fortitude, which is to be shown in adversity; in the third, prudence, which is to be observed in doubtful circumstances; and, in the fourth, moderation, which is not to be lost in prosper By the gold, is denoted wisdom; for, as gold excels all metals, so wisdom excels all gifts, as the prophet bears witness: ‘The spirit of wisdom shall rest upon him,’ etc. There is nothing which it is more necessary for a king to possess. Wherefore, the peaceful king Solomon asked wisdom only of the Lord, that, by those means, he might know how to govern the people entrusted to him. Moreover, the greenness of the emerald denotes faith; the clearness of the sapphire, hope; the redness of the pomegranate, denotes charity; and the purity of the topaz good works, concerning which the Lord says: ‘Let your light shine,’ etc. In the emerald, then, you have what to believe; in the sapphire, what to hope for; in the pomegranate, what to love; and in the topaz what to practice; that you ascend from one virtue to another till you see the Lord in Zion.”

Innocent thought that these gifts would calm John’s anger about Stephen Langton, and that the ingenious conceits about “their shape, number, material, and color,” would gratify his whimsical mind. But it was John who ordered a Jew in Bristol to be cruelly tortured to make him give money to the king; then to have “one of his cheek teeth knocked out daily until he paid ten thousand marks of silver;” and the process was continued till the poor son of Israel lost seven teeth, and paid the demand. And as there were other Jews in England with plenty of teeth and money, John could do without the papal rings on account of their value. And he had no genius to appreciate the wisdom of the letter accompanying them.

The king was in a fury about Langton; and immediately ordered the Monks of Canterbury to be driven from their convent, and wrote Innocent a letter full of threats and insults, and absolutely refused to permit Langton to exercise his office in England. The conflict now began by the proclamation of an

Interdict (ban on Church services).

The bishops of Ely, London and Winchester were authorized to admonish John, and if that failed, to proclaim an interdict. They were outrageously abused and threatened by John, and they hurled forth the papal thunders. Immediately all church services ceased, except “The viaticum (the Eucharist given to a person who is dying) in cases of extremity, confession, and the baptism of children; the bodies of the dead were carried out of cities and towns, and buried in roads and ditches without prayers or the attendance of priests.” We have not the precise form of interdict used by Innocent, but it probably differed little from the one issued by the Council of Limoges against the Limosin, which was:

    “Unless they come to terms of peace let all the country of the Limosin be put under a public excommunication, so that no person, except a clergyman, or a poor beggar, or a stranger, or an infant from two years old and under, be permitted burial, in the whole Limosin, or be permitted to be carried to burial in any other bishopric. Let divine service be privately performed in all the churches, and baptism given to those who desire it. About the third hour let the bells ring in the churches, and all pour out their prayers on account of the tribulation and for peace. Let penance and the viaticum be granted in the article of death. Let the altars of all the churches be stripped as in Easter eve, and the crosses and ornaments be taken away, as a token of mourning and sadness to all. Let the altars be adorned at those masses only which any of the priests shall say, the church doors being shut; and when the masses are done, let them be stripped again. Let no one marry during the time of excommunication. Let no one give to another a kiss, Let no one of the clergy or laity, no inhabitant or traveler eat flesh or other meat than such as is lawful to eat in Lent, in the whole country of the Limosin. Let no layman or clergyman be trimmed or shaved till the censured princes, the heads of the people, absolutely obey the Holy Council.”

The Interdict at Work.

As the interdict came into operation terror spread over the nation as if a great judgment from God had fallen upon it. Every one spoke with a subdued voice, felt as if some unutterable calamity was about to desolate the land, and wore a countenance marked by awful solemnity. Even children spoke in hushed tones and caught the contagion of the general alarm. Nothing could exceed the distress of those whose departed friends could not be placed in consecrated ground near the protecting dust of some glorious saint; the relies of one of whom gave safety to every Anglo-Saxon church, and the dead surrounding it. It is impossible in our age to comprehend the universal horror that prevailed. As the people beheld the images of the saints and their precious relics laid upon the ground, the altars stripped of their decorations, the bells removed from the churches, mass celebrated with closed doors for the priests only, the use of flesh prohibited, the face unshaved, and every expression and form of joy forbidden, they felt as if the day of judgment must be at hand, or some other great day of the wrath of the Almighty. This interdict lasted more than six years.

Perhaps there is not in the history of wickedness an act so impious as the proclamation of an interdict. As if Jesus, who prayed on the cross for his enemies, and poured out his blood for more persecuting Sauls than the one of Tarsus, could suspend the public service of his religion over a whole kingdom, inflicting outrageous wrongs upon the living, and shocking indecencies upon the dead, not to punish the sins of the nation, but through the woes and cries of the people, to compel the king to receive an archbishop whom neither the sovereign nor the nation desired, in defiance of law, and simply at the command of a foreign pontiff! Tyranny and blasphemous audacity never reached a more vigorous growth than in the person of Innocent III.

John continues the War.

He confiscated all the property of the clergy, giving them only a pittance to support them; he seized their corn for the public use; he arrested “the concubines of the priests and clerks, who had to ransom themselves at great expense;” the clergy when traveling were robbed on the highways, and could obtain no justice. The officers of a sheriff on the borders of Wales brought a robber who had murdered a priest to the king, and asked his decision about the murderer; John immediately answered, “He has killed an enemy of mine, release him and let him go.” He seized the relatives of the dignified clergy who had fled out of England, and cast them into prison and took possession of their goods.

Through the punishments he inflicted, some of the clergy opened their churches for public worship, and in a measure upheld his cause. While others, either for love of money or justice, did the same thing, and chief among these was Alexander, surnamed the Mason. He proclaimed that: “This universal scourge was not brought on England by any fault of the king.” He showed that the “Pope had no business to meddle with the lay estates of kings, or of any potentates whatever, or with the government of their subjects.” The king gave him benefices and his confidence, and he became a man of great note in these troubled times. But the people looked upon him and others of his class as wretched apostates unworthy of a kind word; and when in subsequent days Alexander’s enemies deprived him of everything he possessed, the “multitudes regarded him with derision, saying: ‘Behold the man who did not make God his helper, but put his trust in the magnitude of his riches, and strengthened himself in his vanity; let him therefore be always before the Lord, that the recollection of him may perish from the earth.’” With these and other reproaches Alexander and the king’s clerical friends were everywhere greeted and insulted.

The thought is suggestive, that in a controversy with the pope, in which by law and custom the king of England was right, that NEARLY ALL THE CLERGY, AND THE CONSCIENCES OF NINE-TENTHS OF THE NATION WENT WITH THE PONTIFF. HIS INFLUENCE WAS RESISTLESS.

Innocent excommunicates the King.

The interdict for nearly two years had been blasting the social happiness, the pecuniary prosperity, and the religious hopes of the English people. John had exhibited the greatest contempt for the clergy of all ranks, and instead of any disposition to yield, was increasing the miseries of all the friends of Innocent in his dominions; and the pope promulgated the sentence of excommunication against him. The bishops of Ely, London and Winchester were to proclaim the decree in all the conventual churches in the land, that thus “the king might be more strictly shunned by every one.”

But as these worthies regarded flight as the better part of valor, and as the other prelates who remained in England, “through fear of or regard for the king, became like dumb dogs, not daring to bark,” the announcement of the pope’s curse on John did not receive the prescribed solemn publication. Nevertheless, it was soon known everywhere, and it became the subject of universal comment. And had not John been dreaded for his merciless cruelty, he would have been forsaken as a child of Satan by his entire kingdom. As it was, not a few turned from him in horror. Among these was Geoffrey, Archdeacon of Norwich, an officer of the Exchequer. While attending to his duties, he said to his companions: “It is not safe for beneficed persons to continue allegiance to an excommunicated king,” and he retired without asking the king’s permission. The tidings quickly reached John, who threw him into prison, in chains; ordered a cap of lead to be fastened on him, and, overcome by the want of food and the weight of the leaden cap, he expired.

No condition could be more deplorable than the state of the nation at this time; to serve the king in any way was to incur the curse of an oppressive pope; to adhere to the pope was to invite imprisonment and death from John. Truly it was not comfortable to be placed between these two millstones in motion. Still John, as an English king, would not submit to the impositions of the Italian priest; and Innocent proceeded to a more high-handed crime by

Absolving his subjects from their allegiance.

In the words of the celebrated monkish historian: “He absolved from all fealty and allegiance to the English king, the princes, and all others, low as well as high, who owed duty to the English crown, plainly and under penalty of excommunication, ordering them strictly to avoid associating with him at the table, in council, or converse.” Truly here is a modest place for a servant of Jesus to occupy. He declares broken, the solemn oaths binding a nation to its sovereign—oaths whose sanctity could not be set aside with impunity from God, by any mortal of all time; and he orders John to be isolated; no one must sit with him at table, act as his adviser, or have anything to do with him, on pain of excommunication; that is, on pain of the greatest calamity on earth, and the worst woes of the abyss, And as John perseveres in his rebellion.

The pope deposes him from his Crown.

Says Paris: “The pope being deeply grieved for the desolation of the kingdom of England, by the advice of his cardinals, bishops, and other wise men, definitely decreed that John, King of; England, should be deposed from the throne of that kingdom, and that another, more worthy than he, to be chosen by the pope, should succeed him.” Carrying out this decision, Innocent wrote Philip, King of France, ordering him, in remission of . all his sins, to execute the sentence against John, to expel him from the throne of England, and then to take possession of it for himself and his successors forever. What a situation for an independent sovereign to be hurled from his throne, not by force of arms; not by a decision of law; not by the votes of his own subjects to whom only, under God, he was responsible; not by the nations as an enemy to the human race; not by the pope speaking for suffering men unable to resist intolerable oppression, but by the pontiff claiming, in virtue of his office, authority over all kings and commonwealths, and driving John from his throne solely because he refused to receive an archbishop of the pope’s selection, contrary to the laws and customs of his kingdom! And what usurpation for the Pope of Rome to select the future King of England! He had just as much right to select wives for all the young men of that nation, or to remove all the landowners, and bestow their estates upon others. Were the pope to depose a President of the United States, and order the King of France to come and expel the occupant of the White House, and seize the sovereignty of the nation, the act would be no more audacious, no more unjustifiable in the light of all just laws and self-evident rights. Peter never pretended to dethrone the pettiest prince on earth, or to remove the lowest officer of any government. And as the “powers that be are ordained of God,” it is blasphemous presumption for any servant of Christ to overthrow those powers by Church authority—by the pretense that the Church or any of its members is invested with dominion over the chief magistrates whom God has appointed.

Innocent publishes a Crusade against John.

He sends letters to the different countries, to nobles, knights and warriors, commanding them to go with Philip to remove John from his throne. And as in the efforts to drive the Saracens out of the Holy Land, the crusaders wore a large cross wrought upon their coats, so the pope orders those who go with Philip to wear the same sacred sign, as they are “To avenge the insult offered to the universal Church;” and by this nations were taught by the highest authority in Christendom, that John was as great an enemy to God and his Church as the worst infidel ever driven by pious warriors from the localities consecrated by the birth, agony, death, and grave of the Son of God. Innocent also promised that all who gave money or personal assistance to overcome the rebellious king, should, like those who went to visit the Lords sepulcher, “remain secure under the protection of the Church, as regarded their property, persons and spiritual interests.” Innocent put forth every effort to let loose all Europe on John, to send every man ambitious of military glory, and every zealot anxious for the honor of the Church, and every malefactor hungry to have his iniquities blotted out by participation in a crusade, and his pockets filled by the plunder of ravaged homes. Nor were his efforts vain.

Philip is willing to execute the Pope’s Sentence.

He collects an army, regarded in that day as very great; he gathers a fleet of 1700 vessels, of all sizes; and from his personal courage and distinguished ability, there is little doubt but that he could have conquered John, though he led an army of 60,000 strong, encamped at Barham Down.

Pandulph makes an insidious Attack upon John.

He crosses the sea and visits him, tells him the extraordinary preparations which Philip has made, the number of his troops, and the accessions which daily reach his army. He assures him that, as the pope’s enemy, when he appeals to the God of battles, the Church’s God, he is sure to be defeated; that the banished bishops, clergy, and laity, are coming with Philip to obtain their rights and their property, and to render him the obedience formerly enjoyed by John and his ancestors; that Philip had pledges of assistance and submission from almost all the nobles of England; that if he humbled himself as if he were on his dying bed, and submitted himself completely to the Holy See, the compassionate pontiff might restore to him his kingdom; but that, should he persist in his wickedness, all hope was gone; his enemies would surely triumph!

Terrified at the prospect of losing his soul through the anger of that God whose chief priest, for years, he had resisted; afraid of the French king, whose countless army was on the coast, ready to sail for his dominions, and sure of the probable treachery of his nobles should he lead them into battle, most of whose wives, daughters, or property he had injured, he gave up the contest, and submitted to nearly everything proposed by Pandulph; and, among the exactions of the legate, there was one which required John

To resign his crown and kingdoms to the Pope.

On the 15th of May, 1213, in the house of the Knights Templars, near Dover, the English king, in the presence of his nobles, “according to a decree pronounced at Rome,” resigned his crown and the kingdoms of England and Ireland into the hands of our lord the pope, through Pandulph, the legate. He, then, by a formal “Charter,” as it is called, agreed:

    “To assign and grant to God and his holy apostles, Peter and Paul, and to the Holy Church of Rome, our mother, and to our lord, Pope Innocent and his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England, and the whole kingdom of Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances, in remission of the sins of us and our whole race, as well for those living as for the dead, and henceforth we retain and hold these countries from him and the Church of Rome as vicegerent, and this we declare in the presence of this learned man Pandulph, sub-deacon and familiar of our lord, the pope. . . . . And, in token of this lasting bond and grant, we will and determine, that from our own income, and from our special revenues, arising from the aforesaid kingdoms, the Church of Rome shall, for all service and custom which we owe to them, saving always the St. Peter’s pence, receive annually a thousand marks sterling money; that is, seven hundred for the kingdom of England, and three hundred for Ireland… . . And, as we wish to ratify and confirm all that has been above written, we bind ourselves and our successors not to contravene it; and if we or any one of our successors shall dare to oppose this, let him, whoever he be, be deprived of his right in the kingdom. And let this charter of our bond and grant be confirmed forever.”

John declared, in the preamble to the charter, that: “He was impelled to make this grant (of his kingdom) by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; that the act was performed, not through fear of the interdict, but of his own free will and consent, and by the general advice of his barons. What flagrant falsehoods the sub-deacon Pandulph put in John’s charter and made him sign!

When John handed his crown to the legate, and a part of the tribute money along with it, he appeared in the character of an obsequious vassal. Pandulph was seated upon a throne representing Pope Innocent; John fell on his knees before him, and lifting up his joined hands, and putting them within those of Pandulph, he swore fealty to the pope. He placed the tribute at Pandulph’s feet, who trampled upon the money, as a representation of the subjection of the kingdom. How it must have made Englishmen blush to witness such an exhibition of triumphant tyranny, such a display of priestly arrogance! Viewing the whole trouble of Innocent with John, from his refusal to receive Langton down to the moment when Pandulph held his crown and danced on his tribute money, we are forced to the conviction that Innocent III. was an enemy to every government on earth; that he was one of the most grasping despots that ever tried to crush the independence of a nation; and that, if his successors urge the same claims to authority over States and kingdoms, the nations are only safe while the pontiffs are feeble.

Continued in Pope Innocent III Abolishes the Magna Carta

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart




Futurist Interpretation of Matthew 24 Exposed as Folly by John Gill

Futurist Interpretation of Matthew 24 Exposed as Folly by John Gill

John Gill (23 November 1697 – 14 October 1771) was an English Baptist pastor, biblical scholar, and theologian. Born in Kettering, Northamptonshire, he attended Kettering Grammar School where he mastered the Latin classics and learned Greek by age 11. He continued self-study in everything from logic to Hebrew, his love for the latter remaining throughout his life. (Quoted from Wikipedia.)

John Gill was also the first Baptist pastor to write a commentary on the entire Bible! His interpretation of the prophecies of the Books of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are in agreement with most of his contemporaries who held to the Historicist school of interpretation. Sad to say not very many Christians today know what John Gill and his fellows had to say. Their voices have been drowned out by John Nelson Darby’s futurism. Why would Darby be promoted over John Gill? Undoubtedly it was because of the insidious work of the Jesuit Order! The Jesuits’ plan is to bring the “separated brethren” back to the fold of the Pope. Will you follow them? I’m not. That’s why I want to promote the true interpretation of Matthew 24 and the significance of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD brought about by none other than the Messiah Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ!

I compiled this article from https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-24/ in order to make it easier to read John Gill’s entire commentary of Matthew 24 without having to click 51 times. In my opinion, David Nikao Wilcoxson’s articles on Olivet Discourse Decoded are the best 21st-century commentary on Matthew 24, and he himself quotes extensively from John Gill’s 18th-century commentary. Why do Bible teachers today teach a futuristic interpretation of Matthew 24 when John Gill and other Protestant / Baptist writers clearly explained how it was all fulfilled in 70 A.D.? Answer: Jesuits promoted John Nelson Darby’s false futurist interpretation of Matthew 24 in order to mislead 20th and 21st century Christians to accept the heretical doctrine of Christian Zionism and to take their eyes off the Popes of Rome and the biblical Antichrist.

Matthew 24:1

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple
He not only went out of it for that time, but took his final leave of it, never to return more to it; having foretold its desolation, which he, in part, by so doing, immediately fulfilled: this the disciples observing, and being intent on the outward splendour, and worldly grandeur of it, were concerned that so beautiful a structure should be deserted; and almost thought it incredible, that so strong, and firm a building could be destroyed. And his disciples came unto him: as he went, and as soon as he was come out of the temple, and whilst in view of it: for to show him the buildings of the temple; the walls of it, and courts adjoining to it, how beautiful and firm they were: whether this was done by them to raise in him admiration or commiseration, in hopes he might change the sentence he had passed upon it, is not easy to say; or whether this did not express their incredulity about the desolation of it; which Christ’s answer, in the next verse, seems to imply. Mark says, it was “one of the disciples” that observed these to him, who might be accompanied with the rest, and in their name address him; and who, probably, might be Peter, since he was generally their mouth; and that he should speak to him in this manner: “master, see what manner of stones, and what buildings are here!” Luke says, “how it was adorned with goodly stones, and gifts.” The Jews give very great encomiums of the second temple, as repaired by Herod; and it was undoubtedly a very fine structure. They say F16, that he built the house of the sanctuary, “an exceeding beautiful building”; and that he repaired the temple, in beauty “greatly exceeding” that of Solomon’s F17. They moreover observe F18, that

“he who has not seen the building of Herod, has never seen, (han Nyynb) , “a beautiful building.” With what is it built? says Rabbah, with stones of green and white marble. And there are others say, that it was built with stones of spotted green and white marble.”

These, very likely, were the very stones the disciples pointed to, and admired; and were of a prodigious size, as well as worth. Some of the stones were, as Josephus F19 says,

“forty five cubits long, five high, and six broad.”

Others of them, as he elsewhere affirm F20,

“were twenty five cubits long, eight high, and twelve broad.”

And he also tells us, in the same place, that there were,

“in the porches, four rows of pillars: the thickness of each pillar was as much as three men, with their arms stretched out, and joined together, could grasp; the length twenty seven feet, and the number of them an hundred and sixty two, and beautiful to a miracle.”

At the size of those stones, and the beauty of the work, it is said F21, Titus was astonished, when he destroyed the temple; at which time his soldiers plundered it, and took away “the gifts”, with which it is also said to be adorned. These were rich and valuable things which were dedicated to it, and either laid up in it, or hung upon the walls and pillars of it, as it was usual in other temples F23. These may, intend the golden table given by Pompey, and the spoils which Herod dedicated; and particularly the golden vine, which was a gift of his F24; besides multitudes of other valuable things, which were greatly enriching and ornamental to it. Now the disciples suggest, by observing these, what a pity it was such a grand edifice should be destroyed; or how unaccountable it was; that a place of so much strength, could easily be demolished.


FOOTNOTES:

F16 Juchasin, fol. 139. 1.
F17 Ganz Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 24. 2.
F18 T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 4. 1. & Succa, fol. 51. 2.
F19 De Bello Jud. l. 5. c. 5.
F20 Antiq. Jud. l. 15. c. 14.
F21 Egesippus, l. 5. c. 43.
F23 Vid. Ryckium de Capitol. Rom. c. 21
F24 Joseph. Antiq. l. 15.

Matthew 24:2

And Jesus said unto them, see ye not all these things?
&c.] “These great buildings”, as in Mark; all these goodly stones, so beautiful and large, and so firmly put together: verily, I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon
another, that shall not be thrown down; or broken, as Munster’s Hebrew Gospel reads it: which prediction had a full and remarkable accomplishment; and which is not only attested by Josephus F25, who relates, that both the city and temple were dug up, and laid level with the ground; but also by other Jewish writers; who tell us F26 that

“on the ninth of Ab, a day prepared for punishments, Turnus Rufus the wicked, (lkyhh ta vrx) , “ploughed up the temple”, and all round about it, to fulfil what is said, “Zion shall be ploughed as a field”.”

Yes, and to fulfil what Christ here says too, that not one stone should be left upon another, which a plough would not admit of.


FOOTNOTES:

F25 De Bello Jud. l. 7. c. 7.
F26 Maimon. Hilch. Taaniot, c. 5. sect. 3. T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 23. 1. & Gloss. in ib.

Matthew 24:3

And as he sat upon the Mount of Olives
Which was on the east of the city of Jerusalem F1, “over against the temple”, as Mark says, and where he could sit and take a full view of it; for the wall on the east side was lower than any other, and that for this reason; that when the high priest burnt the red heifer on this mount, as he did, and sprinkled the blood, he might have a view of the gate of the temple. It is said F2,

“all the walls which were there, were very high, except the eastern wall; for the high priest, when he burned the heifer, stood on the top of the mount of Olives, and directed himself, and looked to the gate of the temple, at the time he sprinkled the blood.”

This place, very probably, our Lord chose to sit in, that he might give his disciples an occasion to discourse more largely with him on this subject; and that he might take the opportunity of acquainting them with what would be the signs and forerunners of this desolation, and so it proved:

the disciples came to him privately;

these four at least, Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, as Mark relates; and that either separately from the rest of the disciples, or from the multitude: it might not be thought so proper, to ask the following questions before them, and they might suppose that Christ would not be so ready to give an answer to them plainly, before the common people; when they might hope to be indulged with one by him, in private:

saying, tell us, when shall these things be?

That this house will be left desolate, these buildings will be destroyed, and not one stone left upon another? This first question relates purely to the destruction of the temple, and to this Christ first answers, from ( Matthew 24:4-23 ) .

And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
Which two are put together, as what they supposed would be at the same time, and immediately follow the destruction of the temple. That he was come in the flesh, and was the true Messiah, they firmly believed: he was with them, and they expected he would continue with them, for they had no notion of his leaving them, and coming again. When he at any time spake of his dying and rising from the dead, they seemed not to understand it: wherefore this coming of his, the sign of which, they inquire, is not to be understood of his coming a second time to judge the world, at the last day; but of his coming in his kingdom and glory, which they had observed him some little time before to speak of; declaring that some present should not die, till they saw it: wherefore they wanted to be informed, by what sign they might know, when he would set up his temporal kingdom; for since the temple was to be destroyed, they might hope a new one would be built, much more magnificent than this, and which is a Jewish notion; and thai a new state of things would commence; the present world, or age, would be at a period; and the world to come, they had so often heard of from the Jewish doctors, would take place; and therefore they ask also, of the sign of the end of the world, or present state of things in the Jewish economy: to this Christ answers, in the latter part of this chapter, though not to the sense in which they put the questions; yet in the true sense of the coming of the son of man, and the end of the world; and in such a manner, as might be very instructive to them, and is to us.


FOOTNOTES:

F1 Bartenora in Misn. Middot, c. 1. sect. 3.
F2 Misn. lb. c. 2. sect. 4.

Matthew 24:4

And Jesus answered and said unto them
Not to indulge their curiosity, but to instruct them in things useful to be known, and which might be cautions to them and others, against deceivers; confirm them in the faith of himself, when they should see his predictions accomplished; and be directions to them, of what might shortly be expected.

Take heed that no man deceive you:
by pretending to come from God with a new revelation, setting himself up for the Messiah, after my departure; suggesting himself to be the person designed by God to be the deliverer of Israel, and to be sent by him, to set up a temporal kingdom, in great worldly splendour and glory; promising great names, and high places of honour and trust in it; things which Christ knew his disciples were fond of, and were in danger of being ensnared by; and therefore gives them this suitable and seasonable advice, and caution.

Matthew 24:5

For many shall come in my name
by his orders, or with delegated powers and authority from him; but should assume the name of the Messiah, which was peculiarly his, to themselves; and take upon them his office, and challenge the honour and dignity which belonged unto him:

saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.

This is the first sign, preceding the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem; as there was a general expectation among the Jews of a Messiah; that is, of one that should arise and deliver them from the Roman yoke, which was the common idea tacked to that word; in this period of time, many set up themselves to be deliverers and redeemers of the people of Israel: who had each of them their followers in great numbers, whom they imposed upon, and brought to destruction. Of this sort was Theudas, not he that Gamaliel speaks of, ( Acts 5:36 ) for he was before this time; but one that was in the time of Claudius Caesar, when Cuspius Fadus was governor of Judea; who persuaded a great number to follow him to the river Jordan, which he promised to divide, by a word of command, and give them a passage over; and thereby, as the historian observes F3, (pollouv hpathshn) , “he deceived many”; which is the very thing that is here predicted: but he and his company were routed Fadus, and his head cut off. There was another called the Egyptian, mentioned in ( Acts 21:38 ) who made an uproar, and led four thousand cut-throats into the wilderness; and this same man persuaded thirty thousand men to follow him to Mount Olivet, promising a free passage into the city; but he being vanquished by Felix, then governor of Judea; fled, and many of his followers were killed and taken F4: and besides, there were many more magicians and impostors, that pretended to signs and wonders, and promised the people deliverance from their evils, by whom they were imposed upon to their ruin. There were others also besides these, that set up for deliverers, who called themselves by the name of the Messiah. Among these, we may reckon Simon Magus, who gave out that he was some great one; yea, expressly, that he was the word of God, and the Son of God F5, which were known names of the Messiah; and Dositheus the Samaritan, asserted himself to be Christ F6; and also Menander affirmed, that no man could be saved, unless he was baptized in his name F7; these are instances before the destruction of Jerusalem, and confirm the prophecy here delivered.


FOOTNOTES:

F3 Joseph. Antiq. l. 20. c. 2.
F4 Joseph. Antiq. l. 20. c. 6.
F5 Jerom in loc. Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 1. c. 20.
F6 Origen contr. Cels. l. 1. p. 44.
F7 Tertull. de prescript. Haeret. c. 46.

Matthew 24:6

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars
This is the second sign of the destruction of Jerusalem: it is observable that this, and some of the following signs, are given by the Jews, as signs of the Messiah’s coming; whereas they were forerunners of their ruin, for the rejection of him who was already come. They suppose the Messiah will come in the seventh year, or the year of rest and release:

“On the seventh year (they say F8) will be (twmxlm) , “wars”: and in the going out, or at the close of the seventh year, the son of David will come.”

Which wars, the gloss says, will be between the nations of the world, and Israel. Here wars may mean the commotions, insurrections, and seditions, against the Romans, and their governors; and the intestine slaughters committed among them, some time before the siege of Jerusalem, and the destruction of it. Under Cureanus the Roman governor, a sedition was raised on the day of the passover, in which twenty thousand perished; after that, in another tumult, ten thousand were destroyed by cut-throats: in Ascalon two thousand more, in Ptolemais two thousand, at Alexandria fifty thousand, at Damascus ten thousand, and elsewhere in great numbers F9. The Jews were also put into great consternation, upon hearing the design of the Roman emperor, to put up his image in their temple:

see that ye be not troubled;

so as to leave the land of Judea as yet, and quit the preaching of the Gospel there, as if the final destruction was just at hand;

for all these things must come to pass;

these wars and the reports of them and the panic on account of them; these commotions and slaughters, and terrible devastations by the sword must be; being determined by God, predicted by Christ, and brought upon the Jews by their own wickedness; and suffered in righteous judgment, for their sin:

but the end is not yet;

meaning not the end of the world, but the end of Jerusalem, and the temple, the end of the Jewish state; which were to continue, and did continue after these disturbances in it.


FOOTNOTES:

F8 T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 97. 1. & Megilia, fol. 17. 2. Zohar in Exod. fol. 3. 3, 4.
F9 Vid. Joseph. Antiq. l. 20. c. 6. & de Bello Jud. l. 2

Matthew 24:7

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom
This seems to be a distinct and third sign, foreboding the general calamity of the Jews; that there should be not only seditions and intestine wars, in the midst of their country, but there should be wars in other nations, one with another; and with the Jews, and the Jews with them: and this also is made a sign of the Messiah’s coming by them, for so they say F11;

“when thou seest, (wlab wla twrgtm twyklm) , “kingdoms stirred up one against another”, look for the feet of the Messiah: know thou that so it shall be; for so it was in the days of Abraham: by the means of kingdoms stirred up one against another, redemption came to Abraham.”

Poor blinded creatures! when these very things were the forerunners of their destruction. And so it was, the Jewish nation rose up against others, the Samaritans, Syrians, and Romans: there were great commotions in the Roman empire, between Otho and Vitellius, and Vitellius and Vespasian; and at length, the Romans rose up against the Jews, under the latter, and entirely destroyed them; compare the writings in 2 Esdras:

“And one shall undertake to fight against another, one city against another, one place against another, one people against another, and one realm against another.” (2 Esdras 13:31)

“the beginning of sorrows and great mournings; the beginning of famine and great death; the beginning of wars, and the powers shall stand in fear; the beginning of evils! what shall I do when these evils shall come?” (2 Esdras 16:18)

“Therefore when there shall be seen earthquakes and uproars of the people in the world:” (2 Esdras 9:3)

And there shall be famines:

a fourth sign of the desolation of the city and temple, and which the Jews also say, shall go before the coming of the Messiah:

“in the second year (of the week of years) in which the son of David comes, they say F12, there will be “arrows of famine” sent forth; and in the third year, (lwdg ber) , “a great famine”: and men, women, and children, and holy men, and men of business, shall die.”

But these have been already; they followed the Messiah, and preceded their destruction: one of these famines was in Claudius Caesar’s time, was foretold by Agabus, and is mentioned in ( Acts 11:28 ) and most dreadful ones there were, whilst Jerusalem was besieged, and before its utter ruin, related by Josephus.

And pestilences:

a pestilence is described by the Jews after this manner F13:

“a city that produces a thousand and five hundred footmen, as Cephar Aco, and nine dead men are carried out of it in three days, one after another, lo! (rbd hz) , “this is a pestilence”; but if in one day, or in four days, it is no pestilence; and a city that produces five hundred footmen, as Cephar Amiko, and three dead men are carried out of it in three days, one after another, lo! this is a pestilence.”

These commonly attend famines, and are therefore mentioned together; and when the one was, the other may be supposed sooner or later to be:

and earthquakes in divers places
of the world; as, at Crete F14, and in divers cities in Asia F15, in the times of Nero: particularly the three cities of Phrygia, Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colosse; which were near to each other, and are all said to perish this way, in his reign F16;

“and Rome itself felt a tremor, in the reign of Galba F17.”


FOOTNOTES:

F11 Bereshit Rabba, sect. 42. fol. 37. 1.
F12 T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 97. 1. Misn. Sota, c. 9. sect. 15.
F13 T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 21. & 19. 1. Maimon. Hilch. Taaniot, c. 2. sect. 5.
F14 Philostrat. in vit. Apollon. l. 4. c. 11.
F15 Sueton. in vit. Nero, c. 48.
F16 Orosius, l. 7. c. 7.
F17 Sueton. in vit. Galba, c. 13.

Matthew 24:8

All these are the beginning of sorrows
They were only a prelude unto them, and forerunners of them; they were only some foretastes of what would be, and were far from being the worst that should be endured. These were but light, in comparison of what befell the Jews, in their dreadful destruction. The word here used, signifies the sorrows and pains of a woman in travail. The Jews expect great sorrows and distress in the times of the Messiah, and use a word to express them by, which answers to this, and call them, (xyvmh ylbx , “the sorrows of the Messiah”; (ylbx) , they say F18, signifies the sorrows of a woman in travail; and the Syriac version uses the same word here. These they represent to be very great, and express much concern to be delivered from them. They F19 ask,

“what shall a man do, to be delivered from “the sorrows of the Messiah?” He must employ himself in the law, and in liberality.”

And again F20,

“he that observes the three meals on the sabbath day, shall be delivered from three punishments; from “the sorrows of the Messiah”, from the judgment of hell, and from Gog and Magog.”

But alas there was no other way of escaping them, but by faith in the true Messiah, Jesus; and it was for their disbelief and rejection of him, that these came upon them.


FOOTNOTES:

F18 Gloss. in T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 118. 2.
F19 T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 98. 2.
F20 T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 118. 2.

Matthew 24:9

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted
Our Lord proceeds to acquaint his disciples, what should befall them in this interval; and quite contrary to their expectations, who were looking for a temporal kingdom, and worldly grandeur, assures them of afflictions, persecutions, and death; that about these times, when these various signs should appear, and this beginning of sorrows take place; whilst these will be fulfilling in Judea, and other parts of the world; the Jews continuing in their obstinacy and unbelief, would deliver them up to the civil magistrates, to be scourged and imprisoned by them; either to their own sanhedrim, as were Peter and John; or to the Roman governors, Gallio, Festus, and Felix, as was the Apostle Paul.

And shall kill you;
as the two James’, Peter, Paul, and even all the apostles, excepting John, who suffered martyrdom, and that before the destruction of Jerusalem:

and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake;
as the apostles and first Christians were, both by Jews and Gentiles; the latter being stirred up against them by the former, wherever they came, and for no other reason, but because they professed and preached in the name of Christ, as the Acts of the Apostles show: and their hatred proceeded so far, as to charge all their calamities upon them; as war, famine, pestilence, earthquakes as the apologies of the first Christians declare.

Matthew 24:10

And then shall many be offended
That is, many who had been hearers of the apostles, and professors of the Christian religion; who were highly pleased with it, and were strenuous advocates for it, whilst things were tolerably quiet and easy; but when they saw the apostles, some of them beaten, and imprisoned; others put to death, and others forced to fly from place to place; and persecutions and affliction, because of Christ and his Gospel, likely to befall themselves, would be discouraged hereby, and stumble at the cross; and fall off from the faith of the Gospel, and the profession of it:

and shall betray one another;
meaning, that the apostates, who would fall off from the Christian religion, would prove treacherous to true believers, and give in their names to the persecutors, or inform them where they were, that they might take them, or deliver them into their hands themselves: these are the false brethren, the Apostle Paul was in perils among:

and shall hate one another;
not that the true Christians should hate these false brethren, any more than betray them; for they are taught to love all men, even their enemies; but these apostates should hate them, in whose communion they before were, and to whom they belonged; and even to a very great degree of hatred, as it often is seen, that such who turn their backs on Christ, and his Gospel, prove the most bitter enemies, and most violent persecutors of its preachers and followers.

Matthew 24:11

And many false prophets shall rise
Out of, from among the churches of Christ; at least under the name of Christians; for false teachers are here meant, men of heretical principles, pretending to a spirit of prophecy, and to new revelations, and a better understanding of the Scriptures; such as Simon Magus, Ebion, and Cerinthus, who denied the proper deity, and real humanity of Christ; Carpocrates, and the Gnostics his followers, the Nicolaitans, Hymcneus, Philetus, and others:

and shall deceive many:
as they all of them had their followers, and large numbers of them, whose faith was subverted by them; and who followed their pernicious ways, being imposed upon and seduced by their fair words, specious pretences, and licentious practices.

Matthew 24:12

And because iniquity shall abound
Meaning, either the malice and wickedness of outrageous persecutors, which should greatly increase; or the treachery and hatred of the apostates; or the errors and heresies of false teachers; or the wickedness that prevailed in the lives and conversations of some, that were called Christians: for each of these seem to be hinted at in the context, and may be all included, as making up the abounding iniquity here spoken of; the consequence of which would be,

the love of many shall wax cold.
This would be the case of many, but not of all; for in the midst of this abounding iniquity, there were some, the ardour of whose love to Christ, to his Gospel, and to the saints, did not abate: but then there were many, whose zeal for Christ, through the violence of persecution, was greatly damped; and through the treachery of false brethren, were shy of the saints themselves, not knowing who to trust; and through the principles of the false teachers, the power of godliness, and the vital heat of religion, were almost lost; and through a love of the world, and of carnal ease and pleasure, love to the saints was grown very chill, and greatly left; as the instances of Demas, and those that forsook the Apostle Paul, at his first answer before Nero, show. This might be true of such, who were real believers in Christ; who might fall under great decays, through the prevalence of iniquity; since it does not say their love shall be lost, but wax cold.

Matthew 24:13

But he that shall endure to the end
In the profession of faith in Christ, notwithstanding the violent persecutions of wicked men; and in the pure and incorrupt doctrines of the Gospel, whilst many are deceived by the false teachers that shall arise; and in holiness of life and conversation, amidst all the impurities of the age; and shall patiently bear all afflictions, to the end of his life, or to the end of sorrows, of which the above mentioned were the beginning:

the same shall be saved;
with a temporal salvation, when Jerusalem, and the unbelieving inhabitants of it shall be destroyed: for those that believed in Christ, many of them, through persecution, were obliged to remove from thence; and others, by a voice from heaven, were bid to go out of it, as they did; and removed to Pella, a village a little beyond Jordan F21, and so were preserved from the general calamity; and also with an everlasting salvation, which is the case of all that persevere to the end, as all true believers in Christ will.


FOOTNOTES:

F21 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 5.

Matthew 24:14

And this Gospel of the kingdom
Which Christ himself preached, and which he called and sent his apostles to preach, in all the cities of Judah; by which means men were brought into the kingdom of the Messiah, or Gospel dispensation; and which treated both of the kingdom of grace and glory, and pointed out the saints’ meetness for the kingdom of heaven, and their right unto it, and gives the best account of the glories of it:

shall be preached in all the world;
not only in Judea, where it was now confined, and that by the express orders of Christ himself; but in all the nations of the world, for which the apostles had their commission enlarged, after our Lord’s resurrection; when they were bid to go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature; and when the Jews put away the Gospel from them, they accordingly turned to the Gentiles; and before the destruction of Jerusalem, it was preached to all the nations under the heavens; and churches were planted in most places, through the ministry of it:

for a witness unto all nations;
meaning either for a witness against all such in them, as should reject it; or as a testimony of Christ and salvation, unto all such as should believe in him:

and then shall the end come;
not the end of the world, as the Ethiopic version reads it, and others understand it; but the end of the Jewish state, the end of the city and temple: so that the universal preaching of the Gospel all over the world, was the last criterion and sign, of the destruction of Jerusalem; and the account of that itself next follows, with the dismal circumstances which attended it.

Matthew 24:15

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
&c.] From signs, Christ proceeds to the immediate cause of the destruction of Jerusalem; which was, “the abomination of desolation”, or the desolating abomination; or that abominable thing, which threatened and brought desolation upon the city, temple, and nation: by which is meant, not any statue placed in the temple by the Romans, or their order; not the golden eagle which Herod set upon the temple gate, for that was before Christ said these words; nor the image of Tiberius Caesar, which Pilate is said to bring into the temple; for this, if true, must be about this time; whereas Christ cannot be thought to refer to anything so near at hand; much less the statue of Adrian, set in the most holy place, which was an hundred and thirty years and upwards, after the destruction of the city and temple; nor the statue of Titus, who destroyed both, which does not appear: ever to be set up, or attempted; nor of Caligula, which, though ordered, was prevented being placed there: but the Roman army is designed; see ( Luke 21:20 ) which was the (Mmvm Myuwqv Pnk) , “the wing”, or “army of abominations making desolate”, ( Daniel 9:27 ) . Armies are called wings, ( Isaiah 8:8 ) and the Roman armies were desolating ones to the Jews, and to whom they were an abomination; not only because they consisted of Heathen men, and uncircumcised persons, but chiefly because of the images of their gods, which were upon their ensigns: for images and idols were always an abomination to them; so the “filthiness” which Hezekiah ordered to be carried out of the holy place, ( 2 Chronicles 29:5 ) is by the Targum called, (aqwxyr) , “an abomination”; and this, by the Jewish writers F23, is said to be an idol, which Ahaz had placed upon the altar; and such was the abomination of desolation, which Antiochus caused to be set upon the altar:

“Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side;” (1 Maccabees 1:54)

And so the Talmudic writers, by the abomination that makes desolate, in ( 9:27 ) to which Christ here refers, understand an image, which they say F24 one Apostomus, a Grecian general, who burnt their law, set up in the temple. Now our Lord observes, that when they should see the Roman armies encompassing Jerusalem, with their ensigns flying, and these abominations on them, they might conclude its desolation was near at hand; and he does not so much mean his apostles, who would be most of them dead, or in other countries, when this would come to pass; but any of his disciples and followers, or any persons whatever, by whom should be seen this desolating abomination, spoken of by Daniel the prophet:
not in ( Daniel 11:31 ) which is spoken of the abomination in the times of Antiochus; but either in ( Daniel 12:11 ) or rather in ( Daniel 9:27 ) since this desolating abomination is that, which should follow the cutting off of the Messiah, and the ceasing of the daily sacrifice. It is to be observed, that Daniel is here called a prophet, contrary to what the Jewish writers say F25, who deny him to be one; though one of F26 no inconsiderable note among them affirms, that he attained to the end, (yyawbnh lwbgh) , “of the prophetic border”, or the ultimate degree of prophecy: when therefore this that Daniel, under a spirit of prophecy, spoke of should be seen,

standing in the holy place;
near the walls, and round about the holy city Jerusalem, so called from the sanctuary and worship of God in it; and which, in process of time, stood in the midst of it, and in the holy temple, and destroyed both; then

whoso readeth, let him understand:
that is, whoever then reads the prophecy of Daniel; will easily understand the meaning of it, and will see and know for certain, that now it is accomplished; and will consider how to escape the desolating judgment, unless he is given up to a judicial blindness and hardness of heart; which was the case of the greater part of the nation.


FOOTNOTES:

F23 R. David Kimchi, & R. Sol. ben Melech, in 2 Chron. xxix. 5.
F24 T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 28. 2. & Gloss. in ib.
F25 T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 94. 1. & Megilla, fol. 3. 1. & Tzeror Ham, mor, fol. 46. 4. Zohar in Num. fol. 61. 1.
F26 Jacchiades in Dan. i. 17.

Matthew 24:16

Then let them which be in Judea
When this signal is given, let it be taken notice of and observed; let them that are in the city of Jerusalem, depart out of it; or who are in any other parts of Judea, in any of the towns, or cities thereof; let them not betake themselves to Jerusalem, imagining they may be safe there, in so strong and fortified a place, but let them flee elsewhere; seeLuke 21:21 ) and accordingly it is observed, that many did flee about this time; and it is remarked by several interpreters, and which Josephus F1 takes notice of with surprise, that Cestius Gallus having advanced with his army to Jerusalem, and besieged it, on a sudden, without any cause, raised the siege, and withdrew his army, when the city might have been easily taken; by which means a signal was made; and an opportunity given to the Christians, to make their escape: which they accordingly did, and went over Jordan, as Eusebius says F2, to a place called Pella; so that when Titus came a few mouths after, there was not a Christian in the city, but they had fled as they are here bidden to

flee into the mountains;
or any places of shelter and refuge: these are mentioned particularly, because they are usually such; and design either the mountains in Judea, or in the adjacent countries. The Syriac and Persic versions read in the singular number, “into the mountain”; and it is reported that many of them did fly, particularly to Mount Libanus F3.


FOOTNOTES:

F1 De Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 19. sect. 7.
F2 Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 5. p. 75.
F3 Joseph. ib.

Matthew 24:17

Let him which is on the housetop
Who should be there either for his devotion or recreation; for the houses of the Jews were built with flat roofs and battlements about them, which they made use of both for diversion and pleasure, and for private meditation and prayer, for social conversation, and sometimes for public preaching; see ( >Matthew 10:27 ) ( Acts 10:9 )

not come down to take anything out of his house:
that is, let him not come down in the inner way, but by the stairs, or ladder, on the outside of the house, which was usual. They had two ways of going out of, and into their houses; the one they call F4, (Myxtp Krd) , “the way of the doors”; the other, (Nygg Krd) , “the way of the roof”: upon which the gloss is,

“to go up on the outside, (Mlwp Krd) , “by way” or “means” of a ladder, fixed at the entrance of the door of the upper room, and from thence he goes down into the house by a ladder;”

and in the same way they could come out; see ( Mark 2:4 ) and let him not go into his house to take any of his goods, or money, or food along with him necessary for his sustenance in his flight; lest, whilst he is busy in taking care of these, he loses his life, or, at least, the opportunity of making his escape; so sudden is this desolation represented to be.


FOOTNOTES:

F4 T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 117. 1.

Matthew 24:18

Neither let him which is in the field
Ploughing, or sowing, or employed in any other parts of husbandry, or rural business,

return back to take clothes;
for it was usual to work in the fields without their clothes, as at ploughing and sowing. Hence those words of Virgil F5.

“Nudus ara, sere nudus, hyems ignava colono.”

Upon which Servius observes, that in good weather, when the sun warms the earth, men might plough and sow without their clothes: and it is reported by the historian F6 of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, that the messengers who were sent to him, from Minutius the consul, whom he had delivered from a siege, found him ploughing naked beyond the Tiber: not that he was entirely naked, but was stripped of his upper garments: and it is usual for people that work in the fields to strip themselves to their shirts, and lay their clothes at the corner of the field, or at the land’s end; and which we must suppose to be the case here: for our Lord’s meaning is not, that the man working in the field, should not return home to fetch his clothes, which were not left there; they were brought with him into the field, but put off; and laid aside in some part of it while at work; but that as soon as he had the news of Jerusalem being besieged, he should immediately make the best of his way, and flee to the mountains, as Lot was bid to do at the burning of Sodom; and he might not return to the corner of the field, or land’s end, where his clothes lay, as Lot was not to look behind; though if his clothes lay in the way of his flight, he might take them up, but might not go back for them, so sudden and swift should be the desolation. The Vulgate Latin reads, in the singular number, “his coat”; and so do the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel; and so it was read in four copies of Beza’s, in three of Stephens’s, and in others; and may design the upper coat or garment, which was put off whilst at work.


FOOTNOTES:

F5 Georgic. l. 1.
F6 Aurel Victor. de illustr. viris, c. 20.

Matthew 24:19

And woe unto them that are with child
Not that it should be criminal for them to be with child, or a judgment on them; for it was always esteemed a blessing to be fruitful, and bear children: but this expresses the miserable circumstances such would be in, who, by reason of their heavy burdens, would not be able to make so speedy a flight, as the case would require; or would be obliged to stay at home, and endure all the miseries of the siege: so that these words, as the following are not expressive of sin, or punishment, but of pity and concern for their misery and distress:

and to them that give suck in those days;
whose tender affection to their infants will not suffer them to leave them behind them; and yet such their weakness, that they will not be able to carry them with them; at least, they must be great hindrances to their speedy flight. So that the case of these is much worse than that of men on the house top, or in the field, who could much more easily leave their goods and clothes, than these their children, as well as had more agility and strength of body to flee. So (twqynymw twrbwe) , “women with child, and that give suck”; are mentioned together in the Jewish writings, as such as were excused from certain fasts, though obliged to others F7.


FOOTNOTES:

F7 T. Hieros. Taanioth, fol. 64. 3. Maimon. Hilch. Taanioth, c. 5. sect. 10.

Matthew 24:20

But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter
When days are short, and unfit for long journeys, and roads are bad, and sometimes not passable, through large snows, or floods of water; and when to dwell in desert places, and lodge in mountains, must be very uncomfortable: wherefore Christ directs to pray to God, who has the disposal of all events, and of the timing of them, that he would so order things in the course of his providence, that their flight might not be in such a season of the year, when travelling would be very difficult and troublesome. Dr. Lightfoot observes, from a Jewish writer F8, that it is remarked as a favour of God in the destruction of the first temple, that it happened in the summer, and not in winter; whose words are these:

“God vouchsafed a great favour to Israel, for they ought to have gone out of the land on the tenth day of the month Tebeth; as he saith ( Ezekiel 24:2 ) “son of man, write thee the name of the day, even of this same day”: what then did the Lord, holy and blessed? If they shall now go out in the winter, (saith he,) they will all die; therefore he prolonged the time to them, and carried them away in summer.”

And since therefore they received such a favour from him at the destruction of the first temple, there was encouragement to pray to him, that they might be indulged with the like favour when Jerusalem should be besieged again:

neither on the sabbath day:
the word “day” is not in the Greek text; and some F9 have been of opinion, that the “sabbatical year”, or the seventh year, is meant, when no fruits would be found in the fields, and a great scarcity of provisions among people; who would not have a sufficiency, and much less any to spare to strangers fleeing from their native places; but rather the sabbath day, or “day of the sabbath”, as the Persic version reads it, is designed; and Beza says, four of his copies read it in the genitive case: and so four of Stephens’s. And the reason why our Lord put them on praying, that their flight might not be on the sabbath day, was, because he knew not only that the Jews, who believed not in him, would not suffer them to travel on a sabbath day more than two thousand cubits; which, according to their traditions F11, was a sabbath day’s journey; and which would not be sufficient for their flight to put them out of danger; but also, that those that did believe in him, particularly the Jerusalem Jews, would be all of them fond of the law of Moses, and scrupulous of violating any part of it, and especially that of the sabbath; see ( Acts 21:20 ) . And though the Jews did allow, that the sabbath might be violated where life was in danger, and that it was lawful to defend themselves against an enemy on the sabbath day; yet this did not universally obtain; and it was made a question of, after the time of Christ, whether it was lawful to flee from danger on the sabbath day; of which take the following account F12.

“Our Rabbins teach, that he that is pursued by Gentiles, or by thieves, may profane the sabbath for the sake of saving his life: and so we find of David, when Saul sought to slay him, he fled from him, and escaped. Our Rabbins say, that it happened that evil writings (or edicts) came from the government to the great men of Tzippore; and they went, and said to R. Eleazar ben Prata, evil edicts are come to us from the government, what dost thou say? (xrbn) , “shall we flee?” and he was afraid to say to them “flee”; but he said to them with a nod, why do you ask me? go and ask Jacob, and Moses, and David; as it is written, of Jacob, ( Hosea 12:12 ) “and Jacob fled”; and so of Moses, ( Exodus 2:15 ) “and Moses fled”; and so of David, ( 1 Samuel 19:18 ) “and David fled, and escaped”: and he (God) says, ( Isaiah 26:20 ) “come my people, enter into thy chambers”.”

From whence, it is plain, it was a question with the doctors in Tzippore, which was a town in Galilee, where there was an university, whether it was lawful to flee on the sabbath day or not; and though the Rabbi they applied to was of opinion it was lawful, yet he was fearful of speaking out his sense plainly, and therefore delivered it by signs and hints. Now our Lord’s meaning, in putting them on this petition, was, not to prevent the violation of the seventh day sabbath, or on account of the sacredness of it, which he knew would be abolished, and was abolished before this time; but he says this with respect to the opinion of the Jews, and “Judaizing” Christians, who, taking that day to be sacred, and fleeing on it unlawful, would find a difficulty with themselves, and others, to make their escape; otherwise it was as lawful to flee and travel on that day, as in the winter season; though both, for different reasons, incommodious.


FOOTNOTES:

F8 Taachuma, fol. 57. 2.
F9 Vid. Reland. Antiq. Heb. par. 4. c. 10. sect. 1. & Hammond in loc.
F11 Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 27. sect. 1.
F12 Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 23. fol. 231. 4.

Matthew 24:21

For then shall be great tribulation
This is urged as a reason for their speedy flight; since the calamity that would come upon those who should remain in the city, what through the sword, famine, pestilence, murders, robberies would

be such as was not since the beginning of the world, to this time,
no, nor ever shall be.
The burning of Sodom and Gomorrha, the bondage of the children of Israel in Egypt, their captivity in Babylon, and all their distresses and afflictions in the times of the Maccabees, are nothing to be compared with the calamities which befell the Jews in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. Great desolations have been made in the besieging and at the taking of many famous cities, as Troy, Babylon, Carthage but none of them are to be mentioned with the deplorable case of this city. Whoever reads Josephus’s account will be fully convinced of this; and readily join with him, who was an eyewitness of it, when he says {m}, that

“never did any city suffer such things, nor was there ever any generation that more abounded in malice or wickedness.”

And indeed, all this came upon them for their impenitence and infidelity, and for their rejection and murdering of the Son of God; for as never any before, or since, committed the sin they did, or ever will, so there never did, or will, the same calamity befall a nation, as did them.


FOOTNOTES:

F13 De Bello Jud. l. 6. c. 11.

Matthew 24:22

And except those days should be shortened
That is, those days of tribulation which commenced at the siege of Jerusalem; and therefore cannot refer to the times before it, and the shortening of them by it, which were very dreadful and deplorable through the murders and robberies of the cut-throats and zealots; but to those after the siege began, which were very distressing to those that were within; and which, if they had not been shortened, or if the siege had been lengthened out further,

there should no flesh be saved;
not one Jew in the city of Jerusalem would have been saved; they must everyone have perished by famine, or pestilence, or sword, or by the intestine wars and murders among themselves: nor indeed, if the siege had continued, would it have fared better with the inhabitants of the other parts of the country, among whom also many of the same calamities prevailed and spread themselves; so that, in all likelihood, if these days had been continued a little longer, there had not been a Jew left in all the land.

But for the elect’s sake;
those who were chosen in Christ, before the foundation of the world, to believe in him, and to be saved by him with an everlasting salvation; both those that were in the city, or, at least, who were to spring from some that were there, as their immediate offspring, or in future ages, and therefore they, and their posterity, must not be cut off; and also those chosen ones, and real believers, who were at Pella, and in the mountains, and other places, for the sake of these, and that they might be delivered from these pressing calamities,

those days shall be shortened:
for otherwise, if God had not preserved a seed, a remnant, according to the election of grace, that should be saved, they had been as Sodom and as Gomorrha, not one would have escaped. The shortening of those days is not to be understood literally, as if the natural days, in which this tribulation was, were to be shorter than usual. The Jews indeed often speak of the shortening of days in this sense, as miraculously done by God: so they say F14, that

“five miracles were wrought for our father Jacob, when he went from Beersheba to go to Haran. The first miracle was, that (amwyd ywev hyl wruqta) , “the hours of the day were shortened for him”, and the sun set before its time, because his word desired to speak with him.”

They also say F15,

“that the day in which Ahaz died, was shortened ten hours, that they might not mourn for him; and which afterwards rose up, and in the day that Hezekiah was healed, ten hours were added to it.”

But the meaning here is, that the siege of Jerusalem, and the calamities attending it, should be sooner ended: not than God had determined, but than the sin of the Jews deserved, and the justice of God might have required in strict severity, and might be reasonably expected, considering the aggravated circumstances of their iniquities. A like manner of speech is used by the Karaite Jews F16, who say,

“if we walk in our law, why is our captivity prolonged, and there is not found balm for our wounds? and why are not (Mhymy wjemtn) , “the days” of the golden and silver kingdom “lessened”, for the righteousness of the righteous, which were in their days?”


FOOTNOTES:

F14 Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel, & Targum Hieros. in Gem xxviii. 10.
F15 R. Sol. Jarchi in Isa. xxxviii. 8.
F16 Chilluk M. S. apud Trigland. de sect. Karaeorum, c. 9. p. 147.

Matthew 24:23

Then if any man shall say unto you
Either at the time when the siege shall be begun, and the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place; or during the days of tribulation, whilst the siege lasted; or after those days were shortened, and the city destroyed, and the Roman army was gone with their captives: when some, that were scattered up and down in the country, would insinuate to their countrymen, that the Messiah was in such a place: saying,

lo! here is Christ, or there, believe it not;
for both during the time of the siege, there were such that sprung up, and pretended to be Messiahs, and deliverers of them from the Roman power, and had their several abettors; one saying he was in such place, and another that he was in such a place; and so spirited up the people not to fly, nor to deliver up the city; and also, after the city was taken and destroyed, one and another set up for the Messiah. Very quickly after, one Jonathan, a very wicked man, led many into the desert of Cyrene, promising to show them signs and wonders, and was overthrown by Catullius, the Roman governor F17; and after that, in the times of Adrian, the famous Barcochab set up for the Messiah, and was encouraged by R. Akiba, and a multitude of Jews F18.


FOOTNOTES:

F17 Joseph. Antiq. l. 7. c. 12.
F18 Ganz. Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 28. 2.

Matthew 24:24

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets,
&c.] Such as the above mentioned: these false Christs had their false prophets, who endeavoured to persuade the people to believe them to be the Messiah, as Barcochab had Akiba, who applied many prophecies to him. This man was called Barcochab, which signifies the son of a star, in allusion to ( Numbers 24:17 ) he was crowned by the Jews, and proclaimed the Messiah by Akiba; upon which a Roman army was sent against him, and a place called Bitter was besieged, and taken, and he, and a prodigious number of Jews were destroyed. This deceiver was afterwards, by them, called Barcoziba, the son of a lie:

and shall show great signs and wonders;
make an appearance of doing them, though they really did them not: so that Jonathan, before mentioned, pretended to show signs and sights; and Barcochab made as if flame came out of his mouth; and many of the Jewish doctors in these times, and following, gave themselves up to sorcery, and the magic art; and are, many of them, often said F19 to be (Myonb Mydmwlm) , “expert in wonders”, or miracles:

if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
By whom we are to understand, not the choicest believers, or the persevering Christians: not but that such who are truly converted, are choice believers in Christ, and persevering Christians are undoubtedly the elect of God; but then the reason why they are elect, and why they are so called, is not because they are converted, are choice believers, and persevering Christians; but, on the contrary, the reason why they are converted, become true believers, and persevere to the end, is, because they are elected; conversion, faith, and perseverance being not the causes or conditions, but the fruits and effects of election: besides to talk of the final seduction of a persevering Christian, is a contradiction in terms. Such an interpretation of the phrase must be absurd and impertinent; for who knows not that a persevering Christian cannot be finally and totally deceived? But by the elect are meant, a select number of particular persons of Adam’s posterity, whom God, of his sovereign goodwill and pleasure, without respect to their faith, holiness, and good works, has chosen, in Christ, before the foundation of the world, both to grace and glory: and to deceive these finally and totally, is impossible, as is here suggested; not impossible, considering their own weakness, and the craftiness of deceivers, who, if left to themselves, and the power of such deception, and the working of Satan with all deceivableness of unrighteousness, might easily be seduced; but considering the purposes and promises of God concerning them, the provisions of his grace for them, the security of them in the hands of Christ, and their preservation by the mighty power of God, their final and total deception is not only difficult, but impossible. They may be, and are deceived before conversion; this is one part of their character whilst unregenerate, “foolish, disobedient, deceived”, ( Titus 3:3 ) yea, they may be, and oftentimes are, deceived after conversion; but then this is in part only, and not totally; in some lesser, and not in the greater matters of faith; not so as to let go their hold of Christ their head, and quit the doctrine of salvation by him, or fall into damnable heresies: they may be seduced from the simplicity of the Gospel, but not finally; for they shall be recovered out of the snare of the devil, and not to be left to perish in such deceivings. This clause, as it expresses the power of deceivers, and the efficacy of Satan, so the influence and certainty of electing grace and the sure and firm perseverance of the saints, to the end, notwithstanding the cunning and craft of men and devils; for if these, with all their signs and wonders, could not deceive them, it may be pronounced impossible that they ever should be finally and totally deceived.


FOOTNOTES:

F19 T. Bab. Meila, fol. 17. 2. Juchasin, fol. 20. 1, 2. & 42. 2. & 56. 2. & 77. 1. & 96. 2.

Matthew 24:25

Behold, I have told you before.
] Meaning not before in this discourse, though he had in ( Matthew 24:5 Matthew 24:11 ) signified also, that false Christs, and false prophets should arise, but before these things came to pass; so that they had sufficient notice and warning of them, and would be inexcusable if they were not upon their guard against them; and which, when they came to pass, would furnish out a considerable argument in proof of him, as the true Messiah, against all these false ones, showing him to be omniscient; and so would serve to establish their faith in him, and be a means of securing them from such deceivers.

Matthew 24:26

Wherefore if they shall say unto you
Any of the false prophets, or the deluded followers of false Christs:

behold, he is in the desert, go not forth:
that is, should they affirm, that the Messiah is in such a wilderness, in the wilderness of Judea, or in any other desert place, do not go out of the places where you are to see, or hear, and know the truth of things; lest you should, in any respect, be stumbled, ensnared, and brought into danger. It was usual for these impostors to lead their followers into deserts, pretending to work wonders in such solitary places: so, during the siege, Simon, the son of Giora, collected together many thousands in the mountainous and desert parts of Judea F20; and the above mentioned Jonathan, after the destruction of the city, led great multitudes into the desert:

behold, he is in the secret chambers, believe it not;
or should others say behold, or for certain, the Messiah is in some one of the secret and fortified places of the temple; where, during some time of the siege, were John and Eleazar, the heads of the zealots F21; do not believe them. Some reference may be had to the chamber of secrets, which was in the temple F23;

“for in the sanctuary there were two chambers; one was called (Myavx tkvl) , “the chamber of secrets”, and the other the chamber of vessels.”

Or else some respect may be had to the notions of the Jews, concerning the Messiah, which they imbibed about these times, and ever since retained, that he was born the day Jerusalem was destroyed, but is hid, for their sins, in some secret place, and will in time be revealed F24. Some say, that he is hid in the sea; others, in the walks of the garden of Eden; and others, that he sits among the lepers at the gates of Rome F25. The Syriac version here reads in the singular number, “in the bedchamber”; in some private apartment, where he remains till a proper time of showing himself offers, for fear of the Romans: but these are all idle notions, and none of them to be believed. The true Messiah is come, and has showed himself to Israel; and even the giving out these things discovers a consciousness, and a conviction that the Messiah is come.


FOOTNOTES:

F20 Joseph de Bello. Jud. l. 5. c. 7.
F21 Ib. c. 6. l. 4.
F23 Misn. Shekalim, c. 5. sect. 6.
F24 Aben Ezra in Cant. vii. 5. Targum in Mic. iv. 8.
F25 Vid. Buxtorf. Synag. Jud. c. 50.

Matthew 24:27

For as the lightning cometh out of the east
The eastern part of the horizon, and shineth even unto the west;
to the western part of it, with great clearness; in a moment; in the twinkling of an eye, filling the whole intermediate space;

so shall also the coming of the son of man be;
which must be understood not of his last coming to judgment, though that will be sudden, visible, and universal; he will at once come to, and be seen by all, in the clouds of heaven, and not in deserts and secret chambers: nor of his spiritual coming in the more sudden, and clear, and powerful preaching of the Gospel all over the Gentile world; for this was to be done before the destruction of Jerusalem: but of his coming in his wrath and vengeance to destroy that people, their nation, city, and temple: so that after this to look for the Messiah in a desert, or secret chamber, must argue great stupidity and blindness; when his coming was as sudden, visible, powerful, and general, to the destruction of that nation, as the lightning that comes from the east, and, in a moment, shines to the west.

Matthew 24:28

For wheresoever the carcass is
Not Christ, as he is held forth in the Gospel, crucified and slain, through whose death is the savour of life, and by whom salvation is, and to whom sensible sinners flock, encouraged by the ministry of the word; and much less Christ considered as risen, exalted, and coming in great glory to judgment, to whom the word “carcass” will by no means agree, and but very poorly under the former consideration: but the people of the Jews are designed by it, in their fallen, deplorable, miserable, and lifeless state, who were like to the body of a man, or any other creature, struck dead with lightning from heaven; being destroyed by the breath of the mouth, and brightness of the coming of the son of man, like lightning, just as antichrist will be at the last day:

there will the eagles be gathered together:
not particular believers here, or all the saints at the day of judgment; though these may be, as they are, compared to eagles for many things; as their swiftness in flying to Christ, their sagacity and the sharpness of their spiritual sight, soaring on high, and renewing their spiritual strength and youth: but here the Roman armies are intended, whose ensigns were eagles; and the eagle still is, to this day, the ensign of the Roman empire: formerly other creatures, with the eagle, were used for ensigns; but C. Marius, in his second consulship, banished them, and appropriated the eagle only to the legions: nor was it a single eagle that was carried before the army, but every legion had an eagle went before it, made of gold or silver, and carried upon the top of a spear F26: and the sense of this passage is this, that wherever the Jews were, whether at Jerusalem, where the body and carcass of them was, in a most forlorn and desperate condition; or in any other parts of the country, the Roman eagles, or legions, would find them out, and make an utter destruction of them. The Persic version, contrary to others, and to all copies, renders it “vultures”. Though this creature is of the same nature with the eagle, with respect to feeding on carcasses: hence the proverb,

“cujus vulturis hoe erit cadaver?”

“what vulture shall have this carcass?” It has a very sharp sight, and quick smell, and will, by both, discern carcasses at almost incredible distance: it will diligently watch a man that is near death; and will follow armies going to battle, as historians relate F1: and it is the eagle which is of the vulture kind, as Aristotle F2 observes, that takes up dead bodies, and carries them to its nest. And Pliny F3 says, it is that sort of eagles only which does so; and some have affirmed that eagles will by no means touch dead carcasses: but this is contrary not only to this passage of Scripture, but to others; particularly to ( Job 39:30 ) “her young ones also suck up blood, and where the slain are, there is she”: an expression much the same with this in the text, and to which it seems to refer; see also ( Proverbs 30:17 ) . Though Chrysostom


FOOTNOTES:

F4 says, both the passage in Job, and this in Matthew, are to be understood of vultures; he doubtless means the eagles that are of the vulture kind, the Gypaeetos, or vulture eagle. There is one kind of eagles, naturalists say F5, will not feed on flesh, which is called the bird of Jupiter; but, in common, the eagle is represented as a very rapacious creature, seizing, and feeding upon the flesh of hares, fawns, geese and the rather this creature is designed here; since, of all birds, this is the only one that is not hurt with lightning F6, and so can immediately seize carcasses killed thereby; to which there seems to be an allusion here, by comparing it with the preceding verse: however, the Persic version, though it is literally a proper one, yet from the several things observed, it is not to be overlooked and slighted.
F26 Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 4. c. 2.
F1 Aelian. de Animal. Natura, l. 2. c. 46.
F2 De Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 32.
F3 Hist. Nat l. 10. c. 3.
F4 In Matt. Homil. 49.
F5 Aelian. de Animal. l. 9. c. 10.
F6 Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 55.

Matthew 24:29

Immediately after the tribulation of those days
That is, immediately after the distress the Jews would be in through the siege of Jerusalem, and the calamities attending it; just upon the destruction of that city, and the temple in it, with the whole nation of the Jews, shall the following things come to pass; and therefore cannot be referred to the last judgment, or what should befall the church, or world, a little before that time, or should be accomplished in the whole intermediate time, between the destruction of Jerusalem, and the last judgment: for all that is said to account for such a sense, as that it was usual with the prophets to speak of judgments afar off as near; and that the apostles often speak of the coming of Christ, the last judgment, and the end of the world, as just at hand; and that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, will not answer to the word “immediately”, or show that that should be understood of two thousand years after: besides, all the following things were to be fulfilled before that present generation, in which Christ lived, passed away, ( Matthew 24:34 ) and therefore must be understood of things that should directly, and immediately take place upon, or at the destruction of the city and temple.

Shall the sun be darkened:
not in a literal but in a figurative sense; and is to be understood not of the religion of the Jewish church; nor of the knowledge of the law among them, and the decrease of it; nor of the Gospel being obscured by heretics and false teachers; nor of the temple of Jerusalem, senses which are given into by one or another; but of the Shekinah, or the divine presence in the temple. The glory of God, who is a sun and a shield, filled the tabernacle, when it was reared up; and so it did the temple, when it was built and dedicated; in the most holy place, Jehovah took up his residence; here was the symbol of his presence, the mercy seat, and the two cherubim over it: and though God had for some time departed from this people, and a voice was heard in the temple before its destruction, saying, “let us go hence”; yet the token of the divine presence remained till the utter destruction of it; and then this sun was wholly darkened, and there was not so much as the outward symbol of it:

and the moon shall not give her light;
which also is to be explained in a figurative and metaphorical sense; and refers not to the Roman empire, which quickly began to diminish; nor to the city of Jerusalem; nor to the civil polity of the nation; but to the ceremonial law, the moon, the church is said to have under her feet, ( Revelation 12:1 ) so called because the observance of new moons was one part of it, and the Jewish festivals were regulated by the moon; and especially, because like the moon, it was variable and changeable. Now, though this, in right, was abolished at the death of Christ, and ceased to give any true light, when he, the substance, was come; yet was kept up by the Jews, as long as their temple was standing; but when that was destroyed, the daily sacrifice, in fact, ceased, and so it has ever since; the Jews esteeming it unlawful to offer sacrifice in a strange land, or upon any other altar than that of Jerusalem; and are to this day without a sacrifice, and without an ephod:

and the stars shall fall from heaven;
which phrase, as it elsewhere intends the doctors of the church, and preachers falling off from purity of doctrine and conversation; so here it designs the Jewish Rabbins and doctors, who departed from the word of God, and set up their traditions above it, fell into vain and senseless interpretations of it, and into debates about things contained in their Talmud; the foundation of which began to be laid immediately upon their dispersion into other countries:

and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken;
meaning all the ordinances of the legal dispensation; which shaking, and even removing of them, were foretold by ( Haggai 2:6 ) and explained by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ( Hebrews 12:26 Hebrews 12:27 ) whereby room and way were made for Gospel ordinances to take place, and be established; which shall not be shaken, so as to be removed, but remain till the second coming of Christ. The Jews themselves are sensible, and make heavy complaints of the great declensions and alterations among them, since the destruction of the temple; for after having taken notice of the death of several of their doctors, who died a little before, or after that; and that upon their death ceased the honour of the law, the splendour of wisdom, and the glory of the priesthood, they add F7; that is, of the wise men there were no scholars, or very few that studied in the law.

“from the time that the temple was destroyed, the wise men, and sons of nobles, were put to shame, and they covered their heads; liberal men were reduced to poverty; and men of violence and calumny prevailed; and there were none that expounded, or inquired, or asked. R. Elezer the great, said, from the time the sanctuary were destroyed, the wise men began to be like Scribes, and the Scribes like to the Chazans, (or sextons that looked after the synagogues,) and the Chazans like to the common people, and the common people grew worse and worse, and there were none that inquired and asked;”

 


FOOTNOTES:

F7 Misn. Sotah, c. 9. sect. 15.

Matthew 24:30

And then shall appear the sign of the son of man in heaven,
&c.] Not the sound of the great trumpet, mentioned in the following verse; nor the clouds of heaven in this; nor the sign of the cross appearing in the air, as it is said to do in the times of Constantine: not the former; for though to blow a trumpet is sometimes to give a sign, and is an alarm; and the feast which the Jews call the day of blowing the trumpets, ( Numbers 29:1 ) is, by the Septuagint, rendered (hmera shmasiav) , “the day of signification”; yet this sign is not said to be sounded, but to appear, or to be seen, which does not agree with the sounding of a trumpet: much less can this design the last trumpet at the day of judgment, since of that the text does not speak; and, for the same reason, the clouds cannot be meant in which Christ will come to judgment, nor are clouds in themselves any sign of it: nor the latter, of which there is no hint in the word of God, nor any reason to expect it, nor any foundation for it; nor is any miraculous star intended, such as appeared at Christ’s first coming, but the son of man himself: just as circumcision is called the sign of circumcision, ( Romans 4:11 ) and Christ is sometimes called a sign, ( Luke 2:34 ) as is his resurrection from the dead, ( Matthew 12:39 ) and here the glory and majesty in which he shall come: and it may be observed, that the other evangelists make no mention of the sign, only speak of the son of man, ( Mark 13:26 ) ( Luke 21:27 ) and he shall appear, not in person, but in the power of his wrath and vengeance, on the Jewish nation which will be a full sign and proof of his being come: for the sense is, that when the above calamities shall be upon the civil state of that people, and there will be such changes in their ecclesiastical state it will be as clear a point, that Christ is come in the flesh, and that he is also come in his vengeance on that nation, for their rejection and crucifixion him, as if they had seen him appear in person in the heavens. They had been always seeking a sign, and were continually asking one of him; and now they will have a sign with a witness; as they had accordingly.

And then shall the tribes of the earth, or land, mourn;

that is, the land of Judea; for other lands, and countries, were not usually divided into tribes, as that was; neither were they affected with the calamities and desolations of it, and the vengeance of the son of man upon it; at least not so as to mourn on that account, but rather were glad and rejoiced:

and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.
The Arabic version reads it, “ye shall see”, as is expressed by Christ, in ( Matthew 26:64 ) . Where the high priest, chief priests, Scribes, and elders, and the whole sanhedrim of the Jews are spoken to: and as the same persons, namely, the Jews, are meant here as there; so the same coming of the son of man is intended; not his coming at the last day to judgment; though that will be in the clouds of heaven, and with great power and glory; but his coming to bring on, and give the finishing stroke to the destruction of that people, which was a dark and cloudy dispensation to them: and when they felt the power of his arm, might, if not blind and stupid to the last degree, see the glory of his person, that he was more than a mere man, and no other than the Son of God, whom they had despised, rejected, and crucified; and who came to set up his kingdom and glory in a more visible and peculiar manner, among the Gentiles.

Matthew 24:31

And he shall send his angels
Not the angels, i.e. ministering spirits, so called, not from their nature, but their office, as being sent forth by God and Christ; but men angels, or messengers, the ministers and preachers of the Gospel, whom Christ would call, qualify, and send forth into all the world of the Gentiles, to preach his Gospel, and plant churches there still more, when that at Jerusalem was broken up and dissolved. These are called “angels”, because of their mission, and commission from Christ, to preach the Gospel; and because of their knowledge and understanding in spiritual things; and because of their zeal, diligence, and watchfulness.

With a great sound of a trumpet,
meaning the Gospel; see ( Isaiah 27:13 ) so called in allusion either to the silver trumpets which Moses was ordered to make of one piece, and use them for the calling of the assembly, the journeying of the camps, blowing an alarm for war, and on their solemn and festival days, ( Numbers 10:1-10 ) . The Gospel being rich and precious, all of a piece, useful for gathering souls to Christ, and to his churches; to direct saints in their journey to Canaan’s land; to encourage them to fight the Lord’s battles; and is a joyful sound, being a sound of love, grace, and mercy, peace, pardon, righteousness, life and salvation, by Christ: or else so called, in allusion to the trumpet blown in the year of “jubilee”; which proclaimed rest to the land, liberty to prisoners, a release of debts, and restoration of inheritances; as the Gospel publishes rest in Christ, liberty to the captives of sin, Satan, and the law, a payment of debts by Christ, and a release from them upon that, and a right and title to the heavenly inheritance. The Vulgate Latin reads it, “with a trumpet, and a great voice”; and so does Munster’s Hebrew Gospel; and so it was read in four of Beza’s copies:

and they shall gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other;
that is, by the ministration of the Gospel; the Spirit of God accompanying it with his power, and grace, the ministers of the word should gather out of the world unto Christ, and to his churches, such persons as God had, before the foundation of the world, chosen in Christ, unto salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth; wherever they are under the whole heavens, from one end to another; or in any part of the earth, though at the greatest distance; for in ( Mark 13:27 ) it is said, “from the uttermost part of the earth, to the uttermost part of the heaven”. The Jews F8 say, that

“in the after redemption (i.e. by the Messiah) all Israel shall be gathered together by the sound of a trumpet, from the four parts of the world.”


FOOTNOTES:

F8 Zohar in Lev. fol. 47. 1.




The Papal System – VI. Steps to Papal Sovereignty Over The Churches – Part 2

The Papal System – VI. Steps to Papal Sovereignty Over The Churches – Part 2

Continued from VI. Steps to Papal Sovereignty Over The Churches – Part 1

Mohammedan Victories over the Eastern Empire and Churches

If the churches of the East had retained their old numbers and importance, they would have fought Rome for equality, with the proudest of her bishops, till the blasts of the last trumpet were heard, or the death-knell of superstition was sounded. But help came from strange quarters to the Bishops of Rome.

In the seventh century the warlike followers of the False Prophet conquered all Arabia, and passed like a whirlwind over the famous countries and cities of the East. Palestine fell, and its holy city became the prey of the victorious Omar; and the site of Solomon’s temple furnished the ground for his mosque.

Damascus yielded to the far-famed Khaled; and all Syria submitted to the Moslem yoke. Antioch, whose patriarch proudly traced his descent from Peter, was forced to wear the chains of Islam. Egypt was snatched from her Christian Emperors. Alexandria, after a siege of fourteen months, surrendered to the Saracons under the fiery Amrou, giving up four thousand palaces, four thousand baths, four hundred theaters, twelve thousand stores for the sale of vegetable food, and an incalculable amount of wealth.

In ten years of Omar’s administration, the Saracens captured thirty-six thousand cities, and four thousand churches. In a hundred years after the prophet set up his oracle at Medina, his followers had seized Persia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, and Spain. And they imperiled the independence of France and Italy. But in the East everything Christian either perished at their approach, or became palsied and panic stricken. In a few years millions of Christians died in their fierce wars; and other millions became slaves, proselytes, or martyrs.

The tide of Christian progress in the East was rolled backward, and has flowed in that direction ever since. Two centuries after Mohammed, Christians were distinguished from their Moslem neighbors by a turban, or a girdle of a less honorable color; instead of horses or mules they must ride on asses in the attitude of women; their houses must be smaller; on all public occasions they must bow to the meanest follower of the Prophet; their testimony before a magistrate could not be taken against one of the faithful. They must ring no bells to invite the followers of Jesus to his house. They must make no converts. Nor may they hinder as many as please from deserting to the fold of Mecca.

The Greek Emperors were reduced to comparative helplessness; army after army of the faithful had laid siege to Constantinople, and only its strong walls and Greek fire preserved it from the Mohammedan whirlwind of victory that threatened to sweep the empire of the Caesars out of existence; and it appeared for a time not unlikely to achieve the conquest of the world. The Greeks would cheerfully have ransomed with gold their church and country from these ruthless conquerors; a price, which the old Romans, whose name they proudly bore, or the ancient Macedonians, with whom some of them claimed kindred, would have perished rather than have paid; but the Arabians, on more than one occasion, rejected the cowardly bribe. In the time of Irene, however, Harun encamped on the heights of Scutari with an army one hundred thousand strong, and so terrified were the sovereign and people, that it was agreed to pay an annual tribute of 70,000 dinars of gold for the absence of these terrible strangers, and the possession of a temporary peace.

The old and eminent patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria were almost annihilated. The see of Constantinople was tottering on the brink of ruin, The Emperor of the East distinctly perceived that his days were numbered, and that he was powerless to maintain either the temporal or spiritual supremacy of the countries and cities immediately surrounding his throne.

All rivalry to the pope was at an end. Ancient episcopal claimants to co-ordinate jurisdiction were begging his help, and though not willing to recognize his pretensions, had no heart for controversy; and stripped of their wealth, and robbed by death, or the Koran, of a large portion of their flocks, would only have been subjects of ridicule if they had.

At this very time the Roman Bishop stood forth, the owner of immense estates in all parts of Italy; controlling the greatest resources of any man in the Eternal City. As the government of the Emperor became feeble, and his Italian exarch either fled from Ravenna, or wielded an impotent sword from that ancient city over the western territories of the Caesars, the pope became the acknowledged head of old Rome; its natural chieftain to whom its people looked up for counsel in civil things, at first, and whom they subsequently obeyed as their sovereign. So that the ruins of the eastern churches, and of the empire east and west, largely tended to glorify the vicars of Peter, as for centuries they loved to be called,

Papal Missions.

No church, ancient or modern, perfect or defective, has a nobler missionary record than the church of the popes. Gregory the Great saw in Rome some boys exposed for sale; their bodies were white, their countenances beautiful, and their hair very fine. He inquired about their religion, and was grieved to find that they were pagans. He asked about their nation, and on learning they were Angles: “Right,”he replied, “for they have an angelic face, and it becomes such to be co-heirs with the angels in heaven.” He asked about the province from which they came. He was answered, that “The natives of that province were called Deiri.” “Truly are they De ira,” said he, “withdrawn from wrath, and called to the mercy of Christ.” And from that time Gregory felt a strong desire to see the Anglo-Saxons under the gospel yoke.

Ethelbert, the most powerful of the Anglo-Saxon kings, was married to Bertha, a French princess, and a Christian, She enjoyed the free exercise of her religion, and the instructions of a bishop who came with her. Gregory took advantage of this circumstance to send Augustine, a Roman abbot, in A.D. 596, to Ethelbert to preach the gospel to him and his people. Forty monks accompanied the missionary. After starting on his journey he began to reflect upon the character of the barbarous people among whom he was going to labor, and of whose very language he was ignorant; and possessing but little of the material out of which martyrs are made he became discouraged, if not terrified, by the prospect before him; and he returned to Rome. Gregory persuaded him again to go to the heathen islanders. The second time he persevered until he reached Britain. He landed on the Isle of Thanet, where he remained for some time. Then he and his associates were permitted to locate in Canterbury, the capital, of Ethelbert’s kingdom of Kent. A dilapidated church, dedicated to St. Martin, existing from the times of the Romans, furnished them their first temple in Canterbury. In process of time Ethelbert was converted; others followed his example, though he publicly proclaimed universal freedom of conscience.

The work prospered in Augustine’s hands so extensively, that, during one Christmas he baptized more than ten thousand. Canterbury was made the ecclesiastical capital of England, because London, though much larger, was in the hands of Pagans. Gregory not only made Augustine Archbishop of Canterbury, but he sent him “copies of the sacred Scriptures, relics to be used in consecrating new churches, ecclesiastical vessels;” and some lengthy and curious answers to certain questions Augustine proposed.

The labors of Augustine were attended by the most remarkable results, even in his lifetime, though he died A.D. 605. And after his death, his companions and followers spread over all England, and never rested until the cross was planted on every hill, and gave its protection to every valley, and stood, in his own home, before the eye of every Angle, Jute, and Saxon in Britain, as a dearer emblem than the image of Thor or Woden; as the most sacred treasure under the skies.

The island thus converted, added largely to the numerical strength of the Papal Church; and in three or four centuries, became not only a large center of population, but a powerful kingdom.

All the churches of the Anglo-Saxons were bound to Rome by the strongest ties. They admitted her supremacy, obeyed her edicts, and vastly increased her glory among the nations, and her supremacy over the churches.

The Conversion of the Germans.

An Anglo-Saxon, named Winfrid, born at Kirton in Devonshire, and educated in the convents of Exeter and Nutescelle, was the apostle of Germany. He is best known as Boniface. Winfrid was a man of great courage, untiring perseverance, considerable mind, and extreme credulity.

He greatly loved the Scriptures; and in his German home often sent for them from the land of his birth, with expositions of them, distinctly written, on account of his weak eyes. He requested an abbess (the female superior of a community of nuns in an abbey), who was accustomed to send him clothes and books from England, to procure him a copy of Peter’s epistles, written with gilt letters, for his use in preaching. He regarded himself as the missionary of St. Peter, whose successor had sent the gospel to his fathers, and in all his labors he felt called upon to pay peculiar honor to that apostle.

He was set apart to preach in Germany, by Gregory II. at Rome, A.D. 718, and after twenty-one years’ labor he had baptized 100,000 converts. German forests had rung with his honest fervor; by German rivers listening multitudes had learned the cross from his glowing representations.

At Geismer, in Upper Hesse, grew a gigantic oak, sacred to mighty Thor, the god of thunder; this tree was reverenced with the most profound awe by the population far and near; to it the whole people frequently came, on solemn occasions. Winfrid saw in it a great enemy to his Master and to his own mission, and at all hazards he resolved to destroy it. Boniface and his friends came to the sacred oak armed with a formidable axe, the pagans gathered in terror to watch the scene; they expected that Thor would destroy the impious wretches the moment the first stroke was given; but the huge tree was cut down and divided into four parts, before their eyes, without miracle or accident; and Thor and his system fell with it. This remarkable man lived to carry the cross over as wide a field as ever was planted by the Christian enterprise of one person, and he died in Friesland, in his seventy-fifth year, A.D. 755, by the hands of pagan persecutors, where he had recently baptized thousands, and founded many churches.

He was a man of spotless purity of life, and he urged the same godliness upon others. Few nobler appeals against an unholy life were ever made than his letter to Ethelbald, an Anglo-Saxon king, in which he shows him that even the heathen Saxons in Germany spurned such crimes as his with horror. William of Malmsbury honors his country by preserving the document.

He was the slave of the popes; brought up from childhood to revere them, he felt bound in conscience to obey them in everything; had it not been for that, Winfrid would have been equally great as a missionary, and free from all religious mistakes. This error made him oppose and even persecute the British and Scotch missionaries in Germany. And it made him bind his German church hand and foot, and deliver it over to the Bishop of Rome, to be ruled, taught, or kept in ignorance, in coming time, at his pleasure.

The mighty work commenced by Boniface was carried on by succeeding hands till Germany was placed under the spiritual supremacy of the pontiffs. Germany and England, both the fruits of Augustine’s mission at Canterbury, gave the largest contribution to papal supremacy ever presented on two occasions, to the vicars of Peter. Men of similar principles and labors led the Scandinavians and others to the cross, and bound them firmly to the spiritual sovereignty of the pope. Through missions, the Roman bishop received his most obedient subjects, and the greatest number of them.

Papal interference in the troubles of Bishops.

This was another stream which aided to swell the mighty current of papal supremacy over the churches. Every bishop in disgrace with his sovereign, or his archbishop, or his synod of bishops, naturally looked out for a friend who was able to help him. The influence of so great a bishop as the pope would be of advantage to any troubled prelate; and nearly every unhappy bishop appealed to his brother in the Eternal City. With an utter indifference to annoyance and responsibility, the pontiff was ready to examine every application, and with a peculiarity which became generally known, more commonly than otherwise, decided in favor. of the first applicant; and as these appeals became exceedingly numerous, and as the befriended bishops naturally magnified the wisdom and authority of the judge who had justified them, the Bishop of Rome increased in spiritual power immensely.

Papal inter-meddling with the troubles of Kings.

This became a common practice of the pontiffs, and one which tended largely to advance their priestly authority. In France, in the eighth century, the descendants of the warlike Clovis lived in a palace near Compiegne, the nominal sovereigns of the Franks; they wielded no power over the nation, and they enjoyed no respect; once a year they were conducted in a wagon drawn by oxen to the assembly of the Franks, to give audience to foreign ambassadors, and to ratify the acts of the mayor of the palace; that officer was the master of the king, and the head of the nation. But he wished the nominal monarch to be deposed, and the title as well as the functions of royalty to be conferred upon himself, Childeric, as king, had received oaths of loyalty from his leading subjects, and in that age an oath still meant something. Pepin saw no way of reaching the throne except through the authority of St. Peter and his successor. He applied to Pope Zachary; his holiness decided that Childeric should be degraded, shaved, and confined for life in a monastery, and that the throne might be given to Pepin. The French were pleased; Pepin and his family were delighted, and any number of advantages accrued from this decision to the bishops of Rome.

Pepin twice crossed into Italy and inflicted such chastisements upon the Lombards as freed the Roman bishops from all apprehensions from them. And the French sovereign generously gave to the pope the Exarchate of Ravenna, “the limits of which were included in the territories of Ravenna, Bologna, and Ferrara: Pentapolis was its inseparable dependency, which stretched along the Adriatic from Rimini to Ancona, and advanced into the country as far as the ridges of the Apennine.” And the pope became a king with all the rights of royalty. Charlemagne confirmed and increased the grants of his father Pepin. The popes stood before the world as the favorites of Pepin and Charlemagne, the two most illustrious statesmen and successful warriors in the Christian world, Frankish, bishops, with ideas of church liberty such as were common two centuries before, were compelled to acquiesce in the supremacy of the pontiffs.

Irish bishops and churches in Germany must not utter their protests against papal supremacy very loudly, or they shall be driven from Charlemagne’s empire. All encouragement must be given to Boniface in extending the borders of the Church in that country, and in chaining it to St. Peter’s chair. This one act of interference actually placed at the service of St. Peter’s vicar, the greatest influences and powers of the age; and it gave a force to the spiritual supremacy of the popes, which for a time cleared its path of opposition, Similar interferences often produced results of the same character, if not reaching quite as lofty a standard. The Childerics pine in unsought convents, and the popes are made secular sovereigns, and spiritual despots, as the wages of injustice.

The Pallium.

This garment has played its part in the drama of spiritual supremacy. It is composed of a long strip of fine woollen cloth, ornamented with crosses, the middle} of which was formed into a loose collar resting on the shoulders, while the extremities before and behind hung down nearly to the feet. It was conferred at first by the Bishops of Rome on their special representatives (apostolicis vicariis) among the bishops, or on the primates. Its object was apparently to show favor to.some choice friend, when first conferred; but it came in time to be an indispensable title to the episcopal office.

Pope Boniface sends the pallium to Justus, Archbishop of Canterbury, telling him in an accompanying letter that “He only gives him leave to use it in the celebration of the sacred mysteries.” Pope Honorius sent it to Paulinus, A.D. 634, meaning thereby that he was Archbishop of the Northumbrians. For a long interval, the Archbishops of York received no pallium or pall. Paris says: “In the year of our Lord 745, Egbert, Archbishop of York, laudably recovered the pall which had been omitted to be received by eight bishops.”

Offa, King of the Mercians, having quarreled with the people of Kent, tried to deprive Jainbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, of the primacy; and to accomplish this he sent messengers to Pope Adrian, to persuade him to confer the pall on the Bishop of Lichfield, and make all his bishops subject to that prelate. From which statement it is evident, that at that time, the pall was a bishop’s title to rule his brethren. It was equally needful to ordain them. Du Pin quotes a letter of Pope John VIII, condemning the metropolitans of France for consecrating bishops before they received the pall from the Holy See.

The pall was given to archbishops from the fifth century: from the eighth it began to be given to metropolitans. At first it was a mere ornament, and a token of papal regard; a ribbon of the papal “Legion of Honor.” But in time it became a custom, strong as law, that no metropolitan could perform any ecclesiastical function without it. And as the pope might give it or not as he pleased, he acquired unlimited control over the whole episcopacy and priesthood, in part, by this article. In the fifteenth century German archbishops had to pay about $8000 for this precious badge of slavery.

Purgatory.

As faith in this doctrine became prevalent, from the end of the seventh century onward, the power of the clergy in general grew at an alarming rate. Men who could add a thousand or ten thousand centuries to your torments by a word; who could keep your mother, wife, or child as long as they pleased, or only for a moment, in raging flames, were not to be treated as other men, who could only hurt the body. As the existence of these purifying torments seized the minds of men, they left money for masses for the repose of their souls; they were filled with unspeakable terror in prospect of death; real estate in large quantities was given to the Church to modify the pains and abridge the duration of the torments of purgatory. So lucrative had purgatory become that at one time, says Hallam, “nearly half the land in England belonged to the Church;” and what was true of Britain may be asserted of the continent of Europe. The Church became the greatest landlord in the world; and with the prestige of enormous wealth, nothing could resist her.

The Roman bishop stood at the head of all the masters of purgatory; he, above all others, could give relief or continue pain, and it became of the very highest importance to cultivate his good will; and not to thwart his wishes; in short, to let him have supremacy everywhere. Dying kings, expiring statesmen, departing millionaires, and men of influence, alarmed for their souls, were ready to make any sacrifice; they were willing to concede anything to his Holiness for a cool and speedy passage through Hades. While to the living, and ambitious, or covetous, the pope was the chief officer of the richest corporation of all time, whose fertile acres, great abbeys, gorgeous cathedrals, jeweled Madonnas and miters, and ever expanding wealth, made her first priest a man of infinite importance to conciliate. In this way, purgatory labored to give the pope that which he desired most, unlimited authority over the churches.

The Benefits conferred by the Popes.

The bishops of Rome had two channels for making their influence felt over the churches; the clergy, and the monks. Through the priests, for a long time, the popes showed themselves kind fathers of the great masses of the people. In ages when the serf, and the mechanic, and the merchant were of no more importance than stubble, and the chieftain was a dignitary almost worthy of Divine honors, the Church took some honest son of poverty and toil, and made him a bishop, a baron, the equal of the proudest thanes of a kingdom. And in facts of this kind, the priests appeared as the greatest friends of the lowly.

In times of oppression, the churches, and frequently the cemeteries, were sanctuaries where the terrified fugitive might defy the constable, the court, or the king. The tortured slave could not be torn from the church by his angry master, until assurances were given that he should not be beaten on his return to his home.

Frequently, when fierce kings were about to drag their innocent vassals to fields of slaughter, a priestly representative of the Roman Bishop would soothe their resentments, and sheathe their swords. And often, when armies were drawn up in battle array, papal delegates went from king to king, until a truce was settled, and the soldiers disbanded.

The Bishops of Rome showed the greatest hostility to human slavery, and for many centuries wielded a vast influence to uproot the institution where it existed, and to mitigate its barbarities when its destruction was not possible.

Through the monks of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, and, in some instances, later still, the popes were the benefactors of the nations. These men were directly dependent on the pontiffs, and their labors reflected credit or dishonor upon their commander-in-chief in the Eternal City. They were the schoolmasters of Europe for centuries, and they turned out some disciples of whom the world is still proud. They wrote the histories of Europe for ages. Their literary performances are treasures which we cannot spare, in which the cultivated reader has special pleasure. These men manufactured all the books of the old world for centuries. In their humble cells they composed them, and then they multiplied copies with the pen, until the largest works were accessible to all who could read, or cared to use them. And the writing of those books was often done with a taste and splendor which can scarcely be imitated by all the skill and mechanism of the 19th century. A volume of facsimiles of capital letters, made by these old monks, lies before me; and any thing more exquisitely beautiful, more superbly grand, in design and coloring, could not be conceived. A few of these letters are six and eight inches long; sometimes, they are gilt; more frequently, they are painted. Flowers of gorgeous colors, perfect butterflies, glorious angels, saintly priests, and venerable bishops appear in these letters. The originals enrich museums, of which these are but pictures.

Monks made myriads of copies of the word of God; from their pen and bindery, it went forth to gladden the eyes and rejoice the souls of millions.

The monk threshed his wheat, plowed his fields, performed a list of religious duties every day, and, from the seventh to the tenth century, was the instructor of his neighbors, not only in letters from the alphabet up, but in the best modes of farming, and in the use of the latest mechanical inventions.

The convent furnished meals and lodging to every traveler, as is still done by monasteries in Palestine; it supplied the wants of the poor for many miles around. It rendered needless the hotel and the almshouse, the scourge of hunger, and the heavy poor tax.

Bede, in the Convent of Yarrow, was a highly-favored monk, in the light of science and learning, and in the grace of God.

Malmsbury says that his abbot, Benedict, “was the first person who introduced constructors of stone edifices into England, as well as makers of glass windows.” He quotes Bede as stating: “I have given my whole attention to the study of the Scriptures, and amid the observance of my regular discipline, and my daily duty of singing in the church, I have ever delighted to learn, to teach, or to write” This monk wrote seventy-six books, and sent them abroad in thirty-six volumes. He translated the Gospel of John into English for the benefit of his friends who did not understand Latin. He was constantly engaged in teaching. A more blameless, active, and useful life has seldom been given to men than his.

When he came near death, “I desire to be dissolved,” he says, “and to be with Christ; I have not passed my life among you in such a manner as to be ashamed to live; neither do I fear to die, because we have a kind Master.”

When sorely pained, he said: “The furnace tries the gold, and the fire of temptation the just man; the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the future glory which shall be revealed in us.” At night, he spent the whole time in singing psalms and giving thanks. On Ascension day, he lay down upon a hair cloth near the oratory where he used to pray, he invited the grace of the Holy Spirit, saying: “O King of glory, Lord of virtue, who ascendedst this day triumphant into the heavens, leave us not destitute, but send upon us the promise of the Father, the Spirit of Truth.” When the prayer was over, his soul had ascended to God. Bede died A.D. 734, in his fifty-ninth year.

In this account, given by the monk William of Malmsbury, he is corroborated by Paris and St. Cuthbert; and it is worthy of notice that no prayer is offered to the Virgin Mary, or to any saint or angel; not a word is said about purgatory or penances. Bede lived like a true disciple, and he died in a sure hope of being with the Lord when he passed away.

Bede, as a scholar, was beyond the rivalry of any Englishman in his day; his piety, too, was probably unequalled in or out of his own country. But there were thousands of monks in the previous and two subsequent centuries who walked with God. Doubtless they were defective in many things, but they were heavenly-minded men, with Christ in their hearts; and they shine in glory to-day among the most conspicuous of the redeemed.

The nations felt themselves under lasting obligations to these school-masters, authors, pen-printers, book-binders, professors of sciences, of theology, of agriculture; to these benevolent hosts, who kept free hotels for travelers, and abundance of food for the poor; to these preachers who visited the homes of wealth and the cottages of want, telling the story of the Cross, and communicating the same blessed tidings by the wayside, in the village, in the church, and wherever men congregated; to these saints of God who, while showing constantly the largest love to men, lived in the closest intimacy with the Eternal King. It is not to be understood that all monks, at the period named, even in the country of Bede, were good or pious men. Indeed, in Italy, and especially in Rome, religion had little place in the hearts of monks, clergy, or people. But elsewhere the peoples, sensible of the varied and vast benefits received from godly monks, bestowed. their finest lands upon the convents, showered their wealth upon the abbeys, and fitted them, some ages later, to be scenes of sloth, luxury, and odious vice.

The monks everywhere extolled the pope. He only could protect them from the tyranny of bishops and parish priests, between whom and them there was constant jealousy. And with a hearty good-will they commended him everywhere as the purest and mightiest of mortals, the successor of glorious Peter, the prince of the apostles, the special favorite of God. They made Europe ring with the praises and powers of the Bishop of Rome; the priests were inclined in the same direction; the people followed with acclamation; and the pontiffs were carried on a great tidal wave of popular enthusiasm into the throne of kings of the Church.

Forgeries.

The Bishops of Rome have never been slow to take advantage of anything that will aid them in obtaining power. Perhaps no one of them ever committed or encouraged forgery. Several of them certainly used the false documents made by others to increase their authority, just as if they had been genuine records,

The most notorious, and we may add the most outrageous instrument of this character, is known as the “Donation of Constantine.” It is founded on a fable that he was healed of leprosy and baptized by Pope Sylvester at Rome, and that the Great Constantine, out of gratitude, bestowed the sovereignty of Italy and of the western provinces on the pope. The pontiff is represented as lord of all bishops, having authority over the four patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. Constantine confesses in it, how he served the pope as groom, and led his horse some distance. The entire statement is a base forgery. Constantine reigned over old Rome till his death. His successors on the imperial throne exercised unquestioned dominion over the Eternal City. No one ever heard of this grant for at least four, and perhaps, five hundred years after it should have been made. On the strongest authority, the Christian world has always believed he was baptized in Nicomedia. From the canons of councils, and other undoubted testimonies, it is certain that the Roman bishops, at no time, had any authority over one of the Eastern patriarchs. In the language of a learned editor of Mosheim, “The document is universally allowed to be spurious,” and yet it was used for centuries to sustain the pope’s temporal authority over Rome and Italy; and his spiritual dominion over the Church.

Under the revered name of Isidore, Bishop of Seville, in the early part of the seventh century, the greatest batch of forgeries ever palmed upon men was published in western Gaul about A.D. 850. It was believed at that time that the Church was built upon Peter, and that his supposed successor was invested with extensive powers; but the pontiffs wanted something more, and by the providence of the wicked one, it comes in the form of a “complete series of decretals of the Roman bishops from Clement down; most of them utterly unknown before. The fraud was clumsily contrived and ignorantly executed, and had the deception not fallen in with a predominant interest of the Church, it might have been easily exposed. The letters were for the most part made up of passages borrowed from far later ecclesiastical documents, which the compiler took the liberty to alter and mutilate to suit his purpose. These ancient Roman bishops quote Scripture from a Latin translation formed from the mixture of one made by Jerome with another that had been current in earlier times.”

These letters occasionally forget the lapse of time. Victor, Bishop of Rome, is made to write about the observance of the passover to Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, who lived two centuries later!

The Bishop of Rome wanted some early authority for his power over the keys; and as it was never dreamt of before the middle of the fifth century, and as then it was only a dream, Isidore makes a letter from Pope Julius about A.D. 388, declaring that “The church of Rome by a singular privilege has the right of opening and shutting the gates of heaven to whom she will.” Julius little imagined that he would be engaged in writing letters five hundred years after his death, and in writing opinions which he never entertained when living, and which none of the dead, holy or wicked, ever received.

Ennodius in defending Pope Symmachus, A. D. 508, said, “That the popes inherit innocence and sanctity from St. Peter;” and as this doctrine was flattering, and fitted to increase their power, Isidore creates two synods at Rome, which unanimously approve the teaching of Ennodius.

The Roman bishop wished to prohibit all men, even though kings, from calling councils, and to keep these powerful bodies entirely in his own hands; and Isidore makes Pope Julius write that, “The apostles and the Nicene council had said that no council could be held without the pope’s command.”

The Roman bishops saw that an excommunicated man could buy and sell, enjoy the love of his friends and the society of his circle as well after the Church’s curse as before it; and perceiving that if excommunication forbade all intercourse with an anathematized man, his family would do nothing for him, his soldiers would not obey him, his subjects would have nothing to do with him; he would be absolutely at their mercy; and reflecting that they could hurl this bolt at any time against the meanest or the most exalted; they quickly saw that exclusion from intercourse would make every man their slave; and, in Isidore, the “earliest popes declare that no speech could be held with an excommunicated man.” This barbarous law, intended solely to further papal despotism, soon became a part of the code of the Church, and is there now.

But these forgeries are too extensive to examine separately. They declare the priests to be the apple of God’s eye; and as they are the representatives of God, the decretals assert that a sin against them is a transgression against Jehovah. The forgeries claim that priests are subject to no secular tribunal; that Jehovah has appointed them judges over all.

False Isidore frequently declares that Jesus Christ has made the Church of Rome the head of all churches, the sole and sufficient judge of all bishops, and the only authority by which a regular synod can ever be convened. Other forgeries followed the successful efforts of Isidore, until Pope Nicolas I. and pontiffs of equal ability and similar ambition, in ages of special darkness, abolished the whole liberties of the churches in nearly every country, and threatened the last vestige of freedom where a trace of it, as in France, was permitted to remain. No agencies rendered better service to the popes, in vaulting into their spiritual throne, than the labors of the pious forgers.

Oaths of obedience, binding the bishops to the pope and his interests, have aided the pontiff in securing his spiritual empire.

The Inquisition, though a little late in the field, has done some very gory service in securing papal ascendancy.

The work has been crowned in Rome at the recent council, when it declared the “dogma of infallibility.” Now the bishops are nothing; the inferior clergy are nothing; the laity, plebeian and patrician, sovereign and subject are nothing. In the papal Church in matters of faith there is one man, and all the rest are but shadows. He can proclaim anything as an article of faith, as a rule of life, and the whole Church must accept it. The sovereignty of the popes over the Church is now complete; only the celestial Head, set aside fur a crowned priest; only the heavenly Foundation, removed for a wavering apostle, can breathe Christian liberty among the bondmen held in subjection by the Bishop of Rome.

Continued in VII. The Pope Claims to be Lord of Kings and Nations – Part 1

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart




The Papal System – VI. Steps to Papal Sovereignty Over The Churches – Part 1

The Papal System – VI. Steps to Papal Sovereignty Over The Churches – Part 1

Continued from V. Christendom at the Beginning of the Seventh Century.

THE MEANS BY WHICH THE POPE BECAME SOVEREIGN OF ALL CATHOLIC CHURCHES.

The royal dominion of the popes, in its two grand divisions, over sovereigns and over the churches, is the wonder of the ages. Mighty empires were born, reached maturity and perished after its birth and before its death. It witnessed the last throes of the government of the Caesars, and it exercised the rights of chief magistracy when the peoples of France, Germany, and England were almost barbarians. It wielded the scepter of supreme dominion in Europe over the little affairs of hearts and homes, and over the mighty events that convulsed nations, with a grandeur of power and minuteness of universality never equaled in earthly history. The thinkers, the statesmen, and often the monarchs, for the greater part of a thousand years, felt honored by the patronage of the popes. The dominion of Babylon, of Alexander, the Caesars, Charlemagne, or of the first Bonaparte, never equaled the kingly authority of the “Priest enthroned on the Seven Hills.” The method by which this sacerdotal empire was built up and shielded against the assaults which overthrew other kingdoms not half so corrupt and tyrannical, has excited astonishment for centuries, and is a fit subject for wonder in this, the most enlightened period of human history.

The temporal power of the pontiffs over their own states, and over kings and governments, is altogether the outgrowth of their spiritual supremacy over the churches. The rise of the spiritual usurpation of the popes is the creation of that platform on which their secular throne was placed.

All great movements among men, wicked and holy, have had some mighty principle or principles, true or false, which gave them a firm grasp on the consciences, hearts, or interests of large numbers. Material instrumentalities, favorable circumstances, heroism, or the weakness of enemies, may aid liberally in securing success. But the thoughtful observer will always look for the great principle which gives birth and vigor to every gigantic movement. Turning away from the pride of the Bishops of Rome which led them to covet universal dominion over the churches, the argument which persuaded the churches to accept the sovereignty of the popes, was that

Christ had built his Church on Peter, and had made him master of it, by giving him the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

All the skill, audacity, and struggles of the popes would have been fruitless without this Scripture, and the supposed authority with which it invests Peter and his successors. The Saviour’s words are:

    “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” Matt. xvi. 18.

The papal exposition of this saying is: Peter supports the whole Church, and the pope succeeds him in this position; by the keys which the pontiff receives as Peter’s successor, he is the ruler of the whole kingdom or Church of God, with authority to bind or loose whomsoever or whatsoever he will.

This interpretation seemed plausible, and the claim of the Bishop of Rome, when stubbornly made, a little difficult to resist, especially as his pretensions were urged in an age totally ignorant of the divine Word.

At the Council of Chalcedon, this doctrine was prominently announced for the first time, by the representatives of Pope Leo the Great. Dioscoros, Bishop of Alexandria, the President of the second council of Ephesus, was the most unpopular man in the episcopal assembly at Chalcedon. Nearly the entire Church, East and West, hated him. Pope Leo, for resisting him, was regarded with enthusiasm. He had given Dioscoros some heavy blows, and received some keen thrusts in return. Dioscoros excommunicated Leo, pope though he was; and on two occasions in the Council of Ephesus, he insolently refused permission for the reading of an eloquent letter of Leo, denouncing the heresy of the monk Eutyches. At this council, while every one was condemning Dioscoros and commending Leo, his delegates declared Dioscoros deprived of his dignity by the authority of Leo, the most blessed and holy archbishop of the great and elder Rome, and in conjunction with: “The twice blessed and all honored Peter, who is the rock and basis of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith.” When these words were pronounced, they were not used to urge a claim to any precedency by the bishops of Rome; they were spoken to give force to the condemnation of Dioscoros, whom all abhorred, and no censure was passed upon them. A little later, when the epistle of Leo was read, the bishops were so charmed with its doctrine that they exclaimed:

    “This is the faith of the fathers; this is the faith of the apostles. Peter has uttered these words through Leo. Thus has Cyril taught, the teaching of Leo and Cyril is the same. Anathema to him who does not thus believe.”

From the statement, “Peter has uttered these words through Leo,” it has been inferred that the prelates at Chalcedon received Peter as the master of the Church; as its foundation; and as the owner of its keys; and Leo as the successor of Peter’s privileges. But the bishops never dreamt that Peter was lord of the Church, or that Leo had any authority outside his own province. All they meant by Peter speaking through Leo was, that the present Bishop of Rome wrote the same truths which Peter, the first bishop, published.

No early council so emphatically declares that the dignity of the Church of old Rome rests only on the fact that it was the imperial city. It awarded equal precedency to the Church of New Rome (Constantinople), “Reasonably judging that a city which is honored with the government and senate, should enjoy equal rank with the ancient queen, Rome, and, like her, be magnified in ecclesiastical matters, having the second place after her.” Here was the place to recognize Peter as the rock and keyholder of the Church, and the pope as his successor, But at Chalcedon, the pontiff was only respected as the bishop of the old capital of the world.

Leo, in a letter to the Illyrian bishops, asserts the same doctrines in the strongest terms; and on the basis of it makes the most presumptuous claim to supremacy over the churches. He says:

    “That on him as the successor of the Apostle Peter, on whom, as the reward of his faith, the Lord had conferred the primacy of apostolic rank, and on whom he had firmly grounded the universal Church, was devolved the care of all the churches, to participate in which, he invited his colleagues, the’ other bishops.”

This fortunate discovery, in the middle of the fifth century, was destined to revolutionize the churches, and the Christian religion. At first it was rejected even when mildly asserted; but in process of time, people became accustomed to it; the pope’s friends, who were legion, published it all over the West; the holiest men were engaged in its advocacy; those who sustained it were upheld by Rome in all troubles, and honored by the highest ecclesiastical preferments its bishop could bestow or procure. Finally, St. Peter became a kind of omnipresent deity, whose head-quarters were at Rome, where from his tomb he watched with jealous eye and mighty arm over his successors, and those who befriended them; whose all-powerful protection was stretched over the most distant priest of Rome, and the poorest devotee who paid any reverence to the great bishop who lived on the Tiber.

Gifts to Rome became donations to St. Peter. Insults to Rome became wrongs to St. Peter. The patronage of Rome became the favor of St. Peter. The protection of Rome became the shield of St. Peter. And all over Western Christendom the identity of privileges existing between the departed Peter and the living pope, made the Roman Bishop the most revered of mortals.

In the council at Whitby, A.D. 664, already noticed, Wilfrid, the Romanist, addressed Coleman, the anti-papist, and said:

    “If that Columba of yours was a holy man, and powerful in miracles, yet could he be preferred before the most blessed prince of the apostles to whom our Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and to thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven?'”

King Oswy demanded if it were true that Christ had spoken these words to Peter? Coleman replied: “It is true, O king.” Then, says he: “Can you show any such power given to your Columba?” “None,” Coleman answered. The king immediately decided against the anti-papists, received the Romanists into favor, and ordered the pope’s observances to be kept throughout his dominions. And his adversaries found it pleasanter to leave Oswy’s kingdom than to remain in it.

PETER ALMOST A DEITY.

St. Peter became an object of terror throughout the barbarous nations of Western Europe, through the astonishing fables told about him by the clerical friends of the Roman Bishop. Lawrence, Archbishop of Canterbury, A.D. 617, was about to leave Britain on account of the harsh treatment he received from Eadbald, the heathen and incestuous King of Kent. On the night before his departure, there appeared to him “The most blessed prince of the apostles,” who gave him a long and severe scourging, and demanded why he was going to forsake the flock he had committed to him, surrounded as they were by wolves? Next day he told the story to Eadbald, and showed him the marks of the severe flagellation. Eadbald was greatly alarmed, no doubt fearing a similar visit, and sorer blows; and immediately renounced idolatry and his father’s wife, and embraced the faith of Christ and the fear of Peter, whose successor was Bishop of Rome.

Pope Vitalian, A.D. 657, in granting a charter for the English Abbey of Peterborough, added to it these words: “If any one break this in anything, may St. Peter exterminate him with his sword: if any one observe it, may St. Peter, with the keys of heaven, open for him the kingdom of heaven.” Thus was Peter turned into a demon or a deity, to frighten or favor Christians, by the adherents of the pontiff.

When Pepin, A.D. 755, reconquered from the Longobards the territories they had acquired, he declared that he fought for the “Patrimony of St. Peter,” and he had a deed of gift made out handing over the subjugated region to the Church of Rome; and this document was placed by his chaplain on the tomb of St. Peter.

Charlemagne, the illustrious sovereign and statesman, was filled with the highest reverence for St. Peter; and accompanied by the most distinguished persons in his empire, he often visited Rome, and there, where the grave of Peter was shown, he missed no opportunity of paying the highest honor to the memory of the prince of the apostles.

From England monks and nuns, ecclesiastics of all ranks, nobles and kings came to Rome, for the purpose of visiting the tomb of St. Peter; that tomb, in the seventh and eighth centuries, to the Anglo-Saxons, was the most sacred spot in Europe, or perhaps in Asia.

St. Peter, with the pope as his successor, became the creator of papal supremacy over the churches; he wrote a famous letter to Pepin, telling him to come to the aid of his representative, the pope, with all his forces; and undoubtedly the letter had great influence with the superstitious Frank; he appeared in visions, encouraging obedience to his vicar, the Roman Bishop, or recommending the presentation to him of some costly gift. Under the standard of St. Peter victory succeeded conquest, until over almost the entire churches of the West the flag of Simon, that is of Rome, waved in triumph.

At the Revolution, in 1775, the words floated from every lip: “No taxation without representation.” This declaration involved the great principle which tore the colonies from the mother country, and banded the energies and forces of American patriots on every battle-field. What that cry was to the heroes who defended our freedom, the words of Jesus about the rock on which he should build his Church, about his gift of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing to Peter, were to the popes. It gathered nearly all the churches and peoples of the West into their fold.

This passage gives Peter no power not enjoyed by his brother Apostles.

The Saviour’s words to Peter, by a candid interpretation, show that Peter was not the rock; that the rock was his confession. The Greek word Petros, or Peter, is not the word translated rock: that word is petra. It is very manifest, that if the Saviour meant Peter to be known as the rock upon which he was about to build his Church, that he would have said: “Thou art Petros, and upon this Petros I will build my Church.” But instead of that, he says: “Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church.” Petra is a Greek noun in the feminine gender; the pronoun “this,” in the Greek text, is in the feminine gender, agreeing with the gender of the noun petra; Petros, or Peter, is in the masculine gender. Petra then MUST refer to something different from Peter, There would have been Petros on two occasions in this verse, instead of Petros and petra, if Peter had been the rock. Besides, Petros is a stone, a movable stone; petra is a rock, a mass of rocks, a cliff. The one, such a stone as a maid-servant in the hall of judgment might upset; the other the Rock of Ages—the confession that Peter made that Christ was the Son of the living God. And this view was entertained by the most eminent fathers. Says St. Augustine:

    “The Church does not fall, because it is founded on the rock from which Peter received his name. For the rock is not called after Peter, but Peter is so called after the rock: just as Christ is not so denominated after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ; for it is on this account our Lord declares, ‘on this rock I will found my Church, because Peter had said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God?’ On this rock which thou hast confessed, he declares, ‘I will build my Church;’ for Christ was the rock on whose foundation Peter himself was built.”

Chrysostom held the same opinion about this passage. He says: “Upon the rock, that is, upon the faith of his confession,” and again: “Christ says that he would build his Church upon Peter’s confession.”

Theodoret says: “Our Lord permitted the first of the apostles, whose confession he fixed as a prop or foundation of the Church, to be shaken.”

The same view of this Scripture was taken by other leading fathers of the Church. And, outside of Rome, for the first five centuries of our era, no Christian father of any note dreamt that this saying gave Peter the sovereignty of the Church.

The Rock on which the Church was built was not Petros (Peter) but petra, the Rock of Ages, the Divine Son.

The Keys.

Romanists, by the keys, sometimes understand Peter’s power to open heaven for whom he will, and to close it against his enemies; and sometimes the absolute mastery which the Saviour gave him, as they suppose, over his Church. As the keys of a house confer upon a man the control of that structure, so the keys of the kingdom of heaven, given to Peter, it is believed, gave him complete lordship over the Church.

The kingdom of heaven in Matt. xvi. 18, is undoubtedly the gospel dispensation, as it is in Matt. iii. 2; iv. 17; x. 7, and elsewhere. And the keys of Peter conferred a special honor on him, but no particular power. The gospel kingdom was never properly established till the ascension of Jesus, and his occupancy of the mediatorial throne, and the descent of the mighty Comforter. And when this Comforter comes down in the majesty of regenerating power for the first time, on the day of Pentecost, Peter is the preacher, and Cephas, with his keys of grace, opens the heavenly kingdom to all Israel, and to the assembled Jews of many lands, three thousand of whom are converted.

And when the kingdom of heaven is to be opened to the Gentile nations, Peter is assigned the post of honor. Cornelius, by direction of Heaven, sends for Peter; by the same high authority, Peter is admonished to go to the house of the centurion, and there he preaches to its Gentile inmates, and they are born into the kingdom of Jesus, the first gospel converts from heathen nations. As Adoniram Judson opened the heavenly kingdom to the Burmese, Peter opened it to Jews and Gentiles. And after this labor, which conferred on him an immortality of honor, was over, the work of Peter’s keys was ended. The promised keys gave Peter no jurisdiction, no authority over the Church.

The Binding and Loosing.

Peter received undoubted power through the promise: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Peter had the loan of the all-piercing eye of the Divine Spirit to see facts, truth, and error, and states of soul, as no man but an apostle ever had in the same omniscient fullness. Hence, when Ananias came before him, he could tell the covetous hypocrite his hidden sin, through divine inspiration. So much was he possessed of the Spirit of God, that the falsehood Ananias addressed to him appeared to be “a lie, not unto man, but unto God.” Since the days of the apostles, the power to write Scripture, to possess a supernatural knowledge of facts, or to discern the condition of the soul, so as to know if it was truly penitent, and if so, or if not so, to assure it that its sins were bound on it in heaven, or loosed from it by the great Saviour’s loving hands, has not existed in any mortal.

The power of binding and loosing was common to all the apostles. The Saviour says to them, Matt. xviii. 18: “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Peter had no privilege above his brother apostles. His rights and powers were the same as theirs.

The saying of Jesus to Peter, “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not,” has been quoted by popes on various occasions as evidence that Peter was above his apostolic brethren. It furnishes testimony only that Peter might be sifted as wheat by the wicked one, and that he needed the Saviour’s intercession to keep him from showing the most disgraceful infirmities of the human heart. Anyhow, these words have no more to do with the pope than the other words of Jesus to Peter: “This night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.”

The commands of Jesus, to feed His lambs, and to feed His sheep, have been urged repeatedly to prove that Peter was pastor of the Church universal, or head of the whole Church. The words convey no such meaning. Peter was a teacher of the gospel; and, evidently as a rebuke to him for past denials, the Master asks him three times if he loves him. Peter is grieved by the question, and forthwith he receives the command to feed the lambs and sheep of Jesus. “Peter,” says Jesus, “if you love me, be faithful in your calling, and feed my flock, young and old.” It seems absurd in the extreme to gather papal sovereignty over the churches from such commands. Besides, Peter, not the pope, is addressed.

The Apostles were ignorant of Peter’s Authority over them.

When the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they “sent unto them Peter and John” (Acts viii. 14) to confirm them. Surely, Peter is not the prince of the apostles, sent on a mission by his subjects. After the celebrated council held at Jerusalem, a letter is sent to the Christians of Gentile antecedents in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia; and the letter comes from “the apostles, and elders, and brethren.” Acts xv. 23. Now, Peter was among the apostles sending this letter; but there is not a word about him showing that he was not on an equality with his brethren. If the papal theory is correct, the letter ought to have come from, “Pope Peter, the apostles, elders, and brethren.” When deacons were to be elected, Pope Peter has no more to do with the business than his brethren. It is said (Acts vi. 2): “Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them,” and gave them instructions to choose seven deacons. Paul says: “For in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles.” 2 Cor. xii. 11. Surely, then, he could have no ecclesiastical superior, or his inspired words are false.

And at Antioch, Peter acts like one unworthy of his Master, and Paul rebukes him, as he would have admonished Timothy or Philemon, “And he withstood him to the face, for he was to be blamed.” Gal. ii. 11. Undoubtedly, Peter had not yet learned his own infallibility; and Paul was totally unconscious of Peter’s elevation to the sovereignty of the apostles and of the Church, And the whole Scriptures are ignorant of this lordship of Peter over Christ’s family. It is destitute of Biblical warrant; it has, therefore, no claim to Divine authority.

Peter has no successor as PRINCE of the Apostles.

It is difficult to succeed one in an office which he never filled, and which never existed.

Peter had no successor as an Apostle.

Peter himself took an active part in the choice of a successor to the apostle Judas, an account of which is given in the first chapter of The Acts. Matthias was elected to the place vacated by the traitor. No successor was ever appointed to any other departed apostle.

There could not have been a successor to the apostles, according to Peter, after the companions of Jesus died.

In describing the qualifications of a successor to Judas, he says: “Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” Acts i. 21, 22.

The chief business of an apostle was to be an eye-witness of and for Christ, and especially of his resurrection. To this end, according to Peter, he must have been with Jesus from his baptism to his ascension. And as the class of favored men who enjoyed this distinction left the world soon after their Master, earth soon lost the entire materials out of which (if Peter was not mistaken) successors to the apostles could be made.

There was an unlovely office, the duties of which, on one occasion, Peter discharged with great earnestness—the office of blasphemer. When he denied his Master, Mark says: “But he began to curse and to swear, I know not the man.” Mark xiv. 71. The word translated curse is “anathematize,” the very word used at the end of every canon of the Council of Trent. That council made 126 canons and five decrees on original sin, in the form of canons, without the name, and each decree and canon is followed by Peter’s curse, even Peter’s word, transferred into Latin, is used.

The last words uttered in the Council of Trent by its bishops were a response to the Cardinal of Lorraine, who exclaimed: “A curse upon all heretics” (anathema cunctis hereticis), and immediately the bishops replied: “Let them be accursed, let them be accursed” (anathema, anathema). Peter’s word, when he wished to give solemnity and credibility to his denial of Jesus, was the last word uttered in the Council of Trent by its episcopal members.

If the succession to Peter fails in some things, it can be stoutly maintained in reference to Cursing, by the testimony of every papal canon published for many centuries.

Universal Bishop.

This title had been denounced by Gregory the Great with scorn and horror when given to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Nevertheless, Boniface, A.D. 609, according to Matthew Paris, solicited it from the emperor. Phocas, at the time, sat on the throne of Constantinople. This monarch was diminutive and deformed, with shaggy eyebrows, red hair, a beardless chin, and a cheek disfigured and discolored by a formidable scar. He was quite illiterate, and totally destitute of that culture and capacity which would fit him for his imperial station. In his moral deficiencies, he was remarkable for drunkenness, lewdness, and other brutal pleasures. From the rank of a centurion, at a bound, he ascended the throne of the Caesars. He had Maurice, his predecessor, and his five sons, dragged forth from the church at Chalcedon, in which they had taken refuge; the sons were slain before the eyes of their father, and then he was dispatched. Their bodies were thrown into the sea, and their heads exposed at Constantinople. A little later, Theodosius, another son, was butchered by his order at Nice. Constantina, the wife of Maurice, was respected as among the purest and noblest of living women; she had three daughters, who were held in the highest esteem. These ladies were seized by command of Phocas, and beheaded at Chalcedon, on the same ground where the father and his sons perished.

Other enemies of Phocas had their eyes pierced, their tongues torn out, their hands and feet cut off, or their bodies transfixed with arrows; or they were scourged to death; or they were consumed to ashes. The hippodrome was ghastly with human heads and limbs, and mangled bodies. A baser wretch never stained a throne, or invited the vengeance of Heaven.

Gregory the Great wrote to Phocas on his accession to the throne, extending his congratulations in terms of unusual delight, saying: “What thanks are we not bound to return to the Almighty who has, at last, been pleased to deliver us from the yoke of slavery” (the mild government of the good Maurice), “and to make us again enjoy liberty under your empire!” He says: “It has pleased the Almighty, in his goodness and mercy, to place you on the throne.” Truly there is cause for astonishment in reading these and kindred sayings of large-hearted old Gregory, commending and glorifying a man who carried as many execrations as any wretch that ever cursed his race.

Matthew Paris says that, “At the request of Boniface, Phocas decreed that the Roman Church should be head and mistress of all churches; for, in times past, the Church of Constantinople had styled herself the chief of all churches.” Phocas repealed the law bestowing the title of universal bishop on the patriarch of New Rome; and he gave that title, with all its privileges, to Boniface.

The pope assumed it with joy, and resolved to test its worth immediately, by exercising the powers it conferred. He forthwith called a council, which met in Rome, consisting of 72 bishops and some inferior clergy, in which he acted as if he was monarch of the whole Church. By a decree which he issued in that Council, it was declared, pronounced, and defined, that no election of a bishop should henceforth be lawful unless made by the people and clergy, and approved by the prince, and confirmed by the pope interposing his authority in the following terms: “We will and command” (volumus et jubemus). Thus the imperial power invested with its high sanctions the claims of the Roman bishops to universal supremacy over the churches.

Phocas, the basest of usurpers and murderers, anointed Boniface as sovereign of Christ’s entire kingdom. The imperial decree, coupled with the supposed saying of Jesus, that he built his Church on Peter, seemed to furnish all needed authority, mundane and celestial, for the lordly, spiritual empire of Peter’s successors. And these two considerations did give immense aid to the erection of the spiritual tyranny of the popes.

Continued in Steps to Papal Sovereignty Over The Churches – Part 2

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart




Lyndon B. Johnson Complicit with the Vatican and Jesuits in the Murder of JFK

Lyndon B. Johnson Complicit with the Vatican and Jesuits in the Murder of JFK

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aiming to declassify remaining federal records relating to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. Trump said, “everything will be revealed.” Let’s see if General Herbert C. Holdridge letter to Carr Waggoner, Attorney General of the State of Texas about the JFK assassination is also revealed.

Below is a letter from U.S. Brigadier General Herbert C. Holdridge to Carr Waggoner, Attorney General of the State of Texas, dated November 27th 1963, entitled Complicity of Lyndon B. Johnson In the Murders of John F. Kennedy and Lee Howard Oswald. In the letter Holdridge flat out accused Lyndon Johnson of working with the Jesuits to murder JFK! I got the text from a hard to read PDF file and made it easier for us all to read. You can see the PDF file below to determine if I did it correctly or not.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES
OPEN LETTER P. O. box 566 • Laguna Beach, California November 27, 1963

TO: Honorable Carron Waggoner, Attorney General, State of Texas

Complicity of Lyndon B. Johnson In the Murders of John F. Kennedy and Lee Howard Oswald

As a postscript to my letter of November 24th concerning Investigation of these two murders, I suggest a careful scrutiny of the complicity of Mr. Lyndon Johnson, now acting as President, In these crimes, within the area of my conclusion that these murders were plotted by Vatican-Jesuit forces. I offer the following additional factors bearing on the situation:

1) Lyndon B. Johnson was a co-conspirator with Kennedy and the forces of the Vatican in the Fraudulent election of 1960, and is equally guilty with Kennedy for every crime committed. He accepted without protest, the Pope’s seditious orders that all Roman Catholics vote for Kennedy; engaged In every political fraud which brought Kennedy to power; was responsible for the mammoth frauds perpetrated In Texas by his own political machine; made the “pilgrimage to Canossa” to yield allegiance to the Pope, invalidating his oath to the Constitution; and after Kennedy’s Inauguration become a willing accessory to every executive crime. Kennedy’s Inauguration being fraudulent, and by adhering to enemies of the United States, treason, Johnson’s Inauguration was Identical, and he is no more a legal President than would have been the lowliest “wino” snatched from Skid Row and hastily sworn in as President.

2) Johnson’s purpose to continue the seditious policies of Kennedy was made plain in his address to Congress: his adherence to the Kennedy policies in Viet Nam, involving the murder of Buddhist monks, and the subsequent murders of Diem and Nhu, all under the Inspiration of the CIA; adherence to support of the Wall Street “Shark“ which has bankrupted the United States, in its raids against the “Sardines” of Latin America, under the guise of an already aborted Alliance For Progress; reliance on H-bomb diplomacy as the ultimate international Instrument; pledge of loyalty to the United Nations, controlled by nations enemies of our Constitution, but not one word spoken of loyalty to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (In the Kennedy precedent in his Inaugural ) – talking out of both sides of his mouth, a very gem of Jesuitical double-talk, undoubtedly written by a Jesuit.

3) Johnson’s crocodile tears over the murder of Kennedy, but not one word of responsible executive purpose to uncover every hidden criminal who helped plot the assassinations, preferring – like the police of Dallas – to announce by silence that the record of Oswald is now closed – and I repeat, “Like Hell it is”.

4) As a long-time Texas politician, acquainted with every political outlaw, and having access to all facts or rumors prior to assassinations, and more surely subsequent thereto, remaining mute though the world shudders at the open knowledge of murder of Oswald to cover for the real criminals, indicating clearly that Johnson possesses guilty knowledge, or is himself a participant In the crime. Had he nothing to conceal he would, himself, have taken the initiative for full investigation.

5) In any murder a compelling question Is: “Who had the most to gain?” The obvious answer is Lyndon B. Johnson, for all his tearful regrets.

6) Participating in the four days of vulgar Vatican ballyhoo, turning a fraud and criminal into a saint, squeezing every ounce of political and clerical advantage out of the cadaver of the dead Kennedy, as had been done during life, including the exploitation of his entire family.

7) Undoubtedly prepared to accept Robert Kennedy as vice-presidential candidate for the 1964 elections, as already hinted, to permit the Pope to play both ends against the middle: accession of John McCormack if Johnson dies (as was predicted along with Kennedy), or Robert Kennedy if Johnson lives, to keep a foot In the crock of the door to perpetuate the fallen Kennedy dynasty.

8) Were the communists involved In these murders, Johnson and the Vatican would have exploded their full propaganda against the USSR. The fact that they have remained mute Indicates that they realize their own involvement, know where the bodies are buried, and rely upon the seditious, falsifying, mobster press controlled by the Vatican and Wall Street, to cover their crimes.

In view of the above I demand that Johnson be questioned under oath, and nit actions subjected to the same thorough investigation demanded of other suspects. The Constitution cannot be defended otherwise.

By Authority Of The Constitution Of The United States:

Herbert C. Holdridge, Brigadier General, US Army (Retired)

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [283.05 KB]




The Jesuit Conspiracy. The Secret Plan of the Order. – Jacopo Leone

The Jesuit Conspiracy. The Secret Plan of the Order. – Jacopo Leone

The author of this book which was published in 1948, Jacopo Leone, was an Italian Roman Catholic who underwent training to become a Jesuit. He left the Jesuit Order after only a short time after seeing and hearing things that shocked him.

If you read The Secret Plan of the Jesuit Order, I think you will see the Jesuits in a new light; not as a benevolent group of missionaries and educators, but as a militant army seeking to destroy the faith of those who trust the Word of God in the Bible and lean completely on Jesus Christ alone for salvation, and not on the organized religion of the Roman Catholic church.

Here are some quotes from The Secret Plan about what the Jesuits say about the Bible:

“The Bible, that serpent which, with head erect and eyes flashing fire, threatens us with its venom whilst it trails along the ground, shall be changed again into a rod as soon as we are able to seize it; and what wounds will we not inflict with it upon these hardened Pharaohs and their cunning magicians! What miracles will we not work by its means! Oh, then, mysterious Rod, we will not again suffer thee to escape from our hands, and fall to the earth!”

