The Papal System – XI. The Lord’s Supper, The Eucharist, The Mass

The Papal System – XI. The Lord’s Supper, The Eucharist, The Mass

Continued from The Papal System – X. Confirmation.

THESE three terms designate one institution, and when that solemn observance is viewed as it is presented in the Scriptures, the Protestant doctrine is undoubtedly the true one. In the English Catholic version in Matt. xxvi. 26-30, it is said:

    “Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed,and broke, and gave to his disciples, and said, Take ye and eat; this is my body; and, taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this; for this is my blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. And I say unto you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. And a hymn being said, they went out unto Mount Olivet.”

In Mark xiv. 22-26, it is said:

    “Whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye, this is my body; and having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it, And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many. Amen, I say to you, that I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God. And when they had said an hymn, they went forth to the Mount of Olives.”

And in Luke xxii. 19, 20, it is said:

    “And taking bread, he gave thanks, and broke, and gave to them, saying: This is my body which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner, the chalice, also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.”

And in 1 Cor. xi. 23-27, it is said:

    “The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and, giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye and eat; this is my body which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner, also, the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood; this do ye as often as you shall drink for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord till he come.”

Such are the accounts given of the Lord’s Supper in the words of a Catholic version. Paul calls the body of the Lord bread twice after consecration, showing that it was bread. He says that the Lord’s Supper “shows the death of the Lord till he come,” declaring emphatically that the Lord is not in it, that he is away. The Saviour calls the cup: “This fruit of the vine,” in Matt. xxvi. 29, after consecration, and not blood: showing that it was unchanged. And as for the saying, “This is my body,” it means simply that the broken bread was a picture of his torn body, just as the words, “The Lord God is a sun and shield,” mean that the sun is a figure of the light which God gives, and the shield a figure of the defense which he bestows. No one, in his senses, while Christ uttered these words, would have imagined that the bread was his body, or the cup his blood. His body was entire at that moment; not a drop of his blood was spilled; and, hence, the supper is a “showing forth the Lord’s death till he come ”—a commemoration of the death of an absent Saviour.

The priests scorn the idea that there could be any figure in the declaration: “This is my body;” but when Paul says: “For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice,” they must grant that it is not the chalice but its contents that are to be drunk, If it is not a figurative expression, the priests of Rome should swallow the cup as well as the contents. The words, “I am the vine, I am the door,” are literal if the expression is not figurative, “This is my body.” No community would suffer more than the Catholic Church from a non-figurative interpretation of every scripture word. In the Catholic New Testament, Matt. xvi. 22, 23, it is said: “And Peter taking him began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee; who turning said to Peter: GO BEHIND ME, SATAN, THOU ART A SCANDAL UNTO ME, because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.” If the words, “This is my body,” must be taken literally, we would mildly insist that Christ’s address to Peter shall be taken literally too when he said to him: “Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me.” According to that interpretation, Peter is the chief of devils; and the Church of Rome, built on Simon, is founded on Beelzebub himself. A literal interpretation of the words, “This is my body,” leads to sacred cannibalism; and of the saying in Matt. xvi. 22, 23, makes Peter the devil, and Lucifer the foundation of the Papal Church. A figurative view of both passages is the true one.

The Lord’s Supper after the First and inside the Sixth Century.

The name missa or mass was applied very early to the supper. After a portion of the service at public worship was over, a deacon arose and said: “Ite, missa est [ecclesia]—depart, the assembly is dismissed.” Immediately all the non-church members withdrew.

At public worship in early times there was a twofold missa, the missa catecheumenorum, and the missa fidelium, the former describing the united worship of the unbelieving, the catechumens (those being taught the principles of Christianity), and the faithful church members; and the latter the observances of the communicants when the others had withdrawn. The word mass for many centuries had no odor of popery about it.

The Elements.

After the united service of the whole people was over, and before the beginning of the supper of the faithful, it was customary for every one to make offerings according to his ability. These gifts were placed upon the communion table by the minister. On this occasion it was deemed peculiarly disgraceful to appear before the Lord empty-handed. These donations were used to support the clergy, to relieve the poor, and to furnish bread and wine for the Lord’s table. The bread was common, such as served for the ordinary use of the people. The wine was mixed with water from very ancient times in all the churches. Some of the leading fathers regarded this practice as resulting from an express command of Christ.

The Prayer and Consecration Ceremonies of the Supper.

The elements being placed on the table, a deacon brought water to the bishop and his presbyters to wash their hands, signifying the purity which men should have who approach God. Then the deacon cried out, “Mutually embrace and kiss one another.” This holy kiss was very ancient, and was specially given at the supper as a token of reconciliation, forgiveness, and goodwill. Then the whole congregation with the minister began the COMMON PRAYER, a very lengthy and appropriate supplication, for the peace and welfare of the entire Church, for the tranquility of the world, for the prosperity of the age, for fruitful seasons, for kings, emperors, and all in authority, for soldiers and armies, believers and unbelievers, friends and companions, for the sick and distressed, and for all that stood in need of help. After the prayer the minister said to the people: “The Lord be with you;” and the people answered, “And with thy spirit.”

Then the minister proceeded to the prayer of consecration, consisting of expressions of fervent gratitude to God for the death, resurrection and ascension of his Son, for the shedding of his blood, and the celebration of it in the supper. This usually ended with the Lord’s Prayer, and a hearty and universal acclamation of “amen” from all that were present. After the prayer of consecration the minister cried out: “Holy things to holy persons,” the people answering, “There is one holy, one Lord Jesus Christ.” Then he exhorted them to share in the holy mysteries, by singing, “Come taste and see that the Lord is good.” Then the bishop or presbyter broke the bread and gave it to the deacon, who distributed it to the communicants. During the time of celebration they sung hymns and psalms. The whole observance was concluded by prayer and thanksgiving, that God had given them such great privileges.

Posture at the Lord’s Supper.

Riddle says: “It would appear from direct evidence still extant, that for the most part, if not always, communicants received the consecrated elements standing.” According to Cave, the apostles received it reclining on couches after the Jewish custom of eating, but in the third century participants at the Lord’s table received the eucharist standing. Eusebius preserves a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria addressed to Xystus, Bishop of Rome, in which he speaks of an old communicant who doubted his baptism because it was received among heretics, and Dionysius tried to quiet his conscience by reminding him that for a long time he had “been in the habit of hearing the thanksgiving, and repeating the amen, and standing at the table, and extending his hand to receive the sacred elements.” Dionysius was a very distinguished bishop, and it is evident from this letter to the Bishop of Rome, that he was tenacious of the customs of the Church everywhere, and was afraid to make innovations. So that standing, and not kneeling, the attitude of worship, was the posture in which the eucharist was received in the early Church.

The Supper was Received on an empty Stomach.

St. Augustine says that the disciples at the first supper were not fasting, but now, for the honor of so great a sacrament, fasting before partaking of it is the custom of the whole world.

The Frequency of Observing the Supper.

According to Cave, it was dispensed daily in the early churches for some time; this was the use in Carthage in the third century, and in Rome and Milan in the fourth. In some eastern churches the supper was celebrated four times a week. From once a day it declined to once a week, then to once a month, and then to thrice a year, at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide (Pentecost).

The Fragments of the Supper.

It was usual in early times to keep the remains of the eucharist for the innocent children of the church; and on a particular day they were brought there fasting, and partook of them. In some instances, wine was sprinkled upon them. At Constantinople, in the time of Justinian, according to Evagrius, it was an old custom to bring boys of a tender age from the schools to eat these fragments.

Pieces of the eucharist Carried Home.

Among the primitive disciples it was quite common for Christians to take to their dwellings portions of the Lord’s Supper. These they used to strengthen their faith in times of persecution, and to increase their love for each other. Nor was it very uncommon to carry it to sea, or about the body as a charm to ward off dangers and evil spirits.

Ministers sent the eucharist to each other,

This practice, at one time, was very common, and it was perpetuated as a token of peace and love between those who made these fraternal but singular exchanges. Ireneus, as quoted by Ensebius, tells Victor, Bishop of Rome, that his predecessors, Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus and Xystus, had sent the eucharist to ministers of churches with which Victor was engaged in a thoroughly popish quarrel, though popery was so little known in that day that Ireneus calls the men presbyters who governed the Church of Rome, over which Victor presided.

No Adoration of the eucharist in the Early Church.

There was no elevation of the elements in any part of the Christian world for seven hundred years after Christ. This occurred first among the Greeks; and it was done, not for adoration, but to represent our Saviour’s elevation on the cross and his resurrection from the dead. Among the Latins there was no elevation of the elements before the eleventh century, and then it was for the same reason as led the Greeks to practice it. The first author, according to Bingham, who gives adoration as the reason for the elevation of the host is Gulielmus Durantus, who wrote about 1386. The adoration of the host had no existence before the twelfth century.

There was no Altar in the Early Church.

The communion table was simply the table of the Lord. Coleman is not mistaken when he says: “It was unknown until the third century.” Du Pin says: “Christians in the third century did not give the name altar to the table upon which they celebrated the eucharist.” Nor did they dream of a sacrifice, though the word was sometimes used, just as altar was, in and subsequent to the third century. Isidore, of Seville, who died in A.D. 636, according to Du Pin, gives us the conception of the eucharist as a sacrifice common in his day. Speaking of it, he says: “It is called a sacrifice because it is made sacred by a mystical prayer, in remembrance of the passion of our Lord. He defineth a sacrament the sign of a holy thing, communicating holiness.” Isidore was one of the most influential bishops of his day.

The Communicants in the Ancient Church.

The eucharist was first given to the bishop, then to the presbyters, then to the deacons, subdeacons, readers, singers, and ascetics, the deaconesses, virgins, and widows, then the children, and then all the people in order. This is the custom described in the Apostolical Constitutions, and probably it continued from the middle of the third till the sixth century.

After the united meeting of communicants and non-communicants was dismissed, and just as the supper is about to be celebrated, a deacon solemnly warned all the catechumens (that is all unbaptized persons, though preparing to unite with the church), all persons under the censure of the church, and all unbelievers, to retire from the sanctuary. The eucharist was only for baptized Christians in good standing.

The Dying receive the eucharist.

In the last struggles of the departing, as early as the third century, the Lord’s Supper was carried to them; and it was often dropped into their mouths when they were unable to lift it up themselves. Eusebius records a case of this kind: an old man named Serapion, speechless, except at short intervals, had the eucharist sent to him, and put in his mouth; and soon after receiving it he expired. Such was the custom in those days.

The Dead had the eucharist placed in their Mouths.

In Africa they sometimes baptized the dead; and it was not uncommon in the same country, and in France, prior to A. D. 578, to give the Lord’s Supper to deceased persons. It was also practiced in the East as late as the seventh century. The third Council of Carthage, the Synod of Auxerre in France, and the Council of Trullo in Constantinople, condemned these outrageous follies.

Infants receive the eucharist.

In North Africa the communion of infants was first introduced. The Christians in that region supposed that the declarations in the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel referred to external participation in the Lord’s Supper; that act, as they understood it, was a mystical eating of the flesh, and drinking of the blood of the Son of God, without which there could be no eternal life; and regarding such communion as necessary to salvation, they gave it to infants.“ It is beyond dispute,” says Bingham, “that baptized infants were immediately admitted to the eucharist.” He quotes Radulphus Ardens, who lived in the beginning of the twelfth century, as declaring it to be the custom to give little children the eucharist in his day, immediately after baptism; and he refers to a direction in the old Ordo Romanus, composed in the ninth century, that “Infants, after baptism, should not eat any food, nor seek the breast without great necessity, till they had communicated in the sacrament of the body of Christ.”

In the twelfth century this custom was superseded in France, but there is reason for supposing that it lived longer in Germany and Switzerland. “The whole primitive Church, Greek and Latin, from Cyprian’s time, gave the communion to infants;” in the West, the practice began to die in the twelfth century. In the East the custom is universal at this day. ‘This usage was commended by the greatest names in the early Church. Augustine of Hippo, who had only one equal among all the fathers, commenting on the words: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you;” and supposing these words to allude to the eucharist, asks: “Dare any one be so bold as to say that this sentence does not belong to little children, or that they can have life without partaking of this body and blood” (of the supper).

Pope Innocent, the contemporary of Augustine, undoubtedly expresses the same opinion in his Epistle to Augustine, and the Council of Milevis. Pope Gelasius, about A.D. 495, writes in reference to the eucharist: “No one should venture to exclude any child from this sacrament, without which no one can attain to eternal life.”

But the infallible Council of Trent denounces and curses the sayings and practices of all Christendom for ages, including popes of Rome, who could not err in matters of faith, and yet did commit centuries of consecrated blunders, if the fathers of Trent were not mistaken. Their decree is: “If any one shall say that the communion of the eucharist is necessary for children before they arrive at years of discretion; let him be accursed.”

Singular Conceits about the Supper itself among the Primitive Christians.

In North Africa, when the eucharist ceased to be observed every day, it was customary to carry home some of the bread without the wine, and enjoy daily communion in this way. This is the first example of communion in one kind in the Christian Church, and it began in the end of the third century. But the eucharist was administered in both kinds in the churches without variation till the twelfth century. And just to show how the supper could be made defective in either element, children who were not able to eat bread, received the eucharist in wine only, and in this way, as was imagined, they were entitled to eternal life. Sometimes the bread was dipped in the wine, and the two united were given to children, and to weak or dying persons, who could not otherwise have swallowed the bread.

One ancient sect substituted water for wine in the eucharist, and from this custom were sometimes called Aquarians. The Council of Auxerre condemned some who offered honey and water instead of wine; others used milk for wine; and others substituted grapes. In the fourth century, there was a community who thought the eucharist was not properly celebrated unless cheese was offered with the bread. These people were called Artotyrites, that is, Bread-Cheesians. But these perversions of the ordinance were confined to few persons, and died out in a comparatively short time.

There was another denomination, which held that no visible elements could represent the divine mysteries; that perfect knowledge was their redemption; and, as a result of their opinions, they rejected the eucharist in every form. These ancient Quakers were called Ascodrutae.

There were no private eucharists or masses in the ancient Church. Even Bellarmine candidly owns that there is no express testimony to he found among the ancients that they ever offered the sacrifice without the communion of one or more persons beside the priest (nusquam expresse legitur a veteribus oblatum sacrificium sine communione alicujus vel aliquorum preter ipsum sacerdotem).

At the Synod of Paris, under Gregory IV., A.D. 829, a decree was passed, stating that a culpable custom had crept in, in many places, partly by negligence, and partly by covetousness; that some presbyters celebrate mass without any attendants; the decree then proceeds to order “every bishop to take care that no presbyter in his diocese shall presume to celebrate mass by himself alone” (provideat que unusquisque episcoporum, ne in sua parochia quisquam presbyterorum missam solus celebrare preesumat). At this period, the practice had just “crept in,” and it is emphatically condemned.

Bingham is sustained by all Christian antiquity in his statement: “The eucharist was not intended as a sacrifice to be offered by a single priest in a corner, without communicants or assistants, or for the intention, or at the cost, of some particular persons, paying for it; but for a communion to the whole Church, as the primitive Church always used it: and there is not an example to be found of the contrary practice.

The Opinions of the Primitive Church, after the First Century, on the Nature of the eucharist.

The early Christians fell into the Lutheran view of the Lord’s Supper soon after the last of the apostles entered upon his rest. No man ever abhorred transubstantiation more than the mighty reformer of Wittemberg. But while he avowed his abhorrence of the doctrine that the eucharist was the body and blood of Christ, he taught distinctly that: “The body and blood of Christ are truly present in the sacrament, in the form of bread and wine, and there distributed and received.” He would say with other Protestants, that the bread and wine were symbols of the body and blood of the Lord; but he went beyond them in declaring that the body and blood of Christ are truly present in the sacrament. This was substantially the opinion of the Church from the second till the end of the ninth century.

A Romanist now never speaks of his mass as a figure, sign, or likeness of Christ’s body; to him, it is the very body born of the Virgin. The early Christians spoke of the eucharist as the body and blood of the Lord, and yet freely called it bread and wine, after consecration, and frequently designated the elements figures and similitudes of the body and blood of Christ: showing that they did not believe that the bread and wine were the literal flesh and blood of the Saviour.

Tertullian repeatedly uses a sentence like this about the supper: “He made bread his body by saying: This is my body; that is a figure of my body.”

Ignatius, speaking about the eucharist, says: “Breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, a remedy against death.” He regarded the loaf as bread after it was broken and consecrated.

Clemens Alexandrinus, writing about the supper, says: “For be ye sure he did also drink wine, for he also was a man; and he blessed wine when he said: Take, drink; this is my blood, the blood of the vine: for this expression: ‘Shed for many for the remission of sins,’ signifies, allegorically, a holy stream of gladness.” The consecrated cup is the blood of the vine, after the blessing has fallen upon it, and it signifies, allegorically, a holy stream of gladness.

Cyprian, reasoning with one who had used water in the eucharist instead of wine, argues: “For since Christ says: I am the true vine, the blood of Christ is not, therefore, water, but wine; nor can his blood appear to be in the cup by which we have been redeemed and made alive, when the wine is absent from the chalice, by which the blood of Christ is represented.”

Eusebius says: “He gave to his disciples the symbols of divine economy, commanding the image of his own body to be made.” Surely, the great Bishop of Caesarea had no faith in transubstantiation. In his interpretation of John vi., Eusebius says: “We are not to believe that Christ spoke of his present body, or enjoined the drinking of his corporeal and sensuous blood, but the words which he speaks are spirit and life; so that his words themselves are his flesh and blood.”

Chrysostom says: “As the bread before it is sanctified is called bread, but after the divine grace has sanctified it by the mediation of the priest, it is no longer called bread, but dignified with the name of the body of the Lord, though the nature of bread remain in it.”

Ambrose says: “Make this our oblation a chosen, rational, acceptable oblation, because it is made for a figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Augustine states, that “The Lord did not hesitate to say ‘This is my body,’ when he gave the sign of his body.” “Christ admitted Judas to that banquet, in which he commended and delivered unto his disciples the figure of his body and blood.”

Jerome states that Christ “did not offer water, but wine as a type of his blood.”

Pope Gelasius writes in A.D.490: “Doubtless the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receive, are a divine thing; and, therefore, by them we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them; and, indeed, the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in, the mysterious action.”

Facundus, an African bishop, about A.D. 590, wrote: “The sacrament of adoption may be called adoption, as we call the sacrament of his body and blood, which is in the consecrated bread and cup, his body and blood, not because the bread is properly his body, or the cup his blood, but because they contain the mystery of his body and blood.”

Isidore, Bishop of Seville, writing about A.D. 680, says: “The bread, because it nourishes and strengthens our bodies, is therefore called the body of Christ, and the wine, because it creates blood in our flesh, is called the blood of Christ.” This distinguished bishop saw in the sacramental elements only resemblances of the Saviour’s body and blood.

The transition period from consubstantiation to transubstantiation.

Up till the early part of the ninth century, the Christian Church had not been disturbed by controversies about the eucharist. A few heretics occasionally attempted to make innovations even upon it, but they were soon quieted, and the belief of centuries flowed calmly on in worshiping hearts.

Paschasius Radbert was the first man who promulgated the doctrine of transubstantiation, though he used another name; for that term was not yet applied to the doctrine. He was a monk, a native of Soissons, and a man of great acuteness of mind. He wrote, in A.D. 831, a book “Concerning the Body and Blood of our Saviour,” in which he took the ground, that the wine of the sacrament is “The very blood that ran out of the Saviour’s side upon the cross, and that for that reason water is mingled with the eucharistical wine;” and that the bread of the Lord’s Supper “is the very flesh of our Saviour which was born of the Virgin.” This was the first formal and unmistakable announcement of transubstantiation ever made by one man to another.

Even Du Pin substantially admits this by saying about Radbert’s book: “It was not usual in those times to say positively that the body of Christ in the eucharist was the same that was born of the Virgin, and to assert it so plainly.” And he sustains this opinion by quoting a declaration of the celebrated Father Mabillon, asserting that “Before the book of Paschasius on the Body and Blood of the Lord, all Catholics confessed that the true body and true blood of Christ the Lord existed assuredly in the eucharist; and likewise, that in it the bread and wine were changed. But no one at the time of Paschasius had heard that that body was the same which was born of the Virgin Mary.”

This is just the point of the whole controversy. The Lutherans, and the early Christians for centuries taught, that the body and blood of Christ were received in the elements, though neither believed that the bread had ceased to be bread, or that the wine had lost its original properties. Du Pin and Mabillon are Catholic witnesses that Radbert’s doctrine was a novelty.

But this monstrous creation, when it was first taught, stirred up the leading men of Europe to oppose it; and those who resisted it were a multitude. Two anonymous writers gave it a complete exposure; and as the commotions excited by the controversy threatened a schism in the Church, Charles the Bald expressed his fears of such a rupture to Bertram, and with a view to quiet the angry passions aroused by Radhert, he asked him to answer these two questions in a treatise: “Are the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist? If so, is it the body born of the Virgin?” The very existence of such a trouble in the Catholic countries subject to Charles, and the pressure on him to quiet his own mind and the anxieties of his subjects show, still farther, that Radbert was only an innovator. The first question he answers by proving that the “Body and blood of Christ received in the church by the mouth of the faithful are figures, if considered in the visible form of the bread and wine. But if considered in their hidden qualities they are the body and blood of Christ.”

The second question he answers by proving that the body and blood which the faithful participate in in the eucharist are quite another thing, both in the sign and the thing signified, from the body born of the Virgin and seen on the cross. Bertram was a man of commanding influence and intellect. John Scotus, another man of the highest culture, was consulted by Charles on the same subject, and at his request wrote a work to show that “The sacraments of the altar are not the real body and blood of our Saviour, but only a commemoration of them.”

Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mentz, about A. D. 825, says: “Lately indeed some persons, not thinking rightly concerning the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, have said that that very body and blood of the Lord which was born from the Virgin Mary is the same as that which is received from the altar. In opposition to which error, as far as lay in our power, writing to the Abbot Egilus, we propounded what ought to be believed.”

Herigar, Abbot of Laub, in the territory of Liege, wrote a book against Radbert.

Du Pin says that “among the authors of the ninth century that have cursorily treated of this matter, Amalatius, Florus, and Druthmarus speak of the eucharist like Bertram.” And Bingham adds to the enemies of Radbert’s theory, in addition to those already named: Walafridus, Strabo, Heribaldus, Lupus, Frudegardus, Prudentins, Trieassin, Alfricus, and the Saxon homilies, Fulbertus Carnotensis, Luthericus Scnonensis, Berno Augiensis,” and others he says might be mentioned.

At first the doctrine of Radbert was repugnant to the cultivated and the godly, but it was broached in a rude age, and the monks favored it; the materialistic character of European thought assisted it, and gradually it had a host of friends and was prepared to frown down all opposition.

Berenger was born at Tours, near the beginning of the eleventh century; he was endowed with a clear understanding; and blessed with an able and pious teacher in Fulbert of Chartres. He was at first the principal of the Cathedral School of Tours, and afterwards archdeacon of Angers. Berenger adopted the views of the eucharist held with impunity and defended with vigor by John Scotus and Bertram two centuries before. But times were changed; his learning, piety, and eloquence gave him extensive influence, and his opinions great success. This however only excited his enemies to greater fury, and made them resolve to silence the good archdeacon or slay him. Lanfranc, his old friend, took the side of his enemies; others proved equally conscientious or treacherous; he was excommunicated by a Roman council, condemned by all grades of dignitaries, and rescued from destruction by Gregory VII. Through his protection he spent his last years in peace. Gregory called upon the Archbishop of Tours and the Bishop of Angers, to defend him against his enemies; and he granted him a Bull, excommunicating those who should injure him in person or estate or call him “Heretic.”

Those favors made some doubt Gregory’s orthodoxy; and with reason. Gregory was a man of unequaled intellect, and could quickly detect the absurdity of transubstantiation. Besides, that doctrine though very popular in the eleventh century, was not yet a dogma of the Church; and it was only two hundred years old. Berenger denying transubstantiation to his social friends, passed the evening of his days, “admired for innumerable good qualities, and especially for humility and almsgiving.”

The name transubstantiation first applied to the mass.

The eucharist had been known by several new names after the days of Radbert. Transitio was one of these. Hildebert of Tours, the famous city of Berenger, gave it its immortal name—transubstantiation.

The Wafer.

The eucharistic bread of the Romish Church consists of cakes of meal and water, small, round and thin, in the shape of wafers. This style appears to have been brought into general use after the rise of the controversy with the Greek Church, in a. D, 1053.

Transubstantiation is incorporated into the Church of Rome.

In A.D. 1215, Innocent III. was pope. He was a man of distinguished talents. From childhood, he had suspended his common sense when thinking about Radbert’s doctrine. He knew that it was in no creed, canon, or authorized standard of the Church of which he was the head. He felt that it was absurd to require men to receive a doctrine to which the Church had never given that adoption so freely conceded to other dogmas not half so momentous. He assembled a Council in Rome, in the Lateran Church, A. D. 1215, consisting of 412 bishops, in whose hearing he read seventy canons which he had drawn up, and in which they seemed to acquiesce; among these was the famous canon, which, FOR THE FIRST TIME, gave transubstantiation a legal place in the Catholic Church. The important part of the canon is:

    “But there is one universal Church of the faithful, out of which no one at all is saved; in which Jesus Christ himself is at once priest and sacrifice; whose body and blood, in the sacrament of the altar, are truly contained under the species of bread and wine, which, through the divine power, are transubstantiated, the bread into the body, and the wine into the blood; that for the fulfillment of the mystery of unity, we may receive of his that which he received of ours.”

The Mass is declared a propitiatory Sacrifice.

The Council of Trent, nearly 350 years later, took another step, and declared the host an atoning sacrifice:

    “And, since in the divine sacrifice which is performed in the mass, the same Christ is contained and offered in an unbloody manner, who, on the altar of the cross, offered himself, with blood, once for all; the holy Synod teaches that that sacrifice is, and becomes of itself, truly propitiatory, so that if, with a true heart and right faith, with fear and reverence, we approach to God, contrite and penitent, we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. The Lord, forsooth, being appeased by the offering of this, and granting grace and the gift of repentance, remits crimes and sins, even great ones; for it is one and the same host, the same person now offering by the ministry of the priests, who then offered himself upon the cross, only in a different manner of offering; and by this unbloody sacrifice, the fruits of that bloody one are abundantly received; only far be it that any dishonor should be done to that by this. Wherefore, according to the tradition of the apostles, offering is duly made, not only for the sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are alive, but also for the dead in Christ, who are not yet wholly cleansed.”

Christ is in the Mass, Soul, Body, and Divinity.

The Synod of Trent says: “If any one shall deny that in the sacrament of the most holy eucharist, there is contained really, truly, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so whole Christ, but shall say he is only in it in sign, or figure, or power, let him be accursed.” This curse falls harmlessly upon the whole Christian world, including Roman popes, for more than eight centuries.

There are no Bread and Wine in the Mass after Consecration.

The fathers at Trent declare that: “If any shall say that in the holy sacrament of the eucharist, there remains the substance of bread and wine, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and remarkable conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, while only the appearance of bread and wine remains, which conversion the Catholic Church most appropriately names transubstantiation; let him be accursed.”

A whole Christ in every particle of the Mass.

The Tridentine Council says: “If any one shall deny that Christ entire is contained in the venerable sacrament of the eucharist, under each species and, when they are divided, under every particle of each kind; let him be accursed.”

The eucharist Worshipped as God.

The Council of Trent asserts that: “There is, therefore, no reason to doubt but that all Christ’s faithful people, in their veneration, should render this most holy sacrament the SAME WORSHIP which is due to the true God, according to the custom which the Catholic Church has always received.”

A Day Appointed to Commemorate and Worship the Body of (eucharist) Christ.

In A.D. 1264, Urban IV. set apart Corpus Christi (body of Christ) day in honor of the deity, adopted into the Church A.D. 1215, by Innocent III. and the Fourth Council of the Lateran; the wheaten god. According to Du Pin, Urban’s institution was confirmed by the Council of Vienne, A.D. 1311, and Clement V. This transubstantiated god is a novelty in the Church of Jesus.

The eucharist carried around in Procession for Worship.

The Council of Trent declares that “The church of God has very piously and religiously introduced the custom that in every year, on some special feast day, this illustrious and venerable sacrament should be celebrated with particular veneration and solemnity, and that it should be carried about in procession, in a reverent and honorable manner, through the highways and public places.”

The following description of the annual procession of the host is a specimen of what occurred for centuries in the old world: “The Corpus Christi procession begins to move out exactly at nine in the morning; it consists of forty communities of friars who have converts in this town. They follow one another in two lines, according to established precedent. Next appears the long train of relics belonging to the cathedral, in vases of gold and silver: a tooth of St. Christopher, an agate cup belonging to Clement, the successor of St. Peter, an arm of St. Bartholomew, a head of one of the eleven thousand virgins, a part of St. Peter’s body, and of the bodies of St. Lawrence and St. Blaise, a thorn from the Saviour’s crown, a fragment of the true cross, and the bones of several other saints. Then the prebendaries (clergy) and canons, attended by inferior ministers. The streets are profusely decorated and are shaded with a thick awning; they are covered with rushes. Under these circumstances, the appearance of the host in the streets is exceedingly imposing. Encircled by jewels of the greatest brilliancy, surrounded by lighted tapers, and enthroned on the massive yet elegant temple of silver, no sooner has it moved to the door of the church than the bells announce its presence with deafening sound, the bands of military music mix their animating notes with the solemn hymns of the singers, clouds of incense rise before the moving shrine, and the ear is thrilled by the loud voice of command and by the clash of the arms which the kneeling soldiers strike down to the ground, When the concealed bearers of the shrine present it at the top of the long street, where the route commences, the multitudes which crowd: both the pavement and the windows fall prostrate in profound adoration, without venturing to rise up till the object of their awe is out of sight.”

Procession of the Host to the Sick.

In Spain it was customary for a priest in taking the eucharist to the dying to be carried in “a sedan chair and to be attended by a party of soldiers and a bellman. The bellman, as they pass along, gives three strokes, in allusion to the three persons of the Trinity, and then ceases. At this well known sound, whatever be the state of the weather or the condition of the streets, every one drops on his knees, and continues in this devout posture till the object of his adoration is out of sight. If the procession should pass a theater or a festive gathering, the actors on the stage immediately drop on their knees, and so do the dancers in the ball-room.”

Incense and the eucharist.

There is no trace of the use of incense at the Lord’s Supper before the end of the sixth century.

A Minister Living in the Greatest Iniquity can make Jesus Christ out of Flour and Water.

The Council of Trent says: “If any one shall declare that a minister, in mortal sin, cannot perform or confer a sacrament, provided he shall observe all the essentials which appertain to the performing or conferring a sacrament; let him be accursed.” Truly the thought is curious that right reverend Judas, even at the time Satan entered him, and filled him with mortal sin, could regenerate a man by baptism or manufacture the Saviour out of wheat and water! And yet no priest out of the mortal sin of inexcusable ignorance, and in the fear and love of Christ, would be likely to continue long the deity-making business, or the office of imparting the other papal sacraments. So that the admission of mortal sinners into the calling of dispensing the sacraments is politic, and indispensably necessary.

Half communion

For the first twelve hundred years the faithful of both sexes regularly and without question received the eucharist under the forms of bread and wine. Transubstantiation, teaching the people that the cup was the blood that flowed through the Saviour’s physical heart, inspired them and their priests with horror lest a drop of it should fall on the ground, or hang on a layman’s beard; it was unquestionably the prime cause why the cup was taken from the laity. It is of course still used in celebrating mass, and regularly emptied by the priest, but tasted by no one else.

Two Popes denounce Half Communion.

Gelasius complains: “That some received the bread, but abstained from the cup; whom he condemns as guilty of superstition, and orders that they should either receive in both kinds, or else be excluded from both, because one and the same mystery cannot be divided without grand sacrilege.” Leo the Great denounces them with equal vehemence: “They receive the body of Christ,” says he, “with unworthy mouth, but refuse to drink the blood of our redemption, such men’s sacrilegious dissimulation being discovered, let them be marked, and by the authority of the priesthood cast out of the society of the faithful.”

Gelasius was a respectable pontiff, but Leo the Great deserved his title: he was one of the ablest churchmen, and most celebrated popes that ever lived, and his condemnation of half communion in Catholic eyes should strip it of all authority.

The Council of Constance decrees that the Laity shall not have the Cup in the eucharist.

In A.D. 1215, the synod of Constance prohibited the cup to the laity in the following words: “. . . . and in like manner, though this sacrament was received in the primitive Church by the faithful under both kinds, yet to escape any dangers and scandals, the custom has reasonably been introduced, that it be received by the officiating persons under both kinds, but by the laity only under the kind of bread.” …. Fourteen hundred years after the eucharist was instituted, a body of bishops burn Christ’s two great servants, John Huss and Jerome of Prague; and destroy half of his own glorious image in the Lord’s Supper.

Trent and the prohibition of the cup.

The Council of Constance could not mutilate the Lord’s Supper and make men satisfied with the sacrilegious change. After its impious alterations of divine institutions, and diabolical burnings were over, agitation about the forbidden cup shook Europe, and a hundred years later it was just as active as ever. Soon after the assembling of the Council of Trent, which met A.D. 1545, demands came in by almost every mail for the cup, not from Protestants; they had it already; but from Catholics; from the Emperor Charles V., Ferdinand, his brother, Charles IX., King of France, the Duke of Bavaria, and from a multitude in all classes of society. The result is thus expressed:

    “If any one shall say, that by the command of God, or by the necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful in Christ should partake of each species of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist; let him be accursed.”

    “If any one shall say that the holy Catholic Church was not moved by just causes and reasons to communicate with laymen, and even clergymen not celebrating mass under the species of bread only; or that in that course she has erred; let him be accursed.”

Finally the council, perplexed by the threatening attitude of the leading Catholic laymen of Europe, and yet fearing to injure the authority of general synods by repealing the decree of the infallible Council of Constance, referred the whole matter to the pope: “To give the cup to any person, nation, or kingdom, if fair reasons agreeable to Christian charity urged it; and to fix the conditions upon which the concession should be granted.” The popes have never exercised this discretionary power; and the formal decrees of Trent have bound all Catholics ever since they were issued.

The Words that change the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus.

“By these words: Do this in commemoration of me, Jesus gave his apostles and their successors, the bishops and priests of the Church, the power to change the bread and the wine into his most holy body and blood. The priest blesses the bread and wine as Christ did; he speaks over them the same words of consecration which Christ spoke; and thus the bread and wine are changed now on the altar, as they were at the last supper, into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.”

The Sacrifice of the Mass a Modern Invention.

You will search in vain through all the writings of Christians, for the idea of transubstantiation, before the book of Paschasius Radbert was written in the ninth century. At that time the doctrine met with violent opposition from all quarters, and especially from the first thinkers in the Christian Church. Gradually the idea became popular, and in the twelfth century a name was born for it, then in the thirteenth it was formally installed as a dogma of the Church. We firmly and DEFIANTLY declare TRANSUBSTANTIATION A NOVELTY; and as the whole system of Romanism rests upon it, that system is founded not upon the Rock of Ages, but the sands of earth, and it will surely perish in the storms destined to overthrow every scheme of error.

The other Side.

The Catholic version of the Scriptures makes Jesus say: “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption.” Acts ii. 27. Now every wafer swallowed by Catholics enters the physical system, and corrupts with the decaying body, if not sooner. Every fragment of Christ’s body that ever entered the stomach of one of the faithful, has seen corruption already in the bodies of all the dead, or will see it in the moldering remains of all the living.

Every miracle of Christ was an apparent miracle; it could be tested by the senses; and the wonder had to be acknowledged by friend and foe. When he turned the water into wine at the wedding, let us suppose that it had the taste of water still, and its clear appearance; and that he and his mother assured the festive company that their senses deceived them, that it was really wine. How many at the marriage would have believed Jesus? Such a statement would have blasted the Saviour’s veracity forever among these people. Or when he feeds the thousands with the five loaves and two fishes, let us suppose that the miracle is of the mass order, that there is no increase of the loaves and fishes of which the people have any sensible evidence. He breaks them in little pieces, giving a portion to each: when the hungry multitude swallow the little morsels, they cry out: “What folly to give us these atoms!” Says Jesus: “I have magnified them by miracle into a sufficiency to satisfy you all.” “You have!” they reply. “It looked small, it felt small, it tasted small; and we are ravenously hungry as if it had been small.” “Ah,” he replies, “but your senses, deceive you, you cannot trust them.”

If the Saviour had been capable of such a piece of imposition, these thousands would have branded Him as the most deceitful and barefaced trickster that ever tried to take advantage of human credulity. Every miracle of Jesus appeared a supernatural occurrence to those who beheld it. The mass shows no change. It appears bread, its friends say it is flesh and blood; it is certainly a case of false appearances; it is no miracle of Jesus. His were all real, visible, undoubted.

A story is told of the celebrated Duke of Buckingham, that he consented to receive the ministrations of a priest during an illness, The duke, even in sickness, loved a joke, and as the father made some effort to convert him, he feigned a sort of dreamy unconsciousness of his presence. He held a cork in his hand, which he treated as if it were a splendid horse; he spoke of its height, its action, its beauty, and addressed it as an old equine acquaintance. The priest tried to convince him that it was not a horse, that he was certainly mistaken; that if he would look at it he would see it was not a horse but only a cork; that if he would scent it he would learn that it was a cork; that if he would taste it he would be satisfied that it was a cork; that if he would feel it he would perceive it was but a cork; that if he would listen to it for years he would never hear the snorts, neighing or breathing of a horse. The duke professed his conviction that it was only a cork. As conversation progressed, the eucharist was introduced, and the priest declared it to be Jesus Christ, soul, body, and divinity. The duke expressed his astonishment at the statement of the father; intimated that he must be somewhat beside himself: for if you touch it you will understand that it is not a human body, if you look at it you can only receive that conviction, if you taste it you will discover nothing but water and flour; if you scent it you will find no odor of flesh and blood. And he informed the father that a man must be out of his mind who believed a thing so contrary to his senses.

We receive all knowledge through our senses. If we cannot believe each of them in its own limited sphere, when each is in healthful exercise, we are not safe in believing anything. Our taste, touch, scent, sight, testify that the priest’s wafer is not Christ’s body and blood, but the flour and water of the cook. He tells us that it is Christ’s body, but he gives no evidence to establish the truth of his statement, except such testimony as would prove Christ to be a literal rock, lamb, corner-stone, sun, door, vine, shepherd, or morning star, between which objects and Jesus, in some features of his person or work, there is such a resemblance as led him to be called by their names; or such evidence as would prove Peter, the foundation of the Romish Church, to be the devil.

Were the keen old satirist living who laughed so immoderately at the follies of Egyptian idolatry, and who derisively complimented that people in the well-known words: “O holy nations, for whom these divinities grow in the gardens!” with what cultivated, heathen scorn, he would address his degenerate Roman fellow citizens, and exclaim: “O happy pontiff! O blessed papal fold, whose god grows in every ear of wheat, whose divinity is made by a baker and a priest, and then swallowed!”

The human body of Christ is in heaven; and as no material substance can be in two places at one time, or in a hundred thousand places at one time, the wafer-body of Christ is an imposition, a plain, unmitigated counterfeit, the reception of which is not an act of faith, but a deed which flings away the Bible and common sense for an impious dogma which the Scriptures never taught, and a soul exercising its intelligence could not believe.

Continued in XII. The Confessional

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart




“The Trail of Blood” . . . Following the Christians Down Through the Centuries – by J.M. Carroll

“The Trail of Blood” . . .    Following the Christians Down Through the Centuries – by J.M. Carroll

. . . or The History of Baptist Churches From the Time of Christ, Their Founder, to the Present Day

THIS LITTLE BOOK is sent forth for the purpose of making known the little-known history of those FAITHFUL WITNESSES of the Lord Jesus, who, as members of the CHURCH JESUS BUILT, “Overcame Satan by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony: and they loved not their lives unto death,” Rev. 12:11.

Copyright 1931, Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, Lexington, Kentucky

The Trail of Blood

INTRODUCTION By CLARENCE WALKER

I

Dr. J. M. Carroll, the author of this book, was born in the state of Arkansas, January 8, 1858, and died in Texas, January 10, 1931. His father, a Baptist preacher, moved to Texas when Brother Carroll was six years old. There he was converted, baptized, and ordained to the Gospel ministry. Dr. Carroll not only became a leader among Texas Baptist, but an outstanding figure of Southern Baptists, and of the world.

Years ago he came to our church and brought the messages found in this book. It was then I became greatly interested in Brother Carroll’s studies. I, too, had made a special research in Church History, as to which is the oldest Church and most like the churches of the New Testament.

Dr. J. W. Porter attended the lectures. He was so impressed he told Brother Carroll if he would write the messages he would publish them in a book. Dr. Carroll wrote the lectures and gave Dr. Porter the right to publish them along with the chart which illustrates the history so vividly.

However, Dr. Carroll died before the book came off the press, but Dr. Porter placed them before the public and the whole edition was soon sold. Now, by the grace of God, we are able to present this 66th edition of 20,000. I want to ask all who read and study these pages to join me in prayer and work that an ever-increasing number shall go forth.

“To make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Christ Jesus; to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in Heavenly places might be known by the Church, the manifold wisdom of God … unto Him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end, Amen.” (Eph. 3:9-10, 21)

II

It was wonderful to hear Dr. Carroll tell how he became interested in the history of the different denominations—ESPECIALLY THEIR ORIGIN. He wrote the book after he was 70 years old, but he said, “I was converted unto God when I was just a boy. I saw the many denominations and wondered which was the church the Lord Jesus founded.”

Even in his youth he felt that in the study of the Scriptures and history, he could find the church which was the oldest and most like the churches described in the New Testament.

This research for the truth led him into many places and enabled him to gather one of the greatest libraries on church history. This library was given at his death to the Southwestern Baptist Seminary, Ft. Worth, Texas.

He found much church history–most of it seemed to be about the Catholics and Protestants. The history of Baptists, he discovered, was written in blood. They were the hated people of the Dark Ages. Their preachers and people were put into prison and untold numbers were put to death. The world has never seen anything to compare with the suffering, the persecutions, heaped upon Baptists by the Catholic Hierarchy during the Dark Ages. The Pope was the world’s dictator. This is why the Ana-Baptists, before the Reformation, called the Pope The Anti-Christ.

Their history is written in the legal documents and papers of those ages. It is through these records that the “TRAIL OF BLOOD” winds its way as you find such statements-

“At Zurich, after many disputations between Zuinglius and the Ana-Baptists, the Senate made an Act, that if any presume to rebaptize those who were baptized before (i.e. as infants) they should be drowned. At Vienna many Ana-Baptists were tied together in chains that one drew the other after him into the river, wherein they were all suffocated (drowned).” (Vida Supra, p.61)

“In the year of our Lord 1539 two Ana-Baptists were burned beyond Southwark, and a little before them 5 Dutch Ana-Baptists were burned in Smithfield,” (Fuller, Church History.)

“In 1160 a company of Paulicians (Baptists) entered Oxford. Henry II ordered them to be branded on the forehead with hot irons, publicly whipped them through the streets of the city, to have their garments cut short at the girdles, and be turned into the open country. The villages were not to afford them any shelter or food and they perished a lingering death from cold and hunger.” (Moore, Earlier and Later Nonconformity in Oxford, p. 12.)

The old Chronicler Stowe, A.D. 1533, relates:

“The 25th of May–in St. Paul’s Church, London–examined 19 men and 6 women. Fourteen of them were condemned; a man and a woman were burned at Smithfield, the other twelve of them were sent to towns there to be burned.”

Froude, the English historian, says of these Ana-Baptist martyrs-

“The details are all gone, their names are gone. Scarcely the facts seem worth mentioning. For them no Europe was agitated, no court was ordered in mourning, no papal hearts trembled with indignation. At their death the world looked on complacent, indifferent or exulting. Yet here, out of 25 poor men and women were found 14, who by no terror of stake or torture could be tempted to say they believed what they did not believe. History has for them no word of praise, yet they, too, were not giving their blood in vain. Their lives might have been as useless as the lives of most of us. In their death they assisted to pay the purchase of English freedom.”

Likewise, in writings of their enemies as well as friends, Dr. Carroll found, their history and that their trail through the ages was indeed bloody:

Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:

“Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers.” (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)

The “twelve hundred years” were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable.

Sir Isaac Newton:

“The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome.”

Mosheim (Lutheran):

“Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists.”

Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian):

“It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time.”

Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.

III

Baptists do not believe in Apostolic Succession. The Apostolic office ceased with the death of the Apostles. It is to His churches that He promised a continual existence from the time He organized the first one during His earthly ministry until He comes again. He promised-

“I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18)

Then, when He gave the great Commission, which tells what His churches are to do, He promised-

“I will be with you alway, even unto the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:20)

This Commission–this work–was not given to the Apostles as individuals, but to them and the others present in their church capacity. The Apostles and the others who heard Him give this Commission were soon dead–BUT, His Church has lived on through the ages, making disciples (getting folks saved), baptizing them, and teaching the truth–the doctrines–He committed to the Jerusalem Church. These faithful churches have been blessed with His presence as they have traveled the TRAIL OF BLOOD.This history shows how the Lord’s promise to His churches has been fulfilled. Dr. Carroll shows that churches have been found in every age which have taught the doctrines He committed unto them. Dr. Carroll calls these doctrines the “marks” of New Testament Churches

“MARKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH”

1. Its Head and Founder–CHRIST. He is the law-giver; the Church is only the executive. (Matt. 16:18; Col. 1:18)
2. Its only rule of faith and practice–THE BIBLE. (II Tim. 3:15-17)
3. Its name–“CHURCH,” “CHURCHES.” (Matt. 16:18; Rev. 22:16)
4. Its polity–CONGREGATIONAL–all members equal. (Matt. 20:24-28; Matt. 23:5-12)
5. Its members–only saved people. (Eph. 2:21; I Peter 2:5)
6. Its ordinances–BELIEVERS’ BAPTISM, FOLLOWED BY THE LORD’S SUPPER. (Matt. 28:19-20)
7. Its officers–PASTORS AND DEACONS. (I Tim. 3:1-16)
8. Its work–getting folks saved, baptizing them (with a baptism that meets all the requirements of God’s Word), teaching them
(“to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”). (Matt. 28:16-20)
9. Its financial plan–“Even so (TITHES and OFFERINGS) hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should
live of the gospel,” (I Cor. 9:14)
10. Its weapons of warfare–spiritual, not carnal. (II Cor. 10:4; Eph. 6:10-20)
11. Its independence–separation of Church and State. (Matt. 22:21)

IV

In any town there are many different churches–all claiming to be the true church. Dr. Carroll did as you can do now–take the
marks, or teachings, of the different churches and find the ones which have these marks, or doctrines. The ones which have
these marks, or doctrines, taught in God’s Word, are the true churches.

This, Dr. Carroll has done, to the churches of all ages. He found many had departed from “these marks, or doctrines.” Other
churches, however, he found had been true to these marks” in every day and age since Jesus said,
“I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18)
“I will be with you alway, even unto the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:21)

“THE TRAIL OF BLOOD”
or

Following the Christians Down Through the Centuries
From
The Days of Christ to the Present Time

Or to express it differently, but still expressively–“A history of the Doctrines as taught by Christ, and His Apostles and those who have been loyal to them.”

First lecture

“Remember the days of old. Consider the years of many generations; Ask thy father and he will show thee. Thy elders and they will tell thee.” (Deut. 32:7)

1. What we know today as “Christianity” or the Christian Religion, began with Christ, A.D. 25-30 in the days and within the bounds of the Roman Empire. One of the greatest empires the world has ever known in all its history.

2. This Empire at that period embraced nearly all of the then known inhabited world. Tiberius Caesar was its Emperor.

3. In its religion, the Roman Empire, at that time, was pagan. A religion of many gods. Some material and some imaginary. There were many devout believers and worshipers. It was a religion not simply of the people, but of the empire. It was an established religion. Established by law and supported by the government. (Mosheim, Vol. 1, Chap. 1.)

4. The Jewish people, at that period, no longer a separate nation, were scattered throughout the Roman Empire. They yet had their temple in Jerusalem, and the Jews yet went there to worship, and they were yet jealous of their religion. But it, like the pagan, had long since drifted into formalism and had lost its power. (Mosheim, Vol. 1, Chap. 2.)

5. The religion of Christ being a religion not of this world, its founder gave it no earthly head and no temporal power. It sought no establishment, no state or governmental support. It sought no dethronement of Caesar. Said its author, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matt, 22:19-22; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:20). Being a spiritual religion it was a rival of no earthly government. Its adherents, however, were taught to respect all civil law and government. (Rom. 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13-16)

6. I want now to call your attention to some of the landmarks, or ear-marks of this religion–the Christian Religion. If you and I are to trace it down through 20 long centuries, and especially down through 1,200 years of midnight darkness, darkened by rivers and seas of martyr blood, then we will need to know well these marks. They will be many times terribly disfigured. But there will always be some indelible mark. But let us carefully and prayerfully beware. We will encounter many shams and make-believes. If possible, the very elect will be betrayed and deceived. We want, if possible, to trace it down through credible history, but more especially through the unerring, infallible, words and marks of Divine truth.

Some Unerring, Infallible Marks

If in going down through the centuries we run upon a group or groups of people bearing not these distinguishing marks and teaching other things for fundamental doctrines, let us beware.

1. Christ, the author of this religion, organized His followers or disciples into a Church. And the disciples were to organize other churches as this religion spread and other disciples were “made.” (Ray, Bapt, Succession, Revised Edition, 1st Chap.)

2. This organization or church, according to the Scriptures and according to the practice of the Apostles and early churches, was given two kinds of officers and only two–pastors and deacons. The pastor was called “Bishop.” Both pastor and deacons to be selected by the church and to be servants of the church.

3. The churches in their government and discipline to be entirely separate and independent of each other, Jerusalem to have no authority over Antioch–nor Antioch over Ephesus; nor Ephesus over Corinth, and so forth. And their government to be congregational, democratic. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

4. To the church were given two ordinances and only two, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These to be perpetual and memorial.

5. Only the “saved” were to be received as members of the church (Acts 2:47). These saved ones to be saved by grace alone without any works of the law (Eph, 2:5, 8, 9). These saved ones and they only, to be immersed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). And only those thus received and baptized, to partake of the Lord’s Supper, and the supper to be celebrated only by the church, in church capacity.

6. The inspired scriptures, and they only, in fact, the New Testament and that only, to be the rule and guide of faith and life, not only for the church as an organization, but for each individual member of that organization.

7. Christ Jesus, the founder of this organization and the savior of its members, to be their only priest and king, their only Lord and Lawgiver, and the only head of the churches. The churches to be executive only in carrying out their Lord’s will and completed laws, never legislative, to amend or abrogate old laws or to make new ones.

8. This religion of Christ to be individual, personal, and purely voluntary or through persuasion. No physical or governmental compulsion. A matter of distinct individual and personal choice. “Choose you” is the scriptural injunction. It could be neither accepted nor rejected nor lived by proxy nor under compulsion.

9. Mark well! That neither Christ nor His apostles, ever gave to His followers, what is know today as a denominational name, such as “Catholic,” “Lutheran,” “Presbyterian,” “Episcopal,” and so forth–unless the name given by Christ to John was intended for such, “The Baptist,” “John the Baptist” (Matt. 11:11 and 10 or 12 other times.) Christ called the individual follower “disciple.” Two or more were called “disciples.” The organization of disciples, whether at Jerusalem or Antioch or elsewhere, was called Church. If more than one of these separate organizations were referred to, they were called Churches. The word church in the singular was never used when referring to more than one of these organizations. Nor even when referring to them all.

10. I venture to give one more distinguishing mark. We will call it–Complete separation of Church and State. No combination, no mixture of this spiritual religion with a temporal power. “Religious Liberty,” for everybody And now, before proceeding with the history itself, let me call your attention to-

THE CHART

(Click the chart to enlarge)

I believe, if you will study carefully this chart, you will better understand the history, and it will greatly aid your memory in retaining what you hear and see.

Remember this chart is supposed to cover a period of two thousand years of religious history.

Notice at both top and bottom of the chart some figures, the same figures at both top and bottom – 100, 200, 300, and so on to 2,000.

They represent the twenty centuries of time–the vertical lines separating the different centuries.

Now notice on the chart, near the bottom; other straight lines, this line running left to right, the long way of the chart.

The lines are about the same distance apart as the vertical lines. But you can’t see them all the way. They are covered by a very dark spot, representing in history what is known as the “dark ages.” It will be explained later. Between the two lowest lines are the names of countries . . . Italy, Wales, England, Spain, France, and so forth, ending with America. These are names of countries in which much history is made during the period covered by the names themselves. Of course not all the history, some history is made in some of the countries in every period. But some special history is made in these special countries, at these special periods.

Now notice again, near the bottom of the chart, other lines a little higher. They, too, covered in part by the “dark ages,” they also are full of names, but not names of countries. They are all “nick-names.” Names given to those people by their enemies. “Christians”–that is the first: “The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch” (Acts 11:26). This occurred about A.D. 43. Either the pagans or Jews gave them that name in derision. All the other names in that column were given in the same manner–Montanists, Novationists, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigenses, Waldenses, etc., and Ana-Baptists. All of these will again and again be referred to as the lectures progress.

But look again at the chart. See the red circles. They are scattered nearly all over the chart. They represent churches. Single individual churches in Asia, in Africa, in Europe, in mountains and valleys, and so forth. Their being blood red indicates martyr blood. Christ their founder died on the Cross. All the Apostles save two, John and Judas, suffered martyr deaths. Judas betrayed his Lord and died in a suicide. The Apostle John, according to history, was boiled in a great cauldron of oil.

You will note some circles that are solidly black. They represent churches also. But erring churches. Churches that had gone wrong in life or doctrine. There were numbers of these even before the death of Peter, Paul and John.

Having now about concluded with a general introduction and some very necessary and even vital preliminaries, I come to the regular history-

FIRST PERIOD A.D. 30-500

1. Under the strange but wonderful impulse and leadership of John the Baptist, the eloquent man from the wilderness, and under the loving touch and miracle-working power of the Christ Himself, and the marvelous preaching of the 12 Apostles and their immediate successors, the Christian religion spread mightily during the first 500-year period. However, it left a terribly bloody trail behind it. Judaism and Paganism bitterly contested every forward movement. John the Baptist was the first of the great leaders to give up his life. His head was taken off. Soon after him went the Savior Himself, the founder of this Christian religion. He died on the Cross, the cruel death of the Cross.

2. Following their Savior in rapid succession fell many other martyred heroes: Stephen was stoned, Matthew was slain in Ethiopia, Mark dragged through the streets until dead, Luke hanged, Peter and Simeon were crucified, Andrew tied to a cross, James beheaded, Philip crucified and stoned, Bartholomew flayed alive, Thomas pierced with lances, James, the less, thrown from the temple and beaten to death, Jude shot to death with arrows, Matthias stoned to death and Paul beheaded.

3. More than one hundred years had gone by before all this had happened. This hard persecution by Judaism and Paganism continued for two more centuries. And yet mightily spread the Christian religion. It went into all the Roman Empire, Europe, Asia, Africa, England, Wales, and about everywhere else, where there was any civilization. The churches greatly multiplied and the disciples increased continuously. But some of the churches continued to go into error.

4. The first of these changes from New Testament teachings embraced both policy and doctrine. In the first two centuries the individual churches rapidly multiplied and some of the earlier ones, such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, etc., grew to be very large; Jerusalem, for instance, had many thousand members (Acts 2:41; 4:4, 5:14), possibly 25,000 or even 50,000 or more. A close student of the book of Acts and Epistles will see that Paul had a mighty task even in his day in keeping some of the churches straight. See Peter’s and Paul’s prophecies concerning the future (II Pet. 2:12; Acts 20:29-31. See also Rev., second and third chapters).

These great churches necessarily had many preachers or elders (Acts 20:17). Some of the bishops or pastors began to assume authority not given them in the New Testament. They began to claim authority over other and smaller churches. They, with their many elders, began to lord it over God’s heritage (III John 9). Here was the beginning of an error which has grown and multiplied into many other seriously hurtful errors. Here was the beginning of different orders in the ministry running up finally to what is practiced now by others as well as Catholics. Here began what resulted in an entire change from the original democratic policy and government of the early churches. This irregularity began in a small way, even before the close of the second century. This was possibly the first serious departure from the New Testament church order.

5. Another vital change which seems from history to have had its beginning before the close of the second century was on the great doctrine of Salvation itself. The Jews as well as the Pagans, had for many generations, been trained to lay great stress on Ceremonials. They had come to look upon types as anti-types, shadows as real substances, and ceremonials as real saving agencies. How easy to come thus to look upon baptism. They reasoned thus: The Bible has much to say concerning baptism. Much stress is laid upon the ordinance and one’s duty concerning it. Surely it must have something to do with one’s salvation. So that it was in this period that the idea of “Baptismal Regeneration” began to get a fixed hold in some of the churches. (Shackelford, page 57; Camp p. 47; Benedict, p. 286; Mosheim, vol. 1, p. 134; Christian, p. 28.)

6. The next serious error to begin creeping in, and which seems from some historians (not all) to have begun in this same century and which may be said to have been an inevitable consequence of the “baptismal regeneration” idea, was a change in the subjects of baptism. Since baptism has been declared to be an agency or means to salvation by some erring churches, then the sooner baptism takes place the better. Hence arose “infant baptism.” Prior to this “believers” and “believers” only, were regarded as proper subjects for baptism. “Sprinkling” and “pouring” are not now referred to. These came in much later. For several centuries, infants, like others, were immersed. The Greek Catholics (a very large branch of the Catholic church) up to this day, have never changed the original form of baptism. They practice infant baptism but have never done otherwise than immerse the children. (Note–Some of the church historians put the beginning of infant baptism within this century, but I shall quote a short paragraph from Robinson’s Ecclesiastical Researches.)

“During the first three centuries, congregations all over the East subsisted in separate independent bodies, unsupported by government and consequently without any secular power over one another. All this time they were baptized churches, and though all the fathers of the first four ages, down to Jerome (A.D. 370), were of Greece, Syria and Africa, and though they give great numbers of histories of the baptism of adults, yet there is not one of the baptism of a child till the year 370.” (Compendium of Baptist History, Shackelford, p. 43; Vedder, p. 50; Christian, p, 31; Orchard, p. 50, etc.)

7. Let it be remembered that changes like these here mentioned were not made in a day, nor even within a year. They came about slowly and never within all the churches. Some of the churches vigorously repudiated them. So much so that in A.D. 251, the loyal churches declared non-fellowship for those churches which accepted and practiced these errors. And thus came about the first real official separation among the churches.

8. Thus it will be noted that during the first three centuries three important and vital changes from the teachings of Christ and His Apostles had their beginnings. And one significant event took place, Note this summary and recapitulation:
(1) The change from the New Testament idea of bishop and church government. This change grew rapidly, more pronounced, and complete and hurtful.
(2) The change from the New Testament teachings as to Regeneration to “baptismal regeneration.”
(3) The change from “believers’ baptism” to “infant baptism.” (This last, however, did not become general nor even very frequent for more than another century.)

9. “Baptismal regeneration” and “infant baptism.” These two errors have, according to the testimony of well-established history, caused the shedding of more Christian blood, as the centuries have gone by, than all other errors combined, or than possibly have all wars, not connected with persecution, if you will leave out the recent “World War.” Over 50,000,000 Christians died martyr deaths, mainly because of their rejection of these two errors during the period of the “dark ages” alone–about twelve or thirteen centuries.

10. Three significant facts, for a large majority of the many churches, are clearly shown by history during these first three centuries.

(1) The separateness and independence of the Churches.
(2) The subordinate character of bishops or pastors.
(3) The baptism of believers only.

I quote now from Mosheim–the greatest of all Lutheran church historians. Vol., 1, pages 71 and 72: “But whoever supposes that the bishops of this golden age of the church correspond with the bishops of the following centuries must blend and confound characters that are very different, for in this century and the next, a bishop had charge of a single church, which might ordinarily be contained in a private house; nor was he its Lord, but was in reality its minister or servant. . . All the churches in those primitive times were independent bodies, or none of them subject to the jurisdiction of any other. For though the churches

Second lecture-600 A.D.-1300 A.D.

1. We closed the first Lecture with the close of the fifth century. And yet a number of things had their beginnings back in those early centuries, which were not even mentioned in the first Lecture. We had just entered the awful period known in the world’s history as “The Dark Ages.” Dark and bloody and awful in the extreme they were. The persecutions by the established Roman Catholic Church are hard, cruel and perpetual. The war of intended extermination follows persistently and relentlessly into many lands, the fleeing Christians. A “Trail of Blood” is very nearly all that is left anywhere. Especially throughout England, Wales, Africa, Armenia, and Bulgaria. And anywhere else Christians could be found who were trying earnestly to remain strictly loyal to New Testament teaching.

2. We now call attention to these Councils called “Ecumenical,” or Empire wide. It is well to remember that all these Councils were professedly based upon, or patterned after the Council held by the Apostles and others at Jerusalem (see Acts 15:1), but probably nothing bearing the same name could have been more unlike. We here and now call attention to only eight, and these were all called by different Emperors, none of them by the Popes. And all these held among the Eastern or Greek churches. Attended, however, somewhat by representatives from the Western Branch or Roman Churches.

3. The first of these Councils was held at Nice or Nicea, in A.D. 325. It was called by Constantine the Great, and was attended by 318 bishops. The second met at Constantinople, A.D. 381, and was called by Theodosius the Great. There were present 150 bishops. (In the early centuries, bishops simply meant pastors of the individual churches.)

The third was called by Theodosius II, and by Valentian III. This had 250 bishops present. It met at Ephesus, A.D. 431.

The fourth met at Calcedon, A.D. 451, and was called by Emperor Marian; 500 or 600 bishops or Metropolitans (Metropolitans were City pastors or First Church pastors) were present. During this Council the doctrine of what is now known as Mariolatry was promulgated. This means the worship of Mary, the mother of Christ. This new doctrine at first created quite a stir, many seriously objecting. But it finally won out as a permanent doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The fifth of these eight councils was held at Constantinople (which was the second to be held there). This was called by Justinian, A.D. 553, and was attended by 165 bishops. This, seemingly, was called mainly to condemn certain writings.

In the year A.D. 680 the Sixth Council was called. This was also held at Constantinople and was called by Constantine Pegonator, to condemn heresy. During this meeting Pope Honorius by name was deposed and excommunicated. However, at this time infallibility had not yet been declared.

The Seventh Council was called to meet at Nicea A.D. 787. This was the second held at this place. The Empress Irene called this one. Here in this meeting seems to have been the definite starting place, of both “Image Worship” and “Saints Worship.” You can thus see that these people were getting more markedly paganized than Christianized.

The last of what were called the “Eastern Councils,” those, called by the Emperors, was held in Constantinople, in A.D. 869. This was called by Basilius Maredo. The Catholic Church had gotten into serious trouble. There had arisen a controversy of a very serious nature between the heads of the two branches of Catholicism–the Eastern and Western, Greek and Roman–Pontius the Greek at Constantinople and Nicholas the 1st at Rome. So serious was their trouble, that they had gone so far as to excommunicate each other. So for a short time Catholicism was entirely without a head. The council was called mainly to settle, if possible, this difficulty. This break in the ranks of Catholicism has never, even to this day, been satisfactorily settled. Since that far away day, all attempts at healing that breach have failed. The Lateran-power since then has been in the ascendancy. Not the Emperors, but the Roman Pontiffs calling all Councils. The later Councils will be referred to later in these lectures.

4. There is one new doctrine to which we have failed to call attention. There are doubtless others but one especially–and that “Infant Communion.” Infants were not only baptized, but received into the church, and being church members, they were supposed to be entitled to the Lord’s Supper. How to administer it to them was a problem, but it was solved by soaking the bread in the wine. Thus it was practiced for years. And after awhile another new doctrine was added to this–it was taught that this was another means of Salvation. As still another new doctrine was later added to these, we will again refer to this a little later in the lectures.

5. During the 5th Century, at the fourth Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, 451, another entirely new doctrine was added to the rapidly growing list–the doctrine called “Mariolatry,” or the worship of Mary, the Mother of Jesus. A new mediator seems to have been felt to be needed. The distance from God to man was too great for just one mediator, even though that was Christ, God’s Son, the real God-Man. Mary was thought to be needed as another mediator, and prayers were to be made to Mary. She was to make them to Christ.

6. Two other new doctrines were added to the Catholic faith in the 8th Century. These were promulgated at the Second Council held at Nicea (Nice), the Second Council held there (787). The first of these was called “Image Worship, a direct violation of one of the commands of God. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,” (Ex. 20:3, 4, 5). Another addition from Paganism. Then followed the “worship of Saints.” This doctrine has no encouragement in the Bible. Only one instance of Saint worship is given in the Bible and that is given to show its utter folly–the dead rich man praying to Abraham, (Luke 16:24-3l). These are some, not all of the many revolutionary changes from New Testament teachings, that came about during this period of Church history.

7. During the period that we are now passing through the persecuted were called by many and varied names. Among them were Donatists, Paterines, Cathari, Paulicians, and Ana Baptists; and a little later, Petro-Brussians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Albigenses, and Waldenses. Sometimes one group of these was the most prominent and sometimes another. But some of them were almost always prominent because of the persistency and terribleness of their persecution.

8. Let it not be thought that all these persecuted ones were always loyal in all respects to New Testament teachings. In the main they were. And some of them, considering their surroundings, were marvelously so. Remember that many of them at that far away, time, had only parts of the New Testament or the Old Testament as to that. The book was not printed. It was written in manuscript on parchment or skins or something of that kind, and was necessarily large and bulky. Few, if any, families or even simple churches had complete copies of the whole Bible. Before the formal close of the Canon (end of fourth century) there were probably very few simple manuscripts of the entire New Testament. Of the one thousand known manuscripts only about 30 copies included all the books.

9. Furthermore, during all the period of the “Dark Ages,” and the period of the persecution, strenuous efforts were made to destroy even what Scripture manuscripts the persecuted did possess. Hence in many instances these people had only small parts of the Bible.

10. It is well to note also that in order to prevent the spread of any view of any sort, contrary to those of the Catholics very extreme plans and measures were adopted. First, all writings of any sort, other than those of the Catholics, were gathered and burned. Especially was this true of books. For several centuries these plans and measures were strictly and persistently followed. That is, according to history, the main reason why it is so difficult to secure accurate history. About all persistent writers and preachers also died martyr deaths. This was a desperately bloody period. All of the groups of persistent heretics (So-called) by whatever name distinguished, and wherever they had lived, were cruelly persecuted. The Donatists and Paulicians, were prominent among the earlier groups. The Catholics, strange as it may seem, accused all who refused to depart from the faith with them, believe with them–accused them of being heretics, and then condemned them as being heretics. Those called Catholics became more thoroughly paganized and Judaized than they were Christianized, and were swayed far more by civil power, than they were by religious power. They made far more new laws, than they observed old ones.

11. The following are a few of the many new variations that came about in New Testament teachings during these centuries. They are probably not always given in the order of their promulgation. In fact it would sometimes be next to impossible to get the exact date of the origin of some of these changes. They have been somewhat like the whole Catholic system. They are growths of development. In the earlier years especially, their doctrines or teachings were subject to constant change–by addition or subtraction, or substitution or abrogation. The Catholic Church was now no longer, even if it had ever been, a real New Testament Church. It no longer was a purely executive body, to carry out the already made laws of God, but had become actively legislative, making new ones, changing or abrogating old ones at will.

12. One of their new doctrines or declarations about this time was “There is no salvation outside of the Church”–the Catholic Church, of course, as they declared there was no other–be a Catholic or be lost. There was no other alternative.

13. The doctrine of Indulgences and the Sale of Indulgences was another absolutely new and serious departure from New Testament teachings. But in order to make that new teaching really effective, still another new teaching was imperatively necessary: A very large Credit Account must somehow be established–a credit account in heaven, but accessible to earth. So the merit of “good works” as a means of Salvation must be taught, and as a means of filling up, putting something in the credit account, from which something could be drawn. The first large sum to go into the account in heaven was of course the work of the Lord Jesus. As He did no evil, none of His good works were needed for Himself, so all His good works could and would of course, go into the credit account. And then in addition to that, all the surplus good works (in addition to what each might need for himself) by the Apostles, and by all good people living thereafter, would be added to that credit account, making it enormously large. And then all this immense sum placed to the credit of the church–the only church(?)! and permission given to the church to use as needed for some poor sinning mortal, and charging for that credit as much as might be thought wise, for each one needed the heavenly credit. Hence came the Sale of Indulgences. Persons could buy for themselves or their friends, or even dead friends. The prices varied in proportion to the offense committed–or to be committed. This was sometimes carried to a desperate extreme, as admitted by Catholics themselves. Some histories or Encyclopedias give a list of prices charged on different sins for which Indulgences were sold.

14. Yet another new doctrine was necessary, yea imperative, to make thoroughly effective the last two. That new doctrine is called Purgatory, a place of intermediate state between heaven and hell, at which all must stop to be cleansed from all sins less than damning sins. Even the “Saints” must go through purgatory and must remain there until cleansed by fire–unless they can get help through that credit account, and that they can get only through the prayers or the paying for Indulgences, by those living. Hence the Sale of Indulgences. One departure from New Testament teachings lead inevitably to others.

15. It may be well just here to take time to show the differences between the Roman and Greek Catholics:
(1) In the Nationalities: The Greeks mainly are Slavs, embracing Greece, Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, etc., speaking Greek. The Romans are mainly Latins, embracing Italy, France, Spain, South and Central America, Mexico etc.
(2) The Greek Catholics reject sprinkling or pouring for baptism. The Romans use sprinkling entirely, claiming the right to change from the original Bible plan of immersion.
(3) The Greek Catholics continue the practice of Infant Communion. The Romans have abandoned it though once taught it as another means of Salvation.
(4) The Greeks in administering the Lord’s Supper give the wine as well as the bread to the laity. The Romans give the bread only to the laity–the priests drink the wine.
(5) The Greeks have their priests to marry. The Roman priests are forbidden to marry.
(6) The Greeks reject the doctrine of Papal “Infallibility,” the Romans accept and insist upon that doctrine. The above are at least the main points on which they differ, otherwise the Greek and Roman Catholic churches, it seems, would stand together.

16. In our lectures we have just about gotten through with the ninth century. We begin now with the tenth. Please note the chart. Just here where the separation has taken place between the Roman and Greek Catholics. You will soon see as the centuries advance, other new laws and doctrines–and other desperately bitter persecution. (Schaff, Herzogg, En., Vol. 11, page 901.)

“THE TRAIL OF BLOOD”

17. I again call your attention to those upon whom the hard hand of persecution fell. If fifty million died of persecution during the 1,200 years of what are called the “Dark Ages,” as history seems positively to teach–then they died faster than an average of four million every one hundred years. That seems almost beyond the limit of, human conception. As before mentioned, this iron hand, dripping with martyr blood, fell upon Paulicians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Petro Brussians, Albigenses, Waldenses and Ana-Baptists–of course much harder upon some than others. But this horrid part of our story we will pass over hurriedly.

18. There came now another rather long period of Ecumenical Councils, of course not continuously or consecutively. There were all through the years many councils that were not Ecumenical, not “Empire Wide.” These Councils were largely legislative bodies for the enactment or amendment of some civil or religious (?) laws, all of which, both the legislation and the laws, were directly contrary to the New Testament. Remember these were the acts of an established church–a church married to a Pagan government. And this church has become far more nearly paganized than the government has become Christianized.

19. When any people discard the New Testament as embracing all necessary laws for a Christian life, whether for the individual Christian or the whole church, that people has launched upon a limitless ocean. Any erroneous law, (and any law added to the Bible is erroneous) will inevitably and soon demand another, and others will demand yet others, without ever an end. That is why Christ gave His churches and to preachers no legislative powers. And again, and more particularly, that is why the New Testament closes with these significant words,

“For I certify unto every man that heareth the words of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in the book.” Rev. 22:18, 19.

NOTE: We insert here this parenthetical clause, as a warning. Let Baptist Churches beware of even disciplinary and other varieties of resolutions, which they sometimes pass in their conferences, which resolutions might be construed as laws or rules of Church government, The New Testament has all necessary laws and rules.