“My brethren, as to the Bible, be advised by me. For our greater good let us avoid—let us carefully avoid this ground. If I may tell you, openly, what I think of this book, it is not at all for us; it is against us. I do not at all wonder at the invincible obstinacy it engenders in all those who regard its verses as inspired.

“Can you, indeed, deny that the present rage for innovation has arisen from the movement occasioned by Protestantism in throwing the Bible before the senseless multitude? The first thing, therefore, to be done is to bring them back from the Bible to Catholic authority, which retrenches from this book only what is hurtful, allowing free circulation to those portions of it alone which ensure good order.”

“So then the Bible, submitted to the right of private judgment, is but a false God, a mute word; it only becomes intelligible in one single mouth—that of the pope. Moreover, this book is incomplete; the little that is found there is only a germ. Never was there a shallower notion than that of seeking in the Bible the whole sum of the Christian dogmas.”

“As regards the Bible, I am quite prepared to maintain the happy idea of representing it only as a primitive and unfinished sketch; whence we may justly say that it would be folly to expect the church to be now what it was originally; as well might we expect a man to retrograde to his cradle.”

THE JESUIT CONSPIRACY,

THE SECRET PLAN

OF

THE ORDER.

DETECTED AND REVEALED BY

THE ABBATE LEONE.

WITH A PREFACE BY M. VICTOR CONSIDERANT.

Member of the National Amenably of France, and of the Municipal Council of the Seine.

TRANSLATED, WITH THE AUTHOR’S SANCTION, FROM THE AUTHENTIC FRENCH EDITION.

EDITOR’S PREFACE.

In putting forth a publication like the present, the authenticity of which will undoubtedly be strongly contested by those who are interested in so doing—one, moreover, which does not belong to the class of writings emanating from the Societary School, and which I edit in my own individual capacity, I am bound to accompany it with a testimonial, and with some personal explanations.

I.

I had long been aware of the existence of the Secret Plan, of which I had received accounts from many of my friends in Geneva. Their esteem and affection for M. Leone were of a very warm nature. They spoke of him in terms that excluded all suspicion of fraud. The objects too of his constant studies, the elevation of his ideas, and his religious labours in the Edificateur, indicated a man of serious character, loving goodness, and pursuing truth with natural and sincere ardour. Notwithstanding all these grounds for a favour¬ able prejudice, I confess that I could not bring myself to believe what had been told me of the Jesuit Conference.

Visiting Geneva in September, 1846, I heard the Secret Plan much talked of, and on all hands I received the most positive assurances of M. Leone’s good faith. Among those to whom he had made complete disclosures—and there were a great number of such persons— I did not meet with one who was not convinced of the authenticity of the Conference, and of the narrator’s veracity. Nevertheless it was not until I had had some very serious conversations with men whose perspicacity and good sense it would have been absurd in me to disregard—men who had long held intercourse with M. Leone, and frequently heard his manuscript read—that my incredulity was shaken.

I felt, indeed, that after all I was infinitely less competent to decide in the matter than those whose judgment upon it was opposed to mine, and that not having seen the documents or conversed with the witness, it would have been presumptuous and irrational in me to settle dogmatically that they were wrong and that I was right. I therefore suspended my judgment, and abstained from forming any positive opinion on the subject.

It was in Paris, towards the close of 1846, that I first saw M. Leone. I scarcely spoke to him about his manuscript, for which I was informed he had found a* publisher. I awaited the appearance of the work to become acquainted with its contents.

I must confess that at that time I did not believe much in the Jesuits, and therefore I was disposed to attach but little importance to the publication of the Conference. It had always struck me that the public did the Jesuits too much honour in giving themselves so much concern about them. I believed indeed that the order was deeply committed to very retrograde ideas, but I did not give it credit for the activity, profundity, or Machiavellian ubiquity generally imputed to it. In a word, to use a phrase that accurately expresses what I then thought, I calculated that at least a discount of from sixty to eighty per cent should be struck off from the current estimate respecting the Jesuits.

As for their obscurantist and retrograde conspiracy, I thought it of no more account against the development of human progress and liberty, than the barriers of sand raised by children against the tides of the ocean. And even now, though enlightened as to the character and intrinsic power of the celebrated Company, I still persist in that opinion; for, however strong the arms that raise it, the anti-democratic barrier is still but a rampart of shifting sand, incapable of stopping the rising tide: at most it can but trouble the clearness of the foremost waves.

II.

By-and-bye M. Leone was a more frequent attendant at our weekly conversations on Wednesday at the office of the Democratic Pacifique. He spoke to me of a work on which he was engaged, and appointed a day on which to read me a copious exposition of the argument. I listened to it with the liveliest interest, and was deeply impressed by its contents. They related to the publication of extremely important documents, stamped with the highest ecclesiastical sanction, absolutely authentic beyond all cavil (trivial objection), and formed to shatter the coarse and oppressive carapace (protective shell) of the Catholic Theocracy,* and place in the most shining light the democratic and humanitary Christianity of the gospel, and the fathers of the first three centuries. It is the lamp that sets fire to the bushel.

* Theocracy. Excepting the rigorously defined terms used in mathematics, almost all words in the language have very diverse meanings; yet with good faith and some intelligence a mutual understanding is always possible.

But to avoid every false interpretation of the word Theocracy, which occurs frequently in the preface, I declare that both therein, and in the rest of the work, it is employed in its historical signification, and not at all in its grand and beautiful etymological sense.

Theocracy, in its historical import is the usurpation of the temporal government by a caste or sacerdotal body, separated from the people, and exercising political, social, and religious despotism. For this Theocracy religion is but a means, domination is the end.

The etymological meaning of the same word is, on the contrary, the government of God, the coming of that reign of God, which Jesus commands us to pray for to our heavenly Father, and to establish amongst us; that is to say, the ideal of government here below—democracy, evangelically, harmoniously, and religiously organised. In this sense, far from repudiating Theocracy, no one would desire it more ardently than I!

The publication of this work, resting on the most solid bases, and of a theoretic value altogether superior, appeared to me most important. The Introduction was complete, and was about to be published separately in one volume, for which I was making the necessary corrections, when Leone received from one of our common friends in Geneva intelligence of a breach of confidence committed by his copyist, and the advertisement of the approaching publication of the Secret Plan in Berne.

On receiving this news, the details of which are given in the subsequent introduction, Leone changed his plans. He begged me to lay aside the first work, and immediately publish the Secret Plan in Paris, so as if possible to anticipate the necessarily faulty, truncated, and wholly unsubstantiated edition that was about to appear in Switzerland. But the notice he had received was too late, and ere long he had in his hands a copy of a bad edition, containing a part only of his MS., printed at Berne, without name or testimonial, and which in its anonymous garb—the livery of shame -—did not and could not obtain any general notice. Thenceforth Leone’s solicitude was not so much to hasten as to perfect the publication which was already in the press, and to make the third part (corroborative proofs), which is entirely wanting in the Berne edition, as complete as circumstances could require or allow.

III.

At that period there no longer remained any doubt in my mind as to the authenticity of the Secret Conference and Leone’s sincerity.

To suppose that his story was a romance, the Conference a lying fabrication, and that Leone made me at once the dupe and the accomplice of a calumnious hoax, it would be necessary to esteem him the vilest and most despicable of men, considering the mutual relations that had grown up between us. But those relations had fully justified in my eyes the high estimate which our common friends in Geneva, who had known him long and intimately, had formed of his integrity, highmindedness, and goodness of soul. I therefore declare, that if the circumstances detailed in the following narrative present to the reader’s eyes an extraordinary character and a romantic appearance, calculated to stagger his belief, I for my part would regard as a still more inexplicable mystery, the quantum of baseness, and the power of fraud, which Leone must have been endowed with, in order so long to beguile the attached friends he had found in Geneva and Paris. Leone has given us such strong positive proofs of disinterestedness, single-minded sincerity, and incapacity to play an assumed part, that far from ascribing to him the faculty of mystifying and duping others, those who know him see in him, along with an unswerving devotedness to principle and truth, one of those natures which, while they preserve in mature age the confiding simplicity and sensibility of early youth, are much rather themselves exposed to be deceived every day.

IV.

But the guarantees afforded by the character of the witness are not the only motives that have convinced me of the authenticity of his testimony. Thousands of proofs, incidents of conversation, questions put at long intervals on delicate points, and imperceptible circumstances of the drama, have always resulted in an agreement so exact, positive, and formal, that truth alone could produce such perfect coaptation (fitting together). One example will he sufficient to explain the nature of the proofs I am now alluding to.

Among other points in the narrative, it had struck me as an extraordinary and quite romantic circumstance, that, when the young neophyte entered the rector’s apartment in the convent of Chieri, and took for his amusement a book from one of the library shelves, he should have found in the very first instance, behind the very first book he laid his hand on, the registry of the Confessions of the Novices, and again, immediately behind it, that of the Confessions of Strangers, and the rest. I had often reflected on the singularly surprising nature of this chance, and I had intended to mention my perplexity on this subject to Leone. Now it happened one morning while I was writing, and while he was conversing near me with other persons to whom he was relating his adventure, I heard him say, in the course of a narrative delivered with all the precision of a very lively recollection, “I laid my hand on the first book on the library shelf.” This trivial detail, which was not in the first manuscript, and which Leone thus gave, unasked for, in the course of a recital the animation of which vividly recalled the scene to his memory and made him describe all its circumstances, explained to me in the most natural and satisfactory manner a thing which had previously appeared to me in the light, not indeed of an impossibility, but of a serious improbability.

This example is enough to show the nature of the counterproofs I have mentioned; and so great a number of similar ones have occurred to me, in the infinite turns and changes of conversation, during the four or five months I have been led to apply myself, often for several hours daily, to the correction of Leone’s manuscript and proofs, that for my own part, independently of the arguments drawn from the character of the man, they are enough to erase from my mind all doubt as to the veracity of his tale. The utmost skill in lying could not produce a tissue always perfectly smooth in its most delicate interruptions. Imagination may, no doubt, very ingeniously arrange the plot and details of a fiction; but if at long intervals, in the thousand turns of conversation, and without letting the author perceive your drift, you make him talk at random of all the details which the story suggests, then certainly if the web is spurious you will discover many a broken thread. Now, this web of Leone’s I have examined with a microscope for months together in every part, and I have not been able to detect in it one broken thread or one knot. I have no doubt, therefore, if the authenticity of the narrative become the subject of serious discussion, that the narrator will rise victorious over every difficulty that can be raised up against him; for I do not think that he can encounter any stronger or more numerous than I myself and some of my friends have directly or indirectly set before him.

V.

I will now examine considerations of a third kind, which have this advantage over the preceding ones, that they can be directly appreciated by everybody— for they are derived from internal evidence.

I say, without hesitation, that to me it is not matter of doubt that every cool impartial person, who has some experience of the affairs of life and of literature, and who shall have read very attentively the speeches in the Secret Conference, will recognize in them the distinct stamp of reality.

It seems evident to me that these speeches cannot be the produce of a literary artist’s imagination: the imitation of nature is not to be carried to such a pitch. Certainly, it is not a young man, a young Piedmontese priest, though endowed with talent, sensibility, imagination, and good sense, who could have produced such a work. To this day, though his intellect is much more mature and his acquirements considerably enlarged, I do not hesitate to declare Leone quite incapable of composing such a piece. I go further and assert, that there is not one among all the living writers of Europe who could hare been capable of doing so. There is in those speeches a mixture of strength, weakness, brilliancy, a variety of styles and views, a composite of puerilities, grandeur, ridiculous hopes, and audacious conceptions, such as no art could create.

Yes, they are surely priests who speak those speeches—not good and simple priests, but proud priests, versed in a profound policy, nurtured in the traditions of an order that regards itself as the citadel and soul of Catholic Theocracy—whose gigantic ambition, whose hopes and whose substance, it has gathered up and condensed; an order whose constant thought is a thought of universal sway, and which ceases not to strive after the possession of influences, positions, and consciences, by the audacious employment of every means. Yes, those who speak thus are indeed men detached from every social tie—emancipated from every obligation of ordinary morality—reckoning as nothing whatever is not the Order, in which they are blended like metals in the melting pot; the corporation, in which they are absorbed as rivers in the sea; the supreme end, to which they remorselessly sacrifice everything—having begun by sacrificing to it each his life, his soul, his free-will, his whole personality. Yes, those are truly the leaders of a mysterious formidable initiation—patient as the drop of water that wears down the rock—prosecuting in darkness its work of centuries over the whole globe—despising men, and founding its strength upon their weakness—covering its political encroachments under the veil of humility and the interests of Heaven—and weaving with invincible perseverance the meshes of the net with which, in the pride that is become its faith, its morals, and its religion, it dreams of enclosing Kings and Peoples, States and Churches, and all mankind.

History demonstrates that it is the nature of all great human forces, material or intellectual, military or religious, individual or corporate, to be incarnated in a People, an Order, an Idea, a Religion, or to have borne mere names of men, such as Alexander, Caesar, Mahomet, Charlemagne, Hildebrand, Napoleon, &c.; it is the nature of all these great forces to gravitate by virtue of their inward potency towards the conquest and unity of the world.

It is a phenomenon likewise proved by history, that hitherto the laws of ordinary morality—the duties considered by practical conscience as the imperative rules of men’s individual relations—are drowned and annihilated in the gulphs opened by those vast dominating ambitions, which substitute the calculations of their policy and the interests of their sovereign aim for the rules of vulgar conscience. At those heights in the subversive world in which humanity is still plunged, men are soon considered by those ambitions which work on nations and events, as but means or obstacles.

Now, the Theocratic genius, founding its domination on the alleged interests of God—covering them with the impenetrable veil of the Sanctuary—marching with the infinite resources acquired in a long practice of confession, in a profound study of the human heart, and in the arsenal of all the seductions of matter and mysticism; taking for the auxiliaries of its inimitable design human passions, obscurity, and time;—the Theocratic genius—if, with a deliberate consciousness of its aim, it has constituted itself a hierarchical militia, detached from all ties of affection—must necessarily carry to its maximum of concentration and energy that politic spirit before which persons and the morality of actions disappear, and which retains but one human sentiment and one moral principle—that of absolute devotedness to the animus (governing spirit) of the corporation, to its aim and its triumph. And who, then, save eight or ten of those strong heads among the higher class of the initiated—those politic priests, those brains without heart, puffed up by the defeat of the modern spirit (1824), intoxicated by a recent triumph, and by the perfume of that general Restoration which had already given them back a legal and canonical existence, and the favour of the governments of Italy, France, Austria, &c.—who but such men, taking measure at such a moment of their forces for conquest, could have held such language?

VI.

There are mad flights of pride so delirious, that no imagination could invent them. To set them forth with the fire, brilliancy, and energetic audacity, they display in a great number of passages in the Secret Conference, the Word that speaks must itself be wholly possessed by them. That somber and subterraneous profundity—that laborious patience, proof against the toil of ages—that sense of ubiquity—that absolute devotedness to a purpose whose fulfilment is seen through the vista of many generations—that absorption of the personal and transient individual in the corporate and permanent individual—and above all, if I may so express myself, that transcendent immorality, which all stamp upon the Secret Conference the character of a monstrous and insane grandeur; these are surely the tokens of a paroxysm (a sudden violent emotion or action) of subversive unitism, such as could only be manifested, the moment after a European resurrection and victory, by Policy and Theocracy allied in an Order self-constituted as the occult brain of the Church, and the predestined supreme government of the world.

And truly, when we reflect on the organic virtue of that theocratic power, which feels itself immutable amidst the vacillations of the political world, we are constrained to own, that such is the nature of its means, such the temper of its weapons, that it might with more reason than any conqueror, or even than any people, aspire to universal dominion, if instead of seeking to cast back the nations into the past, and to plunge mankind again into the night of the middle ages, a thing which is purely impossible, it had undertaken the glorious task of guiding men towards the splendours of freedom and the future. That Order, which for many a century has braved kings and nations—which neither the decrees of princes, nor the bulls of popes, nor the anathemas of the conscience of nations, nor the terrible wrath of revolutions, have been able to crush—whose severed fragments reunite in the shade like those of the hydra (in Greek mythology, a many-header serpent or monster)—that Order, everywhere present and impalpable, which feels itself living, with its eternal and mute thought, in the midst of all that makes a noise and passes away—that Order, on comparing itself with those governments whose vices, corruption, and caducity (the quality of being transitory), would make them pliant subjects for its crafty magnetism—must certainly have conceived through its chiefs the plan developed in the Secret Conference, and none but the initiated could have given to that plan the profound, eloquent, and impassioned forms, which that grand folly there assumes. The fumes of pride have mounted to the brain of the mysterious colossus, and he has failed to perceive that his feet are of clay, and that the inevitable flood of the modern spirit is reaching them and washing them away.

Boundless ambition, a mighty organization, indomitable perseverance, and absolute devotedness, all directed to the attainment of an impossible object, an absurd chimera pursued by a transcendent system of means as immoral as they are puerile—such are, in brief, the characteristics of that modern incarnation of Theocracy which is called Jesuitism.

VII.

I am not the only person who has remarked a strange form that frequently recurs in the speeches of the reverend fathers of the Secret Conference, namely those harangues to imaginary auditors, of which they almost all present specimens, or fragments, in their addresses to their colleagues. There are some to whom this form seems extraordinary and unnatural. Extraordinary I own it is, but as to its being unnatural, the circumstances and the men considered, I am quite of the opposite opinion.

Men who for fifteen, twenty, or thirty years, more or less, have been in the daily practice of public speaking, whose incessant task is proselytism, the seduction of consciences, the propagation of their policy, the conquest of souls, and who when met together to concert and mutually make known their means of action and their modes of proceeding, are glad to display each his own individual skill, such men would naturally have recourse to the form of communication in question. On reflection, then, it is evident that this singularity is perfectly natural in the special case in which it occurs. The more improbable it seems in an abstract point of view, the more strongly does it argue in favour of the authenticity of the Conference; for most assuredly the idea of putting all those numerous harangues into the mouths of the reverend fathers would never have occurred spontaneously to one who should have sat down to compose a fiction. The thing is one of those which we can account for when they are done, but which we can hardly imagine beforehand. Leone himself has never, so far as I am aware, given the explanation of the matter which to me appears so simple. The answer I have heard him return to objections of this kind has always been, “I can only say that the thing was so.”

VIII.

It certainly cannot be said that there are not, in the preliminary narrative, or in the Conference itself, points as to which Leone has clearly perceived the difficulty of overcoming public incredulity. He has even debated with himself whether he should not suppress certain passages of the conference, knowing very well that they would prove stumbling-blocks, and that many persons refusing to believe them, might very probably reject all the rest along with them. Finally he resolved to set down everything he had heard with the most scrupulous fidelity, and in my opinion the has herein done wisely, notwithstanding the inconveniences resulting from such a course. Sound critics will see in the fact an additional evidence of truth. They will say to themselves that were Leone an author instead of a narrator, he would have taken good care not to leave in a work, not hastily put forth, matters which he must have been well aware would appear incredible.

In like manner, if his story of the circumstances by which the Secret Conference was disclosed to him were a fiction, would it not have been very easy to make that fiction more probable? Tale for tale, there might have been devised a score that on the whole would have been much simpler and would have presented much fewer of those apparent difficulties on which common objectors tenaciously fasten. No; and as Leone is far from being a fool, I say (and for proof I might appeal to circumstances, such as the daring resolution he adopted at the very moment when he had been panic-stricken by a danger that still hung over him, and which he himself describes to satiety (indulgence to excess); the accumulation in so brief a space of time of the two revelations, that of the secret books in the library, and that of the speeches of the reverend fathers, &c., &c.), I say for my part, instead of the veracity of the story being impugned by its improbability, that very improbability is a pledge of veracity.

IX.

I conclude with an observation. Leone gives with exact details the narrative of his own life at the periods which have reference to the event of which he speaks. It is incontestable that he entered the monastery of Chieri with an extremely ardent, fixed, and profound determination; that he desired nothing so much as to become a Jesuit; that hopes had already been held out to him which could not but have whetted his desires; and that all at once, without any ascertained motive, he was seen, to the great amazement of everybody, flying from that monastery into which he had so eagerly desired admittance two months before, and where he had met with nothing but kindness, favour, and all sorts of winning treatment. It is certain, then, that he received some terrible shock in the monastery. The fact is attested by his flight, his subsequent illness, and his sudden abandonment of that Jesuit career which had been so much the object of his ambition, while at the same time he did not quit the clerical profession. This mysterious revolution, the meaning of which he could not then explain to any one of his friends or relations, and of which his old mother, who now lives in Paris, did not know the cause until the death of the head of the family allowed Leone to quit Piedmont—this revolution was certainly the effect of some extraordinary and formidable adventure, some sudden revelation, some appalling burst of light; for him, whom it had befallen, it was decisive of the whole bent of his life, and made the study of all that pertains to Jesuitism thenceforth his principal occupation.

In fine, the facts relating to all the circumstances which form in the narrative the envelope, as it were, to the Secret Conference, are of public notoriety in Leone’s native land, and he narrates them publicly, mentioning names, places, dates, facts, and persons. Something most extraordinary, unknown to the Jesuits themselves, who were unable to account for his flight, must have perturbed his being, altered his health, and effected a total change in the bent of his mind and his ideas; and for my part I doubt not that the publication now made by Leone, is the true and sincere explanation of that mysterious point.

X.

I will now say a word as to my co-operation in Leone’s publication, because, independently of what I have already made known, there was in this matter a circumstance which has strongly corroborated my conviction.

Leone as yet writes French but very imperfectly, so that I have been obliged to revise his whole manuscript, pen in hand, before sending it to press. Now I found an enormous difference as to style between the second part and the others. In the Secret Conference Leone was supported by the text, and often by the solidity of the speeches, which he had only to translate, and here he left me hardly anything to correct; whenever there was any awkwardness or ambiguity of expression, I had only to turn to the Italian text and find a more exact translation for the passage. In this part of the work his French manuscript has only undergone slight modifications in a few passages.

In the other two parts (the first especially, for the third consists chiefly of extracts), I have had much more to do than I could have wished, and frequently whole pages to rewrite completely. The difference was so marked that it was impossible for me to retain the least doubt as to the duality of the sources whence it arose; and notwithstanding our conjoint labour, there still remains such a discrepancy between Leone’s style and that of the Secret Conference, that the least observant reader will easily recognize a diversity of origin. As an example, I will particularly invite attention to the reflection with which Leone closes the conference, and which begins thus (see end of the second part), “By these words, the echo and confirmation of others not less presumptous.” When we came to this passage in the course of our revision, Leone said to me, “Is it worth while, think you, to let that reflection stand?” “By all means, my dear friend,” I replied with a smile, “let it stand. We must not think of suppressing this precious naïf (French meaning naive) reflection with which you, as a narrator, have quite naturally closed your report of the conference. There is, if you will allow me to say so, between your summing up and that of the president, paragraphs xix. and xxi, which precedes it, so enormous, so colossal a difference, that I know no more glaring proof of the authenticity of the conference, and of the impossibility of your being its author. How pale and weak is what you say in comparison with the language of the general of the the Order! How much does the expression of your sentiments on Jesuit ambition sink below the Word of the Company, the living incarnation of that ambition? The contrast seems to me so important, that far from suppressing your lines, you must forthwith grant me permission to repeat to the reader what I have just been saying to you.”

And indeed whoever compares the grandiloquent language of paragraph xix. and the concluding words of paragraph xxi., with Leone’s final reflection, will, I think, admit with me that the latter is merely a narrator, and will own how far external passion if I may be allowed the expression, falls short of internal passion in the expression of a sentiment. To body forth the theocratic will and purpose with those traits of fire that flash every moment from the pen of De Maistre, and often from the lips of the fathers of the Secret Conference, the writer must himself have raised an altar to theocracy in his soul, and have long kept up, upon that inward altar, the somber fire its worship demands. Although it does not always show with equal brilliancy throughout the conference, every attentive critic will easily distinguish the language of the initiated from that of ordinary men.

XI.

Let me recapitulate.

In this affair I have examined the elements of the cause like a juror.

The character of the witness, my scrutiny into the circumstances of his story, and my study of the subject in itself, have left no doubt upon my mind as to the authenticity of the revelation, and I declare, on my soul and conscience, that I believe Leone TO BE PERFECTLY FAITHFUL AND SINCERE.

Now, whereas I should deem it odious to make use, even against Jesuitism, of fraud and calumny, I have held it no less obligatory upon me, in the actual state of things, convinced as I am of the reality of the Jesuit plan, to assist Leone, who had been unable to find a publisher, in laying it before the public. This seemed to me a personal and conscientious duty.

When I came to the determination to edit the manuscript, the Jesuits were exhibiting in Switzerland what they were capable of. They tried every means to bring about there an intervention of the anti-liberal powers—a coalition into which the French government monstrously entered. Instead of conjuring civil war by a voluntary retreat, those pretended disciples of Jesus were seen artfully kindling the fanaticism and rancour of the abused populations of the Sonderbund, and doing all in their power to provoke a bloody conflict. Their aim was to recover, by means of an intervention, the ground taken from them in the cantons and the diet by the progress of free ideas. They spared no effort to produce that odious result, which happily they failed to accomplish.

Moreover, it is well known what has been and what is still the part played by them in Rome, and what a weighty obstacle they are to the liberal intentions of the great Pontiff, who at every step in advance encounters their occult and potent influence. The publication of the Secret Plan will serve to unmask them. Their whole strength consists in the mystery in which they shroud themselves; let their projects be exposed to daylight, and the charm will be broken. These darksome and malignant associations are like the phantoms of the night that vanish the moment they are touched by one ray of sunshine.

I have said wherefore, and how, I came to take upon me the editing of this book, although certain of Leone’s tendencies are not always perfectly in accordance with mine. The main thing for me in this matter has been to aid in unveiling that odious conspiracy (in which many still hesitate to believe, and I own that I was for a long time among the number) which has for its defined and specific end the re-establishment of darkness and despotism, and for its means the deliberate and conscious employment of the most abominable of lies—religious lying.

Those who may refuse to consider the Secret Conference as anything but a romance, cannot at least deny that the romance is perfectly historical. The third part contains an assemblage of proofs putting this point beyond all cavil. The gospel is the code of human freedom and dignity; some would make it a code of brutification and slavery, or rather they would stifle the rays of light and love that beam from it, and substitute a despicable fanaticism for the spiritual and democratic religion of Jesus. They will not succeed in their design; but to insure the defeat of the theocratic conspiracy, the friends of progress and freedom must bestir themselves.

Catholicism is a great religious institution. It is necessary to the development of that living institution that the hierarchy which governs it be renovated and retempered in the living sources of the gospel The first steps which the pontiff, who now wears the tiara, has made in the way of progress and liberty, are a capital revelation for Catholicism. To be or not to be.

Christianity is immortal. A religion which is summed up in these words, “Love one another, and love God above all things,” cannot die out from mankind; for every progress of humanity is but a new and fuller unfolding within it of Christianity, that is to say of love and liberty. But the future destiny of the catholic institution, which is a government, now depends, like that of all other governments, on its reconciliation with the spirit of the gospel, which is the spirit of humanity.

The catholic government is still aristocratic and despotic. Let it emancipate its serfs! let it recognize the rights of the secondary clergy and guarantee them; let it put itself in harmony with the sentiments of the primitive church, and strive to free the world of employing itself in the old work of oppression. Christianity is young and radiant; Theocracy is decrepid: let Roman Catholicism choose between the two. Any long delay would be perilous.

The Jesuits are the janissaries of theocratic Catholicism. The pope of Islam has perhaps shown the Catholic pope in what way a serious reform should be begun.

LONDON, Jan. 27th, 1848.

VICTOR CONSIDERANT,
The Editor,
Publisher, Member of the General Council of the Seine.

P.S.—Paris, May 28th, 1848.—Since I wrote the above Preface to Leone’s narrative in London, and at the moment when the work was about to appear simultaneously in England, France, Belgium, and Germany, the Revolution of February changed the face of things. The party of oppression, favoured by the impious alliance of the French government with the absolute courts, has been miraculously overthrown; the Jesuits themselves have been expelled from Rome.

Let us not be deceived, however; the battle is not won; peace and liberty are still far from being solidly established in the world.

Peace, liberty, complete reciprocity (solidarity) and universal brotherhood, will only be realised by the definitive incarnation of the spirit of the Gospel in humanity. The work now before us is to make a democratic and Christian Europe, instead of the aristocratic and, socially speaking, heathen Europe, which was yesterday official and legal. The question is far more religious and social than political. It is the era of practical Christianity which we are called on to inaugurate.

Hence, though Leone’s publication now no longer possesses the character it would have had in the very heat of the strife, before the Revolution, it nevertheless retains its value. It will serve the good cause by exposing the designs of the bad cause; it will help the development of the true Christianity, democratic Christianity, by exhibiting in its odious nakedness the pseudo Christianity, the Christianity of the profit-seekers, of Theocracy, of Despotism.

The two parties must be accurately segregated: on the one side daylight, on the other darkness.

The subordinate clergy, whose condition in France is an actual civil, political, and religious thraldom (the state of servitude or submission), has respired the air of freedom with hope and love. Let the Republic give it a democratic constitution—let it restore to it the rights and guarantees of which it cannot be much longer despoiled—and it will soon have made its conquest. The subordinate clergy begs only to be released from the yoke. It groans beneath superiors who are imposed upon it, and whom it fears; whereas it ought to elect and love them. Let us emancipate the sacerdotal people; set it free, and the oppressive and shameful doctrines of Jesuitism will find in it their most formidable antagonist.

It is time that this be done. It is time that the ecclesiastical people communicate with the lay people in the sentiments of modern life and modern ideas. It is idle now to think of conserving dead interpretations. Society is athirst for liberty, equality, and fraternity: it is time to return to the holy source, and recover the liberating import of Christianity.

Providence had committed an august mission to the Church: to perpetuate Christ’s teaching, to render Him for ever living on earth, preciously to preserve and to realise daily more and more the gospel principles of unity, charity, and universal brotherhood. Instead of accomplishing this task, the theocratic spirit has striven to efface from the Church the traces of Him who had founded it—to filch away the liberal meaning of his instructions—to paralyze the intellectual life— and, in a word, to make mankind a flock of brutes, to be shorn by the Princes of the Church and the Princes of the World.

Disowned, let us hope, by the mass of the clergy, this theocratic spirit will soon be constrained, finally and for ever, to give up Europe to the genius of the new times, reconciled with the most sacred traditions of humanity. The moment is come for the Church to repudiate all fellowship with a sect which has led it astray from its proper path, and to regain the ground it has lost in the confidence of men, by actively furthering all truly Christian works—that is to say, all works of social and intellectual amelioration (improvement).

The Revolution of February has opened a magnificent field for the Church; the problem now to be solved is the CONSTITUTION OF A CHRISTIAN SOCIETY. For eighteen hundred years has Christianity been preached to men;—how to incarnate it in society is now the problem. Political society itself invokes the Gospel formula, taking for its motto those three Christian words, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity! Let the subordinate clergy and the liberal bishops, casting off the anti-christian and anti-catholic traditions of Jesuitism, press forward, full of faith, hope, and love, in the path which is opened to them. The mission of true Christianity is now to found universal Democracy.

The Pope has expelled the Jesuits. It remains for him to reinstal the Papacy in its spiritual and catholic functions by abdicating all temporal authority. It is its temporal interests that have corrupted the Church. So long as the head of the Church shall remain King of the Roman States, the Catholic Church will be nothing but a Roman oligarchy. It must again become a spiritual and universal democracy; and its general councils must proclaim to the earth the true sense, the liberating and emancipating sense, of the Scriptures.

A sincere return to the democratic spirit of the Gospel; a rupture of that simoniacal (the act of selling church offices and roles or sacred things) alliance which odiously perverted a religion of freedom and fraternity, making it into a yoke of oppression for the benefit of all who use up nations for their own profit; a formal repudiation of the feudal, theocratic, obscurantist, and Jesuitical spirit: such is the price at which the salvation of the catholic institution is to be secured.

V. C.

PP.S. July 10th, 1848.—Events follow upon each other with such rapidity that every day produces in a manner a new situation.

The day after the Revolution of February, the Republic was accepted by all in France. Louis Philippe left behind him neither affection nor esteem, nor roots of any sort. Rejoicing in his fall, the legitimists said to themselves that the time of monarchies was passed, and gave in their adhesion on all sides to the republican principle, the government of all, by all, and for all.

The grand and vast idea of universal union found in the language of Lamartine an utterance full of brilliancy, elevation, and authority.

Unfortunately, narrow categories, language of injudicious violence, and conquerors’ airs, calculated to lead to the belief that the immense majority of the French citizens, who were republicans of the morrow, were about to be governed as conquered populations by the republicans of the eve; all those violences of speech and demeanour, which had not even the logic of the strong hand in their favour, produced serious reactionary ferments in the country. The huge folly of postponing the elections considerably diminished the democratic element in the National Assembly, which instead of feeling itself united, confident, and strong, was from the very outset uncertain, distrustful of itself, irresolute, and divided.

Hence the critical situation in which we now behold the republic and society.

A deliberately reactionary party, which would not have existed, had not its creation and development been provoked as if on purpose, is rapidly organising. It is turning to its own account material interests, the nature of which it is to be blind, blind and violent egotisms, and the resuscitated hopes, enterprising and intriguing, of the various dynastic factions and of the theocratic faction.

All these elements constitute a formidable coalition, in which intrigue is organising the resistance of those interests which it can so easily mislead and impassion.

The Jesuit element, that mysterious army at the service of obscurantism, despotism, and social retro-gradation, has thus suddenly found allies in those who but yesterday fought against it.

Under the restoration it had on its side in France only the party of the emigration.

Under the monarchy of July it had indeed enlisted among its allies the official and satisfied bourgeoisie, which entered into covenant with it in its retrograde tendencies. M. Guizot and his rotten majority supported the general tendencies of Jesuitism, and formally yoked themselves to its cause, by pledging the policy of France to the service of the Sonderbund.

Today, a new stratum of French society has passed over to the enemy, to the fear of progress and of democratic and social principles—a stupid and fatal fear, for interests can only be saved by their alliance with sentiments and principles. This new retrogression is authenticated by this token, that M. Thiers—who is what is called a tactician, a practical man, a man of manoeuvres—and his organ the Contitutionnel, have, with brazen fronts, gone over to the party of which they had long been the bugbears.

M. Thiers, moreover, maintained a few days ago, in a committee of the Assembly, amidst the applause of many liberals of yesterday (liberals now entrusted with the task of founding the democratic republic), “that it was very dangerous to develop the instruction of the people, because instruction led infallibly to communism.”

The anti-democratic coalition is bound up with the National Assembly, and the compact is signed between all the parties of the past.

Out of doors the movement is being organised by the insidious arts employed to terrify and blind the most legitimate interests.

Furthermore, the re-actionists will rapidly use up all the men of the revolution; then, when the industrial and commercial crisis shall have passed away, they will again repossess themselves of the powers of the state, and with the help of all the confederated enemies of liberty and progress, they will re-establish society on its Old Principles, “the mischievous nature of the new principles being definitively proved by the evils which their invasion has for sixty years let loose on the modern world.”

That is the plan.

It is a general coalition of all fears, all egotisms, and all intrigues, against the legitimate and regular development of democracy.

This is literally the very same purpose as that aimed at by the Company of Jesus; accordingly, the alliance has been already concluded with the political representatives of the Company.

V. C.

Introduction by the Author.

I.

There is no one but has devoted some attention to the reappearance of the too famous Company of Jesus on the European stage. Many have rejoiced at the event; a greater number have beheld it with deep sorrow or irritation.

To say the truth, there were various reasons why a fact of this nature should interest governments and nations; for if ever the aim of that audacious Order could be achieved, every right and every liberty would be at an end. I do not think I exaggerate in expressing myself thus; on the contrary, I am strongly persuaded that those who read the disclosures made in this work will share my opinion.

Let me be permitted, in the first place, to enter into certain personal details, before I proceed to initiate the public into the secret I am about to divulge. I will be as brief as possible.

In 1838, I voluntarily quitted Piedmont, my native country, went to Switzerland, and settled in Geneva. At that period nothing yet presaged the ascendancy which the Jesuits were soon to obtain in the affairs of that republic, and the troubles in which their intrigues were to involve various other parts of Europe. Yet I did not hesitate to say openly to a great number of persons what there was to be apprehended in that way. I was not believed. My predictions were universally regarded as dreams. In vain I repeated to them that I possessed proofs of the invisible snares and most secret projects of the Company. A contemptuous smile was the answer to my words.

Gradually the face of events was changed, and the first symptoms of the Jesuit influence began to show themselves in Prussia.

Every one knows the commotion caused by the question of mixed marriages raised by the Archbishop of Cologne, and his ultramontane pretensions. A powerful party, and celebrated writers, Gorres among the rest, declared themselves the prelate’s supporters, and undertook the defence of doctrines which had long been considered dead. At the same period, pompous announcements were made of the conversion of princes and princesses, high personages of all kinds, learned men and artists. Such events were talked of with amazement in every company.

I happened to be one evening at the house of Mr. Hare, an Anglican clergyman, when a number of distinguished foreigners were present. The conversation ran exclusively upon the subject of these brilliant conquests, and everybody strove to invent some hypothesis on which to explain them. From what was stated of several of the converts by those who knew them personally, it was inferred that the real motive of their change was not precisely of a religious nature. I declared that the conjecture was not erroneous; and I was thus led to lay before the company present the course of circumstances through which I had become in a manner an initiated Jesuit.

A person who took part in the conversation, and who was travelling under the title of count, expressed a strong desire to see some portion of the Secret Plan, which had been mentioned. At his request, I called on him next day, and read him certain pages of the manuscript. He listened with great attention, seemed very much struck by some passages, and owned to me that at last he could explain to himself many enigmas. He asked me to let him keep the manuscript for a day, in order that he might study it more at leisure. This I declined; and then he made known his name. He was a prince nearly related to the royal house of Prussia. I persisted, nevertheless, in my refusal, though he offered me his support, and even made me some tempting promises.

The prince, somewhat to my surprise, requested me to give him a French version of the Secret Plan, that he might, as he said, have it translated into German. He recommended me to observe the greatest discretion, and insisted that I should not compromise his name. I was to deal only with his son’s tutor on the subject. Furthermore, it was arranged that I should subjoin an essay on the question pending between the cabinet of Prussia and the Holy See, wherein I was to demonstrate that the attempts made by various prelates, especially their attacks upon the university system of education, and their growing audacity in enforcing the old maxims of Rome, were not a purely local and fortuitous manifestation, but a fact closely connected with a vast conspiracy, pregnant with danger to all the powers.

I set to work, and wrote an account of all the strange incidents through which I had become an invisible witness of the occult committee in which the Jesuit plot was concocted. As soon as I had finished the translation of the plan itself, which I sent off by installments, and just as I was about to enter on the conclusion, I was desired to stop short—the pretext alleged being the death of the King of Prussia, which had just occurred. I had even a good deal of trouble to recover the copy I had sent.

I was soon surrounded with people who obtruded their advice upon me; telling me, that if aid was not afforded, me towards publishing, it was for my own sake it was withheld; that I ought to beware how I braved a society known to be implacable—a society that had smitten kings. “Who are you,” they said to me, “to cope with such a power, and not fear its numerous satellites?” Then, gliding into another order of considerations, they would say, “Nothing can be more dangerous than to initiate the people into such mysteries. It is enough that they should be known to those whose position authorises and enjoins them to frustrate an ambition, which is the more enterprising and mischievous inasmuch as religion and blind multitudes serve it as auxiliaries.”

These observations would have had less influence over me, had they not derived weight from the increasing anxieties of an aged and timid mother. Besides, my existence then depended on families who would have been deeply offended by a publication of such a nature. All this embarrassed my projects; and eager as I had been on my arrival to send the Secret Plan of the Jesuits to press, my many disappointments led me to postpone its publication indefinitely, though I could not conceal my disgust and despondency.

During all this time the influence of the Jesuits had augmented, and the liberals were beginning to regard it with apprehension. People came to me with all sorts of solicitations; and so, notwithstanding my many disappointments, I was constrained, in a manner, by events and entreaties, again to make ready for the press this long-retarded work.

But other obstacles again delayed it, for everything seemed to conspire against an enterprise for which, in a great measure, I had voluntarily expatriated myself. The persons with whom I had come in contact for this business sought only their own interest, and wished to place me in such a position as would have entailed on me all the annoyances and dangers of the publication without any of its advantages.

The Genevese government increased my perplexities by its persecutions. That government of doctrinaires, or Protestant Jesuits, so deservedly overthrown last year, conducted itself on narrow, egotistical principles, and was particularly captious towards strangers. I was several times summoned before its police on the most futile pretexts. Unable to prove anything against me, they took upon them to judge my intentions; interpreted my religious and democratic ideas as a crime, and strove to intimidate me with threats of dire calamities. On my part I ventured to predict for that intolerable government a speedy and ignominious fall. At last I was ordered to quit the country within the briefest space of time, without any cause being assigned to justify that arbitrary measure. Thus a final stop was put in Switzerland to the publication of my work, which had already been rendered so difficult by all the obstacles I have mentioned.

II.

When I came to Paris in 1846 I had no thought of making fresh attempts, more especially as I was told I should have great difficulty in finding a publisher. I applied myself to the composition of a work, now in a great measure completed, founded on documents of unquestionable authenticity, and which I should even have wished to print before the Secret Plan, as fitted in every respect, by its important revelations, to secure to the latter the most solid basis in public opinion. But when I was about to publish it, I received from Geneva a letter informing me of a monstrous abuse of confidence. The person I had employed to transcribe my manuscript of the Secret Plan had copied it in duplicate. He had put the second copy into the hands of a society, which, strange to say, had been formed for the express purpose of trafficking in this robbery. The excuse they offered was, that since I had during so many years divulged the secret plan of the Jesuits, the thing had become the property of the public. Moreover, as I had transcribed it surreptitiously, it did not belong to me, but was free to be used by anybody. It will scarcely be believed that the spoiler even went so far as to dictate the terms of a bargain to the despoiled, and to add irony to impudence, since the work had been printed several days before in Berne, as witness a copy sent me. The insolent letter he wrote me deserves to be known.*

* Here it is :—

“Geneva, Sept. 7, 1847.

“Sir,

“After having so long played with us, it is extremely surprising that you now protest against the publication of a work containing essentially the disclosure of speeches captured without permission by your ears, or rather by your eyes, in 1824.

“This protest is the more astonishing after your having yourself communicated those speeches to hundreds of persons, so as to make them be regarded as common property.

“Though I consider your protest as insignificant, and as a thing which at most can only result in giving you trouble and making you spend money uselessly, yet on the other hand, since my object has been attained, and since it is from public motives and not for any private interest that I have done so, I now offer to treat with you on the following terms:—In case you desire to become the proprietor of this publication, I consent thereto, on condition that you immediately furnish the necessary securities for the complete payment of the printer and of the incidental expenses. I have the honour to salute you.

F. Roessinger.

What! The very persons who profess themselves such uncompromising enemies of the Jesuits, do not themselves refuse to act on the maxim that “the end justifies the means.” But what has been the result of their spoliation? That it has been of no manner of advantage to them. What confidence, indeed, would there be in a paltry pamphlet, without name or warrant for its authenticity? The work, too, they published was but a shapeless abortion, a rough draft of a translation, very imperfectly collated with the original, and what is worse, truncated, slovenly, incorrect, and swarming with mistakes. The edition I put forth is rigorously exact and scrupulous; I have long and minutely scrutinized it, and it has been re-corrected under the eye of guides who have helped me to convey in French the full force of the original, which is often hard to translate. I have subjoined (added) to the Secret Plan elucidations (clarifications) of great importance, and I have related the circumstances through which it has come into my possession. Finally, I have brought forward counter-proofs of various kinds, all drawn from authentic sources, in support of the essential views and ideas developed in the plan.

The publication put forth by my spoliators (robbers) is the more blamable, inasmuch as the manner of its execution has been such as to compromise the fundamental document. For, I repeat, what authority can it have without my co-operation, without my name, and the corroborative proofs that accompany it in the present volume? Is it not a culpable and shameful act to put in jeopardy a matter of such moment? If they were actuated by no sordid motives, why did they not apply to me, and offer me the means of giving publicity to my manuscript in the way necessary to secure its full effect? In acting with such bad faith, did they not expose themselves to see the blow they designed for Jesuitism turned back upon them to their confusion? What was to prevent me from annihilating the result of their manoeuvre? Was it not in my power utterly to discredit the story, by attributing it to a freak of my youth?

I will say more. What they have done has put me in a position, from which it rested only with myself to derive profit, by proving by letters, ante-dated a few years, that my design had been to play off a hoax.

III.

Those who have at all reflected on the Order of the Jesuits, who have studied its history, and have had a near view of its workings, will by no means be surprised at its profound artifices and superb hopes. Do we not see it at this moment in France become the guide of the bishops, and giving law to the inferior clergy. M. Henri Martin thus expresses himself in a remarkable work recently published:

“The clergy, in its collective action, is little more than a machine of forty thousand arms, impelled by its leaders against whomsoever they please, and those leaders themselves are pushed forward by the Jesuit and neo-catholic congregations.”*

* De la France, de son Genie et de ses Destinies. Paris, 1847, p. 92.

Well-informed clergymen have assured me that the Jesuits were never so well seconded and supported as they now are. The establishments dependent on them are very numerous, and increase daily. Their resources are prodigious. A letter addressed to the Siecle thus speaks of their progress. Such a letter serves well to corroborate what is contained in the Secret Plan. I will quote the greater part of it:—*

* December 17, 1847.

“The hill of Fourvieres, which commands Lyons, on the right bank of the Saone, is a sort of entrenched camp, wherein all the bodies of the clerical militia are echelonned, one above the other, in the strongest positions; thence they hold the town in check, like those formidable fortresses which have been built to intimidate rather than to defend it. The long avenues that lead to Fourvieres and the chapel that surmounts it, are thronged with images of saints and ex voto; and but for that industrious city which unfolds its moving panorama below your feet, you might fancy yourself in the midst of the middle ages, and take its factory chimneys for convent spires.

“The exact statistics of the religious establishments of Lyons, with the number of their inhabitants and the revenues they command, would form a very curious book; but the archbishopric, which possesses all the elements of those statistics, is by no means disposed to publish them. The clergy, since the severe lessons given it by the July event, likes better to be than to appear; its force, disseminated all over France, and not the less real because they do not show themselves; and it can at any moment, as occasion may arise, set in motion that huge lever, the extremity of which is everywhere, and the fulcrum at Rome.

“Now, the soul of this great clerical conspiracy, the vital principle that animates it, is the Jesuits. Every one knows the well-grounded dislike with which this able and dangerous order is regarded from one end of Europe to the other. Yet it must be owned that in it alone resides all the life of Catholicism at this day; and the clergy would be very ungrateful if they did not accept these useful auxiliaries even while they fear them.

“All France knows that famous house in the Rue Sala in Lyons, one of the most important centres of Jesuitism. At the period of the pretended dispersion of the order, that great diplomatic victory in which M. le Comte Rossi won his ambassador’s spurs, the house in the Rue Sala, as well as that in the Rue des Postes in Paris, dispersed its inmates for a while, either into the neighbouring dioceses, as aide-de-camps to the bishops, or as tutors in some noble houses of the Place Bellecour; but when once the farce was played out, things returned very quietly to their old course, and the Rue Sala, at the moment I write, is still with the archbishopric the most active centre of politico-religious direction.

“That activity is principally directed upon two points; by means of the brotherhoods (confreries) it reaches the lower classes, whom the clergy drills and holds obedient to it; by education it gets hold of the middle classes, and thus secures to itself the future by casting almost a whole generation in the clerical mould. Let us begin with the brotherhoods. We will say nothing of those that are not essentially Lyonnese, and whose centre is elsewhere, though they possess hosts of affiliated dependents here. We will merely mention by name the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, whose centre, next after Rome, is Lyons, and which alone possesses a revenue of four millions and a half of francs. But the most important, the one which draws its recruits most directly from this industrious population, is the Society of St. Francis Xavier. Its name sufficiently indicates to what order it belongs; it is Jesuitism put within the reach of the labouring classes, and you may recognize it by the cleverness of its arrangements. The workmen, of which it consists almost exclusively, are disposed in sections of tens, hundreds, and thousands, with leaders to each section. The avowed purpose of the society is to succour invalid workmen, who, for a subscription of five sous a-month, or three francs a-year, are insured medical aid and twenty-five sous a-day in sickness. Such are the outward rules of the society; but in reality its design is clerical and legitimist: the two influences are here blended together in one common aim.

“Another and perhaps more dangerous means of action is the vast boarding-school which the brethren of the Christian schools, under the supreme control of the Rue Sala, have established at Fouvrieres. This gigantic establishment, which can accommodate upwards of four hundred interns, was founded about eight years ago in defiance of all the universitary laws. Its object, which is distinct from that of the small seminaries, is to give young men of the middle and inferior trading classes a sort of professional education, comprising, with the exception of the dead languages, all the branches taught in colleges. The complete course of study embraces no less than eight years. In this institution, as in all others of its kind, the domestic arrangements are excellent, and the instruction indifferent, being imparted by the brethren. Masters, fit only to teach little children their catechism, instruct adults in the highest branches of rhetoric, philosophy, and the physical and mathematical sciences. In consequence, too, of the continual removes of each of the brethren of the doctrine to and from all parts of France, any able professors who may have been formed in Lyons are soon appointed directors in some other town; and the system of teaching in the institution, however high in appearance, does not in reality rise above a very humble level.

“The annual charge is as low as possible, not exceeding 550 francs, which barely covers the indispensable expenses. This low rate of charge, aided by the all-potent influence of the confessional over mothers of families, attracts to the institution multitudes of lads of the middle class. As for the children of the poor, they belong of right to the schools of the doctrine— the primitive destination of the order, and one in which it can render real services. But this is not all: one of the centres of the Christian schools being placed at Lyons, there was requisite a noviciate house; and the order has just procured one, by purchasing for 250,000 francs a magnificent property at Calvire, within a league of Lyons. The vendor allowed ten years for the discharge of the purchase money; but the whole was paid within eighteen months; and a vast edifice, capable, when complete, of accommodating more than four hundred resident pupils, has risen out of the earth as if by enchantment. The estimate made by the engineer who directed the works, and who is a member of the society, amounted, it is said, to a million and a half of francs, and it has been exceeded.

“As for the lesser seminaries, of which there are many in the diocese, we will only mention that of Argentine, which contains five hundred pupils, and that of Meximieux, which has two hundred. Hence we may form an approximate idea of the immense action on education exercised in these parts by the clergy, in flagrant contravention of the university laws and regulations. The low charges of their institutions, not to mention many supplementary burses, give it the additional attraction of cheapness; and for those very low charges (about 400 francs) the Jesuit schools are supposed to afford their pupils instruction in all those branches of knowledge, Greek and Latin included, which are taught in those gulphs (archaic variant of gulf) of perdition which are called Colleges.

“On the whole, we may reckon at the number of one hundred the religious establishments intended whether for the education of both sexes, or for the relief of the distressed. All the suburbs of Lyons have their nunneries; and monastic garbs of every form and colour swarm in the streets. The Capuchins, however, who were formerly found there, have migrated to Villeurbonne; and the Jesuits, jealous of any rivals of their supremacy here, are said to have purchased their retirement at the cost of 900,000 francs.

“If you are astonished at the immense sums which the clergy here dispose of, recollect that one individual, Mademoiselle de Labalmondiere, the last scion of a noble family, has left the church a sum of ten millions, of which the archbishop has been named supreme dispenser. Through the confession, by means of the women, and by all kinds of influence direct and indirect, the clergy keeps the whole male population in a state of obsession and blockade. A trader who should revolt against this influence would instantly provoke against him the whole clerical host, and would be stripped of his credit and put under a sort of moral interdiction that would end in his ruin. The university, which possesses at Lyons some distinguished men, a brilliant faculty, and an excellent royal college, is put in the archiepiscopal index; and what here as elsewhere is called freedom of teaching, that is to say the power of taking education entirely out of lay hands and committing it to corporations, is the object of all the prayers of pious souls here, and of all the combined efforts of the archbishopric and the Rue Sala.”

IV.

The Jesuits have shown themselves in their true colours in Switzerland, where, merciless as ever, they chose rather to provoke the horrors of civil war than to yield, as the Christian spirit enjoined them. They have thereby augmented the hatred and contempt with which they are regarded on all sides. So sure were they of victory, that in their infatuation they disdained to take the most ordinary precautions.

“Apropos of the Jesuits,” said the Swiss correspondent of the National at that period, “it will be well to give you some account of the documents which most deeply compromised the reverend fathers and their allies both in Switzerland and in other countries. It will be seen whether or not the presence of the order is extremely dangerous to the countries that afford them an asylum.

“In the first place, there has been discovered at Fribourg a catalogue in Latin of all the establishments which the Jesuits possess in a portion of France and Switzerland, with a list and the addresses of all the persons connected with them. I have sent you two numbers of a Swiss journal in which there is an abstract of this catalogue, drawn up with the greatest care. You will perceive from it that the Jesuits’ houses have greatly augmented in number in France, since the pope made a show of promising M. Rossi and M. Guizot that they should have no more establishments in your country. The chambers will see how their demands have been derided. France will learn how she is duped, and what is the occult power that rules the government. For proof of all this, I refer to the analysis of the famous catalogue, which you will not fail to publish.

“There are two other documents, which you can see in the Helvetie of Dec. 18. The first is an address of two Fribourg magistrates, the president of the old great council, and a councilor of state, who humbly prostrating themselves at the feet of the Holy Father, recommend M. Marilley for bishop of the diocese, carefully insisting on the feet that he is most favourable to the order of the Jesuits. Now that prelate, a consummate hypocrite, had been at war with the society, and gave himself out for a liberal.

“The other document is still more curious and instructive. It is an address from the deaconry of Romont (Canton of Fribourg) to the apostolic nuncio at Lucerne, dated Dec. 20, 1845, and recommending the same Marilley, a parish priest expelled from Geneva, to the pope’s choice as bishop. The clergy of the deaconry, labouring hard to refute one by one the calumnious accusations directed against their protege, prove that M. Marilley by no means deserves the epithet of liberal; that he is not even a little liberal; and that far from being hostile to the reverend Jesuit fathers, he has given them authentic testimonies of his special veneration and esteem. The most remarkable passages of the address from the deaconry of Romont are those relating to politics. Speaking of the Catholic association, of which, like almost all the clergy of the diocese, M. Marilley was a member, his protectors say, ‘In 1837 this association wrested by its influence the majority in the grand council from the radicals, who were threatening among other things to dismiss the reverend Jesuit fathers from the canton. So the conservatives owe to this calumniated association their majority and their places, and the reverend Jesuit fathers owe to it their actual existence in Fribourg.’

“Further on, with respect to the old doctrinaire conservative government of Geneva, the address says, ‘Geneva does not choose to be either frankly conservative, because it is Protestant, or openly radical, because its votes are swayed by its material interests, and by the potent suggestions of Sardinia and France.’ Other passages manifest the close alliance of the Jesuits and of the conservatives, both protestant and catholic.

“A fourth document is the report of an inquiry made in Fribourg by order of the provincial government as to the reality of an alleged miracle attributed to the Virgin Mary. A priest and other witnesses had deposed that a soldier of the landsturm, who wore one of those medals of the Immaculate Virgin of which I have told you, had been preserved, on the night of Dec. 7, from the effect of a ball which had struck him on the spot covered by the medal The whole is attested by Bishop Etienne Marilley. Now the inquiry has rendered the imposture clear and palpable; the knavery of the bishop, the priests, and the Jesuits is laid bare. The matter of this inquiry will assuredly acquire great publicity.

“The Valais is not less rich in revelations than Fribourg and Lucerne. The federal representatives have in their hands all the official documents and the correspondences respecting the Sonderbund and the late military events, among others an authentic deed proving that Austria made the League the present of three thousand muskets which you know of. These documents contain proof that the League was a European affair, and that the purpose was*to establish in Switzerland the forces of ultramontanism and the centre of re-action; that what was designed was not an accidental association, and a defence merely against the attacks of the free corps, but a permanent League, and a dissolution of the Confederation in order to the reconstruction of another which should be recognized, supported, and ruled by foreign diplomacy.

“We have not exhausted the stock of documents. Fresh ones are discovered every day.”

V.

Enough so far to raise a corner of the veil. The plot is seen in action just as it is laid down in the Secret Plan, with which the reader is about to be acquainted. Its scope, we perceive, is formidable. Every means is welcome to its concocters that can forward their success. Their journals, especially the Univers, strangely mistaking the age, have promulgated plenty of miracles to sanctify the cause of the Jesuits in July. Their abominable fraud has not been able to remain concealed; the press holds up its perpetrators to contempt. Here then we have it proved for the thousandth time, that this order, continually urged by infernal ambition, meditates the ruin of all liberty, and by its counsels is hurrying princes, nobles, and states to their ruin. It is its suggestions that petrify the heart of the King of Naples, in whose dominions one of the members of the Company has been heard preaching the most hideous absolutism and blind obedience, as the most sacred and inviolable duty of the multitude. This is their very doctrine; and when they preach a different one, it is but a trick, and is practised there only where they lack the support of despotism.

Lastly, let us hear the captive of St. Helena expressing his whole opinion of this order. But be it remembered in the first place, that it is not for the sake of right and reason Napoleon declares himself an enemy to Jesuitism. He feared reason; right he deemed a thing not to be realised; and as for liberty, he could never comprehend it. “Louis XIV.,” he exclaimed,. “the greatest sovereign France has had! He and I— that is all.”*

* Recits de la captivite de l’Empereur Napoleon a Sainte Helene, par M. le General Montholon. Paris, 1847, t. 2, p. 107.

He even thought that the people should not be allowed the Bible. “In China,” said he, “the people worship their sovereign as a god, and so it should be.” Now, he felt strong enough, as he says, to make the pope his tool, and Catholicism a means of his power. He liked the latter, because it enjoins men to distrust their reason and believe blindly. “The Catholic religion is the best of all, because it speaks to the eyes of the multitude, and aids the constituted authority.” In another place he says he prefers it because “it is an all-potent auxiliary of royalty.” He admitted all sorts of monks, and thought he could make something of them, except the Jesuits. On his rock he speaks of them with nothing but abhorrence, and is convinced that he could not resist them with more profound or more decisive means than their own; and that wherever they exist, such is the force of their stratagems and manoeuvres, that they rule and master everything in a manner unknown to everybody.

“But,” says he, “a very dangerous society, and one which would never have been admitted on the soil of the Empire, is that of the Jesuits. Its doctrines are subversive of all monarchical principles. The general of the Jesuits insists on being sovereign master, sovereign over the sovereign. Wherever the Jesuits are admitted, they will be masters, cost what it may. Their society is by nature dictatorial, and therefore it is the irreconcilable enemy of all constituted authority. Every act, every crime, however atrocious, is a meritorious work, if it is committed for the interest of the Society of Jesus, or by order of the general of the Jesuits.”*

* Becits de la captivity &c., t 2, p. 294.

VI.

The first step in the reform of Catholicism is the absolute abolition of this order: so long as it subsists it will exert its anti-social and anti-christian influence over the Church and the Powers; and so long as the Church is filled with the hatred for progress which that order cherishes, it will only hasten its own decay, and its regeneration will be impossible.

Part I. Novitiate and Ecclesiastic Career.

I.

At the age of nineteen I had formed the resolution of entering the church, and was finishing my studies at the Seminary of Vercelli. I usually passed my vacations in the company of Luigi Quarelli, arch-priest and cure of Langosco, my native place. Incited by an eager thirst for knowledge, I had, in the course of a few years, completely exhausted his library; and often did this worthy man repeat to me, that so far from learning being of any use to me, it would more probably be an obstacle to my advancement in the church. He now began to speak to me of the Jesuits. The power of this order, its reverses, its recent restoration, the impenetrable mystery in which it has been enveloped since its origin, all contributed to exalt it in his eyes. According to his account, none were admitted into it but such as were distinguished for intellect, wealth, or station. He spoke of it as the only order which, so far from repressing the native energies of the mind, or the tendencies of genius, did actually favour them in every way. This assertion he substantiated by many striking examples.

The impression made on me by these conversations was exceedingly strong. Young, inexperienced, and dazzled by statements which taught me to regard Jesuitism as the only resource of a noble ambition, I longed for nothing so much as to be received into the order. Neither the thought of abandoning my parents, nor that of the severe trials to which I must subject myself, could, in any way, divert me from my purpose.

The cure scrupulously examined my resolution, and the result being satisfactory, he wrote to Turin, to Father Roothaan, then rector of a college of the society in that town, and now general of the Jesuits. The rector, after having made the customary inquiries respecting me, intimated that I might repair to the capital, and undergo the preliminary examinations.

I therefore took my departure. When I presented myself to him, he conversed with me for some time, and with great openness and affability. At first, his object appeared to be merely to acquaint himself with the extent of my acquirements, but by degrees he led me on insensibly to make a general confession, as it were, of my whole life.

I will not here attempt to retrace the details of this conversation. It would be difficult for me to convey an idea of the consummate art employed to sound a conscience, to descend into the very depths of the inmost heart, and to make all its chords resound, the individual remaining, all the while, unconscious of the analysis which is going on, so occupied is he by the pleasant flow of the conversation, so beguiled by the air of frank good-nature with which the artful process is conducted.

I have retained but vague and disjointed recollections of all these subtle artifices. One portion of the conversation, however, imprinted itself so deeply in my memory that I will repeat it, in order to show under what point of view the present chief of the Jesuits had already begun to regard the mission and aim of his order.

“And now,” said he, after having examined me, “what I have to communicate to you is calculated to fill you with hope and joy. You enter our society at a time when its adherents are far from numerous, and when there is, consequently, every encouragement to aspire to a rapid elevation. But think not that on entering it you are to fold your arms and dream. You are aware that our society, at one time, flourished vigorously, that it marched with giant steps in the conquest of souls, and that the cause of Christ and of the Holy See achieved signal victories by our means. But the very greatness of the work we were fulfilling, excited envy without bounds. The spirit of our order was attacked, all our views were misrepresented and calumniated, and as the world is always more ready to believe evil than good, we came, ere long, to be universally detested.

“Thus, we, the Society of Jesus, were doomed to undergo the same trials as our Divine Master. We were loaded with insults, we were driven from every resting-place. Monarchs and nations entertained with respect to us but one common thought, that of sweeping us from the face of the earth. Humiliated, insulted, buffeted, crowned with thorns, and bearing the cross, we also were doomed to suffer the death of ignominy. There was not wanting even a Caiaphas (allusion to Pope Clement XIV. who banned the Jesuits) to sign our sentence with his own hand; and the chastisement with which he was soon after visited by the just judgment of Heaven (the Jesuits murdered him with poison), gave rise to a last calumny against us, which crowned all the others. Our last struggle was ended; we died—but though dead, the powerful still trembled at our name. They made haste to seal up our tomb, and they set over it a vigilant guard, so that there might not be the faintest sign of life beneath the stone which covered us.

“But behold what became of the potentates themselves, during our sleep of death! (Meaning during the suppression of the Jesuits.) Day by day they were visited by chastisements more and more severe. The world became the theatre of direful troubles and terrible catastrophes. A giant threaded (infilzava) (Italian meaning speared) crowns upon his resistless sword, and monarchs were cast down in the dust at his feet. But the moment of terror soon arrived, in which Almighty God broke the sword of the man of fate, and called us from the sepulchre. Our resurrection struck the nations with astonishment; and now we shall be no more the sport and the prey of the wicked, for our society is destined to become the right arm of the Eternal!

“Thus, a new era is opening for us. All that the church has lost she will regain through us. Our order, by its activity, its efforts, and its devotedness, will vivify all the other orders, now well nigh extinct. It will bear to all parts the torch of truth, for the dispersion of falsehood; it will bring back to the faith those whom incredulity has led astray; it will, in a word, realise the promise contained in the gospel, that all men shall be one fold under one Shepherd.

“Henceforward, then, no more disasters; the future is wholly ours. Our march will be victorious, our conquests incessant, our triumph decisive.

“But, once more, do not expect to walk upon roses; it is right that I should warn you of this. The mission which our society imposes on itself is a stern one. We do not (it is important that you should know this), we do not aim only at restoring their ancient empire to some fragments of truth, but at restoring it to the whole Catholic truth. Thus, there is no pride or pretension that our order does not ruffle and wound: whence result all sorts of accusations, which we must support with courage. Bear in mind, when once the hand is laid to the plough, the only thought must be how to run the furrow straight. Macte animo (Italian meaning “with a bright heart”), then, look not backwards. You can do much. Besides, I think that the more you become penetrated with the spirit of the order —if God, as I trust, grants you the grace to become one of its members—the more energy you will feel in yourself for the task which the superiors, and not human caprice, will assign you. Your superiors alone must be judges of this, for God always especially directs them, in order that each one, remaining at the post which is suitable to him, may most usefully co-operate in the great work, namely, the raising up of the church, the salvation of the world, and the union of all sects and parties under the authority of him who, as the representative of God himself on earth, cannot but act in the interest of all, ON CONDITION, HOWEVER, THAT ALL CONSENT TO OBEY HIM.

II.

This discourse, which I have considerably abridged, excited my imagination, filled me with new thoughts, and awakened in my heart an ardent faith. My visit to Father Roothaan, his engaging countenance, the unctuous (smooth) phrases that flowed abundantly from his lips, the singular address he displayed in rendering his conversation always full of interest—all this had soon subjugated me most completely to the Jesuits.

The reader may imagine what I felt on the occasion of this memorable interview. I was at the age of enthusiasm, the age in which all our faculties spring with undivided purpose towards their aim, whatever it may be. My mind had remained till then absorbed in a sort of half slumber. Transported—inflamed for a cause which I believed to be that of God himself, my sole aspiration was to pronounce the vows which were to bind me to it for ever.

On learning my decision my father was struck with the deepest sorrow: nor can I describe the distress of my poor mother; but though the strong affection I felt for her had always given her a great influence over me, this time her prayers could not change my determination. Luigi di Bernardi a man of uncommon worth, a priest, anti-monastic on principle, by whom I had been early initiated into all that is manly, austere, and sublime in the annals of Greece and Rome, exerted all his energy and all his knowledge to change the bent of my mind. All his efforts failed to shake my resolution, though my gratitude and my respect for him were boundless. Many friends also beset me, and added additional gloom in the appalling pictures which several persons had already traced to me of the order of the Jesuits. But in all this I saw nothing but pure malevolence, or stratagems devised to change my resolution.

At length my father declared that I should never have his consent.

The arch-priest Quarelli, grieved at our approaching separation, was obliged, almost in spite of himself, to make use of an argument which he knew would be decisive with my father and mother, both overcome with anguish at the thought of losing their only child.

He told them that everything proved the irresistible force of my vocation, and that my internal struggles were no less cruel than theirs; that it was absolutely necessary to obey the voice which called me, under pain of warring against God Himself. He reminded them of Abraham, and of his willingness to sacrifice his only son. “Besides,” continued he, “perhaps he will not be entirely lost to you: perhaps God will permit that you shall embrace him sometimes before your death. You cannot live in peace with your conscience unless you consent, and, be well assured, the reward that awaits you at your last home will be equal to the greatness of your sacrifice; while, on the other hand, how deep would be your remorse if you persisted in refusing to God that which He asks of you!”

To talk thus to my parents was to attack them on their vulnerable side. Though they were most deeply afflicted, they consented at last to bid me farewell. My father was unable to pronounce a single word; my mother was almost overwhelmed by grief.

Just at this time Father Roothaan wrote thus to me:—

“Dearly beloved son, I trust that you will follow up your holy vocation in such a manner that we may never have to repent—you, of the resolution you have taken; I, of having proposed you; the superiors, of having accepted you. Your eternal salvation, your solid religious perfection for the greater glory of God, are and ought to be the first and principal motive for which you desire to enter into the company. You will need all your courage, as I told you, when you come to me for examination. In order to be a good and a true Jesuit it is indispensable to possess a strong heart, and to be ready not only to labour much, but to suffer much—aye, even unto death! — to be persevering in humility, in obedience, in patience, seeking only God, who will Himself be merces vestra magna nimis (Your reward is too great). Therefore, confortare et esto robustus (strengthen and be strong). In giving yourself up to the order you place yourself in the hands of Divine Providence! Confide yourself wholly to Him, and He will conduct you safely to port! Under His protection we may sing whilst we steer!

“Hasten your preparations so that you may present yourself here in September*, and I will send you immediately to Chieri, that you may there lay, in the novitiate, the solid foundations of a truly religious and Jesuitical life.”

A few days afterwards I received from him another letter, in the following terms:—

“Now, then, you may at once enter the novitiate. Such is the purport of a letter of yesterday’s date, sent me by the father rector of Chieri. Call at St. Francis-de-Paule, in Turin; if I am not there, you will find me at Chieri, where the novitiate is. As to the manner of proceeding to Chieri, you will be informed of it here, at St. Francois-de-Paule. Pray for me to the Lord.
“Yours most affectionately in Christ,
“John Roothaan,
“of the Society of Jesus.”

* Sic, although the letter was dated the 2nd September (1824.)

III.

I set out accordingly. On my arrival, they placed in my hands the rules which related to this first phase of my new existence. I was immediately initiated into the exercises of Saint Ignatius, and of other saints— all Jesuits. It is by this sudden and complete immersion of the soul that they acquire their unlimited power over so many young men, unarmed by experience, and totally without defense, from the unreflecting enthusiasm which belongs to their age.

The most profound silence, rarely interrupted even by whispers, reigned in this abode, which was however not destitute of material comforts. The guardian angel (for this is the name given to the father attached to each novice) was accustomed to close the shutters of my windows, in order that I might remain as much as possible in obscurity. Thus seated, in partial darkness, he reasoned aloud on the world, on sin, and on eternal punishment. Conformably to one of the rules of the founder of the society, he designated those who do not submit in all things to the decisions of the church, as an army of rebels, angels of darkness, whom Satan inspires and governs, and against whom battle must be waged, until the day of final victory by the army of the faithful, led on by those angels of light and chiefs of the sacred militia, the Jesuits. As for the enemy’s camp, he spoke of nothing in it but its reeking pestilence and corruption.

The indispensable complement of these private and daily discourses is weekly confession, comprising an avowal of every affection of the heart, every sentiment of the mind, and even of one’s dreams. This is the plummet-line always kept in hand by the superiors, and by means of which they ascertain what is passing in the very depth of their pupils’ consciences. The miracles of all sorts with which the heads of the latter are filled are all invented in order to rear upon supernatural bases a structure of absolute and blind obedience. Under such a system, wherein there is neither conversation, nor reading, nor devotional exercise which has not been elaborately adjusted by a mysterious power, in such a manner as to take possession of both the understanding and the heart, each individual who has been wrought upon during a sufficient time, comes at last to consider himself religiously bound to the total surrender of his own will.

For myself, I felt my own personality daily diminishing, and I blessed this progressive self-annihilation, and recognized in it the sign of my salvation.

The subject most peculiarly dwelt upon, during my confessions, was the affection which still bound me to the remembrance of my friends and relations. I was constantly told that it was my imperative duty to tear asunder these bonds of affection, and stifle these remembrances: their complete immolation was represented to me as the most sacred of triumphs. To devote myself entirely to the order, was the sole object prescribed to me. As long as there existed within me the smallest trace of self-will, or of earthly affection, there would be something remaining of the “old man ” which was finally to be absorbed in the Jesuit. I was by no means astonished that they should thus seek to convert me into a new being, for I truly believed that the more I should identify myself with the society the more I should belong to God; and in this deadening of every feeling which might stand in the way of my entire dedication to the order, I perceived nothing but a just and reasonable consequence of its directing principle: “that the fewer ties we have with all that might distract us from our purpose, the more will be our power to persuade others to acknowledge that authority which it is the mission of the Jesuits to proclaim, as the only one upon earth which is not subject to error.”

IV.

Thus far, all went on well. However laborious it might be, I subjected myself resolutely to the probatoria (the probation which precedes the novitiate). Not that I was exempt from anxiety and sorrow. Far from it. In hours of deep depression and anguish, my thoughts recurring to many a beloved object I had just forsaken, and feeling that my heart was empty, my mind perturbed, my soul sinking within me, and even my imagination, hitherto so free, enchained, I confess that I shrank back with terror and repented. Never, however, even in those gloomy moments, did the idea of renouncing the society seriously take possession of me. The fact is, there was not a particle of all I had heard from Father Roothaan, but what I believed to be true, noble, holy, and more worthy to be followed than anything else on earth. Moreover, when these mental struggles beset me, I was told that those very persons who had sustained the like, had afterwards made themselves the most distinguished in the order for their zeal; and that far from regarding such things as proofs of a want of vocation, I ought rather to behold in them a mark of Divine election. “By and by,” they told me, “when your studies shall have been completed, the immolation of the ‘old man’ accomplished, and your special vocation determined, you will only have to unfold your wings without fear of any impediment to your soaring flight.”

This sort of language cheered me, and it is probable that I should have grown more and more attached to the society, that I should even have become one of its most devoted members, but for the incidents which I am about to relate.

V.

My too intense application to the subjects of a gloomy devotion, and the utter solitude of the probatoria, had broken down my spirits and my health. The first complaint I made, immediately procured me the indulgence of meat on a fast-day; and, when I would have refused this favour, it was in vain that I alleged the trifling nature of my indisposition. My guardian angel, Father Saetti, of Modena, solemnly replied to me that I ought to take especial care of my health, that I was called to be a labourer in the Lord’s field, and that it was by no means the intention of the church to exact too much of those who, having torn asunder all the bonds of the flesh and of the world, delivered themselves up to her with devotedness.

Every morning, fasting, they obliged me, in spite of my extreme repugnance, to drink a sort of mulled wine, rather thick, and of a singular flavour, which had the effect of producing, during the whole of the day, a species of torpor (a state of lowered physiological activity) which I had never before experienced. In vain I refused this potion; all I could obtain was the permission to begin with small doses, until I should become accustomed to it.

At length, fatigued by long poring over ascetic books, and by the meditations which I was required to make again and again for hours on my knees, without any support, and being tempted by the fine autumn weather to breathe the fresh air and enjoy the sunshine, I begged my guardian angel to ask permission for me of the rector to walk for a few moments alone in the garden. “You have only,” he replied, “to go to him and ask this permission for yourself; you may be certain he will grant you whatever favour is in his power.”

It was not, however, until two days afterwards that, excited by the splendour of a day more than usually beautiful, I resolved to make my request.

It was in the afternoon. I quitted my chamber, and went to the rector’s apartment, the door of which I found open, although the rector was absent. This circumstance surprised me not a little, as among the Jesuits everything is conducted with the most exact regularity.

As the novices never address the superior, who has the direction of the novitiate, otherwise than by his title of rector, I am unable here to designate him by his name; but nothing would be easier than to know it by ascertaining who was the Jesuit father occupying the direction of the novitiate house at Chieri in the month of September, 1824.

This father was without any austerity of manner. I had every reason to be gratified by his kindness to me, and separated as I was from all those whom I had loved, I began to feel some attachment for him. From my first entrance into the house, he had even admitted me to a considerable degree of familiarity, with a view, no doubt, to insinuate himself into my confidence, all of which, indeed, he was in a fair way of obtaining. But the familiarity to which he had accustomed me had, on this, occasion, a result very unfortunate for his speculations. If he had treated me with that reserve which intimidates and keeps at a distance, I should never have presumed to enter bis apartments during the absence of the master, to go from one room to another, and to allow myself to do what I am about to relate.

VI.

I entered, then, the opened door, and perceiving nothing unusual in the room, except a small table, covered with bottles and glasses, in the right-hand corner, I supposed that the rector’s absence was momentary, and that he would presently return. For want of something to do, I sauntered with a sort of lazy curiosity into an adjacent chamber, where a small library immediately attracted my attention. Impressed as I was by the holy maxims which were daily repeated to me, and above all by those solemn words which began and closed every conversation—Ad majorem Dei gloriam—how should I have doubted but that I was dwelling among angels? In fact, it is impossible to imagine anything more touching than the generosity with which the fathers attribute to each other the rarest virtues and the most astonishingly miraculous of powers. I was not far, indeed, from believing implicitly that I was an inmate of a place peculiarly favoured by a constant communion with Heaven.

It was impossible, then, that I should for a moment conceive the thought that the rooms of the rector of a novitiate, who, as my confessor, was ever exciting me to a life of purity and elevation, should contain any books but those of piety and holiness. Weary as I had grown for some time of incessantly reading the exercises of Saint Ignatius, and incited by an irresistible desire to turn over some other leaves than those, I raised my hand to a shelf of the library, and joyfully seized a volume. To my surprise, I perceived a second row of books behind the first. Curiosity impelled me to take down the volume which had been concealed by the first I laid hold on. The name of the author has escaped my recollection, but it was, I think, a philosopher of the last century. I should have looked at it more deliberately, had not a third row of books, behind the second, struck me by the peculiar style of the binding. What was my astonishment when this title met my gaze, “Confessions of the Novices!” The side edges of the book were marked with the letters of the alphabet. Could I do less than seek for the initial of my own name?

The first pages, written, probably, a few days after my arrival, contained a rough sketch of my character. I was utterly confounded. I recognized my successive confessions, each condensed into a few lines. So clear and accurate was the appreciation given of my temperament, my faculties, my affections, my weakness and my strength, that I saw before my eyes a complete revelation of my own nature. What surprised me above all was the conciseness and energy of the expressions employed to sum up the characteristics of my whole being. The favourite images I found in this depository of outpourings of all sorts from the heart of ingenuous youth, were borrowed from the materials used in building—hard, fragile, malleable, coarse, precious, necessary, accessory; a sort of figurative language which has kept fast hold on my memory. I only regret that I could but glance with the rapidity of lightning over the pages that concerned myself; yet this glance sufficed to reveal to me the object of such a work. An idea may be formed of it from the passage I am about to cite, and Of which I have retained an indelible remembrance.

“The amount of enthusiasm and imagination with which he is endowed,” said the text, “might in time be made very useful in varnishing our work. His want of taste for the grotesque (sic) in religion* will do no harm, but it proves that his talent must be employed in recommending and exalting, to the more delicate consciences, all that is pure and ennobling in religion. He would spoil all if we were to let him set to work on the clumsier parts of the edifice; whilst he will greatly aid its advancement if he is employed exclusively in the more delicate parts. Let him be kept, therefore, in the upper regions of thought, and let him not even be aware of the springs which set in movement the vulgar part of the religious world.

* Father Saetti, knocking at my door one morning, according to his custom, I did not immediately open it “Why this delay?” he asked me. I replied that I could not open the door sooner. He then reminded me that, in all things, the most prompt obedience was the most perfect; that in obeying God we must make every sacrifice, even that of a moment of time. “One of the brethren,” he continued, “was occupied in writing, when some one knocked at his door. He had begun to make an o, but he did not stay to finish it He opened the door, and on returning to his seat, he found the o completed, and all in gold! Thus you see how God rewards him who is obedient?” I received this story with a burst of laughter, at which he appeared much scandalised. “What J” he exclaimed, with an alarmed face, “do you not believe in miracles?” “Most certainly I do,” replied I; “but this one is only fit to tell to old women.”

This was, no doubt, repeated to the superior, and gave rise, I Imagine, to the secret remarks quoted above.

“It is important that he should always have near him, in his moments of depression, someone to cheer him with brilliant anticipations. But should his ardour, on the contrary, lead him too far, some discouragement or disappointment must be prepared for him, in order to mortify him and keep him in subjection.”

Not an atom of what I had, as a matter of conscience, revealed to my guardian angel, or confessor, was omitted in this register. When I recollect what sweeping inductions were drawn from the trifles which I had considered myself bound to communicate, I cannot wonder that such a system, so based on profound study of character, pursued with so much assiduity and constancy, and applied on so vast a scale to individuals of every age and every condition, should place in the hands of the Jesuits an almost infallible means for attaining the end which they have proposed to themselves, with such extraordinary determination.

It may be imagined what were the reflections aroused within me on the discovery I had made. In an instant I recalled all the sinister statements which had been made to me respecting this celebrated society. But none of these thoughts had time to fix themselves in my mind, so eagerly was I incited by the desire to know more. Agitated, carried away, by a dizzy curiosity and an increasing anxiety, I seized a volume entitled, Confessions of Strangers. I hastily glanced over a few lines, here and there, and the small portions that I read induced me afterwards to believe, that everything in this order is done conformably to the rules of the little code, known by the name of Monita Secreta, or Secret Instructions. It was, in fact, a collection of notes upon persons of every class, of every age, rich men, bachelors, &c. Here again were circumstantial details—propensities, fortune, family, relations, vices and virtues, together with such anecdotes as were calculated to characterize the personages. It is only in cases of exception, as I have since learnt, that a Jesuit remains long in the same place. If he be allowed to continue his sojourn there, it is only when the superiors are convinced of the incontestable utility of the influence which he exercises. Whenever a Jesuit, particularly one of moderate abilities, has used up the resources of his mind in any particular place, and when he seems to have nothing new to produce, the regulations of the order require that he shall be replaced by another who may, in his turn, be remarked and admired for a longer or a shorter time. In these frequent changes there is another advantage: the new-comer, entering upon the sacred office of his predecessor, as soon as he has learnt the names of the persons who choose him for the director of their conscience, can, by means of the Register of Confessions, furnish himself, in a few hours, with all the experience acquired by his colleagues. This artifice endows him with the infallible power of surprising, confounding, and subjugating the penitents who kneel beside him; he penetrates them most unexpectedly, and, in a manner unprecedented, introduces himself into the most hidden folds of their hearts. It cannot be told with how much art the Jesuits profit by the astonishment they thus excite, and how adroitly they turn it to the advancement of their work. Thus, I have met with rich bigots, old men, and often with young persons of the weaker sex, who boldly maintain that the greater number of these reverend fathers are actually endowed with the spirit of prophecy.

VII.

I was, meanwhile, disposed to make further and bolder researches. The book which I next opened was a register of Revenues, Acquisitions, and Expenses. In my feverish impatience I soon quitted it for another, entitled, Enemies of the Society. At this moment I was interrupted by a noise which I heard, and scarcely had I time to replace the volumes I had disturbed, when I distinguished the sound of numerous approaching footsteps, as if several persons were about to enter the apartment. Then only I began to feel the danger of my presence in the closet.

Until then I had been wholly absorbed, and hurried along, as it were, by a whirlwind. But the discoveries I have related proved to be but the prologue to a drama infinitely more serious, and which I am about to retrace.

As soon as I was aware that the rector was returning, along with several other persons, I held a rapid debate within myself whether I should leave the inner room, and cross the other in their presence, or remain hidden as I was. But, in order to render my narrative more clear, I ought here, perhaps, to relate a fact which can alone explain why I had found the door of the apartment open. I learnt afterwards that a rich nobleman and courtier* had come to pay a visit to the Jesuit fathers at Chieri. I had myself a few days previously heard a rumour of the expected arrival of some fathers from a distance. At this period, the Jesuits were beginning to plant some roots in Piedmont, of which they meditated the conquest; and I doubt not that the superiors of the society resident at Chieri wished to offer a flattering reception to this high personage. Their conversation had, probably, run upon the work which they proposed to undertake in that country, I understood, at least, from some of their expressions, that they congratulated themselves on having interested their noble visitor, and trusted that they had acquired in him a powerful supporter. There seems every reason to suppose that the fathers, desirous of pleasing him, had, in their excess of politeness, accompanied him to his carriage, where the conversation and the parting compliments had been prolonged more than a quarter of an hour, whilst it had occurred to no one amongst them that the door of the rector’s apartment was left open.

* The Marquis of Saluces, brother of the Count of Saluces. I had not named him in the manuscript which has been stolen from me. My plunderers have added, in their Berne publication, a verbal indiscretion to their actual theft.

What might be the number of the fathers I cannot exactly report. To judge from the noise of voices, there might be at least eight or ten of them.

As to myself, my perplexity may be better conceived than described. I was bewildered. What was I to do? Remain? But every moment I might expect to be discovered, and then! Should I open the door, and break in upon their eager conversation? But I was too much agitated, too much oppressed, by what I had just read; besides, what I had already overheard of their projects, their eager animation, and the freedom of their speech, all terrified me. I trembled at the bare idea of encountering their inquisitorial gaze. A fearful reaction had instantaneously taken place within me. The Society of Jesus was suddenly revealed to me in darker and more repulsive colours than those under which it had formerly been depicted to me. Confounded, paralyzed, and utterly unable to come to any determination, I remained motionless. . . . Far from being fatal to me, this loss of time was the circumstance which saved me.

VIII.

Whilst they were thus conversing together with considerable vehemence, all on a sudden, as if they had disappeared, the noise of their voices ceased, and a dead silence ensued. An electric shock could not have produced a greater revulsion of feeling than that I experienced; and the door of the room, in which I was, being a little open, as it had been from the first, my very pulses seemed to stand still during this pause.

Yet were I again to be submitted to such a trial, I know not whether I should again be capable of the resolution which then rose within me. I was composed, as it were, of two beings. I felt, at the same time, all the timidity and all the rash boldness of a child. A sort of fascination inspired me with a daring thought, leaving me at the same time perfectly aware of the danger of my situation. Others may be able to explain this mystery; for myself, I only state what occurred to me. I tell what I dared to attempt, and what I effected, without seeking to conceal the terror by which I was shaken during its execution, and which left an impression upon me that lasted more than a twelvemonth. Certain it is that I soon experienced, in the midst of my trembling fears, a sort of boyish exultation, a feeling of joy and triumph at the idea of being initiated into secrets, the mysterious and awful nature of which I was led to infer from the revelations of the library, the words which struck my ears, the opinion I had conceived of the power of the Jesuits, and the remembrance, which these circumstances so vividly recalled, of all that I had heard in their disfavour. But let me not anticipate.

Up to this time, I had been endeavouring to collect all my courage, in order to present myself before the assembly, and attempt to go forth, excusing myself to the rector, if, as was most likely, he should interrogate me; and, probably, I should have finished by taking this step, had the confused conversation continued much longer. The sudden silence, the idea that I was discovered, put an end to the resolution I was about to take. At the very moment when I expected to see the door opened, the incident which took place changed my situation, and rendered it critical in the last extreme. At the first words I heard, and which I am about to relate, I felt with terror that I was, in fact, witness of a council which held up before me the two grand perils between which I had to choose. But the danger, if I presented myself, was immediate though unknown, whilst it seemed to me that in temporizing there was some chance of safety. This latter plan, too, was the easier from its inaction; it left me a ray of hope that I might yet escape undetected, and I remained therefore motionless, awaiting my fate. I will now relate the words which almost immediately broke the awful silence.

I do not profess to give with literal accuracy, in each expression, the allocution of the Jesuit who filled the office of president on this occasion; but I pledge myself that the sense is faithfully and accurately reported: the words, which in a moment so grave, and in the midst of such profound attention, fell slowly and emphatically on my ear, remain indelibly imprinted on my memory.

“You will excuse me, dear brethren”—(an imperative gesture of the president himself had doubtless produced the silence which had been so startling to me)—“you will excuse me if I thus interrupt you. You are aware that we have no time to lose. Today, as already resolved, we will enter into a general view of the interests and the plan of action by which our society is at present to be guided. Hitherto our discussions have related only to local affairs. We must now define the principles which are, henceforward, to regulate our conduct. The men with whom we have now to do, are totally dissimilar to those of past times. The plan which we are now to lay down must be calculated to meet present as well as future obstacles. And shall not we,” he added, with a tone of concentrated haughtiness, “with our united efforts, be able to do as much as—nay, more than was done by one single man, in a few years, to the astonishment of the whole world? Hold yourselves ready then, you who have sufficient understanding to throw light upon the important questions which we have to resolve.

“You have, before your eyes, the list of those points which form our chief object.

“What is most important for us is, that our materials should augment, and that a book be ultimately made from them—I will not say a large book, but such a book, as may become, though small in volume, a vast fund, wherein shall be concentrated the experience of thousands, for the benefit of all those whom we shall initiate into our work. For you all know that since quiet is restored, and the genius of war is fettered, the mind of every nation is at the disposal of him who shall most adroitly take possession of it.

“But let us not deceive ourselves. However good our old swords may be, yet seeing the struggle which awaits us, it is not enough to sharpen them; we must above all things modernize them.

“We must first decide, then, what course to follow with the multitude who have been bewildered and fascinated by such fine-sounding words as ‘right,’ ‘liberty,’ ‘human dignity,’ and so forth. It is not by straightforward opposition, and by depreciating their idols, that we shall prevail. To prepare for men of all parties, whatever may be their banner, a gigantic surprise, that is our task. (Creare a tutti i pariiti, qualunque sia la lor bandiera, una gigantesca sorpresa, ecco la nostra opera.) (Italian meaning: “To create for all peers, whatever their nationality, a gigantic surprise. Here is our work.)

“Let our first care, therefore, be to change, altogether, the nature of our tactics, and to give a new varnish to religion, by appearing to make large concessions. This is the only means to assure our influence over these moderns, half men, half children.

“We will first, then, take a review of the arsenal of our forces. The present meeting shall be the pregnant mother of our future proceedings (

seance mere

), wherein we will concentrate all the ideas we have formed upon the epoch, so as to turn them to the aggrandisement of the church. Here are the minutes of the three preceding meetings, which you may all consult at your leisure. Broad margins have been left in order that you may note down your reflections, your rectifications, and even your objections, should such present themselves to your minds; and above all, your new views on the difficulties we shall encounter, and on the best means of vanquishing them. In this manner we shall become more and more enlightened on the grand design of our order, and on the course which will most promptly and most surely accomplish it.

“Bear ever in mind that our great object, in the first place, is to study deeply and bring to perfection the art of rendering ourselves both necessary and formidable to the powers that be.”

IX.

It almost took away my breath to find the worst that bad been told me of the Jesuits thus suddenly and unexpectedly confirmed by what I had just read and heard. To open the door now, and to present myself before them, would have been the act of a madman. All that remained for me was to decide what I should do if I were discovered; and I thought my only possible resource, if I heard them approach the door, would be to stretch myself on the ground as if I were in a fit. I felt, in fact, as if I were on the point of being precipitated headlong down a precipice.

A salutary diversion drew me out of this state of extreme anxiety; there was a movement and a sound of chairs; they were evidently taking their seats at the table. Here was a respite! I breathed again. The person who had already spoken now uttered, in a simple and familiar tone, the following words, which suddenly inspired me with the feelings and the resolution of which I have spoken above.

“I should wish,” said he, “that nothing should be lost of what we are about to say. I desire exceedingly that all our ideas may be committed to writing, so that others may have opportunity to criticise, develop, or improve them. Let us, therefore, deliver them clearly and deliberately, in order that our friend the secretary (L’amico nostro, il secretario) may lose nothing of what is said.”

To hear this, to observe near me a small table furnished with writing materials, and to resolve to play myself the part of secretary, was the work of an instant.

From the commencement of my studies, first from caprice, and afterwards with a special motive, I had invented for my own use a system of abbreviations in writing. I had only thought, at first, of procuring myself a little leisure during the dictation of the lessons, and thus being able to amuse myself, with all the vain-glory of a schoolboy, in watching my fellow-students painfully writing down what I had long since finished. The indulgence of this diversion sometimes, indeed, Induced the professor to require me to prove, by reading the dictation, that I had really written it. But I afterwards turned this species of stenography to more account, because it enabled me to enjoy furtive reading during the lessons. And the effect of it remains to this day; for, although I no longer make use of this system, I find it difficult to write without many abbreviations, so that my handwriting is, unfortunately for my correspondents, singularly illegible. Besides, those amongst the Jesuits whose native tongue was not Italian naturally spoke with slowness. Hence I had no difficulty in writing down all that was said. I was thus occupied until the close of the day; a quarter of an hour more, and daylight would have totally failed me.

I will not attempt to describe my sensations whilst thus occupied. I felt as if I had taken a prodigious leap. Still very young (I was only nineteen), simple and confiding, I was confronted, wholly unprepared, with the most daring and profound machinations which men, such as the chiefs of the Jesuits, were capable of devising. The veil withdrawn, I beheld myself face to face with one of the most mysterious powers which has ever been known to reduce to system, on a vast scale, the art of subjugating all sorts of passions—the passions of the mass, and the passions of sovereigns—to the obtaining of a fixed and immutable purpose.

Thus, scarcely daring to make the slightest movement, I was able, through the partly-opened door, to hear distinctly every word. I listened to the discourses of eight or ten of the most energetic chiefs of the society, who, having laid aside, on this occasion, their unctuous language, and honied phrases of holiness, boldly reasoned upon sects, parties, opinions, and interests, weighed both obstacles and resources, and built up a colossal edifice of delusion, before which Machiavel would have bowed his head.

This was a rude trial for an understanding so youthful and unprepared as mine. Besides this, the singularity of my situation—listening to and writing down the words of invisible personages, whilst I knew that the sword was suspended over me by a single thread—occasioned emotions so violent, that I cannot, to this day, recall them without a nervous shudder.

My readers’ own feelings, as they peruse what follows, will enable them to judge what I must have suffered.

X.

A certain impression, which I welcomed as a hope of safety and of Divine protection, seemed to come upon me, that this singular situation, which I had neither sought nor foreseen, was not the effect of chance. Besides, my occupation absorbed me so deeply, that I had sunk into a sort of calm—a calm inwardly troubled, it is true, and, as it were, convulsive. But when I perceived that the sitting was about to draw to a close, all my agitation was renewed. A deep terror took possession of all my senses; after what I had heard and what I had done, I could not look for any mercy. At the noise which followed, when all the assembly rose from their seats, my knees knocked together, and drops of cold perspiration fell from my forehead.

Meanwhile, however much I resembled a condemned criminal whose hour of execution has arrived, I was not so wholly mastered by terror but that I had some lucid moments. I took advantage of the noise produced by their mutual congratulations to thrust my manuscripts into my stockings, and felt somewhat relieved when they were thus concealed. Afterwards, when the bottles were uncorked, and the glasses were jingled, I exerted all the little force I had left to ease my torpid limbs; for the posture I had been obliged so long to maintain had cramped my whole frame, especially my neck and my legs. Happily, the noise was now sufficient to allow me to stretch my limbs, and let my blood return to its natural circulation.

This relief obtained, and the noise in the adjoining room having again subsided, the chief who had already spoken, addressed the following observations to his colleagues, who listened with the renewed attention which his words seemed always to command.

“Where is the revolutionist who, as soon as he becomes engaged in any plot, is not obliged to risk his fortune and his life? As for us, we have nothing of the kind to fear. On the contrary, those who load us with favours, to whom we owe these spacious mansions where we hold our meetings in perfect safety, not only confide to us their subordinates and their families, but put themselves into our hands.”

These last words, uttered in a slightly ironical tone, excited an approving murmur, which induced the speaker to add:—

“But let us not trust too much to the singular advantages of our admirable position. Let us rather take extreme care to avoid the least false step, so as to arrive safely at the result of our efforts.”

After these words there was an explosion of enthusiasm —toast followed toast; but nothing of the precise meaning of their noisy conversation reached me. The only words I heard distinctly were these which one of them, evidently English or Irish by his accent, pronounced in a grave sonorous voice, accenting each syllable impressively: “Et erit unum ovile, et unus pastor.” (Latin for, “And there shall be one flock, and one shepherd.”)

Continually in fear of being discovered, I expected every instant to see the joyous scene of which I was the unknown witness, change into a scene of death. I looked anxiously around me—not a corner where I could conceal myself. I heard the rapid beating of my heart; my fate seemed darker than the night whose approach rendered my thoughts still more gloomy. What a position! I at once desired and feared a change, whatever it might be. I desired it, that I might be released from such cruel constraint; I feared it, for what might befall me! All at once a fortunate accident roused me from my stupor—the house, bell rang. I heard these words, “Come, let us to supper;” followed by these others, “We have earned one, and a good one too.”

XI.

As soon as I could make out that they were moving to the door and were really going, I was seized with an agitation of quite a different nature from that which I had endured before. I cannot possibly express what I felt at this moment, when, listening attentively, I acquired the certainty that the room was becoming empty. It seemed to me that an overwhelming weight, which had oppressed me during half the day with a mysterious terror, was instantaneously taken away, as it were, by an invisible hand.

Thenceforward, full of courage, I did not doubt that God had assisted me till then, and that he would continue to assist me.

As soon as the sound of retreating steps had completely died away in the corridors, I crept softly into the apartment. Even there I could not help casting a look on the table round which the assembly had been seated. The temptation was too strong for my curiosity not to overcome my fears. The first thing that struck me was some great books in the form of registers, with alphabeted edges. The sight of them explained to me a noise I had heard at the moment when the Jesuits entered. However, no use had been made of these books during the conference.

Although at that hour I could scarcely see to read, yet I would not lose the opportunity of casting a rapid glance into these volumes. I found that they contained numerous observations relative to the character of distinguished individuals, arranged by towns or families. Each page was evidently written by several different hands. Beside these enormous volumes, I saw three unbound manuscript books, two in Italian, and one in French, all thickly set with marginal notes. If I had not been tormented with strong apprehensions, I could have employed some precious time in looking through this mass of writings. But I had incurred peril enough, and however great the attraction, it was necessary to resist it, and depart without more delay.

XII.

What activity in this order!—what power of combination!—what boldness of views!—what fecundity (fruitfulness) of means! But also, what pride to imagine it possible, even with all these appliances, to delude, ensnare, mystify, and quell this rebellious age, which becomes each day more clear-sighted to comprehend these plans, and perceive the definitive object of these manoeuvres.

Jesuitism, indeed, has long lain under the most terrible suspicions.

Fra Paolo Sarpi, a man of great capacity, of consummate experience, a monk himself, and who, during a long life, had studied this amphibious sort of corporation (for it does not declare itself decidedly either ecclesiastic or monkish), calls it in his usual laconic language, “The secret of the court of Rome, and of all secrets the greatest.”

“Of all the religious orders,” said likewise the formidable Philip II., “that of the Jesuits is the only one which I cannot in the least comprehend.”

At the present day this society continues to be an enigma, but its meaning is on the point of being found out.

One day during the last few years I opened the Revue des Deux-Mondes, and great was my surprise on finding there details very similar to those which I have just recounted, and of which, as I have already said, I made no mystery on my arrival in Switzerland. It is, nevertheless, possible, that the information contained in the following lines proceeded from another source: —

“The provincial houses correspond with those of Paris; they are also in direct communication with the general, who resides at Rome. The correspondence of the Jesuits, so active, so varied, and organized in so wonderful a manner, has for object to furnish the chiefs with every information of which they may stand in need. Every day the general receives a number of reports which severally check each other. There are in the central house, at Rome, huge registers, wherein are inscribed the names of all the Jesuits and of all the important persons, friends, or enemies, with whom they have any connexion. In those registers are recorded, without alteration, hate, or passion, facts relating to the lives of each individual. It is the most gigantic biographical collection that has ever been formed. The conduct of a light woman, the hidden failings of a statesman, are recounted in these books with cold impartiality; written with an aim to usefulness, these biographies are necessarily genuine. When it is required to act in any way upon an individual, they open the book and become immediately acquainted with his life, his character, his qualities, his defects, his projects, his family, his friends, his most secret acquaintances. Can you not conceive, sir, what paramount practical advantages a society must enjoy that possesses this immense police register which embraces the whole world? Jt is not on light grounds I speak of these registers, it is from one who has seen this collection, and who is perfectly acquainted with the Jesuits, that I derive my knowledge of this fact. It suggests matter for reflection for those families who give free access to the members of a community in which the study of biography is so adroitly cultivated and applied.”

I was forced, though with regret, to quit the table; besides, the darkness prevented my reading profitably. I was under no difficulty about leaving the room; I knew that the door opened on the inside, and that I should only have to shut it gently to reach the corridor. I thought it best not to go to my room, as it must have been shut up during my absence. What I most dreaded at that moment was to meet any one, for I was convinced that during this absence of half a day I had been anxiously sought for. The best expedient I could think of was to go and place myself in a latticed pew in the church, in which I attended mass every day accompanied by my guardian angel.

XIII.

Alone there, and in some degree safe, I had leisure to feel the full effects of the fatigue of body and mind I had endured. All my ideas had in fact undergone a complete revolution, which, had it been effected slowly, would not have had the serious consequences of which I am about to speak; but it had taken place with extraordinary violence; the tree had been torn up suddenly by the roots and cast upon the furious waters of a torrent. I will not attempt to describe such a situation; at times I appreciated the event in all its reality; at others the burning of my brain was such that I did not doubt I had been the sport of some Satanic vision; I was present once more at the scene which I had witnessed, but it was now so exaggerated that I fancied I heard spectres or demons conversing together.

Under a load of such different impressions of fear, of astonishment, my intellectual and moral strength broken by toil and constraint, after having yielded myself up to a maze of gloomy and agonizing thoughts, it was a good thing for me that I sank into a deep sleep. It must have been about nine or ten in the evening, when I was suddenly awakened by some one shouting out my name. Mechanically I came out of my pew, and was still rubbing my eyes when I know not how many fathers came round me.

I was instantly overwhelmed with questions. I was obliged to pause some moments to collect my ideas; and then I could find nothing better to say than that I had felt unwell—that everything fatigued me—that the slightest noise tortured me—and that I had retired there to be alone.

But all this was far from satisfying them. Father Saetti remarked, that not only he had been where we then were, but that he had knocked at every door, even at that of the rector, without being able to find me.

In fact, during the meeting I had heard the door open; and so long as the whisperings lasted, and until it was shut again, I had felt a cold shudder run through my frame.

I replied, therefore, that it was true I had not been constantly there; that I had been absent for a quarter of an hour or so, and I mentioned a place to which I had been obliged to go.

The embarrassment manifested in every word I spoke increased their suspicions. The fathers, irritated rather than appeased by my replies, continued, under different forms, to repeat the same interrogations.

The guardian angel took the trouble to inform me, in an ill-humoured tone, that at first he had believed I had gone to make my request to the rector, but that my absence proving so long, he had changed his opinion. And as though he feared being accused of negligence, he justified himself in an eager and serious tone.

“It was impossible for me to suppose,” said he to the rector, “that even if you had received him you would have kept him so long—above all to-day, when, on account of the meeting, you had told me there would be no reception. It was only after having been more than once to inquire of the porter and of the lay brothers, after having importuned everybody, that I began to suspect he might have run away. It was then at the risk of disturbing your meeting, not knowing what to do, I came and knocked at your door. Before supper, I hastened to inform you of his disappearance, and, had it not been to obey you, I should, for my own part, have judged it perfectly useless to go calling him through the corridors as I have just done. I can scarcely believe my eyes at seeing him there now.”

There would have been no end to all this, if, wearied with so many questions, and making a bold effort, I had not begun to complain bitterly, groaning out that they tortured me, that I was exhausted with suffering, that I was dying.

An aged father, whom I recognized by his voice as one of those who had spoken during the meeting, suddenly cut short these puzzling interrogatories. ” Let me see/* said he, taking hold of my hand and feeling my pulse, whilst the rest stood keenly watching me in silence; then, after a few moments of serious thought, “Poor lad!” said he, “he is in a burning fever. To bed with him immediately! let the physician see him at once; I never in my life saw any one in such violent agitation; he is in a tremendous fever.” This was sufficient to put an end to their suspicions.

XIV.

My first care, on being conducted to my room, was to endeavour to undress without assistance. I contrived, not without difficulty, to lay my stockings aside without any other person touching them. The physician, who soon arrived, confirmed the opinion already pronounced on the serious nature of my attack.

Wholly engrossed by the secret in my possession, as soon as I was left alone, notwithstanding the darkness and the deplorable state I was in, I opened the edge of one of my waistcoats with a penknife; I then took my manuscripts, reduced them into small squares, and placed them earefully within the lining, so as to make no show that could betray their existence. I was obliged, however, to defer till the morrow the task of stitching up the waistcoat.

When my health was in some degree restored, and I had recovered my composure, I communicated to the rector my determination to discontinue my studies for the novitiate. In this I was guilty of signal imprudence, and from that moment my intention of quitting the establishment was represented to me as an inspiration of the devil. The pertinacity with which they strove to detain me, against my will, was so much the more odious to me, as they protested that all they sought was the welfare of my immortal soul. I found my self compelled some time longer to champ the bit in silence.

The day of confession arrived. I had hitherto obeyed a rule which prescribed that the penitent should reply aloud to the questions of his confessor—a more efficacious means, it was said, of advancing in humility and of rendering the act of confession meritorious. This time I paid no attention to it. The rector remarked this, and severely reprimanded me. The fact is, that he never failed on the Saturday evening to place his chair against that very door which, on the day when I took my notes of the sitting, had remained partly open, and he seated himself in such a manner that my voice was necessarily directed towards the door. I was, meanwhile, kneeling on a sort of footstool, and my face nearly touched his. The knowledge I had acquired had rendered me suspicious. The care which he took to exhort me to speak louder, whilst the usual custom in confession is to whisper, called my attention to the door which was in front of me, and I examined it as carefully as my situation would permit. I perceived that it was slight, and composed of a number of narrow battens, with many small interstices between them. Of course, in my new frame of mind I could not help supposing that some mystery was hidden behind that door—that, perhaps, on the same spot where I had written down the proceedings of the meeting, on that very table, so well furnished with writing materials, a secretary took notes of all that was weekly elicited, by questions cunningly contrived so as to search out the inmost hearts of young men who would have scrupled to dissemble, in the solemn act of confession, even their most fugitive thoughts.

XV.

Let me now give an account of the contrary effect which was produced on me, in my present state, by those very things which had previously wrought upon me, as it were, by fascination.

The devotional books I was made to read, the sighs and lamentations I heard uttered for the multitude of souls whom the world beguiles and corrupts, and, above all, these maxims, “That it is only by sacrificing our inclinations that we can advance towards perfection; that inferiors ought to listen to their superiors as if God spoke by their lips; that when we have become as a wand, or as a lifeless body in their hands, then only we have attained the height of obedience; and that this short life cannot be better employed than for the triumph of the church, and in seeking to bring all to her.” These books, these sighs, these maxims appeared to me as nothing else than the means of an abominable deception.

Nothing annoyed me so much as the pains they took to imbue my gait, my gestures, and even my looks with a certain air of austerity, and to prune my habitual language of certain free and artless expressions, with a view to impose others upon me, of a honied, specious, and sanctimonious nature. To meditate for ever, in such a place as this, on the eternity of punishment, everlasting felicity, and the duty of putting off the old man and putting on the new, and to pass the beads of a chaplet daily through my fingers, were exercises incompatible thenceforward with the new life which I had received in that very place. But what consummated my disgust was to be compelled to participate in conventional groanings, and in a pious loquacity of which it is impossible to form an idea. How, indeed, could I have continued to be at all deceived as to the nature of these practices? I was now aware of their purpose. They hoped, by means of all their trash of hollow and heartless prayers, their fictitious ecstacies, and chimerical communion with God, to galvanize my imagination, to suppress a portion of my being, and by marring my reason to obscure and mutilate my understanding, so that they might at length become its absolute masters.

The traces of the crisis through which I passed have been so profound, that no religious phraseology, however grand, has ever since been able to impose upon me. So far from being, in my estimation, a warrant of solid piety, a profusion of set phrases induces me rather to inquire whether it is not employed as an instrument of political views, or of self-interested speculation. I have become more and more averse from that heavy formality which almost everywhere stifles the fruitful principles of the gospel; and I have good right to disapprove of and detest it, since I early encountered the most venomous of reptiles under its thick foliage. I know, indeed, of no better rule for judging of men and things than that given by Jesus: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, nor an evil tree good fruit. By their fruits ye shall know them/* Convinced that the rector would never cease to oppose my departure, I matured a project of flight, and I chose for its execution what I thought the most favourable hour of the afternoon. I went immediately to the very hotel at which, a short time before, I had dined with the arch-priest, the day of my entrance into the novitiate. From thence I sent to the establishment for whatever belonged to me. One of the fathers immediately came to me, and exerted all his eloquence to convince me that I had committed a heinous fault; but it was in vain he protested that salvation is scarcely to be attained by those who mingle in the world’s ways, whereas if we die in the society it is assured to us, according to the promise of St. Ignatius—I was no longer the man to give heed to such fables. Abstaining from all imprudent disclosures, and avoiding every symptom of rancour, I at length dismissed my persevering visitor, and now I thought only of returning to my parents. A physician, whom I found it necessary to consult, advised me to avoid the motion of a carriage, and to travel rather by boat upon the Po. It is astonishing how the eager desire to quit this place, and the joy of breathing the free air, took away all feeling of the indisposition under which I was still labouring. But scarcely had I proceeded six or seven leagues by water ere my illness increased so much, that when I was landed at Casala I was considered to be in danger. I was therefore compelled to remain at that place until I was able to be removed to Langosco, my native town.

Amidst so many trials it was, however, a consolation to me that throughout this perilous affair I had avoided the worst of all evils, that of betraying myself. In the height of the fever, brought on by all I had gone through, every word I uttered had some confused reference to the meeting of which I had made a minute. I had to strive against this tendency of my disorder, and so great was the* struggle, that I suffered from the effects of it for more than a year. The strangeness of the event, and the fear of betraying my own share in it, had deranged my whole being.

XXI.

It is important that I should touch upon other annoyances to which I was subjected as soon as it was known that I had left the Jesuits. No one was more visibly, hurt at my abandonment of the novitiate than was my former friend the cure. My brief abode at Chieri, my escape, the complaint against me addressed to him by the superior, and, more than all, my extreme reserve with the Jesuits, from whom I declared, however, I had never experienced anything but good treatment—all these things • were to him totally inexplicable. Those who compared my former enthusiasm with my present icy silence, accused me of inconsistency, and harassed me with questions; and the necessity under which I was placed of answering evasively, contributed not a little to make it appear that I was in the wrong. But the greatest grief I felt on this occasion was that he who had hitherto loved me as his son, so that we could not pass a day without seeking each other’s society, now shut his door against me, declaring, with indignant severity, that for the future he would have nothing to do with me. This was my old friend the cure# And in fact he had witnessed in me so much resistance overcome, so many sacrifices made, so many ties, and those the dearest, broken, that he could not but consider my vocation as a strong and decided one. It appeared unpardonable in his eyes that I should have no reason to allege for the suddenness of the change, none to justify my flight; and nothing could exasperate him more than the utter apathy I showed with regard to the Jesuits, after having been one of their most ardent admirers; an apathy which I could not disguise, although it rendered my conduct still more enigmatical. All this kept us asunder during several years, and even when our reconciliation at last took place, he could not refrain from treating me as inconstant,: unreasonable, flighty, and paradoxical. In fact he only consented to receive me again on condition that not a word should be said on all this affair.

XVII.

I will now give an idea of the conduct which I was. obliged to adopt, in order to make my way in the clerical. world. I pursued my theological studies, and very naturally the pages I possessed were the frequent subject of my meditations. Instead of being influenced by official instruction, I soon became sensible that, in my case, it only served as an antidote against itself. I thus preserved my thoughts from pursuing the common track. But a crowd of reflections were awakened within me on all that I saw, and these I was absolutely forced to suppress. To form an idea of what all this cost me, it would be necessary to make a close acquaintance with life in a seminary.

Reciprocal mistrust is the first lesson taught there; servility is recommended as the height of virtue; espionage is noble, everything is pardoned to him who practises it, whilst the greatest implacability is shown towards, him who dares to call it a base occupation. The doctrine of pride is also carried to its greatest height in the opinion which the priest is taught to form of his own dignity. He is told to consider himself as no less superior to the laity than man is to the brute. He is told that he must not be familiar with the people; that he must maintain a certain distance in order to be the more imposing, and the better to inculcate the superiority of the church, or (which comes to the same thing) of the clergy. The students in these ecclesiastical establishments, almost all of the poorer classes, shrink from no sacrifice, because they are sustained by the hope of improving their condition. Yes, all that is sought, with such concentrated eagerness, under the semblance of this plausible mechanism of worship, is, in plain truth, a position more or less brilliant—a trade, in fact, by which to live. Such is the mainspring of this machinery, and it does not fail to keep all in movement. And to say the truth, whoever has eyes to see and ears to hear, can feel no doubt that this is the means employed to influence, modify, transform, render subservient, or stifle, if need be, opinions, ideas, and systems. So that the greater number of young men, who are brought by instruction to admit these ready made convictions, and who are incapable of a free and magnanimous resolution, easily lend themselves to certain functions in the Catholic hierarchy, and each works at his’ appointed hour, and in his appointed place, with surprising: readiness and regularity.

When my eyes had once begun to penetrate all these combinations, and their unavoidable results, I perceived within myself symptoms of another revolution. Every amusement was insipid to me; and my soul, early awakened, and yet imprisoned in a little world, an epitome of all that is stirring in the great world, set itself to work secretly to discuss a multitude of questions, delicate in their nature, and difficult to solve. I was in a situation every way exceptional. I was like a person who is placed behind the* curtain during a scenic representation, and who witnesses the play of the wires. Thus, the pomp and show of religion, its fetes, liturgies, solemnities, and devotional practices, inspired me with nothing short of repugnance. But forced to submit to circumstances, with my eye fixed upon a multitude of figures, and on the concealed springs which put them in movement, I shrank, pensively, within myself. This, however, I will say, that notwithstanding all the obligations which I felt were imposed upon me by my situation, neither the sermons at chapel, nor the weekly gymnastics to which I was forced to resign myself, in order to be one of the actors in the insipid exhibition of high mass, nor the act of confession and its monthly certificates, nor all the constraint imposed by constant espionage, operated in the same manner upon me that it did upon others. It roused within me a rebellious feeling, instead of rendering me docile to receive the common stamp.

Alone, as it were, amongst a great number of fellow- students, almost unconnected with them, on account of my eccentricity and isolation, I was compelled to have recourse to whatever change or occupation I could procure, in order to render my situation supportable. I ransacked all the works that came within the limits of the prescribed rules, in the hope of appeasing my thirst of knowledge, and for want of larger resources, my mind was absorbed in reasoning and reflection. I deeply studied (and this was the source of much reproach to me) a Latin Bible, divided into small volumes, one of which I always had about me. Meanwhile the orchestra poured forth its anthems, the altar shone resplendent with gold, the bishop enthroned himself with his scenic adornments; they knelt, they bowed, they waved the censers, they chanted, they stunned the ears, and dazzled the eyes; whilst I, in order to detach myself, as much as possible, from all this mechanical mummery, gladly abandoned my seat at the feast, always furnished on days of extraordinary ceremony, to those who were well contented to take my place; that is to say, to any of those beings as fond of these ceremonies as they were stupid and greedy.

My antipathy for these material forms of worship became generally perceived, and produced considerable scandal. I felt, meanwhile, an increasing ardour in the study of the Prophets and of the New Testament, in order to acquaint myself perfectly with the type of doctrine and the plan of redemption which they contain. If I consented, from time to time, to play a part in the numerous exhibitions which are indispensable in every grand Catholic solemnity, I did it with so bad a grace, and with such evident repugnance, that my fellow – actors were both amused and angry; so extremely susceptible are priests in all that relates to their ceremonies.

Such was the effect upon me of the event which I have related; and I was compelled to maintain a daily and hourly struggle with the desire I felt to communicate it. Notwithstanding all my reserve, however, involuntary glimpses of revelation from time to time escaped me, like flashes of lightning, and excited surprise and alarm in some for whom I had the greatest respect and love; so that they began to look upon me as an inexplicable anomaly, and I became convinced that my only hope of safety was to preserve the most rigorous silence.

XVIII

My studies being terminated, I applied for ordination. And now I was made sensible of the obstacles I had to expect. I observed in all those who directed the seminary, not excepting the rector himself, a determination to stop my progress. I begged of them to inform me what were the motives of their refusal, and to say in what my conduct had given them offence? They replied, that I had no taste for religious ceremonies, and that, consequently, I had no vocation for the church; that I read too much, and that they could not understand me. As they persisted in their refusal, a canon, highly placed, who had long been my confessor, a man of a singular and complex character, procured me an introduction to Grimaldi, archbishop of Vercelli. When I represented to him the deplorable ignorance and the scandalous immorality of many of the pupils of the seminary, who had been received into holy orders by the influence of certain personages, and even by that of certain ladies, whilst those who were questioned as to my conduct had not a word of reproach to bring forward, he was obliged to intrench himself behind a custom which exists of never accepting a candidate who is opposed by his superiors.

I recount these details in order to show that the superiors with whom I had to do were unable to comprehend my character. They were anxious , to interdict me from ever entering into the Catholic sanctuary; but they were unable to And an effectual pretext. The archbishop owned himself, at length, dissatisfied with mere suspicions, vague accusations, aDd gratuitous assertions of the difficulty of ascertaining my tendencies.

One of the many proofs I could furnish, that the singular secret of which I was possessor influenced all my views and directed all my proceedings, is, that as soon as I had succeeded in obtaining ordination, I took my departure for Turin.

In one of the intervals of the secret conference, during which the Jesuits relaxed themselves by a little familiar conversation, I had heard the theologian Guala spoken of as an ecclesiastic very serviceable to their plans. No sooner, then, was I at liberty to pursue my own projects, than I endeavoured to procure an introduction to him. He instructs a chosen band of young priests, in the capital of Piedmont, whom he trains up for confessors, and he conforms, in all things, to the views of the Jesuits, whom he considers as models of perfection. His morality is theirs.

XIX.

What most struck me, on my entrance into this congregation, was the chief himself. Small of stature, of great activity, with a most penetrating eye, inflexible with the little, and supple with the great, I beheld him every morning besieged, both at his own residence and at the confessional, by the most influential and the most distinguished persons of both sexes whom the city possesses.

Every week, at an appointed time, priests, young and old, crowded into a vast hall, and a conference took place, in which this theologian and his colleagues, all spiritual directors of the highest families, conducted the discussion of cases of conscience. For myself, all my attention was applied to study the tactics employed to furnish young confessors with rules not only different, but absolutely opposed to each other, and to teach them how to use them. I acquired also the clearest conviction that the supreme art of the confessional is, to utilize for the church, that is, for the clerical hierarchy, sins and crimes of every species. Casuistry, like a Proteus, for ever displayed itself to my eyes under varying colours. The waving willow branch is not more flexible than are these doctors in their principles of morality.

Every young priest is at liberty to play, by turns, the part of confessor and that of penitent. In the latter case, assuming the character of bigot or libertine, or acting the part of statesman, marquis, countess, or man or woman of the lower classes, he simulates the passions and adven- tures of all ages, sexes, and conditions, I listened with particular attention to the mentors, aged men of great experience, when they corrected the apprentice-confessors; not a word did I suffer to escape me of the many which revealed, in all its sinuosities, contrasts, and searching subtleties, all subservient to views of interest and domination, the nature of the language which they were to employ with the several classes of society.

But it is from a number of anecdotes, from conversations, from words let fall in public, or confidentially, from manuscripts which were only confided to trustworthy persons, that I acquired the certainty that the hidden designs of the Jesuits are executed by the aid of a multitude of adherents, who are entirely ignorant of the power that act* upon them, but are governed by others, who appear to know something of it, but in different degrees.

This same theologian, who had at his disposal beneficea small and great, from the humblest offices up to mitred ones, succeeded, with great skill, in presenting himself to my selection when he learned that I was engaged in the choice of a confessor. My confession, genuine at first, was soon changed into a sort of conversation that had no relation to it, as a religious act. He, nevertheless, required that, every Sunday, the priests whose director he waa should not fail to kneel before him at the hours when the church was most crowded: it is not difficult to guess the motive for such an exhibition.

He. little suspected, however, that instead of studying me, as he proposed, he was giving me ample and continual subject for the study of himself.

Everything had, indeed, concurred to enable me gradually to penetrate the system which was carried on. I was not imposed upon by the numerous equipages which crowded round his door, and by the assemblage of persons of consequence, and ladies of rank, who waited upon him.

In this place, where the Jesuits, thanks to their devoted auxiliary, train up the clergy according to their views, I was more successful in my researches than I could have hoped. I was even so fortunate as to surprise miracles in their very germs—to learn how they are wrought up and brought to perfection—how they are introduced on the scene, and used as a lever for the accomplishment of ulterior projects.

I might have established myself in this congregation, and have counted, if I had chosen to make my court to him, on the credit of so powerful a protector. He did all in his power to inoculate me with his own ideas; but quackery, which in general deserves only contempt, ought to be more than despised in the church. An attendance of one year on this able and wealthy casuist, was enough to enable me to appreciate not only himself but his troops Of adorers.

I now determined to quit this place, in order to pursue my investigations on a larger scale. I therefore abstained from returning, with the others, at the end of the vacation.

XX.

I will not conceal a strong temptation, which, for a while, diverted me from the path I had laid down for myself.

Seeing the rapid elevation of certain individuals of wretched abilities, who seemed to defy me as incapable of rivaling them, I was more than once on the point of making use of the secret of the Jesuits, as a sort of itinerary, in order to arrive, by a shorter way, at a respectable position in the ecclesiastical career.

This temptation did not last long, though I was often taken hardly to task by my father and his friends, sometimes because I devoted myself to the study of the bible and of the fathers of the church (a study which, I was assured, would be without any utility either immediate or remote); sometimes because I had declared my fixed determination never to aspire to any appointment or any honour whatsoever. Thus circumstanced, I felt that I must renounce my design of future expatriation, or make up my mind not to shrink from any kind of mortification. Happily for me, as my ardour increased to explore the foundations upon which Catholicism is built, my eyes became gradually opened, and I discerned more distinctly in what a mass of dogmatical, moral, and historical errors I had been brought up. This led me to conclude that it was not only a small portion of the Catholic hierarchy, as I had previously supposed, whose infection was dangerous, but the whole hierarchy itself, which, by its doctrines and by its aim, perverted the precepts of Christ, and pursued a course entirely repugnant to His teachings. And, in good truth, although the Catholic church, inscribing in its calendar, and in the breviary of its priests, the names of the doctors of the first six centuries, constitutes them—(strange fiction!)—the columns of the church, declares them its organs, and worships them as its saints, we may, nevertheless, boldly affirm, when we know these fathers more intimately than by their names, and when we have weighed their writings, that they all, one after another, bring their portion of gunpowder and place it under the edifice of degenerated Catholicism; and in such abundant quantity, that there is a thousand times more than enough to blow up the whole and reduce it to dust.

XXI.

The examination which I thus made naturally inspired me with the desire to make another, equally useful and important.

I desired to know all that passed in other seminaries, in the different brotherhoods, in the cloisters, in the houses of the cures, but above all, in the dwellings of the superior clergy. Thus, there is no labour which I was not willing to undertake in order to penetrate all the springs and all the combinations by which, even in our times, though it be not in the same manner as formerly, the Catholic organization can boast of being endowed both with a boundless elasticity, and an inflexible rigidity that no other has ever possessed, or perhaps ever will.

On this account, I do not, therefore, regret the pains I took.

I could not, however, fail to perceive that, in consequence of the social condition of my country, I should at last become exposed to unpleasant consequences, should the least suspicion be entertained as to the twofold direction of my inquiries. I thought it necessary, on this account, to carry on, under a literary veil, my dogmatical and historical researches, and above all, those which I carried into the a the domain of contemporary religion. I have always had an inclination for poetry and the fine arts. Availing myself therefore of this tendency, I let it be generally understood that the cultivation of letters was my ruling passion. Thia expedient, far from being an obstacle to the exploratory work which I had undertaken, furnished me, on the contrary, by the intercourse it procured me with persons of all classes, with numberless opportunities of appreciating the progress of the occult ideas of the Jesuits, whilst I seemed to be amusing myself with matters of trivial import.

Monks of every hue came frequently and eagerly to visit me, for sake of the sermons which I dictated to them. Assiduous reading of every kind had rendered this sort of improvisation easy to me. These men were open-mouthed beyond all conception, and they made me the depository of all they knew. Good easy men they were for the most part, but never having passed the bounds of monkish instruction, they were profoundly ignorant of the true nature of the system by which they were passively swayed. Each of them, in fact, might be regarded, in his degree, as a compendium of what passes within the cloister, and of the doctrines which are there taught.

I strove to make myself acquainted with the methods prescribed to them in order to become good confessors.

Some of the oldest, and the most noted for strictness in the confessional, told me what strange concessions are made by the Jesuits to certain consciences; and their anger was sometimes aroused when they related to me the efforts, too often useless, which they were forced to make against such a powerful means of seduction.

In this manner I gradually acquired clearer views, not only as to the Christian scheme, but also as to that no less mysterious enigma, the purpose of modern Catholicism. I saw it unfold itself by degrees, and I became convinced that both in the secular and regular clergy, and in the higher and lower classes of society, a metamorphosis was taking place in accordance with the views of the Jesuits.

How many phrases of the secret conference, which had appeared to me as mere momentary ebullitions, and flights of Utopian hyperbole wholly out of place in times like ours, recurred forcibly to my memory when facts themselves came forth as commentaries upon them! As yet unlearned in the complication of human affairs, I had long regarded as impracticable the mode of action which the Jesuits had proposed to themselves in their secret meeting, in order to get the mastery over both people and aristocracy, by bringing them under the influence of the most opposite doctrines. But experience, acquired in the world of the great and in the world of the little, convinced me that I had been mistaken in classing this method amongst chimerical conceptions.

XXII.

I frequently had occasion to appreciate the incomparable talent displayed by the Jesuits in making tools of young girls, silly women, domestics, devout ladies, and old men, towards the accomplishment of unlooked for results. However small may be each success they obtain, they use it to obtain greater still. How often have they, by means of such instruments, overthrown their surprised and astounded adversaries.

How many individuals, left stationary notwithstanding their capacity, and witnessing with irritation and disgust the rapid and unmerited elevation of others to honourable and lucrative appointments, have I seen at last enrol themselves among the adherents of the Jesuits I This miracle is followed by another. As no one likes to keep up an incessant struggle with an obstinate and vigorous enemy, the rage by which they were tortured up to the very moment when they yielded, becomes appeased; their secret feelings of scorn and hatred die away, and at last they grow zealous for a cause which formerly inspired them with indignation. Thus, the secret of this society consists in subduing, either by caresses or by the weariness of useless resistance when caresses have failed, the more enlightened of the middle classes, and in threatening them in their means of existence.

The influential classes, under the persuasion that their interests can nowhere be safer than in the hands of the Jesuits, place them there, little suspecting the marvellous skill with which they change the very favours which are bestowed upon them into so many springs to advance a cause whose success would be followed by the ruin of those classes themselves.

The following are the conditions—few, indeed, but peremptory—which they take care to enforce in every country where they are favoured by the government.

They insist that people shall confess to them, and participate as frequently as possible in the festivals of their churches; that they shall augment the number of their adherents, become children of Mary, praise the order always and everywhere, and stick at nothing in order to be useful to it. It is only on these terms that their protection can be obtained.

All who know the mask it was necessary to assume, in France, under the fallen dynasty, in order to assure success in any career, have no need to be told these things. Be* sides, do not the apologists themselves of the Jesuits avow that the latter have always possessed, in an inconceivable degree, “the art of spreading and accrediting the ideas which are subservient to their views, and that of compelling the great ones of the earth to concur in the execution of their projects.”

XXIII.

It was with great unwillingness that I resigned myself to remain in a country where I witnessed the daily increasing triumph of dissimulation and hypocrisy. Had not my presence been necessary to my father, whom it would have been criminal to forsake in his almost continual state of infirmity, I should have gladly made every sacrifice in order to escape the spectacle of the abject servitude to which the clergy was already reduced, and which the laity was beginning to partake. I waited with a feeling like suffocation until I should be free. No sooner, then, had the death of my father taken place, than I made the necessary preparations to expatriate myself, taking care, meanwhile, that no one should suspect my real intentions.

I determined, however, to take a last farewell of my friend the cure, and of the instructor of my early years. Each of them, the more tenacious as he was entirely ignorant of my views, blamed my aversion for an advancement in the church, which was the object of so much eager ambition to others. When I announced to them that they would, in all probability, see me no more, they deplored what they were accustomed to call my inexplicable obstinacy.

The singular determination which I took drew upon me, still more than my retreat from the Jesuits, the reproach of inconsistency.

A twofold permission was necessary for my departure. I went to Vercelli, where I presented myself to the Lord Archbishop d’Angennes, who gave me an invitation to dinner. As some ostensible motive for my departure was necessary, I informed him that I was about to place myself as instructor in an English Catholic family. Whereupon he gave me, of his own accord, a letter of recommendation to the police, so that there might be no difficulty as to their granting me a passport.

I most here remark, before I take leave of this epoch of my life, that belonging as I did to that portion of the clergy which was reputed liberal, I should have paid dearly for my principles had I committed any one tangible indiscretion; for there is nothing in that unhappy country which is attacked so mercilessly as new ideas, whether religious or political, more particularly when they are professed by ecclesiastics. I was, however, sufficiently fortunate to quit Piedmont without having become the object of any persecution, or even disapprobation.

XXIV.

No sooner did I find myself in the beautiful land of Helvetia, than the recollections which belong to it crowded on my mind. I thought, in my simplicity, that I should now find but one standard, and all hearts universally devoted to liberty—to that liberty which the gospel proclaims and consecrates, and of which it is the great charter to the human race.

But, as I have already hinted, a number of facts concurred to open my eyes speedily to a state of things which I had been far from anticipating. The explanations given in the introduction render it unnecessary that I should enter here upon the details of my sojourn at Geneva, upon the disappointments which there awaited me, and upon the lectures on the Secret Plan of the Jesuits which I had occasion to deliver to a number of persons there. Amongst the reflections suggested by these lectures, there is one which I consider worthy to be noted.

It was observed to me, that the father of whom I have already spoken, he who opened the conference by an address to his colleagues, expressed himself like one having authority. He evidently took the lead, and all the others showed much deference for him. His expressions and his deportment would seem to indicate that he was himself the restorer of the occult society, and that he directed it as chief mover; for neither did his language nor that of the others give the slightest indication that he was in any way dependent on any superiors.

It thus appears probable that the president of the meeting at Chieri was the general of the Jesuits.

Now, at this period, the general of the order was no other than Father Fortis, the same who, when Pius VII. conceived the project of introducing some innovations into the articles of the Jesuitical constitutions, repeated these memorable words, “Sint ut sunt, aut non sint.”

It is to this reply, first addressed to Clement XIV. by Father Ricci, general of the company, that Archbishop de Pradt alludes, when, recapitulating his ideas on this invincible society, he thus expresses himself:—

“Heavens! what an institution is this! Was there ever one so powerful amongst men! How, in fact, has Jesuitism lived? How has it fallen? Like the Titans, it yielded only to the combined thunderbolts of all the gods of the earthly Olympus. Did the aspect of death damp its courage? Did it yield one step? Let us be what we are, it said, or let us be no longer. This was truly to die standing, like the emperors, and according to the precept of one of the masters of the world.”*

• De Pradt, On Ancient and Modem Jesuitism, quoted in the pamphlet entitled La Verite sur les Jesuites, p. 271.

Before I close this portion of my history, I ought, perhaps, to reply to certain scruples.

The double case of conscience to which I am about to refer, has been discussed in those ecclesiastical conferences of which I have already had occasion to speak, as means of forming the apprentices to the confessional.

Supposing that some’ one knows, either by private intelligence or as an accomplice, that there is a plot to set a town on fire, may he, notwithstanding his oath of secrecy, give information to the authorities, in order that they may take the necessary measures of prevention? Would it be lawful for the confessor, who might be informed of the fact, to take, notwithstanding the sacramental seal upon his lips, the needful steps to prevent so great a catastrophe?

Supposing that a conspiracy existed, the success of which would bring ruin on a kingdom, might it, in spite of all imaginable oaths to secrecy, be revealed by a conspirator, or by the confessor himself? Yes. I have heard it laid down by the most profound casuists, that where the general good is in question oaths are in no way binding in such cases as these.

Now, besides that I am bound by no promise, I may boldly affirm that it is not an individual that is here at stake, or a town, or a kingdom, but the far more important interests of civilization and of the gospel itself, which is alone able, by the force of truth, to transform this vicious civilization, and to substitute for it that Kingdom of God whose coming we daily invoke in our Christian prayers.

I may, I think, safely add that there is not a single person placed in like circumstances with me, who would not have been, like me, impelled by the force of a multitude of incidents, whose rapid succession left me not a moment for reflection. Embarrassment, agitation, indecision, terror, by turns incited and restrained me, and compelled me to aet like a man whose eyes are blindfolded, and who knows not whither he is going. In fact it was impossible for me to act otherwise than as I did; and I will add, in order to conceal nothing, that it would have been equally impossible for me afterwards to resist the yearning I constantly felt to search into everything that had the slightest connection with those Jesuitical revelations which were ever present to my mind. What I am, intellectually and morally, all my researches and all my ulterior labours, all the materials which I possess— my whole life, in short, resolves itself into the sudden and terrible enlightenment which so early flashed upon me, and which communicated to all my energies an irresistible impulse.

It might be objected that it would be more prudent, on my part, not to provoke, by the publication of this secret^ irreconcilable hatred, and perhaps, even revenge. But have I not undergone the most painful sacrifices in order to keep myself free and independent? When the Almighty had released me from the only tie which bound me to my country, did I not quit it solely with a view tp render public that which I had rigorously abstained from communicating even to my most intimate friends, from motives of prudence, and from well-founded fears? And when I arrived in Switzerland, did I not pass for a visionary when I began to announce the plots which the Jesuits were ripening, and the dangers which were about to arise?

And now, perceiving, to my great surprise, that on one side a reaction is already taking place, and that, on the other, a certain class of interests, either from blindness or irj-eflection, is inclined to mix itself up with the interests of the Jesuits, little aware of the nature of the allies it seeks, or of the fate which attends all who make common cause with them, I feel more urgently than ever that this publication is incumbent on me.

XXV.

A phenomenon to which I am bound to call attention, because its immense importance is not sufficiently appreciated, is the alliance, which is now more firm than ever, between the high clergy and Jesuitism. I say, that neither its extent, nor its consequences, are sufficiently apprehended. And yet, who will deny that it has been the character of Jesuitism from its origin to its suppression, as Clement XIV. attests, continually to foment in the bosom of universities, parliaments, clerical bodies, and religious corporations, a succession of discontents, divisions, quarrels, and discords?

The remarks contained in the following extracts from an anonymous pamphlet, published at Geneva, seem to me to have been called forth by the knowledge of a Secret Pian, already divulged in that place.

“All around us,” says the author of the pamphlet, “far and near, in Switzerland, in Germany, in England, and more particularly in France, Catholicism, which had for some time bowed its head beneath political storms and warlike operations, now rises up, more hostile, more threatening than ever, and boldly proclaims its design to extirpate from the bosom of Christianity what it calls the heresy of the Reformation.

In particular, an association founded by a cure of Paris, for the conversion of heretics, under the title of, Congregation du Sacre Cceur de Marie, has obtained the sanction and concurrence of all the Romish clergy. Humble and obscure in its origin, it has risen, in an incredibly short space of time, to colossal proportions, its adherents now amounting to 2,000,000. These are disseminated through all the countries of the globe, and have taken a vow to co-operate in person and in purse in the propagation of Catholicism. They spare neither publications, nor intrigues, nor money, nor even miracles, in order to gain . their end. The gazette of the Simplon informs us, that the contributions of the two cantons of Valais and Soleure alone, have amounted this year (1842) to nearly 900,000 French francs. It is easy to imagine what might be done with such resources, could money create faith.

“Geneva could not fail to be one of the most attractive points to the Congregation, and in this place, in fact, it numbers many active associates. The rapidity with which the Catholic population daily increases within our walls, is, without any doubt, the fruit of this association, and already the foreign press proclaims this triumph.

“A wind,” continues the same pamphlet, “has blown from Rome, even over those writers who have hitherto remained most indifferent to religious interests; it is impossible not to recognize, in the malevolent absurdity of those attacks, which are renewed again and again, and almost word for word, the result of a vast concert, in which the hired performers obey, without perhaps being aware of it, the powerful and concealed instrument which gives them the key, from behind the curtain of the Alps.”

It is, then, an acknowledged fact that there exists a vast concert, in which the paid performers obey, almost unconsciously, the powerful and hidden instrument which gives them the key, from behind the curtain of the Alps; and it is even admitted that the many attacks we witness, far from being the effect of chance, are, on the contrary, evidently made with a view to certain remote projects. But who is there that cares to investigate the nature of these remote projects, and the means which may be employed to realize them?

All however agree in attributing to the Jesuits an extraordinary political influence. It is generally admitted that boundless power, absolute supremacy, is the object of their ambition. Their rule of action, that “the end justifies the means,” is become proverbial. And who doubts that the end so sought is evermore this same boundless power and supremacy?

The progress of this order being known and acknowledged, it would be folly not to suppose that it has abundantly provided itself with baits of every description, in order to secure such an immense number of co-operators of all classes and parties, even those the most opposite by nature.

And yet, no one has ever come forward with a view to investigate the means which the Jesuits are so industriously employing for the accomplishment of their ends. It is however easy to understand that the vast and formidable association, described in the above extract, is destined to be employed as a powerful lever, and to be directed, as time shall serve, to different points.

If this Congregation du Sacre Cceur did not ultimately connect itself with the plan about to be exposed, we might have refrained from here quoting a fragment of its regulations, published in several journals. But the Steele, after having examined not only the bases upon which it stands, but also its tendencies, thus accurately defines it:—

“An occult goyemment, organized in a hierarchical manner, to the furtherance of a political and religious reaction.”

It was impossible that the regulations of this new corporation should long remain a secret; once discovered, they were soon published. The following are among the articles:—

“It is not only in its object that the Catholic Association differs from the work of Catholicism in Europe, but also in its mode of existence, and in its means of action. Its hierarchical organization will not be determined for the present. Divine Providence will counsel us in this matter!”

“The general assembly to be the principal instrument of the association—

“It would represent, in a certain degree, the institution of the cardinalate. It would serve as intermediary between the central directory, and the inferior grades of the hierarchy.

“The greatest discretion is recommended to the members of the Catholic Association, no one of whom shall ever reveal, on his own authority, directly or indirectly, to any person whatsoever, the existence, the means, or the rules of the association.”

“As the association has absolute need of pecuniary resources, in order to pursue its end, and fulfil its object, one of its fundamental rules is the existence of an annual subscription, levied upon each member, the amount of which shall, each year, be fixed by the chapter.”

“Every novice admitted into the association shall swear to combat to the death the enemies of humanity. His every, day, his every hour, shall be consecrated to the development of Christian civilization. He has sworn eternal hatred to the genius of evil, and has promised absolute and unreserved submission to our Holy Father the Pope, and to the commands of the hierarchical superiors of the* association. The director, on his admission, has ejaculated, ‘ We have one soldier more.”

These words suggested the following reflections to another journal:—”We are, therefore, warned. A crusade is organised; it has its secret chiefs, its avowed purpose, its trained soldiers.”

The work is, as yet, scarcely begun, and the chiefs of the league consider themselves already sufficiently strong to address the government in the terms which one power employs towards another. What will they do when their Strength shall have increased?

See how the editor of the Univers, a paper known to be the organ of the bishops of France, begins a letter which he addresses to the Minister of Public Instruction:—

“This year, sir, you shall have no vacation; nor shall your successor, next year, God willing: for the Catholics will allow no intermission to the war which they are determined to wage against instruction by the state” *

The same letter concludes in these terms:—

“If you know the hour of our defeat or of our degradation, secure your treasures. Down goes all when we are no more. Twenty empires sleep in the graves which they had dug for us.”

I am inclined to believe that most of the writers who m our day profess to uphold the cause of Catholicism, derive their inspiration in various degrees from the spirit df the famous Company.

XXVI.

To revert to the occult plans which I expose to the public, I have only to entreat that this matter be not lightly examined. Now to judge it with sagacity, demands some acquaintance with the mass of writings with which the advocates of monastic institutions and of the Jesuits have inundated us. Such a course of reading could not fail to convince every candid mind that there really exists a secret understanding to propagate, in a devout and pathetic tone, the most unworthy falsehoods. In fact, the religious orders would have us believe that, setting aside a few weaknesses incidental to human nature, their mission has ever been one of pure beneficence. All the calumnies which have been directed against them have sprung from heresy and impiety, actuated by jealousy and rancour. Consequently, if nations would seek to emerge from the factions and troubles which agitate them, they must repent of their ingratitude and return to their ancient saviours; “for,” say they, “as long as the disastrous principle of free inquiry was unknown, and men suffered themselves to be guided by the principle of ‘authority, all was harmony and peace; but once the principle of infallible authority was assailed, the whole world became the theatre of all sorts of evils and disorders.” What incredible efforts have , they not made to prop up this gigantic falsehood!

Even a cursory inquiry into these manoeuvres and artifices, can hardly fail to manifest that the prime mover of all this wonderfully assiduous labour is a power which works in secret, which combines all the subordinate movements, which chooses and applies its means according to circumstances; and which spares neither flattery .nor bribes in order to enrol in , its service those individuals, whether writers or men of action, who may be able to aid the work.

I do not conceal from myself all that I have to fear in thus rending the veil which has been so carefully drawn to conceal projects, the extent of which, I verily believe, is unknown to the mass of the Jesuits, as well as to the bishops, the cardinals, and’ the pope himself. But, God is my witness that the motive which animates and sustains me is the desire to prevent a mistake fostered and propagated by the most Machiavelian policy, and which would entail the direst calamities on human society.

I submit to men of cultivated understanding, who can reason and judge impartially, the secret conversations I am about to relate. Especially do I refer the matter to those who have studied not only the art by which the Roman theocracy has raised itself to so high a degree of power, but also the writings, the tactics, the acts and achievements of that order, which has, since its establishment, been the most subservient to its despotism. If my readers keep themselves free from the influence of a preconceived system, and from the prejudices of their position, whatever it may be, I doubt not that they will discern, on a cool examination of the whole plan, that it is redolent throughout of the most subtle and profound spirit of Jesuitism.

I can, indeed, have no dearth of materials to dissipate all uncertainty, and these I owe to the ardour of investigation of which I have already spoken, and which was constantly inciting me to investigate every incident which had the slightest bearing upon Jesuitism. But what has most astonished me has been this: to find in books and journals, the organs of conflicting opinions, not only isolated ideas, but series of ideas, closely identified, both as to style and subject, with those of the meeting, as it is about to be described; and this identity is so striking, that I ask myself:

Must not these books and articles be the work of individuals belonging to the knot of the initiated, or, at least, to the league? If it has not been in my power to collect a sufficient number of facts to give to the Secret Plan which I am publishing an irresistible character of authenticity—for, after all, every one knows that conspiracies of this nature, being destined to remain a mystery, never transpire but by some remarkable chance;—yet, in the impossibility of fulfilling conditions which are, in fact, inadmissible, I cannot suffer to escape me the only kind of proofs which, in such a case, it is reasonably permitted to require.

These proofs will, then, be brought forward in the latter part of this work, and those readers who will take the pains to examine them will know how to place a just value on the language which the Jesuits and their official apologists have borrowed from the true advocates of progress—a language which they are now employing with singular audacity. It will be proved by irrefutable arguments that civil and political equality, freedom of worship, of education, and of association, are in their hands weapons of war, and nothing more.

XXVII.

It was at the time of restorations of all sorts that Jesuitism also was restored. At the period when the Holy Alliance was formed, the pope determined that he also would create a rampart for himself, against the encroachment of new ideas; he therefore evoked, from the depths of its mysterious retreats, the most skilful and enterprising of orders, that he might by its aid unite and consolidate not only all the orders, but the clergy of different countries, and the episcopacy, in a Theocratical Holy Alliance, of which the object would be not less fatal to the people than to the governing powers themselves.

“Pius VII.,” as M. Henrion remarks, “at length recovering his liberty in 1814, recalled the religious orders to more active life. They have, subsequently, sent out new ramifications into many countries, and the venerable tree, which had been cut down nearly to the ground, shoots forth new branches, and is already adorned with abundance of foliage, which gladdens the eyes of Christians. In France, the change which took place in our political system in the month of August, 1830, having consecrated, in an especial manner, the liberty of association, there is no doubt that the monastic state will speedily rise up from its ruins.”

There will be no stability, according to the same writer, there will be no repose for society, if it refuses anew to be directed by monastic institutions. These would naturally range themselves under the leadership of Jesuitism. How should it be otherwise? Does not this order hold in its hands the plan of battle? Does it not train the combatants? Does it not direct them to the point to be attained? Why, otherwise, has the educatiQn of your youth been confided to the Jesuits? Why have they alone been judged worthy to initiate the clergy in the art of confession?

“It is impossible,” continues their apologist, “that the Company should not know how to take its stand, and to adapt itself to the exigencies of the present state of things, that it should not know* how, at formerly, to become popular by answering to the true wants of the period.”

The Jesuits make one premise which is very singular, that of”acting only in the face of day, lest suspicious and impious men should mistake for intrigue the ptouf mdrierfuge* and the sublime secrets of humility.” What, indeed, could be more excellent than the work which they propose to accomplish? To extirpate the genius of trill to lay the foundations of Christian civilisation! Bat this is only to be dene on condition that the people deliver themselves, brand hand and foot, to the Company of Jesus.

We find in the same author the following reflections:—

“In the moral world evO never walks abroad without its attendant good; and it is very favourable for the Jesuits that they should have been restored in 1814, at a period when the people, delivered from a long-standing European wav, remained a prey to principles equally false in religion and politics. The crisis came; and it could be nothing short of divine inspiration which suggested to Pius VII. the thought of rallying around the apostolic throne a society so formed to trample down error.

“It was not, however, until 1823” (a date to which I call particular attention) “that the Roman College, which had passed into other hands since the fall of the Jesuits, was restored to them by Pope Leo XII. Several towns m Italy, the Duke of Modena, the King of Sardinia, and Freiburg m Switzerland, also welcomed the members of this reviving company. The King of Spain restored to diem all their property, houses, and colleges, which had not been sold. Is France they opened establishments for public instruction at St. Acheul, D61e, Bordeaux, &c., &c. Francis II.’ received them in Gallicia, where they devoted themselves to instruction in the colleges of Tarnopol, Starzawiz, and Janow, and to active missions elsewhere. The company possesses colleges in England also, and in the United States of America.”

M. Henrion, the friend and confidant of the Jesuits, doubtless knows, as well as any one, what is the end which they propose to themselves; and in one single line he thus betrays it:—”It is,” says he, “the annihilation of a double class of principles to which the people are a prey—principles equally false in religion and in politics.”

They would then destroy all the ideas which the French: revolution has bequeathed to the world; in other words, they would abolish free inquiry, in order to bind every conscience with the chains of Catholic authority; they would strike down the principle of liberty, the source of’ all justice, in order to build up again the tyranny of timesr gone by.

XXVIII.

I deem it important here to bring forward a fragment of the text, too little known, of the bull by which Pius VII* restored the Jesuits in 1814. This pope, whose spirit happily for humanity, the accession of Pius IX. has banished from the Vatican, declared that the Jesuits were indispensable to the safety of the world and to the wellbeing of the nations, and that he considered he should be neglecting one of his most urgent duties if he suffered the church to be longer deprived of their aid. He goes even further, and declares that they alone are competent to direct the faithful, the inferior clergy, and the bishops themselves. In short, he constitutes and consecrates them ..as the indispensable rowers of the mysterious Bark, the title by which the popes are accustomed to designate the Catholic church.

And lastly, in order that nothing may be wanting to an apotheosis so extraordinary, Pius VII. proclaims, in the face of nations, that under their guidance the bark of Catholicism will assuredly be saved, whilst without their care and protection it must inevitably founder.

Had we not then abundant reason to affirm that everything contained in these avowals is of immense importance, and calls for the closest attention?

And yet, so far from having allowed myself to exaggerate, I have closely paraphrased the following words, extracted from the bull of Pius VII., Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum:—

“We should believe ourselves guilty,” it is there stated, “of a very heavy offence before God, if, amidst the many pressing wants under which the public weal is suffering, we neglected to bring forward for its use the salutary help which God, by a singular providence, has placed in our hands.”

And whom has he selected to bring to the public weal this salutary help?

The Jesuits!

“On account,” adds this same pope, “of the waves which continually toss the bark of Peter, he should esteem himself as highly culpable, if he rejected the robust and emperienced rowers who offer themselves to him to quell the force of these ever-threatening wares.”

And the simple and significant reason which he gives is this:—

“That it may not be swallowed up in inevitable shipwreck.”

Part II. The Secret Conference.

It will be as well, before giving the account of the Secret Conference, to make some observations which may tend, as far as possible, to compensate to the reader for the want of what the tone and manner of the living voices have left for ever present to my memory.

I will first remark, that the list mentioned by the chief, and in which were set down the special points to be discussed, proves that everything in these meetings was arranged in the most precise manner.

If the reader carefully considers each discourse, he will perceive that each person has his own peculiar and distinctive style. The voices of the several speakers served me, instead of their faces, to know them one from the other; each one had peculiarities which I have not forgotten.

One of the fathers, the second who spoke, and whom I heard no more afterwards, surprised me by a most singular pronunciation. I had never heard a voice so slow and smooth, and oily. At the same time, no other speaker was more prolix and diffuse, yet he was listened to with the greatest attention. He was almost the only one who occupied himself exclusively with the people, showing by what baits it may be taken. Between this phlegmatic orator and all the others the contrast was striking; it was only at rare intervals that he became a little excited. At last, however, when he communicated a dialogue of one of his penitents with a companion, entirely to the honour of the Jesuits, he expressed himself with such unexpected animation as elicited a burst of merriment and great applause.

Another, whom I call the Irishman, is remarkable for a caustic and impetuous wit; he seemed possessed with fever. The Roman Jesuit is less vehement, but blunt and plain spoken; sometimes in a degree amounting to coarseness. The two Frenchmen exhibit a quite different character; one of them makes himself especially known by the ideas which he attacks with most eagerness, by the reminiscences his allusions awaken, and by his invariably clear and precise manner of expressing himself. The rector of the novitiate distinguished himself by a certain factitious pomp and gravity pervading all he said. He seemed made on purpose to ape wisdom, and make an exhibition of it. Father Roothaan had no occasion to be curbed from time to time, as happened, I thought, now and then to the Irishman; there was no fire, no acrimony, in the terms he employed; he expressed himself with gentleness, though occasionally with warmth; it must be confessed, however, that under his unctuous accents he conceals a propensity to violence and persecution.

There was one anomaly which I know not how to account for. The individual, whom I suppose to have been the general at that time (the same of whom I have said that he suddenly interrupted the promiscuous conversation), opened the meeting with an address in very pure and eloquent terms, which my memory is far from haring faithfully rendered;(It has been seen that I have quoted this introduction only from memory.) yet when all were seated and silently attentive round him, all his expressions seemed heavy, turgid, and inflated. There was something false and embarrassed in his roiee. Subsequently, however, be resumed all the promptitude and facility which he had at first displayed.

Though the persons present at the conference were few, they are about to appear before the reader presenting temperaments and characters essentially different; some impetuous, some calm, others constantly grave. And yet the kind of work which was to be common to them all, far from tending to place these different characters in prominent relief was rather calculated to merge all their individual characteristics, and reduce them to one standard type. In fret, it is only in assemblies, where there exists an opposition of principles and interests, which gives rise to free and contradictory debates, that each one, drawn out by circumstances, shows himself under his own peculiar features. Here, nevertheless, notwithstanding the unanimity of the meeting, the genius of each appears sufficiently striking to be easily distinguished.

None but those who have seriously studied Jesuitism, in the past as well as the present, and who know its spirit and audacity, will be able fully to understand all the meaning conveyed in the least of their words, without being astonished at the pride which devours them, or at the schemes which they meditate. Yet I believe it would require more than that to be able to apprehend the whole scope of their desires. It would be necessary not only to be acquainted with all their rules and their secret statutes, but with all the former discussions which led them to resume the weaving of that web of which I am about to show a few threads, and which, at the present day, must diave extended immensely. It would be necessary likewise to consider the education these fathers had received, the preparatory influence to which they had been submitted, -as well as the degrees through which they must have past before they could be judged worthy of becoming members of this committee which may be regarded as the last term of initiation. In fine, they were all under the empire of principles and ideas which bad been discussed in the three preceding sittings, or in confidential conversations. All they did was necessarily connected with these antecedents; consequently, being ignorant of the latter, it is very possible we may mistake certain passages, or comprehend them but superficially.

Let us enter at last upon the conference. When all were seated, and silence established, the president began to speak as follows:—

I.

“Dear brethren, our weapons are of a quite different temper from those of the Caesars of all ages; and it will not be difficult for us so to manoeuvre as to render ourselves masters of all the powers already so much weakened. We need fear no lack of soldiers, only let us apply ourselves to recruiting them from aU ranks, and from all nations, and drilling them into punctual service* But let us, at the same time, be vigilant, that no one suspect our designs. Let every one be persuaded, whilst consecrating to us his labour, his gold, or his talents, that he is employing them in his own interest.

Ours be the knowledge of this great mystery: as to others, let them hear us speak in parables, so that, having ayes, they may not see, and having ears, they may not hear.

Let us labour more diligently than all who have undertaken to raise great hierarchical edifices, and let our labour be in earnest!

You well know that what we aim at is the empire of the world; but how are we to succeed, unless we have, everywhere, adepts who understand our language, which must yet remain unknown to others.

Doubtless, you have not forgotten our ancient Paraguay. It was but a very limited trial of our system, in a small corner of the globe. In these latter days, we need.a new code, we who have undertaken to work so mighty a change—to make everything bend beneath the irresistible hammer of our doctrines, so that all shall become as stone, iron, gold, and adamant, for the gigantic building into which we will force all men to enter.

Let every individual, therefore, yield up an entire obedience. Let him plight inviolable vows in one sole convent; and let the pope—but a pope of our own forming —be its perpetual abbot!

No; Catholicism must no longer remain a mutilated power: has it not, within itself, means innumerable to overthrow and to raise up? Can it not re-erect itself, conquer, destroy, rebuild, and so Machiavellise itself, that the world can by no means escape it? Let us hasten our work, before the people become enlightened; as long as they remain opaque and material, we can make of them an instrument of conquest. But do you not perceive how information is already spreading? Woe to us if so many noble countries do not soon become our conquest, and if millions of men, robust and ignorant, lend us not their .herculean arms to extinguish the malign star which – threatens us! But the more time we lose, the more problematic does our success become.

II.

The president having ceased, the father with the soft and drawliqg voice began to speak:—*

* Here follows in the original the obscure and embarrassed commencement of this father’s discourse. “Sopra le populazioni, sopra, di ette, unga giammai stancarcia operiamo per mezzo delle nostre doctrine; impeniouchfc si h solo forti ficandole e scaliandole alle nostre ‘ fiamme che ce le cangieranno in fulmini.”

Yes; let us incessantly and unweariedly propagate our doctrines amongst the people; warmed by the fire of these ‘ doctrines, they will become changed for us into thunderbolts to strike down these haughty kings, who, instead of inclining their heads before the church as submissive sons, do her the favour to accept her as a satellite, who is good for nothing but to save them from almost inevitable ruin.

To this people, discontented and born to suffer, let us incessantly repeat:—

“You are wretched, deeply wretched, we know it but too well; and who can deplore your lot more sincerely than we do? Do we not know that you earn your bread by the sweat of your brows; but the greatest of all your evils is that you are ignorant of their true source. Oh, did you but know this, a great step would be already made towards delivering you from the only enemy who has plunged you into this vast abyss of misery. Know then, that all your wretchedness dates from the execrable day on which a renegade monk, in order to indulge his vile passions, dared. —oh, horror!—to unite himself with a nun whom he snatched from her convent.

“Ever since that time, the Almighty has not ceased to roll the waves of his vengeance over the earth; peace has taken flight; the Holy Father has, with grief and indignation, beheld his children desert the sacred portals, and heard them insolently exclaim, ‘We break thy bonds, wo contemn thy precepts; thou art no longer our master.’ Cursed and excommunicated, they have since wandered in barren and dark places. In vain the vicar of Jesus Christ has striven to recal these miserable prodigals; delivered, up to their errors and their willfulness, they have despised; Ids offers of pardon.

“Behold the portrait of these rebels who have rejected him whom God put into his own place to govern all things. Listen to this psalm: God asks, ‘Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?’ And thus God answers himself: ‘The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His anointed, saying, Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heaven shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.’

“If then the justice of God visits the earth with so many chastisements, it is that he may punish its ancient revolt. Wonder not, if to avenge himself on these apostates, and on the kings who have sustained them, he excites against them all the rage of thear subjects: for yon are not ignorant that daring the space of three hundred years a frightfhl monster, the revolutionary hydra, has been unchained, and ceases not to threaten to devour them.

“O golden age of the church! O surprising miracle! Who would believe it, were it not as true as it is sublime? When nothing could tame the pride of those sovereigns who crushed the poor and the weak, so strongly recommended by Jesus Christ to his vicar, he, a simple old man, extinguished with a word all this pride, as a light may be extinguished with one impulse of the breath. In those days the spouse of Jesus Christ was without spot or wrinkle. She shone as the springtide sun, which warms and makes the earth fruitful. It was not until after the days of the pretended Reformation that our holy mother beheld her children suffering from indigence and from hunger, and that she deplored her inability to help them. Alas! it is but too true that this plague was no sooner spread over the earth, than all justice, all charity, and every good thing grew less and less, in proportion as the respect for the vicar of Jesus Christ diminished. It was not thus m the days of the church’s prosperity, when her fathers, her learned doctors (compared with whom the most distinguished men of the present day are but as worms), were always careful to recommend an obedience without bounds towards the common father of the faithful, the successor of Saint Peter; and never did they pronounce his name without bending the knee. Saint Bernard, although the pope had been his disciple, never wrote to him without having first prostrated himself on the earth.

“Do you, let me ask you, show this respect each time that you speak of the vicar of Jesus Christ? No; it is but too plain, it is but too true, that the best amongst you have lost your reverence for holy things. Ah! if God granted you the grace to comprehend what it is to occupy, on the earth, the place of God himself, with what fire would you not feel yourselves inflamed; what would you not attempt and brave, in order to free your sole benefactor from the yoke of the impious! Without doubt, the Almighty could immediately effect this himself; but it is his will that your own right arms should deliver you from your enemies by a heroic victory; since the glorious good which will result from it will form the recompense of the poor and the oppressed, and of all those who groan in subjection. Do you not remember with what constancy the faithful Israelites resisted the perfidious Canaanites? Courage, my children! for you also have to take possession of a promised land, which will pour forth for you every species of delights to refresh your wearied souls! Awake! arise! unite yourselves in a fraternal bond, which will strengthen you against every obstacle, if you wish, indeed, that the future should be yours. Have you ever reflected that if the heavens are become bronze, as it were, above your heads, God has permitted it, to punish your guilty negligence. Madmen and fools that ye are! you allow that His Holiness, he who represents God upon earth, should be held in slavery! But the finger of your heavenly Father has written the decree, that your own degraded lot shall be lengthened out as long as the degradation of your terrestrial father shall endure, he at whose feet every one who hopes for salvation ought to cast himself. In vain, be assured, does the pope seek to bless you—in vain does he raise his voice to do you justice; he is surrounded, like Christ himself, by scoffers and hardened sinners, who reject his word.

“Nevertheless, all these erring sinners are your brethren; you are not to hate them in your hearts—by no means; but it is the will of God that you should employ every means to induce them to accept of pardon, to recall them to the fold, where, when they have once entered it, the very wolves are transformed into sheep.

“Listen, listen! we will give you spiritual eyes.

“Where are the princes, even amongst those of our religion, who have dared, and who still dare, to concern themselves with the things of God?

“Behold wherefore the impious one has invaded the church; behold wherefore she, chained and enslaved, can neither speak nor claim obedience. The Anointed of the Lord, and the other anointed ones, his ministers, are everywhere treated without respect, and denied all authority. Their privileges are suppressed, their rightful property is torn from them, their honour is eclipsed, their character calumniated, and they are almost virtually annihilated.

“The prophecy is thus nearly accomplished. We have already long beheld the man of sin, the son of perdition— Antichrist, in a word—set up above him whom every one ought to adore and venerate. He clearly shows by his desires, by bis pride, by his persecution of the clergy, and by his insatiable ambition, robbing that which belongs to God, and trampling under foot all that is sacred and divine— he clearly shows that he sits in the temple of God, and that he would even be regarded as God himself.

“Happy the time when this crowned dragon was muzzled by the church, when strength was wanting for him to accomplish his sacrilegious ravages; but at length, alas! he has succeeded in possessing all the earth, by the aid of a troop of apostates, and by the prodigies of his infamous seductions. Behold the source of all your ills. It is from this revolt against the church that so many amongst you are unable to contract a marriage without exposing himself to a thousand vexations. Thus is verified, not only that text which foretells that Antichrist would forbid to marry, but that other which says that the faithful would be compelled to abstain from a variety of delicate meats, which God has created for all, and not for the enjoyment of an exclusive few.

“O sublime institution of Jesus Christ! O confession! source of such infinite good! It is by thee that our ears become acquainted with the miseries of those whose lot is ceaseless toil, and of their many unnatural and unjust privations. Hence it is that confession, which lightens for you the weight of so many griefs, becomes hateful to your oppressors. They would deprive you of it, because it is your solace and your refuge. By means of confession, in fact, how many directions we are able to give you, how many councils which, if you profit by them, will assuredly conduct you safely into port! By its means, how many secrets you can depose in our bosoms! secrets which you could not elsewhere reveal without a thousand dangers!

“Poor friends! If you would only abide by our instructions, if you would consent to place yourselves, with one accord, as instruments in our hands, you would no longer have to toil for the productions of the earth, in order that others may enjoy them to your exclusion.

“But do you truly desire to erect your heads towards heaven? If you do indeed desire it, begin by enforcing respect for him without whom the poor will never be respected.”

This is the language I employ with them; and after having thus indoctrinated my conscripts, I give them a history of the Crusades, rousing them by the picture of this great movement of many nations; and in order to bind them to our league, I say to them:—

“What an impulse, my brethren! What sacrifices! What martyrdoms! And yet there was not one of these soldiers of Christ who looked for any temporal advantage to himself. They had but one desire—to redeem from Turkish hands a simple stone, an empty sepulchre, and to breathe their last sigh on holy ground.

“Poor people! if you had eyes to see, you would perceive that there is now something worse than Turkish infidels to combat; something more than a simple stone to defend with your breasts. He in whom Jesus Christ continually dwells, whom he has established as his representative, he whom the angels proclaim as the doctor of doctors, the infallible, the supreme chief of all the monarchs of the universe, he claims your zeal, your arms, your devotion, and it may be, your life.

“A psalm which you often sing thus speaks to the blessed who fight for the Eternal, and destroy his enemies, root and branch: ‘Be of good cheer, and singing holy songs, arm yourself with the two-edged sword, to exercise vengeance upon the heretic nations, to chastise the unbelievers, to fetter their kings and their nobles, to execute against them the judgment which is written; for such is the glory reserved for all the saints,’ that is to say, for all good Catholics.

“O may these sacred sparks kindle at the bottom of your hearts! Cherish them for the great day which is* perhaps, near at hand; propagate them in the minds of your children, of your husbands, of your wives; and, finally, be assured that the day of triumph for the holy cause of God will be that in which, all your tears wiped away, you will make the very heavens resound with your shouts of joy!”

Such language as this never failed of its effect: aroused and excited by such words, the hearers almost always go forth burning with rage.

I will repeat to you a conversation which I had once the satisfaction to overhear. A penitent of ours said to his comrade—

“John, it is only the Jesuit fathers who are men; all the others are stupid fools.” “How so?” “Because it is only they who can see to the bottom of things.? “What! do they understand our hardships, and can they find a cure for them?” “Have I not often told you so! Go and open your heart to them, tell them everything, listen to them, and you will learn certain things. I swear to you, you will soon know more than all these philosophers who make such an uproar.” “What is it they tell you, then?” “Go and ask them yourself, and you will soon know the truth; you will know why the world goes on so badly, and what we must do to set it to rights.”

III.

It was this anecdote, related in a tone of pleasantry, contrasting strongly with that maintained during the other part of the discourse, which excited the hilarity and the applauses already mentioned. The next speaker I recognized by his voice as the rector.

Still, it is upon the great that we ought particularly to exert our influence. We ought to bring them to believe that in a period stormy as this is there is no safety for them but through us. Let us never relax in our efforts to penetrate them with the idea that they can only hope to obtain any great results by subjecting to us the consciences of their subordinates, and those of the common people, so that we, or those, at least, who follow our counsels, may wholly direct them. If they are satisfied with the service it is in our power to render them, by the discovery of secrets which our peculiar position enables us alone to penetrate, then in return (for their own sake's be it clearly understood, and if they desire a time to arrive when there shall be no more revolts and revolutions to trouble them), let them not be sparing in such praises of us as are likely to make an impression on powerful members of the Protestant body, and to lead them to conclude that we alone possess the art of consolidating governments, since it is our mission to correct whatever remained imperfect and unfinished in the middle ages, in consequence of the fatal disputes between church and state.

But since they may object certain acts of ours which are not free from a seditious appearance, we must do all in our power to colour and disguise these acts, so that they may not be too glaring. We must give them to understand that if we act thus it is because we are intimately persuaded that the cause of evil, the bad leaven, will remain in the world as long as Protestantism shall exist; that Protestantism must therefore be utterly abolished, since inquiry in religious matters creates and propagates inquiry in other matters. The admirable order of things which (we must tell them) it is our object to establish, can only exist on condition that the people shall be forced to move round these two axes, monarchy and the church. We must prove to them that we alone, with the other orders, and the clergy (the clergy, be it understood, under certain conditions), are capable of being more effectually useful to them than all their armed forces. And why? Because compression, far from changing the heart, only inflames it the more; whereas the most violent and obstinate finish by yielding to religion, when she acts upon them with confession for her auxiliary, and ecclesiastical pomp for a bait.

Let us moreover take all possible pains to convince them that they ought not to grudge the wealth possessed by the religious bodies, or that which we are constantly accumulating, for these riches are necessary to us; without them we could execute no great enterprise.

“Weigh well,”.let us say to them, “weigh well the present advantages we can offer, and those still more considerable which are to follow, and you will see that each of your favours will in the end be restored to you a hundredfold.”

But what we must, above all things, endeavour to make apparent to them is this, that the ancient struggles between the church and the state are no longer possible, these two powers having learnt that there is nothing to be gained by transgressing their respective limits. From whence it follows that governments, protected by the wonderful progress of diplomacy, will be for ever secure from all abuse of anathema, and all attempts at usurpation, and may, with all confidence, leave to the priesthood the entire direction of the faithful. Besides, let governments learn that all our sacraments, confraternities, ceremonies, little books, &c., &c., are infinitely less to be feared than these pestilent journals of all sorts, which are good for nothing but to excite the worst passions; that it is infinitely more safe for the multitude to sink back into the legends of the middle ages, which will chain down their imaginations to the worship of past times; whilst, on the contrary, if we once suffer them to place a foot on the first step of the ladder, they will speedily mount to the top, and be seized with the vertigo of revolution, which immediately renders them unmanageable; they will inquire and examine, and the more they learn the more their pride and insubordination will increase. Yes, let governments admire what we are able to do with the people by means of these “Lives of Saints” and all these miracles; we are able to perpetuate their infancy until they shrink with terror from what others long for with a frenzy almost incurable.

IV.

The style of thought and imagery, and the accent of the next speaker, evidently denoted that he was from Great Britain. I shall call him the Irishman.

In my opinion (he began) we ought not always to repress certain bold tongues which mock at legends; on the contrary, it is well that there should be men who cast some ridicule on that immense apotheosis of Papacy which we are accustomed to make in Oriental language. This sort of license does us no harm, so long as it is confined to the higher classes, and remains unknown to the people: a certain tolerance on this point makes the world more inclined to trust us, and serves to lull suspicion in the minds of your gilded phantoms (larve dorate) as to our ultimate projects. But if this mockery went forth into open day, so as to unseal the eyes of the vulgar; or if some keen and penetrating spirit, drawing aside the corner of the veil, should point out the corrosive side of our doctrines, we must then make every effort to cover this audacious wretch with infamy, or denounce him as a dangerous conspirator, deserving of exemplary chastisement. Setting aside such extreme cases, it is rather to our advantage than otherwise that there should be here and there some cavillers at our vast dogmatic system; for whilst free course is allowed to a few sarcasms (alcuni scherni)* on these matters, our tendencies are left unquestioned, we are allowed full liberty and opportunity to propagate our doctrines and to extend our conquests day by day.

* Perhaps he said scherzi, jests.

In order to render Catholicism attractive, let us strive to enlist in her cause the foremost statesmen and historical writers of our own times. Let us employ them to deck the past in golden hues; to sweeten, for us, the bitter waters of the middle ages; and help us to captivate mankind by the most alluring promises. Who knows but the day may come when the vaunting songs of the antagonists of Catholicism shall prove to have been swan music? Let us suffer all these various labourers to go on working for us; when the evening comes we will pay them, unlike the master in the parable, in good money of the middle ages (in buona moneia del medio evo)—of those middle ages which, in their fervent admiration of antiquity, they now so eagerly extol.

In good truth, our times are become strangely delicate! Do they flatter themselves, then, that no spark still smoulders in the ashes round the stake to kindle another torch? Fools! all they can do is to hate us! They are far from dreaming (d’aver sentore, literally to scent) that we alone know how to prepare a revolution, compared with which all theirs have been, are, and will be but pygmy insurrections. In calling us Jesuits they think that they cover us with opprobrium! They little think that these Jesuits have in store for them the consorship, gags, and flames, and will one day be the masters of their masters!

Excuse this warmth, my dear colleagues; at another time I will enlarge upon the immediate causes which fill me with indignation, and arouse all my energies against this envious and fractious race. I will now return to the point from which I digressed.

It is highly important to us that we should seem to offer large guarantees to every class of society. To the aristocracy of Protestant lands we should thus address ourselves:—

“The Roman hierarchy alone is able to gain you the victory; but this is on condition that she finds an echo in your own souls. It is by your efforts that the people must be collected into their former fold; when safely there, the impetuous torrent will no longer ravage your domains, you will see that submission will be restored, and the bad spirit which threatens to root up and destroy all things, shall itself be rooted up and destroyed. Your fathers turned everything upside down, the remedy must be not less energetic than the evil. Call upon all those over whom you have influence to listen, and address them boldly in some such words as these: —

“‘Protestantism is an aberration. It has engendered nothing but miseries and innumerable catastrophes.

“‘It is a religion lopped of its members, it is not even a skeleton.

“‘Catholicism alone presents a harmonious whole. Where there is no confession, no pope, no attractive form of worship to address itself to the senses, no rallying point, no all-powerful and ever acting control, all must needs be scattered like sand. We offer ourselves to your example, as the first to prostrate ourselves before the guides of our conscience, the first to reject the apostacy of our fathers! Let it be our common task to join together what has been rent. To the great work then! Aid us! follow us!’

“In this way the mass of the people, fascinated by your words and your example, will feel their souls stirred within them, their habits will be gradually changed, and at last with one impulse they will fall on their knees before our common mother.”

Furthermore, dear friends, we must foresee all things, especially objections, that we may be ready to answer them off-hand, and without hesitation; for we can never succeed unless we have first, individually and collectively, made ourselves thoroughly conversant with our subject in all its bearings. Let each of us, therefore, hold himself bound to note with scrupulous fidelity, not only the arguments which are brought against us, but also the nature of the interests, fears, desires, and even the mixture of ideas, serious, extravagant, or mystic, which are arrayed on the other side; so that our answers, and our manner of considering their ideas, may astonish and bewilder them, and thus lead them captive to our cause.

“Reflect,” let us say, closely following them up, “you are not surely so blind as not to see what is passing around you. Lay hold on the anchor of safety which Rome offers you, if you indeed believe it strong enough to resist so many impetuous waves. The torrent is constantly widening and gaining force. The loss of even a single moment may afterwards be to you the source of vain regret. Call upon those who alone are powerful to save you, by raising against these raging waters an insurmountable and eternal barrier. Alone (non contando che m di voi), what could you do against the impending catastrophes? Take refuge, then, with us; come with minds prepared, and we will teach you to tame this mass before whom you are now trembling; we will enable you to associate these people in the gigantic work of their own metamorphosis— a work which could never be executed but by the aid of expedients such as ours.”

I know, by experience, that this sort of language is of certain efficacy. No sooner shall a few of these personages be converted, than others will imitate them; and when there shall be, by these means, a few breaches made in Protestantism—whether these conversions proceed from genuine motives, or whether they be determined by advantageous offers, which shall not be spared if the person be worth the trouble (ne val la pena)—we may certainly reckon that the people, allured by these conversions, will not long resist the yoke of pure authority, and then we shall know how to make them pull steadily. For, I would not have it lost sight of that our chief concern must be to mould the people to our purposes. Doubtless, the first generation will not be wholly ours; but the second will nearly belong to us, and the third entirely. Yes, the people are the vast domain we have to conquer; and when we are free to cultivate it after our own way, we will make it fructify to the profit of the impoverished granary* of the holy city. We shall know how, by marvellous stories and gorgeous shows, to exorcise heresy from the heads and hearts of the multitude; we shall know how to nail their thoughts upon ours (inchiodare sui nostri i di lei pensteri), so that they shall make no stir without our good pleasures. Then the Bible, that serpent which, with head erect and eyes flashing fire, threatens us with its venom whilst it trails along the ground, shall be changed again into a rod as soon as we are able to seize it; and what wounds will we not inflict with it upon these hardened Pharaohs and their cunning magicians! what miracles will we not work by its means! Oh, then, mysterious rod, we will not again suffer thee to escape from our hands, and fall to the earth!

*Here two words escaped me. I thought I heard the two syllables rito, and I imagine that the words pronounced must have been granario impoverito. It was a movement of hilarity, mingled, as it struck me, with, some murmurs, which rendered these words unintelligible. But the Irishman, it is evident, took little pains to veil his thoughts. He had just compared the people to a vast plain, destined to be conquered and ploughed. It is become almost proverbial in Italy, and I heard it said by several aged priests, “that the granary of the holy city is impoverished.” This is an allusion to the enormous loss on indulgences, dispensations, &c., which Protestantism and modern ideas have occasioned to the treasures of the Vatican.

For you know but too well that, for three centuries past, this cruel asp (crudele aspide) has left us no repose; you well know with what folds it entwines us, and with what flings it gnaws us!

We may recognize in this language a mind embittered and rankling with resentment against the English Bible Societies. He must often have encountered them in his path, and felt enraged at their influence. His savage expressions were received with a dry and forced laugh, quite different from the spontaneous gaiety before exhibited.

V.

The next who spoke seemed, from the tone of his voice, to be advanced in years. I can make no guess as to his country. His manner was grave and sedate.

My brethren, as to the Bible, be advised by me. For our greater good let us avoid—let us carefully avoid this ground. If I may tell you, openly, what I think of this book, it is not at all for us; it is against us. I do not at all wonder at the invincible obstinacy it engenders in all those who regard its verses as inspired.

You are aware that, when once entered upon theological studies, we must of necessity make some acquaintance with the Bible. For myself, although in company with numerous fellow-students, mere machines accustomed to confound the text and the commentary, as if they were one and the same thing (an illusion which, to confess the truth, is extremely useful to us), it was yet impossible for me, endowed as I was with some capacity for reflection (as proved by my presence here, amongst the small number of the elect)—it was impossible for me, I repeat, to be so absurdly credulous as not to distinguish the text from the commentary, by which its sense is almost always distorted. In the simplicity of youth I fully expected, on opening the New Testament, to find there laid down, totidem literis (in lettere cubitali), the authority of a superior chief in the church, and the worship of the Virgin, the source of all grace for mankind. I sought with the same eagerness for the mass, for purgatory, for relics, &c. But in every page I found my expectations disappointed; from every reflection that I made resulted doubt. At last, after having read, at least six times over, that little book which set all my calculations at nought, I was forced to acknowledge to myself that it actually sets forth a system of religion altogether different from that taught in the schools, and thus all my ideas were thrown into confusion (ne rimasi al mmmo scompaginato).

The penetrating eye of my confessor perceived the agitation of my mind, and I was consequently obliged to disclose to him my distress and difficulty. “Ah, reverend father!” I said to him, “I expected to find in the New Testament each of our different dogmas fully developed and dwelt upon in accordance with the value and importance which we are accustomed to attribute to them. What is my surprise to find there nothing at all like what we deem the most essential in our doctrines.”

Without allowing me to proceed any further, he inquired, “Have you communicated your thoughts to any of your fellow-students?” “No,” replied I, “I have suffered much—but alone.” “That is well,” he said.

From that moment he kept me apart from all the other students, and having repeatedly sounded my conscience to its very depths, he one day addressed this question to me, “My child” (I was at that time about twenty-three years of age), “if I were to place in your hands the Geography of Ptolemy, or that of Strabo, who lived about two thousand years ago, and if I were to say to you, Point out to me in these books the name of a single city of all those which have been since built, what would be your answer?” “I should say that it was impossible, since those cities did not then exist.” “Exactly so; and the case is absolutely the same with the New Testament—the book of primitive Christianity—as with the Geography of Ptolemy or Strabo. All you seek there had its rise at a far later period.”

At these words of my superior I looked upon him with stupefaction. He pressed me affectionately to his bosom, and said, “Do not distress yourself; you shall be a young man set apart. You are worthy to penetrate further than others. Jesus Christ himself, as you must have remarked, spoke to the multitude only in parables; but, in private, he interpreted these parables to the apostles, saying to them: ‘To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom,’ that is to say, to possess the key of these secrets; but he carefully avoided using this language to the vulgar. Do you think a child in the cradle is equally advanced with a grown man? No. In like manner this book is but the embryo of the church. Forms, new doctrines, the hierarchy, the power of the popedom, all these great things which have transformed the church into an ocean, as it were, have been the effect of gradual progress, a progress which has often, indeed, been impeded, often interrupted, but which we are destined to bring to its consummation.”

Afterwards, in order to neutralize my impressions, he placed in my hands Dupuis, Boulanger, Volney, Voltaire, and some other writers. By this means, and by degrees, a new order of ideas was established in my mind, and I became in the end capable of rising to the loftiest views of our order.

I have related this anecdote, which is entirely personal, merely to put you on your guard against too much confi~ dence in reckoning, like the heretics, upon a book whieh unfortunately abounds in arms against us, not for us.

Consequently, let us lay down this principle: in public to act as if we had nothing to fear from such a book, but rather as if it were favourable for us; in private, to describe it as dangerous and hurtful, or, where this would not be prudent, to declare that it is the germ, of which Catholicism is the complete and majestic development. We shall thus provide ourselves with an arsenal a thousand times better stored than the biblical arsenal of Protestantism. We shall thus elude a crowd of difficulties, and at the same time keep up the controversy between ourselves and the Protestants—the very thing we want; for as long as the present state of things continues, as long as the mass perceive that our disputes lead to nothing decisive either way, they conclude that if there had really been anything in the Bible which positively condemns us, it would, in the course of three centuries, have made itself fully apparent.

Meanwhile, let us be watchful to place our best workmen in the most important points. While these good automata aid us to lay stone upon stone, under the direction of our initiated members, our edifice will rise on foundations so solid as to withstand all shocks hereafter.

As to our texts, let us select them from the old legends of the Bollandists. Should certain of our practices or doctrines be questioned, why then let us heap miracle on miracle, let us repeat the old ones and make new, so as to throw a glittering veil over the pope, the Virgin, purgatory, mass, our ecclesiastical vestments, our medals., our chaplets; let our miracles be like an inexhaustible water-course, keeping up a perpetual motion in each wheel of our immense machine.

Let the heretics and the philosophers cry out against us as they may, we will take no pains to silence them, we will make no reply; so they will tire themselves out, and in the end they will let us alone. At the same time, I am quite of opinion that we ought, by every possible means, to secure the aid of modern thinkers, whatever be the nature of their opinions. If they can be induced to write at all in our favour, let us pay them well, either in money or in laudation. Provided that the universal edifice goes constantly increasing, what matters it to us what workmen, or what implements, are employed? There are some who have become very zealous Catholics because, as they say, we know how, with our images, our paintings, our wax tapers, and our gold, to produce a highly picturesque effect in our chapels! Others are converted because ours is the only church which possesses a pool, always ready, in which he who is soiled by sin may wash himself clean!

Thus, you perceive that we are provided with an infinite number of baits, to take all sorts of people; be it ours to become expert in the choice and in the use of them.

VI.

He ceased The speaker who succeeded him appeared younger. I cannot say whether he was an Italian or not Our language is pronounced in so many different ways, that it is difficult to judge of a speaker’s native country by his accent, more especially when wt cannot observe his features. This speaker began by unfolding some perfidious theories, and his style was at first feeble and careless. I was astonished at his incoherence, but by and by he was put on his mettle by an interruption, and his style suddenly became terse and compact.

I know that we are accused of fearing the Scriptures; wherefore I am, at this very time, occupied in composing a little book, in which I point out a very easy method of enriching our oral instructions and our writings by Scripture texts. For example:—

“Whosoever hates not his mother, his father, his brethren, his sisters, and who is not prepared to sacrifice for the church whatever he possesses, is an unworthy disciple of Jesus Christ.”

“If the church is a visible body, the simplest common sense requires us not to deny it a visible head.”

“The Catholic people is successor to the people of God; consequently heretics and philosophers are the enemies we are bound to exterminate, and the powers which do not yield obedience to the Holy See are so many Pharaohs.”

“As, under the Old Testament, the voice of the tabernacle was the voice of God, so, in like manner, the voice of the pope is the voice of God, under the New Covenant.”

I might quote to you a thousand other examples, with their application; but the specimen I have just offered you will prove that we also, as well as the heretics, can present ourselves with a phraseology altogether Biblical.

As to our manner of proceeding with Protestants of all sorts, it must necessarily be very varied. My advice is this, that we should keep a register of the most obstinate and dangerous amongst them, and chiefly of their ministers. This register, in which their individual characters should be noted, would serve to warn our missionaries of the rocks and quicksands in their course; they would know beforehand with whom they had to do, whom to avoid, and whom to venture upon, according to the measure or the particular nature of their respective talents; this would be of admirable use in sparing us many defeats and unfortunate mistakes.

For my own part, in addressing those who appear less hostile and more manageable, I argue thus:—”Is it not apparent that we alone combine all the advantages that jour sects possess separately. You can, therefore, lose nothing by your conversion; you gain, on the contrary, the advantages of becoming spectators of such imposing solemnities as must needs, sooner or later, captivate your very hearts.

“Our church styles itself catholic, or universal; this is why it employs sensuous vehicles proportioned to the intellectual faculties of each individual.. Look upon Catholicism, then, as opening to mankind the most splendid feast. You know in what consists the merit of a table— in being laden with dishes adapted to every taste, and in displaying all the most delicious productions of the earth. Now, all men are not constituted alike. One man sees God through the medium of the fine arts and poetry; another can only discern him under a gloomy and austere aspect; a third beholds him in a sweet and radiant atmosphere; and others see him through the cloud of dim and mystic reveries. For all, however, there is one centre of unity, namely, Jesus Christ; and on this point we have not a shadow of disagreement with you. What, then, should hinder you from entering into the most perfect communion with us? Would it not be folly to require that all men should arrive at the same point by one single road, when it is the property of a divine religion to lead them thither by a multitude of different ways? Perhaps it may be repugnant to you to see God in the man to whom you confess yourself, in order to obtain absolution? But consider that a people left to itself, unrestrained by a visible power which supplies the place of the invisible, would soon become brutified, forgetting the horror of sin; or, on the other hand, would become desperate, no longer hearing a voice which says, ‘I am God who absolve thee.’

“You would prefer, would you not, that a friend should be your priest? Enlightened minds seek the commerce of enlightened minds; well, doubt not that Catholicism offers you a multitude of priests, who, knowing with whom they had to do, would never dream of imposing acts of humiliation upon you. As to our devotional practises, it is not necessary to take a part in them, further than for the edification of the simple (per Vedificazione dei simplici). The church has too much perspicuity not to know how to make a discreet use of many of her different rules, so as to adapt them to all shades of intelligence, from the depths of ignorance to the heights of genius. Since her table is so richly provided, would it not be absurd that this very abundance should be the source of dissensions? No; restraint of this kind has never entered into the spirit of our system. Unity, that good thing beyond all price, is dear to us, but we know that sacrifices must be made in order to preserve it; we know that reciprocal tolerance is necessary in the different guests seated at the same religious banquet, where the choice of meats is free, without any one having the right to constrain his neighbour; and, by this touching and amiable forbearance, all are equally nourished and satisfied.

“Remember St. Paul, who forbids us to despise the weak; who will not that he who believes himself permitted to eat meat should trouble another who believes that by eating herbs only he renders himself agreeable to God. It is to you, Protestants, that St. Paul addresses himself when he says, ‘Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died.’ Would that he had added, ‘Destroy him not in exacting proudly that he should conform to your individual taste.’*

* There would be no end if we were to point out the continual efforts of the reverend fathers to wrest the meaning of the texts they quote. St Paul, having to do with weak consciences, accustomed to ascetic maxims, and wishing still to respect them, without prejudice to the new principle he was labouring to establish, thus speaks:—”For one believeth that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, and let not him who eateth not judge him that eateth.”—Rom. xiv. [2, 3. Things are greatly changed since St Paul’s time.

“There are to be found in the kingdom of God different lights—from the pale light of the smallest star to the brilliant glory of the sun.

“Apply this same spirit to different doctrines; to that, for example, which gives you so much offence by placing all power in the hands of the pope. Doubtless this doctrine may be so explained to educated minds as to place it in a more elevated point of view, and even to give it the appearance of something rational and just; but, for many reasons, it must be preached to the common people in all its downright crudity (in tuttala sua cruditd materiale).

“By degrees, as you are capable of comprehending the extended and noble views of our church, you will also perceive why she canonizes such totally dissimilar individuals—the being absorbed in an eccentric mysticism; the man who daily disciplines his body till the ground is sprinkled with his blood; and him who has revelled in luxuries and pleasures, when his position rendered them attainable and legitimate. The reason is simply this, that human nature is multiform.

“All things are good, all things are holy, when they are in their right place, and when men do not seek to intrude upon every one their own exclusive principles. Is it difficult to perceive that this mode of conduct is both generous and sublime?”

After having thus argued, but at greater length, I change my tactics; I analyze Protestantism even to its most trifling details. I show from whence it came forth; I display its shameful variations, the pernicious example it has given, the consequences of its freedom of inquiry, and its miserable outward dryness, betokening its inward sterility. Then I exclaim, “See one of our grand processions! every one occupies his peculiar rank; for our church, even in her grand solemnities, loves not to eclipse the honour due to any state or condition.

“You are astonished, perhaps, to see us adore the Host, surrounded with glittering magnificence. We, too, are not ignorant that God is everywhere; and that He demands the heart alone, is not a discovery of your pretended reformers. But tell me, I pray you, when have the people been able to comprehend all these chimerical abstractions? Has there not at all times been need of certain signs to serve as steps, as it were, by which men might ascend to the ideal of religion?

“Thus the church, perceivingthat the Lord’s Supper, in its primitive and vulgar simplicity, was ill adapted to excite devotion in the people, decided at last to concentrate upon the Host, by the mass, as upon a palpable and perceptible point, all the splendour they could give it. The church has signally succeeded, by means of frequent exhibitions of the august sacrament, and by the pomp of her ceremonies. The multitude, carried away by what is visible? is moved and softened, and adoration succeeds to admiration.

“Without these Catholic means, is it not to be justly feared that the number of those who never raise their hearts towards God would increase to an alarming extent?

“On the other hand, the enlightened man, the true philosopher, who has really no need of these material forms, would not, surely, attempt to impose his own spiritualism on beings whose destiny it is to remain material and gross. He will be content with admiring the ingenious resources of Catholicism, and he will thank God for having enabled the church to find means so adapted to awaken the piety of the stupid and ignorant mass.

“Thus, under the roofs of our temples, children and men* tend to the same point, thanks to the divine and inexhaustible fecundity of the true church, which, as St. Paul says, makes itself’ all things to all men, in order to gain, if it be possible, the whole world, without, however, sacrificing the truth, by thus temporising.”

* Under the name of children the father no doubt designates the lower orders, whom they design to keep under the yoke of superstitious practices; whilst by men he means those who disdain these practices, but who, adroitly veiling this, deserve the name of true philosophers. I have known priests, and even Protestant ministers, who reject many doctrines which they publicly preach; amongst others, everlasting punishment; and these, they say, Scripture authorises them to reject, but they maintain them as a check upon the people.

VII.

From the first words of the discourse which follows, I had no difficulty in recognising the unctuous voice which had put so many insidious questions to me, during my examination. This was the present general of the company, Father Roothaan. I felt at first considerable agitation, so that I lost two or three phrases, which were however unimportant, and which I have supplied in order to complete the sense.

The most fatal thing that could befal us at the present moment would be the change from a gay, glittering, scenic religion, to an argumentative Christianity, opposed to pomp and show, an iconoclastic spirituality; I mean by this term, a faith destructive of Catholic forms. You all know that these are the powerful shield which covers our plans. But if the poetic charm should ever be broken, if people should begin to seek inspiration in the apostles, or in the primitive apologists, then our bark, beaten by impetuous winds, would run great risk of sinking, with all the immensity of its treasures. Revolt would become general. The glorious edifice, the work of so many ages, would be assailed and torn to pieces by thousands of profane hands. It would become the order of the day to trample under foot all that might fall under the reproach of being borrowed from idol- atory. This time, there would be no mercy shown, nothing would be spared. Discouragement and terror would then stalk through our ranks, for we could not rely for the suppression of these movements on the strong hands of certain powers, which we had not yet sufficiently engaged in our interests. As soon as the fatal word should have gone forth, that nothing had any value in religion but what is spiritual and biblical, the hierarchy would instantly fall to the ground. All hope would be oyer for the priesthood, when the people should acknowledge no other guide than a little book. To whom should we then turn, on whom should we found our expectations, in a desertion so general; what remedy should we seek to cure so horrible a malady in the blood? (per guarir nel sagnue un si oribile male.)

Not that there is the least symptom of the approach of such a danger. On the contrary, Protestantism is becoming decomposed; it is falling to pieces; we are beginning to gain from it some men of note, and there are even some high personages whom we have succeeded in convincing that, if they continue to uphold Protestantism, they are lost.

But it is not enough for us to be aware of a great apathy amongst our ancient enemies; we must do all in our power to augment it.

The proof that faith in an abstract being is powerless to constitute a solid and durable union—that it cannot form a vast body which shall be animated, as it were, by one mind, is, that scarcely three hundred years have passed since the first effervescence, and Protestantism is already wearing out and sinking into decay. Yes, we are destined to insult its last agonies, to march over its broken skeleton and its scattered bones! Oh! let us hasten this dissolution by our strong and united efforts! Let us preach to the timorous Protestants that deism and incredulity are corrup- ing their various sects, that God is, at length, weary of heresies, and that he is now, in our days, about to exercise upon them his terrible and final judgment.

Let us, meanwhile, carefully avoid entering into an open and serious strife with the Protestants. We could not but lose ground by it; and it would call too much attention to the subject. People who are greedy of novelty would be enchanted to see such a combat opened. Let us prefer a secret war, which though less brilliant, is more sure to bring us the advantage. Let us shun too much light. Let us content ourselves with pulling down the stones of the Protestant citadel, one by one, instead of venturing to carry it by storm. This would be neither prudent nor useful. Let us pour contempt upon this inglorious, naked, cadaverous religion; and let us exalt the antiquity, the harmonies, and the wonderful perfectibility of our own.

But we must, above all things, be provided with a store of arguments to parry the objections which the Protestants are so prone to bring forward, and which are founded on the vices and crimes of the ancient clergy and the popes. A difficult theme, I admit, and one which merits a special theory; for after all, what have we to allege sufficiently adroit, subtle, and cogent, to enable us to retire with honour from these discussions with which we are so often pestered? If we could but meet them armed with some good replies, the question might, at least, be maintained in suspense. You well know that the ground upon which the Protestants are most harassing, is the middle ages, which they are pleased to call the dark ages. Unfortunately, on this subject our best writers do but too often furnish our adversaries with arms against us!

O Rome! how many anxious toils, how many pangs of mortification, dost thou cost us! What an overwhelming task it is to have to suspend a veil of glittering embroidery between thy chaos and the nations!”—(un ricamo brillante tra il tuo chaos ed i populi!)

(These words came forth like a flash of lightning. It is impossible to give an idea of the contrast between this sudden burst, and the usually calm and smooth manner of Father Roothaan.)

“We have, however, one source of rejoicing . we cherish at the bottom of our hearts this principle, that whatever does not unite with us, must be annihilated; and we hold ourselves ready to make, as soon as we shall have the means, an energetic application of this principle. Protestantism, on the contrary, completely disarmed itself when first it preached the doctrine of toleration, and declared that to persecute for the sake of religion, is a violation of the gospel. O yes l this is well for those who are satisfied with small things, but not for us who aim at greatness which shall eclipse and annul all other greatness.

VIII.

The Irishman here took up the discourse so promptly that he. seemed to have been waiting impatiently for an opportunity to break in. There was no speaker whom I found it so difficult to follow.

I will tell you, brethren, by what means we can mould and train up the true Roman Catholic in the midst of the heretic sects. With devoted bishops, and with a clergy whose tactics have been perfected by a serious course of > study, we may prepare for the people such instructors as cannot fail to accelerate the progress of our ideas. All will go well with us, provided we can obtain that the Catholic from his very childhood shall abhor the breath even of a heretic, and shall firmly resist all insinuations, all books, and all discourse of a religious cast coming from them; carefully preserving towards them, at the same time, a polite and gracious manner. In other words, he must make a show of much sociability towards the Protestants, but he must avoid all intellectual contact or communion with them. This is what we must inculcate as the only condition of success in every exercise of our ministry, whether by catechism, confession, or conversation. This is our only chance for reuniting what is broken, strengthening what is weak, and magnifying what is small.

Every bishop must rigorously act upon this principle— be gentle, but inflexible. Let him know how to assume the demeanour of a lamb, if he would spread around him a perfume of sanctity which shall win all hearts; but let him also know how to act with the fierceness of a raging lion when he is called upon to protect the rights of the church, or to reclaim those of which it has already been despoiled by the tyranny of governments. If the bishops and the clergy, however, know how to do their duty, these rights shall all resume their paramount supremacy.

One of the dangers upon which our system may strike is the policy of Protestant governments. They have assumed the art of affecting a desire to do us justice, and profess even much condescendence towards those whom they disdainfully denominate Papists. It is their design to break down an isolation which it deeply imports us to maintain; were they to awaken sympathy and efface the limits of separation, our plan would be ruined to its very base.

My brethren, let us defeat such manoeuvres, cost what it may, by manoeuvres more skillful and more active. I will name one which I have sometimes known to succeed, and which I consider efficacious. The confessional must be our field of action, wherein we must undeceive all who are in danger of being taken by so perfidious a bait. Let us convince the faithful that silence towards us is a crime; that it is fear and not good-will that actuates their tyrants; that be who has penetration enough to see through these wiles, so far from believing that there is affection and kindness in them, perceives nothing but a deep design to weaken our force and to loosen our bond of religion. These governments are well aware that an alliance with Catholics would, sooner or later, enable them to dispute the right of Catholic princes to govern populations which have nothing in common with them. We must, therefore, repeat to the faithful at the confessional, and this under the seal of the most scrupulous secrecy:—”Refrain sedulously from sacrificing all your future hopes to a vile temporary interest, or you will prepare for your children a worse slavery than your own! Heresy is on the watch, to see you bow your heads under the yoke of her execrable doctrines. Remember that, in former times, it was the custom to cover with flowers the victim which was led to the altar. Woe to you if you fall into indifference! For then the mound which protects you will be broken up, and you, pure waters as ye are, will pass away into a pestilent and fetid lake!

“Reflect, that if you give way you are lost. Would you really suffer yourselves to become the dupes of men in power, who seek only to deceive you? The exaggerated respect which you show for their seeming virtues, the silly esteem for their persons with which they seek to inspire you, will be your ruin. The caresses which they lavish upon you kill your faith; for what is the purpose of their intrigues? To render you base and irreligious. For us, who penetrate beneath their outside seeming, our strict duty in the confessional—in this sanctuary, where nothing but truth is spoken—in this tribunal, which is the inviolable asylum of the church, and which heresy in her craftiness would gladly destroy—in this sacred spot, where we occupy the place of God himself, our strict duty is to enlighten you on your true interests, on your rights, and on the character which you ought to assume in order to escape their snares.”

We know but too well, dear brethren, how many stones are scattered over those mixed and bastard countries. Let us take the trouble to search for these stones and collect them—it may be slowly and painfully—into one heap. Of this heap we will form one mass, one huge rock, which shall daily become more ponderous, more rugged, more irresistible, until its whole crushing mass shall fall upon the head of heresy!

Let us also send abroad our mysterious words,* which shall cast forth vivid, flashes of our doctrine, to dazzle, attract, and draw converts together. We want some of these burning brands to put themselves into contact with such as are nearly or quite extinguished. Let us multiply the pious hands which will busy themselves in seeking out these lifeless logs, heaping them together, and re-lighting them. It is the Protestant revolt which has thus scattered them, and left them to grow cold. Let them, I say, be again collected into heaps, and let the bishops and the body of the clergy reanimate these vast Catholic braziers; let them inflame them without ceasing, for small flames rapidly become great ones, and great ones become fearful conflagrations! Yes, yes; let these avenging fires unite, and become one vast furnace, until at length we shall have no more need to envelop them in mystery; and then the destroying element shall purge out the wicked, and fitly baptise all sects, until the church alone is left standing above their ruins.

* He no doubt meant by these words the eloquent speakers amongst them, and be adds the epithet mysterious in the same sense as the president, who says, a little further on, “Inviluppati di mis ter to dai pU fino al capo, restiamo impenetrabili.”

IX.

The accent of the next speaker betrayed the Frenchman.

All that our friend has been saying is perfectly just. Nothing ought, in fact, to distinguish us in appearance from other men, provided we bear always in our hearts the programme of our deliverance. We must seek to work up all things together for the triumph of our church, and thus we shall prepare for our descendants a magnificent destiny.

Yes, the Catholic’s exterior may be sociable, but let him not the less cherish within him concentrated rage and unconquerable antipathy. The Anal success of our work depends, I do not hesitate to say, on the realization of this type.

But to find men capable of realizing it, to multiply them, to cover all Europe with them—how is this to be accomplished? He who shall rightly answer this question will merit altars and statues. Worthy will he be that we should ascribe miracles to him, and that we should declare him the celestial patron of the people, the man who shall solve this arduous problem. What must we do to recruit such an army, organize and discipline it so as to make it. exclusively subservient to the triumph of our ideas?

To isolate those whom we may have gained over, to allow them no other aliment than the bread and wine of our table, and by degrees transform them into raging lions —this must be our main pursuit.

We have, however, an immense variety of motives and interests with which we may work. To certain men, we must offer bribes of earthly good; to others, we must promise crowns of eternal life; some may be incited by the progress of the general welfare; others are capable of desiring to promote the glory of the church, and the spread of the true faith over all the earth.

Could we but flatter ourselves with the hope of seeing the political and the religious lever both swayed by one hand, as in the middle ages and in remote antiquity! Nevertheless, we have incontestible means of influencing all classes. In fact, what system has ever existed, in any age, so powerful as the church to multiply or change means of action? It is true that the religious orders are at this moment broken, and almost morally annihilated; but still they exist as bodies, and all we have to do is to reanimate them with the breath of our own life.

This is what we must also do for confession! May this institution endure as long as the sun! As long as it continues to exist, I defy all earthly powers united to deal Catholicism a mortal blow!

Could we but complete this institution! for it is perfectible. As yet it is but in its infancy. Could we but imbue all the clergy with a knowledge of its secret virtue! What a prodigious empire might it not acquire to the church! What an immense source of profit! What store of souls it might gain over to us! What partizans! What treasures! What an innumerable army it might place at our disposal, and what superiority it would assure us in the day of battle!

Should we not have found the fixed point desiderated by the mathematician of Syracuse?

Confession! What scope for genius beneath its impenetrable mystery! Gentleness and terror there play their part by turns. Volumes might be written on the power and the uses of this instrument, which are as manifold as the various affections and propensities of human character. It ought to become in our hands the miraculous rod wherewith to terrify Egypt, its Pharaohs and its ministers, until Protestantism, which has itself lopped off its own right hand, shall have fallen an easy victim to us.

As for the Protestant aristocracies, we must neither be open with them, nor yet veil ourselves so as to excite their suspicions. It may be even necessary sometimes to risk an avowal, if by an avowal, adroitly let slip, we can find means to strike a master stroke. For example, we might address them in some such terms at these:—

“Yes, certainly, our methods for sounding the hearts of those who are confided to us, and above all of subjugating the sentiments of the young, may appear startling; but examine the subject a little, and you will acknowledge that if you were to imitate us, your governments would be more stable. Only lend us a helping hand, and we will show you how to come at the statistics of each individual head. In this respect, at least, we are your masters. In your religion you leave people’s minds to themselves, which produces, as you well know, all kinds of revolutions and many catastrophes. Adopt confessors. Let your youths submit their thoughts, from their earliest years, to a director of their conscience. Think of the immense influence of principles which men of the sanctuary deposit in a youthful breast! Show yourselves favourable to that clergy which, bending over a soul thus subjected, reads it as if it were an unsealed letter. The clergy would be grateful to you. Let it have an interest in serving you, so that it may warn you opportunely when the tide is rising or falling in each country, and enable you to turn public events to your own profit. Doubt not that if this alliance of religion with politics could be brought to bear on the whole human race, the latter would universally become as wax in your hands, to mould it as you pleased, and stamp it with your own seal.”

It is needless to say that language like this is not to be proclaimed from the house-tops; it is to be adroitly insinuated into the ears of such as might be of vast utility to us, when struck by such glimmerings of light. Let them once begin to fall in with these ideas, and help to bring them into vogue, and then it will of course be our task to transform these stout auxiliaries into our very humble servants {in servi umilissimi).

I shall soon be prepared to lay before you an elaborate paper on this subject, which I have here but slightly touched.

X.

The Jesuit who spoke next expressed himself in the purest Italian. Nevertheless, the construction of his phrases, and the lucid precision of his method, induced me to think that he also was French. The cast of his phrases was so much after the French manner, that I had scarcely an effort in translating his speech.

The stiff-necked heretics of whom he speaks are the Protestants of the higher classes, not the vulgar.

It is chiefly as to the anarchic tendencies of free inquiry that we should attack those stiff-necked heretics, and I have often spoken to them thus:—

“If there is anything utterly inexplicable to reasonable people, it is your conduct. You allow free inquiry in religion; is not this equivalent to permitting, legitimizing, nay, even provoking it, on all political questions also? If you admit of so great a licence in a matter altogether divine and immutable—a matter so profound and abstruse as religion is, even for the learned few—is it not the height of inconsistency to hope to enslave the minds of men by forbidding them all inquiry into a subject so thoroughly human and variable as politics? On the one hand, you expect to exercise sovereign and unquestioned authority, whilst, on the other, where God and the church are at stake, you assist in shaking off the yoke of an authority a thousand times more sacred and more necessary! Surely it would be impossible to conceive a contradiction more palpable and absurd.

“Its consequences are obvious. When, for mere temporal advantages, several princes had eucouraged the revolt against the church, the same disaster soon fell upon themselves. They had to endure, in their turn, an examination still more severe than that to which Rome had been subjected—an examination of their dynastic rights, their codes, their actions—an examination which took place by the glare of a fearful conflagration, and which sent them to perish ignominiously on the scaffold like highway robbers.

“Such are the fruits of free inquiry. If it multiplies everywhere its pestilential pulpits, the usual effects will inevitably follow. Hence I draw the following conclusions:—

“If ever the aristocracy of our church shall be laid low, all other aristocracies will perish likewise.

“If ever the Catholic church be decapitated, all other monarchies will share the same fate.

“If ever the purple of our cardinals be profaned and torn into rags, all other purples will be rent in like manner.

“If ever our worship be despoiled of its pomp and grandeur, there will be an end of every other pomp and grandeur on earth.

“We will not flatter you as courtiers do; we will tell you the whole truth, in the hope that, for our mutual benefit, you may arrive at these simple and sure conclusions: if the Roman church lives we shall all live with her; if she perishes, none of the grandeurs which have hitherto, in fact, been supported by Catholicism will survive the downfall of that infinite grandeur, the foremost of all, and before: which the universe has so long prostrated itself. But if, on the contrary, you make common cause with us, in the endeavour to rally the people around the ancient banner, if your arms, whilst they yet may, drive them back to their forsaken ways; then, in the place of infinite disorders, we shall have the union of the two powers, which shall go on daily increasing until it become perfectly consolidated.

“Give us, then, your sympathies; turn your faces towards us; throw discredit on Protestantism^ and let Catholicism, enthroned by your aid in the opinions of our times, lift up her head, spread her dominion over the whole world, and completely subdue it. And this will inevitably take place, if men of high station will fearlessly declare themselves converted; provided (and this is very important) that their change can in no way be attributed to motives of interest.

“Can you, indeed, deny that the present rage for innovation has arisen from the movement occasioned by Protestantism in throwing the Bible before the senseless multitude? The first thing, therefore, to be done is to bring them back from the Bible to Catholic authority, which retrenches from this book only what is hurtful, allowing free circulation to those portions of it alone which ensure good order.

“How comes it to pass that so many shallow minds make bold to fashion their own set of opinions? Is it not because you have abolished all subjection to the tribunal of consciences, which alone watched over the thoughts, and put a bridle on the lips? Consequently, this tribunal must be restored, and in order that every one may respect it, the great must be the first to bow down before it; nor will this submission in any way humiliate or abase them. Amongst the precious advantages to be derived from it, is not their part a rich one? You can little imagine what the church has in store to reward services of such importance.”

Here a slight murmur of derision caused a moment’s interruption.

For, when once our renovated cult shall have regained all that heresy has snatched from it, Catholicism, which disdains the paltry spirit of Protestantism, will open wide the gates of her temples, that each rank, each estate, may there shine in its respective place. Being herself great, she naturally sympathizes with all that may add to her splendour. Those are madmen or fools, who, by their scheme for despoiling the churches of whatever could give them an imposing aspect, have made the nakedness of poverty conducive to that other mania of universal equality.

Lend us then, we implore you, your aid to put down every obstacle to the mutual understanding of the two authorities—the church and the throne. It is only when these two authorities shall be regarded as divine dogmas, and when they mutually sustain each other, that they will have sufficient power to sweep away all this chaos of dangerous questions which converts society into a tumultuous sea. What glorious results will follow, on the other hand, from this happy union, this fraternal alliance! The church and the state, rendered valorous by this union, shall trample under foot the two hydras, mother and daughter;* the fire shall consume them, and their ashes shall be scattered to the four winds!”

* Protestantism and Revolution.

XI.

There was a pause of some moments. A conversation took place, so general and unconnected that it was impossible for me to seize its meaning. But Father Roothaan soon resumed the discourse, and his first words, no doubt, related to this short conversation.

To this effect I would remark that we shall establish nothing firmly unless we begin with those who are to direct others. It therefore appears to me essential to regulate the initiation, by forming various grades in it (stadii). I say regulate, because we must never risk our light but upon sure grounds, and after a rigid scrutiny of the dis- positions of the person to be initiated. A ray too much, sometimes, instead of enlightening (imbaldanzire) him to whom it is communicated, serves only to dazzle him and lead him astray. We thus lose some excellent and active instruments, from having imprudently attempted to enlarge their mission. Let us know well beforehand with whom we have to do.

We must not, however, suffer a reasonable cautiousness to degenerate into excessive distrust. Let frequent essays be made in order to acquire extreme delicacy of tact, and that discernment of the inner man by which we may assure ourselves of a person’s secret thoughts. It is well to begin by complaining of the evils with which the church is oppressed, and then to insist on the necessity of strongly attaching the inferior clergy to their bishops, in order that they may aid each other in seeking a remedy. The conversation being thus opened, it seldom fails, if adroitly followed up, to bring out the true character of the individual under examination. After having thus sounded him, a word may be hazarded on the urgency of uniting men distinguished by rank or talent (always supposing that he is himself of this class), in order to raise up a dam against the torrent, and ultimately put the church in possession of her ancient sceptre. And if his replies denote that he is capable of understanding us, the means to be employed in attaining this great end may next be hinted to him. He may afterwards be wrought upon by letters, and if he shows himself apt, some sparks may be imparted to him of the vast idea which animates us.

Yes, there are doubtless many on whom these words, prayer, religion, church, glory of God, conversion of sinners, exercise a magic power. There are others for whom there is a divine meaning in the words abolition of slavery, reformation of abuses, love of humanity, instruction of the people, universal charity. Well, let us sing in all these keys (cantiamo su questi tuoni medesimi), and let us not be Bparing of the characteristic terms of their language. Let us say that Catholicism alone knows how to inspire philanthropy and heroism, and proofs of this will not fail us. But, under cover of all these forms, we must never lose sight of our final project.

Assuredly it is for our highest interest that a pope should be elected who is fundamentally Catholic; but if the greater number insist on a rational pope, be it so, on condition that they will aid us in placing the reins in his hands.* And we will not be sparing of our eulogiums on those men who take the lead in all parties whatsoever, in order that we may, in time, convert them into instruments for our own use.

* All power, spiritual aud temporal.

But this is not enough. To ensure success to our efforts, we require instruments well proved, and of a nature to resist all seduction. We must, on recruiting them, gain thern over to our doctrines by whatever is most flattering to their desires. This is the surest way of making zealous and prudent propagators. Let all courts, and particularly those of heretic princes, be provided with some of our most vigilant sentinels, who must be wholly ours, although belonging, in appearance, to the Protestant sect; in order that nothing may escape us, whether to our profit or our disadvantage, of all that passes in the cabinet and the consistory. We must hesitate at no cost when it imports us to gain possession of a secret.

I, too, earnestly desire a solution of this most difficult point—how to isolate the Catholics without their appearing in any way to be isolated. I confess that this appears to me almost impossible to be attained amongst the common people, because they have not been, like us, from their early years subjected to a fixed and inflexible discipline. Nevertheless, we can fashion men to what form we will, when powerful interests do violence, as it were, to their minds. The bishops, as well as the clergy, must learn the necessity of realizing this plan. But since a knowledge of the means of execution is indispensable, it must be our task to select them and inculcate them. Our business is to contrive:—

1st, That the Catholics be imbued with hatred for the heretics, whoever they may be; and that this hatred shall constantly increase, and bind them closely to each other.

2nd, That it be, nevertheless, dissembled, so as not to transpire until the day when it shall be appointed to break forth.

3rd, That this secret hate be combined with great activity in endeavouring to detach the faithful from every government inimical to us, and employ them, when they shall form a detached body, to strike deadly blows at heresy.

Let us bring all our skill to bear upon the development of this part of our plan. For myself, it is my intention to devote myself especially to it.

When we shall once have become familiar with these schemes, and when our store of expedients shall have been sufficiently augmented, I doubt not that the system which now seems crude and confused, will assume a very different aspect. We shall have brought it to a degree of perfection, such as our present vague and obscure notions can scarcely foreshadow.

It is fortunate for us that the catechism of each diocese contains the precious element upon which our dogma is founded—that God is to be obeyed rather than men. These simple words contain all that we require for the papacy. If we teach (and who shall prevent us from doing so?) that the pope is the vicar of God, it follows that the pope speaks absolutely in the place of God. It is the pope, then, who is to be obeyed rather than men.

This is the bond of which every confessor must make use, in order to bind the faithful indissolubly to the chariot of Rome. Even in the Catholic States doth not the pulpit bear this inscripion of servitude: “Usque hue venies, neque ultra?” But happily this is not the case with the confessional. That place is not profaned by any such insulting restrictions. There God reigns supreme, and, from the great dogma, the clergy (as long as it shows itself the worthy and legitimate organ of the pope) derives the privilege of being obeyed as God himself.

The catechism thus explained, so as to support the chief developments of our doctrines, we must from time to time hint that the rights of the Holy See may be momentarily forgotten, God so permitting, in order to punish the blindness of the people; but that these rights can never be annulled, since it is foretold that they shall one day revive in greater lustre than ever.

Now, one of the means which I judge proper to promote this spirit of isolation and proud self-reliance which is so important to us, is the transmission by declared participation of the all-powerfulness of the papacy, not only to the hierarchical body, but to the faithful, in their relations with those obstinate heretics; on condition, however, that they never lose sight of its indivisible unity. What a flattering attribute! what a fertile scource of religious exaltation! Could anything be conceived more adapted to knit our forces together and render them invincible?

One thing we cannot be too earnest and indefatigable in proclaiming, namely, that the Catholic religion alone possesses the truth and the life; that he who holds it is at peace with his conscience; that its orthodoxy does not depend upon its chiefs or its priests; that, were they monsters of wickedness, their shame and punishment must be upon their own heads; that their crimes could only be looked upon as those clouds which sometimes obscure the brightness of the sun; that the stability of the church, its holiness, and its virtue do not depend upon the characters of a few men* but on that prerogative which it alone possesses, of being the centre of unity; that it presents the sign of salvation, on which we must fix our eyes, as did the Israelites upon the serpent in the desert, and not upon the failings of the clergy! If a divine liquor is poured from vessels of clay, instead of vessels of gold, is it on that account the less precious?

Only let such arguments as these be seasoned with vivid eloquence, and take my word for it that even those who pass for enlightened people will not fail to be taken (tolti) by them just like the rest.

Let us also persist in declaring that if Catholicism gains the victory, and becomes free to act according to the spirit of God, it will work out the happiness of mankind; that, consequently, to labour in order to break the chains in which the world and the powers of the world have bound it, to devote ourselves, soul and body, to its emancipation, is to make so many sacrifices for the propagation of the holiest doctrines, and for the noblest progress of humanity. Can the triumph of the cause of God lead to any other end than the final triumph of the most generous principles that have ever warmed and stirred the heart of man?

I, too, am of opinion that it is advisable to make frequent use of the Bible. Does not a prism reflect all existing colours? and can our system fail to reflect one single idea of all those which pass through men’s imaginations? No; to set aside the Bible would be to tarnish our beautiful prism. I will suggest a few instances of the mode in which it may be used.

Let us preach that from the union of the children of God with the children of men, sprang the monsters and giants who called down the deluge upon the earth. Let us remind our hearers incessantly of the captivity of Babylon, the bondage in Egypt, the conquest of the land of Canaan, of the ark, the splendours of Solomon’s temple, the authority of the high-priest, his superb vestments, the tithes, &c.,&c.

Even these few examples, you see, furnish us with texts innumerable, wherewith to foster the spirit of antipathy and separation, and to hallow all the sensuous and gorgeous parade of the church.

The Christian allegories may be turned to good account. We may say that God designs for extermination, like the Canaanites, all the nations that obstinately refuse to enter, into the unity of the church; and that the vicar of Jesus Christ is appointed to execute these judgments in due time. Let the Catholics commit themselves with implicit trmt into the hands of the sovereign pontiff, who is their only guide; God will hasten the day, when, not to speak of the happiness which awaits them in another life, he will make them the sole arbiters of all things here below.

Let us, on all occasions, impress upon the people, that if they will only be united and obedient, they will become strong, and will receive the glorious mission of striking down the power of the impious, and scourging with a rod of iron the nations inimical to the church, until they be brought at length to implore remission of their sins, and pardon for their revolt, through the intercession of him whom they hear so often blasphemously designated as Antichrist.

Towards the end of this discourse, Father Roothaan seemed to me to be deficient in his usual lucidity. There was a want of his accustomed assurance. It might be inattention; it might be that he was in haste to finish. No sooner had he done so than the Irishman again took up the discourse.

XII.

There is no reason why we should take too desponding a view of our position with respect to the Protestant States. Trust me, the age will have to pay dear for its much-loved liberty. Let us, however, claim our just share in it. That many-headed monster named Civil and Political Equality, Liberty of the Press, Liberty of Conscience,—who can doubt that its aim, its ultimate aim at least, is the destruction . of the church? But never shall this proud divinity fulfil the vows of its enthusiastic adorers! Never shall it be able to arrest our march! Firstly, We will strive to obtain the same rights as those enjoyed by the Protestants: an easy conquest! We have only to awaken the good sense of the Catholics on this point, and to repeat to them without intermission: “What tyranny! Are you not as slaves? Attack their privileges; overthrow them! It is the will of God!” Secondly, When this equilibrium shall have been obtained—since not to go forward is to go backward—let us push up the faithful higher and higher, over the shoulders, over the heads, of these heretic dogs (di questi cani d’eretici). Let us aim at preponderance, and in such a manner as to be ever gaining ground in the contest. Thirdly, By new efforts, by an irresistible energy, the faithful shall at length come forth conquerors, and place in their mother’s crown that brightest and richest gem, Theocracy.

But what strikes me as most urgent, at the present time, is to create a language whose phrases, borrowed from Scripture, or from the Bulls, shall convey to the uninitiated nothing beyond their ordinary meaning, but which shall contain, for those who are initiated, the principal elements of our doctrine. This device is so much the more specious as, by its means, we might officially propagate our ideas, under the very noses of governments (a la barba de’ governi), unknown to them, and without the least hindrance. Those who are furnished with a key will be able to explain this language, on all proper occasions, so as to make known the will of Rome. It will generally suffice, for this purpose, to lift up a part of the veil with which the church is forced to cover herself, to escape much inconvenience in her present state of slavery. In this way, each word may be made the envelope of a vast political idea.

It will also be very profitable to our cause if we augment the number of those who comprehend us, and if we can succeed in enrolling in our ranks the compilers of the briefs and decrees which issue from Rome.

At this moment the father abruptly recurred to his favourite thesis.

Strike, strike upon this rock: Independence of the Catholics in every heretical government! There is a burning thirst for this independence! and you will see what splendid fountains will spring forth from it.

All Catholic serfs must take those of Ireland for their models; and the manner in which Ireland behaves towards her cruel step-mother, England, will teach them what conduct to pursue with the Protestant sects and states that encompass and overbear them. But I positively declare, that we have no chance of success, except by means of associations, powerfully combined, which shall have their chiefs, their own peculiar language, an active and well organized correspondence, and all sorts of stirring writings. For these purposes, it is not enough to have at our disposal men of talent and men of action—we must have gold to keep them fast to their work. Aye, give me gold—plenty of gold; and then, with such able heads and such resources as the church commands, I will undertake not only to master the whole world, but to reconstruct it entirely.

The triumphant tone of his voice was here suddenly checked, and he resumed, as if correcting himself.

When we aim at results so magnificent, a little boldness may be allowed us; but we must not be madly bold.

Yes, it is just, it is necessary to keep in view that, although there be men ready to give their wealth and their lives for the deliverance of the church (this word, the church, has such a magic influence over their minds!) yet nothing would be more dangerous than to explain too clearly what the church is, and what it would have. Their feeble vision could not bear the full blaze of the mighty reality which is hidden under so many folds of the religious veil. The moment they discovered the political element their arms would sink powerless, their eager zeal would vanish, and these athletic combatants, so prompt to serve us, would suddenly turn their weapons against us. It is by no means rare to witness these sudden changes, when persons full of zeal, but at the same time simple and of limited views, have been in communication with one of our brotherhood, who may have overstepped the bounds of prudence. Let us all then carefully fathom the characters of those with whom we have to do, and let every attempt we make be based upon strict examination.

The experience of some years has also taught me that sounding words go much further with vulgar minds than the best supported arguments. With well informed and cultivated persons we may venture upon abstractions of a seductive character, but it will save us trouble to remember that the common people may be wrought upon by talk which would appear contemptible to men of cultivated minds.

And now, learn what is the baptism of fire, which, at each confession, I used to pour on the heads of my penitents in Ireland.

“Poor people!” I said to them, “how have they degraded you! they esteem you less than brutes. Look at these great landlords! They revel in wealth, they devour the land, they laugh at you, and in return for the wealth they draw from you they load you with contempt. And yet, if you knew how to count up your strength, you are stronger than they. Measure yourselves with them, man to man, and you will soon Bee what there is in them. It is nothing but your own stupidity that makes them so powerful.”

Such was pretty nearly the substance of all my discourses to them. And when their confession was ended, I added, “Go your ways and do not be downhearted; you are white doves in comparison with those black and filthy crows. Take them out of their luxurious dwellings; strip them of their fine clothes, and you will find that their flesh is not even as good as your own. They do you gross wrong in two ways—they sully your faith and degrade your persons. If you talk of religious rights, the rights on which all others depend, yours come down to you direct from Jesus Christ; as eighteen centuries—and what centuries!—are there to testify for you. But they!—who is their father? One Luther, or Calvin, or a brutal Henry VIII. They reckon, at most, three centuries; and these they have dishonoured by numberless crimes, and by the blackest of vices! The Catholics alone are worthy to be free; whilst the heretics, slaves every one of them of Satan, have no rights of any kind. Impious as they are! Did they not stigmatize as false the religion of their fathers? a religion which counted more than fifteen centuries. In other words, they declare all their ancestors damned, and believe that they alone are saved.”

Permit me, reverend fathers, to give you a summary of the maxims which I have laid down for my own guidance. I say to the Catholics who live in mixed countries:—

“Nothing can be more monstrous than the injustice you endure; you are not heretics, you therefore suffer not only your persons but your faith to be enslaved, in being subject to the rule of heretic princes. Not only have they no right to compel you to this subjection, but God wills that you should employ all your efforts to shake off the yoke.

“To despise the vicar of Jesus Christ is to despise your Saviour; for if Jesus Christ said of the apostles, ‘ He who despises them, despises me,* how much greater is the crime to despise him for whom Christ especially prayed, and whom he himself commissioned to confirm the other apostles in the faith.

“Does it not follow from these declarations, that whilst the whole human race is involved in error, the pope alone is divinely preserved from all error?

“It is from pride alone that heresy persists in maintaining its place beyond the limits of the church. It is not proofs it wants to convince it of its errors; there are proofs more than sufficient to overwhelm it with shame and disgrace.

“Do you know why it is that Catholicism has not yet succeeded in rendering the whole world happy? It is because human passions wage perpetual war against it; it is because Catholic kings themselves love their crown better than their faith. Be this as it may, it is the pope, and the pope only, who, by the will of God, possesses the secret of pacifying and uniting all men.”

As regards the Bible, I am quite prepared to maintain the happy idea of representing it only as a primitive and unfinished sketch; whence we may justly say that it would be folly to expect the church to be now what it was originally; as well might we expect a man to retrograde to his cradle.

Let us, also, do our utmost to weaken and destroy in the minds of the people certain dangerous impressions which are apt to be made upon them by the virtues and the integrity of the heretics. Let us say to them:—

“However honest they may appear to you, it is next to impossible that their intentions should be pure; and as to their sins, they remain with them, and accumulate fearfully on their heads, deprived as they are of those means of salvation which the church alone provides, and by which alone we can be rendered pure in the sight of God; whereas the Catholics, if unhappily they go on from fault to fault, and even become black as coal, will most assuredly be saved. Surrounded in their dying hour by every aid and encouragement, they will revive as a flame, provided they do not persist to the end (which is scarcely possible) in rejecting confession, indulgences, and masses, for the redemption of their souls; these are means of grace of which the church, our good mother, is liberal towards those who, by their devotion and zeal, are worthy to be numbered amongst her children.”

You will easily perceive that, if it is good to exalt, in the estimation of Catholics, these precious prerogatives, it is well also to draw from them all possible advantage for our cause. Thus let us tell them that, if they desire to be absolved by the church when on their death-beds, they must love her, and do much for her, in order that she may do the same for them. Tell them that the only way to please her is to hate whom she hates, to be united with her, to combat for her, and to raise her from the state of humiliation in which the last three centuries have held her.

Initiated fathers! Great are the hopes I build on the energies of our Ireland. I regard her as our champion. Let us only be careful to anoint her effectually with our oil, so that in wrestling with her tyrant she may always slip from his grasp. In how many folds may she not entangle the British she-wolf, if she will but listen to our counsels! Rising slowly from the tomb, under the breath of resurrection which is already upon her, she will strangle in her strong gripe the mysterious vampire which haa sucked her blood for many a year. What may we not make of an idiot, savage, and famishing people? (d’un popolo idiota, rozzo e affamato). It will prove our Sam* son; and with its irresistible jaw-bone it will grind to dust myriads of the Philistines.

During my residence in Ireland I began a pamphlet which I am now finishing, in order to present it to our chosen vessel,* that it may serve him daily for a breviary. All difficulties are there smoothed, all advantages calculated—the spirit of the nation, its wants, its resources, its strength, what excites it, and what encourages it, are there laid down and fully reasoned upon.

The father seemed to have finished, for here he made a pause; but suddenly, with a voice totally changed, in a manner unusually deliberate, and with a remarkable stress on each word, he made this singular profession of faith: —

I believe that God looks down with derision upon humanity after having abandoned it to all the absurdities of its own caprice.

I believe that morality, principles of conduct, all our theories and all our systems, are merely effects of times and places, which alone make men what they are.

Let a nation, or a caste, feel the attraction that lies in the prospect of a great and magnificent advantage, let it not want the means to ensure itself the possession of this advantage, and immediately, in the eyes of this nation or caste, justice ceases to wear the same countenance, or to prescribe the same code as before in any one phase of its existence. Were justice really as unchangeable as books assure us, she would urge her dictates in vain—she would not be listened to; all her remonstrances would be despised; each party, each body, each sect would stick to the justice of its own making (alia giustizia di sua inven- zione). Such ever has been, and such ever will be man. The weak will never cease to be slaves of the strong. Let us try, therefore, to belong to the latter class; strong in intelligence and in action, Btrong in wealth, strong in partizans, strong, in a word, in resources of all sorts, for it is only thus that we may hope to crush our enemies under our feet.

* O’Connell, doubtless.

The fathers seemed to acquiesce in the principles professed by the Irishman, for no objection was heard.

XIII.

Another father then spoke, and though his Italian was correct and his accent faultless, it is most probable that he was a German. It is well known that in their colleges the Jesuits exercise their pupils in making speeches in different languages, so that they often acquire great perfection in speech and accent.

We require to have certain centres from whence our devoted servants may diverge, both in England and in Germany. Bavaria and Ireland naturally present themselves as our two strongholds. Who can deprive us of them?

As to Germany, we must make up our minds to regard it as possessing a character altogether peculiar, seeing that the Reformation has imbued it with prejudices which seem almost insurmountable. We can have no hope that a pure Roman church will soon make its way there. Who knows how long we must be content to suffer many portions of our Catholic church in that country to remain almost Protestant? Be it so; but at least let them remain attached by some strong link or another to Rome. Let us not lose what is good by striving too impatiently for what is better. Let us rather study what are the actual signs of the times. Let us go into such and such parts of the country, and endeavour to introduce there our religious practices, beginning by such as are least obtrusive, if we see an opening for them; but at the same time, taking care not to expose them to too great a number of adversaries.

There is one argument which I have found singularly efficacious in obtaining the concurrence of men in power. I have observed to them that Protestantism is a reaction of matter against spirit; for with what did Protestanism begin? With expunging voluntary torture from the catalogue of the most heroic and exalted virtues; whilst, without foreseeing the dreadful consequences, it has dignified the enjoyment of the most seductive pleasures of this life, and thereby produced boundless misehief. “For our part (I have thus continued), what we show forth is, Christ naked and crucified; we declare that hunger, thirst, privations, scourging, contempt, abandonment, debasement even, are so many merits for which Heaven is prodigal of rewards. ‘ Happy those who suffer! happy those who are without consolation here below!’ we continually repeat to the poor and the wretched; and if, at confession, they complain of the bitterness of their lot, we picture to them the Son of God himself without a place wherein to rest his head, bearing his cross, crowned with thorns, bleeding from the scourge, led to death like a lamb to the slaughter, and still forbidding to hate and to curse.

“Such is the model we place before the common people in our sermons and at the confessional, and thus do we change them from raging lions into resigned and timid sheep. Besides all this we dazzle them by the prodigious quantity of Lives of Saints which we set before their eyes—saints who have been canonized, who are now resplendent with celestial glory, who have fasted and mortified themselves, voluntarily undergoing the most severe sufferings, in order to gain a glorious seat in heaven.

“Weigh all this well, and you will be prepared to acknowledge that the Roman church alone is able to guarantee you against the principles of revolt, that by such teachings as these it can stifle and destroy them in their very germs.”

The speaker here made a slight pause; and then, as if an idea suddenly occurred to him, he resumed in a calmer tone.

What if we organized a special committee to watch over the tendencies of the history and literature of the age? Encouragement might be adroitly given to any writer who would place a few flowers on the bust of one or other of our popes, or who might be disposed to defend certain parts of our institutions, or our calumniated religious practices. In time, we should see a great increase in the number of these apologies; and there is no doubt that if a few writers of note were to open the way in this direction, others would soon follow in their track, without requiring either pay or prompting from us.

If we could but operate a change in public opinion with respect to the history of the church, its dogmas and ceremonies, so as to bring the people to regard these things with less repugnance, how many obstacles would be thereby removed 1 We suffer rich benefices to be devoured by a host of Sybarites who do us more harm than gogd—why should we regret a few sums expended for a purpose so eminently useful?

How many ruins might be repaired through the instrumentality of the multitude of young poetic enthusiasts, or . of those literary men whose presumption or itch for novelty keeps them perpetually scribbling.

XIV.

In the short pauses which took place between the speeches, I hastily made a few marks by which I might distinguish the speakers. In this place, however, in turning over a leaf, I blotted a line—so that I have nothing to say as to the Jesuit who broached the extraordinary doctrines which follow.

As long as the human heart shall remain what it is, believe me, dear colleagues, the elements of the Catholic system will never be exhausted, so abundantly fruitful are they! I will bring forward a convincing proof of what I say, although I am aware that, on the subject of the fair sex, you are Doctors in Israel.

One of my friends had the good fortune to see, at his knees, a lady, still young and beautiful. Her husband, an aged and very rich man, doted on her, and made it his sole study to please her. She, on the other hand, was a perfect specimen of that class of women who love religion—but love pleasure no less. Roaming from confessor to confessor, she had always had the ill fortune to fall into the hands of confounded Jansenists. All these had enjoined her to detach herself from her dear painter / Our brother, perceiving that she was devout to enthusiasm, knew at once how to deal with her case. The lady expressed herself nearly in the following terms:—“I could not endure to remain for whole years without receiving the sacraments; my heart would continually tell me that I was a heathen and a child of perdition. Was it my fault if they gave me in marriage at an age when I was incapable of reflection? He whom I love is the most irreproachable of men; and for myself, this attachment is my only fault. What use to me are the good things of life if I must be wretched as long as I live? For the love of the Holy Virgin, reverend father! do not be so hard as my former confessors have been! His pictures* are almost all on religious subjects; there is not a great ceremony in the church at which he is not present, as well as myself—too happy, both of us, to take a part in these ravishing solemnities! Alas! you know not, perhaps, reverend father, what it is to feel such love as this!

* The paintings of the dear artist.

Our friend, after having given free course to this torrent of amorous eloquence, gradually soothed his penitent by assuring her that religion is no tyrant* over the affections—that it demands no sacrifices but such as are reasonable and possible. “If you are of opinion,” said he, “that your health is suffering from the effect of melancholy, I can point out to you a way by which you may relieve your conscience. All those priests who have thus distressed you understand nothing whatever of matters of faith; they interpret Scripture by the letter, whereas the letter killeth, as the apostle says; but the interpretation, according to the spirit, giveth life. Listen to a parable, which will smooth all your difficulties:—

“Two fathers had each a son. These youths had a passion for the chase. One of the fathers was severe, the other mild and indulgent. The former positively forbade his son the enjoyment of his favourite pursuit; the latter, calling his son to him, thus addressed him:—* I see, my son, that it would cost you mnch to renounce your favourite sport; meanwhile there is only one condition on which I can allow you to indulge it; namely, that I may have the satisfaction of seeing that your affection and zeal for me increase in proportion to my indulgence.’ What followed? The young man to whom the chase had been forbidden followed it in secret, and at the same time became more and more estranged from his father, until all intercourse was broken off between them; whilst the other redoubled his attentions to his father, and showed him every mark of duty and affection.”

You will, no doubt, admire both the parable and the tactics of our Mend. He thus concluded his address to his fair penitent:—”It is for you, madam,” said he, “to take the latter of these two youths for your model. Be always amongst the first at your devotions; let the house of the Lord witness your presence on all holy occasions; and since you are rich, let it be your pleasure to adorn it richly, like your own dwelling. The Magdalen, to whom the Lord forgave much because Bhe had loved much, proved her love by her actions; she broke the most precious of her vases to bedew him with perfumes. In like manner, do you take as much interest in the holy spot where Jesus Christ everyday dwells bodily, as you do in adorning your own person.”

The delight with which the lady heard these words was boundless. ” Oh, yes, indeed, indeed,” cried she, “all that you say is clearer than the light of day. I vow that I will never again have any other confessor than you.”

It is almost incredible what this lady afterwards lavished on the church in ornaments, censers, crowns, and robes for the Virgin, She placed herself at the head of different confraternities; and several other ladies, in circumstances similar to hers, were easily induced to follow her example.

Let this serve as a lesson to us. Too much rigour dries up the tree; but indulgence is like the rain which nourishes it and makes it bring forth fruit a hundredfold (e gli fa produrre de’ frutti al centuplo).

Here followed a noisy interruption of some minutes, and it was evident that the remarks which were made’were rather highly-seasoned. I was astonished, and I am still astonished, that men who affect so much gravity in public can allow themselves thus to make a jest of conscience. The president, however, soon put a stop to these ebullitions of gaiety, remarking that he was led by what he had just heard to communicate a perfectly novel idea. This idea, which he was about to submit to them, had often dwelt on his mind when contemplating the subject of celibacy, and the calamities which its renouncement would bring upon the church.

I have to remark, that Father Fortis, if it were indeed he who presided at this conference, and Father Roothaan, his actual successor in the generalship of the Company, seemed to take a livelier interest than the rest in the fate of the Catholic theocracy; and* they were perpetually devising new schemes to Secure its safety.

XV.

One measure, at which I have indeed already hinted, and which must be brought under ‘discussion, is in itself calculated to produce admirable results: it is one which would have for its object to relieve priests from the too heavy burden of real celibacy (d’un vero ceUbato). You well know that if ever a breach is opened on this side, if ever a considerable portion of the clergy (urged on by the secular power which might be interested in such a change) should demand the right to marry, the whole hierarchical edifice would crumble away stone by stone, until nothing remained of the church. If once this question came to be generally entertained, the dispute would grow hot, and everybody would be asking, “When did ecclesiastical celibacy begin V* Its history would be investigated; and the marble covering which has been lying for ages over its mysteries, would be wholly removed. Scruples, remorse, and reaction, would spring up and spread like an epidemic. Rome would resist most certainly, for the very foundations of Catholicism would be in danger; but a growing irritation would everywhere find some object to fasten upon—inquiry would proceed to other matters besides celibacy—and in all probability a formidable league would be formed which would address this question to the pope: “Where are your titles to command the church and the clergy?” Thus there would be revolt upon revolt, and the Holy See, beset on all sides, would have to sustain the sorest fight it had ever waged.

It is therefore highly expedient that we should connect with the celibacy of the clergy as many interests as possible, like so many spokes of a wheel round its axis. For I repeat to you, brethren, if this institution should come to be overthrown, where is the dogma that will long survive it? As, in a house of cards, the fall of one single card ia followed by that of the whole construction, so, should celibacy fall to the ground, down will fall confession, mass, and purgatory; all pomp will vanish from our worship—all glory will depart from onr priesthood; and the mines from which we have drawn such rich supplies, will be henceforth closed to us. Maintain celibacy, and our course will be one uninterrupted triumph; suffer it to fall, and what a destiny will be ours! We shall be, as it were, transfixed with wounds, shamefully mutilated, our every project torn to pieces in our hands! Quod absit! we must, however, expect all this, if, by some powerful measure, we do not prevent so great a calamity.*

* Others have thus expressed the same fears. “The duration of the Catholic confession,” says Archbishop de Pradt, “depends upon the celibacy of its priests; let the one fall, and the other perishes with it. It would be an act of suicide in the Church of Rome to give up this stronghold.”—Du Jesuiiisme ancien et moderne.

Since we are occupied in forging so many revelations and miracles, would it not be possible (great things proceed sometimes from small beginnings) to compose a little work which should breathe the purest perfume of sanctity, and which should at first be cautiously and secretly circulated? It might be conceived in some such terms as these:—

“The Church is entering upon dangerous times. Upon its fall, or its consolidation, hinges the end or the continuance of the world. An era of glory yet unheard of will open for the clergy, if it will lend an ear to what God reveals to it by Saint _____” (this revelation must be made in the name of some saint of recent date). “The strength which the clergy will derive from it is immense. It will teach them supernatural secrets, to throw down heresy, and to build up the degraded priesthood on the ruins of the profane, bestowing on it, at last, its imprescriptible title of royal. It is Jesus Christ himself who establishes this new compact with the shepherds of his flock, in order to prepare them, as valiant and invincible soldiers, for the struggle which is near. In former times, the Almighty sanctified simultaneous and visible polygamy. This was in order to people the earth; it was meet that all other considerations should yield to this. In later times, God condescended to permit this state of things to continue, even when the earth was covered with multitudes of people. Now, that the time seems to have arrived to render the church the universal sovereign, and to give it a glorious triumph over all its enemies—now, the Almighty, who does what he wills, in heaven and on earth, without control or question, from any power human or divine, abolishes for the clergy, for all monks, and all nuns, of whatsoever denomination, real and true celibacy, and for this reason, that it cannot but be hurtful to those who, called to destroy the armies of Satan, require for the success of this work to be as closely and as intimately united as if they were but one soul and one body. Wherefore God establishes, henceforward, instead of the ancient continence, a successive and invisible polygamy (una poligamia successiva e invisibile), and he requires only an interior and spiritual celibacy. But so precious a concession is only made in favour of those who resolutely undertake the task of labouring for the re-establishment of the church, and who spare no sacrifice in order that she may be adorned and glorified as becomes the spouse of God, and that she may finally take up her stand above all principalities, dignities, and powers, so that all things may be put under her feet: seeing that there is nothing, belonging to Jesus Christ, which is not equally due to the church.

“It hence follows that the right to have a sister* after the manner of Saint Paul (for the title of wife belongs only to those who are externally and indissolubly married)—it follows, I say, that this right can only be granted to those labourers whose zeal in the holy cause is constant and heroic. It would be, in fact, a monstrous injustice, if these men might not enjoy so dear a privilege with an untroubled conscience. But it is, at the same time, highly important that all those against whom the church has any cause of complaint, should be impressed with the conviction that they could not usurp this privilege without committing deadly sin.

* The text is here perverted; here it is verbatim: “Have we not power to take about with us a sister-wife, as do the other apostles, the brethren of our Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Cor. ix., 5.) Brother and sister were synonymous with Christian; as to the word wife, Pope Leo IX. himself acknowledges that it here signifies a married woman. The word ywcuica has the same signification in Greek as femme in French. (Leo IX. Diet. 31, can. omnino.)

“The draught of water, which refreshes and strengthens, given to those who are actively engaged in the Lord’s harvest, and are fainting under the excessive heat of the sun, was a prophecy of the mysterious contract which God has reserved for our times.”

I have been for some months absorbed in this new and important theme; I am therefore prepared to enter upon its development with all the seriousness it merits.

To open such a view as this to the church hierarchy, would fortify, as by a triple wall of brass, a point of Catholicism so really weak, and so frequently attacked. I have not the least doubt that our idea will gain ground if we can manage to form a sect, at first very secret and select, which should adroitly insinuate this good news into convents and nunneries, and into the heads of certain churchmen. Some resistance there will be of course, but finally all will agree upon the propriety of what is at once so agreeable and so advantageous in many ways. You well know, besides, that we have nothing to invent in this matter, since numerous connections of the nature we would advocate are already in existence. But as they exist at present, they bring no profit to the church; on the contrary, they are hurtful, inasmuch as they bring many a conscience into trouble; whereas the authorization that I would give them, would take away all remorse, and would provoke an increase of zeal and industry. By virtue of this plan, men and women would co-operate to one end, each at his or her post, according to the established rules; whilst, thanks to this metamorphosis, the only scruple which could disturb them would be the fear of not rendering themselves worthy of such a privilege by a sufficiently entire devotion to the church.

If you will now consider the certain results of this secret dogma, you will find them of immense importance. But the most consummate prudence will be required in guiding and propagating the plan in question. The hospitals d la Saint-Roch* must be multiplied, and monks and nuns of all kinds must learn to combine three indispensable qualities,—first, outward austerity; second, moderation in their pleasures, and the most intimate mutual agreement; third, an indefatigable zeal for the conquest of souls—a zeal which never says, “It is enough.”

* It was long before I learnt the meaning of this term. I will explain it in a later part of this work.

You know the proverb, Varietas delectat. This presents a further guarantee of the immense fruitfulness and of the solidity of such a theory; especially if, having vanquished all opposition, it should one day obtain an altar in the hierarchical sanctuary. Let it once obtain one, and no power on earth can ever remove it from that seat.

XVI.

The Jesuit, whose revelations on the most delicate of subjects the reader is about to peruse, and who, further on, gives others not less curious, touching the dignitaries of Home, had, in all probability, long resided in that city, with which he appears to be intimately acquainted.

All that I have just heard is perfectly true. And, in order to convince yourselves that, even in this respect, we have abundant materials; that, in point of fact, we have nothing to do but to legalize, or, more properly speaking, to consecrate what already exists pretty nearly everywhere, I beg of you to fix your attention on what I have to suggest to you.

* Cardinal Bellarmin, a Jesuit, was the first to promulgate the germ of this audacious idea respecting celibacy. He says: ” For those who have made a vow of continence, it is a greater crime to marry than to give themselves up to incontinence.” (Bellarmin, De Monachis, lib. iL, cap. 30.) Innocent III. (Extra, de Bigamia, cap. 34) says the same thing. Saint Paul says, on the contrary, “Honorabile connubium in omnibus: Marriage is honourable in all.” (Heb. xiii. 4.) “Melius est nubere quam uri: It is better to marry than to bum.” (1 Cor. vii.) The apostle excepts no one, and admits of no prescription.

No doubt you are all more or less acquainted with the things of which I am about to speak, but perhaps some of you are ignorant of certain particulars.

I refer to the Sisters of Charity; charming women, who owe it to us not to forget that “well-ordered charity begins at home.” I have visited and been intimate with many of them in different countries. They are very accessible and very confiding; almost all whom I have known have spoken to me of their secret sorrows. I have listened to their complaints against priests and^ monks,—as if they expected our hearts to be as tender and as ardent as their own! It is my opinion that these are the sort of nuns adapted to our own times. I wish, indeed, it were possible to lighten the yoke of all the rest (allegerire il giogo dell’ altre), who are condemned unnecessarily and uselessly to see nothing all their lives but one little patch of sky and one little patch of earth; and what is still worse, to remain always shut up together, seeing the same eternal faces, without any possibility of removing to another convent, even when such a change appears reasonable. I would have the cloister abolished altogether, so that there might be less difficulty, less ceremony in approaching them. What a spring of cheerfulness for the poor hearts of these maidens! What an opportunity for them to vary, if not their pleasures, at least their griefs!* The Sisters of Charity have this advantage.

* There was more prudence in the fifth century. Pope Leo the Great made a decree, cited in the Roman Breviary, a decree with which few persons are acquainted, and which will surprise many:— “He decreed,” says the Breviary, “that no nun should take the veil until she had given proof of her chastity during forty years. Sanxit ne monaca benedictum capitis velum reciperet nisi quadraginta annorum virginitatem probasset.”—(11 Api. infest. S. Leon prim, papa.)

You know that good professors, skillful in this kind of chase, capture these poor little creatures when they are in the depths of terror and anguish. It is when they find themselves betrayed and forsaken, when the ground seems to fail from beneath their feet, and shame and remorse overwhelm them, that they eagerly accept the proposal to become Sisters of Charity. Young, for the most part, and having long deluded themselves with dreams of blissful love, they fall at last into despair. But their eyes are soon opened to the nature of the new state upon which they have entered; beset by priests of every age they soon forget their fine resolutions. They are as yet but at the very entrance of their spiritual career, and already their fortitude is shaken by the temptations of the flesh. As they find a sort of pleasure in dwelling upon the misfortunes which have decided them to become nuns, they have scarcely finished pouring their romantic tale into the curious ears of priests or monks ere they have already laid the groundwork of another. This time, however, they feel certain, the character of their new friends considered, that the web they are weaving will be of golden tissue.* If the clergy were discreet they would not make a capital object of a pleasure which they ought to take lightly as a passing indulgence. Always joining the utile with the didce they should, however, profit by these critical moments to incite the woman to acts from which the church may indirectly derive advantage; for women can far outdo us when love and religion have warmed their imaginations. It is our business to know how to feed this double flame. Our best plan would be to impress upon our sisters that, where there is a want of constancy on our part, it is a chastisement for their want of zeal. Mountains alone are unchangeable. We should, moreover, never form a new connection without an express condition, on the part of the newly elected one, that she shall perform prodigies. But it happens, alas! too often, that men to whose lot they fall show no consideration for these frail vessels, and unexpected consequences expose them to inconveniences of the same nature as those which induced them to take refuge under the religious garb. But wise precautions may keep all scandal at bay; a sum of money, a temporary abandonment of the dress of their order, and a prompt obedience in removing to some other place, will always prevent affairs of this sort from transpiring. In their new residence they will be sure to find some new sister who will aid and console them; for where is there one who has not been, or who may not be exposed to the same difficulties?

Here an interruption took place. I heard the voice of the president, and then a confusion of voices. There seemed to be a sort of calling to the question. The orator continued in these terms:—

The essential point to which I would draw your attention is this. We must labour to multiply in all places initiated confessors, who may be able not only to augment the number of these sisters by persuasion and argument, but who may adroitly take advantage of their critical position, in cases such as those which I had first to mention to you. In fact, when they return to their religious duties, after the pains of maternity, disgusted, as they say, with the ingratitude of men, it is then we require aged and experienced priests, who, in proving to them the vanity of all human things, may totally change their ideas, and urge them, by the aid of severe penitence and heroic labours, to acquire unheard-of merits. At this period, also, the perusal of the life of some female saint, who has been a model of holy enthusiasm, who has been eager to incur suffering, and loss, and ruin, in order to serve her fellow-creatures, will have a wonderful effect.

There are in our strangely complicated existence moments which pass fruitlessly away, for want of being seized opportunely. I remember with what cheerfulness and ardour I devoted myself, whilst yet a novice, to the most disgusting functions of the hospitals. I confess that I should now be utterly incapable of these acts of self-denial; but it is not less true that, such as I then was, I rendered myself useful to the Company. I contributed my part to thicken the layer of good which can never be too deep to cover *— that which a blinded world—incapable of appreciating the grandeur of our work—always stigmatize as—bad!

* To cover—much evil. This is the word which naturally suggests itself In order to avoid it, and yet feeling himself bound to finish the sentence, the Jesuit lengthened out word after word, and his circumlocution was so awkwardly managed that his colleagues found it impossible to maintain their gravity.

I have beheld these our sisters in their field of action, devoting themselves with assiduous care to the relief of the most infamous galley slaves, and this in places and scenes so repugnant as to astonish the proudest heretics and the coldest infidels. And I, who knew so deeply and so well the subtle springs which move these delicate creatures, I have felt something stirring in the bottom of my heart at the sight of their constancy and their courage.

The secret of all these things is this:

In order to induce them to prolong such sacrifices, to persuade others to imitate them, and to determine them if they waver, we must take the opportunity, when no strange ears are within hearing, and particularly at confession, to dwell upon such ideas as these:—”It is true that you have a hard struggle to overcome all that is most repugnant to your nature; but the angels, who behold you, envy you your future crowns in heaven. Persevere, for if even weakness, or even crime, has stained your consciences, from the day that you entered here, your charity, like fire, has wholly purified you. Henceforward you are white as snow; Jesus Christ looks upon you as his well-beloved spouses; he calls you his doves, his perfected ones; and the oil which you daily burn in your lamps is so abundant that it can never fail you. If we judge of you by your exterior, what so feeble as your frames! if we look within, what is there to be compared with the strength of your spirit! If it were not for your sakes, avenging thunderbolts would fall upon the earth! But God takes pleasure in you; you are the dearest objects of his love; he looks upon you and he becomes disarmed. Oh! beware how you cut short a time so precious; remain at your post of honour, where the heretics look upon you with stupefaction, avowing that they have never beheld such devotedness in their own impious sect. Pursue, then, your heroic career; for when you shall have accomplished your generous martyrdom, you will find yourselves in possession of such a treasure of merits, that you will be for ever lifted above the frailties and the faults which are, in this life, but too inevitable.”

It is easy to imagine what power this species of eloquence gives us over the better part of that sex which is not less complex in character, nor less enigmatical than ourselves, but generally more credulous. When they have once tasted the nectar of these flattering eulogiums, some of the most ardent and impressionable amongst these women may be brought to plunge into the intoxication of mysticism, and by a strange miracle to transform the vague mobility of their minds into something fixed and constant; we may convert them into beings destined to remain altogether inexplicable to those who are ignorant of our secrets; beings who are, in fact, medals of honour which Catholicism can place, with pride and exultation, before the eyes of its silenced and confused enemies.

If we can extract fire from two bits of wood, rubbed together, what may we not obtain from these women, assembled together, and placed entirely and exclusively in our hands? Why should we not furnish ourselves with such a chosen band, worthy to be sent on missions of importance, and to become, by the very charm and illusion of their presence, a centre of attraction and a means of conquest?

This subject would admit of amplification; but, not to lose time in digression, I will return to considerations more immediately involved in the subject. Every one will admit that the example we owe to the public, our common interest, our complicity, and the fear of laical observation, must necessarily force us to cover these connections with the most impenetrable mystery. But whence comes it that there have always been relations of this sort ever since priests, monks, and nuns have existed? It is that, in the clergy, if there are some men who make a point of austerity, even these are desirous of providing themselves in these female nursery-grounds with some adjutorium simile sibi, being well satisfied, all the while, to live apart from the world. Now, it is a fact that the arms which they employ to vanquish these interesting creatures are precisely the same as those which we would ourselves consecrate to the purpose. Their only means in fact of making them yield is to say to them: “Provided that your fall is compensated by charity, by devotion and prayers, by an active observance of all religious rites,—in a word, provided that the good counterbalances the evil, especially when this evil, which does harm to no one, is caused by an unavoidable necessity; then, thanks to the quantity of indulgences amassed, and to the intermediation of saints, whose favour may be propitiated; thanks, also, to many other merits, daily augmented by scrupulous care and pious practices, the part of sin becomes deadened, or as it were annulled, whilst the part of good works remains entire and abundant.”

It is then clear as the day that our system, at least in its rudimentary form, has long been at work in the habits and in the hearts even of the clergy, of monks and of nuns; all we have to do is to make it complete by gradually consecrating it; just as when an artist has completed a statue, it is brought forth from his profane studio, and solemnly inaugurated.

XVII.

He whom I last designated as a Frenchman, now spoke again.

The observations of our friend are incontestibly true; but we must not flatter ourselves that we shall easily bring our short-sighted clergy to accept ideas so bold. I know thousands who would be delighted to put our theory into practice as far as they themselves are concerned, but who would reject the principle as impious. I admit that if we could induce them to enter intrepidly into this course (as to the women, they are easily managed—they never have any other will than that of their spiritual directors), we cannot calculate the immense benefit which would follow for the church. Meanwhile, let me warn you that we should be utterly lost if so grave a secret should ever, by any chance, publicly transpire. Let us, then, act invariably in this matter with the most consummate prudence. If we can but continue to hold together our religious bodies by those strong bonds, the pleasing cogency of which experience has fully demonstrated, what have we to fear for celibacy? It cannot perish; and as long as it keeps its ground, what Catholic institution or dogma can incur any danger?

That naturally leads me to speak, according to the indication of the programme (Velenco)t of the radical reform of the episcopacy, the cardinalship, and the papacy, as the last term of our efforts; a reform without which it will be impossible to maintain many others which ought to extend to the heart of all communities and all convents.

Since there ought to be but one model for the whole church, should not the superior clergy feel themselves peculiarly bound to give us their aid in engraving it on every heart? But is it probable that we shall inspire this body with any magnanimous resolutions? Can it comprehend us? Verily, verily, the columns of the Catholic temple are neither precious nor solid. Touch them, and you will perceive their want of massiveness. They are hollow, and at the first shock—it would need no very strong one—the whole edifice would give way. What shall we then do to prop them up until we shall have gradually substituted for them a stronger range of supporters? In other words, how shall we organize a totally new plan for the election of such as are fit to sustain us? How shall we introduce into the whole church a rule and a set of maxims better conceived, more rational; so that dignities, riches, and honours, all, in a word, that is worthy of man’s ambition, shall become so many recompenses for eminent services rendered to our cause all over the world? If we could realize a species of alliance between talent, ambition, and the most exciting interests on the one hand, and the interests of our system on the other, then, indeed, our progress would become triumphant! We must consequently choose for our purpose, not men of a narrow and pedantic morality, which is always at war with our great projects, but the most advanced of our own initiated members, who shall have furnished, by their admission into our mysterious laboratory, some new links to the chain of our creative conceptions.

It is, therefore, expedient that a great number of the superior clergy, and some of the cardinals, should begin to be acquainted with our ideas, in order that they may feed upon them. This would be a means of preparing materials for the desired change. It is certain that if we could henceforward reckon upon men worthy of the name, whose number should be daily augmenting, whether by reciprocal contact, or by the promotion of such as are able to comprehend them (for those who resemble each other naturally collect together), it would no longer be difficult, with the aid of these hierarchical heads, and the co-operation of many others sufficiently initiated, to succeed in the important enterprize which occupies us. By thus copiously transfusing our young and ardent blood into the veins of the sacred body, we should by degrees clear it of the corrupt and sterile lees which are bringing on its death.

XVIII.

The impetuous Jesuit who next spoke, and whom we supposed to be Roman, leaves us now no room to doubt that he is so.

What I have heard is excellent, and I vow to you that I would willingly lose my______* to see at last annihilated, in my own city, that race of commonplace and stupid beings who have been raised so high by the assiduous gratitude of certain matrons. Provided these elect of Cupid and Mammon find themselves in a prosperous condition, and after having lived by intrigue, can enjoy themselves like demigods, in an atmosphere of pomp and pleasure, what care they if a deluge comes after them? Who durst disturb their voluptuous dreams with forebodings of approaching and overwhelming catastrophes? Are these the men by whose aid we can hope to purify the hierarchy in renovating fire? I confess to you that when I examine the monachism of our days, in its cells, and when I find it so utterly incapable of anything great, the rage that I feel is not so much against it, as against that college of cardinals, from which nothing issues but what is totally unworthy both of the purple it wears, and of the lofty station it occupies. In fact, I see amongst them all, high and low, nothing but a collection of blockheads, who sit there and grow fat (che imbecilli, che s impiguano). It is true that their tongues now and then curse the age which sometimes disturbs their voluptuous slumbers; but who amongst them ever takes the trouble to think for a moment, or to consult those who do think, on the means of extinguishing the conflagration that is devouring all around?

* If I heard aright, the word which I here abstain from translating completes a Roman oath, which has more than once escaped from holy lips, in my presence, and in my own country.

We alone, my brethren, we alone bear the burden of the summer heat; we alone, diving deep into the annals of the world, study the secret springs which liave decided the fate of empires; and our hope and courage gain strength from this study.

Permit me now to offer you a wholesome advice. Let our individuality become effaced. Let us be, as much as possible, not men but ideas. It is these which sooner or later get possession of crowns. Let these be assiduously instilled into the cloisters, and into the minds of some of the cardinals and bishops; for, notwithstanding all I have said, there are a few honourable exceptions. When we shall once have gained even a few of those who are the most hostile to our views, there will ere long be beheld conferences such as this in the very palaces of the highest dignitaries, and then it is that partisans will flock to us, and our work will truly prosper. The most sluggish and unwilling will then be forced to follow us.

I am sure we shall all admit the necessity of involving the people in the thickest and most inextricable network of devotional practices, so that they may become docile in proportion to their stupidity. But all this, though not without its value, is not yet enough; what is of all things indispensable is, an active, indefatigable, perpetual concurrence, like this which now animates us collectively; men of large and bold intellects, intent on continually advancing the progress of our work. Unless the church have the aid of a vast brain to elaborate for it a truly Catholic scheme, can it expect ever to see mankind universally subject to one sole chief?

This is the way in which the name of Rome, at present so light, will recover all its preponderance.

As for persons of high birth, I would show them no favour, except in cases where their position or influence might contribute to the more rapid advancement of our conquests.

From the moment I beheld heretical governments stretch forth a hand to aid in the re-establishment of the Holy See, I believed the time was coming when they would at last swallow the bait, and begin to Catholicize their states; but it is only too evident that I was deceived. Nevertheless, a few years ago some Roman princes having accompanied a prince of Germany on a visit to our most celebrated monuments, upon his asking for some explanations on a historical subject, there was something said about certain ferocious beasts being tamed by their masters to such a degree that the said masters did not fear to place their heads within the animals’ mouths. I observed to these personages that a narcotic powder, frequently employed, would probably produce these marvellous effects. As this remark was accompanied with a somewhat subtle smile, the heretic prince understood me, and replied, “Reverend father, have you not some narcotic powder for all those wild beasts?”—pointing to the passing crowds—”for they seem to me very far from being tame.” Emboldened by this observation I answered, “From the moment your populations were delivered from the Catholic soporifics, and you yourselves broke so many salutary checks upon them, from that moment they have been as turbulent as madmen. It is just as if the narcotics given to those animals were to be discontinued for a while; their astonishing tameness, which attracts such crowds of curious observers, would then be at an end, and they would resume all their habitual ferocity.” This led us on to further discussion, and I have reason to believe that the prince went away convinced of the efficacy of our remedies to cure this very inconvenient popular malady.

But in order that hints of this kind may have more considerable results, we require a greater number of instruments. I return, then, to the necessity of having some of ours initiated in the cloisters, and of getting rid of some of these cardinals without thought, these popes without capacity, and of a host of bishops without nerve or energy, and who are totally ignorant of the spirit of the age. For our plan will be nothing but a dream until we can actually bring about these changes. Before the hierarchy can exercise any imposing influence, it must have in its upper ranks men of power to conceive, and of energy to bring their conceptions into action; men who are capable of reducing other men under the power of a vast and unfathomable political wisdom. Who would then dare to look our system in the face?

I ask you—is there anything approaching to this in the men whose office it is to guide us? Fools that they are! They would have us look upon them as giants! Man’s whole strength is in his intellect; but these pillars of the church have nothing strong about them but tbeir animal temperament. What would be the fate of these rotten voluptuaries, these ignoramuses, buried in purple and in ennui (di quests voluttuosi putridiy di questi ignari sepolti nella porpora e nella noia)9 but for our unconquerable energy and intrepidity?

We have, then, a herculean task to accomplish: to renovate a triple sphere, as well as the chief who governs it; and when a considerable mass shall have undergone a complete transformation, it is then that a pope who shall bear within him our idea, already ripened and developed, may employ the means and resources which shall have been accumulated by our strenuous exertions during a century, perhaps, or more. Again he may launch forth his anathemas, his interdictions, and his omnipotent decrees, to shake thrones, and to humble for ever the pnde and insolence of monarchs.

After these last words there was a sort of pause; and during this interval several remarked upon what they had heard as presenting insurmountable difficulties. I even remarked a general tone of doubt and discouragement Some, however, asserted that in time all this might be effected. In order to animate them after this short colloquy, the jftresident set about explaining what should be the final purpose of the whole work.

XIX.

I would not have any one despair of the great future success of our enterprise because our beginnings are small. What could be more inconsiderable in appearance than was our Company at its commencement? Yet but a few years had elapsed ere it proved to be full of vigour, and was already become rich and powerful. And, in later times, what throne but owned the mysterious ascendency of our genius?

This short reflection was made in a familiar tone; it^was a brief reply to those who had expressed some doubt as to the final triumph which was promised. Then, aB though prompted by the picture just given of the vices of the Roman hierarchy, or, perhaps, previously prepared for this subject, he resumed after a short pause, in a voice alternately impassioned, proud, or exalted, but always marked by self- possession. In his manner of dealing with this subject he displayed surprising tact, profundity, and boldness.

From the review which has been taken of the matter, you must perceive that the church, notwithstanding the immense aggregate and the value of its materials, is far from being in the condition of an edifice solidly raised upon its foundations and completely finished. It is still altogether in a rough and disorderly state. If, then, it has narrowly escaped an overthrow on the first shock, let us look to the causes of its weakness. It wanted a skilful and rigorous architect, who would have taken care to examine and prove each several stone; who would have rejected the bad ones outright; who would have sought out the hardest granite to strengthen the most exposed parts; and would have seen that the whole was united together by the strongest and most tenacious cement. The greatest amongst the popes themselves have never possessed a clear and living light, they have only groped in the dark; and this explains to us wherefore a work, which is in itself gigantic, presents so little homogeneousness and harmony.

If, when the barbarian hordes overran our country and took possession of it; when the Roman empire fell to pieces, and Christianity was driven to change its abstract form for one better adapted to fascinate the imaginations and the senses of the new comers; if, at the moment when the papacy arose out of the universal degradation, it had fallen into the hands of men of large and enterprising views, it would have been able in times so propitious to efface, secretly and by degrees, all records of the ancient state of things, and to blot out every trace of the transformation of the episcopal aristocracy into a papal monarchy. It might have effected this by retrenchments from and additions to the writings of councils and of fathers, employing on this task minds capable of accomplishing it; and then, what a glorious position for us! The great strife between Catholicism and Protestantism would never have arisen, or at least it would wholly have confined itself to the authenticity of the primitive writings.

This work of retrenchment and addition ought to have been confided to a Roman school, well trained to the purpose, so as to imitate with dexterity the style peculiar to each writer.