20. The extreme limit of this little book precludes the possibility of saying much concerning these councils or law-making assemblies, but it is necessary to say some things.

21. The first of these Lateran or Western Councils, those called by the popes, was called by Calixtus II, A.D. 1123. There were present about 300 bishops. At this meeting it was decreed that Roman priests were never to marry. This was called the Celibacy of the priests. We of course do not attempt to give all things done at these meetings.

22. Years later, 1139 A.D., Pope Innocent II, called another of these Councils especially to condemn two groups of very devout Christians, known as Petro-Brussians and Arnoldists.

23. Alexander III called yet another, A.D. 1179, just forty years after the last. In that was condemned what they called the “Errors and Impieties” of the Waldenses and Albigenses.

24. Just 36 years after this last one, another was called by Pope Innocent III. This was held A.D. 1215, and seems to have been the most largely attended of possibly any of these great councils. According to the historical account of this meeting, “there were present 412 bishops, 800 Abbots and priors, Ambassadors from the Byzantine court, and a great number of Princes and Nobles.” From the very make-up of this assembly you may know that spiritual matters were at least not alone to be considered. At that time was promulgated the new doctrine of “Transubstantiation,” the intended turning of the bread and wine of the Lord’s

Third lecture–1400 A.D.-1600 A.D.

1. These three centuries, fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth, are among the most eventful in all the world’s history, and especially is this true in Christian history. There was almost a continual revolution inside the Catholic Church–both Roman and Greek–seeking a Reformation. This awakening of long dormant Conscience and the desire for a genuine reformation really began in the thirteenth century or possibly even a little earlier than that. History certainly seems to indicate it.

2. Let’s go back just a little. The Catholic Church by its many departures from New Testament teachings, its many strange and cruel laws, and its desperately low state of morals, and its hands and clothes reeking with the blood of millions of martyrs, has become obnoxious and plainly repulsive to many of its adherents, who are far better than their own system and laws and doctrines and practices. Several of its bravest and best and most spiritual priests and other leaders, one by one, sought most earnestly to reform many of its most objectionable laws and doctrines and get back, at least nearer, to the plain teachings of the New Testament. We give some striking examples. Note, not only how far apart and where the reformatory fires began, but note also the leaders in the reformation. The leaders were, or had been, all Catholic priests or officials of some kind. There was, even yet, a little of good in the much evil. However, at this time there was probably not one solitary unmarred doctrine of the New Testament retained in its original purity–but now note some of the reformers and where they labored. 3. It is well to note, however, that for many centuries prior to this great reformation period, there were a number of noted characters, who rebelled against the awful extremes of the Catholic–and earnestly sought to remain loyal to the Bible–but their bloody trail was about all that was left of them. We come now to study for awhile this most noted period–the “Reformation.”

4. From 1320 to 1384 there lived a man in England who attracted world-wide attention. His name was John Wycliff. He was the first of the brave fellows who had the courage to attempt a real reformation inside the Catholic Church. He is many times referred to in history as “The Morning Star of the Reformation.” He lived an earnest and effective life. It would really require several volumes to contain anything like an adequate history of John Wycliff. He was hated, fearfully hated, by the leaders of the Catholic hierarchy. His life was persistently sought. He finally died of paralysis. But years later, so great was Catholic hatred, his bones were dug and burned, and his ashes scattered upon the waters.

5. Following tolerably close on the heels of Wycliff came John Huss, 1373-1415, a distinguished son from far away Bohemia. His soul had felt and responded to the brilliant light of England’s “Morning Star.” His was a brave and eventful life, but painfully and sadly short. Instead of awakening a responsive chord among his Catholic people in favor of a real reformation, he aroused a fear and hatred and opposition which resulted in his being burned at the stake–a martyr among his own people. And yet he was seeking their own good. He loved his Lord and he loved his people. However, he was only one of many millions who had thus to die.

6. Next to John Huss of Bohemia, came a wonderful son of Italy, the marvelously eloquent Savonarola, 1452-1498. Huss was burned in 1415, Savonarola was born 37 years later. He, like Huss, though a devout Catholic, found the leaders of his people–the people of Italy–like those of Bohemia, against all reformation. But he, by his mighty eloquence, succeeded in awakening some conscience and securing a considerable following. But a real reformation in the Hierarchy meant absolute ruin to the higher-ups in that organization. So Savonarola, as well as Huss, must die. HE TOO WAS BURNED AT THE STAKE.

Of all the eloquent men of that great period, Savonarola possibly stood head and shoulders above all others. But he was contending against a mighty organization and their existence demanded that they fight the reformation, so Savonarola must die.

7. Of course, in giving the names of the reformers of this period, many names are necessarily to be left out. Only those most frequently referred to in history are mentioned here. Following Italy’s golden tongued orator came a man from Switzerland. Zwingle was born before Savonarola died. He lived from 1484 to 1531. The spirit of reformation was beginning now to fill the whole land. Its fires are now breaking out faster and spreading more rapidly and becoming most difficult to control. This one kindled by Zwingle was not yet more than partially smothered before another, more serious than all the rest, had broken out in Germany. Zwingle died in battle.

8. Martin Luther, probably the most noted of all the fifteenth and sixteenth century reformers, lived 1483 to 1546, and as can be seen by the dates, was very nearly an exact contemporary of Zwingle. He was born one year earlier and lived fifteen years later. Far more, probably, than history definitely states, his great predecessors have in great measure made easier his hard way before him. Furthermore, he learned from their hard experience, and then later, and most thoroughly from his own, that a genuine reformation inside the Catholic Church would be an utter impossibility. Too many reform measures would be needed. One would demand another and others demand yet others, and so on and on.

9. So Martin Luther, after many hard fought battles with the leaders of Catholicism, and aided by Melancthon and other prominent Germans, became the founder in 1530, or, about then, of an entirely new Christian organization, now known as the Lutheran Church, which very soon became the Church of Germany. This was the first of the new organizations to come directly out of Rome and renounce all allegiance to the Catholic Mother Church (as she is called) and to continue to live thereafter.

10. Skipping now for a little while, the Church of England, which comes next to the Lutheran in its beginnings, we will follow for a little while the Reformation on the Continent. From 1509 to 1564, there lived another of the greatest of the reformers. This was John Calvin, a Frenchman, but seeming at the time to be living in Switzerland. He was really a mighty man. He was a contemporary of Martin Luther for 30 years, and was 22 years old when Zwingle died. Calvin is the accredited founder of the Presbyterian church. Some of the historians, however, give that credit to Zwingle, but the strongest evidence seems to favor Calvin. Unquestionably the work of Zwingle, as well as that of Luther, made much easier the work of Calvin. So in 1541, just eleven years (that seems to be the year), after the founding by Luther of the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church came into existence. It too, as in the case of the Lutherans, was led by a reformed Catholic priest or at least official. These six–Wycliff, Huss, Savonarola, Zwingle, Luther and Calvin, great leaders in their great battles for reformation, struck Catholicism a staggering blow.

11. In 1560, nineteen years after Calvin’s first organization in Geneva, Switzerland, John Knox, a disciple of Calvin, established the first Presbyterian Church in Scotland, and just thirty-two years later, 1592, the Presbyterian became the State Church of Scotland.

12. During all these hard struggles for Reformation, continuous and valuable aid was given to the reformers, by many Ana-Baptists, or whatever other name they bore. Hoping for some relief from their own bitter lot, they came out of their hiding places and fought bravely with the reformers, but they were doomed to fearful disappointment. They were from now on to have two additional persecuting enemies. Both the Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches brought out of their Catholic Mother many of her evils, among them her idea of a State Church. They both soon became Established Churches. Both were soon in the persecuting business, falling little, if any, short of their Catholic Mother.

“THE TRAIL OF BLOOD”

Sad and awful was the fate of these long-suffering Ana-Baptists. The world now offered no sure place for hiding. Four hard persecutors were now hot on their trail. Surely theirs was a “Trail of Blood.”

13. During the same period, really earlier by several years than the Presbyterians, arose yet another new denomination, not on the continent, but in England. However, this came about not so much by way of reformation (though that evidently made it easier) as by way of a real split or division in the Catholic ranks. More like the division in 869, when Eastern Catholics separated from the Western, and became from that time on, known in history as the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches. This new division came about somewhat in this wise:

England’s king, Henry VIII, had married Catherine of Spain, but unfortunately, after some time his somewhat troublesome heart had fallen in love with Anne Boleyn. So he wanted to divorce Catherine and marry Annie. Getting a divorce back then was no easy matter. Only the Pope could grant it, and he in this case, for special reasons, declined to grant it. Henry was in great distress. Being king, he felt he ought to be entitled to follow his own will in the matter. His Prime Minister (at that time Thomas Cromwell) rather made sport of the King. Why do you submit to papal authority on such matters? Henry followed his suggestion, threw off papal authority and made himself head of the Church of England. Thus began the new Church of England. This was consummated in 1534 or 1535. At that time there was no change in doctrine, simply a renunciation of the authority of the Pope. Henry at heart really never became a Protestant. He died in the Catholic faith.

14. But this split did ultimately result in some very considerable change, or reformation, While a reformation within the Catholic Church and under papal authority, as in the case of Luther and others, was impossible, it became possible after the division. Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley and others led in some marked changes. However, they and many others paid a bloody price for the changes when a few years later, Mary, “Bloody Mary,” a daughter of the divorced Catherine, came to the English throne, and carried the new Church back under the papal power. This fearful and terrific reaction ended with the strenuous and bloody five-year reign of Mary. While the heads were going under the bloody axe of Mary, hers went with them. The people had gotten, however, a partial taste of freedom so when Elizabeth, the daughter of Anne Boleyn (for whom Catherine was divorced), became Queen, the Church of England again overthrew papal power and was again re-established.

15. Thus, before the close of the Sixteenth Century, there were five established Churches–churches backed up by civil governments–the Roman and Greek Catholics counted as two; then the Church of England; then the Lutheran, or Church of Germany; then the Church of Scotland, now known as the Presbyterian. All of them were bitter in their hatred and persecution of the people called Ana-Baptists, Waldenses and all other non-established churches, churches which never in any way had been connected with the Catholics. Their great help in the struggle for reformation had been forgotten, or was now wholly ignored. Many more thousands, including both women and children were constantly perishing every day in the yet unending persecutions. The great hope awakened and inspired by the reformation had proven to be a bloody delusion. Remnants now find an uncertain refuge in the friendly Alps and other hiding places over the world. 16. These three new organizations, separating from, or coming out of the Catholics, retained many of their most hurtful errors, some of which are as follows:

(1) Preacher-church government (differing in form).
(2) Church Establishment (Church and State combination).
(3) Infant BAPTISM
(4) Sprinkling or Pouring for Baptism.
(5) Baptismal Regeneration (some at least, and others, if many of their historians are to be accredited).
(6) Persecuting others (at least for centuries).

17. In the beginning all these established Churches persecuted one another as well as every one else, but at a council held at Augsburg in 1555, a treaty of peace, known as the “Peace of Augsburg” was signed between the “Catholics” on the one hand, and the “Lutherans” on the other, agreeing not to persecute each other. You let us alone, and we will let you alone. For Catholics to fight Lutherans meant war with Germany, and for Lutherans to fight or persecute Catholics meant war with all the countries where Catholicism predominated.

“THE TRAIL OF BLOOD”

18. But persecutions did not then cease. The hated Ana-Baptists (called Baptists today), in spite of all prior persecutions, and in spite of the awful fact that fifty million had already died martyr deaths, still existed in great numbers. It was during this period that along one single European highway, thirty miles distance, stakes were set up every few feet along this highway, the tops of the stakes sharpened, and on the top of each stake was placed a gory head of a martyred Ana-Baptist. Human imagination can hardly picture a scene so awful! And yet a thing perpetrated, according to reliable history, by a people calling themselves devout followers of the meek and lowly Jesus Christ.

19. Let it be remembered that the Catholics do not regard the Bible as the sole rule and guide of faith and life. The claim that it is indeed unerring, but that there are two other things just as much so, the “Writings of the Fathers” and the decrees of the Church (Catholic Church) or the declarations of the Infallible Pope. Hence, there could never be a satisfactory debate between Catholic and Protestant or between Catholic and Baptist, as there could never possibly be a basis of final agreement. The Bible alone can never settle anything so far as the Catholics are concerned.

20. Take as an example the question of “Baptism” and the final authority for the act and for the mode. They claim that the Bible unquestionably teaches Baptism and that it teaches immersion as the only mode. But they claim at the same time that their unerring Church had the perfect right to change the mode from immersion to sprinkling but that no others have the right or authority, none but the infallible papal authority.

21. You will note of course, and possibly be surprised at it, that I am doing in these lectures very little quoting. I am earnestly trying to do a very hard thing, give to the people the main substance of two thousand years of religious history in six hours of time.

22. It is well just here to call attention to facts concerning the Bible during these awful centuries. Remember the Bible was not then in print and there was no paper upon which to have printed even if printing had been invented. Neither was there any paper upon which to write it. Parchment, dressed goat of sheep skins, or papyrus (some kind of wood pulp), this was the stuff used upon which to write. So a book as big as the Bible, all written by hand and with a stylus of some sort, not a pen like we use today, was an enormous thing, probably larger than one man could carry. There were never more than about thirty complete Bibles in all the world. Many parts or books of the Bible like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Acts, or some one of the Epistles, or Revelation or some one book of the Old Testament. One of the most outstanding miracles in the whole world’s history–according to my way of thinking–is the nearness with which God’s people have thought and believed together on the main and vital points of Christianity. Of course God is the only solution. It is now a most glorious fact that we can all and each, now have a full copy of the whole Bible and each in our own native tongue.

23. It is well also for us all to do some serious and special thinking on another vital fact concerning the Bible. It has already been briefly mentioned in the lecture preceding this, but is so very vital that it will probably be wise to refer to it again. It was the action taken by the Catholics at the Council of Toulouse, held in 1229 A. D., when they decided to withhold the Bible, the Word of God from the vast majority of all their own people, the “Laymen.” I am simply stating here just what they stated in their great Council. But lately in private a Catholic said to me, “Our purpose in that is to prevent their private interpretation of it.” Isn’t it marvelous that God should write a book for the people and then should be unwilling for the people to read it. And yet according to that book the people are to stand or fall in the day of judgment on the teachings of that book. No wonder the declaration in the book–“Search the Scriptures (the book) for in them ye think ye have eternal life. And they are they which testify of me.” Fearful the responsibility assumed by the Catholics!

The Trail of Blood

Fourth lecture–17th, 18th, 19th Centuries

1. This lecture begins with the beginning of the Seventeenth Century (A.D. 1601). We have passed very hurriedly over much important Christian history, but necessity his compelled this.

2. This three-century period begins with the rise of an entirely new denomination. It is right to state that some historians give the date of the beginning of the Congregational Church (at first called “Independents”) as 1602. However, Schaff-Herzogg, in their Encyclopedia, place its beginning far back in the sixteenth century, making it coeval with the Lutheran and Presbyterian. In the great reformation wave many who went out of the Catholic Church were not satisfied with the extent of the reformation led by Luther and Calvin. They decided to repudiate also the preacher rule and government idea of the churches and return to the New Testament democratic idea as had been held through the fifteen preceding centuries by those who had refused to enter Constantine’s hierarchy.

3. The determined contention of this new organization for this particular reform brought down upon its head bitter persecution from Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Church of England adherents–all the established churches. However, it retained many other of the Catholic made errors, such for instance as infant baptism, pouring or sprinkling for baptism, and later adopted and practiced to an extreme degree the church and state idea. And, after refugeeing to America, themselves, became very bitter persecutors.

4. The name “Independents” or as now called “Congregationalists,” is derived from their mode of church government. Some of the distinguishing principles of the English Congregationalists as given in Schaff-Herzogg Encyclopedia are as follows:

(1) That Jesus Christ is the only head of the church and that the Word of God is its only statue book.
(2) That visible churches are distinct assemblies of Godly men gathered out of the world for purely religious purposes, and not to be confounded with the world.
(3) That these separate churches have full power to choose their own officers and to maintain discipline.
(4) That in respect to their internal management they are each independent of all other churches and equally independent of state control.

5. How markedly different these principles are from Catholicism, or even Lutheranism, or Presbyterianism or the Episcopacy of the Church of England. How markedly similar to the Baptists of today, and of all past ages, and to the original teachings of Christ and His apostles.

6. In 1611, the King James English Version of the Bible appeared. Never was the Bible extensively given to the people before. From the beginning of the general dissemination of the Word of God began the rapid decline of the Papal power, and the first beginnings for at least many centuries, of the idea of “religious liberty.”

7. In 1648 came the “Peace of Westphalia.” Among other things which resulted from that peace pact was the triple agreement between the great denominations–Catholic, Lutheran and Presbyterian, no longer to persecute one another. Persecutions among these denominations meant war with governments backing them. However, all other Christians, especially the Ana-Baptists, were to continue to receive from them the same former harsh treatment, persistent persecution.

8. During all the seventeenth century, persecutions for Waldenses, Ana-Baptists, and Baptists (in some places the “Ana” was now being left off) continued to be desperately severe; in England by the Church of England, as John Bunyan and many others could testify; in Germany by the Lutherans; in Scotland by the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian); in Italy, in France, and in every other place where the papacy was in power, by the Catholics. There is now no peace anywhere for those who are not in agreement with the state churches, or some one of them.

9. It is a significant fact well established in credible history that even as far back as the fourth century those refusing to go into the Hierarchy, and refusing to accept the baptism or those baptized in infancy, and refusing to accept the doctrine of “Baptismal Regeneration” and demanding rebaptism for all those who came to them from the Hierarchy, were called “Ana-Baptists.” No matter what other names they then bore, they were always referred to as “Ana-Baptists.” Near the beginning of the sixteenth century, the “Ana” was dropped, and the name shortened to simply “Baptist,” and gradually all other names were dropped. Evidently, if Bunyan had lived in an earlier period his followers would have been called “Bunyanites” or “Ana-Baptists.” Probably they would have been called by both names as were others preceding him.

10. The name “Baptist” is a “nickname,” and was given to them by their enemies (unless the name can be rightfully attributed to them as having been given to them by the Savior Himself, when He referred to John as “The Baptist”). To this day, the name has never been officially adopted by any group of Baptists. The name, however, has become fixed and is willingly accepted and proudly borne. It snugly fits. It was the distinguishing name of the forerunner of Christ, the first to teach the doctrine to which the Baptists now hold.

11. I quote a very significant statement from the Schaff- Herzogg Encyclopedia, under “History of Baptists in Europe,” Vol. 1, page 210, “The Baptists appeared first in Switzerland about 1523, where they were persecuted by Zwingle and the Romanists. They are found in the following years, 1525-1530, with large churches fully organized, in Southern Germany, Tyrol and in middle Germany. In all these places persecutions made their lives bitter.” (Note–that all this is prior to the founding of the Protestant churches–Lutheran, Episcopal, or Presbyterian.)

We continue the quotation-

“Moravia promised a home of greater freedom, and thither many Baptists migrated, only to find their hopes deceived. After 1534 they were numerous in Northern Germany, Holland, Belgium, and the Walloon provinces. They increased even during Alva’s rule, in the low countries, and developed a wonderful missionary zeal.” (Note–“Missionary Zeal.” And yet some folks say that the “Hardshells” are primitive Baptists.)

Where did these Baptists come from? They did not come out of the Catholics during the Reformation. They had large churches prior to the Reformation.

12. As a matter of considerable interest, note the religious changes in England as the centuries have gone by: The Gospel was carried to England by the Apostles and it remained Apostolic in its religion until after the organization of the Hierarchy in the beginning of the fourth century, and really for more than another century after that. It then came under the power of the Hierarchy which was rapidly developing into the Catholic Church. It then remained Catholic–that was the state religion, until the split in 1534-1535, during the reign of Henry VIII. It was then called the Church of England. Eighteen years later, 1553-1558, during the reign of Queen Mary (“Bloody Mary”) England was carried back to the Catholics, and a bloody five-years period was this. Then Elizabeth, a half-sister of Mary, the daughter of Anna Boleyn, came to the throne, 1558. The Catholics were again overthrown, and again the Church of England came into power. And thus things remained for almost another century, when the Presbyterian Church came for a short while into the ascendancy, and seemed for a while as if it might become the State Church of England as well as that of Scotland. However, following the time of Oliver Cromwell, the Church of England came back to her own and has remained the established church of England ever since.

13. Note the gradual softening down of religious matters in England from the hard and bitter persecutions of the established church for more than a century.
(1) The first toleration act came in 1688, one hundred and fifty-four years after the beginning of this church. This act permitted the worship of all denominations in England except two–the Catholics and the Unitarians. (2) The second toleration act came in 1778, eighty-nine years still later. This act included in the toleration the Catholics, but still excluded the Unitarians.
(3) The third toleration act came in 1813, thirty-five years later. This included the Unitarians.
(4) In 1828-1829 came what is known as the “Test Act” which gave the “dissenters” (the religionists not in accord with the “Church of England”) access to public office and even to Parliament.
(5) In 1836-37 and 1844 came the “Registration” and “Marriage” acts. These two acts made legal baptisms and marriages performed by “dissenters.”
(6) The “Reform Bill” came in 1854. This bill opened the doors of Oxford and Cambridge Universities to dissenting students. Up to this time no child of a “dissenter” could enter one of these great institutions.

14. Thus has been the march of progress in England toward “Religious Liberty.” But it is probably correct to state that real religious liberty can never come into any country where there is and is to remain an established church. At best, it can only be toleration, which is certainly a long way from real religious liberty. As long as one denomination among several in any country is supported by the government to the exclusion of all others this favoritism and support of one, precludes the possibility of absolute religious liberty and equality.

15. Very near the beginning of the eighteenth century there were born in England three boys who were destined to leave upon the world a deep and unfading impression. These boys were John and Charles Wesley, and George Whitfield. John and Charles Wesley were born at Epworth (and here comes a suggestion for the name Epworth League), the former June 28, 1703, and the latter March 29, 1708. George Whitfield was born in Gloucester, December 27, 1714. The story of the lives of these boys cannot be told here, but they are well worth being told, and then retold. These three boys became the fathers and founders of Methodism. They were all three members of the Church of England, and all studying for the ministry; and yet at that time, not one of them converted (which at that time was not unusual among the English clergy. Remember, however, that in those days, the parent frequently, if not usually, decided on the profession or line of the life to be followed by the boy). But these boys were afterwards converted, and genuinely and wonderfully converted.

16. These men seemed to have no desire to be the founders of a new denomination. But they did seem to greatly desire and earnestly strive for a revival of pure religion and a genuine spiritual reformation in the Church of England. This they tried in both England and America. The doors of their own churches were soon closed against them. Their services were frequently held out in the open, or in some private house, or, as especially in the case of Whitfield, in the meeting houses of other denominations. Whitfield’s great eloquence attracted markedly great attention everywhere he went.

17. The definite date of the founding of the Methodist Church is hard to be determined. Unquestionably Methodism is older than the Methodist Church. The three young men were called Methodists before they left college. Their first organizations were called “Societies.” Their first annual conference in England was held in 1744. The Methodist Episcopal Church was officially and definitely organized in America, in Baltimore in 1784. Their growth has really been marvelous. But, when they came out of the Church of England, or the Episcopal Church, they brought with them a number of the errors of the mother and grandmother churches. For instance, as the Episcopacy, or preacher-church government. On this point they have had many internal wars and divisions, and seem destined to have yet others. Infant Baptism and sprinkling for baptism, etc., but there is one great thing which they have, which they did not bring out with them, a genuine case of spiritual religion.

18. September 12, 1788, there was born in Antrium, Ireland, a child, who was destined in the years to come, to create quite a religious stir in some parts of the world, and to become the founder of a new religious denomination. That child was Alexander Campbell. His father was a Presbyterian minister. The father, Thomas Campbell, came to America in 1807. Alexander, his son, who was then in college, came later. Because of changed views, they left the Presbyterians and organized an independent body, which they called “The Christian Association,” known as “The Brush Run Church.” In 1811, they adopted immersion as baptism and succeeded in persuading a Baptist preacher to baptize them, but with the distinct understanding that they were not to unite with the Baptist Church. The father, mother, and Alexander were all baptized. In 1813 their independent church united with the Red Stone Baptist Association. Ten years later, because of controversy, they left that association and joined another.

Fifth lecture –religion in the United States

1. Through the Spanish and others of the Latin races, the Catholics as religionists, came to be the first representatives of the Christian religion in South and Central America. But in North America, except Mexico, they have never strongly predominated. In the territory of what is now the United States except in those sections which were once parts of Mexico they have never been strong enough, even during the Colonial period to have their religious views established by law.

2. Beginning with the Colonial period, in the early part of the seventeenth century, the first settlements were established in Virginia, and a little later in that territory now known as the New England States. Religious, or more properly speaking–irreligious persecutions, in England, and on the continent, were, at least, among the prime causes which led to the first settlement of the first United States Colonies. In some of the groups of immigrants which first came, not including the Jamestown group (1607) and those known as the “Pilgrims” (1620), were two groups, one, at least, called “Puritans”–these were “Congregationalists.” Governor Endicott was in control of their colony. The other group were Presbyterians. Among these

two groups, however, were a number of Christians with other views than theirs, also seeking relief from persecution

“THE TRAIL OF BLOOD IN AMERICA”

3. These refugeeing Congregationalists and Presbyterians established different Colonies and immediately within their respective territories established by law their own peculiar religious views. In other words, “Congregationalism” and “Presbyterianism” were made the legal religious views of their colonies. This to the absolute exclusion of all other religious views. Themselves fleeing the mother country, with the bloody marks of persecution still upon them and seeking a home of freedom and liberty for themselves, immediately upon being established in their own colonies, in the new land and having the authority, they deny religious liberty to others, and practice upon them the same cruel methods of persecution. Especially did they, so treat the Baptists.

4. The Southern colonies in Virginia, North and South Carolina were settled mainly by the adherents of the Church of England. The peculiar views of the Church were made the established religion of these colonies. Thus in the new land of America, where many other Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians have come seeking the privilege of worshipping God according to the dictates of their own consciences, there were soon set up three established churches. No religious liberty for any except for those who held governmental authority. The Children of Rome are following in the bloody footsteps of their mother. Their own reformation is yet far from complete.

5. With the immigrants to America came many scattering Baptists (by some still called “Ana-Baptists”). There were probably some in every American-bound vessel. They came, however, in comparatively small groups, never in large colonies. They would not have been permitted to come in that way. But they kept coming. Before the colonies are thoroughly established the Baptists are numerous and almost everywhere. But they soon began to feel the heavy hands of the three State churches. For the terrible offenses of “preaching the Gospel” and “refusing to have their children baptized,” “opposing infant baptism,” and other like conscientious acts on their part, they were arrested, imprisoned, fined, whipped, banished, and their property confiscated, etc. All that here in America. From many sources, I give but a few illustrations.

6. Before the Massachusetts Bay Colony is twenty years old, with the Congregational as the State Church, they passed laws against the Baptists and others. The following is a sample of the laws: “It is ordered and agreed, that if any person or persons, within this jurisdiction, shall either openly condemn or oppose the baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use thereof, or shall purposely depart the congregation at the ministration of the ordinance . . . after due time and means of conviction–every such person or persons shall be sentenced to banishment.” This law was enacted especially against the Baptists.

7. By the Authorities in this colony, Roger Williams and others were banished. Banishment in America in those days was something desperately serious. It meant to go and live among the Indians. In this case Williams was received kindly and for quite a while lived among the Indians, and in after days proved a great blessing to the colony which had banished him. He saved the colony from destruction by this same tribe of Indians, by his earnest entreaties in their behalf. In this way he returned good for evil.

8. Roger Williams, later, together with others, some of whom, at least, had also been banished from that and other of the colonies among whom was John Clarke, a Baptist preacher, decided to organize a colony of their own. As yet they had no legal authority from England to do such a thing, but they thought this step wiser under existing conditions than to attempt to live in existing colonies with the awful religious restrictions then upon them. So finding a small section of land as yet unclaimed by any existing colony they proceeded to establish themselves on that section of land now known as Rhode Island. That was in the year 1638, ten years later than the Massachusetts Bay Colony, but it was about 25 years later (1663) before they were able to secure a legal charter.

9. In the year 1651 (?) Roger Williams and John Clarke were sent by. the colony to England to secure, if possible legal permission to establish their colony. When they reached England, Oliver Cromwell was in charge of the government, but for some reason he failed to grant their request. Roger Williams returned home to America. John Clarke remained in England to continue to press his plea. Year after year went by. Clarke continued to remain. Finally Cromwell lost his position and Charles II sat upon the throne of England. While Charles is regarded in history as one of the bitterest of persecutors of Christians, he finally, in 1663, granted that charter. So Clarke, after 12 long years of waiting returned home with that charter. So in 1663, the Rhode Island colony became a real legal institution, and the Baptists could write their own constitution.

10. That Constitution was written. It attracted the attention of the whole wide world. In that Constitution was the world’s first declaration of “Religious Liberty.” The battle for absolute religious liberty even in America alone is a great history within itself. For a long time the Baptists seem to have fought that battle entirely alone, but they did not fight it for themselves alone, but for all peoples of every religious faith. Rhode Island, the first Baptist colony, established by a small group of Baptists after 12 years of earnest pleading for permission was the first spot on earth where religious liberty was made the law of the land. The settlement was made in 1638; the colony legally established in 1663.

11. In this colony two Baptist churches were organized even prior to the legal establishment of the colony. As to the exact date of the organization of at least one of these two churches, even the Baptists, according to history, are at disagreement. All seem to be agreed as to the date of the organization of the one at Providence, by Roger Williams, in 1639. As to the date of the one organized at Newport by John Clarke, all the later testimony seems to give the date at 1638. All the earlier seems to give it later, some years later. The one organized by Roger Williams at Providence seems to have lived but a few months. The other by John Clarke at Newport, is still living. My own opinion as to the date of organization of Newport church, based on all available data, is that 1638 is the correct date. Personally, I am sure this date is correct.

12. As to the persecutions in some of the American colonies, we give a few samples. It is recorded that on one occasion one of John Clarke’s members was sick. The family lived just across the Massachusetts Bay Colony line and just inside that colony. John Clarke, himself, and a visiting preacher by the name of Crandall and a layman by the name of Obediah Holmes–all three went to visit that sick family. While they were holding some kind of a prayer service with that sick family, some officer or officers of the colony came upon them and arrested them and later carried them before the court for trial. It is also stated, that in order to get a more definite charge against them, they were carried into a religious meeting of their church (Congregationalist), their hands being tied (so the record states). The charge against them was “for not taking off their hats in a religious service.” They were all tried and convicted. Gov. Endicott was present. In a rage he said to Clarke, while the trial was going on, “You have denied infants baptism” (this was not the charge against them). “You deserve death. I will not have such trash brought into my jurisdiction.” The penalty for all was a fine, or be well-whipped. Crandall’s fine (a visitor) was five pounds ($25.00), Clarke’s fine (the pastor) was twenty pounds ($100.00). Holmes’ fine (the records say he had been a Congregationalist and had joined the Baptists) so his fine was thirty pounds ($150.00). Clark’s and Crandall’s fines were paid by friends. Holmes refused to allow his fine paid, saying he had done no wrong, so was well whipped. The record states that he was “stripped to the waist” and then whipped (with some kind of a special whip) until the blood ran down his body and then his legs until his shoes overflowed. The record goes on to state that his body was so badly gashed and cut that for two weeks he could not lie down, so his body could touch the bed. His sleeping had to be done on his hands or elbows and knees. Of this whipping and other things connected with it I read all records, even Holmes’ statement. A thing could hardly have been more brutal. And here in America!

13. Painter, another man, “refused to have his child baptized,” and gave as his opinion “that infant baptism was an anti-Christian ordinance.” For these offenses he was tied up and whipped. Governor Winthrop tells us that Painter was whipped “for reproaching the Lord’s ordinance.”

14. In the colony where Presbyterianism was the established religion, dissenters (Baptist and others) seemed to fare no better than in the Massachusetts Bay Colony where Congregationalism was the established religion. In this colony was a settlement of Baptists. In the whole settlement were only five other families. The Baptists recognized the laws they were under and were, according to the records, obedient to them. This incident occurred:

It was decided by authorities of the colony to build a Presbyterian meeting house in that Baptist settlement. The only way to do it seemed by taxation. The Baptists recognized the authority of the Presbyterians to levy this new and extra tax, but they made this plea against the tax at this time–“We have just started our settlement. Our little cabins have just been built, and little gardens and patches just been opened. Our fields not cleared. We have just been taxed to the limit to build a fort for protection against the Indians. We cannot possibly pay another tax now.” This is only the substance of their plea. The tax was levied. It could not possibly be paid at that time. An auction was called. Sales were made. Their cabins and gardens and patches, and even their graveyards, were sold–not their unopened fields. Property valued at 363 pounds and 5 shillings sold for 35 pounds and 10 shillings. Some of it, at least, was said to have been bought by the preacher who was to preach there. The settlement was said to have been left ruined.

A large book could be filled with oppressive laws. Terrifically burdensome acts of taxation, hard dealing of many sorts, directed mainly against the Baptists. But these lectures cannot enter into these details.

15. In the southern colonies, throughout the Carolinas and especially Virginia, where the Church of England held sway, persecution of Baptists was serious and continuous. Many times their preachers were fined and imprisoned. From the beginning of the colonial period to the opening of the Revolutionary War, more than 100 years, these persecutions of Baptists were persisted in.

Some after words

1. During every period of the “Dark Ages” there were in existence many Christians and many separate and independent Churches, some of them dating back to the times of the Apostles, which were never in any way connected with the Catholic Church. They always wholly rejected and repudiated the Catholics and their doctrines. This is a fact clearly demonstrated by credible history.

2. These Christians were the perpetual objects of bitter and relentless persecution. History shows that during the period of the “Dark Ages,” about twelve centuries, beginning with A.D. 426, there were about fifty millions of these Christians who died martyr deaths. Very many thousands of others, both preceding and succeeding the “Dark Ages,” died under the same hard hand of persecution.

3. These Christians, during these dark days of many centuries, were called by many different names, all given to them by their enemies. These names were sometimes given because of some specially prominent and heroic leader and sometimes from other causes; and sometimes, yea, many times, the same people, holding the same views, were called by different names in different localities. But amid all the many changes of names, there was one special name or rather designation, which clung to at least some of these Christians, throughout all the “Dark Ages,” that designation being “Ana-Baptist.” This compound word applied as a designation of some certain Christians was first found in history during the third century; and a suggestive fact soon after the origin of Infant Baptism, and a more suggestive fact even prior to the use of the name Catholic. Thus the name “Ana-Baptists” is the oldest denominational name in history.

4. A striking peculiarity of these Christians was and continued to be in succeeding centuries: They rejected the man-made doctrine of “Infant Baptism” and demanded rebaptism, even though done by immersion for all those who came to them, having been baptized in infancy. For this peculiarity they were called “Ana-Baptists.” 5. This, special designation was applied to many of these Christians who bore other nicknames; especially is this true of the Donatists, Paulicians, Albigenses and Ancient Waldenses and others. In later centuries this designation came to be a regular name, applied to a distinct group. These were simply called “Ana- Baptists” and gradually all other names were dropped. Very early in the sixteenth century, even prior to the origin of the Lutheran Church, the first of all the Protestant Churches, the word “ana” was beginning to be left off, and they were simply called “Baptists.”

6. Into the “dark ages” went a group of many churches which were never in any way identified with the Catholics. Out of the “dark ages” came a group of many churches, which had never been in any way identified with the Catholics. The following are some of the fundamental doctrines to which they held when they went in: And the same are, the fundamental doctrines to which they held when they came out: And the same are the fundamental doctrines to which they now hold.

FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES

1. A spiritual Church, Christ its founder, its only head and law giver.
2. Its ordinances, only two, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They are typical and memorial, not saving.
3. Its officers, only two, bishops or pastors and deacons; they are servants of the church.
4. Its Government, a pure Democracy, and that executive only, never legislative.
5. Its laws and doctrines: The New Testament and that only.
6. Its members. Believers only, they saved by grace, not works, through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.
7. Its requirements. Believers on entering the church to be baptized, that by immersion, then obedience and loyalty to all
New Testament laws.
8. The various churches–separate and independent in their execution of laws and discipline and in their responsibilities to
God–but cooperative in work.
9. Complete separation of Church and State.
10. Absolute Religious liberty for all.

Partial list of books used in preparing lectures on “the Trail of Blood”

History of Baptists in Virginia, Semple
Baptist Succession, Ray
Baptists in Alabama, HolcombHistory of the Huguenots, Martin
Fifty Years Among the Baptists, Benedict
Fox’s Book of Martyrs
My Church, Moody
The World’s Debt to Baptists, Porter
Church Manual, Pendleton
Evils of Infant Baptism, Howell
Reminiscences, Sketches and Addresses, Hutchinson
Short History of the Baptists, Vedder
The Struggle Religious Liberty in Virginia, James
The Genesis of American Anti-Missionism, Carroll
The True Baptist, A. Newton
A Guide to the Study of Church History, McGlothlin
Baptist Principles Reset, Jeter
Virginia Presbyterianism and Religious Liberty in Colonial and Revolutionary Times, Johnson
Presbyterianism 300 Years Ago, Breed
History of the Presbyterian Church of the World, Reed
Catholic Belief, Bruno
Campbellism Examined, Jeter
History of the Baptists in New England, Burrage
History of Redemption, Edwards
Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches, Wayland
History of the Liberty Baptist Association of North Carolina, Sheets
On Baptism, Carson
History and Literature of the Early Churches, Orr
History of Kentucky Baptists, Spencer
Baptist History, Orchard
Baptist Church Perpetuity, Jarrell
Disestablishment, Harwood
Progress of Baptist Principles, Curtis
Story of the Baptists, Cook
Romanism in Its Home, Eager
Americanism Against Catholicism, Grant
The Faith of Our Fathers, Cardinal Gibbons
The Faith of Our Fathers Examined, Stearns
The Story of Baptist Missions, Hervey
Baptism, Conant
Christian “Baptism,” Judson
Separation of Church and State in Virginia, Eckenrode
The Progress of Religious Liberty, Schaff
Doctrines and Principles of the M. E. Church
The Churches of the Piedmont, Allix
The History of the Waldenses, Muston
The History of Baptists, Backus
The Ancient Waldenses and Albigenses, FaberThe History of the Waldenses of Italy, Combs
History of the Baptists, Benedict
Baptist Biography, Graham
Early English Baptists, Evans
History of the Welsh Baptists, Davis
Baptist History, Cramp
History of the Baptists, Christian
Short History of the Baptists, Vedder
The Plea for the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Jones
Religions of the World, Many writers
History of the Reformation in Germany, Ranke
Church History, Kurtz
Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the USA
Doctrines and Discipline, African M. E. Church, Emory
Church History, Jones
History of the Christian Religion and Church, Neader
Ecclesiastical History, Mosheim
History of the Christian Church, Gregory
History of the Church, Waddington
Handbook of Church History, Green
Manual of Church History, Newman
History of Anti-Pedobaptists, Newman
Catholic Encyclopedia (16 vols.)
The Baptist Encyclopedia, Cathcart
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Brown
Encyclopedia Britannica
Origin of Disciples, Whittsitt
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Schaff-Herzogg
Book of Martyrs, Foxe
Baptist History, Schackleford

Available as a printed booklet from:
Ashland Avenue Baptist Church
163 N. Ashland Avenue
Lexington, KY 40502
606-266-4341




The Papal System – X. Confirmation

The Papal System – X. Confirmation

Continued from The Papal System – IX. Baptism.

This sacrament had no existence, in any form, until the end of the second or the beginning of the third century; and then it appears simply as a part of baptism, as the completion of that solemn rite.

Tertullian says: “From thence, having gone forth from the bath (of baptism), we are anointed with a blessed unction according to the primitive regulation.” And, again: “Thus the unction comes carnally upon us, but it profits spiritually, as the act of baptism itself is carnal, because we are immersed in water; the effect is spiritual, because we are freed from sin; after this, there is imposition of hands, invoking the Holy Spirit by the benediction.”

Here the imposition of hands and the unction were but ceremonies belonging to baptism. In the life of St. Basil, it is recorded that: “Maximus, the bishop, baptized him and Eubulus, and clothed them with the white garments, and, anointing them with the holy chrism, gave them the communion.” Here, the baptism and confirmation are parts of a whole. And even children were confirmed with the chrism and imposition of hands, as soon as they were baptized, as Gennadius clearly asserts: “If they be little children that are baptized, let those who bring them answer for them according to the custom of baptizing; and then, confirmed by the imposition of hands and chrism, let them be admitted to the mysteries of the eucharist.” Here, again, confirmation immediately follows baptism.

This is the Custom of the Greek Church today.

Says Dean Stanley: “The imposition of hands is still continued at the baptism of children, as of adults. Confirmation with them is simultaneous with the act of the baptismal immersion.” Nor is its administration limited to bishops. Every priest can confirm those whom he baptizes in the Greek Church. This is the way confirmation was practiced when first introduced into the Church, and for many hundreds of years after. The separation of confirmation from baptism is supposed by Riddle to have commenced in the Western Church, in the beginning of the seventh century, but not to have been permanently completed till the thirteenth. The ceremonies of ancient confirmation were the anointing, the sign of the cross, imposition of hands, and prayer.

Modern Romish Confirmation.

Says the Council of Trent: “If any one shall affirm that the confirmation of the baptized is a useless ceremony, and not rather a true and proper sacrament . . . . let him be accursed.”

Statements of the Catechism of Trent about Confirmation.

Pars ii., caput iii., quest. 2… . “The person baptized, when anointed with the sacred chrism by the bishop, the unction being accompanied with these solemn words: I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, begins to be settled in firmness by the strength of a new virtue, and thus to become a perfect soldier of Christ (novae virtutis robore firmior, atque adeo perfectus Christi miles esse incipit).”

Quest. 7. “This is called chrism, a word borrowed from the Greek language, which is appropriated by common usage among ecclesiastical writers to signify that ointment only, which is composed of oil and balsam, with the solemn consecration of the bishop.” …..

Quest. 14. “Sponsors are also added, as we have already shown to be the case, in baptism; for if they who enter the fencing lists have need of some one through whose skill and advice they may be taught by what thrusts and passes they may destroy an enemy, while they remain unhurt, how much more will the faithful require a leader and monitor, when, covered and fortified by the strongest armor, through the sacrament of confirmation, they descend into a spiritual contest, in which eternal salvation is the proposed reward.” …..

Ques. 17. “It is most proper to delay this sacrament at least to seven years.” …..

Quest. 19. “For those who have been made Christians by baptism, as if new-born infants, have a certain tenderness and softness; and afterward, by the sacrament of chrism, they become stronger against all the assaults of the flesh, the world, and the devil, and their minds are altogether confirmed in the faith, for confessing and glorifying the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, from which strength the name itself originated, as no one will doubt.”

Quest. 23. “They, therefore, who are confirmed by the Holy chrism are anointed on the forehead; for, by this sacrament, the Holy Spirit pours himself upon the minds of the faithful, and increases strength and fortitude in them, that they may be able to fight manfully in the spiritual contest, and resist their most implacable foes.” …..

From the title of the question in the Catechism, we are taught that chrism is applied to the forehead in the form of a cross.

Quest. 25. “Then the person who is anointed and confirmed receives a gentle slap on the cheek from the bishop, that he may remember that he ought to be prepared, as a brave wrestler, to bear, with invincible courage, all adverse things for the name of Christ. Lastly, moreover, the peace is given to him, that he may know that he has attained the fullness of heavenly grace, and the peace which surpasses all understanding.”

This would be a wonderful unction, and an astonishing imposition of hands, if from both we received the Holy Spirit and the peace of God that passes all understanding. It is, however, not by works-of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saves us; being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Supposed Scripture Authority.

The Catholic Church quotes Acts viii. 14-18, as proof that by laying on of hands the Holy Spirit was bestowed; and, truly, so he was, but it was his miracle-working powers which were conferred. At the 18th verse, it is said: “When Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands he may receive the Holy Ghost.” Now, Simon saw nothing of the peace, faith, praying power, and spiritual enjoyments and privileges of these men; he cared nothing about such matters; he wrought pretended miracles himself; he saw that the Holy Spirit enabled these persons to perform wonders, and he wanted to buy this astonishing agency. The imposition of hands here simply gave the power of working miracles, and not the blessings of any sacrament. Chrism and the imposition of hands were employed in the times of the apostles, but never as parts of the sacrament of confirmation. The papal sacrament of that name had no existence for many centuries after Christ; it is A HUMAN INVENTION.

Continued in XI. The Lord’s Supper, The Eucharist, The Mass

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart




The Vatican Empire

The Vatican Empire

Nino Lo Bello

Nino Lo Bello Photo by Simonetta Calza-Bini of Rome

After serving for five years on the faculty of the University of Kansas, in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Nino Lo Bello returned to his original profession of journalism and went overseas as a foreign correspondent. Stationed in Rome, he served for three years as a correspondent for Business Week Magazine and McGraw-Hill World News. He later joined the New York Journal of Commerce, operating as its Rome bureau chief for three years. For some eight years he did assignments for the New York Herald Tribune, specializing in economic affairs. Mr. Lo Bello has also been a frequent contributor to magazines and a reporter for United Features Syndicate.

An extensive traveler and energetic writer, he is currently living in Vienna with his wife Irene and two children.

A great deal has been written about the Roman Catholic Church as a religious, charitable, and educational institution. But, until now, there has been very little information on the Church as a business organization. Here, for the first time, is a comprehensive and authoritative report that reveals the Vatican as a nerve center of high finance.

The extent of papal wealth has been traditionally cloaked in secrecy. Even within the Vatican’s own walls there is no one individual who has an overall view of its infinitely ramified financial operations. Church officials have consistently derided all speculations on the magnitude of its resources but have resolutely declined to release real figures. It has remained for Nino Lo Bello—former Rome correspondent for Business Week and now a writer for the Herald Tribune’s Paris Economic Review— to fit the pieces of the puzzle together. The picture that emerges is one of awesome fiscal power.

Mr. Lo Bello describes in fascinating detail Vatican investment in real estate—one-third of Rome is owned by the Holy See— electronics, plastics, airlines, and chemical and engineering firms. He also gives evidence that the Vatican is heavily involved in Italian banking and that it has huge deposits in foreign banks. Some of these accounts are in America, many are in Switzerland. The Vatican financiers prefer numbered Swiss accounts because they allow them to maintain anonymity when gaining control of foreign corporations.

In addition, the author establishes that the Vatican is one of the world’s largest shareholders, with a portfolio that can conservatively be estimated in billions.

Although written in the objective, non-sensational style of the newsman, this is a book that finally demonstrates the depth of the Vatican’s commitment to the world of big business.

Some Preliminary Words I

IN 1956, SHORTLY after moving to Rome with my wife and children to take up my duties as a business news correspondent, I was faced with a household crisis—we were without water in our apartment for twenty-eight days. Calls to Acqua Marcia, the company that supplied the water in our Piazza Bologna neighborhood, were all but futile. A few times a weary technician from Acqua Marcia came around to putter with the water governor on our balcony just off the kitchen. Each time, he left us with a tiny trickle, which stopped within hours after his departure.

As with many houses in Rome served by the Acqua Marcia water works (or to give it its full name, La Societa dell’Acqua Pia Antica Marcia), the problem was in the main trunk ducts below the ground. They were too narrow. Installed nearly two thousand years earlier, the pipes once formed part of ancient Rome’s aqueduct system, and were still being used to provide much of modern Rome with its water. Like other apartment buildings, ours had a series of covered receptacles on the roof, each of which corresponded to one of the apartments on the floors below. The tank for our apartment held sixty gallons of water, and it filled during the night at a speed that was determined by the water governor, which was kept under lock by Acqua Marcia. By dawn, with no one having used the faucets, the tank would usually be replenished, and for that day we would have water—provided we didn’t use all sixty gallons too soon. This meant not flushing the toilet after every visit. It also meant not taking a bath in more than two inches of water.

I didn’t know during those first arduous weeks that the Acqua Marcia company belonged to the Vatican.

Compounding our woes during this period was the fact that my wife’s cooking activities were severely restricted. The flow of gas in our stove was so limited that only two burners functioned at the same time, and for a reasonably steady flame she had to resort to one burner. Grumbles to the gas company were of little use. We had a poor flow of gas because the pressure was low.

I didn’t know then that our gas company also belonged to the Vatican.

In lodging my various complaints and pleas for help, I had to use the phone a great deal. Unhappily, my telephone suffered from a variety of speech defects. More often than not, it was impossible to understand the crackly sounds that came out of the faulty earpiece. And frequently the undulating voice at the other end of the line simply disappeared in the middle of a sentence. Nor does this take into account the many times I would suddenly be cut off by a mechanical click or an electronic tic.

I didn’t know then that our telephone company was also largely controlled by the Vatican. Later I was to discover that the building in which I lived belonged to a front company operating for the Vatican and that the same company owned the entire block of houses on both sides of the street.

Like millions of other Roman Catholics, I had never given any thought to the Vatican and its commercial affairs. But perhaps I should have realized earlier that the Church was indeed a financial institution. I can remember now, quite vividly, the eighteen months my Uncle Angelo, an ordained priest, spent as a special visitor to the United States, serving as an adjunct assistant pastor with a church in Brooklyn. After officiating at masses on Sundays he would return to our house, where he was staying, and place his week’s pay—a sackful of coins—under his bed for safekeeping. By the time he was ready to return to Italy, the floor under the bed was completely covered with bulging sacks. What he did with the money I don’t know, but I do recall that my brother and I used to play with the coins, making believe the dimes, nickels, and pennies were pieces of gold. I should have realized then the importance of money to the clergy, but at that time I was too young— and by the time I was old enough, I had forgotten about Zio Padre’s money bags.

So, until the aforementioned incidents in Rome, I had never given thought to the Vatican as a landlord, to the Vatican as a moneyed institution, to the Vatican as a nerve center for finance, to the Vatican as an organization concerned with profits and losses, assets and liabilities, receipts and expenses. The idea that the Vatican was the headquarters for big business just never occurred to me. Nor had I ever entertained the notion that the Pope might be wealthy or the notion that his church, my church, was not only a religious, charitable, and educational institution but also a tremendous financial empire.

The Vatican is not only in the business of selling God. Its total enterprise goes beyond God.

Secrecy surrounds the financial phases of the Vatican’s operation. The only sovereign state that never publishes a budget, the Vatican is the one organized church that keeps its money affairs strictly to itself. And so ramified and complicated are those affairs that it is doubtful whether any single person, including the Pope, has a complete picture of them.

Although I had never previously questioned the Church’s finances, I began, soon after the Piazza Bologna ordeals, to wonder, How rich is the Pope? Or, put another way, How much money does the Roman Catholic Church, the oldest and largest corporation in the world, possess? To be frank, I do not have an answer to this question. Nor can I state with precision how much the Vatican earns each year. Neither will I make a calculated guess as to how wealthy the pontifical empire is. On the question, How rich is the Pope?, suffice it to say that it has become increasingly clear he doesn’t even know himself.

At best, this report on Vatican finances, which I have arduously pieced together during the past ten years, will reveal this venerable organization as one of the greatest fiscal powers in the world.

On the face of it, the Vatican today is vastly different from what it was a century ago. Yet it still keeps its financial operations carefully hidden behind a veil of obscurity. The fact that the Vatican has been able to maintain this secrecy in an age when business and economics are of prime interest is indeed remarkable. But at last, tiny tears in the veil are beginning to appear, and the two-thousandyear- old structure, hitherto known solely for its sacerdotal functions, is being exposed as a locus of financial power.

As employed here, the term “Vatican wealth” should not be confused with the so-called Church patrimony, which consists of churches, ancient buildings, and art treasures. The Church’s art treasures, many of which are in the Vatican Museum, include literally thousands of masterpieces—paintings, sculpture, tapestries, and maps — to which no dollar amount can be assigned. Priceless indeed are such works of art as Michelangelo’s Pieta in St. Peter’s, the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel, and the paintings by Raphael in the Apostolic Palace. One could also mention the Church’s invaluable collections of antiquities —gold and silver crosses, Byzantine jewelry, altar pieces, furniture, chalices and other vessels. The five hundred thousand aged volumes and sixty thousand old manuscripts in the Vatican Library are also part of the Church patrimony. Because none of the treasures will ever be put on the market, it is folly even to hazard a guess as to the cumulative worth of these items. But, conceivably, they could bring a billion dollars under an auctioneer’s gavel.

In terms of the frame of reference used here, “Vatican wealth” is the money that the world headquarters of the Catholic Church is in business to make—the profits that the Vatican has assembled all its heavy artillery to pursue and protect. It is not the task of this book to expose the Church as an economic dinosaur or a hand-rubbing collection of moneylenders. Still less is the book intended to be an attack on either the papacy or the Church itself in the traditional and predictable manner of the anti-clericalists. Rather, my purpose here is to explore the Vatican’s relationship with the sign of the dollar, a symbol as powerful in today’s world as that of the Cross. Mind you, this is not intended as criticism of the Vatican, for the Vatican has every right to engage in activities from which revenue can accrue.

I shall never forget the first time I stood in a Vatican City bank and watched the tellers at work, dealing with nuns, Jesuits, missionaries, and bishops. During a quiet moment I said to one of the tellers, “I guess some of your clients, being of the religious calling, don’t know very much about money.”

The young man had the correct answer for this display of naivete. “Sir,” he said with adding-machine accuracy, “it is my experience that everybody knows a lot about money.”

Laymen like myself have a tendency not to equate their religion, or the dedicated people who administer it, with practical, down-to-earth matters like money or economics. Yet the popes of the last hundred years have never been able to divorce themselves from these matters. Perhaps the most prophetic words ever written by a pope, as far as the Vatican’s present-day position of economic strength is concerned, are those of Pius XI in a now-famous encyclical, Non Abbiamo Bisogno (We Don’t Have Need). Published in France, the encyclical had to be smuggled out of the Vatican because it denounced the Fascist regime. It reads:

Immense power and despotic economic domination are concentrated in the hands of a few, who for the most part arenot the owners, but only the trustees and directors of invested funds, which they administer at their own good pleasure. This domination is most powerfully exercised by those who, because they hold and control money, also govern credit and determine its allotment, for that reason supplying, so to speak, the life blood to the entire economic body and grasping intheir hands, as it were, the very soul of production, so that no one dare breathe against their will. This accumulation of power is the characteristic note of the modern economic order. Pius XI was speaking of another world, in another period, yet his words have meaning when applied to the Vatican empire as it exists today. Thanks to his successors (Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI) and their financial guardians, who subscribe to the theory that what’s good for General Motors is also good for the Vatican, the Church is now big business.

In writing this book, I have left the well-trodden paths of theology and entered the hallways of modern economics, Vatican style. To the Vatican men who normally walk these halls, a story on the price of tin in Malaya has as much significance as the story of the moneychangers being chased out of the Temple. In gathering material for the book, it was necessary to infiltrate, like a spy, into the Vatican’s deepest recesses. Contacting people within the Vatican is an experience like no other, and I can only hope that some of the excitement will rub off on the reader.

When it comes to acknowledgments for help received, I am a hopeless bankrupt, for I cannot enumerate the names of the Vatican citizens who helped me. The seal of silence will keep their identities sine nomine perpetuus. I feel, however, I must mention my debt to Bela von Block, Paul Gitlin, Gene Winick, Cynthia White, Joseph Wechsberg, Walter Lucas, Barrett McGurn, Bob Neville, Irving R. Levine, Bill Pepper, Corrado Pallenberg, Walter Matthew Schmidt, Ernesto Rossi, Stellina Orssola, Lidia Bianchi, Milo Farneti, William McIlroy, Avro Manhattan, and Father John Smith (not his real name), who read portions or all of the manuscript or who other wise provided assistance. I must also express my deep gratitude to my wife, Lefty. With her able and conscientious examination of the manuscripts, she has added much to improve the book and has provided more specific services than can be enumerated here. The shortcomings of the following attempt and the judgments as to matters of fact set forth remain, of course, the responsibility of the writer.

The Pope’s Shop II

“Offer me no money, I pray you; that kills my heart.” (Shakespeare, THE WINTER’S TALE)

“THE POPE’S SHOP”—perhaps one of the most uncomplimentary expressions heard in Rome—is used by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. But unlike some other derogatory terminology employed to describe the Roman Catholic Church, the phrase la Bottega del Papa or la Santa Bottega (the Pope’s Shop) was originated by the Catholics themselves. It seems to have been in use for at least five centuries.

The long-standing idea that the Vatican is in one aspect of its total personality a business concern could not exist unless it had some foundation in fact. When anticlerical Italians discuss the Vatican they are likely to shrug their shoulders and remind you that l’oro non fa odore (gold has no smell). The “gold” alludes not only to the gilded interiors of Italy’s churches and shrines but also to the riches of the Vatican.

Devoted as most Italians are to the papacy, they have no illusions about the Vatican, its position of power in the corporation family of Italy, its affluence, or its influence. However rich the Vatican may be, and indeed there is a tendency among some Italians to lose all reason on this subject, the fact stands that Italy’s citizenry regard the Pope as one of the richest men in the world—not personally, but by virtue of his office, his position, his status, his power.

Devout Italians are probably the world’s biggest backbiters when it comes to the Vatican’s concern with fiscal matters, with cash receipts, and with dollar-sign riches. Hence they, like anticlerical Italians, speak cynically of the Pope’s Shop.

The ostensible wealth of the 108.7-acre enclave inside the sturdy Leonine Walls—the magnificent church buildings, the land, the many thousands of art treasures and precious manuscripts—serves only as the visible tip of the financial iceberg. The largest chunk of the Vatican’s empire lies below the surface. There it continues to grow, in spite of changing currents. Once, after World War I, the Vatican nearly went bankrupt. At every other time in its history, the Church has had a golden touch and has protected its investments wisely in almost every field of economic endeavor—not only in Italy but also in several other countries, including the United States and Canada.

One cardinal’s aide quipped to me not long ago, “The Vatican should truly be judged by the companies it keeps.”

In a weak moment, another elderly churchman, himself a millionaire, sighed and admitted, “Ours is a dilemma indeed: if we give the image of being too rich, people won’t lend us their support; if we appear too poor, we lose their respect.”

This is the same individual who related an anecdote that made the rounds behind the Vatican walls several years ago. The joke concerned the late Francis Cardinal Spellman and his business know-how. According to the story, St. Peter was giving a stately dinner. Though all of the distinguished guests had been assigned to tables, Cardinal Spellman could not locate his place. So he asked St. Peter. But St. Peter couldn’t find it either. He looked among the seats reserved for cardinals. Then he remembered.

“Oh, excuse me, Your Eminence!” he apologized. “In the seating plan I had you placed with the businessmen.”

It is said in Vatican circles that when Cardinal Spell- man first heard the story he was greatly amused because he took the joke as a tribute to his financial acumen. Respected by Holy See officials for his business and Wall Street contacts, Cardinal Spellman did remarkably well as the official U.S. representative for an offshoot of the Vatican’s financial operation which, up till the end of 1967, dealt with pontifical funds abroad. This was the office known as the Special Administration, one of four concerned with Vatican finances. Its headquarters were in a tiny room on the same floor as the Pope’s private apartment. Thirteen persons, four of whom were accountants, were on its staff.

During the summer of 1967, Pope Paul began clearing away some of the centuries-old cobwebs surrounding the Curia, the central government of the Roman Catholic Church, and created, among other things, a new “ministry of finance.” Designed to streamline the Church’s bureaucracy, the sweeping Curia reforms gave rise, effective January 1, 1968, to the new finance office called the Prefecture of Economic Affairs of the Holy See. Combining functions previously undertaken independently by other bodies, the Prefecture now draws up an annual budget for the Pope’s approval, provides balance sheets for all Curia departments, and supervises all of the Vatican’s economic operations. In essence, the Prefecture serves as the Vatican equivalent of a finance ministry by overseeing and coordinating activities of the various offices which handle Vatican funds.

Functioning under the Prefecture is a new office that the Pope created in the spring of 1968—called the Administration for the Patrimony of the Holy See, which combines two older financial offices, the Administration for the Goods of the Holy See (which administered the normal revenues coming into the Vatican) and the Special Administration of the Holy See (which Pope Pius XI established in 1929 to oversee the investment and use of indemnities paid to the Holy See by Italy for lands and properties seized by Italy with the fall of the Papal States in 1870).

The creation of the Prefecture eliminated, in name if not in fact, two other departments concerned with Vatican finances—the Institute for Religious Works and the Administration of the Vatican City State. But it did not abolish the so-called Administration of the Holy See Property. This organization, established in August 1878, is responsible not only for property on Vatican grounds but also for extraterritorial palaces spread all over Rome and landholdings in other parts of the world. Most of this property was left to the Holy See after the Papal States were annexed to the Kingdom of Italy during the nineteenth century.

The Administration of the Vatican City State, now defunct, handled the payroll of Holy See employees, including the Vatican’s police and armed forces, and dealt with Vatican City’s sanitation, medical care, public utilities, and newspaper; it also supervised the Vatican’s radio station and the Vatican’s astronomical observatory, the Vatican Museum, and the Vatican Library.

The Institute for Religious Works, the other Vatican fiscal appendage that was eliminated, in name if not in fact, was set up in 1942 by Pope Pius XII. It is nothing more than a bank—for taking “into custody and administering capital destined to religious work.” It is situated in the Holy Office courtyard, has windows worked by tellers in priestly garb, accepts deposits, opens current accounts, cashes checks, transfers money, and carries out all other bank operations. It differs from other banks in that its depositors belong to a select group. They are the residents of the ecclesiastical state, members of the clergy who run schools and hospitals, diplomats accredited to the Holy See, and some Italian citizens who have given notable service to the Church.

The organization that through 1967 was the backbone of papal business interests and served as a kind of finance ministry was the one known as the Special Administration (now absorbed under the new setup). Established in 1929, after Fascist Italy and the Holy See had signed the Lateran Treaty [see Chapter V for a discussion of this treaty], the Special Administration took the sum of nearly $90 million granted to the Holy See by dictator Benito Mussolini as an indemnity for the loss of the Papal States and, by careful investing, increased it to about $550 million. This unconfirmed figure, at best a conservative calculation, is the one usually offered by Rome’s banking fraternity and represents what is believed to have been the value of the liquid assets of the Special Administration during the closing months of 1967.

Unique because of its freedom of action, which must have been the envy of every businessman and finance minister in the world, the Special Administration answered to no one. No elected congress or government cabinet kept tabs on it. It was not required to present reports to stockholders’ meetings. Because it operated in secrecy (as does the new “ministry of finance”), no newspapers could play watchdog. In Italy and most other countries it paid no taxes. Since it worried very little about the availability of capital, it could undertake long- term programs and risks. With diplomatic privileges, its operations were often made easier, and with diplomatic contacts, which kept the “home office” regularly informed on all matters likely to have a bearing on economic trends, it had a certain edge over competitors.

The man who ran the Special Administration from the end of 1958 until its dissolution was Alberto Cardinal di Jorio, who was appointed in 1939 as an assistant in the office. In 1942, he was assigned to the Institute for Religious Works (the Vatican’s bank), and, in 1944, he became its president—while he still served in the office of the Special Administration. Later, he became the secretary of the commission of three cardinals administrating this latter body. Di Jorio, who was appointed a cardinal in 1958, conducted the organization’s operations with masterly prudence and surrounded himself with a brain trust of competent financiers, among whom were Luigi Mennini, an Italian layman, and the Marquis Henri de Maillardoz, a former director of the Credit Suisse of Geneva, where the Vatican maintains at least two numbered bank accounts.

Although some funds are kept in the Credit Suisse of Geneva, the Vatican maintains deposits in numerous public banks as well.

The late Domenico Cardinal Tardini, the Pope’s Secretary of State, once maintained in a press interview that whispers about the Vatican’s great wealth were exaggerated, that the image had been distorted. Yet a serious reporter who puts two and two together does not get four, or even twenty-two—but a sum that adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars.

As far as its public image is concerned, the Vatican prefers to encourage the impression that it is an organization with a modest income and huge expenditures. Vatican City does, for example, issue new stamps and special series of stamps several times a year. In this way, it is not unlike other small countries that produce and sell stamps in order to add foreign exchange to their bank accounts. Vatican stamps, however, are very much sought after, and the sales bring in close to $400,000 each year. The Vatican Museum, which charges admission, also brings in some income—but most of this is used to pay the many guards and for the maintenance of the museum itself.

Perhaps the most lucrative of the Vatican’s direct sources of income is “Peter’s Pence,” which provides roughly $1.5 million each year, derived from contributions made in all parts of the world, wherever there are Roman Catholic churches or dioceses. A custom that developed in Britain over a thousand years ago, when a yearly tax was imposed on householders in favor of the Pope, Peter’s Pence is now strictly voluntary. The English tax fell into disuse after the Reformation, but the voluntary donation was revived in the middle of the nineteenth century, when a committee formed in Paris to honor St. Peter with an annual gift. The idea was picked up in Turin, Italy, and, before long, in the United States.

Eventually it spread through Europe, then to South America, and finally all over the globe. June 29 is usually the day on which the money—donated in the name of St. Peter and St. Paul—is collected in Catholic churches everywhere. The accumulated money, Peter’s Pence, then accompanies the bishops on their personal visit to the Pope. The bishops’ payments are made by check, usually for U.S. dollars.

Another form of direct revenue for the Vatican comes from private contributions and legacies left by devout Catholics. This is considered by some insiders to be among the Vatican’s largest sources of direct income. The amount runs into millions of dollars each year, but precise figures are impossible to obtain. More often than not, some of the money willed within a given parish or diocese remains there, and never filters through to the Vatican itself.

When money is left to a Roman Catholic parish, it becomes a matter for the Congregation for the Clergy, a Vatican-based organization that concerns itself with the day-by-day affairs of each diocese. Although it is not a part of the central financial organization of the Vatican, the Congregation is charged with numerous financial responsibilities. Primarily, it proffers advice to laymen on the adjustment of wills in favor of religious works, the acquisition of legacies and trusts, and the mortgaging of private estates, and it gives help and instruction to priests and pastors on the use and administration of Church- owned properties. In addition, the Congregation establishes the fees that are to be collected for various Church functions, like baptismal ceremonies and weddings.

When the present Pope was a young cleric known as Monsignor Montini, he served as private secretary to Pope Pius XII and also as extraordinary secretary in charge of internal Vatican affairs. One of his jobs involved dealing with, among other financial matters, bequests. As a result of this assignment, Pope Paul knows more about the fiscal machinery of the Vatican than did any pope before him.

On the delicate subject of Vatican finances, there is a decided information gap, for persons on the inside as well as for those on the outside. The Vatican has wanted it that way. It has not wanted to organize its affairs so that any single individual could, during the course of his workday, piece together the total picture of its infinitely ramified financial operations. Apparently, only one person has been privileged to see this picture. His name was Bernardino Nogara.

Much of the credit for the Vatican’s success in business after 1929 belongs to this one-time student of architecture. Bernardino Nogara demonstrated his financial genius after being entrusted by Pope Pius XI with the responsibility of administering the $90-million indemnification granted to the Holy See by Mussolini. Nogara, former vice president of the Banca Commerciale Italiana, had come to the attention of Vatican officialdom through Pope Benedict XV, who had made personal investments in Turkish Empire securities with the help and advice of Nogara, who then headed the Istanbul branch of the Banca Commerciale. Placed in charge of the newly created Special Administration, the devout Nogara had a free hand, and although he ran much of the Vatican’s business out of his fedora, revealed himself as a remarkable manager of money. By undertaking a world-wide investment policy, he increased the initial capital many times over.

In pursuit of profit, Nogara abided by a self-imposed rule that the Vatican’s investment program should not be hampered by religious considerations. During the early fifties, therefore, he used papal funds to speculate in government bonds of Protestant Britain, which he viewed as a better risk than the stocks of Catholic Spain, then in an economic slump. When he died late in 1958, at the age of eighty-eight, he left a “methodology” that was followed religiously by his successors, who continued to realize fantastic gains.

The mysterious Bernardino Nogara was born in Bellano, near Lake Como, in 1870—the same year that the Kingdom of Italy confiscated the last of the Papal States, the $90-million indemnification for which Nogara was later to administer. As a young man, Nogara laid aside his architectural training and worked in England, Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey directing mine operations. During the peace negotiations with Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey at the end of World War I, he served as an Italian delegate on the economic and finance committee. From 1924 to 1929, he was in Berlin as an administrator on the Inter-Allied Reparations Commission, which had been entrusted with finding a solution for the problem of collecting German reparations.

A taciturn, elusive figure, Nogara was given his Vatican assignment by a pope who had little training in finance. Nogara had no obligations to show any immediate profits from his investments and was free to invest the funds anywhere in the world (with little worry about taxes). He made full use of these privileges.

He guided his actions by the reliable reports of the Vatican’s world-wide network of ambassadorial representatives. Bishops and informed Catholic laymen provided intelligence—often via the Vatican’s own “hot line” —that an ordinary banker could not hope to acquire at any price.

In the course of his career, Nogara had become a specialist in gold. Thus for a considerable period after he took over the Special Administration, he engaged in the trading of gold bullion for gold coins and gold coins for gold bullion in deals that, without precise details, defy understanding of anything but the fact that most of them were profitable. His confidence in the precious metal virtually unshakable, the canny Nogara spent $26.8 million to buy gold from the United States at the official rate of $35 per fine troy ounce, plus 0.25 percent for handling charges. In later years, rumors cropped up that the Vatican had obtained this gold at a special price of $34 an ounce, but when the rumors were printed in—and given some credence by—a United Nations publication, the .S. Treasury Department dismissed the matter once and for all in April 1953, by stating that the Vatican had made the purchase at the same price as anybody else. In fact, $5 million of the Vatican-acquired gold was sold back to the United States, leaving a net sale of $21.8 million. The Vatican gold, which is in the shape of ingots, is on deposit with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank. A favorite Nogara ploy involved a most intricate financial maneuver, by which he manipulated the flexibility of the Vatican’s Swiss bank accounts. The explanation is a bit complicated and may necessitate a second reading. Nevertheless, here it is:

Nogara would ask his Swiss bank to deposit Vatican money in New York under the Swiss bank’s name. He then got the Swiss bank to order the American bank to lend dollars to an Italian firm that was owned by the Vatican. The Italian firm, to which the money belonged in the first place, charged the interest it was paying in America to itself in the Swiss account. In this way Nogara could safely (and secretly) invest the Pope’s money without any interference from the Italian authorities during those periods when currency restrictions were being imposed by the state.

Without exaggeration, it can be said that Nogara, apparently driven by deep religious motivations, used his financial wizardry to become the Vatican’s “secret weapon.” As a dictator of the Vatican’s funds, he answered to no one—not even to the committee of three cardinals which, theoretically, supervised the functions of the Special Administration. Nor did Pius XI have any clear idea of what Nogara was doing. But the Pope had faith in Nogara, and the evidence is there that that faith was rewarded.

When Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli mounted the pontifical throne in 1939 as Pius XII, it was known that he entertained certain suspicions about Nogara—and this led to a number of rumors about the Special Administration. For one thing, it was whispered that there was virtually nothing left of the large sum of Lateran money. In one of his initial administrative acts, the new pope established a private investigating committee of cardinals who were knowledgeable in the complexities of banking and international finance. A thorough check was made.

Contrary to what many had preferred to suspect, Nogara had invested the Vatican funds wisely and shrewdly. In fact, the initial capital had increased so many times over that the Vatican was richer before the opening days of World War II than it had ever been before. After the report was in, Nogara was completely untouchable.

Few anecdotes can be told about this financial fox, for Nogara successfully managed to keep almost everything he did a secret—even from his superiors, who trusted him implicitly. A ranking Vatican official once said, “Nogara is a man who never speaks to anybody; nor does he tell the Pope much, and I would guess, even very little to God—yet he is a man worth listening to.”

One Nogara incident can be reported, however. It involved a run-in with the British government. In 1948, the Catholic Relief Organization in Germany had been presented with several shiploads of wheat, purchased by the Vatican from Argentina. Nogara, attempting to pay for the wheat with British pounds he had deposited in England, ran afoul of Whitehall, for at that time England was undergoing an austerity period, with the usual currency restrictions. Annoyed, London negotiated with the Holy See, and Nogara, bending, agreed instead to invest the money he had in England in government bonds. But for the man with the golden touch, the defeat, such as it was, ended in victory. Over the long run the investment in British bonds turned out very favorably. Still, the transaction goes down on the books as one of the few in which Nogara’s hand was ever forced.