Here a few taps at the outer door, which I distinctly heard, stopped my pen. The thought that some one was perhapB seeking me froze me with terror, and drove every other thought out of my head. I did not recover from my alarm until I was aware that the person who had gone to the door to reply had quietly returned to his seat. There was probably too a momentary suspension of the proceedings; for notwithstanding the mist in which I was wrapped for a while, it does not strike me that there is any sensible lacuna in my report of the speech.

What was wanting in the ninth century was a pope who should have eclipsed the glory of Charlemagne. Gregory VII. with his gigantic, but too vague ideas; Innocent III. with his marvellous institutions, confession, inquisition, and monks, came too late. Five centuries earlier, some genius equal to his, and ourselves to aid with the vast idea that now engrosses us, would have rendered the Romish church the sovereign arbiter of the whole world. Instead of this, the two centuries which preceded Hildebrand supplied popes madder than Caligula, and more monstrous than Nero, so that it is impossible for us to give a colour to their history which may be deemed—I will not say excusable, but even tolerable. Neither the fourteenth nor the fifteenth century offers a single example of talent and intelligence capable of foreseeing, and consequently of preventing by the abolition of the most flagrant abuses in the church, the horrible outbreak of the sixteenth century. What, in fact, do we see in the two centuries which precede Protestantism? The Roman see occupied either by men of less than ordinary abilities, or by haughty voluptuaries. Such beings ruin a construction rather than help to build it up. They have no prudence to guide them; they exhibit to the people in their own persons a spectacle of turpitude, as if the people were brutes, absolutely incapable of reflection. Under such popes, with a clergy, bishops, and monastic orders of the same stamp, was it to be hoped that the church should wax great and strong so as to hold nations and monarchs compressed in its great embrace? Can we be surprised that it still remains in a state of abortion in spite of its immense resources?

Dropping his voice to a confidential whisper, he continued:

It is my desire that among ourselves everything be spoken out, and that the whole naked truth be uttered; for it is in the highest degree useful and necessary to us to know and to study it, as it is.

Resuming then his former manner, and even with added emphasis, he continued:

Are we so blind as not to perceive clearly that whatever was done then was done entirely with greedy and interested views, and that the same observation applies also to the present times? Nothing has ever been contrived as subordinate to the execution of a vast plan. You are acquainted with the infamous abuses of nepotism, and its frightful consequences: what a degradation of the papacy! That high and inestimable dignity was no longer coveted but as a means of glutting the mad ambition and insatiable avarice of a few families. Meanwhile, a vast catastrophe was impending, and the veil of the temple was about to be rent in twain. Alas! when those selfish dreamers suddenly awoke and everywhere lighted exterminating fires for heretics, it was too late. Men’s eyes were opened, they had learnt to think, their indignation was aroused, the fire of it was in their hearts. The death of a great number of heretics only bestowed on a party already strong and filled with the most perverse ideas, the dangerous prestige of possessing its martyrs. Thus, by an excess of imprudence on our part, heresy took its stand as a power, to which novelty and persecution gave attraction and strength. How much time was thus lost; and what conflicts was the church compelled to sustain, no longer for the purpose of extending her sway, but simply to save herself from imminent and utter ruin.

Leo X.—that Sardanapalus enervated by Asiatic luxury—did nothing but blunder. Those who succeeded him followed but too closely in his footsteps. At length, the hurricane had almost dispersed the riven planks of the Bark, and no one could suggest any practical expedient for keeping them together. All grew pale at the demand for an oecumenical council, and it is certain that that of Trent would have been the grave of Rome but for the ability of our Company. We, resolute and unswerving, succeeded in baffling the multitude of heretics who were eager to attack the very foundations of Catholicism. With History in their band, they were prepared to question the Bible, the Fathers, the Councils, to trace them from age to age, and explore the origin of each institution, dogma, and practice. What secrets would then have come to light! The symbol of the ancient faith, the primitive mode of solving questions, the progress of the papal power, the precise date of every innovation and change, the immense chaos of past ages, so well covered until then, would all have been exposed to the eye of day. Sifted after this fashion, nothing would have been preserved but what is expressly supported by some text of Scripture; the rest would have been remorselessly burnt as stubble. Nor could the pope have flattered himself with the hope of remaining an honoured patriarch; this very title of patriarch, they would have told him, was but of recent invention. There was a general conspiracy against it, bent on reducing it to the measure of what it was when many bishops of the east and even of the west despised it so openly, and when Cyprian, Ireneus, and Polycarp held it in so little esteem.

How many bishops, indeed, flocked to Trent with hostile intentions! How far might not their boldness have proceeded, had heresy been permitted to spread freely before them its pernicious erudition? But we intrepidly defended the breach, and the young hydra strove in vain to break into the place.

Thus, after three centuries of indefatigable labour, after we had been as a cuirass on the breast of Rome, her enemies determined to tear us thence, and almost succeeded, convinced that as long as we remained, Rome was invulnerable. But if Rome, in her weakness, bent for a time like a palm-tree beneath the raging winds, she soon raised her head again; and now, let us trust, she has gained an accession of strength that will enable her for the future to defy storm and thunder. Kings call upon us—they feel the need of our narcotic cup for their people; but they shall drink of it themselves also, and deeply! We will not, however, forget to bedew its rim with honey.

The cadence of these last words made me imagine that the conference was closed, when I heard the same chief resume, but with the coolness of a man who recapitulates. His repetition of ideas already propounded, was doubtless intended to give more prominence to certain favourite views which, as the reader has seen, predominated during the meeting.

Two principles—amongst the many we possess—two principles of inexhaustible power and attractiveness ought to hold the first place in our consideration; and this we must continually call to mind.

We must thus argue with men in power, and especially those at court:—Heresy having been the cause of all the complications which arose precisely when church ai&d state were on the point of entering into a happy alliance, the results of which could not but have been solid and most satisfactory, it is of the highest importance that we should at length realize what three centuries of anarchy have postponed. As soon, then, as positive conclusions shall have been laid down, the following should be the two leading principles of a new code, devised for the regulation and conservation of the vast interests of the two powers at length united:—

WHENEVER HERESY SHALL DARE TO DISTURB THE SACRED TRANQUILLITY OF THE CHURCH, WHATEVER MAY BE THE NATURE OF ITS ASSAULTS, BE THEY SLIGHT OR SERIOUS, THE DUTY OF THE STATE SHALL BE TO PUNISH THEM WITH THE UTMOST RIGOUR, AS POLITICAL CRIMES.

RECIPROCALLY, WHENEVER REVOLT SHALL DARE TO DISTURB THE SACRED TRANQUILLITY OF THE STATE, WHATEVER MAY BE THE NATURE OF ITS ATTACKS, BE THEY SLIGHT OR SERIOUS, THE DUTY OF THE CHURCH SHALL BE TO STIGMATIZE THEM IN THE FACB OF THE NATIONS, AND TO TREAT THEM WITH THE SAME RIGOUR AS HERESY ITSEL*, WHICH IS TO BE CRUSHED BY TERRIBLE AND SOLEMN CHASTISEMENTS.

After this, we have only to be logically consistent, and since it is a maxim of the schools that qui potest majus potest minus, it will not be difficult to contrive that the spiritual power, the omnipotent divinity of the Holy See, shall entirely absorb the temporal power. Only let them give up to us the souls of the people, let kings second us with their encouragement and their wealth, and our hierarchy, at present winding about like a river, shall soon spread wide as the sea, and cover hills and mountains.

But it is mainly important that we should know how to extinguish, one by one, the multitude of phosphoric flames that glitter in every direction. We must have the art to accustom the mass of the people to look up to none but our men (sic); and thus we shall train them for the day when, excited by some crying injustice, an increase of taxes, or some such cause of discontent, they shall furnish us with an opportunity to hurl forth a thundering manifesto from Rome, a signal of its rupture with all governments, and consequently of a decisive and Anal struggle, in which we shall be bravely supported by the innumerable and ardent host which we or our successors shall have so well disciplined.

Would that we might be certain—but at least we can hope—that when that crisis comes, a considerable portion of the hierachy will have undergone a radical and complete change; that the loftiest thrones of the sanctuary will be inaccessible to men incapable of understanding us; that bishops and cardinals well know how to follow up their brave words with braver deeds; and finally, that, after so many sacrifices, we may have to glory in a man embodying, in his own person, the most enterprising popes of past times, a man wearing one of those heads, in fashioning which Nature expands her compasses to their full stretch.

The artisan, when plying his ordinary labour, is never discouraged by the hardness of the wood or the metal on which he works, because he has at hand such implements as will reduce these materials into whatever forms he pleases. Let us so take care to be well provided with implements. When the ebullition which we are secretly fomenting shall have reached a sufficient point, the cover shall be suddenly removed, and we will pour our liquid fire upon those political meddlers, who are ignorant and unreflecting enough to serve as tools in our hands, and our efforts will result in a revolution, worthy of the name, which shall combine in one universal conquest all the conquests that have yet been made.

For this purpose, let our unceasing exertions be directed to the conversion of souls, and let us so preach that deathbeds may be the fruitful source of donations, riches, jewels, and all sorts of legacies. Means of action are indispensable to us, and these means must be as vast as our projects. Let nothing resist us; whilst, enveloped in mystery from head to foot, we ourselves remain impenetrable.

Friends, we must conquer or die! The higher classes are always very inaccessible to the lower ones; let us nourish their mutual antipathy. Let us accustom the mob, which is, in fact, an implement of power, to look upon us as its warmest advocates; favouring its desires,.let us feed the fire of its wrath, and open to its view a golden age; and let the pope, Rome, Catholicism, or the Church, let each of these words become for the people the expression of all its rights, the point on which its eye is fixed, the object of its devotion, the moving spring of its thoughts and intentions. A day will come—but it will be too late—when it will be seen that expedients the most ridiculous have given birth to marvellous effects, and that those who believed themselves wise, were fools.

Yes, brethren! we also are kings! our arsenal is perhaps as rich as theirs, and even, if I mistake not, more efficient Our chaplets, our medals, our miracles, our saints, our holy- days, in fine, all that immense battery which we have this day passed in review, (*) will be worth as much, I imagine, as their powder, their soldiers, their cannon, and their moving forests of bayonets. All depends upon the skill with which we combine this infinity of means, discipline our troops, and by exciting their zeal and their courage, prepare them for the day which must bring to nothing, or crown with triumph, the long series of our labours. Let them make a jest of our processions round the profane Jericho, let them mock us and the sound of our trumpets, provided that at the seventh circuit, and assuredly it will be made, the walls of the city fall down, and those who inhabit it fall a prey to us.

What we have to do, then, is to erect again upon its pedestal the prostrate papal colossus. We engineers, here assembled, have to concert a special plan for this purpose, to point out the machines to be used or to invent new ones, to form workmen and place in their hands levers and cables, and then, provided the whole be directed by superior intelligence, success will be infallible.

Such is our task.

* Ch’oggi abbiamo si bene analizzato; this expression induces me to suppose that the analysis of all these things had been made, the same morning, in a previous meeting; for it appears too precise to relate wholly to what was said in the conference which has just been submitted to the reader.

But the day is closing, and I desire that we may not quit this place before some one, who may have considered the subject more deeply than myself, shall have said a few words on the possibly sinister issue of events, which, seeing the dangers around us, it is indispensable that we should coolly consider, while as yet our minds are undisturbed by any immediate apprehensions of such a result.

XX.

There ensued a brief silence, which the Irishman was the first to break, though in a tone less confident than before. He soon warmed, however, and became quite himself again.

If I venture to respond to this appeal, it is because I was lately present at a meeting of our fathers, in which the subject now in question was amply discussed. The conference closed with the following resolution.

Should we ever (it was unanimously agreed) be abandoned by kings, or should any fatal discovery utterly ruin our projects; should we in vain attempt to recover, if not confidence, at least some standing compatible with the execution of our plan; should we even be forced to crawl along (trascinarci) for a lengthened period, in order to reunite our many lost or broken threads—even in this extremity, happen what may, we must resign ourselves to these shackles, and submit to this wearisome delay. But if nothing can reconcile us with the offended Catholic governments, and if even Rome, in the hope of securing her own safety in a mean and narrow sphere, consent to immolate us anew, we must, at the price of every consideration, show kings and Rome that, even under circumstances so adverse, we can prove ourselves stronger than them all: and this, you are aware, it will be the more easy for us to effect, the further our labours shall have been advanced when the time of trial comes, if come it must. But I feel no doubt (and I could bring forward authentic proofs in support of this), I feel no doubt that, this time, Rome would rather make common cause with us, than consent to remain a degraded and manacled slave, without a hope of ever escaping from the limits imposed upon her. In case of need, poison would deliver us from a short-sighted pope (il veleno ci liberebbe d’un papa a corta veduta), and the next conclave which should be assembled would accord entirely with our views.*

* Clement VII. having declared to Cardinal Bellarmin his resolution to condemn the doctrine of the Jesuit Molina as dangerous, the Jesuit Bellarmin replied, “Your Holiness will do no such thing.” Cardinal Francis Marie del Monte having spoken of this resolution to Cardinal Bellarmin, the latter replied: ” I know that he would gladly do it; I know that he is able to do it; but he will not do it. If he persists in executing his design, he will die first.” Jacques Tagliotti, Jesuit, in his “Life of Cardinal Bellarmin,” liv. viL, 2.

Then, brethren, will the world behold a strange spectacle. Having failed in our endeavour to avenge ourselves on kings by slowly and artfully exhausting their strength, we will take vengeance on them in a manner equally sudden and terrible. In six months Rome would become the incendiary focus of those volcanic spirits who are themselves at present the objects of our hatred; and a bull in which the sovereign pontiff should announce to the people that, deceived in his hopes of seeing good gradually prevail over evil, his patience is exhausted—such a bull would give us forces more numerous than the hyperbolical army of Armageddon.*

* An allusion to a passage of the Apocalypse, ix. 16; xvi. 16.

What a source of agitation in times like ours! Assuredly Catholicism and its ceremonies would be for some time the fashion, but all its illusions would sooner or later evaporate, and we should but have hastened the opening of an era the very reverse of what we have been labouring to introduce. What matters it! let our last cry of despair, let our death be worthy of us! We must not be content to disappear like a dried-up river; let us rather resemble a torrent which breaks every mound and bears down every obstacle; like the elements of nature, which cannot be compressed without bursting out into universal conflagration. Thus would the famous saying be verified, “that the fate of kings is intimately allied with ours,” for they would vanish from the earth along with us. Such would be the vengeance of Samson when shorn, blinded, and made to toil at the mill like a vile ass. He would crush them with the last effort of his enormous strength, and bury himself and them in the same tomb.

It is very possible, brethren (continued the Irishman in a fierce tone), that there may be some traitor amongst us, who, to render himself acceptable to some cursed Pharaoh by becoming his Joseph, his informer, may one day escape from our ranks and ruin us. The precautions which we have already taken against such a contingency do not appear to me sufficient, for the wretch who would desert from our body might find means to hide himself from our vengeance, and thus in vain would he have sworn that “to the last breath of life he would regard the destruction of his own person as holy and legitimate .”

I therefore propose to you another means of surety, in addition to the former. Let us lay down this rule:—that no one shall be initiated unless he have previously consented that a certain number of our members shall concert together to attribute to him (on probable grounds of course) a correspondence either politically criminal or monstrously obscene; and this correspondence the candidate shall transcribe and faithfully sign, in order that our Company may, in case of treason, have the means of invalidating his testimony by the production of these precious manuscripts. Such documents would, you will easily understand, be of eminent service to us, should other means of vengeance fail us.

XXI.

The president now spoke in these terms.

We will hereafter take this suggestion into our special consideration. Meanwhile, I thank you heartily for this conference; it has been much more instructive than the three former ones, the minutes of which you had better examine—I have them here for your better information; and I beg that each one of you will note down his observations upon them. But let me suggest that during a discussion on mere details it would be advisable not to allow too much predominance to the poetical elements of the question. These elements may be admitted when we have to consider our whole plan in the fullest light, whilst the analysis of each separate question or problem should present a character as deliberate and cool as that of the synthesis ought to be warm and enthusiastic. I admire these two different kinds of talent, but I have rarely seen them united in the same individual. I have^ almost always found that those who were eloquent in the one way were mute in the other, and vice versa. Let us strive to combine the calmness of reason with the fire of enthusiasm. Christ, who saw the germ of so many splendid truths, teaches us that in order “to make ourselves master of the strong man, his house and his goods, we must first bind him.” Let us, therefore, become perfect in the art of loading the proud and the powerful with chains. Let us lay to heart this maxim as the rule of all our efforts:—one sole authority— that of Rome; one sole order—that of the Jesuits. And since our age does not boast a single mind capable of aspiring to universal empire, for kings have enough to do to retain a hold upon th?ir petty kingdoms which are slipping from their grasp, let it be ours to aim thus high, whilst empty heads are dreaming. Nulla dies sine lined. Let not any opportunity escape us of observing what are men’s tendencies; the better we know them the more useful they will be as instruments in our hands. Let us, at all events, so conduct ourselves that our future glory may compensate for our present abasement; for whether our name be destined to perish, or finally to prevail over kings and nations, let it, at least, be synonymous with the loftiest reach of greatness and daring which the world has ever seen or ever will see. Yes! when future generations read our story, and learn what we have been, let them be forced to assimilate us, not with mankind, but with those cosmogonic agencies which God only puts in motion when it is his pleasure to change the laws of the universe.

These words—an echo and confirmation of others not less presumptuous, which had already proceeded from the Irishman—show plainly that the modern Jesuits are imbued with no inconsiderable dose of pride. It will be equally clear that it is their project to Jesuitize, besides all the other orders, the papacy itself; and, as the nec plus ultra of the metamorphoses they are effecting by their mysterious strategy, to Jesuitize the whole world.

The president having concluded, they all rose and warmly congratulated each other. The scene then closed, they left the room, and I was out of danger.

END OF PART II.

Part III. Proofs and Conclusion.

I.

The Jesuits have always spoken of themselves in terms of the most unmeasured pride.

When their society had reached the hundredth year of its existence, they composed a book in its honour. The symbols which decorate the frontispiece of this work sufficiently prove that they esteem the humblest member of their order as infinitely above the rest of mankind. They call themselves “The Company of the Perfect.”* The contents of the volume accord with the arrogance of its emblems.

The Jewish high-priest wore on his breast the jewel called the oracle. The order of the Jesuits considers itself, under the New Alliance, as the oracle from whence the pope draws his inspiration.

They proclaim themselves “the masters of the world, the most learned of mortal men, the doctors of the nations, the Apollos, the Alexanders of theology, prophets descended from heaven, who deliver the oracles in the aecumenic councils.”

* Imago primi sseculi Societatis Jesu, lib. iii., Orat i., p. 409.

The epitaph which they composed for Loyola strikingly exhibits their love of grandiloquence, and their overweening pride. It runs thus:—

“Whoever thou art who conceivest in thy mind the image of Pompey the Great, of Caesar, and of Alexander, open thine eyes to the truth, and thou wilt learn from this marble that Ignatius was the greatest of conquerors.”

The epitaph of Saint Francis Xavier is in the same strain.

But how striking the contrast between their conduct and the apotheosis they award themselves! We could say nothing on this subject which has not been proved by numberless publications.

Some of their own generals, even, have made no secret of their dismay at the perverse tendencies of the order. Mucio Vitelleschi, the sixth general, in one of his letters, dated the 15th of November, 1639, cannot refrain from pointing out the loathsome malady that had fastened upon the Company. “There exists,” he says, “amongst the superiors of our society an excessive cupidity which spreads from them through the whole body. From this source comes the indulgence which they manifest for those who bring them riches.”

Saint Francis Borgia, one of the earliest generals of the order, had before this acknowledged that poison was in its veins. I will not here repeat the numerous testimonies which prove that their casuistry justified crime in all its forms. It is impossible to deny that the doctrines, everywhere to be found in their writings, authorize theft, rape, peijury, debauchery, and even murder; that, when they have judged it expedient to get rid of a king, they have not shrank from making the apology of regicide. But what we should be most repugnant to believe, did not their books, approved by the generals of the order, attest it, is the cynical nature of their science on a matter which ought to remain unknown to religious men, vowed to perpetual chastity, and making pretensions to perfect purity.

I shall not enlarge upon this subject, but confine myself to quoting a judgment which conveys the impression made on grave doctors of the church by the perusal of some of the books of the Holy Company. The university of Paris, in 1643, in its Verites Academiques (Academical Truths), thus expresses itself:

“All that the malice of hell can conceive of most horrible; things unknown even to the most depraved of pagans, all the abominations which could call up a blush on the face of effrontery itself, are epitomised in the book of a Jesuit. The different casuists of this society teach secrets of impurity unknown even to the most dissolute.”

What must be the shamelessness in their secret assemblies, if they suffer it to become thus apparent in their printed works? There is the less likelihood of their amendment, inasmuch as whilst others are led astray by passion and temptation, their immorality is a system, founded on an utter contempt of what is right and just.

It is painful and revolting to make these assertions, but the truth must be told. A pope supports it with his authority. In 1692, Clement VIII. presided at a general chapter of the Jesuits; what is the reproach which he casts upon them? His words reveal the spirit, the tactics, and the whole plan of the Jesuits, ancient and modern.*

* Theatre jesuitique, part ii. 4.

“Curiosity,” said this pope, “induces them to intrude everywhere, and principally into the confessionals, that they may learn, from their penitent, all that passes in his home, among the children, the domestics, and the other inmates or frequenters of the house, and even all that is going on in the neighbourhood. If they confess a prince, they contrive to govern his whole family; they seek even to govern his states, by inspiring him with the belief that nothing will go well without their oversight and care.”

The assertion of Clement VIII., made in terms so precise, would be sufficient to command belief; but there are numerous and striking historical facts, which prove that, under pretence of religion, this Company has constantly carried on a plot against nations and their governments.

I will mention one only of all these facts, but it was so notorious in its time, and is one of such weight, that it is as good as a thousand. It is related as follows by President de Thou, an historian of acknowledged probity:—*

* Le President de Thou, in his Hist, liv. 187.

“The Jesuits were accused, before the senate of Venice, of having pried into family secrets, by means of confession; and of having come, by the same means, to know intimately all sorts of particulars relating to individuals, and, consequently, the designs and resources of the state; and of having kept registers of these things, which they forwarded, every six months, to their general, by the hands of their visitors. Proofs of these charges were found in many documents, which their hurried flight prevented them from carrying off.”

This fact is not denied by Sachin himself, one of the most devoted historians of the Company.*

• Sachin, Hist Soc. Jes., lib. v., No. 15.

II.

This is surely enough to make those writers pause who have undertaken the defence of the Jesuits, and have carried it so far as to assert that they do not concern themselves about temporal things, and that the whole world is in a conspiracy to calumniate them. As if the universities, parliaments, and bishops who have accused them of corrupting morals, and leading the people astray, could have leagued themselves together, from age to age, for a purpose so iniquitous. Strange it is, however, we repeat, that, in our times, they have again succeeded in gaining over the bishops, that the more the world shudders at their name, and abhors them, the more warmly the superior clergy espouses their cause, and identifies itself with them. There is now a concert of apologies in their behalf. The new Catholic school is strenuous for them, alleging even that it is the very excess of their virtue which has called down so much hatred upon them, and that this hatred can only proceed from the envious rage of the impious. M. Laurent, bishop of Luxembourg, says in a pastoral letter of 1845:—

“God has sent to the aid of his church militant a well organised army, commanded by a valiant chief; whose name is Ignatius de Loyola. Anathema against all the sovereigns of Europe, ‘who, guided by an infernal instinct, and by the instigation of some self-styled philosophers, constrained the court of Rome to suspend for a time this holy order of Ignatius the Great.”

In France, of late years, the superior clergy has disseminated many books on the subject of free teaching. Its organs are full of fine-sounding orations in favour of the common right. Nothing can be more curious than their expressions on this subject. They are constantly borrowing the language which they used formerly to stigmatize as subversive of the throne and of the altar. It is true that they were then in the insolence of prosperity, and that their position is since changed. Become feeble themselves, they are compelled to have recourse to the arms of the feeble.

But are they hearty and sincere in all that they proclaim so loudly about right and truth? They have put on the new man too hastily for us to suppose that they have entirely put off the old. Thus, the Bishop of Luxembourg would have all instruction superintended by the clergy, and dependent upon it. The Univers, the organ of the French bishops, holds the same views.*

• L’Univers et L’Union Catholique, 24 Octobre, 10 et 11 Novembre, 1843.

“Since the university has been at work it has only produced incapable and corrupt schoolmasters, and irreligious and impious doctors. The Bishop of Perpignan, following the example of M. de Bonald, demands free teaching. ‘My wishes,’ he says, ‘are in favour of free competition in the instruction of youth; but I believe that this precious instruction has indispensable need of superintendence. Laws, and imperative laws, are necessary to protect society against the dangers of had doctrines. This superintendence ought to combine all the elements capable of rendering it complete and enlightened; and consequently the episcopacy must not remain a stranger to it. In fact, religion has a large share in the inculcation of the sciences, of which it is the^ foundation, and the episcopacy alone is a competent judge in this matter, since it alone has been established guardian of the sacred deposit of the faith. Now, has not its bearing on this point been turned aside?”

All the art which the defenders of the clergy employ in their writings, is compressed into these few lines; the writer first proclaims right and justice, and declares himself the champion of free competition; then he asks for imperative laws against the dangers of had doctrines. And who are to judge of these dangers? The bishops. They alone are competent judges of every range of ideas; the sciences are not to advance beyond the limits they shall prescribe. It appears, then, that in their estimation free instruction and common right signify subjection of thought and conscience to episcopal censure and domination.

“Wherefore,” cries the Bishop of Chalons,* “should there be two sorts of instruction in one house? If it is yours which ought to have the precedence, why not tell us so? Wherefore compel us to play a part in your colleges which is altogether beneath our dignity?

• Idem, 24 Octobre, 1843.

“By virtue of the royal ordinance you are to believe that these persons profess the same religion as the pope. It is true that the catechism says the contrary, but the catechism makes a mistake; the bishops say the contrary, but the bishops know nothing of the matter. Oh but— Make no objections: the king having heard the council of state, orders you to be convinced.”

Are we to believe, then, only what the pope decrees, after having heard the council of cardinals? If it be so, the following is to be our creed:—”The doctrines of civil and political equality are seditious; we cannot hold in too much horror liberty of opinion and of the press, and particularly this maxim, that every man ought to enjoy liberty of conscience for such are the very words of Gregory XVI., in his circular of the 15th of August, 1832.

A French bishop has made himself the interpreter of the spirit of the Vatican under the preceding pope. Different religious journals in Italy have applauded his attacks against those innovators who follow up “the mad and impious project of a restoration or regeneration of humanity.” The Bishop of Carcassonne declared, in a mandate which followed close upon the circular of which we have just spoken:—”If it (the Romish church) so requires, let us sacrifice to it our opinions, our knowledge, our intelligence, the splendid dreams of our imaginations, and the most sublime attainments of the human understanding. Far from us be all that bears the stamp of novelty.”

In the primitive ages, the Christian doctors held another language. Tertullian, speaking in the name of tiie church, thus expresses himself:— *

* Tertullian, Apologet., iv.

“Every law which does not admit of examination is suspicious; when it exacts a blind obedience, it is tyrannical.”

III.

The superior clergy has begun to boast of being alone able to realize liberty and right. We have just seen what it understands by free teaching. There is, after all, no secret to discover. The Bishop of Liege declares openly:— “We desire the monopoly of religious and moral instruction, because to us belongs the divine mission of bestowing it.” *

• Letter of M. Doletz.

Is it not grievous and scandalous to find so many artifices amongst those on whom Jesus especially enjoined simplicity and truth? Their minds have unhappily become perverted by the habit they have contracted of anatomizing vices and crimes; a mass of perfidious subtleties has at length stifled the voice of conscience within them. From hence proceeds their willingness to temporize when interest prompts them; from hence their inconceivable versatility, and their tactics ever changing according to times and places, alternately cursing or blessing, the doctrines of liberty one day, and those of absolutism on the morrow. But it is important to remark that whilst their means are perpetually changing, their end is always the same. When power is adverse to them, or does not favour them as they could wish, they do not shrink from the revolutionary character which, under other circumstances, they consider so odious. Thus, whilst they declare it to be the rigorous duty of those who suffer, to submit to their lot without a murmur, they will, from the same pulpit, excite discontent by propounding ideas which they will afterwards reprobate, when they have no longer an interest in sustaining them. I will give one example of this, one example amongst thousands which prove that what I advance is well founded. On the 21st of May, 1845, at Paris, in the aristocratic church of St. Roch, the Abbe le Dreuille thus exclaimed:— “I am the priest of the people. Labourers do not enjoy the rights to which they have a claim; it is time for the rich and the powerful to render them an account. Is it necessary to tell them that the working-man has a torch in his hand which a single spark will suffice to light, and that he will presently carry it flaming into chateaux and palaces with cries of distress and of vengeance? Has not experience taught us, that privileges authorized by the law are liable to fall before the justice of the people? ”

The same abbe, whom we believe to be sincerely liberal and a friend to the people, once again preached the same doctrine in the same church. He had been authorized to do so. And since there has never been any repetition of the same thing, is it not reasonable to suppose that the desired effect had been produced?

IV.

We know no writer more intimately acquainted with the occult plans of the Company than M. de Maistre. As Sardinian ambassador at the court of the Czar, he had no more cherished friends than the Jesuits, to whom Alexander had given refuge, when they were driven out of all other states. Their modern panegyrist, M. Cretineau-Joly, by no means denies that there was a close and intimate connection between M. de Maistre and the Jesuits. “He supported them,” says he, “as one of the key-stones of the social arch.” *

* Histoire religieuse, politique, et littSraire de la. Compagnie de Jesus, t vi.

Alexander, who was addicted to mysticism, and strongly attached to the Holy Scriptures, warmly encouraged the Bible societies. “The emperor,” says the writer whom we have just quoted, “had suffered himself to be deceived. Prince Galitzin, the minister of worship, the highest functionaries of the state, the greater part of the Russian bishops, and even the Catholic archbishop of Mohilev, Stanislas Siestrzencewiez, became avowed patrons of an institution, which was in the long run to strike a mortal blow at the Greek religion and at Catholicism. There rose up in Russia, in favour of the Bible Society, one of those enthusiastic movements which can scarcely be conceived by those who live remote from the scene of action. Anglicanism was securing a footing from the shores of the Black Sea to those of the Frozen Ocean, and was spreading eastwards towards the frontiers of China. Prompted by Galitzin, the Catholic prelates served as blind instruments in its propagation, and encouraged their flocks to favour this work, of the tendencies of which thsy were, themselves, wholly ignorant.”

The Jesuits knew the danger of placing the Scriptures in the hands of the people; for is it not virtually saying to them, Reflect and judge! Such of the innovators as were Catholics were denounced to Pius VII., who severely reprimanded them. Is it not, in fact, an unpardonable audacity, to follow this precept of Jesus: “Search the Scriptures; it is they which testify of me ”? The Scriptures, then, speak, and even testify; this, however, M. de Maistre denies; and, doubtless, his judgment has more weight than that of Christ!

“Let others,” he exclaims, “invoke, as much as you please, the mute word; we live in peace with this false God, (the Bible!) awaiting evermore with fond impatience the moment when its partizans shall be undeceived, and shall throw themselves into our arms, which have been open to receive them during the last three centuries.”* So then the Bible, submitted to the right of private judgment, is but a false God, a mute word; it only becomes intelligible in one single mouth—that of the pope. Moreover, this book is incomplete; the little that is found there is only a germ. “Never was there a shallower notion,” says De Maistre, “than that of seeking in the Bible the whole sum of the Christian dogmas.”

* Essay on the Regenerating Principle in Political Constitutions and other Human Constitutions, pp. 30, 31.

The same writer is shocked at the idea of seeking to verify whether laws or creeds are conformable to equity, or to the doctrines of the apostles.

“What man of sense,” cries he, “would not shudder to put his hand to such a work? ‘We must revert,’ we are told, ‘to the fundamental and primitive laws of the state, which an unjust custom has abolished; and this would be a ruinous game Nothing but would be pound wanting if weighed in this balance. Meanwhile the people are very ready to lend an ear to such exhortations.’ This is well said; nothing can be better. But behold what is man! The author of this observation (Pascal) and his hideous sect (the Jansenists) have never ceased to play this infallibly ruinous game; and in fact the game has perfectly succeeded.”

This is what irritates him; this is what he cannot bear; he sees no hope of safety but in compression; he insists that the altar and the throne should be sacred, and quite above all question. Has he not then, erudite as he is, read how Lactantius, the celebrated apologist, upbraided the Pagan priests? “They make themselves slaves to the creed of their forefathers; they aver that it is to be adopted on trust; they divest themselves of their reason; but those who have enveloped religion in mystery, in order that the people may be ignorant of what they adore, are but knaves and deceivers.

M. de Maistre himself has said: “Never can error be useful, or truth hurtful.” This does not prevent him from maintaining elsewhere, that error is necessary—that it has its advantages—and that truth ought often to be held captive.

“The world,” he says, “always contains an innumerable host of men so perverse, that if they could doubt of certain things, they could also increase immensely the amount of their wickedness.”

Now, we all know that the Bible is styled, from the pulpit, the Book of Truth, and that truth has light for its emblem. But the Jesuits, applauded by M. de Maistre and by Pius VII., have done their utmost to put the light under a bushel. They have raised every possible obstacle to the propagation of the Bible. “They opposed it,” remarks M. Cretineau-Joly, “with a firmness which the prayers and menaces of Galitzin, up to that time their protector and friend, could never overcome. The partizans of the Bible societies became leagued against the Company.”* Now, the Jesuits have taken good care not to oppose version to version. They have uniformly opposed every version, and their intrigues on this subject were one of the causes of their expulsion from Russia, on the 13th of March, 1820. Does not this explain, in some sort, the explosion of rage against the Bible itself, which the reader has remarked in the Secret conference?

Previously to this period, the Jesuits, as their apologist admits, were at open and bitter feud with the Russian universities. On that occasion they found, says the same writer, a bold defender.

“Joseph de Maistre studies it (the Society of Jesus) in its connection both with peoples and kings. Placing before the eyes of the Minister of Public Instruction a picture of the follies and crimes which the revolutionary spirit has produced, he exclaims, with a prophetic voice, which the events of 1812 have justified, not less than those of 1845:
‘This sect (the liberal party), which is at the same time one and many, encompasses Russia, or, more properly speaking, penetrates it in all directions, and attacks it to its deepest roots. It asks no more, at present, than to have the ear of children of all ages, and the patience of sovereigns; it reserves its noisier manifestations for a future time.’ After uttering these words, the truth of which becomes more and more apparent as the circle of revolution enlarges, and monarchs sink deeper into the fatal slumber of indifference, Joseph de Maistre adds: * In the midst of dangers so pressing, nothing can be of greater utility to his Imperial Majesty than a society of men essentially inimical to that from which Russia has everything to dread, especially in the education of youth. I do not even believe that it would be possible to substitute with advantage any other preservative. This society is the watch-dog, which you should beware of sending away. If you do not choose that he should bite the robbers, that is your affair; but let him, at least, roam round the house, and awake you when necessary, before your doors are broken open, or the thieves get in by the windows.”

This language is intelligible; the imagery is striking: the Jesuits are, truly, the vigilant watch-dogs of absolute governments, who rouse them from their sleep when necessary, and are always ready to bite those who would invade their repose. Do they not boast of possessing the statistics of everybody’s thoughts, and of being alone able to predict the periods of the political tides? Thus M. Cretineau quotes these words of John Muller as profoundly judicious:— “Wise men did not hesitate to conclude, that with the Jesuits fell a common and necessary barrier of defence for all powers.”

The rampart of the old order of things being thus overthrown, M. de Maistre gives vent to his wrath in these terms:—

“When we think how a detestable coalition of perverse ministers, magistrates in delirium, and ignoble sectarians, has been able, in our time, to destroy this marvellous institution, and to boast of their work, we are reminded of the fool who triumphantly clapped his foot upon a watch, exclaiming—I will soon find a way to stop your noise / But what am I saying? A fool is not guilty! ”

The Jesuits had a good right to the mortal remains of Joseph de Maistre, so they were delivered up to them, and are deposited in their church at Turin.

V.

M. Saint-Cheron, whom we ask pardon for quoting after a writer so distinguished as M. de Maistre, now comes forward as one of the most ardent disciples of the reverend fathers. He calls to remembrance this remarkable phrase, written by M. de Maistre in 1820:—”Providence is engaged in raising an army in Europe.” -j* This army must needs have been on the increase. M. Saint-Cheron is, no doubt, acquainted with its chiefs; already he perceives “striking signs of the approach of one of those solemn crises which mark,, for ages, the destiny of a people; signs which fore token one of those epochs in which sanguinary contests take place.” Emboldened by these prognostics, he adds:— “Catholicism is taking its measures to assure itself anew of the sword of France.”

Cited by the Journal des Debate of the 21st of February, 1844.— In 1820 an institution of the greatest importance was founded. The 3rd May, 1844, a pompous placard made its appearance in Paris, announcing to the faithful that an august ceremony would take place at St. Sulpice, to return thanks to God for the ever-increasing success of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, inspired by God twenty- three years ago.

It is impossible, however, to be more daring than was De Maistre; he propounds the most formidable views, so that you would say he wrote with a portion of the secret plan before him. He lived in a time when the defeats of freedom were too recent to make him at all cautious in measuring his words. His successors are, in general, more anxious to disguise their odious projects. Often blunt and offensive, but always frank, M. de Maistre was too well acquainted with the falsity of the double system he so vigorously defended, to suppose, for a moment, that it could maintain itself under the rule of liberty. He deems, therefore, that the inquisition and the executioner ought to form its corner-stone.

“There must,” he says, “be some authority against which no one has the right to argue. To reason, said Saint Thomas, is to seek, and to be always seeking is to be never contented.”* No discussion, therefore; the right to use it is only sought by those who would reform and remodel all things—an impious and abominable thought; it is, doubtless, desired to the end that “the crushed party may have time to raise itself up, through the tolerance which is shown towards it, and may crush its adversary in its turn.”

But why should not each party enjoy the same rights, the same liberty? This is precisely the equality which M. de Maistre abhors, he who is characterized as the man eminently religious, the model of a Christian. According to his notion, liberty is a privilege which belongs only to nobles and prelates. What, he indignantly demands, is the source of this flood of detestable doctrines? “It proceeds,” he answers, “from that numerous phalanx of what are called learned men, whom we have not persisted in keeping in their proper place, which is the second.”* This champion of the faith, who has God and religion perpetually on his lips, covers with these sounding words a system of barbarous oppression for all that is most sacred in man: he would have two castes, as masters, holding all the rest in slavery.

“It is not to science that it belongs to guide mankind: it has none of the necessary powers for this purpose. It belongs to prelates, to nobles, to the great officers of the state, to be the depositaries and guardians of the truth; to teach the nations what is evil and what is good, what is true and what false in moral and spiritual things: none others have any right to reason upon matters of this nature. They have the natural sciences to amuse themselves with— of what do they complain? As to the man who speaks or writes so as to take away a national dogma from the people, he ought to he hung as a common thief Why has so great an imprudence been committed as to grant liberty of speech to every one? It is this that has undone us. Philosophers (those at least who assume the name) are all possessed with a sort of fierce and rebellious pride which takes nothing for granted; they detest all distinctions of which they do not partake: all authority revolts them, and there is nothing out of their own sphere which they do not hate.

Leave them alone, and they will attack everything, even God himself, because he is their master. Is it not these very men who have written against kings and against him who has established them! Oh! if, when the earth shall be settled-

M. de Maistre here suddenly checks himself. He has, however, said enough to betray his gigantic hopes that the old system shall be re-established, that free inquiry shall be abolished, that all independence shall be impossible for the people, and that priests and nobles alone shall reign.

He quotes this saying of Cardinal de Retz: “He who assembles the people stirs them up to insurrection.” The commentary which he makes upon it is worthy of himself.

“A maxim,” he says, “the spirit of which is unimpeachable. The laws of fermentation are the same in morals as in physics. It arises from contact, and augments in proportion to the mass of the fermenting matters. Collect a number of men rendered spirituous by any passion whatever: you will shortly have heat, then excitement, and presently delirium will ensue, precisely as in the material process, where the turbulent fermentation leads rapidly to the acid, and this is speedily followed by the putrid. Every assembly is liable to the action of this general law, if the process is not arrested by the cold of authority, which glides into the interstices and stops the movement of the particles.”

Consequently, meetings of the people must be interdicted. But, at least, the people may have the right to represent themselves by deputies? See what one of the boldest defenders of the Jesuits says on this question which is only accepted by reason, and discusses points of faith, is good for nothing but to undermine thrones; therefore does M. de Maistre desire that this error, the fruitful root of many others, should be extinguished by kings themselves.

“Help me,” he says, “with all speed to make it disappear the more quickly. It is impossible that considerations so important should not at length make their way into Protestant council chambers, and be stored up there, to descend after a time like fertilizing water into the valleys. There is every inducement for the Protestants to unite with us. Their science, which is now a horrid corrosive, will lose its deleterious qualities in allying itself with our submission, which will not refuse in its turn to derive light from their science. This great change must, however, begin with the sovereigns.”*

* Du Pape, p. 476.

None are so much interested as the great in the demolition of Protestantism; other classes may be called to aid them; the Protestant clergy alone is to be excepted.

“Several manifest signs,” he says, “exclude this ministry (the Protestant clergy) from the great work. To adhere to error is always a great evil; but to teach it by profession, and to teach it against the cry of conscience, is the extreme of evil, and absolute blindness is its inevitable consequence.”

We have, then, a right to distrust doctrines which are an evident source of wealth and domination for those who teach them; the ardent zeal with which they are inflamed is to be justly suspected.

VI.

In 1804, at the very moment when kings were struggling under the grasp of their conqueror, and plotting useless coalitions, Pius VII., so far from surrendering a jot of the ancient Roman supremacy, wrote thus to his nuncio, at Vienna:—

“The principle of the canon law is this:— That the subjects of a heretic prince are liberated from all duty, all fealty and homage towards him.” “Those who are at all versed in history,” he remarks, “cannot but be acquainted with the sentences and depositions pronounced by pontiffs and councils against princes who persisted in heresy.”

“In good truth,” concludes Pius VII., “we are fallen upon times of great calamity, and of such deep humiliation for the spouse of Jesus Christ, that it is not possible for her to practise many of her holy maxims, nor even expedient for her to bring them forward; and she is, at the same time, forced to interrupt the course of her just severity against the enemies of the faith.”

Thus we are warned. Rome (unless Pius IX. accomplish a complete revolution in its traditions) is not less tenacious of its canonical rights than are kings and nobles of their prerogatives. They protest that God is the author of these. Absolution is holy, the theocratic system is sacrosanct. It has never been destroyed, it is only suspended until the passing away of these times, so calamitous and humiliating to the church, for days of glofy are promised to her. Then, every sovereign who shall be heretical, or even of suspected faith, shall either be converted or deprived of his throne; the holy maxims of ancient times shall revive, and a just severity against the enemies of the faith shall renew its course.

VII.

It is not without reason that M. de Montalembert, while defending the Jesuits against those who reproach them with their vow of absolute obedience to the popes, is astounded at this accusation, and remarks that the bishops still make oath of absolute submission to the pope, in clauses and terms the most precise, strong, and comprehensive; and yet this important oath has never, till now, been a subject of accusation. Let us attach to each word its proper value, and we shall perceive that everything in this formula combines to render the pope the absolute chief of the world, as well temporal as spiritual, and that we must not therefore be surprised that the bishops spare no efforts to make the ecclesiastical jurisdiction predominate over every civil jurisdiction. Before he receives the mitre each bishop swears thus:—

“I will do all that in me lies to pursue, defend, increase, and strengthen the rights, honours, privileges, and the authority of the holy Roman church of our lord the pope and his successors.

“I will humbly receive the apostolic commands (the orders of the pope), and I will apply myself to their execution with the greatest zeal and the strictest punctuality.

“I promise and swear that I will with all my might persecute and combat all heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our lord the pope.”

As for the priests, every one knows that they are bound to swear implicit obedience to their bishops. It is exactly the same with the different orders and religious congregations. The Jesuits are, therefore, not the only ones bound by vow to labour for the restoration of Home’s sovereign power, and for the subjection of temporal rulers. What distinguishes them from other orders is their perfect accordance with theocratic principles, and the unremitting energy with which they follow them up to all their consequences. They it is who sustain the burden of the strife, and spur on the combatants.

Just now, indeed, the superior clergy, though never ceasing to extol the Jesuits, find themselves compelled to use language somewhat more liberal than formerly. But who will believe that these manifestations are genuine? Has not Father Roothaan himself but lately declared that his order applauded the tendencies and the acts of the new pope? Does he not loudly protest against those who have written that in Piedmont and Sicily, as well as in the Homan States, the Jesuits are striving to turn away princes from encouraging progress? Is he not indignant that they should be styled retrograde, and they should be accused of favouring the system of Metternich?

“Our Company,”he says, “is a religious order, solemnly approved by the church. Its sole object is the glory of God and the salvation of souls; its means are the practice of the evangelical counsels, and the zeal of which the apostles and apostolic men of all ages have set it the example. It knows no other means. It is a stranger to politics; and has never allied itself with any party whatsoever. Calumny may be pleased to spread perfidious insinuations, and to represent the Jesuits as mixed up with political intrigues; but I defy any one to point out to me a single priest, amongst those who are subordinate to me, who has departed on this point from the spirit and the formal prescriptions of our institution.

“Will any one pretend to insinuate that the Jesuits of the Roman States have made an alliance with Austria? Surely this would be attributing a singular importance to these men of religion! But this supposition is so contrary to common sense, reason, and evidence, that it does not even require to be refuted.

“The Company of Jesus, like the church, has neither antipathy nor predilection for the political constitutions of the several states. Its members accept with sincerity the form of government under which Providence has marked their place, whether a friendly power encourages them, or whether it merely respects in them the rights which they enjoy in common with other citizens.

“If the political institutions of the country they inhabit are defective, they quietly endure their defects; if they are in course of improvement, they applaud every amelioration; if those institutions grant new privileges to the people, they claim their just share of this advantage; if they become open to more extended and liberal views, the Jesuits profit by this to give more extension to works of beneficence and zeal. Everywhere they bow before the laws; they respect public authorities; they are endowed with all the feelings of good and loyal citizens; they partake with these their obligations, their burdens, and their rejoicings.

“It is as contrary to truth as to public notoriety that the Jesuits are in a state of permanent conspiracy against the august pontiff whom the whole universe salutes with its acclamations. To love, venerate, bless, and defend Pope Pius IX., to obey him in all things, to applaud the wise reforms and ameliorations which he shall be pleased to introduce, is for every Jesuit a duty of conscience and of justice, which it will ever be grateful to him to fulfill.”

Up to this day, then, history has been nothing else, with regard to the Jesuits, than a perpetual calumny—a diabolical conspiracy. Thus, we are not to accept any historians but such as are sanctioned by them. What has been seen in past times, what is seen at present, is not to he believed; the most authentic witnesses are to be sacrificed to the immaculate purity of this innocent order. At Lucerne, at Freiburg, in the Valais, in all places where they have succeeded in establishing their influence, however heavy may be the chains with which they have laden the people, however intolerable the compression which they have established, we are to call it all the reign of social rights and of true liberty! Well; let us say nothing more of the past, which pronounces against them such terrible condemnations; let ns look at what is close to us—let us see what is their favourite regime; let us see, amongst other laws exhumed from the dust of the middle ages, what decrees the Grand Council of the Valais, acting under their direction, has pronounced against illicit assemblies, blameable reports and speeches, &c. Here follows the first article:—

“A fine of from twenty to two hundred francs, and imprisonment for not less than a month, nor more than two years, or one of these punishments only, shall be inflicted on those who shall utter scandalous words against the holy Catholic and Roman religion, or against public morality; this sentence does not regard blasphemers who shall be punished according to the criminal laws; likewise on those who introduce, placard, expose, lend, distribute, or possess knowingly, or without authorization, writings or infamous books, or caricatures, which attack the holy religion of the state or its ministers …. The said objects, moreover, shall be confiscated. In case of repetition of the offence, the highest amount of the fine and the longest term of imprisonment may be doubled.”

The Semeur makes the following observations on this article:—

“A citizen of the Valais happens to give it as his opinion, that such or such a miracle, proclaimed by the reverend fathers, is apocryphal:—scandalous words against the holy Catholic, apostolic, and Roman religion; fine and imprisonment for an offence so heinous! He ventures to assert that certain curSs do not set the best possible example:—most scandalous words, which must be punished by the maximum of fine and imprisonment! He goes, perhaps, further; he disputes the title of the Virgin Mary to the adoration of the faithful, and maintains that the Roman church is at variance on this point with the New Testament:—this is more than scandal, it is a blasphemy, and blasphemy is a crime in this exceedingly well-governed canton. Our citizen of the Valais, with rash temerity, affirms that the morality of the Jesuits is sometimes very immoral:—blasphemy in the highest degree, and an ignominious punishment must be awarded for so heinous a crime!

“Is it conceivable that a law of this nature should be promulgated in 1845, on the frontiers of France and of Italy, in the very face of a press which takes note of all these atrocities; whilst the Jesuits wish to make it appear that they are prepared to admit a certain liberty? Is it comprehensible that they should offer to all Europe the spectacle of this ignoble thirst for despotism, this base and odious impudence, for which no name is strong enough in any known human tongue? Our country (France) was justly and deeply enraged against the law of sacrilege, which was abolished in obedience to the unanimous voice of the nation, after the days of July. But what was this law of sacrilege compared with the law promulgated in the Valais on the subject of scandalous words against the Catholic religion or its ministers? It was mildness, gentleness, and tolerance itself. It was only called into operation on the occasion of an offence committed in a place of worship during the exercises of religion, or of a direct attack upon a minister of the church. In the Valais it was enough to have uttered scandalous words,—and where? In the street, in an inn, at home, perhaps before strangers! Did the Inquisition go farther? What do I say?—did it go so far?

“We thought that the ordinances of the eleventh century, which prescribed that the tongue of the blasphemer or the heretic should be pierced with a hot iron, no longer lived but in history, as monuments of atrocious barbarism. We were mistaken; the Jesuits will not suffer anything that is cruel or infamous to perish: they may hide it for a time, they close their arsenal when the tempest roars, but let sunshine come forth again and they bring out their chains, their instruments of torture, and their merciless steel.

“Tell us, after this, of the generous principles of the Jesuits and the Romish priests! Boast of your love of liberty! Tell us for the thousandth time that you, and you alone, know how to respect the rights of nations and the progress of humanity! Advocate democracy in your sermons and in your journals! We know you too well, and shortly there will not be one reasonable man to be found who does not discern, under your borrowed mask, your insatiable tyrannic instincts!

“If there were any sincerity in your liberal maxims, you would at least express your indignation against such laws as those which have been promulgated in the Valais; you would attack the abominable enterprises of the Jesuits; but which of your journals is capable of such honourable frankness? The Univers, and the Ami de La Religion, and all the ecclesiastical gazettes, will keep silence, and on the morrow, even, these same papers will not be ashamed to reproach their adversaries with being inimical to liberty!

“Comedians! comedians! the wretched piece that you are playing will soon come to an end! beware of its denouement!”

VIII.

Just as I had finished these lines there was discovered in the Bibliotheque Royale a manuscript, containing on the subject of the Jesuits some pages which were not intended for publication, and* which possess a curious interest at the distance of two hundred years from the date when they were written. They are by Thomas Campanella, well known by his book on the City of the Sun and other works, but still more celebrated for afflictions which would have subdued any other soul than his. His testimony comes forth opportunely after having remained buried nearly two centuries. Campanella’s pages may be considered the complement of the Secret Plan; we learn from them once more by what occult mechanism some thousands of men dispersed over the face of the globe succeed in exercising an almost incredible power. I pass over pages of the cele«i brated Dominican, which contain only what would seem a tedious repetition of facts and artifices already divulged in books that have obtained great notoriety; and will only remark with Campanella, who adduces historical facts in proof of his assertion, that the Jesuits only exhibit great zeal for the pope’s infallibility when it serves their own plans, but that they make not the least account of it when it speaks in a tone of authority to impose restraints and rules upon them. Let us hear the author.

“Their father-general resides constantly in Rome, all the others yield him absolute submission. He has selected some fathers who are called assistants because they continually aid him. There is at least one of these for each nation, by whose name he is called, one being styled the Assistant of France, another of Spain, a third of Italy, a fourth of England, a fifth of Austria, and so on for all the other provinces and kingdoms. Each of them has for office to acquaint the father-general as to all events of state which take place in the province or kingdom, for which he is assistant; and this he does by means of his correspondents who reside in the provincial towns of the said kingdom. Now these correspondents inform themselves with scrupulous care as to the character, inclinations, and intentions of the sovereigns, and by each courier they acquaint the assistant with whatever facts have recently occurred or been brought to light. These are immediately communicated by the assistant to the father-general, who thereupon assembling his council, they proceed together to perform an anatomy of the world, and scrutinize the interests or the projects of all Christian princes. After having weighed all the documents, they agree among themselves to favour the interests of one prince and thwart those of another, making everything turn to their own advantage. Now as the lookers-on more easily detect the sleights-of-hand committed than those who are playing the game, so these fathers having under their eyes the interests of all princes, can very accurately appreciate the exigencies of times and places, and put in operation the most decisive means in order to favour a prince whom they are sure they can make use of for the realisation of their own interested views.

“The Jesuit fathers confess a great part of the nobility in the Catholic States, and often the sovereigns themselves; whereby they are enabled to penetrate every design and resolution, to know the dispositions of princes and subjects, and to lay them before the father-general or an assistant.

“Anybody of the least penetration may easily convince himself how many perplexities they can cause to those princes whom their own interests, the sole and exclusive motive of their actions, point out to them as adversaries.

44 Secrecy is necessary in state affairs: a state is undone when its secrets are divulged. But the Jesuit fathers, that is to say the father-general and his assistants, whether by means of the confessional or of the mutual consultations held by the correspondents who reside in all the chief towns of Christendom, or through other adherents, of whom we shall speak presently, are exactly and minutely informed of all the decisions come to in the most private councils; and they know the forces, revenues, and expenditure of sovereigns, better in a manner than the sovereigns themselves. All this costs them only so much postage. At Rome alone, as the post-masters attest, their postages for each courier amount to 60 or 70, and often to 100 gold crowns. Being thus profoundly acquainted with the interests of all sovereigns, is it not in their power to weaken the credit of any one of them with the rest, to ruin any sovereign they please in the estimation of his people, to make the latter his enemies, and to instill the leaven of revolt into the state—and all this the more easily, since by means of confessions and consultations they penetrate into the most secret thoughts of the subjects? ”

After this follow details respecting the various classes of Jesuits, laymen and priests, and their auxiliaries in sundry occult functions. 44 They have them,” says Campanelle,

“in every kingdom, province, and court.** Their choice falls on shrewd and adroit men, whom they recompense with pensions, benefices, or high offices.

“The fourth kind,** he says, “is that of the political Jesuits, in whose hands is the government of the whole order. They are of those whom the devil has tempted with that temptation which Christ endured in the wilderness, hcec omnia tibi dabo; and they have not shrunk from the offer. They have made it their task to constitute their company a perfect monarchy; and they establish it in Rome, the centre of confluence for almost all the affairs of Christendom. There resides the chief of these politicians— that is to say, their general—with many others who profess the same maxims. Being informed beforehand, through their spies and numerous correspondents, of all the affairs of the greatest importance which are pending at the court of Rome, and having their minds fixed upon those issues which accord with their own interests, each of them is assiduous in attendance on the cardinals, ambassadors, and prelates, with whom they adroitly ingratiate themselves. They talk to them of the affair in question or about to be brought forward—represent it under such colours as suit themselves—and do this so cleverly, that they make their hearers believe black is white. And forasmuch as first impressions, especially when they are derived from clerical persons, usually leave deep traces on the mind, it follows that extremely important negociations, conducted by ambassadors, princes, and other eminent personages of the Roman court, have often not succeeded as princes would have desired, the Jesuits having forestalled the influence of the princes or their agents by their insidious statements.

“The same artfulness which they use with the Roman prelates, they exhibit also in their dealings with sovereigns, either directly or through the medium of the Jesuits of the second class who are away from Rome. Thus does the greater part of the affairs of Christendom pass through the hands of the Jesuits; and those affairs alone succeed to which they offer no resistance.

“They formerly supplicated His Holiness Gregory XIII. (on the colourable plea of the good of the Church) to enjoin all legates and apostolic nuncios to take, for companions and confidants, Jesuits whose councils should guide them in all their actions.

“By such manoeuvres, and by that knowledge they have of affairs of state, the principal Jesuits have acquired the friendship of several temporal and spiritual princes, whom they have prevailed on to do and say many things for their advantage. Hence have resulted two great evils.

“The first is, that, abusing the friendship and kindness of princes, they have not scrupled to ruin many rich and noble families, by usurping their patrimonies. They have enticed into their order such of the pupils in their schools as were most remarkable for their talents; and very often, when the latter have become useless to them through infirmities or other causes, the Jesuits have turned them off under some pretext or another, but without restoring their property, of which, during the period of profession, the order had taken care to become possessor.

“The second evil is, that these fathers are sedulous to make known the friendship and intimacy they enjoy with princes, and give it out for still greater than it really is, in order to engage the sympathies of all the ministers, and thus excite everybody to have recourse to them for obtaining favours. . They have publicly boasted of their ability to create cardinals, nuncios, lieutenants, governors, and other functionaries. There are some among them who have even made bold to affirm that their general can do much more than the pope; and others have alleged that it is better to belong to their order than to be a cardinal. All these things have been said publicly; and there is scarcely any one who, in conversing familiarly with them, has not heard them give utterance to the like sentiments.

M Amply provided with resources of this kind, they affirm that they can favour or disgrace whomsoever they please; and covering themselves with the cloak of religion, the better to secure belief, they often succeed in their designs.

“It is not long since one of the leading Jesuits, speaking in public to one of the leading sovereigns in the name of his Company, began with these audacious words, founded on the notion that they are a Power:—‘ Our Company has always maintained a good understanding with your Serenity, &c.

“These reverend fathers make it their business to have it believed that all those whom the prince favours in any manner whatever have been their favourites; and, by this means, they acquire more mastery over subjects than their monarch himself. This is highly prejudicial to the latter, both because it is inconsistent with every interest of state that ecclesiastics so ambitious and politic should have so much power over the will of ministers as to be able, if they please, to produce treason or riots; and because, through their influence over the ministers, their adherents, they introduce sworn Jesuits into the prince’s service as councillors or secretaries; these, again, intrigue until they induce the prince to employ some Jesuits as confessors or preachers, and then all together ply their task as spies and informers, rendering a minute account to the general of all that passes in the secret councils. Thence it happens that certain projects get wind immediately, secrets of great importance are discovered, yet no one can tell who is the traitor, and sometimes suspicion falls on those who are not guilty.”

“As from different plants the alembic extracts an unguent capable of curing many sores; as the bees suck honey from many flowers, so the Jesuit fathers draw profit from the infallible knowledge they have of all the interests of princes, and of the facts which occur in all parts, being skilled to the use of speech, so as to obtain their profit through the good or evil fortune of others, but more frequently through the latter than the former. Often, too, they prevail with princes, whose dispositions they have already sounded, by hinting at the possession of great means to enable the latter to accomplish their designs and crown all their desires. But when by the help of princes they have succeeded in their views, judging that if they aided those princes to rise too high, the latter might one day do them a mischief, they begin, as lawyers do with their causes, to protract and delay everything, and, with surprising artifice and cunning, they turn the cards, and finally ruin th? designs they had themselves suggested.

“From all that has been said, it follows that the Jesuits never act with the least honesty towards any princes whatever, lay or ecclesiastic, and that they aid them only as far as their own interests require. It also follows that their aid should never be accepted by princes, and still less by prelates, because they are equally ready to bestow their attachment on everybody, and make themselves Frenchmen with the French, Spaniards with Spaniards, and so forth, according to circumstances; and since, provided they compass their own ends, they care not though it be to the detriment of this one or that, the enterprises in which the Jesuit fathers have meddled have rarely had a good result.

Moreover, knowing the interests of all princes, and being exactly informed of all that is daily transacted in the most secret councils, those who profess themselves partisans of France propose to the king, and his principal ministers, certain conditions of importance, which the political fathers transmit to them from Rome. Now, as they do the same with regard to Spain and other countries, there ensues such a jealous distrust in the hearts of princes that the one no longer puts any faith in the other, which is immensely prejudicial to the public tranquillity and the general welfare of the Christian world, such distrust rendering very difficult the formation of a league against the common enemy, for peace between the princes themselves is insecure.

“Sometimes we see a person afflicted with a dangerous disease; he shrieks out piteously; every one thinks him in great danger, but no one can guess the nature and origin of the disease. Thus every one complains of the Jesuits: one, because he is persecuted by them; another, because they have dealt dishonestly by him; but still the evil goes on, and it is not easy to apprehend its cause. Now, that cause consists in their huge desire to aggrandise themselves evermore. To accomplish this, they will stop at nothing, whether it be to displease everybody, or to deceive princes, or to oppress the poor, or to extort widows’ fortunes, or to ruin the most noble families; and they very often sow the seeds of suspicion among Christian princes, in order to have opportunities of mixing in their most important affairs.

“To demonstrate how excessive is their passion for aggrandisement, I might adduce numberless proofs from experience. In the time of Gregory XIII. had not the Jesuits the audacity to solicit of the pope the investiture of all the parochial churches of Rome, in order to lay the foundations of their monarchy? But what they could not obtain in Rome they have at last recently obtained in England, where they have procured the election of an arch-priest, bound by oath to their Company. This man, far from protecting the clergy, is like a ravening wolf to all the priests who wish to be independent of the Jesuits, and drives them to despair, forbidding them to converse together under severe penalties. Almost all the English clergy have become sworn Jesuits, and none are now received in the colleges but those who pledge their words to become Jesuits; so that should that kingdom return to Catholicism, England would give birth to an effective Jesuit monarchy, since the ecclesiastical revenues, all the abbeys, benefices, and bishoprics, the arch-priestships, and the other dignities, would be conferred on none but Jesuits.

“If now, when they have no temporal jurisdiction, they exhibit to the world such great and scandalous disorders, what would they do if unhappily one of them were elected pope? In the first place, he would fill the sacred college with Jesuits, and by that means the pontificate would remain for ever in the hands of the Company. Moreover, the sacred college being moved only by its interests, and possessing the papal power, might they not endanger the states of several princes, especially those most contiguous to Rome? The Jesuit pontiff would bestow on his order the investiture of some towns or of some temporal jurisdiction, in which it would adroitly maintain itself, to the great injury of other princes. When the sacred college was filled with Jesuits, the latter would be the arbiters of Christ’s whole patrimony; and like the dropsical patient, whose thirst increases as he drinks, the more greatness they acquired the more they would covet, and they would cause a thousand troubles. And as there is nothing so susceptible of changes as states, these fathers would put in operation all their artifices and resources, and would strive to disorganize everything in order to realize universally the form of domination which is dearest to them; and by this means they would become real monarchs.

“Were I ordered to write what I think the best to keep the Jesuits within rule, without doing them the least injury, but on the contrary procuring them the greatest advantage—for I would fain make them real monarchs, not of this world, which is but vile clay, but of souls, which are Christ’s treasure—I should be ready to do so with charity, and with all the strength it should please the Lord to grant me.”

IX.

I shall be asked, perhaps, do I think that any one has ventured to suggest elsewhere than in the occult committee the startling project of dispensing priests, monks, or nuns, from real celibacy? If it were so, it would still be very difficult to obtain tangible evidence of the promulgation of such a doctrine. Though I am of opinion that in its most audacious extreme it must have remained unrealized, I still believe that something of the kind has gone abroad; and if I am not mistaken, I have met with some tokens of its existence.

Nothing is more common than the licentiousness of the clergy, at least in Italy, where little pains are taken to conceal it; for the heads of the church are the less disposed to visit it with punishment, since the impunity they extend to it seems a sort of compensation for the total sacrifice of freedom to which the clergy are still doomed.

I knew a lady, a widow with one child, who was frequently visited by a clergyman of staid habits and irreproachable character. No one in the world would have presumed to entertain the least suspicion as to the nature of their intercourse, so extremely respectful was their behaviour towards each other.

One day, just as he had left the house, I paid a visit to the lady—a charming person, whose beauty was of the kind peculiar to that period of life at which youth is past, but decline has not begun. The moment I set eyes on her I was greatly surprised to see patches of white powder scattered over her bosom and shoulders. The venerable clergyman wore hair-powder.

Unwilling to hurt her feelings, but regardful of her interest, I led her to a looking-glass, where she blushed in great confusion. I entreated her to pardon my boldness, assured her of my discretion, and at last put her at her ease. She then confessed to me that she tenderly loved that grave and austere man, whom any one, to look at him, would have supposed insensible to such a passion; but she assured me that under a rough bark he concealed a warm and loving heart.

Of course I did not allow so good an opportunity of putting questions to escape me. I asked her, in the first place, how her reverend friend reconciled his vow of chastity with his conduct.

“It is true,” she said, “the church must have priests who are not married, for otherwise the clergy would lack authority and prestige; and besides, confession is’ perhaps still more necessary than preaching (astonishing remark!); but if celibacy were abolished, there could be no more confession. On the other hand, how can men help loving? A man does not put off human nature when he becomes a priest. Now, there is but one way of reconciling these seeming contrarieties: and that is to love, and even with all the ardour of the senses, but without compromising the clergyman, making, if necessary, the greatest sacrifices— except, she added with a smile, that of not loving—in order not to expose the priesthood to the contempt or derision of the multitude.

“As for our affection, it is no obstacle, we are very sure, to sacred duties: far from being so, it excites us to fulfil them with more devotedness. Perhaps you will be surprised if I tell you that he whom I love regards, as a recompense from God for his zeal, the possession of a mistress who so well understands her position, and conducts herself with such prudence.”

When I remarked to her that I could not understand the vehement indignation with which the individual in question professed to regard such faults, and that this appeared to me an instance of bad faith and hypocrisy, she made answer that he acted in perfect sincerity; for he believed iirmly that the clergy ought to take care never to afford the laity grounds for scandal; what incensed him was not the fact itself (since he knew well that every man, priest or lay, was irresistibly impelled to an attachment for some woman), but the levity and indifference to the interests of the church shown in the neglect of precautions against discovery, which are less difficult to take than is commonly supposed.

Some years afterwards the lady’s lover reaped the reward of his piety, decorum, and prudence, being appointed a bishop. His mistress accompanied him to his diocese, where he had no sooner arrived than he took measures which to many priests seemed intolerable. It was seriously believed that he was an enemy to the sex, and one of those whom nature has created incomplete. One of my friends, who was among the victims of these inexorable reforms, wrote and told me that he was living on bread and water in a convent, as a punishment for a liaison of which he had made no secret, and that he could not tell when his penance would end. He was not aware that I could deliver him forthwith. A sharp note addressed to the lady, in which I strongly reprobated the rigour displayed in the case, produced the desired effect. I saw her some time afterwards. She defended the prelate’s conduct, and thought he was right in not tolerating those thoughtless and awkward persons who exposed the church to such serious disadvantages. You know well, she said, that his lordship is not so unjust as to desire that his priests should surpass human -nature; but he thinks he has a right to insist on prudence and circumspection for the honour of the church. And then, as she had picked up a smattering of Latin, she quoted to me (from St. Paul!) these words, which the bishops are constantly repeating to the clergy: Si non caste, saltern caute—If not chaste, at least be cautious.

X.

Let us now refer to Section XV. of the Secret Sitting, in which mention is made of the hospitals a la Saint Rock. This passage would have remained for me a dead letter, but for a fact which cast a strong light upon it.

When very young, I had been placed as a boarder with an ex-Capuchin, Father Evasio Fantini, who was every moment beset by crowds of penitents of every rank and condition. What I saw and heard early excited in me reflections which were not without influence on the bent of my mind. At a later period I passed some time with the old man during my vacations, and used to accompany him in all his walks, delighting to hear him call up his recollections of the cloisters, of which he was a living echo. He took pleasure in making me acquainted with everything that passed in them to the minutest details, with a frankness and kindly simplicity worthy of his age.. What I learned from him was more useful to me, towards judging of monks and the monastic system, than all the books I have since read.

One evening at Casal Monferrat, as we were returning home from a walk, we observed an extraordinary bustle and excitement, and soon learned that faint cries had been heard issuing from underground in a girl’s boarding-school; masons had been employed to search the spot, and a newborn infant had been found in a disgustingly filthy state in the privy of the house occupied by D. Bossola, a parish priest of the town. D. Bossola and his servant-woman were proved guilty. I will not repeat all the observations uttered among the crowd; it was not safe for priests to be seen there at such a moment, and we hastily came away. The priest was sent to a convent, and his accomplice was incarcerated. And, by-the-bye, there was much talk some time afterwards of the interest shown for her by the clergy; she received visits, was comforted, aided, protected, and treated with the most assiduous kindness.

Just as Father Fantini and I were quitting the spot, we were accosted by a reverend Jesuit father, who had just stepped out of a carriage, and learned the whole story. He was angry, but for reasons we were far from suspecting.

“Never would such things happen,” he said to us, “if the clergy, and especially the bishops, had an ounce of brains” (uri oncia di sale in zacca). “Those who wielded
power, religious or political, were all a pack of asses. It ought to be impossible for such dangerous scandals ever to be made public.”

“What would you do to prevent it?” said the old ex-Capuchin. “You Jesuits are men with grand secrets; but amongst them all you have not yet found a remedy for a great evil. You have not a secret for effecting that a man shall not be human. I have been confessing both sexes for fifty years; the confessional is my main business. Now, up to this time my penitents have always been in the same tale; one most obstinate sin holds the sceptre and sways all the rest; and if God will not pass the sponge over it, hell will be paved with nothing but tonsures, and peopled only with celibataries.”

The Jesuit smiled, shook his head, and said he did not understand.

“Leave human nature as it is,” he said; ” men will not reform what has been made by an artificer who will suffer none to correct him. As for me, I think nature very good, especially on that point on which people so foolishly affect to consider her bad. One thing alone is important in the matter—namely, to know clearly whether it is intended that the church shall subsist, or shall share the fate of many another buried cult. Confession is the prime mover of the church; and without celibacy there is no confession.”

I replied to him that it is not an easy thing to make celibacy and the confessional go together; that it is not easy to contrive that the candle shall not take fire when the match is applied to it.

“Too true, alas!” said the old man immediately; u the lamb will remain safe and sound under the wolf’s tooth, before the young priest, with his passions glowing, can remain long without burning in the furnace of the confessional.”

“The evil,” said the Jesuit, “is not where you see it. No one is afraid of burning in the furnace; and the candle,” he added slily, “likes to be lighted and relighted as long as it lasts.”

“I begin to understand you,” said the old man. “Thou becomest thy name: Jesuit! ” (For venerated as he was by all, Father Fantini said thou and thee to everybody, from
the peasant to personages of the highest birth.*) “What you complain of is solely that the priest’s honour suffers, that confession is jeopardised, and even in danger of total wreck.”

“I say, by all means pluck the rose,” said the Jesuit; “but no pricking of the fingers! And to explain myself precisely, I will ask why means should not be taken to make it impossible that a priest should ever meet with mischances and be exposed to obloquy? Might there not be provided in every province establishments, in which the sex which suffers most from the results of human weakness might find a refuge free from care or fear, or any of those consequences which make it so often repent of having yielded? ”

“Why, you don’t mean to say,” exclaimed the old man, “that you would have a seraglio established in every district, to which none should have access but monks and priests, and where they should find accomplices comfortably boarded, lodged, and clothed at the expense of the church? ”

“Not exactly that, but something like it,” was the reply; and then the speaker looked on us with a scrutinizing glance, as if he hesitated to proceed. As for me, the reader may imagine my curiosity to know what he was driving at. All I did to lead him on was to let him understand that, although the octogenarian stood out against him,, he would not find me invincibly opposed to his notions.

“Still,” said I, “it would be favouring and encouraging a passion which, even when it encounters obstacles or consequences apparently the most likely to check it, still rushes forward with undiminished audacity and blindness. What would become of it if every obstacle* was removed and every untoward consequence was rendered impossible?”

“Had not David at least twenty wives?” he replied. “Whenever he was smitten with the beauty of a daughter of Eve, did he not make her his concubine? Would not any one who should now imitate him be regarded as the most abominable of libertines? And yet is it not written that David was a man after God’s own heart? Other holy men had a greater number of women. Solomon is not blamed for having had a thousand, but only for having taken them from among the heathen, and for having been beguiled by them to worship their gods. Why, then, should it be a crime to know one woman, when in former times, notwithstanding the oppression thence resulting for the woman, God was not offended with those who indulged so copiously in that respect?”

I will not repeat all he said on this subject, for it would be necessary to enter into a labyrinth of theological questions. But what strongly excited my attention was his mention of a Hospital of St. Roch, existing, he said, at Rome. The rules of the institution, which he explained to us in detail, are such as to secure any woman from the usual unpleasant consequences of female frailty. These regulations seemed fabulous to Father Fantini; but the Jesuit insisted so strongly on the reality of what he had been telling us, that for my part I did not hesitate to believe him. He met all our objections without flinching.

I myself was afterwards assailed with the same objections in Switzerland, when I offered an explanation of the passage in my text wherein mention is made of a Hospital of St. Roch. Fortunately I was able to put them entirely aside by means of a testimony that leaves no grounds for suspicion.

In the following passage, written by M. Poujoulat, that writer has unwittingly done me a great service:—

“One very admirable abode of charity is the arch-hospital of St. Roch, intended for pregnant women who wish to be delivered in secret. They are not asked either their names or their condition, and they may even keep their faces veiled during the whole time they are within the walls. Should one of them die, her name would not be inserted in any register, numbers being invariably used in the establishment instead of names. Young women, whose pregnancy, if known, would bring dishonour on themselves or their families, are received at St. Roch several months before their time, so as to prevent the shame and despair that might drive them to infanticide. The chaplains, physicians, midwives, and all who are employed in the establishment, are bound to strict secrecy, which is enjoined under the severest penalties; whoever should violate THIS LAW WOULD BE ARRAIGNED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL OF the holy office. Every provision is made that nothing which occurs within St. Roch shall transpire out of doors. The arch-hospital is managed by pious widows. All strangers, be they who they may, are absolutely excluded; none but those who are employed in the hospital are allowed to cross the threshold. After their confinement, the patients can leave the house at any hour of the night they think most favourable, and dressed in garments that disguise their gait. The house, too, is isolated, and all around it is solitude and mystery.

“What can be more generous, noble, and Christian, than these pious cares to spread the cloak of pity over the errors of frailty!”

The suppression of foundling hospitals certainly cannot take place under existing circumstances without serious inconveniences; before they could be dispensed with, nothing less would be requisite than a fundamental change in the system of society. As for the institution of St. Roch, there is, after all, nothing in it very generous or very Christian. In what interest has it been founded? Who are the authors of its regulations? They are an immense number of celibataries, who have but too strong an interest in concealing by any and every means the vast evils of a false celibacy. What is really surprising is, that those who profess themselves the guardians of the public morals, and who inveigh against vice and debauchery as a consequence of the incredulity of the age, should be the very persons who display such ingenuity in inventing the most efficacious means for screening the licentious from public observation. What a sublime effort of piety it is to rid oneself of every thorn, and to enjoy the perfume of the rose without fear, as the Jesuit expressed himself! That same cloak of pity, spread with pious care over the errors of frailty, would have been called an abominable invention, had it been woven by other hands.

“The sacred groves,” said our Jesuit, “must by all means be rendered inaccessible to every profane eye, and the rash intruder must be laid low by the avenging thunder.”

The ex-Capuchin, pursuing the same imagery, and alluding to a great number of monks and priests whom he had long confessed, replied—“As for what you call the sacred grove, I have handled a great deal of its timber, and found it all rotten and worm-eaten: the worm was always the same. It is a very bad sort of timber, indeed.”

“It is one,” said the Jesuit, looking particularly at me, “that can be made to shine like the purest gold.”

When he was about to quit us, I asked his name. “Is it his name you ask? ” said the old Capuchin; “but do you not know that a Jesuit of the superior grades, who is on a mission, must have at least as many different names as there are hours in the day? What a child you are! He has come to feel our pulses, and that is a reason the more why he should invent a name on .the spot.” Upon this, the Jesuit opened the door and left us, with a sardonic smile exclaiming, “It is no lying proverb that says, ‘There is nothing simpler and slier than a Capuchin.”

“I know a truer one,” retorted the old man, “and that is, ‘It takes seven Capuchins to make a Jesuit.'” We parted with a hearty laugh on both sides.

But to come to the fact I alluded to just now. The Rev. Mr. Hartley, an Anglican minister, to whom I had imparted the Secret Plan in Geneva, after having come to me three or four times to read it, told me he did not doubt its authenticity; that to suppose it my own work would infer my possession of qualities and conditions of which I was entirely destitute; but that he thought I had let myself be tempted to add to it the pages concerning celibacy, by way of a climax to all the rest. “This part of the work,” he said, (Secret Plan, I should never have ventured to go so far.”

I then narrated to him everything concerning the Hopital St, Rock, I could not enumerate all the objections with which he assailed me, and with such force as to silence me completely. There were moments, even, when I fancied I had been made the dupe of a forged tale; and I was quite appalled when I contemplated the picture which my reverend friend drew of the consequences flowing from those regulations of the Hospital of St. Roch, which the Jesuit so much admired.

The Anglican minister was not favourable to the publication of the Secret Plan, Though he believed that the tactics described in it were real, and was convinced that to them Jesuitism owes its most brilliant conquests, yet he too, like many others, thought it imprudent and dangerous to initiate the multitude into all these stratagems. He again attacked me keenly on the pages which he averred were my work.

“Supposing such an institution existed,” said he, “could any man of sense believe that it could have remained occult? Would married persons have abstained from denouncing it, or at least holding it up to public derision? It would thus have become known, and would have broken down before it could have made any great way. Think how long Rome has been visited by legions of English, who explore and anatomise it more closely than the Romans themselves. Consider how much ridicule and opprobrium is cast on our clergy for having rejected celibacy; what finer opportunity could they have had to lay bare, to the disgrace of the Romish clergy, the expedients by which they secure themselves against all scandal? Yet not a word has ever been written to that effect. Had I no other argument than this, I should deem it invincible; but there are others besides of a higher order. I know how institutions, evidently bad, come to be submitted to through the force of centuries, heedlessness, the tyranny of habit, or potent interests. But most of them sprang up in barbarous times, and were formed little by little. Now, as for the regulations in question, if they existed, we should have to admit that they were the work of our own times, and that they had been planned, not piecemeal and gradually, but in one bulk, for the sole purpose of giving free course to the vices of the clergy! And who are those who should have proposed to themselves such an aim? Not one, or many priests, but the whole body of the prelates, with the pope at their head. I cannot bring myself to attribute to them such consummate depravity as this would infer. However I dislike Rome, I cannot possibly believe that a numerous body of men who respect themselves, who are watched by the public, and have formidable enemies, could conspire together to systematize the impunity of debauchery, and even take extraordinary pains to put it at its ease! Why, it would be a vast brothel, under high protection, and screened from infamy. The encouragement to crime would here be flagrant. You would have done better,” he concluded in a tone of severity, “not to put forward this fable.

The crimes of Rome are weighty enough without inventing others to charge her with. These objections stand like a wall of brass, which nothing can shake.”

Any one who had seen me would have been sure that my cause was lost. I really knew not what to say, so exceedingly strong did his arguments appear even in my own eyes. As for the pages of the Secret Plan that relate to celibacy, had the world argued against me, of course it could not have made me believe that a thing belonged to me which did not.

Some months afterwards, when turning over several new works in a bookseller’s, I lighted on M. Poujoulat’s, and found in it the passage I have quoted. How great was my delight! I hurried off instantly with the volume in my hand to Mr. Hartley, who was just returned from a journey to Nice. Before conquering him in my turn, I wished to resuscitate the question. He appeared vexed at my audacity, and pressed me with objections still more pointed than those I have already reported. I let him enjoy his triumph, and my defeat appeared consummated. Logic, common-sense, and rules, were all for him. Meanwhile, in order to make him fully persuaded of the credit due to the authority on which I was about to base my proof, I made him read certain passages in which M. Poujoulat speaks of his relations with Gregory XVI., his docility with regard to the censorship, and his unbounded zeal for the triumph of Catholicism; after this, I laid before him the passage quoted above.

He was stupified. He read it two or three times, and at last confessed that he was forced to yield to evidence, and did not conceal from me that until then he had looked on me with great distrust. He frankly acknowledged his injustice, and exclaimed, “This Rome! this Rome! it bewilders the reason. We cannot apply to it any of the known and ordinary rules of judgment: it tramples on them all; it makes real what seems impossible; and we may well say of it that truth is stranger than fiction.”

One is fortunate when he can refute his antagonist’s arguments in this manner. One plain fact suddenly demolished an immense fabric: the wall of brass fell to the ground.

But do we not at this moment witness events, for good and for ill, which, if they had been predicted yesterday, would have been rejected as incredible? A pope is intent on progress; a government born of revolution is making itself the support of the Jesuits in Switzerland; frightful crimes are committed in high places; and the official regions are flooded with a corruption, the possibility of which would have been utterly disbelieved seventeen years ago.

XI.

Had it been announced some months ago that there was about to appear a book proving that the conclave in which Ganganelli was elected pope, had been a sink of venality and simony, in which nearly all the courts of Europe and a considerable number of cardinals had dabbled, and that Ganganelli had been elected only on condition of abolishing the Jesuits, no one would have believed the assertion, although the author had affirmed that he had seen and read the documents proving all this turpitude. Yet we are constrained to admit no less, now that M. Cretineau Joly comes forward with his proofs to establish this strange fact.

“When I had finished,” he says, “I stood aghast at my own work; for above the throng of names that jostle together for mutual dishonour, there is one which the Apostolic See appeared to cover with its inviolability. Princes of the church, for whom I have long cherished a respectful affection, entreated me not to rend the veil that concealed such a pontificate from the world’s eyes. The General of the Company of Jesus, who had so many strong motives for being interested in the discoveries I have made, added his entreaties to those of some cardinals. In the name of his order, and for the honour of the Holy See, he besought me, almost with tears in his eyes, to give up the publication of this history. Even the wish and authority of the sovereign pontiff, Pius IX., were invoked in the counsels and representations of which my work was the object.

“To a Catholic, how painful it is to detect princes of the church in flagrant acts of lying and venality; still more painful to see a sovereign pontiff timidly resisting the iniquity he encouraged by his ambition, and annihilating himself on the throne, when he had done so much to ascend it. But does not such a spectacle, which no doubt will never be repeated, does it not inspire a sentiment of sorrow which history cannot help recording? Is not the crime of the supreme priest equal to the crimes of the whole people? Does it not surpass them in the eyes of the Eternal Judge?

“The world swarms with writers who have the genius of evil: to us there remains only the boldness of truth. The moment is come to speak it to all. It will be sad both for the Chair of St. Peter and for the Sacred College, and for the whole Catholic world.”

We are free to admit everything except the tears and supplications of the General of the Jesuits. It was rather he, we think, who believed that the time was come for drawing from their concealment documents long collected, and that it was he who “excited the writer to unveil the mystery of iniquity,” and to make known that when the Company was abolished, “then was seen the abomination in the temple.” Vainly would M. Cretineau Joly put the order of Jesuits out of question in this matter; it is a stratagem which we see through. It is to no purpose he exclaims, “I must boldly declare that there is not only want of agreement, but complete disagreement between the author and the Fathers of the Company of Jesus.” This is going too far, and pointing out the battery by dint of too much pains to mask it. His efforts to maintain that the original manuscripts did not come to him from the Jesuits, are equally unfortunate. Who more than the Jesuits could possess the art of insinuating themselves everywhere, inveigling, and employing thousands of agents all over Europe to get hold of secret papers carefully put away and kept in all the chanceries, and the most mysterious diplomatic correspondences? For it is in these terms M. Cretineau himself characterizes the documents he has in his hands, and the almost insurmountable difficulties of getting possession of them. It is amazing and inexplicable that those who were the most implicated by these documents did not make haste to destroy them immediately after the conclave; for whilst they existed, personages of the highest rank, including even a pope, were exposed to the danger of being rendered infamous in history. Here are two enigmas which shock the reason, and which it would be exceedingly difficult to admit if the fact were not indisputable.

One is tempted to believe, from the manner in which M. Cretineau Joly defends himself, that far from its being his intention to prove that he does not derive all these original manuscripts from the Jesuits, it is, on the contrary, his aim to let that fact be understood; for the argument he uses to put the Jesuits out of question, implicates them more than ever.

“At what period, or by what mysterious ramifications/’ he says, “could they have deceived or suborned all the ambassadors, all the conservators of the archives?

“No doubt,” he says, speaking hypothetically of the Jesuits, “they have possessed these documents since an unascertained period; why did they never make use of them during their suppression?

“The Jesuits, then, have not furnished me with any of these documents, for the very simple reason that such pieces could never have been in their archives. They have done all in their power to stop the work; but they have failed, because I have thought that in conscience I ought not to keep the light under a bushel.”

So then M. Cretineau, an ordinary individual, has been able, alone and unaided, to accomplish that very difficult thing which would have been impossible for such a company as that of the Jesuits.

Having given these proofs that he is not the “liege man of the Company,” he is more happy in his replies to those who have attacked his book as a romance.

“If,” says he, “the letters of Bernis (one of the cardinals in the conclave) stood alone, without any other warrant than his word, we hold that doubt would be allowable, and we should doubt; but it is not he alone who, for the amusement of his idle hours, invents all these events, histories, and simoniacal projects, of which he makes himself the echo, the accomplice, or the censor. Outside the conclave intrigue marches with head erect, backed by ministers and ambassadors whose correspondence strikingly coincides with the romance which some would fain attribute to the cardinal. But these diplomatic correspondences show as much as possible a common bond and centre; they dovetail, in the cabinets of Versailles, Vienna, Madrid, Naples, and Lisbon, with other dispatches which contain the same plans and avowals.

“The simoniacal conspiracy is manifest. Bernis and Cardinal Orsini repudiate it at first, but afterwards they join in it; and if this immense process were tried before a jury of bishops, or merely of upright men, do you suppose that after examination of the documents cited in the work, the election and the reign of Clement XIV. would not he regarded as one of the sores of the Apostolic See?”

Let us take note of this language: it will be of importance to remember it. A little further on he protests that, notwithstanding all he has been saying, “it never entered his thoughts to invalidate the election of Ganganelli.” His defence is nothing but a series of legerdemain, of subtilties and sophisms, denying on the one hand what he affirms on the other. But indeed the cause he defends makes all these contradictions inevitable.

“In my eye$,” he says, “and by the documents I have published, Pope Clement XIV. (Ganganelli) has never been sullied with the crime of simony, properly so called. Ambition led him astray. A victim to the position in which he placed himself, he has incurred the eulogy of the enemies of unity —a eulogy which for a priest, a bishop, above all for a pope, acting in the plenitude of his apostolic authority, is the most disgraceful of condemnations. This pope, whose name becomes popular only at moments when the enemy’s batteries are playing upon the See of Rome—this Ganganelli, who is deified whenever revolutionists affect an air of compunction in order to arrive the faster at their ends— I have represented struggling with the calamities he accumulated round St. Peter’s chair; and I have felt for him the pity due to his private virtues and his misfortunes. There is a wide difference between this sentiment and desertion of the cause of justice. The memory of Clement XIV. had always been attacked and extolled without convincing proofs. Now, public opinion may, in safety of conscience, hear and determine this great suit. When the time shall have come, I will speak out the rest.

“There were attempts at simony,” he says again, “on the part of the ambassadors, ministers, and Spanish cardinals. Terror, intrigue, and motives of family interest, were assiduously employed to sway some cardinals in the conclave. Ganganelli was lured away by ambition beyond his duties and his most secret wishes: he desired the papacy, thinking perhaps that his heart was set on a work beneficial to Christendom; he entered into a sort of an engagement. If this does not constitute simony—and we are firmly persuaded that it does not—let us add, nevertheless, that such a manner of acting in a prince of the church borders very closely on scandal and corruption. Furthermore let us add, that the words of the cordelier to Cardinal Castelli are an evidence of knavery which everybody will condemn.”

The last lines of this fragment are glaringly inconsistent with the first; concession follows concession, until at last we have it admitted that Ganganelli’s conduct borders very closely on scandal and corruption, and that he displays knavery. Would the reader have more? The same writer beholds in him only “a pope who made cunning his ladder.” And this he calls a sort of an engagement. There is not even a trace of simony, he says. Wherefore, then, such bitter reproaches, as though he had been the worst of popes? If he was under no formal and explicit engagement, then his brief was his free act and deed; and in suppressing the Jesuits, he was really actuated by the grave and imperative motives he alleges. The abolition was, therefore, the work of five years’ reflection, and of the conviction arrived at by this pope, that the order was dangerous to the church, and would finally hurry it to destruction. Ganganelli would thus be the most innocent of all concerned, and quite unconnected with all the ^villanous schemes and infamous manoeuvres. The venal compact is, nevertheless, proved in the most irrefragable manner: it is the very basis of the book, and that book is nugatory if Clement XIV. was not a party to the compact. Now, the words of the same writer, on which he rests all the importance of his book, are clear and precise, and they do implicate Ganganelli.

“The bargain” he says, “which gave him to the church, has hitherto been always denied by the Jesuits and by several annalists. We have cast an unexpected light on this point; with the documents before us, which we have exhumed, doubt is no longer possible .”

These discoveries have appeared so strange and incredible, that some have even ventured to contest their validity; others on all hands demand the complete publication of the original manuscripts.

I will now mention a curious specimen of the disputes between the cardinals in this conclave into which we have been enabled to peep. The prelate attacked was one of Voltaire’s friends.

“Overwhelmed with reproaches, Bernis tried to recover his position by starting personal considerations, and he said, “Equality ought to prevail among us; we are all here by the same right and title.’ Whereupon old Alexander Albani, raising his red cardinal’s hat, forcibly exclaimed, ‘No, Eminence, we are not all here by the same right and title; for it was not a courtesan that placed this hat on my head.’

“The recollection of the Marquise de Pompadour, evoked in the conclave, closed the mouth of Cardinal Bernis. The allusion told.”

Such a cardinal knew too well with whom he had to do not to be able to retort with the same force. But what is really astonishing is, that although it be confessed that the conclave was a downright mart, wherein the movement of the market from hour to hour, and the price current of consciences were noted and recorded—and although, in spite of all efforts to disguise the truth, it is evident that such of the cardinals as sided with the Jesuits were also the subjects of similar temptations—notwithstanding all this, M. Cretineau Joly has yet written such words as these:

“We may assert, that at no time did the Sacred College consist of more pious and edifying members. The exceptions in this respect are few.”

The author is deliberately resolved on heaping infamy upon this conclave, and at the very same time proving its almost spotless innocence.

If still stronger proofs are required that Ganganelli must have consented, must have owned accomplices, and bound himself by promises, here, according to the same writer, is what happened immediately upon the pope’s accession.

“The distribution of the high functions of the Roman court is made by the diplomatic body. Pagliarini, the bookseller, who, under the protection of Pombal, inundated Europe and Rome itself with his pamphlets against the Holy See and against good morals, obtained by the brief cum sicut accepimus the decoration of the Golden Spur.

Thus Pombal ennobled him whom Clement XIII. had condemned to the galleys, and he asked for a cardinal’s hat for his brother. Every one strove to secure an equivalent for the part he had taken in Ganganelli’s nomination; every one insisted on high office, and trafficked on his suffrage to secure a hold on the helm of the church. One would have imagined that the constitutional system had invaded the conclave, such was the throng of craving intriguers and proteges. It was the day of self-seeking, the day of wages.”

The elevation of popes by corrupt influences, and even by crime, is no new thing. Although in times of censorship and inquisition, history could not know or relate every thing, yet it has recorded scandals, trafficking and bargains, enough to hinder our being surprised at anything. Still they would have us believe that the Holy Spirit always presides at the elections of the Roman pontiffs; only, those who thus speak are forced to own that, whereas it formerly spoke by the lips of the clergy and the people, some cardinals have since succeeded in monopolizing it.

In fine, never could one have believed, never could one have dared to suspect, that so many ambassadors, ministers, princes, and cardinals, could have concerted together, without the least shame, to commit the greatest of sacrileges. The conclave in which this took place would still to this hour be regarded as one of the most edifying, were it not that from it issued the pope who abolished the order of the Jesuits. What was necessary in order that a mystery, which had bo long remained impenetrable, should be unsealed, was that the pride and vanity of a potent congregation should be brought in play. Nothing less was requisite than the interest of such a corporation as that of the Jesuits, in order that the most profound secrets should be plucked from the archives of all the courts of Europe, no one knows how. I repeat, that if all had been said without that mass of proofs which are ready to be produced, the objections would have appeared insurmountable.

One word more, while we are on the subject, as to the strange work of an advocate of the Company of Jesus.

“Full of reverence for the pontifical authority,” says M. Cretineau Joly, “we do not pronounce judgment on an act that emanated from the apostolic chair.”

What, you do not pronounce judgment? Your humility and reverence are but contempt. You have declared null and void the suppressing brief, and you abstain from judging? Can any condemnation be stronger? But let that pass.

If there be any fact beyond question, it is that Ganganelli’s death was most horrible, that the poison infiltrated into his very bones had dissolved every part of his body, so that all who saw him were terror-stricken. It is known, through the testimony of others beside Cardinal Bernis, “that from the day of his elevation he was afraid of dying by poison.” Now the apologist of the Jesuits, taking upon himself to be the biographer of Clement XIY., makes haste to pass over this perilous subject. He makes scarcely any account of the most ascertained facts, but takes pleasure in exhibiting the pontiff as a prey to the most poignant agonies of remorse, shrieking out the words, “O God, I am damned! Hell will be my portion. There is no remedy left!” He adds, that the pope soon after his elevation became insane. “His insanity began,” says he, 44 on the day he ratified the suppression of the Jesuits!” So the pope who gave audience to a great number of persons, whose language excited admiration, and who for five years studied the question of the Jesuits, was only a madman! ** In the history of the sovereign pontiffs,”

concludes the avenger of the Jesuits, ” he is the first and only one who suffered this degradation of humanity.” Nothing less would have been an adequate punishment for the greatest of crimes.

But now it is the denouement, which, above all things, is worth knowing. It was requisite to renovate the good name of Ganganelli, and it belonged to the Jesuits to do this for their own greater glory. The expedient employed for this purpose is not new; recourse is had to miracle, and a legend is invented.

Saint Alfonso Signori has been canonised in these latter days. I have been able closely to observe how this sort of affairs is managed. The theologian Guala, of whom I have already spoken, was among the most active on the occasion, and spared no intrigues or efforts towards bringing about the canonisation. Could this great supporter of the Jesuits abstain from taking part with many others in rearing an altar to one of the greatest friends of the Company? The new saint was bishop in one of the cities of Sicily when Ganganelli died. His name was used, and the story was put forth that he remained for several hours entranced and seemingly dead; and that when he came to himself he narrated to some confidential friends that he had just been witness to the pope’s last moments; that God had heard his prayers, and caused the pontiff s madness to cease, in order that he might repent; that he had spent his last moments in bewailing his crime, and asking pardon of the Almighty for his suppression of the sons of Loyola, and that he died reconciled to God, and saved.* How indeed could we suppose that God had not received him into grace, since he died reconciled to the Jesuits?

XII.

A third of a century before the French Revolution, a vast change was taking place, as in our day, in the minds of men. Everything was preparing for a decisive crisis. Then, as now, the Jesuits, in their system of teaching, represented the most obstinate immobility, and the most retrograde doctrines. Men craved for more air, light, and life; and the Jesuits and their adherents everywhere strove to stifle these aspirations.

“They held in their hands,” the panegyrist himself avows it, “the future generations, and they acted as a clog on the movement begun. This order has appeared as the most formidable rampart of Catholic principles. It was against it that the storm immediately directed itself. To reach the heart of Catholic unity it was necessary to pass over the bodies of the grenadiers of the church.”

Great, however, is the difference between those times and ours. Then the upper classes, intoxicated with philosophy, and knowing by experience what were the designs of the Jesuits, spared no efforts for the abolition of the order. But a pope alone could accomplish their wishes. Now the Company was so identified with Rome, and so indispensable to it, that nothing short of the combined strength of the greatest powers could sever the connection. Even this was not enough; they had already demanded this abolition without success. Two preceding popes had begun by refusing, and when at last they had declared their design to suppress the Jesuits, death had soon cut short their projects. Success was, therefore, believed to be impossible, except by means of a pope created by the princes themselves, and thereby seriously compromised. Now to obtain such a pope it was necessary to manoeuvre and use intrigues as potent as those employed by the Jesuits. The cells of the Vatican were conquered by a hostile spirit—by the very spirit of the encyclopedists which had become the possessor of thrones. It was a duel to the death, but the younger combatant was at last the victor. There issued from the conclave a chief of the church better adapted to the spirit of the age, and acquainted with its requirements. And yet he took good care not to abolish the Company forthwith; he waited, and postponed the matter even for several years. He wished, before he struck the blow, to collect proofs of extreme weight, and formidable by their numbers; but it turned out, as he had predicted, that in signing the brief which suppressed the Jesuits, he signed his own death-warrant.

As for all those monarchs, ministers, and diplomatists, who knew no rest until the abolition took place, fortunately they did not perceive what would be its remote consequences. They rejoiced to see that Rome was about to lose her most valiant and able soldiers. Remembering how their ancestors had humbled themselves in the dust before her, and let themselves be beaten with rods, they believed that they were at last sole masters, that the tables would be turned, that the clergy would become their tools, and receive their orders. On either side there was no question of the people; it was regarded as nothing. But unconsciously they worked for its advantage, and prepared the way for its advancement, whether by the new philosophic ideas with which they inundated Europe, or by overthrowing the strongest bulwark that restrained it. They could not fail themselves to be swept aWay by the bursting flood. Such blindness was providential.

“Rome discharged her best soldiery,” observes M. Cretineau, “on the very eve of the day on which the Holy See was about to be attacked on all points simultaneously. The Jesuits, while they obeyed the pontifical brief, thought it was their duty not to desert the post entrusted to their guard.”

Here was a model of perfect submission! The Jesuits alone know how to obey thus. As an institute they were absolutely bound to subsist no longer. But no, it is their privilege never to be liable by any possibility to be accused of revolt. The less they obey the greater is their submission. M. Cretineau’s book is a collection of contradictions, posted by way of double entry, and very regularly balanced.

XIII.

An immense revolution had convulsed the world; Napoleon had in vain endeavoured to turn it to his own profit; but the same ideas which had raised him so high had ceased to support him when they had been betrayed and put in peril, and so he was plunged living into the abyss. This terrible lesson, like many others, taught nothing to those who came from exile to resume the sceptre. The volcano of the new ideas did but smoulder; the Jesuits persuaded the powers that they had the means and the strength to extinguish it. All that was requisite was that they should have the young generation in their hands. They imagined that, as in past times, they should succeed in making God’s name a means of propping up the most intolerable abuses and the most iniquitous privileges. But this insensate project was met by a proportionate reaction; the ideas of progression and freedom would not submit to be stifled, and they resumed the conflict—a conflict which M. Cretineau calls an impious rebellion, a work of perfidy and imposture.

“Ever since 1823,” he says, “it is not individual malice that seeks to beguile a class of individuals; there is a permanent conspiracy against the truth, and, above all against the good sense of the multitude. All means are employed to pervert it.”

Although the thing is known, it is not amiss to recollect what he means by the truth, and by conspiring against it. It is important to institute a comparison between the epoch of which we are speaking and our own; between the undisguised language then held by the upholders of the old system of society, and that which their successors now hold. At the very time when the Jesuits were occupied with the Secret Plan, M. de Remusat thus expressed himself:— u The new year, or 1824. Questions of a ponderer. “A grand project occupies the minds of the mighty of the Old World. They would fain bring back the New World to its infant state, and strangle it in its cradle in the swaddling-clothes in which it has been so long kept. The age has been accused, condemned, and anathematised by them. Crowned Europe has conceived the design of proving to the human race that it is wrong to be what it is; to time that it ought not to destroy; to the present that it ought to be the past. And one would almost say that this strange enterprise is beginning to succeed; one would say so, were one to judge from the stifled wail of the oppressed. But raise your eyes towards the thrones, and there you see faces pale beneath the diadems, and anxious eyes incessantly turned to the sceptre, as if to be assured that it has not slipped from the grasp. The anxiety of the victors is the consolation of the vanquished.”

The same writer thus describes the system with which it was sought to innoculate France in those days:—

“Passive obedience, unlimited submission, in one word, despotism, were pleaded with the best faith in the world. Fear ahd flattery did not neglect so fair an opportunity to speak like good faith. Never was it more easy to bend without degradation, to be frail without shame; the slave of arbitrary power became the friend of order; the absence of every original, or merely independent idea, was preached up under the name of good sense; we were taught to respect even error, and to regard enlightenment as an abuse of thought. Thus served at once by faith and hypocrisy, leading in its train all the most heterogeneous prejudices, subduing the minds of men by admiration, their hearts by lassitude, their characters by fear, the genius of absolute power set about re-erecting its throne by heaping up the ruins of the old regime on the foundations laid by the Revolution.”

What was the lever put in operation? It was religion, as though enough had not already been done to render it odious by all the oppressions attempted in its sacred name. A committee was organised. The Jesuits, who had no doubt suggested it, were its managing advisers. The Holy Alliance supported it. Its affiliations ramified through all countries of Europe. M. Capefigue, as quoted by M. Cretineau himself, speaks of it in the following terms:—

“The first organisation of the party was connected with the religious congregations. Under the presidency of Viscount Mathieu de Montmorency and the Duke de la Rochefoucault DoudeauviUe there was formed in Paris a central congregation, the statutes of which were simple at first, and had for their object the propagation of religious and monarchial ideas. The congregation received every Catholic who was presented by two of its members; it was to extend to the schools and educational institutions, and, above all things, it was to lay hold on youth. When a young man wished to enter the association, his proposers were asked what influence he would exercise. If he was professor or member of a college, it was made a condition that he should propagate the good principles among the pupils. If he had fortune or high station, he engaged in like manner to employ them for the defence of religion and monarchy. Meetings were held twice a-week for prayer, innocent games, particularly billiards, and to report progress. Every Sunday the Abbe Freyssinous preached before a numerous audience, and waged war upon philosophy and the age in his elegantly composed sermons. It was against Gibbon and Voltaire that M.‘Freyssinous strove with much more pomp than point; and he never failed to exhibit in favourable contrast the then present times, and to commend the beneficent influence of the clergy and of religion, and the necessity of strengthening the altar and the throne. These sermons were well attended. The politicians of the royalist party, some of them epicureans and unbelievers, were assiduous hearers of the abbe. It was a way of putting one’s self in a good light. The congregation had branches in the provinces. In those days there was a rage for obtaining admission into the congregation, and the reason of this was simple:—there was no having powerful patronage or lucrative places unless one was a member.”

“Such,” says the advocate of Jesuitism, disdainfully resuming the discourse after this quotation, “such is the origin of the occult power so gratuitously attributed to the congregation. That power has existed, it has been exercised, but absolutely apart from, and independently of the congregation. The royalist coteries concealed their political manoeuvres under its name; the liberal party seized upon that name to frighten France with the noise it wanted to make. The enemies of the church and the monarchy admirably calculated their blows; they depopu- larised the royalists, and hung a cloak of hypocrisy on the shoulders of Christians. Tet all this was but a part of what was to be done. They annihilated the present generation, but the grand thing was to kill the future.”’)’ As for the Jesuits, it is a great mistake to suppose that at that period they concerned themselves about anything else than the interests of religion. They reorganised their houses, and founded new ones with purely pious views, that was all.

The Bourbons, however, who had put themselves in the hands of the Jesuits, paid dearly for their excessive complaisance. The sun of July forced their evil counsellors to keep themselves concealed for a while; but by degrees, as the bright luminary grew dim, they came forth again, and renewed the struggle, but in a reversed manner. For now the clergy, finding themselves compelled to fight against authority, yet unwilling frankly to embrace liberty, adopted that Machiavellic attitude which it is partly the object of the second portion of this work to make known. Thus we can account for the embarrassments and the contradictions of their apologists.

Many persons have inveighed against Eugene Sue for having dared to personify the Jesuitic genius in Rodin. They could not bring themselves to believe that a considerable number of men, and those, too, men invested with a religious character, could have concerted together to wear all sorts of masks and play all sorts of parts, in order to secure the services of all sorts of individuals for a work which every one would abhor if he knew its aim and scope. This system of graduated fraud, which it has been thought unjust to attribute to the majority of the Jesuits, have I not proved that it is fair to impute it to numerous writers, to preachers, and to a large portion of the upper clergy? Can there be a doubt that there exists among them a close compact, and a well understood mot d’ordre, to mystify not only Europe but the whole world?

XIV.

We have sought to open the eyes of persons who may in good faith be or become accomplices, beguiled by artifices which often impose on the most adroit. We believe we have cast a flood of light into the theocratic sanctuary, and convinced the most obstinate that the dogma of suffocation and oppression, and the most despotic genius, evermore receive there divine honours, and that at this day the spirit of fraud, deprived of its old weapons, desperately defends its threatened empire by base sophisms and stratagems. Is it not time to purge the church from such foul impurities? But if this radical and divine reform proceeds not from Pius IX., if he lends an ear to those whose interest it is to turn him aside from the sublime task to which Providence invites him, and urge him upon the same erroneous courses as his predecessors, still the first steps he has taken will have immense results in spite of him and against him.

The Jesuits, as we have seen, have commissioned one of their liegemen to write the life of Ganganelli, in order to dismay and stop Pius IX. The dedication of the work is implied in this epigraph, A bon entendeur demimot, “A hint for one who can take it.”

After all, if, as some begin to fear, the reforms of Pius IX. are to be nothing but administrative ameliorations, and if Rome refuse to institute a religious renovation which is imperatively demanded by our epoch, we possess the means of forcing the Vatican to break silence, and acknowledge, as evangelical, doctrines adequate to the reach and dignity of modern thought. The documents sent forth by the Roman presses, to which we here allude, have been stamped by Catholic authority with all possible marks of approbation.

The following is an epitome of the principles thus solemnly recognized as having been primitively admitted by the church:—The people is sovereign; it is the sole source of all authority; every government which does not submit its deliberations and its acts to the control of the people is anti-christian. It follows thence that theocracy is convicted of rebellion. In fact, it is depicted in colours as severe as those which its most implacable enemies have employed to hold it up to execration. It would be impossible to prefer against it a more terrible bill of indictment, backed by a more overwhelming mass of decisive proofs. Its own organs confidentially predict to it that the impatient peoples will be driven to shake off an intolerable tyranny, if they despair of seeing it reformed; and they remind it of the mission it ought to have accomplished, and which consisted in reconciling and uniting men by love and justice, preventing their sufferings by an equal partition of burthens, bestowing its just remuneration on labour, and guaranteeing a real independence to each individual. Instead of this, the most formal avowal is made that this hierarchy, devoured with pride, drunk with pomp, enslaved to its own exclusive interests, has given itself out for infallible, not being so; that it has renounced the spirit of Christ, and would neither itself penetrate it, nor suffer others to do so. Therefore it is, that by the same hands is delivered to us the key of initiation into every evangelical work; the true sense of dogmas is unveiled; we now know what we are to think of miracles; reason and faith are astonished that a misunderstanding should so long have sundered them. It is said again and again in the documents we are speaking of that the reign of the dead letter must be abolished, for, as St. Paul says, “the letter hilleth, but the spirit giveth life and the same apostle tells us that the worship which is not rational is not Christian.

We venture to affirm, that the instructions, of which I merely state the heads, are more than sufficient to justify and call forth the largest and most radical reforms in the religious and the political world, and in the whole organisation of society. They emancipate the spirit of the Gospel from the prison of a fossilized religion.

Did I not possess these weapons of proof, I should perhaps have been forced to abstain from publishing the Secret Plan. Those who may remain incredulous as regards it, will be compelled, by irrefutable proofs, to admit a far more extraordinary fact, authenticated by documents that will silence all the cavilings of self-interest.

The fact, which I will make known in a special publication, concerns the seventeenth century and a part of the eighteenth. I will demonstrate that Voltairianism prevailed in Italy during a whole century before Voltaire; that those who attacked mysteries and dogmas with language and sarcasms like his, were not libertines repudiated and condemned by the religious authority, or a handful of savans whose incredulity was confined to the circle of the cultivated class; but that the attack on the foundations of religion and morality was made in the very churches, from the pulpit, and by numerous preachers; that the numbers who flocked to hear them were immense, and that they enjoyed the countenance of the bishops and prelates. This horrible disorder was practised in the most celebrated churches of Rome; it resisted the few feeble efforts made to put it down, and was still in existence when Voltaire appeared. The sacred buildings rang with loud shouts of laughter in approval of the most shameless commentaries. The acts of the patriarchs were held up to ridicule; the Song of Songs afforded an ample theme for obscene jesting; the visions of the prophets were turned into derision, and themselves treated as addle-headed and delirious. The Apostles were not spared, and it was taught that everything concerning them was mere fable. Finally, Christ himself was outraged worse than he had ever been by his most rancorous enemies, and was accused of criminal intercourse with the Magdalen, the woman taken in adultery, and the woman of Samaria. Thus was absolute irrelgion preached, and for so long a time did this poison flow from the pulpits. The Bible was scoffed at, and Christianity likened to a mythology.

My greatest strength has been derived from the documents I have briefly alluded to; and but for them I should have succumbed beneath the force of Dante’s apothegm, which many a time recurs to my mind:—”A man should always beware of uttering a truth which has all the aspect of a lie.” But as I could count on such a revelation, a thousand times stranger than the one I myself have just made, I hesitated no longer, being convinced that in our days, more than ever, these words of Jesus must be fulfilled, “There is nothing hidden that shall not be brought to light.”

THE END.




The Papal System – V. Christendom at the Beginning of the Seventh Century

The Papal System – V. Christendom at the Beginning of the Seventh Century

Continued from IV. Councils For Seven Centuries Repudiate Papal Jurisdiction.

The entire east, with all its great patriarchs, bishops and churches, with all its teeming population of Christians, orthodox and heterodox, was separate from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. The pope never had any authority over a single one of these churches up till the commencement of the seventh century. And never after that time, unless in our days, when he has acquired limited control over an insignificant list of schismatics that would not number one percent of the pope-rejecting Christians of the east.

The Christians in France regarded him as the first bishop of the Church, because the prelate of the most renowned city of the world, but as rightly possessing no power over them. The Christians of Germany, following the Irish and British missionaries who brought them salvation, rejected the supremacy of the pontiff root and branch, and observed neither Romish customs, nor papal edicts. This was substantially the position of the Spanish church, The churches of Ireland, of the ancient Britons, and of Scotland, manfully refused every claim of the pope, and regarded his missionaries and his religion as tainted with heresy.

Nine-tenths of the Germans were pagans; all the Anglo-Saxons, except the few thousands Augustine had converted; all the Poles and Scandinavians—in short, the ancestors of most of the great nations of to-day, were steeped in heathenism, and the supremacy of the pope was confined to his own old patriarchate in Italy, and the small but hopeful mission of Augustine located in Ethelbert’s kingdom of Kent.

Eminent witnesses give indisputable evidence that for ages the Church had no crowned bishop whose spiritual scepter ruled all ecclesiastics and Christians.

The inspired records unmistakably declare the absolute equality of bishops and presbyters. The leading Christians of the primitive Church taught the same doctrine;—a view of these officers which forbids the existence of any royal bishop exercising dominion over the faith and practice of the whole Church.

And when, in times a little later, bishops became the official superiors of presbyters, the equality of all bishops was held and defended by the great thinkers of the Christian fold whom all subsequent ages have revered. Showing a decided conviction that a kingly bishop, with royal attributes over Zion, had no place in the calculations of the mighty men who stood in the front rank of Christ’s army during the first seven centuries after his ascension.

Let us examine the facts:

BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS THE SAME OFFICERS IN THE EARLY CHURCHES.

The New Testament speaks with the greatest clearness on this question. In the Acts of the Apostles 20:17, Paul is said to have called the elders of the church at Ephesus, that is, the presbyters; and in his address to them, in the 28th verse, he says: “Take heed therefore-unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” The word “overseers” is in the original bishops (ἐπίσκοπος), so that, according to the spirit of inspiration, presbyters and bishops are the same officers. And the idea, that in Paul’s time, in the city of Ephesus, there could be two or more bishops after the power and privileges of modern episcopacy, is one of those preposterous delusions which the intelligent could not readily receive.

At Ephesus the bishops were simply ordinary pastors of the church. In the Epistle to Titus, i. 5, Paul tells Titus that he had left him in Crete to ordain elders in every city (πρεσβυτέριον); and speaking of these functionaries in the 7th verse, he says: “For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God” (ἐπίσκοπος), showing that in Paul’s opinion the terms bishop and elder or presbyter described the same officers. Peter, in his 1st Epistle, v. 1, 2, addresses the presbyters, saying:

“The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also a co-presbyter, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ; feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight, not by constraint but willingly.”

Now the words “taking the oversight” are literally episcopising (ἐπισκοπέω), acting as bishops, so that, in the judgment of Peter, elders are bishops. There is no pretext in the divine Word for another conclusion.

Tertullian.

Tertullian whose authority will ever have great weight, writing about the end of the second century, says:

    The highest priest, who is the bishop, has the right of administering baptism. Then the presbyters and deacons, yet not without the authority of the bishop, because of the honor of the church, which being preserved, peace is preserved. Otherwise, the right even belongs to laymen.”

Now, according to this witness, the bishop is only the highest priest. The honor of the church is the only reason why he is invested with the authority of baptizing. And the honor of the church is secured in this arrangement by preserving its peace. The dignity of a bishop in Tertullian’s day was conferred, not by Christ, but by the Church, to preserve its harmony; and he is only the first presbyter, in piety and talents, or in the honor conferred by venerable years.

Irenaeus.

Irenaeus, a bishop of great worth, who flourished about the same time as Tertullian, says:

    “But when we return again to that tradition, which is from the apostles, and which is guarded in the churches through the succession of presbyters, we provoke those who are opposed to tradition; they say, that they, existing not only from the presbyters, but also from the apostles, are more plenteously endued with wisdom.”

Here the celebrated Bishop of Lyons represents a succession of presbyters as guarding the apostolical doctrine, as the chief human protectors of the revealed treasures of heaven. And again he says:

    “Therefore, it is incumbent on those who are in the church to obey the presbyters, who have their succession from the apostles, as we have shown, who, together with the succession of the episcopacy, have received the unerring gift of truth, according to the will of the Father.”

Here the presbyters have their succession from the apostles, and these same presbyters, like those of Ephesus, have the succession of the episcopacy; in the time of Irenaeus the terms bishop and presbyter were given interchangeably to the same clergyman. Irenaeus, with force and Christian kindness, entreats Victor, Bishop of Rome, as Eusebius records, not to excommunicate whole churches for a difference of opinion about the observance of Easter; in this address he says:

    “And those presbyters who governed the church before Soter, and over which you now preside, I mean Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus with Telesphorus and Xystus.”

These persons, whom he calls presbyters, are popes, the predecessors of Victor in the See of Rome.

Jerome.

Jerome, the scholarly and popular saint and monk of the fourth century, says:

    “Therefore as presbyters know that they, from the custom of the church, are subject to him who has been placed over them, so bishops know that they, more from that usage, than from the fact of the Lord’s setting it in order, are superior to presbyters, and ought to govern the church for the common welfare.”

Here the learned maker of the Vulgate declares against any divine distinction between bishops and presbyters. The custom of the Church is the sole authority for the superiority of bishops over presbyters.

Jerome in another place says:

    “I hear say there is one become so peevish that he setteth deacons before priests, that is to say, before bishops; whereas the apostle plainly teaches that priests and bishops are all one.”

Certainly this statement speaks with decision. And Jerome repeats it in other forms with equal clearness. He says:

    “For at Alexandria, from Mark, the evangelist, to Heracles and Dionysius, bishops, the presbyters always elected one from among themselves, and having placed him in a higher rank, named him bishop, after the manner that an army chooses its general; the deacons select one from among themselves whom they know to be industrious, and him they call archdeacon.”

According to this statement a bishop at Alexandria at this period belonged to no order distinct from the presbyters, he was simply a presbyter elected to the presidency of the board of presbyters.

Again Jerome says:

    “Presbyter and bishop are the same; the one name describes the age of the man, the other his dignity. Hence instruction is given to Titus and Timothy about the ordination of a bishop and of a deacon; but there is absolute silence about presbyters, because the presbyter is contained in the bishop.”

And again Jerome says:

    “Hearken to another testimony in which it is very clearly established that a bishop is the same as a presbyter—(Paul says to Titus)—I have left thee in Crete that you may correct the things that are deficient, appointing presbyters through the cities, as T commanded you. If there is any one without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, free from the charge of luxury, or not hypocrites; for a bishop ought to be without crime, as a steward of God.”

Jerome’s own opinion, and the apostle’s testimony, are decisive evidence of the oneness of the office of a bishop and presbyter.

Again, says Jerome, Paul commands Timothy:

    “To be unwilling to neglect the grace which is in you, which was given you by prophecy through the imposition of the hands of the presbytery.”

But also Peter, in his first Epistle, says:

    “Presbyters, I, your (fellow-presbyter, exhort you, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a sharer in the coming glory which is to be revealed: rule the flock of Christ and oversee it, not by compulsion but freely, as being near to God.”

But, indeed, it is more strikingly expressed in the original Greek, that is, discharging the duties of bishops; from which word the name bishop is derived.

And again, commenting on Titus, Jerome says:

    “For a bishop must be without crime, as it were a steward of God; a presbyter is the same as a bishop, and until by the instigation of the devil there arose divisions in religion, and it was said among the people: I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, churches were governed by a common council of the presbyters. Afterwards truly, every one reckoned those to be his whom he baptized, not Christ’s. Then it was decreed over the world, that one of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, to whom the whole care of the Church should belong, and that the seeds of schisms might be taken away.”
Ambrose.

Speaking of Paul, Ambrose says:

    “Moreover, after bishop he places the ordination of the deacon. Wherefore? but that there is one ordination of the bishop and the presbyter: for each is a priest, but the bishop is the first; since every bishop is a presbyter, though every presbyter is not a bishop. For he is the bishop who is first among the presbyters.”
Augustine.

The celebrated Bishop of Hippo says:“What is a bishop but the first priest, that is to say, the highest priest? According to the terms of honor which now the usage of the Church of Rome hath brought about, the episcopacy is superior to the presbytery.” But from this statement the superior position of bishops has no divine authority, and rests simply on the usage of the Church of Rome. And in any case, according to Augustine, a bishop is only a presbyter, though he is the highest.

Chrysostom.

Chrysostom says:

    “Between a bishop and a priest there is, in a manner, no difference.” “The presbyters anciently were called bishops, and servants of Christ, and the bishops presbyters.”

In Scotland for a long period, the bishops of the country were subject to the Abbot of Iona, who received every mark of pious deference from the heads of the churches planted by the great Columba. And as this fact rests upon the very best evidence, we have another confirmation of the doctrine that, among the early Christians, there was no difference in the orders of bishops and priests. “Even bishops obeyed the abbots of Iona, though they were but simple priests.”

Isidore.

The celebrated Isidore, Bishop of Seville, presided at the second council, held in his episcopal city, A. p. 619, and, among other canons, it made the following:

    “For although many services of the ministry are common to them with the bishops, they are aware that some are prohibited to them by new ecclesiastical rules, as the consecration of presbyters, deacons, and virgins. These are not lawful to presbyters.”

Du Pin gives a full account of this canon, but is careful to leave out the words, “by new ecclesiastical rules.”

In the researches of modern scholarship, men have forgotten their sectarian prejudices, and confessed their conviction that originally the names presbyter and bishop described the same ecclesiastic. Bishop Stillingfleet says:

    “I believe, upon the strictest inquiry, Medina’s judgment will be found true, that Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, were all of Arius’ judgment as to the identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive Church.”

Archbishop Cranmer says:

    “The bishops and priests were at one time, and were not two things, but one office in the beginning of Christ’s religion.”

Archbishop Usher said:

    “I have declared my opinion to be, that episcopus and presbyter differ only in degree, not in order, and consequently in places where bishops cannot be had, the ordination by presbyters standeth valid.”

Opinions of this character might be multiplied in number, though in the United Church of England and Ireland, no other three names could fully equal those whose views have been quoted. The leading men of the first four and a half centuries, and some of the most distinguished Episcopalians of the great Reformation, receive the teachings of inspiration given in Acts xx. 17, 28, and declare that the terms bishop and presbyter describe the same order of clergymen. These men had a hierarchy, and this fact gives peculiar force to their testimony.

It follows that as bishops and presbyters are one, there is no scriptural ground for several bishops, or for one prelate to claim lordship over the presbyters, deacons, and churches. There is no divine location for a pontiff.

THE EQUALITY OF BISHOPS.

The origin of episcopacy, according to Jerome, is to be found in the factiousness of church members. “A presbyter,” says he, “is the same as a bishop, and until, by the instigation of the devil, there arose divisions in religion, and it was said among the people, ‘I am of Paul, and I am of Apollos, and I am of Cephas,’ churches were governed by a common council of the presbyters.”

For the sake of securing peace and repressing anarchy in the churches, a bishop or permanent president of the College of Presbyters was appointed. As early as the end of the second century, a modified episcopacy was the common form of the government of the churches. At first, the presbyters retained many of their old rights; and, in some countries, they held most of their original privileges for a very long period. But the episcopal system very early became general and popular; just as kingly government in the state has, from the most ancient times, been the method of exercising sovereign powers to which most nations have submitted.

When episcopal government was first established in the churches, and for centuries later, the accepted theory about it was: That all bishops were equal, not in culture, not in the wealth of their respective sees, not in the honor which might be inseparably attached to some bishop at the seat of government, or in a large and opulent city, but in a general council, where the vote of every bishop had the same influence; and in the common duties of the episcopal office. The fiercest struggles were made to maintain this equality, and its assertion in manly words forms the most interesting records of the Church’s history.

Cyprian.

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, the most eloquent and cultivated ecclesiastic of the Christian Church from the days of Paul, says:

    “For none of us makes himself a bishop of bishops, or by a tyrannical terror compels his colleagues to a necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the license of his own liberty and power, hath his own freedom, and can no more be judged by another, than he himself can judge another.”

Cyprian lived before the age of general councils, when each bishop under God was master of the interests committed to his charge.

Cyprian on another occasion gave Stephen, Bishop of Rome, a severe rebuke for meddling in the affairs of two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martialis, who had been deposed from their bishoprics for their crimes. In his 68th letter addressed to the clergy and people of Spain, he says:

    “Basilides going to Rome, imposed upon our colleague, Stephen, who lived a great way off, and was ignorant of the truth of the matter; seeking unjustly to be restored to his see, from which he had been justly deposed.”

Certainly Cyprian has few compliments here for the ignorant pope, and evidently writes as one who feels himself, and is regarded by others, as Stephen’s equal.

He writes to Antonius on the controversy between Cornelius and Novatian, and makes this declaration to him:

    “The bond of concord abiding, and the sacrament of the Catholic Church persisting undivided, every bishop disposes and directs his own acts, having to render an account of his purpose to the Lord.”

Cyprian never dreamt of any bishop giving him orders, or demanding an account of his acts.

Again, in a letter to Pope Stephen himself, he says:

    In which matter we neither force any one, nor give law, since every prelate hath in the administration of his church the free power of his will, having to render unto the Lord an account of his acting.”

[Pope] Pius IX. would be astounded at such sentiments in a letter from one of his bishops, but Stephen was not. No other obedience was given to popes by bishops like Cyprian in Stephen’s times. Cyprian writes to Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, after the same independent style.

As Du Pin translates him, he says:

    “What benefit can they expect from going to Rome? If they repent of their faults they ought to understand that they must come back hither again to receive absolution for them, since it is an order established all the world over, and, indeed, but reasonable, that every one’s cause should be examined where the crime was committed. Every pastor has received a part of Jesus Christ’s flock to govern, and shall render an account of his actions to God alone. Upon this account it is not to be allowed that those persons who are under our charge should run to and fro, and sow dissensions among bishops by their temerity and artifices; but on the other hand, it is necessary for them to defend themselves in that place where they may be confronted with their accusers, and the witnesses of their crimes. Their cause has been examined, sentence has been pronounced against them, and it would be below the gravity of bishops to be justly reproached with being wavering and inconstant.”

The translation is very free, amounting to a paraphrase, and it is given because Du Pin has caught the exact drift of Cyprian’s indignant denunciation of appeals to Rome against an African decision. He plainly tells Cornelius throughout his lengthy letter, that he has nothing to do with Fortunatus and Felicissimus, the guilty African bishops, and that his interference could not help them. They must abide by the local decision, or have it reversed at home; as each bishop is independent.

According to Cyprian, no benefit could be obtained by an appeal to Rome. Even Du Pin is not always to be trusted. In the quotation from Cyprian’s letter, he passes over four lines to reach the end of his quotation without a hint that he omits anything, and the discarded part intimates that the African decision only appeared unimportant to a few ruined and abandoned men. So that only a handful of desperate persons approved of appeals from their own bishops.

There are eighty-three letters to and from Cyprian published in his works. These letters employ a style of address to Cyprian somewhat varying. Cyprian gives every bishop the same title, and that the simple one, Brother. He published seven epistles addressed to Cornelius, Bishop of Rome; the first one is his 41st Epistle, and it is inscribed: “Cyprianus to Cornelius, a brother, health.” The other six begin in the same way. “Cornelius to Cyprian, a brother, health,” is the address adopted by the Roman Bishop, as seen in the 46th Epistle of Cyprian’s collection, Firmilianus addresses Cyprian in this way in the 7th Epistle, “Cyprian and other colleagues assembled in council to the number of 66, address Fidus, a brother,” in the usual form; though Fidus was a very obscure and ignorant bishop. This letter is the 59th. The 67th is addressed in the same form to Stephen, Bishop of Rome. The 71st is addressed to Quintus, after the same fashion; the 73rd to Jubianus, the 74th to Pompey, and the 52nd to Antonianus. All unimportant African Bishops. The 26th is addressed to “Pope Cyprian,” by Maximus and Moyses, presbyters, Nicostratus and Ruffinus, deacons, and other confessors who are with them. The 30th and 31st are addressed to “Pope Cyprian,” by the presbyters and deacons of the Church of Rome.

In Cyprian’s time, as he himself says, each bishop had powers in his own city equal to every other, and the Roman Bishop, while treated with respect, as the pastor of the first city in the world, had no title not given to his brethren in the episcopal office, and no jurisdiction over the churches outside of his own diocese. Cyprian was more the “Head of the Church” than any Roman pontiff in his day, as Hosius of Cordova was three-quarters of a century later. He was consulted by bishops in France and Spain; and though living in Africa, time and again, he was approached for advice by the bishops, presbyters and deacons of Rome itself.

Du Pin says of Cyprian that:

    “He looked upon the Bishop of Rome as superintendent of the first church in the world. But then he was of opinion that he ought not to assume any authority over the rest of the bishops, that were his brethren, or over their churches. That every bishop was to render to God an account of his own conduct. That the episcopal authority is indivisible, and every bishop has his portion of it.”
Augustine.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in Africa, was the ablest man produced in the Christian Church for centuries. North Africa has laid the world under obligations for its Cyprian and its Augustine. The industry of Augustine has left the Church a superb legacy in the voluminous works to which his mighty mind gave birth. In common with all his countrymen, he denounced appeals from an African synod or bishop to any authority outside of the church of his countrymen. He very modestly denounces one of these appeals in his 162nd letter:

    “Probably Melchiades, Bishop of Rome, with the transmarine bishops, his colleagues, ought not to have usurped that judgment which had been decided by seventy Africans, when Tigisitanus presided as primate. But why might he not assume it? Because the Emperor, when requested, sent bishops to be judges, who would sit with him, and would determine whatsoever appeared just in the whole case.”

In the exercise of a humility, for which Augustine is to be commended, he gently brands Melchiades as a usurper, and he tells him that seventy Africans had already settled the question.

The titles given in epistles to Augustine, and by him, show the wonderful reverence in which the Bishop of Hippo was held; and prove that, in the Christian world he had no superior.

Jerome in five letters addresses Augustine with these complimentary words: “To the lord, truly holy, and the most blessed Pope Augustine.” Surely, the learned St. Jerome knew the proper designation of a bishop.

Augustine is equally courteous to the distinguished scholar. His letters are addressed to: “The most illustrious and most desired lord, the brother in Christ to be honored, my fellow presbyter, Jerome.”

The 254th letter in Augustine’s epistles is addressed: “To the lord, truly holy, and sacredly preferred by us above all things, and revered with holy joy, the most blessed Pope Augustine, by Valentinus; the servant of thy holiness.” Certainly Augustine could desire nothing more in the way of high-sounding words of flattery.

Augustine addresses Pope Innocent: “To the lord, most happy, the brother deservedly most honored, Pope Innocent.” Augustine does not pay such compliments to Innocent as he receives from Valentinus.

Augustine addresses his 94th letter to: “Hilary, the most blessed lord, a brother in the truth of Christ, worthy of veneration, and a fellow priest.”

Consentius addresses his letter to: “The holy lord, and most blessed Pope Augustine.”

The titles of the 270 letters in the works of St. Augustine show that no one in the Christian world was more honored than himself. From those in his collection addressed to the Roman popes, it is abundantly manifest that they were not the rulers of the churches, the masters of the spiritual affairs of Christendom; and it is just as clear that in the discharge of their episcopal duties all bishops were equal.

Antioch.

The Synod of Antioch, complaining of the behavior of Pope Julius in the affair of Athanasius, as Sozomen relates, “Did not, therefore, think it equal that they should be thought inferiors, because they had not so large and numerous a church.”

The Apostolical Canons

ordain that: “The bishops of each nation should know him that is first among them, and should esteem him the head, and should do nothing considerable without his advice; as also that each one should only meddle with those affairs which concerned his own district, and the places under it, But he (the primate) should not do anything without the opinion of all, so that there may be concord.”

The apostolical canons are as old as the fourth, and might reach up to the close of the second century. And, according to their testimony, the Pope of Rome had no preeminence in the government of the churches. The principal city in each country was the seat of the first bishop; but even he must act by the advice of his fellow-bishops in everything of moment, that concord may be preserved.

The Bishop of Rome the equal of other Bishops.

At a council held in Rome, A.D. 359, a synodical letter was adopted, and sent to the Bishops of Illyria, which began: “Damasus (the pope), Valens, and the other bishops assembled at the holy council held at Rome, to the beloved brethren, the Bishops of Illyria.” Here Damasus, the pope, is only first on the list; Valens is in a position equally important; the others are evidently the peers of the two whose names are given. The pope is only primus inter pares, the first among equals.