After retiring in 1956 for reasons of health, Nogara continued to serve the Vatican by advising his successors in a private capacity. That he had proved himself scrupulous in the execution of his assignment, there is not the slightest doubt. That he bequeathed not only his know- how but a well-oiled, smoothly functioning piece of financial machinery, there is also not the slightest doubt. Because of the secret nature of his operations, he was given very little space in the public prints when he died in November of 1958. Yet no other single individual, pope or cardinal, ever gave as much impetus and muscle to Vatican finances as did Bernardino Nogara, the invisible man who started out to be an architect and succeeded in building a financial empire.

Perhaps the man is best summed up in a document he left for his successors. In it he enumerated his strategies. A copy of this eight-part “Nogara Credo” came into my hands and is offered herewith in translation:

1. Increase the size of your company because it will be easier to obtain funds from the capital markets.
2. Increase the size of your company because high-capacity installations allow the reduction of industrial costs and the subdivision of overall expenses.
3. Increase the size of your company because it is possible to economize on transportation.
4. Increase the size of your company because it will allow capital to be invested in scientific research that can bring tangible money results.
5. Increase the size of your company because the personnel can be organized and used in a more rational manner.
6. Increase the size of your company because fiscal controls on the part of government become advantageously difficult.
7. Increase the size of your company because it is necessary to offer the customers the best technical product.
8. Increase the size of your company because this will engender more increases. However sanctified the name of Bernardino Nogara, not all of the Vatican’s trusted employees avoided besmirching themselves. At about the time Nogara was involved with the Argentine wheat difficulty, another Vatican figure became the center of a scandal that brought severe repercussions. The financial body involved was the Administration of the Holy See Property, which had been founded in 1878 to supervise the management of Vatican- owned property.

Monsignor E. P. Cippico, a youthful prelate employed by the Vatican Archives, got entangled in a series of financial deals that eventually brought him to ruin. The war over, many countries, including Italy, were suffering under currency restrictions. Eager to shift money to Switzerland and other countries, either for investment or for the purchase of goods for import, some Italian businessmen discovered that they could transfer funds through the Administration of the Holy See Property, for the Vatican was exempt from Italy’s currency regulations. Monsignor Cippico, an extrovert who enjoyed moving in high-society circles, and who had some personal contacts in the Administration, served as a go-between for those persons who wanted to get their money out of the country. Needless to say, he was a very popular man.

All went well until Cippico ventured out on his own and agreed to underwrite the production costs of a movie on the life of St. Francis of Assisi. To cover up the outflow of money, a lot of money, Cippico enlarged his questionable operations. But the film never got past the first reel. Meanwhile, as more and more people who had entrusted him with large sums to transfer out of Italy saw nothing come of their money, the roof started to cave in on Cippico. He was arrested by the Pope’s Gendarmery, made to stand a Vatican inquiry, found guilty, defrocked, and put into detention. Later he stood trial in an Italian court and was convicted of swindling; still later he was set free by a court of appeals. The persons who had entrusted money to him placed legal claims against the Vatican, and in time everyone was reimbursed.

Having learned some hard lessons in the world of business, the Vatican is now exceedingly prudent about whom it will entrust with either money or responsibility. The man appointed by Pope Paul (in January 1968) to handle the newly created Prefecture of Economic Affairs is Egidio Cardinal Vagnozzi, who had served as the Pope’s top diplomat in Washington. Formerly the Apostolic Delegate to the United States for nine years, Cardinal Vagnozzi (now in his early sixties) replaced Angelo Cardinal dell’Acqua, who had been named four months earlier to the job of “finance minister.”

Cardinal Vagnozzi’s two septuagenarian associates in the new “ministry of finance,” which will prepare the Vatican’s annual budget, its first, are Joseph Cardinal Beran, Archbishop of Prague, who served sixteen years of Communist detention, and Cesare Cardinal Zerba of Italy, a theologian who served for twenty-six years as Under-Secretary and then Secretary of the Congregation of Sacraments.

Already ordained a priest at age twenty-three—thanks to a special dispensation in 1928 from the pope—Vagnozzi has spent most of his career in service abroad. Four years after his ordination, he was sent to the United States to work in the Washington office of the Apostolic Delegate. It is said that his boat trip from Italy to America may have had a significant meaning in his career, for he was accompanied across the Atlantic Ocean by the then- Monsignor Francis Spellman who had been assigned to duty in Boston. The bond of friendship and respect between the two men was to remain firm until Spellman’s death recently.

Vagnozzi stayed in the United States for ten years before a transferral to Portugal, once again in the capacity as a junior counselor in the office of the Apostolic Delegate. From Lisbon he went to Paris, there to become a confidant of the then-Apostolic Delegate Angelo Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII). In 1948, Vagnozzi received an assignment to lay the groundwork in India for the exchange of ambassadors between the Delhi Government and the Holy See, and a year later he was dispatched to the Philippines as the Apostolic Delegate.

Succeeding in establishing diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines in 1951, Vagnozzi became the Vatican’s first ambassador (Nuncio) there and stayed in the post until 1958, at which time Pope John thought it best to send him back to the United States to fill the job of Apostolic Delegate left open by Amleto Cardinal Cicognani who had become Vatican Secretary of State. Unlike most of the previous Roman Catholic representatives in Washington, Vagnozzi—by now an avid student of Yankee culture and an admirer of the “American way of doing things”—did considerable traveling all over the fifty states, climaxing his nine-year tour of duty with a visit to Alaska to bring blessings, money and material help from Pope Paul to flood victims in Anchorage, Ko-diak, and Seward in 1964.

Although he took his formal training in philosophy and theology, Cardinal Vagnozzi is a keen student of the American economy. With the help of Cardinal Spellman, Vagnozzi kept abreast of events in the business and financial world of the United States. Not without reason, therefore, is it believed that no single person inside the Vatican has the solid background and incisive knowledge of American business practice as has the Pope’s new “finance minister.”

Apart from the three cardinals who supervise the Vatican’s wealth, the Church must also depend on its uomini di fiducia (men of trust), who handle the Vatican’s financial interests as nonclerics. The circle of laymen who enjoy the proxy of the pope is necessarily tight because it is these few chosen trustees who most often represent the Vatican in the outside business world. Who are some of these men, and where do they fit in the scheme of things?

A clue as to whether Vatican penetration has taken place within a given company is usually provided by the names of the members of the board of directors. Industrial corporations and holding companies often expose Church interest by listing, in one capacity or another, the names of known Vatican agents. “Agents” is perhaps not the happiest word to describe the members of the Vatican’s inner lay circle, but it best indicates the purpose they serve. Whenever a “Vatican name” appears on the board of directors of a utility, for example, investigation will almost invariably bring out the fact that the Vatican holds a minor, or even a major, interest in that organization. Often the prestige of the “agent’s” name gives a reporter his first indication of the extent of the Vatican’s interest.

For instance, up until his resignation in the spring of 1968 from his post as special delegate of the Pontifical Commission for the State of Vatican City, the name of Count Enrico Galeazzi (who also resigned his offices as Director General of Technical Services and Director General of the Economic Services of Vatican City) appeared on many lists of directors. Wherever it did, it indicated to observers that he was serving within that company as a watchdog of Vatican interests. Count Galeazzi, however, continues his service within Vatican City by holding the office of architect of the Sacred Apostolic Palaces and regular architect of St. Peter’s and as a member of the Commission for the Preservation of Historical and Artistic Monuments of the Holy See. In March 1968, Galeazzi became Director General of the Societa Generate Immobiliare, the Vatican-owned construction company [which is discussed at length in Chapter VII], after having been its vice president since 1952. At this writing Count Galeazzi’s name still appears on the boards of a few other companies in Italy.

Galeazzi, who was a close friend of Cardinal Spellman, owes most of his enviable Vatican career to the late New York Archbishop whom he met while the latter was stationed in Rome. It was through Cardinal Spellman, who selected him as the representative of the Knights of Columbus in Rome, that Galeazzi met Pope Pius when he was still Cardinal Pacelli and Secretary of State. By profession an engineer, Galeazzi became a trusted friend of Cardinal Pacelli, and the two went on various Vatican missions together—Buenos Aires in 1934, Lourdes in 1935, Paris and Budapest several years later, and New York and Washington shortly before Pacelli assumed the papal chair.

Under Pope Pius, Galeazzi became the acting governor of Vatican City, an office he retained until early 1968. Pope Pius also awarded him the jobs of Director General of Economic Services and of Keeper of the Sacred Fabric of St. Peter, which office made him responsible for the maintenance of Church property. Because of his fluent English, Galeazzi was often asked by Spellman to entertain his American businessmen friends in Rome; among the men Galeazzi entertained was Joseph Kennedy of Boston, father of the late President of the United States. Since Galeazzi was very close to the Pope, he could and often did help Spellman to get papal appointments. In view of the fact that Spellman made about three trips a year to Vatican City and always had a personal audience with the Pope (several times he was invited to tea, an exceedingly rare honor), the Galeazzi-Spellman friendship had no small effect on Vatican history in the postwar period. Some Romans who admire Count Enrico Galeazzi for his thoroughly dignified manner irreverently refer to him as “the Vatican’s only lay Pope in history.” That his name, therefore, is linked with Vatican business interests in Italy is not surprising.

Nor is it surprising that Pacelli is another “Vatican name.” Should any one of the three Pacelli princes, all related to Pope Pius XII, appear in the corporate line-up of a company, it would be safe to assume the Vatican holds more than a minimum interest. Starting with the Societa Generale Immobiliare, of which Count Galeazzi is now a general director and a member of the executive committee, Prince Carlo Pacelli’s name appears on almost as many corporation listings as Galeazzi’s. Prince Giulio Pacelli is on the board of Italgas, a company that has the concession to supply gas for thirty-six Italian cities, while Prince Marcantonio Pacelli is not only a member of the board of the Societa Generale Immobiliare but is also prominently listed with the boards of many other companies.

Other Vatican names, powers to a lesser or greater degree in papal business affairs, are those of Luigi Gedda (a former president of Catholic Action), Count Paolo Blumensthil (a Secret Chamberlain of the Sword and Cloak), Carlo Pesenti (Director General of the Italcementi cement company and head of the Vatican’s newly formed bank group called the Istituto Bancario Italiano), Antonio Rinaldi (vice secretary of the Apostolic Chamber and president of a private finance company called Istituto Centrale Finanziaro), Luigi Mennini (holder of six important Vatican posts), and Massimo Spada (a lawyer and former administrative secretary of the now abolished Institute for Religious Works).

Not long ago, a formal study of the Vatican’s business efficiency was undertaken by American Management Audit, an organization that has investigated the management of many businesses throughout the world. The Vatican scored exceedingly well, receiving what amounted to “straight-A” grades: 650 points out of a maximum of 700 for operating efficiency, 2,000 out of a possible 2,100 for effectiveness of leadership, and 700 out of a possible 800 for fiscal policy. Compared with those of other businesses examined, these were impressive ratings indeed. Management Audit indicated that the Vatican could teach other businesses quite a few lessons—not the least of which was that of avoiding the error of displaying “too much obvious zeal once a position of influence has been attained.”

Indeed, the Vatican’s efficient way of handling its business could serve as a model. Perhaps this is because of the influence of Nogara, whose shadow, a decade after his death, still looms over the financial brain trust of the present-day successor to Peter.

In a press interview shortly before his death, Cardinal Tardini dismissed reports on the extent of the Vatican’s holdings. He said (as we noted earlier in this chapter) that rumors about the Vatican’s wealth were exaggerated. Cardinal Tardini, who was well known to the Roman citizenry as “the priest with no fur on his tongue,” then told the assembled newspapermen that in his opinion Nogara’s decision to invest most of the Vatican’s indemnity from the Lateran Treaty in Italy instead of in other countries was regrettable.

“We thought we were helping Italy,” His Eminence declared. “But instead we have been forever accused of trying to take over the Italian business world.”

Behind the Walls III

THE MIGHTIEST EGYPTIAN obelisk in the world stands in St. Peter’s Square. Until a few short years ago, a riddle surrounded the great needle. This riddle has now been solved by admirable scholarly deduction.

The Emperor Caligula, whose reign ended in A.D. 41, had had the obelisk placed in the center of an arena where gladiators fought and charioteers raced, and at the base of the obelisk he had had engraved in Latin a dedication to his mother, Agrippina. In the sixteenth century Pope Sixtus V had the obelisk, which weighs 320 tons, lugged from the site of the ancient arena to its present position in St. Peter’s Square. But where was the obelisk before it was in the arena? Where did it originally come from?

Since the elongated monument bears no Egyptian hieroglyphics, nobody was able to figure out its early history— until Professor Filippo Magi, an archeologist, deciphered an inscription that wasn’t there and unlocked a mystery which was centuries old.

One morning, while gazing at the Latin inscription, Professor Magi began to wonder why it had been carved on an indented rectangle and not directly on the surface of the obelisk. In the slanting rays of the morning sun, he noticed that scattered among the Latin words were innumerable little holes, each about a quarter of an inch deep. Examining the tiny holes more closely, the professor had a hunch. Could these holes be really only “bottoms” of holes that were once deeper? Could they be what remained of holes originally drilled an inch into the granite—holes in which the teeth of bronze letters of a previous inscription had been imbedded and fixed with hot lead? Perhaps, Professor Magi theorized, when Caligula received the giant stone from Egypt, he had ordered the letters removed to make room for his own inscription.

The problem now facing the archeologist was whether he could reconstruct the original bronze letters by calculating from the positions of the holes. Because many of the letters seemed to have been attached by three teeth instead of two, Professor Magi felt he stood a good chance of identifying their shape. He could then, he decided, use guess work—and the principles of cryptography—to find out what the other letters were.

Professor Magi had scores of fake plastic letters made to size. He juggled them around, and around. Then, finally, they fell into order, and the obelisk’s original inscription could be read. It revealed that the obelisk had been put up in Heliopolis by Caius Cornelius Gallus, a Roman prefect to Egypt who erected many such monuments to his own glory before he fell into disfavor and died by his own hand in 27 B.C.

The story of Professor Magi’s archeological detective work is one incident in the history of the obelisk. Another took place in 1586, when the obelisk was being installed in St. Peter’s Square. Thousands of workers and hundreds of horses were struggling with beams, ropes, and scaffolding to lift the unwieldy seventy-five-foot monument skyward. So the engineers would not be distracted, the death penalty was ordered for any spectator who even so much as uttered a word. But friction was beginning to burn the ropes, and it appeared the monolith would fall to the ground. A sailor who was watching knew what to do. Should he risk his life by disobeying the order of silence?

“Throw water on the ropes!” he yelled at last.

The suggestion was followed, and the workers completed the job without mishap. Instead of being executed, the sailor earned a papal reward, the right to supply St. Peter’s Church with palms on Palm Sunday. His heirs still have the concession today.

The giant obelisk, which is one of Rome’s landmarks, is not really in Rome, or in Italy. It stands just over the Italian border, about ten yards away from Rome, which entirely surrounds the State of Vatican City. Very little is known by the outside world about this tiny country, which, although it is an artificial state, is still a sovereign one.

The State of Vatican City, the most singular community in the world, doesn’t even have as many citizens as the United States Congress has members. Nor is there much prospect that Vatican City will substantially increase its population, because most of its citizens (who are clergy) do not marry. This partially explains why the death rate is forty times higher than the birth rate. There are fewer than 530 citizens within Vatican City, and altogether about nine hundred people five within its diamond-shaped seventeensquare- mile confines.

Unlike other nations, the State of Vatican City has no significant industry, no agriculture, and no natural resources, yet it ranks among the richest countries of the world. Millions of people cross its borders every year without a visa or any red tape, but Vatican City is the best guarded and most effectively sheltered country anywhere. The tourists who visit it never find overnight lodging, for the country doesn’t have a hotel. Neither does it have a single restaurant, movie house, or legitimate theater.

Getting around this minuscule territory is difficult, especially for a stranger, because all but one of the thirty streets and squares are without street signs. There are no traffic lights, but there hasn’t been an auto accident in over forty-five years. Vatican City has no streetcars or buses. Not only does the country lack hotels, restaurants, theaters, street signs, traffic lights, and public transportation, it also has no barber shop, no laundry, no dry cleaner, and not a single newsstand. Nor does it have any kind of hospital, a garbage collection crew, or a school for children.

The absence of these features is amazing, but Vatican City has other unique qualities, which may seem even more amazing.

Vatican City, a country that is managed by men of Italian origin, has a national anthem that was written by a Frenchman (Charles Gounod). The country’s official language is Latin, usually considered dead. The head of state is not only the country’s chief executive, he is also its legislature and judiciary, all in one, but he is neither a dictator nor a despot. The Lilliputian country has its own postage stamps and issues its own coins, yet it uses Italian money as its legal tender and depends on Italy to transport its air mail. (Local mail delivery is not made easier by the absence of any street addresses in Vatican City, but this doesn’t faze the postman, who knows where everybody lives.) Vatican coins, which are the same size as the equivalent Italian coins, have the Pope’s head engraved on them and usually bear a motto. “This is the root of all evil” is the translation of one such motto; “It is better to give than to receive,” the translation of another.

The Vatican flag, which consists of two equal vertical stripes of yellow and white with the papal tiara above two crossed keys on the white stripe, would be recognized by few people if they saw it. Vatican license plates bear the letters S.C.V. (for Stato Citta Vaticano) in either red or black on a white background; the numbers run from 1 to 142. The Pope has ten private cars, and these are parked in the Apostolic Stable, which was once used for papal horses. All told, there are a half dozen gasoline pumps in the Vatican, all of them carrying the same brand of gas—Esso. So far as is known, the Vatican does not plan to let Madison Avenue exploit the fact that the Pope has a tiger in his tank.

Although the country has its own railroad, there is no regular train schedule. The double-track spur enters the country through a metal gate in the Vatican wall; freight trains with supplies for the country come in fairly often, but not regularly. Mussolini put up the stone terminal building as a gift, and when the railroad was inaugurated, one of the engineers in charge of the works, offering an apology to Pius XI because the tracks had not yet been properly connected with the Italian network, assured him that that would be done shortly.

“It seems,” remarked the pontiff, smiling, “that you are in a hurry to get rid of me.”

In actuality passenger trains rarely depart from the station. The last one left the Vatican in October 1962, carrying Pope John and some members of his staff to Loreto and Assisi to offer prayers for the Ecumenical Council.

Many of the citizens of Vatican City, none of whom is subject to Italian income taxes (citizens do pay the Vatican an annual tax, but it’s only 300 lire—48 cents), live in Italy rather than on Vatican ground. This is their preference. Vatican gates close at 11:30 P.M. A resident who wants to go, say, to the opera, must get special permission and must then arrange to get back inside the country after the gates close. An alien who accepts a dinner invitation to a Vatican home must leave the country before the frontier shuts down.

Since there is no privately owned real estate in Vatican City, the people who live there, not all of whom are citizens, have their quarters assigned to them. Citizens are not charged for electricity or telephone service, and rents are very low, usually about 4 percent of an individual’s income. Thus a monsignor with a salary of $300 a month will usually pay about $12 a month for his assigned apartment.

Economic pressures and other problems of an industrialized society do not exist in Vatican City, even though incomes are low. Some cardinals receive as much as $800 a month; the commanding officer of the Swiss Guards gets about $340; and the editor of the unofficial Vatican daily paper also gets about $340.

A visitor once asked Pope John, “Holy Father, how many people actually work in the Vatican?”

“Oh, about half of them!” the Pope jestingly replied.

That would be about fifteen hundred people, for, altogether, about three thousand have jobs inside the Vatican.

Although most prices within the Vatican walls on items of food are concomitant with those of the neighboring country, and geared to Rome’s accelerated cost of living, general expenses are much lower. Vatican housekeepers, at least half of whom are males, do most of their grocery shopping on the grounds—but it’s necessary to go into Rome for such things as clothing, electrical appliances, and other durable goods. Sources in Rome supply the Vatican with its water and its electric power, while the Vatican’s so-called sanitation system empties into the Roman sewers. Without the help and good will of Italy, and especially of Rome, the non-self-sufficient Vatican would be unable to function efficiently.

The State of Vatican City doesn’t have a residential sector, as such. The Pope and members of his official family live in the Apostolic Palace, a conglomeration of buildings built, for the most part, during the Renaissance. With some 990 flights of stairs and more than 1,400 rooms (overlooking twenty courtyards), the palace of the Vatican is perhaps the world’s largest, surpassed or matched only by the palace of the Dalai Lama in Tibet.

The Pope’s nineteen-room apartment on the top floor faces St. Peter’s Square. His private office, with three great recessed windows overlooking the square, is commodious and impressive. Draped in gold damask, the windows are seldom covered by curtains, for, whenever the sunlight beats in, the white slats on the inside shutters are closed. The papal work chamber measures sixty by forty feet. The floor is carpeted, and the walls are panelled in blond wood. There are tables and satin-covered chairs spaced around the room, and books fill every inch of space in the two six-foot-high, glass-enclosed cabinets.

About five feet away from the door is the Pope’s desk, a table with a single center drawer. On the right side of the desk, the Pope keeps an ornate desk clock, a high-necked desk lamp with carved statuettes at the base, a roll- blotter, and several reference books, among which are the current Pontifical Annual and an indexed Bible. Facing the papal desk are two high-backed chairs that match the chair on which the Pope sits. Pope Paul has an electric typewriter, which he uses with consummate skill. He likes to do his own typing at night, when things are quiet. When he wants to make an appearance from his office, usually on Sundays for a noonday blessing, he invariably goes to the middle window.

On the lower floors are the apartments of the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Master of Pontifical Ceremonies. The palace also houses, in one of its extensions, the Vatican Museum, which contains what many experts believe to be the world’s finest collection of ancient and classical art. The museum has the most important single art spectacle anywhere—the Sistine Chapel, in which the enormous “Last Judgment” of Michelangelo covers the entire wall behind the altar and flows onto the ceilings and upper walls, done in fresco.

Alongside the Apostolic Palace, members of the Swiss Guards have their own barracks and apartments. Vatican City has three comparatively new apartment buildings, erected to partially correct a housing shortage, which still exists. There are three cemeteries in the Vatican, but these are rarely used today, for Vatican City also has a shortage of burial places (except in the vaults of St. Peter, which are now reserved for popes).

A walk through the fenced-in Vatican Gardens, which are manicured the year around by a staff of twenty, is an unforgettable experience. There are fruit trees, cauliflower patches, plants rooted in oversized ceramic jars, and fountains of all shapes. To ensure an adequate water supply, Pius XI had 9,300 irrigators installed. Fifty-five miles of pipe lines were laid, and two reservoirs built. Each reservoir holds 1.5 million gallons of water, which comes directly from Lake Bracciano, outside Rome.

At the Pope’s request, the irrigation system was equipped with some rather special devices—trick devices squirted great jets of water at the unwary visitor. When in a playful mood the Pope loved to drench new cardinals whom he inveigled to walk with him through the gardens. The jets are no longer working, but they can be seen if you know where to look.

The Vatican Gardens were one of Pius’ pet projects, and he frequently let the children of Vatican employees play in them. One day, noticing a school of flashy red fish swimming in one of the small ponds, he said to the youngsters who were standing nearby, “So many cardinals— and no pope!”

The next day two boys and a girl, giggling, went to the pond and emptied the contents of a small pail into it. Later, when Pius went out for his stroll in the garden, he saw one extra fish in the pond. The fish was all white, like a pope.

Not far from the gardens is the so-called business district of Vatican City. Located to the right of St. Peter’s Square, it can be reached by entering through the Santa Anna Gate, which is supervised by the Swiss Guards. Each visitor to the business district must state the nature of his business to the guardsman on duty before he is allowed to proceed. The roadway from the Santa Anna Gate leads past the tiny parish church to the grocery store, the post office, the car pool and garage, the press office, and the offices of L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s daily newspaper.

As an independent state, Vatican City has certain prerogatives with respect to Italy. For instance, in time of war Vatican citizens and personnel are given access across Italian territory. The Vatican is exempt from customs regulations, a privilege that has sometimes been abused. After the end of World War II, visitors to Vatican City began picking up cartons of American cigarettes there, taking them into Italy, where American cigarettes were hard to find, and selling them for double what they paid. As much as this rankled officials of the Italian government (which has a state monopoly on the sale of tobacco), nothing could be done. Or can be done, for the practice continues even to this day—in spite of the fact that the Vatican now rations tobacco and other items, like liquor, which sell at higher prices in Rome.

Maintaining law and order is no problem for the Vatican, which has almost no crime. No instance of a holdup on Vatican ground has ever been recorded. Some years ago, however, there was one case of housebreaking. Only two murder attempts have ever been recorded. In one case a Swiss Guardsman, in a moment of temper, wounded his commanding officer, not too seriously; in the other a demented woman shot down a priest in St. Peter’s.

The Vatican prison was closed not long ago because of lack of use; it stood vacant for a while; then it was converted into a warehouse. Few inmates served any time at all in the prison. One was a clergyman, Monsignor E. P. Cippico, who had been involved and convicted of the illegal money traffic described in Chapter II. Another inmate, a man caught stealing in St. Peter’s (the crime occurred more than twenty years ago), was sentenced to six months, primarily to spare him what would have been a heavier sentence from the Italian courts. He served his full term and, according to Vatican sources, enjoyed it considerably because he was very well treated, and also, “because the window to his cell overlooked the beautiful scenery of the Vatican Gardens and allowed him to breathe the gardens’ balmy air.”

Most of the policemen who work in the Vatican are laymen, as are the firemen, lawyers, stenographers, sales personnel, carpenters, bakers, gardeners, bricklayers, painters, mechanics, and other employees who keep the Vatican machinery functioning. To supplement this lay staff, a number of small religious societies provide services of various types. For instance, the Vatican telephone system and local mail deliveries are handled by the friars of the Little Work of Divine Providence. A group of nuns, affectionately known as the Sisters of Tapestry, specializes in the mending and restoration of the thousands of precious tapestries that adorn the walls of the Apostolic Palace. The Do Good Brothers operate the Vatican pharmacy, and on a nearby island in the Tiber, administer a hospital, where during the Nazi occupation of Rome they earned a reputation for hiding American and British pilots shot down in combat, refugee Jews, and other enemies of Hitler.

Another religious group, the Sons of St. John Bosco, provides the Vatican with typesetters and linotype operators. Charged with printing secret and confidential Vatican documents, the members of this group also run the Vatican Polyglot Printing Plant, which, as its name implies, issues publications in a variety of languages. A large variety, for the Polyglot Printing Plant works with 120 different alphabets and publishes documents in hieroglyphics, Chinese ideographs, Braille, Glagolitic, Hebrew, Arabic, and Coptic.

Perhaps the most unusual job in the Vatican—a job that very few people ever hear of—is performed in a high- ceilinged room in the Apostolic Palace. The room is lined with shelves and drawers containing ashes, slivers of bones, and other remains of early saints and martyrs. Under an electric lamp in one corner of this strange chamber, the world’s most macabre library, sits a Vatican officer surrounded with tiny boxes and envelopes addressed to all parts of the globe. These are for the purpose of conveying saintly relics. According to canon law, a relic must be enclosed in every altar of every church. Because churches are inaugurated each week, and an authentic relic is required for each new altar, the librarian is constantly busy filling envelopes with pinches of dust. The envelopes are sent out as registered letters.

The visitor to the Vatican is not likely to see the relic mailer at work, but no matter where he goes inside the narrow plot of land, he is likely to come across someone busily doing an unexpectedly ordinary job. The Pope’s shoemaker, for example. Since 1939, the task of making papal shoes has belonged to Telesforo Carboni, who habitually refers to Paul VI as “an eight and a half narrow” and the late Pope John as “a wide ten.”

Like many other shoemakers, Carboni is quite a raconteur, particularly on the matter of footwear. Once Carboni said to me, “I remember the time Pope John, who had a big foot, which could take even a ten and a half, came to me and said, ‘Signor Carboni, you must make me a pair of shoes that are nice and big and don’t cramp my feet.’

“A man with cramped feet, you know, will usually have cramped ideas in his head, and so His Holiness wanted a pair of shoes that wouldn’t cramp him in his work. Do you follow?

“The Pope didn’t have corns on his feet, but he did have a high instep, and the top of a shoe, if it was a bad fit, could cut his foot when he walked. He showed me the most comfortable pair of shoes he ever had, made by his nephew, a shoemaker in Bergamo, and they were dyed purple. I was horrified at the color. Who ever heard of a pope wearing purple shoes?

“‘Holy Father,’ I said, ‘you can’t wear purple shoes. It’s not the pope’s color.’

“Pope John thought for a bit, then he said, ‘But, Signor Carboni, I don’t want to hurt my nephew’s feelings. When I write him, I must tell him I am wearing the shoes he made for me.’

” ‘Ci penso io,’ I said. ‘We will color the shoes red.’

” ‘Benissimo!’ exclaimed His Holiness. ‘You have solved my problem. You are a saint. You have made the first miracle of my reign!’ ”

How the Vatican Succeeded in Business Without Really Trying IV

IF THERE IS one common quality of popes it is that they are, necessarily, lonely men. Several popes have commented on their loneliness. In a rare moment of candor, Pope Paul VI made this loneliness clear to some guests during a private audience. “Some people think,” he said, “that a pope lives in an atmosphere of superior serenity, where everything is beautiful, everything is easy. . . . But it is also true that the pope has cares, coming from his human littleness, which he faces every moment. This sometimes conflicts with his duties, his problems, his responsibilities. This is a distress which sometimes tastes of agony.”

Pope Pius IX, one of the loneliest and least fortunate popes in all Vatican history, must indeed have tasted agony when he had to face, all but alone, the loss of more than two thirds of the Vatican’s landholdings and when, after Rome was taken, he went into voluntary “exile” behind the Leonine Walls. Let us trace those dusty events, for they bear heavily on the theme of this book.

After 1815, when the Congress of Vienna restored the papal lands, which for years had been part of Napoleon’s empire, the Vatican found itself with a Brobdingnagian parcel of land that sheared completely through the middle of the peninsula and separated the six Italian states. These states, or duchies, were a political reality that had for centuries made Italy nothing more than a “geographical expression.” The so-called Papal States, some of which came into the Vatican’s possession through donation (mostly before the ninth century) and some through the sixteenth-century conquests of Cesare Borgia (son of Pope Alexander VI), and which, several times in their history, were curtailed and abolished, consisted of some 16,000 square miles that included a population of a little over three million inhabitants in the regions of Latium, Umbria, the Marches, and Emilia-Romagna—a territory sprawling across the peninsula from the Tyrrhenian Sea to the Adriatic, bounded on the northwest by the Kingdom of Lombardo-Venetia, southeast by the Kingdom of Naples, and west by the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and the Duchy of Modena.

Papal rule over this territory was inefficient. The people who lived in it were Roman Catholics, but they did not like the idea of being governed by priests. Although taxes were light, almost nonexistent, industry and commerce were entirely undeveloped; most of the people lived by begging. On more than one occasion foreign soldiers had to be called in to bring order to sectors where disturbances had broken out. When Pope Pius IX assumed office in 1846, he made a strong effort to introduce reforms—but the Pope was not a man of the world, nor did he have political gifts and economic know-how. During the first twenty-four months of his reign, Pius IX made concessions that upset many of his cardinals.

Tariffs were lowered, and commercial treaties were signed with other nations; railways were constructed; the law courts were reorganized, and local councils were set up.

But the Pope was destined to fail as a temporal sovereign. With the coming of the Risorgimento (Italy’s unification movement), Pope Pius could not continue to hold the Papal States, which are now comprised within the provinces of Bologna, Ferrara, Forli, Ravenna, Pesaro and Urbino, Ancona, Macerata, Ascoli-Piceno, Perugia, Rome, and Benevento. But for the intervention of French armies, this land would have been lost much earlier. When the Kingdom of Italy was formed in 1860, the Papal States were reduced to 4,891 square miles (with a population of about 692,000) to include the Comarca of Rome, the legation of Velletri, and the three delegations of Viterbo, Civitavecchia, and Frosinone. In September 1870, however, when the Franco-Prussian War forced France to withdraw its garrisons from papal soil, Italian troops marched into Rome and terminated the temporal power of the Pope.

Refusing to recognize the fait accompli, Pius voluntarily made himself the “prisoner” of the Vatican. For the next fifty-nine years the popes who followed Pius IX —Leo XIII (1878-1903), Pius X (1903-1914), Benedict XV (1914-1922), and Pius XI (1922-1939)— also enclosed themselves in voluntary captivity in the Vatican. This self-imprisonment kept the so-called Roman Question alive for over half a century; not until the signing of the Lateran Treaty in 1929 did the Vatican accept compensation for its territorial loss. Only then did the long exile behind Vatican walls come to an end.

Not much can be said about the Vatican’s financial situation from 1815 to 1929, for very little is known about this era. However, it appears that in 1848 the Papal States had, by good sense and economy, brought about a balance between receipts and expenditures. But, according to an obscure statement published by a Father Cha-mard in the Annales Ecclesiastiques, this equilibrium was apparently upset in 1859.

“Without doubt,” wrote Father Chamard, “from a financial point of view, the intervention of France in the settlement of the pontifical debts has diminished the annual charges, but it should not be forgotten that even after the settlement, the papal treasury still has to pay out in interest $4,267,542. If to this sum is added the ensemble of expenses calculated for 1869 at $7,848,485, the total sum arrived at passes $12,000,000. But the ordinary resources of the Sovereign Pontiff cannot support more than half this sum. Therefore $6,000,000 is the amount the faithful must supply.”

To help the Vatican meet its expenses, the voluntary contribution known as Peter’s Pence was revived in the United States in 1868, when the second Plenary Council of Baltimore decreed that a collection be taken up for the pope once a year in all American churches. Announcing the restoration of the tax, Herbert Cardinal Vaughan made some frank disclosures about the Vatican’s financial position:

The financial condition of the Holy See from the date of the return of the Pope from Gaeta to the year 1859 has become each year more satisfactory. . . . But in the month of September 1859, Pius IX was despoiled of two thirds of his states. The Romagna, or fifteen provinces, were invaded and annexed to Piedmont. By this act the revenue of the Holy See, which had been 54,000,000 francs (or £2,100,000, or$10,800,000), was reduced to 28,000,000 francs. This might still have sufficed both for the administration of the five remaining provinces and for the government, but for the debt.

The debt amounted to 24,000,000 francs a year. It hadbeen contracted on behalf of all the provinces making up thePapal States. To the fifteen provinces annexed by Piedmontbelonged 18,000,000 to 19,000,000 of the interest to be paid, as their fair proportion. The robber, however, refused to takeover the burdens with the stolen provinces. . . .

Within six weeks of the occupation of the Romagna by thePiedmontese a cry for Peter’s Pence had arisen in England . . . exactly three centuries after it had fallen away under Elizabeth. . . .

The sum total in Peter’s Pence paid into the apostolic chamber from the end of 1859 to the end of 1865 was 45,600,000 francs. Nearly the whole of this sum was, we know from the note of M. de Corcelle, the French ambassador in Rome, employed in payment of the debt and in meeting the deficit created in the papal treasury by the Piedmontese invasion. Considerable sums continued to be collected and laid at the feet of Pius IX up to the last year of his reign. . . . On theaccession of our Holy Father, Pope Leo XIII, fabulous reports were circulated as to the wealth accumulated in Peter’sPence. This was done by enemies of the Church to deceive the people and dry up the stream of their loving gifts. But thefact is that the small sum which had been invested has again and again been diminished during the last two years in order to meet the absolute necessities of the Holy See.

But, you may perhaps inquire, What are the actual necessities of the Holy See?

The actual necessities of the Holy See are the actual requirements of Christendom. It is therefore for Christendom to meet them. . . . The actual income of the Holy See, derivable from permanent and settled sources, is said to have been reduced by spoliation to £60,000. . . . Finally, as to the personal expenses of the Holy Father, they form a sum soinsignificant as to be absolutely inappreciable in the generalexpenditure. Personally sparing and truly mortified, his habitsare those of a tertiary of the poor and humble St. Francis.

Coming now to the income actually required, it has been estimated that the smallest sum that will suffice for the Holy See and the central government of the Church is about£350,000. It is said that all told about five thousand persons, including old impiegati [employees], are dependent upon the Holy See. The sum we have mentioned, if divided equally, would not afford to each of these the wages of a commonEnglish mechanic, while leaving nothing for the Pope’s privy purse, for household expenses, for diplomatic expenses, for fabrics, for libraries, for offices, for printing and stationery, and for other inevitable incidental charges.

Whether the sum finally collected from the Peter’s Pence of 1868 sufficed was never made known. But in July of 1870, the Vatican floated a loan of $200,000 from the House of Rothschild. Estimates at the turn of the century indicated that the Vatican needed $4 million a year to make ends meet.

During this period, the Vatican had its then-usual sources of income. There were monies from direct taxa- tion—that is to say, from fees attached to various functions like marriages, baptisms, and funerals. The sale of official stamped paper for documents always brought in some revenue. Also there were legacies (which in some instances reached astonishing sums). There were also gifts that came from pilgrims in Rome; some pilgrimages brought groups of a thousand or more men and women, each of whom by tradition would leave a gift of money, never less than a dollar from American visitors. These small gifts added up. Another important contribution to the Vatican treasury in those days came from the domains of Assisi, Loreto, and Padua, from which land taxes were exacted. A percentage of the offerings received at the Shrine of Lourdes also helped fill the Pope’s coffers. Masses were sold (to mitigate the purgatorial sufferings of the dead), as were relics (articles of saints’ clothing, eating utensils saints had used, etc.), as were images of the Madonna, as were candles and rosaries—and pieces of straw from the straw bed of the self-imprisoned Pope Pius IX. Coupons—repayable in heaven—were sold. And last but not least, there was the sale of annulments.

But this income wasn’t enough, apparently. Several times before the signing of the Lateran Treaty, the Vatican had to dispose of some of its properties in Rome in order to meet expenses and deficits. In 1880, to give Pope Leo XIII a helping hand, a group of noblemen whose families had been closely allied to the Church for centuries founded a bank, the Banco di Roma, on behalf of the Vatican. With capital supplied by the friendly aristocracy, the Banco di Roma mostly concerned itself with the acquisition of real estate. In 1882, the bank bought the controlling interest in an English company that supplied water to Rome, and the company changed its name to La Societa dell’Acqua Pia Antica Marcia. The Vatican eventually took over the company, and ran it until 1962, when most of its aqueducts, mains, tubes, pipes, and equipment were sold to a private syndicate. In 1885, the Banco di Roma bought control of Rome’s trolley and bus system, too. But, by 1898, the bank had twice been forced to reduce its capitalization and was close to failing. It barely managed to survive until Bernardino Nogara intervened and put it back on its feet.

The lack of business know-how exemplified in the operation of the Banco di Roma kept the Vatican just about barely even for the half century before World War I. But, despite financial slumps with which none of the popes seemed able to cope, the Vatican chose not to make public its financial position.

Somehow, the Vatican managed to keep afloat during World War I, but after the war the Vatican was still trying to learn how to swim in the swirling currents of twentieth-century economics. In 1919, the Pope sent a representative to the United States to negotiate a loan believed to be in the vicinity of $1 million. But the Vatican apparently went about it in the wrong way, and the loan never materialized. The Vatican was rescued, however— by the Knights of Columbus, which that year had planned a pilgrimage to Rome. The visiting delegates brought with them a gift to the Pope of approximately $250,000. As far as the public record is concerned, the only other time in history that the Pope engaged in money- raising negotiations was in 1928, when a Vatican loan of $1.5 million was floated through George Cardinal Mundelein; the loan was backed by Church property in Chicago worth several million dollars.

Financially, the Vatican was in trouble after World War I. But very few people knew about it. By 1922, when Pope Benedict XV died, the papacy was well-nigh bankrupt. Like all of his predecessors, Benedict had been generous. But, unlike his predecessors, Benedict had no idea how much money he was giving out to charity. When he assumed the pontifical chair in 1914, he made no attempt to find out how much was in the apostolic sugar bowl. Benedict gave out money faster than the Vatican machinery could bring it in. In his desk drawer the Pope kept huge sums, and he would hand money freely to any priest who came to him with a tale of woe. The overgenerous pontiff also made personal contributions for the creation of schools, convents, missionary settlements, and the like. Never did he give a thought to where the money was coming from.

A seemingly authentic story is told about Benedict’s meeting with a bishop who was then engaged in building a convent in Palestine. The bishop, visiting Benedict on other matters, had been warned by papal advisors not to mention the project to His Holiness because there was no more “loose change” in the pontifical desk drawer. Thus the bishop talked to the Pope on general subjects—the number of conversions achieved in Palestine, the position of the Catholic religion in the Middle East, and so on. When at last it came time for the bishop to leave, Benedict said to him, “And what of your convent?”

The bishop stammered and managed to say that the building was coming along slowly, but just fine.

“In that case,” said Benedict, “we shall contribute.” He opened up the center drawer, where he usually kept his pin money and after foraging around found nothing, smiled, pulled open a bottom drawer on the side of the desk, and dumped out the contents. “Here,” he said, “take this!” and handed the bishop $6,250.

If Pope Benedict was a flop as a manager of money, his successor, Pius XI, was possibly even more of a flop. The day after Pius XI took office, he presented the sum of $26,000 to the German cardinals to help countrymen who had suffered when the value of the mark declined. A few months later, still having made no accounting of how much money was in the Vatican treasury, Pius handed out $62,500 for a sanatorium at Thorenc, France. In the same year he also contributed $156,250 to help Russia, then opened up his purse once again and presented the poor people of Rome with $9,375. He also gave $50,000 to the victims of the Smyrna fire, $12,500 to the Catholic Institute at Cologne, and $3,125 to the Perretti Institute. The next year, 1923, Pius XI contributed $81,250 for hungry Germans, $21,875 to the Viennese, and $20,000 for Japanese earthquake victims.

Such prodigality had to lead to a day of reckoning. And it came when Monsignor Dominique Mariani, a secretary of the cardinals’ committee for the management of the Holy See’s property, made an inventory and discovered that the Vatican was virtually broke. Given the title Monsignor Elemosiniere Segreto, Mariani instituted some reforms, always with the Pope’s blessing, and every Thursday would sit down with His Holiness and go over the expenses of the past week, down to the tiniest detail. For the first time in Vatican history, a common-sense bookkeeping system was instituted.

Through the efforts of Mariani, the Vatican began to face the problem of its deficits. The first audit in Church history, made in 1928, showed that the Vatican’s expenses in a given day often came to $5,000. Fortunately, they were covered by income. To all intents and purposes, the Vatican was down to its bottom dollar that year, but the audit did turn up a “lost” $55,000, which saved the day.

The 1928 Pontifical Annual made the following brief report on the new measures being taken to reorganize the Vatican’s household economy:

His Holiness Pius XI . . . has reformed the administration of Vatican finances. The entire administration of the Apostolic Palace is placed under the control of a commission of cardinals. The gifts of the faithful brought to Rome by the bishops are a sum kept apart, administered by the personal control of the Pope, paid by a person of confidence who keepsa book in which are marked all receipts and expenses, andwhich is balanced at the end of each week. Expenses figure annually about $1,052,631. The bookkeeping is carried out according to the most modern principles and is severely controlled.

The Vatican was beginning to take control of its financial affairs, but another problem loomed during the late nineteen-twenties to cause the Pope distress. Relations between the papacy and the Mussolini regime had deteriorated to a state of reciprocal distrust and outright hostility. There were so many conflicts between the Red Velvets of Pius and the Black Shirts of Il Duce that a volume would be necessary to detail them all. In one speech Mussolini wryly reminded everyone, “It must be understood that between the Italian State and the Vatican City there is a distance which can be measured in thousands of miles, even if it requires only five minutes to go and see it and ten minutes to walk around its confines.”

Yet Mussolini, who had been called a devil by the Pope, was to do more for the Vatican than any man, any cleric, any pope, in all history. Perhaps Mussolini himself wrote the best footnote on this subject. In an article written for the French newspaper Figaro, he stated, “The history of Western civilization from the time of the Roman Empire to our day shows that every time the state clashes with religion, it is always the state which ends defeated.”

These words were written after 1929, the year in which Italy signed the Lateran Treaty, and helped create for the Vatican the best of all possible worlds.

The Lateran Treaty V

“Mussolini was the man sent by Providence.”

(Pope Pius XI)

AN EXTREMELY SUPERSTITIOUS man, and quite unashamed of it, Benito Mussolini, who ruled Italy with an iron hand from 1922 until 1943, often during public appearances unabashedly put his hand into his pocket to tap his private parts for good luck. He believed the gesture would protect him in case someone in his presence had the “evil eye.” Mussolini had some other questionable beliefs. He gave credence to the ill effects of the cold light of the moon upon the face of a sleeping man and to the prognostications of fortune-tellers and palm readers. Swayed though he was by the occult sciences, Mussolini never believed in God, nor, except for political convenience, did he ever call himself a Catholic.

Yet no man did more for the Vatican than did the Italian dictator. When he signed the Lateran Treaty with the Pope on February 11, 1929, he gave the Church a “shot in the arm” that proved to be critical in its economic history. Generally speaking, many people know of the Lateran Treaty, but very few know about it—why it came about, what its provisions were, and how it provided the Church with the springboard it needed to jump into Italy’s economy. If politics alone can be said to make strange bedfellows, then politics mixed with religion produces associations that defy characterization. Such was that of Il Duce and the Pope at the end of the nineteen- twenties.

Why did these two previously incompatible individuals, with their incompatible ideas, undergo a wedding of sorts? And what of the offspring produced by this “marriage of convenience”?

Before and after he assumed power in 1922, Mussolini had frequently boasted of being a nonbeliever; in fact, no one who knew him had ever known him to attend mass. Realizing, however, that Church support was indispensable to his plans, he sought to cater to the clergy. Among other things, he brought the crucifix back into the classrooms of Italy, abolished Freemasonry, and granted churches substantial amounts of money to repair the buildings damaged during World War I. Il Duce even went so far as to go through a belated religious marriage to his wife and to have his growing children baptized in the Catholic rites. In time, the man who had once written a pamphlet entitled God Does Not Exist, and who had freely blasphemed and frequently attacked the Church, sometimes, through propaganda, attempted to palm himself off as a practicing Catholic and a professed believer. Very few people ever questioned him about his change of heart. Members of the clergy were particularly silent on the subject, for the clergy more than welcomed his stentorian support.

Because he needed help in entrenching himself as a political power, and wanted to improve his public image both in Italy and abroad, Mussolini paved the way for the settlement of the Vatican’s long-standing grievance against the Italian state. The so-called Papal States lost during the Risorgimento had covered an area of some seventeen thousand square miles, including all of the city of Rome and a large hunk of territory north of the Eternal City and south of the River Po. The papal lands extended from the Tyrrhenian Sea to the Adriatic and included more than three million people. Although the popes had been hostile to the Risorgimento, by 1929 the Vatican was willing to accept a settlement for the loss of its temporal powers. When the Duce offered to make a deal, Pope Pius XI acceded.

It was raining heavily when Pietro Cardinal Gasparri drove into the Piazza Laterana on February 11, 1929, the day the agreement was to be signed. The noontime bells of the churches rang out, and Mussolini and his aides entered the Lateran Palace, to be greeted by Pope Pius’ representatives. The signing was to take place in the same room in which Charlemagne had been the guest of Leo III over a thousand years earlier. Atop the long table—a gift of the Philippine Islands—were the inkwells, the blotters, the papers.

Nodding to the Duce as he entered the room, Cardinal Gasparri said, “I am happy to welcome you to our parochial house, and I rejoice that the treaties are being signed on the feast day of Notre Dame de Lourdes.”

Mussolini registered no sign of recognition at this remark; the Cardinal then added, “And on the seventh anniversary of the coronation of His Holiness.”

“Oh yes!” Mussolini said suddenly. “That particular coincidence has not escaped me!” In silence the dictator went to the table and sat down alongside the Cardinal. Pius had sent a gold pen, blessed by him, and after the Duce had affixed his signature and all the documents had been exchanged, Gasparri presented him the pen as a gift from the Pope. The two men shook hands and left the room. The whole affair had lasted less than thirty minutes.

When the news of the Church-State treaty was finally announced, the local citizenry—as well as the rest of the world—was startled. The Italian public, clearly pleased, accorded Benito Mussolini an overflow of support, which he himself had not perhaps anticipated. He became an idol to Catholic Italy. In thousands of homes, people cut pictures of the Duce from magazines and newspapers and pasted them on kitchen and living room walls. Youths splashed pro-Duce slogans in white paint on any flat surface available. Shovels he had used to inaugurate public projects were prized as relics. Wine glasses from which he had sipped were lovingly placed on shelves by restaurant owners. Young women by the thousands offered their favors to his virility—and let it be said that many of them, in fact, were ushered into the Duce’s chambers.

But if the Lateran Treaty was a major coup for Mussolini, it was to be an even bigger victory for the Vatican. Mussolini, like all his bloodstained predecessors, has gone the way of all flesh, but the Vatican remains. And today the Vatican is solidly entrenched in the Italian economy.

The 1929 treaty was actually a unity of three separate agreements: the Lateran Pact, which provided for the creation of the new State of Vatican City; the Financial Convention, which granted payments to the Church for the loss of its temporal powers; and the Concordat, which gave the Vatican powers and privileges to administer its own special affairs.

According to the articles of the Lateran Pact, the State of Vatican City was set up as a sovereign entity. Three basilicas—San Giovanni Laterano, Santa Maria Mag-giore, and San Paolo—and their accompanying buildings were classified as extraterritorial and were given immunity from Italian property taxes and real estate laws; the same status and immunity were given to the pontifical villa at Castel Gandolfo, where popes have traditionally spent their summer months, and also to a number of Church-owned office buildings in various parts of Rome. The Vatican agreed to recognize the existence of Italy and Italy’s occupation of Rome as a permanent thing. And Italy agreed to accept the Church’s canon law, which meant that divorces could not be granted by the state and that marriage ceremonies performed in church would fulfill civil requirements.

Under the terms of the Financial Convention, Italy consented to make a large money settlement for the loss of Vatican properties. A sum of $40 million was paid in one lump; in addition, 5 percent government bonds worth about $50 million were transferred to the Holy See. Italy also agreed to pay the salaries of parish priests stationed on its soil. (During the summer of 1959, the Italian parliament passed a law revising the pay scale provided for by this original agreement. Priests now receive $529 a year from the Italian government; higher-ranking clerics get about $600. Over thirty thousand priests are currently on the Italian payroll, a fact not generally known, even to the Italian people.)

The third document of the Lateran Treaty, the Concordat, carried a number of economic clauses that were of special interest to the Vatican. Members of the Roman Catholic clergy and citizens of the State of Vatican City were exempted from paying Italian taxes. The Church was given control of the various organizations, lay and clerical, functioning in the name of Catholicism throughout Italy. This meant that the Vatican would supervise the financial affairs of these organizations, which were referred to and defined as “ecclesiastical corporations.” It also meant that the Italian government would have no legal right to intervene in activities of these organizations and could not block the formation of any new organization to which a pope granted approval.

The Concordat also stipulated that Protestant Bibles could no longer be distributed in Italy, that evangelical meetings in private homes were forbidden, and that Catholicism was to be Italy’s official religion. Furthermore, religious teaching was to be extended into state schools and religion made a compulsory subject at the primary and secondary levels; Church-related educational institutions were to receive preferences over similar lay or state institutions. Finally, February 11 was named a national holiday to commemorate the signing of the treaty.

The noneconomic consequences the Lateran Treaty was to have in Italy need not concern us here. The financial effects of the pact were far reaching, however, though not immediately visible. On June 7, the very day the Lateran Treaty was ratified, Pope Pius created the Holy See’s Special Administration and appointed Bernardino Nogara, a relative of the Archbishop of Udine, to watch over the large sum of money the Italian government had granted the Vatican. From the time Nogara received his appointment the names of prominent and trusted Vatican laymen began to appear on the boards of directors of various Italian companies. Significantly, Nogara’s name rarely if ever showed on any company’s roster of officers, but it is known that no Vatican layman, no matter how good his rapport with the pontifical family, could receive such an appointment if he did not have the blessing of Nogara. It should be mentioned that in later years the Nogara name did appear on a few corporation listings, where it was teamed in each case with several other key Vatican names.

What can be deduced from this is that Nogara wanted his own men in at the policy-making level of any company in which he placed Vatican funds. He made his careful investments one by one, and he appointed an “agent” to go with each. Where the sum was big, so was the name. Where the sum was bigger, several Vatican names could be found. Nogara never put “his” money into anything unless the sentinel went along.

One of Nogara’s early targets was a gas combine called Italgas. Soon after the end of World War I, an Italian financier by the name of Rinaldo Panzarasa managed to get control of six small gas companies. These were La Stige, Italgas, La Societa Italiana Industria Gas di Torino, La Gas e Coke di Milano, La Veneta Industria Gas di Venezia, and La Romana Gas; they furnished home fuel for twelve of Italy’s largest cities, including Milan, Rome, Turin, and Venice. The companies were grouped by Panzarasa into a combine that came to be known as Italgas —and didn’t prosper. In fact, Panzarasa’s gas fortunes, figuratively, exploded.

By 1932, the worth of Panzarasa’s group of companies had plunged from $13.7 million to $1.4 million. Italgas was in trouble, and when the Fascist Italian government refused Panzarasa any kind of financial help, Nogara moved in swiftly. With Senator Alfredo Frassati and the Marquis Francesco Pacelli (whose brother later became Pope Pius XII) providing the front, Italgas fell into the embrace of the Vatican. Nogara built up this decadent organization so that it could begin to service other major cities in Italy. Today Italgas, which sold a total of 679 million cubic meters of gas during the fiscal year 1967-8, is the sole supplier of gas for Italian homes in thirty-six cities. The Vatican remains its controlling stockholder.

But all was not clear sailing after the Vatican embarked for new financial horizons. Italy, like other parts of the world, was lashed by economic storms between 1929 and 1933. Three of the country’s major banks in which the Vatican had invested heavily—the Banco di Roma, the Banco di Santo Spirito, and the Sardinian Land Credit — were floundering. Among other problems, the largest of these banks, the Banco di Roma, possessed large packets of securities that had lost much of their worth and nearly all of their prestige. No one knows, even to this day, what deal Nogara made with Mussolini to bail out the Vatican, but in short order the moribund shares were transferred to the government holding company, I.R.I. (Istituto di Ricostruzione Industriale), that the Duce had formed as a catchall for shaky industrial organizations and banks. Mussolini, whose ignorance of economics made him an easy target for Nogara, let the Vatican bank transfer the securities, not for the current market prices, but for prices commensurate with their original worth. All told, I.R.I. paid the bank approximately $632 million—a sum far in excess of what the securities were then worth. The tremendous loss was written off by the Italian treasury.

Between 1929 and the outbreak of World War II, Nogara assigned Vatican capital and Vatican agents to work in diversified areas of Italy’s economy—particularly in electric power, telephone communications, credit and banking, small railroads, and the production of agricultural implements, cement, and artificial textile fibers. Many of these ventures paid off.

Nogara gobbled up a number of companies including La Societa Italiana della Viscosa, La Supertessile, La Societa Meridionale Industrie Tessili, and La Cisaraion. Fusing these into one company, which he named CISA-Viscosa and placed under the command of Baron Francesco Maria Oddasso, one of the most highly trusted Vatican laymen, Nogara then maneuvered the absorption of the new company by Italy’s largest textile manufacturer, SNIA- Viscosa. Eventually the Vatican interest in SNIA-Viscosa grew larger and larger, and in time the Vatican took control—as witness the fact that Baron Oddasso subsequently became vice president.

Thus did Nogara penetrate the textile industry. He penetrated other industries in other ways, for Nogara had many tricks up his sleeve. This selfless man, who probably did more to infuse life into the Italian economy than did any other single businessman in Italy’s history, recognized that the subsurface strength of the Lateran Treaty lay in Clauses 29, 30, and 31 of the Concordat. Although some intellectuals had inveighed against the concessions Italy had made on education, marriage, and divorce, few observers had paid any close attention to those clauses of the Lateran Treaty that were mainly economic in nature. To most people they seemed of secondary importance.

But not to Nogara, the man with the dollar sign on his mind and the sign of the Cross in his heart. Clauses 29, 30, and 31 dealt with tax exemptions and the formation of new, tax-exempt “ecclesiastical corporations,” over which the Italian state would have no controls.

Nogara reasoned that if he could get Mussolini to put a liberal interpretation on the word “ecclesiastical,” he would be able to save Vatican corporations millions of dollars a year in Italian taxes. This was no small task, yet the Vatican Hercules succeeded at it.

The cunning Nogara euchred Mussolini into granting every Catholic corporation, whether its actual function was ecclesiastical or fiscal, either full exemption from taxes or substantial tax abatements. Somehow, Mussolini was convinced that a Vatican-owned bank was “a temple doing the work of God”! and that what was good for God was good for the Vatican—and that that was good for Italy.

The friendship of the Vatican and the Fascists continued throughout most of the thirties. It was especially strong after Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935. A Nogara munitions plant supplied arms for the Italian army. But the friendship started to wane toward the end of the reign of Pius XI, who died in 1939.

When Pius XII took possession of the pontifical throne, Mussolini, who was suspicious of his polyglot intellectualism and believed him to possess the “evil eye,” refused to kneel and kiss his hand, and he commanded photographers not to take pictures of him and Pius XII which would in any way convey the idea the Duce might be the humble servant of the Church. Relations between the Italian dictator and the Vatican had crumbled, but by then the Catholic Church was well entrenched in the Italian economy. Nogara was still steering the financial ship, and the Church had no worries about its future course.

Benito Mussolini had never quite been able to achieve the empire of which he dreamed, but he enabled the Vatican and Bernardino Nogara to create a dominion of another kind.

What Is the Pope? VI

ONCE, DURING A solemn and symbolic ceremony in St. Peter’s Basilica, when knickered throne-bearers were carrying Pope Pius XII down the center aisle, a little Italian boy of about twelve cried out to the pontiff in a voice plain to hear, “Santo Padre, I want to be like you someday—I want to be pope!”

His Holiness smiled at the lad and, as the dais-bearing porters paused for a moment, made a sign of the Cross, bent forward in his ornamented chair, and was overheard to say in whispered tones, “My son, being a pope isn’t as great as you think.”

Still awed by the sight of the pontiff’s tall tiara and white-and-gold robe, the boy shrugged his shoulders in reverent resignation and said, “Then I don’t want to be the pope either.”

It might be appropriate here to examine the office of the papacy from a new angle. Theologians delve deeply into such questions as, Why is the Pope? and, Who is the Pope? Newspaper correspondents in Rome file thousands of words of copy each year on, Where is the Pope? and How is the Pope? Few writers, however, deal with what may be the most significant question of all, What is the Pope?

At first this may not seem like a proper question, and yet the answer provides insight into the workings of the least populated state in the world, whose leader rules over the largest number of organized people in the world— some 550 million Roman Catholics. Since the 322 million Mohammedans, the 309 million Hindus, the 300 million Confucians, and the 202 million Protestants have never been able to overtake the Catholics in terms of numbers, the Vatican chief executive is the spiritual leader of the largest religious group on our planet.

The papal office is not without its impressive array of titles, official and unofficial. Officially the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, Successor of the Prince of Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Servant of the Servants of God, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, and Sovereign of the State of Vatican City. Unofficially he is often called Rector of the World upon Earth, Father of Princes and Kings, Supreme Pontiff, and Pontifex Maximus. This last name is usually seen in abbreviated form, as “Pont.Max.” (with no separation at the middle period). The Latin word pontifex means builder of bridges, and in ancient Rome the title Pontifex Maximus was given to the luminary who presided when a bridge was erected across the Tiber and the spirits of the river had to be conciliated. At the time of his murder, Julius Caesar was the Pontifex Maximus, but in the year 440 the title was transferred to Pope Leo I, and it has since unofficially remained with the papacy. Although no inscription on a fountain, building, or tomb in Rome seems complete unless a “Pont.Max.” is included, no pope has personally used the signature for centuries. From the time of Gregory the Great, who died in the year 604, the title employed on papal bulls has been Servus Servorum Dei, Servant of the Servants of God.

The Vatican Archives contain a copy of a papal letter, an answer to one from Queen Victoria, indicating what one pontiff thought of his various designations. Queen Victoria, who apparently did not want to give acknowledgment to any of the papal titles, began her letter (which is also in the Vatican Archives) with “Most Eminent Sir” instead of the usual “Your Holiness.” The pontiff was apparently offended. In his reply, he addressed Victoria as “The Most Serene and Powerful Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Other Regions, Illustrious Empress of India.”

In Italy, the pope is generally called Il Papa, a title that comes from pater patrum, a Latin phrase meaning father of fathers. He is also referred to, most commonly in Rome, by the family name he gave up when elected. Thus the Romans call Pope Paul VI Papa Montini, just as they called Pope John XXIII Papa Roncalli, and Pius XII Papa Pacelli. To some people, the use of the last name may seem disrespectful or irreverent. It isn’t, however. For one thing, the Italians are accustomed to having the pope in their midst. He may be idolized, worshiped, and esteemed by pious Italians, but he is often taken for granted in Rome and is regarded in other parts of Italy more as a man than as a saintly being.

Without meaning any insult whatever, the Italians tell many jokes about the papacy. One especially good anecdote made the rounds when Clare Booth Luce was the United States ambassador to Italy (l’ambassatrice, the Italians called her).

Converts, say the Italians, are the most fervent of Catholics. The story is about the time Mrs. Luce, a convert, was received in private audience by Pope Pius XII. Neither she nor the Pope emerged from the reception chamber for a long, long time. Vatican aides began to fret. After several hours they peeked into the room. The Pope was backed up into a corner; Mrs. Luce, talking a blue streak, paused for breath. “But, Mrs. Luce,” the aides heard the Pope say in a gentle, yet quivering voice, “I already am a Roman Catholic!”

Another story, told by Bill Pepper, Newsweek’s former resident correspondent in Rome, is perhaps closer to the truth. It concerns the first time Pope John’s relatives visited the Apostolic Palace after his coronation. An impressive experience for anyone, a papal audience can evoke in a devout person a tremendous sense of humility. On the occasion of the special audience for John’s family, the relatives walked timidly through the golden halls, past the omnipresent Swiss Guards. When they saw John, dressed in his pontifical white robes, they dropped to their knees and bowed their heads.

“Lasciate perdere (Forget all that)!” said John. “Don’t be afraid. It’s only me!”

When a man is elected pope, he loses many things. He loses his family name. He loses most of the civil ties that bind him to the country of his birth. Moreover, a new pope finds that his daily life is regulated, often down to the most minute detail, by tradition. The men around him may change, but those who replace them have the same functions to carry out, according to the same well- imbedded customs.

The pope’s confessor, an ordinary priest, must be a Jesuit; he must visit the Vatican once a week at a fixed time, and he alone may absolve the pope of his sins. The master of the Apostolic Palace must be a Dominican; the sacristan an Augustinian. If a pope changed any of this, a whole religious order would regard the gesture as an affront.

Newly elected popes have reacted in many ways when they realized they had become the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. Pius X, a simple man, was at first terrified to find himself a monarch who is a slave to his mission. Pointing at the Swiss Guards standing sentry outside his apartment, he once whispered to an old friend, “There are my jailers!”

One of former New York Herald Tribune Rome correspondent Barrett McGurn’s favorite stories has to do with the time Pius XII was readying a speech for the occasion of an English Catholic centennial.

“How do you pronounce ‘centenary’?” he asked an American prelate. “SEN-tenerry,” answered the Yank, putting the accent on the first syllable. “But don’t the British say sin-TEE-nerry?” the pontiff asked. “Yes, Your Holiness—but four fifths of the English- speaking world speak in American style.” “But it’s the English language—the British started it. It’s for them to say how it should be used.”

“Sin-TEE-nerry,” with the accented second syllable, was the way the Pope pronounced it during his discourse a few days later. Nevertheless, when an English bishop paid a visit some time after that, Pius made haste to ask him, “How do you pronounce ‘centenary’?” For the rest of his life the polyglot Pope kept seeking opinions on that one word.

The pope, being one of the world’s few absolute rulers, is not easy to speak with—yet he is the easiest chief of state to see. Most popes hold frequent audiences in the Apostolic Palace (Paul VI’s audiences are often on Wednesdays at noon). On Sundays, usually at noon, popes customarily appear at the window of the top-floor papal apartment to bless the crowds standing in St. Peter’s Square. Pope John emerged many times from his sheltered quarters to make visits in Rome and in other parts of Italy. Paul VI has visited more countries (India, the Middle Eastern countries, the United States, Portugal, Turkey, Colombia) than any other pope in history— and each time his presence has attracted huge crowds of Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

There is no question of the pope’s charismatic appeal. Despite the fact that there are millions of people who owe the pope no spiritual allegiance, papal influence in world affairs has compelled nations and their leaders to extend the pope diplomatic courtesies normally reserved for civil rulers. No other religious leader in the world is afforded such treatment. No single state officer has been such a consistent drawing card, away from his immediate domain, as has the man who sits on Peter’s Chair in the Eternal City.

Avro Manhattan, a frequent commentator on Vatican affairs, attributes much of the papal lure to the dual nature of the Church. He once told me in a taped interview, “Although the most uniform of religious institutions, the Church is also the most diversified. While the most unchangeable, she has a genius for adaptability; and while constantly obsessed with things pertaining to a future life, she is vigorously active in controlling things pertaining to this world. Last but not least, she has the greatest centralization of power in the world.

“Her administration,” Manhattan continued, “is unique. Although a church, she is at the same time a sovereign government. Although a mighty religious institution, she is also a mighty political presence and a major economic center. Although her officials are drawn from many nationalities, when acting as members of her government they have none; while speaking the major languages of the world, she issues her ordinances in one which only a few can understand. Although territorially the smallest state in existence, hers is the most significant in the world. And although neither an empire, a kingdom, nor a republic, it is a mixture of all three.

“The head of such government wears not one but three crowns. Although without an army, a navy, or hydrogen bombs, he has more power than if he had at his disposal the greatest arsenal on the globe. Spiritually and hierarchically, no one is above him except God, the source of his authority.”

Once again we come, then, to the question, What is the Pope? This can be answered or explained in part by reviewing the duties, responsibilities, powers, and operations of the papacy.

Lord paramount of the Holy See, the pope is first among his bishops, all of whom come under his direct jurisdiction; in theory he has full and absolute power over the Roman Catholic Church. Every decree requires his approval. He can obey or ignore precedent. He can set aside tradition; he can write (or rewrite) constitutions; he can change discipline without consultation; he can proclaim dogmas on his own. Although on important matters the pope is supposed to seek counsel and advice from the College of Cardinals, he is empowered to make up his own mind and take action. On theological questions, the pope invariably consults with his bishops and cardinals, but, on matters of high policy, he may evolve a course of action without any previous consultations, as did Pope John when, without calling in the Curia cardinals for their views, he decided to go ahead with the Ecumenical Council.

The pope has executive as well as legislative and judiciary powers. He can be judged by no man, and there is no appeal from his decisions. In this respect his position is tantamount to that of a sovereign who cannot be brought to court. Acting in his executive capacity, the pope may (1) approve or sanction or suppress religious orders, (2) grant indulgences, (3) beatify or canonize saints, (4) appoint bishops, (5) erect, administer, alter, or suppress bishoprics, (6) assign an auxiliary bishop to one who is incapacitated, (7) found and legislate for papal universities, (8) issue liturgical books, (9) administer the temporal goods of ecclesiastical foundations, (10) erect and govern missions dependent on the Holy See.

As a legislator, the pope may (1) call, preside over, and adjourn ecumenical councils, (2) regulate holy days and Catholic feasts, (3) introduce new rites and abrogate old ones, (4) issue ex cathedra decretals on belief, (5) introduce, alter, or suppress Church laws on any subject, (6) defend doctrine against heresies, (7) define fast days and periods of fasting. Also liberally defined are the pope’s judicial duties. He may (1) relax vows and oaths for members of the religious who want to return to secular life, (2) give matrimonial dispensations, (3) act as a court, (4) establish rules of judicial procedure, (5) establish censures or punishments, (6) organize courts for hearing cases, (7) organize courts or appoint synodal judges for the diocese of Rome.

Inasmuch as the men elected to the papacy tend to be advanced in years, there is always the question of whether a septuagenarian or an octogenarian could become mentally enfeebled while serving as pontiff. Rome correspondent Robert Neville once took this problem to a Vatican prelate and asked him what would happen if a pope were to lose his reason or become physically incapacitated. Neville pointed out that the fact that popes are elected for life, with no provisions either for their recall or for their abdication, and the further facts that there is no proviso in Church regulations for creating a regency and that the College of Cardinals cannot be legally convened to take over made the problem appear insoluble.

The Vatican officer said, “The Good Lord seems to protect the Church from such a catastrophe. Popes just apparently do not lose their mind or reason. But should the impossible happen, I believe the Vatican bureaucracy would act as an effective brake against rash or embarrassing acts.”

To better understand the question, What is the Pope? one must examine the structure of the Holy See, which is the government of the Vatican and of the Roman Catholic Church.

As the head of his church, the pope runs a vast business. He runs it as a corporate structure, working with twelve congregations (committees) of cardinals—a system that dates from the late sixteenth century—and with three apostolic tribunals and five departmental offices. Because he is the chief executive officer of the State of Vatican City, the pope is guaranteed independence of any civil power. No other religious leader in the world enjoys a comparable position.

To understand the foundations of papal authority is to understand who, why, and what a pope is. His primacy of jurisdiction, not only over the clerics but also over the hundreds of millions of the faithful, extends to matters affecting his religion, but it also extends to all other matters in which the Roman Catholic Church is interested throughout the world. Using his wide religious authority, the pope plays a distinctive role in the affairs of the world, exercising a power that is independent of his temporal position as head of Vatican City. The 550 million people who are Roman Catholics are but a modest number of the hundreds of millions who recognize the juridical sovereignty of the Holy See as a moral authority while not agreeing in substance with Catholicism’s theological basis.

Various countries of the world therefore maintain diplomatic relations with the Vatican. Papal ambassadors are to be found not only in Catholic nations but also in Protestant, Islamic, Buddhist, and atheist countries. An ambassador of the pope is called a nuncio, and he has the same status as the ambassador of any great power. At this writing, while Pope Paul is still reigning, the Vatican maintains official ambassadors in the following countries: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, China (Taiwan), Colombia, the Congo (Leopoldville), Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Korea (Seoul), Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Rwanda, Senegal, Spain, Switzerland, Syria, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

If a country does not have a nuncio, the Vatican bypasses the problem by nominating a representative without the official status of an ambassador; such representatives are called apostolic delegates. Officially an envoy of the pope, the apostolic delegate is unofficially an ambassador in the guise of an ecclesiastical official of the Catholic Church. He is not accredited by the government of the country in which he stays, but in practice he is usually given many of the courtesies and privileges extended to fully recognized ambassadors. At present, the following countries give hospitality to apostolic delegates: Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Great Britain, Greece, Laos, Mexico, New Zealand, Tanzania, Thailand, the United States, and Vietnam (Saigon). Apostolic delegates are also maintained in Copenhagen for the Scandinavian countries, in Algiers for North Africa, in Nairobi for East Africa, in Dakar for West Africa, in Pretoria for South Africa, in Lagos for Central West Africa, and in Yaounde for Central Africa.

Adjudged by the bar of world opinion and international law, the pope enjoys immunity from the territorial jurisdiction of any human authority. Consider what happened when Hitler’s occupation troops in Rome completely surrounded the pope’s tiny state. German soldiers never crossed the frontier. Had they decided to invade Vatican City, the blitzkrieg would have taken all of a half hour, and the man who was then pope would have been conquered—but not defeated. In his own way, Hitler provided a dramatic confirmation of the real, if intangible, moral authority of the pope, however diminutive his territory. The pontiff’s unique position in the world was aptly expressed by one writer, who said, “The pope is not sovereign because he is the ruler of the Vatican state; he is the ruler of the Vatican because he is a sovereign.”

The papal case is, of course, unique in contemporary international law and diplomatic practice. It is said that Winston Churchill, during a visit with Joseph Stalin, attempted to convince the Soviet dictator of the advisability of having the Vatican as an ally. Stalin, the story goes, asked derisively, “How many divisions does the Pope have?”

According to one reporter, the episode was related to Pope Pius, who commented, “Mr. Stalin will meet my legions in the other world!”

Of the pontiff’s celestial consociates little can be said here. In the practical day-to-day world of the twentieth century, His Holiness often depends on terrestrial colleagues to help him carry out his complex operations. The pope has under him the Roman Curia—the body of congregations, tribunals, and departmental offices. The congregations, corresponding somewhat to the ministries of other countries, include the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which before the recent Curia reforms was the Holy Office), the Congregation for Bishops (formerly the Consistorial Congregation), the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, the Congregation for the Discipline of Sacraments, the Congregation for the Clergy (formerly the Congregation of the Council), the Congregation for the Religious and for Secular Institutes (formerly the Congregation for the Religious), the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (which is now also called the Congregation for the Evangelization of the Nations), the Congregation of Rites, and the Congregation for Catholic Education (formerly the Congregation of Seminaries and Universities). Though these overlap a bit, the cardinals who serve in the Curia are formed into one of two “parties,” which comprise the conservative and the progressive elements. These “parties” can exercise pressure on given papal decisions— such as the bitter pill Paul was made to swallow with the recent encyclical against birth control.

Next to the pope himself, the single most important individual in the Vatican hierarchy is his immediate aide, the secretary of state—whose duties correspond to those of the prime minister in other government organizations. For most of his tenure in office (1939-1958), Pope Pius kept the post in his own hands. But this is not usually the case. Most popes have leaned heavily on the secretary of state—Pope John once described a secretary of state as “my closest collaborator”—because the secretary’s office has a variety of major functions. The secretary recommends to the pontiff the names of men to represent the Vatican abroad, has jurisdiction over all such appointees, gives instructions to Catholic lay organizations all over the world (thus often exerting pressure on the internal affairs of foreign countries), prepares the texts of agreements with foreign countries, participates in the appointment of bishops, confers Vatican honors and titles, and deals with such ecclesiastical questions as divorce and contraception. Often the secretary of state represents His Holiness at official ceremonies. The secretary sits on the pontifical committee for the government of Vatican City, and he serves as the Vatican’s chief negotiator. One of his most important duties is that of overseeing the cardinals’ committee on the finances of the Vatican.

Veritably the most active officer now in the Vatican, the present secretary of state is the only person who sees Pope Paul on matters of business at least once a day; often he communicates with his immediate superior over the phone as many as a dozen times in one morning. One of his duties is to prepare a daily summary of world press reports for the papal desk. Vatican authorities are inclined to believe the Pope is one of the best-informed chiefs of state in the world—better, they assert, than the President of the United States.

News of all kinds—ecclesiastical, political, economic —comes to the Vatican through a gigantic machine that extends to the remotest corners of the earth. Nuncios and apostolic delegates, who have access to the same information ambassadors and representatives of other governments do, send frequent reports to the secretary of state. But by far the most elaborate reports come from the bishops. Nearly fifteen hundred bishops, scattered all over the globe, send in periodic accounts on matters of interest to the Holy See. Consequently, an enormous amount of correspondence reaches the Vatican every day, including up-to-the-minute stock market analyses and incisive views of current economic trends.

In addition to this “espionage” service, the Vatican requires that each bishop come to Rome to see the Pope personally at least once every five years if he is stationed in Europe, and once every ten years if he is stationed elsewhere. On his arrival, the visitor must submit a report on his diocese; the report must answer a specific set of questions, which covers spiritual, ecclesiastical, social, physical, and economic conditions among the clergy and the parishioners. Considered extraordinarily accurate, these reports go deeply into the sentiments and feelings of the populace of the countries or regions concerned. Any bishop—or for that matter, any clergyman of any rank— who has a report of an urgent nature can communicate in code with the Vatican’s secretary of state by cable or by radio. The secretary of state will quickly pass the message to His Holiness if he considers the dispatch of top priority.

One of the most efficient secretaries of state in recent years was Pope John’s first secretary, Domenico Cardinal Tardini. The two men had excellent rapport with each other, but the Cardinal also had his differences with John —a fact that was often bandied about in inner Vatican circles. A stubborn Roman who could not fathom John’s desire to “open up” the Church to the outside world, Cardinal Tardini was bothered by his superior’s “new ways.” Tardini, whose office was one floor below the Pope’s, had a habit, especially when miffed, of referring to John as “the one up there.” Since news tidbits and gossip travel quickly inside the Vatican, it wasn’t long before word got to John, who summoned Tardini forthwith.

“I’d like to clear up a matter,” the Pope said. ” ‘The one up there’ is the Lord, the Eternal Father in Heaven. I’m just ‘the one on the fourth floor.’ So I beg of you, don’t throw confusion into the ranks.”

Building a Business by Building Buildings VII

PERCHED ATOP Monte Mario and overlooking a panorama of ancient ruins and Renaissance settings is the busiest of Rome’s new international hotels, the one flying the Hilton flag. Of the thousands of persons who use the four hundred rooms and suites in the Cavalieri Hilton each year, few are aware that the hotel is largely owned by the Catholic Church. Through the Societa Generate Immobiliare, the Vatican has a big interest in the hilltop hotel, which is operated by Hilton International. Said interest is, to be exact, a three-quarter ownership.

As the largest of Italy’s construction companies, the Vatican-owned Societa Generale Immobiliare has been in business for more than a century. S.G.I. has entered every facet of the building business—not only construction but also planning, investment, production of specialized building materials and equipment, and management.

From 1870, when S.G.I., Italy’s oldest construction company, moved its headquarters from Turin to Rome, until the end of World War II, S.G.I.’s interests and properties were concentrated in and around the Eternal City. Then the company branched out on a nationwide scale, growing into a diversified corporation which took on thousands of new employees. Now S.G.I. has moved onto the international scene. It has thrust itself into the business of constructing large-scale residential projects and selling them to private customers. And lately, this Vatican company has become involved in urban development, with the planning and building of entire metropolitan or suburban centers and communities.

S.G.I.’s investment in construction projects has jumped to over $45 million at this writing. Its gross assets, which were approximately $50 million in 1955, were about $170 million in 1967, while net earnings went from $2.4 million in 1955 to $6.2 million in 1967. Today S.G.I. holds a controlling or substantial interest in over fifty Italian companies. Four of these specialize in investment and property holdings; nineteen are real estate development institutions; nine deal with urban development projects; four engage in agricultural works; eight are industrial and manufacturing corporations; and the rest are technical and service companies.

Although Italy’s housing industry recently suffered a serious slump, S.G.I. was not badly hurt. Its earnings still rose 16 percent and its gross assets went up 20 percent. Moreover, the Vatican company’s investment in land increased 25 percent, due largely to the completion of a long-term plan that involved the formation of a satellite city near Milan.

Nevertheless, there was a slowdown in the sales of S.G.I.’s newly finished buildings. Against a background of reduced mortgage credit facilities, Vatican strategy called for a corresponding increase in S.G.I.’s bank borrowing (from a Vatican bank, to be sure). A satisfactory ratio between current assets and liabilities was restored following the successful issue of 6 percent convertible debentures for the equivalent of $26 million.

In 1966, in Rome alone, the Vatican’s construction society completed or nearly completed three apartment houses, seven garden villages, twelve luxury homes, a five-building apartment development, an office building with ground-floor stores and a cellar garage, two other office buildings (comprising 174 office units), and a twelve-villa garden development.

During the same year, in Milan, S.G.I. finished a three- building housing project that has sixty-two family dwellings, eighteen offices, seventeen stores, and an eighty-car garage. Plans have been drawn to add two more buildings to the project by replacing the old Vatican-owned structures on an adjoining site. Elsewhere in Milan, and also in 1966, S.G.I. completed a seven-building (196-apartment) housing complex and was in the process of putting up a shopping center. The shopping center’s site is the famed Piazza Loreto, the square where the bullet-riddled bodies of Mussolini and his girl friend were hanged upside down during the closing days of the war.

In Genoa, 1966, S.G.I. nearly finished a 150-apartment development along the Via Bobbio, opened and rented to capacity its plush Residence Park Riviera, and began construction of a new 92-apartment development. And plans were made by an affiliate of S.G.I. (the Eden di Nervi Company) to build a large motel just outside Genoa, in an area near the Vatican-owned Hotel Eden.

S.G.I., which recently moved from its cramped headquarters in downtown Rome to an eight-story glass building in the city’s outskirts, has also put into execution building projects of various sorts in other parts of Italy. In Florence, Naples, Palermo, and Catania many of its undertakings are handled by related companies. Few people know which of the related companies belong to S.G.I. and which are controlled by parental pursestrings. S.G.I. guards her fifty plus offspring like a mother hen, preferring to shield them from too much attention. This is done for a number of reasons, some having to do with taxation and others with regional strategy.

To illustrate: S.G.I. does not own Rome’s Cavalieri Hilton directly. The three-quarter owner is a front company called Italo Americana Nuovi Alberghi (I.A.N.A.), which answers only to S.G.I. Similarly, the Societa Italiana Arredamenti Metallici (S.I.A.M.) is owned by the Vatican but administered indirectly by S.G.I. S.I.A.M., which runs a large plant for the production of steel furniture, was the company that supplied the steel furnishings for the Italian luxury liners the Raffaello and the Michelangelo.

S.G.I.’s other companies include the Compagnia Italiana degli Alberghi dei Cavalieri (C.I.D.A.L.C.), which operates hotels in Pisa and Milan; Bellrock Italiana and S.A.R.F.E.C, which produce specialized building materials; and the Manifattura Ceramica Pozzi, which manufactures petrochemicals, plastic products, and plumbing fixtures.

Italy has no regulations or laws against private holding companies, and S.G.I. controls several.

One of the largest is the Societa Generale per Lavori e Pubbliche Utilita (S.O.G.E.N.E.), a construction company with extensive experience in public works. In recent years the Vatican-owned S.O.G.E.N.E. has built a 328 foot-high dam at Mulargia in Sardinia, a 430,000-squarefoot, reinforced concrete flood-water diversion for the Arno River at Pisa, a 125-foot dam at Gramolazzo near Lucca, a hydroelectric power plant near Terni, a 54-mile consortium aqueduct for the cities of Ascoli and Fermo, a 29,950-foot tunnel for the pipes of the projected Frida Aqueduct, hundreds of miles of embankments for Italy’s main superhighway, the tunnel for the Gran San Bernardo highway connecting Italy to Switzerland, concrete emplacements for much of Milan’s new subway, the 4.5mile- long highway between Chiasso and San Gottardo, and a number of bridges and viaducts in various parts of the country.

Demonstrating a know-how that makes it far more than an ordinary general contractor, S.O.G.E.N.E. has even produced entire factories under private contract. The impressive new Colgate-Palmolive plant at Anzio, which covers 430,000 square feet of land and has over seventeen million cubic feet of interior space, was designed and put up by S.O.G.E.N.E. technicians and engineers— that is, by experts who drew their pay from Vatican coffers. This same team of experts also built the $565-million Italsider iron and steel complex; the largest such complex in all Europe, this one, in Taranto, sprawls over 3.9 million square feet of land. A telecommunications plant at San Siro was set up by S.O.G.E.N.E., which handled the entire project. In Sardinia the same Vatican contractors set up not long ago a 64,000-kilowatt thermoelectric power plant (near Cagliari) and a 480,000kilowatt plant (at Sulcis). Working for Italy’s nationalized electric industry (E.N.E.L.), busy S.O.G.E.N.E. teams installed a 200,000-kilowatt thermoelectric power structure at Civitavecchia and a 300,000-kilowatt plant near Perugia.

On opening day, all of S.O.G.E.N.E.’s projects are given the customary blessing by an attending cardinal, and often there is a special good luck message from the Pope himself. The sign of the Cross was made many times in 1966, when S.O.G.E.N.E. completed public and private works that totaled $27.6 million. Although this figure is 25 percent less than that for the preceding year, a decrease attributed to Italy’s economic dip, the outlook for S.O.G.E.N.E. is good, for a number of public projects have already been contracted for and Italy’s economic situation shows every sign of improving.

Most of S.G.I.’s enterprises outside of Italy have been undertaken by still another subsidiary company, Ediltecno, S.p.A. Fully owned by S.G.I., it was liquidated in 1967. Ediltecno, which was organized in 1961 to service projects abroad, was a technical, consulting, and engineering management company with branch offices in Washington and Paris and a representative in New York City. There is also a Canadian company known as Ediltecno (Canada) Limited, located in Montreal, and a Latin American affiliate called Ediltecno de Mexico, S.A., based in Mexico City.

In the past seven years S.G.I. has acquired a controlling interest—nearly 70 percent of the common stock and 50 percent of the preferred—in Watergate Improvements, Inc., of Washington, D.C. Through it, the Vatican is playing a major part in the completion of a large officeand- apartment complex on the edge of the Potomac. The first stage of the project was finished in 1965 with the completion of Watergate East, a thirteen-story cooperative apartment building with 238 apartments, 60,000 square feet of commercial space, and five acres of parking on four underground levels. During the project’s second stage, completed in 1967, a thirteen-story apartment hotel with three underground levels, 221 suites, 10,000 square feet of commercial space, and a 40,000-square-foot indoor garage was built, as was an eleven-story office building with 180,000 square feet of office space. Work on the third stage began in 1967, and by 1969 a building of 144 apartments near Washington’s Rock Creek Parkway is expected to be finished. Then the fourth and last stage of the project (the plans of which have not yet been made known) will begin. Altogether, the luxury project in the Foggy Bottom section of the U.S. capital is expected to cost in the vicinity of $65 million.

In Canada, S.G.I. is active through subsidiary companies. For instance, it is the largest single stockholder, owning 85 percent of the shares, in Montreal’s Redbrooke Estates Limited. Redbrooke recently completed, in one of the most fashionable sections of Montreal, a thirty-three-story apartment building with three underground levels. Including 224 apartment units and 100,000 square feet of indoor parking, the structure (known as Port-Royal) has been taken over by a newly formed Vatican company called Immobiliare-Canada Limited. The company has a capital (in Canadian dollars) of $456,900 and share obligations of $14.4 million, of which S.G.I. holds 93 percent. Immobiliare-Canada owns the forty-seven-story Montreal office building, the Stock Exchange Tower, that houses the Canadian and Montreal stock exchanges. The building cost approximately forty- seven million Canadian dollars and was designed with the cooperation of Rome’s Pier Luigi Nervi, the cement wizard. Over 600 feet high, it is believed to be the tallest reinforced concrete building in the world. Another Vatican- controlled company in Canada is the Sogesan Construction Company Limited, which has been putting up one-family houses southwest of metropolitan Montreal. In the community known as Greendale, Sogesan has so far built and sold over three hundred houses and is still building and selling.

In Mexico, the Lomas Verdes S.A. de C.V. construction company is building a suburban city on some thirteen hundred acres of scenic land outside Mexico City, near Tlalnepantla; the city will ultimately house about a hundred thousand persons. S.G.I. owns about 30 percent of the Mexican company’s stock and is providing the technical consultants and the project manager. A four-lane, tree-lined superhighway, La Superavenida, connecting the new city to the main superhighway and thus to the center of Mexico City, has already been completed by Lomas Verdes. Another Vatican-affiliated company, Immobiliaria Corinto S.A. (in which S.G.I. holds one-third interest) is engaged in building five sixteen-story apartment houses in Mexico City’s fashionable Paseo de Las Palmas sector.

In France during 1967, the Vatican’s S.I.C.E. company (Societe Immobiliere Champs-Elysees), a French company with its head office in Paris, completed work on an elegant marble-faced office building on Paris’ Avenue des Champs-Elysees. The nine-story structure, with four underground levels, provides 110,000 square feet of office space and 87,000 square feet of indoor parking.

With Vatican-owned construction companies building everywhere, there have inevitably been some hints of scandal. Not the least interesting of these stories, which are almost invariably suppressed by the Italian press, was that of the sale to the Italian government of church-owned real estate for the 1960 Olympic installations.

In 1958, shortly before Italy took on the responsibility of hosting the Olympics in Rome, the Vatican owned more than 102 million square feet of property within Rome’s city limits. These holdings made it the biggest landowner, apart from the government, in all Italy. They were accumulated by the Vatican through quiet purchase, inheritances, donations, and foreclosures over a long period of time.

The National Italian Olympic Committee purchased large stretches of land from the Holy See for an unspecified sum and erected some fifteen stadiums at a cost of almost $29 million. To connect the sport structures located in the northern part of the city with those in the southern sector, Rome built the Olympic Highway. The throughway followed a circuitous route because it was placed on land that the city of Rome had purchased from front companies owned by the Societa Generale Immobiliare.

Although the deals for this land had been made long before any mention of public bids, they might have passed unnoticed had it not been for the fact that the speedway began to sprout major cracks and crevices shortly after the Olympic athletes returned to their homelands. Societa Generale Immobiliare, which had participated in the building of the road through several front companies, at that point offered to resurface the holes under a series of new contracts from the municipal government; the offer was accepted, for sums that were never disclosed, and the potholes and splits in the Olympic Highway were finally covered up. So was the scandal—almost.

There’s No Business Like Vatican Business VIII

THE TALE OF the eel that one day left its home in Lake Bracciano, some fifty miles outside Rome, and swam all the way to Vatican City to make an unscheduled “appearance” underneath the Pope’s window has every earmark of a fish story—and yet it happened.

The eel, in swimming around the bottom of the lake, apparently slithered into a cement water pipe. At a point forty-six miles from where the fish started, the main forked off in two directions—one way went to Rome, and the other to Vatican City. Bearing to the right, the eel took the way that led to the Vatican. After passing another underground junction, the eel slipped into a drain and managed to get itself stuck inside one of the two famed fountains in St. Peter’s Square, just below the papal chambers.

The eel was blocking off the fountain’s water. But the irreverent creature would not have made its mark on Vatican history if it hadn’t been for Pope Pius XII, who had just finished shaving when he glanced out the window and noticed to his bewilderment that there was no water in the fountain. At breakfast he commented to his housekeeper on how odd it was that there was water gushing from the far fountain but not from “our fountain.”

Sister Pasqualina picked up the phone and called the fire department. The firemen arrived, as did some newspapermen, and when the fountain’s innards were examined, the eel was found. When it was removed from the tiny pipe in which it was lodged, the fountain came to life again. The eel was carried away in a pail.

A few days later, a newspaper reporter asked what had become of the eel. Since the Vatican ignores all such questions, cynical Romans provided their own answer. The Vatican, they claimed, had taken the eel to one of Rome’s many outdoor fishmarkets, and sold it—which, they said, put the Pope in the fish business as well as every other.

What actually happened to the aquatic intruder is, of course, not known. But the story does indicate what Italian skeptics think about the Vatican and its business interests. According to these cynics, the Vatican is involved in so many business enterprises that even the selling of fish would not be beneath its dignity. As far as anyone knows for sure, the Vatican is not presently in competition with Rome’s outdoor fishmongers. But many Romans are inclined to believe some of the Vatican’s financial operations do have a fishy odor about them.

So widespread and complex are the Vatican’s moneymaking enterprises, that it is almost impossible to get a clear picture of all of them.

In the last chapter we described Vatican participation in the building and construction industry through the Societa Generale Immobiliare. In this chapter we will try to trace the Vatican’s participation in manufacturing, energy, communications, banking, insurance, and other fields. The reader is asked to take a deep breath before entering the maze.

There is hardly a sector of Italy’s economy in which the Vatican’s “men of trust” are not representing the Church’s interests. Almost all of these men hold high positions in companies in which the Church is financially involved. They hold their responsible posts year in and year out, sometimes on the basis of the percentage of profit that the Holy See realizes on its investment.

For many years, Bernardino Nogara served on the board of directors of the Montecatini Company (now Montecatini Edison). Let us take a look at this company. One of the largest corporations in Italy, and indeed, in the world, it deals in mining and metallurgical products, fertilizers, synthetic resins, textile fibers, and pharmaceuticals as well as electric power—and it is bound to the Vatican with hoops of steel. The extent of Vatican participation in this major corporation is not known; probably the Vatican does not have a majority holding, but its interest is substantial indeed. Since the death of Nogara, several Vatican watchdogs have replaced him on the company’s board and take part in all the important decisions, such as that in 1966 to merge Montecatini and the Edison Company. For that year of the merger Montecatini Edison reported total sales of $683.9 million and a net profit of $62.6 million. The 1967 report and balance sheet showed substantial boosts in nearly all sectors of the company’s activities, with total sales having jumped to $854 million and the net profit to $66.1 million. Monte-catini’s investments in other companies amount to over $942 million, its real estate holdings to better than $22 million, and its industrial plants to approximately $1.3 billion.

Montecatini Edison has a number of foreign associate companies, all of which are doing well. The Novamont Corporation at Neal, West Virginia, is doubling its production capacity to take advantage of the expanding polypropylene market in the United States. In Holland, the Compagnie Neerlandaise de L’Azote recently modernized its plant at Sluiskil and increased its daily production to one thousand tons of ammonia and two thousand tons of nitrogenous fertilizers; it also began construction of a new plant that will produce six hundred tons of urea a day. In Spain, Paular, S.A., in which Montecatini Edison has a joint holding, completed a new factory at Puerto- llano for the manufacture of polypropylene and polypropylene products. The Madras Aluminum Company of India expects to increase its production of alumina to fifty thousand tons a year and that of aluminum to twenty-five thousand tons a year. The continually expanding Brazilian Heliogas group recently acquired 140,000 new users and has increased its annual sales of liquid gas to about one hundred sixty thousand tons. And Panedile Argentina during 1967 brought its work on the damming of the Rio Hondo and the construction of a hydroelectric power station at Ullun to completion.

In Italy, Montecatini Edison owns or controls nineteen companies. These include Societa Orobia, Mineraria Prealpina, Miniere di Ravi, Sorap-Societa Raffinazione Petroli, Miana Serraglia, Ascona, Clio, Fortuna, Hermes, Immobiliare Capricorno, Melide, Parnaso, Ribolla, Sant- Agostino and Societa Mineraria Presolana, all of Milan; and Cieli and Societa Imprese Elettriche Scrivia, both of Genoa; Societa Emiliana di Esercizi Elettrici of Parma; and Resia of Casoria.

Now in its second century of existence, Italcementi— which came under Vatican control after the war and is run by papal “agent” Carlo Pesenti—accounts for 32 percent of the total cement production of Italy; it is the world’s fifth largest producer of cement and the second largest in Europe. In 1967, Italcementi, which employs over 6,500 workers, reported a net profit of $5.5 million, and it produced more than twenty-six million tons. The company, which has its headquarters in Bergamo, has a capital of $51.2 million. Because of a crisis in Italy’s building industry in the last few years, Italcementi’s profits had somewhat decreased (they were over $4.2 million in 1965, and not quite $4 million in 1966). The company had taken the decrease more or less in its stride, and according to Massimo Spada (speaking for the board of directors), expects to show up even stronger in 1969 and 1970 when construction picks up again. Thus, Italcementi recently built and put into operation a new cement plant near Brescia. The plant, which covers an area of over two million square feet, produces six hundred thousand tons of cement a year. Much of this is a new white cement known as Supercemento Italbianco which is quick drying and highly resistant to breakage.

The SNIA-Viscosa Company of Milan, which produces more than 70 percent of Italy’s artificial and synthetic textile fibers, is known to be maneuvered by Vatican financiers. It is not owned by the Vatican. It is, however, tied to the CISA-Viscosa Company, which produces viscose fibers and rayon, and to the Saici Company, which manufactures cellulose—and both of these companies are owned by the Vatican. Also, SNIA-Viscosa holds considerable stock in a cotton plant, Cotonificio Veneziano, which is a Vatican-controlled company. SNIA-Viscosa, which has a capital of $89.6 million, has among its shareholders the British textile group Courtaulds, and it owns two profitable textile companies in Spain, two in Brazil, two in Mexico, and one each in India, Argentina, and Luxembourg. The Vatican is a heavy stockholder in these foreign companies, and in two instances holds the controlling shares. For 1966, when it showed a net profit of over $9.7 million, SNIA-Viscosa declared a dividend of 130 lire on each of its 46,703,125 shares. In 1967 when profits dipped substantially to only $310,000, the company nevertheless declared the same dividend of 130 lire but asked its stockholders to take into consideration the advisability of a merger with one of several possible companies that would provide diversification—now perhaps the most holy of words in Vatican business strategy.

One of the Vatican’s biggest companies, Manifattura Ceramica Pozzi, which makes sinks, wash basins, toilet bowls, bidets, and other bathroom fixtures, has been in difficult straits during the last six years, reporting substantial losses each time. At the end of 1967, Pozzi came up with its smallest loss in recent years, $2 million. Adding that to the $11.9 million that Pozzi had dropped during the previous five years, the company’s total deficits now have reached the sum of nearly $14 million. Thus it came as no surprise during 1968 when the Vatican sent in one of its ace troubleshooters, Count Enrico Galeazzi, to sit in on the board of directors as vice president.

With its capital listed at $36.96 million, Pozzi is nevertheless on a solid footing in Italy’s economy. By diversifying into refractory materials, paints, plastics, and chemicals, the company—which is one of the oldest in Italy—is reorganizing its operation. During 1967 it completed the construction of a hygienic-sanitary fixtures plant for the Hungarian government and put into operation a new plant at Bizerte for Tunisia.

In addition to constructing the factories, the Pozzi firm trained personnel for them. Pozzi owns 90 percent of a company in France and 13 1/3 percent of another company in Brazil, both of which have shown profits in the last two years. In Milan the Pozzi company holds 100 percent of the stock in the new Pozzi Ferrandina chemical plant, which went into operation in June 1967 with a capital of $18.1 million. With Count Galeazzi now bringing in his know-how, Pozzi officials expect to get back into the black again within a few years by escalating the $43 million export level of previous years.

One of the most ramified, fully Vatican-owned companies is Italgas, which has its main office in Turin. With a capital of almost $59.9 million, Italgas controls gas companies in thirty-six Italian cities, including Rome, Turin, Florence, and Venice. During the fiscal year 1967-8 it supplied 679 million cubic meters of home fuel to its customers and reported a profit of nearly $3.5 million.

Trending upward for over two decades, Italgas also controls a number of companies that are related to the gas industry. The Cledca Company (tar), Iclo (anhydrides), Funivie Savona San Giuseppe (iron ore and phosphorus), Fornicoke (coke for steel mills), Pontile San Raffaele (coke), Cokitalia (distillates), Societa Acque Potabili di Torino (drinking water), Carbonifera Chia-pello (real estate heating plants), Propaganda Gas (gas stoves), Urbegas (gas appliances), and La S.p.A. Forni ed Impianti Industriali Ingg. De Bartolomeis di Milano (industrial ovens). Of the last-named company, Italgas owns only

20.29 percent of the stock. Not long ago I happened to mention to an American visitor that the Vatican owned a spaghetti factory in Rome. My pun-loving friend immediately said, “The Vatican is getting rich making all that dough!”

Molini e Pastificio Pantanella, S.p.A., is a fully Vatican- owned company that packages various types of pasta. As a profitable sideline, Pantanella also produces panet-tone holiday cakes and an assortment of fifty-two different types of cookies. Backed by assets listed at $16.3 million, Pantanella reported a net profit of $290,562 for 1966 but broke even in 1967. The company would have done better, according to board director Marcantonio Pacelli, if it had not been for government-imposed regulations in July 1967, which not only placed cumbersome restrictions on the country’s spaghetti factories but also controlled the price of soft and hard grains. But, as my friend might say, the Vatican is not at a loss for “grain” (Italian slang for money), for it owns outright, controls, or influences by its substantial though minority holdings all of the following companies which, according to the most recent financial statements, are in the black:

Societa Mineraria del Trasimeno (mining—capital: $3.2 million), LTstituto Farmacologico Serona (pharmaceuticals— capital: $1.4 million), La Societa Dinamite (dynamite and ammunition—capital: $624,000), La Torcitura di Vittorio Veneto (yarn—capital: $800,000), Fisac-Fabbriche Italiane Seterie Affini Como (silk—capital: $3.4 million), Concerie Italiane Riunite di Torino (furs—capital: $4 million), Zuccherificio di Avezzano (sugar—capital: $1.6 million), Cartiere Burgo (paper products—capital: $23.2 million), Industria Libraria Tipografica Editrice di Torino (publishing—capital: $1.6 million), and Sansoni di Firenze (publishing—capital: $1.08 million).

The following companies, with which the Vatican has a financial association of either major or minor degree, report a year-end loss or no profit as of this writing: Societa Santa Barbara (mining—capital: $4.8 million), Caffaro Societa per l’Industria ed Elettronica (chemistry and electronics—capital: $9.6 million), La Salifera Siciliana (salt—capital: $1.1 million), La Societa Prodotti Chimici Superfosfati (chemicals—capital: $244,800), Bottonificio Fossanese (buttons—capital: $480,000), Saici Societa Agricola Industriale per la Cellulosa Italiana (cellulose —capital: $24 million), Cotonificio Veneziano (cotton— capital: $3.2 million), Lanificio di Gavardo (wool—capital: $1.4 million), Fabbriche Formenti (textiles—capital: $104,000 [reduced from $1.04 million]), Sacit (readyto- wear clothing—capital: $256,000), Molini Antonio Biondi di Firenze (spaghetti—capital: $960,000), C.I.T. (travel and tourism—capital: $800,000), and C.I.M. (department stores—capital: $1.2million).

So much for private enterprise.

The question now arises, Does the Vatican have a stake in operations run by the state? The answer, not surprisingly, is in the affirmative. Let’s look at another aspect, unique by American standards, of the Italian economy— that of the state as a rival and competitor of private entrepreneurs.

In the postwar period Italy’s pell-mell economic expansion has had, at times, to walk a tightrope. Coming out of its catastrophic fascist cocoon, the Boot’s economy went from rags to Vespas to Fiats—thanks in no small part to the heavy investments of the Vatican. Italy’s gross national product pole-vaulted 143 percent in the period between 1953 and 1963 to $45.1 billion. Last year the G.N.P. reached over $66 billion at constant prices and was expected by the end of 1968 to boost itself an other 5.5 percent to over $70 billion. To understand how Vatican money has benefited the Italian economy, one must understand the structure and function of Italy’s Istituto di Ricostruzione Industriale. I.R.I., as it is affectionately known, is a public law corporation to which the Italian government assigns specific entrepreneurial functions. I.R.I. controls 130 firms, each of which is a share company that is run by the same rules as any private company in Italy.

What makes I.R.I. unique is that it has brought under government domination a vast complex of industries— and these include not only television and radio, railroads, airlines, and shipping, but also industries like steel, automobile manufacturing, and banking. I.R.I., which is therefore in competition with private industry, has over three hundred thousand people on its payroll. Its rate of investment is equivalent to nearly $3 million a day; its annual turnover, almost $3 billion; and the value of its industrial complex, about $12 billion.

Established in 1933, after the 1929 Wall Street crash set off a chain reaction in Europe, I.R.I. had two jobs: (1) to save the Italian banks, which had acquired shares in Italian industries that were in serious difficulty and, for that reason, were unable to guarantee the safety of their clients’ deposits; (2) to put the finances of Italy’s industry in order. It took almost five years to accomplish these tasks. But, in the end, credit was restored, and industry returned to life. The Italian government then took a second look at I.R.I. and, coming to realize that the giant, state-controlled industrial complex had been a daring financial experiment that had succeeded under the most difficult of conditions, decided to make it a permanent institution.

For every lira received from the state, I.R.I. companies have to raise another twelve from private investors. Since none of the I.R.I. companies could possibly finance its operations with its own capital, I.R.I. issues bonds on the open market. To date, nearly a half million Italian investors have put their money into I.R.I.’s issues. The biggest single investor has been the Vatican. There is no way of pinning down how much money the Vatican’s financial advisers have tossed into I.R.I. operations, but the areas into which the Vatican has plunged most heavily are now known. Strictly for the record, let it be stated that in no case has the Vatican managed to become a majority shareholder in an I.R.I. company, despite the fact that in certain companies it is the largest single investor. It must be remembered, however, that since the Vatican’s political party (the Christian Democrats) has been in control of the Italian government for over twenty years, the moving parts of the Italian state and its I.R.I. operation are well lubricated by Church money.

Critics of I.R.I. have accused it of being one of the main bottlenecks of Italy’s economy. The criticism actually extends beyond I.R.I. to the Italian government and to the Vatican itself. Lack of business confidence during the middle sixties has held down private investment. In fact, in recent years, private companies have only been able to raise very small amounts through stock issues. Today I.R.I. and other government enterprises account for 40 percent of all Italian investments. Private enterprise is keenly aware of the competition. I.R.I. has long maintained, however—and the Vatican has backed it all the way—that it has never kept private industry from doing anything it has wanted to, either by absorbing all available capital or in any other way. But often, where private industry has been reluctant, I.R.I. has not.

I.R.I. has been carrying on a flirtation with U.S. business in recent years. Several of America’s largest industrial concerns are tied in with I.R.I. subsidiaries. The U.S. Steel Corporation holds a 50 percent share in two I.R.I. steel plants. Armco International has a half interest in another. Raytheon and the Vitro Corporation have a stake in two of I.R.I.’s most calculated ventures in electronics. Siderexport, an I.R.I. trading subsidiary, has a 50 percent holding in Dalminter of New York. The Vatican owes its current favorable position in I.R.I. to Bernardino Nogara, who foresaw a high return on the enormous investment he made in the state’s industries. It is said that Nogara was considerably stimulated by the report of the governor of the Banca d’Italia at the end of the war. The report included the words, “We have reached a turning point. There is an arduous and fatiguing road that goes upward, and another, flat and easy, which leads to ruin.”

Bewildered as Italy may have been by the extensive destruction of its factories and other industrial installations, Nogara’s sights were clear. Italy would have to choose the first road and start on reconstruction immediately. What better place to invest the Vatican’s money than the government’s Finsider steel group? Although its plants were smouldering in ruins, Finsider gave promise of exceptional development once a rebuilding program was under way.

At the beginning of the postwar period, Finsider had an annual output of less than a million tons of steel. Today it produces ten million tons a year. By contributing decisively to making Italy self-sufficient as far as iron and steel requirements are concerned, Finsider has made an essential contribution to Italy’s development, and has become one of the pillars of the nation’s economy. With over 76,000 employees, and with an annual payroll of over $285 million, the company reports an annual profit of more than $24.1 million.

Finsider’s objectives were given effective stimulus when the European Coal and Steel Community was set up. The Vatican and the Christian Democratic party both recognized the advantages to be gained by joining this organization. By putting an end to the protectionism that had characterized Italy’s steel industry, the country entered into direct competition with the biggest steelmakers in the world, and is now the world’s seventh largest steel producer.

Finsider’s great strength today comes through its ownership of subsidiary companies. It owns, for instance, 51.6 percent of the Italsider Company, which produces pig iron, steel ingots, hot and cold rolled products, and welded pipes. Finsider is also a majority shareholder in the Dal- mine Company, which specializes in steel ingots and seamless and welded pipes. Ninety-seven percent of the Terni Company stock is held by Finsider. Terni produces steel ingots, hot and cold rolled products, castings, forgings, and drop forgings. In addition, Finsider holds full or controlling interests in some twenty other connected or related companies.

The greatest amount of Vatican money in any I.R.I. company is probably in the Alfa Romeo automobile company (capital: $72 million). Italy’s second largest producer of motorcars, Alfa Romeo makes about seventy-five thousand vehicles a year; by 1971, with the help of a new $500 million complex at Naples, it hopes to be producing more than a quarter of a million cars annually. Alfa Sud, the new plant in Italy’s southland, had been a point of contention between Fiat, which controls about three fourths of the Italian car market, and I.R.I. It pitted Fiat president Gianni Agnelli squarely against I.R.I., the Italian government, the Christian Democratic party, and the Vatican, which are jointly trying to encourage the building of new industrial plants in Italy’s depressed economic regions. Fiat termed the Alfa Sud factory “an economic error.” Instead of putting up a new auto plant at Naples, Agnelli said, Alfa Romeo and its parents (I.R.I. and the Vatican) should join Fiat in other undertakings, such as building up an aircraft industry. The major growth phase of the European auto market was coming to an end, he argued, and there would be danger of overproduction in the nineteen-seventies. Agnelli lost his war.

Although the Vatican’s biggest I.R.I. investment may be in Alfa Romeo, a considerable amount of papal money is also at work in Finmeccanica, the I.R.I. holding company that coordinates and finances I.R.I.’s engineering activities. There are thirty-five companies in Finmeccanica. In addition, Finmeccanica has a minority participation in thirty-two other companies, whose activities are ancillary; the Vatican holds the controlling interest in a few of these.

With all its affiliated companies, Finmeccanica is the biggest industrial concern in Italy, operating in almost every branch of the engineering industry—automotive and electrical engineering, electronics, design of aircraft and of railway cars, of heavy machine tools and of precision instruments, of heating equipment and of modern armaments (especially armored vehicles and tanks). Aided by heavy Vatican investments, the Finmeccanica group has shown remarkable progress since 1959, when its annual profits began to rise from $185.6 million to the present- day figure of over $420 million (and its exports from $41.6 million a year to nearly $100 million).

Vatican money has also found its way into Finmare, another I.R.I. holding company, which is responsible for the country’s most important passenger shipping lines (like the well-known Italian Line, and the Lloyd Tries-tino, Adriatica, and Tirrenia lines). With its ancient seafaring tradition and large tourist industry, Italy has never undervalued the importance of its ships. Accounting for almost 70 percent of the nation’s passenger service, Fin- mare ships rank second in the number of passengers carried on the European-North American run and first on the South American route. With a capital of $28.8 million, Finmare, which has over ninety ships, totaling more than 700,000 tons, transports nearly two million passengers annually and carries more than 1.9 million tons of freight a year; the gross income is approximately $150 million per year. The Finmare-controlled Italian line has two ships, the 45,933-ton Raffaello and the 45,911-ton Michelangelo, crossing the Atlantic between North America and Europe, and it is certain that Vatican funds went into the total amount of money needed to finance the construction of these two luxurious liners.

The extent of the Vatican’s investment in and control of Italy’s main telephone company cannot be accurately ascertained, but it is safe to say that both are considerable and that Vatican influence has made S.T.E.T. (Societa Finanziaria Telefonica) the respected and solid organization it is. At its last stockholders’ meeting in July 1968,

S.T.E.T. closed out its books with a declared net profit of $20 million for the second year in a row. Having recently increased its capital by $16 million, S.T.E.T. today is worth $304 million. With more than six million telephones, double the number in operation in 1958,

S.T.E.T. today employs fifty-eight thousand persons. By 1970 it expects to have invested a total of $1.12 billion in new facilities and equipment and to have increased the number of its employees to sixty-eight thousand. S.T.E.T. has also managed to spread itself into other companies. It is the sole or majority stockholder in many of these. In SIP-Societa Italiana per l’Esercizio Telefonico (telecommunications), it holds 53 percent of the shares; in Societa Italiana Telecommunicazioni Siemens, 98 percent of the shares; in Italcable (cables and telegrams), 60 percent of the shares; in SETA-Societa Esercizi Tele-fonici Ausiliari, 99.99 percent of the shares; in FONIT-CETRA (phonograph records), 99.99 percent of the shares; in EMSA-Societa Immobiliare per Azione, 52 percent of the shares; in SAIAT-Societa Attivita Immo-biliari Ausiliarie Telefoniche, 100 percent of the shares; in CSELT-Centro Studi e Laboratori Telecommunicazioni, 100 percent of the shares; in SAGAS-Societa per Azione Grandi Alberghi e Stazioni Climatiche, 100 percent of the shares; in SEAT- Societa Elechin, Ufficiali degli Abbonati al Telefono, 100 percent of the shares. The S.T.E.T. group is also a minority stockholder in RAI-Radiotelevisione Italiana (22.9 percent), Telespazio (33.33 percent), Ates-Componenti Elettronici (20 percent), SIRTI-Societa Italiana Reti Telefoniche Interur-bane (10 percent), GE MI NA Geomineraria Nazionale (33.33 percent), SIEO-Societa Imprese Elettriche d’Ol-tremare (11.09 percent), and SAGAT-Societa Azionaria Gestione Aeroporto Torino (4.5 percent).

The Vatican is also involved in Italian banking. The country’s three leading banks—Banca Commerciale Italiana, Credito Italiano, and the Banco di Roma—though belonging to the I.R.I. group, are closely tied to the Vatican. Together with a Vatican-owned bank, the Banco di Santo Spirito, they hold more than 20 percent of all bank deposits in Italy, have financed 50 percent of all foreign trade transactions, and placed two thirds of the new share and bond issues on the Italian stock exchange.

Two years ago, the Banca Commerciale Italiana, Credito Italiano, and the Banco di Roma decided to double their capital, by issuing shares against new money, so as to improve the ratio between their own resources and deposits. In the case of the Banca Commerciale Italiana, this raised the capital from $32 million to $64 million; in the case of Credito Italiano, from $24 million to $48 million; and in the case of the Banco di Roma, from $20 million to $40 million. In the last few years the time deposits and clients’ current accounts of these three banks rose by hundreds of millions of dollars to a total that surpasses $6 billion (nearly 20 percent of the national total).

As for the Banco di Santo Spirito, which was founded by Pope Paul V in 1605, and which is one of the oldest banks in the world, its social capital is set at $12.8 million. From a 1966 total of $667 million, the bank hiked its total deposits last year to $729 million and reported a net profit for 1967 of $1.24 million, an increase of $226,000 over the previous year.

Although the four aforementioned banks have their main offices in Rome, the Vatican’s real banking strength lies in the north of Italy. Cumulatively the Vatican’s northern banks—particularly in the provinces of Lombardy, Veneto, and Emilia—are in even better health than the thriving four in the Eternal City. Foremost of these banks in the thigh part of the Boot is the Banco Ambrosiano in Milan, which was founded in 1896 and has a capital of $6.24 million. At the end of 1967 the Banco Ambrosiano reported a net profit of $1.4 million, which was virtually the same amount (give or take pennies) it had declared for the preceding period, and paid a dividend of 220 lire for a total of $1,056 million on three million shares, a repeat of the previous year.

The Banco Ambrosiano recently bought interests in three foreign fiscal organizations—the Banca del Gottardo di Lugano (Switzerland), the Kredietbank S.A. Luxembourgeoise (Luxembourg), and Interitalia (Luxembourg). Because the Italian parliament has not at this writing passed a bill to set up Italian investment funds (one such bill was introduced in 1964), the aforementioned Vatican- controlled fiscal societies have been providing a service whereby Italians can acquire shares of foreign mutual funds. At the end of 1967, foreign mutual funds from Italian investors through over-the-border holding companies totaled close to $4.5 million. Now two more Vatican- owned banking organizations—the La Centrale holding company and the Banca Provinciale Lombarda—have joined the lucrative business of purchasing shares from foreign investment trusts in the Swiss and Luxembourg markets. In addition, the Banca Provinciale Lombarda has recently joined with the Dutch Robeco and the German Concentra investment trusts to help Italians acquire shares of foreign mutual funds. Until a common invest- ment-fund law is passed by the government, the foreign companies tied to the Vatican banks and investment companies will continue to operate profitably on the Italian market.

The Vatican’s northern banking affairs have become so intricate today that it’s almost impossible to explore their many ramifications. In an effort to provide some kind of clarity, we will not refer to those banks that have a capital of less than $80,000, and we’ll divide the others into three categories. In the first are seven large banks that are owned outright by the Vatican: the Banco Ambrosiano of Milan, the Banca Provinciale Lombarda, Piccolo Credito Bergamasco, Credito Romagnolo, Banca Cattolica del Veneto, Banco di San Geminiano e San Prospero, and Banca San Paolo. In the second category are thirteen banks in which the Church holds a heavy interest but not necessarily a controlling one: the Banca Nazionale dell’Agricoltura, Banca di Credito e Risparmio di Roma, Banca Popolare di Bergamo, Banca Piemonte di Torino, Banca del Fucino di Roma, Banca Romana, Banca Torinese Balbis e Guglielmone, Banca dei Comuni Vesuviani, Istituto Bancario Romano, Banca di Trento e Bolzano, Credito Mobiliare Fiorentino, Banca del Sud, and Credito Commerciale di Cremona. In the third category are sixty-two banks in which, although the Vatican interest is minimal, that interest is protected by one or more Vatican agents on the board or at the policy-making level; among the bigger banks in this category are the Banca Popolare Cooperative di Novara, Credito Varesino, Credito di Venezia e del Rio de La Plata, the Banca Agricola Milanese, the Banca Toscana, the Banca Popolare di Milano, the Banca Emiliana, the Banco di Chiavari e della Riviera Ligure, Credito Bresciano, and the Banca Popolare di Verona.

Finally, it must be mentioned that thousands and thousands of small rural banks spread all over Italy are owned 100 percent either by the Vatican or by the local parish church, which submits to Vatican controls and regular audits by a peripatetic Vatican financier. Many of these small banks are located in the south and on Italy’s two major Mediterranean islands, Sicily and Sardinia. As far as is known, the Vatican has control of only two large banks in this area—the Banco di Napoli and the Banco di Sicilia.

During 1967 eight banks bought by Italmobiliare, a financial institution owned by the Vatican’s Italcementi cement company, merged to give life to a new Istituto Bancario Italiano (I.B.I.). Italmobiliare, claiming reserves of close to $9 million and showing a 1967-8 profit of $642,000, is headed by Carlo Pesenti—sometimes viewed as Italy’s most knowledgeable banker, and certainly one of the Vatican’s most trusted captains in the field. Serving also as Director General of Italcementi, Pesenti bought the banks for Italmobiliare one at a time over a five-year period. In what some consider one of the most brilliant financial maneuvers in Italy’s dopoguerra economic history, Pesenti almost singlehandedly created the Istituto Bancario Italiano by having the Credito di Venezia e del Rio de La Plata (which he had acquired)—its capital is listed at $4.8 million—incorporate Pesenti’s other seven banks—namely, Banca Torinese Balbis e Guglielmone (capital: $2.4 million), Banca di Credito e Risparmio di Roma (capital: $2.4 million), Istituto Bancario Romano (capital: $800,000), Banca di Credito Genovese (capital: $1.12 million), Banca Romana (capital: $2.4 million), Credito Mobiliare Fiorentino (capital: $1.12 million), and Banca Naef-Ferrazzi-Longhi of La Spezia (capital: $640,000). Ranking among the first twenty in the fist of Italian banking institutions, thanks to cumulative deposits surpassing $512 million and a capital and reserve sum of $22 million, the new I.B.I. made quite an impact for an “infant” by reporting a profit of $800,000 during its first year of operation (1967).

Pesenti, who has control over two other important banking establishments (the Banca Provinciale Lombarda and the Credito Commerciale di Cremona) is serving as president of the newly founded bank, while Massimo Spada takes on the duties of vice president. The creation of I.B.I. will be only the first in a complex series of mergers of Vatican banks. The next merger will be that of the Banca Provinciale Lombarda and the Credito Commerciale di Cremona; it will result in the creation of a banking combine that will have over $1.28 billion in deposits—making it the largest private banking concern in Italy and one of the largest in all Europe, including Switzerland.

Vatican banking, however, is not confined to Italy. Funds managed by the Vatican’s Prefecture of Economic Affairs are deposited in numerous non-Italian banks. Some are in America, and many are in Switzerland, where the Vatican maintains its funds in numbered accounts. Nobody really knows how much money the Vatican has in Swiss vaults. But it is known that one reason why the Vatican likes to bank in Switzerland is because the Swiss franc can provide protection against inflation and devaluation of money in other countries. Since 1945, there have been more than 170 currency devaluations all over the world—twelve of them in Brazil alone. Unlike the American dollar or the British pound, which have substantially less than 50 percent backing in gold reserves, the Swiss franc is guaranteed up to 130 percent by gold. So, because Switzerland’s money is “hard money,” the Vatican holds the francs and exchanges them for the legal tender of another country when needed.

The Vatican also uses its Swiss accounts to maintain its anonymity when gaining control of foreign corporations. Swiss banks, unlike American banks, can act as stockbrokers; they hold large numbers of shares belonging to clients but not in the clients’ names. The Vatican, like any other depositor, can have a Swiss bank buy shares in a company in the bank’s name and can thus obtain control of the company in full anonymity. The “Gnomes of Zurich”—a pet name pinned on Swiss banking officials by the British—point out, however, that the total number of shares their banks hold in U.S. companies is less than 1 percent of America’s outstanding stock. Any speculation about how much the Vatican may have silently invested in the U.S. economy, at least at the corporation level, must take this figure into account.

Since Helvetian banking practices are based on secrecy, a style to which Vatican financiers are indeed no strangers, the Vatican and I.R.I., acting as major shareholders, operate the Banque de Rome Suisse, a Swiss offshoot of the Banco di Roma. This bank lists a $15.2 million capital stock; subject to Swiss laws, it keeps the names of its depositors clad in the impenetrable armor of legality.

A significant part of the Vatican’s calculated diversification program is concerned with the rarely publicized activities of its various special credit institutes. The precise determination of the Vatican’s stake in Italy’s credit system would require an enormous amount of time and digging. But it can be calculated that of the some 180 medium- and long-term special credit institutions operating in Italy, at least a third are fed by Vatican money.

It should be noted that long-term loans constitute a highly important source of financing for expansion programs, and in this respect Vatican money has done much to shore up small and medium-sized businesses, which have the greatest difficulty in raising funds directly on the financial market, and has served the cause of a balanced growth of Italy’s postwar economy. In this connection, mention should be made, albeit briefly, of two important aspects of this activity: (1) the significant financial support the Vatican’s special credit institutes have been extending, particularly in recent years, to the process of industrialization in the depressed southland, and (2) the considerable assistance the Vatican’s credit program is providing for the penetration of Italian industries into foreign markets.

The special credit institutes extend medium- and long- term credit. Each serves a particular sector of the economy, providing credit for industry, for example, or for public utilities companies or real estate companies or farmers or motion picture producers. Some of these institutes operate on a national scale, while others are limited to individual regions; some extend both medium- and long-term credit, while others specialize in medium-term transactions. Together with Italy’s banks, the special credit institutes are the major source of new capital, and they provide most of the loans and the capital for the acquisition of securities.

One of the largest of these financial societies is La Centrale. Just what percentage the Vatican has of the equity of La Centrale is not known. It is known, however, that La Centrale is wedded to the Pirelli rubber company, which no doubt exercises direct controls over the agency. Just how much influence the Vatican has on its operations has not yet been made clear, though its control is widely accepted in the Italian business community.

The area in which La Centrale has been most prominently engaged is that of electric power, but since the time the Italian government nationalized the power companies, La Centrale has successfully sought to shift its strength into agriculture, mining, engineering, and trade organizations, both in Italy and abroad. Today its capital totals $107.3 million. La Centrale’s assets are $276.8 million, of which $116.16 million are invested in the shares of some fifty-five companies and almost $60 million are out in loans to these companies. In addition, $156 million have been extended in credits to E.N.E.L., the national electric agency of Italy. La Centrale closed out 1967 showing a net profit of over $16.5 million.

During 1967, the Vatican-controlled Romana Finanziaria Sifir, S.p.A., fused with La Centrale and brought with it a stock capital of $72 million. Sifir’s total assets were $168 million, of which $17.6 million were invested in the shares of thirty-six other companies and $22.4 million were out in loans to these organizations. Add to that the $70.4 million that have been extended in credits to E.N.E.L. and one gets a better picture of La Centrale’s new associate.

One credit institution that is owned fully and outright by the Vatican is the Societa Finanziaria Industriale e Commerciale, with a capital of $480,000. Other special credit institutes owned partially or controlled by the Vatican are La Societa Capitolina Finanziaria (capital: $400,000), Credito Fondiario (capital: $16 million), Societa Mineraria del Predil (capital: $384,000), Il Finanziario Investimento Piemonte (capital: $182,800), Societa Finanziaria Italiana di Milano (capital: $400,

000), Fiscambi di Roma e di Milano (capital: $1.6 million), Efibanca-L’Ente Finanziario Interbancario (capital: $16 million), and La Sind di Milano (capital: $1.6 million).

A number of insurance companies are Vatican owned; others are merely controlled by the apostolic financiers. Two important companies that fall into the former group are the Assicurazioni Generali di Trieste e Venezia (capital: $23.2 million), which turned a profit in 1967 of over $4.67 million, and the Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta (capital: $6.9 million), which reported a profit of better than $1.27 million. Tied to the Banca Commerciale Italiana (which the Vatican controls), Assicurazioni Generali has a large portfolio of shares in Montecatini Edison, while Montecatini Edison has a large portfolio of shares in Assicurazioni Generali. Similarly, the Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta, which is tied to the Credito Italiano bank (under Vatican control), has a working relationship with the La Centrale and Bastogi special investment institutes, both of which are under Vatican influence, and works closely with the Vatican’s Italcementi cement company.

In violation of Italian laws, which prohibit members of the country’s parliament from having business ties with any commercial enterprise, four senators (all Christian Democrats), one of whom was a minister several times, are on the board of directors of Assicurazioni Generali. Far from being unduly disturbed by this, the company and its associate Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta have calmly conducted their affairs, and have done well. Over the years, they have profited from large insurance contracts involving government industries that deal in foreign trade, from indemnification against damage by nuclear bombardment and losses due to foreign nationalizations and confiscations of industries, and from various insurance programs written, with close state cooperation, for customers abroad. Over the years, Assicurazioni Generali and Riunione Adriatica, two companies that apparently do not see any ethical problems raised by having state officials represent their private interests, have become the two leading insurance companies in Italy.

Following is a list of other Italian insurance companies that are connected with and to the Vatican; in parentheses is each company’s capital.

La Compagnia di Roma, also known as Riassicurazioni e Partecipazioni Assicurative (capital: $960,000); L’Unione Italiana di Riassicurazione (capital: $960,000); Assicurazioni d’ltalia (capital: $2 million); Fiumeter (capital: $1.68 million); Compagnia Tirrena di Capitalizzazioni e Assicurazioni (capital: $2.4 million); L’Unione Finanziaria Italiana (capital: $640,000); Finanziaria Tirrena (capital: $160,000); Lloyd Internazionale (capital: $800,000); Fata-Fondo Assicurativo Tra Agricoltori (capital: $1.2 million).

The foregoing details provide an uncomfortably sharp realization that the Vatican and its men have indeed carved a niche for their firm in the world of big business.

This is no small accomplishment. After years of soul- searching, it has been decided, infallibly, that the accumulation of money is no more reprehensible, no more sinful, than the collecting of coins. True, the Vatican pays ad perpetuum lip service to poverty. But it doesn’t practice it.

The Vatican apparently does not subscribe to the thesis that the enrichment of one man necessarily impoverishes another. Indeed, taken in its proper perspective, the Vatican drive to make money has been highly beneficial to Italy. It has spurred Italy’s material progress and helped the country recover from the battered state it found itself in after the war. It has produced capital for investment. It has generated wealth from which nearly everyone has gained. In a free society, which needs concentrations of private wealth to counterbalance the power of the state, the Vatican—which is no longer seeking territorial aggrandizement— has rendered a service to the theories of capitalism and provided impressive guidelines for those who believe in money and who worship at the altar of big business. The Apostolic Palace and Wall Street are singing a remarkably similar tune.

Because of the secrecy of the Church’s complex business operations, the public image of the Vatican still remains ecclesiastical. The revelation of the Church as a big business often upsets people who should know better. Former Rome correspondent Barrett McGurn once reported the astonishment of U.S. Secretary of Labor James Mitchell after a visit with Pope Pius XII. McGurn interviewed Mitchell immediately after the visit. “The Pope knew all about the International Labor Organization,” Mitchell said, surprised, “and he was already aware that the recession in the United States is over. Why, we’ve just learned that ourselves!”

How the Vatican Takes Stock of the Market IX

IT ALL STARTED in 1962. . . .

The center-left coalition government under Premier Amintore Fanfani wanted at long last to end the preferential tax treatment Italy had been giving stockholders. In 1962, Fanfani established a dividend tax (called cedo-lare). Determined and sincere as he was, however, he tried to provide an exemption for the Vatican. It didn’t work.

For the first part of 1963 the Vatican, like other shareholders, paid tax.

In April 1963 there were elections, and the Fanfani cabinet went down to defeat. It was replaced by Giovanni Leone’s all-Christian Democrat “caretaker” cabinet. Leone’s representatives began quiet talks with the Vatican, and shortly before its ouster in October, the Leone cabinet, in an exchange of diplomatic notes with the State of Vatican City, agreed that the new tax was not to be levied on dividends paid to the Vatican. Minister of Finance Mario Martinelli (Christian Democrat) forthwith sent a circular letter to the tax-collecting agencies, mostly banking institutions, informing them of the exemption that had secretly been granted to the Vatican on the basis of diplomatic negotiations between the two countries.

What followed was perhaps even more incredible. The new finance minister, Roberto Tremelloni (Social Democrat), read the diplomatic notes and the circular letter signed by his predecessor, and with the solid support of the new deputy prime minister, Pietro Nenni (Socialist), and the minister of the treasury, Antonio Giolitti (Socialist), refused to go along with the preferential arrangement. For months thereafter, Prime Minister Aldo Moro (Christian Democrat), sought a compromise; he asked the Vatican to submit a statement of its holdings as a prelude to obtaining an exemption. But Vatican Secretary of State Amleto Cardinal Cicognani refused, asserting that one sovereign government does not tell another about the state of its finances. Premier Moro retaliated by resorting to an old fighter’s trick—holding back and waiting for the clock to run out. It worked—up to a point.

Interest in the Vatican’s stock market practices was aroused by the Italian government’s 1962 decision to levy a dividend tax (cedolare). This cedolare, which the paying office or the bank withholds on behalf of the government, is either 5 percent or 30 percent, depending on whether the stockholder records the securities with the tax office or chooses to remain unknown to the tax officials. The Vatican’s disputed exemption from it brought about the events we outlined at the beginning of this chapter.

After the Moro government toppled in mid-1964, and was succeeded by yet another Moro government, the new minister of the treasury, Giovanni Pieraccini (Socialist), also declined to ratify the Vatican’s exemption. In Italy, 1964 was a year when the business barometer was falling. The Vatican took advantage of this by threatening to dump several hundred million dollars’ worth of shares on the Italian stock market. This, if the Vatican had done it, would have seriously depressed the market and inflicted irreparable wounds on Italy’s already ailing economy.

Adding to Moro’s worries during this period was the resignation of President of the Republic Antonio Segni, for reasons of ill health. A campaign had already begun to have a non-Christian Democrat named to fill the semi- honorary post. (Later, in fact, Giuseppe Saragat, leader of the Social Democrats, got the nod.) By all reasonable standards, this was not the time to risk a tug-of-war with the Vatican over tax matters.

Some kind of deal was obviously made, because the Moro cabinet approved a bill, which was later signed by Tremelloni and Saragat, that ratified the Vatican’s exemption from the dividend tax. Although Socialist Minister Pieraccini refused to countersign the bill, it reached the competent legislative committee and was to go to the parliament for approval. As a bill, it never got there, though the subject did come up from time to time, either in the form of a query by a parliamentarian or a newspaper article.

For several years, the matter lay dormant. Then, early in 1967, it was revived. The Vatican had not been paying any dividend taxes since April 1963. Among other papers, the leftist Rome weekly L’Espresso wanted to know why. L’Espresso, which called the Vatican “the biggest tax evader in postwar Italy,” said that one fifteenth of all the stocks on the exchange were Vatican owned. Other pejorative reports in Italy’s left-wing press claimed that the Vatican’s investments on the Italian exchange were worth between $160 million and $2.4 billion, and that thanks to its questionable immunity from the dividend tax, the Vatican was saving anywhere between $8 million and $120 million (based on a 5 percent tax on the estimated “declared” worths of between $160 million and $2.4 billion) or between $48 million and $720 million (based on a 30 percent tax on said “undeclared” estimated worths). It must be remembered, however, that because the Vatican often uses so-called front companies, some of which do indeed record their securities with the tax office, or make their identity known to tax officials, and because other Vatican-controlled companies do not record their securities with the tax office, both the 5 percent and the 30 percent tax rates are in operation. No one as yet has been able to compile a list showing which companies are the “5 percenters” and which are the “30 percenters,” but whichever classification they fall into, they have not, so far, paid the tax that other companies (and the individual investors) are paying.

[In January 1968, the Italian government extended for another year the cedolare tax exemption enjoyed by the Vatican since 1963. The extension was granted, according to the announcement made by a government spokesman, to discuss a bill pending in the Italian parliament. The spokesman said that if the bill is not approved during 1968, the Vatican will have to pay all unpaid taxes since 1963 when the exemption was granted.]

On the basis of L’Espresso’s estimate, which maintains that the Vatican owns one fifteenth of all the stocks on the Italian exchanges, the total value of the Vatican’s stocks would come to $733 million. Using the 5 percent tax figure, on the one hand, the tax saving comes to $36 million, whereas with the 30 percent tax figure, on the other hand, the tax saving comes to $219 million.

Estimates of that kind, and others in the left-wing press (however exaggerated they appear at first blush), prompted Italy’s Finance Minister, Luigi Preti (a Socialist), to make in March 1967, an unusual public statement on the floor of the Italian Senate—unusual because up to then no government official had ever ventured any specific statistics or figures on the subject of Vatican taxes. Debunking the claim of one particular newspaper, which had asserted the Vatican had saved $64 million on its dividend inflow since the disputed bank circular of 1963, Preti said that the Vatican had earned $5.22 million in Italian stock dividends in 1965. On these earnings, he explained, the Vatican, if it had paid the 30 percent cedolare tax, would have turned in $1.6 million in taxes. Preti also said that the Vatican investment, according to indications, came to probably $104.4 million. From Minister Preti’s figures—which he never documented— it appears that, over the six years since 1963, the Vatican therefore has not paid in a total of $9.6 million in taxes on its security holdings in Italy.

The Vatican’s reaction to Preti’s revelation was twofold. Its press spokesman, Monsignor Fausto Vallainc, declared, “I have been authorized to give a ‘no comment’ answer. But if you want my personal view— which is just that!—the motive for the refusal to comment is obvious. It would not be opportune to air the matter while it is being discussed by members of Parliament.”

Unofficially, other sources in the Vatican said that the figures that had been cited in the anticlerical press were “clearly baseless.” Estimates of the Vatican’s tax savings were “absurd beyond being false,” one spokesman maintained, adding that the actual amount was closer to $160,000. The same man cited the provisions of the Lateran Treaty in which Italy recognized the Vatican as a sovereign independent state and exempted this state from Italian taxation. The Vatican’s unofficial newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, eschewing its usual ecclesiastical verbiage, said that the amount of money involved was irrelevant, for the money was “holy money, entirely earmarked for charity.”

In July 1968, the question of Vatican taxes flared up once again. The new Leone Cabinet, though formed as a “baby-sitter” kind of government [See Chapter X], astonished everyone shortly before it won the confidence vote of parliament by a squeak. Premier Giovanni Leone, apparently in a gesture of appeasement to the left, a state-ofthe- nation message that the Vatican would have to pay its tax arrears. Leone said that rather than granting a new tax exemption—which was due to expire toward the end of 1968—the government intended to let the exemption drop and not seek parliamentary ratification for a new bloc of exemptions.

Bluntly coming to their defense, Church officials issued a protest through the Holy See press office, implying that the Vatican felt strongly about retaining its tax-exempt status. Monsignor Vallainc, in his capacity as the spokesman, noted that the Vatican contributes heavily to Italy’s income with its investments and tourist attractions. Moreover, he said, several other countries, including the United States, are giving the Roman Catholic Church tax exemptions because of its special nature and work. He reaffirmed the view that taxing the income of the Holy See, besides violating the acts that regulate church-state relations in Italy, would take away money destined for religious and social work projects carried out by priests in Italy and in other parts of the world. The official statement Vallainc read contained this paragraph:

The counterpart of this tax exemption can be seen in theframework of reciprocity, in the wide contribution that the apostolic activity of the Holy See has on tourism, as well as in the advantages Italy derives from the Holy See’s stock investments which contribute to increasing the national income.

Following still another Vatican blast against Premier Leone on the tax issue, Socialist Luigi Preti came back into the squabble by publicly rejecting the reasons listed by the Vatican to continue its tax-free privileges. He said:

It is true that Holy See activities are advantageous for the tourism influx to Italy and that this increases state incomes, but I cannot see why these should serve as reasons for the Vatican to be exempted from taxes. Also I think the Vatican has no grounds in pointing to the treatment it enjoys in other countries where the Holy See is exempt from taxes. The Italian law clearly indicates there are no exemptions for any foreigners having Italian stock holdings. The noble aims thatthe Holy See pursues here and elsewhere in the world arehighly respected in Italy, and by all political parties, but this is no reason for tax-free treatment.

Curiously enough, the 1967 tax squabble did not bring to light the long history of Vatican “tax evasion.” The record between 1929 (when the Lateran Treaty was signed) and 1962 is an interesting one. Let us examine this record, which up to now has been given no public attention.

Without entering into a long analysis, it is sufficient to repeat that the Concordat, the third document of the Lateran Treaty, provided for tax exemptions for “ecclesiastical corporations.” During the nineteen-thirties and the early nineteen-forties, the Mussolini regime gave added assistance to the Vatican treasury by way of special “dispensations.” In October 1936, for instance, Mussolini imposed a 5 percent corporation tax to help underwrite a large loan needed to pay for the war in Abyssinia, and levied in addition, to absorb the interest costs on the war loan, a 3.5 percent tax on every thousand lire’s worth of real estate holdings to run for a twenty-five-year period; Decree 1743 of October 5, 1936, set up this tax schedule, but Article 3 of the decree exempted the Vatican and Vatican companies from paying either of the two levies.

Vatican-owned companies were also exempted from a special duty ordered in October 1937. This required corporations to pay a graduated tax on their capital stock. The tax was originally levied on all corporations, but early in 1938, when the collection program got under way, a special order exempted those owned by the Vatican.

In 1940, Italy instituted a sales tax (I.G.E.). But, in a circular letter dated June 30, 1940, the finance minister freed the Vatican and all churches from paying it. The

I.G.E. tax remains in existence to this day. So does the Vatican’s exemption. Lastly, in October 1942, a law was passed, “in the spirit of our Concordat,” which exempted the Vatican from paying certain then-existing assessments on dividends. To make matters clearer, the finance minister, in a decree dated December 31, 1942, published an official roster that listed every organization that was not eligible for taxation on dividends. Nearly all of the organizations listed were Vatican affiliated.

The roster went unnoticed by the public because of the year-end holidays. It went unnoticed by the press because it was published not in the government’s Gazzetta Ufficiale (Official Gazette), but in an obscure state bulletin called Rivista di Legislazione Fiscale, on page 1,963 of the second volume for 1943, a volume that appeared a considerable time after the beginning of the year.

Attempts to avoid taxes are nothing new in the history of Italy’s stock exchange. The borsa valori has roots that go back to the Republic of Venice, where the first official exchange was set up in 1600. In early Italy, the borsa was often a square or street where all types of trading—in goods and services, in securities, in precious metals and money—were carried on. In the first half of the eighteenth century, the commodities markets were put on a formal basis; then, in the nineteenth century, separate exchanges were set up to handle securities. On February 6, 1808, Eugene de Beauharnais, viceroy of Italy and Napoleon’s stepson, established the first official exchange in Italy, at Milan. Nine other Italian cities— Venice, Trieste, Turin, Rome, Palermo, Naples, Genoa, Florence, and Bologna— now have exchanges; but the one in Milan is still the largest.

By the turn of the century, Italy’s first electric power companies had been formed, as had other public service companies, textile and chemical companies, and some companies devoted to heavy industry. Trading increased and more securities were listed. In 1901, the number of securities traded on the Milan exchange had risen to 102; 54 of these were common stocks. By 1938, 267 securities were traded at Milan; by 1960, 428. In the postwar years, the Milan and other Italian exchanges began to register appreciable volume; today, despite being small by American standards, the volume at the exchanges is heavy compared to what it was in the immediate postwar years. But public participation in trading is comparatively slight.

Few securities are owned by the Italian public. Many are owned by the Vatican itself; and many others by banks and other financial institutions, by insurance companies and pension funds, and by industrial concerns—a number of which are controlled or owned by the Vatican. Italy’s small investors show a decided disinclination to buy common stocks. They prefer fixed-interest-bearing securities, especially those guaranteed by the government. Banks are called upon for heavy support of the securities market. In the last year for which a report is available, banks and institutional investors absorbed 48 percent of the new issues of common stocks and preferred stocks— and although the facts are unclear or fragmentary, a goodly part of this seems to have been done with Vatican capital. The quoted value of all Milan’s securities, which represent more than three quarters of the total shares on all Italy’s ten exchanges, generally stands at about $8.5 billion. In any given year, there is usually a turnover of a little less than 7 percent of the total shares; slightly under 260 million shares are traded, at a market value of slightly under $1 billion.

Another 1962 decision by the Italian government— that to nationalize the electric current industry—also aroused interest in Vatican finances. When the national electric agency, called E.N.E.L., was formed, it was learned that the special credit institute La Centrale, a Vatican-associated agency that specializes in electric power companies, had a portfolio of 8,235 shares (worth $24,801,600) in the Selt Valdarno electric works and 8,417 shares (worth $25,153,600) in the Romana di Elettricita Company; that another Vatican special credit institution, Bastogi, had 10,265 shares (worth $13,838,400) in the Societa Meccanica Elettrica electric company, 6,407 shares (worth $8,441,600) in the Finanziaria Adriatica company, 5,385 shares (worth $12,146,000) in the S.G.E.S. company, 4,013 shares (worth $10,038,400) in Edison, 1,137 shares (worth $4,782,400) in the Elettricita Sarda, and 996 shares (worth $2,659,200) in Selt Valdarno. Payments on these holdings, by way of indemnity installments, are still being made by E.N.E.L. to La Centrale and Bastogi.

As one of the world’s largest shareholders, the Vatican holds securities frequently quoted as being worth $5.6 billion. The sum is probably an understatement, for the Vatican has invested in exchanges throughout the world, and even a conservative estimate of its portfolio tends to show that the figure is in excess of $5.6 billion. According to an appraisal made by London’s Economist a few years ago, the Vatican’s Italian portfolio contains (as L’Espresso had earlier claimed) approximately one fifteenth of the total number of shares quoted on the ten Italian stock exchanges; the value of these shares, said The Economist, was $8.8 billion at the end of 1964. This would put the amount of capital invested by the Vatican in Italian stocks at around $586.6 million. But taking into consideration the current $11 billion value of Italy’s ten exchanges and the fact that many of the stocks owned by the Vatican are held through front companies—banks, special credit institutes, and insurance companies—a more realistic estimate of Vatican penetration into Italy’s stock market would place it between 40 and 50 percent of the total number of shares quoted on all of the Italian stock exchanges. Hence, this would bring the Vatican figure within the $5 billion range.

Improbable as this may seem at first glance, the fiscal truth has been kept hidden by the Vatican itself, by a sympathetic Italian press, and by the corps of foreign reporters in Rome. Deferring to the notoriously thin- skinned Vatican, most correspondents avoid the subject in their dispatches.

How long will the Vatican’s “tax evasion” go on? * The answer depends on the Vatican. Why? Because the pope is the dealer in this strange game of poker between the Vatican and the Italian state. But I think the pope may have overplayed his hand by attempting to bluff the Italian people—and may, before the next round, have to put his cards, and his blue chips, on the table.

* Late in October, as this book was being printed, the Vatican disclosed through its daily newspaper that it had agreed to pay taxes on its Italian stock earnings. Explaining that it did not have immediate necessary funds on hand to meet such a large bill, the Vatican requested permission to pay the tax in installments. The Osservatore Romano, which concealed none of its bitter tone, said that although the 1929 Lateran Pact provided for Vatican tax exemptions, the Holy See nevertheless wanted a statement from the Italian Government as to how much would have to be paid.

The Vatican in Politics X

IN ITALY, the outstretched palm of the bribe-taker has become almost as familiar as the dinnertime plate of spaghetti. The venerable bustarella—literally, little envelope— slipped to government workers in exchange for favors has created ethical havoc between business and government.