Jerome.

Jerome says:

    “Wherever a bishop may be, whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth, and of the same priesthood; the force of wealth and lowness of poverty do not render a bishop higher or lower; for all of them are the successors of the apostles.”

Again, the renowned monk and scholar condemns the whole papal system; for that scheme is destroyed by the removal of the pontiff, and there can be no proper pope without preeminent authority over the churches.

Hilary.

Hilary, of Arles, was a vigorous bishop, a sound thinker, a Bible reader, and a man of fearless independence. Celedonius, a bishop, had been married to a widow, and followed secular employments. For these two crimes, Hilary, in a council, deposed him. He appealed to Leo I., of Rome, and the pope restored him to his see. But neither Hilary nor the bishops of France would yield to the dictation of the pontiff. They were unaccustomed to obey such a master, and it was needful to obtain an imperial decree from Justinian, commanding, among other things, that: “Forever hereafter, neither the French bishops, nor the bishops of other provinces, shall undertake anything without the authority of the Bishop of Rome; that all that he orders shall be acknowledged for a law.” Well may Du Pin say: “This edict is contrary to the canons, as also to the decrees of the council of Sardica.” But it shows that up to that time, the first half of the fifth century, the French and German churches owed no allegiance to the See of Rome.

Gregory I.

Eulogius, of Alexandria, had flatteringly said to the great Gregory, “sicut jusistis,”—as ye ordered. Gregory replied: “That word of command I desire to be removed from my hearing, because I know who I am, and who ye are; by place ye are my brethren; in goodness, fathers. I did not, therefore, command, but what seemed profitable I hinted to you.” Gregory was not the man to stop at giving an order where he had authority to do it, He was the first of the popes to begin his letters with the well known words, “servant of servants.” But none knew better than he how to climb the slippery heights of spiritual ambition and presumption.

Writing John the Faster, he reproachfully compares him to Lucifer in his defeated ambition in heaven, “What,” says he, “wilt thou say to Christ, the Head of the Universal Church, in the trial of the last judgment, who, by the appellation of Universal, dost endeavor to subject all his members to thee? Whom, I pray, dost thou mean to imitate in so perverse a word, but him who, despising the legions of angels constituted in fellowship with him, did endeavor to break forth unto the top of singularity, that he might both be subject to none, and alone be over all? Who also said, I will ascend into heaven, and will exalt my throne above the stars,—for what are thy brethren, all the bishops of the universal Church, but the stars of heaven, to whom, as yet, by this haughty word, thou deservest to prefer thyself; and to trample on their name in comparison to thee?”

On another occasion, he writes: “I confidently say that whosoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires to be so called, does in his elation forerun Antichrist, because he proudly places himself before others.”

It cannot be doubted that, in the estimation of Gregory and the other leading bishops of his day, that no prelate had any authority from God to be the master of his fellow-bishops; that in all fundamental matters the bishops of the Christian world were on a common platform, notwithstanding the honor conferred by the bishopric which contained the imperial residence, or the luster which surrounded bishops of extraordinary talents or unusual piety. But the time had now come when these primitive views were to be buried out of sight, and when the Roman bishops should appear as the lords of Christ’s spiritual heritage, as the masters of the ministers and doctrines of the whole Church of God in nearly all Europe.

Continued in VI. Steps to Papal Sovereignty Over The Churches

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart




Popery The Foe of the Church and of the Republic

Popery The Foe of the Church and of the Republic
popery
pō′pə-rē
noun: derogatory, archaic

The doctrines, practices, and ceremonies associated with the Pope or the papal system; Roman Catholicism.
“the Anglicans campaigned against popery”

Why has the word “popery” become archaic? It was a term well used by American Protestants in the 19th century. By the 20th century, Jesuit infiltration had become so great in American Protestant churches that most Protestants no longer considered the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church to be a threat to American democratic institutions.

The book, Popery The Foe of the Church and of the Republic was published in America in 1871, a time when Protestants were aware of the threat of the Roman Catholic church against the liberties of the United States of America. Has the Catholic Church changed much since that time? Only overtly, not in its covert purpose and goal of political control of the nations. The Protestant churches, however, have greatly changed! No longer is Protestantism feared by the Church of Rome.

I believe all this “wokeness” and insane policies of the Biden administration are a tool of the Jesuits to drive America back to conservatism which the Catholic church will offer them much more than most non-Catholic churches today. That’s my theory.

Information about the author, Joseph Smith Van Dyke (1832-1915), is found on https://www.logcollegepress.com/joseph-smith-van-dyke-18321915 He was the pastor of a Presbyterian church in Bloomsbury New Jersey. He was the author of several other books. From the text of this book, I believe he was a solid Christian and deeply knowledgeable of the Word of God.

P O P E R Y

THE

FOE OF THE CHURCH,

AND OF THE

REPUBLIC.

BY

JOSEPH S. VAN DYKE, A.M.

PREFACE.

THE deep interest awakened in the hearts of many by the present condition and reawakened energies of the Papal Church, is our apology for presuming to call the attention of the public to Popery’s inveterate hostility to civil and religious liberty. And this, most assuredly, is a subject which, though lacking novelty, imperatively demands earnest, serious, thoughtful consideration. In this age of maudlin (sad) charity for all systems of faith—instead of genuine charity for all men—the Church greatly needs a fearless reassertion of the principles and doctrines essential to the hope of salvation. Souls struggling with sin need to know that Christ, our elder brother, ever accessible, is a mighty Saviour, and that all the ransomed are, “kings and priests unto God.”

If the aspirations of Romanism were restricted to increased spiritual power, our duty would terminate with proclaiming a free, untrammelled Gospel, hope for every penitent at the foot of Calvary. But Rome has never yielded her right to temporal rule. The unparalleled efforts now made to extend her influence are instigated by the hope of securing control in the political world. We need, therefore, a reaffirmation of the lesson written in the struggles of thirteen centuries, that Romanism is the ally of despotism, Protestantism the friend of constitutional liberty.

This volume, presented to the public with a deep consciousness that it falls far short of meeting the demand of the times, is a feeble effort to prove that Romanism in this nineteenth century is essentially the same that it has always been, the foe of the true Church and of Republicanism, the determined enemy of liberty, civil and ecclesiastical, personal and national. Prepared in the disconnected hours of ministerial life, we crave for it the reader’s generous criticism. Firmly convinced, however, that the subject is one claiming earnest attention, we timidly launch our tiny bark in the feeble hope that it may, in some slight measure at least, awaken attention to the danger to be apprehended from a system of despotism, which for fifteen centuries has fettered the limbs of freedom and darkened the way of salvation.

The Author.
Cranbury, N. J.,
Sept. 1, 1871.

INTRODUCTORY.

With those who prophesy the speedy triumph of Romanism in this country we have little sympathy; with those who counsel her supreme indifference to her increased activity, less still. Whilst —as a comparison of statistics clearly proves—there is no just cause for alarm on the part of the friends of civil liberty, there are reasons many and cogent why Protestants should put forth their most strenuous efforts to defeat the wily machinations of their arch-enemy, and to give the masses the only true antidote to Popery, the simple, unadulterated Gospel. This call to redoubled exertion is found not simply in the fact that the Papacy is by necessity bitterly hostile to the true Church and to Republicanism, but especially in its recent energy and growth. Earnest effort and unwearied vigilance are duties we owe alike to ourselves and to God. If activity is essential to healthful piety; if the truth as taught by Christ is in its very nature aggressive; if the true Church of God can fulfil its mission in the world only by conscientiously endeavoring to obey the commands of its ascended Lord; if, as every well instructed Protestant firmly believes, Popery is the uncompromising enemy of genuine Christianity, and of Republican forms of government, then most assuredly Protestants should exert themselves to counteract the unparalleled efforts now made to extend Rome’s baneful system of spiritual despotism over a country dedicated to Protestantism and civil liberty.

The subjoined figures show a remarkable growth of Romanism in the last thirty years. There were in the United States in

1840 1870
Dioceses 13 53
Vicariates-Apostolic 0 9
Bishops 12 62
Priests 373 3483
Churches and Stations 300 5219
Catholic Population 1,500,000 5,000,000

This condensed view fails in giving an adequate idea of the full strength of the Papal Church in the United States. In several of the dioceses the numbers are not given. Moreover, in addition to their regular priests, they have about 2000 seculars, and nearly 1000 clerical students. To these cohorts of Rome must be added several thousand “religious” in 286 nunneries and 128 monasteries. Imperfect as the figures are, however, they show a remarkable increase in the last three decades. Their dioceses have more than quadrupled; their bishops quintupled. Their churches are now seventeen times more numerous than in 1840; their priests nine times.

It is indeed true that during the same period Protestantism has greatly added to its numbers. And if it had kept pace with its adversary, there would be little, if indeed any, ground for fear. But what are the facts? Is the Catholic increase only absolute, or is it an increase relative to Protestants? In 1840, of the entire population, one-twelfth was Catholic; now about one-seventh is. And of the large number belonging to no creed, the Papal Church, which is to an alarming extent a political organization, can effectually control at least its proportion. It is the constant boast of their papers that if our nation is “Non-Catholic,” it is certainly “Non-Protestant ;” that they are as numerous as the members of the dissevered branches of the “damnable heresy,” and are therefore—even in point of numbers, to say nothing of divine right—entitled to control the future destinies of this country.

The number of their priests is indeed small when compared with the number of Protestant ministers; they are sufficient, however, to manage the affairs of the Church with energy and zeal. And an alarming feature in their rapidly increasing number is that many —and among these the most intelligent, zealous, efficient and intolerant—are American born: Bronson, Doane, Hecker, and a long list of others, sons of Methodists, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians.

And all, from the highest to the lowest, archbishops, bishops, priests, Jesuits, monks and nuns, are assiduously engaged in advancing the interests of Rome. One will controls all. The entire country, from Maine to California, from Oregon to Florida, is comprised in the field of their operations. Divided into seven provinces, embracing fifty-three dioceses and nine vicariates-apostolic, each under the watchful eye of a bishop, there is no section of this broad land but Rome claims as her own. Wherever the interests of Popery can be subserved, a preaching station is established, an academy founded, or schools opened. As the tide of emigration rolls westward, Romanism is always the first to erect hospitals, to build churches, and to open institutions for the instruction of the young. We are learning by experience the truth of the European proverb: — “Discover a desert island, and the priest is waiting for you on the shore.”

Great shrewdness is also shown in the disposition of the men and means at their disposal. Points are selected which may become centers of influence. Their strength is not frittered away in sparsely settled rural districts; but establishing themselves in state capitals, county towns, and rapidly growing cities, they effectually guard the interests of Rome in all the surrounding country, moulding public opinion, securing influence with those who control legislation, and in many instances—to the burning shame of Protestantism— educating the children of those in the communion of the true Church.

The design of the efforts so persistently made in all parts of the west, is clearly announced in a Catholic paper in Boston :— “Catholics should control and sway the west. The Church has the right to claim the immense Valley of the Mississippi, of which the Jesuit missionaries were the first explorers.”

And in the south they are no less active. Organized efforts are made, on an extensive scale and with a lavish outlay of funds, to bring the freedmen over to Popery. At a convention of bishops held a few years since in Baltimore, measures to secure this end were adopted. The precaution required by the Papal Church, of conducting their proceedings with closed doors, renders it impossible for us heretics to learn all that was done by these assembled dignitaries. That agencies were inaugurated to proselyte the colored race on this continent is beyond question. And that the measures adopted and referred to the Pope for confirmation—whatever they were—received his approval, may be confidently inferred from the fact that the “Society for Propagating the Faith,” whose office is at Rome, straightway contributed $600,000 in gold for one year’s missionary work among the freedmen in our country. Is it not fair to assume that a contribution so large presupposes effective agencies for carrying forward the work on a scale corresponding with the cost? Jesuits—who, in worldly wisdom, if not in purity of purpose, have always been pre-eminent— seldom invest without securing large dividends, munificent (liberal) returns, in blind attachment to the interests of Rome.

Lavish expenditure is immediately succeeded by organized effort. With a celerity evincing great earnestness, sixty-six Romish priests were landed in New Orleans to commence missionary efforts. And these, we are informed, are only the pioneers, whose business it is to examine the field of operations, and report to their superiors the force needed, and the points where labor can be most advantageously prosecuted. Already they have opened large, well-equipped schools for the blacks at Raleigh, at Mobile, at New Orleans, and at many other important centers of influence. And most of these institutions are successful to an extent quite disheartening to the friends of Protestantism. They have drawn largely from the schools opened by the benevolence of the northern Church, and in some instances have driven their rivals from the field.

To most Protestants, we presume, it is but too painfully evident that the Romish Church, by its gorgeous displays, is well fitted to secure a powerful influence over the hearts of a half-civilized people. Enslaved by ignorance, naturally fond of show, and taught by long years of servitude to yield an unquestioning obedience, they are quite as likely to accept the religion presented them by Rome as the simple unostentatious Gospel of Christ. A future not very remote may, therefore, possibly witness a control maintained by the Romish Church over this helpless race as complete as that now exercised over the Irish—a spiritual despotism more debasing in its character and more permanent in its nature than the slavery from which they have so recently emerged.

Not alone in the west and south, but in the east as well, especially in our large cities, Rome is laboring untiringly to acquire power. Magnificent churches are built, hospitals founded, nunneries and monasteries established, schools opened, tracts and pamphlets distributed gratuitously, and popular lectures—designed to prove that Popery is the guardian of morals, the friend of civil liberty, the educator of the masses, the dispenser of charities to the poor, the inspirer of true devotion, and the only gateway to heaven—are frequently and unblushingly delivered in the very heart of cities which owe all their greatness to the principles of the Protestant religion. Nor have these efforts proved abortive, as New York, alas, can clearly testify. In the centers of wealth and culture, which invited those possessing a religion intensely hostile to our free institutions, Romanism has proved a Grecian horse, disgorging a legion of enemies. Lawlessness, excessive taxation, political corruption, and utter contempt for the interests and wishes of the people, have followed as naturally as darkness succeeds sunset.

In Rome’s list of agencies, schools occupy a prominent place. If these imparted only secular knowledge, the principles of morality and a system of religious faith free from superstition, all true friends of the rising generation might indeed rejoice. But, alas, the instruction is intensely Popish. Avowedly—except in the case of Protestant children, and there in reality—the primary object is to make the pupils ardent advocates of Romanism. Her seventy ecclesiastical institutions, her hundreds of colleges and boarding schools, her 2500 parochial schools, and her Sunday-schools in connection with almost every church, are so many nurseries of Popery, agencies for riveting the chains of spiritual despotism on the coming generation.

The design of these efforts is plain; Romanists are aiming at power in this country. We need not delude ourselves with the belief that they seek only the eternal welfare of our people. The aspirations of the Papacy in all countries during its entire history of thirteen centuries have been to become dominant in the state. And we can scarcely hope that an infallible Church will change its character at this late day. If the power for which they toil so arduously is acquired, there can be no doubt of the results. Protestantism will be persecuted, perhaps suppressed, as heretofore in Rome, and our free Bible, free schools, and free press will be things of the past. Possibly some Protestants with a smile of contempt may affirm, “Romanism, at least in this country, is a friend of liberty.” Let them point, however, to the country or the time in which Popery has not opposed a will of iron to all free institutions.*

In estimating the strength of the organization which seeks our destruction, we should remember that the 5,000,000 of our citizens whose first allegiance is due to Rome are drilled to implicit obedience and directed by one will: that their plans are cunningly masked, while ours—if indeed we have any—are well known: that they are a unit in action, waging an unceasing warfare, resolved on victory; we, disconnected bands, without unity of purpose, carrying on at best but a fitful struggle. Moreover, since they are thoroughly unscrupulous in the use of means, they necessarily wield more power with the irreligious masses than we. Possibly also the tendency to ritualistic forms, so apparent in certain quarters, may prepare the way for Popery by producing a love of meaningless rites and imposing ceremonies.


* A Catholic paper of St. Louis said, not many years since: “We are not advocates of religious toleration except in cases of necessity. We are not going to deny the facts of history, or blame the Church and her saints and doctors, for doing what they have done and sanctioned. . . . . We gain nothing by declaiming against the doctrine of civil punishment for spiritual crimes.”

Facts like these, and numerous others which might be adduced, make it but too painfully evident that there is more than an idle boast in the assertion of the Catholic World, that “The question put to us a few years since with a smile of mixed incredulity and pity, “Do you believe that this country will ever become Catholic?’ is changed into the question, ‘How soon do you think it will come to pass?’ Soon, very soon, we reply, if statistics be true, for it appears . . . . that the rate of growth of the Catholic religion has been 75 per cent. greater than the ratio of increase of population; while the rate of the increase of Protestantism has been 11 percent. less.” The Bishop of Cincinnati said, in 1866: “Effectual plans are in operation to give us the complete victory over Protestantism.” Another bishop affirms: “ Notwithstanding the Government of the United States has thought fit to adopt a complete indifference towards all religions, yet, the time is coming when the Catholics will have the ascendancy.” The Bishop of Charleston, in his report to Rome, said : “Within thirty years the Protestant heresy will come to an end.” The Pilot, a Catholic paper of Boston, recently affirmed: “The man is today living who will see a majority of the people of the American continent Roman Catholics.” “Let Protestants hate us if they will,” says another Catholic paper, “but the time will come when we will compel them to respect us.” Should that day ever arrive, we may expect little favor from a Church, all of whose priests, according to the assertion of one of their number, “swear, we will persecute this cursed evangelical doctrine as long as we have a drop of blood in our veins; and we will eradicate it, secretly and publicly, violently and deceitfully, with words and deeds, the sword not excluded.”

poperyfoe-0f-church-republic

Though there may be no just cause for alarm, there certainly is an imperative call to action. Their oft-repeated prophecy, that from twenty-five to thirty years will suffice to give them a clear majority in this country—however absurd it may now seem to many— ought to arouse us to renewed exertion. If Papists conquered Rome, why may they not conquer America? Is it so utterly impossible that the next generation should witness the supremacy of Romanism that we can afford to fold our arms in ease?* Possessing the balance of power between the two political parties, demanding favorable legislation as the condition of support, and wielding political power in some of our largest cities, Popery is a foe whose giant strength it is folly to underestimate. Already it has succeeded in banishing the Bible from some of our public schools, and in securing, in some instances in marked degree, the advocacy of its interests in the secular press. A contest between the Papacy and Protestantism seems therefore inevitable. Other names may be substituted—Jesuitism can readily devise those that will better answer its purpose. Under the banner of civil liberty Rome may possibly bind upon us the fetters of spiritual despotism.


* Speaking of the Papacy, Mr. Disraeli said, in 1835: “What is this power beneath whose sirocco (hot dust-laden) breath the fame of England is fast withering? Were it the dominion of another Conqueror—another Bold Bastard with his belted sword—we might gnaw the fetters which we cannot burst. Were it the genius of Napoleon with which we were again struggling, we might trust the issue to the God of battles, with a sainted confidence in our good cause and our national energies, But we are sinking beneath a power before which the proudest conquerors have grown pale, and by which the nations most devoted to freedom have become enslaved—the power of a foreign priesthood.”

PART I Popery the Predicted Enemy of Christ’s Kingdom.\n
Chapter I. THE ROMAN POWER FORETOLD. (Daniel ii. 31-45.)

SOMEWHAT like the fabled Sphinx, who, sitting by the roadside, propounded her riddle to each passer-by, Popery has for centuries demanded an explanation of her seemingly charmed life. And he who has presumed to give an answer not in accordance with her arrogant assumptions, has incurred her lasting enmity; where she had the power, death. If she comes forth from God, however, as she claims, how shall we account for the errors, the follies and the crimes that blacken her name? If she is the outgrowth of the depraved heart, or Satan’s cunningest workmanship, how explain her continued power, her seemingly deathless life? Unquestionably the explanation is found in the fact that God, for infinitely wise purposes unknown to us, permits the continuance of this organized adversary of the true Church for the express purpose of testing the intelligence, the fidelity, and the zeal of his people.

Should we not expect a prediction of the rise and progress of Popery? This would be in accordance with God’s usual mode of dealing with his Church, Jehovah’s purpose of destroying the world by a flood was made known one hundred and twenty years before its execution. The destruction of Babylon, Nineveh, Tyre and Jerusalem, was accurately predicted. So likewise it was declared that the descendants of Abraham should be as numerous as the stars of heaven, when as yet he had no child; and that the land of Palestine should be their possession when the Father of the Faithful owned not even a burial-place for his dead. Not only was the coming of Christ predicted immediately after the transgression of our first parents, but in subsequent ages, and long prior to the incarnation, many circumstances of his birth, mission, life and death—and some apparently the least important—were foretold.

Nor are the prophecies mere isolated predictions of disconnected events. A system dating from the fall, and embracing all the principal changes which have taken place in either the Church or the world, and extending onwards to the final triumph of Christ’s cause, may be found in Scripture.

We should not, however, expect predictions respecting minute particulars. The portraiture of the future given by the prophets, is like the vivid description of a landscape viewed from a commanding eminence. Although the eye of the beholder surveys the whole extent, seeing all prominent objects, yet, by describing those which from his standpoint are most conspicuous, he presents a picture, imperfect indeed, yet accurate, of the scene. What description by a master hand is to the landscape, the predictions of the prophets are to the future. To complete the picture the reader must determine the position occupied by the seer in beholding the ceaseless current of events.

Hence, doubtless, arises the difficulty in interpreting prophecy. We are embarrassed not so much by what is said as by what is left unsaid. To unveil the half hidden meaning of a few sentences in which is compressed the history of centuries is almost or quite impossible. Shall we, therefore, give over all effort to understand the prophetical books? Is so large a portion of the Bible given us merely to confirm the faith of the Church after the events referred to have occurred? This cannot be, otherwise the command, “Search the Scripture,” would have read, ‘Search the Law, the Psalms, and the fulfilled prophecies.’

In the field of prophecy, co-extensive with time, and earnestly soliciting an unprejudiced examination, we are led naturally to expect some predictions respecting the rise and progress of Popery. It is highly improbable, scarcely possible, that no place should be found for a system of religion which, numbering its adherents by millions, has existed for more than twelve centuries, and while professing to be the only true form of Christian worship, and claiming for its ecclesiastical head the titles of “ Vicar of Christ,’ and “Vicegerent of God,” has not hesitated to claim and exercise the right to put to death those who, however devout, humble and Christlike in character and conduct, have denied its spiritual supremacy.

An examination of prophecy, even the most casual, reveals, in the Old Testament, two passages which refer to the Roman Empire; the former chiefly to its civil, the latter to its ecclesiastical power. In Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan. ii. 31-45), we have a prediction of the rise of the powerful kingdom of the west, which, during so many centuries, has lent its strength to sustain the Papal Church :

Daniel 2:31  ¶Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. 32  This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, 33  His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. 34  Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. 35  Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Here are presented two, and only two distinct objects—“the great image,” and “the stone cut out without hands.” Although the image has its several parts—by which four successive kingdoms are represented—these constitute the one great figure symbolizing a form of civil government essentially hostile to the Church, government by brute force, despotism. In all the members the same spirit prevails, hostility to the kingdom set up by the God of heaven. Though having “his head of fine gold, his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay,” yet this image forcibly presents the idea of unity. This, which is set forth by the first symbol of: the dream, is still more distinctly represented by the second. The little stone—not separated into members, but one and indivisible—is well fitted to symbolize the one spiritual kingdom, the Church of Jesus Christ, whose unity is preserved by the indwelling of the same spirit. As the invisible atoms of the stone of necessity cohere, so the different members of Christ’s Church, however far separated in space or time, constitute one spiritual kingdom.

By the several parts of this figure are represented the four kingdoms, the universal empires of the world. “The head of fine gold” is a symbol of the Assyrio-Babylonian Empire, founded, in the valley of the Euphrates, by Nimrod, the grandson of Noah. Of this kingdom the chief cities were Babylon and Nineveh.* “The breast and arms of silver” represented the Medo-Persian Empire, founded by Cyrus on the ruins of the Assyrio-Babylonian. It is probably not pressing the, symbol too far to suppose that by the arms are represented the two nations, the Medes and Persians, which uniting constituted this kingdom. The third kingdom, symbolized by “the belly and thighs of brass,” was the Graeco-Macedonian, founded by Alexander the Great. Before this victorious warrior the preceding kingdoms crumbled to pieces, and the kingdom of brass ruled the world. The two thighs may be intended to represent the two most powerful divisions of this kingdom—the Ptolemies in Egypt, and the Seleucide in Syria.


* These alternatively held each other in subjection till the year 625 B. C., when Nineveh was finally overthrown by the combined forces of the Medes and of Nabopolassar.

The fourth kingdom is the Roman.* In reference to this the prophecy is fuller, both as respects its character and its collision with the little stone. Its form of government, partly despotic and partly republican, combining the strength of iron with the brittleness of clay, is represented by “the legs of iron and the feet part of iron and part of clay.” Whereas the former three kingdoms were pure despotisms, this, whilst even more despotic, as symbolized by the harder metal, iron, always contained an clement of weakness. Under the form of a republic—which was often little more than a name—it maintained a stronger hold on the affections of its subjects, and, therefore, secured longer continuance. Yet, whilst always endeavoring to convert the fragility of clay into the hardness of iron, it failed in the end, and crumbled to pieces.


* Rome was founded in 753 B. about 150 years before the utterance of Daniel’s prophecy.

“And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: fornsmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes part of potter’s clay and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay, And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is curtain, and the interpretation thereof sure.”—Dan. ii. 40-45,

Here it is expressly said that “the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, and break in pieces and bruise.” During its existence as a limited monarchy (nearly two hundred and fifty years), it gradually extended its power till all the surrounding nations fell before its victorious arms. The exact date of its succession to the kingdom of brass we cannot fix. Of the fact, however, there can be no doubt. From the year 509 to 48 BC, during her existence as a republic, Rome extended her conquests over a great part of Asia, Africa and Europe. Britain was twice entered. Caesar’s legions penetrated to the heart of Germany. Macedon, Syria and Egypt were conquered. After the battle of Pharsalia (48 BC), in which Pompey, the commander of the armies of the republic, was utterly defeated by Caesar, the government was imperial rather than republican. For five hundred and twenty-four years subsequent to this, the emperors, for the most part, were content with retaining those provinces which were conquered under the republic. The advice bequeathed by Augustus, of confining the empire within its natural limits, the Euphrates, the Desert of Africa, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Rhine and Danube, was seldom departed from. A few exceptions there indeed were. Britain was made to submit to the Roman yoke during the reign of Domitian; Dacia, Armenia and Assyria during that of Trajan.

The fourth kingdom was, as Daniel had predicted, strong as iron, enduring in its three forms, of a monarchy, a republic and an empire, for more than twelve centuries, and wielding, for nearly the half of this long period, the scepter of universal dominion. During all the ages of its existence, however, it was “iron mixed with miry clay.” It was never a firmly consolidated empire. It was the unnatural union of despotism and democracy.

Of the Roman state, the fourth section of the image, Daniel declared, “the kingdom shall be divided.” The ten toes, like the ten horns of the fourth beast, (Dan. vii. 24, and Rev. xvii. 16,) represent the ten kingdoms established on the fall of the empire. “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom ……. . And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise.” By the reasoning of Bishop Newton, it has been successfully established that these ten kingdoms should be looked for in the Western Roman Empire, that portion of the fourth kingdom which was no part of the preceding three. As to the powers constituting them, however, diversity of opinion always has, and perhaps always will, exist.

By the words, “they shall not cleave one to another,” we have, perhaps, a prediction that the ten kingdoms shall never again be united in one empire. Certain it is, that since 476 AD (the date of the downfall of the Roman Empire generally received) they haye, with very slight changes, remained territorially the same.

By “the stone cut out of the mountain without hands” is symbolized the kingdom of Christ, which “the God of heaven shall set up,” and “which shall never be destroyed.” These expressions, and especially the latter, are evidently inapplicable to any form of civil government. “Cut out without hands” indicates God’s agency, and not man’s. Of the “kingdom not of this world,” all the benefits, blessings and privileges are heaven’s free gift to the human race. And of what earthly kingdom could perpetuity be predicated? Is not decay written on all?

Of this kingdom two states are here prefigured; one of comparative insignificance, represented by the stone; one of widely extended and powerful influence, symbolized by the mountain. The same gradual growth is alluded to in Christ’s parable of the Mustard Seed.

We are also told when this kingdom shall arise : “In the days of these kings.” It was during the existence of the last of the four, when the entire world humbly bowed at the throne of the proud Caesars, that God, by the incarnation of his Son, set up, or perhaps more properly, as the Latin Vulgate has it, “resuscitated” a kingdom. Having existed since the Fall, it was now strengthened, enlarged, and its privileges extended to the Gentiles.

In this entire prophecy reference is evidently had to the rise and progress of that empire which, divided into ten kingdoms, has given its power and strength to Popery. It makes war with the Lamb. It is the enemy of the Church and of Republicanism, the deadly foe of liberty, civil and religious, personal and national. With democracy it can form no alliance, and will make no compromise. The iron will not mix with the clay. With Protestantism, the parent and champion of constitutional government, it wages unceasing warfare. Deriving moral support from Popery, its natural ally, it is antagonistic to the kingdom of the little stone, so far at least as this is hostile to despotism.

king-resigning-his-rights-to-the-pope

The warfare, desperate and deadly, is not carried on, however, with carnal weapons. Noiselessly, but with terrible earnestness, the struggle is prolonged through centuries. Kingdoms rise, grow hoary with age and crumble to decay, still the contest is undecided. The three kingdoms, of gold, of silver and of brass, have become as “chaff of the summer threshing-floors,” but the stone has not yet become a great mountain filling the whole earth. Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander and Caesar, sleep in their unknown graves, but not as yet have the feet and the toes of the great image, revealed in the palace of Shushan, crumbled to pieces.

Of the ten kingdoms which, “with one mind gave their power and strength unto the beast,” some are yielding to the rule of Immanuel; others, in still lending their strength to the papal Antichrist, are filling to the full the cup of wrath. In their adulterous alliance with the Mother of Harlots they are aiding in sustaining a system which, “composed of specious truth and solid falsehood,” is at war with the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. The Christian’s hope is sustained, however, by the assurance, “The ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.” (Rev. xvii. 16) Of Christ’s kingdom it is said, “It shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”

Chapter II. The Papacy predicted as the foe of the true Church (Daniel vii. 2-27.)

IT is the assertion of Protestants not only that Rome’s civil power, but that the Papacy itself, was predicted twelve centuries before its rise. Of this affirmation the truth becomes apparent if to a description of Nebuchadnezzar’s image be added an examination of Daniel’s vision; for by the former is foretold Rome’s civil despotism—by the latter, her spiritual. The powers represented to the king as four kingdoms, appeared in vision to the prophet as four wild beasts trampling upon Christianity. To the monarch even the Church is “a kingdom which the God of heaven should set up,” small indeed in its origin, but destined to fill the whole earth; to the prophet it is a feeble band of struggling martyrs, “the saints of the Most High,” oppressed by the little horn of the fourth beast. It is a small and scattered company of faithful witnesses, ground down by the: Papal hierarchy for the term of 1260 years, yet, inspired with faith in God’s promises, suffering in the assured hope of ultimate triumph. Daniel says:

“I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it. And, behold, another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. After this, I beheld, and lo, another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.”—Dan. vii, 2-8.

These four beasts arise out of the troubled sea of human society. “The first, like a lion,” symbolizes the Babylonian Empire, the characteristics of which were boldness, consciousness of power, cunning and cruelty. “The wings of an eagle” represent its rapid conquests. In the later years of the empire these were plucked. Its victorious arms no longer struck terror. By the expression “a man’s heart was given unto it,” we are to understand that the rigors of despotism were somewhat abated.

By the “second beast, like to a bear,” is symbolized the kingdom of the Medes and Persians. In the expression, “it raised up itself on one side,” we find a prophecy of the superior energy and efficiency of one of the nations constituting this kingdom. The three ribs in the mouth of it denote a partially civilized people in the act of devouring kingdoms to increase their own strength. The command, “Arise, devour much flesh,” was fulfilled by Cyrus.

“The third beast, like a leopard,” represents the Greco-Macedonian empire. The rapidity of Alexander’s conquests, by the aid of his four distinguished generals, is denoted by “the four wings of a fowl,” and the division of the kingdom on his death, by four heads.

Having premised this much—which seemed necessary to an understanding of the scope of this famous prophesy—we hasten to consider the fourth beast. As this represents a power still in existence, and bitterly hostile to Christianity, it is, to us, more deeply interesting than its predecessors. Of it the interpreting angel says :

“The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand, until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.”—Dan. vii. 23-27.

Diverse from all others, being the union of monarchical and republican principles, it had the power to repress revolt and the facility of adapting itself to the ever varying phases of human society. Hence, for more than six centuries, half the time between its founding and the division into the ten kingdoms, its very name was a terror. Of her extent and power we need no proof. “Half our learning is her epitaph.” She became terrible and strong exceedingly. By her invincible legions all independent nationalities were trampled in pieces. Being first crushed, they were devoured, and became parts of the all-embracing empire. At length, as we have seen (Chapter 1.), this kingdom was divided into ten, represented in Daniel’s vision by ten horns; in Nebuchadnezzar’s by the toes of the image. Thus, on the Roman state are found all the marks of the beast.

Among the ten horns another little horn came up, “before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots.’ The belief that this little horn represents the Papal hierarchy is, among Protestants, almost universal. It was to arise after the ten kingdoms. These arose in the interval between 356 and 526 AD. The Papacy, after gradually acquiring power for three centuries, was perfected as an engine of ecclesiastical despotism in 606 A.p., when Phocas, the murderer and usurper, conferred upon Boniface III. the title of Universal Bishop. Then Romanism, as a system of oppression, became complete. The little horn had grown upon the unsightly monster.

The three horns plucked up by the roots were, it is commonly believed, the kingdom of the Goths, of the Ostrogoths, and of the Lombards.

Of this last foe of the true Church, the characteristics are given by Daniel. “And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man.” “By its eyes,” says Sir Isaac Newton, “it was a seer. A seer is a bishop; and this Church claims the universal bishopric.” Ecclesiastical power is its most marked characteristic. In this it is “diverse from all the kingdoms that were before it.” The mode in which this unlimited authority was acquired, furnishes an instructive chapter in history. On the conversion of Constantine, a golden opportunity was given of evangelizing the world. The bishops of Rome, however, caring more to extend their own authority than to spread a knowledge of the truth, labored zealously to acquire rule over the entire Church. Their stupendous assumptions, favored by the profound ignorance of the people, made the effort comparatively easy. Soon the Pope’s authority was believed to be equal, and by some, even superior to that of a General Council. Still, by the more intelligent of the clergy, these claims were stoutly resisted. Refusing, however, with characteristic effrontery, to yield the assumed right to all authority, secular and religious, they in the end won the victory—the Roman bishop was acknowledged spiritual and temporal sovereign. Henceforth the episcopal court occupied the room of the imperial.

Again; it is said, “He shall speak great words against the Most High.” The arrogant assumptions of the Popes know no bounds. They claim to be legitimate successors of the Apostle Peter, vicegerents of God, vicars of Christ. In their possession, they gravely tell us, are the keys of heaven and of hell. Sitting in the temple of God, the Pope may deal out glory or damnation, as suits his fancy. Even each priest, according to Roman infallibility, can forgive sins, and sell the most enrapturing bliss of heaven to the highest bidder or the wealthiest knave. Liguori—one of their canonized saints, and whose “Moral Theology,” a standard textbook in their theological schools, is declared, by the highest papal authority, to be “sound and according to God”—affirms, “the proper form of absolution is indicative: I, the priest, absolve thee.” To the claim of sole right to interpret Scripture, the Pope adds the still more absurd claim of infallibility. This, so recently exalted into a dogma, every true Catholic, according to the Freeman’s Journal of August 20th, 1870, must cordially assent.to, and believe with the whole heart. And the London Vatican of July 29th, 1870, uses this language: “It was not enough that a mortal should rule over God’s kingdom on earth, unless the keys of heaven were also committed to him. He (the Pope) was to reign in both worlds at once. It would seem that God in stooping to become man, had almost made man God.” Again: “We who lifts up his hand against the Pope resembles, without knowing it, the accursed Jew who smote Jesus in the face.” And again: “The Church has told them (the heretics) who and what his Vicar is. Either her message is true, and then all who refuse obedience to the chair of St. Peter are rebels against the Most High, and without hope of salvation ; or it is false, and then the Church of Christ has ceased to exist.” “Not a few are found,” we are told in the fourth chapter of the Constitution lately promulgated, “who resist it,” and for this reason, says the Decree, “we deem it altogether necessary solemnly to assert that prerogative (infallibility) which the only begotten Son of God deigned to annex to the supreme pastoral office.” Surely Popery has a mouth speaking great things.

Daniel further says, “I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them.” And the interpreting angel says, “ He shall wear out the saints of the Most High.” What language could more fitly characterize the Papacy? It has waged for more than twelve centuries a relentless warfare against the followers of Christ. We may affirm, and without exaggeration, that this little horn of the fourth beast, the Papacy, has put to death millions of Christians. And of thousands of others the lives have been rendered more intolerable than death itself. History proves the appropriateness of the names given to Popery in Revelation, “the scarlet colored beast, drunk with the blood of the saints, and of the martyrs of Jesus;” “the tormentor of the saints of the Most High.”

“He shall think to change times and seasons.” Who, since the days of Julius Cesar, save the Popes, has assumed the right of regulating the calendar, and enacting laws for the world?

With the interpretation of Daniel’s expression, “a time, and times, and the dividing of time,” we have, in this chapter, little to do. It may be, and most probably is, an equivalent of the expression in Revelation, “a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” Each, perhaps, may be properly understood as indicating the continuance of Rome’s temporal supremacy, 1260 years. Possibly, also, dating the rise of Antichrist in a. p. 606, when Boniface II. was declared universal bishop, we ought to have expected, between the years 1866 and 1872, the overthrow of the Pope’s authority. And some, no doubt, will imagine that in the removal of the French troops from Rome, in the overthrow of Napoleon III., and in the Pope’s loss of temporal power—following as they did so close on the promulgation of the dogma of Papal infallibility—they discern one of the last acts in the drama of this mystery of arrogance.

Not less foreign to our present purpose is the explanation of the passage, “ But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion to consume and to destroy it unto the end.” That this powerful foe of the true Church is to continue—not in its temporal power, but in its spiritual—till the judgment of the great day, seems highly probable. Paul affirms, “Then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” (2 Thess, ii. 8) In the Apocalypse (xiii. 3), where the history of this scourge of Christianity is fully given, we are told “the deadly wound shall be healed, and all the world shall wonder after the beast.” It seems probable, and some tell us certain, that the system of superstition, known as Popery, shall “continue unto the end;” that through all time it is to be the relentless enemy of the Church.

However this may be, certain it is that the Papacy is described in this chapter as during its entire continuance the uncompromising foe of Christ’s kingdom. Bearing unmistakably the marks of the little horn of the fourth beast, having an ever-living connection with the despotism from which it sprang, and waging an incessant warfare with the saints of the Most High, it has ever shown itself the tireless enemy of civil and religious liberty, of Christianity, and of Republicanism. As such it was predicted. As such it has ever been known. And yet, either with blindness that deserves pity, or with arrogance that richly merits rebuke, it even now proudly claims to be the Church, the only Church, Holy Mother infallible, visibly guided by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, the guardian of morals, the guide of conscience, the most efficient agent of civilization, the friend of freedom.

Chapter III. Formalism an old enemy of Christianity. (2 Thess. ii. 7.)

PAPISTS—we shall seldom honor them with the name of Catholics – greatly pride themselves in the antiquity of their organization. They boastingly ask Protestants, “Where was your so-called Church three centuries ago?” With a frequency and an eagerness which painfully remind one of the struggles of a drowning man, they quote, in proof of Rome’s greatness and especially of her perpetuity, a passage from Lord Macaulay’s “Review of Ranke’s History of the Popes:”

“No other institution (save the Catholic Church) is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday compared with the line of the supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth ; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. . . . Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long: dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished in Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigor when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.”

By the music of this inflated eloquence they have beat many an inglorious retreat. Nay, it has even done service in leading an attack. The Rev. James Kent Stone, a recent pervert to Popery, in his “Invitation Heeded,” hurls it against the luckless head of defeated Protestantism. But how much argument is there in it? The devil is as old as the Romish Church, and a little older, and probably has quite as long a lease on life; is he any better for that? If, however, an answer is necessary, or rather possible—bombast is generally unanswerable—it may be found in an appeal from the youthful, “vealy” (immature) reviewer, to the mature, accurate, learned and elegant historian; from Macaulay, the youth giving promise of future greatness, to Macaulay, the intellectual giant. In his “History of England,” with a sword that cuts the keener for its polished beauty, he lays bare the treacherous heart, pierces the arrogant assumptions, unveils the concealed wickedness, and utterly demolishes many of the absurd claims of the Papacy. One quotation must suffice. This, chosen because of its bearing on our general subject, the hostility of Popery to modern civilization, shall be taken from Vol. I. chap. i. page 37:

“During the last three centuries, to stunt the growth of the human mind has been her (the Church of Rome’s) chief object. Throughout Christendom, whatever advance has been made in knowledge, in freedom, in wealth, and in the arts of life, has been made in spite of her, and has everywhere been in inverse proportion to her power. The loveliest and most fertile provinces of Europe have, under her rule, been sunk in poverty, in political servitude, and in intellectual torpor; while Protestant countries, once proverbial for sterility and barbarism, have been turned, by skill and industry, into gardens, and can boast of a long list of heroes and statesmen, philosophers and poets. Whoever, knowing what Italy and Scotland naturally are, and what, four hundred years ago, they actually were, shall now compare the country round Rome with the country round Edinburgh, will be able to form some judgment as to the tendency of Papal domination. The descent of Spain, once the first among monarchies, to the lowest depths of degradation, the elevation of Holland, in spite of many disadvantages, to a position such as no commonwealth so small has ever reached, teach the same lesson.”

If by Rome’s claim to antiquity is meant that her doctrines antedate those of Protestantism, few things are more untrue. The cardinal beliefs of the Reformed Churches are as old as the Gospel, nay, as the giving of the law from Mount Sinai, nay, as the announcement of salvation made to Eve in Eden. These doctrines,— that the one living and true God is the only legitimate object of divine worship; that Christ is the only Saviour, a perfect sacrifice; that his kingdom is not of this world, but an invisible, spiritual kingdom, composed of the faithful and their infant children ; that the condition of union with his spouse, the Church, is regeneration of heart wrought by God’s spirit; that the triune God alone can pardon sin; that he and he exclusively is the Lord of the conscience,— are doctrines not only as old as the Reformation, but as old as the inspired Word of God, and as imperishable as the Church itself. But the dogmas of Romanism are a mere novelty in the religious world. Thus the primacy of Peter, a doctrine now considered vital to the system, is of comparatively recent origin. Admitting that Peter was in Rome, we may safely challenge the proof that he was universal bishop. And his successors? They were persons so obscure that even Papal infallibility cannot agree upon their names. Though Vicars of Christ, supreme pontiffs, they are never even alluded to by the Apostle John, Peter’s survivor for at least forty years. Undutiful son, write so much Scripture, and make no mention of Holy Father! Strange indeed! Notwithstanding Pius IX., in his Invitation “To all Protestants and other Non-Catholics,” declares, “No one can deny or doubt that Jesus Christ himself… . . built his only Church in this world on Peter; that is to say, the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic,” we have the heretical hardihood to affirm that the primacy of Peter was entirely unknown in the early ages of the Church. It was devised in the latter part of the sixth century—a means to the accomplishment of an end—to bolster up the assumptions of Rome’s proud bishops. So likewise the supremacy of the Pope (never even claimed till AD 590) was resisted by Councils, denounced by many of the ablest of the fathers, and condemned by an infallible Pope and canonized saint, Gregory. (See next Chapter.) The invocation of the dead, now so common with Romanists, did not even begin to manifest itself till the third century. The use of masses, solemnly condemned in the Council of Constantinople, AD 700, and again in the seventh Greek Council, 754, was not established till the ninth century. The doctrine of purgatory—the hen that lays the golden egg—was not an essential part of Popery till the Council of Florence, A. p. 1430. The doctrine of celibacy— that mark of the great apostasy, “forbidding to marry,” (1 Tim. iv. 3,) is only about 780 years old. For nearly eleven centuries every priest might have a wife, and live a life free from scandal. Now they are “Fathers” without wives. Transubstantiation—Papal cannibalism —did not originate till about the middle of the fifth century, and was severely denounced by some fifteen or twenty of Rome’s most honored fathers. Not till A.D. 1215, in the fourth Lateran, Council, was it exalted into a dogma. So also the insufficiency of the Bible as a rule of faith and practice is an assertion frequently and pointedly condemned by at least a dozen of the fathers, Rome’s invariable resort. The adoration of relics—that wondrous promoter of traffic in dry bones —originated about the same time as the worship of saints and martyrs. The withholding of the cup from the laity was pronounced by Pope Gelasius (a. p. 492) to be an “impious sacrilege.” And to our own times was left the honor—if honor it be to have outstripped the superstition of the dark ages—of promulgating the dogma of the “Immaculate conception of the Virgin,” “ Mother of God,” “ Mirror of Justice,” “ Refuge of Sinners,” and “Gate of Heaven.” In fact, not till the present year was the system rendered complete, symmetrical, perfect. It needed, like Buddhism, its elder sister, the solemn announcement of the infallibility of the supreme pontiff. This, after six months’ angry discussion, has been ostentatiously presented to the world as the infallible dogma of five hundred fallible bishops. (How many fallibles may be necessary to make an infallible. possibly Pio Nono (Pope Pius IX) can now tell.) Thus we can conclusively show that the distinctive doctrines and rites of Romanism are mere novelties, less ancient than the doctrines and practices of Protestantism.

If by her claim to antiquity, however, is meant that the unhallowed love of forms is as old as the Gospel, we do not deny it. Even in the Apostle’s time, depraved man was beginning to corrupt the pure religion of Jesus. “The mystery of iniquity,” said Paul, “doth already work, only he who now letteth (hindereth) will let, until he be taken out of the way.” As under the tuition of Satan, the deceitful heart developed every system of false religion by which the world had been deluded, so by cunningly employing the truth revealed by Christ, it was commencing to weave a new system of superstition as much like to Paganism, as two garments made from the same material are like to each other. Originating in the preference of the forms of devotion to the spirit—a tendency dating backward to the Fall—this mystery of iniquity, after centuries of gradual development, culminated in Romanism, Satan’s last agency for recruiting the armies doing battle with the truth. Though last, its efficiency is by no means least, since the unrenewed naturally turn from the salvation of the Lord to that which, being of their own devising, is more congenial to fallen human nature, easier of attainment, and more flattering to vanity.

In one sense, therefore, we are ready to concede that Popery’s claim to antiquity is well founded. Romanism, as ritualism, has always existed, not only in the Pagan world—Paganism is unbaptized Popery—but also in connection with the religion revealed from heaven, and probably will continue to the end of time, and be destroyed only by the brightness of the Saviour’s coming. It originated in Eden; at once becoming more pleasing to sensuous man than the worship of God in spirit and in truth. Cain—preferring self-chosen rites to those enjoined by express divine command, and destitute of the spiritual vision of Christ as the sin-atoning Lamb—was a type of Pagan, Jew, Papist, all ritualists. And what was the worship of the wicked antediluvians but one of rites? What was Judaism itself, during almost the entire history of the Jewish nation, but a religion of ceremonies? Its ritual service, though intended and well adapted to keep the vital truths of redemption prominently before the mind, was allowed by many, may we not say by most, to assume such an importance as to overshadow the tree of righteousness. Hence, failing to apprehend its true spirit, they crucified him whom the types distinctly prefigured. Coming as “a preacher of righteousness,” and not to establish a kingdom in which the forms of devotion should prevail without piety in the heart, he was put to death, and that by those whose mission it was to announce him as the world’s spiritual deliverer.

So likewise Phariseeism, loaded with traditions and meaningless moral distinctions, was only Popery under another name. Hostile, then, as ever to the true Church, it was severely denounced by Christ. In his Sermon on the Mount, he laid the axe at the root of the evil, declaring that the righteousness which God accepts is not mere compliance with certain outward requirements of the law and the observance of traditional precepts, but piety in the heart. All, therefore, whether Pharisees or Romanists, who so love the forms of worship and exalt the “traditions of the fathers” as to make “the word of God of none effect,” are condemned in terms too explicit to be misunderstood.

Even in the Church of Christ, where the very first requirement is spirituality, this tendency to ritualism manifested itself. As Christianity was the outgrowth of Judaism, some were strongly disposed to place reliance in forms. “Certain men who came down from Judea taught the people, except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Evidently some were trusting to the observance of a profitless rite. The mystery was working. The germ of Popery was developing. For the purpose of crushing this, a council, summoned from the entire Church, consisting of apostles and elders (Peter, it would seem, was not Pope), assembled in Jerusalem. After much discussion, in which Paul and Barnabas and James, as well as Peter. engaged, “the apostles and elders and brethren” (evidently there was as yet no spiritual sovereign) sent letters “unto the brethren of the Gentiles,” affirming, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than necessary things.” “Believing that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved,” they condemned dependence on circumcision, on any and every outward form, recommending Christians to the merit of Christ for redemption. Only necessary things, the essentials of religion, were enjoined. Thus the primitive Church, in council assembled, not only furnished evidence of the early working of this “mystery of iniquity,” and a refutation of the claim of supremacy for Peter, but in reality most solemnly and emphatically condemned the spirit of Popery, the ever existing and always pernicious tendency to rely upon the outward rites of religion.

Few unbiased readers will hesitate in conceding that Paul’s Epistles, and especially the one to the Galatians, were written with the design of denouncing the tendency to ritualism. He endeavors to refute the errors which were beginning to pervert the Gospel. He directs believers to Christ, and to Christ alone. He condemns dependence on forms—on anything save the blood of Jesus. In holy earnestness he exclaims, “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that we have preached, let him be accursed.” Full well did the Apostle discern the tendency of the human heart to become enamored with forms, and in the observance of these, vainly, and perhaps unconsciously, fancy it is working out its own salvation, content without the sense of forgiveness from Christ, or the spirit of godliness in the soul. Therefore, of this “mystery of iniquity” he affirms, “it doth already work.”

feet-washing-ceremony

But although thus sternly reproved, in the lapse of time, from depraved human nature, it again sprang up, and having established itself, has tyrannized over the souls of men for nearly thirteen centuries. Hence, in one sense, we are ready to admit the claims of the Papists that theirs is the ancient Church. The principles upon which they found their system are as old as the Fall, and as enduring as the human race; but so far from receiving any countenance from Christ and his apostles, they were severely denounced by them; but arising out of corrupt human nature, however frequently refuted, and however severely condemned, they are sure to reappear, and almost certain to find stanch advocates. When these principles, perceptible only in germ in the Apostles’ time, had gained the ascendancy, Antichrist had arisen; the power and the spirit of godliness were supplanted by dead forms, “the man of sin,” “the son of perdition,” “the mystery of iniquity,” “that Wicked,” was revealed.

It is scarcely necessary for us to remind the reflecting reader that Romanism, as ritualism, as cold and heartless formalism, not only has ever shown itself the enemy of a pure, unfettered Gospel, but the endeared associate of despotism. If not the foe, it certainly has not been the friend of free institutions. Its pomp and glitter, its extravagance and meaningless pageantry, ill comport with the simplicity, economy, and rugged intelligence of Republicanism. Ritualism, Popery, despotism; intelligence, Protestantism, civil liberty, are inseparable friends.

Chapter IV. Romanism an apostasy. (2 Thess. ii 4)

IN the prophecy of Paul, the organized opposition to the Church is denominated “the man of sin,” “the son of perdition,” “the mystery of iniquity,” “that Wicked.” That the passage is a prediction of the rise, progress and overthrow of Popery, an examination, we think, makes clearly manifest. The Apostle affirms that even in that early age the mystery was beginning to work. This we have already found to be true of the Romish Church. Its remaining statements await, and in the progress of our work, we trust, shall receive, an examination, proving them not only strikingly applicable to the Papacy, but applicable to no other system of error, religious or political ; to no other form of wickedness, personal, social or national. It should exalt itself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, sitting in the temple of God, claiming to be God. This we shall hereafter find fulfilled in the arrogant assumptions of the proud pontiffs, Its coming should be “with all power and signs and lying wonders.” Its relics, its legends, its prodigies and its so-called miracles, “lying wonders,” will on examination be seen to be its most efficient agency in spreading and maintaining its soul-debasing superstitions. That God would send its followers strong delusion that they should believe a lie, Paul predicted. Most assuredly observation confirms the testimony of history, that in the Romish Church the willingness and power of the priests to deceive are only equaled by the capability and eagerness of the people to be deceived; deceit producing deceivableness, deceivableness evoking deceit, blinded of God, given over to believe falsehoods. Of this, however, hereafter. So likewise, the prediction that “the man of sin” should continue—not perhaps in organized form as now, but in essential characteristies—during the entire history of the Church on earth, and only be destroyed by the brightness of the Saviour’s coming, is precisely the same, as hereafter will appear, with that so emphatically made respecting Romanism. In each, in all of the particulars here enumerated, the prophecy is exclusively applicable to the Church of Rome. This will appear in the course of our work,

The first statement made respecting the “mystery of iniquity” is, that it should arise from apostasy. It was to be a falling away from the faith. We must therefore look for Antichrist among those who once embraced Christianity. In countries Christianized, or at least partially so, and not in those exclusively Pagan, must we expect “the man of sin.” And unless in the Papacy, where, in the entire history of the Church, does the prophecy find a fulfilment?

If this be not the apostasy, where is it? Does Protestantism bear the marks? Certainly one or the other is the predicted foe of Christ’s kingdom. And if it be Protestantism, then Romanism, with all its abominations, must be all it claims to be, the Church, the only Church, the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

The inquiry, therefore, which is the predicted “son of perdition?” we are entirely willing should await the answer given this question, which form of doctrine and worship has the sanction of the Apostles and primitive Christians? Confident that whilst before the beginning of the fourth century there was, as there always has been, and so long as human nature remains unchanged probably always will be, a strong tendency to ritualism, Popery—in the form in which it now exists and has cursed the world for nearly thirteen centuries—had no existence.

During the lives of the Apostles, and in times immediately subsequent, the Church was comparatively pure. Believers worshipped God, and God alone, and relied for salvation entirely on the merit of Christ’s death. The religion of the humble Nazarene had none of those unmeaning rites, imposing ceremonials, and debasing customs of Romanism, These all came in during the gradual apostasy, and came from Paganism. Prior to this the followers of Jesus were bitterly persecuted, thousands being put to death by every manner of torture which fiendish malignity could invent. They were sawn asunder; they were drowned; they were thrown to wild beasts; they were burned at the stake. Others, covered with the skins of animals, were torn by dogs; others were crucified ; others still, besmeared with combustible materials, and suspended by the chin upon sharp stakes, were set on fire, that they might light the gardens of Rome’s cruel emperor. And to add interest to the horrid spectacle, and attract the crowd, this heartless exhibition of Satanic malignity was accompanied with horse-racing.

To escape death, the faithful concealed themselves in dens, in caves, in deserts, and in subterranean burial places near the eternal city. During ten successive persecutions, Christianity retained its Apostolic purity. It was persecuted, and partly, no doubt, for this reason was the more spiritual. There was no vast external organization having the Pope at its head, and assuming spiritual power over the entire Church. The worship of images, counting of beads, bowing before altars, adoring the host and worshipping the Virgin, were unknown. Being poor, the Christians had few church edifices; they met for worship in caves and private houses. Magnificent cathedrals, gorgeous vestments, and costly ornaments, which Papists now seem to deem essential to proper worship, were at once impossible and unnecessary to the simple-minded followers of him who had not where to lay his head. Theirs was not the form of godliness, but its power in the heart. Their writings are of the most spiritual type. In these is found incontrovertible proof that the religion then preached was such as we now denominate Protestantism. The Emperor, so far from ruling in ecclesiastical matters, was the bitter enemy of Christianity.

During this period each minister of the Church ruled in his own congregation, and nowhere else. The bishop of the church in Rome was only the equal, in authority, of the humblest shepherd of souls in the most unknown, distant and ignorant part of the empire. Clemens tells us, “Those who were ordained rulers in the churches, were so ordained with the approbation and concurrence of the whole Church.” Clearly, therefore, Romanism did not prevail. Her system is a despotism, in which the people have no voice in the choice of their spiritual guides.

And the assumptions of Popery, like her mummeries, had no existence during the first three centuries. These the persecutions of Pagan Rome effectually repressed. Therefore, before “the man of sin” could be revealed, this let or hindrance must be removed. “And now,” says Paul, “ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed.”

In the year, AD 306, Constantine succeeded to the throne of his father. This marks an important era in the history of the Church. Having seen, as he claimed, the appearance of a cross in the heavens, exceeding bright, bearing the inscription, “Conquer by this,” he embraced Christianity, defeated Maxentius, and in 315, by formal edict, confirmed and extended the privileges of the Christians. Christianity was now established. The Emperor commenced the persecution of Paganism. A profession of the Gospel being no longer accompanied with danger, the churches being richly endowed, the clergy loaded with honors, it was but natural that upon the pure spiritual worship of him who came to abolish all forms, should be engrafted the superstitions of the ignorant heathen. Of a conversion of the heart, there was not even the pretence. With the growth of ignorance and love of ostentation came, not only further importations of unmeaning ceremonies, but also greater assumptions on the part of Rome’s bishop, until, in A.D. 606, the Emperor Phocas conferred upon Boniface III. the title of Universal Bishop. Thus Romanism, after a desperate struggle of three centuries, established itself. Henceforth none might, with impunity, despise its rites or ridicule its claims.

It must not be supposed, however, that the Roman pontiffs acquired supremacy without long continued efforts, and persistent opposition from those who looked upon the growth of this power as the rise of Antichrist. Protests and refutations were numerous. Irenaesus declared that the bishop of Rome was but a presbyter, for Jesus himself was the only bishop of souls. Maurus affirmed that all ministers were bishops, and all bishops were of equal rank. When summoned to Rome to stand trial for such blasphemous heresy, he paid no regard to the summons. When excommunicated he hurled back upon the Pope the sentence pronounced against himself, and continued, in defiance of the Pope’s authority, to discharge duty as pastor of his flock. On his death-bed he exhorted his people to continuance in disowning the usurped power of the great Roman Antichrist. The early Councils resisted Papal supremacy. The sixth of Carthage (AD 418) resisted three Popes; that of Chalcedon (AD 450), Pope Leo. St. Ibar, the Irish divine, wrote, “ We never acknowledge the supremacy of a foreigner.” Says Theodoret, “Christ alone is head of all.” In the early part of the sixth century a fierce contention arose “ between Symmachus and Laurentius, who were on the same day elected to the pontificate by different parties.” A Council assembled at Rome by Theodoric, king of the Goths, endorsed the election of the former. Ennodius, in an apology written for the Council and for Symmachus, first made the assertion, “The bishop of Rome is subject to no earthly tribunal.” He styles him, “judge in place of God, and vicegerent of the Most High.” These claims were maintained by the adherents of Symmachus, and detested and refuted by his opponents. Even Gregory, Pope, author and canonized saint—an authority surely with Papists—in his contest with the bishop of Constantinople, denounced the title of Universal bishop, as “vain,” “diabolical,” “anti-christian,” “blasphemous,” “execrable, infernal.”

He declares, “Our Lord says unto his disciples, be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your master, and all ye are brethren.” And again he affirms, “ Whosoever ADOPTS OR AFFECTS THE TITLE OF UNIVERSAL BISHOP, HAS THE PRIDE OF ANTICHRIST, AND IS IN SOME MANNER HIS FORERUNNER IN HIS HAUGHTY QUALITY OF ELEVATING HIMSELF ABOVE THE REST OF HIS ORDER. AND INDEED, BOTH THE ONE AND THE OTHER SEEM TO SPLIT UPON THE SAME ROCK; FOR AS PRIDE MAKES ANTICHRIST STRAIN HIS PRETENSIONS UP TO GODHEAD, SO WHOEVER IS AMBITIOUS TO BE CALLED THE ONLY AND UNIVERSAL BISHOP, ARROGATES TO HIMSELF A DISTINGUISHED SUPERIORITY, AND RISES, AS IT WERE, UPON THE RUINS OF THE REST.” As the doctrine of Papal supremacy is so strongly condemned by an infallible Pope, surely we ought to be excused for disbelieving it. As the Papacy is declared, by what Romanists deem the highest human authority, to be either Antichrist or his harbinger, further proof that she is the great apostasy is certainly uncalled for. Infallibility has spoken, and for once, we can believe, has certainly spoken the truth.

Two years after the death of Gregory, Boniface III. requested and obtained from the Emperor Phocas—the usurper and murderer—the title of Universal Bishop. This is the date commonly assigned as the origin of Popery. At this time the foundation stone of the entire structure was laid. Grant that the bishop of Rome is the legitimate successor of St. Peter, the primate of the Church, “the infallible judge in faith and morals,” sole interpreter of Scripture, and the entire system is logically defensible. Even, however, so late as the ninth century, Lewis, son of Charlemagne, owned no supremacy in the Pope, but sustained the power of the bishops and Council against him. To bring men to consent to their arrogant assumptions, the pontiffs now devised a new scheme. They procured, in the year 845, by the aid of their trusty friends, pretended decrees of early Popes, spurious writings of the fathers, and forged acts of synods and Councils, known since as the “Isidorian Decretals.” The most important of these documents was the pretended gift from Constantine the Great, in the year 324, of the city of Rome, and all Italy, with the crown, to Sylvester, then bishop of Rome. “We attribute,” says the imposture, “to the chair of St. Peter ALL THE IMPERIAL DIGNITY, GLORY AND POWER. Moreover, we give to Sylvester, and to his successors, our palace of Lateran—incontestably one of the finest palaces on earth; we give him our CROWN, OUR MITRE, OUR DIADEM, AND ALL OUR PRINCIPAL VESTMENTS; WE RESIGN TO HIM THE IMPERIAL DIGNITY. . . . . We GIVE As A FREE Gift To THE Holy Pontiff the city or Rowe, AND ALL THE WESTERN CITIES Or ITALY, AS WELL AS THE WESTERN CITIES OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES. To MAKE ROOM FOR HIM, WE ABDICATE OUR SOVEREIGNTY OVER ALL THESE PROVINCES and we withdraw from Rome, transferring the seat of our empire to Byzantium, since IT IS NOT JUST THAT A TERRESTRIAL EMPEROR SHALL RETAIN ANY POWER WHERE GOD PLACED THE HEAD OF RELIGION.” *


* Of Constantine’s pretended donation and the Decretals in general, Dr. Campbell remarks, “ ‘They are such bare-faced impostures, and so bunglingly executed, that nothing less than the most profound darkness of those ages could account for their success.”

By the aid of these base forgeries, approved by the Roman Pontiffs because designed to enrich the primacy of St. Peter, Nicolas I. succeeded, notwithstanding the determined opposition of the reflecting, in instilling into the minds of many the belief that the bishop of Rome was legislator and judge over the whole Church; that other bishops, and even Councils, derived authority solely from him, Nor were the results which flowed from this huge fabrication confined to the ninth century. Gradually, but surely, the whole constitution and government of the Church were changed. According to Mosheim, “The wisest and most impartial among the Roman Catholic writers, acknowledge and prove, that from the times of Lewis the Meck, the ancient system of ecclesiastical law in Europe was generally changed, and a new system introduced by the policy of the court of Rome.” The authors of the recent work entitled, “Janus,” “members of a school who yield to none in their loyal devotion to Catholic truth,” affirm: “ The Isidorian Deeretals revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, introducing a new system in the place of the old.” “ Upon these,” say they, “was founded the maxim that the Pope, as supreme judge of the Church, could be judged by no man.” It was on the strength of these fictions that Nicolas I. affirmed: “ {he Roman Church keeps the faith pure, and is free from stain.” These authors, certainly competent authority, at least with Catholics, affirm: “(Jesuit Cardinal) Bellarmine acknowledged that without the forgeries of the pseudo-Isidore, . . . it would be impossible to make out even a semblance of traditional evidence,” for the supremacy. (P. 319.)

As proving that Popery, as it now exists, is an apostasy from the true Church, we present some passages from “Janus,” that complete historical refutation of the Papal claim to supremacy and infallibility, which has recently caused the Catholic World and other publications of the “infallibles” such immense trouble, and—to say nothing of misrepresentation—such a vast amount of special pleading. They say:

“The Papacy, such as it has become, presents the appearance of a disfiguring, sickly, and choking excrescence on the organization of the Church, hindering and decomposing the action of its vital powers, and bringing manifest diseases in its train.”

“The well known fact speaks clearly enough for itself, that throughout the whole ancient canon law . . . there is no mention made of Papal rights.”

“When the presidency in the Church became an empire then the unity of the Church, so firmly secured before, was broken up.” (P. 21.)

“For a long time nothing was known in Rome of definite rights bequeathed by Peter to his successors.”

“The Church of Rome could neither exclude individuals nor Churches from the Church Universal.” (Pp. 64-66.)

“There are many national Churches which were never under Rome, and never even had any intercourse with Rome.” (P. 68.)

“The Popes took no part in convoking Councils.” (P. 63.)

“The force and authority of the decisions of Councils depended upon the consent of the Church, and on the fact of being generally received.” (Pp. 63, 64.)

Thus, the sons of “Holy Mother” themselves being witnesses, we confidently affirm that Romanism, in its form of worship, in its system of doctrines, and in its plan of government, is evidently different from the primitive Church. It must, therefore, be “the mystery of iniquity,” the great apostasy, “that man of sin,” “the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

The insolent ravings of this foe of the true Church, especially those of the last few months, may well strike us with amazement. Pope Boniface VIII. issued a decree, now embodied in the canon law, which solemnly proclaims:—‘ We declare, say, define, pronounce it to be of necessity to salvation, for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” In the fourth canon of the “Dogmatic Decrees on Catholic Faith,” promulgated in the third public session of the Vatican Council, April 24th, 1870, occur these words: “We admonish all that it is their duty to observe likewise the constitutions and decrees of this Holy See.” In the third chapter of the “ First Dogmatic Decree on the Church of Christ,” passed July 18th, 1870, it is affirmed:— “The decision of the Apostolic See, above which there is no higher authority, cannot be reconsidered by any one, nor is it lawful to any one to sit in judgment on his judgment. . . . . We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, according to which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the holy apostolic see and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, and is the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians.” And in the fourth chapter of the same, we find this remarkable assertion, made in this nineteenth century, made after Rome has been again and again proved guilty of entertaining not only doctrines evidently erroneous, but dogmas precisely contradictory—exact opposites :— “KNOWING MOST CERTAINLY THAT THIS SEE OF St. PETER EVER REMAINS FREE from ERROR.” Assertion seems their only stock in trade. With this as their formula, “Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia,” and this as their sole argument, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” they pronounce anathemas against all who deny, or even refuse cordially to accept, the doctrines of the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope. In this decree, the first on the Church, the unterrified five hundred thrice pronounce “anathema sit” against him who shall presume to call in question the primacy of St. Peter or the legitimate succession of Pius IX., Holy Father, Vicar of Christ, Vicegerent of God, infallible judge in faith and morals.

The Romish Church, which now boastingly claims inerrancy, nay even infallibility, has taught errors innumerable, has radically changed her ancient character and constitution, has become thoroughly corrupt in her centre of unity, has changed the forms of worship, has perverted the doctrines of the Gospel; in a word, has, as Paul predicted, fallen away.

Chapter V. Popery, Paganism.

ALTHOUGH the claim of the Pope to universal supremacy was not established until AD 606 (and is even now vigorously disputed by many loyal sons of Holy Mother), the candid historian is nevertheless ready to admit that the superstition denominated by Paul “an apostasy,” was, in all its chief features, distinctly visible prior to the arrogant assumptions of Boniface III. He, in the office of supreme Pontiff, did little more than sanction existing rites and enforce uniformity. The errors in doctrine and practice which have since attained such importance, and produced results so momentous, were most of them engrafted upon Christianity during the three preceding centuries. Whence they came is easily determined. Paganism was their fruitful source.

The motive which prompted to the introduction of these forms, adapting, as was supposed, the new religion to the deep-seated prejudices of the heathen, may have been, nay, we may say, certainly was, praiseworthy. With the fervent desire of becoming all things to all men, that they might by all means some, the early Christians, with the aid of imposing ceremonies and magnificent rites borrowed from Paganism, thought to win for Christ those who despised the simplicity of Christian worship. *

This policy, laudable in motive, was, however, exceedingly disastrous in its results. To purity of religion consequences the most pernicious ensued, Paganism began to supplant Christianity, leaving little save the name. The change in many doctrines and practices was indeed gradual—Rome boasts of her tardiness, deeming it wise deliberation—but on that account none the less real. Thus, the worship of images, though extensively prevalent in the beginning of the fourth century, was not established till the ninth. The sacrifice of the mass—Rome’s offering of human flesh—though originating about the middle of the fifth century, and almost universally believed in the ninth, being logically and compactly fitted into the system, an essential part thereof, was not erected into a dogma until the time of Pope Innocent III, at the fourth Council of the Lateran, AD. 1215. (Mosheim, III. chap. iii. part 2.) So likewise the invocation of saints, practised to some extent in the middle of the third century, was without ecclesiastical sanction till the ninth. No less gradual was her adoption of the doctrine of purgatory, that relic of ancient heathenism. So likewise the use of lamps, candles, incense, holy water, and priestly robes, became universal only by silencing opposition continued through centuries. But the gradual importation of these ceremonies, and the slowness with which they grew into favor, in no way affect their heathen origin. That Romanism is Paganism perpetuated, we shall endeavor to prove.


* Gregory, in his instructions given to Augustine, missionary to Britain, says: “Whereas it is custom among the Saxons to slay abundance of oxen, and sacrifice them to the devil, you must not abolish that custom, but appoint a new festival to be kept either on the day of the consecration of the churches, or the birthday of the saints whose relics are deposited there, and on those days the Saxons may be allowed to make arbors round the temples changed into churches, to kill their oxen and to feast, as they did while they were Pagans, only they shall offer their thanks and praises, not to the devil, but to God.” Says Mosheim: “This addition of external rites was also designed to remove the opprobrious calumnies which the Jewish and Pagan priests cast upon the Christians on account of the simplicity of their worship, esteeming them little better than atheists, because they had no temples, altars, victims, priests, nor any thing of that external pomp in which the vulgar are so prone to place the essence of religion. The rulers of the Church adopted, therefore, certain external ceremonics, that thus they might captivate the senses of the vulgar and be able to refute the reproaches of their adversaries, thus obscuring the native luster of the Gospel in order to extend its influence, and making it lose, in point of real excellence, what it gained in point of popular esteem.”

It was during the three centuries that elapsed between the pretended conversion of Constantine and the pontificate of Boniface III. that most of Rome’s customs and many of her doctrines were imported from heathenism. The religion of Jesus became a mere form, and not a life. Those who once, as idolaters, worshiped Jupiter and the host of gods, afterward, while worshiping the same images under the names of saints and martyrs, claimed to be Christians. As a necessary result, the same ceremonies, in the main, prevailed in the churches of these so-called followers of Jesus as in the Pagan temples. At the door of the temple stood a vase of holy water, from which the people sprinkled themselves.* How exactly has Rome copied this custom! Go into any Romish chapel or cathedral, and you will find the vessel containing the consecrated water, and modern heathens crossing themselves. The very composition of the water is the same, a mixture of salt with common water.


* “The Amula was a vase of holy water, placed by the heathens at the door of their temples, to sprinkle themselves with.”—Montfaucon.

One of the most ridiculous uses to which this water is applied, the sprinkling of horses, mules and asses, is, like all the other customs, borrowed from ancient Rome. On the Festival of St. Anthony, observed annually in the eternal city, the priest, dressed in sacerdotal robes, after muttering some Latin words, intended as a charm against sickness, death, famine, and danger, sprinkles with a huge brush all the animals brought in from the surrounding country, blasphemously repeating, “In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Sancti Spiritus.” St. Anthony, taking literally the command, “Preach the Gospel to every creature,” concluded that the “Good Tidings” ought to be proclaimed to the inferior creation, to birds, beasts, and fishes. Hence the Pope has in the Vatican a picture representing even fish as devoutly listening, heads out of water, to a preaching friar! It is on the 17th of January that the festival of this famous St. Anthony, patron of animals, is celebrated. When this falls on Sabbath, great is the concourse, uproarious is the merriment, profitable indeed is the laughable farce: neighing horses, braying asses, bleating sheep, barking dogs, men, women, and children, each rivaling the other in loquacity, shouting priests, the rattling carriages of cardinals and nobles, and the clink of the fees as they drop into the sacred treasury, produce together a din that Pandemonium might envy, possibly could equal, certainly could not surpass. The entire scene is one that would almost certainly prove fatal to an old Pagan philosopher, should he rise from his grave. A fit of laughter would speedily terminate his second existence. And this benediction in this nineteenth century! The wheel of progress must be moving backwards. The dark age must be the present, the midnight in Rome. And then to see an ass pulled by the tail to the door of the church to receive perforce St. Anthony’s blessing, kicking and raising its solemn voice in earnest protest, and going home, tail straight out and head down, sighing, “Life is a failure.” Well! human nature, as it exists among Protestants, could endure only one such exhibition.

blessing-animals

Even Romanists themselves regard this sprinkling of animals as a Pagan custom, perfected by the touch of infallibility. The old Romans, say they, were accustomed to sprinkle the horses at the Circensian games. It guarded them, it was believed, against evil spirits and accidents in the race. “Once on a time,” says a Catholic legend, “the horses of some Christians outran those of the heathen, because they were sprinkled with holy water.” Therefore this custom ought to be perpetuated; it has the sanction of God, the venerableness of antiquity, and was introduced by a saint, the great Anthony! The following may be found over the vessels of holy water in the Church of S. Carlo Borromeo, in the Corso, at Rome:

“Holy water possesses much usefulness when Christians sprinkle themselves with it with due reverence and devotion. The Holy Church proposes it as a remedy and assistant in many circumstances both spiritual and corporeal, but especially in these following:

“It’s Spiritual Usefulness.

“1. It drives away devils from places and from persons.

“2. Tt affords great assistance against fears and diabolical illusions.

“3. It cancels venial sins.

“4. It imparts strength to resist temptations and occasions to sin.

“5. It drives away wicked thoughts.

“6. It preserves safely from the passing snares of the devil, both internally and externally.

“7. It obtains the favor and presence of the Holy Ghost, by which the soul is consoled, rejoiced, and excited to devotion and disposed to prayer.

“8. It prepares the mind for a better attendance on the divine mysteries, and receiving piously and worthily the most Holy Sacrament.

“Its Corporeal Usefulness.

“1. It is a remedy against barrenness in women and beasts.

“2. It is a preservation from sickness.

“3. It heals the infirmities both of the mind and of the body.

“4. It purifies infected air and drives away plague and contagion.”

Wonderful water!

Nor is the use of holy water their only conspicuous theft. Clouds of smoke, we are told, arose from the burning incense as the idol worshipers entered the temple.* This custom of using incense for religious purposes was so peculiarly pagan, and felt, both by Christians and their enemies, as so strikingly unbecoming those who worshiped the humble Nazarene, that the method most frequently adopted by the heathen persecutors of testing the fidelity of a Christian to his convictions was to order him to throw incense into the censer. If he refused, he was accounted a Christian; if he threw even the least particle upon the altar, he was acquitted and classed among Pagans. In the churches of the great apostasy no one can fail to notice the use of perfumes. Often their cathedrals remain filled with the fumes of the incense for some considerable time after the services are concluded.

Closer still is Rome’s resemblance to Paganism. The heathen worshiper, on entering the temple, knelt before an idol and offered prayers. The devout papist, as he enters the church, often may be found kneeling before an image of the Virgin, praying, “O Holy Mary! MY SOVEREIGN QUEEN, AND Most Loving Mother! RECEIVE ME UNDER THY BLESSED PATRONAGE, AND SPECIAL PROTECTION, AND INTO THE BOSOM OF THY MERCY, THIS DAY, AND EVERY DAY, AND AT THE HOUR OF MY DEATH.”

“O GREAT, EXCELLENT, AND MOST GLORIOUS LADY, PROSTRATE AT THE FOOT OF THY THRONE, WE ADORE THEE FROM THIS VALLEY OF TEARS.”* “HAIL HOLY QUEEN, MOTHER OF MERCY, OUR LIFE, OUR SWEETNESS, AND OUR HOPE! TO THEE WE CRY, POOR BANISHED SONS OF EVE, TO THEE WE SEND OUR SIGHS, MOURNING AND WEEPING IN THIS VALLEY OF TEARS. TURN THEN, MOST GRACIOUS ADVOCATE! THY EYES OF MERCY TOWARDS US.”

“O HOLY MOTHER OF OUR GOD!
To THEE FOR HELP WE FLY;
DESPISE NOT THIS OUR HUMBLE PRAYER,
BUT ALL OUR WANTS SUPPLY.”

Were the most degraded of the heathen ever guilty of idolatry grosser than this ?

That they might clearly evidence the heathen origin of their customs, particulars seemingly the most insignificant were not allowed to pass into disuse. Even the arrangement of images in rows around the temple, the most highly prized standing alone in the most conspicuous place, has been slavishly copied, not only in centuries past, but in this late age. Nay, even the priest, dressed in robes apparently after the very pattern of those that decked the priests of ancient Rome, and attended, like his predecessors, by a boy in white, swings his pot of incense precisely as an old heathen in Homer’s time may be presumed to have done.

Laboriously endeavoring to exhaust the Pagan ritual, candles are kept burning before each altar and idol. In the churches of Italy they hang up lamps at every altar, says Mabillon. The Egyptians, says Herodotus, first introduced the use of lamps in worship. Rollin says (vol. i., pt. 2, ch. 2), “A festival surnamed the Feast of Lights, was solemnized at Sais. All persons throughout all Egypt, who did not go to Sais, were obliged to illuminate their windows.” So strikingly conspicuous was this part of the heathen worship, that the early Christians tauntingly said of their foes— “They light up candles to God as if he lived in the dark, . . . offering lamps to the Author and Giver of Light.”

Even the fiction of Purgatory, of which Gregory the Great has generally been represented by Papists as creator, and which has ever proved a source of immense wealth to the Pope and the clergy, is evidently an importation from Paganism. Like most of the other customs of the man of sin, it came in soon after Constantine’s pretended conversion, when Christianity became fashionable, and to men ambitious of distinction at the court, extremely profitable. Unknown to the Christian Church during the first five centuries, it was, however, well known in the heathen world even so early as Homer’s time. It is the old fire purification of souls; and the ceremonies now employed for the relief of those suffering the tormenting flames are remarkably similar to those anciently employed by Pagan priests. In fact the doctrine was so purely heathen, that not even Popish ingenuity could invent even an argument in its favor. Hence the Jesuit Cottonus, failing to find a passage in Scripture that would infallibly confirm it, implored the devil to assist him. For once even Satan himself was unable to wrest Scripture to his purpose. But, notwithstanding the small, the exceedingly unimportant consideration that no proof, except visions and dreams and assertion, was found, the Popes were able in the end to establish infallibly everything connected with purgatorial fires, and locate them at the earth’s center, 18,300.5 miles below the surface. Infallibility doesn’t need to know geography!

Their custom of invoking the dead is of heathen origin. The true Church of God never offered prayers to deceased mortals. The ancient Romans, however, deified their great men, and sought blessings from them. And the Papists, imitating their example, canonize those whom they honor during life, offer incense to them, bow before them and supplicate their assistance. Thus in “The Litany of Saints,” found in “The Catholic Manual,” their ordinary book of prayer, we find these petitions :

St. Stephen!
St. Laurence!
St. Vincent!
St. Fabian, and St. Sebastian!
St. John, and St. Paul!
St. Cosmas, and St. Damian!
St. Gervase, and St. Protase!
All ye holy Martyrs!
St. Sylvester!
St. Gregory!
St. Ambrose!
St. Augustin!
St. Jerom!
All ye holy Bishops and Confessors!
All ye holy Doctors!
St. Anthony!
St. Bennet!
St. Bernard!
St. Dominick!
St. Francis!
All ye holy Priests, and Levites!
All ye holy Monks, and Hermits!
St. Mary Magdalen!
St. Agatha!
St. Lucy!
St. Agnes!
St. Cecily ! (ete. for two more pages!) Make intercession for us !

And from the Freeman’s Journal (Sept. 24, 1870) we learn that the Archbishop of Cincinnati, in an address delivered at the ceremonies attending the depositing of relics in the convent of the St. Franciscan Sisters (Cincinnati), piously exhorted all devout Catholics to ask the mediation of St. Aureliana. The mortal remains of this saint, after sixteen centuries’ quiet rest, were taken (a chance to exercise faith), from the Catacombs of Rome, artistically encased in wax, transported across the Atlantic, and now rest, the object of devout veneration, in the metropolis of the West! This remarkable relic is the fruit of the indomitable perseverance of Mrs. Sarah Peters, the zealous convert whose untiring zeal was rewarded with the rare and blessed privilege of hearing mass said by Pope Pio Nono (Pope Pius IX) at the grave of St. Peter, beneath St. Peter’s, Rome. The tasteful correspondent of the paper, now so zealously engaged in raising Peter’s pence for “the infallible judge in faith and morals, the bishop of the Universal Church,” says, “The figure as it lay would have been “exquisite, had it not been marred by the ugly gash in the throat, and an appearance of wounds on the hands and feet, caused by pieces of the bones which were encased, being set in the white wax for the better veneration of the faithful.” Great indeed must be the faith which prompts persons, of even the least common sense, to venerate as the remains of the “virgin martyr of the proud and royal Aurelian family,” a wax figure, with a ghastly gash in the throat, and the bones sticking out! And what must be the superstition which leads to the invocation of this resurrected saint! We live in the year 1871, and boast of the world’s progress!

This idolatrous custom no doubt originated in veneration paid to departed worthies. Those, however, who so far conformed to heathen practices, soon offered worship to the creature. So universal became this superstition that even the ancient temple, sacred to Romulus, where infants were presented by their Pagan mothers to be cured of diseases, was consecrated to a Roman saint, Theodorus, to whom Catholic mothers present their sick children for healing. Nay, even the Pantheon, house of all the gods, the most celebrated heathen temple of antiquity, was rededicated by Pope Boniface IV. “to the blessed Virgin and all the saints And to this day, with the gods of old Rome bearing the names of Popish saints, the old Pagan worship, in all its essential features, is continued. There the traveller from every Catholic country may find his patron saint, and worship at his altar. And as with the Pantheon so with the other heathen temples; with the same ceremonies they worship the same idols under new names. Diana, Juno, Ceres, and Venus became the Virgin under different titles. Bacchus became St. Joseph. Orpheus and Apollo were regarded as types of Christ. Even the same festivals were perpetuated under new names, and consecrated to the commemoration of Christian anniversaries. The Liberalia were made to yield to the festival of St. Joseph, the ceremonies being slightly changed. The Palilia were retained as a festival in honor of St. John. The feast of St. Peter ad Vincula superseded the festival commemorative of Augustus’ victory at Actium. The Floralia, when the streets were strewn with flowers arranged in fantastic forms, were devoted to Our Lady. Even the wild festivities of the Saturnalia were in some measure retained in the excesses which were allowed at Christmas and Epiphany. The Cerealia, in honor of Ceres, the goddess of corn, were transformed into the visitation of the Virgin—the processions of women and virgins, in white robes, vowing chastity and strewing their beds with “agnus castus” being retained. In consequence of the vast increase in the number of saints, the list of heathen festivals was exhausted, so in AD 835, Gregory IV. established the feast of ALL SAINTS.

A recent traveller to Rome says:— “You frequently see persons prostrate before images, and in a state of the greatest apparent devotion, even if these images are formed out of materials taken from heathen temples. At Pisa I saw several females prostrate before the statues of Adam and Eve, which are exhibited in a state of almost entire nudity. The celebrated statue of St. Peter, in the Church of St. Peter’s at Rome, the toe of which is almost literally kissed away, was originally a statue of Jupiter, taken from the capitol. Many of the altars and ornaments in the churches, are entirely heathen in their origin and appearance. Naked forms in marble abound in all the churches. Many of the vases used for baptismal purposes, and those containing the Holy Water, were anciently used for similar purposes in the days of heathenism.”

Such unseemly haste has characterized Rome’s propensity to manufacture saints, that some ridiculous mistakes have occurred. Thus, they have canonized Julia Evodia, a heathen, respecting whom nothing is known except that she erected a tombstone to her heathen mother. They have, by the power of the keys, infallibly converted a mountain into a saint, Mount Soracte, becoming S. Oracte, St. Oreste. They have also a St. Viar, manufactured by a procrustean process from PrefectuS VIARum, overseer of roads; a sainted cloak, and a sainted handkerchief. In honor of the last-mentioned saint, whose surface bears an impression of the Saviour’s face, a true image, made as he wiped his face at the execution, Pope John XXII. composed a prayer as follows :—* HAIL HOLY FACE OF OUR REDEEDMER, PRINTED UPON A CLOTH AS WHITE AS SNOW; PURGE US FROM ALL SPOT OF VICE, AND JOIN US TO THE COMPANY OF THE BLESSED. BRING US TO OUR COUNTRY, O HAPPY FIGURE, THERE TO SEE THE PURE FACE OF CHRIST.” This sacred relic—preserved in St. Peter’s, where is an altar erected hy Pope Urban VIII. to the honor of Veronica, “vera icon,” the true image—grants, according to Pope Innocent III, ten days’ indulgence to all who visit it. Shades of Paganism, did ever superstition equal that! “His Infallibility,” Pope Pius IX., certainly deserves commiseration. To be the rock which shall support this mighty fabric of baptized Paganism, must be an oppressive life!

And to make the resemblance to heathenism complete in everything pertaining to saints, “ Holy Mother” earnestly recommends every Catholic to select some particular saint as a protecting divinity, a patron. Thus, in a “Catechism and Instructions” designed for very small children by M. C. Kavanagh, and having the unqualified commendation of one of Rome’s most honored Archbishops, occurs this pious advice, “ You should never be without some object of piety, such as a Crucifix, picture of Our Lady, your good Angel, or Patron Saint, in your bedroom.” Anciently, every Roman family had its penates, its household gods, a necessary appendage to every dwelling.

Their priestly power is an imitation of Pagan spiritual despotism. In the true Church, “all are kings and priests unto God.” Even the most humble, unknown, ignorant, and even sinful creature, “may come boldly unto the throne of grace.” But the Papal priests, servile copyists of the heathen, tyrannize over the souls of men, and claim the right to stand between the penitent sinner and his Saviour. All the blessings which he desires, and so much needs, must come through the good-will and efficacious services of priests. And these, forgetting that he who would serve God acceptably in the ministry of the Gospel, must be “least of all” and “servant of all,” are too often proud, insolent, tyrannical.

Their processions are of heathen origin. The ancient Romans, on set days, paraded, bearing lighted candles and carrying idols dressed in costly clothing. At these solenmities priests were assisted by the magistrates in ceremonial robes. The youth, gaudily dressed, followed, singing songs in honor of the god whose festival they were celebrating. Most slavishly has this custom been copied in Roman Catholic countries. At the festival of the Holy Virgin, or some other Romish saint, the priests, magistrates, and even ladies and mere boys, with lighted wax candles in their hands, form in solemn procession, bearing images, and chanting hymns. A traveler to Rome thus describes the festival of the Annunciation:—“ Processions of penitents are seen silently wending their way along the streets, clothed in long black robes, preceded by a black cross, and bearing in their hands skulls and bones, and contribution-boxes for souls in purgatory. . . . The Pope himself was clothed in robes of white and silver, and as he passed along the crowds of gazing people that lined the streets and filled the windows, he forgot not incessantly to repeat his benediction—a twirl of three fingers, typical of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—the little finger representing the latter. Many tiresome ceremonies followed his entry into the church. He was seated on his throne; all the Cardinals successively approached— kissed his hand—retired a step or two—gave three low bows—one to him in front, as personifying God the Father, one to the right, intended for the Son, and one to the left for the Holy Ghost.” Most powerfully do such scenes remind us of the pompous ceremonies of ancient Paganism; we seem standing in the midst of some heathen city of the ages past, and witnessing their grotesquely solemn superstitions.

The title of Pontifex Maximus is conspicuously a theft from ancient Rome. All good Papists are stanch advocates of the Pope’s supremacy. They consider him the Vicar of Christ, infallible Head of the Church, fountain of all holiness, source of all spiritual blessings, successor to St. Peter. Admitting that Peter was in Rome, and was bishop of the entire Church—which no Papist has ever yet successfully proved—the fact is yet undeniable that the name, the office, the authority, and the functions of the Pope are precisely the same as those of the chiefest pontiff in Pagan Rome. The worldly pomp and splendor that now surround the Papal court, comporting so poorly with what we know of the poverty, self-denial, and simple manners of the ardent, impetuous Apostle, point unmistakably to the Pontifex Maximus of old Rome. He, like his servile imitators, claimed to be the arbiter of all cases, civil and sacred, human and divine. If loyal Romanists, therefore, would say that the present Pope is the legitimate successor of the lordly pontiff who, even when Christ was a babe in Bethlehem, could claim regular succession from pontiffs dating backwards for centuries, they would tell the truth for once, and might add fresh laurels to their boasted claim of antiquity.

The votive offerings so frequently made in Catholic churches are an imitation of a custom practiced in Rome long prior to the Christian era. Nothing was more common than votive gifts presented to the gods in consequence of vows taken in times of danger, or for some supposed miraculous deliverance. Of this the authors of Greece and Rome make frequent mention. Even this means of fostering superstition did not escape Romish observation. It was early incorporated into the scheme of Popish worship. Around the shrines of the saints are hung, in almost countless number, these votive offerings, “evidences at once of the grossest superstition and of the most servile imitation of Pagan practices. A correspondent of a secular paper, writing recently from Paris, gives an animated description of a scene witnessed in one of the Cathedrals of the French capital on the reception of news by mail from MacMahon’s defeated army. Wives, sisters, lovers, were seen presenting their gifts to Our Lady—thanksgiving offerings for the deliverance of their loved ones; others, hanging up their gifts, knelt and tearfully implored the protection of the Mother of God for the exposed, the wounded, the suffering, the dying. Marble tablets, about eight inches by four, graven with sentiments such as these, “In humble thankfulness for the return of my beloved husband from the war,” “ Honor to Our Lady for her merciful deliverance,” “ In acknowledgment of the prayer Our Lady answered,” covered all the walls and even the pillars ‘overhead, so that the entire church of Our Lady of Victory was literally lined with these records of gratitude. To make the heathen scene complete, there were lighted candles and pictures, officiating priests in gaudy vestments, and a glittering altar loaded with ornaments and votive offerings.

The sacrifice of the mass is a conformity to Paganism as disgusting as it is slavishly accurate. Christians have always believed that Christ’s death is an all-sufficient sacrifice for sin, and has forever done away with the necessity and propriety of any other. “ For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin.” Popery, however, like Paganism, dishonors this one perfect sacrifice, by substituting others in its stead. It is indeed true that Papists do not offer the blood of bulls and goats; they offer, however, what is fur less reasonable and more grossly superstitious, A CONSECRATED WAFER, particles of bread, transubstantiated, by the magic words of the priest, into the “actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ;” into “his bones, nerves, muscles;” and the wine into “his real blood, which flowed in his veins.” If priest and people really believe what they so repeatedly affirm they believe, then are they among the most degraded of heathen worshipers— offering human flesh on their altars, eating human flesh and drinking human blood. Either, then, human sacrifices are perpetuated, and that, too, in the most shocking, most revolting form, or infallibility errs. Hither the priest creates a god, offers him as a sacrifice for sin, and ends in eating him, or all Papists worship FLOUR AND WATER. There is the dilemma! Romanists, choose which horn you please.

But even heathen, in their wildest vagaries, never clung to customs so repugnant to common sense as many that grow out of the doctrine of transubstantiation. For example, the priest, holding a wafer between his thumb and the forefinger of his right hand, says: “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world,” which he thrice repeats, then lays one wafer upon the tongue of each communicant. In winter, the wafers are consecrated twice a month, in summer, once a week. Consecration is oftener in summer than in winter, because the host, by the excessive heat, corrupts, producing worms! A god turned to worms!! It is an injunction of Holy Mother, however, that this corrupted host must be eaten. It is still “the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.” Again: “If in winter the blood be frozen in the cup, put warm cloths about the cup; if that will not do, let it be put into boiling water near the altar, till it be melted, taking care it does not get into the cup.” A god frozen and warmed with bandages or boiling water!! Surely, men have lost their reason! Heathen were never so devoid of common sense. Worse still: “If any of the blood of Christ fall upon the ground by negligence, it must be licked up with the tongue, the place be sufficiently scraped, and the scrapings burned; but the ashes must be buried in holy ground. “If after consecration a gnat or spider, or any such thing, fall into the chalice, let the priest swallow it with the blood, if he can; but if he fear danger, and have a loathing, let him take it out and wash it with wine, and when mass is ended, burn it and cast it and the washing into holy ground. It was solemnly declared by a reverend father, seconded by several friars, that a dog, which had accidentally caught and eaten the falling wafer, should be henceforth called “the sacrament dog ;” that when he died he should be buried in consecrated ground, that he must not be allowed to play with other dogs, and that the woman who owned him must place a silver dog on the tabernacle where the host was deposited, and pay a sum of money to the church, Surely Popery has out-paganized Paganism itself.

Nothing is more evident than that asceticism, which is manifestly opposed to the whole spirit of the Bible, is of Pagan origin. It is a vain attempt to work out salvation by severe self-denial, by withdrawing from the abodes of men and the customary pursuits of life, and undergoing penance with the hope that God is well pleased with those who render miserable the life he gave them. The Eremites of the heathen, especially those of Egypt, the Essenes and the Therapeutae, retiring from the world and all useful occupations, vowing chastity, poverty and obedience, clothing themselves in skins or the coarsest materials, dwelling in caverns, practicing tortures, sometimes even scourging themselves with whips, and passing much of their time in silent contemplation, were accustomed to travel from house to house, with sacks upon their backs, begging bread, wine, and all kinds of victuals for the support of their lazy fraternities. Precisely the same customs prevail even now in India and Siam, handed down from the same source, Egypt, the fruitful parent of so many gloomy misanthropes (people who hate or mistrust humankind). Hordes of mendicant (beggar) priests, claiming superior sanctity, feed on the people, consuming the fruits of honest industry, and returning no equivalent. After these heathen models, Rome’s religious orders of monks and nuns, in their almost endless variety, were unquestionably formed, and that too by the most raving fanatics. These orders have precisely the same vows—chastity, poverty and obedience. They retire into monasteries, nunneries, deserts, or caves, spend their time in filth or useless reverie and idleness; clothe themselves in rags and wretchedness, or in garments powerfully reminding one of their heathen prototypes, and practice severe self-inflicted tortures. So likewise celibacy, so vaunted in the Romish Church, and abstinence from animal food, are among the austerities recommended by Pagans centuries before the Christian era.

That no feature, at least no important feature, of Paganism might be allowed to fall into oblivion, Rome can boast of her sect, the legitimate successors of the Gymnosophists of Egypt, which claims that the perfection of piety consists in an annihilation of every affection implanted in human nature, including even love of one’s parents, which, to any but a heathen, might reasonably be presumed to be innocent. Those voluntarily choosing a hermit life—thus casting slander on the God that made them, and more frequently failing into gross sins than those preferring to remain in society, and there attempt to live worthy of him whose life was spent in labors of love with the multitude— became at one time so numerous in the infallible Church, that in Egypt alone their number was little less than 100,000. In one city, Oxyrinthus, there were 20,000 virgins and 10,000 monks. To find from 7000 to 10,000 lazy monks under the superintendence of one abbot was by no means unusual.

And even the self-whipping, copied from the priests of Isis, Papists have retained. True, the sect of the Flagellantes no longer exists (but flagellation continues in Opus Dei) , but then in the eternal city, during the season of Lent, fleshly discipline is still practiced. Only a short time since, in one of the churches of Rome, after a brief season of prayer, the candles being extinguished, a company of the faithful, for the space of an hour, sacredly devoted themselves to the use of the consecrated whip—either upon their backs or upon the benches. Seneca, referring to this same custom in Pagan Rome, says: “If there be any gods that desire to be worshipped after this manner, they do not deserve to be worshipped at all; since the very worst of tyrants, though they have sometimes torn and tormented people, yet have never commanded men to torture themselves.” And the Emperor Commodus, shrewd old Pagan as he was, being opposed to people wearing unearned laurels, ordered these self whippers “to lash themselves in good earnest, and not feign it merely and impose upon the people.”

Even so trifling a circumstance as kissing the Pope’s toe is borrowed from the heathen Emperor and tyrant, Caligula. When first the pontifical toe of the old pagan was introduced to the public, it aroused a violent storm of indignation, being taken as the greatest possible insult to freedom. Now, however, in Christian Rome, it scarcely ruffles the serenity of even the proudest and most honored Papist. It is the condition of access into the awe-inspiring presence of “Our Lord God the Pope, infallible judge in faith and morals.” And as he is the legitimate successor of the lordly pontiff who was conducted to the castle of Toici, in France, by two kings, one walking on either side of his horse, and holding the bridle rein; and of Gregory VIL, who compelled the Emperor Henry IV. to remain three full days at his palace gate, barefoot and fasting, humbly suing for admittance, it would be too cruel to deny the Holy Father of all Christendom the small honor of having the faithful kiss his jeweled slipper.

Instead of tracing the remaining characteristic features of Romanism back to their heathen origin, we must content ourselves with bringing forward a few authorities substantiating the position that Popery is perpetuated Paganism. The first shall be Dean Waddington. “The copious transfusion of heathen ceremonies into Christian worship, which had taken place before the end of the fourth century, had, to a certain extent, Paganized (if we may so express it) the outward form and aspect of religion, and these ceremonies became more general and more numerous, and, so far as the calamities of the times would permit, more splendid in the age which followed. To console the convert for the loss of his favorite festival, others of a different name, but similar description, were introduced; and the simple and serious occupation of spiritual devotion was beginning to degenerate into a worship of parade and demonstration, or a mere scene of riotous festivity.”

Aringhus, a Roman Catholic writer, acknowledging the conformity between Pagan and Popish rites, explains and defends it as follows :— The Popes found it necessary, in the conversion of the Gentiles, to dissemble and wink at many things and yield to the times, and not to use force against customs which the people are so obstinately fond of, nor to think of extirpating at once everything that had the appearance of profane.”

Dr. Middleton, in his letters from Rome, to which we acknowledge ourselves indebted for many of the above mentioned facts, affirm:— “All their ceremonies appear plainly to have been copied from the rituals of primitive Paganism; as if handed down by an uninterrupted succession from the priests of old, to the priests of new Rome.” After carrying out the comparison to an extent which would be wearisome were it not so deeply interesting, he employs this language :—“ I could easily carry on this parallel, through many more instances of the Pagan and Popish ceremonies, to show from what spring all that superstition flows, which we so justly charge them with, and how vain an attempt it must be to justify by the principles of Christianity a worship formed upon the plan and after the very pattern of pure heathenism.”

Considering the evidence we are able to present of the strikingly accurate conformity of modern Popery to ancient Paganism, who is not ready to believe that if Cicero should rise from his grave in the Campus Martius, and wandering through Rome should enter St. Peter’s, he would certainly imagine that the successors of the old priests, in scarcely a circumstance changed, were, with the same fopperies, which in the times of the Caesars excited the ridicule of the learned, worshipping Diana, or Venus, or Apollo?

If, as we believe has been successfully proved, modern Romanism is only the Paganism of Antechristian times perpetuated, then we may expect to find it bearing a close affinity to Buddhism, the oldest known religion of the Indo-European race. For unless Dwight and Max Maller, and in fact all philologists are incorrect in their oft-repeated declaration that India and Greece and Rome were peopled by kindred tribes, speaking cognate languages and having essentially the same religion, then is modern Popery the same as Buddhism of the present day, barring only the slight changes that have occurred since the separation. And as each prides itself in veneration of the past, in inerrancy and immutability, these may be presumed to he few.

That Romanism is indeed the twin sister of the Buddhist religion none surely can deny. A comparison of the two will force conviction upon even the most incredulous. Antedating Christianity by several centuries, and spreading over all the countries inhabited by what are now known as the Indo-European races, Buddhism has ever had, and now has, precisely those features which mark the Papal Church, consisting partly of maxims of morality and partly of dogmas of faith on subjects transcending the reach of reason, it rests conjointly on the authority of certain sacred books and the decisions of early councils—called, like Rome’s, ecumenical, and blindly venerated. The worshipers of Buddha in Burma, Siam, and the Chinese Empire— numbering more than the adherents of any other religious system known in either ancient or modern times— have their relics and their images, the objects of supreme veneration; their temples costing fabulous sums of money; their saints canonized by ecclesiastical authority; their priests with shaven heads, vowing chastity, poverty and obedience; their wax candles burning night and day; their penances and self-inflicted tortures; their endless traditions, and hair-splitting moral distinctions; and even their confessional. They have also their Lent, when for four or five weeks all the people are supposed to live on vegetables and fruits; their acts of merit, repetition of prayers, fasting, offerings to the images, celibacy, voluntary poverty, enforced devotions, and munificent gifts to temples, monasteries and idols. Even the rosary, a string of beads used in saying prayers, and supposed by Papists to be a device specially revealed to St. Dominic, is part of the sacred machinery of the devout Buddhist. And their monasteries, into which priests retire from the world, and engage in the instruction of the young, especially in the mysteries of their sacred books, almost startle one by their close resemblance to those of Popery. And to see the worshipers of Buddha, each with a rosary in his hand, prostrate themselves before an image and repeat their prayers, whilst priests in gaudy vestments, bowing before lighted candles, mutter their incantations in a language which has long since ceased to be spoken, forces upon even the least reflecting the conviction that though Rome has ever claimed the power of working miracles, she has shown little inventive genius. Not even are shrines and sacred places a monopoly with Rome. There are plenty of them, and pilgrims too, in India. And why not, since they have their preaching friars, spending their time alternatively in sacred oratory and in begging. Nay, even modem miracles, though by no means so numerous, and certainly not so astounding, are performed by Rome’s elder sister. And to complete the picture, they have their infallible pontiff. At Lhassa, as well as at Rome, dwells one whom the faithful make believe cannot err when speaking ea cathedra. With two infallibles, one in Asia and one in Europe, the world certainly ought not to err in faith and morals. And then, like the Romanist and the ancient Egyptian, the learned Buddhist indignantly repels the charge of idolatry, affirming that he only employs idols as a visible image of the invisible Buddha, an aid in spiritual worship. Alike in most things, and antedated only in one, infallibility, Rome is, as yet, ahead in the mad chase after superstition. Buddhism has no indulgences, no purgatory, no living Eucharist, that is, human sacrifices: —Paganism has been outstripped.

PART II. Popery essentially hostile to Christianity.
Chapter I. Arrogance. (2 Thess. ii. 4.)

HAVING proved—we trust to the satisfaction of unprejudiced minds—that Romanism is the predicted foe of Christ’s kingdom, the mystery of iniquity that even in the Apostles’ time was beginning to work, the great apostasy, baptized Paganism, it remains for us to show that she is, in spirit, doctrine and practice, hostile to the true Church of Christ; that in her leading characteristics she is necessarily antagonistic to Christianity, nor less so in this enlightened nineteenth century, than in the world’s midnight, Rome’s golden age; that her changes have most of them been for the worse, towards grosser superstition, greater pride, and more absurd dogmas.

In Paul’s glowing description of the rise of Antichrist, occur these remarkable words: “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” No arrogance that the world has ever witnessed can compare with that of the Papal Church. It claims not only immutability but also inerrancy, not merely the right to bind the conscience and destroy the body, but even to damn the soul. It boastingly proclaims itself able to work miracles, to forgive sins, and to create the world’s Creator. Its proud pontiff calls himself God’s vicegerent on earth, Vicar of Christ. By his subjects he is denominated, “ His Holiyess,” “Our Lord God THE Pope.” The celebrated canonist, Prospero Fagnani, the oracle of the court of Rome, in his commentaries on the Decretals, thus defines the Pope:

“We may make laws and institutions for all the world. He has power over all men, even infidels. The Pope judges all men, and can be only judged of God. Te cannot be judged of councils; nay, were the whole world to pronounce in any particular against the Pope, it would be right to submit to his judgment against the world. Everything he does is done by divine authority. The Pope may, by himself alone, determine the symbols of faith, since it belongs to him only to decide in matters of faith. The Pope is not subject to the desisions of his predecessors—not even to that of the Apostles; for there is no power that can limit the power of the keys. He may dispense with the observance of the divine laws and the Gospel precepts. The Pope may grant every species of dispensation, with the exception of one, to marry one’s father, or one’s mother. He may depose magistrates and princes, and free their subjects from their obligations to loyalty. He is king of kings and ruler of rulers; he is the prince of bishops, the judge of all men. He can create a law where before there was none.” If this is not dethroning the King of heaven, what shall we call it?

Innocent III, in his coronation sermon, said :—“Now you may see who is the servant who is placed over the family of the Lord; truly is he the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the successor of Peter, the Christ of the Lord, the God of Pharaoh; placed in the middle between God and man, on this side of God, but beyond man; less than God, but greater than man; who judges all, but is judged by none.”

Bellarmine wrote :—“If the Pope should err by enjoining vices or prohibiting virtues, the Church, unless she would sin against conscience, would be bound to believe vices to be good and virtues evil.” What can we say to men who profess such doctrines?

Another writer, in defining the limits between Papal and secular power, affirms:—”The Pope is bound by no forms of law; his pleasure is law. The Pope makes right of that which is wrong, and can change the nature of things. He can change square things into round.”

Nor must it be imagined that these doctrines are only the legacy of the dark ages. They are the beliefs of the living present, held more firmly now than ever.

The Freeman’s Journal and Catholic Register of New York, under date of Oct. 1, 1870, holds this language :—“It is as obligatory to hear the voice of Pius IX., when he speaks, avowedly to the universal Church, as it is to listen to the voice of Jesus Christ.”

The Papal Church has the effrontery and the blasphemy to claim, even in this age, that she is, always has been and ever will be, immutable. Le Universe, an Ultramontane journal of France, lately contained the following:—

“The Catholic Church is in the commencement of all things. It has always existed and will always exist. It was before time, it is in time, it will be after time, without spots, or wrinkles, or any change. It does not change; it is developed. It is from God, it is through God, it will be God, for God has constituted it to fill the human race with divinity, that it may become an increase of God.”

This, in face of Rome’s numberless changes, her countless contradictions and variations (see “Edgar’s Variations”), is a faith that may well be denominated sublime. ‘The present Pope is a firm believer in transubstantiation, but Pope Gelasius I. wrote:— “The substance of the bread and wine ceases not to exist.” The doctrine of purgatory is, with all true Catholics of the present day, an essential part of that perfect, unchanged and unchangeable system. But this doctrine, little more than four hundred years old, is condemned by more than twenty of the fathers, including St. Augustine, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Tertullian, Ambrose, the two Cyrils, Chrysostom, Athenasius, and Jerome. Not always was Rome so unreflecting as publicly to proclaim her damnable avarice, her heartlessness and inhumanity in allowing the souls of her “beloved children” to lie “broiling in the fiercest flames” till a few coppers, wrenched from her poverty stricken victims, drop into her accursed coffers. Pio Nono (Pope Pius IX), and all intelligent Papists, it is fair to presume, agree with the teachers of science, as to the diameter of the earth. But Pope Gregory, and Bellarmine, and Dr. Rosaccio placed purgatory at the earth’s centre, more than 18,000 miles below the surface. They must be correct, for infallibility, it seems, has measured it. The Inquisition of Rome, in 1633, guided by the Vicar of God, infallible Pope Urban, in condemning Galileo, affirmed:— “The proposition that the earth moves is absurd, philosophically false, and theologically considered, at least, erroneous in faith.” As infallibility cannot correct itself, in what a dilemma the Papal world finds itself! They are living on a flat, immovable planet, the centre of the universe. Similar countless contradictions and variations of Popery in no way stagger the faith of true Romanists, however. The children of Holy Mother, evidently believing some things because they are absurd, give us touches of arrogance that are truly sublime. Le Pére Lacordaire, the noted Dominican preacher, in a sermon delivered not long since in Notre Dame, exclaims :—

“Assuredly the desire has not been wanting to lay hold of us, or put us to fault against immutability; for what a weighty privilege to all those who do not possess it: a doctrine immutable when everything upon earth changes! A doctrine which men hold in their hands, which poor old men in a place called the Vatican guard under the key of this cabinet, and which without any other defense resists the course of time, the dreams of sages, the designs of kings, the fall of empires—always one, constant, identical with itself! What a prodigy to deny! What an accusation to silence!”

A little farther on he represents the Pope, after refusing the demand of the present age for change, and scorning a million of men under arms, as indignantly exclaiming, when offered half of Caesar’s sceptre on condition he will change just a little:

“Keep thy purple, O Caesar! tomorrow they will bury thee in it; and we will chant over thee the Alleluia and the De Profundis, which never change.”

Since this eloquent bombast penned, Pio Nono (Pope Pius IX) has yielded his temporal crown to a few shouting Liberals. Yet such is the grandeur of Papal arrogance that, ignoring changes, the Pope’s loyal sons shout: “‘Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity. We stand by now; and wait to see how the Lord will bring safety for our Church out of what, humanly considered, is a desperate case. But let the enemy take note of our confidence! We acknowledge we know not how, but we are sure of a deliverance. We do not know what the Holy Father will do. Perhaps the Holy Father does not know what he will do a month hence.” *

So the boasted immutability has been shivered to pieces by the waywardness of the Pope’s “poor misguided sheep.” And since infallibility is unfortunately not foreknowledge, even “Our Lord God the Pope” does not know what will come of his having so peremptorily refused the half of Caesar’s crown, offered him by the vivid imagination of “the great Dominican.”

The Church of Rome claims the exclusive right to interpret Scriptures. According to Popery, individual believers have no right whatever to form for themselves opinions as to the meaning of the Bible. In religious matters they have no right to think. It is their duty to believe and to obey. It is the exclusive right of the sovereign Pontiff to think and to command.* God has indeed given all men reason and conscience, but they may not use them except according to Papal rule. The Pope gives to the Word of God all the authority it can possess! Without his sanction it has no binding force. He can abrogate the laws of the Creator. He can declare the commands of Christ of no effect. If God should speak in an audible voice from heaven, we would not be required to obey unless the Pope endorsed the command. Nay, the case is even worse. For the spiritual despot in the eternal city has actually forbidden his subjects to read, or even possess, the will of heaven revealed for our salvation. The bull of May 5th, 1844, contains this remarkable prohibition :


*In the bull of Gregory XVI, dated May 8, 1844, occur these words: “Watch attentively over those appointed to expound the Holy Scriptures, that they dare not, under any pretext whatever, interpret or explain the holy pages contrary to the traditions of the Holy Fathers, or to the service of the Catholic Church.”

“MOREOVER, WE CONFIRM AND RENEW THE DECREES RECITED ABOVE, DELIVERED IN FORMER TIMES BY APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, AGAINST THE PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, READING AND POSSESSION OF BOOKS OR THE HOLY SCRIPTURE TRANSLATED INTO THE VULGAR TONGUE.”

burning-bibles

Thus an erring, creature presumes to tell the King of heaven that he may not make known his will to his own creatures. Has not Romanism “exalted itself above all that is called God?”

In entire consistency this mystery of iniquity has denounced the American Bible Society as “a most crafty device, shaking the foundations of religion,” “a pestilence,” “a defilement of the faith most eminently dangerous to souls.” Again: “It is greatly feared that Bible societies will, by a perverse interpretation, turn Christ’s Gospel into a human Gospel, or, what is worse still, into a Gospel of the devil.” In a letter dated June 26th, 1816, and addressed to the Primate of Poland, Pius VII. said: “It is evident, from experience, that the Holy Scriptures when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit. Warn the people entrusted to your care, that they full not into the snares prepared for their everlasting ruin.” In the nineteenth century language such as this falls from lips claiming superior sanctity and even supernatural guardianship! If our versions are so shockingly dangerous, and that, too, when simple translations without note or comment, one would suppose they would industriously circulate a translation of their own. Instead of doing so, however, this proposition, “It is useful and necessary to study the Scriptures,” one of the Popes branded as “false, shocking, scandalous, seditious, impious, blasphemous.” It would seem that in the judgment of Rome the Bible is the most dangerous book in existence. And yet, strange to say, this immutable, infallible Church has, by solemn degree, granted her priests the privilege of selling licenses to read God’s Word. Among the ten rules enacted by the Council of Trent respecting prohibited books, we find this:

“It is referred to the judgment of the bishops, or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, PERMIT THE READING OF THE BIBLE TRANSLATED INTO THE VULGAR TONGUE BY CATHOLIC AUTHORS, TO THOSE PERSONS WHOSE FAITH AND PIETY, THEY APPREHEND, WILL BE AUGMENTED, AND NOT INJURED BY IT; AND THIS PERMISSION THEY MUST HAVE IN WRITING.”

Thus God’s Vicegerent tells him: “We will grant our subjects permission to read your message of life if they will pay us for the privilege.” Standing between the Creator and the creature, the Pope says to the former: “You may not speak to my subjects;” to the latter: “You may not receive the message of your Maker, unless you have the means of purchasing my permission.” And even this presumption is sustained by Roman logic. “The Pope has the chief power of disposing of the temporal affairs of Christians, in order to their spiritual good.” Wealth corrupts men. By every conceivable means, therefore, it should be taken from them. Verily we are prepared to read this claim: “The Pope has power above all powers in heaven and in earth.” “He, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

It is a maxim with Popery that ignorance is the mother of devotion. If this be true—and infallibility has affirmed it—the devotion of the mass of Papists must be the deepest, the purest, the noblest, and the most spiritual the erring creatures of God have ever rendered him. And hence arises a reason, all powerful with Romanists, why popular education should be opposed. And accordingly they are, and always have been, opposed to the freedom of the press, to the general diffusion of knowledge, to the progress of the arts and sciences. Pope Gregory, in his bull of 1832, denounces liberty of opinion, of conscience, and of the press, as “absurd and erroneous doctrines; pregnant with the most deplorable evils; and pests of all others most to be dreaded in a state.” And those who proclaim censures such as these irreconcilable with the rights of men, are charged with “falsity, rashness, and infamous effrontery.” Catholicism is, in interest, in principle, and in policy, the uncompromising foe to modern ideas of education. What Protestants denominate the dark ages Romanism calls the golden age. It disdains the civilization, intelligence, and sterling activity of the present, and were the power hers, no doubt the wheels of progress would be turned backwards four or five centuries.

The Church of Rome claims ability to forgive sins. Confession being made and the money demanded handed over, absolution is unconditionally granted. This is their claim. And in accordance therewith is their practice. We are indeed aware of the affirmation of many, that the priests, in granting absolution, merely declare, that to the penitent, sin is remitted by God. We affirm, however, that the Church claims the inherent power of forgiving sin. One of the anathemas of the Council of Trent, certainly no mean authority, is: “If any one shall say that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but a naked ministry of pronouncing and declaring that sins are remitted to the person confessing, provided only they be believers… . let him be accursed.” Here forgiveness of sin is claimed as a judicial act of the priest. He sits in Christ’s seat, granting pardon. And against each and every apologist, whether Papal or Protestant, who, smoothing down the asperities of Popery, would reconcile it with reason, Rome’s last argument is fulminated, “anathema sit (let him be accursed).”

And their theological works contain arguments to prove that to the Pope has been given the right of granting this pardoning power to every priest. Did not Christ say to Peter, “Whatsoever thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heaven?” Every priest, therefore, holding his commission from Peter’s successor, has ability to pardon the sinner. And why not? Is there not a storehouse of good works? Has not the Pope the key? May he not disinterestedly sell the merit accumulated from the obedience of the faithful above all that God required? Absolutions are, therefore, only the transfers of merit, of the supererogatory works of Rome’s renowned saints. And surely he who can make virtue vice, and vice virtue, can set some of this treasure to the account of the sinner who proves the genuineness of his desire for it by paying the stipulated price. Nay, “the Mother of Harlots” can do more than forgive sins. She has the right to sell indulgences. And every sin has its price. Did space permit, it would furnish a pitiable exhibition of the innate depravity of man to run over the list prepared by this trafficker in human souls. There is the price of an indulgence to “murder one’s father, mother, brother, sister, wife, or other relative, one dollar and seventy-five cents;” “for theft, sacrilege, rapine, perjury, two dollars;” “for incest with a sister, a mother, or any near relative, two dollars and a quarter.” At the end of one of the chapters in this, the “ Pope’s Chancery Book,” it is said: “Note well: Graces and dispensations of this kind are not conceded to the poor, because they have no means, therefore they cannot be comforted.” Poor creatures! Their poverty is their only sin! That the traffic in these indulgences is now dull, is not because Rome has willingly abandoned the lucrative business, but because the light of the Reformation has ruined the trade. Even yet, however, they are purchasable by prayers, and especially by the repetition of Mary’s rosary. “The Catholic Manual,” a collection of devotional exercises, promises a plenary indulgence on each of the solemn feasts of Christ and of the blessed Virgin Mary, to those who, with these heads, pray devoutly at least once a week. Whoever repeats a Hail Mary in the morning, is promised “an indulgence of a hundred days, each day of the week, and seven years and seven times forty days on each Sunday.” By carefully following the sixteen instructions on indulgences in “The Catholic Manual,” a devout Papist, by laboring with the machinery of devotion about four hours each day for five years, could, we think, very easily purchase a thousand years unbridled license in sin. About one hundred monks, working diligently, could, we believe, lay up merit adequate to pardon the entire world of sinners. They might thus open a new spiritual bank and rival the Pope in making merchandise of souls. Why, therefore, should the subjects of Pio Nono (Pope Pius IX) tremble with apprehensions of the torments of perdition? The infallible Church has granted, and therefore, of course, can again grant, permission to commit any sin, engaging to extinguish the flames of hell. None, to whom he grants a claim to the joys of the redeemed. can be finally lost. None can enter paradise without his passport. Did not Jesus say to Peter, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven?” These keys have been handed down from Peter to the present Pope! Therefore, “He openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” On what condition will he open heaven to the soul? When the dues to the Church are paid. Did ever assumption equal this?

Claiming sovereignty over his people not only in this world but also in the world to come, the Pope controls even purgatorial fires. How long souls are kept in the purifying flames would seem to depend entirely on the willingness of living friends to pay money for the celebration of masses. Archbishop Hughes, when on earth, was lauded as one of the holiest of men. It required, however, a long time to pray his soul out of purgatory. “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Nor does Papal presumption stop even here. In the doctrine of the real presence, according to which in every crumb of bread and in every drop of wine Christ’s entire nature, human and divine, is comprehended, we have arrogance the most blasphemous which it is possible to conceive. Christ, in his undivided humanity, is present in heaven and on the countless Popish altars of all countries and all ages, entire, perfect, complete in every particle of the consecrated elements. And yet, lest human weakness should be horrified with eating flesh and drinking blood, the form, appearance, qualities, and taste of bread and wine remain unchanged. And this self-contradictory miracle, the most stupendous ever imposed upon human credulity, it is affirmed, is daily wrought by priestly power. A learned Cardinal says: “He that created me gave me, if it be lawful to tell, to create himself.” And Pope Urban af firmed: “The hands of the pontiff are raised to an eminence granted to none of the angels, or CREATING GOD THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS, and of offering him up for the salvation of the whole world.” One shudders as he reads such blasphemy. And to find in the Freeman’s Journal of Sept. 8, 1870, such language as this, “How many prayers have they (the French priests praying for unhappy Napoleon III.) offered even with the Most Holy in their hands,” too plainly proves that Popery is the same unchanged monster of iniquity.

Add to the above list of assumptions, the last and greatest of all, infallibility, so recently exalted into a dogma, and you have all that it would seem possible for man to claim; all that the proudest and most cruel tyrant could desire. The arrogance is complete; the despotism is perfect. The Pope has the right to enslave the body; nay, even to take life, to bind the conscience, and to damn the soul. And in the exercise of these divine prerogatives, to err is impossible. These assumptions the faithful are not only expected to believe with the whole heart, but to yield unresisting obedience to the tyranny thence resulting.

“I’d rather be a dog, and bay the moon,
Than such a Roman.”

Chapter II Infallibility (2 Thes. ii. 4, and 1 Tim. iv. 2.)

THE year 1870 will be forever memorable in the history of the Papacy. It has witnessed the grotesquely solemn ascription of one of the attributes of deity to the pretended successor of Peter. “Speaking lies in hypocrisy,” and raving in a delirium of passion, the sovereign pontiff shouts:

“I am the Pope: the Vicar of Jesus Christ; the chief of the Catholic Church, and I have called this Council, which shall do His work, . . . . I say,—I, who can not but speak the truth, —that if we would establish liberty, we must never fear to speak the truth, and to denounce error. I too would be free as well as the truth itself”

“And there are those now who are in fear of the world! They fear revolution! . . . . They will sacrifice all the rights of the Holy See, and their love for the Vicar of Jesus Christ, Miserable men, what must they do? They seek the applause of men. We, my children, we seek the approbation of God. You must sustain the claims of truth and righteousness. It is the duty of the bishops fearlessly to fight in the defense of truth alongside of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. My children, do not forsake me.” – From the Pope’s speech to the Vicars Apostolic, March 23, 1870.

the-infallible-pope

In answer to this pathetic appeal the unterrified made the Vatican ring with cries, “ No, No, No, Vive l’Infallible! Vive l’Infallible!! Vive l’Infallible!!!” At the public reception, May 14, 1870, one continuous deafening shout was heard, “ Long live the Infallible.” Was Paul picturing this scene when he wrote, “Who opposes himself, and exalts himself against all that is called God, and against all worship: even to seat himself in the temple of God, and take on himself openly the signs of Godhead?” (Conybeare and Howson’s Version.)

Preparations for this solemn farce were made even so early as the year 1864. Then was issued the Encyclical and Syllabus, since so famous, which commend most of the arrogant assumptions of previous Pontiffs, and denounce, in no measured terms, the civilization, progress, religion and education of the present. With characteristic impudence they claim for the Pope the right of abrogating civil law, of enforcing obedience to Catholic dogmas, of employing corporl punishment, and even of compelling princes to execute civil penalties for ecclesiastical offenses. They insist, in language not to be mistaken, that to Holy Mother belongs the exclusive right to educate the young, that priests are not subject to civil governments, that the Pope rules, jure divino, in temporal things, that the right to solemnize marriage is the exclusive possession of the priesthood, that Catholicism is the only system of faith entitled to man’s suffrage, and, accordingly, that Protestant worship ought not to be tolerated, and where it can be suppressed, as in New Granada and in Rome, must be.

Not content with endorsing Gregory’s condemnation of liberty of conscience as an insanity, His Infallibility denominates it the liberty of perdition. The privilege of embracing that religion which, led by the light of reason, a man conscientiously believes to be right, is repeatedly and emphatically denied. Even the will of an entire nation, though calmly, kindly and intelligently expressed, can by no possibility constitute law; cannot lawfully demand the respect of Christ’s Vicar. Having thus condemned all liberty, personal and national, civil and religious, he commits himself unqualifiedly to despotism, by anathematizing those who demand that the Roman Pontiff should harmonize himself with progress and modern civilization, and by denying to the down-trodden even the God-given right of rebellion. Fitly is this proud tyranny crowned with the unblushing assertion, that the judgments, decisions, dogmas and practices of the Church are infallible.

Conceived in iniquity, this now famous dogma was brought forth by the suppression of free discussion. Protests against its adoption, though respectfully worded and courteously presented, were sent back without comment or communication, and in some instances even unread. Arguments in every way deserving of serious attention obtained no answer.* The German prelates, in a carefully prepared protest, said, “Unless these (the great difficulties arising from the words and acts of the Fathers of the Church, as contained in authentic documents of Catholic history) can be resolved, it will be impossible to impose this doctrine upon Christian people as being a revelation from heaven.” And yet far from succeeding, scarcely an effort was made in removing the difficulties. “All religion,” said Cardinal Schwarzenberg, “is at an end in Bohemia if this definition is affirmed.” “No words,” said another prelate, “can express the evils which will accrue to the cause of religion throughout Hungary, if infallibility is affirmed.” These, like all the bishops who dared to anticipate social and political evils from the adoption of this new dogma, were treated as disturbers of the peace, as disloyal to Christ’s Vicar, as grossly impertinent and presumptuous.

A correspondent of the Liberté gives an account of a strange scene between the Pope and the Syrian Patriarch of Babylon. The Patriarch, who, before leaving for Rome had taken solemn oath to defend the liberties of the Oriental Churches, said in Council: “We Orientals reserve our rights, which moreover have been recognized by the Council of Florence.” The Pope, irritated, sent for him. The venerable Prelate immediately repaired to the Vatican. The Pontiff, pale and greatly agitated, presented a paper by which the Patriarch renounced all his rights and privileges. “Sign that,” said Pius IX.“ I cannot,” replied the Prelate. The Pope, seized with one of his violent fits of anger, striking his hand on the table, exclaimed: “You cannot leave without signing it.” The Patriarch reminded him of his oath. “ Your oath is a nullity, sign.” After an hour’s useless struggle the Prelate submitted, appending his signature.

Those who, with irresistible logic demanded unanimity as the condition of promulgating a new dogma, especially one so important and far-reaching in its consequences, were insulted, threatened with deposition, and in the end forced either to absent themselves or to vote infallibility.* The Pope, as in the preparations for the Council, so in its proceedings, assumed to decide the gravest questions. He ostentatiously proclaimed himself as by divine appointment the infallible head of the Church. By lauding and honoring the friends of infallibility, and insulting and denouncing their opponents, denominating them “bad Catholics,” he showed himself the worthy head of the order of Jesuits. Freedom of opinion became a mere name; discussion only a pretense. The result was predetermined; known when the Council was called. The French bishops, in a manifesto portraying with just indignation the successive steps taken in suppressing all freedom, affirm: “Debate in general convocation has been a mere illusion: discussion has been muzzled, and free speech gagged. Passion is dominating more and more: old traditions and usages are abandoned, just claims forgotten, and the most elementary rules set at naught. . . . . A good cause does not need to be supported by violence.”

By such agencies as these an assembly of bishops, who according to ancient Roman law had no right to originate dogma, but simply to express in formula doctrines which had ever been held as objects of universal belief, promulgated a dogma as dishonoring to God as it is insulting to man.

And the arguments by which this monstrous claim was supported, are, like those by which St. Liguori proves Mary a proper object of worship, so excessively weak as to excite contempt. We do not affirm that those who employ them are men of feeble intellect. This, in many instances, is certainly not the case. But men of powerful minds, when thoroughly committed to an absurdity, are, of course, forced to bring forward arguments which strike every unbiased listener as simply ridiculous. And to hear mitred bishops and self-inflated cardinals, and a host of priests repeatedly and solemnly declaring that the doctrine of infallibility is as old as the Christian Church, would certainly excite universal laughter, were not the consequences of the claim so appalling. And the argument from silence, so much employed, how conclusive! For ten centuries you find no protest against it. The fathers never mention it. They present no labored arguments in its favor. The councils uttered no anathemas against those refusing adhesion to it. The Popes, those sacred custodians of truth, have held no allocutions respecting it, have issued no bulls against those who questioned it. Therefore, of course, it must have been the universal faith from the time of the Apostles. Now, however, for the first time, some damnable heretics have presumed to call it in question. It is on this account that we deem it necessary to proclaim what has ever been the faith of those constituting the Church. Why this argument would not prove that two and two make five it would be difficult for a Protestant to conceive. But Papists, apparently, deem it entirely conclusive. The Rev. James Kent Stone, a recent convert to Catholicism, expands it to great length, and seemingly considers it unanswerable. Surely arguments must be scarce.

Dr. Henry Newman, another champion of Romeanism, in his “Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent,” appeals to common sense in proof of infallibility! He undertakes to show that the principles of assent applied to the ordinary affairs of life, logically lead to an enforced belief in the last dogma of Rome. We have the same reasons for believing that the Pope is infallible that we have for believing that Napoleon III. is a prisoner, viz., a great many people say so. We Protestants, upstarts of three centuries, ought to have the modesty to confess ourselves unable to see the force in metaphysical disquisitions so abstruse.

Then there is the Scriptural argument so laboriously drawn out in the London Vatican of July 29th, 1870: “Did not Christ say: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church?’ (We fancy we have heard that quoted before by Papists.) Even this, however, was not enough for the Most High to say to the first primate. Hence he adds, ‘And the gates of hell shall never prevail against it. Not enough yet. The sovereign Pope must reign in both worlds at once. ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Not sufficient still, ‘And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then, moreover, Jesus said to Peter, not to John (the records must needs be amended, so the facts of Peter’s fall, denial and profanity are cautiously and very considerately suppressed): ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.’ God’s Vicar could not err, because his fall would have been the ruin of the Church.” (The sacred record, you see, must be incorrect. Peter must have remained firm, for the Church has been infallible ever since. This passage must be like that other, which speaks of Peter’s wife’s mother, whereas Peter could by no possibility have been guilty of having a wife, since all his successors, following his illustrious example, vow celibacy.) Then follows the admonition addressed to the first pontiff, and through him to the long succession of Holy Fathers, “Confirm thy brethren.” So you see, or don’t you see?—the Pope is infallible. Can’t you say with “the greatest theologian of the age,” “There is hardly a doctrine of Christianity which is so conspicuously vouched in Holy Scripture, or which its divine author thought proper to reveal by such an astonishing iteration of words and acts, as that of the primacy and inerrancy of his Vicar?” This famous passage which does battle everywhere, which proves that priests can forgive sins, that the Pope can send a man to hell, to heaven, or to purgatory, that Peter was primate, that the Catholic Church is as unchangeable as a rock, that no man can be saved unless within its sinless pale, that Popery, in the exact form in which it now exists, shall continue till the Church militant becomes the Church triumphant, that corporp punishment for spiritual offenses is heaven ordained, and that Peter never fell, also, according to Papal logic, incontestably, unmistakably, irresistibly proves that Pio Nono, in this nineteenth century, is infallible.

Lastly, we have the argument of the bishop of Poitiers, which elicited such applause in the Vatican Council: “St. Paul was beheaded ; consequently his head, which represents the ordinary episcopate, was not indissolubly united to the body. St. Peter, on the contrary, was crucified with his head downwards, to show that his head, which was the image of the Papacy, sustained the whole body.” So you perceive the present Pope must be infallible. He says so. And how otherwise could he sustain the entire Church?—how be a Rock?

Proved, to the satisfaction of Papists by arguments such as these, infallibility was, July 18th, 1870, exalted into a dogma. The entire Catholic world must henceforth believe, on pain of eternal damnation, “ that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra . . . . he possesses infallibility. In interpretation of this the New York Freeman’s Journal and Catholic Register, of September 3rd, 1870, says: “Tn his personal character as Pope, without awaiting the agreement of the Catholic Episcopate, the Pope is infallible personally. The expression personal infallibility of the Pope is therefore correct.”