The Italian version of payola flourishes in the thickets of cluttered bureaucracy, and the practice of bustarella often smacks of comic opera. It is perhaps not so amusing in the pharmaceutical field, where, by virtue of a curious Italian law, foreign drug companies are required to register the formula of any product they wish to market. The same law states that if a similar commodity is already being sold, then the foreigner cannot sell his product in Italy. The results are inevitable. No sooner does an American company register a formula than one of the Italian pharmaceutical houses pays somebody in the right office for the privilege of a peek at it. In no time at all, a duplicate product is on the shelves, usually under another name.

Many Italians believe that if you want to get something done, you play the game of bustarella in government offices—or you take money to the Vatican. The more cynical Italians will tell you that service is rendered in direct proportion to the thickness of the envelope. The hard truth about Italy’s political system, particularly since the end of the war, is that the Catholic clergy, having direct access to the ministers and other key government figures, can usually get what it wants. An Italian who wants something done will usually go either to his parish priest or to the bishop of his diocese, who will, as often as not, intervene with a key cardinal—who has the right connections.

This brings to mind a friend of mine, a tenor, who approached, through the usual channels, a highly placed cardinal in the Vatican. The singer, thinking he would enhance his career immeasurably if he could have the honor of opening the season at one of Italy’s major opera houses, asked the cardinal to get him the lead part for the first night. The cardinal suggested that a sum of approximately $32,000 might be appropriate—”for services rendered.” My friend declined making the payment. Later, an American tenor snapped up the part. The American, traveling the same path as his Italian contemporary, had found the same prelate, whose interest in C-notes was more financial than musical.

In another case, the husband of a family friend was killed by an Italian army truck while he was sitting in his parked automobile. The widow easily won her suit against the Italian government, but payments on the $25,000 judgment never reached her. After fourteen years, and no payments, she enlisted the aid of a powerful cleric inside the Leonine Walls. His fee for “making the necessary phone call” came to approximately $12,000. Within six months the widow got all her money from the Italian state.

Informed Italians know where to go when they want to get something done. It’s merely a matter of finding the right cog in the Vatican mechanism. The Italian people are well aware of how intertwined their government is with the Vatican, and the Vatican with their government. This is so because of the nature of Italian politics.

There was a time when the Vatican would have nothing to do with the ballot box. It is not difficult to discern that that time is now past. The Vatican, which has so far been content to manipulate indirectly rather than directly, plays politics in Italy partly because it wants to keep the Communist party at bay and partly because a heavy hand in the Italian cabinet and the twenty-six ministries is a kind of guarantee that the financial interests of the Church will be served.

Toward the end of World War II, the Vatican found it worthwhile to revive a conservative political party that had been founded by a priest, Don Luigi Sturzo, in 1919. The party, which was originally known as the Popular party, was reorganized with Vatican funds and skill and became the present-day Christian Democratic party, which has ruled Italy without interruption since the end of 1945.

The Vatican does not directly control the Christian Democrats, who are popularly known among the Italian people as democristiani, and also as i preti—literally, the priests. It does not give instructions to its men—but it doesn’t have to. It does not express opinions on given political issues—but the party leadership is always aware of the Vatican’s views. Ostensibly, Italy’s is a secular government, but the rules of conduct are formulated by the Vatican. For this reason, the Vatican has allowed only trusted practicing Catholics who will do the Church’s bidding to rise to the top political jobs in Italy.

One might ask whether the success of the Vatican in Italian politics can be attributed to the merging of its secular and spiritual qualities. The answer is indeed in the affirmative. The Vatican alternately poses as a church and as a political force, depending upon which pose will prove more advantageous at the moment. At the lower levels, through the local congregations, the Church presents itself as a religious organization and wins support by religious appeals to its followers; often these appeals influence voters. At the higher levels the Church becomes increasingly a political organization and, indirectly, exerts a controlling influence over the affairs of the Italian state. The Church’s chief instrument has been the democristi-ani, an army of faithful Christian Democratic politicians that has obviated the Vatican’s need for maintaining powerful lobbies. Italy’s postwar political history is intimately tied to i preti, under whom Italy has been carefully guided to its present position in the world of nations.

Italy is no doubt the better for it. But all has not been politically tranquil for the Vatican. After World War II, the Italian Communist party—a prime enemy of the Vatican— became the largest Red party outside the Iron Curtain, but now it appears to have been boxed in by Vatican forces.

Rebuilding a democratic political structure during the postwar era presented considerable difficulties for Italy, whose people had been denied any participation in the affairs of the country for over twenty years. The consequences were deeply felt between 1945 and 1947. Urgent measures were required to help Italy’s economy, and it was apparent that decisive steps would have to be taken in the political field. It was during this period that the Vatican elected to go into politics on a full scale, though deliberately eschewing direct participation. The decision was doubtless prompted by the extreme left-wing parties that were seeking to impose their will on Italy through public demonstrations.

In a period when internal law and order was threatened by strikes and demonstrations, there arose the name of Alcide De Gasperi. De Gasperi, a former Vatican librarian and a devout Catholic, needed little encouragement from the Vatican to enter the political arena and steal the spotlight away from the revolutionary parties. In its own way, the Vatican took on the task of settling Italy’s political unrest by pushing to the fore a man like De Gasperi, who would not only give help to a country badly in need of assistance but would also bring to it the social and economic equilibrium desired by the pope.

With courage and admirable political acumen, De Gasperi devoted himself to the material strengthening of his country. Although the shadow of the Vatican was always behind him, he could not and did not ostensibly cater to the immediate interests of his silent sponsors. Upon his appointment as prime minister in December 1945, he emerged as the strong man of Italian politics. By quieting the various factions that had blocked Italy’s postwar democracy, he was able to call the first free elections the country had had in nearly a quarter of a century. The elections, held in June 1946, had the twofold objective of letting the people decide whether they wanted a monarchy or a republic, and of electing deputies to a constitutional assembly. The referendum showed twelve million votes in favor of a republic and ten million in favor of a monarchy. Umberto II, who had become king after the formal abdication of Victor Emmanuel III in May 1946, and who had reigned for only thirty-four days, removed himself from Italy under protest, to continue to campaign from abroad for the restoration of his throne. His downfall eliminated one of the last brakes on the power of the Vatican. Now the duties of the chief of state were placed in the hands of Prime Minister De Gasperi.

The elections, which brought on the collapse of a number of small parties, allowed the Christian Democratic party to emerge in full strength. When Italy’s new parliament elected Enrico de Nicola the country’s first interim president, Prime Minister De Gasperi forthwith resigned. De Nicola then asked him, as leader of the majority party, to form a new cabinet. Of the many important moves made by the second De Gasperi government, one that particularly deserves mention was the drawing up of a preliminary plan for agrarian reform. This had been one of the Christian Democratic party’s—and the Vatican’s —chief aims at the time. Many aspects of De Gasperi’s agrarian plans have since been carried out.

A subsequent government crisis in 1947 led to the third De Gasperi government, known as the Tri-partite Government, because the cabinet consisted of democristiani, Communists, and Socialists.

In 1948, when Italy’s new constitution came into force, elections were held for the first parliament. In the elections the Italian Communist party, which boasted an unprecedented membership of one and a half million, and which had formed a common electoral slate with the Socialists, made a concerted bid to take over the country.

Italy’s survival of this take-over attempt marks one of the crucial points of its history.

Much of the credit for barricading the Reds in 1948 should go to the Vatican. The Church let out all the stops for that election—even to the extent of swinging open the doors of convents and marching cloistered nuns off to the polling places to vote for Christian Democrat candidates. In many instances where a democristiano won by only a few votes, it was the ballots cast by sisters who had been shepherded from their nunneries to an election booth that made the difference. With 92 percent of the country’s eligible voters casting ballots, and with over a hundred parties presenting candidates, the elections gave the Christian Democrats an absolute majority of 306 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, a high-water mark in democristiani fortunes. The party also showed up strongly in the Senate, winning 131 seats. Had it not been for the 107 special “life senators” appointed under a special provision in the new constitution, this would also have constituted a true majority. In joint session both chambers met and elected Luigi Einaudi president of the republic. Once again, De Gasperi was asked to form a government.

In order to escape the stigma of Vaticanism, De Gasperi assigned some cabinet posts to the Liberals, Republicans, and Social Democrats. A four-party (Christian Democratic, Liberal, Republican, and Social Democratic) center coalition was thus formed. Under it, a politically stable five-year period ensued, during which the astute De Gasperi set about reconstructing and strengthening his regime. During this period monetary stability was attained, a start was made on new construction, new plans for agrarian reforms were introduced, and projects were launched to assist Italy’s underdeveloped areas.

In May 1951, the first local elections were held. The results showed the sinew of the Christian Democratic party. A second national election took place two years later, in June 1953, and once more the democristiani won the majority of votes.

After heading a total of eight governments, De Gasperi finally fell, in August 1953, when a disagreement among the four parties made it impossible for him to obtain a majority for the new cabinet. In eight successive coalitions he had shown himself to be a great statesman who saw Italian politics polarized by the sharp conflict between red and black—the red banner of the Communists and the black cassocks of the priesthood.

The task now fell to another democristiano, Giuseppe Pella, whose government was essentially of a “caretaker” nature. But, with the development of the crisis over Trieste, Pella resigned. Mario Scelba (Christian Democrat) succeeded in re-establishing the alliance of the Christian Democratic, Liberal, Republican, and Social Democratic parties. The four-party government embarked on some farsighted political and administrative projects, negotiating the agreement that returned northern Trieste to Italy and passing new laws approving agricultural reforms, a modernized building code, and new public works. Keenly interested in the public works, the Vatican stood ready to offer the professional services of its construction companies to the government and to private builders alike.

When President Einaudi’s term of office expired in April 1955, the parliament elected Giovanni Gronchi (Christian Democrat) to the office. Shortly thereafter, there followed still another government crisis, when a group of deputies broke away from the National Monarchist party and formed another monarchist party, and Premier Scelba resigned in June 1955. In July, Antonio Segni (Christian Democrat) formed a new cabinet, which was composed of the same four parties as the previous one. This coalition succeeded in bringing into being a new tax law—favorable to the Vatican—and a new ministry, the Ministry for State Participations, which was made responsible for controlling the operations of government- owned holding companies. The Segni government, with pontifical blessings, also initiated several important public works projects in the lower part of Italy and in the northern Po delta region.

In May 1957, a new cabinet was formed under Adone Zoli (Christian Democrat). Parliament eagerly approved the treaty of the European Economic Community, which made Italy one of the founding members of the Common Market. Important decisions were also made for Italy’s depressed rural areas, and pensions for farm workers were approved. Premier Zoli stayed in power until shortly after the May 1958 elections, and, although i preti lost some ground and a number of seats in both houses, Amintore Fanfani (Christian Democrat) was charged with forming a new cabinet in July of that year. With center-left tendencies, the Fanfani cabinet, which included some members of the Social Democratic party, drafted a ten-year plan for the modernization and reconstruction of Italy’s road network (the contracts went mostly to Vatican- owned companies), voted $64.5 million for a ten-year agricultural plan, elaborated a decade-long educational program, and adopted protective measures against abuses in the wholesale business.

Fanfani’s efforts were continued by another cabinet, headed by Antonio Segni, who had previously been the premier from July 1955 to May 1957. Executing policies that encouraged industry and agriculture, Premier Segni brought on monetary stability and a balanced budget, reduced unemployment, and put into operation a vast public works program. But the political situation in Italy was changing and eventually led to a forty-day parliamentary crisis, after which Segni resigned. There followed the usual consultations with President Gronchi, and finally Fernando Tambroni (Christian Democrat) was given the task of forming a new government, consisting of Christian Democrats.

In July 1960, the Tambroni cabinet was replaced by one headed (again) by Fanfani. Fanfani managed to provide loans and other assistance for artisans and small industries, to modernize the telephone network, to reconstruct and bring up to date the national highway system, and to put into effect a five-year plan for agricultural development. He also was instrumental in pushing for more funds for the Southland Development Fund, which had been established to speed industrialization in the depressed regions.

Still another crisis brought the downfall of Fanfani’s cabinet in 1962; nonetheless, Fanfani was called on to try his hand once again. He formed a cabinet with the famous apertura a sinistra (opening to the left). The cabinet, which included Social Democrats, fully adhered to the principles adopted by the Christian Democratic party at its congress in Naples the month before.

Nothing in Italian politics in the postwar era brought on such fiery discussions as did the so-called opening to the left—a policy that was adopted not because of any special philosophical theory, but because it gained the Christian Democrats the support of the non-Communist left. Specifically, this meant the Christian Democrats would get cooperation not only from the Social Democrats but also from Pietro Nenni and his Socialist party. The Socialists—or, as they were more frequently referred to, the Nenni Socialists—had thirty-five seats in the Senate and eighty-four seats in the Chamber of Deputies. Although the new Fanfani cabinet did not include the Nenni Socialists, it had the assurance of Nenni that they would not vote against the Christian Democrats whenever the Prime Minister sought a parliamentary vote of confidence. During this Fanfani government, Foreign Minister Antonio Segni was elected president of the republic, replacing Gronchi, whose term had expired.

The Vatican’s role during this period merits review. If the Vatican had not wanted its Christian Democratic party to work with the left-wing, Marxist politicians, then there would never have been an “opening to the left” in Italian politics; as members of a Catholic party, the democristiani were obliged to maintain their Vatican- approved principles, but the first law of all successful politicians is to retain a position of power. The apertura a sinistra became possible, thanks to a change of climate within the Vatican itself. Much of the change was attributable to Pope John XXIII, whose policies were in strong contrast to the stiffly anti-Communist ones of his predecessor, Pius XII.

Pope John, who made some public pronouncements that did not condemn the Communists outright, felt that the Vatican should stay out of Italian politics as much as possible. By keeping his hands off Fanfani’s attempts to bring on the “opening to the left,” he did the Vatican a service, for because of the “opening,” the democristiani were able to remain in power. As one prominent journalist later said, “Pope John, by being a nonpolitical pontiff during this period, was indeed the most political of pontiffs, and it saved his Catholic party from who knows what!”

The apertura a sinistra worked well, although it was never without sharp criticism both from ranking democristiani and from the public at large. About this time Italy was undergoing a miracolo economico, and this boom helped the Fanfani cabinet consolidate its position. Among other things, it obtained the passage of some important school bills (which implemented a provision for eight years of compulsory education, provided free textbooks for elementary school children, and allocated $320 million to modernize and better equip schools and universities), increased social security payments, set standards to regulate the purity of food products, modernized the country’s judicial system (which had hardly changed in a century), made large-scale expenditures to shore up Sardinia’s economy, appropriated large sums to be spent over a ten-year period for the construction of hospitals, imposed a withholding tax on stock dividends (the Vatican was later—by the maneuver described in Chapter IX—exempted from paying this tax), imposed a new real estate tax that put a stop to land speculation in expanding suburban areas, provided financial assistance to needy university students, and nationalized the electric power companies. This last measure, a key item for the Nenni Socialists, was part of the price the democristiani had to pay for the Socialists’ parliamentary backing.

Premier Fanfani and his cabinet went down to defeat in the 1963 national elections, in which the Catholic party lost a substantial number of seats. The man who eventually succeeded Fanfani was Giovanni Leone, another Christian Democrat. Having formed a minority cabinet composed exclusively of democristiani, Leone ran a “caretaker” government until the political situation clarified.

In time, Aldo Moro, secretary of the Christian Democrats, took over and continued as prime minister until the May 1968, elections, having formed three straight center-left cabinets following one knockdown after another. In that election, though the Communist party made some gains (winning thirteen new seats at the expense of the United Socialist party—which had helped the Christian Democrats govern Italy for five years in the center-left coalition), the Christian Democratic party gained six new seats in the Chamber of Deputies (raising its total to 266) and two new seats in the Senate (bringing the total to 135).

In June, Senator Giovanni Leone, the middle-of-theroad Christian Democrat who had headed a stopgap government five years before, formed a minority cabinet composed of Christian Democrats in a political play with practically the same cast. This move was made when the Socialists refused to join in another center-left coalition because they blamed their May election loss of some two million votes on their having cooperated with the Christian Democrats. Until the Socialists had decided, at a party congress in November, whether to stay at the window or to rejoin the Christian Democrats in a renewed center-left partnership, the caretaker Leone government had to depend on uncertain support from other parties, or abstentions, to get any legislation enacted over the summer.

It appears that, although Italian governments have been falling at a fairly brisk rate since the Vatican entered the political arena, the same eighty men have been playing “ministerial chairs.” Nearly all of these eighty perennials are members of the Christian Democratic party. When Moro formed his third cabinet, only two of his twenty-six ministers were new; fifteen of the remaining twenty-four had served in the previous cabinet. Equally startling is the fact that, since July 25, 1943, when Benito Mussolini was arrested, Italy has had twenty-seven governments with a total of 588 ministerial posts, all of which have been held by only 181 men. Seventy men served only once, and thirty-two twice; thus the remaining 454 posts were shared by only seventy-nine men. This count gives only a partial picture of the durability of these politicians, for the numbers deal only with ministerial appointments and do not include the posts held by these same men as undersecretaries.

To understand, in part, how the Christian Democrats have managed to retain control for a quarter of a century, one must examine the role of Catholic Action in Italy. Conceived and organized by Pius XI soon after his ascension to the papacy in 1922, Catholic Action is a strong lay organization with a membership that numbers many hundreds of thousands. Although the organization’s stated purpose is to promote Christian education and charitable enterprises, its various diocesan branches are also active in politics and cooperate in furthering the political doctrines of the Church. Catholic Action derives its strength from the fact that it is able to influence bureaucratic appointments, to place its men on the boards of directors of state-run industries, and to get its own people major academic chairs.

A good example of the role that Catholic Action plays in Italy’s political picture is provided by Catholic Action’s activities in 1948. Almost certainly, Italy would have gone Communist in that year’s election if organized Catholic Action groups had not been able to meet the Communists in a rough-and-tumble, head-on collision. Since the Christian Democratic party did not at that time have an inner structure that would have enabled it to ward off the extreme left, the Vatican called on the Catholic Action groups in the country’s three hundred dioceses. The intervention of this network prevented the left from emerging from the election as the most powerful political force in Italy.

Whatever principles guide Catholic Action in Italy, it will not be hobbled by genteel considerations of democratic propriety. Politics in Italy, as everywhere else, is a dirty game—and Catholic Action will go to any lengths in order to exercise its power for the Vatican.

An official of the Socialist party’s executive committee holds to the view that no other group in Italy is as powerful as Catholic Action. According to him, “Most of the major policies that have evolved in this postwar period have been policies favored by the Catholic hierarchy, or at least, policies that did not run strongly counter to the values of Catholicism.” He continues:

We all know that with Vatican approval the Catholic Action effort to create civic committees was responsible for theamazing victory registered by the Christian Democrats in the 1948 election. I am of the personal opinion that we wouldhave in Europe today a different Europe—an entirely different Europe—had the Communists succeeded in winning that election. People in the Free World, particularly those in the United States, do not truly know just how crucial Italy’s 1948 election was for the entire world. It transcended the borders of Italy. Indeed Catholic Action made the difference. Because the Vatican has these Catholic Action committees ready, the Pope’s power as a politician is tremendous. The committeescan defeat Christian Democrats who do not cooperate, or at the very least, they can make the re-election of these individuals extremely difficult.

To understand Catholic Action’s enormous power, it is necessary to recognize the extraordinary control Catholic Action has over Italy’s women voters. Of the twelve million ballots guaranteed to the Christian Democratic party in a given election, seven million come from female voters, who are dominated by local Catholic Action workers.

Generally speaking, women in Italy have very little grasp of politics. But Italian women do have the right to vote. And local Catholic Action workers do not fail to take advantage of the situation.

One British author perhaps put his finger on it when he interviewed a Sicilian peasant and recorded her statement:

The cross bears us to heaven. Who does Padre Pietro tell us to vote for? Always for the cross [the symbol of the ChristianDemocratic party is a red cross emblazoned on a white elongated shield], for God knows how to reward us. My mother, paralyzed as she is—they carry her to vote—and I go into the room where you vote, and I put the sign for her, on the shield with the cross. I am not two-faced with God, I do not betray Him. Certainly, all of us make mistakes, and even inthis party there are men who make them, but God looks after them. High-ups promise us a lot of things, make us hope, deceive us, and then give us nothing—but that isn’t to saythat one shouldn’t vote for God. There are many priests inthe Christian Democratic party, and there’s the Pope himself, too—and how can these make mistakes?

The Vatican’s Expenses XI

IN THE SUMMER of 1962, Vatican officials received a letter from Mrs. Elina Castellucci, a seventy-nine-year-old woman who lived twenty miles outside of Florence. Contending to be a direct descendant of Michelangelo, the woman wrote that she had a “small” claim on the Sistine Chapel but that she was not asking for it to be paid. All she wanted was a check for 300 lire (48 cents) to pay for a ticket to the Vatican Museum so that she could see her great-great-great-great-great-great-grand-uncle’s masterpiece.

“I would like the satisfaction of visiting the Sistine Chapel free,” she told a reporter. “Why should I buy a ticket to see something a member of my family painted?”

Although Mrs. Castellucci’s claim to being related to Michelangelo Buonarroti had been checked by genealogical experts and found to be true, Vatican officials did not answer her letter. One Italian critic chose to explain the Vatican’s silence this way: “The Pope economizes and saves his company three hundred lire!”

Among the Italians, particularly among the residents of Rome, the Vatican has a reputation for being “cheap,” “tight,” “stingy.” Without much provocation, the ordinary man in the street is likely to tell you, Il Vaticano riceve—ma non da a nessuno! (The Vatican receives— but gives to no one!) This is not true, of course. For the Roman Catholic Church is a practicing charitable institution— it receives charity; and it gives charity. In recent years especially, the Pope has made it a practice to allot gifts to countries hit by natural disasters, even where the people concerned are not Roman Catholics. These gifts have regularly been five-figure ones, most of them from $10,000 to $50,000. There is no way of ascertaining just how much money the Pope gives away in such outright grants, because the Vatican does not make the outlay public. Moreover, the Vatican offers little or no information about how much money it spends each year or each month. But it is known that there are sizable monthly expenditures.

To run any kind of business, to run a country of any size, large amounts of money must be spent. Running the Vatican is no exception. During one of his rare press conferences, the late Cardinal Tardini revealed the fact that the Vatican’s annual payroll came to about $7.25 million. It wasn’t clear, however, whether this figure referred only to the payroll for the State of Vatican City. Most likely it did, because veteran Vaticanologists are inclined to estimate the pope’s total expenses at somewhere close to $20 million a year.

What are some of the costs incurred annually by the Vatican? Those of keeping its huge palaces, offices, and residential buildings in repair, painted, and heated, and of having its spacious gardens groomed by a staff of lay workers. Those of maintaining a private army, the Swiss Guards and the Gendarmery, of about two hundred men, who receive some $260,000 in pay, according to rank and arm. Those of providing funds for an extensive diplomatic corps, including papal “ambassadors” in over eighty countries. Those of maintaining St. Peter’s Basilica and St. Peter’s Square, which alone must run to approximately $700,000 a year, of keeping a fleet of sixty cars in running order, of operating a powerful radio station, and of printing a newspaper six days a week. Churchmen, from cardinals down to ushers, must be paid. So must staff Latinists, throne bearers, lawyers, librarians, and myriads of others who provide their services inside and outside—and upon—the Leonine Walls, which, solid and thick as they are, need constant attention by a special crew of stonemasons.

Low as salaries are within the Vatican, no overtime is ever paid. Unharassed by unions, and not given to extravagance, the Vatican nevertheless granted several recent pay hikes. At the present time, a cardinal on the Pope’s immediate staff draws a monthly salary of $650, plus a $100 housing allowance if he lives outside Vatican City. If a cardinal also heads a congregation, he is allowed an additional $50. Thus some prelates earn salaries as high as $800 each month. This figure does not include donations and fees given to—and kept by— cardinals for lending their presence at such special events as weddings, funerals, and the laying of cornerstones.

The Vatican payroll reflects favoritism toward any married worker who has children. For instance, a gardener receives a base wage of $115 a month, but if he has four dependent children, his monthly salary is increased to $195. A Vatican usher in the lowest category receives, after ten years’ service, $235 a month; the editor of the daily paper draws $340, while a printer gets $120; a private in the Swiss Guards gets a monthly $120 and his food and board. Each of these employees is awarded an extra $20 a month for every child, with no limit imposed as to the number of children (or bonuses). Altogether there are some three thousand persons who draw paychecks from the pontifical treasury.

It was Pope John XXIII who awarded salary increases to Vatican employees, and in doing so, revealed his compassionate nature. Given to taking long afternoon strolls in the Vatican Gardens, the Pope never liked the fact that all the workers scurried away from him. One day when a group of path sweepers fled as he neared them, the Pope insisted that the men come out of their hiding places behind the bushes. One by one they emerged, timidly approached the pontiff, and went to their knees. But John was not one for ceremony; he asked the men about their families, and after several had boasted of their children, and of how many of them they had, he asked how much sweepers were paid for their work.

“What?” the Pope exclaimed when he heard that a day’s pay came to only 1,000 lire ($1.60). “No family with children can live on that. What has become of justice? Just wait . . . that’s going to change!”

The Pope went immediately to his office to get the full facts about his employees’ pay scale. On his order, a general review of all Vatican wages and salaries was made. Apprised of the figures, the Pope then ordered an across-the-board salary increase.

When he announced the new salary schedule, John told Vatican administrators, “We cannot always require others to observe the Church’s teaching on social justice if we do not apply it in our own domain. The Church must take the lead in social justice by its own good example.”

The pay raise, the first in many years, added an estimated $2.4 million a year to Vatican payroll expenses. Then in 1963, Pope Paul VI granted another raise, 20 percent to the entire staff. This increased the Vatican’s annual salary costs by another $1.44 million. It must be mentioned here that whenever such pay hikes are granted, the Vatican grants concomitant raises, in the form of “adjustments,” to former employees (civilian workers, not clergy) on pension. In another unprecedented move, Pope Paul, in December 1965, ordered that a special 100,000-lire ($160) bonus be paid to all Vatican staff to mark the successful end of the Ecumenical Council. This sum was over and above the tredicesimo, or thirteenth, an annual extra month’s pay that Italian law requires employers to give each employee.

The Vatican wage scale may be low by American standards, but the almost unbelievable fact about the papal payroll is that the Pope himself receives not a penny in salary. Therefore, when a ranking cardinal wins election to the pontifical seat, he earns a much-esteemed promotion— with a substantial reduction in pay.

Popes have had varying amounts of personal wealth, but probably no pope has had as little as Pope John. Before he assumed the papal throne, Cardinal Roncalli managed to get together enough money for his family to buy back the house in which he and his brothers had been born so that the Roncalli relatives could once again live under the same roof. Dr. Piero Mazzoni, the Roman physician who attended Pope John in his dying days, discovered that a fountain pen was one of John’s very few personal possessions of value.

“You have done much for me,” the peasant-like pontiff whispered to Dr. Mazzoni on his deathbed. “Take this pen—it’s all I have with which to repay you for your care and devotion. It’s almost new; I’ve hardly ever used it.”

The only other tangible possession John left behind was his pectoral cross, which he gave to Franz Cardinal Koenig, Archbishop of Vienna, who wears it at special events.

But personal funds are not a papal concern. It’s the Vatican’s expenses that engage popes in battles with the ledgers. To meet unforeseen expenses, the Vatican sometimes has to “rob Peter to pay Paul,” in the figurative sense, of course. During the final months of the Ecumenical Council, for example, the Vatican sold $4.5 million in gold to the United States government. The bills accrued by the council required dollar payments. For one thing, the Vatican had to pay transportation costs for most of the 2,200 prelates who had to travel long distances to take their council seats each session. Most of the representatives came on foreign airlines, which required payment in American dollars; the Vatican had to come up with $2.12 million for that expense alone. Additional outlays included those for electronic calculators and special precision devices. These were supplied by non-Italian companies, which would not accept Italian lire in payment. The $4.5 million did not, of course, represent the total cost of underwriting the Ecumenical Council. Miscellaneous expenses—foremost of which was the installation of a meeting hall on the floor of St. Peter’s —amounted to a staggering $7.2 million. A precise accounting of the expenses run up by the Ecumenical Council cannot be made—but speculations have placed the total between $20 and $30 million.

Apart from such special expenses as those of the Ecumenical Council, the Vatican treasury is constantly drained by the Church-sponsored organization that, with its staff of hundreds, spreads the Catholic religion to remote corners of the globe. This organization, known as the Congregation for the Evangelization of Nations or the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (known, too, by its Latin name, Propaganda Fide), was founded by Pope Gregory XV to attend to the financial requirements of Vatican missionaries. Operating in the red, because it will not take financial aid from the natives it serves, Propaganda Fide relies fully and completely on the Vatican’s pecuniary resources. While special collections are made in Catholic churches everywhere to help Propaganda Fide, and while a considerable sum is raised through this source, the Vatican still has to draw liberally on its own funds to make up deficits. Although the Vatican is known to be masterful in the practice of economy measures, it pours millions of dollars into its missions every year.

Does taking on such indebtedness have any justification in the Vatican scheme of things? Propaganda Fide missions are in most of Africa and in large portions of Asia. Although the number of colonial areas has been diminishing, the Catholic population of the mission territories has jumped by fifteen million in the last ten years and is now estimated at forty-five million. Much of this increase in population can be attributed to the creation of native priests and the naming of Asiatics and black Africans to high posts within the Vatican structure. The number of native-born priests in Africa, Asia, and the South Sea islands has increased by more than six thousand in the last twenty-five years, while the number of European priests in these territories has gone down by a third during the same period, according to the latest statistics. In the early nineteen-twenties, Africa and Asia had one native bishop; there are now seventy-five in Asia and about forty in Africa. The Vatican is willing to absorb the costs of the missionary army in order to achieve its purposes, even though, from a money standpoint, the loss is a total one.

Propaganda Fide is but one of the Vatican’s money- losing operations. Most of its charitable undertakings are under the wing of the Congregation for the Clergy (formerly called the Congregation of the Council), which administers such projects as the financing of new schools and hospitals to replace those that have been destroyed by natural catastrophes. Wherever a poor parish needs financial help, the Congregation for the Clergy stands ready to give aid, usually in the form of money. Ordinarily the Vatican does not provide succor to specific individuals, but upon occasion it may help a parish priest to get certain poor families back on their feet. The amount spent on this type of assistance is unknown, but the figure is surely sizable. Another organization that makes heavy demands on Vatican resources is Vatican Radio, the official station of the Holy See. The station broadcasts in Latin and thirty other languages and relays many programs to countries behind the Iron Curtain. On a given day, the powerful Vatican transmitters may beam two shows to Hungary, two to Czechoslovakia, and three to Rumania. In the course of a week, there will be four broadcasts in Byelorussian, three in Ukrainian, two in Bulgarian, and a half a dozen in the various Yugoslav dialects. Most of the broadcasts, however, are in Italian (with English in second place, for Far Eastern audiences). Newscasts on the Pope’s activities, special church ceremonies, masses, religious music, and papal messages are transmitted on twenty-four short-wave and three medium-wave bands, and are heard all over the world. The transmitters, which cost $3 million, are located on the highest ground in the Vatican Gardens and in a walled-in, two-mile-square plot north of Rome, which has been given extraterritorial status.

Unknown to most people, even regular listeners to Vatican Radio, is the fact that during the early morning hours of each day the office of the Vatican’s secretary of state broadcasts messages—some of them in code—to priests, nuncios, apostolic delegates, and cardinals in all parts of the world. Each Church dignitary knows about what time to expect special announcements pertaining to his region. He also receives coded signals from the Vatican to remind him of the “date” he has with his receiver.

In contrast with other stations, Vatican Radio often communicates private messages that will not be understood by anyone but the papal representative for whom they are intended. One might, for instance, hear something like this: “Father Tizio, with reference to the information in your letter of the eighth of September, re the peasant woman who sees visions of the Virgin Mary, we have considered your suggestion, but suggest that ad captandum vulgus. . . .”

Several years ago, when N.B.C. correspondent Irving R. Levine visited the station and was told that there was such a daily transmission to the United States, he asked in jest, “Is that when Cardinal Spellman gets his orders from the Vatican?”

The staff member who was acting as Levine’s guide replied with a grin, “No, sir, it’s just the other way around!”

Vatican Radio is a significant papal expense; so, too, is the unofficial Vatican newspaper. An eight- to ten-page evening paper printed six times a week, L’Osservatore Romano sells at 60 lire (10 cents) a copy on newsstands. An annual subscription in Italy costs $25, whereas, for copies that go abroad, the subscription rate comes to $40 a year. An incredibly dull publication, it has virtually no newsstand sales, but it does have a paid mail circulation of about fifty thousand copies, including four that are sent by air to Moscow. Issued in Italian, it frequently contains several columns in Latin, and it will often print speeches and reprint documents in the German, English, French, Spanish, or Portuguese in which they were first delivered or printed. The paper carries a very small amount of advertising and almost never runs photographs.

L’Osservatore operates at a loss of $2 million a year, and, despite the paper’s importance to the Vatican, this fact disturbed Pope Pius XII.

Pius, who tended to be a penny-wise-pound-foolish administrator, diligently watched every penny the Vatican spent. To save on electric current, for instance, Pius often made the rounds of the papal apartments flicking off the lights. Not infrequently he refused to make necessary repairs because he didn’t want to spend the money. “I cannot,” he said, “be extravagant with the funds of the Holy See.”

It was Pius XII who established the Vatican policy of reusing envelopes. Intra-Vatican communications were not to be sealed in such a way that the envelope could not be used again. It was also Pius who wrote his last will and testament on the back of an envelope that had made the rounds—and who once discovered, to his chagrin, that he had a drawerful of obsolete bank notes that would have been worth close to $1,000 if he hadn’t neglected to turn them in before the government’s redemption deadline.

Scandals, Scandals . . . XII

POSSIBLY THE LEAST understood spot on the globe is the Italian island of Sicily, which is noted chiefly for its exportation of gangsters to the United States.

Sicily is a world unto itself, a world in which people live in wretched poverty. The Vatican has a formidable stake in this miserably depressed area, a fact that sometimes forces the clergy to join hands with the Mafia.

In Italy you are friends if you have the same enemies — and in Sicily a forty-four-year-old poet and architect from the “hated north” has emerged as the nemesis of both the Vatican and the Mafia. Known as the Sicilian Gandhi, Danilo Dolci of Trieste has already become something of a legendary hero. He is also one of the most hated men in Italy.

Although powerful, his enemies—the dreaded Mafia, the powerful Sicilian landowners, and the Vatican—have not been able to destroy him. For if there is hatred for Danilo Dolci in the most influential Italian circles, there is unbounded admiration for him outside Italy. His dramatic work among the Sicilian poor has drawn hundreds of volunteer pilgrims from Sweden, Switzerland, and England — people who pay their own expenses for the privilege of working with the gentle, round-faced rebel.

Sixteen years ago, Danilo Dolci was, at twenty-eight, a successful architect, the author of two architectural books, and a respected man in his field. Then he made a tour of Sicily, saw the appalling ignorance, apathy, and misery of the people—and decided to abandon his profession. He settled down in the fishing village of Trapetto, married a semiliterate widow with five children, and after adopting five more children, began using Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent methods to campaign for social reforms.

The first battle was fought with a hunger strike. Widely publicized, it brought some help to Trapetto. The next battle, however, brought the police. Dolci had rounded up two hundred unemployed men to work without pay on a road that needed repairs for which the Christian Democratic government seemed unable to delegate funds. Dolci led what was in effect a “strike in reverse,” for when the police ordered him to desist, he and his helpers calmly continued with their work. Infuriated, the police arrested him for “trespassing on public property.” In Palermo he was tried on five counts and sentenced to seven weeks in prison.

The nature of the “crime” and the ludicrous aspects of the trial resulted in unprecedented publicity. Before long, spontaneous Danilo Dolci committees sprouted up all over Europe and began to send money. Italian politicians were embarrassed, and when Dolci accepted the Lenin Prize for a volume of poetry, they tried to dismiss him as a Communist agent.

But financial aid still reaches Dolci, and foreign pilgrims still come to work with him. And Dolci is creating some minor miracles. He has built a shelter, known as the Village of God, for orphans and destitute families. He’s also dammed a small river to provide irrigation, built two modest-sized hospitals and a pharmacy, and constructed many sewers and roads. After moving his headquarters from Trapetto to the larger town of Partinico, which he considered a bigger challenge, he began, with forty foreign volunteers, a program to teach the peasants how to use new farming methods and to develop new crops.

In recent years, Dolci has been using long sit-down strikes in various small hill towns of western Sicily. In the fall of 1963, for example, Dolci staged a nine-day fast and mass sit-down in front of the only church in the town of Roccamena. Joining in the protest were movie star Vittorio Gassman and author Carlo Levi. Intellectuals from other European countries also joined the six hundred townsfolk and spent entire nights sitting and sleeping outdoors on straw mats. Gassman occasionally provided entertainment by reciting passages from Dante’s Divine Comedy while standing in the glare of auto headlights.

At issue was the Bruca Dam. The project had been delayed by Christian Democratic politicians for thirty years. Rome had earmarked $12.8 million for the Bruca Dam in 1952, but the money had disappeared, and work was never begun. The earlier $1.6 million that the government had appropriated for preliminary work had also vanished. So Roccamena remained without water, and its people were left to try to scratch a living from their arid but potentially fertile soil. The little water available was used for the advantage of the wealthy few, who had the support of the Vatican and the Mafia, while millions of gallons of water from the unharnessed Belice River ran off and was wasted. As the Dolci sit-in headlines mounted, so, too, did the pressure on Rome. At long last, the Ministry of Public Works conceded and issued an order to begin work on the Bruca Dam.

Situations like that in Roccamena often develop because Vatican strategies are based on a belief that it is easier for the Church to maintain its strength where poverty, misery, and ignorance breed. Italy’s southland is a case in point. Ironically, the situation is aggravated by the Cassa per il Mezzogiorno (Southland Development Fund), which, instead of bringing economic relief to an insular backyard like Sicily, has become a gigantic patronage organization. Often, developmental contracts are awarded strictly on the basis of political considerations —one of the most important of which is loyalty to the Christian Democratic party. Because the practice is no secret, bishops and local politicians have little trouble impressing recalcitrant individuals with the fact that there is little to be gained from supporting activities not approved by the Vatican.

The system is so firmly entrenched that it is not surprising to find many people who believe that Sicily, despite its formal governmental machinery, is nothing more than a Vatican holding. People have been shaking their heads over the situation for years, but until Danilo Dolci came on the scene, the combined forces of the old nobility, the Mafia, and the Church had escaped meaningful opposition. Dolci, a professed Roman Catholic who never attends mass, puts into practice the humanitarian ideas of the Church; the Vatican opposes him not on philosophical or theological grounds, but on hard business principles. Because of Dolci, there is danger that the Vatican’s most valuable resource—its churchgoing believers—may be diminished.

Paradoxically, Dolci is well liked by the local priests, who know him personally, and he is held in some admiration by Mafia chiefs, who, for reasons of their own, have left him alone. In Sicily it is said that if Dolci has not been assassinated by now, he never will be.

Dolci, who asks no quarter in his struggles against the Catholic hierarchy, is disliked in papal circles and is considered a thorn in the side of the Christian Democratic party. He is often accused of flirting with Communism and opening the way to a red-backed renaissance in Sicily. But his encounters with the mainland democris-tiani are largely ignored by the Vatican, which does not want to elevate him by engaging in a direct confrontation.

But if the Vatican has preferred to avoid a collision with Dolci, the Bank of Sicily (Banco di Sicilia) has chosen another course. The bank, a financial arm of the pope, is the overseer of the Vatican’s holdings in the western end of Sicily and, as such, has tried without marked success to make short shrift of the so-called Sicilian Gandhi. A recent scandal within the bank has reduced some of the pressures on Dolci.

Carlo Bazan, the bank’s highly respected president, was arrested in 1967 on charges of alleged irregularities. Over an eight-year period, he had hired nearly a hundred members of his family to fill various key posts in the bank —and, while nepotism is not unknown in Palermo and does not necessarily constitute a legal offense, Bazan, thrust into the glare of an unfavorable spotlight, was accused of having doctored records and overlooked payments due on loans made to members of his family.

Postwar Italy has been rife with scandals. Perhaps no more but certainly no less than any other power institution in Italy, the Vatican has had its share of troubles in this respect. But because of the Vatican’s position and prestige, foreign correspondents in Rome, and all too many Italian newspapermen also, have remained silent, or almost so.

Two recent subjects of scandal—the Fiumicino airport and the price of bananas—deserve more attention than they have received.

There are whole generations of Italians that don’t know what a good banana—a real banana—tastes like. Italy’s banana scandal made headlines inside Italy but caused no stir outside its borders, mostly because of the protective attitude of Rome’s resident correspondents toward the Catholic Church.

“La camorra delle banane” (the banana racket) began innocently enough. On December 2, 1935, while Italy was at war with Ethiopia, the Gazzetta Ufficiale published a decree that announced a new state monopoly—on the sale of bananas. Italy’s merchant ships were charged with the responsibility of transporting bananas from Libya, Somalia, and the Italian-owned islands of the Aegean. Up to that time, under a system of free enterprise, bananas had been exported to Italy not only by its colonies but also by the Canary Islands, by the Antilles, and by Guinea. Altogether, these last countries had raised their banana exports to Italy almost 200 percent, from eleven million pounds in 1925 to nearly thirty-one million in 1934. Bananas from Somalia in 1925 represented only 2 percent of Italy’s total banana imports, but by 1955 the Italian colony, through favoritism, had garnered better than 83 percent of the banana trade with Italy, having reached a total of close to eighty million pounds.

The establishment of the new Italian monopoly was more a political move than an economic one. It was designed to help the Italians establish themselves as “colonizers” in Africa by developing trade between the colonies and the mother country. The African bananas were an unsound economic proposition in the general European market, for it cost too much to produce them, too much to ship them, and, what’s more, they were of inferior quality. To administer the new monopoly, the Italian government set up a special agency, Regia Azienda Monopolio Banane (R.A.M.B.), which purchased the bananas from the growers and stabilized the prices with the middlemen and the retailers.

According to the terms of the decree, R.A.M.B. was supposed to put up for public bid concessions for forty- eight wholesalers, each of whom would have a specified territory. But, between 1937 and 1940, R.A.M.B. “temporarily” assigned these concessions—until a public competition could be held. The forty-eight persons who received the supposedly temporary concessions were high- ranking Fascists and Vatican-endorsed men and their relatives. These agents retained their concessions during the forties, the fifties, and the middle sixties.

In February 1945, the Minister of the Treasury dissolved R.A.M.B. and nominated a special commission to study the sale of bananas. After nine years, during which an emergency committee of R.A.M.B. continued administering the sale of bananas while the special committee undertook the inquiry, a new government agency was set up to deal with the banana monopoly. It was called 1’Azienda da Monopolio Banane (A.M.B.), and what it was was essentially only the old Regia Azienda Monopolio Banane with a new name and a new set of identifying initials.

A.M.B., in one of its first acts, raised the number of concessions from forty-eight to eighty-six. All eighty-six concessions were to be good for only one year; then the public was to be given a chance to bid on them. The public competition never took place, however, and the eighty-six concessionaires continued to hold their assigned territories.

A.M.B., in another of its first acts, established a fixed price for bananas in the wholesale and retail markets. Although the price of bananas in other countries fluctuated with the season, the price in Italy remained the same throughout the year. And the retail price of a colonial banana in Italy was over twice the price of a banana from the Canary Islands or Spanish Africa in other European countries. Thanks to A.M.B., Italians had to pay 475 lire (approximately 77 cents) for a kilogram of bananas; in nearby France a kilo of bananas cost half of that—even when the fruit was in short supply.

To add to the injury, Somalian bananas were of inferior commercial quality. No other country would import them. But Italy did and, thanks to A.M.B., paid a wholesale price of 106 lire a kilo for them—at a time when the highest wholesale price being paid for superior bananas was the equivalent (in pesos, francs, and other European currencies) of only 50 lire a kilo.

It should also be pointed out that the banana growers were getting 18 to 20 lire a kilo from the Italian “banana handlers” who resold the bananas to A.M.B. at the fixed 106-lire price. These “banana handlers”—theoretically serving on foreign soil—actually did not five outside Italy, nor did they ever see any of the bananas they were “handling.” They transacted their business at the Via Veneto sidewalk cafes, lived in Rome’s posh Parioli district, and kept summer villas at Viareggio on the Costa Azzurra.

Because of their “understanding” with A.M.B., the so- called banana handlers netted the equivalent of $4 million a year more than they would have netted in a freely competitive situation. Owners of the merchant boats that brought the bananas to Italy’s ports also had a deal with A.M.B.—and were making an extra $2.4 million a year. Local wholesale distributors were taking in an extra $3.84 million, and retailers an extra $4.48 million. Thus a grand total of $14.72 million—extra—was “earned” by individuals connected with Italy’s banana business. But not all of this money stayed in their pockets; a percentage was given to certain pezzi grossi (literally, big pieces— Italian slang for bigshots) who were affiliated with the Christian Democratic party.

Despite the artificially inflated prices paid by the Italian people (who never realized what people in other countries were paying for bananas), the sale of bananas in Italy almost quintupled over a twelve-year period—rising from

56.2 million pounds in 1951 to over 279.3 million in 1963. And, in 1960, to add to the irony, Italy’s finance minister bestowed silver and bronze medals on the banana concessionaires for the fine work they had been doing over the years. Three years later, the decorated individuals were indicted on charges of having committed fraud in the handling and sale of bananas. That was in 1963 —the trials still have not come up.

Gathering dust in the archives of Italy’s newspapers are reports of other financial scandals, involving Rome’s gleaming multimillion-dollar Leonardo da Vinci Airport. In the archives of non-Italian newspapers, there is nothing, or almost nothing, about these scandals, for the fuss over the Leonardo da Vinci International Airport at Fiumicino received very little coverage outside Italy. One American newsman confided to me that he had filed some good copy on the subject, but his editor in New York had told him to “lay off.” Which he did.

When the story broke in 1961, I was representing McGraw-Hill’s technical news weeklies and was able to cable full details from Rome. Which were printed. Subscribers to Aviation Week and Engineering News-Record were thus kept abreast of the Fiumicino airport situation. But very few newspaper readers in the United States learned the deplorable, almost incredible facts.

In 1952, the city of Rome recognized that its airport at Ciampino would soon be inadequate. Ciampino, which was ideally located, had three runways, each of them 7,380 feet long. Each could have been extended to accommodate jet planes, for the airport was situated in an uninhabited area with plenty of available lands. But, instead of allocating funds for Ciampino’s expansion, the Italian government elected to buy up large parcels of land in the nearby coastal town of Fiumicino.

As an airport site, Fiumicino had nothing to recommend it. A marshland near the mouth of the Tiber, it had earlier (in 1944) been rejected by the United States Army Air Force as a landing field for bombers. The Air Force report stated that shifting sands, frequent fogs, and occasional flooding made the land somewhat less than ideal for an airport site. Nevertheless, the Italian government paid $21 million for it. The purchase was made after the site had been recommended to the government by the Vatican- owned Societa Generale Immobiliare.

Prince Torlonia, who was prominent in many Catholic organizations, and whose family was prominent in Vatican history, received for the land the equivalent of $ 1,300 a hectare (about $525 an acre), even though at nearby Casal Palocco a huge parcel of fog-free, flood-free land was available for sale at considerably less.

Had the existing airport at Ciampino been expanded, or had the available Casal Palocco land been purchased, the government would not have had to appropriate $7.2 million to shore up the shifting sands of Fiumicino in order to lay concrete for the runways. It took workmen at Fiumicino five years to control the sand. Often their labors were interrupted by heavy fogs that descended over the site. Fogs are still a problem at Fiumicino—so much of a problem that airport authorities frequently have to direct traffic to the old Ciampino field.

All of this skulduggery took place before Rome came around to recognizing, in 1952, that Ciampino Airport would no longer do, but the scandal of Fiumicino had not yet reached the front pages. The purchase of the Torlonia land had been carried out quietly, even though $21 million in public funds had been spent. As it developed, the $21 million was a mere drop in the bucket.

On January 15, 1955, the Italian government allocated $22.4 million “for the prosecution and completion of an international airport at Rome, by the Ministry of Public Works, to include such necessary other works as connecting roadways to the city limits, electrical installations, and a communications system.” Although three plans had been submitted, the Ministry of Public Works did not select any of them and, a year later (January 13, 1956), asked for the sum of $10.4 million to study some new projects for the airport. Three more years went by, and on April 28, 1959, the Ministry of Public Works asked for, and got, the sum of $6.64 million “to make the airport operative.” Three months later another $640,000 was allocated “for the prosecution and completion of the work.” Other special allocations had been granted along the way—$1.76 million for Ministry expenses accruing from the building of the airport, $8 million for connecting roadways to the city limits, and $6.4 million for debts the Ministry had accumulated because of the airport. All this money was granted a singhiozzi (hiccup style), in violation of an Italian law that clearly states that all financial allocations for public works of an extraordinary nature must be discussed by the parliament and that a bill must be passed for any withdrawals from the treasury. The appropriation of money for the airport was certainly irregular. There were to be further irregularities.

The contract to construct the runways was awarded to the Manfredi Construction Company. It is no small coincidence that Manfredi belonged to the Vatican. The contract to build the main terminal was put up for public bidding, in which eight construction companies participated. Provera e Carrassi, the Vatican-owned company that won the bid at $5.12 million, proceeded to build the terminal building, but on the 376th day of work discovered that it had “underestimated” the total cost. Without further ado, or any publicity, the sum paid to Provera e Carrassi was raised another $4.38 million. Not until the final accounting was made was it learned that Provera e Carrassi had received 80 percent over its “low bid.”

A contract was given to the Castelli Construction Company (also Vatican owned) to put up the hangars. The sum of money earmarked for this expense was listed on the budget at $4.54 million. On the final expense sheet, however, it was not possible to determine just how much Castelli was paid for the work. So, too, with the amount paid the Vaselli Company, another Vatican-owned company, which got the assignment of building the connecting roadways.

If this sounds like the making of a good scandal, that’s precisely what it turned out to be in the spring of 1961. Although the world press generally ignored the details, the Italian press gave them adequate attention. The coverage was particularly full in Rome’s left-wing evening daily, Paese Sera, which printed a series of documented articles. The articles named names.

The Christian Democratic government set up a legislative commission to probe the matter, and, although four ministers (all Christian Democrats) were cited for irregularities in the report to the President of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, no criminal charges were made. Since the special investigating commission was primarily intended to placate an indignant Italian citizenry, the only person who finally received any kind of punishment was a small-time colonel in the Ministry of Defense. His punishment took the form of a transfer from an office in Rome to a post in Bari, on the other side of the peninsula.

During its first years the Leonardo da Vinci International Airport had its problems. It still has problems. Because of the settlement of the fill and the impact of giant jet liners, the main runway developed cracks—some of them over a mile long—that had to be repaved. The three-story terminal building, made entirely of glass, has neither windows that open nor air conditioning. On warm days it tends to be unpleasant, to say the least. In cold weather it’s not much better, for radiant heat pipes just below the surface of the rubber floor send up acrid fumes of seared rubber. Combine these with the jet fumes that hang motionless in the nonventilated terminal, and one understands why some travelers become ill from the smell.

So much for the terminal building. As for the airport as a whole, some Italians, knowing its history, don’t like the stench.

Prophets and Profits XIII

“In the Vatican everything is forbidden, and everything is possible.” (Vatican saying)

IN THE SPRING of 1958, the Vatican became the victim of a “hat trick.” A publicist by the name of Guido Orlando was hired by the Millinery Institute of America, which wanted him to promote the sales of women’s hats. Orlando accomplished his task by pulling a stunt that involved Pope Pius XII.

Thinking (correctly, it turned out) that canon law, which requires women to cover their heads at services, might somehow be used to boost women’s hat sales, Orlando set about trying to get the Pope to make an official pronouncement stating that hats were a proper part of women’s dress. Toward this end, Orlando created the Religious Institute of Research, which forthwith announced the “results of a survey” indicating that over twenty million women in North America attended mass every week without their heads covered. The statistics were phony, of course, as was the letterhead of the Religious Institute of Research on which Orlando communicated the news of the “research” to His Holiness.

The letter suggested that the pontiff urge women to attend religious services dressed according to established rule, and thereby preserve the tradition of the Church. Boldly, Orlando added, “The remarks I thought Your Holiness might make could be phrased, ‘Of the various pieces of apparel worn by women today, hats do the most to enhance the dignity and decorum of womanhood. It is traditional for hats to be worn by women in church and at other religious occasions, and I commend hats as a right and proper part of women’s dress.’ ”

Aggressive though this was, it worked. A short while later, during a public audience, Pope Pius incorporated Orlando’s very words into a general recommendation that women wear hats. L’Osservatore Romano ran the story, which was then picked up by the wire services and the foreign correspondents. Most of the daily newspapers in the United States and Canada gave it space. The Pope’s quotation went on display in many hat-store windows, printed on large posters. Within a month there was a sharp upturn in the sales of women’s hats—and the Pope in his palace may have wondered about the questionable ethics of the world outside.

Today the world outside has comparatively little trouble getting into the inner recesses of the Vatican. Reaching the Pope is no longer a near impossibility, and the path Orlando took to get to His Holiness seems devious indeed. Today, a mere decade later, there is a new Vatican; many changes have taken place, and are taking place. These changes began to manifest themselves when the second Ecumenical Council met for its first sessions, in October 1962. Pope John himself established the keynote when a Church official asked him just what purpose the council was supposed to serve. Walking over to his study window and pushing it open, he answered, “That’s what the council’s purpose is supposed to be—to let some fresh air into the Church!”

Every pope has his own method of bringing “fresh air” into his administration. New popes have a way of cleaning house once they shed their cardinal’s robes and move into the papal chambers of the Apostolic Palace. So it was with the present pontiff, Paul VI, after he took over in June of 1963.

Pope Paul brought with him some personal belongings, set up a favorite desk and chairs, and installed his own comfortable bed. In addition, he wanted to bring a “new look” to his Vatican apartment—and amazed everybody in the enclave when he ordered the eighteen marble busts of previous popes which lined the palace’s private antechambers to be taken away and stored for safekeeping. Then he had the old damask and red brocade stripped from the walls in order to achieve a more modern decor. Local artists were summoned to redo the private pontifical chapel. At Paul’s request, bombproof storage cells were constructed to house many Vatican treasures beneath the lawns of the Vatican Gardens.

Also at Paul’s request, two great halls at Belvedere Court were readied to accommodate the new senate of bishops with which he would be meeting from time to time as a result of the Second Ecumenical Council. Another new assembly room seating twelve thousand people was fixed up to provide space for the overflow at papal audiences. In addition, Paul brought in new equipment —electronic brains, electric generators, modern switchboards, and the latest in public-address systems.

“The Church is not a museum of memories,” he declared. “It is a living community.” This is the attitude one encounters in Vatican City today. It is the recognition that the Church, however slowly, is changing in many of its aspects. It is the awareness that if the future is to hold any promise of perpetuity for the Vatican, the Church must indeed change.

Religion in general, and Catholicism in particular, is on the decline in the twentieth century. Catholicism cannot hope to thrive much longer on the credulous imagination of immature populaces. Quietly, Vatican leaders are coming to grips with the realization that religion is stronger in the more backward areas. With its nineteen centuries of experience, the Church—which purports to know about the next world—displays a great deal of knowledge about this one, too, and is doing a nuts-andbolts job of taking care of itself.

The contemporary decline of religious belief in many parts of the globe, a phenomenon that has followed in the wake of industrialization, political sophistication, and scientific and educational progress, spells trouble for the Vatican as a religious institution. And the Vatican knows it. But the Vatican is more than a religious institution, more than a political institution. It is a solid economic entity, firmly entrenched in the world of business and finance.

As a “big business,” the Vatican considers Communism its great enemy. Necessarily this could mean a fight to the finish between the Church of Rome and the “Church of Moscow.” Let no one have any doubts about the Vatican. It is afraid of the Communists, deathly afraid. There is, of course, the fact that Communism preaches atheism, but the greater danger lies in the financial sphere. Had the Communists successfully taken over Italy in the 1948 election, private enterprise would have ceased. And virtually every penny the Vatican had invested in Italy’s economy would have been confiscated by the state.

Heavy with the memory of centuries, the Vatican takes the long view on matters of immediate importance to its survival. One can discern, even from afar, the Vatican’s eagerness to pull the checkstring on Communism by bringing Catholicism to other continents. The creation of Asiatic and African cardinals and the escalation of efforts in the missionary countries, particularly in the development of a “native clergy,” are part of the global strategy being used by the Vatican. Not surprisingly, the Church wants to establish itself in non-European and non- American lands.

Perhaps more important, however, is the Church’s role as an economic force. Here again the Vatican’s emphasis is on survival—by meeting the enemy (Communism) head on. Having long ago formed “alliances” with Wall Street and other financial nerve centers, the Vatican stands ready to wield an economic sword in the “crusade” against godless Communism.

To counteract the danger of Moscow and Peking, the Vatican will support, in substance if not in theory, the methods of doing business in the United States. Unable to accept Marxist principles that represent a strong threat to its future security, the Vatican created a sort of no-man’sland between itself and the Kremlin; today, however, in a move to delimit the influence of the Communists, the Vatican is embarking on a mission to “make friends” with its deadly enemy. Consequently, it is facing one of the gravest dilemmas in its history. There are a great many blueprints for containing Communism, and each of them has its pitfalls, but the Vatican has a multi-billion-dollar investment to protect, and behind the scenes, is preparing for a life under a system of international security which necessarily involves some kind of working relationship with the other side. It is for this reason that in the sixties Pope John and his successor, Pope Paul, sought a settlement that would guarantee the future for both sides.

In the spring of 1967, Pope Paul expressed some wide- ranging views on the world’s social situation in his encyclical Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples). The Pope declared that “the introduction of industry is a necessity for economic growth and human progress.” But on the subject of “liberal capitalism,” he added:

It is unfortunate that in these new conditions of society a system has been constructed which considers profit as the keymotive for economic progress, competition as the supreme law of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right that has no limits and carries no corresponding social obligation. This unchecked liberalism leads to dictatorship.

One cannot condemn such abuses too strongly by solemnlyrecalling once again that the economy is at the service of man.

But if it is true that a type of capitalism has been the source of excessive suffering, injustices, and fratricidal conflicts whose effects still persist, it would also be wrong to attribute to industrialization itself evils that belong to the woeful system which accompanied it.

On the contrary, one must recognize in all justice the irreplaceable contribution made by the organization of labor and of industry to what development has accomplished.

Private property does not constitute for anyone an absoluteand unconditional right. No one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities.

Speaking with a great sense of urgency, the Pope called for a far-reaching plan to bring economic progress and social improvement to the underdeveloped nations. He urged all men of good will to unite in an effort to end the world’s misery, adding that rich nations must give greater aid to poor ones. Studiously vague, the encyclical maintained that central economic planning is the key to economic development, that free markets and private enterprise have at most a minor role to play.

“Individual initiative alone and the mere free play of competition,” said Pope Paul, “could never assure successful development. … It pertains to the public authorities to choose, even to lay down, the objectives to be pursued, the ends to be achieved, and the means for attaining these, and it is for them to stimulate all the forces engaged in this common activity.”

Pope Paul, although well versed in the intricacies of the social sciences, and especially of sociology, preferred to ignore the subtle argument that Adam Smith espoused —that an individual “by pursuing his own interests . . . frequently promotes that of society more effectively than when he really intends to promote it.”

Quite apart from any laissez-faire philosophy, the Vatican firmly subscribes to the thesis that central planning is the key to economic development. Its own financial history from 1929, when Bernardino Nogara began to run a “one-man show” with the then Italian dictator as his foil, through its profitable alliance with the Christian Democratic party has taught the Vatican some valuable lessons in the importance of maintaining careful economic control. Basically, the Pope does not endorse the view of the eighteen international businessmen and opinion leaders who offered to work with the Vatican toward world understanding of the Populorum Progressio encyclical and who declared in a resolution, “If the economic system is to prosper with the savings, investment, and development necessary, the state should not assume functions that can be better carried out by private initiative.”

The Vatican sees its future strength in itself. Christian Democracy, which had supported a policy to promote new collective bodies toward the construction of an organized Europe, provided government leaders who were champing for, as far back as 1955, the possibility of bringing about an organization of states that would merge their national markets through the gradual abolition of customs tariffs. Some of the very first mentions of a “Common Market” came up in Messina, Sicily, in June 1955, when the Council of Foreign Ministers of the European Coal and Steel Community met. This meeting is often viewed as being the germination point of discussions that were to lead to the drafting of the Common Market Treaty that was signed in Rome on March 25, 1957. As a result of their role in the formation of the European Economic Community, the Christian Democrats have emerged as an energetic political force not only in Italy but in Western Europe as a whole. As their fortunes have risen, so too have the Vatican’s. The Church today is in a healthier political and economic position than at any time in this century.

While the Vatican has remained secretive about its fiscal policy, it has never believed that the investment of Church money was either illegal, objectionable in principle, or contrary to good conscience. In seeking to resolve the conflict between that which is to be rendered to God and that which is to be rendered to Caesar, the Vatican has developed its own special modus vivendi between the sacred and the secular. The view of the pope as a kind of chairman of the board may shock some readers.

But let us remember that the Vatican is a remarkable, centuries- old institution, and that, when it comes to money, it is one that is fully in tune with the spirit of the times.

This writer foresees the day, perhaps a thousand years from now, when the Vatican will cease functioning as a religious institution and take up, on a full-time basis, the duties of a large-scale business corporation. The transition will not be as difficult to effectuate as one might suspect. For just as Catholicism will decline and eventually withdraw from the ranks of the major religions, so, too, will Church money find its way into nearly every area of the free world’s economy. Then, at last, the tycoon on the Tiber will shed the mantle of piety; then, at last, the Vatican will expose the full extent of its financial interests.




The Papal System – IX. Baptism

The Papal System – IX. Baptism

Continued from VIII. The Council of Trent.

I find this section very interesting history about how false doctrines about Baptism crept into the Church! Water had become a diety to some people!


During the period beginning with the commencement of the fourth century, and ending with the sixth, baptism was commonly administered twice in the year, at Easter and Pentecost.

Preliminaries of Baptism.

There were three classes of sponsors generally employed during this period for three distinct lists of persons; one sponsor became surety for an infant, another for an adult, and a third for a person of deranged or defective intellect. In each case, the sponsor was bound to look after the religious welfare of his charge: even the sureties of adults “were their curators and guardians, bound to take care of their instruction before and after baptism.”

The baptized were anointed with oil, from head to foot, before receiving the sacred rite. This ceremony signified, in that day, the unction of the Holy Spirit, and grafting into the Olive Tree, Christ Jesus. It also denoted that celestial chrism, which qualified Christ’s earthly wrestlers for heroic struggles with the powers of evil.

The bishop breathed upon the candidate for baptism after he had been exorcised to expel demons, to indicate the gift of the Spirit to be conferred.

He touched his ear, saying: “Ephphatha (Mark vii. 34), Be opened; may God send thee an open understanding, that thou mayest be apt to learn and to answer.”

In north Africa, after signing candidates with the cross, the bishop gave them a portion of consecrated salt.

Just before the baptism was administered, the candidate faced the west, the supposed region of diabolical and dark influences, and then, by his sponsor or personally, he renounced Satan with his works and pomps, his service, his angels, his inventions, and all things that owe or render him obedience. This renunciation was commonly repeated three times, the speaker stretching out his hands, and striking them with horror, and spitting, in defiance of the Wicked One, in the direction in which his power was supposed to be exercised. Then, facing the east, the region of the rising sun, the quarter in which Eden, the type of the heavenly paradise, was planted, the candidate vowed to live ever after in obedience to the laws of Christ. After this, a solemn profession of faith was made in the articles of a gospel creed, with the eyes directed towards heaven. Such was the custom which continued at Rome and elsewhere, for a great while, in defiance of opposition. The baptism was administered after these observances.

Ceremonies immediately after Baptism.

When the candidate was baptized, his forehead, ears, nostrils and breast, were anointed with holy chrism.

White robes were placed upon him, to show that he was washed in the blood of the Lamb, and meant to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Lighted tapers (candles) were placed in his hands, as emblems of the lamps of faith, with which virgin souls go forth, to meet the divine bridegroom.

The kiss of peace was always given to the babe or adult just baptized, to show the perfect reconciliation with God now enjoyed.

Milk and honey were imparted to the baptized, to teach that, as babes in Christ, they required as simple food, of a spiritual kind, as natural infants needed of a material sort.

The ingenuity of the early fathers was sorely taxed to discover some new ceremony to add to the dignity of baptism, to make it more imposing and glorious in the estimation of men.

The Effects of Baptism.

Nothing in all earthly history ever wrought such prodigies as baptism at this period was supposed to accomplish. It removed the taint of original sin, blotted cut actual transgressions, made the baptized as innocent as an angel, gave him a new heart, and bestowed upon him an outfit for heaven so perfect that it was imagined that the best time to die was just after being baptized. How early these heresies appeared in the churches it is somewhat difficult to settle. Justin Martyr uses the word regenerate about baptism in a way that looks in the direction of baptismal regeneration. The passage is:

    “They who are persuaded and do believe that those things which are taught by us are true, and do promise to live according to them, are directed first to pray and ask of God with fasting the forgiveness of their former sins; and we also pray and fast with them. Then we bring them to some place where there is water, and they are regenerated, according to the manner of regeneration by which we were regenerated.”

Possibly, Justin may have used this word regenerate in a figurative sense; but the probabilities are not favorable to that opinion. Evidently he attached an amount of importance to baptism unknown to Christ or his apostles.

Tertullian, a little later, expresses the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in terms as vigorous and unscriptural as any Romanist or ritualist could possibly employ; nay, they could not wish their sentiments more explicitly asserted. His words are: “We fishes, after the name (Greek word) of our Lord Jesus Christ, are born in the water.” The word (written in Greek) is an acrostic made of the first letter of the following names of Jesus in Greek: Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour. And it means, a fish. From this name, a fish became as common a symbol among the early Christians to indicate their faith as a crucifix is among the adherents of Rome in our times. We are born in the water, was a leading view of baptism, cherished by great and good men like Augustine, Chrysostom, and Ambrose. This doctrine springing up in the latter half of the second century, swept over Christendom, and left scarcely a trace of dissent in its pathway of triumph.

Baptism washes out all Sin.

From the third century down to the Reformation, except in a few isolated communities, baptism was the grand fountain of soul-cleansing. It was believed to contain the whole forgiving power of Father, Son and Spirit. And it was imagined that heaven could never be entered without it.

On this account many put off baptism till death threatened them, that their iniquities might be removed as the King of Terrors carried them into the land of spirits. And when an earthquake vibrated, or a pestilence, or a deadly war threatened, the clergy were besieged, and their utmost powers were tasked to administer baptism to frightened thousands, whose faith in the liquid deity was unbounded; and who were resolved to render no service to Jesus till the scepter of death seemed likely to strike them.

The Emperor Valens raised an army to drive back the insolent Goths who had crossed the Danube, and invaded Thrace, which he intended to lead in person. And as he reflected upon the risks of battle, he concluded he ought not to hazard his life without the protection of “divine grace,” and that he ought to secure “the complete armor of God by means of the holy rite of baptism.” And the intelligent Greek historian who records the transaction, says: “This was a wise and prudent reflection.” Eudoxius baptized him, and with his soul washed by water, as he foolishly imagined it to be, he supposed himself ready for battles with their savage havoc and huge graves. A foolish faith in the power of water to cleanse the polluted souls of men was universal. And it was believed that it gave a far more complete purification to hearts than it ever gave to hands or garments.

Many sick persons were baptized in their beds from the third to the sixth century. This was called clinic baptism, from the Greed word, a bed or couch. It met with much opposition, but as even this sort of baptism was supposed to take away all sin, it was freely resorted to in cases where the disease threatened to prove fatal. Novatus,of Rome, enjoyed the application of water in this way when it was imagined that he was at the point of death, and his future career as the founder of a new sect of Puritans, opposed to some of the customs of the churches in his day, brought his baptism into notoriety and disrepute. But he believed that it gave him a full outfit for the “Shining Shore,” at a time when he supposed that he was leaving the earth.

In A.D. 253, a council of sixty-six bishops sat in Carthage, with Cyprian at its head. To this council Fidus, a rural bishop, presented by letter two questions for solution; one about Victor, a presbyter, and the other a query, asking how soon after birth a babe might be baptized; and suggesting that it should never receive the sacred rite till after the eighth day, as it would not be pleasant to give it the kiss of peace before it was eight days old. Cyprian and the council say to him in reply, among other things,

    “Therefore, most dear brother, this was our opinion in the council, that no one should be hindered by us from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful, kind and affectionate to all; which rule, as it holds for all, so we think it more especially to be observed in reference to infants and persons newly born, to whom our help and the divine mercy are rather to be granted, because at their first entrance into the world, by their weeping and wailing, they do no other thing than implore compassion.”

Cyprian proceeds to give his rustic brother a little information, by saying:

    “Whereas you assert that an infant, the first days after its birth, is unclean, so that any of us abhors to kiss it, we reckon that this ought to be no impediment to giving it celestial grace; for it is written, ‘To the clean all things are clean’ …. Though an infant is fresh from the womb, yet is it not such that any one should be horrified to kiss it, in giving grace, and in making (the kiss of) peace.”

One of the reasons for the baptism of a child before it is eight days old, in this letter is, that Elisha stretched himself upon the dead son of the Shunamite, in such a manner that his head, face, limbs, and feet were applied to the head, face, limbs, and feet of the child, showing a certain equality between a child and a man, in features if not in stature, and this equality, Cyprian argues, is intended to show that the soul of a child and of a man are of the same stature, dimensions, and needs, that all souls are alike and equal; and then he proceeds to infer, that if the weightiest sinners are not kept from baptism and grace, “How much less reason is there to refuse an infant, who being newly born, has no sin, except that as a descendant of Adam, after the flesh, he has from his very birth contracted the contagion of the death anciently threatened, who comes for this reason the more easily to receive the remission of sins, because the sins forgiven him are not his own; they were committed by others.”

This doctrine about baptism inspired the same false hopes everywhere which it lighted in the hearts of Cyprian and his fellow bishops at Carthage. It took away the iniquities of the strong man burdened with guilt, and when the young were brought to its saving water, it removed the stains and curse of Adam’s sin.

The words of Peter on the day of Pentecost, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins,” tended largely to nourish this heresy; and, among the ancient fathers, they were commonly understood to link forgiveness and baptism together. In Matt. iii. 11, John the Baptist says: “I, indeed, baptize you with water unto repentance” The word unto is properly into. John did not baptize these persons to procure repentance; he baptized them into a profession of repentance which they claimed to possess. It is said in the same chapter that “Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.” Matt. iii.5, 6. They were penitent, and they were baptized, not for the purpose of obtaining a change of heart, but into a profession of the sorrow for sin which they already felt. Peter’s words, translated “for the remission of sins” are literally “into the remission of sins,’ a saying exactly like John’s, and they mean “into a profession of the forgiveness of sins already enjoyed through penitential faith.”

Christ gave the woman who washed his feet with her tears a full pardon, without the slightest allusion to baptism. Luke vii. 47. He forgave the paralytic man let down through the roof of the house into his presence without any reference to baptism, and as he does not save through two instrumentalities, faith alone grasps the Captain of our Salvation, and gives everlasting salvation to the soul.

The passage in John iii. 5, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” was understood universally by the fathers of the third century, and their successors for many ages, as teaching the magical efficacy of baptism in regenerating souls. If the words “kingdom of God” mean the Church in this world, there is considerable unanimity in receiving the doctrine that the birth of the Holy Spirit and the baptismal birth are necessary to church membership. But if these words mean heaven, then the birth of water cannot be baptism; for, doubtless, there are myriads in heaven who never received that ordinance. The words, “Born of water and of the Spirit,” describe the new heart given by the Divine Comforter when a man first repents of his sins, and the floods of pardoning grace which immerse the man born of the Spirit, and, carrying away all his sins, assure him of God’s love. In this way only can any one share in the blessings of God’s kingdom, either here or hereafter.

Modern Romish baptism.