So the famous and long-continued discussion, where resides the infallibility of the Church—in the Pope, in a General Council, or in the concurrent voice of both?— is at last ended. No second Dean Swift need tauntingly say, “Really, Holy Mother might as well be without an infallible head, as not to know where to find him in necessity.” Five hundred and thirty-three robed bishops have solemnly proclaimed that he lives in Rome, or did, and is the legitimate successor of the fallible Peter. He eats bread, drinks wine, rides out daily in his coach, twirls his finger in an ecstasy of delight as he pronounces benedictions on those who shout, “ Vive l’Infallible,” and scowls with rage as he utters anathemas against the Protestant failure.

As this last and most insolent dogma of Popery has been established without argument, or rather in spite of argument, it certainly were folly for Protestants to dignify it by attempting a formal refutation. To argue a shouting crowd into silence is impossible. And a cloud, dense, dark, impalpable, portending storm, is not dissolved by man’s howling out a few syllogisms. Many an error has been argued into respectability by its opponents. For some absurdities no argument is more powerful than ridicule; for some pretensions no treatment so galling as silent contempt. And Protestants can certainly well afford to let bishops, priests, and people tell each other that they believe, or make believe, Pio Nono is infallible. If, however, any desire to examine a complete demolition of Rome’s last arrogant claim, we commend to their careful perusal, “The Pope and the Council,” by Janus. This work, originating in the bosom of the Papal Church, written by persons claiming to be genuine Catholics, and proving with inexorable logic that the doctrine of infallibility is a mere novelty in the religious world, has caused much uneasiness even in the seared conscience of the Papal Church, and called forth a vast amount of fruitless effort at refutation. We have seldom seen such pitiable exhibitions of the inherent weakness of a cause as may be seen in the absurdly feeble attempts to answer Janus. The Catholic World of New York (June, July, and August numbers, 1870), contains articles which, for feebleness and clumsy special pleading, are, we firmly believe, entitled to the first place in the literature of the last half century. Every unprejudiced reader must certainly rise from their perusal thoroughly convinced that the reception of the infallibility dogma is purely an act of faith. If that is Rome’s best showing, her proud claim evidently rests exclusively on bold and oft-repeated assertion and specious falsehood.

Since at last we have an infallible man, we ought to know how his decrees are to be transmitted to us fallibles. He is accessible only to a limited few. How can he make every child of Holy Mother infallibly certain what the truth is? Are all archbishops and bishops and priests to be next declared infallible? Are we to have a set of infallible telegraph operators, and infallible printers, who shall inform prelates and bishops, who in turn shall peddle out infallibility’s last announcement to every loyal Papist? And unless this is done, of what use is an infallible head? Must the faithful take an infallible system on the testimony of fallibles? Are they required to believe by proxy? The Pope says, “All must believe what I believe, because I believe what all believe.” Then every Romanist, it is to be presumed, believes everything contained in “the whole Word of God, written and unwritten.” This requires belief in at least one hundred and fifty folio volumes, a cart-load of contradictory doctrines and clashing traditions. If employing private judgment, the layman conscientiously endeavors to eliminate truth from this mass of useless rubbish, he is guilty of a damnable heresy. And how is he to know with infallible certainty what is the interpretation of Pius IX.? Must he go to Rome? Must he await the next Ecumenical Council which shall decree Papal transmission infallible? Or must he content himself with this circular argument? I believe what the Pope believes. The Pope believes what I believe. We both believe exactly the same. He and I are therefore infallible. And if he is, surely I must be. An unerring head and an erring body and members, were a kind of nondescript, a monster known neither in heaven, on earth, nor in hell.

This marvellous prerogative, it is now claimed, has always belonged to the successor of Peter. Has it ever decided a single controversy?—ever healed a single dissension?—ever settled a single quarrel either in private, in social or in national life? In this intensely practical age men therefore ask, what good is to result from this dogma? The fiercely bitter strifes between the Calvinistic Jansenists and the Arminian Jesuits, between the Franciscans and the Dominicans touching the kind of homage due the transubstantiated wafer, between the advocates and the opponents of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, were they, even in the slightest degree, alleviated or repressed by Christ’s infallible Vicar? And of what value was the inerrancy of Pope Liberius who embraced the Arian heresy? An infallible primate endorsing a doctrine which had already been repeatedly and emphatically anathematized, and by the present “ Infallible Judge in faith and morals” is deemed no less heinous than infidelity itself, is surely a strange proof of indefectibility. And of what value was this boasted prerogative to Pope Honorius, that old transgressor, whose doctrinal errors cost the last Ecumenical Council such an immense amount of arguing and falsifying? Being unanimously condemned by the sixth General Council for holding doctrines then, since, and now considered heretical, the advocates of Papal infallibility are placed in the awkward dilemma of being forced to believe that exact contraries are precisely the same. Benediction and anathema, assertion and denial, truth and error, are one and the same thing to those who can legislate vice into virtue and virtue into vice. Of what practical worth is that infallibility which in the seventeenth century, “desirous of providing against increased detriment to the holy faith,” solemnly affirmed: “The proposition that the earth moves is absurd, philosophically false, and theologically considered at least, erroneous in faith;” and in this nineteenth century, not merely believes the Copernican system, but with brazen-faced effrontery endeavors to deny that Galileo suffered persecution for opinion’s sake? And then, too, unless His Infallibility can reconcile the two thousand variations between the authorized Vulgate Bible of Pope Sextus, the infallible, and that of Pope Clement, the infallible, the unbelieving world will continue to smile at the deliverance of the invincible five hundred.

Let Rome’s arguments and anathemas therefore be never so powerful, an infallibility which suspends civil law, spreads rebellion and celebrates a Te Deum for the massacre of heretics; which corrupts the doctrines of the Bible, opposes popular education, and hangs on the skirts of progress shouting halt; which inveighs against the civilization of the present, stops commerce, fetters science, enslaves the mind, impoverishes the nations, and mingles even with her prayers curses against civil and religious liberty, is a dogma which this age at least can contemplate only with mingled horror and derision. Were it less ridiculous we might almost weep tears of blood over the spiritual thraldom of one hundred and eighty millions of human beings henceforth forced, on pain of excommunication, refusal of the sacraments and everlasting damnation, to believe an erring mortal “infallible judge in faith and morals,” Christ’s inerrant Vicar. Were it less fatal to the freedom, the morals, and the eternal hopes of enslaved Papists we might give way to uproarious laughter, and shame the absurdity off the world’s stage. We can view it however only as a declaration of war against civilization ; only as a death knell to the hopes of those who are subject to the Roman priesthood. Henceforth Popery is to be narrower, more bigoted, more impenetrable to truth than ever. While the Protestant world is advancing in liberty, intelligence, morality and material prosperity, the Papal seems destined to stagnation, if not, alas, to even grosser superstition, deeper ignorance and more abject spiritual servitude.

What results may flow from this last arrogant assumption of Rome’s proud Pontiff, it is yet too soon to predict. The struggle of the last three centuries—a struggle between intelligence and superstition, between progress and reaction, between light and darkness, between all that makes this age hopeful and made the middle ages the world’s midnight—has ended, ended in the triumph of bigotry. In this we may, perhaps, discover the beginning of the end. Certainly Catholic aggression in civilized countries is henceforth impossible. The absurdity is too apparent to impose upon even common intelligence.

Infallible but powerless! French troops withdrawn, Napoleon dethroned, Catholic France beaten and helpless, the Pope’s temporal power gone, his erring sheep following the guidance of liberal ideas, himself, though claiming to be Supreme Judge over all kings, virtually a prisoner, bishops in scores denouncing the infallibility blunder, the entire Catholic world in momentary apprehension of yet more terrible calamities, surely we are powerfully reminded of that ancient and honorable declaration, “In one hour is she made desolate.” What wonders has God wrought! How suddenly have her woes come upon her!“ This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes.”

And now from all parts of the Catholic world may be heard one long drawn sigh over Popery’s helpless condition, one deep wail of terror, harmonized from the cry of the impotent infallible, the half frantic whinings of bishops and priests, and the evil forebodings of pamphlets, magazines, periodicals, and papers. Plainly, whatever results were fondly anticipated from the consummation of the work for which the Council was summoned, Holy Mother deems herself in dreadful agonies. Says the Tablet, a Roman organ, “There is, alas, no room for doubt that a heavy calamity has befallen the Holy Church of Rome and the Apostolic See. ‘The infidels have converted and educated the bad Catholics up to the reception of certain opinions and principles of their own.” So even Romanists will think for themselves, notwithstanding there is an infallible Pope to think for them. And even now, after all their efforts, Italy is tainted to the very core with love of liberty; private judgment is even now untrammelled. The vengeance sworn against Republicanism, were it not so impotent, might strike terror. It is evidently, however, only the wail of despair.

A cloud, portentous, though small, may be seen on the horizon. An ominous increase in the number of Jesuits, those unprincipled political tricksters, has taken place. In Germany, France, England, and even in the United States, the Catholic papers are sounding “a call for a new Crusade.” With this as their watchword, “Rome belongs to the Catholic Church,” they are seeking to fire the hearts of the young. Already we learn on Papal authority, that “The Catholic youth of Europe are stirring, and preparing for the conflict. In our own land thousands of hearts, of young Catholic men, are burning with desire to add their part to the Grand Crusade.” In New Orleans an immense mass meeting has been held, and that too on Sunday, in utter disregard of the rights of Protestants and the laws of the country, to express sympathy with and secure material aid for the Infallible Judge in faith and morals.” All this may, most likely will, end in smoke. Possibly, however, they may be so infatuated as to continue their repinings over the terrible fate of Christ’s Vicar, perhaps may inaugurate agencies for his restoration, possibly may “take up arms against a sea of troubles,” and thereby hasten the end. The old Romans, whose Pagan religion these modern heathen have inherited, had an adage containing a mine of good sense, “ Whom the gods design to destroy they first make mad.” Are we witnessing the infatuation which precedes destruction?

Chapter III. Despotism. (2 Thess. ii. 9.)

NO political tyrant, no despotic Nero, even in his most frenzied mood, ever arrogated claims over man so cruelly tyrannical as those of Popery.

Despots have indeed tortured the body till death granted release; but to tyrannize over the mind, to traffic in the eternal destinies of the soul, to trample at will upon man’s dearest hopes, those that stretch beyond this troubled life, are abominations known only to Romanism. The only usurpations worthy of comparison with hers are the monstrous assumptions of Brahminism. And even these, though having the same parentage, and manifesting similar dispositions, sink into insignificance when compared with those of that mystery of iniquity whose coming, it was predicted, should be “with all power.

To render the spiritual control complete, the Papal Church has made her seven sacraments so many instruments of despotism. These, in connection with her doctrine of INTENTION, form a power of oppression truly appalling. In the decree of the Council Of Trent we read: “If any one shall affirm, that when the minister performs and confers a sacrament, it is not necessary that they should, at least, have the intention to do what the Church does, let him be accursed.” Could anything, we ask, place the Romanist more completely under the power of the priest? Through him must come all spiritual blessings. Here center all hopes. In administering the ordinances of the church, however, the officiating priest may, through negligence, or to gratify personal resentment, or with the diabolical purpose of leaving the suppliant unblessed, withhold the intention, giving the form without the substance. Thus the poor penitent is entirely at the mercy of his spiritual despot.

The faithful are taught that marvelous grace comes through eating the bread transubstantiated by the prayer of the priest into the very body of Christ. Suppose, however, that when the words are pronounced, “This is my body,” the celebrant has in reality no intention of changing the wafer to flesh. Then the worshiper, ignorant of the secret purpose of the minister’s heart, but required by a Church claiming infallibility to believe that the visible wafer “is the body and blood, soul and divinity, of Christ,” is not merely guilty of believing a falsehood, but of the grossest idolatry—the worship of flour and water. On pain of eternal damnation, he is ordered to believe an absurdity, and to bow in adoration before what he cannot know to be a God; nay, what reason and the senses testify is bread. If, trusting these, he refuses homage, he is threatened by a Church, claiming to possess the keys of heaven and hell, with the endless torments of perdition. If he adores the host, then, on the concession of Rome herself, he may be guilty of worshiping the creature, a sin for which, according to the Papal Church, there is no forgiveness. If he follows common sense, Rome thunders her anathemas against him. If he obeys the Church, he may be rendering his damnation doubly more certain. Did ever despotism equal this? Eternal happiness is suspended on the mere whim of a priest, and he, perhaps a revengeful, licentious, drunken wretch.

Take the sacrament of baptism. In the “Abridgment of Christian Doctrine,” it is asked, “Whither go the souls of infants that die without baptism? Answer. To that part of hell where they suffer the pains of loss, but not the punishment of sense; and shall never see the face of God.” Tearfully, almost in hopeless despair, may the loyal Papist ask, as he kisses the pallid lips of the coffined babe, Do any reach the joys of the redeemed? The sweet whisperings of a hope natural to the parental heart are silenced by the stern voice of Holy Mother, “Unbaptized, unsaved.’ How many chances against the innocents! The parents neglect their duty: the babe is lost. It is brought to the priest and its brow sprinkled with water. Through carelessness or fiendish malignity, however, the intention is wanting. The helpless infant is eternally exiled from God. Perhaps the priest himself was never baptized; or if baptized, perhaps never ordained. Though these ordinances may have been administered, the intention may have been wanting. In either case the child is doomed to endless woe. Nor is this a mere fancied difficulty. No genuine Romanist can by possibility possess satisfactory evidence that either he himself or his child is validly baptized. And yet he is taught to believe that without this baptismal regeneration salvation is impossible. The legitimate result of such teaching is to produce a race of the most abject slaves, crouching, spiritless.

The dying Papist, as he receives penance and extreme unction, feels in his inmost soul that all his hopes for time and eternity are suspended on the intention of the priest, who, “sitting in the tribunal of penance, represents the character and discharges the functions of Jesus Christ. To heaven, to hell, or to purgatory, as best suits his fancy, he can send the departing spirit. However deep may have been its guilt, however black its crimes, however polluted its thoughts, the priest “can confer dying grace,” and “open the gates of paradise: he can send the most devout Romanist to endless despair, eternally beyond the reach of hope. Was ever another system devised, even in the hotbed of Pagan superstition, so perfectly fitted to crush its victims? What could produce slavery more abject, of reason, will, soul and body? All the efforts of the poor vassal must be directed towards propitiating the priest, who henceforth stands to him in the place of a god.

Two youthful hearts, innocent and pure, present themselves in the first fervor of new-born love, to be united in the bonds of holy matrimony. Hope paints a radiant future. They are pronounced husband and wife, If intelligent Catholics, however, and earnestly desirous of true union, they may well ask, as they turn from the priest, Are we really married? Perhaps there was no intention on the part of him professing to confer the sacrament; perhaps the bride, perhaps the groom lacked the intention. In either case, Holy Mother infallible affirms, the marriage contract is null. By the negligence or wickedness of him who should have conferred the matrimonial sacrament, two persons, though innocent, pure-minded and conscientious, live in mortal sin, and should death overtake them in that state—and how can they ever possess assurance that they are truly married?—they must sink down to endless perdition. Worse still; one of the parties may, when the health, wealth or beauty of the other is lost, declare under oath that the marriage ceremony, by the lack of intention on his or her part, was a nullity. The code of Rome declares the union dissolved. And what shall hinder an adventurous wretch from designing this beforehand, and thus sending to eternal woe one whose greatest, almost only sin, was a lavish bestowment of the entire wealth of her affections upon an object so unworthy?

To the other sacraments of Romanism, we need not refer. The despotism is of the same character as that apparent in all parts of her organized system of traffic in the souls of men.

As an engine of spiritual despotism, none, perhaps, is so powerful as the confessional. It crushes the poor deluded Papist to the very dust. Even for the forgiveness of sins committed against God, he looks to the priest. “Absolution is not a bare declaration that sin is pardoned by God to the penitent, but really a judicial act.” The subjection is complete. Are such down-trodden slaves ever likely to “become kings and priests unto God?” Could we expect them to seek the closet, and before the High-priest of our profession seek and obtain pardon in the blood that cleanses from all sin? And as for becoming guardians of civil liberty, the very idea is preposterous. They who, at the nod of Rome’s mitered bishops, lick the very dust and swear eternal loyalty to a distant spiritual despot; who openly proclaim that their first allegiance is due to Rome’s Sovereign Pontiff; who are educated under a system bitterly hostile to all existing forms of government, and especially to those founded on equal rights ; who anxiously, prayerfully, imploringly await the return of the nations to the despotic forms of government now so exceedingly obnoxious; who denounce the Reformation as the fruitful source of all the worst evils that have ever afflicted human society; who oppose our common school system, ridicule the right of private judgment, repress the sterling activity which has enriched the nations, transforming continents as if by magic, and determinedly resist the onward march of liberty, personal and national, civil and religious,— can such victims of Papal superstition ever become good citizens in a free enlightened republic?

Even the claim of ability to forgive sin, presumptuous as it is, and their yet more arrogant claim of power to send the soul to purgatory, or to release it from the purifying fires, are surpassed by that masterpiece of heartless malignity, the solemn assertion of a God given right “to damn the souls of rebellious and refractory men.” The bull against Henry VIII, as also that against Queen Elizabeth, the memorable patroness of literature, is the “excommunication and damnation of the Sovereign.” And more than once have the Popes pronounced anathemas against the entire Protestant world. Surely Paul was predicting Popery when he wrote: “Whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power.” Over those believing her doctrines Rome’s power is absolute. Nero himself could desire no more.

To render the bondage still more abject, if that were possible, one Pope, Stephen, laid the talent of Peter under contribution. When Aistulphus, king of the Lombards, burning with rage against the Pope, laid siege to Rome, Stephen, driven by stern necessity, dispatched a messenger to Pepin, king of France, with a letter purporting to come from St. Peter, servant and Apostle of Jesus Christ. The epistle, direct from heaven—written on mundane paper—earnestly entreated and peremptorily ordered “the first son of the Church” to earn an eternal reward “by hastening to the relief of the city, the Church, and the people of Rome.” Then, apparently fearing that his own requests and order’s should be despised by king Pepin, Peter considerately adds: “Our Lady, the Virgin Mary, mother of God, joins in earnestly entreating, nay, commands you to hasten, to run, to fly, to the relief of my favorite people, reduced almost to the last gasp.” Pepin obeyed. The letter from heaven was effectual. “The monarch of the first, the best and the most deserving of all nations,” marched immediately with a large army into Italy. Aistulphus was forced to surrender a part of his dominions to the Pope, “to be forever held and possessed by St. Peter and his lawful successors in the See of Rome.” Thus the Pope became a temporal sovereign. How mildly Stephen’s successor, Pius IX., has ruled, let the vote of his subjects so lately taken testify. If ever a ruler was emphatically pronounced a despot, the present Pope has been.

And to judge from his denunciations of liberty, so repeatedly and emphatically made, especially in the documents preparatory to the Vatican Council, the Italian people are certainly not wide of the mark. His pious soul seems inflamed with holy indignation against the present forms of government. “Anarchic doctrines,” he affirms, “have taken possession of men’s minds so universally, that it is not possible now to discover a single State in Europe that is not governed upon principles hostile to the faith.” And this proud potentate assumes the right to lord it over princes as well as people: “It is not he (the Pope) who has given up the State; it is the State that has revolted from him; the old days of the Passion have returned; the nations will not have this man to rule over them, so they give themselves to Ceasar.” Nor is this embodiment of despotic power, who claims spiritual and even temporal dominion over all secular princes, any more ready to acknowledge the authority of a General Council. Such a Council can convene only at his bidding. “And if, under some circumstances, all the bishops did meet, and formed themselves into a Council, their acts would be null, unless the Pope consented to them.” Even to the decisions of a Council properly convoked, the Pope, it is affirmed, is not required to submit. “As the Pope is higher than all bishops, none of them could have jurisdiction over him. . . . Not even of his own choice could he yield obedience. . . . He could not submit to their jurisdiction voluntarily, because his power is a divine gift.” Did ever another’s power reach so lofty an altitude as to render voluntary obedience an absolute impossibility? Even when seated in the Council, surrounded by those who are nothing more than counsellors of the supreme judge, his Holiness is still the Pope. “He is there as the Pope.” “The whole authority resides really in himself, for though he communicates of his powers to the assembled Prelates, yet he does not divest himself of his own. . . . Thus the supreme jurisdiction of the Church never passes away from the Supreme Pontiff, and does not even vest in a General Council. . . . The reason assigned for this lies in the fact that the gift of infallibility is not communicated to the Council, but abides in the Pope.” No wonder the Pope so tenderly commends that “teaching which makes the Church our Mother, and all the faithful little children listening to the voice of St. Peter.”

As an appropriate and suggestive conclusion to this chapter, we beg the privilege of introducing the reader to this lordly potentate, this king of kings, and bishop of bishops, this Infallible Judge in faith and morals, in the act of proving himself a servant of servants. Graphically is the scene described in the Catholic World of July, 1870. An eye-witness, evidently and certainly a loyal subject of Pius IX., touches the picture with an artist’s hand. During Holy Week in Rome, the bishops of the Vatican Council being present, the Sovereign Pontiff gave proof, to Papists entirely satisfactory, that he was of all men the humblest.

On a raised platform, in the full view of several thousand of his adoring subjects, His Humility prepares himself for the ceremony of washing and kissing the feet of thirteen pilgrim priests to Rome, one a Senegambian negro. As the voices of the choir, in soul-subduing melody, intone, “A new command I give you,” the humble servant—his head adorned with a mitre, typical, we suppose, of the poverty and humble station of St. Peter, his predecessor—girds on an apron. Before him are the thirteen travelers, dressed in long white robes, cut in the style of a thousand years ago, and wearing white rimless stove-pipe hats, surmounted by tufts. Shoes and stockings spotlessly white complete the costume of these weary pilgrims from distant climes. An attendant, full robed and exceedingly dignified, with studied precision, unlaces the brand new, stainlessly white shoe, and lets down the immaculate stocking on the right foot of the nearest pilgrim. Breathless silence reigns. All eyes are intensely fixed. A vessel of water, and span clean towels are handed the Pontiff. He washes the instep, wipes it, kisses it, and gives the happy possessor a nosegay (a small bunch of flowers; a bouquet) —minus the gold coin of former and better days, when the traffic in indulgences was brisk. A murmur of applause, like the ripple of many waters, runs through the vast cathedral. Another and another instep is washed and kissed. “The jet black negro,” as a new anthem rings through the vast arches of St. Peter’s, and the assembled spectators, in an ecstasy of humbled devotion, whisper in half-broken accents, “ Vive l’Infallible,” finds his instep pressed by the infallible lips of His Holiness, the Supreme Judge of all men. The ceremony is ended. During its continuance an hundred human beings have gone down to death. Infallibility can find no fitter employment than such exhibitions of mock humility! Washing the clean feet, and crushing the blackened souls!! Feigning the humility of the poor, despised, lowly Nazarene, and blasphemously claiming the attributes of Deity!!!

Chapter IV. Fraud:—Relics.

THE coming of the mystery of iniquity, Paul predicted, should be not merely with “all power,” but with “signs and lying wonders.” Could language more accurately describe the countless relics which Rome’s votaries venerate?—Lying wonders. Without attempting to furnish a complete list—the bare catalogue would make a large octavo volume—we present a few, enough to determine the character of all.

procession-with-relics

The early Christians, it would seem, must have been particularly careful to preserve the bones of their dead. In the Cathedral of St. Peter, at Rome, they have an arm of St. Lazarus; a finger and arm of St. Ann, the Holy Virgin’s Mother; and the head of St. Dennis, which he caught up and carried the distance of two miles after it had been cut off. In France they have four heads of John the Baptist. In Spain, France, and Flanders they have eight arms of St. Matthew! and three of St. Luke! In the Lateran Church, in Rome, they have the entire heads of St. Peter and St. Paul; and in the convent of the St. Augustines, at Bilboa, the holy monks have a large part of Peter’s head, and the Franciscans a large part of Paul’s. At Burgos they have the tail of Balaam’s ass, a part of the body of St. Mark, and an arm and finger of St. Ann. At Aixla-Chapelle they have two teeth of St. Thomas; part of an arm of St. Simeon; a tooth of St. Catherine; a rib of St. Stephen; a shoulder blade and leg bone of St. Mary Magdalene; oil from the bones of St. Elizabeth; bones of Sts. Andrew, James, Matthias, Luke, Mark, Timotheus and John the Baptist. Perhaps it is for the purpose of carrying all these sacred relics that Rome has five legs of the ass upon which our Saviour rode into Jerusalem.

Nor are bones their only precious mementoes. In almost every chapel in Europe may be found pieces of the cross on which our Lord was crucified. If these were all collected, no doubt they would furnish an amount of material equal to that contained in one of the largest dwellings in America. In Rome they have also the cross of the good thief; also the entire table on which our Lord celebrated the Paschal Supper. And a recent publication, “The Living Eucharist manifested by Miracles,” assures us, “this is the true table of the Lord, that on which the world’s Redeemer and God, Jesus, offered the first Eucharistic sacrifice.” And on the same authority we learn that at the cathedral of Valencia, in Spain, they have “the cup in which His blood was first laid, the chalice elevated from the table by his divine hands.” “At St. Mark’s, in Venice,” says the same author, “the knife used by our Lord in touching, not cutting, the bread, is exposed each year, on Holy Thursday for the veneration of the faithful.” Even the old room, that very upper chamber in Jerusalem, in which our Lord wrought that miracle of miracles, transubstantiating the bread into his actual flesh and blood, is even now “retained in a tolerable state.” Fearing that no Protestant can possibly believe men so credulous, and that my honesty in reporting these “Lying wonders” may be called in question, I refer the reader to the little tract published in London, AD 1869, written by George Keating, “The Living Eucharist manifested by Miracles.” Here he will find what is enough to make one shudder with horror as he contemplates the abyss of superstition into which Papists have fallen.

And they have yet more wonderful mementoes than bones and wood. In more than one cathedral they have specimens of the manna of the wilderness, and a few blossoms of Aaron’s rod. In Rome they have the very ark that Moses made, and the rod by which he wrought his miracles. At Gastonbury they have the identical stones which the devil tempted our Lord to turn into bread. In another of their chapels they have the dice employed by the soldiers in casting lots for the Saviour’s garments.

They have St. Joseph’s axe and saw; St. Anthony’s millstone, on which he crossed the sea; St. Patrick’s staff, by which he drove out the toads and snakes from Ireland; St. Francis’ cowl; St. Ann’s comb; St. Joseph’s breeches; St. Mark’s boots; “a piece of the Virgin’s green petticoat;” St. Anthony’s toenails, and “the parings of St. Edmund’s toes.”

Then, also, there are in their convents, all carefully suspended from the walls, most precious relics preserved in hermetically sealed bottles. There is a vial of St. Joseph’s breath, caught as he was exercising himself with the very axe and saw now in their possession. There are several vials of the Holy Virgin’s milk; and—will you doubt it, poor deluded Protestants? —a small roll of butter and a little piece of cheese made from her milk. They have also hair from the heads of most of their saints, and twelve combs, one from each of the Apostles, with which to dress it. And what is a little marvelous, these combs are declared to be “nearly as good as new.”

st-francis-resisting-the-devil

To end our enumeration of her sacred relies; they have a small piece of the rope with which Judas hanged himself; “a bit of the finger of the Holy Ghost;” the nose of an angel; “a rib of the Word made flesh;” “a quantity of the identical rays of the star which led the wise men to our infant Saviour;” Christ’s seamless coat; two original impressions of his face on two pocket-handkerchiefs ; a wing of the archangel Gabriel, obtained by the prayers of Pope Gregory VII.; the beard of Noah; a piece of the very same porphyry pillar, on which the cock perched when he crowed after Peter’s denial, and even the comb of the cock; and then the pearl of the entire collection, “one of the steps of the ladder on which Jacob, in his dream, saw the heavenly host ascending and descending.” A recent traveller to Rome not merely saw these wonders, but was considerately and affectionately told that inasmuch as he was a “devout man,” he could obtain a small portion of these precious relics at a moderate price. He was offered a feather from Gabriel’s wing for twenty-five cents.

If we add to the above idolatries, their adoration of statues and images and the consecrated wafer, we have a system of superstition, such as no Pagan in his wildest vagaries ever dreamed of. And that they do worship these relies is, alas, too evident. We speak not merely of the ignorant masses, perhaps for their debasing idolatries the Church is not entirely responsible (although this may be fairly questioned, since her whole system is, in its very nature, adapted to produce the grossest superstition), but we charge this idol worship upon the most highly educated of their clergy.

A noted Catholic historian tells us that when St. Ambrose needed relics with which to consecrate a church at Milan, “immediately his heart burned within him, in presage as he felt of what was to happen.” By a dream he was directed to the spot where he would find the bones of St. Gervasius and St. Prostasius. “Having discovered their skeletons, all their bones entire, a quantity of blood about, and their heads separated from their bodies, . . . they arranged them, covered them with cloths and laid them on litters. In this manner they were carried towards evening to the Basilica of St. Fausta, where vigils were celebrated all night, and several that were possessed received imposition of hands. That day and the next there was a great concourse of people, and then the old men recollected that they had formerly heard the names of these martyrs.” “Profane and old wives? fables.”

Thomas Aquinas says, “If we speak of the very cross on which Christ was crucified, it is to be worshiped with divine worship.” And the prayers which are to be said in the adoration of these sacred bits of wood are given in the “Roman Missal.”

“Oh, judgment! thou hast fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.”

Chapter V. Fraud :—Miracles.

Rome ever has claimed, and does still claim, the power of working miracles. One of her most eminent historians says: “The Catholic Church being always the chaste spouse of Christ, continuing to bring forth children of heroical sanctity,—God fails not in this, any more than in past ages, to illustrate her and them by unquestionable miracles.” The Rev. James Kent Stone, a recent convert to Romanism, in his “Invitation Heeded” repeatedly and emphatically claims for the Church of his adoption the unquestioned ability to work miracles. He even undertakes a defense of those she has published to the world, affirming that they are as credible, nay, in some instances more so, than those recorded in the Bible. Here is a specimen :—“In 1814, a man who had his back-bone broken was made whole by making a pilgrimage to Garswood, and there getting the sign of the cross made on his back by some unknown priest called Arrowsmith, who was killed in the wars of Charles I.” The bull of the Pope assigning a reason why the Virgin Magdalene should be canonized, reads thus: “Not without good reason with that incorruption and good odor of her body, which continues to this day.” A “delicious odor” was emitted from her grave. St. Patrick sailed to Ireland on a millstone, and drove out all the snakes and toads with his staff.

St. Francis, founder of the Franciscan order of monks, who “had no teacher but Christ, and learned all by an immediate revelation,” and of whom St. Bridget had a marvellous vision testifying that “the Franciscan rule was not composed by the wisdom of men, but by God himself,” was, on one occasion, sorely tempted by a devil in the form of a beautiful, fascinating lady. On a certain evening, however, when again tempted, “he spit in the devil’s face.” His biographer solemnly adds, “ Confounded and disgusted the devil fled.” A miracle! This same holy St. Francis predicted the day of his death, and even after his decease wrought miracles by his intercessory prayers. He had a vision of a seraph, the effect of which was that “His soul was utterly inflamed with seraphic ardor, and his body ever after retained the similar wounds of Christ.” In consequence of these wounds, and the miracles he performed, so great became his honor, that in Roman books it is written, “Those only were saved by the blood of Christ who lived before St. Francis but all that followed were redeemed by the blood of St. Francis.” (Such blasphemy!)

Miracles were wrought in favor of the Immaculate Conception, and miracles were wrought against it. And what to Protestants seems strange, Rome confirmed both classes, and canonized those who achieved miracles in favor of, and those who achieved miracles against, this precious doctrine.

Take another of Rome’s unquestionable miracles. St. Wenefride being a nun, of course could not marry. Her suitor, young Prince Caradoc, in anger at this, cut off her head. This gave rise to three miracles:

1. St. Beuno caused the earth to open, and young Caradoc was swallowed up;
2. A well opened on the spot where the nun’s blood was shed, and the holy waters of this healing fountain work miracles unto this day;
3. St. Beuno placed the nun’s head on the bleeding body, prayed to the “Mother of Christ,” and behold St.” Wenefride was immediately restored to life.

Who will dare to say that these miracles are not far more wonderful than any recorded in Scripture? Protestants, in their ignorance, may be inclined to call them “lying wonders,” but Roman infallibility has pronounced them “unquestionable miracles.”

St. Dominic, on one occasion, during a dreadful tempest, exhorted the inhabitants of Toulouse to appease the wrath of heaven by reciting their prayers. The arm of the wooden image of the Virgin in the church was raised in a threatening attitude. “ Hear me,” shouted St. Dominic, “that arm will not be withdrawn till you have obeyed my commands.” The terrified worshipers instantly set to work, counting their beads. Dominic, satisfied with their spiritual devotions, gave the order, and the arm of wrath immediately fell. The storm abated. The thunder and lightning ceased.

The blood of St. Januarius, preserved in a small bottle at Naples, is wont to liquefy, and sometimes boil, when exposed to the adoration of the faithful. This miracle, Protestants might be excused from believing, especially as on one occasion, when it refused to dissolve because the French soldiers occupied the kingdom, it afterwards concluded to do so, inasmuch as the Vicar of the bishops received this order from the French Commander: “If in ten minutes St. Januarius should not perform his usual miracle, the whole city shall be reduced to ashes.” The obstinate saint came to terms! The blood boiled furiously !

But perhaps some one may be inclined to question whether miracles so preposterously absurd are now offered to the faith of Papists. Possibly some, by reading “The Aspirations of Nature,” a work written to make converts to Catholicism, may imagine that Romanists are less credulous, less superstitious, less blindly bigoted now than in the middle ages. For the benefit of such we refer to miracles whose long drawn accounts are to be found in books now issuing, in this very country, under the official and authoritative endorsement of Rome. In the “Living Eucharist manifested by Miracles,” the infallible, authoritative, apostolic Church, the unerring teacher of divine truth, in this nineteenth century actually records some twenty or more miracles wrought in proof of the real presence.

Bishops, priests and nuns, we are solemnly told, certainly saw the wafer, after the benediction of the priest, changed into an infant. The bread became real flesh and blood, a perfect infant, Jesus himself. In one case a priest was seen laying a beautiful babe, Jesus, on the tongue of each communicant. Wafers carried several days in the pocket of a bishop, on being blessed became little infants. Did ever blasphemy and irreverence equal this? Dogmatically affirming that the testimony of the senses is not to be taken in matters of faith, Papists endeavor to establish a doctrine which is in itself so repugnant to reason that one would suppose none but an idiot could believe it. And this publication has the sanction of Papal infallibility. Now, therefore, heretics, doubt no longer. Believe that the priest creates a god, worships him, and then eats him. Presume not to smile at this precious doctrine of transubstantiation, this sublime mystery, which the Rev. James Kent Stone (who in a short fifteen months passed from a public defender of Episcopacy to a most ardent advocate of the Papacy) affirms is a doctrine so spiritual that purblind (slow in understanding or discernment; dull.) Protestants cannot be expected to comprehend it.

Another tract, published in London, “The Miracle of Liége, by the use of the water from the fountain of Our Lady of Lourdes,” deserves attention. This also can be purchased in almost any Catholic bookstore. “Mr. Hanquet’s Narrative.” —He was taken, he affirms, extremely ill in 1862. Continuing to grow worse, in July 1864 sitting up even for a few moments was an impossibility. In 1867, ulcers, erysipelas, “a back bent like a bow,” “a chest like a fiery oven,” and “bloodless withered legs,” rendered life a burden. The physician affirmed : “I find symptoms of almost all diseases.” In 1869 all hope of recovery faded away. His brother, however, on Oct. 13th, found in a bookstore the account of Our Lady of Lourdes. Already the dying man was praying most importunately to the Mother of God, Blessed Lady, Mary Immaculate. A bottle of water was sent for. A glass of it was poured down the throat of the dying man. Mary’s aid was invoked. For an instant the death rattle was heard; then one bound, and the man, well and strong, seized his hat and went outdoors wholly restored. A miracle indeed!!! And this, my dear Protestant friend, has the sanction of Papal infallibility. Who will not henceforth pray with devout Hanquet: “Holy Virgin, deign to ask for me from your divine Son that grace which is best for me, to die, to suffer or to be cured,” especially the last, to be cured? This wonderful account of a very remarkable miracle—unless you are sacrilegious enough to call it one of Rome’s lying wonders—this incontestable proof of the efficacy of prayer to the Blessed Virgin, you can make your own for twelve cents. This in the year 1870, and in New York.

M. C. Kavanagh, in her catechism and instructions for confession designed for very young children, having heartily commended the patience of St. Joseph, who, when a little lad, though bathed in tears, offered no reproach to those destroying his highly prized little garden (tradition, ¢. e. fiction pure and simple), our authoress gives, by way of enforcing the duty of penance, “a story of Our Blessed Lady.” Little Mary when three or four years old, informed the priest that she had imposed upon herself penances, to eat no fruit except one kind, to drink no wine or vinegar of which she was very fond, to eat no meat or fish, and to rise three times in the night to pray. Heartily do we join in the ejaculation of the narrator, “This at the age of three years!” We certainly think that the dogma of infallibility is really needed. How otherwise could such a dose as this be forced down even a Papist’s throat. The second instruction closes with this pious admonition: “Do not fail to pray to Our Lady and St. Joseph to help you.” Fed upon such food, is it any wonder that the children of our Catholic fellow-citizens grow up in the grossest ignorance, in superstition that would disgrace a heathen in Central Africa?

But the third instruction contains the gem, “a true miracle.” Only five years ago, in a village of France (how unfortunate, these miracles always occur in some distant land), there resided a certain curé (priest bearing the responsibility of a parish). Among those who came to him was a gentleman who had great temptations against faith in the Blessed Eucharist. (Not so unreasonable when he was asked to believe, contrary to the testimony of his senses, that bread was flesh.) One day, as this doubter came to communion, the sacred host left the hands of the curé and placed itself on the tongue of the gentleman. Our authoress, in holy fervor exclaims, “What a miracle of love!” And we are impious enough to respond, What a transparent falsehood! (LOL!)

Obedience is a Christian duty which certainly ought to be commended to children. Here is Rome’s way of enjoining it. St. Frances whilst saying the office of Our Lady, which she did daily (how adroitly Mary’s worship is commended), was called by her servant. Leaving her prayers she attended to the request. Returning, scarcely had she begun the psalm when she was called a second time. Without loss of patience again she left her book to obey the command. Just after she had resumed her prayers for the third time her husband called. Leaving all, she ran to him. Returning, what was her surprise to find the words, written in letters of gold: “ Now, therefore, dear children, always obey the calls of duty.”

Lengthy as our list has become, we cannot pass the two hundred or more remarkable miracles contained in the ever-memorable book, so celebrated in Catholic communities, “The Glories of Mary,” by St. Alphonsus Liguori. This book was never intended for Protestant eyes. The original having been carefully examined, and every line, even every word found in perfect harmony with the doctrines of Holy Mother, and the translation in like manner “expurgated,” approved and earnestly commended to the faithful, the work was introduced “with the hope that it might be found to retain the spirit of the learned and saintly author, and be welcomed by the devout in this country with the same delight which it has universally called forth in Catholic Europe.” Whatever miracles are herein found may therefore be taken as duly attested and approved by Papal infallibility.

Here is one. A gentleman devoted to Blessed Mary was accustomed often in the night to repair to the oratory of his palace to bow in prayer to an image of the Virgin. His wife, jealous and angered, asked him, “Have you ever loved any other woman but me?” He replied, “I love the most amiable lady in the world; to her I have given my whole heart,” meaning Mary (?) The wife still more suspicious asked, “ When you arise and leave the room, is it to meet this lady?” “Yes.” “Deceived and blinded by passion,” this wife, one night during her husband’s long absence, “cut her throat and very soon died.” The heart-broken husband on learning this, implored help of Mary’s image. No sooner was this done than the living wife, throwing herself at his feet, bathed in tears, exclaimed, “Oh, my husband, the Mother of God, through thy prayers, has delivered me from hell.”

“The next day the husband made a feast, and the wife told her relatives the facts, and showed the marks of the wound.” Now, heretics, doubt if you dare.

Let us have one in the exact language of “the learned and saintly author.” “There lived in the city of Aragona a girl named Alexandra, who, being noble and very beautiful, was greatly loved by two young men. Through jealousy, they one day fought and killed each other. Their enraged relatives, in return, killed the poor young girl, as the cause of so much trouble, cut off her head, and threw her into a well. A few days after, St. Dominic was passing through that place, and, inspired by the Lord, approached the well, and said: ‘Alexandra, come forth,’ and immediately the head of the deceased came forth, placed itself on the edge of the well, and prayed St. Dominic to hear its confession. The Saint heard its confession, and also gave it communion, in presence of a great concourse of persons who had assembled to witness the miracle. Then St. Dominic ordered her to speak, and tell why she had received that grace. Alexandra answered, that when she was beheaded, she was in a state of mortal sin, but that the most Holy Mary, on account of the rosary, which she was in the habit of reciting, had preserved her in life. Two days the head retained its life upon the edge of the well, in the presence of all, and then the soul went to purgatory. But fifteen days after, the soul of Alexandra appeared to St. Dominic, beautiful and radiant as a star, and told him that one of the principal sources of relief to the souls in purgatory is the rosary which is recited for them; and that, as soon as they arrive in paradise, they pray for those who apply to them these powerful prayers. Having said this, St. Dominic saw that happy soul ascending in triumph to the kingdom of the blessed.”—”Glories of Mary,” American Ed., p. 274.

alexandras-head-confessing

Of others we have merely time to give the briefest outline. Mary’s image furnishes written prayers to a penitent (p. 76); rescues a condemned murderer from the gallows (p. 78); bows to a murderer (p. 213); becomes and continues a nun fifteen years, in order to shield a devotee who willfully deserted the paths of virtue (p. 224); leaves a church during the trial, condemnation and beheading of an infamous bishop (p. 391); speaks to a young man about to commit sin (p. 559), ete., ete., almost ad infinitum.

Blessed Mary herself cools the cheek of a dying devotee with a fan (p.110) ; with a cloth wipes the death damp from the brow of “a good woman” dying in a home of poverty (p. 112); secures from the devil a paper given by an abandoned sinner containing a written renunciation of God (p. 198) ; furnishes a letter to one of her ardent admirers (the same lady had entertained her admirers all night in “rooms richly furnished and perfumed as with an odor of paradise !”) (p. 454); burns an inn in which her children were sinning (five of the rescued affirm, on oath, that Mary, the Blessed Virgin, lighted the flames) (p. 659); by a second revelation of herself restores sight to one eye of a man who had regularly bargained with her for total blindness if he might be permitted twice to behold her (p. 512).

By the assistance of Our Lady, an ape becomes and declares himself a devil, and at the command of a priest goes through a hole in the wall, which hole no mechanical genius could fill up (p. 251); a man in spirit form comes to his friend and says, My dead body is in the street, my soul in purgatory, and I am here (p. 265); at the repetition of the magic rosary devils have been known to leave wretched men (p. 683). There, that is a dose sufficient for any Protestant stomach! If any, however, desire more, there are plenty in the “Glories of Mary.” Don’t the immutable Church need the dogma of infallibility? Barring the sense of shame for our race produced by such exhibitions of moral depravity and mental weakness, these “examples” are more interesting and certainly far more startling than the most exciting modern novel. And they are published as truth, approved by Papal inerrancy, earnestly commended to the devout, believed by Papists! They are sold in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and all large towns—sold in this nineteenth century, and in educated, enlightened, civilized, Christianized America! Can a republic long rest secure on a foundation of superstition? Judged by such literature, the present must indeed be the world’s midnight of ignorance! Did the dark ages produce anything more grossly absurd? And Rome anathematizes the times because there are some men so heretical, so unprecedentedly blasphemous as to make jest of such absurdities.

May we not apply to Popery the words of Pollok?

“The hypocrite in mask! He was a man
Who stole the livery of the court of heaven
To serve the devil in.”

If any desire to see the account of a recent miracle, with all the embellishments, drawn out “ad nauseam,” we refer them to “Our Lady of Lourdes, by Henri Lasserre,” found in the Catholic World (September, October, November, December, 1870, and January, February, March, and April, 1871).

At a grotto near Lourdes in France, a poor, simple minded, invalid, fourteen-year-old shepherdess, who could neither read nor write, knowing almost nothing except the superstitious use of Mary’s rosary, had, we are gravely informed, daily visions, for more than two weeks, of the Blessed Virgin, and gave accurate, full, elegant descriptions of her dress, features and beauty. The honored recipient of Mary’s favors, Bernadette, so named for her patron, St. Bernard, saw the heavenly vision, though no single observer of a vast crowd was able to see anything save the barren rock and the climbing eglantine; and heard words from lips seemingly lisping prayers for poor sinners as her fingers counted the beads of her glittering rosary. After days of ecstatic beholding, this wonderful message was sent from the “Queen of Heaven and Earth,” by the vision-beholding Bernadette, to the priests—those prudent men who received the current rumors of the wildly excited populace with dignified silence, looks of disapprobation, and words of suspicion— “Go tell the priests that I want a chapel built on this spot.” When these words were spoken in ordinary tone, in the midst of several thousand breathless spectators of Bernadette’s transfiguration, no ear caught the sound save that of the little, ignorant, simple-minded, pale-faced, nervous peasant girl.

At a subsequent vision this command was received: “Go drink and wash at the fountain, and eat of the herbs growing at its side.” Fountain? — there was none. Bernadette, however, essaying obedience, walked on her knees over the rocks, and into the furthest corner of the grotto. As she dug up the earth with her hands a fountain sprung up. This, which has since flowed unceasingly for thirteen years and wrought miracles innumerable, possessed, from its first outgushing, miraculous healing properties. A quarryman, rubbing his blinded eye with the first water that filled the cavity, and kneeling in prayer to the Blessed Virgin, “immediately uttered a loud cry and began to tremble in violent excitement.” “Cured.” “ Impossible,” said the physician. “It is the Holy Virgin,” said the devout Catholic. Many arose from beds to which they had been confined for years. Paralyzed limbs were instantaneously restored. Sores were cured. Deaf ears were unstopped. A dying child—the shroud already made—plunged by its mother into “the icy cold fountain,” and held there for more than fifteen minutes, was completely restored to health, and the next day, in the absence of the parents, “left the cradle and walked around the room,” its first effort at walking! Remarkable baby! Wonderful water! One morning, says the author, twenty thousand, many of whom had spent the previous night at the grotto, witnessed, in rapt silence, the ecstasy of the little saint. Even if the waters had wrought no miracles, superstitious faith might have manufactured at least one or two tolerably decent counterfeits. So we think. So evidently thought the Editor of the Ere Imperiale, a local paper.

“Do not be surprised,” said the organ of the Prefecture (Catholic), “if there are still some people who persist in maintaining that the child is a saint, and gifted with supernatural powers. These people believe the following stories :-—

“1st. That a dove hovered the day before yesterday over the head of the child during the whole time of the ecstasy.

“2d. That she breathed upon the eyes of a little blind girl, and restored her sight.

“3d. That she cured another child whose arm was paralyzed.

“4th. That a peasant of the Valley of Campan, having declared that he could not be duped by such scenes of hallucination, his sins had, in answer to her prayers, been turned into snakes, which had devoured him, not leaving a trace of his impious body.

“This, then, is what we have come to, but what we would not have come to if the parents of this girl had followed the advice of the physicians, who recommended that she should be sent to the lunatic asylum ”

Chapter VI. Idolatry.

IT was against the worship of idols that the early Christians most solemnly and most determinedly protested. “We Christians,” says Origen, “have nothing to do with images, on account of the second commandment; the first thing we teach those who come to us is to despise idols and images; it being the peculiar characteristic of the Christian religion to raise our minds above images, agreeably to the law which God himself has given to mankind.” And Gibbon affirms, “The primitive Christians were possessed with an unconquerable repugnance to the use and abuse of images.” Again: The public worship of the Christians was uniformly simple and spiritual.”

Most cunningly was this spirituality undermined and idolatry substituted. In the early part of the fourth century, after the subversion of Paganism, some bishops began to encourage the use of pictures and images as aids to the devotion and instruction of the ignorant. Even till the time of Gregory it was the prevalent opinion that, if used at all, images must be used merely as books for the unlearned. The Pontiff, however, so far encouraged their erection that almost every church in the west could boast of at least one. Before these the multitude soon learned to bow; to these they offered prayers.

So disgusting became this growing superstition that in 700 AD the Council of Constantinople solemnly condemned the use of images, and ordered their expulsion from the churches. But in 713 AD Pope Constantine pronounced an anathema against those who “deny that veneration to the holy images which the Church has appointed.” A few years later began that famous controversy between the Emperor Leo and Gregory II. which continued to distract the Church for more than fifty years. The Emperor and his successors, Constantine V., and Leo IV., strenuously endeavored to restore Christianity to its primitive purity. Gregory II, and the Popes succeeding him, with a zeal bordering on fanaticism, undertook a defense of image-worship. The Emperors were charged with ignorance, rudeness, pride, contempt of the authority of the sovereign Pontiff, and opposition to the teachings of the Church. Defying the wrath of the Pope, however, and encouraged by the unanimous decision of the Seventh Greek Council (AD 754), which condemned idolatry, Constantine V. burned the images and demolished the walls of the churches bearing painted representations of Christ, of the Virgin, and of the saints. The efforts of his son, Leo IV., were directed to the same end. But the Emperor dying suddenly—as is generally supposed from the effects of poison administered by his wife, Irene—the contest ended in a victory for the image-worshipers. Irene, prompted by a desire to occupy the throne, ordered, her own son, Constantine VI., to be seized and his eyes put out. The order was faithfully executed, and with such cruelty that the unhappy son almost immediately expired. To this wretched and terribly brutal woman Papists are deeply indebted. Assisted by Pope Adrian, she extended idolatry throughout the entire empire, and in 787 AD summoned a Council at Nice, which decreed “That holy images of the cross should be consecrated, and put on the sacred vessels and vestments, and upon walls and boards, in private houses and in public ways. And especially that there should be erected images of the Lord God, our Saviour Jesus Christ, of our blessed Lady, the Mother of God, of the venerable angels, and of all the saints. And that whosoever should presume to think or teach otherwise, or to throw away any painted books, or the figure of the cross, or any image, or picture, or any genuine relics of the martyrs, they should, if bishops or clergymen, be deposed, or if monks or laymen, be excommunicated.”

Owing a debt of gratitude to Irene, Papists have endeavored to defend her monstrous wickedness. Unable to deny the cruelties practiced upon her son, they attempt to justify them, nay, even to commend them, applauding her for so far overcoming the feelings of humanity, through love for the true Church and its honored doctrines, that she could sacrifice her own son, who stood in the way of her aiding in the establishment of image-worship.*


* “An execrable crime,” says Baronius, “had she not been prompted to it by zeal for justice. On that consideration she even deserved to be commended for what she did. In more ancient times, the hands of parents were armed, by God’s command, against their children worshiping strange gods, and they who killed them were commended by Moses.””

From that day to the present idolatry has been one of Rome’s chief characteristics. It is now so intimately interwoven with her forms of worship as to defy all opposition. Most probably it will hold its place until the prophecy of John finds fulfillment, “Babylon, the great, is fallen, is fallen.”

Nor are their images confined to churches and chapels. They are also set up by the road-side. In Popish countries, and especially in Italy, these images, fit successors of the old Roman gods that presided over the highways, are frequently to be met with. As the traveler passes, he uncovers his head, and reverently bows, or, time permitting, turns aside to kneel before the idol and implore a blessing. Did ever heathenism more unblushingly offer insult to common sense?

As our space will not permit an extended reference to the monstrous falsehoods, intrigues, and deceptions by which the priesthood succeeded in securing for these images the devout homage of the multitude, and the treasury of the Church the rich gifts so much coveted, we must content ourselves with calling attention to one or two specimens. In the “Master Key to Popery,” by Anthony Gavin, we have an historical account of the “ Virgin of Pillar,” an image religiously worshiped in Saragossa, Spain. The Apostle St. James, the account informs us, with seven new converts, came to preach the Gospel in Saragossa. While sleeping upon the brink of a river, an army of angels came down from heaven with an image on a pillar, which they placed on the ground, saying, “This image of Our Queen shall be the defense of this city. By her help it shall be reduced to your Master’s sway. As she is to protect you, you must build a decent chapel for her.” The order was obeyed. A chapel was built, which became the richest in Spain.*


* For “Our Lady of Pillar”? a chaplain was provided, whose business it was to dress the image every morning. Through him, the Virgin Lady once addressed a solemn admonition to the people of Saragossa, accusing them of illiberality, want of devotion, and the basest ingratitude, and expressing her determination to resign her government to Lucifer, unless the people should come for the space of fifteen days, every day with gifts, tears, and penitence, to appease her wrath and secure a return of her favor. They were exhorted to come with prodigal hands and true hearts, lest the Prince of Darkness should be appointed to reign over them. They were also assured that from this sentence there was no appeal, not even to the tribunal of the Most High, This device, enriching the Church, nearly beggared the inhabitants of the threatened city.

The crucifix of St. Salvador, when there is great need of rain and the barometer indicates a speedy change, is sometimes carried through the streets, while the accompanying priests sing the litany and repeat prayers, imploring rain. This well-timed ceremony is almost invariably followed, within a few days, by rain. All exclaim, “A miracle wrought by our Holy Crucifix.” Not to multiply instances, we have the authority of Pope Gregory for affirming that wonders and miracles wrought by images are by no means rare. In an epistle addressed to the Empress Constantina, who had requested from him the head of St. Paul, for the purpose of enshrining it in the church which she was erecting in his honor, the successor of St. Peter says: “Great sadness has possessed me, because you have enjoined upon me those things which I neither can, nor dare do; for the bodies of the holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, are so resplendent with miracles and terrific prodigies in their own churches, that no one can approach them without awe, even for the purpose of adoring them. The superior of the place having found some bones that were not at all connected with that tomb; and having presumed to disturb them and remove them to some other place, he was visited by certain frightful apparitions and died suddenly. . . . Be it known to you that it is the custom of the Romans, when they give any relics, not to venture to touch any portion of the body; only they put into a box a piece of linen, which is placed near the holy body; then it is withdrawn and shut up with due veneration in the church which is to be dedicated, and as many prodigies are wrought by it as if the bodies themselves had been carried thither. . . . . But that your religious desire may not be wholly frustrated, I will hasten to send you some parts of those chains which St. Paul wore on his neck and hands, if indeed I shall succeed in getting off any filings from them.”

So, dear Empress Constantina, be it known to you, that Rome will not part with the hen that lays the golden egg, nor even allow you, much less the infidel world, to examine the nest. These holy bodies are surrounded by a more sacred divinity than doth hedge a king. Death is the penalty of approaching them unhidden by the infallible Pope. He will sell you relics —linen rags and iron filings—which will work as great wonders as the head you so much covet. No doubt of it!!!

Notwithstanding the distinction made by Romanists between absolute and relative, proper and improper worship, between latria, dulia, and hyperdulia, there can be no doubt they offer to these images an idolatrous homage. Devised evidently for the sole purpose of warding off the charge so frequently brought against them, of offering to pictures, images and relics that adoration due to Deity alone, this hair-splitting distinction has no influence in modifying the worship of the vast mass of Rome’s devotees. The images are the real objects worshipped.

One of the ablest expounders of Papal doctrines says :— “From God, as its source, the worship with which we honor relics, originates, and to God, as its end, it ultimately and terminatively reverts.” Assuredly the worship which originates with God, and returns ultimately to God, must be that true and proper homage due to him alone.

In proof that Papists offer adoration to images, we refer to the custom of serenading, on Christmas morning, all the statues of the Holy Virgin in the streets of Rome. The reason assigned for this grand musical entertainment is that the Virgin is a great lover and an excellent judge of good music.

A recent visitor to the church erected about the house where it is said Blessed Mary was born, saw miserable women, very personifications of gross superstition, dragging themselves on their knees around the venerated building, counting beads, kissing the marble foundations, repeating prayers before the idol, and ordering masses to be said for the benefit of themselves and friends. Disgusting beggars, trafficking in superstition, clamorously promise to supplicate the idol on behalf of those who favor them with alms. Dealers in the implements of devotion hawk their sacred wares, rosaries, pictures, medals, and casts of the Madonna.

women-creeping-into-church

Certainly no one except an idolater will deny that real homage is offered when the worshiper, bowing before an image, hymns its praises, and to it offers his prayers. Papists indeed say, “We do not worship the image, but the personage represented, not the statue, but the Virgin, not the cross, but the Saviour suspended thereon.” Gregory III, in writing to the Emperor Leo, says:—“You say we adore stones, walls, and boards. It is not so, my Lord; but these symbols make us recollect the persons whose names they bear, and exalt our grovelling minds.” Intelligent Pagans have ever rendered precisely the same excuse.* They who knelt before the shrine of Jupiter, claimed that they were worshipping the invisible and spiritual by means of the visible and material. Those in India who now worship the images of Gaudama, do the same. Are we then to believe that there are not, never have been, and never can be, persons so degraded as to be properly denominated idolaters? Have all who employed images been capable of fully appreciating this sentimental distinction? Has not even superstitious ignorance worshipped the seen and forgotten the unseen? Admitting that in the Papal Church only the less gross idolatry exists, is this justifiable? Is it not condemned in Scripture? The prohibition reads:— “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing.” There has been given us, in the person of Jesus Christ, a visible image of the invisible God. Bowing before him, and crying, “My Lord and my God,” we worship the seen, God in human form, “the likeness of the Futher,” “the express image of his person,” and yet are not idolaters. Having so far accomodated himself to the constitution of our nature, he allows no other object to come between himself and the penitent heart.


* Plutarch, in explaining the worship of Egypt’s two most famous deities, Osiris and Isis, holds the following language :—‘ Philosophers honor the image of God wherever they find it, even in inanimate beings, and consequently more in those which have life. We are therefore to approve, not the worshipers of these animals, but those who, by their means, ascend to the Deity; they are to be considered as so many mirrors, which nature holds forth, and in which the Supreme Being displays himself in a wonderful manner; or as so many instruments, which he makes use of to manifest outwardly his incomprehensible wisdom. Should men, therefore, for the embellishing of statues, amass together all the gold and precious stones in the world, the worship must not be referred to the statues, for the Deity does not exist in colors artfully disposed, nor in frail matter destitute of sense and motion.”

Among Rome’s numerous idolatries, none certainly is more conspicuous, none more ardently advocated, none less inexcusable than the adoration offered to the Virgin. Her mere titles, as found in that ever-famous book, “The Glories of Mary,” and in her litany, a solemn supplicatory prayer, would fill more than a page of our present volume. She is denominated Queen of heaven, of earth, of mercy, of angels, of patriarchs, of prophets, of apostles, of martyrs, of confessors, of virgins, and of all saints; Mother of God, of penitents, and especially of obdurate and abandoned sinners; Ravisher of heart, finder of grace, hope of salvation, defense of the faithful, helper of sinners; our only advocate, our refuge, our protection, our health, our life, our hope, our soul, our heart, our mistress, our lady, our loving mother; secure salvation, Redeemer of the world, Virgin of virgins, Mother undefiled, unviolated, most pure, most chaste, most amiable, most admirable, most prudent, most venerable, most powerful, most merciful, most faithful; mirror of justice, seat of wisdom, cause of joy, spiritual vessel, vessel of honor, mystical rose, tower of David, house of gold, ark of the covenant, gate of heaven, morning star, comfort of the afflicted, etc., etc.

Liguori, since enrolled as a saint, mainly as the reward of his untiring efforts to supplant love of the Creator by love of the creature, boldly and unqualifiedly asserts that Mary co-operated in the original work of redemption :—

“When God saw the great desire of Mary to devote herself to the salvation of men, he ordained that by the sacrifice and offering of the life of this same Jesus, she might co-operate with him in the work of our salvation, and thus become mother of our souls.” (P. 43, American Ed.)

“God could indeed, as St. Anselm asserts, create the world from nothing; but when it was lost by sin, he could not redeem it without the co-operation of Mary.” (P. 186.)

He also asserts that Mary is the only fountain of life and salvation. “God has ordained that all graces should come to us through the hands of Mary.” (P. 15.) And how is this proved? In true Catholic style, by authority. St. Augustine mentions Mary’s name and affirms, “ All the tongues of men would not be sufficient to praise her as she deserves.” St. Bonaventure declares, “those who are devoted to publishing ‘The Glories of Mary’ are secure of paradise.” Did these fathers ever make these assertions? And if they did, is assertion proof? These two questions remorselessly pressed would leave all Liguori’s fine-spun arguments floating together distractedly in an ocean of balderdash. And here is a second kind of proof, Rome’s clinching argument, a miracle.— each section of the book has one, besides the eighty-nine additional. In the revelation of St. Bridget, we are told that Bishop Emingo, being accustomed to begin his sermons with the praises of Mary, the Virgin one day appeared to St. Bridget, and said: “Tell that bishop I will be his mother, and he shall die a good death.” He died like a saint. Now, therefore, all you Catholics bow the knee and repeat one of St. Liguori’s prayers to the Virgin. You have a fine selection from which to choose, well nigh a hundred. But the chief proof here, as elsewhere, is assertion. Here are a few specimens :—

“The kingdom of God consisting of justice and mercy, the Lord has divided it: he has reserved the kingdom of justice for himself, and he has granted the kingdom of mercy to Mary, ordaining that all the mercies which are dispensed to men should pass through the hands of Mary, and should be bestowed according to her good pleasure.” (Pp. 27, 28.)

“St, Bernard asks: ‘Why does the Church name Mary Queen of Mercy?? And answers: ‘Because we believe that she opens the depths of the mercy of God, to whom she will, when she will, and as she will; so that not even the vilest sinner is lost if Mary protects him?” (P. 31.)

“In Mary we shall find every hope…. In a word, we shall find in Mary life and eternal salvation.” (Pp. 178, 174.)

“For this reason, too, she is called the gate of heaven by the Holy Church. . . . St. Bonaventure, moreover, says that Mary is called the gate of heaven, because no one can enter heaven if he does not pass through Mary, who is the door of it” (P.177.)

“Richard, of St. Laurence, says: ‘Our salvation is in the hands of Mary’…Cassian absolutely affirms that the salvation of the whole world depends upon the favor and protection of Mary.” (P. 190.)

“O how many, exclaims the Abbot of Celles, who merit to be condemned by the Divine justice, are saved by the mercy of Mary! for she is the treasure of God, and the treasurer of all graces; therefore it is, that our salvation is in her hands.” (P. 300.)

“Thou hast a merit that has no limits, and an entire power over all creatures. Thou art the mother of God, the mistress of the world, the Queen of heaven. Thou art the dispenser of all graces, the glory of the Holy Church.” (P. 673.) [The italics are ours.]

He assures his readers that Mary is omnipotent :—

“Do not say that thou canst not aid me, for I know that thou art omnipotent, and dost obtain whatsoever thou desirest from God.” (P. 78.)

“Says St. Peter Damian, ‘The Virgin has all power in heaven and on earth’” (P. 201.)

“Yes, Mary is omnipotent, adds Richard, of St. Laurence, since the Queen, by every law, must enjoy the same privileges as the King. . . . And St. Antoninus says: ‘God has placed the whole Church, not only under the patronage, but also under the dominion of Mary” (P. 203.)

Infallibility has also approved these assertions of her canonized saint :-—

“Not only Most Holy Mary is Queen of heaven and of the saints, but also of hell and of the devils; for she has bravely triumphed over them by her virtues. From the beginning of the world God predicted to the infernal serpent the victory and the empire which our Queen would obtain over him, when he announced to him that a woman would come into the world who should conquer him.” (P. 155.) “Mary, then, is this great and strong woman who has conquered the devil, and crushed his head by subduing his pride, as the Lord added, ‘She shall crush thy head… . The Blessed Virgin, by conquering the devil, brought us life and light.” (P. 156.)

“Very glorious, O Mary, and wonderful,’ exclaims St. Bonaventure, ‘is thy great name. Those who are mindful to utter it at the hour of death have nothing to fear from hell, for the devils at once abandon the soul when they hear the name of Mary’” (P. 163.)

Greater blasphemy still! Liguori affirms that God the Father is under obligation to Mary, and cheerfully obeys her command:

“St. Bernardine, of Sienna, does not hesitate to say that all obey the commands of Mary, even God himself.” (P. 202.)

“Rejoice, O Mary, that a son has fallen to thy lot as thy debtor, who gives to all and receives from none.” (P. 210.)

“She knows so well how to appease Divine justice with her tender and wise entreaties, that God himself blesses her for it, and, as it were, thanks her, that thus she restrains him from abandoning and punishing them as they deserve.” (P. 220.)

“Rejoice, O mother and handmaid of God! rejoice! rejoice! thou hast for a debtor him to whom all creatures owe their being. We are all debtors to God, but God is debtor to thee.” (P. 327.) [What blasphemy!!!]

We have scarcely heart to quote from the petitions offered to the Virgin. In “The Glories of Mary,” one prayer, intended as the beautiful blossom or perfected fruit of the finished argument, very appropriately closes each section. Besides these, there is an interesting collection from Rome’s most honored saints—in all over three score. In their books of devotion,—the number and names of which are exceedingly perplexing to a poor heretic,—no prayers are more frequent, none more ardent than those offered to the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God :—

“O Mother of my God, and my Lady Mary, as a poor wounded and loathsome wretch presents himself to a great queen, I present myself to thee, who art the Queen of heaven and earth. From the lofty throne on which thou are seated, do not disdain, I pray thee, to cast thine eyes upon me, a poor sinner,” etc. (“ Glories of Mary,” p. 37.)

“I venerate,O most pure Virgin Mary, thy most sacred heart. I, an unhappy sinner, come to thee with a heart filled with all uncleanness and wounds. O mother of mercy, do not, on this account, despise me, but let it excite thee to a greater compassion, and come to my help.” (P. 140.)

“O Mother of God! O Queen of angels! O hope of men, listen to him who invokes thee, and has recourse to thee. Behold me today prostrate at thy feet; I, a miserable slave of hell, consecrate myself to thee as thy servant forever, offering myself to serve and honor thee to the utmost of my power all the days of my life.” (P.153,)

“O Lady, I know that thou dost glory in being merciful as thou art great. I know that thou dost rejoice in being so rich, that thou mayest share thy riches with us sinners. I know that the more wretched are those who seek thee, the greater is thy desire to help and save them.” (P, 252.)

“O Mary! O my most dear mother, in what an abyss of evil I should find myself, if thou, with thy kind hand, hadst not so often preserved me! Yes, how many years should I already have been in hell, if thou, with thy powerful prayers, hadst not rescued me! My grievous sins were hurrying me there; divine justice had already condemned me; the raging demons were waiting to execute the sentence, but thou didst appear, O mother, not invoked nor asked by me, and hast saved me.” (P. 266.)

“Hearken, O most holy Virgin, to our prayers, and remember us, Dispense to us the gifts of thy riches, and the abundant graces with which thou art filled. All nations call thee blessed; the whole hierarchy of heaven blesses thee, and we, who are of the terrestrial hierarchy, also say to thee: Hail, full of grace.” (P. 329.)

“Holy Virgin, Mother of God, succor those who implore thy assistance… . To thee nothing is impossible, for thou canst raise even the despairing to the hope of salvation. . . . Thou dost love us with a love that no other love can surpass… . All the treasures of the mercy of God are in thy hands.” (P. 331.)

For want of space we pause. Scores of other passages, equally or even more revolting, lie open before us. If any one desires to see Romanism as it is, let him purchase a “Catholic Manual,” and “The Glories of Mary.” Thenceforth, semi-political papers, like The Freeman’s Journal and Catholic Register, and Jesuitical pamphlets, like the Catholic World, will charm in vain, charm they never so sweetly.

Did space permit, quotations innumerable, as blasphemous as those already adduced, could be given from “The Manual,” “The Key of Paradise,” “True Piety,” “The Christian’s Vade Mecum,” and the several other Catholic collections of prayers. One, from Dr. John Power’s “Catholic Manual,” must suffice :—“ Confiding in thy goodness and mercy, I cast myself at thy sacred feet, and do most humbly supplicate thee, O Mother of the Eternal Word, to adopt me as thy child.”

Bonaventure, a Roman saint (worshiped annually, July 14: see Catholic Almanac), has actually gone over most of the Psalms of David, striking out the words Lord, God, etc., and inserting, Blessed Virgin, Our Lady, Holy Mother, etc. Psalm 110:—“The Lord said unto Our Lady, sit thou on my right hand.” Psalm 25:—“ Unto thee, O Blessed Virgin, do I lift up my soul.” Psalm 31:—“In thee, O Lady, do I put my trust.”

Pope Pius IX., who considers the dogma of the Immaculate Conception the glory of his reign, in his Encyclical of November 1, 1870, condemning the usurpers of the States of the Church, addresses to all devout Catholics this earnest exhortation: “Going altogether to the foot of the throne of grace and mercy, let us engage the intercession of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, mother of God.”

If we may not apply the word idolatry to these abominations of Popery, then, certainly, we have no need of the word. The future Noah Webster may as well omit it from his dictionary. Comment, however, is certainly uncalled for. “And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.” “Idolaters shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

“These wise logicians (heretics) of the world
Can prove with reasoning clear
How he, in heaven, will welcome those
Who scorn his Mother here! . . .
And this is reason! this is light!—
A light that blinds the eyes,
And leads to the fire of endless night,
And the worm that never dies.”
The Catholic World, Jan. No., 1871, p. 532.

Chapter VII. Will—Worship.

WILL-WORSHIP, self-imposed restriction, producing excessive spiritual pride, but leaving the heart impure and the life unchanged, is evidently a noteworthy characteristic of Popery. In Paul’s portraiture of the fatal apostasy these words occur: “Commanding to abstain from meats.” This passage, restricted in its application to an organization once truly Christian, must of necessity refer to the Romish Church; no other has made abstinence from animal food a religious duty. Popery, however, has enacted, that “meats eaten during Lent, or on Friday, pollute the body and bring down eternal damnation on the soul.” And must we, then, believe, on the authority of a Church which evinces its much-vaunted infallibility by abrogating its own immutable laws, that something from without, beef-steak, defiles the man?* The proud occupant of Peter’s chair, by a single word, may reverse the teachings of the humble Nazarene!


* Formerly it was enacted: “No meat shall be eaten during Lent, on Fridays, or on Saturdays.” One of the Popes, however, by a new unalterable law suspending all previous immutable enactments, granted universal and perpetual indulgence on Saturdays. A Pope’s word makes the eating of animal food healthful or a damning sin!

Must the conscientious Protestant, his life an epistle of love, eternally bear the frown of an incensed God because, alike on all the days of the week, he temperately enjoyed the gifts of God’s bounty? Shall the Catholic, his heart unrenewed, his life a slander on the religion of the spotless Jesus, find, in the hour of death and the day of judgment, heaven’s favor richly bestowed simply because, by an act of will, he refused animal food on one day in seven?

Even mortal sins, it seems, can be committed with impunity if the Pope grants permission. The bull of Clement XI., in favor of those who should assist Philip V. in the holy war against the heretics, “grants to all who should take this bull, that during the year… . they may eat flesh in Lent and several other days in which it is prohibited. …. that they may eat eggs and things with milk.” His Infallibility makes known when and for what services his subjects may eat eggs without incurring eternal damnation. Important business! In the world’s midnight, Popery’s palmiest days, even heretics could purchase indulgence to commit the heinous sin of dining on roast chicken.

Paul, discerning the natural tendency of the human heart to place reliance in self-imposed outward requirements, and disregard inward piety, affirmed: “Bodily exercise profiteth little, but godliness is profitable unto all things.” The entire system of penance is here condemned. Popery, however, losing sight of the very kernel of the Gospel, that the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin, has ever taught that self-chosen torture, will-worship, is an efficient aid to piety—is in fact itself piety. Merit wrought by self-effort is by Rome considered as acceptable to God as it is pleasing to the carnal heart. Suffering sent of heaven may indeed if rightly received strengthen and deepen devotion, but self-imposed penances, engendering spiritual pride, produce a type of piety—if indeed it be piety—far more resembling heathen fanaticism than the self-denial of him who, in obedience to the will of the Father, offered himself to death that man might live. Between the sufferings of Christ and those of an anchorite, who does not see a world-wide difference? In what respect a senseless, useless, hermit life, like that of the sainted Simeon,* is is a copy of our Lord’s, most certainly infallibility alone can perceive. Are we, then, to believe that useless reverie and Pagan asceticism, with all their disgusting filth, ignorance, beggary, and superstition, are services more acceptable to God than feeding the hungry, clothing the’ naked, instructing the ignorant, reforming the vicious, and living, in the sphere in which God has placed us, a life of active obedience to the precepts of his Word?


* This monk, who lived for thirty-six years on a solitary pillar in the mountains of Syria, exposed to summer’s heat and winter’s cold, refusing to speak even with his mother, has ever been considered, by the Papal Church, a paragon (a model of excellence or perfection of a kind; a peerless example) of piety.

Another predicted characteristic of the fatal apostasy was this: “Forbidding to marry.” Among those bearing the Christian name, none, except the Papists, have ever denied to a certain class the inalienable right of matrimony. They alone have pronounced that unholy which God’s Word declares “honorable in all.” “A bishop,” says Paul, “must be blameless, the husband of one wife.” ‘This—even supposing it does not recommend marriage to the clergy—certainly at least accords them the privilege. Since the days of Gregory VII, however, whose profligate life would have disgraced even Pagan Rome, the marriage of a priest has been looked upon as a sin incomparably greater than adultery, or fornication, or even incest. A priest may associate with prostitutes and escape Church censure, but to marry a virtuous woman is, in the casuistry of Rome, one of the greatest of sins.*


* The Catholic World, July, 1870, p. 440, says : “It is against these (licentiousness and low views of marriage) that the Church opposes her laws of marriage, and the absolute supernatural chastity of her priests and religious.” Thereby she “provides herself with angels and ministers of grace to do her will, accomplish her work, perform her innumerable acts of spiritual and corporeal mercy, and be literally the god-fathers and god-mothers to the orphaned human race, while they obtain for themselves and others countless riches of merit.” Chastity supernatural! Riches of merit countless!

This enforced celibacy, there can be no doubt, has been exceedingly disastrous to the cause of morality. With no desire of dwelling upon facts the bare recital of which produce shuddering disgust, we refer our readers to the confession of a priest in Gavin’s “Master-Key to Popery,” p. 35; to those of a nun, p. 43; and to the “Confessions of a Catholic Priest,” translated by Samuel F. B. Morse. From revelations frequently made, as in the “Memoirs of Sipio De Ricci,” and of “ Lorette,” it would seem that in some instances at least monasteries and nunneries are dens of infamy in comparison with which the temples of ancient Babylon were pure.* Even the halls of the Holy Inquisition were not unfrequently converted into harems. (‘Master-Key to Popery,” pp. 169-188.) In South America and Spain priests are among the most regular frequenters of the “house of her whose feet take hold on hell.” Lest, however, we may be charged with slander, we close by quoting the language of St. Liguori, certainly good authority with Papists: “Among the priests who live in the world, IT IS RARE, VERY RARE, TO FIND ANY THAT ARE GOOD.”

As human nature is much the same everywhere, is it not fair to charge this wickedness—the extent of which is scarcely conceivable by those who have given the subject no examination +—upon the scarlet-colored Beast whose forehead bears this inscription, “ Mystery, Babylon the great, the Mother of harlots and Abominations of the earth?”


* A few months since a motion was made, and carried by a small majority in the British Parliament, to appoint a committee to “ Inquire into Conventual and Monastic Institutions.” It was found there were 69 monasteries and 233 nunneries in which Rome claimed the prerogative to detain men and women against their will, and even transport them to convents upon the continent. Rome is above law.

+ A few extracts—the least objectionable—from the confessions of a priest ( Master-Key to Popery”) we append: “I have served my parish sixteen years, I have in money 15,000 pistoles, and I have given away more than 6000, My money is unlawfully gotten. My thoughts have been impure ever since I began to hear confessions. My actions have been the most criminal of mankind. I have been the cause of many innocent deaths, 1 have procured, by remedies, sixty abortions. We, six priests, did consult and contrive all the ways to satisfy our passions, Everybody had a list of the handsomest women in the parish. I have sixty nepotes alive. But my principal care ought to be of those I had by the two young women I keep at home. Both are sisters, and I had, by the oldest, two boys; and by the youngest one, and one which I had by my own sister is dead.”

Chapter VIII. Credulity. (2 Thess. 2:11; and 1 Tim. 4:2.)

ON examining the leading characteristics of Popery one instinctively asks, how can rational men even pretend to believe such monstrous absurdities, such palpable errors? Paul gives apparently the only possible explanation. Referring to the adherents of the “man of sin,” “the great apostasy,” he affirms :—God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” Surely, in perfect fairness we may ask, has there ever been, or is there now, among those who have fallen from the faith, a more conspicuous fulfilment of this prophecy than is furnished by the victims of Popish superstition?

If, as the best authority affirms, it was because “God gave them over to a reprobate mind,” that the heathen became guilty of such revolting immoralities and “worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,’ how else shall we account for the deeper degradation and the grosser idolatry of Papists? Paganism never sanctioned such enormities as have found strenuous advocates in the bosom of “Holy Mother.” True, in some ages they deified every vile passion that rankles in the heart of man. Those gods, however, were never placed on loftier thrones than Jupiter. Venus and Bacchus were not allowed to purchase Jove’s pardon of unbridled indulgence. Over all other gods there was ever one whose anger could be appeased, and whose favor could be secured only by earnest effort after a life of virtue. It was left for “the trader in human souls” to promulgate the doctrine that by gold and silver given to the priest forgiveness of all sins, even the most heinous, could be purchased from the High and Holy one who inhabits eternity, the King of kings and Lord of lords. He who in his Word so repeatedly proffers a free salvation, is thus represented as conferring upon an arrogant and corrupt priesthood the right of selling pardons to the highest bidders; nay, worse, of granting indulgences, permission to sin to the wealthiest knaves, and the most unprincipled miscreants. The heathen worshipped gods which their own hands had made, it is true. They never so far degraded themselves, however, as to bow in adoration before a morsel of consecrated flour. Such disgusting idolatry is found only among the advocates of transubstantiation.

Except that God had given them up to believe a lie, how could Papists found a hope of heaven on the absolution granted by a priest? Turning from the throne of free grace, they hasten to a confessor for pardon. A frail, sinning man, forgives sins committed against God! A criminal pardons his fellow-criminal! A creature forgives the violation of the Creator’s laws! Rome’s most honored Council has pronounced an anathema against all who deny that the act of the priest in granting absolution is properly a judicial act. “He sits on the judgment seat representing Christ, and doing what Christ does.” In the catechism sanctioned by the Council of Trent, it is said:—“In the minister of God, who sits in the tribunal of penance, as his legitimate judge, the penitent venerates the power and person of our Lord Jesus Christ; for, in the administration of this, as in that of the other sacraments, the priest represents the character and discharges the functions of Jesus Christ.” When a large number of the ignorant are so credulous as to believe that this claim is founded in truth, is it any wonder that we witness from even the most atrocious murderers such disgusting exhibitions of hopes belonging alone to the devoutly penitent? And certainly it need scarcely strike us with surprise, if in almost every community not a few were found who, goaded by conscience to seek remission of sin, bow at the feet of the priest confidently expecting to purchase forgiveness with a part of the wages of iniquity. This done, why should they not return with even intensified delight to their former mode of life? An earnest, long-continued endeavor to imitate the pure life of Christ could not be expected from those who are taught to believe that the favor of God can be purchased with dollars and cents. Even if left to the promptings of nature, untutored by an infallible church, man would be far more likely to become enamored of virtue. Consciously burdened with a sense pf guilt, he might be driven to him who alone “has power on earth to forgive sin.”

That Paul’s prophecy finds a fulfillment in the history of Romanism is apparent in the doctrine of the real presence. In this the faithful, on pain of eternal damnation, are expected to believe that bread and wine, by the enunciation of the magic words, “Hoc est corpus meum,” are changed into Christ’s “ body, blood, soul, and divinity.” It is flesh, though it tastes like bread. It is blood, though it tastes like wine. Did ever delusion equal this? Men claiming common sense deliberately profess disbelief in the testimony of their own senses. On the mere declaration of a priest, they contemn one of God’s immutable laws, that to which they are indebted for all the knowledge they have of an external world. In being faithful to Rome, they become the worst of infidels, without faith in themselves and without faith in the God that made them.

Instead of denominating this a delusion, perhaps, so far as intelligent Papists are concerned, it were more charitable to characterize it as a “lie spoken in hypocrisy.” Evidently it is “a commandment of men,” defended as an essential part of a perfected system of extortion. Without it there would be a manifest absurdity in claiming ability to forgive sins. Represented, however, as a “bloodless sacrifice,” offered by the priest to the Father of all mercies, the appearance of consistency is retained. Merit purchasable is also marketable. “Transubstantiation, like the doctrine of supererogation (acts performed beyond what God requires), is food for the hen that lays the golden egg.

And what shall we denominate (call) the doctrine of purgatory,—a profitable delusion, or a lie spoken in hypocrisy? What could be better calculated to make market for masses? “Saints,” says the Council of Florence, “go to heaven; sinners to hell; and the middling class to purgatory.” Among the middlings, the priests now cunningly manage, for an obvious reason, to include nearly all. Saints in heaven, and sinners in hell, are beyond the reach of further extortion. From the fires of purgatory, however, unbloody sacrifices, if well paid for, can secure release. Whilst belief in this intermediate state is either a delusion borrowed from Paganism, or a hypocritical falsehood intended to fill Rome’s coffers, the pretence that the offering of a consecrated wafer can open to the soul the gates of paradise, is a delusion or hypocrisy still more inexplicable; and most unaccountable of all is the claim that the Church can determine when the soul is released from the purifying flames. To those whom God has given up to believe a lie, is any delusion too great for credence?—any profitable falsehood too hypocritical for advocacy?

This monstrous doctrine of purgatory the deluded victims of Popish superstition believe, notwithstanding it is written, “The blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin;” notwithstanding the Saviour’s promise to the thief on the cross, “This day shalt thou be with me in paradise;” notwithstanding the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, in which the former is represented as lifting up his eyes in hell, being in torments, the latter as safely folded in Abraham’s bosom. They credit this absurdity whilst professing to accept as of inspired authority the declarations of Paul, “I have a desire to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better;” “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain;” “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” Blinded of God, the intelligent strenuously advocate, and the ignorant superstitiously believes a doctrine which effectually “makes merchandise of the souls of men.”

And her doctrine of supererogation is a delusion no less absurd. It is gravely said, “Men can do more than God’s holy law demands.” Many have done so. These works have merit. This merit, collected from the deeds of thousands of worthies, has been gathered into a treasury of which the Pope has the key. Hence he can deal out these good works in the form of indulgences and absolutions. What a mine of wealth! And every man, however wicked, may thence derive merit that will atone for any sin he may commit, even theft, adultery, or murder, on the simple condition that the price of the requisite amount of treasured goodness is paid for in current coin. Is this a delusion?—or is it rascality? With the ignorant masses it is no doubt the former. But the educated—do they really believe that the Pope collects the merits of those who are more virtuous than God requires into a fund for insuring souls against the torments of perdition, and sells life policies to the highest bidder? If so, alas for frail humanity! Superstition, it would seem, can silence common sense!

That the Popes are legitimate successors of St. Peter, bishops over alt Christendom, is another of Rome’s delusions. Though unable to determine whether the rock upon which Christ founded his Church was Peter, the Apostles, Peter’s faith, Peter’s confession, or the Saviour’s own meritorious offering, infallibility yet confidently affirms that upon the Pope in Rome is founded the true, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, out of which none can even hope for salvation. Supposing the Apostolic office still continues—a purely gratuitous assumption, since none can show the requisite qualifications, personal knowledge of our Saviour’s resurrection, a call direct from his lips, infallibility in teaching truth, the gift of tongues, the power of working miracles, and a commission to teach truth to the entire human family in all countries and all ages—the claim of an unbroken succession from Peter has never been established. No Papist, even with the aid of inerrancy, has been able to trace the line. On the concession of Rome’s most honored historians, Bellarmine, Alexander, Du Pin and others, at least 240 years remain from the beginning of the Christian era in which no vestiges of Papal authority can be discovered. The most ancient of the fathers, Irenaeus, Justin, and Clemens of Alexandria, make no mention of it, direct or indirect. And it is undeniably true that in the tenth century abandoned women ruled in Rome, by whom false pontiffs, their paramours, were intruded into the Papal chair. Will any Romanist have the hardihood to affirm that grossly immoral men, thus illegally thrust into office, were successors of the holy Apostles? Moreover, there have been times in the history of the Church when the line of succession cannot be traced even through such monsters of iniquity, no one even claiming universal spiritual sovereignty. For fifty years there were two infallible pontiffs, one at Avignon, another at Rome, each claiming to be the only legitimate successor of St. Peter. Both of these were deposed by the Council of Pisa, and Alexander elected. This resulted in giving Holy Mother three infallible heads. These being deposed by the Council of Constance, each took solemn oath to yield obedience. Each immediately resumed the claim: thus there were three, all perjured. In the face of such facts, admitted by‘all candid historians, Papal as well as Protestant, it evidently requires no small amount of credulity to believe not merely that the Popes are true successors of St. Peter, but that the Church founded on them is the only Church of Christ on earth.

The Church of Rome assumes to be in possession of the keys of heaven, although it has forsaken the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. It denies that regeneration of heart and purity of purpose are necessary to salvation. Christ’s meritorious offering, the only sufficient atonement, is practically rejected. That justification is solely by faith in the Lord’s righteousness, and that sanctification is the work of God’s spirit, are repeatedly and emphatically denied. It condemns the declaration of Paul, that “there is no righteousness in us,” claiming merit from nature and justifying righteousness from the deeds of the law. Contradicting the teaching of the Apostle, it affirms, “Man can be just before God, yea, holier than his law requires.” The assertion of Scripture, “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified,” is met with the declaration, “We are set free from sin on account of our works.” That “God desires or wills that all men should repent,” and that “repentance is the gift of God,” are condemned in severe terms. These propositions: “Believers are about to enter into their rest,” “The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice,” are pronounced “damnable heresies.” And although the New Testament has given this, “forbidding to marry,” as one of the marks of the man of sin, yet they prohibit marriage in the clergy while permitting concubinage. Could delusion surpass this, that men should believe themselves the true Church of Christ whilst they have apostatized from almost every essential doctrine of the Gospel? Unless we accept one or other of Paul’s explanations —either believing them strongly deluded or hypocritically false—how shall we account for their use of incense; their solemn consecration of bells and burial places; their burning of wax candles; and their sprinkling of horses, asses, and cattle? Formerly pious solicitude was taken in the proper solution, by an infallible Church, of the vitally important question, “Shall the hair of the monks be shaved in the form of a semicircle or circle?” Do not such things evidence the presence of seducing spirits cunningly turning the thoughts from the state of the heart to unmeaning forms?

And by what terms shall we characterize those endless frauds by which superstitious people were made to believe pretended miracles; or those silly dreams by which the most unprincipled impostors that ever disgraced humanity pretended to be directed to the tombs of saints and martyrs? And the bones thus obtained, how powerful! “By them,” so says an infallible Church, “Satan’s cunningest machinations were successfully defeated: diseases both of body and mind, otherwise incurable, were instantaneously healed.” In one thing at least they were exceedingly potent. They filled Rome’s empty treasury. That, in the Romish code of morals, is all that need be demanded. “It is an act of virtue to deceive, and lie, when, by that means, the interests of the Church can be promoted.” Falsehood, sometimes adroitly conceived, always persistently adhered to, has ever been one of Rome’s most efficient agencies in establishing and perpetuating her power.* “God,” says Paul, “shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” “The spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in, hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry,” etc.—1 Tim. 4:1-3.


* As specimens of the agencies employed by Rome to keep her children from straying from the fold, take these drafts upon the credulity of the ignorant: “The Holy Scriptures are far more extensively read among Catholics than they are by Protestants.””—Plain Talk about the Protestantism of To-Day, p. “Tradition has in itself as much authority as the Gospel.””—Idem, p. 127.‘Heresy is in itself a more grievous sin, an evil far greater and more baneful, than immorality and the inordinations of sensuality.”—Idem, p. 27. “Christianity and Catholicity are one and the same thing.”—Idem, p. 56. “To be a Christian is to be a Catholic: outside of Catholicity you may be a Lutheran, a Calvinist, a Mahommedan, a Mormon, a Free Thinker, a Buddbist, but you are not, you cannot be a Christian.”— p. 58. “It’s not very hard to be a good Protestant. Believe whatever you please in matters of religion. Believe nothing at all, if it suits you better. Be honest, as the world understands it. Read the Bible or not, as it pleases you; go to church, or do not go; forget not to subscribe to one, or two, or three Bible and evangelical societies; but, above all, hold the Catholic Church in abomination—and you shall be a good Protestant.”—p. 20. “One is poor, and wishes to emerge from his poverty; another is swayed by passions, which he does not wish to control; a third has too much pride, and is loath to subdue it; a fourth is ignorant, and allows himself to be led away. For such reasons people become Protestant.”—p. 87. “As for him who becomes a Protestant. . . . . Poor apostate! for him, no more the beautiful ceremonies of the Church, The images of our Lord, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the saints, become emblems of idolatry! —no more crucifix, no more the sign of the cross: it is idolatry! —no more prayers: no more respect or love for the Mother of God; idolatry! —no more trusting the intercession of saints, patrons in heaven, advocates, protectors near God : idolatry!”

“And when the hour of death is drawing near—when the unfortunate man is left to himself, about standing before God, covered with the sins of his whole life—no priest to administer the last sacraments of the Church, no priest to tell him, with all the power of divine authority, ‘ Poor sinner, take courage; thou canst die in peace, because Jesus has given me the power to forgive thee thy sins.’”—Idem, p. 233.

“The death-bed of the founders of Protestantism—all apostates, and, for the most, apostate priests—bears us out in our assertions, and with terribly overwhelming evidence.”

“ Luther despaired of the salvation of his soul. Shortly before his death, his concubine pointed to the brilliancy of the stars in the firmament.

‘See, Martin, how beautiful that heaven is!?

“’Tt does not shine in our behalf,’ replied the master, moodily.

“’Is it because we have broken our vows?’ resumed Kate, in dismay.

“May be,’ said Luther.

“’If so, let us go back.’

“‘Too late! the hearse is stuck in the mire.” And he would hear no more.

“At Eisleben, on the day previous to that on which he was stricken with apoplexy, he remarked to his friends: ‘I have almost lost sight of the Christ, tossed as I am by these waves of despair which overwhelm me.’ And after a while, ‘I, who have imparted salvation to so many, cannot save myself.’

“He died forlorn of God—blaspheming to the very end. His last words were an attestation of his impenitence. His eldest son, who had doubts about the Reformation and the Reform, asked him for a last time whether he persevered in the doctrine he preached. ‘Yes,’ replied a gurgling sound from the old sinner’s throat—and Luther was before his God. The last descendant of Luther died not long ago a fervent Catholic.”

“Schusselburg, a Protestant, writes: ‘Calvin died of scarlet fever, devoured of vermin, and eaten up by ulcerous abscess, the stench whereof drove away every person.’ In great misery he gave up his rascally ghost, despairing of salvation, evoking the devils from the abyss, and uttering oaths most horrible and blasphemies most frightful.

“Spalatin, Justus, Jonas, Isinder, and a host of other friends of Luther, died either in despair or crazy, Henry VIII. died bewailing that he had lost heaven ; and his worthy daughter Elizabeth breathed her last in deep desolation, stretched on the floor—not daring to lie in bed, because, at the first attack of her illness, she thought she saw her body all torn to pieces and palpitating in a cauldron of fire.

“Let, then, in the presence of such frightful deaths and of the thought of eternity, those of our unfortunate brethren who may be tempted to abandon their Church, remember that a day will come when they will also be summoned to appear before God! Let them think, in their sober senses, of death, and of judgment, and of hell, and I pledge my word they will not think of becoming Protestants.” Plain Talk about the Protestantism of To-Day, p. 236. Boston: Patrick Donahoe, 1870. Imprimatur, Joannes Josephus, Episcopus Boston.

Among the delusions of Romanism, none, perhaps, is more transparently absurd than their much-vaunted immutability. Bossuet, the celebrated Bishop of Meaux, detailed, with seemingly intense delight, the alleged variations of Protestantism, assuming, indeed asserting, that “Catholicity ever has been, is, and ever will be, as unchangeable as its Author.” In face of all the facts, for a Protestant to listen to this claim without a smile, certainly requires no ordinary measure of gravity. And for Papists to yield it cordial belief, imperatively demands either extreme ignorance, obstinate credulity, or gross bigotry. No doubt the Church which once condemned the revolution of the earth upon its axis, must now be, as it ever has been, immutuble. Unchangeable as Deity, and lasting as time, Popery’s great argument is a pathetic appeal to antiquity. By this the doubting faithful are confirmed, and heretics silenced. It is an end of all controversy. This question, “Where was your Protestant Church before the Reformation?” is the rallying cry of the advancing hosts of Papacy, and is expected to be the requiem sung over the lifeless corpse of soulless, godless Protestantism, “that spawn of hell,” destined, as infallibility assures us, speedily to go to his own place. Where was Protestantism three hundred years ago? Where were the Augean stables before they were cleansed by Hercules?—where the decaying palace before its crumbling towers, and ivy bound walls, and tottering foundations were repaired, strengthened, and beautified? The doctrines of Protestantism are as old as the promulgation of the Gospel. Romanism is the intruder. Its characteristic doctrines are mere novelties in the religious world.

By what terms shall we characterize that blindness which, disregarding the foul stains upon her history, denominates the Papal Antichrist “Holy Mother,” the one true, Catholic, Apostolic Church, out of which is no salvation? Pope John XII. was guilty of blasphemy, perjury, profanation, impiety, simony, sacrilege, adultery, incest, and murder. “ He was,” says Bellarmine, “nearly the wickedest of the Popes.”* John XXIII, however, exceeded him.


* When summoned to attend a Council and answer the charges brought against him, he refused, and excommunicated the Council in the name of God. Though deposed, he regained the Papal throne. Caught in adultery, he was killed, probably by the injured husband. See Edgar’s “Variations of Popery,” p. 110.

His Holiness, Infallible Judge in faith and morals, was, by the Council of Constance, convicted of denying the accountability of man, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and all the institutions of revealed religion. But his errors in faith were venial and few compared with his immoralities. He was found guilty of almost every crime of which it is possible to conceive. The list enumerated no less than seventy; among these, simony, piracy, exaction, barbarity, robbery, murder, massacre, lying, perjury, fornication, adultery, incest, and sodomy.

Of Alexander VI, another infallible Pope, a trustworthy historian says: “His debauchery, perfidy, ambition, malice, inhumanity, and irreligion, made him the execration of all Europe.” He died from drinking one of the poisoned cups prepared by him for the rich cardinals whose possessions he intended to seize. Humanity disowns the monster. His successor, Julius II., inherited, along with the tiara, all the immoralities of the Papacy. Having secured the triple crown by bribing the cardinals, no crime was too great to appal his unterrified conscience. Assassination, adultery, sodomy, and bestial drunkenness, are scarcely a moiety (part) of his enormities. “He was a scandal to the whole Church, He filled Italy with rapine, war, and blood.” Pope Leo X. denied the immortality of the soul, and in fact every doctrine of Christianity, denominating it a “lucrative fiction.” “Paul III., and Julius III, were such licentious characters that no modest man can write or read their lives without blushing.” The former, the convener of the Council of Trent, made large sums of money by selling indulgences and licenses to houses of ill fame. At least four pontiffs, Liberius, Zosimus, Honorius, and Vigilius, were convicted of heresy; seventeen of perjury, and twenty-five of schism. According to Genebrard, “For nearly 150 years about fifty Popes deserted wholly the virtue of their predecessors, being apostate rather than apostolic.” Baronius, himself a Papist, as if unable to repress the intensity of his disgust for the abominations of the Papal See, exclaims: “The case is such, that scarcely any one can believe, or even will believe it, unless he sees it with his eyes, and handles it with his hands, viz., what unworthy, vile, unsightly, yea, execrable and hateful things the sacred Apostolic See, on whose hinges the universal Apostolical Church turns, has been compelled to see.

To our shame and grief, be it spoken, how many monsters, horrible to behold, were intruded by them (the secular princes) into that seat which is reverenced by angels!” “The Holy See is bespattered with filth,” “infected by stench,” “defiled by impurities,” and “blackened by perpetual infamy!” Guiciardini, another defender of Holy Mother, speaking of the Popes of the sixteenth century, says: “He was esteemed a good Pope, in those days, who did not exceed in wickedness the worst of men.”

Of the Councils which have given us the dogmas of Romanism, some have been immortalized not less by villainy than by heresy. That of Constantinople is described by Nazianzen as “A cabal of wretches fit for the house of correction.” That of Nice, in approving a disgusting story, sanctioned perjury and fornication. Of the Council of Lyons, Cardinal Hugo, in his farewell address to the retiring president, Pope Innocent, presents this picture: “Friends, we have effected a work of great utility and charity in this city. When we came to Lyons, we found three or four brothels in it, and we have left at our departure only one. But this extends, without interruption, from the eastern to the western gate of the city.” The Council of Constance, composed of 1000 holy fathers, which solemnly decreed that “no faith shall be kept with heretics,” and consigned John Huss to the flames, although he had given himself into their hands only on the express pledge of protection given by the Emperor, was attended by 1500 public prostitutes. This same Council ordered the bones of Wyckliffe to be “dug up and thrown upon a dung-hill.” Well does Baronius exclaim: “What is, then, the face of the holy Roman Church! How exceedingly foul it is!” To believe that an organization, characterized, according to the assertions of its own historians, by such unheard-of abominations, is the only true Church, demands a credulity fitly termed, “delusion sent of God.”

On pain of unending woe, every genuine Romanist must now believe that Pius IX. is infallible. Here is a specimen of his inerrancy. Arguing for his temporal power (since needing stronger support than infallible reasoning), His Holiness, jumbling together two passages of Scripture entirely separate and distinct, said:

“In the garden of Olives, on the night before Christ’s crucifixion, the multitude with Judas came to him. And they said, ‘Art thou a king?’ and he answered, ‘I am.’ And they went back and fell on the ground.” Certainly this is no small tax on the credulity of those who so loudly proclaim the Pope infallible, especially and pre-eminently in interpreting Scripture.. This argument is only exceeded by that of Pope Boniface IV., who employed his infallibility in establishing this proposition : Monks ARE ANGELS.

Major Premise: All animals with six wings are angels.

Minor Premise: Monks have six wings, viz., the cowl, two; the arms, two; the legs, two.

Ergo: Monks are angels. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Part III. Popery the Foe of Liberty.
Chapter I. Percecution.

TYRANTS, the more effectually to secure power, have ever professed supreme regard for man’s highest interests. It was under the plea of extending Grecian learning, the proudest gift of human genius, that Alexander burned villages, sacked cities, and trampled upon rights dear as life itself. Under the cloak of unrivalled regard to the unity of God, Mohammed established, what had otherwise been impossible, a despotism as cruel as the most heartless fatalism could devise.

What others secured by reiterated protestations of devotion to one single principle, Rome attained by seizing upon the Gospel. The religion of Jesus, the fountain of all true liberty, personal and national, civil and religious, was so obscured by error as to become, in the hands of those claiming sole right to impart religious instruction, a most powerful engine of Satanic cruelty. When, therefore, all other agencies had failed in crushing the spirit of freedom, the Romish Church, in the sacred name of religion, a religion proclaiming good will to men, solemnly inaugurated a system of persecution unparalleled in the annals of the most blood-thirsty Paganism.

Popery, in her noonday of glory, unblushingly denied to those rejecting her dogmas even the right of inheriting property, of collecting moneys justly due them, and of bequeathing even the savings of poverty to their own children.* Is not this a fulfillment, to the very letter, of that ancient prediction, “He caused . . . . that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name?” (Rev. 13:17) For the single offense of rejecting Papal supremacy, the true followers of Christ were subjected to every species of annoyance which diabolical malignity could invent. With the design of tempting, or forcing men, from worldly considerations, to yield unquestioned obedience, treachery, deception, and cunning were freely resorted to, and in some instances with such success as to rivet the detested system of Popery upon people who loathed the very name.


* The Council of Constance anathematized “all who should enter into contracts or engage in commerce with heretics.” In a decree of Pope Alexander III., this sentence occurs: We therefore subject to a curse both themselves and their defenders and harborers, and under a curse we prohibit all persons from admitting them into their houses, or receiving them upon their lands, or cherishing them, or exercising any trade with them.” Frederick II, in an edict against the enemies of the faith,” orders “their goods to be confiscated, their children to be disinherited, and their memory and their children to be held infamous forever.”

When even these agencies, powerful as they were, proved ineffectual, others more potent still were speedily devised. The Inquisition, or, where the establishment of this was impossible, holy wars relentlessly waged against heretics, it was hoped, would bring all men within the pale of Mother Church. The employment of such agencies was clearly foretold. “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.” “And he had power . . . to cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.” “I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” Rev. 13:7,15; 17:6.

That the Papacy makes persecution an essential of religion—although the Rev. James Kent Stone, Rome’s latest conquest, in his “Invitation Heeded,” ridicules the assertion—is certainly susceptible of clear proof. In its defense arguments are drawn, by their most eminent theologians, from Scripture, from the opinions of emperors, from the laws of the Church, from the testimony of the fathers (that inexhaustible treasury of unanswerable reasoning!), and from experience. That death is the proper penalty of presuming to disobey His Infallibility, is, we are told, the teaching of reason as well as the dictate of piety. Heretics, unless destroyed, will contaminate the righteous. By tortures inflicted on the few, however, the eternal salvation of the many may be secured. Nay, even to the deluded infidels themselves it is a mercy; it sends them to hell before they shall increase the torments of perdition.*


* “The blood of heretics,” says the Rhemish annotators, “is no more the blood of saints than the blood of thieves, man-killers, and other malefactors, for the shedding of which, by order of justice, no commonwealth shall answer.—Rev. 17:6.

Bellarmine says: “Heretics condemned by the Church may be punished by temporal penalties, and even with death,”

Thomas Aquinas afirms: ‘Heretics may not only be excommunicated, but justly killed.”

Bossuet declares: “No illusion can be more dangerous than making toleration a mark of the true Church.”

Nor was the defense of a doctrine so essential as the right of the Church to persecute, left to the ingenious, though possibly fallible reasoning of bishops and cardinals. Even Popes, infallible vicars, in the exercise of sovereign authority, undertook the laudable task of hounding on crazed fanatics to murder men, women, and even defenseless children, in the name of the meek, loving, forgiving Jesus. Urban II. issued a bull declaring: “No one is to be deemed a murderer who, burning with zeal for the interests of Mother Church, shall kill excommunicated persons.” In 1825, Pope Leo XII. suspended his plenary indulgence on “the extirpation of heretics.” Can immutability change? Can infallibility err? Has any Pope of the last thousand years disapproved of persecution? Has Pius IX. abrogated one solitary law against heretics?

Even Councils, not provincial—the authority of these, Papists might possibly call in question—but general Councils, and of these not less than five, have enjoined or sanctioned the extermination of heretics, giving their voice for death as the proper punishment of what they choose to denominate heresy. Surely the Romish Church, if the declarations of her priests, bishops, cardinals, Popes, and Councils prove anything, is the deliberate defender of persecution, even to death, for opinion’s sake. Every priest, therefore, in taking oath “to hold and teach all that the sacred canons and general Councils have delivered, declared, and defended,” swears to believe and to teach Rome’s right to torture and burn heretics, that is, Protestants.*


* In the oath commonly administered to bishops occur these words: “Schismatics and rebels to our Lord, the Pope, and his successors, I will, to the utmost of my power, persecute and destroy.”

+ Frederick IL., loyal son of Popish arrogance, issued an edict, asserting the divine right of kings “to wield the material sword… . against the enemies of the faith, for the extirpation of heretical depravity.” “We shall not suffer,” he adds, “the wretches, who infect the world with their doctrines, to live.”

Even kings “were compelled by Church censures to endeavor, in good faith, according to their power, to destroy all heretics marked by the Church, out of the lands of their jurisdiction.” Four Councils, the Third Lateran, the Fourth Lateran, Constance, and Trent, endorsed this order.+ That the woman, Mother of Harlots, sitting upon a scarlet colored beast, and drunken with the blood of the martyrs, should be aided in her work of death by the civil authority, was plainly foretold: “These ten horns which thou sawest, are ten kings. . . . . These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.”—Rev. 17:3, 13.

And with terrible energy did Rome vindicate her much-vaunted right to persecute. The holy Inquisition, Satan’s masterpiece, with St. Dominic, a raving fanatic, for its first general, Innocent III. for its founder, a powerful order of monks for its defenders, and kings for the executioners of its fiendish penalties, became an engine of unexampled cruelty, sending terror into every land, suspicion into every home, and anguish into almost every heart. Neither age, nor sex, position nor past services, were guarantees of security. A word jestingly spoken, or neglect in bowing to the consecrated wafer (the elevated bran-god), or a look of contempt cast upon a begging friar, might prove the occasion of imprisonment and torture. Personal resentment, or even suspicion, especially where the parties suspected were wealthy, might lead to arrest. Even ladies, in many instances, were torn from endeared husbands, or doting parents, because lust inflamed their fiendish persecutors.*


* When the French, on entering Aragon (1706), threw open the doors of the Inquisition, sixty young women were found, the harem of the Inquisitor General.—Gavin’s “Master-Key to Popery.”

+ In Spain alone, 18,000 were employed, whose business it was, with Satanic cunning, to insinuate themselves into every company, speak against the Pope and the Church—thus beguiling the unwary— and drag the suspected before the holy Inquisition.

Having made certain, through spics, that the person whom they determined to arrest was at home, the officers of the inquisition, at the dead hour of midnight, knocked at the door. To the question, “Who is there?” a voice from the darkness responds, “The holy Inquisition.” Terror opens the door, and the daughter, the son, the wife, or the husband, seized by ruffians, is carried away to the cells of a dungeon, the remaining members of the family not daring to complain, scarcely to disclose their grief. Theirs is a sorrow unknown except to him whose eye never slumbers, who counts the tears of suffering innocence.

These officers, the better to fit them for their fiendish business, were earnestly admonished not to allow nature to get the better of grace. In some instances they were actually ordered to arrest their own near relatives, that by conquering human weakness they might prove themselves worthy of the favor of Holy Mother. Fiendish heartlessness! Adamantine cruelty !

The accused were never confronted with the accuser. They were ordered to confess; refusing, torture was applied to extort an acknowledgment of guilt. If to save themselves from present anguish, they confess to doubts in regard to the real presence, papal supremacy, priestly absolution, the worship of images, the invocation of saints, the existence of purgatory, or the doctrine of infallibility, they sentence themselves to martyrdom; refusing to confess—perhaps because conscious of no crime—they are tortured to the extent of human endurance, and then bleeding, lacerated and trembling, are thrust into a loathsome dungeon to pine in solitude, unrelieved, unpitied, friendless, dying a hundred deaths in one. Were ever laws devised more evidently contrary to the plainest dictates of equity?

These punishments, inflicted in an underground apartment denominated the “Hall of Torture,” were of every species which fiendish ingenuity could invent. Of the unfortunate victims of Papal fury, some were suffocated by water poured into the stomach; others, with cords fastened around the wrists behind the back, and heavy weights suspended from the feet, were drawn up to great heights, and then let fall to within a few feet of the floor, dislocating every joint; some were slowly roasted in closed iron pans; of some, the feet smeared with oil were roasted to a crisp; of others, the hands were crushed in clamps, or the bodies pierced with needles. The Auto da fé periodically closed the horrid tragedy. On a Sabbath morning, day sacred to him whose essential attribute is love, numbers of these lacerated beings were led forth—and in the name of Christianity!—to the place of burning. The heart, sickening at the recital of such deeds of hellish cruelty, and recalling the names of such worthy martyrs as Wycliffe, Huss, Ridley, Latimer, Cranmer, and thousands of others, joins, with a holy fervor of devotion, in the prayer of the redeemed souls ceaselessly ascending from under the altar of the Almighty: “How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth ?”—Rev. 6:10.

Having found, after centuries of trial, that the Inquisition and the Crusades were powerless in crushing the pure religion of Jesus, that, in fact, “the blood of the martyrs became the seed of the Church,” Rome endeavored, in the language of Scripture, to wear out the saints of the Most High. In place of death she substituted every species of annoyance which malignant hatred inspired of Satan could invent. Comparatively few however were induced to betray the Lord. “Therein is the faith and patience of the Saints.”

When the number of those denying the Pope’s supremacy became, in any country, too great to be killed by the Inquisition, holy wars were advocated. With the cross, symbol of love, on their banners, the Papal legions went forth in cold blood to butcher men, women, and children. For the mortal sin of presuming to employ the faculties God gave them, they must be utterly destroyed. In these Crusades the Romish Church actually gloried, and does still glory, feeling no remorse for the massacre of thousands, no shame for the extinction of kingdoms and people.

Armed with a bull of indulgence, the Papal emissaries went forth to preach the Crusade. Everywhere they exclaimed, “Who will rise up against the evil doers? Who will stand up against the workers of iniquity? If you have any zeal for the faith, any concern for the glory of God, any desire to reap the rich benefits of Papal indulgence, receive the sign of the cross, join the army of Immanuel, lend your aid in purging the nations, and extending the holy Catholic religion.” ‘

These crusades were waged not against those guilty of great sins, but against those whose only crime was a refusal to acknowledge the sovereignty of Rome’s arrogant bishop. This was the deep-seated error which roused such unequalled fury. Those communities which failed to recognize the proud pontiff enthroned in the eternal city as Christ’s Vicar on earth, must pay the penalty. The sword, and fire, and death, must proclaim that the rights of property and the comforts of home belong alone to those who permit His Holiness to think for them.

By way of extenuating the guilt of the Crusaders, modern Papists, though ardent advocates of Papal immutability and of the infallibility dogma, remind us that civilization had then made but little progress. These crusades, say they, are justly chargeable, not to Romanism, but to the barbarism of the times. Who instigated those wholesale butcheries? Infallible Popes. Who lauded those unparalleled atrocities which for centuries disgraced humanity? Infallible Popes. Does infallibility need the light of civilization’s dim taper? Erring Protestants might, with some show of candor, advance such a plea, but for Papists, it is a betrayal of doctrines vital to their system. Have they shown any sorrow for the past? Have they expressed repentance for the slaughter of unoffending Christians? Have they abandoned the right to persecute? Deceive ourselves as we may, Popery is the same unblushing monster of cruelty, unchanged, and unchangeable. Pharisee-like, while promising liberty of conscience, she is continuously engaged in honoring, applauding, and even canonizing those whose only title to fame consists in the horrid cruelties practiced towards the innocent followers of Jesus.

The blood-thirsty vengeance of the Popes against the infidels of the Holy Land, what pencil shall do justice to that scene of horror? Crusades, carried on with infernal fury for more than a century, caused the death of 2,000,000. Followers of Christ the Turks were not; but did butcheries convert them? Did they and their children learn to love that Saviour in whose name they were slaughtered? Can we even hope that in the moment of death on the hard-fought battle-field, many, even one, turning a tearful eye towards the ensigns of the hated foe, sought mercy from him whose cross emblazoned that blood-stained banner? The blood of these clings to the skirts of Romanism.

In the indictment against Popery, another specification is the deliberate massacre of 300,000 Waldenses and Albigenses. Against these true successors of the Apostolic Church, who, even on the concession of their murderers, were abstemious, laborious, devout and holy, Pope Innocent III. raised an army of 500,000. These blood-hounds of cruelty were let loose with intense delight upon those whose only crime was the belief, publicly and fearlessly expressed, that Rome was the “Babylonish Harlot” of the Apocalypse. Even Count Raimond, their Catholic sovereign, because tardy in the work of utterly exterminating his loyal subjects, was publicly anathematized in all the churches. Trembling under excommunication, the Count took solemn oath to pursue the Albigenses with fire and sword, sparing neither age nor sex, until they bowed to Papal authority. Rome, however, not content with even such abject subserviency, ordered him to strip naked and submit to penance. Nine times was he driven around the grave of the Monk Castelnau, and beaten with rods upon the bare back.

In the taking of Beziers, the Pope’s legate, when asked how the soldiers should distinguish the Catholics from the heretics, shouted: “Kill all; the Lord will know his own.” When the demon had completed his work, the city, swept by fire, was the blackened sepulchre of 60,000.

Bearing the standard of the cross, and singing “Glory to God,” the army of the Crusaders, under the bloody Montfort, entered Menerbe. Pointing to a prepared pile of dry wood, the legate roared: “Be converted, or mount this pile.” The merciful flames soon released the faithful from the relentless fury of their persecutors.

The persecutions in the valleys of Loyse and Frassinicre were cruel beyond description. Christians, after receiving the most solemn assurances of protection, were thrust into burning barns, suffocated in caves, led forth by scores and beheaded.

And the Waldenses of Calabria were subjected to barbarities no less incredible. Their children, forcibly taken from them, were placed in monasteries to be educated in the detested system of Popery. Large “numbers of truly devout Christians, encumbered not unfrequently with the aged, and even with helpless babes, were driven to the mountains, there to meet death in every conceivable aspect of horror : some were starved, some frozen, some buried alive in the drifting snows, some

“Slain by the bloody Piedmontese that rolled
Mother with infant down the rocks.”

But why proceed further? To recount Popery’s cruelties, even a tithe of them, is impossible. Her history is echoed in the carnage of the battle-field, in the sighs of suffering innocence, in the unmeasured anguish of widowhood. Her pathway upon the earth is but too plainly visible, marked in blood, the blood of fifty millions of earth’s noblest. Of this martyred host who can conceive the agonies? Can language convey any adequate conception of the sufferings of the Moors in Spain, the Jews in the various Catholic countries they have inhabited, the Christians in Bohemia, Portugal, Britain, and Holland?* Known alone to God are the sufferings of his chosen ones. In his book of remembrance are recorded the tears, the sighs, the sorrows of Christ’s struggling Church.


* In the last-mentioned country, the Duke of Alva boasted that in the short space of six months he had caused the death of 18,000 Protestants.

To relate the intrigues, deceptions and atrocities by which Rome succeeded in crushing out Protestantism in poor, down-trodden Ireland, we shall make no attempt. They are part of her history written in blood, —only other illustrations of the same intolerance.

In France, “with infinite joy”—if human joy can be infinite—Popery shed the blood of the saints. Passing by the butcheries of Orange and Vassey, the heart sickens in recounting the incidents of the Bartholomew massacre. On that day, recalled by Protestants only with shuddering horror, the demon of Popish cruelty went forth by royal command, to gorge himself with blood. The poor Huguenots, assembled in Paris under the pretext of a marriage between the Protestant king of Navarre and the sister of Charles IX., were attacked by hired assassins at midnight, and, notwithstanding the pledges of protection repeatedly and solemnly given (the occasion of their presence, and their defenseless condition) were slain in such numbers that the streets ran blood to the river. The dead bodies, dragged over the rough pavements, were thrown into the Seine. Even the king himself, from a window in his palace, viewed with seemingly intense delight the work of death going forward in the court beneath. Above the groans of the dying, and the curses of the soldiers, his voice could he distinctly heard, shouting, “Slay them, slay them.” Even those pressing into his immediate presence to implore mercy and plead his pledged protection, received this as their only answer, death from his hand. In one week, according to Davilla, 10,000 were slain in Paris alone. And the slaughter in the capital was the signal for rekindling the fires of persecution throughout the entire empire. In nearly all the provinces the scenes of Paris were re-enacted; at Lyons, at Orleans, at Toulouse, at Meaux, at Bordeaux. In these massacres 30,000 perished.

And upon this sea of blood—heaven forgive them— the Pope, the Church, and the king delighted to look. Standing over the dead body of Admiral Coligny, whom by assurances of friendship he had drawn within his grasp, Charles exclaimed: “The smell of a dead enemy is agreeable.” To the Pope he sent a special messenger: “Tell him,” said Charles,—“ tell him, the Seine flows on more majestically after receiving the dead bodies of the heretics.” “The king’s heart,” exclaimed one of Rome’s proud cardinals, “must have been filled with a sudden inspiration from God when he gave orders for the slaughter of the heretics.” And then— as if the Papacy must needs put on the scarlet robe— the Pope and the cardinals, entering one of Rome’s grandest cathedrals, returned solemn thanks to God, the God of mercy; thanks for the slaughter of Christians! thanks for the cold-blooded murder of thousands of unoffending followers of Jesus!

The record of these events, like that of the revolution in later times, France would now gladly bury in oblivion. They are spots on her history, however, which ages of tears can never efface. And that Papists of the present day ardently desire to reverse the testimony of history, or obliterate these unpleasant facts, is but too plain from the futile efforts repeatedly put forth, as in the “Invitation Heeded,” the Catholic World, the Freeman’s Journal and Catholic Register, to prove that the Pope and the cardinals were grossly imposed upon. Deceived by Charles’ special messenger into returning thanks for the murder of heretics, instead of expressing gratitude to God for the overthrow of those rebelling against civil authority! Certainly such a defense is well worthy the system it seeks to shield.

Chapter II: Popery the enemy of civil liberty.

THAT the Romish Church is nothing less than a conspiracy against liberty, personal and national, civil and religious, we firmly believe. Being the twin sister of despotism, she ever has been, and is now, most bitterly hostile to freedom of conscience, freedom of the press, education of the masses, distribution of the Bible, in fact to everything which Republicans are accustomed to regard as the basis and the safeguard of popular government. Accordingly she is industriously engaged, even now, and in this Republic, in undermining, insidiously but surely, the beauteous temple of liberty, whose foundations were laid in the blood of persecuted Protestants. Her system, in accordance with its time-honored principles, is producing hostility to our free institutions.

The Papal Church is the foe of our system of common schools. This scheme of popular education, the most successful agency ever devised for inculcating those moral principles which are indispensable to the continuance of self government, is the object of enmity as unrelenting as it is universal. Every available agency is employed to shake the confidence of our people in its equity, wisdom and efficiency. First, it was said, the public schools are sectarian. The Protestant Bible is used. That their hostility is not so much against our version as against the Bible itself, the basis of public morality, the most essential part of true education, the palladium of civil liberty, is conclusively proved by their unwillingness to circulate even their own version, the Douay Bible. Popery has always maintained that “the Bible is not a book to be in the hands of the people.” “Who will not say,” exclaims a recent advocate of Romanism, “that the uncommon beauty and marvellous English of the Protestant Bible is one of the great strongholds of heresy in this country?” “We ask,” says Bishop Lynch, of New Orleans, “that the public schools be cleansed from this peace-destroying monstrosity—Bible reading.” The Bishop of Bologna, in an advisory letter to Paul III, said: “She (the Catholic Church) is persuaded that this is the book which, above all others, raises such storms and tempests. And that truly, if any one read it, …. he will see… .that the doctrine which she, preaches is altogether different and sometimes contrary to that contained in the Bible.”

Since the council held in Baltimore in the spring of 1852, Rome’s efforts have been put forth to secure a distribution of the school fund. The demand is general, open, persistent. In New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Chicago, Newark,—in all our large towns and cities,—they have erected commodious school houses, employed nuns and priests as teachers, and petitioned for a pro rata (In proportion to some factor that can be exactly calculated.) share of the school money. The Tablet, a Catholic paper of New York, argues, March 14, 1868, as follows:

“The reason why the Catholics cannot, with a good conscience, send their children to the public schools, is that the public schools are really sectarian. The State is practically anti-Catholic, and its schools are necessarily controlled and managed by sectarians, who are hostile to the Catholic religion and seek its destruction. The reason why the sectarians want the children of Catholics brought up in the public schools is because they believe that if so brought up they will lose their Catholicity, and become sectarians or infidels. This, and this alone, is the reason why they are unwilling that Catholics should have their quota of the public moneys to support separate schools … It is idle to talk to sectarians, no matter of what name or hue, of justice or of the rights of conscience; and yet we cannot forbear to say that there is a manifest injustice in taxing us to support schools to which we cannot in conscience send our children….. What religious liberty is there in this?”

Again, in March, 1870, it exclaims:

“No, gentlemen, that will not do, and there is no help but in dividing the public schools, or in abandoning the system altogether.”

The Freeman’s Journal once said:

“What we Roman Catholics must do now, is to get our children out of this devouring fire, At any cost and any sacrifice, we must deliver the children over whom we have control from these pits of destruction, which lie invitingly in their way, under the name’ of public or district schools.” *


* In the year 1868, the Pope, in an allocution containing a violent assertion of Papal power, severely denounces the King of Austria for sanctioning a law “which decrees that religious teaching in the public schools must be placed in the hands of members of each separate confession, that any religious society may open private or special schools for the youth of its faith.” This law, His Infallibility solemnly pronounces “abominable,” “in flagrant contradiction with tho doctrines of the Catholic religion; with its venerable rights, its authority, and its divine institution; with our power, and that of the Apostolic See.” Consistency, that jewel! What Popery condemns in Austria, she clamors for in America.

Not only the press, but public lecturers are employed to bring this movement into favor. The most barefaced falsehoods are palmed off upon the credulous public. We are told that our political institutions are of Roman Catholic origin; that Protestantism is crumbing to pieces; that religion, beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, is “machinery, formalism, and mummery;” that infidels are the originators of our school system. Our common schools are denominated “pubic soup-houses, where our children take their wooden spoons.” “Every such school,” it is asserted, “is an insult to the religion and virtue of our people.” “The prototype of our school system,” said another Roman Catholic orator, “is seen in the institutions of Paganism. Unless the system be modified, and put the Christian (Catholic) school upon the same ground as the Godless school (Protestant), it requires but little sagacity to perceive its speedy and utter destruction.”

To accede to this demand would destroy our entire system of popular education. Upon no principle, bearing even the semblance of justice, can money be given to one class and withheld from another. If Catholics may claim their share of the school fund, so also may Jews, Infidels, Rationalists, Buddhists, and every denomination of Christians. To divide the fund among all the claimants would utterly destroy the efficiency of the system, leaving our children to be educated in small schools under incompetent teachers. And what shall we say of the logic of these self-lauded champions of religious liberty? Must we believe that our government, because it knows no state religion, is therefore purely atheistic? And what is atheism but a system of religious negations? Shall then the Government establish atheistic schools? No, to this the Catholics object. Shall it provide for the separate instruction of each sect? Shall it sanction, encourage, and aid schools opened for the incoming horde of Chinese Pagans? Shall it disburse funds to German Rationalists to teach that the stories of the Bible, however sacred they may be to Christians, are no more worthy of credence than the myths of Hesiod? Shall it support schools in which Protestant Irish, by recounting the soul-inspiring incidents of the Battle of the Boyne, shall rekindle the dying embers of hostility to Popery? This Papists would never endure. Even if this Republic should succeed in divesting itself of everything bearing relations to religion, Catholics would certainly complain. They would clamor for the introduction of Catholic instruction. Unless, therefore, we are prepared to abolish the entire system, giving over all efforts at popular education, our only motto must be, “NO SURRENDER.”

And none certainly have just cause of complaint. A system liberal and equitable—as much so as any ever devised—opens the school-room to all. Any class is of course at perfect liberty to educate its children in separate schools. To that no one has ever objected. If, however, a disaffected portion of the community have a right to destroy an organization in which the vast majority are deeply interested, then evidently government itself is impossible. Rome’s hostility to our public school system shows, therefore, the determined antagonism of Papacy to liberal (in this case, “liberal” is anything not according to Catholic doctrines) institutions.

That we do Romanists no injustice in assuming that the exclusion of the Bible from the public schools would not long satisfy them, is susceptible of clear proof. Already the question is entering upon a new stage. They loudly affirm that without Catholic instruction the schools are irreligious, infidel, godless. Their oft-repeated assertion is that to the Church belongs the exclusive right to educate the young. One day they affirm, “it is contrary to the genius of our republican government for the majority to dictate to the minority, especially in matters of faith;” the next they shout, “we, the minority, have the God-given right to coerce the majority: the organization and control of all educational agencies belong by divine right to us.” The Tablet contains the following:

“The organization of the schools, their entire internal arrangement and management, the choice and regulation of studies, and the selection, appointment, and dismissal of teachers, belong exclusively to the spiritual authority.”

The Boston Advertiser affirms :

“Catholics would not be satisfied with the public schools, even if the Protestant Bible and every vestige of religious teaching were banished from them.”

The Catholic Telegraph of Cincinnati declares : “It will be a glorious day for the Catholics in this country, when under the blows of justice and morality, our school system will be shivered to pieces. Until then modern Paganism will triumph.”

The Freeman’s Journal speaks as follows:

“Let the public school system go to where it came from—the devil. We want Christian schools, and the State cannot tell us what Christianity is.” Dee. 11, 1869.

“Resolved, That the public or common school system, in New York city, is a swindle on the people, an outrage on justice, a foul disgrace in matter of morals, and that it imports for the State Legistature to abolish it forthwith.”

“There ean be no sound political progress—no permanence in the State, where for any length of time children shall be trained in schools without (the Roman) religion.”

“This country has no other hope, politically or morally, except in the vast and controlling extension of the Catholic religion.”

It is idle to discuss the question of excluding the Bible from our public schools, when evidently those making the demand would not be satisfied if it were granted. Unless, therefore, we are prepared not merely to exclude the Bible and all Protestant text books, but to substitute Catholic instruction in their stead, we might as well abandon all efforts to satisfy the complainants. Do they expect we will sell our birthright? —and for what?—a mess of mummeries? The Constitution of the United States provides as follows: “Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to a good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” What religion? Christianity. What form of Christianity? Protestantism, the parent of constitutional liberty. And who are they who demand the sacrifice of our public school system? Are they the sons of our Protestant forefathers? Are they not foreigners from the priest-ridden countries of Europe? They who owe all they have acquired in the past, all they enjoy in the present, all they hope for in the future, to our free institutions, employ the very liberty we accord them in endeavoring to overturn our liberties.

The Catholics, withdrawing their children, especially in the large cities, from the public schools, and failing to obtain a portion of the fund, began to solicit assistance from Legislatures and Common Councils. With what success these appeals were made, the appropriations of the city and State of New York too plainly show. In 1863, the year of the New York riots, the Common Council donated $78,000 to Roman Catholic institutions. During the year ending Sept. 30, 1866, the Sate of New York paid to Roman Catholic orphan asylums and schools $45,674. In addition to this a special donation of $87,000 was made to the “Society for the Protection of Destitute Roman Catholic Orphan Children.” The entire contribution to the Papal Church this year reached $124,174. The Protestant sects received during the same year $2,367. Shall the State support the Catholic religion? Shall it tax its citizens for the purpose of inculcating doctrines subversive of Republican government? It would be difficult to conceive of injustice greater than this.

In 1867, by enactment of the Legislature of New York, $110 was appropriated to every ward of “The Society for the Protection of Roman Catholic Orphan Children.” For this purpose $80,000 was raised by tax on the city and county of New York. The city leased, in 1846, to the Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum, two entire blocks on Fifth Avenue, for ninety-nine years, at one dollar year. Over the entire country the same spirit prevails. Even in the far west, Idaho and Colorado each appropriated $50,000 for Catholic schools.

Catholic consciences, so tender about the tax for public schools, silence their throbbings long enough to allow the acceptance of taxes paid by Protestants to schools intensely sectarian. Hands that would be defiled by touching Protestant Bibles, handle Protestant money with impunity. And they want even more than our money. A bill introduced into the New York Legislature by the party bidding for Catholic votes, and earnestly advocated, proposes a fine of one hundred dollars on any institution, public or private, incorporated or not incorporated, and upon any Protestant guardian, presuming to impart religious instruction to a Roman Catholic child. The faith of the drunken, house-less, shiftless father shall determine the belief of even the child that eats the bread of Protestant charity. Having stolen from our State treasuries large sums for the support of their schools, asylums, and hospitals, why not at once enact a law compelling us to support their poor, and instruct their children in the tenets of Catholicism? As it would he a good speculation, conscience need not make them linger. They who have stolen the chickens might as well take the coop.

And the schools, aided by these munificent donations, are maintained for the express purpose of inculcating the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. In the report (1866) of the “Society for the Protection of Roman Catholic Orphan Children,” this is expressly affirmed. The Freeman’s Journal once said: “This subject (the school question) contains in it the whole question of the progress and triumphs of the Catholic Church in the next generation in this country.” Their schools are strictly sectarian, The Catechism is taught. The children cross themselves before a crucifix. Bowing before an image of the Virgin they repeat, “ Hail, Mary, full of grace, our Lord is with thee, pray for us sinners now and in the hour of death.” In one of their reading books, “Duty of a Christian towards God,” occur these words: “ We sin by irreverence in profaning churches, the relics of the saints, the images, the holy water, and other such things. ….. The use of images is exceedingly beneficial. . . . . . It is good and useful to invoke them (the saints) that we may obtain from God those graces of which we stand in need…… A true child of Mary will say every day some prayers in her honor.” In the Catechism published by Sadlier & Co., N. Y., and taught in their schools, the second commandment, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,” etc., is entirely suppressed. In another text-book we find the following: “What is baptism?” “It is a sacrament which regenerates us in Jesus Christ by giving us the spiritual life of grace, and which makes us the children of God and of the Church.” “ Does baptism efface sin?” “Yes: in children it effaces original sin; and in adults, besides original sin, it effaces all the actual sin which they may have committed before being baptized.” “Is baptism necessary for salvation?” “Yes: it is so necessary for the salvation of men, that even children cannot be saved without receiving it.” “Of whom is this (the Devil’s party) composed?” “Of all the wicked, Pagans, Jews, infidels, heretics, and all bad Christians.” In a “Synopsis of Moral Theology,” prepared for theological students, this question occurs: “Are heretics rightly punished with death?” “St. Thomas says Yes, because forgers of money, and disturbers of the State are justly punished with death; therefore also heretics, who are forgers of the faith, are justly punished with death.” The dogma of Infallibility, and the doctrine of Purgatory are also taught. In one of the Catechisms now in use it is asked, “ Can the Church err in what she teaches?” “No, she cannot err in matters of faith.” “What do you mean by purgatory?” “A middle state of souls suffering for a time on account of their sins.” “Are all the souls in purgatory helped by our prayers?” “Yes, they are.”

Verily, only a Jesuit can see the justice in taxing Protestants for the purpose of making munificent donations—$400,000 in a single city in a single year—to schools in which such instructions are given. And while receiving the gift, they complain piteously of our injustice in denying them the right of converting our common schools into nurseries of Papal superstition.

Catholics by their crouching subserviency to a foreign despot are disqualified from becoming good Republican citizens. Bound by solemn obligations to the only Sovereign whom they can in conscience recognize, loyalty, if indeed it be loyalty, is suspended on the will of the Pope. And he, Peter’s successor, can, says the canon law, dispense with oaths and vows of allegiance, even the most sacred. That this arrogant ruler must of necessity, if faithful to the principles of his Church, claim sovereignty even in temporal affairs over Republicans, even in this country, can be proved beyond contradiction from assertions of eminent Papal writers, from the acts of the Popes, from canon law, and from the decrees of at least eight general Councils.* He wears the triple crown surmounted by the cross. He denominates himself, “Lord of all the earth.” Did ever assumption equal this? All other claims of authority are mere moonshine—a pleasing delusion. When the claims of our country come in collision with his—he being judge—the Catholic must obey the latter on pain of mortal sin, perjury.* Can such slaves ever become good citizens in a free Republic?


* “The spiritual power must rule the temporal, by all means and expedients, when necessary.”—Bellarmine.

“It is the duty of the Roman Catholic Church to compel heretics, by corporal punishment, to submit to her faith.”—Dens’ Theology (a Catholic text-book).

“A Roman Pontiff can absolve persons even from oaths of allegiance.””—Can. Authoritatis 2, caus. 15, quest. 6, pt. 2.

“All things defined by the canons and general Councils, and especially by the Synod of Trent (these declare the Pope an absolute temporal Sovereign), I undoubtedly receive and profess; and all things contrary to them I reject and curse. And this Catholic faith I will teach and enforce on my dependents and flock.”—From the oath administered to priests.

And this claim, so resolutely maintained in the past, is adhered to in the present. The Syllabus of 1864, which contains ten general charges, supported by eighty specifications, denominated “damnable heresies,” denounces all the leading ideas of Republicanism, in fact, of modern civilization. It is an indictment of all Protestant educational agencies, of marriage by civil contract, of the independence of Church and State, of freedom of the press, of Bible societies, of the functions of modern legislation, of Democratic forms of government, and of the existing relations between the governed and the governing classes. In a letter addressed to Prosper Gueranger, an ardent defender of the Infallibility dogma, the Pope says: “This madness (Gallicanism, the belief that popular civil authority—often represented by the monarch’s or the state’s authority—over the Catholic Church is comparable to that of the pope) reaches such a height that they undertake to reform even the divine constitution of the Church, and to adapt it to the modern forms of civil government.”


* The Bishop’s oath contains the following: “To the extent of my power, I will observe the Pope’s commands (in temporal as well as spiritual things, for so the Pope explains the oath); and I will make others observe them: and I will persecute all heretics and all rebels to my Lord the Pope.”

The famous bull against the two sons of wrath begins : “The authority given to St. Peter and his successors, by the immense power of the Eternal King, excels all the powers of earthly kings and princes. It passes uncontrollable sentence upon them all; .. . . it takes most severe vengeance of them, casting them down from their thrones though ever so puissant (powerful), and tumbling them down to the lowest parts of the earth as the ministers of aspiring Lucifer.”

“He who prefers a king to a priest, does prefer the creature to the Creator.”—Morn. Exer. on Popery, p. 67.

Evident and well authenticated as is Rome’s claim to temporal power over her subjects, and her consequent inherent hostility to Republicanism, Jesuits, with an effrontery that Satan himself might covet, peremptorily deny it. They pretend to love our form of government, to laud our liberty, and to wish for us a future of success.

“Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.”

Father Hecker—founder of the community of Paulist Fathers, New York, whose special mission it is to bring the steam printing-press to bear upon the spread of the Catholic religion in the United States, and who furnish most of the literary matter for the Publication Society, including tracts, the articles in the Catholic World, and volumes for Sunday schools—in a lecture delivered in Horticultural Hall, Philadelphia (Jan. 19, 1871), entitled “The Church and the Republic,” boldly affirms, in the face of all history, that Protestantism is essentially hostile to Republicanism, and Catholicism its unwearied friend. His only argument, laboriously drawn out to nearly an hour’s length, is summed up in this syllogism :

Protestants teach that man is totally depraved. (Untrue.)
They who believe in total depravity are incapable of self-government. (Untrue.)
Protestants are enemies of Republicanism. (Doubly untrue.)

And what shall we think of the propriety, to say nothing of the honesty, of affirming that Catholicism is the firm friend, the only true friend of Republican forms of government, and of making this assertion at the very time when all Catholics are clamorously shouting that Pius IX. shall be reinstated in temporal power against the will, formally and emphatically expressed, of those whom he proposes to govern? When every Catholic city in the United States, almost every Catholic church, is ringing with protests against what they choose to denominate the robbery of St. Peter, and every means, fair and foul, is employed to induce the Governments of Europe, and even the United States, to demand that the worst despotism which modern times has known, shall be resurrected and forced upon an unwilling people,—at this very time, Father Hecker dares to stand before an audience of American freemen, and affirm, “We Catholics are the truest, the best, the only firm friends of civil liberty, which is the gift of our Church to the world.”

Popery’s hostility to free institutions is manifested in ways almost innumerable. A priest some months ago peremptorily refused to give testimony in a St. Louis court, on the ground that by the authority of the Pope, the priesthood was under no obligation to obey the civil law.* In the city of Boston a man, believed to be a murderer by ninety-nine in every hundred who heard the evidence, was recently acquitted, because, on one trial, two jurors, on the next, one, obstinately refused to unite with the rest in conviction, and apparently, and in the opinion of the lawyers and judges, simply because they belonged to the same brotherhood, the immutable, infallible Church of Rome. During our recent struggle in breaking the chains of slavery—a struggle involving the question of national existence—the Catholics, true to their time-honored principles, proved themselves hostile to our Government. We speak advisedly. We know they boast much of their loyalty. It is indeed true that in the first year of the war many enlisted. Rome had not yet spoken. Carried along by the irresistible tide of patriotism they enthusiastically joined in the cry, “Secession is treason, and must be punished.” In the second year of the war, however, Archbishop Hughes visited Europe. Almost the first intimation we had of his presence at the Vatican was the acknowledgment by the Pope of the independence of the Confederate States. A written benediction was forwarded to Jefferson Davis, addressing him as “Illustrious and Honorable President.”


* “A priest cannot be forced to give testimony before a secular judge.””—Taberna, vol. ii, p. 288.

“The rebellion of priests is not treason, for they are not subject to civil government.””—Emmanuel Sa.

“A common priest is as much better than a king, as a man is better than a beast.” —Demoulin.

Very soon enlistments among the Irish ceased almost entirely. Desertions became frequent. The entire Catholic population became intensely hostile to the Government. Banded together, they declared, in language not to be mistaken, their determination to resist the draft. Riots were by no means infrequent, and would no doubt have been more numerous but for the apparent hopelessness of the effort to resist the will of the American people. Who inspired this fiendish malevolence? Who instigated outrages like those in New York? Was the Pope’s temporal power unfelt on this continent? Were we not furnished with illustrations frequent and painful that the first allegiance of our Catholic citizens is due to their spiritual sovereign in Rome?

And the assassination of President Lincoln, how strangely is it connected with Rome’s hostility to our Republican Government. The deed planned in the home of a devout Catholic. It was associated in its inception with the prayers and hopes of the Romish Church. One of the prominent actors, aided in his escape by our Catholic enemies in Canada, found refuge in a convent, and afterwards became a soldier in the army of Pius IX. These and other circumstances—all possibly purely fortuitous—taken in connection with the known principles of Romanism and the well-established fact that Catholics, during the last years of the war, were intensely disloyal, certainly reflect little honor on Popery’s ability to inspire devotion to civil liberty. If, as St. Liguori says, “Although a thing may be against God, nevertheless, on account of the virtue of obedience, the subject who does that thing, does not sin,” certainly it is reasonable to believe that Papists prefer the favor of the Pope, even if purchased by unwarrantable means, to the empty gratitude of their adopted country. The editor of the Catholic Quarterly, waxing bold, once said: “Protestants are not to inquire whether the Catholic Church is hostile to civil and religious liberty or not; but whether that Church is founded in divine right. If the Papacy be founded in divine right, it is supreme over whatever is founded only in human right, and then your institutions should be made to harmonize with it, and not it with your institutions… . Liberty of conscience is unknown among Catholics. The word liberty should be banished from the domain of religion. It is neither more nor less than a fiction to say that a man has the right to choose his own religion.”

Popery, to borrow a figure from Augustine, is the proud and gorgeous city of superstition, set over against the Church of God, which it attacks with all the forces which bigotry and malice can invent; or to change the figure, it is a vast political engine, employed in the effort to crush out the liberties of the human race. The Catholic World (endorsed by the highest dignitaries of Rome, including the Pope himself), in the leading article of July, 1870, entitled “The Catholic of the Nineteenth Century,” asserts in unmistakable language the supreme duty of the Papists to obey the commands of the Pope, and seek, in every way, and especially by means of the ballot, to render the Papal policy effective in this country. Its first’ assertion, “The Catholic, like the Church, is one and the same in all ages,” is followed by the still more arrogant affirmation, the Roman Catholic religion is, “with reference to time as well as eternity,” “absolutely perfect,” “as perfect as God.” This is the basis of the obligation, felt by every “dutiful subject,” “to vindicate with property, liberty and life,” the supremacy of the head of the Church. If the Pope’s authority and that of any civil government “come in conflict upon any vital point,” the Papist is to do, “in the nineteenth century, precisely as he did in the first, second, or the third.” Legislation is valid only when in harmony with Catholicism, “ the organic law;” all other is “unjust, cruel, tyrannical, false, vain, unstable, and weak, and not entitled to respect or obedience.” This has one transcendent virtue, clearness. And how is our legislation to be brought into harmony with “the organic law infallibly announced?” By “the mild and peaceful influence of the ballot, directed by instructed Catholic conscience.” And how shall Romanists know which way to vote? “The Catholic Church is the medium and channel through which the will of God is expressed.” His will is announced to men “from the chair of St. Peter.” To what extent must this devotion to Popery be carried? “We do not hesitate to affirm that in performing our duties as citizens, electors, and public officers, we should always and under all circumstances act simply as Catholics.” “The Catholic armed with his vote becomes the champion of faith, law, order, social and political morality, and Christian civilization.” By the ballot he must place “the regulation and control of marriage” where it “exclusively belongs,” in the hands of the Romish priesthood. And the rightful control of marriage “implies, by necessity, the Catholic view of all the relations and obligations growing out of it; the education of the young, the custody of foundlings and orphans, and all measures of correction and reformation applicable to youthful offenders and disturbers of the peace of society.”

Another victory to be achieved by Catholic votes is the destruction of “a godless system of education,” or— which is the same thing—an uncatholic system, and the substitution of the perfect system of that Church which “flatly contradicts the assumption on the part of the State of the prerogative of education.” Nor is this the only arduous task laid on the Catholic voters of the nineteenth century. They are to legislate all existing evils out of the world and into eternal oblivion; red-republicanism, Fourierism, communism, free love, Mormonism, mesmerism, phrenology, spiritism, sentimental philanthropy, sensuality, poverty, and woman’s rights. They propose to vote all men into holiness; if not, certainly into servitude. And then, too, over us Protestants, who freely accord them the privilege of denouncing severally and collectively every institution considered essential to civil liberty, they hope by the omnipotent power of the ballot to erect “a censorship of ideas, and the right to examine and approve or disapprove all books, publications, writings, and utterances intended for public instruction, enlightenment or entertainment, and the supervision of places of amusement.” Champions of liberty! Gladly would we add more quotations from an article, all of which so well deserves the serious consideration of every lover of his country. Want of space forbids. With one, showing the kind of republicanism which the author loves, we close:— “The temporal government of the head of the Church is today (July, 1870) the best in the world.” His subjects evidently thought otherwise.

Catholics are strangely consistent friends of liberty, if we may judge from the riots in New York, July 12th, 1870, the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne, when unoffending Orangemen peacefully celebrating the day commemorative of the victory of William of Orange over James II, and the consequent ascendancy of the Protestant religion, were attacked; some killed and many wounded. And the Catholic papers of the city—where for many long years Catholics have been permitted uninterruptedly to form processions on Sundays, and to celebrate St. Patrick’s and other days, blocking up the streets, excluding Protestants from their own sanctuaries, and making every demonstration calculated to exasperate them—argue, with surprising unanimity, that “this miserable faction ought not to be allowed to madden this nation by their annual celebration.” Have Protestants no rights which Catholics need respect?

new-york-riot-1871

It was left, however, for the year 1871, to witness a still more emphatic illustration of the intense devotion felt by our Catholic fellow-citizens to the doctrine of popular liberty. The Orangemen of New York having resolved to celebrate, notwithstanding the riotous proceedings of last year, the anniversary of the defeat of their enemies, nearly two centuries ago, the Roman Catholics announced their determination to suppress a public parade. The city authorities, quailing before the threats of those whose united vote, uniformly cast in the interest of political Romanism, elects to office or consigns to oblivion, surrendered and forbade the procession. “It is given out,” said the superintendent of police, at the dictation of the Mayor, “that armed preparations for defense have been made by the parading lodges.” Was it not first announced, however, that armed preparations had been made for an attack? Is Protestantism destitute of even the right to prepare for self-defense? Must we set it down as a fixed fact that when Catholics object to a procession, and arm for its suppression, it may not occur? And for such liberty New York—its wealth mostly in the hands of Protestants—pays $50,000,000 a year. Another pretext was, that processions in the streets are not matters of right, but merely of toleration. This important legal fact it seems was allowed to sleep in the ponderous tomes of the City Hall till a band of desperadoes chose to announce their determined purpose of preventing the Orange parade. Why was not this decision proclaimed prior to the overwhelming processions of St. Patrick’s day? Why are Catholic parades allowed both in the least frequented and the most important business streets of the city? If the circumstances had been reversed, and Orangemen had threatened a riot if Roman Catholics were permitted to celebrate the honors of Ireland’s patron-saint, who does not know that the city officers would have thundered their determination to defend the inalienable rights of American Citizens? Not less absurd is the pretext, as flimsy as it is specious, that foreign events and feuds are not to be allowed the opportunity of perpetuating their memory on American soil. Were not the Germans permitted, in their boisterous rejoicings over a united fatherland, to flaunt their banners in the very faces of the deeply humiliated and bitterly exasperated Frenchmen?

So intense and wide-spread was the popular indignation—showing that Protestants though submissive are not slaves—that the Governor issued a circular, pledging protection to the much-abused Protestant Irish, promising them the support of the strong arm of the State. The 12th of July, accordingly, witnessed an inspiring scene, the State in her majesty affirming that every class of its citizens, whether Orangemen, Germans, Frenchmen, Chinese, or Hottentots, whether two or ten thousand, should be defended in their rights; that a frenzied mob, though composed of infuriated Romanists, must respect the fundamental principle of American liberty, or take the consequences. The bigoted intolerance of their enemies thus thrust a small but heroic band of Orangemen into a prominence which they had otherwise in all probability never attained; securing for them the warm sympathy of every true patriot. These accidental representatives of a principle ever dear to the American people were escorted—all honor to the Governor of New York—by the militia and police, the superintendent joyously redeeming himself from the deep infamy to which political trickery had so nearly consigned him. Yet, notwithstanding the armed escort, an attack with clubs, brick-bats and firearms was made, necessitating a return fire from the defenders of law and order, and leaving more than a score of dead bodies, and over two hundred wounded, to mark the scene of Popery’s ardent devotion to liberty. Eighth avenue and Twenty-third street witnessed the inculcation of a lesson which it is earnestly hoped will be long remembered alike by Protestants and Catholics; by the former as evincing the spirit of Popery, by the latter as an indication, in fact an emphatic declaration, that Protestants, at least in their own land, will resolutely defend the principles of Republican Government.

We are told, however, that not Romanists, but Hibernians, a class of persons only nominally Catholics, are responsible for the riot and its accompanying horrors; that the priests, foreseeing the dangers, urged their congregations not to interfere with the proposed procession; that Archbishop McCroskry exhorted his flock “to make no counter demonstration of any kind.” He referred, however, with exceeding bitterness to the Orangemen, and expressed it as his deep conviction that the parade ought not to be permitted. It is undeniably true that Catholics, with scarcely a dissenting voice, said, with an emphasis not to be mistaken, “ Protestants as a body shall not parade in the streets of New York.” And the entire Catholic press of New York—the Tablet alone excepted—studiedly ignored the bare existence of Protestant rights. Among the headings of their leading editorials, after the riot, were the following: “Governor Hoffman’s Bloody Procession!” “Is John T. Hoffman, Governor of the State of New York, a Murderer?” “ Hoffman’s Holocaust!” “Hoffman’s Massacre!” “Our Orange Governor!” etc.*

Webmaster’s note: “The Orange Riots took place in Manhattan, New York City, in 1870 and 1871, and they involved violent conflict between Irish Protestants who were members of the Orange Order and hence called “Orangemen”, and Irish Catholics, along with the New York City Police Department and the New York State National Guard. The riot caused the deaths of over 60 civilians – mostly Irish laborers – and three guardsmen.” – Source Wikipedia


* “We call upon the friends of the murdered citizens, by every duty which they owe to society and to themselves, to raise this issue at the proper tribunals of the country, and impeach Gov. Hoffman before a jury of his peers to answer to a charge of murder.”—The Irish People.

“Gov. Hoffman is answerable for the whole of it, and—we say it with pain—is guilty of every drop of blood shed that day.”— The Irish Citizen.

“Let the cry of the orphan, whose home he has left desolate, blast him! And let the hot tear of the widow, whose heart he has made sore, rot him in his pride of place and imperious despotism!

“The greatest mistake made in the whole massacre business seems to be that Mayor Hall did not arrest John T. Hoffman for interfering with the peace of the city.”—The Irish World.

“The ‘sober second thought’ of the people, lately so excited, will consign John T. Hoffman to the obscurity from which he has arisen by luckier maneuverings.”—Freeman’s Journal.

The Society, formed on the day of the riot, in Hibernia Tall, “by the unanimous decision of all patriotic Irish soldiers present,” and which, it was affirmed, should prove ‘no delusion,” among others of similar import, unanimously passed the following resolution:— That we call upon all Irishmen in these States to form themselves into a combination for self-protection.”

The psychological explanation of such hearty devotion to liberty we scarcely know how to make. We would sooner attempt to explain how some men— “midway from nothing to the Deity ”—succeed in convincing themselves that they are atheists, notwithstanding the entire class have so far signally failed in persuading the world that a genuine consistent atheist has ever existed. Possibly we might conceive an explanation of the singular phenomenon that human beings, possessed of bodies, living on the earth, eating bread, and drinking laudanum negus, can reason themselves into the belief that they are really idealists, believing that the entire material universe, with its myriad forms of life, is a mere phantom, a conception of their own brain. Nor is it, perhaps, entirely impossible to imagine how some may dream themselves into the belief that God is everything, and everything God; that this impersonal, unconscious Deity sighs in the wind, smiles in the sunbeam, glitters in the dewdrop, rustles in the leaf, moans in the ocean, speaks in the thunder; that each person is part and parcel of God, a visible manifestation of the Invisible, one conscious drop of the unconscious ocean of being, existing for a brief moment between two vast eternities, a past and a future; coming, we know not whence; going, we know not whither, a troubled thought in the dream of half sleeping nature; sinking, like the ripple on the ocean, upon the heaving bosom of emotionless Infinitude. We might even venture a defense, or at least an apology, of the custom prevalent in Siam, of exposing the mother, for one month after the delivery of a child, on a cushionless bench before a roasting fire. Nay, we might even undertake to explain the couvade—a custom widely prevalent in the thirteenth century, and even now, Max Muller informs us, extant among the Mau-tze; according to which the father of a new-born child, as soon as its mother regains her accustomed strength, goes to bed, and there, fed on gruel, tapioca, and that quintessence of insipidness, panada, receives the congratulations of his friends. Even this custom, ridiculous as it is, and which prompted Sir Hudibras to say,—

“Chinese go to bed,
And lie-in in their ladies’ stead,”

is susceptible of an explanation at least semi-rational. But how to explain the idiosyncrasies of our Irish fellow-citizens, how to reconcile their conduct with their oft reiterated protestations of devotion to civil liberty, we know not. Call that liberty which has naught of liberty save its name, which has all of despotism save its manliness! Such faith as that which prompts Catholics to denominate Popery the stanch defender of freedom—if it be faith—we have seldom, if indeed ever, found, certainly not among Protestant Americans, scarcely among the Communists of Paris, or the enlightened citizens of Terra del Fuego.

And what interpretation shall be given to this sad, this long-drawn wail of the Papal Church, in all parts of the United States, over the Pope’s loss of temporal power?* As he and the Catholic Episcopate have declared the civil sovereignty indispensably necessary to the due exercise of his rightful spiritual supremacy, these liberty-loving Americans—having escaped from the cruel oppression of Catholic governments to proclaim themselves the stanch friends of liberty—are holding meetings, in cathedrals, in public squares, forming processions, making speeches, and signing protests against—what?— Against that cruel despotism which has for centuries disgraced the “States of the Church ?” No; against the liberation of a people who have been long hoping and struggling for freedom, and who have been kept down, only by foreign bayonets in the hands of Catholics, by the ill-fated Napoleon, and the misguided Papal Zouaves.


* The Archbishop of Baltimore, in a plea with Catholic ladies, affirms :— Their Father in Christ, like St. Peter, is in chains, robbed of the very necessaries of life, reduced to the very verge of want, and almost—starvation, and wholly at the mercies of his enemies, who are also the enemies of Christ, and of all religion, and all virtue.” To call this a liberal draft upon an excited imagination is too mild, too charitable entirely.

And these protests—”full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” reiterating for the thousandth time the infamous falsehood, “The Church in chains,” “Peter in prison,” and entirely ignoring the rights of the people who have deliberately chosen Italian unity —all claim temporal power for the Pope; many, sanctioned by office-hunting politicians, even. denying the validity of any plebiscitum (law enacted by the common people, under the superintendence of a tribune or some subordinate plebeian magistrate, without the intervention of the senate) against the Pope’s sovereign rights, even when fairly and freely taken.* Certainly these lengthy and carefully prepared documents—now crowding the pages of every Catholic paper, and making them, which is evidently needless, even more intensely political than ever before—may be legitimately denominated, The solemn Protest of American Papists against Republican forms of Government, against the Liberties of the People.

What is to be the end of all this bluster and war of words? If the Catholic papers are to be believed, there is to be no rest—movements creating sentiment, sentiment distilling into purpose, purpose developing into action, war in Italy, crusades from America, havoc and bloodshed—till the Vicar of Christ is again on his throne.+


*In the Philadelphia protest, read at a meeting which, according to the Freeman’s Journal, numbered 30,000, this language occurs:— “We do not believe that the ‘States of the Church’ ever did, or now do, desire Italian unity ; but even if they did, they had no right to demand it.”

The same thing is affirmed in the Catholic World, Nov., 1870, p. 284.

+See Freeman’s Journal, Dec. 10th, 17th, 24th, and 31st, 1870, etc,

“If there is nothing but a stupid grunt in response to the call of God, then there will be in this land of ours either a bloody persecution or an infamous apostasy.””—Freeman’s Journal, Feb. 11, 1871.

All over Europe men are volunteering to join the crusade against popular government. Funds are pouring into the Pope’s treasury. The faithful, even in democratic America, are asked to contribute. And the response has been such as to inspire bishops and archbishops, and even the despondent Pope himself, with new energy and fresh hopes. In Baltimore, at the Pontifical Jubilee, (the twenty-fifth anniversary of the accession of Pius IX. to the Papal throne,) that “beam from the immortal throne of St. Peter,” that “jewel fit to be placed in the Tiara,” when, according to Catholic authority, “twenty thousand, by receiving communion for Our Holy Father, promised to do all in their power to effect his restoration,” sixty men, dressed in the uniform of the Papal Zouve, knelt by the communion rails in St. James, “not as an idle pageant, not for mere form’s sake, but to proclaim what they and the Catholic Church will do when the time comes. By this they have given pledge of their espousal of the cause of the captive Pontiff.”* St. Peter, a new Catholic paper of New York, says:—“ To say it (the crusade) is not necessary, is equivalent to denying the necessary right of self-defense. Catholics have, by degrees, seen themselves despoiled by the revolution of their most precious rights. We have been patient, but we will not be slaves. What form the new crusade may take we know not; but a crusade there truly will be to deliver the Sepulcher of Peter and the Catholic world.”


* “This is not an act of transitory fervor, or the enthusiasm of the hour. By this act the Catholics of the United States of America have taken their stand with those of Europe and Canada. The fervor and enthusiasm of the hour will settle down into permanent and determined resolve, and by union with all parts of Christendom take a tangible and defined purpose. It is what the Pope predicted in saying that if union of action, resulting from identity of thought and feeling, be amongst Catholics, the gates of hell shall not prevail.” —Correspondence of Freeman’s Journal, July 8, 1871.

And the methods employed in securing funds for this and similar holy purposes are indeed worthy the inventive genius of St. Dominic. Among others, all shrewd, the raffle for the Pope’s sacred snuff-box strikes the infidel world as characteristically ingenious. The Prisoner Pope, “the most august of the poor,” gave, March 17, 1871, to Dr. Giovanni Acquiderni, President of the upper council of the association of the Catholic youth of Italy, “his gold snuff-box, exquisitely carved with two symbolic lambs in the midst of flowers and foliage,” to be disposed of for the benefit of Holy Mother Church. Dr. Acquiderni, “ anxious speedily to fulfil the sacred desire of the octogenarian Father and Pontiff,” opened a general subscription of offerings of one franc each, All good Catholics in the United States were earnestly exhorted to contribute twenty cents, and thereby secure a chance of one day possessing this sacred souvenir. They were assured—lest possibly lack of confidence might lessen the subscription—that “at the completion of the Pontifical Jubilee, Dr. Acquiderni will have an urn prepared containing as many tickets as there may be franc offerings, and in the presence of a Notary Public, proceed to the extraction of the fortunate name that will indicate the new possessor of the snuff-box of Pope Pius IX., which will be immediately sent to the address marked after his signature in the subscription list.”

drawing-of-the-snuff-box-of-pope-pius-ix

What Patrick or Bridget was the fortunate drawer of this matchless prize, the uninitiated have not yet learned. Infallibility—if it is important the world should know—will no doubt inform us, explaining, perchance, at the same time the full import of those two symbolic lambs, symbols of a world-wide crusade.

As Protestants we have no fears. If Popery, in defying the common conscience of humanity, resisting the spirit of the age, and challenging the scorn of its own most liberal-minded men, wishes to commit suicide, let it go on.

Already Catholics, “standing afar off,” in Ireland, England, Germany, Oregon, Washington, New York, Philadelphia, in every country and city, are mournfully exclaiming, “Alas, alas! that great city, that mighty city, for in one hour is thy judgment come.”

Nor has Romanism shown less hostility to another principle of our national life, the separation of Church and State. This, which Protestants have ever viewed as one of the defenses of civil liberty, has been and now is the object of incessant attack. Almost every Pope for the last thousand years has pronounced it a “damnable heresy.” Schleigel, a member of the Leopold Foundation, in lecturing to the crowned heads of Europe with the design of showing the mutual supports which Popery and monarchy lend to and receive from each other, said:—“Church and State must always be united, and it is essential to the existence of each that a Pope be at the head of the one, and an Emperor at the head of the other. . . . Protestantism and Republicanism is the cause and source of all the discords, and disorders and wars of Europe.” (Vol. iii. Lect. 17, p. 286.) Again:—“ The real nursery of all these destructive principles, the revolutionary schools of France and the rest of Europe, has been North America.” This Antichrist, the union of Church and State, even the Pope St. Gregory himself being witness, was cradled in Rome.

Of Popery’s opposition to the freedom of the press, the free circulation of the Bible, and liberty of conscience, we have no time to speak. These may find a place in our next Chapter. Our task, in proving Romanism hostile to Republicanism, is completed. Further proof is needless. It must certainly be evident to every one of our fellow-citizens that where the principles and spirit of Popery attain full power, Republicanism must soon perish, and over her grave, the grave of man’s hopes for this life, the lordly priest, representative of civil and ecclesiastical despotism, shall exultingly shout, “Thus always: Popery ALONE HAS PERMANENCY.”

Chapter III. The papacy a foe to religious liberty.

WE presume it is already manifest to every unbiased reader that Romanism is a necessary and determined enemy of all liberty, civil and religious. Her cardinal principle takes away the right of private judgment, denying the subject the privilege of even obeying the clear teachings of conscience, thus forbidding him to use the very faculties God has given him, and for the proper exercise of which he alone is accountable. The people must receive their opinions from, and rely implicitly upon the priests; these are under the spiritual authority of bishops, and these under the Pope. Hence he alone has the right to think,—he alone has liberty: his is absolute. The people have an existence merely for the good of Christ’s vicegerent on earth, who owns them soul and body, life and property.

Rome—certainly none will deny—proves herself an enemy of religious liberty by condemning the use of the Bible. The Council of Trent declared:—“ It is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it.” Accordingly they condemn its use, and do everything in their power to prevent people from reading it. Societies for its publication and distribution have been repeatedly condemned by the Pope. Surely an enemy of the Bible is an enemy of all liberty—personal and national.

And this hostility to the inspiring cause of all true liberty is unmistakably evinced even in the full-orbed light of this nineteenth century, and in this Protestant country, which owes its greatness to the unfettered Word of God. A warfare, bitter, unrelenting, almost fiendish, has been waged for years against its reading in our common schools. Even in their own schools, though catechisms and crucifixes and rosaries are abundant, the Bible, even their own version, is a rare book.

With separate organizations for almost everything, the Romish Church has no society for the distribution of God’s will to men. In fact, they have never yet published, in the vernacular, an authorized edition, without note or comment.* Here is an extract from the version in general use :—‘ Images, pictures or representations, even in the house of God and in the very sanctuary, so far from being forbidden, are expressly authorized by the Word of God.” (Comment on Second Commandment.)


* St. Liguori says:—“ The Scriptures, and books of controversy, may not be permitted in the vernacular tongue, as also they cannot be read without permission.” Cardinal Bellarmine declares:—“ The Catholic Church forbids the reading of the Scriptures by all, without choice, or the public reading or singing of them in vulgar tongues, as it is decreed in the Council of Trent.”

And even the burning of Bibles is not yet one of the lost arts; and the immutable Church seems loath to allow it to become such. In the year 1842 (Oct. 27), at Champlain, N. Y., according to a statement prepared and published by four respectable citizens appointed for that purpose, a pile of Bibles, brought from the priest’s house, was set on fire, and in open day, and in the presence of many spectators, burned to ashes. And the last year witnessed in unhappy Popery-cursed Spain a similar “act of faith,” accompanied by various Catholic ceremonies, and a tremendous philippic (a fiery, damning speech, or tirade) against the execrable heretics.

Liguori, one of Rome’s canonized saints, author of the “Glories of Mary,” and of a standard text-book on Moral Theology, exclaims with holy horror:—“ How many simple girls, because they have learned to read, have lost their souls.” The Freeman’s Journal once said:— “The Bible Society is the deepest scheme ever laid by Satan in order to delude the human family, and bring them down to his eternal possession.” Bishop Spotswood affirmed :—”I would rather a half of the people of this nation should be brought to the stake and burned, than one man should read the Bible and form his judgments from its contents.”

Catholicism is opposed to freedom of conscience. The Protestant Church holds—in fact the true Church in all ages has held—that God alone is Lord of the conscience, that this right He will not share with another, and that man should allow no miserable, arrogant human tyrant to usurp the throne of his Maker. Romanism, however, resembles all false religions in claiming the right to rule over the individual conscience; utterly denying its adherents the privilege of having any opinions except according to rules prescribed by an infallible Church. One of the recent Popes declared that “liberty of conscience is an absurd and dangerous maxim; or rather the ravings of delirium.” A bishop in the Council of Trent said, with the concurrence and approbation of the holy (?) fathers: —“Laymen have nothing to do but to hear and submit.” The New York Tablet recently informed its readers:—“There is no difference of opinion on this subject (the temporal power of the Pope), for we do not allow any difference on such questions. The decrees of the Church forbid it.” Father Farrel, of St. Joseph’s Church, New York, for the mortal sin of having written (Jan. 12, 1871) an exceedingly mild approval of a public meeting in favor of Italian Unity, was peremptorily ordered by Archbishop McCloskey—three holy fathers, the council summoned to try the case, and several politicians demanding the order—to retract his liberal ideas, that every people had a right to choose its own rulers, or immediately withdraw from the Church. So then there is only one mind, only one conscience in the Catholic Church. Priests are simply mirrors, to reflect the opinions and aims of His Infallibility, Pope Pius IX. What freedom can men retain after thus yielding the right of private judgment— after surrendering conscience? Very appropriately does one born in Catholicity, educated in her doctrines, and still in the enjoyment of her services, ask:—“ How long is this enlightened spirit of the nineteenth century to continue pandering to such narrow bigotry and prejudice as this?”

Romanism shows itself an enemy of religious liberty, by opposing the freedom of the press. Protestantism courts the light, loves the truth, and invites discussion, believing that error is inherently weak, and cannot present arguments which will sway the enlightened conscience of the educated masses. It is willing that the two should enter the lists, well assured that the former will gain an easy victory. Of the freedom of the press, it is, therefore, the stanch defendant; it has nothing to fear from discussion; everything to hope. On the other hand, of this liberty the Pope is a deadly foe. He denominates it “that fatal license of which we cannot entertain too much horror.” Weak, indeed, must be the cause which dares not undertake its own defense; corrupt must be the Church that endeavors to shut out the light of God; insecure must be the foundations of a system of religion which dreads, and, as far as lies in its power, prohibits public discussion. And assuredly this hatred of a free press is thoroughly antagonistic to the spirit of the age.

Nor are Papists less hostile to another support of religious liberty, the education of the masses. Rome detests the very term, popular education. Her maxim is, “Ignorance is the mother of devotion and order.” Accordingly, we nowhere find in Catholic countries good public school systems. They are the glory of Protestant lands. In this respect compare Spain with England; France with Prussia; Lower Canada with New England; Ireland with Scotland. In Protestant countries the people are intelligent, thrifty, industrious, moral; in Roman Catholic nations the masses are poor, degraded, ignorant, vicious. In Canada East, it is said, not more than one in ten can read; in Italy not one in fifty. In Ireland there reigns, even in this day, the ignorance, superstition and brutality of the dark ages. In Spain, out of a population of less than sixteen millions, according to the last census, more than twelve millions can neither read nor write. Certainly none will deny that such ignorance endangers civil and religious liberty.

In face of these, and countless similar facts which might be adduced, how astounding the frequent assertions of the Papal literature of the present day! The Catholic World, a monthly magazine published in New York, actually has the hardihood to affirm that Catholicism has ever shown itself the guardian of civilization, the friend of liberty, the advocate of Republican forms of government; that it fosters science, encourages education, and places no shackles on reason. And the same periodical denounces, in unmeasured terms, the civilization of the present day, defends the Crusades, advocates the dogma of Infallibility, asserts and reasserts the immutability of the Church, fights our common school system, and is ready to deluge Italy in blood to secure the restoration of the Pope to temporal power. Does warmth of devotion to the cause of Republicanism such as this enkindle a flame on liberty’s altar? Do we broil our beefsteak by the glowing fires of an arctic iceberg? Shall we entrust the cause we love to the hands of its enemies ?

Protestantism, now as ever, boldly presents itself to the world, challenging the fullest investigation; demanding an unfettered press, an open Bible, a free platform, an untrammelled conscience, liberal education, full discussion and fair play, having faith to believe that truth will ultimately triumph. Romanism fetters the limbs of freedom, represses independence of thought, trammels conscience, cuts the nerve of individual energy, and saps the foundations of all true liberty. Father Farrel presumes to breathe the hope that Italy may be free, and is summarily decapitated. A German writes “Janus,” an unanswerable refutation of Papal infallibility ; his work is placed in the list of condemned books, and Papists forbidden to read it. Hyacinthe conscientiously endeavors to bring the Church of his love into harmony with the spirit of the age, to extract the molar teeth from the growling despot, and is excommunicated. E. Ffoulkes candidly writes his impressions of Romanism; he is excommunicated and his book condemned. Thus Popery treats her own sons.

Without religious liberty, to which Romanism has ever shown herself an enemy, civil liberty is manifestly impossible. To establish the most perfect system of Republicanism in Spain, or Ireland, would be to cast pearls before swine. Despotism, government by brute force, is the only government fitted, or in fact possible, to those who, having sold reason and conscience, are ignorant, prejudiced, superstitious, passionate, brutal. Thus the Roman Catholic Church is at once a school and an engine of despotism. So long as it retains sway, promulgating its doctrines, civil liberty is a boon beyond the reach of its subjects, nay, would in fact be, as it once proved in France, and may again soon, their greatest curse. What Catholic countries need is education, virtue and individual self-restraint, at once fitting for, and bringing after them, true, lasting, heaven-bestowed freedom.

With an apt quotation from Gattini, the noted Italian, we close this chapter:— “Civilization asks what share the Papacy has taken in its work. Is it the press? Is it electricity? Is it steam? Is it chemical analysis? Ts it free trade? Ts it self-government? Is it the principle of nationality? Is it the proclamation of the rights of man? Of the liberty of conscience? Of all this the Papacy is the negation.” *


* Father Hyacinthe, in a letter addressed to Bishops, urging reforms, says:—”The result, if these documents (the Encyclical and Syllabus) were treated seriously, would be to establish a radical incompatibility between the duty of a faithful Catholic and the duty of an impartial student and free citizen.”

Chapter IV. Popery and morality.

THE author of the “Invitation Heeded” entitles one of his chapters, “The Church the Guardian of Morals.” Whatever effect his argument may have had upon others, there is one whom it has signally failed in convincing. With even increased boldness, we now affirm that Popery is unfriendly to morality. We do not affirm that Romanists are enemies of private and public morals; nor deny that many are extremely exemplary, patterns of goodness; nor even assert that they knowingly advocate a system which is far less efficient than Protestantism in wedding its adherents to a life of morality. We make the assertion, however, without the fear of refutation, that Romanism, as a system, has failed in reforming the morals of the masses. It has been frequently said in certain quarters that Protestantism is a failure, what then shall be said of Popery? As a moral educator, her failure is deplorable. Compare Mexico and South America with the United States; Italy with New England; Spain with Scotland ; the Protestant counties of Ireland with those mostly Popish; Ulster with Tipperary.

In Roman Catholic Belgium there are, we are officially informed, eighteen murders to a million of the population; in France thirty-one; in Bavaria thirty-two; In Italy fifty-two; in Protestant England four. The illegitimate births in Brussels are thirty-five in the hundred; in Paris thirty-three; in Vienna fifty-one; in England five. In Chicago, according to the report of the Superintendent of Police, the Irish, who are about one-tenth of the entire population, supplied, in the year 1867, one hundred and seventy-four more offenders than all the other nationalities together. During the month in which the report was rendered (September), one in eight of the Catholic voters reported at the police court. Are Papists worse in Chicago than in the other cities of the Union? The Irish Republic says, “No.”

The Westminster Gazette, a Roman Catholic journal, recently made the following acknowledgment:— “The neglected children of London are chiefly our children, and the lowest of every class, whether thieves or drunkards, are Catholics.”

The Pope’s own city, it is well known, has been in the past, and is now, extremely immoral. His Holiness, Alexander VI., for eleven years the occupant of the Papal chair, the anointed head of the so-called true Church, the pretended successor of Peter, gave a splendid entertainment to fifty public prostitutes in the halls of the Holy Vatican. And in our own day no caricatures are so much enjoyed in Rome as those at the expense of the priesthood ; no stories are too astounding to be believed, if against priests and cardinals; no cry is so emphatic and frequent as this:—“Down with the priests.” When those claiming sanctity, wearing the honors of the Church, careful in the observance of her forms, and zealous in extending her influence, are, many of them, openly or secretly immoral, what is to be expected from the lower classes? If, according to one of their own historians, Baronius, “ He was usually called a good Pope, who did not excel in wickedness the worst of the human kind;” if moral character is not an essential qualification of a legitimate priest, but spiritual blessings of incalculable value may be pronounced by the tongue that an hour before, in a drunken revel, cursed its Maker; if grace flows through an unbroken succession direct from Peter, unimpeded in its blessed flow, as it streams from the jewelled fingers of a mitered monster of iniquity, then assuredly unbridled wickedness is excusable in the laity. Can they see any beauty in such holiness that they should desire it? To what organized iniquity do these remarkable words refer— “Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth?”

That profanity should prevail in Catholic countries none need wonder. The Popes have set examples that may challenge the blasphemous ingenuity of the most hardened reprobate.* Cursing—solemnly and deliberately done, but cursing none the less—seems to be one of the functions of their office. The Bull of Excommunication, dated Oct. 12, 1869, pronounces damnation upon all apostates and heretics, thus separating not only from the Church on earth, but from the Church in heaven, eight hundred millions of the human race, cutting them off, as Romanism affirms, from all rational hope of salvation. Even this, alas! does not exhaust his power of cursing. He fulminates a particular anathema against all who knowingly possess or read any book condemned by himself or his predecessors.


*Take the cursing and excommunication of the Pope’s alummaker as a specimen :—“ May God the Father curse him! May God the Son curse him! May the Holy Ghost curse him! May the Holy Cross curse him! May the Holy and Eternal Virgin Mary curse him! May St. Michael curse him! May John the Baptist curse him! May St. Peter, and St. Paul, and St, Andrew, and all the Apostles curse him! May all the martyrs and confessors curse him! May all the saints from the beginning of time to everlasting curse him! May he be cursed in the house, and in the fields! May he be cursed while living, and while dying! May he be cursed in sitting, in standing, in lying, in walking, in working, in eating, in drinking! May he be cursed in all the powers of his body, within and without! May he be cursed in the hair of his head, in his temples, his eyebrows, his forehead, his checks, and his jaw-bones, his nostrils, his teeth, his lips, his throat, his shoulders, his arms, his wrists, his hands, his breast, his stomach, his reins, . . . his legs, his feet, his joints, his nails! May he be cursed from the crown of his head to the sole of his foot! May heaven and all the powers therein rise against him to damn him, unless he repent and make satisfaction! Amen.”—Spelman’s Glossary, p. 206. If this poor man is not suffering in the deepest pit of hell, it’s not the Pope’s fault. He was well cursed. If there is any hope, even the faintest, then the righteous indignation, the foaming fulminations of an infallible Pope, are harmless; then we more fortunate heretics may safely despise the feeble anathems pronounced against us.

As the interdicted list contains books in most of the cultivated languages, both ancient and modern, and upon almost every subject—Science, History, Religion, Morals, Metaphysics, and Literature, including most of our standard classics—down go the hopes of by far the greater number of educated Papists the world over. And then too, all who impede the work of the Church, directly or indirectly, especially such as subject priests to trial before civil courts—which even Catholic nations are now doing—are honored with a special malediction, sealing the fate of many millions more. That only a select few may escape a sound cursing, other classes also are pronounced anathema, all members of secret societies—Free Masons, Odd Fellows, Orangemen, and even his own dear children, Ribbonmen and Fenians. Still further to narrow the number of the elect, a curse is pronounced upon all who hold converse with excommunicated persons, upon all guilty of simony, and upon all ecclesiastics presuming to grant absolution to excommunicants, except in the article of death. The whole immense power of the keys is exerted, it would seem, in peopling the regions of the lost. “The Infallible teacher of faith and morals,” “the only mouth-piece of divine mercy,” dams more than four-fifths of the human family.

Nor is the character of Rome’s stanch adherents, the Jesuits, any less worthy of reprehension. Having taken one of the most solemn oaths ever administered of unflinching fidelity to the interests of “Mother Church,” they are thenceforth dead to every sentiment of virtue, to every motive of honor, to every feeling of humanity, unless these are means for the accomplishment of their deep-seated schemes of Popish aggrandizement. They have no love of morality, no fear of God before their eyes, no chord of sympathy with suffering humanity; they are simply, and almost solely, unprincipled, unreasoning, but shrewd, energetic, untiring devotion to Rome. Inheriting from their illiterate founder, Ignatius Loyola, a fanaticism the blindest conceivable – and for that very reason the most intense possible—they have been during all the years of their existence one of the greatest curses Europe has been called upon to endure.*


* The Parliament of France, in ordering their expulsion from the Empire (1762), set forth their moral character as follows:— “The consequences of their doctrines destroy the law of nature; break all bonds of civil society; authorize lying, theft, perjury, the utmost uncleanness, murder and all sins! Their doctrines root out all sentiments of humanity; excite rebellion; root out all religion; and substitute all sorts of superstition, blasphemy, irreligion and idolatry.”

Lord Macaulay says :— “It was alleged, and not without foundation, that the ardent public spirit which made the Jesuit regardless of his case, of his liberty, and of his life, made him also regardless of truth and of mercy ; that no means which could promote the interests of his religion seemed to him unlawful, and that by these interests he too often meant the interests of his society. It was alleged that, in the most atrocious plots recorded in history, his agency could be distinctly traced; that, constant only in attachment to the fraternity to which he belonged, he was in some countries the most dangerous enemy of freedom, and in others the most dangerous enemy of order. . . . Instead of toiling to elevate human nature to the noble standard fixed by Divine precept and example, he had lowered the standard till it was beneath the average level of human nature. . . . In truth, if society continued to hold together, if life and property enjoyed any security, it was because common sense and common humanity restrained men from doing what the Society of Jesus assured them they might with a safe conscience do.”—Vol. i., chap. 6

Some, perhaps, may be inclined to account for the increased prevalence of crime in Roman Catholic countries, by assigning other causes than the influence of the Romish Church. But certainly human nature is the same in all lands; and while external influences and modifying circumstances may indeed in some measure affect the state of morals, it is inconceivable that these should universally operate, in all climates and in all ages, to the evident greater deterioration of lands under the rule of the Pope. The conclusion is irresistible, that these gross immoralities are the result, the natural fruit of Rome’s teaching. The whole system tends to produce exactly this state of things. When men believe that the favor of heaven can be purchased for a few paltry dimes, why should they endeavor to secure it by a life of self-denying virtue? Why follow the despised, humble and meanly-attired Jesus, in the narrow way, with few companions, when taught from early infancy to believe that the gay, the worldly, and even the immoral, being within the Church, are sure of entering the bliss of heaven? With no just sense of the heinousness of sin as a violation of divine law; with no fear of the righteous indignation of Almighty God, in fact, with conscience thoroughly debauched by the teachings of the priest, what shall restrain them from the commission of any crimes they may desire to commit? Could any system be devised better fitted to spread vice, disorder and crimes; to dissolve the bonds of society? If men were left without any religion, it is believed that even the natural conscience, unenlightened by divine revelation, would prompt to a purer code of morals than that of Rome.

Another powerful agent in producing these abounding immoralities, there can be no doubt, is the confessional. The influence of this can be only bad, both on the minds of those who recount all their sins to the confessor, and on the mind of the priest. The heart of Father Confessor is a receptacle for all the villanies and immoralities of an entire congregation. If these do not corrupt even one who holds his office under the authority of St. Peter, he must be more than human. But, alas! we have innumerable evidences all around us that priests are men of like passions with others. Defiled in mind by becoming familiar with forms of sin, the listener becomes the tempted; the tempted becomes the tempter.

And the maxims laid down for the direction of confessors in the discharge of their duties with the faithful are worthy a passing notice. “After a son has robbed his father, as a compensation, the confessor need not enforce restitution, if he has taken no more than the just recompense of his labor.” “Servants may steal from their masters as much as they judge their labor is worth more than the wages they receive.” There would seem to be some virtue in doing the deed secretly.+ Are we to infer that Papists, like the ancient Spartans, deem theft honorable, if so adroitly done as to escape detection? And how convenient the standard by which to determine how much may be taken without sin—as much as the Catholic judges his or her services worth more than the wages received. Some servants, under such instruction, learn to set a very high estimate on their labors. Not only may servants steal from their employers, but wives may from their husbands. “A woman may take the property of her husband to supply her spiritual wants, and to act as other women act.”


+The Catechism approved by French Bishops—their catechisms, like their prayer-books, are unnumbered—asks, “Is one always guilty of robbery when he takes the property of another? No. It might happen that he whose goods he takes has no right to object. For instance, when he takes in secret of his neighbor by way of compensation.”

According to the moral theology of Liguori, “To strike a clergyman is sacrilege;” but, “It is lawful for a person to sell poison to one who, he believes, will use it for bad purposes, provided the seller cannot refrain from selling it without losing his customer.” It is likewise lawful to keep a concubine, to shelter prostitutes, to rent them a house, and to carry messages between them and their gallants. “In case of doubt whether a thing which is commanded be against the commandment of God, the subject is bound to obey the command of his superior.” The same high authority assures us that gambling, betting, disobedience of parents, gluttony, vain-glory, hypocrisy, opening another’s letters, babbling, scurrility, and the ordination of drunkards and debauchees to the priesthood, are lawful under certain circumstances. Condemning the Wycliffites for opposing simony, he makes an excuse for its prevalence in the Romish Church. “A voluntary confession to a priest,” he affirms, “is a sign of contrition.”

For the practical carrying out of their cherished principle, “The end justifies the means,” the injured Catholic may read, “ If a calumniator will not cease to publish calumnies against you, you may fitly kill him, not publicly, but secretly, to avoid scandal.” Again :— “It is lawful to kill an accuser, whose testimony may jeopardize your life and honor.” And to make this code of infamous morals as convenient as possible, it is further affirmed:— “In all the above cases, when a man has a right to kill any person, another may do it for him, if affection move the murderer.”

We know it may indeed be said, these precepts are not widely known, nor generally practiced; they are only found in Rome’s books; they are merely a portion of the legacy of the dark ages, and to hold Rome to account for them is, in every sense, and to the highest degree, unfair. No, not unfair; for immutability changes not, and a Church which assumes the right to place its ban on every immoral issue from the press, to tell the world what to believe, what to read, and now to act, and has gone to the most distant publishing houses of the civilized world to drag thence for condemmation the principles of Protestantism, might surely take the trouble to expunge these and similar teachings from books written by her own sons, and once sanctioned.

The practice of the Popes in dispensing with oaths, obligations and contracts, and absolving, subjects from allegiance to their lawful sovereigns in cases where kings rebel against the authority of Rome, has had no little influence in producing immoralities. It is a principle with Rome that “no faith is to be kept with heretics.”*


* Gregory IX. decreed :—“Be it known to all who are under the dominion of heretics, that they are set free from every tie of fealty and duty to them; all oaths and solemn agreement to the contrary notwithstanding.” Pope Innocent VIII, in his bull against the Waldenses, gave his nuncio full authority “to absolve all who are hound by contract to assign and pay anything to them.” Gregory VII., in a solemn council held at Rome, enacted:—“We, following the statutes of our predecessors, do, by our Apostolic authority, absolve all those from their oath of fidelity who are bound to excommunicate persons, either by duty or oath, and we loose them from every tie of obedience.” Martin V. says:—“Be assured thou sinnest mortally, if thou keep thy faith with heretics.”

And this dogma of Roman Infallibility has on several occasions been practically interpreted. John Huss was conducted to the Council of Constance, under the solemn pledge of protection from the Emperor. The Council, however, condemned the reformer as a heretic, and ordered him to be burned at the stake. In vain the Emperor interposed, pleading his pledged word of honor. It was solemnly decreed:—”The person who has given the safe conduct to come thither shall not, in this case, be obliged to keep his promise, by whatever tie he may have been engaged;” and poor Huss perished in the flames! Did ever ingenuity in devising rules of casuistry excel this? It is only equalled by the treachery of Judas. And even he, without attempting a defense of faithlessness, exclaimed, in the bitterness of remorse, “I have sinned.” But Rome, to this day, has never expressed the slightest regret in having—not merely on this occasion, but on hundreds of others—deliberately broken faith, and consigned to the rack, the dungeon, or the flames those whose only crime was, that they loved Christ, the Bible, and a pure Christianity more than the Scarlet Mother on the seven hills of Rome.

In remembrance of such deeds, it is with a sense of holy satisfaction that the follower of Jesus reads, “Her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.” And the prayer of the devout soul is, “Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly;” vindicate truth and justice; let the angel’s voice be heard above the waves of earth’s turmoil, saying, “Is fallen, is fallen, Babylon the great.”

Did space permit we might easily prove that unblushing atheism is a natural fruit of Popery. In every Catholic country of the present day the more intelligent classes are either infidel or atheistic. Without pausing to ascertain whether Popery is condemned or taught in Scripture, but presuming it is all it claims to be, the only form of religion having the sanction of the Bible, they deliberately reject God’s Word as a guide to morality, holiness and happiness. To receive as a boon from our Father in heaven a book which, it is believed, wrongly indeed, yet firmly believed, sanctions such enormities, is justly considered a slander on the Creator. Accordingly, they look upon it as a cunningly devised fable, admirably adapted to bind the fetters of despotism on an ignorant people, precisely fitted to uphold and enrich an arrogant priesthood, but no guide to the sin-burdened soul on the way to eternal favor with God. Some, however, of the educated in Romish countries, perhaps the greater number, do not pause short of atheism. In rejecting a system of religion which cannot command even common respect, they, alas! reject also the triune God, who, although worthy the devout homage of every heart, is so dishonored by those who profess to serve him, as to be despised by those outside the Church claiming to be his. By the excesses of Popery they are drawn away from the Bible and God, and driven into atheism. Consciously or unconsciously they have reasoned, if this be the true religion of the true God (and they who claim talent, knowledge and piety so affirm), then we deliberately prefer to believe there is no God. The atheism, which, in the bloody excesses of the French Revolution, disgraced humanity, was the legitimate offspring of Romanism.

With the testimony of Coleridge as to the ruinous moral effects of Popery, we close :—”When I contemplate the whole system of Romanism as it affects the great principles of morality, the terra firma, as it were, of our humanity; then trace its operations on the sources and conditions of human strength and well being; and lastly, consider its woeful influence on the innocence and sanctity of the female mind and imagination; on the faith and happiness, the gentle fragrancy and unnoticed ever-present verdure of domestic life, I can with difficulty avoid applying to it the Rabbi’s fable of the fratricide, Cain—that the firm earth trembled wherever he trod, and the grass turned black beneath his feet.”

Chapter V. Popery unchanged.

IN some respects Popery has indeed changed, notwithstanding her boasted claim of immutability. Pius IX, the world’s “infallible teacher in faith and morals,” though the successor of Gregory VII, would find exceeding great difficulty in forcing a modern Henry IV. to stand in the court of his palace, hungry and shoeless, humbly pleading during three successive days from morning till night—the Holy Father meanwhile enjoying the society of an intelligent, beautiful, honored countess, his illegitimately endeared friend— for the superlative privilege of kissing the toe of him, “appointed of heaven to pull down the pride of kings.” Popery, so far as regards the respect it is able to command, has greatly changed since the twelfth century, when kings considered themselves honored in being permitted to lead by the bridle rein the sacred horse, or even the holy mule, that bore Christ’s Vicar. Now his Holiness begs the favors he no longer can command, soliciting Peter’s pence from those despising his anathemas; impotently imploring the support of bishops who scorn his holy indignation. Urban VIII. condemned as “perverse in the highest degree” the doctrine of the earth’s revolution. His successors, with as much grace as possible, have silently yielded to the inevitable. Now this little orb is allowed to revolve, no one, not even an infallible Pope, objecting. Formerly, and even now in countries purely popish, agencies for disseminating religious literature must incur anathema; now, as the press is a powerful agent in moulding public sentiment, the Catholic Publication Society of New York, organized with the sanction of the Pope for the express purpose of combating Protestantism with its own weapons, is issuing tracts and pamphlets which in Italy would even now, as in former times, be considered unfriendly to the sacred prerogatives of God’s vicegerent on earth.

Whilst in methods of exhibiting her temper, Rome has changed somewhat—endeavoring to put old wine into new bottles—it is undeniably true that in reality she is the same, unprincipled monster; in dogma unaltered, in spirit unbroken, unsubdued, untameable. “Those,” says Hallam, “who know what Rome has once been, are best able to appreciate what she is.” “It is most true,” says Charles Butler, “that Roman Catholics believe the doctrines of their Church unchangeable ; it is a tenet of their creed that what their faith ever has been, such it was from the beginning, such it is now, and such it ever will be.” What else could be expected from a Church claiming infallibility? To alter its dogmas, or to condemn the cruel practices of the past, would be to overturn the foundation on which it rests.

Hence we search in vain in the Encyclical Letters of the present for the slightest intimation that Popery has changed its character or purposes. Has one single decree been revoked? one solitary regret expressed for the atrocities which have made her name a synonym for cruelty? Does any doctrine once held by the Church now lack strenuous defenders? All the superstitious and idolatrous practices of the past find advocates in the present,—the adoration of the host, the invocation of saints, the granting of indulgences, the worship of the Virgin, the veneration of relics, absolution by the priest, the cursing of “all heretics, be they kings or subjects,” and detestation of “Protestantism, that damnable heresy of long standing.”

Patient waiting for a return of strength, or of a favorable opportunity, is not change of nature. The sleeping lion, with wounded paws and broken teeth, is a lion still. In most countries Romanism does indeed lack the power to execute its fiendish designs; and even in those nations almost exclusively Roman Catholic, it would be the acme of human folly to insult the untrammelled conscience of Christendom; but its principles, doctrines and spirit are in no respect changed for the better. It is simply restrained by a public sentiment which it despises and does all in its power to break down, which, however, it dares not so far disregard as to re-enact the untold horrors of the Inquisition. This would be its certain destruction. And yet, even in republican America, it is in spirit the same despotism it was in Europe. Of individual liberty, of education, of the general diffusion of gospel truth, and of government by the people, it is the same uncompromising foe it has always been.

Is the Romish Church less eager for power now than during her past history? Certainly not. Never were greater exertions made to retain the influence it has, and to recover what it has lost. The Jesuit order, which has been revived and inspired with new energy, is straining every nerve to enlarge its numbers and secure a controlling influence in legislation, especially in these United States, with the hope of ultimately bringing them under Papal domination. True to their principles —deceitful always—they laud the liberty of our country while forging the weapons for its destruction. Warmed into life by our self-denying kindness, like the fabled serpent, they are distilling deadly poison into the bosom to which they owe existence itself.

Is Rome less avaricious now than in the ages past? No. Her system which, it would seem, must have been devised for the express purpose of procuring money—each of her seven sacraments is a market, every spiritual blessing has a price—is as admirably adapted to this end, and as efficiently operated now as heretofore. And so perfect is the machinery of this iniquitous system of collecting revenues, and so successfully is it driven, that Catholicism has impoverished every country in which it has held sway. Spain pays annually out of her penury fifty millions to the Romish Church. Ireland’s poverty is traceable directly to Popery. Even from our own land large sums are annually exported to the treasury of the Pope,—last year three millions, this year all that can possibly be raised for “Peter in prison.”

Is Romanism less intolerant than formerly? The hope is vain. Her ever memorable words are: “The good must tolerate the evil, when it is so strong that it cannot be redressed without danger and disturbance to the whole Church, . . . . otherwise, where ill men, be they heretics or other malefactors, may be punished without disturbance and hazard of the good, they may and ought, by public authority, either spiritual or temporal, to be chastised or executed.” Is this less than an open declaration of determination to persecute even unto death so soon as they can obtain the power? We exist merely by tolerance, being mercifully allowed to retain our own cherished doctrines and worship God in the way that to us seems according to Scripture, simply because Rome has granted us present indulgence. But the right to chastise us with rods of iron, Holy Mother has not yielded. Her loyal sons defend every act of persecution, even all her past enormities. The Crusades are lauded. Even the Inquisition is unblushingly defended and even applauded. It is declared: “It saved society from a danger only second to that from which it was preserved by the Crusaders.” Rome is represented as the one “place on earth where error has never been permitted to have a foothold.” Protestantism is declared to be “a gigantic rebellion against the Church of God.” Accordingly, Rome establishes “the Congregation of the Inquisition” to “protect the souls of her children from the fatal pestilence of heresy and unbelief.” “ Protestantism is everywhere the intruder—the innovator.” By the right of prior occupation, “in a special manner she claims this land.” And whilst they have the right to persecute and silence us, we have scarcely the right to protest, for “Protestantism tolerating every error can make no exception against the truth.” Sublime arrogance!

With a candor that is truly refreshing, considering whence it proceeds, the Jesuits, Rome’s sworn adherents —who by intrigue and perjury and diabolical malignity have sown discord everywhere, and been thirty nine times expelled from the different countries of Europe— whilst claiming full liberty to extend the principles of their Church unmolested and even unchallenged, yet unequivocally deny that they have abandoned the right to persecute. Did ever audacity equal this? It amounts to saying that constitutional liberty must warm them into vigor, that they may have the power to inflict upon it a deadly wound. The Shepherd of the Valley, a Catholic paper published in St. Louis, with the approbation of the archbishop, says:

“The Catholic who says that the Church is not intolerant, belies the sacred spouse of Christ. The Christian who professes to be tolerant himself, is dishonest, ill-instructed, or both!”

“We say that the temporal punishment of heresy is a mere question of expediency. Where we abstain from persecuting them (the Protestants), they are well aware that it is merely because we cannot do so; or think that by doing so we should injure the cause that we wish to serve… .. If the Catholics ever gain—which they surely will do—an immense numerical majority, religious freedom in this country is at an end. So say our enemies, so we believe.”

“Heresy and unbelief are crimes, that’s the whole of the matter; and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the laws of the land, they are punished as other crimes.”

The Freeman’s Journal a few years since treated its readers to the following:—

“A Catholic temporal Government would be guided in its treatment of Protestants and other recusants, solely by the rules of expediency.. . . . Religious liberty, in the sense of liberty possessed by every one to choose his own religion, is one of the most wicked delusions ever foisted upon this age by the father of all deceit. The very word liberty, except in the sense of permission to do certain definite acts, ought to be banished from the domain of religion.”

“None but an atheist can uphold the principles of religious liberty. Short of atheism, the theory of religious liberty is the most palpable of untruths, Shall I therefore fall in with this abominable delusion and foster the notion of my fellow countrymen, that they have a right to deny the truth of God, in the hope that I may throw dust in their eyes, and get them to tolerate my creed as one of the many forms of theological opinion prevalent in these latter days?”

“Shall I hold out hopes to him that I will not meddle with his creed, if he will not meddle with mine? Shall I lead him to think that religion is a matter of private opinion, and tempt him to forget that he has no more right to his religious views than he has to my purse, or my house, or my life-blood? No! Catholicism ts the most intolerant of creeds, It is intolerance itself—for it is truth itself. We might as rationally maintain that a sane man has a right to believe that two and two do not make four, as this theory of religious liberty. Its impiety is only equaled by its absurdity.”

A Papal bull annually “excommunicates and curses —on the part of God Almighty, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost—all heretics, under whatever name they may be classed.” To such anathemas we may reply in the language of David to Shimei, “It may be the Lord will look on our affliction, and requite us good for their cursing.”

The text-books now studied in their theological seminaries are well calculated to keep alive the spirit of persecution. Dr. Den, in his “System of Theology,” a standard with Papists, affirms: “Protestants are by baptism and by blood under the power of the Romish Church. So far from granting toleration to Protestants, it is the duty of the Roman Catholic Church to exterminate their religion.” Again, “It is the duty of the Roman Catholic Church to compel Protestants to submit to her faith.” The Rhemish Testament, in its commentary on Matthew xviii. 17, declares: “Heretics therefore, because they will not hear the Church, be no better, nor no otherwise to be esteemed of Catholics, than heathen men and publicans were esteemed among the Jews.” Again, 2 Cor. vi. 14: “Generally here is forbidden conversation and dealing with all heretics, but especially in prayers and meetings at their schismatical service.” Once again: “Protestants ought by public authority, either spiritual or temporal, to be chastised or executed.” In exposition of these words, “ drunken with the blood of the saints,” these Rhemish annotators say: “The Protestants foolishly expound it of Rome, for that there they put heretics to death, and allow of their punishment in other countries; but their blood is not called the blood of saints, no more than the blood of thieves, man-killers, and other malefactors, for the shedding of which by order of justice no commonwealth shall answer.” Liguori, in his “ Moral Theology,” a work very highly prized in their theological seminaries, says: “As the Church has the right of compelling parents to hold to the faith, so she has the power of taking their children from them.” Canon XII. of the recent Ecumenical Council affirms :—“If any think that Christ, our Lord and King, has only given to his Church a power to guide, by advice and permission, but not ordain by laws, to compel and force by anterior judgments, and salutary inflictions, those who thus separate themselves, let them be anathema.” Surely, in language at least, Rome is no less intolerant than in the centuries past. And doctrines such as these are taught to youth in this land of Protestant liberty!

And Rome’s actions, as well as her teachings, unmistakably evince the same unchanged spirit. Jewish parents in Rome employ a Catholic nurse. Their infant son is clandestinely baptized by a Popish priest. Henceforth it is the child of the Church. Stolen from the home of its parents—who in vain demand the God-given right to their child—immured in a monastery, carefully instructed in the doctrines of Popery, the Jewish dog, transmuted into a priest, Mortara, at manhood enters the world thanking God that His true church is a babystealer.

Raffaele Ciocci, honorary librarian of a Papal college in Rome, is entrapped by Jesuits into a monastery. Infallibility, carefully instructing him in the mysteries of Romanism, designs him for a missionary to distant lands steeped in the ignorance of Protestantism. Becoming, through the instrumentality of God’s blessed Word, a determined enemy of the Papacy, death is decreed against him. With Jesuitical hypocrisy, under the cloak of friendship, a poisoned beverage is handed him. Saved by a timely antidote, he seeks release from the iron grasp of his inhuman persecutors by appealing to the Pope. This only rendering his situation doubly more intolerable, he finally consents to sign a recantation in the hope of effecting an escape. Landing, in the year 1842, on the shores of free England, he is watched and dogged by Franciscans and Jesuits, and every available means employed to entangle him again in the cruel snares of Romanism. In his revelations of the Man of Sin, Ciocci has conclusively proved that Popery in this nineteenth century is the same uncompromising foe of the Gospel, the same bitter persecutor, unchanged and unchangeable.

We must content ourselves with a mere reference to most of the recent cases of Popish intolerance. Protestants, and especially American Protestants, ought not to forget the cruel persecutions of the unhappy inhabitants of Lower Valais, Switzerland, where, in 1845, the Jesuits after innumerable iniquitous proceedings, signalized their triumph by the passage of a law prohibiting all Protestant worship, public and social; forbidding God’s people to meet for the reading of his Word even in their own houses. And in what language shall we characterize the banishment, in 1837, of 400 Protestants from one of the States of Austria on the simple charge of refusing Papal supremacy?—or the imprisonment, in 1843, of Dr. Kally, a Scottish physician, on the island of Madeira?—or the sentence of death pronounced against one of his converts, Maria Joaquina, for “maintaining that veneration should not be given to images, denying the real presence of Christ in the sacred host, and blaspheming the Most Holy Virgin, Mother of God?” And assuredly every lover of liberty will bear in sad remembrance the history of the lengthy imprisonment, cruelty and protracted sufferings of the Madiai family; the studied persecution, arrest, impoverishment, imprisonment, and sufferings of Matamoros in a loathsome cell —where in sickness he was refused a physician and even medicine; his condemnation to the galleys for nine years on the testimony of suborned witnesses; his banishment from Spain, to which his throbbing heart and enfeebled voice would fain have proclaimed, “Salvation is of the Lord,” and his triumphant death in Switzerland, whither he had gone in the faint hope of sending some message of life to his endeared countrymen enslaved by the superstitions of Rome. Even our own land within a few years, for aught we know, may have given a martyr to the truth. Bishop Reese of Michigan, charged with ecclesiastical error, entered Rome in response to the citation of the Pope. So far as the world knows, he entered eternity the day he stepped within the magic circle of the heartless Inquisition.

Until the present year—and for the change no thanks to Popery—Protestant worship was prohibited in Rome. Did ever intolerance equal this? While allowed in England and the United States to hold their services, build churches, found monasteries, establish theological seminaries, collect enormous sums of money for transmission to the Pope, and foment insurrection and rebellion against the Governments whose protection they claim, they will not permit Protestant worship even in a private house where they have the power to prevent it. The foreign resident who dares to join with his countrymen in worshipping God according to the forms of worship to which he has been attached from youth, places himself “in the power of the Inquisition, both for arrest and imprisonment,” and is earnestly advised, unless he courts exile or a dungeon, “never again to repeat these illegal acts.”

Another fact evincing the present spirit of Popery claims attention. A full regiment of Canadians, a few years since, proffered their services to aid in upholding the temporal power of the Pope. The spirit of Peter the Hermit still lives. From every Catholic pulpit in Canada appeals were made for aid for Pius IX. in his embarrassments. With every Catholic newspaper office a recruiting station, and with a central committee to secure unity of action, volunteers offered themselves in greater numbers than were needed. On the day of their departure an address was delivered by Archbishop McCloskey:— “You are going to stand with others like you, as a rampart of defense and a tower of strength around the presence of your Holy Father, to protect his safety and defend his rights.” Defend his rights; his right to steal the children of heretics, to imprison Protestants, to prevent all forms of worship except Popish, to fetter freedom, to curse the institutions of modern liberty, to trample on the dearest hopes of the Italian people, and keep them, though longing for escape, in the grossest ignorance, under the severest despotism, in the most abject poverty!

The Archbishop continues :

“They (Catholics in the United States) are as strongly devoted to the sustenance and maintenance of the temporal power of the Holy Father as Catholics in any part of the world; and if it should be necessary to prove it by acts they are ready to do so. . . If that policy (non-interference) should ever change to a sympathy with the Italians as against the Holy Father, then Catholics must be prepared to show their readiness by acts as well as words, to give their lives, if necessary, for their Holy Father.”

This first crusade failed. And now, forsooth, the tocsin is sounding a grander, a world-wide crusade. From all the nations that on earth do dwell, the faithful, for multitude like the swarms of flies in Egypt of old, are to meet at some designated spot, proceed to Italy, wipe out the rebellious sons of Holy Mother, and restore Pius IX. to the throne from which he has been ejected by the almost unanimous voice of his own people. Festinate. “Whom the gods design to destroy, they first make mad.” In this holy work the Catholics of these United States—those ardent friends of popular Government, who so loudly proclaim that every nation, even every State has the right to the choice of its own government—are expected, and are preparing, by firing their enthusiasm by volumes of wordy protests—they have all turned Protestants at last—to take a prominent part, the highest seat in the synagogue of war.

We have authority stamped with the signet of infallibility for asserting that the first allegiance of the Catholic of the United States is due not to our Government, but to the Pope. We are explicitly told that we are protecting an organization which holds itself ready at any time to obey the commands of a foreign despot.*


*The Tablet, in a recent issue, asks:—Is the American idea higher than this Church idea? No Catholic can pretend it; for to him the Church idea is divine, and nothing is, or can be, higher than God, who is Supreme Creator, proprietor and Lord of all things, visible and invisible. If, then, between the Church or Catholic idea, and the American idea, there should happen to be a collision, which should give way, the lower or higher? The Catholic idea being supreme, must be the law, the universal standard of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, and consequently all ideas, whether Celtic or Saxon, English or American, that contradict it, or do not accord with it, are to be rejected as false and wrong, as repugnant to the supreme law of God, even to God himself, and not to be entertained for a moment.”

Certainly, on the question of intolerance and detestation of civil and religious liberty, none can charge Rome with vacillation. If language and actions express the determination of the will, and the desire of the heart, we may certainly be excused for believing the assertion of our Catholic friends :— “If the Catholics EVER GAIN AN IMMENSE NUMERICAL MAJORITY, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THIS COUNTRY IS AT AN END.”

Since Popery is an outgrowth of the depraved heart, may we not expect that it will remain essentially unchanged, so long as human nature remains unaltered? Are we not taught in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and Daniel’s vision, and Paul’s prophecy, that this giant evil shall afflict the world until the dawn of the millennium?*


* But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion to consume and to destroy it unto the end.”—Dan. 7:26.

“And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” “ Unto the end,” “shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.”The best Commentators say, till Christ’s Second Advent.—2 Thess. 2:8.

By gradually undermining the foundations of a simple faith in the unadulterated Gospel, Popery established itself as the desperate and malignant foe of all that is life-giving in the spiritual religion of Christ, all that is ennobling in the liberty it inspires. And how otherwise than by gradual destruction can the doctrines and superstitions of millions of human beings be utterly consumed? Their overthrow “in an hour” would not produce in the hearts of the enslaved instantaneous detestation of these follies and errors. Rome’s temporal power is indeed gone, perhaps forever, but her spiritual despotism is still complete, and may continue nearly or quite the same for centuries. So long as there are those who are willing to be victims of spiritual thraldom, there will no doubt be those who are ready to enslave them. Consume the hated organization today, and tomorrow another, phoenix-like, will spring from its ashes. Love of power, and preference of the forms of devotion to the spirit, will no doubt continue— calling for the unceasing labors of God’s people—till the river of time issues into the ocean of eternity.

We may, therefore, expect in the future what we have witnessed in the past—an unceasing struggle. Many complications may arise. Often victory may seem to perch on the banners of the enemy. Many hopes will be crushed, the hearts of God’s people “failing them for fear, and for looking after those things that are coming upon the earth.” Since, however, we have witnessed in the last three centuries the gradual decay of Popery, may we not confidently rejoice in the hope that He who delights to write on the page of history the evidence of his far-reaching designs will, in his own time, strike the final blow, causing this gigantic system of falsehood to dissolve like mist before the rising sun? Ours is the task of hoping, laboring, praying, till even in Rome spiritual liberty shall dawn on civil,

“Like another morning risen on mid-noon.”
“How long, O Lord our God,
Holy, and true and good,
Wilt Thou not judge Thy suffering Church,
Her sighs, and tears, and blood?”

THE END.




The Papal System – IV. Councils For Seven Centuries Repudiate Papal Jurisdiction

The Papal System – IV. Councils For Seven Centuries Repudiate Papal Jurisdiction

Continued from III. The Ancient Scottish Church

THE POPES HAD NO SUPREMACY OF JURISDICTION IN THE GREAT COUNCILS OF THE FIRST SEVEN CENTURIES.

For fifteen hundred years a general council has been the chief center of authority, the chief source of hope to the Church of Rome. It is supposed that a universal synod is governed by the Holy Spirit, and reaches infallible conclusions; and, therefore, ordains laws that must work for the best interests of the Christian world.

In modern times, the pope calls a council, and presides over it by deputies; no question can be discussed in it without the permission of his representatives; its decisions are worthless till he confirms them; from beginning to end, it is his abject slave. And he claims the widest range of authority over these judicatories. Leo X., in 1512, with the approbation of his Lateran Synod, says:

    “That the Roman Pontiff, for the time being, as one who has authority over all councils, hath alone the full right and power of convening, transferring, and dissolving councils; and this not only from the testimony of Holy Scripture, the sayings of the holy fathers, and the decrees of our predecessors, and of the sacred canons, but also by the proper confession of councils themselves, is manifest.”

Pius II., elevated to the popedom in 1458, says:

    “Among general councils we find nothing ratified without the authority of the pope, when one was reigning, because the Church is not a body without a head, from which all power flows to the members.”

For centuries, the doctrine has been firmly held, and sometimes haughtily expressed, that the birth, life, death, and toils of a council, by the decree of Jehovah himself, depended on the Roman Pontiff. For seven centuries of the Christian era

THE BISHOP OF ROME HAD NO MORE POWER IN A GENERAL COUNCIL THAN OTHER BISHOPS.

This declaration is capable of being sustained by any amount of evidence. From a very early day the bishop of the chief city of the world-embracing empire of Rome, in virtue of his place of residence, was held in high esteem, his name was placed first in a list of bishops, and his opinion was naturally enough received with great attention. But when you examine his power as he sits in person, or by delegates beside his brethren in councils, he is weak as other men in the episcopal office.

The first great synod which ever sat was a convention of the highest importance. It met to compose the bitter differences excited by the Arian controversy. It convened to show in its composition, workings, and claims what all coming ecumenical councils should be; it assembled at

Nice, A.D. 325.

The number of bishops attending it is variously represented from 250 to 318. The place in which its sessions were held was a room in the imperial palace. Many bishops were there who still enjoyed the power of working miracles—one of them had raised the dead, The bitter persecution of Licinius had maimed or scarred many of them: some had their right eyes torn out, some their right hands cut off; and some by holding hot iron had lost the use of both hands. The Council of Nice had largely the appearance of an assembly of martyrs. When they met in their chamber, a low chair of gold was placed in the center of the hall, and the Emperor, the first Christian sovereign in the world, of unusual height, of majestic aspect, attired in the gorgeous robes of Roman royalty, entered the meeting and sat upon the seat of gold. It was a scene never to be forgotten by these victims of heathen cruelty, who had witnessed the butchery of so many of the saints of God. The human master of the nations, with a sword of victory, was now the leader and protector of the Christian Church! The council made the celebrated Nicene Creed, condemned Arianism, and issued twenty canons. After their toils they returned to their homes laden with imperial gifts, and cheered with bright hopes.

The Roman pontiff was not present in the council at any of its meetings. He was represented by two presbyters, named Vito and Vicentius, who took no remarkable part in its proceedings. There were a score of bishops there whose influence was greater than that of the aged bishop of the Eternal City.

Constantine himself managed the council. There is ground for doubting whether it had any other president during most of its discussions; though several persons are said to have occupied this position. He delivered exhortations to the council. He heard the propositions of all with patience and attention; reasoned with them, appealed to them, encouraged them, and exercised such a marvellous influence over them that he led the whole assembly to one mind respecting disputed questions. And for the time he became the ruler of the council, and the common father of Christendom.

Accusations were made in writing, against a number of bishops, to be presented to the council through Constantine. He placed them all in a package and sealed them up without looking at them; and when the factions were reconciled he brought out these documents and burned them before the parties concerned, declaring upon oath that he had not read them; by which he showed plainly that he was master of the council, and regulated the questions which it should debate.

Constantine summoned its members together; and they came at the voice of no ecclesiastic in the east or the west. Commanded by their Emperor they came to the city called Victory, and held the first general council under the auspices of a secular prince.

Nor had the Roman pontiff anything to do with the presidency of the council. When Constantine entered the apartment used by the bishops, and occupied his golden chair, “the great Eustathius, bishop of Antioch,” first spoke, and took occasion to compliment the Emperor in the most flattering terms, Evidently according to Theodoret, who records the speech of the Bishop of Antioch, he was the leader of the council. Du Pin says: “It is very probable that it was Hosius who held the chief place in the Council of Nice in his own name, because he had already taken cognizance of this affair, and was much esteemed by the Emperor.” Du Pin Yearning is universally recognized; and when it is remembered that he was a Catholic, and that he gives it as his conviction that a Spanish bishop, in his own name, was probably the first officer of the first general council, it must appear very evident that the pope had nothing to do with managing the bishops at Nice.

The sixth canon of the Council of Nice has given for centuries the greatest trouble to the advocates of papal jurisdiction over the churches of the world, and no effort has been spared to destroy its force. This celebrated article gives the same authority over his province which the bishop of Rome enjoyed in his see to the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and by its terms it shows clearly that the Roman pontiff was simply on a level with his brother bishops in the East. The canon is:

    “Let the ancient customs prevail which are in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; that the Bishop of Alexandria have authority over all, since this is customary also to the Bishop of Rome. In like manner also as regards Antioch, and in all other provinces, let the churches preserve their dignity. This is altogether certain, that if any one become a bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great synod has determined that he ought not to be a bishop.”

From this decision of the first and purest synod that ever was held, the patriarchs of eastern provinces are authorized to perpetuate in their respective dioceses the authority conferred by ancient customs; and this authority is declared to be according to the usage of the Bishop of Rome. Du Pin says: The most natural sense that can be given to it is this:

    “We ordain that the ancient custom shall be observed which gives power to the Bishop of Alexandria over all the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, because the Bishop of Rome has the like jurisdiction over all the suburbicary regions. We would likewise have the rights and privileges of the church of Antioch, and the other churches preserved; but these rights ought not to prejudice those of the Metropolitans.”

It is not a cause for astonishment that the popes should hate a canon which placed them on the same platform with prominent prelates of the East; and which, if carried out everywhere, would strip them of their entire sovereignty over the Church.

Constantine confirmed the decrees of the Council of Nice, and immediately they became binding throughout the whole Christian world; and he recommended universal obedience to decrees in themselves so important and reached in so much unity.

No one in those days imagined that the confirmation of the canons of Nice by the Roman Bishop was essential to their validity. It was, however, a common practice to solicit the ratification of the decrees of a council by all absent bishops; not with a view to give them legal authority, but for the purpose of increasing the respect in which they might be held. As among ourselves, when a petition is adopted and unanimously signed at a public meeting, but still other names are wanted, and absent parties are invited to append their signatures, so after a general synod adjourned it was common to invite all bishops who were not present to endorse its decrees, And through this practice the number of bishops at councils has frequently been greatly magnified; the calculation being based upon the names appended to its canons. In this way the Council of Sardica is occasionally represented as having three hundred bishops at its meetings, when it had about half that number; the balance came from the absent who subscribed its documents.

Constantine himself recommended the Nicene decrees to all bishops, and he undertakes to secure their assent to them. Pope Liberius recommended to Constantius: “That the faith delivered at Nice might be confirmed by the subscription of all bishops.” The Council of Sardica, after the completion of their work, wrote to the “bishops of every nation commanding them to confirm these decrees.” When we look at the party calling the Synod of Nice, at its probable presiding officer, at the character of its sixth canon, at the confirmation of its decrees by Constantine, at the entire absence of allusions in any form to papal jurisdiction over the Churches, we cannot be mistaken in the assertion that the pope had no supremacy in authority in the days of the first Christian Emperor.

If in the time of the Council of Nice, or if during the first few years after its dissolution, there was any man in the Christian world who seemed to be the “Head” of the Church rather than another, Hosius, Bishop of Cordova in Spain, has the strongest claim to that position. At the outbreak of the Arian controversy, when Constantine became anxious about its angry results, he determined to send a man of commanding influence into Egypt, whose mission might quiet the animosities of Alexander and Arius, and out of all Christendom he selected Hosius to transact, as he regarded it, the most important business claiming his attention in any part of his dominions. Speaking of the mission to Alexander and Arius, Sozomen says:

    “The emperor deputed one who was honored for his faith, his virtuous life, and his steadfast confession of truth, to put an end to the strife which existed in Egypt. This man was Hosius, Bishop of Cordova.”

Eusebius, describing the same circumstance, says:

    “He selected from the Christians in his train one whom he well knew to be approved for the sobriety and genuineness of his faith; and who had before this time distinguished himself by the boldness of his religious profession, and sent him to act as mediator between the dissentient parties at Alexandria.”

In describing the distinguished bishops at the Council of Nice, Eusebius classes Hosius among the most illustrious. “Even from Spain itself,” says he, “one whose fame was widely spread took his seat as an individual in the great assembly.” The Council of Sardica, in their synodical letter, speak of the bishops forming that body “As worthy of honor and respect, particularly the venerable Hosius, on account of his advanced age, his adherence to the faith, and his labors in the church.”

Hosius, beyond a doubt, was for some years the leading bishop in the Christian world, with the sovereign and the people. The celebrated Athanasius, as quoted by Theodoret, says:

    “It is unnecessary that I should speak of the great Hosius,that aged and faithful confessor of the faith; of all the bishops he is the most illustrious. What council can be mentioned in which he did not preside, and convince all present by the power of his reasoning? What church does not still enjoy the glorious effects of his ministration?”

This great man who, according to Du Pin, presided at the first Council of all the Churches held at Nice, and at the Council of Sardica, though the pope had delegates there to represent him, and who, according to Athanasius, was the chief officer of all the councils, has evidence to prove that he was the Head of the Church, far exceeding anything accorded to the Roman bishops in the first seven centuries.

Sardica.

This council met A. D. 345, or as others say A. D. 347. It was convoked by the emperors Constans and Constantius, as its own episcopal members declare. Theodoret tells us that it had 250 bishops when it convened. The object of the council was to compose difficulties agitating the Church in connection with Athanasius, Marcellus, and the Arian controversy. The eastern bishops, taking umbrage at the composition of the council, withdrew in a body. The western bishops, with Hosius as their president, proceeded to legislate as a General Synod. The most important business transacted by this council was the enactment of three canons, the spirit of which is admirably presented by Du Pin:

    “They do not,” says he, “give the Bishop of Rome power to judge the cause of a bishop in his own tribunal at Rome; they only give him authority to inquire whether it were well or ill determined, and in case he find that it was determined wrong, to order a new decision of it in the country, and by the neighboring bishops of the province where it was determined, whither he might send legates in his own name to be present, if he thought it convenient.”

Du Pin frankly declares that, “The discipline which these fathers establish is new.” It was never heard of in the Christian Church till the Convention at Sardica, And though the jurisdiction conferred on the Roman Bishop was very slender, not authorizing him to judge any ecclesiastic outside the diocese of Rome, but simply giving him power to order a new trial by bishops adjoining the offender in cases in which he believed that an unjust sentence had been imposed, yet it excited the bitterest opposition. In fact, the recognition of such an authority in the pope was one of the chief causes of that separation which finally divided the churches of the East and West.

The Council of Sardica, on account of the retirement of the eastern bishops, was never recognized in that section of the world. And as Du Pin says of its decrees:

    “They were never put in the code of the canons of the universal Church, approved by the Council of Chalcedon. The East never received them, neither would the bishops of Africa own them. The popes only used them, and cited them under the name of the Council of Nice, to give them the greater weight and authority.”

The popes for centuries practised this detestable deception, and not only quoted them as canons of Nice, but gave them a latitude of application, equally astonishing and iniquitous. Only the bishops of the West united in the effort to honor a brother prelate; and of course the sole reason why Rome was preferred to Cordova was that the City of the Seven Hills was the old capital of the empire of the Caesars.

Constantinople.

The second council received as general met at Constantinople A.D. 381. It was summoned by the Emperor Theodosius to calm the troubles excited by the heresy of Macedonius. This man taught that the Son of God is not of the same substance as the Father, but that he resembles him in every particular. He also affirmed that the Holy Spirit is a creature. His followers were numerous and influential. The council condemned the Macedonian and some other heresies, and made some changes in the Nicene creed. One of their principal acts was to place the See of Constantinople next in point of dignity with the bishopric of Rome. Their canon was: “Let the Bishop of Constantinople have rank next after the Bishop of Rome, for Constantinople is new Rome.”

Now in this canon the reason for the elevation of Constantinople is given: it is because it is new Rome. What is the meaning of this designation? It certainly does not imply that Peter had founded the Church of new Rome, and after having labored on the banks of the Tiber, had conferred equal honor on the city of Constantine. But it does mean that as the Roman Bishop had the highest rank among prelates, because his residence was the capital of the empire, so Constantinople, being now the seat of the Emperor’s government, the consideration which gave old Rome its ecclesiastical rank, must stand in church honors next to the city of Romulus. This is the view of the historian Sozomen, who, commenting A.D. 450 on this canon, says: “Constantinople was not only favored with this appellation (new Rome), but was also in the enjoyment of many privileges, such as a senate of its own (like old Rome), and the division of the citizens into ranks and orders; it was also governed by its own magistrates, and possessed contracts, laws, and immunities similar to those of Rome in Italy.”

Evidently the point of comparison between the two cities was that each had been the seat of government. The canon implies that this circumstance had given the pope his sacerdotal standing, and on this account the Bishop of new Rome must appear next him in church dignity. The Roman pontiff had nothing to do with calling this council, presiding over it, or inspiring its canons. Nor did his see reap any honor from its decrees— especially from the one which we have given.

Ephesus.

The Council of Ephesus met a. p. 431. It was summoned by the Emperor Theodosius to condemn the so-called heresy of Nestorius. He had taught that Mary was not the “Mother of God” but the mother of Christ, that “That could not be called God which admitted of being two months old or three months old.” His idea was that the Godhead of the Son dwelt merely in the body of Christ, so that he was composed of two persons. These opinions excited general horror.

Two hundred bishops gathered at Ephesus to try Nestorius, and in due time they condemned him. Cyril was President of the Council. The imperial letter convoking the council was addressed to “Cyril and the presidents of the holy churches in every quarter.” In this council, for the first time, a practice was introduced by the pope which very cunningly increased his power, and at the same time flattered his friend. As one man in some financial corporations can cast the vote of another who is absent, so Celestine, Bishop of Rome, authorized Cyril to represent him as well as himself in the Synod of Ephesus, and Cyril, to increase his own importance, seems to have yielded to the temptation. But Cyril was master of the council without the aid of Celestine; the Emperor’s summons addressed to “Cyril and the presidents of the holy churches in every quarter” proclaimed to all the favor which Theodosius had for Cyril; and his desire that he should be first bishop in the approaching Synod.

Chalcedon.

The next General Council was summoned by the Emperor Marcian in a. D. 451. It met first at Nice, and was transferred to Chalcedon. It was composed of 630 bishops. It was called to dispose of the heresy of the monk Eutyches. He denied that the Saviour had two natures; he insisted that the body born of the virgin was not real flesh and blood, but merely the appearance of it, so that he had no suffering.

The council met in the church of St. Euphemia, directly opposite Constantinople. This holy place consists of three immense buildings. One is open to the sky, including a court of great extent, and adorned on all sides with columns; and next to it there is another structure resembling it in length, breadth, and columns, but with a protecting roof. On the north of this, and facing the east, stood a circular building, skilfully terminating in a dome, and surrounded in the interior with beautiful columns which support a gallery. Under the dome, at the eastern side, is a splendid enclosure, within which are guarded the sacred remains of Euphemia, the saint and martyr. They are preserved in a long coffin of silver, ingeniously made, The mightiest prodigies are said to have been wrought by these relics.

Here the emperor, ecclesiastics, and multitudes from New Rome are accustomed to gather at stated times; and, through a little door which can be opened, the priests introduce an iron rod with a sponge on the end, which they turn around several times, and withdraw covered with stains and clots of blood. The clots are permanent; the blood retains its color, and the greatest blessings rest on those who possess the gory sponge. And the quantity obtained is so great that a liberal distribution is made to the sovereign, priests, people, and distant friends. But the most curious part of, the story is that St. Euphemia frequently appears in a dream to the bishops and others, inviting them to come and “gather a vintage” among her bones. Leo, the Bishop of old Rome, urges Marcian to call this council, showing that he had no authority to issue such a summons. And Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome, was lacking neither in ability nor in audacity in exacting what was due his see, and something more when circumstances favored him.

Pope Leo had three representatives in the council, Paschasinus and Lucentius, bishops, and the presbyter Boniface. Marcian was the master-spirit of the assembly. Eusebius, for himself and others, demanded that a petition should be read in the council, addressed to the emperors, and he ended with this appeal:

    “And this we will do on the issuing of your divine and revered mandates to the holy and universal synod of the bishops, highly beloved of God, to the effect that they should give a formal hearing to the matters which concern both us and the before-mentioned Dioscorus, and refer all the transactions to the decision of your piety, as shall seem fit to your immortal supremacy. If we obtain this, our request, we shall ever pray for your everlasting rule, most divine sovereigns.”

And the imperial commissioners who had charge of the council granted the request. In fact, there was nothing done in the council without them or their master Marcian. The form of one decision of the senators of the council is:

    “It seems to us, according to God’s good pleasure, to be a just proceeding, if approved by our most divine and pious sovereign, that Dioscorus, the most reverent Bishop of Alexandria; Juvenalis, the most reverent Bishop of Jerusalem; Thalassius, the most reverent Bishop of Ceesarea, in Cappadocia; Eusebius, the most reverent Bishop of Ancyra; Eustathius, the most reverent Bishop of Berytus; and Basilius, the most reverent Bishop of Seleucia, in Isauria, who exercised sway and precedency in that synod (a synod of Ephesus), should be subjected to the self-same penalty, by suffering at the hands of the holy synod deprivation of their episcopal dignity, according to the canons; whatever is consequent hereupon, being submitted to the cognizance of the emperor’s sacred supremacy.”

Du Pin states the situation exactly: “This council was held in the great church of St. Euphemia, the emperor’s commissioned officers and the counsellors of state being present, who were to direct all their motions. On their right, the Bishop of Alexandria and others; and on their left the pope’s delegates.” To them the speakers addressed themselves, and by them all questions were decided except a few more serious cases, which they submitted to the Emperor himself. The Council of Chalcedon was more an advisory convention, called by their sovereign, to give him their opinions, which he might accept or decline, than an independent deliberative assembly. No body could strike heavier blows at, the divine supremacy of the Roman See than the renowned Synod of St. Euphemia. The 9th canon says:

    “If one clergyman have a matter against another, let him not leave his own bishop and go to the secular courts; but first let him lay open the cause before his own bishop; or else, with the consent of the same bishop, before those who shall be chosen by both parties. But if any one shall do contrary to this, let him be subjected to canonical censure. If any clergyman have a matter against his own bishop, or against another, let it be judged by the synod of the province. But if a bishop or clergyman have a dispute with the metropolitan of the province, let him have access either to the exarch (a bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church) of the diocese, or to the throne of the imperial Constantinople, and let it be there judged.”

Here there is no appeal to Rome. In the courts to which an injured ecclesiastic may carry his case, Rome has no place whatever, The throne of imperial Constantinople is either the throne of the Emperor or the throne of the Patriarch of new Rome, and, in either case, there is an utter prohibition of appeals by ecclesiastics beyond the city of Constantinople; and that, too, by the largest and most respectable council of all antiquity. It is commonly supposed that the throne of the Bishop of Constantinople is referred to, and that it makes him the final judge of all disputes among clergymen.

The 28th canon of Chalcedon occupies the most important place in its entire transactions. By it the honor paid the Bishop of Rome in ecclesiastical matters is expressly declared to be given, not because Peter was first Bishop of Rome, or the pontiff the vicar of Christ, or Peter the rock on which the Church was built; Christians had not yet fallen into that sleep in which they had these dreams; but because ROME WAS THE IMPERIAL CITY. The canon reads:

    “We, everywhere following the decrees of the holy fathers, and acknowledging the canon which has been just read of the 150 bishops, most dear to God, do also ourselves decree and vote the same things concerning the precedency of the most holy Church of Constantinople,—New Rome; for the fathers, with reason, gave precedency to the throne of old Rome, because it was the imperial city; and the 150 bishops beloved of God, moved by the same consideration, awarded EQUAL PRECEDENCY TO THE MOST HOLY THRONE OF NEW ROME, reasonably judging that a city which is honored with the government and senate should enjoy equal rank with the ancient queen Rome; and, like her, be magnified in ecclesiastical matters, having the second place after her; but so that the metropolitans alone of the Pontic, Asiatic and Thracian dioceses, and also the bishops among the barbarians in the said dioceses, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the Holy Church of Constantinople, to wit: that each metropolitan of the said dioceses, with the bishops of the province, should ordain the bishops of the province, as it is stated in the divine canons; but that the metropolitans of the said dioceses, as has been said, be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, where there has been an agreement in the election, according to custom, and a report been made to him.”

The grand foundation of the spiritual supremacy of the pontiff for many centuries has been its supposed divine origin. Such a doctrine was entirely unknown in the councils of the first seven centuries, when the Church was measurably pure. A certain amount of rank was given to the Bishop of Rome, but wholly on the ground that his city was THE IMPERIAL CITY. And by the decree just quoted, Constantinople is raised to equal authority with the ancient queen Rome in ecclesiastical matters.

Rome, at the Council of Chalcedon, made strenuous efforts to acquire power over the churches; through the far-seeing Leo, she had letters written to move the council in her favor. A portion from one of these, written by Placidia, the mother of Theodosius, says: “Seeing it becometh us in all things to preserve the dignity of this chief city, which is the mistress of all others.”

For this reason, Placidia and Eudoxia, the empresses, endeavored to maintain the dignity of the Roman See. This is the starting point of all the power Rome ever acquired over the nations. The Synod of Chalcedon, “the greatest of all ancient synods,” gave no other, knew none besides. Du Pin says: “The 28th canon grants to the Church of Constantinople, which is called New Rome, the same privileges with old Rome, because this city is the second city in the world.”

The Fifth General Council was held at Constantinople.

It met A.D. 553. It was called by Justinian the younger, and it was composed of 165 bishops. “It condemned and anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, also whatever Theodoret had impiously written against the right faith, against the twelve chapters of the sainted Cyril, against the first holy synod at Ephesus, and all that be has written in defence of Theodore and Nestorius; it also anathematized the epistle said to have been written by Ibas to Maris, the Persian.” Vigilius, Bishop of Rome, was in Constantinople during the sessions of the council, but refused to attend its meetings, or to subscribe to its decrees, for which he was sent into exile, until finally, as an illustration of papal infallibility, he changed his mind and gave his approbation to the measures of the synod. Through bribing the celebrated general Belisarius, Vigilius secured his own election to the papal throne, and the deposition of Silverius, and he rendered his title unquestionable by putting Silverius, his predecessor, to death. Of this council Du Pin says: “Eutychius, patriarch of Constantinople, held the first place in it.” Nothing flattering to papal supremacy occurred in the Fifth General Council.

The Sixth General Council was held at Constantinople.

It met A.D. 680. It was called by the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus. It had 160 bishops in attendance during its later meetings. It held eighteen sessions. “The Emperors occupied the first place in its gatherings.” The great patriarchs were either present or represented by delegates. The council was specially convened to condemn a new heresy, a species of the Eutychian, by which it was taught that: In the union of the two natures of Christ, there was but one will, from which circumstance the advocates of this theory were called Monothelites. This general council condemned Honorius, Pope of Rome, and anathematized him as a heretic. The words of the council are:

    “In addition to these, we acknowledge also Honorius, who was formerly pope of old Rome, to be amongst those cast out of the holy Church of God and anathematized, because we find from his letter to Sergius that he altogether followed his opinions, and confirmed his impious dogmas.”

Strong language for an infallible council to use about a pope of Rome. And in the 17th action of the council, “they all exclaimed, “Anathema to the heretic Honorius!”

The popes of Rome themselves have denounced this unhappy successor of Peter. Leo II. says: “He did not only favor the new heresy by his silence and negligence, but did suffer the apostolic traditions to be sullied and defiled by a contrary doctrine,” for which conduct Leo condemned him. In the Liber Diurnus, we find that the successors of Honorius were regularly in the habit of cursing him. So that, though incapable of error in matters of faith, he was anathematized by the popes following him as an unmitigated heretic. Surely this council showered few distinctions on Rome.

A very important Council was held in Constantinople in a. D. 692.

This convention ought to be the Seventh General Council, it had more claim to the character of a general synod than several to which this title and character have been given. It was called by Justinian II., and was attended by about 200 bishops; among its members were representatives of the Bishop of Rome; and the other great patriarchs were present in person. This council met in a tower of the Emperor’s palace called Trullo, from which it sometimes takes its name. It was called Quini-Sextum, because it was regarded as a supplement to the fifth and sixth councils. It made 102 canons. The 36th renews the canons of Constantinople, granting the church of Constantinople the same privileges as the church of old Rome, the same authority in ecclesiastical affairs, and the second place in honor. The third, it gave to Alexandria, the fourth to Antioch, the fifth to Jerusalem. The Greek Church recognized this body as a general council, but because it interfered with some of their customs and claims, the Latins rejected its authority. Its decrees were signed by all present, including the Emperor, whose name appears first.

We think any candid mind will conclude that the great councils of the first seven centuries, including the synod of Sardica, which, though not a general synod, was a highly important body, give no claim whatever to the Bishops of Rome to supremacy over the churches of Christendom. A place of honor was readily conceded to the popes as the prelates of the imperial city, but a position of power, of jurisdiction was sternly denied them. Neither friend nor foe on earth can lay his finger on a genuine canon, decree, or resolution of any general council during the first seven hundred years after the Saviour’s death, giving any pre-eminence in legislative, judicial, or other departments in which power is accustomed to be exercised over Christendom to the Pope of Rome. There is not a scholar in the Christian world to-day who pretends to show such a decree, canon, or resolution. These great councils then, that are led by the Holy Spirit, for SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS KNEW NOTHING OF THE SPIRITUAL SUPREMACY OF THE BISHOPS OF ROME. And as the chain of spiritual sovereignty wants the seven hundred links next to Christ, the great mooring pillar, it will not be able to protect and hold the papal ark, which trusts it when the wind is angry, and the sea rages.

Continued in V. Christendom at the Beginning of the Seventh Century

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart




The Papal System – III. The Ancient Scottish Church

The Papal System – III. The Ancient Scottish Church

Continued from II. The Ancient Irish Church.

THE POPES HAD NO POWER FOR MORE THAN SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

The country known, in comparatively modern times, as Scotland was blessed with gospel light at a later day than England or Ireland. It is reported that Ninias, a native of North Wales, in A. D. 400, preached the gospel to the Picts or ancient Scotch, and that his labors were attended with some success in the southern portions of their country. But the conversion of the entire people was reserved for other men, and for a later period than the time of Ninias.

Columba was the Apostle of Scotland.

Columba was brought up in the evangelical faith of St. Patrick, in Ireland. He was of an ardent spirit, a man of great enterprise, and he was governed by supreme love to Jesus, and burning zeal for the salvation of perishing men. To him nothing possible, however difficult, was a permanent obstacle. He would readily make the greatest sacrifices, and begin the grandest and most laborious undertaking. Previous to his departure from his native land, he built a noble monastery in Ireland, at Dearm Ach, —The Field of Oaks, now called Derry, which became the parent of many similar houses in Ireland.

His heart bled over the idolatry and perdition of the neighboring Picts; and, about A. D. 565, he entered Scotland. Bridius, a powerful monarch, was king of the Pictish nation, whose favor the missionary soon obtained. And, as he and his twelve companions sought the blessing of Heaven upon their labors, and toiled with apostolical zeal and purity of life, they quickly gathered as a harvest the nation of the Picts.

The king gave him the island of Hii, or Iona, as a mission station. The island is about three miles long, and a mile in breadth, Here Columba erected a monastery and churches; and soon the whole island was covered with cloisters and temples. And a multitude of monks, students, and devout visitors, seeking holy light, crowded the sea-girt and heaven-favored island. There the clergy, nobles, and sovereigns of Scotland were educated. There missions were planned for the north of England and the continent of Europe. There the brightest epochs of gospel zeal and success were equalled. And to that birth-place of Christian light all Scotland looked with devout gratitude and holy enthusiasm. For generations, the Scottish kings were buried in consecrated Iona; and its abbot ruled the whole churches of the land.

Columba died A.D. 597. A copy of the gospels, said to be in his handwriting, and known as The Book of Durrow, is still in existence in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. There are also another copy of the gospels, called the Book of Kells, and a copy of the Psalms, supposed to have been written by him, which are held as sacred treasures by the learned.

The Evangelical Character of the early Clergy of Scotland.

It is not to be understood that everything taught or practised by those good men was Scriptural or wise; but sprung, as they were, from a people emerging out of barbarism, and not long since out of heathenism, there is ground for astonishment at their measurable purity of doctrine, and at their remarkable charity and holiness of life. The faithful historian of the early Anglo-Saxon Church, though himself an ardent Roman Catholic, and though earnestly condemning the Scotch clergy for their opposition to papal customs and claims, declares that these men were renowned for their continency, their love of God, and their observance of monastic rules. “By reason of their being so far away from the rest of the world,” he says, “they only practised such works of piety and chastity as they could learn from the prophetical, evangelical, and apostolical writings.” Well would it have been for Christians of all ages if they had learned their faith and practice from the same full and blessed fountains.

Of Bishop Aidan, one of their chief prelates, the most flattering record is made. He was a man of singular meekness and piety, and very zealous in the cause of God; he lived according to the tenor of his own teachings; he neither sought nor loved worldly possessions of any description; he delighted in giving to the poor the gifts he received from princes and kings; he traveled on foot, not on horseback, and when he met an unbeliever, he tried to lead him to trust in Jesus; and if he fell in with a Christian, he endeavored to encourage him by words and actions to alms and good works. All his companions, whether monks or laymen, were employed in “Reading the Scriptures, or in learning the Psalms. This was the daily occupation of himself, and all that were with him, wheresoever they went.” What was true of Aidan was nearly as just about Coleman and many of his brethren who labored in Scotland and the north of England in the end of the sixth, and in the seventh centuries.

These Bishops and Monks were not Romanists.

In that age, when the Bishop of Rome was recognized as a superior prelate, the allegiance demanded was very slight. He had nothing to do with the consecration of bishops; the metropolitan attended to that business. Except in England, and a little afterwards in Germany, his chief connection with the appointment of archbishops was to send them the pall. Loyalty to Rome was shown by keeping Easter at the Romish time, by wearing a circular tonsure instead of one shaped like a crescent. And as the sturdy Irishmen who led the Picts to Christ had learned no regard from the successors of St. Patrick for the authority of the pope, they taught the Pictish nation to receive nothing at his dictation. And as stoutly as the immortal Covenanters resisted Popery in its full strength, or in its diluted forms, did these old Christians resist every papal encroachment upon their usages and rights.

These Scotch priests ministered in A.D. 664 to Oswy, king of the Northumbrians, who kept Easter at their time; his wife, Eanfleda, a Kentish princess, observed Easter after the Roman time. And it happened that when the king, having ended his fasting, was celebrating Easter, the queen and her followers were still fasting and keeping Palm Sunday; and as the Scotch would not yield a jot, there was confusion in many families, and not a little pious indignation in the breasts of papal priests and bishops.

Adamnan, abbot of Iona, came to Alfrid, king of Northumbria, on an embassy from his nation, and was assailed while in Alfrid’s court with all kinds of arguments to submit to the Roman usages, and to lead his countrymen along with him. Adamnan fell; but though, as Abbot of Iona, he was the first ecclesiastic in Scotland, and though he endeavored to “Bring his own people that were in Iona, or that were subject to that monastery, into the way of truth, yet in this he could not prevail.”

After the celebrated council held in Whitby, in England, in the time of Oswy and Hilda, when the Scotch were condemned by the king, Bishop Coleman resolved never to bow the knee to Rome, and collecting all his missionary monks at the famous monastery of Lindisfarne, and about thirty English brethren whom they had instructed, and who, like themselves, preached Jesus unfettered by papal chains, he returned to Iona, where they could worship God without the presence of a priest, monk, or bishop, who paid reverence or recommended respect to the See of Rome.

For the first seven hundred years of the Christian era, the servants of Christ in Scotland were as bitterly opposed to the pretensions, and to many of the ways of the bishops of Rome, as the immortal John Knox. Never till, through the superstition and tyranny of Naitan, king of the Scotch, A.D. 716, was the Church of Columba placed under the feet of the Roman bishops. By such an act of wicked despotism as marked the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the early Church of Scotland was robbed of her independence, and finally of her Bible and her purity; and fitted to produce Cardinal Beaton, and the other licentious and cruel men, who, at the Reformation, were a stain upon Christianity, and a reproach upon the land rendered illustrious by the hallowed memories of Columba and Tona.

The ancient Churches of Ireland, England, and Scotland, loving an open Bible, and cultivating purity and love, by the testimony of friends and foes, paid no deference to papal authority; knew nothing of the prince of the apostles or his successors, and were as independent of the See of Rome as any Protestant Church of the nineteenth century.

Continued in IV. Councils For Seven Centuries Repudiate Papal Jurisdiction

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart




The Papal System – II. The Ancient Irish Church

The Papal System – II. The Ancient Irish Church

Continued from I. The Ancient British Church.

THE POPES HAVE NO POWER IN THE IRISH CHURCH FOR MANY CENTURIES AFTER CHRIST.

The people of Ireland, for ages, were called Scots. Bede tells us that Laurentius, the successor of Augustine, wrote an epistle, in which he exhorted the “Scots who inhabit the island of Ireland,” as well as the ancient Britons, to maintain conformity with the Church of Christ spread over the world. This was the common designation of the inhabitants of Ireland for ages. It is not certain at what time the first light of the gospel reached the natives of Ireland; but it is well known that there were Christians in that country before the time of St. Patrick. He, however, properly merits the title of

The Apostle of Ireland.

There are conflicting accounts of his birth, nationality and acts, some insisting that there were three Patricks, whose deeds are commonly credited to one. The most probable history of the great Patrick is, that he was a native of Scotland; that his name was Succathus; and that he had a godly father, who gave him religious instruction in early life. At the age of sixteen, he was captured by pirates, and sold as a slave to the Scots in what is now called Ulster in Ireland. His daily toil in the neighborhood of Slemish, a beautiful mountain, from whose top the prospect is sublime, and his helpless and hopeless wrongs, led him to think of that Saviour of whom he had heard so much on the banks of his native Clyde. He touchingly describes his exercises at this time in his confessions:

    “I was sixteen years old, and knew not the true God; but, in a strange land, the Lord brought me to a sense of my unbelief, so that, although late, I minded me of my sins, and turned with my whole heart to the Lord my God, who looked down on my lowliness, had pity on my youth and ignorance, who preserved me ere I knew him, and who protected and comforted me as a father does his son, ere I knew how to distinguish between good and evil.”

He found Jesus, and afterwards escaped from bondage and reached his friends. After passing through various changes, some of them of a very unhappy character, he felt he must go and preach to the pagans of Ireland the salvation of Jesus. He had calls in visions of the night, and deep impressions throughout the day, that he must be a missionary in Ireland; and, in opposition to remonstrances from friends, and misgivings in his own mind, after some preparation, he started for the scene of his future labors and successes. It is probable that he was ordained a bishop in Britain in his 45th year, notwithstanding all the tales of monks about Pope Celestine sending Patrick to convert the Scots to the faith of the Holy Trinity.

Nennius says that he preached in Britain some time before he went to Ireland. The Irish, he says, beheld in Patrick the most astonishing powers, natural and supernatural. He gave sight to the blind, cleansing to the lepers, hearing to the deaf; he cast out devils, raised nine persons from the dead, and redeemed many captives of both sexes. He wrote three hundred and sixty-five canonical and other books; he founded as many churches, and ordained as many bishops, and three thousand presbyters. He converted and baptized twelve thousand persons in Connaught. He baptized seven kings in one day, the sons of Amalgaid, king of Connanght. He fasted forty days and nights on the summit of Croagh Patrick, and made three requests to God for the people of Ireland. First: That God would receive every repenting sinner, even at the last moment; second, that the Irish might never be exterminated by barbarians; and, third, as Ireland will be overflowed with water seven years before the judgment, that the crimes of the people might be washed away through his intercession.

Matthew Paris says that in preparing for his ministry “he read through the Holy Scriptures, and made himself master of their divine mysteries.” He preached in Ireland eighty years, and reached the age of 122. He repeats everything mentioned by Nennius in such a way that it is evident either one is a copy of the other, or that both are transcripts of some old document.

Patrick invented the Irish alphabet, and infused a love for learning and for the sacred Scriptures among his converts, which rendered the monastic schools of Ireland the wonder and admiration of Europe for several ages.

Patrick was a man of extraordinary ability; he gathered the people by beat of drum, and listening thousands caught the words of life as they fell from his lips. In his day chieftains wielded immense power over their dependents, and the Irish apostle laid siege to their hearts first, and he quickly enlisted them and their clans. Their bards were men of commanding influence, and Patrick secured many of the most illustrious of them, and induced them to compose eloquent songs in honor of the man of Nazareth. Ireland under this remarkable preacher was completely renovated, and piety of a high order reigned all over the Green Isle. St. Patrick’s religion was

Bible Christianity.

This truth is strikingly exhibited in the history of the Church which he planted. The monkish historians of the middle ages have many allusions to this fact in the character of the Irish Christians. Bede, speaking about Coinwalch, says: “There came into his kingdom out of Ireland a certain bishop called Agilbert, by nation a Frenchman, but who had then been in Ireland a long time, ‘for the purpose of reading the Scriptures.’”

Bede speaks of the most reverend father Egbert, who long led a monastic life with St. Chad in Ireland, praying, observing continency, and “meditating on the Holy Scriptures.”

Columbanus, a celebrated Irish monk, a missionary on the continent, was accustomed to retire from his convent into the dense forest, bearing on his shoulder “a copy of the Holy Scriptures, which he wanted to study in the solitude.”

Bishop Clement, an Irishman who had some trouble with the renowned Boniface, apostle of Germany, is said to have denied “to the writings of the older fathers, and to the canons of councils, authority binding on faith,” from which Neander justly infers “that he conceded such authority to the Holy Scriptures alone, acknowledging them as the only fountain and directory of Christian faith.”

And speaking of the pious Irish generally, Neander says: “Ireland became the seat of famous monasteries, in which the Scriptures were diligently read, ancient books eagerly collected and studied. They became missionary schools.” Like the revered Patrick, they became masters of the mysteries of the divine Word by careful reading. For a couple of centuries, Ireland was the Bible school of western Europe, whither the student and man of devout meditations came to read the Scriptures, The Church of St. Patrick was distinguished by

Generosity.

In A. D. 664, a pestilence swept over the south and north of England, destroying a great multitude of people, and creating universal dismay. The same plague raged with equal fury and fatality in Ireland. Many of the English nobility, and persons of inferior rank from England, were at the time in Ireland, either “for the sake of divine studies, or of a more continent life. The Scots (Irish) willingly received them all, and took care to supply them with food, and also to furnish them with books to read, and their teaching gratis.” Such is the testimony of the English Bede about men who rejected the pope whom he revered, and who belonged to a foreign nation. The Irish Church, for centuries after St. Patrick, was

Independent of the Pope.

Easter in the West showed whether a Christian was a papist or a Free churchman. The Irish followed no Romish custom, and they were specially vigorous in declining the papal time for observing Easter. Laurentius deplores their obstinacy in a letter addressed to them and the ancient Britons, in 605, soon after he succeeded Augustine as Archbishop of Canterbury. Himself wearing the livery of the bishop of Rome, he wanted the independent churches of Britain and Ireland to assume it too, And in this letter he tells the Scots that he once had a very exalted opinion of them; but Bishop Dagan (an Irish bishop) “coming into this aforesaid island, and the Abbot Columbanus in France informed us that the Scots (Irish) in no way differ from the Britons in their behaviour; for Bishop Dagan coming to us, not only refused to eat with us, but even to take his repast in the house where we were entertained.” It is evident that the Irish had no respect for the Roman bishop at this time, when such an insult, solely on religious grounds, was leveled at one of his exalted prelates.

Pope Honorius wrote to the Irish about Easter, and gave them to understand how presumptuous it was for a handful of people, living on the outskirts of the earth, to think themselves wiser than “all the ancient and modern churches of Christ throughout the world, and to celebrate a different Easter.” John, his successor, when pope elect, wrote to the Irish, admonishing them about Easter, telling them that “some among them, contrary to the orthodox faith, do through ignorance reject our Easter, when Christ was sacrificed.” But neither popes nor archbishops could turn the hearts of these old heroes from the Bible and the usages of mighty Patrick.

The Irish missionaries in France and Germany established churches and monasteries everywhere, taught the purest piety, and exemplified it in their own lives; and if they did not convert nations, they led hundreds of thousands to the true Saviour, who read the Scriptures, trusted Jesus, and walked with God. These men were a great source of trouble for a long period to the nominal Christians around them, who belonged to the old Frankish Church, and in later times to the Romish Church set up in Germany by Boniface. They were hated as Christ’s disciples were detested by the Pharisees; and their worst enemies were not the numerous Pagans, but the Christian priests of Gaul and Germany.

And we are not surprised at this treatment; for these missionaries loved God, and were not much afraid of men. They had an offensive way of telling popes, when they were wrong, that they disliked heresy or iniquity in any one; and of practising their Church rites in the heart of Germany or France before the eyes of Romish priests or bishops, entirely indifferent to their expostulations and prohibitions. Columbanus wrote Gregory the Great that he ought not to be governed by a false humility in refusing to correct what was erroneous, even though it bore the authority of Pope Leo the Great; “for,” said he, “a living dog may be better than a dead lion.” He adjured Boniface IV., by the unity of the Christian fold, to give him and his people permission, as strangers in France, to observe their own ancient customs; for they were just the same, dwelling in the wilderness, as if they were in their own country. And when Boniface, the Englishman, gathered such hosts in Germany from idols to the gospel of Augustine of Canterbury, and of the Pope of Rome, the pontiff, expecting some trouble from a man coming from the country of the ancient Britons, and Scotch heretics, and Irish independents, prescribed a solemn oath for Boniface, which he took at the tomb of St. Peter in Rome, which, in substance, was as follows:

    “I promise thee, the first of the apostles, and thy representative, Pope Gregory, and his successors, that, with God’s help, I will abide in the unity of the Catholic faith; that I will in no manner agree with anything contrary to the unity of the Catholic Church; but will in every way maintain my faith pure, and my cooperation constantly for thee, and for the benefit of thy Church, on which was bestowed by God the power to bind and loose, and for thy representative aforesaid and his successors, And whenever I find that the conduct of the presiding officers of churches contradicts the ancient decrees and ordinances of the fathers, I will have no fellowship or connection with them; but, on the contrary, if I can hinder them, I will hinder them; and, if not, report them faithfully to the pope.”

This entire oath supposes that in Germany, the See of Boniface, there were bishops and churches who broke the unity of the pope’s faith by not receiving him as their master, which he was determined to crush. And Neander is not mistaken in asserting that the oath of Boniface was expressly intended to suppress the Irish and British churches in Germany. The author of a learned work recently published, states the exact truth when he says: “In the West, the ancient Irish and the ancient British Church remained for centuries autonomous, and under no sort of influence of Rome.”

The English gave Ireland to the Pope.

In A. D. 1155, Ireland was not in the papal ranks. And Henry II. of England, sent a solemn embassy to Adrian, to Rome, to solicit his permission to “subdue Ireland, and bring into the way of truth its bestial inhabitants, by extirpating the seeds of vice among them.” Adrian readily consented, and issued a bull, declaring, among other things, “that to extend the frontiers of the Church, to teach a rude people the doctrines of the Christian faith, to extirpate the seeds of vice out of the Lord’s field, to secure to St. Peter the annual sum of one penny for every house, and to extend the Christian religion, he might seize Ireland.” It is very evident that the Irish of A. p. 1155, were, like Bishop Dagan and Columbanus, that they had nothing to do with Rome; and while in the twelfth century they had lost the piety and learning of the sixth, seventh and eighth, they were still free from the Roman yoke. And these ages of freedom from Romish interference and ecclesiastical supremacy are the most glorious centuries in the history of the Irish people.

Continued in III. The Ancient Scottish Church

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart




The Papal System: From Its Origin To The Present Time – I. The Ancient British Church

The Papal System: From Its Origin To The Present Time – I. The Ancient British Church
THE
PAPAL SYSTEM:
FROM ITS ORIGIN TO THE PRESENT TIME.
A HISTORICAL SKETCH
OF
EVERY DOCTRINE, CLAIM AND PRACTICE
OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.
BY WILLIAM CATHCART,
PASTOR OF THE SECOND BAPTIST CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA.

TO
THE FRIENDS OF PROTESTANT CHRISTIANITY,
AND
THE CANDID MEMBERS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH,
THIS WORK
IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
BY
THEIR OBEDIENT SERVANT,
THE AUTHOR.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1872, by
CATHCART AND TURNER,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.

PREFACE.

The objects aimed at in this work are to sketch the birth, growth, and maturity of every Romish belief and practice; to furnish a contrast between papal and ancient Christianity, to present all decrees, canons, and other testimonies in their original languages and in translations; to show the bearings of popery upon some of our cherished institutions; to describe the present observances of the Catholic Church; and to give reliable, and generally, Romish authorities for every important statement; together with the pages, or the books and chapters, by which quotations can be verified. This treatise is entirely undenominational.

It is not intended for the learned, but for the mass of English readers; and the extracts in Latin and Greek are designed to furnish proofs of the truth of all leading declarations, which can be easily translated in every village, and in most rural districts of our highly favored land.

Not a few atrocious transactions have been entirely omitted, because, while they may be perfectly true, the evidence seemed insufficient to support them.

The Author has never been in the communion of the Church of Rome, but he hopes that the information which he conveys to the reader from credible witnesses will not be less valuable on that account.

Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius wrote their Ecclesiastical Histories inside the first six centuries; they belonged to the Church universal, and enjoy the confidence of the Christian world. The same statement applies to Ireneus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Hilary, and in the main to Tertullian and Origen.

Venerable Bede, William of Malmesbury, Matthew of Westminster, Matthew Paris, and Ingulph of Croyland were English monks, who wrote histories from the eighth to the middle of the thirteenth century which are held in very high and deserved estimation.

Du Pin was “a priest and doctor of divinity” of the faculty of Paris in 1688; his History, issued in parts, bears two certificates of approval from the Sorbonne, for centuries the most celebrated Catholic School in Europe.

The work called “Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentint” —Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent—was published at Leipsic with the approbation of the Catholic authorities of Saxony, and is the most important book in the Roman Church.

The “Catechism of the Council of Trent,” issued under the same sanction and in the same city, can receive no higher favor from popes and ecclesiastics than for centuries it has enjoyed.

Father Paul Sarpi, who wrote “The History of the Council of Trent,” lived and died a Roman Catholic, was secretary of the first president of that Synod, and was, perhaps, among the ablest men of the age.

The Vulgate which furnished our quotations has the text approved by Clement VII. and Sixtus V. The edition of the Councils by Labbe and Cossart, which we have frequently used, has the highest reputation in and out of the papal Church.

May this volume in some humble measure serve the interests of liberty, education, and true religion.

Philadelphia, December 13th, 1871.

I. The Ancient British Church

PAPAL SUPREMACY OVER THE CHURCHES.

WHEN IT BEGAN,

AND THE MEANS BY WHICH IT SUCCEEDED.

The Bishop of Rome claims absolute and lasting kingship over all the churches of Christ on earth; and he presumes to assert that he has exercised this authority by the gift of Christ from the first planting of Christianity.

Before tracing the outlines of that marvellous history in which Roman pontiffs are seen marching from victory to victory, until they waved their spiritual swords in undisputed triumph over the prostrate form of western Christianity, and sat down as conquerors in the throne of the Church designed for her Heavenly Head, we shall first show by unimpeachable witnesses that no papal king reigned over the earthly spouse of Christ for many ages after his ascension into Paradise. We shall appeal to the ancient churches of Britain and Ireland; to the great councils of the first seven centuries; and to the admissions of eminent fathers about the equality of presbyters and bishops at the beginning, and of all bishops a little later for infallible testimony, to prove that the bishops of Rome had no dominion over the universal Church for hundreds of years after Peter’s supposed presence in the city of the Caesars.

THE POPES HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ANCIENT BRITISH CHURCH FOR THE FIRST SEVEN CENTURIES.

The authorities differ about the men who first planted the Gospel in Britain. Some hold that Joseph of Arimathea and twelve others, about A. D. 63, introduced salvation among the islanders. Others declare that Paul preached the glad tidings in England. And others affirm that Britain was converted by missionaries sent from Rome, A. D. 176, by Pope Eleutherius, at the request of Lucius, an imaginary English king. (Geoffrey’s British History, lib. iv. cap. 19.)

According to Matthew Paris, the faith of Jesus was first preached to his countrymen in A, D. 167. Neander declares that the Gospel reached the Britons as early as the end of the second century; that it came to them, not from Rome, but from the East; and that in very early times the Britons were a Christian nation. They differed widely on some points from the Roman Church, and were in perfect harmony on these questions with the Eastern Churches. This latter circumstance renders it all but certain that some Greek missionary, like Irenaeeus of Lyons, was their first Christian teacher.

After the invasion of Britain, in the middle of the fifth century, by the Anglo-Saxons, the churches were plundered, burned, or turned into heathen temples by these idolaters, and the Christian religion was threatened with extinction in every section of their future home. They might be described as rivalling the fiercest monsters of persecution of any age. They destroyed the temples of Christ; they slew the priests at the altars; they gave the Holy Scriptures to the flames; they showed their contempt for the venerated tombs of the martyrs by covering them with mounds of earth; and the clergy who escaped had to hide in woods, and deserts, and mountain retreats, And after seizing and wasting the whole land, they compelled the wretched remnant of the ancient Britons to fly from their ruined churches and blood-stained homes, and to settle in “Cornubia, or, as it is called by some, Cornwall; Demeeia, or South Wales; Venedocia, or North Wales.” And there they clung to the faith of Jesus.

St. Augustine lands in England.

And as he and his forty brethren are soon enriched with a large list of converts among the Anglo-Saxons, he learns something of the ancient Christian inhabitants of England; and, being a man of considerable self-importance, he demands a conference with them, that he may compel them to change their religions customs, and recognise the pope and himself as their masters. The bishops and teachers of the ancient Britons meet him at Augustine’s Oak, on the Severn; he there proposes that they shall give up their time of keeping Easter, and adopt the pope’s; that they shall administer baptism according to the custom of the holy Roman Church, and preach the word of God to the Anglo-Saxons; and if they will yield on these three points, he offers to tolerate patiently their other customs, though contrary to his. Angustine strongly urges these demands. He insists, too, that they shall receive him as their archbishop, and the pope and Church of Rome as authorities to be respected and obeyed. Deynoch, abbot of the celebrated monastery of Bangor, whose opinion in the ancient British Church was most influential, replied:

    “We are all ready to listen to the Church of God, to the pope at Rome, and to every pious Christian, that so we may show to each, according to his station, perfect love, and uphold him by word and deed. We know not that any other obedience can be required of us towards him whom you call the pope, or the father of fathers. But this obedience we are prepared constantly to render to him, and to every Christian.”

When neither Augustine’s prayers nor arguments could secure compliance, Augustine proposed a miracle to decide which is the true way to the heavenly kingdom. A blind man is brought forward, whose sight the bishops of the Britons could not restore. Augustine, however, had better success; for, on bowing the knees and begging the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ that sight might be given to the eyes of one, that thereby the grace of spiritual light might illumine the hearts of many believers, immediately the eyes of the blind were opened. But the Britons, either supposing that the healing was no miracle, or that it was not from God, obstinately refused to give up their customs, Some time after, a larger number of the British clergy met Augustine in conference about the same controversy; and before entering the council the British priests took advice from a “holy and discreet man,” who led the life of a hermit, and who told them to follow Augustine if he should prove himself to be a man of God, and he informed them that they would discover this by his humility. “If,” said he, “the words of the Lord mark his spirit and life; ‘Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart, it is to be believed that he bears Christ’s yoke himself, and offers the same to you.” And he told them that they should let him reach the place of meeting first, and if he arose to greet them on entering, he had the Saviour’s humility; but if he sat still, he was proud, and they must have nothing to do with him.

Augustine did not arise, and they rejected himself for their archbishop, and his Romish traditions. “The servant of the Lord,”(?)as Matthew Paris says, then threatened that if they would not have peace from the Anglo-Saxons as friends, they must have war from them as enemies; and soon after, at the instigation, it is judged, of Augustine, Ethelfrid, a powerful king of the Northumbrians, assembled a large army at the city of Legions; and, just as he was about to make an attack on the Britons, he observed their priests in large numbers, standing apart, engaged in prayer for the success of their brethren; and on learning the object at which they were aiming, he said: “If, then, they cry unto their God against us, in truth they fight against us, though they do not bear arms; for they assail us with their prayers.” He, therefore, attacked them first, and slew 1200 of them; then he destroyed the army of the Britons, called “impious” by Matthew Paris; but an army not unworthy of the name of holy patriots, when viewed in the light of liberty and an open Bible.

Most of the priests came from Bangor, an institution which, according to Paris, was divided into seven parts, with a ruler over each, and in which no section had less than three hundred monks.

Bede gives precisely the same account about the meeting with Augustine; the three propositions; the blind man whose eyes were opened, who, he says, was of the Saxon race, not of the British; about the meeting of another synod; about the hermit’s advice in reference to Augustine’s humility; about Augustine’s sitting posture; and finally about the rejection of Augustine’s religious innovations; and his insolent claims to authority over British churches.

He also describes the slaughter, by Ethelfrid, of the British army, soon after; and of the twelve hundred priests who prayed for its success, most of whom were from the monastery of Bangor, with its seven departments, each division containing more than three hundred monks, who all lived by the labor of their own hands, And good old Bede actually thought this slaughter a mark of the vengeance of heaven against “perfidious men, because they had despised the offer of eternal salvation,” when, in reality, they only despised the insolent usurpations of Augustine, and the pope who sent him, and maintained the rights of a nation’s Church, which, in the language of Neander, “withstood for a long time the authority of the Romish papacy.” For seven hundred years, the British Church maintained its independence of the See of Rome, and some portions of it most probably till a much later period.

Geoffrey of Monmouth states that when Augustine came, he found in Britain seven bishoprics, and an archbishopric, all filled with devout prelates, and a great number of abbeys, by which the flock of Christ was kept in order. He describes, in glowing terms, the most noble Church of Bangor, with the seven divisions, of which Bede and Paris speak, each section with more than three hundred members; he pays a generous tribute to the learning and piety of the celebrated Deynoch, their abbot, “who answered Augustine with several arguments, that they owed no subjection to him, since they had their own archbishop; neither would they preach to their enemies (the Saxons), because the Saxon nation persisted in depriving them of their country. For this reason they esteemed them their mortal enemies; reckoned their faith and religion as nothing, and would no more communicate with the Angles than with dogs.” In the next chapter, Geoffrey gives an account of the battle in which the priests of Bangor were slaughtered. He says that “Ethelbert, king of Kent (the earliest patron of Augustine, whose wife wrote to Pope Gregory to send Catholic missionaries into England), when he saw that the Britons disdained subjection to Augustine, and despised his preaching, was highly provoked, and stirred up Ethelfrid and the other petty kings of the Saxons to raise a great army, and march to the city of Bangor, and destroy the Abbot Deynoch, and the rest of the clergy who held them in contempt.” Geoffrey agrees with Bede and Paris in everything about the battle, except in the number of ecclesiastics slain. He places it at two hundred.

William of Malmesbury is less minute, but he is careful to state that Ethelfrid vented his fury upon the priests first, and that their number must have been incredible for those times. He states that the ruins remaining were vast, such as were to be seen nowhere else; that their monastery was mighty even in its desolations.

Bangor was the university for the education of the British clergy, as Iona was for the Scotch; it was the divinity school; it was the headquarters of ancient British missions; it was the seat of Deynoch, the master-mind of the British Church. And as that Church had never recognized the headship of any pope, and had recently and decidedly declined to receive the pope’s authority in changing their customs, or in imposing an archbishop upon them, Bangor must be blotted out. The British Church must be extinguished, if it will not be enslaved. After this butchery, the success of Augustine and his friends among the Saxons becomes unexampled; all the race in Britain submits to the missionaries of Gregory the Great, and the ancient British Christians pass into obscurity; but their principles live in Scotland, and spread over the whole Saxon settlements in the North of England. There is discord in families, and anger in sacerdotal hearts, and unhappiness in the Eternal City itself, because Scotch priests in England will not wear a circular tonsure, nor keep Easter on the Roman day, nor obey the popes.

A council is called at Streaneshalch—Whitby. It met in 664. Whitby Abbey at this time contained a large number of men and women. It was a seat of learning for the entire region around; it was a school of divinity, out of which in a little time five bishops were graduated, men of distinguished ability and piety: Bosa, Hedda, Oftfor, John, and Wilfrid. Hilda taught the inmates of her monastery justice, piety, chastity, and other virtues, and particularly peace and charity. Her wisdom and zeal extended her reputation to distant localities; and not only the obscure, but princes and kings asked her advice. She compelled the inmates of her house to study the Holy Scriptures, and become thoroughly acquainted with the will of God. She was, undoubtedly, a woman of distinguished piety, and of a vigorous intellect, and eminently fitted to direct the studies and toils of the great male and female community over which she presided.