The middle ages made few changes in baptism. The Emperor Charles the Great commanded the archbishops of France to inform him what instructions they and their suffragans gave the priests and people about baptism. He demanded the reason for ranking an infant among the catechumens (persons being taught the principles of Christianity). He asked what a catechumen was. He inquired what was meant by renouncing the devil with his pomps and works; why they exorcised an infant, and breathed upon it; why they gave it salt; why they touched its nostrils; why they anointed its breast; why they covered it with a veil and clothed it in white; and why they gave it the body and blood of the Lord. From these questions it is evident that Romish bap- . tism differed little in the time of Charlemagne from the same ordinance in the fifth century; nor is it much changed now from the manner of its observance in the days of the great son of Pepin,

Baptism according to the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Part second, chapter second, question 11. “But it is to be observed that although simple water, without any addition, in case of necessity, is the proper element for administering the sacrament, yet from a tradition of the apostles always observed in the Catholic Church, when baptism is conferred with solemn ceremonies, holy chrism is also added, by which it is evident that the effect of baptism is more fully declared.” …. .

Quest. 17, . . . . “For those who ought to be initiated by this sacrament are either immersed in water, or water is poured upon them, or they are baptized by sprinkling. But, whichever one of these modes is observed, we must believe that baptism is properly given; for water, in baptism, is used to signify the cleansing of the soul which it accomplishes, Wherefore, baptism is called by the apostle ‘a bath.’ But baptism is made no better when any one is immersed in water, although we notice that this mode was long observed in the earliest times in the Church, than by the pouring out of water, which we perceive to be a frequent practice now, or by aspersion.” . . . . .

Quest. 23. After naming bishops, priests, and deacons as the proper ministers of this sacrament, the catechism specifies a fourth class who may baptize: “The last list of those who can baptize when necessity compels them, without the solemn ceremonies, includes all, even of the laity, of both sexes, whatever creed they may profess. For this office is permitted even to Jews, to infidels, and to heretics, when necessity compels; provided that they intend to perform that which the Catholic Church effects in that office of her ministry.” ……

Quest. 24. This article prescribes the order to govern those who administer baptism. If a priest is present a deacon must not baptize; if a deacon is present a layman must not; if a man is present a woman must not, unless she be a “midwife, accustomed to baptize, and the man inexperienced” in the method of saving the dying by water.

Quest. 25. “As therefore every one, after he has been born, needs a nurse, and an instructor, by whose assistance and labor he may be educated and trained in knowledge and useful arts; so also it is necessary that they who begin to live a spiritual life at the baptismal font should be committed to the fidelity and prudence of some one, through whom they may imbibe the precepts of the Christian religion, and be instructed in every pious way.”…..

Quest. 30. “The law of baptism is thus prescribed by our Lord to all men; insomuch that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of baptism, whether their parents be Christian or infidel, they are born to eternal misery and destruction”… .

Quest. 41….. “They are to be taught in the first place, that by the admirable force of this sacrament sin is remitted and pardoned, whether derived originally from our first parents or committed by ourselves, however great its enormity.”

Quest. 51. “Now truly by baptism we are united and joined as members to Christ the head.” ……

Quest. 57. “But beside the other advantages which we secure from baptism, the last as it were, and that to which all the rest seem to be referred, is that it opens to each of us the gate of heaven closed formerly against us by sin.”

Quest. 64. “The exorcism follows, which is administered by holy and religious words and prayers, to expel the devil and to break his power.”

Quest. 68….. At the font, “the priest puts three distinct interrogatories to the person to be baptized: Dost thou renounce Satan? and all his works? and all his pomps? To each of which he, or the sponsor in his name, replies: I renounce. The priest then questions him on each article of the creed, and asks him if he believes it? To which the sponsor answers: I believe.”

Quest. 69. “When the sacrament is now to be administered, the priest asks the person about to be baptized, if he will be baptized?” and after receiving the usual answer, he is invariably dipped, if the ceremony is performed in Milan, or poured upon, or sprinkled, if he is baptized elsewhere.

Quest. 70. “The baptism being now over, the priest anoints the baptized on the crown of the head with chrism, that he may understand that from that day, as a member, he is joined to Christ the Head, and ingrafted on his body.” ……

Quest. 71. “Afterwards the priest clothes the baptized with a white garment.” ……

Quest. 72. “A lighted candle is then put in his hand, which shows that faith, burning with charity, which he received in baptism, should be nourished and increased by the pursuit of good works.”

Canons of the Council of Trent.

“If any one shall say that baptism is optional, that it is not necessary to salvation, let him be accursed.”

“If any one shall say that the baptism given by heretics, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be accursed.”

“If any one shall say that the baptized are free from all the precepts of holy Church, which are written or received by tradition, so that they are not bound to observe them, unless they wish to subject themselves to them of their own accord; let him be accursed.”

By this last canon all baptized persons are bound to obey the entire precepts of the Church of Rome, whether they approve of them or not. Willing or unwilling, if the Church has the power they must yield, or suffer at the discretion of the clergy. By the second decree all Protestant baptisms are good in the Catholic Church, and every Protestant, baptized in any way, is a son of the Bishop of Rome, and bound to obey the holy father, or bear the consequences just as severely as if he and his fathers for twelve hundred years had been in the Holy Church that gave birth to St. Dominic and the inquisition.

It is universally believed among Protestants that large numbers of children, not belonging to the Romish Church, in our chief cities, are baptized by popish priests, to whom they are stealthily conveyed by nurses and others. [William] Hogan (a priest who left the Catholic Church) says about his residence in this city, when priest of St. Mary’s:

    “I baptized more children than any clergyman in Philadelphia; among these were hundreds of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, and Baptists, brought to me for that purpose by their Roman Catholic nurses, without the knowledge of their Protestant mothers.”

No doubt but this is true. And even here, it is more than likely that many a “father” since Hogan’s day could have made the same statement. This was the favor conferred upon the baby Israelite, Mortara, some years ago by his nurse, for which he was wickedly torn from his parents, and brought up in a convent in the religion of Rome. If some Catholic Bishop, armed with such powers as his brethren have often exercised, were to reclaim all the children baptized in the Catholic Church in Philadelphia, perhaps half the leading Protestants of this city might be compelled to suffer the wrongs of Edgar Mortara (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortara_case); or worse evils, if they proved rebellious.

But as heretical baptism is orthodox, and as the baptized must obey all the precepts of Holy Church, with their own accord or without it, the pope needs but the power to seize us all, and train us to obedience, or crush us by such fierce displays of tyranny as have given his Church the most hideous record in the annals of cruelty and sanctified murder. Well may the pope eulogize his magical baptism in the words with which Tertullian begins his tract on that ordinance: “Oh, fortunate sacrament of our water!”

Continued in The Papal System – X. Confirmation

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart




Popery! As it Was and as it Is – By William Hogan

Popery! As it Was and as it Is – By William Hogan

popery
ˈpəʊp(ə)ri/
noun derogatory, archaic
noun: popery

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.

William Hogan was born in Ireland educated at Maynooth College and became a Catholic priest before emigrating to America around 1810. Assigned to St. Mary’s parish in Philadelphia, he proved himself a popular priest. But he soon ran afoul of Bishop Henry Conwell, who resented his popularity and disapproved of his vigorous social life. When Hogan resisted Conwell’s attempts to rein him in, Conwell suspended him. The trustees of St. Mary’s rushed to Hogan’s defense and Conwell soon had a full-blown schism on his hands. He eventually excommunicated Hogan in 1821 and then, like many American bishops in the 1820s, wrested control of the parish from the lay trustees. Following his excommunication, Hogan managed a circus, studied law, and married twice, before reemerging in the 1840s as a leading voice of anti-Catholicism. He went on the lecture circuit, wrote belligerent essays in popular journals, and published in 1851 a book entitled, Popery as It Was and as It Is. The general tone of the latter is conveyed in the following statement: “I am sorry to say, from my knowledge of Roman Catholic priests … that there is not a more corrupt, licentious body of men in the world.” (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hogan_%28priest%29)

I consider former Roman Catholic priests my best sources of information. They were insiders of a highly secretive and insidious organization. Most people do not think of the Roman Catholic Church as a secret society such as the Freemasons or Skull and Bones. Catholicism appears to be an innocuous branch of Christianity to many, but those who think so are woefully lacking in basic knowledge of world history. In any nation where the Catholic Church is a minority, they seek equal rights. But when they are the majority power, they want to rule in every way, religiously, spiritually, and especially, politically. It is for this very reason that the Japanese Tokugawa government expelled all Roman Catholic (Jesuit) missionaries in the 17th century! They knew that the Catholic Church was seeking military and political control of Japan and was therefore a threat to their government and nation. For more information about this, please see History of Catholic Aggressiveness in Japan

The last section called “POPISH BISHOPS AND PRIESTS ABSOLVE ALLEGIANCE TO PROTESTANT GOVERNMENTS” was so long that I had to divide it up further with titles that are not in the original book.

Joe Biden

Joe Biden

Americans who read this work may think, “This is all very interesting history of the Catholic Church in America in the first half of the 19th century, but it is not like that today.” While it’s true that modern American Catholics have a more tolerant attitude toward non-Catholics, what do the priests and bishops think about it? They are still seeking domination of America. Just look at the Supreme Court today (2025). Six out of nine of the judges are Roman Catholic! Former President Joe Biden is Catholic and quite proud of it seeing how shows the mark of ashes he got from his priest! Could this be one of the Marks of the Beast?

This book was found on https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37705

POPERY!
AS IT WAS AND AS IT IS.
BY WILLIAM HOGAN, ESQ.,

FORMERLY A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST. WITH SEVERAL ILLUSTRATIONS 1854. THE FOLLOWING PAGES RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED TO AMERICAN REPUBLICANS, THE AUTHOR.

PREFACE.

In submitting the following pages to the public, I can say, with truth, that I am actuated by no other motive than a sincere desire to promote the interest, and contribute all in my power to perpetuate the free institutions, of this, my adopted country.

It is many years since I have had any intercourse or connection with the church or priests of Rome; and I vainly imagined that, after the first outbreak of their animosity, for repudiating their doctrines, it would succeed into a calm indifference. I was aware of the custom, in that church, to defame and calumniate all who “went out from her;” but especially those who have held any distinguished position.

Against such, appeals are immediately made to the people by their priests, until, finally, maddened by sophistry, fanaticism, and falsehoods, they look upon the seceder as one whom it is their duty to destroy; and in whose word, honor, and virtue, no confidence is to be reposed. The object of the Romish church, in this, cannot be mistaken. it is too plain to escape even the least observant eye. A lawyer who can render legally valueless the testimony of opposing witnesses, seldom fails in establishing his case; and hence it is that the Romish church never fails to destroy, if she can, the credibility of all who break loose from her, knowing them to be the best witnesses of her iniquities. But for some years back, and until recently, the violence of Popish priests against myself seemed to slumber. This was natural. In the body ecclesiastic, as well as in the natural body, a morbid excitement often succeeds a stupor; and recently these gentlemen have assailed me again. To apparent indifference succeeded a frantic zeal; and from one end of this continent to the other, they have tried to injure me, by appeals to the public through their presses, and especially through the confessional. All this I would have disregarded, as usual, but I find that these priests have become politicians, and that every blow aimed at me, for the free exercise of my judgment as to the best mode of worshipping God, is aimed at the constitution of my adopted country, which grants this blessing, without let or hindrance, to all the children of men.

Well aware that Americans are not acquainted with the designs of Popery against their country and its institutions, I feel it my duty to lay before them the following pages. The perusal of them will satisfy every American that our country is in danger, not so much from enemies abroad as from foes within. They will find that Papists have reduced political, as well as religious corruption, to a system, and are, at this moment, practising it amongst us, upon a great and gigantic scale.

Synopsis of popery, as it was and as it is.

When this country renounced its allegiance to the British crown, and proclaimed itself independent Popery was on the wane in Europe; it was there getting more sickly, more languid and feeble, until it had little more than a mere nominal existence; but while its blossoms were fading, its thorns retained their vitality, inflicting pains and wounds on all who came in contact with them. The Jesuits, one of the most influential orders of friars belonging to the Roman church, continued still active as ever in their fiendish avocations; they roamed about, like so many gnomes, from country to country, and from people to people, carrying with them, and strewing on their paths, the seeds of moral death on all that was precious and valuable in the social system. Whatever they touched was blighted; whatever they said or preached breathed treachery; wherever they went, vice, crime, and duplicity marked their track. But dark as the times were then, enshrouded as they had been in ignorance, and idolatrous as the people were, they began to manifest some dissatisfaction at the machinations of Jesuits in their efforts to acquire temporal power. They began to feel it in the loss of their property, out of which they too late saw themselves gradually swindled; they felt it in the loss of their liberty and civil rights, out of which they had been persuaded, all for the good of the church. Endurance became intolerable, and those unhallowed agents had to be partially suppressed.

The Popish church, at this time, seeing the influence of her most active agents gradually diminishing, her ancient glories fading, and her power vanishing from her grasp; and scarcely able to breathe any longer in the putrid atmosphere which her own corruption and impurities had created, very naturally turned her eyes towards this brilliant new world. It was then young and beautiful; it abounded in all the luxuries of nature; it promised all that was desirable to man. The holy church, seeing these irresistible temptations, thirsting with avarice, and yearning for the reestablishment of her falling greatness, soon commenced pouring in among its unsuspecting people hordes of Jesuits and other friars, with a view of forming among them institutions which were already found to be destructive to the peace and morals of all social and religious principles in Europe. We now see Popish colleges, and nunneries, and monastic institutions, springing up in our hitherto happy republic; and, if similar causes continue, as they have ever done, to produce similar effects, it needs no prophet’s eye to see, nor inspired tongue to tell, what the consequences must be to posterity. Many suppose that Popery has been modified; that it is different now from what it was in ancient times; that the spirit which actuated Papists in those dark days ceases to influence them now that the faggot, the rack, and various other modes of torture, are not still in use in the Roman church, and that it has long ceased to lay claim, by divine right, to temporal sovereignty, or to any other of those prerogatives which they formerly insisted upon. There are some so fastidiously liberal as to grant them all immunities which may be with safety granted to other sects; others there are, so patriotic as to hold at defiance all their power; and others so self-conceited as to fancy themselves an over-match even for Jesuits, in religious chicanery and political intrigue.

All this arises, not from want of true zeal in American Protestants, but because they are unacquainted with the canons of the Romish church. These canons are inaccessible to the majority of the American people, even of theologians, and with the purport and meaning of them none but those who have been educated Roman Catholic priests have much or any acquaintance. I hesitate not to say—although I do so with the utmost respect and deference—that there are but few American theologians who have much acquaintance with the doctrines or canons of the Romish church. They form no part of their studies; a knowledge of them is not necessary in the legitimate discharge of their pastoral duties; and hence it is, that in many of their controversies with Romish priests, they are not unfrequently browbeaten, bullied, and often almost ignominiously driven from the arena of controversy by men who, in point of general information, virtue, piety, zeal, and scriptural knowledge, are greatly their inferiors. He who argues with Catholic priests must have had his education with them; he must be of them and from among them. He must know, from experience, that they will stop at no falsehood where the good of the church is concerned; he must know that they will scruple at no forgery when they desire to establish any point of doctrine, fundamental or not fundamental, which is taught by their church; he must be aware that it is a standing rule with Popish priests, in all their controversies with Protestants, to admit nothing and deny every thing, and that, if still driven into difficulty, they will still have recourse to the archives of the church, where they keep piles of decretals, canons, rescripts, bulls, excommunications, interdicts, &c, ready for all such emergencies; some of them dated from three hundred to a thousand years before they were written or even thought of; showing more clearly, perhaps, than anything else, the extreme ignorance of mankind between the third and ninth centuries, when most of these forgeries were palmed upon the world. With the aid of these miserable forgeries, they attempt to prove, among other things, that the divine right of the Pope to the sovereignty of this world was acknowledged by the fathers of the church, in the earliest days of Christianity.

There are to be found now, in the Vatican at Rome, canons and decretals which go to show that the Pope was considered “equal to God,” as early as the third century. More of these impious forgeries attempt to show that some of the most pious fathers of the church, in the days of her unquestioned sanctity and piety, acknowledged “Mary, the mother of Jesus, to be equal to God the Son, and deserved supreme adoration.” With these forged instruments, they attempt to show that the primitive Christians believed in the real and actual presence of the whole body and blood of Christ, in the wafer which they call the Eucharist.

Monstrous, horrible, and impious, as these absurdities are, I once believed them myself. So much for the prejudices of education.

The object of the following pages is to show, first, the origin of Papal power; secondly, to call the attention of Americans to its rapid growth in many of the nations of the earth; and, thirdly, to put my fellow citizens on their guard against giving it any countenance or support within the limits of the United States.

Origin of the temporal power of the pope.

We have no authentic evidence that the bishops or presbyters of the primitive Christian church laid claims to temporal power, much less to universal sovereignty, such as Popes have arrogated to themselves, in subsequent times, even down to the present day. Constantine, as we are informed by the best authorities, was the first to unite civil and ecclesiastical power. He introduced Christianity among the Romans by civil authority. This occurred between the years 272 and 337; but never during his reign, nor before it, was there an instance of a bishop or presbyter of the church aspiring to temporal jurisdiction. They were poor and persecuted; they were meek and humble; they were well content with the privilege of worshipping God in peace. The instructions of their divine Master were fresh in their minds—they almost still rung in their ears. They felt that they were sent into the world with special instructions to “preach the gospel to every creature.” Their heavenly Master told them that his “kingdom was not of this world.” They felt the full force of that high and holy admonition, “Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” They cheerfully submitted to the civil authorities. They claimed not the right of giving away kingdoms, crowning emperors, deposing princes, and absolving their subjects from their oaths of allegiance. These pure Christians and devout men asked for no distinctions, but those of virtue and zeal in the cause of Christ; they sought for no wealth but that of Heaven; they desired no crown but that of glory; they sought no tiara save that of martyrdom; they were surrounded by no court but that of the poor; no college of cardinals waited on their pleasure; there were no nuncios sent from their court; no foreign ambassadors passed between them and the powers of this earth. The only court with which they had business to transact, and in which their treasures were laid up, was the court of Heaven; and their only ambassadors at that court were the angels of heaven, sent forth to minister unto them. But this state of things did not last long. As a modern writer beautifully expresses it, “the trail of the serpent is over us all.” The Emperor Constantine, seeing the poverty of the primitive church,—her vast and progressive increase in numbers and the consequent demand upon her charities,—granted to her bishops permission to hold property, real and personal. This concession on the part of Constantine, simple and trifling as it seemed to be; this commingling of the things of heaven and earth, was unnatural. It contained within itself the principles of dissolution, or rather of entire destruction; and became, in time, the source from which have sprung most of the wars, massacres, and bloody strifes, that have desolated and divided into fragmentary sections, the richest, the fairest, and the finest portions of the globe, during the last fifteen hundred years; and will continue to do so, unto the end of time, unless the advance of civilization, and the great progress which the human mind has made in ethics, morals, and metaphysics, on this continent, puts an immediate check to Popish interference with the policy of our country.

Could we suppose an individual, who knew nothing of ancient times; who was an entire stranger to the darkness which pervaded Europe during the middle ages; who had no acquaintance with the pretensions, arrogance and insolence of Roman pontiffs; who knew no other constitution and no other laws but those of our own country; he could not but feel surprised at being first told, that there now lived in Rome, an upstart ecclesiastic, called a Pope, who has the hardihood to assert that he is Sovereign Lord, and that too by divine right, of these United States, as well as of all other kingdoms of this world. He goes even further, and contends that his predecessors had similar divine rights, and that all the citizens and inhabitants of this country owed allegiance to him personally, and to no one else, unless delegated by him to receive it. But strange as this may appear, it is no less true, as I will show from authorities, which cannot be questioned, by those who claim such extravagant immunities.

The Pope of Rome predicates his claim to universal sovereignty upon the power of loosing and binding on earth and in heaven; which, in the exuberance of their fancy, Roman Catholic writers contend was given to St. Peter. Their next step is to prove, that this supremacy was acknowledged by the primitive fathers of the church, and consequently their rights and claims are beyond dispute. But before I proceed to give any of the authorities, upon which Roman Catholic writers rest the antiquity of the recognition of their Pope’s temporal power, it may not be amiss to inform the reader that the very first on which they rely is one of the most unblushing forgeries on record; and is dated about six hundred years previous to the time at which it purports to have been written. It is taken from the words of a conveyance of certain temporal concessions, said to be made by the Emperor Constantine to Pope Sylvester, some time between the second and third centuries. It is in the following words:

“We attribute to the chair of St. Peter all imperial dignity, glory, and power. We give to Pope Sylvester, and to his successors, our palace of Lateran, one of the finest palaces on earth; we give him our crown, our mitre, our diadem, and all our imperial vestments; we resign to him all our imperial dignity. We give the Holy Pontiff, as a free gift, the city of Rome, and all the western cities of Italy, as well as the western cities of 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 has placed the head of the church.”

It would be a waste of time to show that no such donation as the above ever existed. No mention is made of it in any history of the Popes that has ever been written, or in any other document which had reference to them during the reign of Constantine. It is a forgery so shallow, unreal, and unsubstantial, that there is no well-educated historian, and never has been one, who gave it any credence. The historian Flewry pronounces it a falsehood; and he, being a Roman Catholic, must be considered good authority upon all matters relating to the holy church. The quotation, however, from this supposed deed of concession, by Constantine to Pope Sylvester, is not without instruction to the citizens of this country. It should arouse them to a sense of the dangers which are hovering over them. It should remind them that every thing is perishable. The fairest flower must fade; the loveliest lily must wither; the laughing rose must droop; even our fair republic may lose its bloom, and pass away. A state of things may arise in this country, when its executive may be a Papist, its judiciary Papists, and a majority of its population may be Papists. These things are not beyond the range of possibility; and are you sure that your own descendants, and those of the pilgrim fathers, may not, one day or other, give this republic as a free gift to the head of the Papal church? You are now strong—so was Rome. Your power is now irresistible—so was that of Rome and other countries. Your arms are invincible—so were those of Rome. You are now distinguished all over the world, for your progress in the arts and sciences; the world looks to you as models of patriotism and pure republicanism—so did the world once look to Rome. But what is Rome now, and what drove her from the high position she once occupied? I will tell you;—the intrigues of the Popish church. And a similar fate awaits you, unless you cut off all connection, of whatever name, between the citizens of the United States and the church of Rome. While this sink of iniquity breathes, it will carry with it destruction and death wherever it goeth.

We have had several histories of the Popes, and the first mention made of donations to them, at least of any comparative value, is by Anastasius, who wrote about the beginning of the tenth century, or a little before the close of the ninth. He informs us that Charlemagne conferred upon the Holy See (as that hotbed of iniquity is impiously, even at the present day, called) whole provinces, and acknowledged that they belonged to the Pope by divine right; though it is well understood, and denied by no competent historian, that Charlemagne never even owned these provinces. It is well known to the readers of history, that there existed no empire of any extent, but that of the East, until the beginning of the eighth century. Charlemagne assumed the title of King of Italy, in the year eight hundred. He received homage from the Pope, and so far from being subject to him, he acknowledged no divine right in him; but on the contrary, he held the Pope in strict subjection to himself. He even went so far as to prohibit the Holy See from receiving donations of any kind, when given without the consent or to the prejudice of those who had just and equitable claims to them.

This, if there were no other proof, is sufficient to show that neither the Popes nor the Holy See had any pretensions to universal supremacy, or to supremacy of any kind, as far down as the eighth century. It will not be denied that the civil authorities of Rome were liberally disposed towards the Popes or fathers of the church in the early days of Christianity. The Emperor Theodosius the Great, who died in the year three hundred and ninety five, recommended to all his subjects to pay “a due respect to the See of Rome.” Valentian III. commanded his subjects “not to depart from the faith and customs of the Holy See.” It will however be borne in mind, that this Valentian was acknowledged emperor at the age of six, and his affairs were managed principally by his mother. So dissipated were his habits, that he finally fell a victim to them. But up to this period there is no evidence whatever that the Popes either claimed or exercised temporal authority.

About this time several councils met for the purpose of adjusting disputes that arose between the sons of the successor of Charlemagne, who unwisely, as historians suppose, divided his empire into three equal parts among them. It was at one of these councils, that the doctrine of the divine right of Popes to temporal authority was first broached by the production of some of those forged documents to which I have heretofore alluded. Pope Gregory the Fourth took an active part in fomenting the dissensions which necessarily arose from the division which the successor of Charlemagne had made of his empire among his sons. The Pope, with that craft peculiar to all ecclesiastics of the Roman Catholic denominations, was active in widening the breach between father and sons, and having effected this to his content, his next move was to sow further dissensions between the sons themselves, and finally to create such a general confusion and dissatisfaction among all parties, as to render a mediator necessary. Having attained his object, he offered his services to the Imperial Father, and it was accepted. He presented himself at his camp, obtained an entrance, and what were the consequences? History tells the tale—it was a tale of treachery.

Americans will bear in mind that Roman Catholics believe their church to be infallible; that she never changes; that what was deemed right by her in the days of Gregory and those of his immediate successors, is right now, and, vice versa, what she deems right now was right then. In a word, the church of Rome is infallible. This is believed by every one of her members at the present day. It is taught by every Popish bishop and priest in the United States.

The following curse is contained in the Roman Catholic Breviary, in which, every Romish priest reads his prayers three times every day. “Qui dicit ecclesiam catholicam Romanam non esse infallilrilem, anathema sit—Whoever says that the Roman Catholic church is not infallible, let him be accursed.” Such is the belief of every Roman Catholic. Will not Protestant Americans pause and reflect for a moment? The population of the United States is about twenty millions, and about two millions are Papists. Consequently, seventeen millions and a half of our people are accursed and damned, according to the doctrine of the Romish ritual; and yet we Protestants are called upon to extend the hand of friendship to these Papists, and our legislators are asked to grant them charters to build colleges, churches, nunneries, and monk-houses, not for the purpose of teaching the growing generation the revealed will of God, as read in the Scriptures, but to persuade them that all other religions, except that of Rome, are erroneous; that their parents, brothers, and sisters, are heretics, accursed forever, and by implication entitled to no allegiance from them.

The Pope is now setting on foot a movement which is intended to embrace the whole world, and of which he desires Rome to be the sole representative, centre, and circumference. The powers of the Pope have met with several severe shocks since the Reformation. His forces have been broken, his armies of Jesuits, his friars of all orders, Dominicans, Franciscans, and Capuchins, have been scattered and enfeebled. He determined to arm himself afresh, and this new world appeared to him as the safest ground on which he could unite his scattered forces in Europe. This he well knows cannot be done, without throwing some fire-brand of dissension among our people, which at this moment he is trying to effect; and which nothing but the resistance offered to him by American Republicans can check or prevent.

On the continuance, strength, and union of this party, depends the stability of our government. This the Romish priests and bishops well know, and are beginning to feel; and hence they are denouncing them from their pulpits, and in all their presses. But no Protestant opposes this party Why call it a party? It is no party. It is but the spontaneous move of the good and the virtuous of all parties who love their God, their Bibles, and their country, and upon whose strong arm and bold hearts rests the question whether Americans shall be free or the slaves of his royal holiness the Pope of Rome. Often have I lifted my voice, a feeble one, indeed, in favor of American Republicans. I believe their cause is the cause of God and freedom, and upon them every American and every Protestant foreigner must rely for protection against the merciless spirit of Popery.

It requires no stretch of imagination to fancy a difference of opinion, or even of interest, between the citizens of this country. Suppose, for instance, that the North and South were at variance; suppose them actually at war with each other; what would be the course of the Pope’s emissaries, hundreds of whom are now roaming through this land? The safest course and the surest mode of ascertaining what they would do in such an event, is to look back and ascertain what they have invariably done under similar circumstances. It is seldom wrong, and as a general principle it is safe, to judge of the future from the past; and if so, there can be no doubt of the course which Jesuits and Roman Catholics would pursue in the event of any difficulties or collisions between the people of the different sections of this country. Would they try to reconcile them? Did they ever do so in a like case? What was the conduct of the Jesuits and Popes as early as the eleventh century, when the Roman people differed in opinion as to their form of government, and some points of religious faith? The Pope laid an interdict upon the whole people; the weaker party was overpowered by the Papal authorities; and their leader, as Flewry informs us, was burned alive by order of the Pope Adrian. Frederick, called Barbarossa, who was the tool of the Pope on this occasion, became the next victim to his barbarity. And why? what had he done? what crime did he commit against the state? His only crime was,—he refused to hold the Pope’s stirrup. For this he incurred the displeasure of Adrian, nor did he ever enjoy a day’s peace until the Pope seduced him into an expedition against Saladin; where, together with thousands of others, who were persuaded to undertake that religious crusade, he died after several hard fought victories.

The history of the Popes, in all ages, shows that they never abandon any temporal or spiritual authority to which they lay claim; and had they the power of enforcing it now, they would exact from this country the same obedience which they did in the most benighted days of the middle ages. Should a separation of these States take place; should the chain that has bound us together for the last half century, in links of love and social happiness, be unfortunately broken, by any untoward circumstances; think you, fellow citizens, that foreign Papists in this country would try to re weld it? Far from it. They would unite in breaking it, link by link, Until not a particle of it remained. This they have done in every country where they obtained a footing; this they are doing now, under various pretences, all over Europe; and should this country escape the fate of others, where Jesuits and Popes dare to exercise their supposed authorities, it will stand prominent and proudly, though solitary and alone, amid the records of ages, and ruins of time. I have no such hope. The efforts which are now making to check the progress of Popery, may, perhaps, retard the day of our downfall; but come it must, unless the allegiance, which is now demanded by the Pope of Rome from his subjects in the United States, is unqualifiedly forbidden. The Pope is a temporal prince. Like other kings and princes, he should never be permitted to meddle, directly or indirectly, temporally or spiritually, with this country. He should not be permitted to appoint bishop or priest to any church, diocese, living, or office in the United States. The Pope’s bulls, rescripts, letters, &c., &c., should not be published or read from any pulpit this side of the Atlantic; and, though Roman Catholics should not be prevented from the free exercise of their religion, they should be compelled to do so without reference to foreign dictation. If they must have a Pope, let him be an American, and sworn to support our constitution. Let him, and all Roman Catholics, be denied the right of voting, or of holding any office of honor, profit, or trust, under the government of the United States, until they forswear all allegiance, in spiritual as well as temporal affairs, to all foreign potentates and Popes. Until this is done, an oath of allegiance to this government, by a Roman Catholic, is entitled to no credit, and should not be received. This will appear evident to Americans, if they will turn their attention for a moment to the following oath, which is taken by every Romish bishop, before he is permitted to officiate, as such, in any of these United States:— “I do solemnly swear, on the holy evangelist, and before Almighty God, to defend the domains of St. Peter against every aggressor; to preserve, augment, and extend, the rights, honors, privileges, and powers of the Lord Pope, and his successors; to observe, and with all my might to enforce, his decrees, ordinances, reservations, provisions, and all dispositions whatever, emanating from the court of Rome; to persecute and combat, to the last extremity, heretics, schismatics, and all who will not pay to the sovereign pontiff all the obedience which the sovereign shall require.”

While this oath is obligatory upon Romish bishops, they are not to be trusted. They should not be permitted to interfere, directly nor indirectly, with the institutions, laws, or ordinances of any Protestant country. Their oaths should not be taken in courts of justice; their followers, every one of whom is bound by a similar oath of allegiance, should be excluded from our grand juries, from our petit juries, but more especially, from our halls of legislation; for wherever and whenever the supposed interest of the Pope clashes with that of the civil authority, or even with the administration of reciprocal justice, a Papist, under the control of his bishop, will not hesitate to sacrifice the good of the country, the interest, life, and prosperity of his fellow-being, for the good of the church. Of the truth of this, history abounds with examples, and Popish writers are replete with authorities.

Thomas Aquinas, whose authority no Roman Catholic questions, says in his work de Regem., “The Pope, as supreme king of all the world, may impose taxes and destroy towns and castles for the preservation of Christianity.” The American reader will bear in mind, that by Christianity, St. Thomas means Popery. Pope Gregory the Seventh, about the year one thousand and fifty, has made use of the following language, and proclaimed it as the doctrine of the Romish Church. “The Pope ought to be called Universal Bishop. He alone ought to wear the tokens of imperial dignity; all princes ought to kiss his feet; he has power to depose emperors and kings, and is to be judged by none.” Pope John the Twelfth, in the year nine hundred and fifty-six, announced the following to be the universal belief, that “Whosoever shall venture to maintain that our lord the Pope cannot decree what he pleases, let him be accursed.” Pope Bonifice the Eighth, in 1294, declares, ex cathedra, “that God has set Popes over kings and kingdoms, and whoever thinks otherwise declares him accursed.” The same Pope, in another place, says, “We therefore declare, say, define, and pronounce it to be necessary to salvation, that every human creature should be obedient to the Roman pontiff.” The Pope of the present day, as every Roman Catholic writer maintains and teaches the laity to believe, has the same power now that the Popes had at any period of church history.

The council of Trent, the last held in the Popish church, declares that Pius the Fifth, who was then Pope of Rome, “was prince over all nations and kingdoms, having power to pluck up, destroy, scatter, ruin, plant, and build.” Cardinal Zeba, a sound theologian according to Popish belief, maintains, with much ingenuity, “that the Pope can do all things which he wishes, and is empowered by God to do many things which he himself cannot do.” All writers upon canon law compliment the Pope by calling him our Lord the Pope, and this title was confirmed to him by the council of Lateran. In the fourth session of that council, it is maintained “that all mortals are to be judged by the Pope, and the Pope by nobody at all.” Massonius, who wrote the life of Pope John the Ninth, tells us that a bishop of Rome, namely, a Pope, cannot commit even sin without praise.

Were there no other reproach upon the Romish church but the bare utterance of such blasphemy as this, it would be enough to disgust mankind; it should raise every voice in her condemnation, and every hand to pull down this masterpiece of satanic ingenuity. But strange as it may appear, the present Pope maintains similar claims, and enforces obedience; nay, more;—in this year of our Lord, 1845, insists upon the right of deposing all in power, and of absolving their subjects from further allegiance.

But, extravagant as Papal pretensions were between the ninth and tenth centuries, it was only about the middle of the eleventh that they began to show themselves in the full blaze of their hideous deformity. Hildebrand, whom we have had occasion to mention as Gregory the Seventh, shook off all civil restraint, and proclaimed the universal and unbounded empire of the Popes over the rest of the world.

As Shoberl expresses it, “he caused to be drawn up a declaration of independence in all things, temporal and spiritual, expressly specifying the Pope’s divine right of deposing all princes, giving away all kingdoms, abrogating existing laws, and substituting in their place such as the holy Pope for the time being may approve of.” This declaration, or bill of rights, is correctly translated by Shoberl, and published in his work, entitled, “The Rise and Progress of the Papal Power.” Many, probably, may read this volume, who have had no opportunity of seeing Shoberl’s work; and others there are, who may refuse giving his statement that credence which circumstances compel them to give the writer.

Having been educated a Roman Catholic priest, and the fact being well known that admission cannot be had into her priesthood without being well versed, at least in her own doctrines, it is fairly to be presumed that my statements are entitled to full credit, when those of Protestants may be denied by Romish priests, who, while united with that church, are compelled, under pain of being cursed, to subscribe to any falsehood, however gross, provided it subserves the interest of the Pope; and deny any truth, however plain, rather than contradict or weaken the authorities by which the impious follies and wicked pretensions of the church of Rome are supported. I will give this bill of rights to my readers. It should be in the hands of every American. It should find a place in every primary school in the United States. It should be among the first lessons of infancy, so that every child, when he grows up and sees a Roman Catholic bishop or priest, should pause and ask himself, Does that man believe those things? Are we called on to pass laws for the support and protection of churches, where such doctrines, as this bill contains, are promulgated? Can we trust the man who promulgates them, or those who subscribe to them? Is it safe to live in the same community with them? Do they not endanger our civil institutions? Do they not jeopardize the morals of our children? Will it not, at some future day, be a blot upon the page of our history, and a foul stain upon our character for intelligence, that we have ever sanctioned such doctrines, or that we had ever allowed men who professed them, any participation in our civil rights? But let Pope Gregory’s declaration of Papal divine rights speak for itself.

“The Romish 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.
“His legate presides over all the bishops in every council, and may pronounce sentence of deposition against them.
“The Pope can depose absent persons.
“It is not lawful to live with such as have been excommunicated.
“He has the power, according to circumstances, to make new laws, to create new churches, to transform a chapter into an abbey, and to divide a rich bishopric into two, or to unite two poor bishoprics.
“He alone has a right to assume the attributes of empire.
“All princes must kiss his feet.
“His name is the only one to be uttered in the churches.
“It is the only name in the world.
“He has a right to depose emperors.
“He has a right to remove bishops from one see to another.
“He has a right to appoint a clerk [priest] in every church.
“He, whom he has appointed, may govern another church, and cannot receive a higher benefice from any private bishop.
“No council can call itself general without the order of the Pope.
“No chapter, no book, can be reputed canonical without his authority.
“No one can invalidate his sentences; he can abrogate those of all other persons.
“He cannot be judged by any one.
“All persons whatsoever are forbidden to presume to condemn him who is called to the apostolical chair.
“To this chair must be brought the more important causes of all the churches.
“The Roman church is never wrong, and will never fall into error.
“Every Roman pontiff, canonically ordained, becomes holy.
“It is lawful to accuse when he permits, or when he commands.
“He may, without synod, depose and absolve bishops.
“He is no Catholic who is not united to the Romish church.
“The Pope can release the subjects of bad princes from all oaths of allegiance.”

Those who have not been educated Roman Catholics, or who have not lived in Catholic countries, will find it difficult to suppose that such pretensions as the above should ever have been entertained or submitted to: extravagant, absurd, wild, and wicked as they are, they have been acquiesced in by the court of Rome; and are, at this day, contended for, and would be enforced, in this country, had that church the power to do so. She has never resigned the rights claimed in the above declaration; and there is not a Roman Catholic who dares assert the contrary, without a dispensation from his bishop or his priest to tell a deliberate falsehood, with a view of deceiving Americans for the good of the church, This, however, they can always obtain and grant to each other, as circumstances may require.

While a Roman Catholic priest, I have often received and given such indulgences myself; and there is not a period in the Christian world, since the days of Pope Gregory, when all the powers and prerogatives, enumerated in the above Papal bill of rights, were not claimed and acted upon by Popes of Rome, down to the hour at which I write. Let us test the truth of this assertion by the unerring rule of history, although it may seem unnecessary, as no Roman Catholic will deny it; at any rate, it will not be questioned by those who have any acquaintance with the history of their own church. I am well aware that the majority of Roman Catholics in this country know nothing of the religion which they profess, and for which they are willing to fight, contend, and shed the blood of their fellow beings. I am not even hazarding an assertion, when I say there is not one of them who has read the gospels through, or who knows any more about the religion he professes, than he does about the Koran of Mohammed. He is told by the priest, “that Christ established a church on earth; that it is infallible; and that they must submit implicitly to what its popes, priests, and bishops teach, under pain of eternal damnation.” This is all the great mass of Roman Catholics know of religion; this is all they are required to learn; and hence it is that these people are unacquainted with the pretensions of the Pope, the intrigues of Jesuits, or the impositions practised upon them by their bishops and priests.

But to the history of Papal pretensions. As early as the year 1066, Gregory, who was then Pope, summoned William the Conqueror, king of England, to repair to Rome, prostrate himself upon his knees, and do homage to his holiness. This William refused; but his holiness deemed it expedient to compromise the matter, though he did not yield a jot of his very modest pretensions. This humble follower of the Redeemer looked upon Sardinia and Russia as a portion of his dominions. The following extract of a letter of his, to the sovereign of Russia, is a fair sample of the insolence of this man Pope, or rather this God Pope, as his subjects considered him. “We have given you a crown to your son, who is to come and to receive it at our hands on taking an oath of allegiance to us.” He also commanded the emperor of Greece “to abdicate his crown,” and he also deposed the king of Poland. This modest Pope wrote to the different princes of Spain, “that it would be much better to give up their country to the Saracens, than not pay homage to the See of Rome.” He excommunicated Philip the First of France, because he refused to “pay homage to him.” Writing to the French bishops, he says, “Separate yourselves from the communion of Philip; let the celebration of the holy mass be interdicted throughout all France; and know that, with the assistance of God, we will deliver that kingdom from such an oppressor.” This same Pope excommunicated Henry the Fourth, “because he refused to acknowledge him as his superior,” and absolved his subjects from their oath of allegiance to him: and what was the result? Henry was obliged to submit. Having repaired to the Pope’s court, he was stopped at the entrance, and before he was permitted to appear in the presence of this ruffian Pope, who was then shut up with Matilda, countess of Tuscany, one of the numerous women with whom he lived on terms of intimacy, he was compelled to undress and put on a hair shirt. The Pope then condescended to say, “that Henry should fast three days, before he could be permitted to kiss his holiness’s toe; and he would then absolve him upon promise of good behavior.”

Alexander the Third, about the year 1160, deposed Frederic First, king of Denmark; and placing his foot upon his neck, he impiously exclaimed, “Thou shalt tread upon the lion and the adder.” This practice and these pretensions to sovereign power, continued down to the days of Elizabeth; and from thence down to the present moment. Pope Pius V. excommunicated Elizabeth, and absolved her subjects from their oath of allegiance; and while doing so, addressed to himself the following words from the Psalmist: “See, I have this day set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, to destroy, to build up, and to throw down.” More of this hereafter.

Such were the doctrines of the Romish church in 1558. Such were the practices of that church for centuries previous; nor is there one single instance on record of her having modified or abridged the extent or magnitude of her claims, unless when compelled to do so by coercion; and even then she did not abandon her claim, but only ceased to exercise it in obedience to the law of force. The Romish church, in this country, as I shall show, claims the same temporal powers now which she has always claimed and exercised for so many centuries. She would now depose the executive of this country, as she did Philip of France, if she dared do so. The Pope would absolve our citizens from their oath of allegiance, had he the power of carrying his dispensation info effect; and what is the duty of Americans under such circumstances? Are you to submit passively? Is it your duty to wait and witness the growth of Popery among you, to nourish and feed it with the life blood of your existence as a nation, until the monster outgrows your own strength and strangles you, to satiate its inordinate appetite? I lay it down as a sound principle in political as well as moral ethics, that if a government finds, within the limits of its jurisdiction, any sect or party, of whatever doctrine, creed, or denomination, professing principles incompatible with its permanency, or subversive of the unalienable right of self government, and worshipping God, according to the dictates of each and every man’s conscience, that sect or party should be removed beyond its limits, or at least excluded from any participation in the formation or administration of its laws.

Would it, for instance, be wise in our government to encourage the Mormons to introduce among us, as the law of the land, the ravings and prophesies of Joe Smith? Suppose that sect maintained that Joe Smith was their Lord God; that the kingdoms of this world were his; that he claimed and did actually exercise the right of dethroning kings, and was endeavoring, by every means in his power, to place himself in a position to exercise, at no-distant period, the right of deposing our presidents, state governors, and absolving our people from their oaths of allegiance. Should not that sect, as such, be instantly crushed? Should it not, at least, be forbidden to interfere, directly or indirectly, with our civil institutions? Let us suppose the prophet Joe Smith to hold the seat of his government in Europe, and that Europe was full to overflowing with Mormons; we may further suppose this great high priest to have thousands and millions of subordinate officers, sworn and bound together by oaths cemented in blood, to sustain him as their sovereign ruler, by every means which human ingenuity could devise, and at every sacrifice of truth and honor. Suppose, further, that this high priest was annually sending thousands of his subjects to this country, with no other view but to possess your fertile lands and overthrow your government, and substituting in its place that of this foreign priest and tyrant; would you permit them to land upon your shores? Would you allow them to pollute the purity of your soil? Would you allow their unclean hands to touch the altars of your liberty? Would you not first insist that they should purge themselves from the sins and slime of Mormonism, and free themselves from all further connection with this monster man, and would-be God, who impiously demanded blind obedience and unqualified homage? I could answer for you, but I will not; the history of your republic answers for you; the movements, which are now going forth from one end of your country to the other, are answering for you, in tones too solemn and too loud to be drowned by the roaring of Popish bulls. But it is much to be feared that Americans do not yet fully understand the dangers to be apprehended from the existence of Popery in the United States. It is difficult to persuade a single-hearted and single-minded republican, whose lungs were first inflated by the breath of freedom, whose first thoughts were, that all men had a natural right to worship God as they pleased—that any man could be found, so lost to reason, interest, and principle, as to desire to barter those high, privileges, which he may enjoy in this country, for oppression and blind submission to the dictates of a Pope, or even any body of men, civil or ecclesiastic; still less can an American believe, without difficulty, that he who sees the excellence and practical operation of our form of government, will try to overthrow it, by submitting to any creed, to any king or Pope, who requires from him allegiance, incompatible with that which he has already sworn to maintain. Nor, generally speaking, will men do those things.

While man believes in the moral obligations of an oath, he will not easily violate it. While he believes that there is an all-seeing Providence, to whom alone he is accountable for his actions, he will be cautious in committing offences; but once satisfy a man, that there is, within his reach, a power which can pardon his sins, even those of perjury; which can change abstract evil into good, and he will stop at nothing. While the pardon of offences is a marketable article, it never will want for a purchaser, so prone are we to the commission of crime. Let man have an adviser, in whom he is taught to place unlimited confidence, on whom he looks as the representative of his God on earth, and he soon becomes his ready tool for good or for evil. Such precisely is the position in which ninety-nine out of a hundred Roman Catholics are placed. They are told by their priests, that, as members of society, the first allegiance they owe is to the head of their church, the Pope of Rome, and the next to the government, de facto, under which they live; but these well-practised ecclesiastical impostors never forget to add, that the first allegiance, being of a spiritual character, absorbs and supersedes the latter; thus annulling, and rendering the oath of allegiance, which they take to our government, something worse than even mere mockery; and hence it is, that very few Catholics, particularly the Irish, ever read the constitution of the United States, nor do they require it to be read for them. They know not, they care not what it is. It is enough for them to believe that the oath, which they take to support it, is not obligatory. Of this they are assured by their priests. Yet strange, these very priests tell them they commit mortal sin by becoming Freemasons, or uniting themselves with that excellent and benevolent association, the Odd Fellows. And why, reader, do they do this? Why prevent them from uniting with Odd Fellows or Freemasons? Why has the Pope recently cursed all Odd Fellows? Why has he sent a bull to this country, cautioning Catholics against having any thing to do with them? Why have the Romish priests, from one end of this country to the other, echoed these curses? Did the Pope discover any bad thing in the constitution or rules of action of Freemasons or Odd Fellows? Are these institutions aiming at the overthrow of any fixed principles in morals, in religion, or in virtue? No such allegation is made. Why then do Popes and priests forbid Roman Catholics from uniting with them? It is expressly because the Pope knows nothing about those excellent institutions. It is because he is aware he can make no use of them; but let those societies beware, if they wish to keep their secrets. They should not allow any man to join them until he first swears that he is not a Roman Catholic; otherwise some Jesuits will get among them, and the next packet will convey their doings to his royal holiness the Pope.

I cannot illustrate more clearly the value which foreign Roman priests and their followers put upon an oath of allegiance to this government, than by stating a conversation which occurred between myself and a Jesuit, the Rev. Dr. De Barth, then vicar-general of the diocese of Pennsylvania, and residing in Philadelphia. It took place some years ago, and his opinion of the validity of an oath of allegiance to this government, is the same now that is held by all Papists. I will give it by way of question and answer, just as it occurred.

Question by Mr. De Barth. Do you intend becoming a citizen of the United States?

Answer. I believe not, sir. I don’t think I could conscientiously take an oath of allegiance to this government, without violating that which I have taken at my ordination.

Mr. De B. You are entirely mistaken. Any part of your oath of allegiance to this country, which may be incompatible with your first and greater allegiance to the head of your church, cannot be binding on you.

Ans. I have doubts upon that subject.

Mr. De B. What! doubt your superior, sir? This looks badly. It threatens heresy. Have you been conversing with any heretics of this country? Declare your intentions, sir, to become a citizen. Take the oath; it is necessary you should be empowered to hold real estate for the good of the church. The church must have her property out of the hands of trustees; in this country they are all heretics; we must get rid of them in St. Mary’s church.

This led me into an examination of the allegiance which I swore to the Pope at my ordination. I found that I owed him none; that I was the dupe of an early education; that I owed allegiance only to my God and the country which protected my life, my liberty, and my freedom of conscience; and without further conversation with this intriguing and debauched Jesuit—as I subsequently found him—I became a citizen of the United States as soon as possible; renouncing all allegiance, temporal and spiritual, to his holiness the Pope; and firmly resolved to induce all others, who, like myself, had been the dupes of Popish intrigue, to cut loose from them. I determined to support no civil constitution but that of the United States, and to have no one for my guidance in spiritual matters but my own conscience and the word of God.

Popish bishops and priests absolve allegiance to protestant governments.

I am aware of the difficulty there is in persuading Protestant Americans, that Roman Catholic bishops and priests teach their people to believe, that they, the priests, possess the power of absolving them, either from their oath of allegiance or any other crime. It is, however, time to speak plainly to Americans. It is time to let them know that there exists in the midst of them a body of people, amounting in number to about two millions, who believe in this doctrine, so corrupt in itself, and so well calculated to disturb the peace and harmony of society. There is not a priest or bishop in the United States who dares deny this; they act upon it every day. It is customary with the priests to confess weekly, and to forgive each other’s sins; and I am sorry to say, from my knowledge of them, since my infancy to the present moment, that there is not a more corrupt, licentious body of men in the world. But I will not be judge, accuser, and witness, in this case. I know well that Americans will take the ipse dixit of no man. They are not in the habit of lightly judging any individual or body of men, in any case. I will, therefore, lay before them the Roman Catholic doctrine on the subject of penance and confession, as taught by the council of Trent, and now believed and practised by Roman Catholics in the United States. I will only add, that I have taught these doctrines myself, when a Roman Catholic priest, and while groping my way through the darkness of Popery. There are many now living who heard and received them from me, and to whom I have no apology to make for the errors into which I led them, except that, like themselves, I was the dupe of early education. The following are some of the canons of the council of Trent concerning penance or confession.

“Whoever shall say, that those words of the Lord and Saviour: Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained; are not to be understood of the power of remitting and retaining sins in the sacrament of penance, as the Catholic church has always understood, from the beginning; but shall falsely apply them against the institution of this sacrament, to the authority of preaching the gospel; let him be accursed!

“Whoever shall deny that sacramental confession has either been instituted by divine command, or is necessary to salvation; or shall say that the mode of secretly confessing to a priest alone, which the Catholic church always has observed from the beginning, and still observes, is foreign from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be accursed!

“Whoever shall affirm, that in the sacrament of penance, it is not necessary by divine command, for the remission of sins, to confess all and every mortal sin, of which recollection may be had, with due and diligent premeditation, including secret offences, and those which are against the two last precepts of the decalogue, and the circumstances which change the species of sin: but that this confession is useful only for the instruction and consolation of the penitent, and was anciently observed, only as a canonical satisfaction imposed upon him; or shall say, that they who endeavor to confess all their sins, wish to leave nothing for the divine mercy to pardon; or finally, that it is not proper to confess venial sins; let him be accursed!

“Whoever shall say, that the confession of all sins, such as the church observes, is impossible, and that it is a human tradition, to be abolished by the pious; or that all and every one of Christ’s faithful, of both sexes, are not bound to observe it once in the year, according to the constitution of the great Lateran council, and that for this reason, Christ’s faithful should be advised not to confess in the time of Lent; let him be accursed!

“Whoever shall say, that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but a mere ministry to pronounce and declare, that sins are remitted to the person making confession, provided that he only believes that he is absolved, even though the priest should not absolve seriously, but in joke; or shall say, that the confession of a penitent is not requisite in order that the priest may absolve him; let him be accursed!

“Whoever shall say, that priests who are living in mortal sin do not possess the power of binding and loosing; or that the priests are not the only ministers of absolution, but that it was said to all and every one of Christ’s faithful: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven; and whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained: by virtue of which words, any one may forgive sin; public sins, by reproof only, if the offender shall acquiesce; and private sins, by voluntary confession; let him be accursed!

“Whoever shall say, that bishops have not the right of reserving cases to themselves, except such as relate to the external polity of the church, and therefore that the reservation of cases does not hinder the priest from truly absolving from reserved cases; let him be accursed!

“Whoever shall say, that the whole penalty, together with the guilt, is always remitted by God, and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing else than the faith by which they apprehend that Christ has satisfied for them; let him be accursed!

“Whoever shall say, that satisfaction is by no means made to God, through Christ’s merits, for sins as to their temporal penalty, by punishments inflicted by him, and patiently borne, or enjoined by the priests, though not undergone voluntarily, as fastings, prayers, alms, or also other works of piety, and therefore that the best penance is nothing more than a new life; let him be accursed!

“Whoever shall say, that the satisfactions by which penitents redeem themselves from sin through Jesus Christ, are no part of the service of God, but traditions of men, obscuring the doctrine concerning grace, and the true worship of God, and the actual benefit of Christ’s death; let him be accursed!

“Whoever shall say, that the keys of the church were given only for loosing, not also for binding, and that therefore the priests, when they impose punishments upon those who confess, act against the design of the keys, and contrary to the institution of Christ; and that it is a fiction, that when by virtue of the keys the eternal penalty has been removed, the temporal punishment may still often remain to be suffered; let him tie accursed!”

I must be permitted here to remind Americans, that all Roman Catholics are taught to believe, and distinctly to understand, that whatever they confess to their priests, is not to be revealed; nor is the individual, who confesses, permitted to reveal whatever the priest says or does to him or her, except to another priest. For instance, should a priest insult or attempt to seduce a woman, and succeed in doing so, she dare not reveal it under pain of damnation, except to another priest in confession, who is bound also to secrecy; and thus, priests, bishops, popes, and all females of that denomination, may be guilty of licentiousness,—the bare mention of which would pollute the pages of this or any other work,—with impunity. The priests can first pardon the woman, and then themselves, according to the doctrines of the infallible church of Rome. This is not all. It is not enough that the sanction of the church should be given to these enormities; but priests also claim the right of concealing, from the civil authorities, any knowledge which they may have of crimes against the state as well as the power of forgiving them. The following is the language of the church upon that subject. Attend to it, fellow citizens, and tremble at the dangers that threaten the destruction of your republic, from the introduction of Popery among you.

“Although the life or salvation of a man, or the ruin of the state, should depend upon it, what is discovered in confession cannot be revealed. The secret of the seal—confession—is more binding than the obligation of an oath.” If a confessor is asked, what he knows of a fact communicated to him, he must answer that he does not know it; and, if necessary, confirm it by an oath; and “this is no perjury,” says the Popish church, “because he knows it not as man, but as GOD.” There is Popery for you, in its naked beauty! If a man wishes to murder, or to rob you, he may go to his priest, apprize him of his intention, confess to him that he will assuredly murder and rob you, or that he has done so already, and yet this priest may be your next door neighbor, and he will not make it known; and why, reader? Because he knows it as God, and as God he tells the murderer to come to him and he will forgive him. It is not at all impossible but the day may come when this country may be at war with Europe. We can easily fancy the despots of Europe forming another holy alliance, for the laudable purpose of suppressing democracy. France, Austria, Spain, Italy, and a large portion of Germany and Switzerland, together with the holy see, would necessarily constitute that holy junto; and if so, and war were declared by them against this country, what would be the consequence? Inevitable ruin; certain defeat; not caused by foes abroad, but by foes within, leagued by the most solemn ties, and bound by the most fearful oaths to sacrifice our country, and all we value, for the advancement of the Roman church.

That there is a foe in the midst of us, capable of doing so, no man acquainted with the doctrines and statistics of the Roman Catholic church in this country can deny.

It has now:—Dioceses, 21; apostolic vicarate, 1; number of bishops, 17; bishops elect, 8; priests, 634; churches, 611; other stations, 461; ecclesiastical seminaries, 19; clerical students, 261; literary institutions for young men, 16; female academies, 48; elementary schools, passim, throughout most of the dioceses; periodicals, 15; population, 1,300,-000. Late accounts carry the population up to 2,000,000.

The increase of the Romish church, in this country, since 1836, amounts to 12 bishops, 293 priests, 772 churches and other stations, 1,400,000 individuals, and other things in proportion.

Should the said church go on increasing for the next thirty years as she has done for the last eight years, the Papists would be a majority of the population of the United States, and the Pope our supreme temporal ruler.

I have stated to you before what the doctrines of these two millions are in relation to the power of the Pope; and I repeat it now, and most solemnly assure you, that there is not a Roman Catholic in Europe or the United States who does not believe that the Pope has as good a right to govern this country as he has to govern Italy; and that he is, and of right ought to be, our king. Pope Gregory VII. has declared, “that the Pope alone ought to wear the tokens of imperial dignity, and that all princes ought to kiss his feet.” There is not a Roman Catholic clergyman, whether bishop or priest, who does not believe that it is the duty of our president, our governors, and magistrates, to do the same.

Bellarmine, one of the best authorities among Catholic writers, says, “The supremacy of the Pope over all persons and things is the main substance of Christianity.” Mark that, fellow-citizens! That is the belief of Bishop Hughes, of New York; that is the belief of Bishop Fenwick, of Boston, and of every other Roman Catholic bishop in the United States, as I will soon show.

Pope Boniface VIII. says, “It is necessary to salvation that all Christians be subject to the Pope.” Bzovius, an orthodox Roman Catholic writer, whose authority no bishop or priest will venture to question, says of the Pope—”He is judge in heaven, and in all earthly jurisdiction supreme; he is the arbiter of the world.” Moscovius, another eminent Popish writer, informs us that “God’s tribunal and the Pope’s tribunal are the same.” Pope Paul IV., in one of his bulls, published in the year 1557, declares, that “all Protestants, be they kings or subjects, are cursed;” and this doctrine is an integral portion of the law of the Roman Catholic church, as may be seen in the fifth book of the decretals of the council of Trent. This is not all. We find in the forty-third canon of the council of Lateran, that “all bishops and priests are forbidden from taking any oath of allegiance,” except to the Pope.

We find in another part of the decrees of the council of Lateran, held under Pope Innocent III., the following denunciation:—”All magistrates who interpose against priests in any criminal case, whether it be for murder or high treason, let him be excommunicated.” Bear that in mind, American Protestants! If a priest murder one of you, if he commit high treason against your government, your magistrates dare not interfere, under pain of being damned. So says the infallible Roman church; and so will she act, should she ever acquire the power of doing so, in this country.

It is said by Lessius, an eminent Jesuit writer, and professor of divinity in the Roman Catholic college of Louvaine, who wrote about the year 1620, and whose authority no Roman Catholic dare doubt, under pain of eternal damnation, that “the Pope can annul and cancel every possible obligation arising from an oath.” This he taught to his students in the college of Louvaine. This same doctrine has been taught in the college of Maynooth, Ireland, where I was educated myself. It is taught there at the present day. See the works of De La Hogue.

Judge you, Americans, what safety there is for your republic, while you support and sustain among you a sect numbering two millions, who are sworn to uphold such doctrines as the foregoing. The very domestics in your houses are spies for the priests. Nothing transpires under your own roofs which is not immediately known to the bishop or priest to whom your servants confess. But you may say, “The confessor will not reveal it.” Here you are partly right, and partly, mistaken; and it is proper to explain the course adopted by priests in such matters as confession.

If it be the interest of the church, that what is confessed should be made public, the priest tells the party to make it known to him, “out of the confessional,” and then he uses it to suit his own views; perhaps for the destruction of the reputation, or fortune, of the very man, or family, employing domestic. But it may be replied that Roman Catholics are good-natured people; that they are generous and industrious. Admitted: I will even go further; there is not a people in the world moreso. Nature has done much for them, especially those of them who are natives of Ireland; but the lack of a correct education has corrupted their hearts and imbittered their feelings; they are not to be trusted with the care or management of the animals of Protestant families.

It is not generally known, nor perhaps suspected by Protestant parents, who employ Roman Catholic domestics, in nursing and taking care of their children, that these nurses are in the habit of taking their children privately to the houses of the priests, and bishops, and there getting them baptized according to the Roman Catholic ritual: I know this as a fact, within my own knowledge. When I officiated as a Roman Catholic priest, in Philadelphia, I baptized hundreds, I may say thousands of Protestant children, without the knowledge or consent of their parents, brought to me secretly by their Roman Catholic nurses; and I should have continued to do so till this day, had not the Lord in his mercy, been pleased to visit me, and show me the wiles, treachery, infamy, corruption, and intrigue of the church, of which the circumstance of birth and education caused me to be a member. It was usual with me in Philadelphia, in St. Margaret church, of which I was pastor, to have services every morning at seven o’clock; and often when I returned home, between eight and eleven, have I found three, four, and sometimes six and eight children, whose parents were Protestants, waiting for me, in the arms of their Roman Catholic nurses to be baptized. This is a common practice in every Protestant country, where there are Roman Catholic priests; but as far as my experience goes, it prevails to a greater extent in the United States than elsewhere; and 1 should not be in the least surprised, if at this time, in the city of Boston, nearly all the infants, nursed by Roman Catholic women, are baptized by their priests and bishops. Roman Catholic women are unwilling to come in contact, even with heretic infants. They believe them damned, unless baptized by a Romish priest. There is another fact, indirectly connected with this subject, which is not generally known. It is believed by Roman Catholics, that all mothers, after their confinement, are to be churched by some Romish priest or bishop. This churching is performed by the repetition of a few prayers, in Latin, a sprinkling of holy water, and the woman who does not submit to this mummery, is believed by any Roman Catholic nurse whom she may employ, to be eternally damned, together with her child. They go so far as to say, that the very ground upon which the unchurched mother walks is accursed; that the very house in which she lives is accursed; and that all she says and does is accursed.

So firmly have the Romish priests and bishops fastened this belief upon the minds of their dupes, that at this moment in Ireland, and I may venture to say in this city of Boston, no Catholic woman will leave her bed after confinement, without being churched, lest the ground on which she walks may be accursed. Until this ceremony is performed, none of her Catholic neighbors will hold any intercourse with her. How then can Protestant mothers expect otherwise, than that Catholic nurses will have their children baptized by priests! or what security can they have that they will not, under the direction of priests, try to turn the minds of their children from the contemplation of truth, and pure gospel light, to the foul sources of Popery and superstition! Look to this, American mothers.

It may not be amiss in this connection, to lay before American Protestants, the doctrine of the Romish church upon baptism; and, lest I may be accused of setting down aught in malice, I shall do so in the words of the council of Trent.

Canons of the Council of Trent concerning Baptism.

“1. Whoever shall say that the baptism of John, had the same virtue as the baptism of Christ; let him be accursed!

“2. Whoever shall say that true and natural water is not absolutely necessary for baptism, and therefore wrests those words of our Lord Jesus Christ, as though they had been a kind of metaphor: ‘Except a man be born of water, and the Holy Spirit;’ let him be accursed!

“3. Whoever shall say that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, the doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism is not true; let him be accursed!

“4. Whoever shall say that the baptism which is also given by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the church does, is not true baptism; let him be accursed!

[Here is another of those rules, by which the holy Romish church leaves herself room to impose upon the public. Can any man believe, can any one even suppose a case, where a heretic acts, or intends to act, according to the intention of the church of Rome; The very act of heresy was against that church and her doctrines; and the truth is, if the church would speak honestly, or her priests and bishops do so for her, all who are not baptized in the Romish church, and who are baptized, are eternally damned. So thinks, and so teaches, the Popish church.]

“5. Whoever shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary to salvation; let him be accursed!

“6. Whoever shall say that a baptized person cannot, even if he would, lose grace, how much soever he may sin, unless he is unwilling to believe; let him be accursed!

“7. Whoever shall say that baptized persons, by baptism itself, become debtors to preserve faith alone, and not the whole law of Christ; let him be accursed!

“8. Whoever shall say that baptized persons are free from all precepts of holy church, which are either written or traditional, so that they are not bound to observe them, unless they choose to submit themselves to them of their own accord; let him be accursed!

“9. Whoever shall say that men are so to be recalled to the memory of the baptism which they have received, that they may regard all the vows which are made after baptism as null and void, by virtue of the promise already made in baptism itself, as if by it they detract from the faith which they have professed, and from the baptism itself; let him be accursed!

“10. Whoever shall say that all the sins which we committed after baptism, by the mere remembrance and faith of the baptism received, are either dismissed or become venial; let him be accursed!

“11. Whoever shall say that a baptism, truly and with due ceremony conferred, is to be repeated on him who has denied the faith of Christ among infidels, when he is converted to repentance; let him be accursed!

“12. Whoever shall say that no one is to be baptized, except at that age at which Christ was baptized, or in the article of death; let him be accursed!

“13. Whoever shall say that infants, because they have not the act of faith, are not to be reckoned among believers after having received baptism, and on this account are to be re-baptized when they arrive at years of discretion; or that it is better that their baptism be omitted, than that they should be baptized in the faith only of the church, when they do not believe by their own act; let him be accursed!

“14. Whoever shall say that baptized children of this kind, when they have grown up, are to be asked whether they wish to have that ratified which their sponsors promised in their name when they were baptized; and that when they reply that they are unwilling, they are to be left to their own choice; and that they are not in the meantime to be compelled by any other punishment, to a Christian life, except that they be prohibited the enjoyment of the Eucharist, and the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be accursed!”

This last canon, as the reader perceives, explains fully why Roman Catholics are so anxious for the baptism of Protestant children by their priests. It gives them the power of compelling those children, should they deem it expedient to do so, to profess the Catholic faith, and thereby strengthening her power. They try to alienate the children from the parents; or calculating upon that natural affection with which a parent clings to a child, they hope to bring over the parent also to the Catholic faith; or, failing in this, they hope to break up those alliances of blood which nature has established, and that community of interest and feeling, which society has sanctioned, and religion and nature have blessed, between parent and child.

A true Papist will stop at nothing to advance the power of the Pope, or the interest of the holy church. Heretics, by which the reader will understand all who do not belong to the Roman Catholic church, are to be destroyed, cost what it will. Death, and the destruction of heretics, is the watchword of Popery. Down with Protestant governments, kings, presidents, governors, judges, and all other civil and religious authorities, is the war-cry in Popish countries. They desire neither to live nor die with us. They refuse to be laid down in the same common earth with us. Need this be proved to Americans? One would suppose not. Our intercourse with Roman Catholic countries is such, at present, that there can be no longer any doubt of this fact.

Our commercial transactions with Spain, Portugal, South America, Mexico, and the neighboring Island of Cuba, enables many of our people to judge for themselves, and say what is now the condition of Protestants in those countries where Popery predominates. Can a Protestant worship God in those countries, according to the dictates of his own conscience? He cannot. They are all told by their priests, that a Protestant is a thing too unclean to worship God until he is first baptised and then shrived or confessed by their priests. A Protestant cannot even carry his Bible with him, into these countries. Many of my fellow-citizens, who may see this statement, will bear testimony to its truth. When a Protestant arrives at any port in a purely Catholic country, his trunks and his person are examined; and if a bible is found in them, or about him, it is taken from him. The ministers of his religion dare not accompany him, or if he does, his lips are sealed, under pain of a lingering death. Should sickness lay its heavy hand upon him, there is no minister to attend him, no Bible allowed him, from which he may quench his thirst for the waters of life. Should death visit him, there is no one to close the eyes of the lonely Protestant stranger. A good Roman Catholic would not touch the accursed heretic, and when dead he is not allowed the rights of Christian interment; he must be cast by the wayside, as suitable food for the hog, the dog, and the buzzard. How many a worthy American have I seen myself, in Cuba, cast away when dead, as you would a carrion, not even a coffin to cover him; and why all this? Because he was a heretic; because he did not believe in the supremacy of the Pope, and the infallibility of the Romish church; and yet those inhuman wretches, those libels upon religion and humanity, come among us, ask you for lands on which to build churches and pulpits, from which they curse you and your children; become citizens of your republic, inmates in your families, with smiles on their faces and curses in their hearts for you. Let not this language be deemed exaggeration. I have heard it, I have witnessed it, I have seen it. And yet Americans, heedlessly fancying themselves and their institutions secure, refuse these, their sworn enemies, and foes of their religion, nothing they ask for. Such is the listlessness and apathy of our people upon this subject, that, as far as I am acquainted, no appeal has ever been made to our government, to ask even for a modification of those barbarities, with which our Protestant citizens are treated, in Roman Catholic countries; nor has there been any effort made to alter our free constitution, so as to enable us to retaliate upon those Popish monsters, and obtain from the bloodthirsty cowards, at the point of the bayonet, those common privileges, which are almost among the necessary appurtenances of humanity, and which even a Pagan would scarcely deny to a fellow-being.

I hold it as undeniable, that even as Protestants, we are, at least by implication, entitled by our treaties of alliance with Popish countries, to far different treatment from that which we receive; and had the question been considered by our people, either in their primary meetings, or through their representatives, they would have long since, insisted upon due protection and respect for the natural rights of their citizens abroad. These natural rights can neither be sold nor exchanged; their free exercise is guaranteed by implication in every treaty we make with foreign nations, and cannot be violated by them without giving just cause of war.

Let political casuists say what they please, there is no principle better established in political ethics, than that all international treaties of amity and commerce, should be formed, and if formed, should be kept, upon principles of justice and reciprocity. The same national amity and courtesy, which our Protestant country extends to Popish nations and their people, should be extended by them to us By national friendship and comity, is not, I apprehend, and should not, be meant or understood, the privilege of selling a bale of cotton here or a bag of coffee there. It includes the free exercise of the rights of the parties thereto, so far, at least, as they are not incompatible with each other, or with the general principles of natural or national law. The Spaniard, the Portuguese, the Italian, the Mexican, or Cuban, may worship his God, the Virgin Mary, or any saint he pleases, and no American will disturb him; no American will forbid him. If he dies, his priests may have him buried where he will. This is as it should be. Man has a natural right to worship God; it is a right implanted in his very nature. As well may we say to a man, thou shalt not breathe the air of our country, as say, thou shalt not worship the God that gave thee birth; and as well also may we say, thou shalt not worship that God except according to the mode which we prescribe, as forbid him doing so at all. The natural right of worshipping God, or a first cause, implies the right of doing so according to the dictates of each man’s conscience, provided, in doing it, we interfere with none of those laws, which civilized nations should reverence. This is the principle on which we act with Popish countries and people, and upon the principle of reciprocal justice, we ought to demand similar treatment from them.

We have friendly treaties with these people. Friendly, forsooth! Can that man or that nation be friendly, who forbids us to read our Bibles within their territories, or to bury our dead among their dead, or to worship God according to the usages of our forefathers, or the dictates of our own conscience? Such treaties should rather be termed treaties for the abrogation of natural rights of Americans within Popish dominions. We enjoy no rights there; and if we have any by implication, under our treaties, they are impiously wrested from us by a wicked rabble of priests and bishops, distinguished only for their ignorance, rapacity, and licentiousness.

I solemnly call upon every American citizen, who reveres his God, respects his fellow-citizens, or values the happiness of his country, to submit no longer to Popish insolence abroad, and to allow them no rights in this country, which they are not willing to reciprocate. If our existing treaties of amity with Popish powers are not sufficient to protest us in the free exercise of our religion, when among them, let us break them, let us tear them asunder, and scatter them as chaff before the wind. They were never binding upon us. They were made in violation of natural rights, which God alone could give, and man cannot take away. Call upon your government to protect you; choose no man as your representative who will allow Popery to flourish in this free soil, and witness the religion of your forefathers trampled upon, with impunity, by Papists in a neighboring country; and if you cannot obtain your rights by law, you will show the world that you have, at least, moral and physical courage enough to redress your wrongs.

Let not Papists, who, at the distance of a few days’ sail from your ports, would deny your brother the rights of Christian interment, or the consolation of dying with his Bible in his hand, dare call upon your aid, to propagate a religion, which inculcates principles worse and more dangerous than were ever practised in Pagan lands.

Much sympathy is felt and expressed, particularly in this state of Massachusetts, where I write for some of her colored population, because it is deemed necessary, in slave states, to prevent them from commingling with their slaves, lest they may excite them to dissatisfaction with their condition, and ultimately to insurrection. It is deemed a matter of such magnitude that Massachusetts, in the plenitude of its sympathy, felt herself called upon to send an ambassador to South Carolina, to protect her citizens, and demand redress for this supposed outrage upon her rights. It is not my intention to enter into the merits or demerits of the question at issue between the states of Massachusetts and South Carolina. I will merely state, that the former consists in this, viz: by a law of the state of South Carolina, every free person of color, entering that state, is liable to be imprisoned till he leaves the state. This is done by South Carolina and some other slave states, as a necessary measure of precaution; but the prisoner is kindly treated; at least, we hear nothing to the contrary; no such complaint is made by Massachusetts. The prisoner is allowed the free exercise of his religion; his friends may visit him almost at any hour; his spiritual instructor is never denied access to him; he may have his Bible with him, or any other books he may think proper. But this will not satisfy the sympathizing people of Massachusetts. They call public meetings of their citizens; threaten to dissolve the union; and declare they will raise a sufficient military force to invade South Carolina, and redress this outrage upon a citizen’s rights, at the point of the bayonet.

Man is truly a strange being, and various indeed are the currents of his sympathies, but still more various and unaccountable are the causes which often set them in motion. It is comparatively but seldom, that a colored citizen of the North goes to slave states; but if there should be the least infraction of his civil rights, the whole North flies into a passion; and yet this very people of the North can see the citizens of their own country, kindred, and blood, in a neighboring Popish port of Havana, for instance, deprived of all their rights, both conventional and natural, without a murmur. Not a complaint is heard in New England, from the son, whose father is confined in the dungeons of Cuba, not because he is suspected of any intention to create insurrection, but simply because he refused to kneel to some wooden image, which a parcel of debauched priests are lugging about the streets; or because he expresses his belief that such processions and mummeries are worse than Pagan idolatry.

The American Protestant, who will dare worship his God publicly, or even in private, within the walls of his own house, unless with closed doors, and without the knowledge of the Popish spies of the Inquisition, is liable to imprisonment, from which, in all probability, he is never to be released. If a Bible be found in his house, it is burned, and he and his family are cast into jail. This is the case in every country where the Popish church has power enough to make its religion that of the state; and yet we have treaties of amity, with these countries. What a burlesque upon amity! what a mockery of friendly relations, with a people who deny us the exercise of the natural right which every man has, to worship God as he pleases! who compel our fathers, brothers, and our sons, to bow the knee, in idolatrous worship, to wooden images, and particles of bread, which are paraded as Gods, through the streets, in Roman Catholic countries. Friendly relations, forsooth, with a people who consider us damned, and already consigned to perdition! And yet we hear no complaint in Massachusetts, of cruelties to our citizens; nothing is said of the violation of those friendly relations, secured to us by treaty, and annually declared by our presidents, in their messages, to exist and to be maintained between our people and those Popish countries. When we hear of an American citizen in Cuba, when we hear of his natural rights being trampled under foot, by Catholic governors, bishops, and priests, no complaint is made of a violation of friendly alliance; no meeting is called to express sympathy for the individual sufferer, or indignation against the treacherous government of Popery; no act of our legislature has been passed, making appropriations to send ambassadors to these neighboring nations, for injuries done to our citizens; and yet it is a well-known fact, that where one colored citizen of New England is imprisoned, for a few days, in South Carolina, there are a thousand of our enterprising seamen and merchants, confined in the dungeons of Spain, Italy, Portugal, Mexico, and Cuba, at our very door. How long will these outrages be tolerated? A Popish captain comes here; the hands before the mast are Papists; the ship may have her chaplain, or may have as many little gods, and saints, indulgences, scapulas, beads, and rosaries, as they please; they may land, captain, crew, saints, and all, and no one molests them; but if an American ship arrives at the very port from which the other sailed, her captain and crew are forbidden even to carry their Bible on shore; but should the ship have a Protestant chaplain, and that chaplain venture on shore, with his congregation of sailors—all American freemen—he dare not take his Bible with him, or hold religious worship on this Popish soil; and should this captain, chaplain, or any of the crew die, he is not allowed Christian burial, unless he can buy the privilege from, profligate priests, at an enormous sacrifice of money, and after certain purifications effected by holy water, and smoking, which they call incense. This is what our government calls friendly relations.

How long shall we be amused by the executive messages, annually informing us of receiving “assurances of friendship from Popish countries?” Let the people take this subject into their own hands; let them have no alliance, no treaty, no commerce with a people, who will deny them the right of worshipping God peaceably and respectfully, or who will refuse them the right of burying their dead decently and with due solemnity. The treaties which are made with Papists begin, on their part, with the most solemn avowal of good faith, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They assure us of their friendly sentiments towards us under this solemn and awful sanction; but no sooner is this promise made—no sooner have they pledged their honor, their faith, and all that is holy, to support it—than they disregard all those obligations, feeling and believing that they are already dispensed with by their church, which teaches them to hold no faith with heretics. The priests, however, and bishops, more crafty than the mass of their people, plead state necessity for withholding from us privileges which we give them. This is a shallow pretext, and worthy only of the source from which it comes. Can any case be supposed, or any necessity arise, to violate the eternal principles of right and wrong, of justice and truth? Are moral and national obligations anything more than mere dead letters and leaden rules, which can be bent by hands strong enough to do so, and to suit their own purposes and designs?

Suppose a man in private life—suppose further that man to be a Papist—he enters into a treaty of alliance and friendship with a Protestant; he calls God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to witness that he will fulfil his engagement; we can easily fancy the Protestant, within the jurisdiction of that Papist, reading his Bible, without interfering or any way molesting the individual within whose jurisdiction he is. Let us imagine this Protestant seized by the Papist, thrown into prison by him, while alive, and if dead, thrown away as food for the birds of prey. Would you call this fulfilling the obligations of friendship or friendly alliance? Would the Protestant ever enter into such a treaty of alliance again? Would not every Protestant who witnessed this transaction look upon the Papist who committed it, even though he be but a private individual, as a bad man, with whom no further intercourse ought to be had? Assuredly, he would. But let it be borne in mind, that actions do not change their nature; immutable principles are always the same; they do not change with the paucity or number of actors; what is bad in an individual will be wrong in a nation, and in every individual of that nation. The only difference is, that an act of perfidy and bad faith in a nation is, if possible, worse in itself, and infinitely more mischievous, than if committed by an individual.

Our political sophists may deny this, and gloss over the conduct of Popish governments towards our citizens while among them; but they cannot long hide from our people that the eternal laws of truth cannot be violated; nor can their meaning be frittered away by the technicalities of treaties. Truth, whether moral or political, is like the suu of heaven; it is but one—it is the same every where. It is sometimes clouded, it is true, but these clouds are momentary; they pass away, and it shines again in its native brilliancy. The day is fast coming, and I trust it has even arrived, when Americans will see, that by a treaty of amity is not meant the right of shipping our commodities to Popish countries, and receiving theirs in exchange; reserving to one party the privilege of denying to the other a right dearer to him than all earthly considerations; and which is guarantied to him by the eternal laws of God, while the other party is under no restraint as to the full and free enjoyment of those natural rights. And here, I beg leave to say to our legislators, that Protestant Americans, upon due reflection, will not long give their assent to any treaty, nor form an alliance with any country, which shall deny them the free exercise of their religion.

The American, who will enter into an alliance with the Pope, or a Popish country, explicitly agrees to deny his God, and forswear the religion of his forefathers. He virtually consents that the party with which he makes the agreement shall be privileged to curse and damn him, his country, his religion, and his rights. This needs no proof. Look around you, and see your citizens in Mexico denying their God by submitting to Popish laws, which forbid their worship according to the dictates of their conscience. Were your puritan forefathers to witness this, would they not exclaim, “Shame upon our degenerate sons, who will barter their religion and their birthright for the petty advantages of commerce!” No wonder that Popish priests and Popish presses should call Americans cowards and the sons of cowards. Who but a coward, and what but a nation of cowards, would surrender that liberty of conscience which their forefathers purchased at the price of blood? This Americans do by assenting to a treaty with any country which does not guarantee to them the right of worshipping God without hindrance. Americans will not forget, though they cannot too often be reminded of the fact, that those countries where their feelings are thus outraged are, de facto, governed by the Pope and his vicegerents, whose actions for centuries back have proved them to have been no other than conspirators against the improvement and happiness of the human race. What were the means by which they conducted their governments? The very same that they are now in every Roman Catholic country, all over the globe; craft, dissimulation, oppression, extortion, and above all, fire, faggot, and the sword. There is not an article of their faith, nor a sacrament of their church, which is not enforced by curses, as I shall show in the sequel. These vicegerents of the humble Redeemer have the insolence to ape the very thunders of heaven. History informs us, that their robes have been crimsoned in blood. Their images of saints, some of which I have seen in Mexico, made of solid gold, and many of them six feet high and well-proportioned, were wrung from the poor.

Many of those countries, which they now possess, and where God and nature have scattered plenty, have been made barren by Popish avarice and the licentiousness of its priests. The fields, which laughed with plenty, they have watered with hunger and distress. They found the world gay with flowers, and with roses: they dyed it with blood. They and their doctrines acted upon it like the blast of an east wind. Popery, since the eighth century in particular, has been what a pestilence or conflagration is to a city.

Come with me, in imagination, to Italy, and judge for yourselves. Pass on with me, to Spain, Portugal, South America, and you will sec that I am not exaggerating. You will find that I have only told truth, but not the whole truth. No tongue can tell it. We have no language to express it. I will give you a few instances of the fruits of Popery in the neighboring island of Cuba. What I am about stating has come under my own observation; and is, besides, a matter of record, and accessible to many. The natives of Cuba pay fifteen millions per annum to her most Christian Majesty, the queen of Spain. They support an army of sixteen thousand men, every one of whom is a native of old Spain, kept there for the sole purpose of extorting this enormous annual tribute. The number of priests there is immense. They, too, must be supported at the point of the bayonet. These priests are known to be the most profligate vagabonds in creation. And why, it will naturally be asked, should such men be tolerated? Why supply them with money to gamble at the faro table, at cock-fights and bull-fights? The reason is plain; they act as spies for the Pope, who, in reality, manages the government of old Spain, and contrives to draw, from that already impoverished and distracted country, the last dollar of a people whom God has endowed with every virtue, and a capacity of cultivating them, had not the curse of Popery fallen upon them.

Life in Roman Catholic Countries

Such is the avarice of the Popish church and Popish tyrants, that, if a farmer in Cuba kills even a beef for his own use, he must pay the government ten per cent, upon its value. When I was in Cuba, the farmer must pay ten and a half dollars duty upon every barrel of flour imported into the island; when he might raise, in the field, before his own door, the finest wheat in the world, if the government would let him. Such are but a few of the blessings of Popish governments. Do Americans desire this republic reduced to such a state of vassalage as this? or will you profit by these lessons, which experience is daily teaching you? Wherever you turn your eyes, and see Popery in the ascendant, you will find it the Pandora’s box, out of which every curse has issued, without even leaving hope behind. It should, therefore, be suppressed on its appearance in any country. It should be the duty of every good man to extirpate it, and sweep it, if possible, from the face of the globe. It is nothing better than a political machine, cunningly devised, for the propagation of despotism. It is the masterpiece of satanic wickedness. Execrated and exploded be this infernal machine! and thanks forever be to that God, who has shown me its intricacies, in time to save me from becoming what, I know of my own knowledge, Roman Catholic priests are—hypocrites, infidels, and licentious debauchees, under the mask of sanctity and holiness. Their religion is supported by curses, as I have before stated, and will now prove from the doctrines of their own church. The reader has already been told, that the Popish church maintains the doctrines that a belief in seven sacraments is necessary to salvation. These sacraments are designated as follows: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. And she enforces this by curses. I have already enumerated the curses with which she enforces her belief in baptism. The next sacrament is Confirmation, enforced by the following eloquent curses, pronounced by the infallible council of Trent:!!!!!

“1. Whoever shall say that the confirmation of baptized persons is a needless ceremony, and not rather a true and proper sacrament: or that anciently it was nothing else than a kind of catechizing, by-which the youth expressed the reason of their faith before the church; let him be accursed!

“2. Whoever shall say that they do despite to the Holy Spirit who attributes any virtue to the holy chrism of confirmation; let him be accursed!

“3. Whoever shall say, the ordinary minister of holy confirmation is not the bishop alone, but any mere priest whatsoever; let him be accursed!”

The next sacrament is the Eucharist. The following is the doctrine of the Romish church in relation to this:!!!!!

Decree of the Council of Florence for the Instruction of the Armenians,

“The third is the sacrament of the Eucharist, the matter of which is wheaten bread, and wine from the vine; with which, before the consecration, a very small quantity of water should be mixed. But water is thus mixed, since it is believed that the Lord himself instituted this sacrament in wine, mixed with water: besides, because this agrees with the representation of our Lords passion: because it is recorded that blood and water flowed forth from the side of Christ: and also because this is proper to signify the effect of this sacrament, which is the union of Christian people with Christ: for water signifies the people, according to Rev. xvii. 15. And he said to me, the waters, which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples, and nations, and tongues.

“The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour, by which this sacrament is performed: for the priest, speaking in the person of Christ, performs this sacrament: for, by virtue of the words themselves, the substance of the bread is converted into the body, and the substance of the wine into the blood, of Christ; yet so that Christ is contained entire under the form of bread, and entire under the form of wine: Christ is entire also under every part of the consecrated host, and of the consecrated wine, after a separation has been made. The effect of this sacrament, which it produces in the soul of a worthy partaker, is the union of the person to Christ,” &c.

Canons of the Council of Trent, concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.

“1. Whoever 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!

“2 Whoever shall say that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of bread and wine remains together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, only the forms of bread and wine remaining, which conversion indeed the Catholic church most aptly calls tran-substantiation; let him be accursed!

“3 Whoever shall deny that in the adorable sacrament of the Eucharist, the entire Christ is contained under each kind, and under the single parts of each kind, when a separation is made; let him be accursed!

“4. Whoever shall say that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not present in the admirable Eucharist so soon as the consecration is performed, but only in the use when it is received, and neither before nor after, and that the true body of our Lord does not remain in the hosts, or consecrated morsels, which are reserved or left after the communion; let him be accursed!

“5. Whoever shall say either that remission of sins is the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist, or that no other effects proceed from it; let him be accursed!

“6. Whoever shall affirm that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored, even with the external worship of latria, and therefore that the Eucharist is to be honored neither with peculiar festive celebration, nor to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of the church, or that it is not to be held up publicly before the people that it may be adored, and that its worshippers are idolaters; let him be accursed!

“7. Whoever shall say that it is not lawful that the holy Eucharist be reserved in the sacristy, but that it must necessarily be distributed to those who are present immediately after the consecration; that it is not proper that it be carried in procession to the sick; let him be accursed!

“8. Whoever shall say that Christ, as exhibited in the Eucharist, is eaten only spiritually, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be accursed.

“9. Whoever shall deny that each and every one of Christ’s faithful, of both sexes, when they have attained to years of discretion, are obliged, least once every year, at Easter, to commune according to the precept of holy mother church; let him be accursed!

“10. Whoever shall say that it is not lawful in the officiating priest to administer the communion to himself; let him be accursed!

“11. Whoever shall affirm that faith alone is sufficient preparation for taking the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be accursed And lest so great a sacrament be taken unworthily and therefore to death and condemnation, the sacred holy synod doth decree and declare, that sacrimental confession must necessarily precede in the case of those whom conscience accuses of mortal sin, if a confessor is at hand, however contrite they may suppose themselves to be. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or pertinacious assert, or in publicly disputing, to defend the contrary, let him by this very act be excommunicated.”

Canons of the same Council concerning the Communion of Children, and in both Kinds.

“1. Whoever shall say that each and every of of Christ’s faithful ought to take both kinds of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, by the command of God, or because necessary to salvation let him be accursed!

“2. Whoever shall say that the holy Catholic church has not been induced, by just causes and reasons, to administer the communion to the laity, and also to the clergy not officiating, only under the form of bread; or that she has erred in this; Let him be accursed!

“3. Whoever shall deny that the whole and entire Christ, the fountain and author of all graces, is received under the one form of bread, because, as some falsely assert, he is not received under both kinds, according to the institution of Christ; let him be accursed!

“4 Whoever shall say that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they have attained to years of discretion; let him be accursed!” &c.

The next in order is Extreme Unction,

Canons of the Council of Trent concerning Extreme Unction.

“1. Whoever shall say that extreme unction is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord, and promulgated by the blessed apostle James, but only a rite received from, the fathers, or human invention; let turn be accursed!

“2. Whoever 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, as if the gift of healing existed only in past ages; let him be accursed!

“3. Whoever shall say that the ceremony of extreme unction in the practice which the holy Roman church observes, are repugnant to the meaning of the blessed apostle James, and that, therefore, they are to be changed; let him be accursed!”

The sixth sacrament is that of Orders.

Canons of the Council of Trent concerning Orders

“1. Whoever shall say that in the New Testament, there is not a visible and external priesthood: or that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of remitting and retaining sins: but only the office and naked ministry of preaching the gospel; or that they who do not preach are surely not priests; Let him be accursed!

“2. Whoever shall say that besides the priesthood there are not other orders in the Catholic church, both greater and inferior, by which as by certain steps, the priesthood may be attained; let him be accursed!

“3. Whoever shall say that orders, or sacred ordination, is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord; or that it is a certain human invention, devised by men ignorant of ecclesiastical things, or that it is only a certain ceremony of choosing the ministers of the word of God and of the sacraments; let him be accursed!

“4. Whoever shall say that by sacred ordination the Holy Spirit is not given, and that therefore the bishops say in vain, Receive the Holy Ghost: or that by it character is not impressed: or that he who has once been a priest may again become a layman; let him be accursed!

“5. Whoever shall say that the sacred unction which the church uses in holy ordination is not only not required, but is contemptible and pernicious; likewise also the other ceremonies of orders; let him be accursed!

“6. Whoever shall say that in the Catholic church there is not a hierarchy instituted by divine appointment, which consists of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be accursed!

“7. Whoever shall say that bishops are not superior to priests, or that they have not the power of confirming and ordaining; or that which they have is common to them with the priests; or that orders conferred by them without the consent or call of the people or the secular power, are null and void; or that they who have been neither duly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from some other source, are lawful ministers of the word and sacraments; let him be accursed!

“8. Whoever shall say that the bishops, who are appointed by the authority of the Roman pontiff, are not lawful and true bishops, but a human invention; let him be accursed!”

Canons of the Council of Trent concerning Marriage.

1. Whoever shall say that marriage is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical laws instituted by Christ the Lord, but that it is invented by men in the church and does not confer grace; let him be accursed!

“2. Whoever shall say that it is lawful for Christians to Have several wives at once, and that this is forbidden by no divine law; let him be accursed!

“3. Whoever shall say that only those degrees of relationship and affinity, which are expressed in Leviticus, can hinder marriage from being contracted, and annul the contract; and that the church cannot dispense in any of them, or appoint that more may hinder and annul; let him be accursed!

“4. Whoever shall say that the Church could not constitute impediments annulling marriage, or that in constituting them, she has erred; let him be accursed!

“5. Whoever shall say that the bond of marriage may be dissolved on account of heresy, or mutual dislike, or voluntary absence from the husband or wife; let him be accursed!

“6. Whoever shall say that a marriage solemnized, but not consummated, is not annulled by the solemn profession of a religious order by one of the parties; let him be accursed!

“7. Whoever shall say that the church errs, when she has taught and teaches that according to the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, the bond of marriage cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one or the other of the parties, and that neither of them, not even the innocent party who has given no cause for the adultery, may contract another marriage, whilst the party is living, and that he commits adultery, who marries another after putting away his adulterous wife, or she, who marries another, after putting away her adulterous husband; let him be accursed!

“8. Whoever shall say that the church is in error when, for many reasons, she decrees that a separation may be made between married persons, as to the bed, or as to intercourse, either for a certain, or an uncertain time; let him be accursed.

“9. Whoever shall say that the clergy, constituted in sacred order, or regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, may contract marriage, and that the contract is valid, notwithstanding ecclesiastical law, or vow, and that to maintain the opposite, is nothing else than to condemn marriage; and that all may contract marriage, who do not think that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have vowed it; let him be accursed: as God does not deny this to those who seek it aright, nor does he suffer us to be tempted above what we are able to bear.

“10. Whoever shall say that the married state is to be preferred to a state of virginity, or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or celibacy, than to be joined in marriage; let him be accursed!

“11. Whoever shall affirm that the prohibition of the solemnization of marriage, at certain times of the year, is a tyrannical superstition, borrowed from the superstitions of the Pagans, or shall condemn the benedictions, and other ceremonies, which the church uses at those times; let him be accursed! u 12. Whoever shall affirm that matrimonial causes do not belong to the ecclesiastical judges; let him be accursed!”

The atrocity of the above doctrines, is evident to every reflecting mind. Protestants can now see for themselves, whether they can safely hold any communion with them, or have any confidence in Roman Catholics. There is not a Protestant Christian in the United States, nor in the world, who is not publicly and solemnly denounced, as an accursed being, by the Roman Catholic church, and by each and every one of its members; but in addition to those curses, which I have enumerated, there is another more solemn; one which is annually pronounced against them, by the Pope of Rome, and by every bishop and priest in this country. It is known by the title of Bulla in cena Domini. The curse contained in this bull, is pronounced annually at Rome, by the Pope, on Thursday before Good Friday. It includes every living being who is not a Roman Catholic. All our president, congress, governors, magistrates, municipal authorities, officers of our navy and army, all our Protestant clergymen, whether Unitarians, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, or Methodists; and upon all these, without distinction, the Pope of Rome, dressed in his royal robes, invokes the curse of Heaven, once at least every year. Every priest in the Roman church is bound to do the same. It was a part of my own duty, and one which I never failed to discharge, until I protested against the doctrines of the Romish church. The Popish priests never deemed it prudent to pronounce this curse publicly?-in the United States, but while I was among them, we never omitted to do so privately, on the morning of Thursday before Good Friday. It commences with the following words on the part of the Pope:!!!!!

“We, therefore, following the ancient custom of our predecessors, of holy memory, do firstly—excommunicate and curse, in the name of Almighty God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and by the authority of St. Peter and St. Paul, and by our own authority, all Heretics, Hussites, Wiekliffites, Lutherans. Calvinists, Huguenots, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, and all apostates from the faith, and all who read their books,” &c, &c. This curse includes every soul in the United States, who is not a Roman Catholic. Will you, Americans give these men and their doctrines footing among you? Will they longer dare to curse you and your children with impunity?

In the 6th section of the above bull, the Pope and his priests curse all civil powers, who impose taxes without the consent of the Roman court.

In the 12th section, they curse all who maltreat cardinals, bishops, or priests. You are, therefore, to take heed and not quarrel with priests, though they insult your wives, or debauch your families. In the 15th section, all are cursed, who take away jurisdiction from the court of Rome, and prefer leaving pauses of difference between them and priests, to our civil tribunals.

In the 17th section, all are cursed, who in any case appeal to civil tribunals, when the difficulty is between Romish priests and citizens.

In the 18th section, the Pope curses all who take away church property.

In the 19th section, the Pope curses all who, without express license from him, impose taxes on priests, monasteries, nunneries, or churches. Our legislature is sitting while I write. Take heed, gentlemen, lest you tax the Roman Catholic bishop Fenwick, or any of his priests. Be sure you do not tax his real estate, his nunneries, or other property. If you do, you are doubly damned.

In the 20th section, the church curses all judges, and magistrates, who shall sit in judgment on a bishop or priest, without license from the holy see.

In the 22d section, this bull is declared to be binding forever, and it is brought to a conclusion by a solemn assurance that if any priest shall violate it, he shall incur the wrath of Almighty God, and of St. Peter and Paul.

I would again ask Americans whether Roman Catholic priests, or bishop, or the two millions of followers which they have in this country, are any longer to be trusted. I tell Americans, and I proclaim it to the world, that they are spies upon our republic; they are the sworn foes of our laws, of our principles, and of our government; and they are united by the most fearful oath never to rest while our religious liberty lasts, and to use every means which ingenuity can devise, and treachery and perjury accomplish, to effect its overthrow, and substitute in its place, the religion of the Pope; a religion, if such a name can be given to a most infamous system of policy, which for sixteen hundred years has deluged Europe in blood.

I make these assertions, not at random, not upon hearsay, not upon the authority of Protestant writers, but upon that of Roman Catholic theologians, and upon my own personal knowledge. I solemnly declare it to be my deliberate opinion, that it is the duty of all civil governments on the face of the earth, to unite in excluding, from their territories, all Roman Catholic priests and bishops, as their deadly enemies, and the sworn transgressors of all national law; and for us in this country to countenance them, while they have any connection with the Pope of Rome, or profess to owe him any allegiance, is nothing short of a species of insanity. The bull of which I have spoken, is taught in every Roman Catholic college in the United States. The students in those institutions are educated in the belief that their church, which is infallible, requires of them to be unfaithful to this heretical government, and not only that, but to betray it, whenever the interest of the church demands it.

Every Irish Roman Catholic priest, who comes to this country, is instructed by his bishop, to pull down, if possible, the standard of heresy, which he is told he will find waving over the United States, and erect in its place that of the Pope, which he swears to defend.

These are the principles of priests and their followers, who are coming amongst you in thousands; whom you have encouraged for the last fifty years, until at last, you have emboldened them, by your mistaken sensibility and mock philanthropy, to say and proclaim to the universe, Americans shan’t rule us. This was their motto, during the last presidential election; a motto devised and blessed by those turbulent demagogues and pensioned agents of the Pope, in New York. But they are not the only Papists who have proclaimed that Americans shall not rule them. The same has been done in Philadelphia and Boston! These men are at the bottom of all the riots, tumults, and popular commotions, which have occurred in this country for several years back. Witness the disturbances in Philadelphia, in 1821 and 1822, by an Irish bishop, in trying to get possession, in the name of the Pope, of church property, estimated to be worth over a million of dollars. (I shall refer to this hereafter.) Witness the riots in the same city last May, where several Americans have been sacrificed to the fury of a Popish mob. Witness the proceeding in this city of Boston, on the occasion of a nun having made her escape from the convent in Charlestown, to avoid, I have no doubt, what delicacy forbade her to mention. Other causes were assigned for her escape, and some were weak enough to deem them sufficient; but from my own knowledge of convents, there can be no doubt of the real cause of the escape, of the virtuous young lady, of whom mention is made.

Here is another instance of the morbid and mistaken sensibility of many of our people. A certain number of Popish agents have applied to our legislature to build a jail, which they call a convent, in our very midst. To this jail, they attach a school, for the education of young ladies, and for this ostensible purpose, numbers of older ones are kept in the jail or convent, by the Pope’s agents.

The young ladies, who are sent to this school, are treated with kindness and attention; every thing is done to please, to flatter them, and even to cultivate their minds. The interior of the jail or nunnery is depicted in the most delightful colors. The happiness of the inmates is said to be equal to the saints in paradise. No opportunity is lost to impress on the minds of their pupils, the temporal as well as eternal beatitudes of this convent, until, finally, the young minds of the scholars become perfectly enchanted, and, in the full glow of their youthful imagination, they determine to become nuns. This step, too, they are taught to take with apparent caution; they must serve a noviciate, go through all the ceremony of wearing a white veil; the old nuns representing to them the happiness they are about to enjoy, when they are about to assume the black veil. But when this is done, the poor innocent victims soon feel the horrors of their condition. They are confined to solitary cells, to which no one has access but the priests, and thus, in our very midst, a free born American citizen is seduced from her parents, from her guardians, and fellow-citizens, and no one is permitted to go and ask her freely how she likes her condition. She is confined there with more severity, and watched more closely, than any female in a Turkish Seraglio; and as we all recollect, a few years ago, a Popish bishop, with his priests, and some thousands of their subjects, viz., Irish Papists, threatened to sack the city of Boston, because the people deemed it necessary to pull down that synagogue of satan, the Charlestown nunnery. I am not an advocate of mobs or riots: I would observe the law of the land, and see it enforced at every risk; but there is a point at which no man would support even the civil law.

There are laws founded upon necessity, and the eternal laws of morality, which have a paramount claim upon one. Allegiance. Suppose some hoary-headed profligate should obtain a charter to build a house on Mount Benedict; suppose further, he attaches a school to it, to be governed by the faded victims of his former dissipation, with a view of making money for himself; suppose he and they had the address to gather around them some of the most innocent, lovely, and respectable females in the country; let us even suppose that ninety-nine in a hundred of those young ladies left that school with unblemished reputation and high accomplishments; and we had that evidence that only one in a hundred fell victims to the designs of the founders of this corrupt institution: who would hesitate to determine what should be done with this institution, or this nunnery, as Roman Catholic priests would call it? An answer is not necessary. But suppose the hoary-headed gentleman should apply to the legislature to rebuild it, would they do so? There was a time when their acquaintance with Popery might have induced them to say aye, if such a resolution were introduced; but now that they have seen Popery in its native colors, withered should be the tongue of him who would advance such a proposition; and paralyzed should be the arm of the American who would support it. But it may be replied, that the Roman Catholic church is different now from what it was in ancient times; that it has essentially changed in its doctrine and in its discipline.

Others may say that Protestants, too, have been intolerant, and guilty of many cruelties, in the propagation of their religion. This is freely admitted: but there is this wide difference between the two religions. The Popish creed inculcates persecution and utter extermination of all who do not believe in its doctrines; while on the contrary, the creed of the latter has never, and does not now, inculcate any other doctrine, than Jesus Christ, and him crucified. In plain English, the Romish church curses all who differ from her; while the Protestant church blesses all, though they may be in error, and sincerely prays for their conversion. The spirit of the latter breathes nothing but love, joy, peace, and good will to mankind; that of the former, malice, hatred, ill will, and persecution. This has been her uniform theory from the middle of the third century; and as I will now show you, from the lips of her own divines, and cannonized saints, her members have never ceased to reduce it to practice. Cyril, who is to this day invoked, and prayed to as a saint, taught and practised the above Romish doctrine. He was bishop of Alexandria, in the year four hundred and twelve. There is not a Roman Catholic, who is not taught to pray to him; and, of course, they can have no objection to my giving him as authority. Whatever St. Cyril believed, is believed by Papists now. Whatever he did was right, and according to sound doctrine consequently as Holy Mother, the church, never errs, and never can err, it must be right now. Let us see what this saint has done and believed, in his time. Socrates, a native of Constantinople, gives the following account of a portion of the life of St. Cyril, and other bishops of Alexandria. I take it from his ecclesiastical history.

The bishops of Alexandria had begun, says Socrates, to exceed the limits of ecclesiastical power, and to intermeddle with civil affairs, imitating, thereby, the bishop of Rome, whose sacred authority had, long since, been changed into dominion and empire.

The governors of Alexandria, looking upon the increase of the Romish episcopal power as a diminution of the civil, watched the bishops, in order to restrain them within the limits of the spiritual, and prevent their encroaching on the temporal jurisdiction. But Cyril, from the very beginning of his episcopacy, bade defiance to civil power, acting in such manner as showed but too plainly that he would be kept within no bounds. Soon after his installation, he caused, by his own authority, the churches, which the Novitians were allowed to have in Alexandria, to be shut up, seized on the sacred utensils, and plundering the house of their bishop, Theapemptus, drove him out of the city, stripped of every thing he possessed. Not long after this, Cyril put himself at the head of a Christian mob, and, without the knowledge of the governor, took possession of the Jewish synagogue, drove the Jews out of Alexandria, pillaged their houses, and allowed the Christians—all Papists—who were concerned with him in the riot, to appropriate to themselves all their effects. This the governor highly resented, and not only rebuked Cyril very severely, for thus encroaching on his jurisdiction, and usurping a power that did not belong to him, but wrote to the emperor, complaining of him for snatching the sword of justice from him, to put it into the hands of the undeserving multitude.

This occasioned a misunderstanding, or rather an avowed enmity between St. Cyril and the governor. With the saint sided the clergy, the greater part of the mob, and the monks; with the governor, the soldiery and the better class of citizens As the two parties were strangely animated against each other, there happened daily skirmishes in the streets of Alexandria. The friends of the governor, generally speaking, made their party good, having the soldiery on their side. But one day, as the governor was going out in his chariot, attended by his guards, he found himself, very unexpectedly, surrounded by no fewer than five hundred monks. The monks were, in those days, the standing army of the bishops, but are now of the Pope’s alone. The monks in the service of St. Cyril, having surrounded the governor’s chariot, dispersed the small guard that attended it, fell upon him, dangerously wounded him, and determined to put an end to the quarrel between him and St. Cyril, by taking his life.

The citizens, alarmed at his danger, flew to his rescue, put the cowardly monks to flight, and having seized on the monk by whom the governor was wounded, delivered him into his hands. The governor, to deter others, caused the monk to be put to death. But St. Cyril, partly to reward the zeal which the monk had exerted in attempting to assassinate his antagonist, caused him to be honored as a holy martyr. The partizans of St. Cyril, enraged at the death of the monk, and under the advice of this Romish saint, determined to revenge it; and the person they singled out among the friends of the governor to wreak their rage and revenge on, was one who, of all the inhabitants of Alexandria, deserved it the least. This was the famous and celebrated Hypatia, the wonder of her age for beauty, for virtue, and knowledge. She kept a public school of philosophy in Alexandria; where she was born, and her reputation was so great, that not only disciples flocked from all parts to hear her, but the greatest philosophers used to consult her as an oracle, with respect to the most abstruse points of astronomy, geometry, and the Platonic philosophy, which she was particularly well versed in. Though she was very beautiful, and freely conversed with men of all ranks, yet they were so awed by her known virtue and modesty, that none ever presumed to show, in her presence, the least symptom of passion. The governor entertained the highest opinion of her abilities, often consulted her, and in all perplexed cases governed himself by her advice. As she was the person in Alexandria whom he most valued, St. Cyril and his friends, to wound him the more effectually, entered into a conspiracy to destroy this beautiful and innocent lady.

This barbarous resolution being taken, as she was one day returning home in her chariot, a band of the dregs of the people, encouraged and headed by one of St. Cyril’s priests, attacked her in her chariot, pulled her out of it, and throwing her on the ground, dragged her to the great church called Cæsareum; there they stripped, her naked, and with sharp tiles, either brought with them or found there, continued cutting, tearing, and mangling her flesh, till nature, yielding to pain, she expired under their hands. Her death did not satisfy their rage and fury. They tore her body in pieces, dragged her mangled limbs through all the streets of Alexandria, and then gathering them together, burned them. Such was the end of the famous Hypatia, the most learned person of the age she lived in; but she was not a Roman Catholic. Can you, Americans, believe that this very Cyril is now a saint in the Roman Catholic church; that he is daily prayed to, honored, and worshipped by Papists? Can you believe that the Catholics whom you employ in your houses, the nuns to whom you intrust the education of your children, daily invoke the intercession of this murderous Cyril?

And think you, fellow-citizens, that the spirit of the Popish bishop, Cyril, has died with him, or that the church, which approved of his conduct, would refuse to sanction a similar act at this day? If you do, you are mistaken. Was the conduct of Cyril ever censured by the church? Were the murders and atrocities which he committed, and caused to be committed, even disapproved by the holy mother? If they were, I would ask at what council was it done? Where and when was such a council held? Who was the presiding Pope? The fact is, so far from incurring the displeasure of the Romish church, this notorious Popish murderer of Jews and heretics was canonized and sainted; and similar distinctions would be now awarded to him who would commit similar crimes, if his holiness the Pope deemed it prudent to have such crimes committed.

We saw an instance of the spirit which actuated Cyril, some years ago, in this city, when, in the case of the Ursuline Convent, to which I have already referred, every Papist within fifty miles of Boston, who was able to bear arms, volunteered his aid to his bishop, in taking vengeance upon our citizens, merely because they would not sanction among them the existence of a house, called a nunnery, and used as a jail, for the confinement of some of our most virtuous females, against their will. Had Miss Reed, who escaped from that den of profligacy, been caught by her Popish pursuers, and without the knowledge of our citizens, what would have been her fate? She might not have been torn to pieces, as Hypatia was, but her torments would not have been less cruel. She would have been kept upon her bare knees, perhaps ten hours in the twenty-four, for months.

She would be obliged to pray to the same St. Cyril, and a string of such vagabonds, for the remission of her sins. She would be compelled to kiss the ground and lick it with her tongue, at stated intervals, and bread and water her diet, until the zeal of her holy confessors was perfectly satisfied. And if those who aided her escape were detected, what would have been their fate? Thanks to our republican government, they could not be punished in this country; but had they committed the deed under a purely Catholic government, the infallible church would consign them to the inquisition, and have broken them upon the rack.

This is the church, and her members are the men, whom you are countenancing amongst you. The Romish church never surrendered the right which she once claimed of destroying heretics. She only suspends it for the moment, until her strength and numbers shall enable her to enforce it. But there are some who will not believe this, especially when Catholic priests and bishops deny it. Many Protestants, who are natives of this country, and unacquainted with Roman Catholic doctrines, will not believe it. Many, even, of our Protestant clergymen will scarcely believe it; such is the craft and consummate falsehood of priests and bishops, that I have never met with one Protestant who entertained the most remote idea that keeping no faith with heretics, and persecuting them to death, formed any portion of the doctrine of the church of Rome.

This is owing to the fact of their being born in a free country, at a distance from the seat of Romish power, and their having little access and no acquaintance with the standard works of Popery.

Many, even, of the native born Americans, who have become Roman Catholics, know little or nothing of the doctrines of the church into which they have permitted themselves to be seduced. I will hazard the assertion, that there are not ten lay members amongst them, in the United States, who have read the works of Belarmine, the canons, or decrees of the various councils that have been held in the Popish church, or even the corpus juris canonici, containing the decrees of the council of Trent.

If the writings of De La Hogue, used in the college of Maynooth, Ireland, or the works of Antoine or Den, taught in that college when I was a student there, were thoroughly read, and the doctrines contained in those standard works of Popery understood, there is not a moral man living who would not shun the church of Rome, as a thing too unclean, too impure, too licentious, too wicked, too corrupt, and of too persecuting a character to be allowed to exist at all. This their priests well know; and, having recently discovered that a few copies of Den’s “Theology” had found their way into this country, they have the unblushing effrontery to deny that his work was ever approved of by the church, or was ever received as such in any college in Ireland. I studied in the college of Maynooth, and have read speculative theology under Dr. De La Hogue, and moral theology under Dr. Antoine, in the same class with several priests now in this country, and among other works which we read in that class was the “Moral Theology” of the Rev Peter Den; especially his treatise de Peccatis.

I have the pleasure of an acquaintance with some native Americans who are become Roman Catholics. They are men of honor, moral worth, and possess highly cultivated minds. They were religious men; and deeming a connection with some church to be necessary, and seeing nothing of the Romish church but its seductive and imposing ceremonies, they united themselves with it, or, if they happened to hesitate in joining it, and deemed it necessary to consult with Catholic priests and bishops, these crafty Jesuits soon furnished them with Catholic works manufactured for such occasions, and unobjectionable to the most pious Christian; taking good care, at the same time, to keep out of their way such works as I have alluded to, from which they may learn that there is no religion in the Popish church, and that it is no more than a political machine, devised for the suppression of republicanism, knowledge, and the liberties of man.

Let us pass over the time which intervened between the fourth and twelfth centuries. The history of the Popes and the Romish church, during that period, is replete with crimes committed by Popes, and atrocities sanctioned by the church, the bare mention of which humanity shudders The very earth is almost saturated with the blood which Popish despots caused to be shed under the mask of religion, but, in reality, for the advancement of their own temporal power.

Crusade against the Albigenses

I will now show that the spirit of Cyril had not died with him. During the reign of Pope Innocent III., that holy pontiff discovered that there was, in the province of Narbonne and in several other provinces of the south of France, a religious sect, called the Albigenses, who presumed to differ from the Romish church, and had the audacity to believe that the Bible was the only rule of faith. They rejected the external rites of the Romish church, except baptism and the Lord’s supper.

They had no faith in images, indulgences, and other such semi-pagan mummeries. Auricular confession and the forgiveness of sins by man they rejected as impious. They looked upon nunneries as places of sin, instituted by priests, as a sort of substitute for the marriage of the clergy. They demolished such of them as were in existence among them, and declared the marriage of the clergy as lawful and honorable. They scouted at the idea of the temporal jurisdiction of the Pope over the nations of the earth, and looked upon him as emphatically the Man of Sin.

These crimes, of course, were not long overlooked by the infallible church! They were heresies. These people were heretics, and the holy mother, in the plenitude of her affection for her strayed children, determined that they should be exterminated. But how was this to be done? The holy father, Pope Innocent III., was not long in determining. He sent two spies amongst them, of the names of Guy and Regnier. These were Monks, whose hands were already stained with blood. They were empowered by the Pope, to use their own discretion in checking the heresy of the Albigenses by fire, sword, faggot, or the inquisition, which employed all those means upon such occasions.

The Albigenses however, were so numerous their lives so pure, so chaste and correct, that this was not easily accomplished; and his holiness had to preach a crusade against them, and published a bull addressed to all the authorities of southern France, declaring them accursed and excommunicated, and giving absolution to all who should murder them and take possession of their property. Here are the words of the bull, “According to the canonical sanctions of the holy fathers, no faith ought to be kept with those who do not keep faith with God, or are separated from the communion of the faithful”—Papists. “We release, by our apostolical authority, all those who deem themselves bound to them by any oath, either of alliance or fealty; we permit every Catholic man to seize their persons, to take their lands, and keep them for the purpose of extirpating heresy.”

Here, Americans, is a specimen of true, genuine Popery, as Innocent Expresses it, “sanctioned by the canons and holy fathers of the Romish church.” People of New England, what think you of it? Bear in mind that this is not the act of a few fanatics; it is not the belief of a few zealots. If it were, it would be wrong to charge it to the Romish church. All denominations have had among them fanatics; but the extravagances of a few individuals are not chargeable to the body to which they might have belonged. Even our New England Presbyterian forefathers had among them persecutors; but who, in his sound mind, could charge this to the Presbyterian church? There is nothing in their creed or doctrines which sanctions the persecution of those who differ from them and there the Romish church differs from all others. The persecution and destruction of heretics, and the confiscation of their property, is an integral part of the Roman Catholic faith, and the watchword of Papists.

The crusade against these unfortunate Albigen-ses commenced its march about the year 1209. Indulgences were offered to all who would unite in the war, and history informs as that the Pope and his vassals in the church raised an army of between three and five thousand men, who were to serve for forty days; at the termination of which, the Pope, in one of his heavenly transports, saw that “every one of the sect of the Albigerises should be massacred.” To this army his holiness caused to be added, by an offer of indulgences, multitudes of peasants, with scythes and clubs, who were to be under the command of monks, and whose peculiar duty it was, to slaughter the wives and children of these heretics, while their husbands and fathers were engaged in the field with their adversaries. Horrible! Yet this is a true picture of what has been, and what will be in this country, at some future day, should Popery gain the ascendancy.

It is much to be lamented that the Christian League, as it is termed, had not looked to this, in place of going abroad in search of objects worthy of their philanthropy. They seem to me to have acted like a man who, while his own house is in a blaze, runs out to see if there be any of his neighbors’ houses on fire, and leaves his own to smoulder into ruins. Assuredly, such a man would not be deemed prudent, nor should he even be considered sane.

Far be it from me to think or speak disrespectfully of the pious and reverend gentlemen who compose that league; but their solicitude for the welfare of a foreign country and a foreign people appears to me strange, when all their charities are much more needed at home. They desire the suppression of Popery, especially in Italy, where it is kept alive by Austrian bayonets and Popish bulls, and where it will live until those bayonets are broken and those bulls are burned. They can no more suppress Popery in Italy, than they could confine a fire with a flaxen band.

The continuance of Popery depends upon this country alone. Extinguish it in the United States, and it dies every where. The old world is sick of it; it has cursed it long enough. It is for us alone to say whether it shall live or die. Americans alone can sound the death knell of Popery; and, if this Christian League will unite their energies and bring them all to bear, in excluding Popery from the United States, they will be conferring a blessing, not only upon this, but upon the old world.

But to return to our subject. Cruel, beyond measure, were the sufferings of the Albigenses, a few instances of which I beg to lay before my readers, as specimens of Popish charity and their mode of fulfilling that holy commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” When the Pope’s army arrived at a place called Beziers, the citizens were, of course, alarmed. The Pope’s legate sent many messengers among them, advising them to give up such heretics, with their wives and children, as continued obstinate among them. They replied in the following words—”Rather than be base enough to do what is required of us, and abandon our religious principles, we will eat our children first, and our wives will die with us.” On receiving this answer, the Pope’s army, or rather incarnate devils, rushed upon them so suddenly, and in such numbers, that they had to surrender, after little or no resistance.

There were many among them who were not heretics, but, seeing the injustice done to their fellow-citizens, and knowing the purity of their lives, united with them in resisting oppression. Some of the most merciful of the Pope’s army, entertaining scruples as to what should be done to those who were not heretics and happened to fall into their hands, deemed it a duty which they owed to holy mother, to consult the Pope’s legate upon this occasion; and what, Christian reader, think you was the reply of this representative of the Roman Catholic church? What was the answer of this imbodiment of Popery? It was what it would be this day, under similar circumstances.—”Kill them all; the Lord will know his own!” At this answer, the bells rung, by order of this legate. and never ceased to toll, until fifteen thousand were butchered upon the spot, according to the account given by the legate himself; although a contemporary historian, named Bernard Itier, and much better authority than this blood-thirsty legate, informs us that thirty-eight thousand were slaughtered in cold blood.

During this time, Pope Innocent and the infallible church were not idle in other parts of France. Wherever heresy existed, or heretical blood was to be shed, there were to be found the representatives of the holy church, until not a vestige of the Protestant doctrines of the Albigenses was to be seen. Nearly all its ministers and its followers suffered the most cruel deaths, and their church was drowned in the blood of its defenders. But the man of sin being still apprehensive that some vestige of Protestantism might remain, or that the life of some unfortunate member of the Albigenses might have escaped, the Popish murderers established, in those countries, that accursed tribunal, the Inquisition; some of whose members appeared in the guise and occupation of farmers, to act as spies among that class of people; others as merchants, others as mechanics, &c. To these were added female Jesuits, some of whom were shop-keepers, milliners, servant-maids, &c.; and, suitably educated, whenever necessary, were ready to act their parts well.

Thus no man was safe. No family, no lady, was safe. They dreaded the very air they breathed. They knew not when the officers of the inquisition would call them from their homes, their children, their husbands, and their wives, to be cast into the dungeon of the inquisition, without knowing their offence, or who accused them.

This was Popery in the twelfth century; this was Popery in the fourth century; and this is Popery in the nineteenth century. Americans, are-you aware that there are Jesuit nuns now in this country? Are you aware of the reasons why they are so anxious to get Protestant rather than Catholic scholars into their schools? The reason is this; they are in this country spies upon your actions. Your thoughts, your designs, your influence, the probable amount of your wealth, and your political opinions, are known to your children. These Jesuit nuns worm themselves into your confidence; the young hearts of their pupils are soon laid bare to these artful hypocrites; and before you scarcely notice the absence of your children, your domestic secrets are known to some Popish agent, who makes such use of them as the holy church may direct. This is done daily. I make this statement of my own knowledge, and I warn you, if you value your domestic happiness, or the peace and harmony of your children, never permit one of them, male or female, to enter a school kept by nuns or Jesuits.

From these observations, the reader must have seen that Popery, in its teachings and actions, is, and has been, the same always. What, then, becomes of the assertions, so frequently made by Roman Catholic priests and bishops, that the doctrines of the church, in relation to heretics, have been relaxed? Certain it is, at all events, that there has been no mitigation in the treatment of heretics down to the thirteenth century. Let us come down a little farther, and see if any had taken place during the thirteenth century. We discover none whatever.

It was during this century, that the “Greater Excommunication,” as it is called, was pronounced by the Pope, and the whole church, against all who should interfere with the clergy in the exercise of their temporal or spiritual rights. The curse was pronounced, by every parish priest, throughout the Papal world, four times a year,—-Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and All-Hallows day. The curse is in the following words, and is now repeated on the same days, by the Pope and all the priests and bishops of the Romish church, not publicly,—that they dare not do,—but in private. “Let them be accursed, eating and drinking, walking and sitting, speaking, and holding their peace, waking and sleeping, rowing and riding, laughing and weeping, in house and in field, in water and on land, in all places; cursed be their heads and their thoughts, their eyes and their ears, their tongues and their lips, their teeth and their throats, their shoulders and their breasts, their feet and their legs their thighs and their inward parts; let them remain accursed, from the sole of their foot to the crown of their heads; and just as this candle (the curser has a lighted candle in his hand, which he extinguishes) is deprived of us present light, so let them be deprived of their souls in hell.”

Such is the curse which the Pope pronounced against all heretics in the thirteenth century! and however surprised you may be, a similar one is pronounced once a year against all Protestants. There are many Americans who cannot believe that such a curse as the above, has ever been pronounced against a fellow-being. I have conversed with some intelligent Protestants in this city, who doubted whether such an anathema was ever uttered, and seemed struck with horror, as well as surprise, when I informed them that it was pronounced against myself in Philadelphia in presence of, at least, three thousand people. The reader must know, by this, that I am a heretic, and look upon the introduction of Popery into the United States, as the greatest evil which Providence has permitted to fall upon us. Arise, fellow-citizens, in the fulness of your power,—every Protestant in this country is a heretic, as well as myself. We are all annually cursed and damned by a set of Popish agents, bishops, and priests; men who, from my own personal acquaintance with them, I know to be unworthy of your friendship or your support; who walk your streets with apparent sanctimoniousness, but whose lives in private are such as delicacy forbids me to mention.

These men, under pretence of being democrats are attacking your liberties with the club of Hercules. They are acquiring gigantic force. You have recently witnessed the truth of this assertion; they fancied they had strength enough to cut you down as the legate of Pope Innocent did the Albigenses in the twelfth century. They bid defiance to reason, argument, and the lew of your land; and it grieves me to see every thing yielding to their power, as chaff before the wind. But Providence interposed, and these miserable dupes of Romish priests received a check, which, if followed up, will have a salutary effect in future. But, I pray you, be on your guard; watch the movements of Papists among you: have no confidence in them; have as little as possible to do with them. Trust them in nothing which may either directly or indirectly involve their religion. I most solemnly appeal to our national and state legislatures, to exclude them from every office of honor, profit, or trust, while they have any connection whatever, spiritual or temporal, with the Pope of Rome. Believe them not, when they tell you that their allegiance to the Pope is only spiritual. I understand what they mean by spiritual allegiance.

From what has been stated, it is clear that no modification had taken place in Popish pretensions during the thirteenth century, neither had the church relaxed one iota in her persecutions of heretics. On the contrary, her cruelties increased-the declarations of Popish priests to the contrary notwithstanding.

Let us now see what has been the conduct of the Popish church towards heretics, from the latter end of the thirteenth century to the conclusion of the fourteenth.

How was the illustrious John Wickliffe, professor of divinity in Oxford, treated by the church of Rome, during the reign of Boniface IX. But let us first see what the crimes of Wickliffe were, for which he had been so severely punished by the holy Roman church. The illustrious and good Wickliffe, the founder of the Reformation, whose very name every Christian venerates, maintained, 1st, That the Scriptures contain all truths necessary to salvation; 2d, That in the Scriptures only, is to be found, a perfect rule of Christian practice; 3d, He denied the authority of the Pope in temporal matters; 4th, He maintained that the Pope was the Man of Sin, the son of perdition, to which St. Paul alluded, “sitting as God in the temple of God.” As soon as the opinions of Wickliffe were ascertained, Gregory XL, the ruling Pope, addressed a Bull to the primate of England, ordering him to have Wickliffe arrested and imprisoned, until he received further instructions.

The popularity of Wickliffe was such, that this step was considered dangerous; and we find that nothing further was done to this eminently pious man, than banishing him from the university of Oxford into private life, where he died in peace, and went to his grave with the blessings of the good and the virtuous. But this did not satisfy the Pope, nor the infallible church. O, no. The holy mother never forgives a heretic, dead or alive. As soon as Wickliffe departed this life, in the sixty-first year of his age, the church and Papists exhibited the wildest symptoms of joy. One of their writers, in giving an account of his death, uses the following language: “On the day of St. Thomas, the martyr, that limb of the devil, enemy of the church, deceiver of the people, idol of heretics, mirror of hypocrites, author of schism, sower of hatred, and inventor of lies, John Wickliffe, was, by the immediate judgment of God, suddenly struck with a palsy, which seized all the members of his body, when he was ready to vomit forth his blasphemies against the blessed St. Thomas, in a sermon which he had prepared to preach that day!”

But holy mother was not yet satisfied. She had not the felicity of hanging Wickliffe; her ears were not delighted with his groans upon the rack; she did not hear his flesh hissing amid the flames of the faggot, nor his bones breaking upon the wheel; she must, however, have all the revenge left to satiate her malice. Thirty years after the death of Wickliffe, the infallible council of Constance, at which the Pope presided, passed an order that the body and bones of John Wickliffe, if they might be known and discerned from the bodies of faithful people—Papists—should be taken from the ground and thrown far away from the burial of any church, according to the canon laws and decrees.

This decree was not put in execution for thirteen years afterwards. His grave was then opened and his body disinterred with great solemnity, and in the presence of the Catholic bishop of Lincoln, it was publicly burned, and the ashes thrown into a neighboring rivulet. But the indignities offered to Wickliffe, while living, and after his death, were not sufficient to appease the malice of Papists. Blood, and blood alone, could satiate their thirst for revenge. His followers were hunted up and mercilessly put to death. Among the first of his followers, who suffered, was Lord Cobham, a nobleman, distinguished for his valor, devotion to his country, and true piety. His character was without blemish, and his morals and patriotism undoubted; but he was a heretic; he was among the followers of Wickliffe; he believed in the Holy Scriptures. This was crime enough, and for this he was excommunicated. Cobham appealed to the Pope, but the appeal was refused: he was cited again; he was offered absolution, if he would sue for it, and submit to the Popish church. This he refused; the consequence was, he was thrown into prison, from which he escaped and was not retaken for nearly four years, he was, however, finally captured after a most heroic resistance.

He might have escaped again, being an overmatch for his captor, had not a pious Roman Catholic woman, while he was nobly defending himself, taken up a stool, and with a desperate blow, broken both his legs. In this condition he was recommitted to prison until he was sentenced to death for his heresy. The sentence was, “that he should be drawn from his place of confinement through the city of London, to Temple Bar, there to be hanged, and burned hanging.” The historian Bale gives a most affecting account of his execution.

“On the day appointed,” says Bale, “he was brought out of the Tower with his arms bound behind him, having a very cheerful countenance. Then he was laid upon a hurdle as though he had been a most heinous traitor to the crown, and so drawn forth into St. Giles’s field, where they had set up a new gallows. When he arrived at the place of execution, and taken from the hurdle, he fell down devoutly on his knees, and prayed God to forgive his enemies. Then he stood up and beheld the multitude, exhorting them, in the most godly manner, to follow the laws of God, written in the Scriptures, and to beware of such teachers as they see contrary to Christ, in their conversation and living, with many other special councils. Then was he hanged up there, by the middle, in chains of iron, and so consumed alive in the fire, praising the name of the Lord, so long as life lasted. In the end he commended his soul into the hands of God, and so, most Christianly, departed home, his body being resolved to ashes.”

Thus was a nobleman, and a noble Christian, most barbarously put to death for believing that the Bible contained God’s truth; and therein differing from the Roman church, which teaches that the traditions of the fathers, and dreams of monks, are of equal authority.

Followers of Wickliffe,—and there are many of you in this country, who are an honor to his name,—have you ever reflected that there are nearly two millions of Papists in these United States, who entertain the same belief that the murderers of Cobham did; who believe that you are all excommunicated, as he was, and who, if they had the power, would consign yourselves, your wives, and children, to the same fate? and who are taught by their church, that, in so doing, they would be serving God? Romish priests may deny this. They do well. Otherwise, an indignant populace would tear them to pieces, or at least banish them from this land of freedom.

But I tell the priest or bishop, who dares deny it, that they are liars,—wilful and deliberate liars. I too have been a priest, and I solemnly declare to the world, and to my fellow-citizens of the United States in particular, that to keep no faith with heretics, but to destroy them, is one of the most solemn duties of a Catholic; and I go further, and state to you, that if a bishop or priest denies this, upon oath, you are not to believe him; his church requires from him to keep no faith with heretics, but to destroy and extirpate them. It allows him also to deny, under oath, the existence of such an obligation.

Do you, followers of Wickliffe, require any proof of this? It is a serious charge, and should not be lightly made. I therefore refer you to the letters of Martin II., who was Pope in the-year 1417, and considered one of the best Popes the Romish church ever had. This Pope, in one of his letters to the Duke of Lithuania, makes use of the following strong and emphatic language. “Be assured, thou sinnest mortally, if thou keep thy faith with heretics.” St. Thomas Aquinas teaches the same doctrine. Innocent VIII., who was Pope in 1484, declares “that all persons who are bound by any con-tract whatever to heretics are at liberty to break it, even though they had sworn an oath to fulfil it.” You here see, that I have done no injustice to Roman Catholics, in putting you on your guard against them, and charging them with a willingness to destroy yourselves, your wives and children, as heretics, had they power and opportunity of doing so. I am supported by the authority of Pope Martin V., and Pope Innocent VIII.; and though in your estimation, those blood-thirsty vagabonds may give no weight to my testimony, still it cannot fail to be highly satisfactory to Papists. Some of the Catholics may tell you, that the followers of Wickliffe were a seditious people; that they threatened to overthrow the civil institutions of the country; that all law and order were set at defiance by them; and that this was the cause of their persecution. This is false in fact—it is historically false.

If the followers of Wickliffe, or Lollards, as they were called, were disturbers of the peace; if their lives were seditious, disorderly, and rebellious, why were they not indicted, under some statute of the realm, made and provided to take cognizance of such crimes? Why were they not even accused of such crimes? Was the meek, mild, and learned John Wickliffe, accused or indicted for disturbing the peace? Was it for disturbing the peace, that his venerable bones were disinterred thirty years after being deposited in the cold grave? Was it for disturbing the peace, and for riotous proceedings, his bones were subsequently burned, and their ashes thrown into the next river? Was it for disturbing the peace, the learned and brave Cobham was hung in iron chains, by the middle.

No such accusation has ever been brought against these great and good men, or against thousands who suffered with them. They were accused only of heresy. Papists were their accusers; Papists were their judges; and Papists were their executioners.

But the malice of those blood-thirsty Catholics was not even then satiated. It is as fresh now, as it was then. Papists are not content, that hundreds of years ago, Wickliffe and his followers should be persecuted, and the greater portion of them massacred and burned. Their memories, also, are objects of Popish hatred, even to this day on which I write. They represent them as enemies of the human race. As despisers of chastity and morality. You will probably see these charges advanced against them in the Popish presses throughout the United States. But recollect, Americans, that age does not improve the piety of Papists. The older holy mother gets, the harder becomes her heart, and the more bitter her virulence. I might satisfy you, if necessary, on the testimony of the most respectable Protestant writers, that there lived not in the world, a people more simple, more pious, or virtuous than the Waldenses, or Wickliffites. It may be said of them, with truth, “qualis pater tales filii.” But I will not refer to Protestant authority; knavish, lying, Popish priests may question it! I refer you, for the character of this persecuted people, to an early Popish historian, Florimond—. History of Heresy, book vii. ch. 7.

“They”—the Waldenses—says this writer, “have nothing in their mouths but Christ the Saviour—they know nothing else than Jesus Christ. These people read the Bible continually, in such a manner that they know all the books of it by heart.” Horrid people these Wickliffites must be, to read the Bible until they know it by heart! And as these Bible-reading and Bible-loving people now constitute a vast majority of our citizens, I call upon them to rise in the full force of their moral power, and ward off from themselves and their children, the curse of Popery, or the fate of Wickliffe and his followers will assuredly be theirs. Many of you, Americans, are followers of Wickliffe. You believe as he believed! You live as he lived! You love peace as he loved it. Do you wish to continue as you are now? Or will you permit a flood of vile priests, monks, and nuns, to overrun your country, and seduce your children from the paths of virtue, in which your own example and the perusal of their Bibles have taught them to walk?

I now call your attention to the belief and practice of the Romish church in the fifteenth century, and you will find that heresy and heretics were still persecuted by her. Witness the conduct of Pope Innocent VIII. toward the Vaudois. He sent one of his Jesuit legates amongst them, with instructions to prevail on Louis XII. to extirpate them from his dominions, without even hearing any deputies which they might send him. The answer of Louis did him much credit—”Though I were at war with a Turk or the devil, I would hear what he had to say for himself.” They accordingly made their defence; and, upon this, the good King Louis sent commissioners to examine the state of things among them. The following was their report, as history informs us: “Having made a strict inquiry into their mode 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.” On hearing this report, the king exclaimed, in a passion, addressing himself to the Pope’s legate—”By the holy mother of God, these heretics, whom you and the Pope urge me to destroy, are better men than you or myself.” He, however, soon departed this life, and every man acquainted with history knows what their sufferings were from the time of his death down to the days of Cromwell, who, whatever his faults may have been, fired with indignation at the barbarities committed by the Romish church, interposed in behalf of those persecuted people, and called upon Protestant princes and sovereigns to aid him in protecting them.

I will not burden the reader with a history of the sufferings of these people. It is familiar even to our schoolboys. I must, however, repeat the fact, that they were persecuted for no other reason than because they believed the Bible contained all the truths necessary to salvation, and because they did not believe in all the mummeries of Popery. Will Catholic bishops and priests still continue to assert that their church does not teach them to persecute heretics, and to hold no faith with them? Will they continue to assert, that the Pope of Rome does not claim temporal as well as spiritual jurisdiction over the kingdoms of the earth? or if they do, are we compelled to listen to them?

There is scarcely any one who does not recollect the conduct of the holy see, as it is nicknamed, towards Queen Elizabeth, on her ascension to the throne of England. The queen sent a messenger to the court of Rome, to inform the Pope of the event. This was an act of state courtesy; but his holiness had the insolence to reply to the messenger who represented his sovereign: “Tell your mistress that England was held in fief of the apostolic see; that she could not succeed, being illegitimate; nor could she contradict the declarations made in that matter by his predecessors, Clement VII. and Paul III. Tell your mistress,” said this insolent ecclesiastic, “that it was great boldness in her to assume the crown without my consent, for which, in reason, she deserves no favor at my hands; yet if she will renounce her pretensions and refer herself wholly to me, I would show a fatherly affection to her, and do every thing for her that could consist with the dignity of the Roman see.”

Fellow-citizens, do you want any other proof to satisfy you that the Pope of Rome claims universal jurisdiction over kings, queens, nations, kingdoms, and all mankind? It is only about three hundred years since this occurred; and is there evidence on record that the Pope has resigned the prerogative of universal dominion which he then claimed? You may laugh at the idea of his claiming it over this country; but, mark what I tell you, some successor of the present Pope will not only claim, but exercise it in less than half the time that has elapsed since the days of Elizabeth. Other objects may divert your attention from this subject; you may sleep on in fancied security, but your sleep may be fatal.

“America,” as a talented writer (Giustiniani) expresses it, “is the promised land, the land of the Jesuits’ operations. To obtain the ascendency, they have no need of a mercenary Swiss guard, or the assistance of the holy alliance, but a majority of votes, which can easily be obtained by an importation of Roman Catholics from Ireland, Bavaria, and Austria. Rome, viewed at a distance, is a colossus; near at hand, its grandeur diminishes, its charm is lost. But the Jesuits are every where the same—cunning, immoral, and sneaking intriguers, until they have obtained the ascendency. Rome feels her weakness at home; she knows herself to be a mere political institution, dressed in the garment of Christianity. She takes good care to uphold that holy militia, the Jesuits, in order to appear what she is not. It is a strife for existence. I am not a politician,” says this writer, “but knowing the active spirit of Jesuitism, and the indifference of the generality of Protestants, I have no doubt whatever, that in ten years the Jesuits will have a mighty influence over the ballot-box, and in twenty they will direct it according to their own pleasure. Now they fawn, in ten years they will menace, and in twenty command.”

In this city they not only “fawn,” but they have proceeded to “menace.” Some of the knowing ones among the Catholics now boast that they have the power to govern this city, and they intend to exercise it. This is no idle threat. Even now, though they are actually less in numerical strength in the aggregate, than the Protestants, and pay far less for the support of our free schools, they, nevertheless, have succeeded in depriving Protestant children of the privilege of using the Bible for a school-book, as they have been wont to do. Protestants may sleep on if they will, but they may be assured that they are sleeping on the sides of a burning volcano, and that ere long they will be awakened, but too late, we fear, by the angry thunders of the upheaving fires within, which shall scathe and desolate the fair heritage they now enjoy.

I entreat you, fellow-citizens, never to forget the solemn declaration of the father of your country: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of a republican government.” This is the warning of the immortal Washington, and should not pass unheeded. To the same effect spoke other revolutionary patriots. Jefferson says, “I hope we may find some means in future of shielding ourselves from foreign influence, political, commercial, or in whatever form it may be attempted. I can scarcely withhold myself from joining in the wish of Silas Deane—that there were an ocean of fire between this and the old world.” And Madison said, “Foreign influence is truly a Grecian horse to the republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its entrance.”

The cruelty of Papists, the intrigue and craft of Popes, the hypocrisy of Jesuits, the dynasties which they have overthrown, the devastations and carnage which they had occasioned, for centuries back, were matters of historical notoriety, and were well known to our pure-minded and clear-headed forefathers. They dreaded similar occurrences in this happy republic, which they have bequeathed to us as their trustees, to be handed down to posterity; and hence arose their warnings to be on our guard against all foreign interference with our institutions or our country.

Ponder upon those warnings, and let each and every Protestant in the Union pledge himself to guard our liberties, as the apple of his eye. I speak from experience. I am myself a foreigner by birth, though a resident of this country for thirty years. My life has been a checkered one. Born a Roman Catholic in the south of Ireland, educated a Roman Catholic priest, officiating in that capacity for some years, here, as well as in my native country, and for many years a member of the bar in South Carolina and Georgia, I could not fail to acquire a correct knowledge of the doctrines and practices of the Romish church. The result of my experience is, that the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church are fatal to the morals of any people; at variance with sound national policy and pure religion. It is a rank and poisonous weed, which will flourish even in the soil of liberty. Would that I could eradicate it! Would that you would enable me to tear up this Upas, which is spreading its poison, from one end of our land to the other! Would that you could aid me in muzzling those Popish bloodhounds, who are freely coursing over our eastern mountains and western valleys! Already have they scented blood, and I warn you to be on your guard or they will scent more.

I am no sectarian; I am not the tool of any party, either in church or state. I have never asked the countenance or support of any religious denomination, nor has any ever been tendered to me. I have stood alone in my opposition to that hydra-headed monster, Popery. There is no abuse which I have not received; no calumny which has not been heaped upon me; no crime which they have not accused me of; no scurrilous epithet which they have not applied to me. All this I have met single-handed; but I would bear it again, rather than submit to the iniquitous doctrines of Popery. I would bear it again, rather than submit, as native Americans have done, and are doing, to be publicly denounced, as cowards and sons of cowards and pirates.

But, fellow-citizens, they do not consider you cowards and pirates alone; they will, by-and-by, apply to you a term, which you will better deserve. It is sweet, it is a euphonious name, and I trust you will bear it with as much Christian philanthropy, as you have that of cowards, and pirates—Fools. It is the only ignominious term, in the English language, which they have not applied to myself, and I assure my fellow-citizens, natives of this country, that if you are willing to be governed by the Pope of Rome, and his priests, and bishops, I shall never question your paramount claim to this preeminent distinction. Can you bear the following opprobrious language applied to you by the Jesuit, now the Boston Pilot, the organ of the bishop of that city. “How in the name of conscience,” says this Popish organ, “can a man have the impudence to find fault with honest emigrants, whose own fathers were emigrant pirates?” You are also complimented by the Literary and Catholic Sentinel, another Popish press, in Philadelphia. That blessed organ of Popery, the Sentinel, in its comments upon a sermon delivered by that eloquent Presbyterian divine, McCalla, thus eulogizes New England. He, Mr. McCalla, knew the character of his New England audience, that their minds were warped by fanaticism, darkened by bigotry, and vitiated by the abhorred, and atrocious principles inculcated by the vile and sanguinary wretches, called the Pilgrim Fathers. He well knew that the mental capacity of the generality of his hearers were chained down by ignorance.

Very flattering this, especially to Bostonians, and their puritan fathers. Their fathers were sanguinary wretches, if we believe Papists, and the people of Boston are an ignorant set of boobies. You, Americans, may bear all this; you know not the designs of Popery, but I do; and while I have liberty to write, I will write for liberty, and in opposition to Popery. Truth may be unpalatable to Papists, but it is my duty to record it.

Among the instructions which I received from my bishop in Ireland, when he sent me out to this country as a Catholic priest, was one to which I beg to call your attention. The same is given to every priest in the United States. “Let it be your first duty to extirpate heretics, but be cautious as to the manner of doing it. Do nothing without consulting the bishop of the diocese, in which you may be located; and if there be no bishop there, advise with the metropolitan bishop. He has his instructions from Rome, and he understands the character of the people. Be sure not to permit the members of our holy church, who may be under your charge, to read the Bible. It is the source of all heresies. Whenever you see an opportunity of building a church, make it known to your bishop. Let the land be purchased for the Pope, and his successors in office. Never yield or give up the divine right, which the head of the church has, by virtue of the Keys, to the government of North America, as well as every other country. The confessional will enable you to know the people by degrees; with the aid of that holy tribunal, and our bishops, who are guided by the spirit of God, we may expect, at no distant day, to bring over North America to the bosom of our holy church.”

This needs some explanation. By extirpating heresy, he meant the conversion of heretics to the Romish church, without violence, if possible, if not, by such means as the Romish church has adopted in all ages. You have already seen what these means were—I need not now repeat them; but you shall see them more plainly, when I lay before you, as I intend to do hereafter; the ways and means which the church has adopted, to bring over the Huguenots from the darkness of Protestant error, to the glorious light of Popish truth.

The Bible, as you are aware, is a forbidden book in the Romish church. I remember when acting as Popish priest, in Philadelphia, having ventured to suggest to the very Rev. Mr. De Barth, then acting as vicar-general of that diocese, the advantages of educating the poor, and circulating the Bible among them. He scouted at the idea, as heretical, and lodged a written complaint against me, before the archbishop of Baltimore, then Romish metropolitan. I was reprimanded verbally, through the aforesaid De Barth. He was too crafty to send it in writing; the Papists were not then strong enough to forbid, openly, the reading of the Bible. It was then too soon to seal up the fountain of eternal life in this free country. The most sympathizing Protestants could scarcely believe then, that in less than thirty years, Papists would not only dare forbid it to be read, by their own people, and in their own schools, but cast it out of Protestant schools, as they did the other day in New York. What are we coming to, Americans? Your ancestors have come to this country, with no recommendations but holy lives; with no fortune but their pious hearts and strong arms; with no treasure but the word of God.

Will you now permit Papists to cast those Bibles out of your schools, to burn them on the public streets, as they have done in the state of New York, under the inspection of Popish priests, as proved on the oath of several respectable witnesses? That priest, however, did no more than every priest and bishop would do, did he deem it expedient; and here, fellow-citizens, let me assure you, that same power which authorizes that priest, or any other priest, to burn your Bibles, also authorizes him to burn every heretic or Protestant in the country.

The same power which authorizes them to officiate as priests, empowers them to destroy heretics, whenever it is expedient; and is ready to absolve them from the commission of this foul deed. Saint Thomas Aquinas, in his second book, chapter the 3d, page 58, says: “Heretics, may justly be killed.” But you will answer, there is no danger of this. They can never acquire the power to enact any laws in this country which would sanction such a doctrine. How sadly mistaken you are! How lamentably unacquainted with the secret springs or machinery of Popery! I regret that circumstances oblige me so often to introduce my own name, but it cannot be well avoided, for the purpose of explaining certain Popish transactions in the United States. While I was a Romish priest in Philadelphia, and soon after my difference with the archbishop of Baltimore, in relation to the introduction of the Bible, a consultation was held between the Popish priests in the diocese of Philadelphia, and it was secretly resolved by them, that the best mode of checking Hogan’s heresy, as they were pleased to term my advocating the reading of the Bible, was to take possession of the church in which I officiated, in the name of the Pope. They accordingly wrote to his holiness, humbly praying this man-god to send them out a bishop, and to give him, and his successors in office, a lease of St. Mary’s church, in Philadelphia, and all the appurtenances thereunto belonging. Accordingly his royal holiness the Pope sent them a bishop with the aforesaid lease. I was immediately ordered out of the church; and having refused to depart, unless the trustees thought proper to remove me, this emissary of the Pope, only a few days or weeks in this country, had me indited and imprisoned for disturbing public worship, or in other words, officiating in St. Mary’s church, even with the full and undivided consent of the trustees.