To her house the advocates of papal supremacy and of the non-Roman Church of North Britain came. Among the distinguished persons present were King Oswy, Bishop Coleman, with his Scottish clerks, Bishop Agilbert, with the priests Agatho and Wilfrid, James and Romanus. The Abbess Hilda, with her troops of followers, the venerable Bishop Cedd, ordained many years before among the Scots, were on the anti-papal side. King Oswy seems to preside in the council. The discussion is chiefly in the hands of Coleman and Wilfrid. Coleman, on behalf of the Free Church, defended his observance of Easter by the facts that, “he received the time of keeping Easter from his forefathers, men beloved of God, from the custom of John the Evangelist, the disciple beloved of our Lord, and of all the churches over which he presided.” Wilfrid maintained the popish time of keeping Easter, because all Rome, where mighty Peter and Paul taught, must be right; because the same time was observed in Italy, France, Africa, Asia, Greece, Egypt,and all the world, “except only these and their accomplices in obstinacy (‘I mean the Picts (Scots) and the Britons’), who foolishly, in those two remote islands of the world, and only in part even of them, oppose all the rest of the universe.”

As the discussion progressed with much Christian courtesy and gentleness by Coleman, with decided ability and insolent derision-by Wilfrid, he quoted Christ’s words to Peter: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;” and then he inquired if any of the fathers who had taught Coleman his customs could be compared to that first bishop of Rome? The king demanded from Coleman, if it was true, that our Lord had spoken these words to Peter? Coleman admitted the fact. The king then asked if he could show such power given to the great Scottish father, St. Columba? Coleman replied, “No.” Then said the king: “He is the doorkeeper, whom I will not contradict; but I will, as far as I know and am able, in all things obey his decrees, lest when I come to the gates of the kingdom of heaven, there should be none to open them, he being my adversary who is proved to have the keys.” Oswy’s decision was difficult to dispute; he had a sharp sword, a strong arm and a violent temper: and as he imagined that everything pledged to Peter was promised to all Roman bishops, from that moment he became the most obsequious servant of the pontiff, and under his influence the Council of Whitby enthroned Romanism in the North of England.

Coleman very wisely went into Scotland among his own brethren. The other advocates of his opinions were silenced. But these opinions, embracing an anti-popish Easter and tonsure, had their principal strength from opposition to papal supremacy over the government of the Church; and this idea could not be easily destroyed. It worked in men’s minds, and another council was convoked at Hertford.

Archbishop Theodore convened the synod A. p. 673. It was composed of bishops and other teachers of the Church, who loved and were acquainted with the canonical statutes of the fathers. It adopted ten chapters, and signed them. And then it was voted that every offender should be excluded from sacerdotal functions, and from “our society.” The very first of these “chapters ” reads: “That we all in common keep the holy day of Easter on the Sunday after the fourteenth moon of the first month.” This anti-papal leaven was still disturbing the Roman bishops. Theodore, who called this synod, was a Greek by birth, a mere dependent of the Bishop of Rome, who had sent him into England to fill its highest ecclesiastical office, and to do the bidding of the successor of Peter. Doubtless, at Hertford he was carrying out his orders.

Theodore was the first Roman prelate who could carry out his primacy over all England. He banished the usages of the Scotch Free Church out of the Anglo-Saxon nations. The Council at Hertford was a potent agent in accomplishing this task. The ancient Britons retained their church independence for a longer period, and it is not definitely known when it became extinct.

Here, then, is a lofty monument, rearing its head for at least seven centuries into the heavens, upon which is written in great letters, “THE EARLY CHRISTIANS KNEW NOTHING OF THE POPE’S SUPREMACY OVER THE CHURCHES.”

Continued in II. The Ancient Irish Church.

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart




The Truth About the LXX Septuagint

The Truth About the LXX Septuagint

In this article, Dr. Phil Stringer satisfactorily answers a question I have had for a while about the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. That question was, “If the Septuagint was the Scriptures that Jesus and all the New Testament writers quoted from, why did the translators of the Old Testament of the King James Bible use the Hebrew Masoretic text which was compiled by Jewish scholars hundreds of years later?

Transcription

There is a position that says, God has inspired certain words. God has promised to preserve those words. Those words have been translated for us in English. We can know the certainty of the words of truth, we can know we have God’s words, and as a result of knowing we have God’s words, we can have an answer for those who have questions.

There is another position among those who profess to be evangelicals and claim to believe in inspiration, that God gave His words, but the words were never kept in an exact form. In a vague sort of, well you know, we might not be sure of the text, we might not be sure of the translation, and there’s room for differences of opinion, and you can’t be certain, it’s kind of vague. And that position has come to dominate in professing evangelical Christianity.

It’s not as dominant as it was a few years ago, but it’s clearly still there and still dominant. And when I began to talk about the certainty of the words, there were folks who would say, that can’t be true. And you know how we know that can’t be true? Man, they do have an answer, you know how we know that cannot be true? Christ and the apostles used the Septuagint, and the Septuagint does not match the King James, it does not match the Hebrew Masoretic text, and so the text isn’t really an issue, you can have different texts, you can have different words, they can disagree because Christ and the apostles used a very loose translation of the Old Testament and referred to it as the Scripture, so the word Scripture, holy writings, you know, it can mean different things and variations of the text are okay, and so it doesn’t matter, and so that just can’t be true.

What you said just cannot be true, because Christ used the Septuagint, and that doesn’t fit with your approach to Scripture. What you said, Brother Ketchum, can’t be true, because Christ used the Septuagint, and that doesn’t fit with your message. What you said, Brother Brown, cannot be true, because Christ used the Septuagint, and Christ could not have used the Septuagint if what you said was true.

That is the argument. I thought for a while it might be one of the arguments, but after having heard it over and over and over again, I have come to realize it is the argument the average Evangelical who believes in a loose approach to Scripture has and uses, Christ used a loose translation, so the translation issue is not important, pick any translation you want, use them all, they’re all the same, Christ used the Septuagint. And so I ask questions, and I have discovered on this issue when you ask questions you make people angry.

How do you know Christ used the Septuagint? The answer is everybody knows! I am always suspicious of anything when the answer is everybody knows. Everybody knows evolution is true. Why does everybody know that? Everybody knows, the smart people know. If you don’t know, you’re just not smart. Everybody knows global warming is true. Everybody knows that. We’ve stood in Chicago in the midst of snow drifts and bitter weather, being lectured about how that was caused by global warming, because everybody knows global warming is true.

And so I have asked the question, how do you know? Everybody knows, the intelligent people know, the smart people know, if you don’t know you’re not intelligent, you’re not smart.

It’s what I call the tyranny of the expert. All the “smart” people know this, so if you don’t know, you must not be very smart. Did you know socialism is good for the poor? And if you ask anybody, can you show me one example in thousands of years of recorded world history where socialism ever benefited the poor, the answer you will get is that, “Everybody knows it benefits the poor.” But don’t ask for a specific example.

The tyranny of the expert, the smart people know this, and anytime somebody defends a position by saying everybody knows, I’m instantly suspicious of that position. And here’s why. If you ask that question and they had an answer, instead of saying everybody knows, they would give you the answer.

Everybody knows Christ used the Septuagint. And I begin to wonder about that in that lesson, and Roman Catholicism is very adamant that Christ used the Septuagint, and they have a reason. The Septuagint, and I’ll explain what that is in a minute, the Septuagint has the Apocrypha in it.

So if you accept the idea that Christ used the Septuagint, then Christ authorized the Apocrypha by using a Bible with the Apocrypha in it. And so the folks who believe in concept inspiration, they do not believe in God-inspired words, they believe in God-inspired ideas, they love the idea that Christ used the Apocrypha because it justifies their doctrine of inspiration since we’re really not worried about the words if we’re using the Septuagint.

But why evangelicals? Why Baptists? Why do people who profess to believe in verbal inspiration? And they can be very adamant about this.

And I asked myself, and I watched this for a while and I came to this conclusion, that the reason they say this is because the Catholics and the modernists will question their scholarship if they don’t. And so they repeat it because they do want to look good to the world. They want to look intelligent.

I’ve had a couple of people tell me over the years, “Stringer, you would come across as an intelligent guy if you would just drop this King James stuff, but everybody knows that no intelligent person believes all that. They declare that they’re scholars, they repeat what they got from Catholicism, they repeat what they got from the modernists, they say, see that proves how educated we are, how intelligent we are. They not only repeat it, they repeat it as doctrine. They not only repeat it as doctrine, but they also repeat it as fundamental doctrine that affects your beliefs about everything. And you know how they know? All the Catholic scholars say that. And they do. And all the concept inspiration modernists say that. And they do. And if we were not to agree with it, we would get called names.

Let me explain what the Septuagint is. According to Miller’s general biblical introduction, the Septuagint version is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language for the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria of Egypt.

It is commonly called the Septuagint. The abbreviation is LXX for 70, it’s sometimes called the Alexandrian version. But why, when Christ was preaching to the Jews of Palestine, would he use a Greek version designed for the Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt?

The idea that this translation existed at that time is based on a document called the Letter of Aristeas. And there are several people who quote this letter. And in the Letter to Aristeas, he says he’s a high official of the Egyptian court, and he was assigned by the royal librarian to create a Greek translation of the Old Testament for the Egyptian royal library. So he asked the high priest to send six scribes from each of the tribes of Israel to Alexandria, which is 72, by the way.

For a period of years, the story is told with 72 translators, and then it changes to 70, hence the name 70. I do not know why it changed. But it’s 72 translators, and they all come to Egypt, and they had translated for 72 days, and that each one of them did an individual translation, and when they were done, they compared the 72 translations, and they were identical, thus proving they were inspired of God.

And there’s a question, I read that story, and all these people are talking about the Septuagint. Do you believe that story? 72 guys, each translated the entire Old Testament, and their translations were identical word for word? Well, no. No one I know will admit to believing that story!

But they also considered it authoritative, as well as being untrue. One well-known general introduction Bible says, that the details of this story are undoubtedly fictitious, but the letter does relate the authentic facts. Everybody knows that.

In the introduction, if you buy something called the Septuagint today, and I want to suggest to you that is not the Septuagint of ancient times, it is a Septuagint produced after the time of Christ, but if you buy something called the Septuagint today, and if you read the introduction, the introduction to the Septuagint states that the letter to Aristeas is not worthy of notice, except for the myth being connected with the authority which this version was once supposed to have possessed. It goes on to say, that we don’t know that what we have now called the Septuagint is anything similar to an ancient Septuagint. And for some reason, they quit calling it the 70 and referred to the 72.

If you don’t believe the letter of Aristeas, which is the only ancient reference to the Septuagint, you’ve got nothing to go on.

Jerome, whose writing is a contemporary of Augustine, in the 4th century, wanted to make a new translation of the Old Testament from Latin into Hebrew, and he and Augustine exchanged letters about these things. Augustine did not want to use the Hebrew because he thought God had inspired the Septuagint. And the Hebrew, no available Hebrew text matches the Septuagint, so he didn’t want to use the Hebrew because he said, we have an inspired Greek Septuagint.

Really? Folks who don’t believe that God inspired the words in the beginning, or don’t believe that God could have used the King James translators to preserve the Word of God, but you believe some Greek guys we’ve never known anything about were inspired? Really? Jerome understood that the Septuagint of his day was developed by Origen. He did not believe it was a Septuagint of previous references. He believed that Origen used several different Greek manuscripts and that all of them have been corrupted.

He disputed Augustine’s assertion that the Apostles usually quoted from the Septuagint. I’ve had folks tell me that is something you King James guys invented. Really? Do you think, Jerome, was a King James guy in the 4th century?

Well, Jerome pointed this out. These, the things they refer to as quotations of Christ, not only don’t match the Hebrew Old Testament word for word, they don’t match the Septuagint either. They don’t match anything, and there is an explanation for why.

Well, in 1588, 23 years before the release of the King James Bible, William Whitaker wrote,

“Learned men question whether the Greek version of the Scriptures now extant, be or be not the version of the 70 elders. The sounder opinion seems to be that those who determine that the true Septuagint is wholly lost and that the Greek text as we have it is a mixed and miserably corrupted document.

He said, what we have now, we’re calling a Septuagint, this is just a horrible translation.

And so, for what particular reason do you think that Christ quoted from it? People say, “Well, you know, we have manuscripts of the Septuagint.” But with four possible exceptions, I’m going to mention real quickly, every one of them comes after 350 AD. And they say, “See, Christ quoted from this because there are a few places where it matches.” 350 AD is long after the time of Christ.

Whoever produces that can go back and match word for word what Christ said, rather than it be the other way around. Four fragments called the Rylands papyrus have been found. Three of them were found in one place, and a fourth were found in a different place in Egypt. They all have little pieces of Deuteronomy, and they go back to before that time. However, the verses in them are not quoted by anybody in the New Testament, Jesus or the apostles. They don’t have anything to do with this debate. They do prove somebody produced a Greek Old Testament of some kind back that early, but it doesn’t tell you anything about what Christ or the apostles were saying or doing.

In the last century, a professor named Paul Cayley, he was a German professor of oriental studies, addressed this issue of the Septuagint and what’s involved. He’s a recognized scholar of mid-eastern languages. He said it is silly to believe anything based on the letter of Aristeas, really. He said it’s just propaganda, it’s just fiction. He says what we have the Septuagint at calling it the Septuagint today probably has nothing to do, and if it has in any way anything to do with an early Greek translation, we have no way of knowing it because we do not have a quotation of anything from before the time of Christ.

He just said, listen, guys, you cannot take this fairy tale and build an idea off of it. It doesn’t hold. And he, I think, would be shocked to see what’s happened more recently when folks took this fairy tale and not only built an idea of it, they built a doctrine out of it. For them, this is the fundamental doctrinal position that describes the nature of Scripture. Christ used the Septuagint, the Septuagint doesn’t match the Textus Receptus, consequently, it cannot matter the exact wording of Scripture, it just can’t matter.

How do you know? And I’ve asked dozens, by email and in person. I’ve asked critics, I’ve asked people I don’t know anything about, I’ve asked friends. Why do you think Christ used the Septuagint? Now this is not some little quibbling about a minor detail, this is what their doctrine of Scripture is based on, and I say their doctrine of Scripture is not based on a biblical statement at all. It’s not even based on confusing a biblical statement.

(End of transcription.)

The transcription of the audio is only a partial one. It contains the main points of what Dr. Stringer teaches about the Septuagint.

I think it should be a red flag for any evangelical when they hear recommendations of the Septuagint from Catholic sources. It is a red flag for real Protestants. Sadly all modern English Bible translations use the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the reason Daniel 9:27 has been mistranslated in modern English Bibles.

Daniel 9:27 is a Messianic prophecy about Christ confirming the Covenant God made with Abraham to the House of Israel. Daniel 9:27 translated from the Septuagint makes it sound like an end-time treaty the Antichrist will make with the Jews. This should give you good reason to stick to the KJV.




The Scofield Bible Is “Another Gospel”

The Scofield Bible Is “Another Gospel”

This is another talk by Robert Caringola. I like him because he’s a former Roman Catholic like me who has found the truth of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ through the Scriptures, and is knowledgeable about both the history of the Protestant Reformation and the Jesuit led Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation.

In this article, Robert Caringola brings out a very interesting interpretation of 1 Thessalonians, 4:17, “to meet the Lord in the air.” I have never heard his interpretation before, but it makes sense to me because it’s based on meanings of the Greek words in the text. Just read the article or listen to the audio and find out what he says about it!

Transcript

Welcome to Truth in History. My name is Robert Caringola, and what we’re going to talk about, and believe me, I’m going to fly by the seat of my pants on this one because there’s so much that could be presented, but I want you to leave edified, encouraged, and for some of you, what I’m going to show you in your Bible, it will stun you, it will change you. But the title of this message is, “Scofield Bible is Another Gospel.”

Now, I was going to title this, “Dispensationalism is a Thief of Understanding,” because when we talk about the Scofield Bible, you’re going to understand why I will reference it as a thief of understanding.

Now, I have mentioned several times when I teach, and even in my book, The Seventy Weeks, I believe, that I contend with no man’s person, but that which concerns only the words of truth. But as you will hopefully go from here and do some homework after hearing what I’ve presented, there’s a lot of problems with the character of Cyrus Scofield and his associates, and some of what we’re going to look at. But that’s not going to be the theme of what we want to look at.

I want to show you and just kind of give a basic picture, because most of you were raised on the notes of the Scofield Bible before you came into the truth. A lot of you were, I know, and that’s where you learned your dispensationalism. That’s where you learned your secret rapture. That’s where you went and bought your Clarence Larkin’s book, Dispensational Truth, but it’s far from anything near the truth, and we have dealt with that here at Truth in History several times.

When Jesus was asked, it’s pretty significant, “What shall be the sign of thy coming?” One of the first words out of His mouth was, “See that no man deceive you. ” The amount of deception around the coming of Christ is, and if you’ve been following Truth in History for years, and the works of myself, Pastor Jennings, other great ministries, Carl Tester, the elders here, you know we have exposed, documented, put it on a silver platter for you, the truth, and the errors, and their origins, and irrefutable rebukes of their false doctrines. Secret rapture is a big part of all this.

The Scofield Bible, I think published 1909, I just thought about that. I wasn’t even worried about all that etymological history of it and stuff because of where I want to go with this, but the secret rapture, it’s a heresy. There’s nothing secret about it as we’re going to see the resurrection of the dead, and we’re going to see some things that will forever change how you look at Paul’s message to the Thessalonians concerning this, and what I’m going to share with you, you will not find in the Scofield Bible. And I want to reiterate again that if you do your homework, you will find much, much reputation of the Scofield Bible, of dispensationalism, exposure of the man’s life. It’s all there for you if you want to educate yourself and find out what’s going on, and then you’ll walk away scratching your head and wonder why Dallas Theological Institute and others use the Scofield Bible.

“Take heed that no man deceive you,” Christ said. Modern dispensationalism, now I’m having to just mention things that I know many of you are familiar with, and a big part of its push in the 20th century, in the early decade of the 20th century, came about. It had been metastasizing all these errors, but it really got a big push in the publication of the Scofield Bible, and the Plymouth Brethren and stuff. In my book, The Seventy Weeks, and I know many of you have probably read it, but on page 31 I talk about how all this error came into the Protestant Church, which was prior to all these men, it was a historicist. It was a historicism.

They all knew that the unifying doctrine of the Reformation was that the papacy was the dynasty of the foretold Antichrist, or man of sin, or little horn of Daniel. The thought of an Antichrist yet to come in a seven-year tribulation is all dispensationalism, Scofieldism. It’s all Roman Catholic Jesuit counter-theology. It’s that whole mixed bag of soup put together into a poisonous potion that has devastated Protestantism, Evangelicalism, or all several isms out there.

We talk about the players, who they were, the Plymouth Brethren, John Nelson Darby, Scofield, William Kelly, and we’ll be mentioning some of these people. There was a process by which we turned from centuries of understanding into a world of fanciful speculation, into a world of the 70 weeks, instead of glorifying and proving that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, even pointing out the exact year it was prophesied that He would appear in His public ministry, to having the 70 weeks at the end of the age, Antichrist appearing, rapture here, rapture there. That’s all Scofieldism, dispensationalism. And there’s not near enough time to get into the mechanics of all that. I want to show you a couple examples of what that has taken from the body of Christ. And it is evil. It is evil, what it has done.

One thing about the big difference, what Scofieldism and these dispensationalists tried to do, and have been teaching, is they look at man’s 7,000 or 6,000 years of recorded history. And they say, well, we really have seven dispensations. I read about dispensations in the Word, and what the word really means about service and stuff. But they break it up and they say, well, we have innocence, conscience, human government, promise, law of Moses, grace of the New Testament, then the kingdom to come in a thousand year millennium. I don’t read that in my Bible.

As a matter of fact, when you read the Bible, you find out that God dealt with man in covenants, not in dispensations.

We have a covenant in Eden. We have an Adamic covenant with Adam. We have a covenant with Noah. We have an unconditional covenant with Abraham. We have a covenant with Moses. We have a covenant with David. And then we have a new covenant with Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. That’s what your Bible teaches.

It’s just like Paul in his New Testament writings talked about a five-fold ministry of apostles, of prophets, of pastors, teachers, evangelists. Well, we have a massive apostasy that was prophesied and clearly defined in Daniel and the Revelation and in Paul’s writings that instead of that, we get nuns, priests, monsignors, cardinals, papacy. Where’d all that come from? Well, those of us who know our history know exactly where it came from.

And see, this is what happens when you start speculating and you start applying non-biblical understanding or conjectures of what you think the Bible is saying instead of just showing people the covenants of the Bible and watching them unfold. Behold, the days will come that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Not that I will grant them a new dispensation. That’s not what the Bible says, but that’s what these Scofieldites and dispensational people and Hal Lindsey’s and Scofield is wrong in much of his teaching. And why he got so popular was when his Bible came out, all the annotations and notes, people were reading the notes before they’d read the Bible and think they were getting correct interpretation. But as we’re going to see here, it was nefarious of what was happening around Scofield as all this was developing and who some of these players were. And again, I’m going to show you what were two examples, two great examples, of what was stolen from you. And believe me, I’ve written books on what was stolen from you. So has Pastor Jennings and others.

Scholars have looked at this and let me zip through this and have looked at the Scofield notes, compiled the theology of dispensationalism, its prophetic interpretations called futurism. These are in hand here. There’s a lot of devils involved, a lot of false doctrine, a lot of players. And we know our history. There’s a lot of enemies of the kingdom of God. And they write, and they’re liars because their leader is the father of lies.

Seven principal errors: First, we’ve been talking about that word dispensationalism. Antinomianism is the second. The false ideas of Antichrist, number three, those are dealt with in the 70 weeks in the present reign of Jesus Christ. This idea of Antichrist restricted to an individual at the end of the age is the lie of Francisco Ribera, rejected for centuries by Protestants. Until what I showed you, the players started reading their lies and other counter schemes. Then it evolved.

Men got lazy! They loved this fanciful speculation. The Plymouth Brethren, all this developing, all these Bible conferences, all these tracts, all these guys getting excited, something new. You know what you mean, “I don’t have to spend 20 years studying history? Oh, it’s all in the future!”

And boy, things happened. And the Scofield Bible fueled the fire that would ultimately produce a Hal Lindsey. Scofield Bible produced the fire that would produce a John Hagee. I’m not talking about these men’s lives. Don’t get me wrong. It’s what they’re touting and the poison that has been spewed and the theft of your understanding.

Secret Rapture is number four. Return of Jews to Jerusalem as they perceive it. And what they’re trying to tell you Jews are, Truth in History has made very clear. It’s been part of Pastor Jennings’ life to reveal to you the difference between, as we were warned in the Revelation, beware of them who say they are Jews but are not. They are the synagogue of Satan. That’s the Words of your Lord.

False teachings regarding the kingdom. Dispensationalists don’t have a clue what the kingdom of God is. And false hopes, probably the worst, is the false hopes for a batch of Jews in the coming millennium after the time of Antichrist and during the seven year tribulation. A false hope of another chance of salvation.

Let me show you one of the thefts. Let’s talk about this thing called the Rapture, the secret Rapture that’s so ingrained. It’s unbelievable. But, as I heard a man on the radio today talking about all this news unfolding about President Trump and Biden’s demise and he was wise and he said, remember, remember, remember, false news hits the airways before the truth and facts can be put together. They say a lie is heard all the way around the world before the truth can get its socks on in the morning. And that’s happened to us historically.

And by the way, the tree of liberty will bleed periodically. And we just saw last Saturday with the shooting of President Trump, a bulwark in the cry for the tree of liberty. We saw blood on his face. There’d been a lot of blood over the centuries. There’s more to come. A lot of folks going to die before things are settled.

But Paul writing to the Thessalonians in chapter four, verse 15, he says, “For this we say unto you by the Word of the Lord.” Paul said, I’m telling you what Jesus Christ would tell you if He was sitting here looking at you. “That we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep (or dead.)” The dead in Christ. “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout.”

What’s the secret rapture all about? I’ll spell it for you. S-H-O-U-T. Shout!

“With the voice of the archangel, the trump of God, the dead in Christ shall rise first.” This is the time of the dead that Daniel saw. “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so shall we ever be with the Lord. ”

The Lord who will be our God walking in the midst of the new Jerusalem on this earth. He will be the sun and the moon and the stars and the light and the government. We will see and walk with our God.

Well, let’s look at a couple things here. Rapture says we’re going to fly ascend up and meet the Lord. Paul says the Lord Himself is going to descend. This will make more sense in a minute. He’s going to descend from heaven with a shout, voice of the archangel, the trump of God. Well, I guarantee you this one’s going to wake the dead.

“We, which are alive and remain,” we haven’t gone anywhere. I talk about that in the 70 weeks in this secret rapture and who’s taken and who remains. The wicked are destroyed from the earth. The righteous remain on the earth that is without end as Paul said, new heaven and new earth. There’ll be one, a better quality as the Greek tells us, but this planet’s not going anywhere.

“Shall be caught up together with them in the clouds.”

Now, if you will get your Strongs [concordance] out and begin to do some work…Years ago in the early eighties, when this was brought to my attention that there’s a word used here in this caught up, be caught up theme called Harpazo. H-A-R-P-A-Z-O. And we get it in the English, you know, is “coming up.” Well, if we are ascending out of our graves, but the old dead body’s not going to ascend, we’re going to appear in the heavenly body. As Paul said, there’s bodies terrestrial and there’s bodies celestial. And we were going to transform, this is going to die and be buried, and we will be manifested in our heavenly bodies, celestial bodies.

But the word Harpazo, remember it says, Christ is descending from heaven. We’re not flying up into heaven, it says Christ is descending. Where’s He descending to? Well, the Revelation tells us where He comes to. And He told you on the Mount of Olives, the angel said this same Jesus was just taken from you. He’s going to come back in like manner.

I had a chance of ministering and I cannot remember the brother’s name now. And he was from Greece, spoke many languages. And we were talking about this. He said, “Y’all don’t understand in your English language what this “caught up” is properly translated to mean in the context.

He was a big old boy. He said, “Brother Robert, come here.” So I stood up. We were all up on the stage at some event long time ago.

He grabbed me and He pressed me and just gave me a big old bear hug catching me up off my feet. He said, what that means is, “I have pressed you into me.”

That’s what Christ is going to do. In the resurrection, He’s going to harpazzo. He’s going to press us into Him after He descends.

And it will happen in the air, but here’s going to shock some of y’all. But we have in the Greek language a more perfect understanding of the word air because it’s two different words. We have the word spelled air, A-E-R (transliterated from Greek spelling), which is the atmosphere that we walk in. Ten feet and under, we walk in the air.

And then we have air used in the New Testament and I talk about this in my book, 70 Weeks Air, which is called the Oranos. O-R-A-N-O-S That’s the clouds. That’s the heavens. That’s where your airplanes fly. That’s where the birds fly. These words are never confused.

The word here is air, A-E-R. The atmosphere, ten feet or under, the atmosphere we walk on on this earth is where this pressing in and transformation will happen. And Christ in the clouds, over and over again in the language of the prophets, clouds are symbolizing God moving in power.

Paul was a prophet. I have articles in Truth in History currently about the language of the prophets. If you don’t understand it, you get dispensationalism.

They have stolen this from you. They’ve got you all thinking you’ll fly up into heaven, but that’s not what the Scriptures say. The righteous remain. The righteous inherit the earth. The righteous rule and reign forever. Forever means forever.

There’s your resurrection. No secret rapture. It is a lie. It has devastated more people. And now people that have been from the real crazy surge in the 1980s and stuff, they’re going, what’s going on here? Well, they should be questioning. I’ve been screaming bloody murder about this since 1981.

So, that was stolen from you because of the notes in the Scofield Bible. Because of those that we’re going to talk about here in just a few minutes. It’s another gospel. False hope for the second chance.

In a little pamphlet here from Emma Weston that I worked with for years on the Weston Study Bible, she’s quoting the Apostle Paul. And she reminds us that Paul says, “Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Remember, we’re warned. Teachers and preachers, you mess it up, you’re going to get a hard judgment. We’re going to have the most to answer for. You get out there preaching another gospel, you’re accursed. And we’re to tell you that.

As we said before, so say we now again, that ain’t the first time that came out of Paul’s mouth. “If any man preach another gospel unto you than ye have received, let him be accursed.” – Galatians chapter 1 verses 8 and 9.

Then in Acts 20 and 27, Paul said, “I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. I marvel that ye are soon removed from him that called you unto another gospel, another gospel, which is not another, but there be some who would trouble you, who would perverse the gospel of Christ.”

Paul said he declared the whole gospel of Christ. There’s nothing new to be declared. Dispensationalism says, “Oh yes, there is. A bunch of Jews are going to get a special dispensation after the first resurrection and the age of grace is over.” That’s a lie! That’s why it’s called another gospel. The Scofield Bible might as well just be another gospel Bible, with all its futurism, with all its dispensationalism.

Talk to them about it. Don’t be afraid to declare. And as I had mentioned in the message I just taught before this about the seven separations of Abraham, don’t be afraid to start a fire. You’re going to do it no matter what. But I’m glad somebody started a fire with me over 40 years ago. And thank God that I was given the ability to obey. For Christ said, without me, you can’t do anything. Period.

Here’s another example that you won’t find referenced in dispensationalist teachings. You won’t find referenced in the Scofield Bible. Let’s talk about the temple and all this talk about a new temple coming. And that’s all part of this other gospel of God honoring sacrifice again. And boy, we had tore into that here at Truth In History. Both Pastor Jennings and myself. How can people fall for this? But if you don’t know your Bible, if you don’t know the Scriptures… And I’ve often told Brother Charles, I said, “Unfortunately, it’s just who got to them first.

In 2 Thessalonians, let’s look at something here. They’ve got you all wound up thinking that a new temple is going to be built and red heifers are going to be sacrificed and God is going to honor this and this is that other gospel for the Jew. Which most of you don’t even have a clue who a Jew is anyway. Or a Gentile. You can’t rightly divide them in your mind because you haven’t been taught properly. You haven’t learned your Bible. You haven’t learned your history. You haven’t learned that Christ came only to marry His bride which is the house of Israel and the house of Judah and then there’s other aspects of this great salvation on the face of the earth.

I’m not alone folks. There’s a lot of men and women out there that are very much aware and are teaching and I rejoice in it. I rejoice in it. I see it more and more and more and I thank God for it.

Chapter 2 of 2 Thessalonians: “Let no man deceive you by any means.” I think Paul’s quoting Jesus Christ. Trying to get it through our thick skulls. Don’t let men deceive you, and you’re deceived and destroyed if you have lack of knowledge, and lack of knowledge usually comes from not studying your Bible to the measure of grace God gave you. We’re not all the same.

“That day shall not come except there come a falling away first.” And they have devastated that understanding. “and that man of sin be revealed the son of perdition who opposed and exalt himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God showing himself that he is God.”

Now, this is so simple it’s ridiculous but then again you have to do a little homework do a little word study and you begin you find out that in the New Testament writings when Paul uses the word temple or when it’s used in the Scriptures that there’s two Greek words for it. One is the heron H-E-I-R-O-N very well spelled out in the 70 weeks and the other is the naos N-A-O-S. The heron is when Scripture talks about Peter and John going to the temple to worship the word heron is used. It’s the building. The building. The Romans took care of that building in 70 A.D. It is no more. And in the new heavens and the new earth and in the new Jerusalem John said. “I saw no temple therein.”

Where are they getting this garbage from about a rebuilt temple? “Well see, it says right here that the man of sin goes into the temple!” Folks, the word Paul uses here – and he does not confuse them, they are not confused in the New Testament – is naos spiritual temple. You are the temple of God. You are the naos N-A-O-S. Paul said that the man of sin sits in the spiritual temple of God and shows himself as God.

It’s the popes of Rome that have said, “Who can I be but God?” and there are libraries full, and men are afraid to teach the truth. They are cowards. They would rather have another gospel. They refuse to separate and go into higher revelation and understanding. But they will give an account (to God).

There is a reconciliation coming. There is an age of correction evolving. And Truth and History (this podcast) is a big part of it. Tell somebody about it.

I have some great quotes from some very stout theologians, and you can find all this stuff very easily but I want to get to something that I think is important, and you are going to get a homework assignment. I found when Pastor Jennings asked me to do a little presentation on the Scofield Bible and I haven’t done anything near that, I’m just talking to you about some truths and trying to warn you to educate yourself. Ask your preachers about what about this Rapture and this caught up in the air, what about this temple, and this heron and naos and expect the left foot of fellowship. But good for you. But there will be some who will listen. God will prepare hearts. God will prepare, and out of the mouths of babes and sucklings he’s going to produce praise that’s going to get through to some of these, some their hearts are hardened, they believe a lie and we’ll just let God handle all that in the resurrection.

Now, when Pastor Jennings asked me to do a presentation on Scofield Bible, my eyes rolled back in my head and I said, “How in the world do I do that? Where do I start what do I do?” But then I remembered that I had in my files, and I’ve had it for decades tucked away, I had a folder here started with Scofield on it, something about Scofield, and the Lord quickened me, and I looked at this probably since I don’t know when, I don’t even remember where I got this from. I can’t even find it on the internet! I don’t know where I got this from, but I’m going to tell you what it is, and hopefully you can find it and dig it up, because I’m better at history books than I am computers. I’m like my brother Charles, old school. Carl and Matthew Dyer and Brother Paul and these others, we let them do all that fancy computer stuff. I’m staying in the books.

It’s an article entitled, “Arno the Wizard, The Man behind Scofield.” It’ll knock your socks off the information that’s in here. Let me read you just a quick excerpt then I’m going to show you some more about the article. He’s quoting a writer, Joseph Canfield, who wrote a book called “The Incredible Scofield.”

    “The tin man rattled, the straw man cowered, and the great Oz thundered amidst smoke and flames. But Toto pulled the curtain and Dorothy saw the snake oil salesman from Kansas at the controls.”

Sounds like Barack Obama doesn’t it?

    “Like the great Oz, C.I. Scofield was an imposing figure in the early 20th century. He was revered for the genius reverend, for the genius of his novel footnotes.”

He was a prolific writer, I’m not saying he wasn’t.

    “But research has pulled the curtain on the Kansas con man. We now know who actually wrote the notes, and created the illusion of the patriarch of the dispensationalist movement. If you had been on second street in the lower East Side of New York in 1896, you could have walked into the office of the Zionist publication Our Hope, and met its editor Arno Gaebelein. He would have been busy at his typewriter surrounded by stacks of his magazine awaiting the delivery.”

Frank Gaebelein, Arno’s son, it goes on and talks about as this story is developed, comes clean. the man behind Scofield is another big part of this article. Another section of it, Arno Gaebelein again, the man behind Scofields. What’s going on here? Another section Arno’s support team again the man behind Scofield and the support team that put this Scofield Bible together! They were Zionists! What was their goal? What were they trying to do? Arno and the aristocrats – this is all documented too – Arno and King James the man behind Scofield. Arno does Dallas, the man behind Scofield. Then you get into how all this evolved, and one of the biggest promoters of the Scofield Bible Dallas Theological Seminary.

I heard when the Seventy Weeks was first published decades ago, word got back to me that seminary students at Dallas Theological Institute were putting this in a brown bag and passing it around to each other, but they didn’t want to get caught with the book. Hopefully we bailed some of them out, not enough evidently.

Now the thing is, I have no idea and I apologize I have no idea where I got this from, but it’s documented, you’ve got the references the writers, the books and there’s the story. You know, if the tree is rotten the fruit is rotten. And so we know the story behind dispensationalism, Scofield. We know the story behind the poisoning of the Seventy Weeks of Ribera, and putting that seven years in the future. We know the story behind stealing from you the understanding of the seals, the trumpets, and the vials and the Revelation, and the glorious divine time measures that apply, and how the woes intervene, and how the great Reformation chapters of 10 and 11, and above all we know that the story was twice told!

That’s all been taken from you. All been taken from you because of these characters. I challenge you, do your homework. Paul said what now have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth? I’ve become a lot of people’s enemies but that’s alright. I’m going to stand before Christ. I’m not standing before them and I will not back down. And we will as President Trump said “fight, fight, fight!! Because we’re called into a fight, we’re called into a war, we’re called to expose the enemy. And I hope that raised some flags. I hope that gave you because there’s so much that we could talk about I’m surprised Pastor Jennings didn’t jump in here.

Be blessed, do your homework. If you watched the message prior to this on the seven separations of Abraham, don’t be afraid to be separated for the gospel of the kingdom because then Christ will take you in to more truth than you’ll know what to do with for the rest of your life, and you’ll know what real freedom is.

God bless you.




Why Were Our Reformers Burned? – by J.C. Ryle

Why Were Our Reformers Burned? – by J.C. Ryle

“John Charles Ryle (10 May 1816 – 10 June 1900) was an English evangelical Anglican bishop. He was the first Anglican bishop of Liverpool.” – Quoted from Wikipedia.

The title of this article is referring to the Protestant martyrs in England during the reign of Roman Catholic Mary of Scots, also known as “Bloody Mary.”

The author, J.C. Ryle, was a Protestant in the true sense of the word. In his lecture, he talks about English history that the Roman Catholic Church does not want you to know. Regular readers of this website know how important history is to me. I believe the problems in the world we are facing today have a lot to do with the public’s lack of knowledge of what happened in the past.

J.C. Ryle

J.C. Ryle

There are certain facts in history which the world tries hard to forget and ignore. These facts get in the way of some of the world’s favorite theories, and are highly inconvenient. The consequence is that the world shuts its eyes against them. They are either regarded as vulgar intruders, or passed by as tiresome bores. Little by little they sink out of sight of the students of history, like ships in a distant horizon. Of such facts the subject of this paper is a vivid example: “The Burning of our English Reformers; and the Reason why they were Burned.”

It is fashionable in some quarters to deny that there is any such thing as certainty about religious truth, or any opinions for which it is worth while to be burned. Yet, 300 years ago, there were men who were certain they had found out truth, and were content to die for their opinions. It is fashionable in other quarters to leave out all the unpleasant things in history, and to paint everything with a rose-colored hue. A very popular history of our English Queens hardly mentions the martyrdoms of Queen Mary’s days! Yet Mary was not called “Bloody Mary” without reason, and scores of Protestants were burned in her reign. Last — but not least, it is thought very bad taste in many quarters to say anything which throws discredit on the Church of Rome. Yet it is as certain that the Romish Church burned our English Reformers — as it is that William the Conqueror won the battle of Hastings. These difficulties meet me face to face as I walk up to the subject which I wish to unfold in this paper. I know their magnitude, and I cannot evade them. I only ask my readers to give me a patient and indulgent hearing.

After all, I have great confidence in the honesty of Englishmen’s minds. Truth is truth, however long it may be neglected. Facts are facts, however long they may lie buried. I only want to dig up some old facts which the sands of time have covered over, to bring to the light of day some old English monuments which have been long neglected, to unstop some old wells which the prince of this world has been diligently filling with earth. I ask my readers to give me their attention for a few minutes, and I trust to be able to show them that it is good to examine the question, “Why were our Reformers burned?”

I. The broad facts of the martyrdom of our Reformers are a story well known and soon told. But it may be useful to give a brief outline of these facts, in order to supply a framework to our subject.

Edward VI, “that incomparable young prince,” as Bishop Burnet justly calls him, died on the 6th July, 1553. Never, perhaps, did any royal personage in this land die more truly lamented, or leave behind him a fairer reputation. Never, perhaps, to man’s poor fallible judgment, did the cause of God’s truth in England receive a heavier blow. His last prayer before death ought not to be forgotten, “O Lord God, defend this realm from papistry, and maintain Your true religion.” It was a prayer, I believe, not offered in vain.

After a foolish and deplorable effort to obtain the crown for Lady Jane Grey, Edward was succeeded by his eldest sister, Mary, daughter of Henry VIII, and best known in English history by the ill-omened name of “Bloody Mary.” Mary had been brought up from her infancy as a rigid adherent of the Romish Church. She was, in fact, a very Papist of Papists, conscientious, zealous, bigoted, and narrow-minded in the extreme. She began at once to pull down her brother’s work in every possible way, and to restore Popery in its worst and most offensive forms. Step by step she and her councillors marched back to Rome, trampling down one by one every obstacle, and as thorough as Lord Stratford in going straight forward to their mark. The Mass was restored; the English service was taken away; the works of Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, Tyndale, Bucer, Latimer, Hooper, and Cranmer were forbidden. Cardinal Pole was invited to England. The foreign Protestants resident in England were banished. The leading divines of the Protestant Church of England were deprived of their offices, and, while some escaped to the Continent, many were put in prison. The old statutes against heresy were once more brought forward, primed and loaded. And thus by the beginning of 1555 the stage was cleared, and that bloody tragedy, in which Bishops Bonner and Gardiner played so prominent a part, was ready to begin.

For, unhappily for the credit of human nature, Mary’s advisers were not content with depriving and imprisoning the leading English Reformers. It was resolved to make them abjure their principles — or to put them to death. One by one they were called before special Commissions, examined about their religious opinions, and called upon to recant, on pain of death ii they refused. No third course, no alternative was left to them. They were either to give up Protestantism and receive Popery — or else they were to be burned alive! Refusing to recant, they were one by one handed over to the secular power, publicly brought out and chained to stakes, publicly surrounded with faggots, and publicly sent out of the world by that most cruel and painful of deaths — the death by fire. All these are broad facts which all the apologists of Rome can never gainsay or deny.

It is a broad fact that during the four last years of Queen Mary’s reign, no less than 288 people were burnt at the stake for their adhesion to the Protestant faith.

  • In 1555, 71 were burnt
  • In 1556, 89 were burnt
  • In 1557, 88 were burnt
  • In 1558, 40 were burnt

Indeed, the faggots never ceased to blaze while Mary was alive, and five martyrs were burnt in Canterbury only a week before her death. Out of these 288 sufferers, be it remembered, one was an archbishop, four were bishops, twenty-one were clergymen, fifty-five were women, and four were children.

It is a broad fact that these 288 sufferers were not put to death for any offence against property or person. They were not rebels against the Queen’s authority. They were not thieves, or murderers, or drunkards, or men and women of immoral lives. On the contrary, they were, with barely an exception, some of the holiest, purest, and best Christians in England, and several of them the most learned men of their day.

I might say much about the gross injustice and unfairness with which they were treated at their various examinations. Their trials, if indeed they can be called trials, were a mere mockery of justice. I might say much about the abominable cruelty with which most of them were treated, both in prison and at the stake. But you must read Fox’s Book of Martyrs on these points.

Never did Rome do herself such irreparable damage as she did in Mary’s reign. Even unlearned people, who could not argue much, saw clearly that a Church which committed such horrible bloodshed could hardly be the one true Church of Christ! But I have no time for all this. I must conclude this general sketch of this part of my subject with two short remarks.

For one thing, I ask my readers never to forget that for the burning of our Reformers, the Church of Rome is wholly and entirely responsible. The attempt to transfer the responsibility from the Church to the secular power, is a miserable and dishonest subterfuge. The men of Judah did not slay Samson; but they delivered him bound into the hands of the Philistines! The Church of Rome did not slay the Reformers; but she condemned them, and the secular power executed the condemnation! The precise measure of responsibility which ought to be meted out to each of Rome’s agents in the matter, is a point that I do not care to settle. Miss Strickland, in her “Lives of the Queens of England,” has tried in vain to shift the blame from unhappy Mary. With all the zeal of a woman, she has labored hard to whitewash her character. The reader of her biography will find little about martyrdoms. But it will not do. Mr. Froude’s volume tells a very different tale. The Queen, and her Council, and the Parliament, and the Popish Bishops, and Cardinal Pole — must be content to share the responsibility among them. One thing alone is very certain. They will never succeed in shifting the responsibility off the shoulders of the Church of Rome. Like the Jews and Pontius Pilate, when our Lord was crucified — all parties must bear the blame. THE BLOOD is upon them all.

For another thing, I wish my readers to remember that the burning of the Marian martyrs is an act that the Church of Rome has never repudiated, apologized for, or repented of — down to the present day. There stands the huge blot on her escutcheon; and there stands the huge fact side by side — that she never made any attempt to wipe it away.

 Never has she repented of her cruel treatment of the Vaudois and the Albigenses;
 never has she repented of the wholesale murders of the Spanish Inquisition;  never has she repented of the massacre at St. Bartholomew’s;  never has she repented of the burning of the English Reformers!

We should make a note of that fact, and let it sink down into our minds. Rome never changes. Rome will never admit that she has made mistakes. She burned our English Reformers 300 years ago. She tried hard to stamp out by violence the Protestantism which she could not prevent spreading by arguments. If Rome had only the power, I am not sure that she would not attempt to play the whole game over again!

II. The question may now arise in our minds: WHO were the leading English Reformers that were burned? What were their names, and what were the circumstances attending their deaths? These are questions which may very properly be asked, and questions to which I proceed at once to give an answer.

In this part of my paper I am very sensible that I shall seem to many to go over old ground. But I am bold to say that it is ground which ought often to be gone over. I, for one, want the names of our martyred Reformers to be “Household Words” in every Protestant family throughout the land. I shall, therefore, make no apology for giving the names of the nine principal English martyrs in the chronological order of their deaths, and for supplying you with a few facts about each of them. Never, I believe, since Christ left the world, did Christian men ever meet a cruel death with such glorious faith, and hope, and patience, as these Marian martyrs. Never did dying men leave behind them such a rich store of noble sayings, sayings which deserve to be written in golden letters in our histories, and handed down to our children’s children.

(1) The first leading English Reformer who broke the ice and crossed the river, as a martyr in Mary’s reign, was John Rogers, a London Minister. He was burned in Smithfield on Monday, the 4th of February, 1555. Rogers was a man who, in one respect, had done more for the cause of Protestantism than any of his fellow-sufferers. In saying this I refer to the fact that he had assisted Tyndale and Coverdale in bringing out a most important version of the English Bible, a version commonly known as Matthews’ Bible. Indeed, he was condemned as “Rogers, alias Matthews.” This circumstance, in all human probability, made him a marked man, and was one cause why he was the first who was brought to the stake.

Rogers’ examination before Gardiner gives us the idea of his being a bold, thorough Protestant, who had fully made up his mind on all points of the Romish controversy, and was able to give a reason for his opinions. At any rate, he seems to have silenced and abashed his examiners even more than most of the martyrs did. But argument, of course, went for nothing. “Woe to the conquered!” If he had the Scripture — his enemies had the sword.

On the morning of his martyrdom he was roused hastily in his cell in Newgate, and hardly allowed time to dress himself. He was then led forth to Smithfield on foot, within sight of the Church of Sepulcher, where he had preached, and through the streets of the parish where he had done the work of a pastor. By the wayside stood his wife and ten children (one a baby) whom Bishop Bonner, in his diabolical cruelty, had flatly refused him permission to see in prison. He just saw them — but was hardly allowed to stop, and then walked on calmly to the stake, repeating the 51st Psalm. An immense crowd lined the street, and filled every available spot in Smithfield. Up to that day men could not tell how English Reformers would behave in the face of death, and could hardly believe that some would actually give their bodies to be burned for their religion. But when they saw John Rogers, the first martyr, walking steadily and unflinchingly into a fiery grave, the enthusiasm of the crowd knew no bounds. They rent the air with thunders of applause. Even Noailles, the French Ambassador, wrote home a description of the scene, and said that Rogers went to death “as if he was walking to his wedding!” By God’s great mercy he died with comparative ease. And so the first Marian martyr passed away.

(2) The second leading Reformer who died for Christ’s truth in Mary’s reign was John Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester. He was burned at Gloucester on Friday, the 9th of February, 1555.

Hooper was perhaps, the noblest martyr of them all. Of all Edward the Sixth’s bishops, none has left behind him a higher reputation for personal holiness, and diligent preaching and working in his diocese. None, judging from his literary remains, had clearer and more Scriptural views on all points in theology. Some might say that he was too Calvinistic; but he was not more so than the Thirty-nine Articles. Hooper was a far-sighted man, and saw the danger of leaving nest-eggs for Romanism in the Church of England.

A man like Hooper, firm, stem, not naturally congenial, unbending and unsparing in his denunciation of sin, was sure to have many enemies. He was one of the first marked for destruction as soon as Popery was restored. He was summoned to London at a very early stage of the Marian persecution, and, after lingering eighteen months in prison, and going through the form of examination by Bonner, Gardiner, Tunstall, and Day — was degraded from his office, and sentenced to be burned as a heretic.

At first it was fully expected that he would suffer in Smithfield with Rogers. This plan, for some unknown reason, was given up, and to his great satisfaction, Hooper was sent down to Gloucester, and burnt in his own diocese, and in sight of his own cathedral. On his arrival there, he was received with every sign of sorrow and respect by a vast multitude, who went out on the Cirencester Road to meet him, and was lodged for the night in the house of a Mr. Ingrain, which is still standing, and probably not much altered. There Sir Anthony Kingston, whom the good Bishop had been the means of converting from a sinful life, entreated him, with many tears, to spare himself, and urged him to remember that “Life was sweet — and death was bitter.” To this the noble martyr returned this memorable reply, that “Eternal life was more sweet — and eternal death was more bitter.”

On the morning of his martyrdom he was led forth, walking, to the place of execution, where an immense crowd awaited him. It was market-day; and it was reckoned that nearly 7000 people were present. The stake was planted 100 yards in front of the Cathedral. The exact spot is marked now by a beautiful memorial at the east end of the churchyard. The window over the gate, where Popish friars watched the Bishop’s dying agonies, stands unaltered to this day.

When Hooper arrived at this spot, he was allowed to pray, though strictly forbidden to speak to the people. And there he knelt down, and prayed a prayer which has been preserved and recorded by Fox, and is of exquisitely touching character. Even then a box was put before him containing a full pardon, if he would only recant. His only answer was, “Away with it; if you love my soul, away with it!” He was then fastened to the stake by a chain round his waist, and fought his last fight with the king of terrors. Of all the martyrs, none perhaps, except Ridley, suffered more than Hooper did. Three times the faggots had to be lighted, because they would not burn properly. Three quarters of an hour the noble sufferer endured the mortal agony, as Fox says, “neither moving backward, forward, nor to any side,” but only praying, “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me; Lord Jesus, receive my spirit;” and beating his breast with one hand until it was burned to a stump! And so the good Bishop of Gloucester passed away.

(3) The third leading Reformer who suffered in Mary’s reign was Rowland Taylor, Rector of Hadleigh, in Suffolk. He was burned on Aldham Common, close to his own parish, the same day that Hooper died at Gloucester, on Friday, the 9th February, 1555.

Rowland Taylor is one of whom we know little, except that he was a great friend of Cranmer, and a doctor of divinity and canon law. But that he was a man of high standing among the Reformers is evident, from his being ranked by his enemies with Hooper, Rogers, and Bradford; and that he was an exceedingly able and ready divine is clear from his examination, recorded by Fox. Indeed, there is hardly any of the sufferers about whom the old Martyrologist has gathered together so many touching and striking things. One might think he was a personal friend.

Striking was the reply which he made to his friends at Hadleigh, who urged him to flee, as he might have done, when he was first summoned to appear in London before Gardiner — “What will you have me to do? I am old, and have already lived too long to see these terrible and most wicked days. Hurry, and do as your conscience leads you. I believe before God that I shall never be able to do for my God such good service as I may do now!”

Striking were the replies which he made to Gardiner and his other examiners. None spoke more pithily, weightily, and powerfully than did this Suffolk incumbent. Striking and deeply affecting was his last testament and legacy of advice to his wife, his family, and parishioners, though far too long to be inserted here, excepting the last sentence — “For God’s sake beware of Popery! For though it appears to have in it unity — yet the same is vanity and Antichristianity, and not in Christ’s faith and truth.”

He was sent down from London to Hadleigh, to his great delight, to be burned before the eyes of his parishioners. When he got within two miles of Hadleigh, the Sheriff of Suffolk asked him how he felt. “God be praised, Master Sheriff,” was his reply, “never better! For now I am almost at home. I lack but just two stiles to go over, and I am even at my Father’s house!”

As he rode through the streets of the little town of Hadleigh, he found them lined with crowds of his parishioners, who had heard of his approach, and came out of their houses to greet him with many tears and lamentations. To them he only made one constant address, “I have preached to you God’s Word and truth — and have come this day to seal it with my blood.”

On coming to Aldham Common, where he was to suffer, they told him where he was. Then he said, “Thank God, I am even at home!”

When he was stripped to his shirt and ready for the stake, he said, with a loud voice, “Good people, I have taught you nothing but God’s Holy Word, and those lessons that I have taken out of the Bible; and I am come hither to seal it with my blood!” He would probably have said more, but, like all the other martyrs, he was strictly forbidden to speak, and even now was struck violently on the head for saying these few words. He then knelt down and prayed, a poor woman of the parish insisting, in spite of every effort to prevent her, in kneeling down with him. After this, he was chained to the stake, and repeating the 51st Psalm, and crying to God, “Merciful Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake, receive my soul into Your hands!” stood quietly amidst the flames without crying or moving, until one of the guards dashed out his brains with an axe. And so this good old Suffolk incumbent passed away.

(4) The fourth leading Reformer who ,suffered in Mary’s reign was Robert Ferrar, Bishop of St. David’s, in Wales. He was burned at Carmarthen on Friday, the 30th March, 1555. Little is known of this good man beyond the fact that he was born at Halifax, and was the last Prior of Nostel, in Yorkshire, an office which he surrendered in 1540. He was also Chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer, and to this influence he owed his elevation to the Episcopal bench.

He was first imprisoned for various trivial and ridiculous charges on temporal matters, and afterwards was brought before Gardiner, with Hooper, Rogers, and Bradford — on the far more serious matter of his doctrine. The articles exhibited against him clearly show that in all questions of faith, he was of one mind with his fellow-martyrs. Like Hooper and Taylor, he was condemned to be burned in the place where he was best known, and was sent down from London to Carmarthen. What happened there at his execution is related very briefly by Fox, partly, no doubt, because of the great distance of Carmarthen from London in those pre-railways days; partly, perhaps, because most of those who saw Ferrar burned could speak nothing but Welsh. One single fact is recorded which shows the good Bishop’s courage and constancy in a striking light. He had told a friend before the day of execution that if he saw him once stir in the fire from the pain of his burning, he need not believe the doctrines he had taught. When the awful time came, he did not forget his promise, and, by God’s grace, he kept it well. He stood in the flames holding out his hands until they were burned to stumps, until a bystander in mercy struck him on the head, and put an end to his sufferings. And so the Welsh Bishop passed away.

(5) The fifth leading Reformer who suffered in Mary’s reign was John Bradford, Prebendary of St. Paul’s, and Chaplain to Bishop Ridley. He was burned in Smithfield on Monday, July the 1st, 1555, at the early age of thirty-five. Few of the English martyrs, perhaps, are better known than Bradford, and none certainly deserve better their reputation. Strype calls Bradford, Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer — the “four prime pillars” of the Reformed Church of England. At an early age his high talents commended him to the notice of men in high quarters, and he was appointed one of the six royal chaplains who were sent about England to preach up the doctrines of the Reformation. Bradford’s commission was to preach in Lancashire and Cheshire, and he seems to have performed his duty with singular ability and success. He preached constantly in Manchester, Liverpool, Bolton, Bury, Wigan, Ashton, Stockport, Prestwich, Middleton, and Chester — with great benefit to the cause of Protestantism, and with great effect on men’s souls. The consequence was what might have been expected. Within a month of Queen Mary’s accession, Bradford was in prison, and never left it until he was burned. His youth, his holiness, and his extraordinary reputation as a preacher — made him an object of great interest during his imprisonment, and immense efforts were made to pervert him from the Protestant faith. All of these efforts, however, were in vain. As he lived — so he died.

On the day of his execution, he was led out from Newgate prison to Smithfield about nine o’clock in the morning, amid such a crowd of people as was never seen either before or after. A Mrs. Honeywood, who lived to the age of ninety-six, and died about 1620, remembered going to see him burned, and her shoes being trodden off by the crowd. Indeed, when he came to the stake, the Sheriffs of London were so alarmed at the press, that they would not allow him and his fellow-sufferer, Leaf, to pray as long as they wished. “Arise,” they said, “and make an end; for the press of the people is great.”

“At that word,” says Fox, “they both stood up upon their feet, and then Master Bradford took a faggot in his hands and kissed it, and so likewise the stake.” When he came to the stake, he held up his hands, and, looking up to Heaven, said, “O England, England, repent of your sins! Beware of idolatry; beware of false Antichrists! Take heed they do not deceive you!” After that he turned to the young man Leaf, who suffered with him, and said, “Be of good comfort, brother; for we shall have a merry supper with the Lord this night!” After that he spoke no more that man could hear, excepting that he embraced the reeds, and said, “Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leads to eternal life, and few there are who find it.” “He embraced the flames,” says Fuller, “as a fresh gale of wind in a hot summer day.” And so, in the prime of life, he passed away.

(6, 7) The sixth and seventh leading Reformers who suffered in Mary’s reign were two whose names are familiar to every Englishman, Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of London, and Hugh Latimer, once Bishop of Worcester. They were both burned at Oxford, back to back, at one stake, on the 16th of October, 1555.

The history of these two great English Protestants is so well known to most people, that I need not say much about it. Next to Cranmer, there can be little doubt that no two men did so much to bring about the establishment of the principles of the Reformation in England. Latimer, as an extraordinary popular preacher, and Ridley, as a learned man and an admirable manager of the Metropolitan diocese of London, have left behind them reputations which never have been passed. As a matter of course, they were among the first that Bonner and Gardiner struck at, when Mary came to the throne, and were persecuted with relentless severity until their deaths.

How they were examined again and again by Commissioners about the great points in controversy between Protestants and Rome — how they were shamefully baited, teased, and tortured by every kind of unfair and unreasonable dealing — how they gallantly fought a good fight to the end, and never gave way for a moment to their adversaries — all these are matters with which I need not trouble my readers. Are they not all fairly chronicled in the pages of good old Fox? I will only mention a few circumstances connected with their deaths.

On the day of their martyrdom, they were brought separately to the place of execution, which was at the end of Broad Street, Oxford, close to Balliol College. Ridley arrived on the ground first, and seeing Latimer come afterwards, ran to him and kissed him, saying, “Be of good heart, brother; for God will either assuage the fury of the flames, or else strengthen us to abide it!” They then prayed earnestly, and talked with one another, though no one could hear what they said. After this they had to listen to a sermon by a wretched renegade divine named Smith, and, being forbidden to make any answer, were commanded to make ready for death.

Ridley’s last words before the fire was lighted were these, “Heavenly Father, I give You most hearty thanks that You have called me to a profession of You even unto death. I beseech You, Lord God, have mercy on this realm of England, and deliver the same from all her enemies.” Latimer’s last words were like the blast of a trumpet, which rings even to this day, “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day, by God’s grace, light such a candle in England as I trust shall never be put out!”

When the flames began to rise, Ridley cried out with a loud voice in Latin, “Into your hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit! Lord, receive my spirit,” and afterwards repeated these last words in English.

Latimer cried as vehemently on the other side of the stake, “Father of Heaven, receive my soul.” Latimer soon died. An old man, above eighty years of age, it took but little to set his spirit free from its earthly tenement.

Ridley suffered long and painfully, from the bad management of the fire by those who attended the execution. At length, however, the flames reached a vital part of him, and he fell at Latimer’s feet, and was at rest. And so the two great Protestant bishops passed away. “They were lovely and beautiful in their lives, and in death they were not divided.”

(8) The eighth leading English Reformer who suffered in Mary’s reign was John Philpot, Archdeacon of Winchester. He was burned in Smithfield on Wednesday, December the 18th, 1555. Philpot is one of the martyrs of whom we know little comparatively, except that he was born at Compton, in Hampshire, was of good family, and well connected, and had a very high reputation for learning. The mere fact that at the beginning of Mary’s reign he was one of the leading champions of Protestantism in the mock discussions which were held in Convocation, is sufficient to show that he was no common man.

The thirteen examinations of Philpot before the Popish bishops are given by Fox at great length, and fill no less than one hundred and forty pages of one of the Parker Society volumes. The length to which they were protracted, shows plainly how anxious his judges were to turn him from his principles. The skill with which the Archdeacon maintained his ground, alone and unaided, gives a most favorable impression of his learning, no less than of his courage and patience.

The night before his execution he received a message, while at supper in Newgate, to the effect that he was to be burned next day. He answered at once, “I am ready! God grant me strength and a joyful resurrection.” He then went into his bed room, and thanked God that he was counted worthy to suffer for His truth.

The next morning, at eight o’clock, the Sheriffs called for him, and conducted him to Smithfield. The road was foul and muddy, as it was the depth of winter, and the officers took him up in their arms to carry him to the stake. Then he said, merrily, alluding to what he had probably seen at Rome, when traveling in his early days, “What, will you make me a Pope? I am content to go to my journey’s end on foot.”

When he came into Smithfield, he kneeled down and said, “I will pay my vows in you, O Smithfield.” He then kissed the stake and said, “Shall I disdain to suffer at this stake — seeing my Redeemer did not refuse to suffer a most vile death on the cross for me?” After that, he meekly repeated the 106th, 107th, and 108th Psalms; and being chained to the stake, died very quietly. And so the good Archdeacon passed away.

(9) The ninth and last leading Reformer who suffered in Mary’s reign was Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. He was burned at Oxford, on the 21st of March, 1556. There is no name among the English martyrs so well known in history as his. There is none certainly in the list of our Reformers to whom the Church of England, on the whole, is so much indebted. He was only a mortal man, and had his weaknesses and infirmities, it must be admitted; but still, he was a great man, and a good man.

Cranmer, we must always remember, was brought prominently forward at a comparatively early period in the English Reformation, and was made Archbishop of Canterbury at a time when his views of religion were confessedly half-formed and imperfect. Whenever quotations from Cranmer’s writings are brought forward by the advocates of semi-Romanism in the Church of England, you should always ask carefully to what period of his life those quotations belong. In forming your estimate of Cranmer, do not forget his antecedents. He was a man who had the honesty to grope his way into fuller light, and to cast aside his early opinions and confess that he had changed his mind on many subjects. How few men have the courage to do this!

Cranmer maintained an unblemished reputation throughout the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI, although frequently placed in most delicate and difficult positions. Not a single man can be named in those days who passed through so much dirt — and yet came out of it so thoroughly undefiled.

Cranmer, beyond all doubt, laid the foundation of our present Prayer-book and Articles. Though not perhaps a brilliant man, he was a learned one, and a lover of learned men, and one who was always trying to improve everything around him. When I consider the immense difficulties he had to contend with, I often wonder that he accomplished what he did. Nothing, in fact — but his steady perseverance, would have laid the foundation of our Formularies.

I say all these things in order to break the force of the great and undeniable fact that he was the only English Reformer who for a time showed the white feather, and for a time shrank from dying for the truth! I admit that he fell sadly. I do not pretend to extenuate his fall. It stands forth as an everlasting proof, that the best of men are only men at the best. I only want my readers to remember that if Cranmer failed as no other Reformer in England failed — he also had done what certainly no other Reformer had done.

From the moment that Mary came to the English throne, Cranmer was marked for destruction. It is probable that there was no English divine whom the unhappy Queen regarded with such rancour and hatred. She never forgot that her mother’s divorce was brought about by Cranmer’s advice, and she never rested until he was burned.

Cranmer was imprisoned and examined just like Ridley and Latimer. Like them, he stood his ground firmly before the Commissioners. Like them, he had clearly the best of the argument in all points that were disputed. But, like them, of course, he was pronounced guilty of heresy, condemned, deposed, and sentenced to be burned.

And now comes the painful fact that in the last month of Cranmer’s life, his courage failed him, and he was persuaded to sign a recantation of his Protestant opinions. Flattered and cajoled by subtle kindness, frightened at the prospect of so dreadful a death as burning, tempted and led away by the devil — Thomas Cranmer fell, and put his hand to a paper, in which he repudiated and renounced the principles of the Reformation, for which he had labored so long.

Great was the sorrow of all true Protestants on hearing these tidings! Great was the triumphing and exultation of all Papists! Had they stopped here and set their noble victim at liberty, the name of Cranmer would probably have sunk and never risen again. But the Romish party, as God would have it, outwitted themselves. With fiendish cruelty they resolved to burn Cranmer, even after he had recanted! This, by God’s providence, was just the turning point for Cranmer’s reputation. Through the abounding grace of God, he repented of his fall, and found Divine mercy. Through the same abounding grace, he resolved to die in the faith of the Reformation. And at last, through abounding grace, he witnessed such a bold confession in St. Mary’s, Oxford, that he confounded his enemies, filled his friends with thankfulness and praise, and left the world a triumphant martyr for Christ’s truth!

I need hardly remind you how, on the 21st March, the unhappy Archbishop was brought out, like Samson in the hands of the Philistines, to make sport for his enemies, and to be a gazing-stock to the world in St. Mary’s Church, at Oxford. I need hardly remind you how, after Dr. Cole’s sermon he was invited to declare his faith, and was fully expected to acknowledge publicly his alteration of religion, and his adhesion to the Church of Rome. I need hardly remind you how, with intense mental suffering, the Archbishop addressed the assembly at great length, and at the close suddenly astounded his enemies by renouncing all his former recantations, declaring the Pope to be Antichrist, and rejecting the Popish doctrine of the Real Presence. Such a sight was certainly never seen by mortal eyes since the world began!

But then came the time of Cranmer’s triumph. With a light heart, and a clear conscience, he cheerfully allowed himself to be hurried to the stake amidst the frenzied outcries of his disappointed enemies. Boldly and undauntedly he stood up at the stake while the flames curled around him, steadily holding out his right hand in the fire, and saying, with reference to his having signed a recantation, “This unworthy right hand,” and steadily holding up his left hand towards heaven. Of all the martyrs, strange to say, none at the last moment showed more physical courage than Cranmer did. Nothing, in short, in all his life became him so well as the manner of his leaving it. Greatly he had sinned — but greatly he had repented. Like Peter he fell — but like Peter he rose again. And so passed away the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury.

I will not trust myself to make any comment on these painful and interesting histories. I have not time. I only wish my readers to believe that the half of these men’s stories have not been told them, and that the stories of scores of men and women less distinguished by position might easily be added to them — quite as painful and quite as interesting. But I will say boldly, that the men who were burned in this way were not men whose memories ought to be lightly passed over, or whose opinions ought to be lightly esteemed.

Opinions for which “an army of martyrs” died, ought not to be dismissed with scorn. To their faithfulness, we owe the existence of the Reformed Church of England. Her foundations were cemented with their blood. To their courage we owe, in a great measure our English liberty. They taught the land that it was worth while to die for free thought. Happy is the land which has had such citizens! Happy is the Church which has had such Reformers! Honor be to those who at Smithfield, Oxford, Gloucester, Carmarthen, and Hadleigh — have raised stones of remembrance and memorial to the martyrs!

III. But I pass on to a point which I hold to be one of cardinal importance in the present day. The point I refer to is the special reason why our Reformers were burned. Great indeed would be our mistake, if we supposed that they suffered for the vague charge of refusing submission to the Pope, or desiring to maintain the independence of the Church of England. Nothing of the kind! The principal reason why they were burned, was because they refused one of the peculiar doctrines of the Romish Church. On that doctrine, in almost every case, hinged their life or death. If they admitted it — they might live; if they refused it — they must die!

The doctrine in question was the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated elements of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. Did they, or did they not, believe that the body and blood of Christ were really, that is, corporally, literally, locally, and materially, present under the forms of bread and wine after the words of consecration were pronounced? Did they or did they not believe that the real body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, was present on the so-called altar, as soon as the mystical words had passed the lips of the priest? Did they or did they not? That was the simple question. If they did not believe and admit it — they were burned!

There is a wonderful and striking unity in the stories of our martyrs on this subject. Some of them, no doubt, were attacked about the marriage of priests. Some of them were assaulted about the nature of the Catholic Church. Some of them were assailed on other points. But all, without an exception, were called to special account about the real presence, and in every case their refusal to admit the doctrine formed one principal cause of their condemnation.

(1) Hear what John Rogers said: “I was asked whether I believed in the sacrament to be the very body and blood of our Savior Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary, and hanged on the cross, really and substantially? I answered, ‘I think it to be false. I cannot understand really and substantially to signify otherwise than corporally. But corporally Christ is only in Heaven, and so Christ cannot be corporally in your sacrament.'”

And therefore he was condemned and burned.

(2) Hear what Bishop Hooper said: “Tunstall asked him to say, ‘whether he believed the corporal presence in the sacrament,’ and Master Hooper said plainly ‘that there was none such, neither did he believe any such thing.’ Whereupon they bade the notaries write that he was married and would not go from his wife, and that he believed not the corporal presence in the sacrament — as to why he was worthy to be deprived of his bishopric.”

And so he was condemned and burned.

(3) Hear what Rowland Taylor said: “The second cause why I was condemned as a heretic was that I denied transubstantiation, and concomitation, two juggling words whereby the Papists believe that Christ’s natural body is made of bread, and the Godhead by and by to be joined thereto — so that immediately after the words of consecration, there is no more bread and wine in the sacrament — but the substance only of the body and blood of Christ.”

“Because I denied the aforesaid Papistical doctrine (yes, rather plain, wicked idolatry, blasphemy, and heresy) I am judged a heretic.”

And therefore he was condemned and burned.

(4) Hear what was done with Bishop Ferrar. He was summoned to “grant the natural presence of Christ in the sacrament under the form of bread and wine,” and because he refused to subscribe this article as well as others, he was condemned. And in the sentence of condemnation, it is finally charged against him that he maintained that “the sacrament of the altar ought not to be ministered on an altar, or to be elevated, or to be adored in any way.”

And so he was burned.

(5) Hear what holy John Bradford wrote to the men of Lancashire and Cheshire when he was in prison: “The chief thing which I am condemned for as an heretic is because I deny in the sacrament of the altar (which is not Christ’s Supper — but a plain perversion as the Papists now use it) to be a real, natural, and corporal presence of Christ’s body and blood under the forms of bread and wine — that is, because I deny transubstantiation, which is the darling of the devil, and daughter and heir to Antichrist’s religion.”

And so he was condemned and burned.

(6) Hear what were the words of the sentence of condemnation against Bishop Ridley: “The said Nicholas Ridley affirms, maintains, and stubbornly defends certain opinions, assertions, and heresies, contrary to the Word of God and the received faith of the Church, as in denying the true and natural body and blood of Christ to be in the sacrament of the altar, and secondarily, in affirming the substance of bread and wine to remain after the words of consecration.”

And so he was condemned and burned.

(7) Hear the articles exhibited against Bishop Latimer: “That you have openly affirmed, defended, and maintained that the true and natural body of Christ after the consecration of the priest, is not really present in the sacrament of the altar, and that in the sacrament of the altar remains still the substance of bread and wine.”

And to this article the good old man replied: “After a corporal being, which the Romish Church furnishes, Christ’s body and blood is not in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine.”

And so he was condemned and burned.

(8) Hear the address made by Bishop Bonner to John Philpot: “You have offended and trespassed against the sacrament of the altar, denying the real presence of Christ’s body and blood to be there, affirming also material bread and material wine to be in the sacrament, and not the substance of the body and blood of Christ.”

And because the good man stoutly adhered to this opinion he was condemned and burned.

(9) Hear, lastly, what Cranmer said with almost his last breath, in St. Mary’s Church, Oxford: “As for the sacrament, I believe, as I have taught in my book against the Bishop of Winchester, the which my book teaches so true a doctrine, that it shall stand at the last day before the judgment of God when the Papist’s doctrine contrary thereto shall be ashamed to show her face.”

If any one wants to know what Cranmer had said in this book, let him take the following sentence as a specimen — “They (the Papists) say that Christ is corporally under or in the form of bread and wine. We say that Christ is not there, neither corporally nor spiritually; but in those who worthily eat and drink the bread and wine He is spiritually, and corporally in Heaven.”

And so he was burned.

Now, were the English Reformers right in being so stiff and unbending on this question of real presence? Was it a point of such vital importance that they were justified in dying before they would receive it? These are questions, I suspect, which are very puzzling to many unreflecting minds. Such minds, I fear, can see in the whole controversy about the real presence, nothing but a strife of words. But they are questions, I am bold to say, on which no well-instructed Bible reader can hesitate for a moment in giving his answer. Such a one will say at once that the Romish doctrine of the real presence strikes at the very root of the Gospel, and is the very citadel and foundation of Popery. Men may not see this at first — but it is a point that ought to be carefully remembered. It throws a clear and broad light on the line which the Reformers took, and the unflinching firmness with which they died.

Whatever men please to think or say, the Romish doctrine of the real presence, if pursued to its legitimate consequences, obscures every leading doctrine of the Gospel, and damages and interferes with the whole system of Christ’s truth! Grant for a moment that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, and not a sacrament — grant that every time the words of consecration are used, the natural body and blood of Christ are present on the Communion Table under the forms of bread and wine — grant that every one who eats that consecrated bread and drinks that consecrated wine, does really eat and drink the natural body and blood of Christ — grant for a moment these things, and then see what momentous consequences result from these premises. You spoil the blessed doctrine of Christ’s finished work when He died on the cross. A sacrifice that needs to be repeated, is not a perfect and complete thing. You spoil the priestly office of Christ. If there are priests who can offer an acceptable sacrifice of God besides Him — the great High Priest is robbed of His glory.

You spoil the Scriptural doctrine of the Christian ministry. You exalt sinful men into the position of mediators between God and man.

You give to the sacramental elements of bread and wine an honor and veneration they were never meant to receive, and produce an idolatry to be abhorred of faithful Christians.

Last, but not least, you overthrow the true doctrine of Christ’s human nature. If the body born of the Virgin Mary can be in more places than one at the same time, it is not a body like our own, and Jesus was not “the second Adam” in the truth of our nature. I cannot doubt for a moment, that our martyred Reformers saw and felt these things even more clearly than we do, and, seeing and feeling them, chose to die rather than admit the doctrine of the real presence. Feeling them, they would not give way by subjection for a moment, and cheerfully laid down their lives. Let this fact be deeply engraved in our minds. Wherever the English language is spoken on the face of the globe, this fact ought to be clearly understood by every Englishman who reads history. Rather than admit the doctrine of the real presence of Christ’s natural body and blood under the forum of bread and wine — the Reformers of the Church of England were content to be burned!

IV. And now I must ask the special attention of my readers while I try to show the bearing of the whole subject on our own position and on our own times. I must ask you to turn from the dead — to the living, to look away from England in 1555 — to England in this present enlightened and advanced age, and to consider seriously the light which the burning of our Reformers throws on the Church of England at the present day.

We live in momentous times. The ecclesiastical horizon on every side is dark and lowering. The steady rise and progress of extreme Ritualism and Ritualists are shaking the Church of England to its very center. It is of the very first importance to understand clearly what it all means. A right diagnosis of disease — is the very first element of successful treatment. The physician who does not see what the real problem is — is never likely to work any cures.

Now, I say there can be no greater mistake than to suppose that the great controversy of our times is a mere question of vestments and ornaments — of more or less church decorations — of more or less candles and flowers — of more or less bowings and crossings — of more or less gestures and postures — of more or less show and form. The man who imagines that the whole dispute is a mere aesthetic one, a question of taste, like one of fashion and clothing style, must allow me to tell him that he is under a complete delusion! He may sit on the shore, like the Epicurean philosopher, smiling at theological storms, and flatter himself that we are only squabbling about trifles; but I must tell him that his philosophy is very shallow, and his knowledge of the controversy of the day very superficial indeed.

The things I have spoken of are trifles, I fully concede. But they are pernicious trifles, because they are the outward expression of an inward doctrine. They are the skin disease which is the symptom of an unsound constitution. They are the plague spot which tells of internal poison. They are the curling smoke which arises from a hidden volcano of mischief. I, for one, would never make any stir about church millinery, or incense, or candles — if I thought they meant nothing beneath the surface. But I believe they mean a great deal of error and false doctrine, and therefore I publicly protest against them, and say that those who support them are to be blamed.

I give it as my deliberate opinion that the root of the whole Ritualistic system is the dangerous doctrine of the real presence of Christ’s natural body and blood in the Lord’s Supper under the form of the consecrated bread and wine. If words mean anything, this real presence is the foundation principle of Ritualism. This real presence is what the extreme members of the Ritualistic party want to bring back into the Church of England. And just as our martyred Reformers went to the stake rather than admit the real presence — so I hold that we should make any sacrifice and contend to the bitter end, rather than allow a materialistic doctrine about Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper to come back in any shape into our Communion.

I will not weary my readers with quotations in proof of what I affirm. But I ask any reflecting mind to mark, consider, and digest what may be seen in any thorough-going Ritualistic place of worship. I ask him to mark the superstitious veneration and idolatrous honor with which everything within the sanctuary, and around and upon the Lord’s table, is regarded. I boldly ask any jury of twelve honest and unprejudiced men to look at that chancel and communion table, and tell me what they think all this means. I ask them whether the whole thing does not savor of the Romish doctrine of the Real Presence, and the sacrifice of the Mass?

I believe that if Bonner and Gardiner had seen the sanctuaries and communion tables of some of the churches of this day, they would have lifted up their hands and rejoiced; while Ridley, Bishop of London, and Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester, would have turned away with righteous indignation and said, “This communion table is not meant for the Lord’s Supper on the Lord’s Supper — but for counterfeiting the idolatrous Popish Mass!”

I do not for a moment deny the zeal, earnestness, and sincerity of the extreme Ritualists — though as much might be said for the Pharisees or the Jesuits. I do not deny that we live in a singularly free country, and that Englishmen, now-a-days, have liberty to commit any folly short of crime. But I do deny that any clergyman, however zealous and earnest, has a right to reintroduce Popery into the Church of England. And, above all, I deny that he has any right to maintain the very principle of the Real Presence, for opposing which the Reformers of his Church were burned.

The plain truth is, that the doctrine of the extreme Ritualistic school about the Lord’s Supper, can never be reconciled with the dying opinions of our martyred Reformers. The members of this school may protest loudly that they are sound churchmen — but they certainly are not churchmen of the same opinions as the Marian martyrs. If words mean anything, Hooper, and Rogers, and Ridley, and Bradford, and their companions, held one view of the Real Presence — and the ultra-Ritualists hold quite another. If they were right — then the Ritualists are wrong. There is a gulf that cannot be crossed between the two parties. There is a thorough difference that cannot be reconciled or explained away. If we hold with one side — then we cannot possibly hold with the other. For my part, I say, unhesitatingly, that I have more faith in Ridley, and Hooper, and Bradford — than I have in all the leaders of the ultra-Ritualistic party.

But what are we going to do? The danger is very great, far greater, I fear, than most people suppose. A conspiracy has been long at work for unprotestantizing the Church of England, and all the energies of Rome are concentrated on this little island. A sapping and mining process has been long going on under our feet, of which we are beginning at last to see a little. We shall see a good deal more by and by. At the rate we are going, it would never surprise me if within fifty years the crown of England were no longer on a Protestant head, and High Mass were once more celebrated in Westminster Abbey and St. Paul’s! The danger, in plain words, is neither more nor less than that of our Church being unprotestantized — and going back to Babylon and Egypt. We are in imminent peril of reunion with Rome.

Men may call me an alarmist, if they like, for using such language. But I reply, there is a cause. The upper classes in this land are widely infected with a taste for a sensuous, histrionic, formal religion. The lower orders are becoming sadly familiarized with all the ceremonialism which is the stepping-stone to Popery. The middle classes are becoming disgusted with the Church of England, and asking what is the use of it. The intellectual classes are saying that all religions are either equally good or equally bad. The House of Commons will do nothing unless pressed by public opinion. And all this time, Ritualism grows and spreads. The ship is among breakers — breakers ahead and breakers astern — breakers on the right hand and breakers on the left. Something needs to be done, if we are to escape shipwreck.

The very life of the Church of England is at stake, and nothing less. Take away the Gospel from a Church — and that Church is not worth preserving. A well without water, a scabbard without a sword, a steam- engine without a fire, a ship without compass and rudder, a watch without a mainspring, a stuffed carcass without life — all these are useless things. But there is nothing as useless as a Church without the Gospel. And this is the very question that stares us in the face — Is the Church of England to retain the Gospel or not? Without it, in vain shall we turn to our archbishops and bishops, in vain shall we glory in our cathedrals and parish churches. Ichabod will soon be written on our walls. The ark of God will not be with us. Surely something ought to be done!

One thing, however, is very clear to my mind. We ought not lightly to forsake the Church of England. No! As long as her Articles and Formularies remain unaltered, unrepealed, and unchanged — so long we ought not to forsake her. Cowardly and base is that seaman who launches the life-boat and forsakes the ship — as long as there is a chance of saving her. Cowardly, I say, is that Protestant Churchman who talks of seceding — because things on board our Church are at present out of order. What though some of the crew are traitors, and some are asleep! What though the old ship has some leaks, and her rigging has given way in some places! Still I maintain there is much to be done.

There is life in the old ship yet! The great Pilot has not yet forsaken her. The compass of the Bible is still on deck. There are yet left on board, some faithful and able seamen. So long as the Articles and Formularies are not Romanized — let us stick by the ship. So long as she has Christ and the Bible — let us stand by her to the last plank, nail our colors to the mast, and never haul them down. Once more, I say, let us not be wheedled, or bullied, or frightened, or cajoled, or provoked — into forsaking the Church of England.

In the name of the Lord let us set up our banners. If ever we would meet Ridley and Latimer and Hooper in another world without shame — let us “contend earnestly” for the truths which they died to preserve. The Church of England expects every Protestant Churchman to do his duty. Let us not talk only — but act. Let us not act only — but pray. “He who has no sword — let him sell his garment and buy one.”

There is a voice in the blood of the martyrs. What does that voice say? It cries aloud from Oxford, Smithfield, and Gloucester, “Resist the Popish doctrine of the Real Presence to the death!”




Protestant Historicism – The Key to Daniel and Revelation

Protestant Historicism – The Key to Daniel and Revelation

Please share this article with your Futurist friends who teach about the rebuilding of a third temple in Jerusalem and the rise of the Antichrist.

Transcription

Welcome. My name is Robert Caringola and I want to welcome you to my, I’m going to title it a Presentation Ministry of the Great Protestant Historical Interpretation of the Visions of Daniel and the Book of Revelation. I encourage you to look forward to a very systematic teaching on what are very critical issues in the kingdom of God and prophecies that for the most part are not understood anymore like great men of God once understood them, great men of God who could lecture kings and rulers and interpret the scriptures based upon the way they have unfolded in history.

I’m the author of two books here that are available at Truth in History Ministries. One is Seventy Weeks, the Historical Alternative and the other is entitled, The Present Reign of Jesus Christ.

Now this presentation ministry is going to encapsulate the information that is in these books, not necessarily in all the detail, but we’re going to surmise where we need to and get to the point where this first half of the presentation ministry or part one of this presentation ministry, I want to be able to lay a foundation for you so we can go in directions and when we get to points of the presentation where I’m using words such as historicism, such as preterism, or dispensationalism, futurism, all these things, when we get to the Book of Revelation and we have worked through much of Daniel, you will be very comfortable with these terms.

Now I am very much aware that this series is going to be viewed by both the novice and the scholar. So I pray that God will give me the ability to rightly divide [the Word of truth] and as David said in the Psalms, to put my foot in an even place when presenting this material.

Now let me tell you how I got here and what happened. I have known what I’m going to share with you for over three decades. It all started in 1981.

I was a young marine sergeant. I had just been overseas, been out to sea a lot, infatuated with the study of Bible prophecy. When I would go, I went to Singapore for example, went to a Christian bookstore and I bought a stack of books three feet high on Bible prophecy, books by men like Hal Lindsey and these other writers at the time.

I didn’t know anything. I had a zeal for the Lord at the time but not according to knowledge. And I would spend my time at sea and overseas and stuff and I read and I read and I read and I just, I was just amazed at reading because see I was born and raised in Roman Catholicism.

I went to schools, Roman Catholic schools for 12 years, some of the best money could buy and we never once opened the Bible and that is a fact. So needless to say, reading the scriptures and then being excited about the study of Bible prophecy, I was reading what was available. And it was of a school that is called Futurism.

I didn’t know that at the time really. One of the great, I guess the big demarcation points of a lot of its teachings came with Hal Lindsey’s work, the late great planet Earth and things like that. And let me just mention right off the bat here.

We’re going to be talking about a lot of historical figures. We’re going to be talking about people who are alive. I do not contend with any man’s person. I am only contending with that which are the words of truth. So I, we’re dealing with a lot of good folks here that things happened and by the time we get through this, you’re going to understand exactly what happened, who the players were, how we completely deviated from something that united the whole Reformation in Europe and again it’s going to have to be line upon line and precept upon precept.

So back to 1981, I believed first in the futuristic school of prophecy, looking for that Antichrist to come in a seven-year tribulation period, teachings of something called a rapture and a rebuilt temple and all this stuff that is very familiar to many of you out there.

I was fortunate, I was back home on leave in North Little Rock, Arkansas and I was invited to attend an apostolic church, a seminar on the 70 weeks of Daniel by the …he came in from England, a great English teacher. He’s now deceased and gone on to be with the Lord. His name was Reverend David Campbell. And so we showed up on one Saturday morning, myself, there were 30, 40 ministers there, some had been teaching all their lives, prophets and prophecies and, and what they thought to be the truth.

What that man did in three hours and when he took us through both the history, who the players, the originators of these schemes and these counter schemes, what was believed for millenniums and centuries and stuff, literally in three hours he tore and destroyed our, and as I’m going to mention here, our Clarence Larkin charts, our futurism of Hal Lindsey and the others, and devastated it and then rebuilt with the truth of the 70 weeks of Daniel.

And as I am going to prove to you in this presentation ministry, is part of laying the foundation to get to major prophecies in Daniel and in the Revelation, that period, that 490 years has perfectly run itself in history. And we will develop that and present that without a, there’ll be no question when I’m done with you, I promise you, because it is the facts of history and the facts of Scripture.

The testimony was for those of you who are new because I mean, I was in shock. I looked around after, after David finished with us, it was about a four-hour seminar presentation. I looked at men of God that, who were scholars who were in absolute shock. They were crying. They, they didn’t know what had happened. All that they had built, all these works of the school called Futurism – Dispensationalism, it all got burned up.

I mean, the axe was laid to the root of the tree, and we were introduced to characters and concepts we’d never heard of as I’m going to show you in several of these books here, information and and stuff that were common 100, 200 years ago, works that were commonly read and understood. Now you can go to seminaries, and you can turn teachers on TV and the radio that never even heard of these works and these writers.

And I think you’re going to be quite, quite amazed as we get down the continuum of time and unfold a very, very dramatic story here, folks. There’s going to be a lot of history and we’re almost having to turn into theological lawyers. We’re going to put some stuff on trial and we’re going to find out whether these things be so, and I will leave the judgment up to you. You will have the evidence produced. I have written books that are now been out, like I mentioned, over 20 years. I have not seen them refuted and we’ll go from there.

But there is for those of you who are the scholars and teachers, you’re very much aware of this book by Clarence Larkin. It’s called Dispensational Truth. And many have even called it the Second Bible of prophecy or eschatology students. And, and of course there’s just tons, I mean, tons of work went into this. I understand that and all his charts and his calculations and the schemes of this is going to happen, that, that, and that.

I mean, if you’re a teacher or you’re a scholar, I know you’re very much aware of this book. If you’re not, you need to get your hands on it and let me, and go with me to what I’m going to share, because I’m going to read his testimony verbatim to you.

Now in the, in the edition I have, it’s on page five. There are several editions that have come out over the years of where he writes, this is the 46th printing. There are other printings, but what I’m going to read to you is on page five. And here we go. This is out of the great Clarence Larkin.

He’s introducing his concepts going to his start in his segmenting and, and presenting of the book of Revelation. And he says, they’re fundamentally three basic schools of thought. There are the preterist school, the historical school, and there is what’s called the futurist school. And he begins to define them. And let me read it to you and just listen to what he says here, because I know of so many people over the years that have referenced these charts. And I asked them, “Did you ever read what he actually said, where his foundation started, where he got this from, and what he admitted in his opening verses?”

Clarence went on to say the preterist school, he said it originated … Now, if you’re new, you don’t even know what I’m talking about what a preterist school is. It’s a very big school out there, and it teaches very simply that the book of Revelation, the seals, trumpets, and vials have already happened in the past. That all this dealt with the destruction of Jerusalem and the great epic slaughter under Titus in 70 A.D. and the fulfilling of so much prophecy there. It is the preterist school who take the events of the Revelation and visions, and they throw it all into the past.

Well, the man who first penned that, and over the course of this presentation, you’ll see pictures of the title pages of their books come up. We have them. He was a Jesuit called Alcazar, and we will be talking about the Jesuits before we’re done. And he put his view, it was about 1614 when he published this apocalyptic view. And it limits the scope of the apocalypse to the events of the Apostle John’s life. And affirms that the whole prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, great history that we will be talking about in this seminar, and the subsequent fall and persecuting Roman Empire, making basically Emperor Nero as their point for the concept of Antichrist.

Now, listen to this:

    “The purpose of the scheme was transparent. It was to relieve the papal church from the stigma of being called the harlot church.”

We’re in the heat of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation here. We’re talking about Luther and his contemporaries and all that led up to what changed Western civilization forever, i.e. why you have a Bible in your hands now.

    “And he called the Pope, and from the Pope from being called the Antichrist. (He called the Pope the Antichrist.) It is a school that is now, but little advocated.”

When Larkin wrote, it wasn’t being advocated that much.

Then he wrote about, he said,

    “There’s the historical school.”

Sometimes there’s other words for it. I’m not going to bog you down with this technology. But he says,

    “The advocates of this school interpret the symbols of the book of Revelation as referring to certain historical events that have and are having or happening in the world. They claim that Antichrist is a system rather than a person.”

We’ll prove that, that it is a system.

    “And it is represented by the harlot church of Rome.”

I don’t know how many of you are aware of this, but that doctrine alone, that the man of sin, the dynasty of Antichrist, all these things that we’re going to look at over the many hours that we’re going to spend in the Apocalypse (book of Revelation), that was the one unifying doctrine of the Reformation. They all agreed on it, and they proved it out the Scriptures. They knew what was happening to them and who had been killing them.

He goes on:

    “They interpret the time element in the Book on what’s called a year-day scale.

And he said, “This school has great or very ingenious advocates.” And he goes on and talks about one of the greatest works ever written on this. I have all four volumes of it. I’ll talk more about it later. I have spent years in these books. It’s called the Horae Apocalypticae, or Hours in the Apocalypse by the great Eliot. Unmatched, unmatched. And I guarantee you, there might be 10 or 20 people on this planet alive that have read that work. If you haven’t read that work, you really have no business teaching prophecy, quite frankly. And you’ll understand why as we proceed.

    “So that great work was called the Horae Apocalypticae, and it is frequently called the Protestant interpretation because it regards popery as exhausting all that had been predicted of the anti-Christian power. It (the doctrine of the papacy system being the Antichrist) was a powerful and formidable weapon in the hands of the leaders of the Reformation. And the conviction of its truthfulness nerved them to love not their lives unto death. It was the secret of the martyr heroism of the 16th century.

What is in Eliot’s works, and Ganesa’s works, and Newton’s works, and Cacciamelli’s works, and Johnson’s works, all these things. Ganesa, as I mentioned, what these Reformers knew, and what they had discovered, what had evolved to their time in the unfolding of the prophecies of Daniel and other scriptures, they took it to the fires (being burned at the stake for calling the papacy the Antichrist).

You haven’t been taught that in your modern schools. Because see, your modern schools are called schools of futurism. You turn on your TVs, and we have a series by authors like Tim LaHaye and these others, and you know what’s out there, and we’ll mention them as we go down. But that’s called the Futurist School.

Do you have any idea where that came from? I mean, did the Apostles teach it? Did the Albigensians and the Waldensians of the 11th, 12th century and stuff, did they believe it? Did the Wyclivites of Wycliffe’s time in the 1300s, all these great epics of Reformers, is this what they taught? What you’re hearing today on TV and on the shows? Here’s what Clarence Larkin goes to tell you about. Remember he’s introduced you to the Preterist School, Jesuit Alcazar that takes all these great prophecies and throws them into the past. The Historical School said, this has been unfolding, and we can show you where divine time measure after divine time measure after divine time measure has begun and run its course to perfection. And we will look at that in this presentation series. But he goes on,

    “The Futurist School interprets the language of the Apocalypse literally, except such symbols that are named, and that the whole book from the end of the third chapter is yet all thrown into the future. And that’s why it’s called Futurism, really beginning at chapter 6, a lot of them through 19, describes what they call will come to pass during Daniel’s 70th week.”

See, in essence to their school, there was a great prophecy that we are going to lay the foundation of these presentations with called the 70 weeks of Daniel. And they take the final seven years of that prophecy, throw it into the future and encapsulate the entire book of Revelation around that. Well folks, who was the first one to do that? Let’s see what Larkin says.

    “This view, while it dates in modern times, only from the close of the 16th century. In its present form, it may be said to have originated at the end of the 16th century with the Jesuit Ribera.”

His name was Francisco Ribera, out of Salamanca, Spain. And you’re gonna be hearing quite a bit about him. Because everything that these future teachers are teaching, this was birthed by Ribera. Because see, we not only had a Reformation in history, we had a Counter-Reformation. Rome fought back, and she got her best scholars to go in and try to protect the papacy, and Alcazar was one of them, and Francisco Ribera, and I’ll talk more about another man in his same school called Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, they just attacked and destroyed many great themes and apostolic doctrines that had been understood for a long time.

So he goes on and says, “The Jesuit Ribera, who actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar,…” Remember, who took and threw everything into the past, called the Preterist or the Preterist school that is being taught now.

So, he goes on, he said,

    “As the Jesuit Alcazar sought to rid the papacy of the stigma of being called the Antichrist, and so referred the prophecies of the apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, and for a long time confined to it, strange to say, it has been wonderfully revived. The futurist interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.”

You’ve probably never been told that. I mean, there it is, you can go read it. What has happened, what is setting the stage to what’s gone on in our lifetime? We’re all excited in studying Bible prophecy and trying to figure out what’s going on here, and little did we know that without knowledge of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, where all this stuff came from.

You haven’t been taught that all the Reformation fathers understood clearly that the little horn of Daniel chapter seven that we’re going to look at represented the rise of the papacy and its power. And you’re probably scratching your head going, “What in the world are you talking about here?” But I’m telling you, it’s historical fact, you cannot get around it. They all knew that the man of sin was not to come at the end of time. They knew he was going to be a dynasty. They understood the prophecies of Daniel that were unfolding.

And now, I’ve just introduced to you, and again, I assert these are facts, the fathers of the two most commonly taught schools now, and we’re going to get into the history of how all this toppled into Protestant theology. The history is stunning. We have names, we have dates, we have facts, we have key players, we have their attitudes, and just in a nutshell, most of you, when you turn on and you’re being taught prophecy, especially in the futuristic school, you’re being taught the prophecy of the Jesuit Ribera, you’re being taught the prophetic interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church. There’s just no way around it.

And there are other issues we’re going to talk about, dispensationalism, and Jewry, and all these things that are playing their hands and creating this most contorted situation where people are just throwing up their arms, going, this doesn’t make any sense. You know, we thought we were going to have a rapture in 1988, and I did a program here at Truth in History with Pastor Jennings one time where we pulled up a document that showed us over 240 date setters that have gone throughout history. We never learn, do we?

Let me read you the words of Peter. In the second epistle of Peter is again, all we’re doing right now is laying the foundation for a seminar that you will notice, I will make accusations. There will be times I will leave you hanging, and that is for a reason, because foundations are going to have to be set so that when we get into the book of Revelation, and we can start talking about 150 day years of the Mohammedans of the first woe, or the 391 day years of the Turkish hordes of the second woe, or the 10 day years of the church of Smyrna, or the three and a half day years of the witness, all these things, you will know what has been developing. You will know what has been taken place, but then you, by then, you will have the tools to follow and see exactly, I’m going to show you where we are in the book of Revelation.

I’m just going to tell you right now that we are going to walk through the seals, the trumpets, the vials, and we are in the epic of history right now where we are in transition somewhere in the sixth and seventh vial. And you might look at me and go, that’s impossible. I encourage you to not have contempt prior to investigation, which, if you do, it’s a guarantee of ignorance for a lifetime.

We’re going to be Berean. We’re going to search the scriptures. We’re going to find out whether these things are so.

But as I conclude my little introduction here, let me share with you the words of Peter. In the second epistle of Peter, chapter one, let’s start with verse 12. Verse 12.

    Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
    13  Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;
    14  Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.
    15  Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
    16  ¶For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
    17  For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
    18  And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
    19  ¶We have also a more sure word of prophecy;

Everything, and I interject here, everything we have in the New Covenant is based upon the law and the prophets.

    19  We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
    20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
    21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
    2 Peter 2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
    2  And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

What I’m gonna present to you in the scriptures and history, we are gonna prove and we are gonna vindicate.

Right now, there are whole schools of thought speaking evil of it, because they speak and they teach that which they know not. I have sat down with some of them and looked them in the eye over and over the decades.

Now here, this is what’s happening.

    2 Peter 2:3  And through covetousness (or greed) shall they with feigned words (or deceptive words) make merchandise of you: (The audience.)

We have empires, not just one, but several empires of superstition out there that with the truth of the Word of God and by the grace of God, we are gonna go after their pernicious ways, because they are making merchandise of you.




The Conspiracy of Misdirection

The Conspiracy of Misdirection

Walt Stickle and Jörg Glismann, discuss various Issues. Also included in the talk is the author of The Creature of Jekel Island, G. Edward Griffin.

Transcription

Walt Stickel: Greetings and welcome to Mystery Babylon News Radio on May 10th 2015. My co-host tonight is going to be Jörg Glismann from Belgium and we’re going to be discussing some clips from G. Edward Griffin.

G. Edward Griffin is an American author, he’s a lecturer, and a filmmaker. He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, which promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System.

Now tonight’s broadcast, like I said, is the conspiracy of misdirection. At no time I want you to feel that I am picking on G. Edward Griffin. The point that I want to make is, the point that we’re going to make in this discussion, is it’s not what people are saying, it’s not what history is telling us, it’s what history is not telling us.

So with that, I’m going to start the broadcast. In eight minutes we’ll make a comment. Jörg Glismann from Belgium and my name is Walt Stickle, your host.

    G. Edward Griffin: I’m Ed Griffin. I’m a writer. I write controversial works. I think they’re very important works. I deal with such topics as banking history, health issues, United Nations, U.S. foreign policy, the wind of topics where people get all heated up because they have strong opinions, but I consider myself to be a researcher and I try to be a historian as best I can. So I deal with facts mostly, not in opinions.

    I’ve been doing this most of my adult life. I started becoming interested in issues of this nature in 1959, and by 1960 I was really revved up to it. I left my employment with a large insurance company and went in full time in doing writing and speaking on these topics.

    The growth of the Tea Party movement and the left-right paradigm, they’re all sort of intertwined and yet there are very separate intellectual threads that need to be followed in all of that.

    I think first of all it’s important to talk about and understand this left-right paradigm. What is this all about? Most of this, including myself for certain, in my younger years I was brought up thinking that you had to choose, if you were smart at least, you would have to choose politically between being on the right or the left. You had to have a political view and I thought that in those days I thought that the extreme right would be something like fascism or Nazism and on the extreme left of course you would have communism or socialism, just a little bit short of that.

    So that was the paradigm that I was taught and it seemed to make sense at the time. But as I became more involved in these issues and learned more about them I began to realize that the basic philosophy between the so-called extreme left people and Communists and Socialists and the so-called philosophy on the right of the Fascists and the Nazis was really the same. How can this be? They’re supposed to be opposites of each other.

    Then I began to realize that there is something more common to all of these philosophies that was left out of my training and education and that was the ideology of collectivism. I began to realize that the thing that was common to them all is something called collectivism. That’s a word that is not very well used. It’s not very entrenched in the vocabulary of most people today but I found out that it was a very commonly used word about a century ago. People wrote a lot about collectivism and the opposite of that would be individualism. Those are two words that are sort of abandoned today but in my view I think they need to be recaptured and understood and used more.

    I realized that communism and fascism, the so-called opposites, are merely variants of collectivism. They’re the same thing and they believe that the group is more important than the individual, for example, and the individual must be sacrificed if necessary for the greater good of the greater number. They believe that the State should be all-powerful and that the people should obey the State for the greater good of the greater number and all of that sort of thing.

    They believe that rights are granted by the State. They’re not part of the human being. They’re not God-given. They’re not entrenched in his body and soul. They have to be granted by the State. All of these things, and you look at them one by one, Communists and Fascists and Nazis and Socialists, they all believe that.

    So wherein lies the conflict? I began to question that and I realized that it’s partly a trick. In fact, I think it’s a huge trick. It’s a great scam because people even today are thinking that they have to choose between the right or the left, not realizing that no matter which way they go, they’ve accepted basically the same ideology underneath.

    Now it’s true that the leaders of these groups, like the Stalins of the world and the Adolf Hitlers of the world and the Mao Zedongs of the world and so forth, the leaders of these groups on left and right will fight each other and they will go to war with each other and there will be tremendous battles as we saw in World War II, for example. But what are they fighting over? Ideology? Not at all, because they agree on ideology. What they’re fighting over is dominance. Who is going to rule? That’s all they’re fighting over.

    Once you get that picture historically, it’s not too difficult to see that that’s the same thing going on even today, as certainly going on in American politics. We have the left versus the right sort of embodied today in the Republican Party supposedly on the right and the Democrat Party supposedly on the left.

    Now here’s a choice, isn’t there? Well, why is it if this is such a choice? So we go from Republicans to Democrats and then four years later we go back to Republicans again and we keep doing this. We’ve been doing this since World War I. How come the country keeps moving in the same direction all the time, deeper and deeper and deeper into collectivism, regardless of which party is in in favor, because they both believe in collectivism. They both believe in big government.

    Their slogans are different, their leaders are different, but the poor voter out there trying to make sense of all this is, he’s tricked, he’s stuck, he’s trapped. And so this is the important thing to, I think, understand that this left-right paradigm is a it’s a political ploy. It works very well for those who know what they’re doing.

    We find that the Republican Party and the Democrat Party both are pretty much in the hands of a relatively small group of people with a membership of about 4,000. It’s called the

    Council on Foreign Relations

    . These are the people that are really pulling the strings in both the Republican and the Democrat Party and they’ve even written about it. There’s a fellow by the name of Carroll Quigley.

Walt Stickel: Yes, Carroll Quigley is a professor at Jesuit Georgetown University. He wrote a book called Tragedy and Hope. It is 1,363 pages. I’m going to give a little quick quiz here and we’ll answer it later on in the broadcast. The question is, how many times was the word Jesuits, plural, used in a book that’s 1,363 pages?

A. Numerous.
B. Few.
C. One. Or,
D. None.

(I think it’s probably D.)

We’ll comment on this at the end of this clip.

    G. Edward Griffin: There’s a former history professor at Georgetown University. By the way, he (Carroll Quigley) was the mentor of William Clinton when Clinton was a student there. He wrote several books about this group of people and their origins and their roots coming from Europe and England in particular. He comes to a very interesting point in one of his books where he says, Okay, this is the way the real world is. He said, “How is it that we collectivists, we elitists, how can we rule the world when at the same time we want to let the average person think that they’re living in a, “democracy”? They’re living in a system where their vote counts. They’re living in this world in which they feel that they must participate in their own political destiny.”

    This is a carefully nurtured myth that they want to create so people will be content with no matter what happens to them. They’ll say, “Well, I voted for it or I did it. This government is my government. No matter how bad it is, it’s responsible to me.” And as long as people have that image, then they don’t complain so much about how bad it gets because they did it, they think. So Quigley deals with this question, how do you let people think that they’re directing their own political destiny when at the same time we, the elite, we are the ones who must direct their political destiny without them knowing it? How do you do that?

    And he answers the question brilliantly. He said, it’s very simple. You’ve got to have two major political parties and they’ll both have the same major goals, the same basic fundamental principles, and they’ll argue with each other on the surface with slogans and leadership and style and all of that sort of thing. He said, but we will control them both.

    There’s the strategy. There’s the whole scam behind this left-right paradigm. When you understand this history and this reality, you look at it and you say, “Well, yes, we’ve got a left wing and a right wing, but they’re just opposite wings of the same ugly bird, and that bird is called collectivism.

Walt Stickel: Greetings and welcome! This is Hour of the Truth from Belgium. Are you ready for a $64,000 question?

Jörg Glismann: Only $64,000, Walt? I need more.

Walt Stickel: Edward Griffin is a researcher. He’s been on Alex Jones, and as you heard in the tape, he went full-time and he was an insurance salesman. So he makes a living of selling books and speaking. But the title of this broadcast, I want to really lay this out so you understand where we’re going here. The conspiracy of misdirection.

Now, he mentioned Carroll Quigley at Georgetown University, but he left out – it’s not in their vocabulary – that’s Jesuit Georgetown University, founded in 1789, the same year that our country officially became a nation. It was in 1789.

The seal for Georgetown University and the seal of the Great Seal of America are so similar! I don’t know if George Washington gave the seal to Georgetown or if John Carroll gave the seal to George Washington, but my question to you, Jörg, is how many times do you think in this 1,363-page book was the word Jesuits, plural, mentioned? Or the word Jesuit? Okay. A, numerous times? B, few? 3, 1? Or D, none? What would you guess?

Jörg Glismann: Well, when you know Carroll Quigley, you don’t even have to read his book to know that the answer is D, none.

Walt Stickel: Let me correct you now. It was 1. He did mention it once, but you were very close, okay? So I’m not gonna flunk you, you didn’t flunk the test, so continue, please.

Jörg Glismann: Well, the point is that Carroll Quigley himself is Jesuit-educated, and people who follow the Jesuit agenda are only allowed to a certain point to expose them. When you go into so-called researchers like Eric Jon Phelps, for example, who exposed the Jesuits on many levels in his book Vatican Assassins, there’s only so much that he can or is allowed to reveal in his book.

And when there comes another author along, like Tupper Saussy, who reveals things that he left out in his book, then he is made out as a Jesuit coadjutor. And Carroll Quigley has the “problem” that he is only allowed to disclose so much information. He knows exactly what he is allowed to say and what he is not allowed to say.

Of certainty he is not allowed to say that Jesuit Georgetown University in the first place was founded by John Carroll, was it, right? A Jesuit. And he is not allowed to say that the whole American foreign policy is actually formatted at Jesuit Georgetown University. So by that you can save yourself the time of reading 1,363 pages of Tragedy and Hope, and just ask yourself why is an author that is teaching as a professor at that university, when he writes a book with that kind of an interesting title, not talking about the figures behind the curtain?

And that’s exactly the same thing that Edward G. Griffin didn’t do. I mean, I didn’t read his book The Creature from Jekyll Island, but I’m willing to ask the same $64,000 question back to you. How often does he mention the Jesuits, or the Roman Catholic Church, for that matter, in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island?

Walt Stickel: Well I would say that it’s either one time maybe, or none.

Jörg Glismann: I even tend to none, because people like Edward G. Griffin do not go the same way that F. Tupper Saussy did, looking up the Encyclopedia Judaica, and looking up what the Rothschilds stands for. The Rothschilds stands for in the Encyclopedia Judaica, according to the research that F. Tupper Saussy did. And you can do that by yourself, by just googling the Encyclopedia Judaica, and read it for yourself online.

Walt Stickel: It’s in the book Rulers of Evil by F. Tupper Saussy. It’s a Jesuit-Vatican Conspiracy,

Jörg Glismann: But my point being is that F. Tupper Saussy made this inquiry in the Encyclopedia Judaica, and he found out that in that Encyclopedia itself states that the Rothschilds are not anything more, and also not anything less, but the guardians of the papal treasure. They are the war bankers of the Vatican.

An interesting little anecdote is that the name Rothschild, as you speak, as you pronounce it in English, in German spoken means Roth Shield, and that is a red shield. And that is the same red shield that the pagan Roman soldier used to defend themselves when they went into battle. You know, when you were a soldier 2,000 years ago, and you went into battle, you had a shield and a sword. A shield to protect yourself, and a sword to attack. And that color of that shield was red. So the color of the soldiery of the army of the then ruling pagan Roman Empire was red.

And it is no coincidence, let me tell you, that the god of war in the Roman pagan Empire was the planet Mars. M-A-R-S. The same planet that we call today the Red Planet, and where NASA, so-called, sends one drone after another.

The red planet Mars is a symbol for the Rothshields, of Rothschilds, as you say in English. And the planet Mars spells M-A-R-S, and the company that the Rothschilds founded was called Meier, Amschel, Rothschild und Söhne. Now take the first letters of that, that is Meier, M, Amschel, A, Rothschild, R, Söhne, sons. M-A-R-S. Do you think that there’s any coincidence in this fact that I’ve just told you here about? I don’t think that it’s any coincidence in any way.

And this is the kind of research that Edward G. Griffin and a lot of other so-called conspiracy researchers in the so-called conspiracy research scene are not going to touch. Because if they would touch it, they would probably be JFK’d. (Murdere.)

Walt Stickel: Well, it’s the conspiracy direction, and a lot of it is, you see, it’s religion that runs the world.

Jörg Glismann: Yeah, but you are not allowed to point in the direction. You’re only allowed to point in the misdirection. And that is exactly what Edward G. Griffin does.

Walt Stickel: That’s exactly. And also, he mentions the left and the right. I want to quote, “The right and left wing of party politics are both wings of the same bird.” The head of the bird determines the directions, not the wings. And the head of the bird is the Jesuits.

Jörg Glismann: And that’s what he leaves out.

Walt Stickel: And that’s what he leaves out. It’s not what he’s saying. It’s not what Alex Jones is saying. It’s not what Eric Phelps is saying. It’s not what the Hagmonds are saying. It’s not what Quayle says. And all the, all the reptilian book writers, it’s what they leave out. And we’re not leaving out the word Jesuit. They want to leave that word Jesuit out of their vocabulary. It’s part of history. We have a Jesuit coming to speak at a joint session of Congress on September 23rd, 2015. This is not a conspiracy. It is a conspiracy, but it’s no theory. The Pope is coming.

So, you know, I got two more clips. I’d like to play this another clip. It’s only five minutes. So I’m going to start that clip right now.

    G. Edward Griffin: So how does that apply to the Tea Party movement that we see today? There it is. I mean, that’s the blueprint. The Tea Party movement seems to have been a very genuine, spontaneous movement arising from people who were unhappy with both the Bush administration and the candidacy of Obama. They didn’t like either one of them. They were people who understood more or less, maybe not intellectually and historically, that there was collectivism in both parties, but they understood that something wasn’t right and they didn’t want more of the same.

    And so the Tea Party movement, just think about it. What does that mean? It goes back to the historical episode where the colonists in Boston dumped the Tea Party into the Boston Bay because it was a protest against the taxes and the restriction of liberties and the Stamp Act and so forth on the part of Great Britain against the colonies. And so the Tea Party movement really was a rebellion against big government, no matter what camp it came from, whether it came from the Republicans or the Democrats.

    Well, it didn’t take long, especially when the Tea Party movement began to gain momentum. And I was privileged to see that because I was invited to participate in some of these early events. And I remember the first event I went to, maybe they had a couple of hundred people, but they were all, you know, dedicated to the principles that made this country great, had nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats, it had to do with political philosophy, the concept of limited government and the people being in charge, not the government in charge.

    So I saw it start in a small fashion like that, and then over the next couple of years it grew and grew and grew until finally it was a very large movement. And at this point the political parties, the leadership of the political parties began to take very careful note of it. They said, wait a minute, this is something we should be doing, because they’re experts at orchestrating movements and letting the people think that it’s their movement, you see.

    This was a genuine grassroots spontaneous movement, had nothing to do in the beginning with political parties. Well, the leadership of the parties couldn’t let that be. So they both looked at it very carefully and the Democrats decided that because of the nature and the slogans and so forth, it didn’t fit well. So they began to attack it. They began to try and make it look like it was a bunch of idiots and wackos and tin-hat people and all this sort of thing.

    And the Republicans thought, hmm, this is something we can use. And so they started to go into it as best they could and take it over. That was their goal, to cop it for their for their program.

    And so here we are today looking at this process underway. They’re still trying very hard to convert the Tea Party movement into a Republican front. And I’m sorry to say that they have achieved some success in that direction, primarily because of some very well-known people who are closely aligned with the Republican Party.

    We’re talking about the candidate, of course, Sarah Palin, who is a Republican from top to bottom. And she represents this right wing image. She fills the bill perfectly. She’s this Republican right wing collectivist. And she can speak with great fervor and great emotion and great meaning against the extremes of the Democrats, those bad left wingers. And she does a good job of it. And everything she says is true.

    But she doesn’t speak out against those bad right wingers, you see, because she’s part of that group. Her mission is not to bring about a restoration of the principles of America, but to get the Republicans back into power. That’s her mission.

    And, of course, we have people like Glenn Beck, who have the power of the Fox broadcasting system behind him. That’s tremendous power. And he’s always speaking against those bad left wing Democrats with great conviction and great fervor and great truth. Nothing wrong with what he says. What’s wrong is what he doesn’t say.

Walt Stickel: Let’s keep in mind that Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a Knight of Malta.

    G. Edward Griffin: He’ll never attack somebody from the Republican Party. We’ve got people like Rush Limbaugh, he plays the same role. He’s very good at exposing the Democrats. He’s very good at pointing out the absurdity of the left wing philosophy. But he’ll never say anything bad about a right winger or a Republican. So there you have it.

    Of course, on the Democrat side, you’ve got the same team. These are the cheerleaders and the players. They work together. And the average voter gets caught in the middle of this. He hasn’t any idea what’s going on. He just thinks that the debate is such that he has to choose.

    Who are you going to vote for? Are you going to vote Republican or are you going to vote Democrat? And so as long as they’re in that role, they’re like a tennis ball in a tennis match. They get hit back and forth across the net. First, they’re on the right. Bing! Then they’re back on the left. Bing! Back there on the right. They’re Republican. They’re Democrat. And the game goes on and on and on. And although it’s possible for the players of that game to win, the tennis ball never wins that game.

    So I think it’s time for people to stop being tennis balls in this game and just get out of the game completely.

Walt Stickel: Jörg, he mentions the press. Give me a little definition of what a Knight of Malta is.

Jörg Glismann: Well, first of all, I want to say this were five minutes were the pot was calling the kettle black. He accuses Rupert Murdoch of not telling the whole truth. It’s not about what he says, but it’s about what he doesn’t say. Well, this is exactly the same according to him (meaning it’s not what G. Edward Griffin is saying, it’s what he’s not saying.) Right? So this is the pot calling the kettle black. And this is exactly the same thing that he does, what he accuses other people of, being the tennis ball, being pushed from the left to the right, from the right to the left, back and forth. And that’s exactly what he is doing.

And what about his political party analysis there? You have the Democrats on the left. You have the Republicans on the right. And then you have the Tea Party movement calling that a grassroots movement. If that is a grassroots movement, then I don’t want to be part of a grassroots movement, because that’s as grassroots movement as the Democrats and the Republicans are. It’s just a third party they throw in there to put more distraction on it.

People who came out of this so-called grassroots movement, if I’m not completely mistaken, are people like Ron Paul. How many times has Ron Paul been to Rome? Ron Paul has been speaking at Georgetown University. Is anybody ever talking about that?

Walt Stickel: No, because the word Jesuit is not in their vocabulary.

Jörg Glismann: And not even the word Jesuit, even the word Roman Catholic Church, Catholicism, or the Pope. Or even worse. You said the Pope is coming this year, September 23rd, to the United States of America to speak before a joint session of Congress on behalf of the American people, right? He is not just a Pope. He is not just a Jesuit. He is a Jesuit Antichrist. He is the biblical, historical, and prophetic Antichrist, coming to a so-called Protestant nation to speak on behalf of the so-called Protestant inhabitants. That is something that has to be covered.

He is playing exactly the same game that he accuses Rupert Murdoch of. And you said Rupert Murdoch is a Knight of Malta, and you want me to go deep into the Knights of Malta? Well, I can only say, Walt, I want to make this short, because otherwise we are still at midnight talking about this.

I made a very interesting video about two or two and a half hours long when I was on the broadcast on Popping Puppets Boots, Michael Adams. And we did a broadcast for more than two hours on the power of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. And what and who do they all control in this world? And to make it short for the people who have no idea what the Knights of Malta are, the Knights of Malta are a military religious order from the Vatican that control banking and food and politics all over the world on behalf of the Antichrist, to make it that simple. If you want to have any more information on that, go to my YouTube channel, Jogler66, look up in the playlist, the playlist of nothing but the truth, and you will find that video as one of the first six videos that I’ve uploaded in that series. It’s a broadcast from the beginning of this year or the end of last year, I don’t remember anymore. And there you will learn much more than we can talk about now in five minutes about the Knights of Malta.

But these Knights of Malta are the same Knights of Malta that also the Rothschilds are part of. Meier Amschel Rothschild was a Knight of Malta. So he was a papal knight!

And that was another point that F. Tupper Saussy made in his book. Who would expect an Orthodox Jewish family to be behind the banking affairs of the Roman Catholic Church? Nobody! And this leads directly back to the title of your show today, The Conspiracy of Misdirection, because everybody is pointing their finger at the Jews, at the Zionists, and they are leaving out, or better said, the people are being so indoctrinated with this kind of “knowledge” that they do not any further search on where do these come from, who is behind that.

(End of transcription.)
I transcribed a little over 30 minutes of the 44-minute audio. I think the speakers have made their point about the conspiracy of misdirection. My opinion: Jörg Glismann is too hard on G. Edward Griffin. I think what Mr. Griffin had to say about collectivism is important information! I didn’t know that term and how it applies to the world of politics. And I think he just may not know about the Jesuit / Vatican connection to Satan’s New World Order conspiracy. I didn’t know about it until after the year 2000. John Todd didn’t know about it in his testimony about witchcraft and the Illuminati, but to Todd’s credit, he did say it was not primarily a Jewish conspiracy. At the time I did not believe that, but I do now.

Knowledge is a shared resource. Nobody knows everything. We learn from others. One of my friends told me I don’t need to read Bible commentaries from authors such as Matthew Henry or John Gill. He says all I need is the Holy Spirit. I don’t agree with that. The Bible says,

1 Corinthians 12:28  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers

If all we need is the Holy Spirit, why did God also give us teachers? Because teachers have knowledge and sources of information that we may not have, knowledge for example about the history of certain fulfilled prophecies. That’s not to say all teachers and pastors are good. This is where our own connection to the Lord, the Holy Spirit, and knowledge of the Word of God comes in. We need to pray for discernment.

I know people who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit in their doctrinal teaching, but who also parrot Jesuit-based false doctrines such as the 70th Week of Daniel as an end-time event, the rebuilding of a third temple, and the rise of the Antichrist, etc., but who fail to see the Antichrist is alive and working against them TODAY and has been around for centuries in the office of the papacy.

I believe there indeed are people who do know about the Jesuit’s and Vatican’s connection to the New World Order conspiracy who intentionally withhold that information from the public. For sure Carroll Quigley must know about it. But just because a researcher doesn’t talk about it doesn’t mean he is purposely trying to misdirect you. For sure all the major news media sources are intentionally misdirecting the public, and I would also be leery of big-name alternative media people such as Alex Jones! I stopped listening to him over 20 years ago.

The people I am most interested to listen to are true Protestant Christians who are knowledgeable about the Jesuit led Counter-Reformation. You won’t find any of them working for a major news service.




No Prophecy in the Bible of a Third Temple in Jerusalem

No Prophecy in the Bible of a Third Temple in Jerusalem

This is a talk by Tom Friess which you can either listen to, read, or both. Tom is very passionate when he tells us that a rebuilt temple with animal sacrifices would indicate further rejection of the Blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, for our sins. The original title for the talk is The Third Temple Deception, but because I already have covered this subject on this website with an article of the exact same title, The Third Temple Deception, I am using a different title for this article.

Transcription

We’re continuing reading the book, Exploding the Israel Deception by Steve Wohlberg. The subject we’re talking about is the futurist interpretation of Daniel chapter 9 and the passage beginning of verse 24 through 27, and the modern day interpretation of that indicating a need, a requirement for a modern nation state of Israel and a rebuilding of a temple and the beginning of animal sacrifices again, and the so-called salvation of Israel. Is this what the Bible teaches?

We’re focusing now on the subject of the temple, this proposed third temple. Backing up a paragraph or two for continuity this morning, I’ll begin reading in the book. It says,

It’s a fact that several Jewish organizations in Jerusalem are now preparing for the building of a third Jewish temple on Temple Mount. A popular Christian book called The Edge of Time by Peter and Patty Lalonde gives the following report: ‘A model of the third temple has been constructed and sits on exhibit in old Jerusalem. Even a computerized list of candidates who fulfill the requirements of a temple priest has been drawn up and rabbinical students have been training for ancient Jewish temple rites and sacrifices.’

Many religious Jews want another temple. Millions of Christians now believe, and I was one of them, millions of Christians now believe the Bible definitely predicts one will be built. But does it really? Does the Bible really predict the building of a third temple? Is it possible that the third temple theory is just another grand illusion of the last days?

First of all, let’s focus on what happened before the second temple was destroyed. Now that took place in 70 A.D. It says when Jesus Christ died, “the veil of the temple was rent in twain,” in other words ripped in two, “from the top to the bottom, and the earth did quake.” This is Matthew chapter 27 verse 51. By ripping the veil, God Almighty showed all mankind that the value of animal sacrifices was over.

The earthly temple service was coming to an end. Why? Because the great sacrifice had been offered. Christ himself, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, that which the prophecies of the Old Testament foretold, that which was even foretold by Christ when he clothed Adam and Eve with coats of skins.

One can read over that passage and not realize that Christ would have had to make a sacrifice in order to cover Adam and Eve with the coats of skins, wouldn’t he? Their aprons that they fashioned of leaves was inadequate to cover their nakedness and to cover their shame and to cover their sin. It was only a covering provided by Christ himself that would cover Adam and Eve, and it was a promise of that which he fulfilled 2,000 years ago when he became the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, the Lamb which taketh away the sin of the world. Once and for all, it is finished. There is now, therefore, no more sacrifice for sin.

Now, I use the equivalent today to point out the error of making still more sacrifices, and that example is the Eucharist or the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church, where the bread of the communion wafer becomes the literal blood, body, soul and divinity of Christ, according to the Catholics. The priest says five magic, hocus-pocus Latin words, and all of a sudden Christ is yanked off his throne and put in the Jesus cookie, I call it, and they put him up to open shame again.

They call it the sacrifice of the Mass, another sacrifice, whereby grace is infused for those who participate in the Mass. They put him to open shame. They revel in the crucifixion and the shame that Christ bore in our behalf.

The Mass is committed, and I use the word correctly, it’s committed because it’s a crime, all over the world, thousands of times every day. Again, they put Christ to open shame, rejecting his all-efficacious, once and for all sacrifice. It is an abomination, it is a direct repudiation of that one time, all-sufficient sacrifice that Christ made on the cross of Calvary 2,000 years ago.

There’s just no excuse for the Mass. They can belabor it with all kinds of flowery words, but the bottom line is, when they participate in the Mass, they’ve rejected Christ. They’ve eaten and drunk damnation to themselves.

Now, the regular listeners to my broadcast can understand this, surely. We’ve talked about it so much, but how is it, how is it that we can rationalize in our minds that it’s a good thing that the Jews, now living in the nation-state of Israel that was created in 1948, so-called miraculously, are ready to build a temple and begin animal sacrifices again. How can we rationalize it in our minds that that is God’s will?

And I want to remind my listeners, I’ve believed this for most of my life. I’m 54 years old now. How many years have I believed that lie? God’s not going to be honored, God’s not going to be blessed, and there’s no sin going to be remitted by the blood of animals on Temple Mount in Jerusalem. God does not live in temples built with hands, but they’re going to build a temple with their hands on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem, and we think God’s going to dwell in it? Christ said, your house is left unto you desolate.

God left the building! Is He now going to turn around and say, “Oh, Indian giver, I reneged, I made a mistake. I’m going to inhabit and dwell in this temple. I’m going to honor animal sacrifices as I did before. Even after I gave my own blood.” It’s not going to happen. Not going to happen.

There’ll be no Shekinah glory standing over the temple in Jerusalem when they build it. Jesus is the great high priest. Why are they investing so much time and trouble with his computers to try to draw up a list of rabbinical students to serve this sacrificial system they’re planning on erecting?

Grievous error, grievous error. They’re repeating the same error they committed 2,000 years ago when they rejected Christ. They rejected him, and they insisted on continuing that rabbinical service on Temple Mount. Animal sacrifices for the remission of sins, reconciliation of God through the blood of goats and sheep.

What a horror! I’m telling you, I believe the creation of the nation-state of Israel as we saw it in 1948 was for the very purpose of destroying the Jews. The final Jewish question. They couldn’t kill them all in Europe during World War I and World War II, but they made life so miserable. Six million Jews went up in ashes and smoke in the crematoria of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. What a horror for the Jewish people! And they had an answer. “We’ll create for you homeland so you can escape the wrath of the Pope.”

So they created the nation-state of Israel, and they sold us all this bill of goods because a clever Jesuit priest said, “No, the 70th week of Daniel is lopped off from the 69th week and tacked on the very end of time.” Unbelievable lie! Unbelievable lie!

And they’re going to force the Jews to eat and drink damnation to themselves, just like the Catholics. This is all about destroying the Jewish people. The ones that Paul wept over. He said, “I’d give up my own salvation for the salvation of the Jewish people.” If Paul could only see what they’re doing today.

The Jews have but one lamb. It’s Christ. They have but one hope in this world. Christ! There’s no hope in a modern nation-state of Israel. There’s no hope in a temple. There’s no hope in a Jewish priesthood. There’s no hope in the blood of lambs and goats. We’ve been sold a lie!

How can we read the scriptures and how to understand this? What happened? Let’s focus on what happened before the second temple was destroyed. When Jesus Christ died, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom, and the earth did quake. By ripping the veil, God Almighty showed all mankind that the value of animal sacrifices was over. The earthly temple service was coming to an end.

Why? Because the great sacrifice had just been offered. A few years later, Paul wrote, in reference to this earthly temple, “Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” Hebrews chapter 8 verse 13.

Would God re-institute it and make Paul a fool? God is not behind this, what’s happening in the world today. This is a man-made fulfillment of the 70th week of Daniel. The Pope and all the kings of the earth have concerted to deceive the whole world, and to destroy the Jews, and to try to destroy spiritual Israel, too.

In AD 70, the second temple was demolished by the Romans. Now think for a moment. Would the providence of God ever lead the Jewish people to rebuild a third temple? Would God Almighty sanction the building of another temple in Jerusalem? Would the Father ever initiate the restarting of animal sacrifices that ended with the death of his own son? What Jesus cried out, “It is finished,” He abolished all sacrifices. And that includes the Jesus cookie. He was the final sacrifice.

Why would we repudiate that? Why would we wish our worst enemy to repudiate that? He was our sacrifice. Therefore, would not the restarting of sacrifices be once again an open denial that Jesus Christ is the Messiah? If Israel ever did rebuild a third temple and begin to offer sacrifices, would not this be another official national rejection of their Messiah? God have mercy! God have mercy.

What happened? What happened 2,000 years ago when the leaders of Israel officially rejected their Messiah? The result was disaster. A thousand. No, a million. A million Jews perished. How many are going to perish when they build another temple? Would they reject their Messiah not once but twice?

Reminds me, Jesus said before the cock crows twice, you’ll deny me thrice, Peter. Is that an omen? The Jews are poised right on the precipice of rejecting their Messiah again. And the unspeakable horror is that all the God-believing Christians in this world are ready for it to happen. They promote this. They support it like God has another means of salvation for the Jews that he would repudiate the salvation of his own son by giving the Jews another opportunity, another chance, by another way, another gospel, another savior. How do we reconcile this with God’s own word? We can’t.

Three main sections of scripture are being used today by Christians to support the third temple theory. They’re Daniel 9.27, as we’ve talked about so voluminously on the program, assorted temple texts in the book of Revelation, and 2 Thessalonians 2 verse 4. Yet in all three of these sections, nothing is said about a temple being rebuilt in Jerusalem. Not one word. Where do we get this? If it doesn’t come from God’s Word, shouldn’t we be just a little suspicious? Not one word in the Bible said about a third temple in Jerusalem.

You can read Daniel until your eyeballs fall out. You’ll never say one word about a third temple being rebuilt. Ain’t happening. Not in God’s world it ain’t. So who’s fomenting this garbage?

All three sections, not a word is said about any temple being rebuilt. In the Old Testament, major portions of scripture are devoted to the building of the wilderness temple, the first temple, and the second temple. Exodus 35-40, 1 Kings 6, Ezra 3-6. Yet as far as the building of a third Jewish temple, we find nothing in God’s word. There’s nothing there.

Now let’s listen to these arguments for this proposed third Jewish temple. They use Daniel 9:27 as we’ve said before. It says, popular prophecy scholars today argue that when Daniel 9:27 describes the coming of the one who will cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease, this must refer to an end time antichrist who will stop the sacrifices of a rebuilt Jewish temple. Yet we proved in chapter 5 of this book that it was Jesus Christ who already caused the sacrifice and oblations to cease, 2000 years ago through His own death on the cross.

Matthew Henry, one of the great commentators of God’s holy word, faithfully declared that it was Jesus, it was Jesus who caused the sacrifice and the oblations to cease, by offering Himself a sacrifice, praise His holy Name, once and for all, He shall put an end to all Levitical sacrifices.

You know what, I’ve got the passage right here mentioned. I drew out my e-sword early this morning. Decided to go to battle against this futurist interpretation. It’s killing God’s people! My e-sword is drawn.

    Daniel 9:27: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even to the consummation. And that determined shall be poured out upon the desolate.

Any mention of a third temple there? Any mention of a seven-year period of great tribulation there? Who caused the sacrifice and the oblations to cease? Just listen to the great man of God, Matthew Henry. In his commentary he says, He, with a capital H, must cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease, by offering Himself a sacrifice, by offering Himself a sacrifice, once and for all, He shall put an end to all the Levitical sacrifices. He shall supersede them and set them aside. When the substance comes, the shadows shall be done away. He caused all the peace offerings to cease when He was made peace by the blood of His own cross, and by it, He confirmed the covenant of peace and reconciliation.

By the preaching of his gospel to the world, with which the apostles were entrusted, He took men off from expecting remission by the blood of bulls and goats, and so caused the sacrifice and the oblations to cease. Praise God!

Thank God for Matthew Henry! Let us listen to Matthew Henry, and not a black-robed demon called Ribera, who has foisted this futurist lie to destroy God’s people and the Jews. The greatest killing machine that ever drew a breath, the Roman Catholic Church, and leading the bloodletting of the Jesuit priest that came up with this futurist abomination. Let none of us any longer be deceived by this. In Jesus’ Name!

(Also see The Third Temple Deception.)