But the bishop’s legal right was questioned; the case was brought before the supreme court of Pennsylvania, Chief Justice Tighlman presiding. I was discharged from bail and custody, and the rights of the trustees, under their charter from the state, sustained. But the priests and bishops were not content with this decision. They put their heads once more together, and fancied that they discovered another mode by which they could rob the people of their rights, and defeat the intentions of the donors of the property of St. Mary’s church; and what was their plan, think you, fellow-citizens?

The bishop called a meeting of all the priests and leading Catholics in the diocese. Every lay member was ordered to bring with him a hickory stick. The meeting was held in the church of St. Joseph; and at the hour of twelve at night, the Romish bishop of the diocese of Pennsylvania, an Irishman, not more than a few months in the country, attended in his pontificals, told the multitude who were there assembled to lay down their sticks in one pile, in order that he might bless them for their use. This was done as a matter of course.

The Bishop of Pennsylvania blessing the sticks

The Bishop of Pennsylvania blessing the sticks

The bishop said mass, sprinkled holy water upon the sticks, blessed them, and this done, the whole party bound themselves by a solemn vow never to cease until they elected a legislature in Pennsylvania that would annul the charter of St. Mary’s church; and, as an American citizen, I blush to state the fact, they succeeded. The charter was annulled by an act of the legislature, and property, worth over a million of dollars, would have passed into the hands of the Pope and his agents, were there not a provision in the constitution of that state empowering the supreme court to decide upon the constitutionality of the acts of the legislature.

We brought the question of the constitutionality of the act, which annulled the charter, before the court, Justice Tighlman still presiding. The court decided in the negative, otherwise the trustees and myself would have been defeated; I should have been fined and imprisoned, and they ousted out of their trust.

This, I believe, was the first attempt the Pope has made to establish his temporal power in this country; and it is a source of consolation to me, dearer almost than existence itself, to be the first to meet this holy bull. If I have not strangled him, and trampled him to death, I have, at least, the comfort of seeing his horn so blunted, that his bellowings have been, ever since, comparatively harmless. But there seems a recuperative power in the beast. He is again attempting to plant his foot upon our soil, and establish his temporal power amongst us; and how is he trying to accomplish this, fellow-citizens? The Papists have united themselves together as a body, headed by their priests, and resolved to carry, through the ballot box, what they cannot otherwise accomplish, at least for the present. Popish priests have all become politicians; they publicly preach peace, good order, and obedience to the “powers that be,” but they tell the people in the confessional, to disregard those instructions, and stop at nothing which may promote the interests of the church.

They have now, what they call “religious newspapers,” under the supervision of their bishops, but in which, not a word of pure religion, or Christian charity, is to be found. They are political presses, whose object is to overthrow our laws, our government, and introduce, in their stead, anarchy and confusion. These people—and here I allude to Irish Catholics and their priests in particular—have no regard for the obligations of an oath. Let the priest only tell them that it is for the good of the church, and they will stop at no crime; no, not even at murder; and they are daily becoming more audacious in consequence of the support which they receive from unprincipled politicians, and the morbid indifference of Protestants.

I have shown you, in a former page, that the increase of Catholics, in this country, will soon give them a majority of voters: and who, think you, will they vote for? A Protestant is it? Any man distinguished for virtue, and for love of republican principles? Assuredly not.

Will they select such a man as the virtuous and pious Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey? Will they choose such a man as the upright and honorable Archer, of Virginia? Will they cast their votes for such a man as the honest John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina; than whom, whatever may be his politics, there is not a greater or a better man of the age.

I might name hundreds, equally good and great men, who are disqualified, by their virtues, from receiving the votes of Popish vassals. None but mercenary demagogues, such as the Pope’s tool, Daniel O’Connell, who generously sacrifices five thousand pounds a year to obtain fifty-six thousand, the sum which he received last year in order to ameliorate the condition of the poor Irish. Give the power, and they will elect such a political desperado as this restless O’Connell, a Jesuit by education, an intriguer by nature, and as great a coward as ever drew breath. This is the champion, and his followers—the Irish—are the people, who call Americans cowards, and their “pilgrim fathers,” pirates and sanguinary wretches. These are the men, with Daniel O’Connell at their head, numbering nine millions of the “bravest men in the world,” who have been for centuries, and are now, on their knees, begging favors from the British government. Americans, too, once asked for favors, or rather their just rights, from that government, but not having obtained them, they drew their swords, threw away their scabbards, and, though the whole population of the United States did not, at that time, amount to two and a half millions, they fought for their rights, and they won them. Yet these Popish braggarts, but wretched slaves, call you cowards, and your fathers pirates. How long will you suffer this?

We know, from history, that Popery and liberty cannot coexist in the same country. A Popish government has never advanced human happiness. It never promotes any object truly great or philanthropic. How deplorable would it be, did this country fall a prey to those who are trying to establish it amongst us. The truth is, Popish glory, the trappings of its court, have been always the silly objects of the Roman church, while the mass of her people has ever been left in the recesses of want, obscurity, and ignorance.

Americans, at present, seem sunk in a sort of political lethargy; and this is taken advantage of, by foreign priests and Jesuits; but I would tell those disturbers of our peace, not to trust too much to this apparent sluggishness; a calm often precedes a storm: the continued insolence, abuses, and threats of Papists, may arouse our young lion, and, if I mistake not—although, appearances are at present against it—his holiness and his minions, who are trying to set up a power in this country unknown to our constitution, and not enumerated in our bill of rights, may have occasion to tremble.

To effect this, however, without the shedding of blood, it is necessary—indispensably necessary—that no Papist should hold office, or even vote, until he ceases to have any connection, or hold any alliance with the Pope, who is a foreign potentate, as well as head of the church. Let them come amongst us, if they will, but let it be with healing on their wings, and not to disturb our peace and tranquillity. Let them prove themselves the friends of liberty, religion, and mankind, and Americans will receive them with open arms, admit them to a full participation in all their own privileges, and extend to them the hand of friendship; but never let this be done, until they forswear expressly and without mental reservation, all allegiance, of whatever kind, and under whatever name, to the Pope of Rome, who is a foreign potentate, and acknowledged as such by the powers of Europe. When a Papist refuses to do this, trust him not. I repeat it, trust him not, Americans. He is a spy amongst you, a traitor to your country, and the sworn enemy of your religion and your liberties.

This, however, they do not. They come amongst you with different motives and far different characters. Though I know them well, it would be impossible for me to express to you the designs which mark their entrance into this country. They cross the Atlantic, under instructions from their priests, and bring nothing with them but their bigotry, intolerance, and ignorance. Their tastes, their passions, and their native hatred of Protestants are wafted over to us, and are already corrupting the morals of our people. In their native country they feel, or pretend to feel, oppressed by British laws and British government. They are taught by their priests to despise their government, at home; that its laws are all penal, and that there is no crime in evading them.

There is not an Irish Catholic, who leaves that country, but feels it his duty to resist the laws of Protestant England, and evade, by perjury or otherwise, their execution. “In no country in the world,” says a modern writer, “are the rights of property so recklessly violated: amongst no people on the face of the earth are the obligations of an oath, or the discharge of the moral duties, so utterly disregarded. Any man, the greatest culprit, can find persons to prove an alibi; the most atrocious assassin has but to seek protection, to obtain it. And why is this so? Because the religious instruction of the people has been totally neglected; because their priests have become politicians; because their bishops, pitchforked from the potatoe-basket to the palace, have become drunk with the incense offered to their vanity; and the patronage granted in return for their unprincipled support, instead of checking the misconduct of the subordinates, stimulate them to still further violence, and stop at nothing which can forward their objects. Because the opinions of the people are formed on the statements and advice of mendicant agitators, who have but one object in view—their own aggrandizement. Because a rabid and revolutionary press, concealing its ultimate designs under the motive of affording protection to the weak, seeks to overthrow all law and order, pandering to the worst passions of an ignorant and ferocious populace.”

Irish priests and Irish bishops complain of poverty and grievances at home. They complain that men of property leave their homes and spend their incomes abroad; but as this writer, to whom I have alluded expresses it, “What encouragement do they give to such as return from their residences abroad?” Allow me, fellow-citizens, to give you an instance of the treatment which Protestants of fortune receive from Irish Roman priests, when they do return to reside upon their estates in Ireland. I quote from the same author:!!!!!

“The Marquis of Waterford, a sportsman boundless in his charities, frank and cordial in his manners, not obnoxious on account of his politics, and admitted on all hands to be one of the best landlords in Ireland, comes to reside, and spend his eighty thousand sterling per annum, in the country. He gets up a splendid establishment in the county of Tipperary; and how is he treated? His hounds and horses were twice poisoned. There are scarcely any Protestants in the county of Tipperary. His offices were fired, and his servants, with difficulty, saved their lives. Compelled to abandon Tipperary—that sink of Popish iniquity, every nook and corner of which I am acquainted with—this generous and fine-hearted young nobleman retires to his family mansion, in Waterford; and how is he received there? I will not tell you; let his parish priest tell the story. ‘Men of Portlan,’ says this holy Romish priest, addressing the tenants and neighbors of the Marquis of Waterford, ‘you were the leading men who put down Beresford, in ’26 (the marquis’s father); I call on you now, having put down one set of tyrants, to put down another set of tyrants, the marquis himself.'”

Many of the Romish priests, which we have in this country, are from that very county of Tipperary, and thousands of the poor Irish amongst us have had their education, such as it is, from such worthy apostolic successors as the parish priest of the Marquis of Waterford.

Such are the people to whom you are yielding the destinies of this happy republic, by allowing them to vote at your elections, or to hold any office of honor or trust, while they have any connection with the head of their church, the Pope of Rome. Let the reader pass on from Popish Tipperary to Protestant Ulster, and he will see that the crimes of the Irish, and the miseries which many of them suffer, are to be attributed almost solely to their religion and their priests.

Mr. Kohl, a fair and very impartial writer, at least, upon Ireland, and who is often quoted by the great agitator, O’Connell, says,—in passing from that part of the country, where the majority of the inhabitants profess the Roman Catholic religion to that in which the great bulk of the population are Protestants or Presbyterians,—”On the other side of these miserable hills, whose inhabitants are years before they can afford to get the holes mended in their potatoe kettles, (the most important article of furniture in an Irish cabin,) the territory of Leinster and that of Munster begins. The coach rattled over the boundary line, and all at once we seemed to have entered a new world. I am not in the slightest degree exaggerating when I say, that everything was as suddenly changed as if by an enchanter’s wand. The dirty cabins by the road side were succeeded by neat, pretty cottages; well cultivated fields and shady trees met the eye on every side. At first I could scarcely believe my own eyes, and thought the change must be merely local, caused by particular management of that particular state, but the improvement lasted, and continued to show me that I was among a totally different people, the Scottish settlers, and the industrious Presbyterians.”

We see, in this country, the same difference of character and habits, between the Irish Protestants and the Irish Catholics. The Irish Protestant, wherever you find him, laboring on his loom in the north of Ireland, working in a factory in New England, keeping a shop in New York, or cultivating a plantation in Carolina, values his home and integrity, as pearls of great price. He is generally temperate, frugal, and industrious. We seldom, or never, hear him accused of disturbing the peace, or fraudulently voting at elections; on the whole, he arrives amongst us a worthy man, and, in time, becomes a useful citizen; and to what is this owing? It is owing to his education. He has been taught the Bible in his youth; from this he learned to love his God, above all things, and his neighbor as himself.

But how is it with the Roman Catholic, who comes amongst you? Scarce does he land on your shores, when he becomes more turbulent, more noisy, and more presumptuous, than when he left his native bogs. As soon as he confesses to his priest, he hurrahs for democracy, by which he means anarchy, confusion, and the downfall of heretics. He must vote; if he cannot do so fairly, his priest tells him how to evade the obligations of an oath. He will swear to support a constitution, which he never read, and never was read to him; he goes again to the confessional, and leaves that sacred tribunal with an oath upon his lips, that “Americans shall not rule him.” He soon hears the words, “Pilgrim Fathers;” he goes to his priest, and asks what these words mean; he is told that they were vile wretches, pirates, who came to this country many years ago, and whose sons were all cowards, and thus we see that, as far as it is in their power, they are trying to reduce this country, and its native inhabitants, to a level with that in which their vile religion—Popery—-has placed themselves. If we could cast our eyes over the history of the world, we should be struck with horror at the fatal consequences of Popery.

Wherever its followers have had an ascendency, or wherever they have it now, they appear to be conspirators against the happiness of the human race. What were the means by which Popish kings, emperors, and princes, conducted their governments—with the advice and consent, of the Pope of Rome, the vicegerent of heaven? Craft, extortion, fire, and sword. What are the means by which those governments, which at this day are under the Pope and his priests, are conducted?

The Pope apes the very thunders of heaven

The Pope apes the very thunders of heaven, and such are the “imitative powers” of his priests and bishops, that they are equally as destructive as the original. I have alluded to the contrast between the Catholic and Protestant people of Ireland. The one prosperous and happy; the other poor, miserable, and degraded. Heaven’s vicegerent, as the bishops call the Pope, and the Papists call the bishops, seldom bestow a thought upon their subjects, except to gull and inveigle them for the aggrandizement of their church; and we now see Ireland, one of the fairest countries upon earth, a country over which God has scattered plenty, and to which nature is peculiarly bountiful, reduced to want by insolent, haughty bishops, and vile, profligate priests.

That beautiful land which nature taught to smile with abundance, they have watered with tears, and with blood, all the result of Popery; and this has been its effect everywhere. It operates like the east wind, causing blasting, barrenness, and desolation, wherever it goes, and nothing but the herculean arm of this young and vigorous republic can check its progress among ourselves.

But I may be told that nothing is to be dreaded in this country from Papists; that they have neither numbers, nor means, to accomplish their designs upon our institutions. Let us see whether this is so. I have stated, in a former page, the number of bishops, priests, seminaries, and Papists, in this country. I have also shown you, to a demonstration, that if the number of emigrant Papists should continue to increase for the next thirty years, as they have for the last eight, they will be a majority of the population of the United States, and the Pope our supreme temporal ruler.

Permit me, now, to give you some idea of what their means are, at least such portion of them as they derive from Europe, and you can judge for yourselves what they are in the United States. I will give you the amount sent from Europe, during the years 1841, 1842, and 1843. I quote from their own books and receipts.

Catholic prayers

With such an amount of funds annually, from abroad, in the hands of a body of men, who understand how to manage and appropriate them, perhaps better than any other association in the world, with the majority of the population of these United States, and having but one single object in view, namely, the supremacy of their Pope and their church; what have Americans not to fear? They will avail themselves of a corrupt state of representation; they will procure a majority in your national legislature, and then, I say, woe be to your liberties.

Your school-houses, which now ring, at stated hours, with the praises and glories of God on high, wherein children are given to drink of the waters of life, will be converted into monk-houses, and lying-in-hospitals; prayers to God will no longer be heard in them; vagabond saints and wooden images will be the only objects of adoration; ignorance and vice will take the place of intelligence and virtue; idleness will take the place of industry; and the free American who, heretofore, was taught to walk erect before God and man, will shrivel and dwindle into a thing fit only to crouch before a tyrant Pope, and become a hewer of wood and drawer of water, for lazy and gluttonous priests, who, for centuries, have been trying to extinguish the light of reason and science, and who, even at the present moment, aye, at our very doors, are trying to abolish some of the finest productions of genius.

Witness the prohibition, recently, in France, of the publication of the Wandering Jew. Witness the prohibition of its circulation in Cuba; and why is it prohibited? Because it exposes some of the trickery of Jesuitism—because it lays bare some of the intrigues of that hellish association—and because holy mother church knows full well, that no honest or honorable man could see her in her native deformity, without a shudder of disgust—because she knows that herself and her priests are but whited sepulchres, filled not with dead men’s bones, but with the living fires of despotism, avarice, lust, and treachery—because she knows that Eugene Sue, who has written the Wandering Jew, is a Roman Catholic, well acquainted with the practices of Jesuits, sanctioned by the church. A continuation of the Wandering Jew, and its circulation, might show the world, even if there were no better authority, that monasteries and nunneries, under the control of Jesuits, were but vast Sodoms and prisons, full of crime and pollution.

Eugene Sue could, and I believe would, show the world, if his health had not failed him, that Roman Catholic priests and bishops, though forbidden, under pain of excommunication, to marry, were allowed to keep concubines. I refer the reader to the memoirs of the Romish bishop, Scipio de Ricci, for the truth of this assertion. I also refer you to another valuable work, Binnii Concillia, first volume, page 737. You will find the same in a work called Corpus Juris Canonici, page 47, to be had in the Philadelphia Library. You will find the same permission sanctioned by the council of Toledo, at which Pope Leo presided. The only restriction put upon the licentiousness of priests, by the council of Toledo, was to forbid them from “keeping more than one concubine at a time, at least in public.”

Cardinal Campeggio expressly says, “that a priest who marries commits a more grievous sin than if he kept many concubines.” St. Bernard, who died about the beginning of the twelfth century, and who must have been a very charitable man, as all Catholics now pray to him, tells the world that “bishops and priests commit acts in secret, which it would be scandalous to express.”

Pope John XII., was convicted by a general council, of fornication, murder, adultery, and incest, but these were not sufficient to depose him. He still believed in holy mother, the church, and his own infallibility. There is not an individual who reads these statements, and is at all acquainted with history, who does not know that Pope Paul III., who convened the council of Trent, had made large sums of money from licenses given to houses of ill fame in that city.

The holy church to this day, in the city of Mexico, to my own knowledge, receives large sums from the same sources, and these are supported principally by monks, friars and priests. No wonder, then, that the publication of the Wandering Jew should be prevented in Catholic countries. The writer, Mr. Sue, is a man of the world, he has read the book of nature with as much attention as he has those in his library. He is a well-read historian, and possesses an admirable faculty of communicating his ideas. He clothes them with a simplicity and beauty, almost peculiar to himself. The man that could depict Rodin, the sanctimonious Jesuit, in his true character, as Mr. Sue has done, must necessarily be silenced in a Catholic country. It must not be known that Jesuits may come among us in the garb of merchants, or in any other disguise which they may please to assume; no intimation must be given, that the poisoned cup, the assassin’s dagger, the desperate sea-captain, or the valiant soldier, could be concealed under a Jesuit’s cowl, or that he may throw off that cowl, at his pleasure, and exchange it for a pea-jacket, a dancing pump, the violin, the fencing foil, or even the costume of a barber, or tamer of wild beasts.

It will not answer the purposes of the holy church, that a man should live and write, who is capable of raising the curtain which hides its do-signs, and conceals the instruments, which she has ever used, and is now using, for the destruction of liberty. Such a man is the author of the Wandering Jew.

No man can look at the picture which he has drawn of Ignatius Morok, without recognizing, in its every feature, those of a Jesuit and a villain. He travelled about, in the assumed character of a “tamer of wild beasts,” but in reality, he was a Jesuit missionary, and sent by that order, with full power to accomplish, by any means within his power, one of the most infamous acts of fraud that over was committed by man.

He was accompanied, (as the reader of Eugene Sue will find,) by a lay Jesuit, named Karl, and I cannot give my readers a better idea of Jesuitism, as it ever has been, and is now, than by requesting of them to observe the course adopted by those two villains in accomplishing the object of their errand. Look at their treatment of the honest and faithful Dagobert. Look at the cruelties which they inflicted on the two innocent orphans, committed to his charge. See the schemes, by which they have made even the wife of Dagobert subservient to their designs. See the arts by which Jesuit priests crept into families, under various disguises, sowing amongst them discord, hatred, and domestic strife. They have put the father against the son, and the son against the father; husband against wife, and wife against husband; brother against sister, and sister against brother. See how they have contrived to filch from the poor and almost starving, the last sou they possessed, to have masses said for the repose of the souls of those who were actually living, to the knowledge of the priest, though represented by him at the confessional, to have been long since dead!

See how one of those vagabond Jesuits, in the assumed character of a physician, aided by one of the sisters of that order, Madam de St. Dizier, imposed upon the heiress, Mademoiselle de Cardoville. He offered his services to accompany her to visit a friend of hers, but had a private understanding with a lay Jesuit in the ‘disguise of a hack-driver, to take them to a lunatic asylum, where he deposited the heiress. I will not quote from the “Wandering Jew,” it would be depriving my readers of much pleasure; but I would recommend the perusal of it, in order to become acquainted with some of the prominent features of Jesuitism. The work appears as a romance, but it contains many sad and serious facts. It is a compendium of Jesuitism, and should be looked upon as a warning to the citizens of this new world. Americans will scarcely believe that we have any such Jesuits in this country, as are described in the Wandering Jew. I tell them they are mistaken; we have them in every state in the Union, but especially in New York, Maryland, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. I speak from my own knowledge.

“Bred in the harem, all its ways I know.”

A word to those who have daughters, and fortunes to give them; and also to those young ladies, who have fortunes in their own right.

Jesuits will leave nothing undone, to form acquaintance with the children of such as are supposed to be wealthy. The Catholic bishops of the United States, in their annual and semiannual despatches to Rome, boast that they are peculiarly fortunate in gaining converts from such families, and I trust a word of caution from me will not prove useless.

The mode which Jesuits have adopted, in approaching such families, are various: but the most general, and hitherto the most successful is, to induce their children to go to their colleges and schools. In these, every male and female teacher is to bend the minds of their scholars towards Popery, and to report progress twice a week to their superiors. But when parents do not send their children to Jesuit schools, the next expedient is to get Roman Catholic servants into the family, who are instructed in the confessional by the priests how to proceed, especially with their young daughters, in prepossessing their minds in favor of the Romish church, and the great beatitudes of a single life.

I have known cases myself, where it was not deemed prudent to go so far as to say one word in favor of the Catholic church, or of a single life. The young ladies may be engaged, and their young hearts pledged. A different course must now be pursued, and the Popish domestic has her instructions accordingly. She must find out to whom the lady is, or is likely to be, engaged; and it must be broken off, not abruptly—that is not the way Jesuits do things—it is to be done gradually. Their young minds must be poisoned, but the poison must be given in small quantities, until finally it produces the desired effect; and then the happiness and the glories of a nun’s life are to be the theme of conversation, more or less, according to the instructions received in the confessional.

It is not long since I met with a Protestant friend of mine, and in the course of conversation, some allusion was made to the subject of nunneries. He observed that their schools were excellent; that his daughter had just finished her education there, and had returned home in perfect ecstacy with her school, with the lady abbess who presided over it, and with all the nuns by whom she had been educated. “It is said,” observed this gentleman to me, “that nuns try to tamper with the religious opinions of their pupils, and endeavor to make ‘nuns of them,’ but there is no truth in this; they never interfered with my daughter’s religious opinions, nor did they insinuate to her the most remote idea of taking the veil, or becoming a nun.”

I made no reply—courtesy forbade it. I might easily have answered my friend, but I feared the answer, which truth compelled me to give, would hurt his feelings. I might have said to him, Sir, your daughter had not a dollar in her own right, neither had you one to give her, and you must know that Jesuits seldom covet penniless applicants for the black or white veil You should have also known that, although your daughter may have seemed very beautiful in your eyes, she was probably devoid of those external charms which would attract the libidinous eye of a Jesuit. When ladies are taken into a convent by Jesuits, they must be possessed of something more than ordinary attractions. These reverend Jesuits, having the liberty of choosing, are rather fastidious. Verbum sat.

Truly, and from my heart, I pity the female, who risks herself in the school of Jesuit nuns. She hazards all that is dear to her. Though she may leave it, single-minded and innocent as she entered,—as I believe they all do who do not become nuns,—still the peril of going there at all is eminently hazardous and dangerous. But woe be to those who become nuns. I have been chaplain to one of those nunneries; and I assure my readers, on the honor of a man, who is entirely disinterested, and whose circumstances place him in an independent position, who wants neither favors nor patronage from any individual, that the very air we breathe, or the very ground upon which we walk, is not made more obedient or more subservient to our use, than a nun, who takes the black veil, is to the use of Popish priests and Jesuits.

The internal economy and abominations of a convent are horrible in the extreme. I dare not mention them, otherwise my book would, and ought to be, thrown out of every respectable house in the city. I will only call my reader’s attention to the fact, that, in all Catholic countries, nunneries have foundling hospitals attached to them. This any man can see who goes to France, Spain, Portugal, or Mexico.

It will be seen, even in this country, that they have their private burying places and secret vaults. It is not more than five or six years, since a number of Jesuits, in Baltimore, petitioned the legislature of Maryland for leave to run a subterraneous passage from one of their chapels to a nunnery, distant only about five hundred yards. The object of the petitioners was too plain. It was the most daring outrage ever offered any deliberative body of men; but, much to the credit of the legislature of Maryland, they rejected the petition with undisguised marks of indignant scorn.

These statements will be rather unpalatable to Jesuits, but my only regret is, that decency forbids a full development of the crimes committed, with perfect impunity, in Popish convents. In New York, every effort seems to be making, by the present legislature of that state, to suppress immorality. A bill is now before that body, making adultery a penitentiary offence; yet Popish priests are building nunneries there, and if Roman Catholic ladies think it proper to hold a fair to collect money for the building of those nunneries, these very New Yorkers will contribute their money freely; and thus, this ill-placed liberality, which Americans bestow, not only there but elsewhere, becomes the cause of evils which they seem desirous to crush.

How is it with us in Massachusetts? Look at our statute book, and if we are to judge from that, of the utter detestation with which our people look upon immorality of every kind, we deserve to be considered paragons of propriety. Should there be amongst us a house, even of equivocal fame, our guardians of the night and civil officers are allowed to demand entrance into it at any hour, and if refused, they may use force. Yet we have convents amongst us, nunneries and nuns too. Poor helpless females are confined in them, but not an officer in the state will presume to enter. If admission is asked, it may or may not be given by the mother abbess or one of the reverend bullies of the institution; but no force must be used. The poor imprisoned victims, whether content or not with her station, must bear it without a groan or a murmur.

This should not be in any civilized country; and I will venture the assertion, that it could not continue one hour, at least among the moral and charitable people of Boston, were they not utterly unacquainted with the iniquities of the Romish church.

This fully explains the opposition to the circulation of the Wandering Jew by the infallible church.

I have given the reader but a faint view of the persecutions of Popery, down to the close of the fifteenth century, and revolting as they are, there is no record to be found from which we can even infer, that the church has ever altered her doctrine or practice, on the subject of exterminating heretics, namely, all who are not Roman Catholics. If there were any such record, it could not have escaped my notice. Some Pope or some council would, long since, have given it to the world.

I was, as has been stated, born a Roman Catholic, and educated a priest in that church. I solemnly declare to you, fellow-citizens of my adopted country, that nothing has been more forcibly impressed upon my mind, by my teachers, when a boy—by the priest to whom I confessed when young—by the professors under whom I read Popish theology—or by the bishop who ordained me, and with whom I lived subsequently as chaplain—than the obligation I was under of extirpating heresy, by argument, if possible; and, if not, by any other means, even to the shedding of blood. And there is not now, in this country, an Irish priest nor an Irish Roman Catholic, and true son of the church, who does not believe that, if he could collect all the heretics in the United States, and form them into one pile, he would be serving God in applying a torch to it. And, incredible as it may appear to you, their church teaches them that, in doing so, they would be serving you.

The doctrine is taught now, as it was in past by their priests, that the body must be destroyed, for the good of the soul. “It is a benefit.” say the pious Popish priests, “to heretics to be killed; the fewer will be his sins, and the shorter will be his hell!” You naturally shudder at this doctrine, but it is not many years since Leo XII. in one of his bulls of jubilee, or indulgence to the faithful, announces publicly, and without shame, or sorrow, proclaims to Catholics, his beloved subjects, that in order to obtain the indulgence granted by that bull of jubilee, there are two conditions, without which, they can derive no benefit from it, namely, the exaltation of the holy mother church, and the extirpation of heresy. This “blessed bull” was published in 1825, and directed to the archbishop of Baltimore, and all other Popish bishops in the United States, to be made such use of as their lordships may think proper!

Will you believe it, Americans, that this doctrine is taught, this very day, in the college of Maynooth, Ireland. You will find it in De LaHogue’s Tract. Theolog. ch. viii. p. 404, of the Dublin edition. No priest or bishop will question the authority of Dr. De La Hogue. He has been professor in that college for nearly half a century. I must, however, add here, for the information of all who are unac-quainted with the doctrine of the pious frauds practised by Romish, priests, that their respective bishops, or in his absence, the vicar-general, can give any of them a dispensation to deny any truth or to tell any falsehood for the “exaltation of holy mother church.” I have received such dispensations myself, but, not having the fear of the Pope before my eyes, I took the liberty of disregarding them.

Many will ask me, Why have you not made these things known before now? There were many reasons why I suppressed them.

I knew my motives, however disinterested, might then be questioned; secondly, the public mind was not prepared for the developments which I have made. Thirdly, my love of peace and quietness induced me to withdraw to a part of the country, distant from the scene of my controversy, hoping that the miscreant priests and bishops of the Romish church would permit me to pursue my new profession of the law, without interruption. But in this, as I ought to have known, I was disappointed. Although I have not, since I left Philadelphia, until very recently, even replied to the calumnies which vagabond Irish priests who infest this country, and the still greater vagabond bishops who govern them, together with the tools which they keep in their employment, have heaped upon me; still they have, in the true spirit of their vocation, never ceased to pursue me with their vengeance.

No sooner had I abjured the Pope, disregarded his-bulls, and thereby become a heretic, than they had me burnt in effigy! But much more gratified would they be, had they my person in the place of the effigy. I still remained unmoved. Soon after this, Bishop England, of Charleston, South Carolina, established a press, called the “Catholic Miscellany,” whose columns teemed, for months,—almost for years,—with the grossest and vilest abuse against me; yet while this restless demagogue, who is now in his grave, was spewing forth his filthy abuse, I was prospering in my profession, and partially recovering my health, which I thought was radically destroyed by the persecutions I suffered in Philadelphia; and thus, while the Pope in Rome, and the Romish bishops and priests of this country, were cursing me, Heaven was blessing my efforts and gaining me the confidence of the virtuous and good, whom I had the pleasure of meeting in my intercourse with the world.

Strange indeed are the practices of Papists! Previous to my heresy in Philadelphia, there was not in that city a more popular man—not another more respected; I may almost say, that there was no man, of any pursuit or calling, whose friendship was more courted. Yet the moment I committed the unpardonable sin of differing with the Pope of Rome, every one of his faithful children, not only there but throughout the world, was bound by his oath of allegiance to persecute me in every possible way.

Never forget, Americans, that the same oath of allegiance, which binds them to persecute me, is also binding on them to persecute and destroy you. Some of you will say, this cannot be. A church, numbering among her priests such men as Massillon, Fenelon, Chevereux, and Taylor of Boston, cannot entertain, much less command, a spirit of persecution. True, as far as we can judge, these were godly men. They would be an honor to any religion. But in the Popish church, they were like stars that strayed from their homes, and losing their way, fell, by accident, upon the dark firmament of sin and Popery; but even there, their native light could not be obscured; on the contrary, the darker the clouds around them, the more beautiful and brilliant did their light appear. Poor Taylor,—”Peace be to thy memory,—we have been friends together.” Methinks I can, even now, feel the warm pressure of thy hand, see the charities of thy soul beaming in thy speaking eye and gentle countenance, yet thou too had been considered almost a heretic in the city of New York, and would have been denounced as such by the rude and vulgar bishop of that diocese, had not the amiable Chevereux interfered.

Often have I regretted that this Mr. Taylor, who was my classmate, and companion of my youth, had not, in addition to his private virtues, more fortitude and decision of character. He was the Erasmus of his day, in the United States. He was born and educated a gentleman; so was the amiable but timid Erasmus. He was educated a Roman Catholic; so was Erasmus. He was a chaste and elegant classical scholar; so was Erasmus. Taylor, knowing full well the corruptions of the Romish church, went from New York to Rome, about the year 1822, in order to induce the Pope to modify such of its doctrines as were objectionable in this country. But he wanted courage, and hastily retreated back, lest he should be consigned to the inquisition. Erasmus, too, wanted courage, a quality as necessary for a reformer as it is to a general in storming a city and hence it is; that those two amiable men, similar in character and disposition, though living in ages widely apart, have lived ostensibly members of a church, whose doctrines they loathed from the very bottom of their souls.

This might have been the temper, the character, and the cause, why such men as Massillon and Fenelon have lived and died Roman Catholics. They felt, probably, as Erasmus did, when he said, “It is dangerous to speak, and dangerous to be silent.” “I fear,” said he, in another place, “that if a tumult arose, I should be like Peter in his fall.” It is not at all strange, that such men as we have spoken of, should have contented themselves with having inculcated virtue, and denounced vice. There were such men in all ages, and, as a modern writer expresses it, “in all great religious movements there are undecided characters.” But let it be borne in mind, that even great and good as they seemed to be, and eloquent and pious as they appeared, still they are only exceptions in the great body of the advocates of Popery.

No wonder Americans look back to those lights in the dark and bloody wilderness of Popery. It is refreshing to see them. They are green spots in the deserts made barren and desolate, by Popish iniquities; and long may their memories shine in unclouded lustre.

It is pleasant to the historian, who is wearied and disgusted with contemplating the past and present horrors of Popery, to turn for a moment from the frightful spectacle, and rest in devout contemplation on the lives of those comparatively excellent men. How mistaken are those would-be philanthropists, who, at the present time, teach Americans to infer, that, because those were good and holy men, possessing a pious and forgiving spirit, it follows that the Papist church, her bishops and priests, entertain a similar spirit. This is equivalent to telling them that all history, past and present, is false, a mere romance, the dream of madmen. It is equivalent to telling them that the very history and records of the lives of Fenelon, and Massillon, &c., were entitled to no credit. Who can read, and not see that Rome has spilt oceans of blood to enforce her cruel creed! Who can read, and not see that she has squandered treasures enough to relieve the poor of civilized Europe, in establishing and keeping up a despotism inimical to man and hateful to God!

The Papists, even in this country, do not deny that they intend to eradicate heresy, and to use every means which their church considers legitimate to effect that purpose. This the priests preach from their pulpits; this they tell you to your beards. They admit their determination to bring these United States, if possible, under the spiritual control of the court of Rome. They use the word spiritual, in utter contempt of your understanding, to deceive you, and while using it, they laugh at your credulity. Popish spiritual control, spiritual allegiance! It is almost incredible that any body of men should have the impudence to come forward, in the nineteenth century, and talk of spiritual allegiance to his royal holiness the King of Rome.

They admit their determination to possess this country, and have the modesty to ask you to give them lands and churches, and means to accomplish their object, and effectuate your destruction. Their next step will be to quarter upon you an army of friars, Jesuits, or monks, who will carry at the point of the bayonet what is left undone by duplicity, treachery, and intrigue. This has been the fate of every country where Popery has found a resting place, and America is the only nation which, for the last three centuries, has given them such a footing. They tried what they could do in China. They succeeded in establishing several bishoprics, Jesuit convents, nunneries, monk-houses and churches, among the peaceable and quiet Chinese; but happening to differ among themselves on the subject of their respective temporal rights, they, as in duty bound, referred their differences to the Pope. This movement came to the ears of the emperor of China, whom they had so long and so successfully deceived by the cant words, spiritual allegiance to the Pope. The parties were summoned before his commissioner to ascertain what was meant by spiritual allegiance. They tried to explain it, but all their ingenuity, all their subtilty, could not satisfy the commissioner that spiritual allegiance meant anything else than what it fairly expressed, and as soon as he found that it meant, in the eyes of the Pope and the Romish church, things real and tangible, such as real estate, the conveying it from the rightful owner under the laws of the land, to another under the laws of the Pope, who lived in Rome, he satisfied himself, that the spiritual supremacy of the Pope meant, among other things, the power to govern the kingdoms of the earth; to give away, and take them away, to whom and from whom, his royal holiness pleased. The emperor instantly issued an order, directing that every Roman Catholic bishop, priest, friar, Jesuit, monk, and nun, within his empire, should quit, within a given time, on pain of losing their heads. Many of them disobeyed the order and were executed, and their churches levelled to the ground.

The Chinese had no objection to Papists worshipping God, according to the dictates of their own conscience; but as soon as it was discovered that they owed spiritual allegiance to a foreign power, they deemed it prudent to remove them from the country. But the Chinese are barbarians, and it seems reserved for this new world of ours, to interpret properly the meaning of spiritual allegiance, and in all differences, between our citizens and the agents of the Pope, as to the temporalities of the Romish church, to lay the subject before his royal holiness, and be governed by his decision.

Witness the difference between Bishop Hughes of New York, and the trustees of a Roman Catholic church in Buffalo, only a few weeks ago. Witness that in New Orleans, between the bishop and the trustees of the Roman Catholic church. All these were referred to the Pope, who decided the matter, without any respect or regard to the laws of this government. Call you this spiritual allegiance? Call you this an exercise of spiritual power, on the part of his royal holiness the Pope? Yes, you do; and it would not much surprise me, if the Papists of this very city of Boston should recommend to its legislature, to lay the difficulties between themselves and the state of South Carolina, before the Pope of Rome for adjudication.

Should the day ever arrive, when the Papists have a majority in your legislature, and a difference should occur between these states, the Pope will be called in to decide it. I am at a loss to know how, even in these days of transcendentalism, any other meaning can be given to spiritual allegiance, than that which the Roman Catholic gives it in practice. They consider the Pope, as the spiritual head of the church, has, a fortiori, a divine right to be the head and sovereign of the world. This is the sense in which Catholics understand and act upon it, and swear to support the Pope, as the supreme arbiter of the destinies of the world. The Chinese understood this. The emperor of Russia understands it at the present day; and though a Catholic himself, no priest or bishop, within his vast dominions, dare avow any allegiance, spiritual or temporal, to the king or Pope of Rome.

The holy synod of St. Petersburg, Russia, have notified the Catholic missionaries, who have incited rebellion, and interfered with the civil authorities in Georgia, to renounce their intercourse with the see of Rome, or quit the country. But Americans, in the alembic of their fertile brains, have manufactured a definition for spiritual allegiance, peculiarly their own, for which the Papists are so much obliged to them, that whenever an opportunity of knocking out the aforesaid brains occurs, they will do so. Witness in the Philadelphia riots, &c, &c, strong proofs of the spirituality of that allegiance which Catholics owe to the Pope.

Permit me to give you another evidence of the nature of that allegiance to the Pope of Rome, to which I have heretofore alluded. It is to be found in the massacre of the Huguenots, by Roman Catholics. There is no event in the history of France, with which the world is more familiar, than this. Several historians have related it with great minuteness and much elegance. To these I can add nothing of my own, and the reader is more indebted to them, for the following statement, than to myself.

Massacre of the huguenots.

This bloody massacre took place immediately after the conclusion of the treaty of St. Germain, at which the hostilities which had so long existed between the Catholics and Protestants in France, were suspended, or, as the Protestants believed, were entirely terminated. The sufferings of the Protestants, up to the conclusion of that treaty, were truly great. Their property was wasted; their beautiful chateaus were burned and levelled to the ground; their flourishing vineyards were destroyed, and they themselves were left, reduced in property and numbers; but great as were their calamities, the spirit which lived within them was not quenched. Their hearts, though oppressed, 7 were not broken. The love of God bore them up against all their trials and privations. Among those who suffered most in the Protestant cause, was the brave and pious Admiral Coligny, who, after the treaty of St. Germain, and the destruction of his beautiful estates by order of the Popish and bloody Catharine, retired to Rochelle. Even here there was no safety for him. The licentious queen, and her paramours, consisting of priests, determined on his destruction. It is said of this woman, that she occupied twelve years of her life in instructing her son Charles to swear, to blaspheme, to break his word, and to disguise his thoughts as well as face. We are told by contemporary historians, that this blessed daughter of the holy church supplied him with small animals, when a child, and a sharp sword to cut off their heads, and shed their blood by stabbing them; all this to familiarize him with the shedding of blood, and that at some future day he might indulge in the same amusement upon a larger scale, in cutting off the heads and stabbing heretics and Protestants. The persecutions of the Huguenots are known almost to all readers; few there are, who are not familiar with them. The illustrious characters, who headed the Protestant cause in those days, are known to all Protestant Americans, but none of them, perhaps, more intimately than the great Coligny, who was one of the first martyrs to that wretched Popish thing, in the shape of a woman, Catharine de Medicis, regent of France. I trust, therefore, the reader will pardon me for giving a few incidents in the life of this nobleman and martyr, during one of the regencies of this Popish queen Catharine. After the marriage of Henry of Navarre, Coligny, as we are told, suddenly retired from the banquet given upon the occasion at the Louvre. It was remarked that he seemed sad and dejected. He retired to his hotel, which he would have gladly left and returned home, but dreading that he might alarm his wife, he preferred writing to her, explaining matters as far as he could, under existing circumstances. The letter is so interesting, so affectionate, and altogether so worthy of the good man, that I cannot refrain from laying it before my readers. It was as follows:!!!!!

“My very dear and much beloved wife:

“This day, was performed the ceremony of marriage between the king’s sister and the king of Navarre. The ensuing three or four days will be spent in amusements, banquets, masks, and sham-fights. The king has assured me that, immediately afterwards, he will give me some days to hear the complaints, made in divers parts of the kingdom, touching the edict of pacification, which is violated there. It is with good reason that I attend to this matter as much as possible; for, though I have a strong wish to see you, still you would be angry with me (as I think) if I were remiss in such an affair, and harm came of it from my neglect to do my duty. At any rate, this delay will not retard my departure from this place so long but that I shall have leave to quit it next week. If I had regard to myself alone, I had much rather be with you than stay longer here, for reasons which I will tell you. But we ought to consider the public welfare as far more important than our private benefit. I have some other things to tell you, as soon as I shall have the means to see you—which I desire, day and night. As for the news that I have to tell you, they are these: This day, at four in the afternoon, the bells were rung, when the mass of the bride was chanted. The king of Navarre walked about the while in an open place near the church, with some gentlemen of our religion who had accompanied him. There are other little particulars which I omit, intending to tell you them when I see you. Whereupon I pray God, my most dear and beloved wife, to have you in his holy keeping. From Paris, this 18th of August, 1572.

“Three days back I was tormented with colic and pain in the loins. But this complaint lasted only eight or ten hours, thanks be to God, through whose goodness I am now delivered from those pains. Be assured on my part, that amidst these festivities and pastimes, I will not give offence to any one. Adieu, once more,

“Your loving husband,

“Chastillon.”

After having despatched the above letter, Coligny deemed it his duty to see the king before he left Paris. His sole object in so doing was to obtain, if possible, some concessions, or at least some guarantee for the future protection of the persecuted Protestants, of whom he was a member. The king received him well, promised him all he asked; but the king consulted the Pope’s nuncio, who was then in the city, and that holy man advised him to keep no faith with that Protestant Coligny, but on the contrary, to make all the use he could of him, in order the more effectually to accomplish the destruction of the heretical band to which he belonged. After receiving this Christian advice, the king became apparently more friendly to Coligny, and went so far as to promise him a safe escort on his way home. “If you approve of it,” said the king to Coligny, “I will send for the guard of my Arquebusiers for the greater safety of all, for fear they might unawares do you a mischief; and they shall come under officers who are known to you.” The generous and unsuspecting Christian, Coligny, accepted the offer of the guards, and twelve hundred of them were ordered into the city. There were many of the Protestants in the city, who on seeing this array of troops, felt alarmed for the safety of their friend Coligny; they whispered their fears to the brave warrior, who until then did not even dream of treachery. But now, fearing that something might be wrong, he resolved to see the queen mother. She expected this, and granted him an interview with great apparent pleasure. As soon as he commenced to suggest any fears or apprehensions of treachery, this holy daughter of the church, suddenly interrupting him, exclaiming, “Good God, sir admiral,” said she, “let us enjoy ourselves while these festivities continue. I promise you on the faith of a queen, that in four days I will make you contented, and those of your religion.” Coligny had now the word of a king, and the honor of a queen, as a guarantee for his own safety, and that of the Protestants in France. Who could any longer doubt that they were safe? Who could believe that a king would violate a solemn promise freely given? Who could question the honor of a lady and the promise of a queen? Who would venture to assert that a mother would not use her best effort to redeem the honor and plighted faith of a son, and that son a king? No one but a Roman Catholic could doubt it. Charles was a Roman Catholic king. His church taught him, that no faith was to be kept with heretics. Coligny was a heretic. Catharine, the queen mother, was a Roman Catholic; her church taught her to keep no faith with heretics, but to “destroy them, root and branch, under pain of eternal damnation.” Heritici destruendi is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church; and accordingly, on the evening of that very day on which Coligny had an audience with the queen, these distinguished and pious children of the holy Roman Catholic church appointed an interview with the Pope’s nuncio, and after that holy man sung the Veni Creator Spiritus, (a hymn which they invariably sing, when laying any plan for the destruction of heretics,) these three worthy children of the infallible church resolved to send for the “king’s assassin,” a man named Maureval, and ordered him to assassinate Coligny. It must be observed here, that the Pope’s legate allowed Charles and his mother to keep an assassin, to cut down such thistles or tares as the devil may plant in the vineyard of the holy see. Soon after this, Coligny had occasion to go out on some business. The Popish assassin pursued him at a distance, secreted himself in a house where he knew he could deliberately shoot at him; he did so, but the wound, though severe in the extreme, did not prove mortal. Among the first who visited him were the king and his mother; and such was the apparent grief of Catharine, that she shed tears for the sufferings of the warrior. The good son of this good mother mingled his tears with hers, promising that the assassin, whoever he was, should be brought to condign punishment; but need I now tell you, Americans, that the tears of this Popish queen, for the sufferings of this Protestant, were like those of the hyena, that moans in the most piteous strains, while sucking the life-blood of its victim? Need I tell you they were like those of the crocodile, which sheds them in abundance while devouring its prey? Need I inform you that by her promises of future protection, she resembled the filthy buzzard, which spreads its wings over the body or carcass of its prey, while plunging its beak into its very entrails? And such I tell you now, as I have told you before, Americans, and shall tell you while I live, is the sympathy, and such the protection which every good mother and son of the holy Roman Catholic church would extend to you, your Protestant religion and its followers, in these United States.

We will now pass over the various meetings held by the king, his mother, queen Catharine, and the Pope’s nuncio, for the purpose of devising ways and means, not for the death of Coligny, but for the destruction of all the Protestants in France. To detail these would be a tedious undertaking; and not more tedious than revolting to the best feelings of humanity. Depravity was reduced to a science in the court of Catharine, and her son Charles. She employed even her ladies of honor for the seduction of her young nobility. They were ladies—I should say human things—selected for their beauty, and trained up by this royal mother in the Romish church, in habits of utter abandonment to seduction and lasciviousness. Young men of honor, virtue, and patriotism, were introduced to them, by Catharine, especially those who were at all suspected of being favorable to Protestantism. These maids were required to ascertain from these young noblemen who, and how many of their young friends were friendly to the cause of Protestantism, with a view of marking them for extermination, as soon as herself and the Pope’s legate should deem it expedient to do so The hour at last arrived, when the holy trio deemed it expedient to order a general massacre of the Protestants. The order was issued. The bells of the Roman Catholic churches were rung, and the royal order “Kill! kill! kill!” all, was issued by the king, and repeated by his Roman Catholic mother. I could not if I would, nor would I if I could, describe the scene that followed. Suffice it to say, that particular orders were given not to spare Admiral Coligny. Blameless as was his life, and devoted as he was to his king and government, yet he was a Protestant, and must die, and that by the hand of a Popish assassin. The holy church reserved to herself the glory of murdering this heretic. As soon as the order to murder was given, a rush was made towards the residence of Coligny. They entered his chamber, and to use the language of another, they found him sitting in an armchair, his arms folded, his eyes half upturned with angelic serenity towards heaven, looking the image of a righteous man falling asleep in the Lord. One of the murderers, a pious Catholic, called Besma, fixing his fiendish eye upon the admiral, asked him, ‘Art thou the admiral?’ pointing his sword at him at the same time. ‘I am the admiral,’ replied Coligny. ‘Young man, thou shouldst have regard for my age and infirmities;'” but the murderer plunged his sword into the Christian hero’s breast, pulled it out, and thrust it in again. Thus died this noble Protestant! Thus died the veteran Coligny, by the hands of a Popish boy! And for what? He believed in the Bible—he was a Protestant. And thus, fellow Protestants of the United States, will your posterity be sacrificed, for similar crimes, unless God in his mercy drive from your land, and mine by adoption, every vestige of the Popish religion. No sooner was Coligny put to death, than his head was cut off and presented to Queen Catharine, who sent for her perfumer, and ordered it to be embalmed and forwarded to the Pope, as a mark of her devotion to the holy see. But even this did not satisfy the queen. Her Popish bloodhounds, on hearing of Coligny’s murder, rushed through the streets to his apartments, searching every where for his mangled body, and having found it, a general cry was raised, “The admiral! the admiral!” They tied his legs and his arms together, and dragged them through the streets shouting, “Here he comes, the admiral!” One cut off his ears, another his legs, another his nose, hands, &c. They abandoned the body, to let the boys amuse themselves by inspecting it, and then tumbled it into the river. But the zealous Catharine was not satisfied yet. This good daughter of the Pope ordered the river to be dragged, until what remained of Coligny was found, and then ordered it to be hung in chains on a gibbet at a place called Mountfaçon. A contemporary writer, a Roman Catholic, speaking of this, says: “the road to Mountfaçon was a scene of incessant bustle, created by the gentlemen of Catharine’s court, who, in splendid dresses and perfumed with essences, went to insult the relics of Coligny. Catharine also went with her numerous retinue. Charles accompanied his mother. On arriving before the gallows, the courtiers turned away their heads, and held their noses on account of the stench arising from the half putrefied remains. ‘Poh!’ said Charles and his mother, to their courtiers, ‘the dead body of a heretic always smells well.’ On returning home she consulted with her confessor, who advised her, now that the devil had the heretic’s body, it would be well to have a solemn high mass for the occasion, to be said at the church of St. Germain, at which Charles and his mother attended, and a Te Deum was sung in honor of the glorious victory gained by the church, by the destruction of so many heretics.

As soon as the Pope heard this news, his holiness despatched a special messenger to France, to congratulate the king on having “caught so many heretics in one net.” So joyous and elated did his royal holiness appear, that he offered a high reward for the best engraving of the massacre; having, on one side, as a motto, “the triumph of the church;” and on the other, “the pontiff approves of the murder of coligny.” This engraving is now to be seen in the Vatican of Rome.

The number of those who were massacred on St. Bartholomew’s day is variously stated. Mazary makes it thirty thousand; others over sixty: but the Pope’s nuncio, who was on the spot during the massacre, in a letter to the Pope, tells him, “the number was so great it was impossible to estimate it.”

Recollect, American Protestants, that this massacre, and others to which I have alluded, was not the work of a few fanatics. It was the work of a nation, by their representative, the king, empowered to do so by the head of the Roman Catholic church. In vain is it for Papists to tell us that all this blood-shedding and destruction of human life was the work of a few, with which the church was neither chargeable nor accountable. Americans may believe them if they will. Let them believe. “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” If neither the testimony of history, nor a statement of facts, bearing all the necessary evidence of truth, will convince them, vain indeed are my efforts to do so. But there is no impropriety in my earnestly and solemnly appealing to Americans, and suggesting one or two questions, which they should put to any Roman Catholic who may deny that the church ever sanctioned those evil deeds of which I have spoken. Have you any record of the fact, that the church ever discountenanced the destruction of heretics? Did the Popish authorities ever deliver up those whom they knew to have murdered heretics to the civil tribunals? Were there ever any heretics murdered, as such, except by the advice, counsel, and connivance of the Popish church and her priests? If there were, in what country, in what age, and in what reign? Until these questions can be truly answered, you are not to be satisfied. But why will Americans, for a moment, entertain a doubt upon the subject? Popish historians never deny it. The actions of Papists all over the world proclaim it. The church of Rome has ever thirsted for the blood of’ heretics. She now yearns for an opportunity of shedding it again; all for the purpose of “purifying the earth of heresy.” Do you not see that her conduct, in all ages and all places where she had opportunities, confirms this? Do you not even see, that in this country, the members of that church can scarcely keep their hands off you; and so bloody are the sentiments which they inherit, that, for want of other subjects, they will sometimes shed that of each other? What would they not have done, a few weeks ago, in Philadelphia, had they the power? What in New York? What in Boston, or any where else in the United States? Do you not see, in all your intercourse with them, the ill-concealed hatred which they, bear you? If you have any charitable institutions for the support of Protestants, will they aid you? If you hold a fair for the purpose of building a church, or for any other Protestant purpose, will they attend it and purchase from you? They will not. If they do, they commit a sin against the church, and the power of absolving from that sin is reserved for the bishop of the diocese. It is a reserved case, as the church terms it. It is only by virtue of a dispensation, granted by the Pope to this country, that a Roman Catholic is even allowed to attend the funeral of a Protestant; and should he go into one of your churches, even though there was no service at the time, if he is a true son of the church, he will hasten to his priest and obtain absolution for that special crime. Yet, if they want churches built, you will furnish them with money. If they want land to build them upon, you will give it to them. Is this wise in you? You are denounced in those churches as heretics; your religion ridiculed, and yourselves laughed at. Your motives are undoubtedly good. You believe, because you do not know to the contrary, that, by your contributions, you are advancing the cause of morality. You do not reflect—and perhaps the idea never occurred to you—that there is a wide difference between the religion of a Protestant and that of a Papist. That of the Protestant teaches him to be a moral and virtuous man; whereas, that of the Papist has not the remotest connection with virtue. A Catholic need not dream of virtue, and yet be a member of that church.

The most atrocious villain, as an eminent writer expresses it, may be rigidly devout, and without any shock to public sentiment in Catholic countries, or even among Roman Catholics in the United States, Religion, as the same writer says, and as we all know, at least as many of us as have been in those countries, and who are acquainted with Catholics in this, is a passion, an excuse, a refuge, but never a check. It is called by Papists themselves refugium peccatorum. Hence it is, that priests may be drunkards, and their flocks never think the worse of them. I have known some of them, whose private rooms where they heard confessions, were sinks of debaucheries, which a regard for public decency prevents me from mentioning. I have known females, who have been seduced by them, and who afterwards regularly went to confession, under the impression which every Catholic is taught to feel, that no matter what a priest does, provided he speaks the language of the church. Don’t mind what he does, but mind what he speaks, is a proverb among the poor Irish Papists. None of them dare look me in the face and deny this, and yet these wretches talk of morals. But what think you, Protestants, of this kind of morality or of the church which does not even forbid it, and only requires to have it “concealed from heretics?” Do you desire it propagated amongst you? Do you wish your children to learn it? No virtuous daughter or decent woman should ever venture under the same roof with those men.

Paganism, in its worst stages, was a stronger check to the passions than Popery. I will give you one instance of the abominations of Popery. Papists believe in the doctrine of the real presence of Christ, in the sacrament of the Eucharist. It is the duty of every priest in that church to administer this sacrament to the dying, and for this purpose, they consecrate a number, of small wafers, made of flour and water, each of which, they pretend to believe, contains the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, or in other words, the Lord God himself. The priests carry with them, in & small box called pixis, a number of them to be given to the sick and dying. There are but few of them in the United States, in whose breeches’ pockets may not be found, at any hour of the day, at least a dozen of those gods. Can there be religion here? Can there be morality among those men or their followers? I would go further, and ask, Is there any thing in Paganism equally impious or more revolting to God or man? They know full well that such a creed cannot be sustained either by reason or Scripture, and hence it is, they want all power concentrated in the Pope of Rome, in order to extirpate their opponents, Protestant heretics. Papists understand the character of Americans, and are well aware, that if sufficiently satisfied of the existence among them, of a sect who believed in a doctrine so absurd, and so impiously profane, as that of the real bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they could not countenance them. My own impression is, that if the people of Boston, where I write, knew that Catholic priests taught their followers to believe, that they (the priests) could make god’s by the dozen, carry them in their pockets, take them out when and where they pleased, and there kneel to them, in adoration, they would have them indicted under the statute against blasphemy. The Rev. Abner Kneeland was indicted because he denied the procession of the Holy Ghost, and found guilty of blasphemy. But what was his crime, when compared with that of Romish bishops and priests! It was bad enough, to be sure, in the eyes of all Christian men, and few questioned the righteousness of the verdict of his guilt. If a Pagan priest should arrive amongst us, bringing with him his gods, and worshipping them in our midst, should we sanction him? I know not that our constitution forbids such a thing, but the reverence which we have for the one true God, our love of morality and good order, would forbid it. We would accuse and indict them for blasphemy. But is their blasphemy more horrid than that of the Romish church?

The Pagan priest hews his god out of wood; the Popish priest makes his out of flour and water. The Pagan priests convey their gods in some vehicle, from place to place, and stop to worship them, wherever their inclination or devotion prompts them. The Romish priests carry theirs in their pockets, or otherwise, as occasion or love of pomp may suggest.

Where, Americans, is the difference? Which is the greater blasphemer? Which is the bolder and more reckless violator of that great commandment, “I am the Lord thy God.” “Thou shalt have none other gods before me”? You will not hesitate to decide. The Pagan may be honest in his belief; he may worship according to the light that is in him, or the knowledge that has reached him. He may never have seen the Gospel. The Day Star from on high may never have arisen over him, or illumined his path! “The morning upon the mountains” may perhaps never have gladdened his vision; he may, to us at least, be excusable, and as far as we can see, without offence before God. But is the Romish priest, who makes his god out of flour and water, and worships it, sinless? Is he not an idolater? What can be more blasphemous than to believe that a wafer, made of flour and water, can be changed, by the incantations of a Romish priest, into the God of heaven and earth!

The Popish church teaches that the flour, of which the wafer is made, loses its substance, and all its natural properties, and is changed by the words of consecration into the Almighty God; that is, it is no longer flour and water; it is changed,—not spiritually, as Protestants believe,—but actually and really becomes the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, such as it was when nailed to the cross, and as such they worship the wafer. If this is not idolatry, I cannot understand what idolatry is. If this is not blasphemy, I wish some New England gentleman of the ministry, or the bar, would explain it, and tell me what they mean by their statute against blasphemy.

Does blasphemy, in their estimation, mean nothing? or is it something introduced into our laws, only for the purpose of exercising the ingenuity of legal and ecclesiastical casuists? Surely, if the word has any meaning whatever, in law or morals, in church or state; if it can be enforced at all, and there is such a crime as blasphemy, it should be enforced against the Romish priest or bishop, who bows and teaches his followers to bow, in adoration, to a piece of bread and water, and thus blasphemously insult, as far as poor mortals can, the great and living God. Surely, the state authority, which would institute a criminal prosecution for blasphemy against Kneeland, because he did not believe the Holy Ghost to proceed “from the Father and the Son,” and does not prosecute for blasphemy Popish priests, who believe, and teach their followers to believe, that they can create, or rather manufacture as many gods as they please, out of flour and water, either neglects his duty, or his knowledge of it is very equivocal.

Either this is the case, or the treatment of Kneeland originated in some cruel persecution. The latter I am far from believing.

As a citizen of this state, I would ask respectfully, why proceedings, under the statute against blasphemy, are not immediately commenced against Popish priests? Is it because Kneeland was friendless and alone, that he was selected as a proper victim? and is it because Popish priests are supported by a large party, equally criminal with themselves, that they are spared? Not at all, say the sympathizers with Papery. Kneeland made a noise in his meetings; they were troublesome in the neighborhood where they were held. Be it so. I will not deny this, nor do I wish to be considered as the apologist of Kneeland, his blasphemies, or his meetings; but I would ask the prosecuting officer of the state, whether Kneeland’s meetings were more noisy than Popish repealers? Were they even half so turbulent or uproarious? Let those whose duty it is answer the question, and tell us why priests are not prosecuted for blasphemy. I contend that if there is one blasphemy under the sun more revolting than another, it is that of believing and teaching that a wafer can be changed from what God made it, into that same Almighty God, by mumbling over it a few Latin words. It makes me shudder at the weakness of man, and the unaccountable influence of early education, to think that I myself once believed in this horribly blasphemous doctrine.

The doctrine of Popish priests in adoring a wafer made of bread and water, and their mode of manufacturing the wafer into God, is not only blasphemous, but extremely ludicrous.

Has the reader ever seen a Popish priest in the act of making, or metamorphosing bread and water into flesh and blood? If he has not, it would be well, if not profane, to witness it; for never before has he seen such mountebank tricks. The priest, this great creator of flesh and blood out of flour and water, appears decked out in as many gewgaws as would adorn a Pagan priestess, and about twice as many as would be necessary for a Jewish rabbi. Amid the ringing of small bells, dazzling lights, genuflections, crossings, incense, and a variety of other such “tricks before high Heaven,” this clerical mountebank metamorphoses this wafer into God, and exhibits it to his followers, whom he calls upon to go on their knees and adore it. This horrible practice should induce our philanthropists, who are sending vast sums abroad for the conversion of the Pagan, to pause and ask themselves, whether there is, in the whole moral wilderness of Paganism, any thing worse, or half so bad, as that idolatry which we have at our own doors!

If a being from some unknown world, and to whom this world of ours was as little known as the one from which he came was to us, should, by accident or otherwise, arrive among us, and we were to take him into a Roman Catholic church during the celebration of mass, and there tell him, that the great actor in the service was making flesh and blood out of bread and water, and could actually accomplish that feat, he would unhesitatingly award to these United States the credit of having among them some of the most accomplished jugglers in the world.

What are your Eastern fire-eaters, sword-swallowers, and dervishes, to a Popish priest? Why, it would be easier to swallow a rapier, ten feet long, or a ball of fire as large as the mountain Orizaba, than to metamorphose flour and water into the “great and holy God, who created the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein.”

Let me not be accused of levity, or want of reverence to that Almighty Being, to whom I am indebted for my creation and preservation, and on whom alone, through the merits of the Saviour, my hopes of salvation are placed. My only object is, to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to the absurd and profane doctrines of Popery; and that having seen them, in their true colors, it is to be hoped they will find little favor from a thinking and reflect-ing people.

It is extremely unpleasant to my feelings, thus to expose the profanity of a religion which I once professed, and inculcated upon the minds of others; but the best atonement I can make for my unconscious offence to my God and my fellow-beings is, to acknowledge my error, and caution others against falling into the snares which an early education, received from priests and Jesuits, had precipitated me. The reader will therefore pardon me if I lay before him a few more Popish extravagances.

It is generally known, that Papists believe in the doctrines of miracles. So do I, and so do all Christians. But it is not so well known that the miracles, in which Protestants believe, differ widely from those which the Romish church teaches her followers. We believe the miracles recorded in the Holy Scriptures; to these, however, the infallible church pays little or no attention, but hands us down a catalogue of miracles, for the truth of which she herself vouches, and calls upon all to receive them as the “genuine article.” It may be edifying, and if not, it can not fail to be amusing to American Protestants, to see a specimen or two of Popish miracles. I assure the reader, they are very fair ones, to my own personal knowledge, and considered as such by every true Roman Catholic in this city of Boston as well as elsewhere.

St. Hieronymus, better known by the name Jerome, who died early in the fifth century, relates the following miracle:—”After St. Hilary was banished from France to Phrygia, he met in the wilderness a huge Bactrian camel, and having seen, in a vision, that his camelship was possessed of the devil, he exorcised him, and the devil sprang out from him, running wild through the wilderness, leaving behind him a strong smell of brimstone.” He tells us another miracle, with much gravity. “Paul the Hermit,” says this saint, “happening to die in the wilderness, his body remained unburied, until discovered by St. Anthony. The saint being alone, and not having the means of digging a grave, nor strength enough to place in it the body of the hermit, prayed to the Virgin Mary to aid him in his difficulties. The result was, two lions, of the largest species, walked up to him, licked his hands, and told him that they would dig the grave themselves with their feet, and place the body of Paul in it. They did so; and having finished their business, went on their knees, asked the saint’s blessing, and vanished in the woods.”

Palladus, who lived in the fifth century, and was greatly distinguished in the Romish church, tells us of a hyena, which, in a certain wood in Greece, killed a sheep. The next day, a pious hermit, who happened to live in the neighborhood, was surprised at seeing this hyena at the-door of his cave; and on asking it what was the matter, the hyena addressed him in the following language: “Holy father, the odor of thy sanctity reached me; I killed a sheep last night, and I came to ask your absolution.” The saint granted it, and the hyena departed in peace. We find in Butler’s Lives of the Saints, which is for sale in almost all Roman Catholic bookstores, an account of some most extraordinary miracles, for the truth of which, the infallible church pledges her veracity. For instance; when heretics cut off the head of St. Dennis, the saint took it up, put it under his arm, and marched off some miles with it. Butler relates another extraordinary miracle, and if American Protestants presume to doubt it, they may expect a bull from the Pope of Rome.

A certain lady in Wales, named Winnefride, was addressed by a young prince, named Caradoc. But she, being a nun, could not listen to his addresses. The young prince got impatient, and finally, in a fit of rage and disappointment, he pursued her in one of her walks, and cut off her head. A saint, by the name of Beuno, hearing of this outrage, went in pursuit of Caradoc, and having come up with him, he caused the earth to open and swallow him. Upon his returning where the nun’s head fell, he found that a well had opened, emitting a stream of the purest water, the drinking of which, to this day, is believed to cast out devils. When the holy St. Beuno looked at the head of the nun, he took it up and kissed it, placed it on a stump, and said mass. No sooner was the mass finished, than the beheaded nun jumped up, with her head on, as if nothing had happened.

Come forward, Americans, if you dare, and deny this miracle. The holy church vouches for its truth. St. Patrick, the great patron of Daniel O’Connell, whom his holiness the Pope calls the greatest layman living, performed some very extraordinary miracles, as we are told; among them was the following: A poor boy strayed from home, and died of starvation, or something else, and the body was nearly devoured by hogs, when St. Patrick, chancing to pass that way, discovered it in this mutilated condition. The holy saint touched it, and it instantly sprang into life, resuming its former shape and proportions. On another occasion, as we read in the Lives of the Saints, St. Patrick fed fourteen hundred people with the flesh of one cow, two wild boars, and two stags; and what is more strange than all, the same old cow was seen, on the following morning, brisk and merrily grazing on the very same field where she was killed, cooked, and eaten by the multitude.

We read of another very great miracle, which no Roman Catholic can doubt, without running the risk of being considered a heretic. St. Xavier, who is considered one of the most distinguished saints in the Romish church, had a valuable crucifix. On one of his journeys at sea, it fell overboard, much to his regret. When he arrived at his place of destination, he took a walk along shore, meditating on the power, grandeur, and infallibility of the mother of saints, and what was the first object that caught his eye? Lo, and behold, he saw a crab moving towards him, bearing in its mouth the saint’s crucifix, and continued to advance until he reverently laid it at his feet. No Roman Catholic writer, since the days of St. Xavier, questions the truth of this miracle.

The Popish biographers of St. Xavier tell us of another great miracle performed by him, the truth of which is attested by the infallible church. The devil tempted Xavier, and the “old boy” assumed the shape of a lovely female; the saint ordered her off, but she refused, and attacked him again on the same day; but the saint, unwilling to be annoyed any longer, spit in the devil’s face, and he instantly fled.

I cannot dismiss, this subject without relating a few more of those miracles which Roman Catholics believe. They may be seen in Belarmine’s Treatise on the Holy Eucharist, book iii. ch. 8. St. Anthony, of Padua, got into an argument with a heretic, concerning the doctrine of transubstantiation or the changing of bread and water, by Romish priests, into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. After arguing the question for a long time, the heretic proposed to St. Anthony to settle their controversy in the following manner: “I have a horse,” said the heretic, “which I will keep fasting for three days; at the expiration of that time, come with your host (an image) and I will meet you with my horse. I will pour out some grain to my horse, and you will hold the host before him; if he leave the grain, and adores the host, I shall believe.” They met, and St. Anthony addressed the horse in the following words. I translate, literally, from that illustrious writer in the Roman church, Belarmine.

“In virtue, and in the name of thy creator, whom I truly hold in my hand, I command and enjoin thee, O horse, to come, and with humility, adore him.” The horse, instanter, left his corn, advanced towards the host in the priest’s hand, and, devoutly kneeling, adored it as his God.

St. Andrew, as we read in Romish history, was a man of great eminence and sanctity. Papists pray for his intercession daily. The infallible church informs us, that he performed some very great miracles I beg to give my readers one, as a sample of the many which he performed.

The devil, armed with an axe, and accompanied by several minor devils, with clubs in their hands, made an attack upon the saint, whereupon he called upon St. John, the apostle, to rescue him. St. John lost no time in making his appearance, and summoning some holy angels to aid him, with chains in their hands, he rescued St. Andrew from these devils, and chained every one of them to the spot; whereupon, as we are informed in the Acts of the Saints, St. Andrew burst into laughter, and the devils fell to screaming and crying mercy.

In the year 1796, a work, entitled Official Memoirs, was published in Ireland, under the authority of Dr. Bray, archbishop of Cushel, and Dr. Troy, archbishop of Dublin. In this work it is stated—and to doubt the fact in Ireland, would be-heresy—that in the month of May, 1796, at Toricedi, tears were seen to flow from the eyes of a wooden image of the Virgin Mary. Impious as such doctrines are, they are now believed by Roman Catholics.

I was myself personally acquainted with archbishop Troy, and I remember, when young, that he and the priests by whom I was instructed, took much more pains in impressing upon my mind the truth of such miracles, as that of the wooden Virgin Mary, than they did the truths of the Gospel; and, in fact, every Catholic is taught to rest his salvation, almost entirely, upon the intercession of the virgin. Ninety-nine in a hundred of Irish Catholics rest all their hopes of salvation on the Virgin Mary. They adore her, they worship her, and what is worse, Popish bishops and priests teach them to do so. They even compel them to adore the virgin, though the miserable beings have the hardihood to deny it before Americans. But will they dare do it before me? When a poor, ignorant Catholic goes to confession, the usual penance imposed by the priest, for minor offences, is the repetition of the following address to the Virgin Mary, two or three times a day, for a week or more, according to the heinousness of the sin committed:!!!!!

“Holy Mary, Holy mother of God, Holy virgin of virgins, Mother of Christ, Mother of divine grace, Mother most pure, Mother most chaste, Mother undefiled, Mother untouched, Mother most amiable, Mother most admirable, Mother of our Creator, Mother of our Redeemer, Virgin most prudent, Virgin most venerable, Virgin most renowned, Virgin most powerful, Virgin most merciful, Virgin most faithful, Mirror of justice, Seat of wisdom, Cause of our joy, Spiritual vessel, Vessel of honor, Vessel of singular devo-Mystical rose, Tower of David, Tower of ivory, House of gold, Ark of the covenant, Gate of heaven, Morning star, Health of the weak, Refuge of sinners, Comfort of the afflicted, Help of Christians, Queen of angels, Queen of patriarchs, Queen of prophets, Queen of apostles, Queen of martyrs, Queen of confessors, Queen of virgins, Queen of all saints.”

The above tissue of blasphemy is daily, nay, several times in a day, repeated by Catholic priests and their penitents; and I am much mistaken, if there is upon the face of the globe, whether in Pagan, Mahometan,1 or Heathen countries or creeds, to be found any thing equally blasphemous, or more disgusting to the mind of any individual who believes in the pardon of sin through the atonement of Christ; and I hesitate not to say, that the Christian, who countenances such a doctrine, or contributes, in any way, to its propagation, denies his Saviour, and shows himself unworthy of the name he bears.

To the professed infidel I have nothing to say. To him, who mocks and scoffs at the Triune God, I will attach no blame; with him I have nothing in common, further than brotherhood of the same species; but I must appeal to the Christian, and seriously ask him, Why do you encourage such blasphemy as this address to the Virgin Mary? Why do you encourage its propagation amongst your brethren? Why do you hold communion with those who utter it? Would the primitive Christians, if they now lived, hold any communion with idolaters? Would they contribute their money to build temples for Isis and Dagon? Would they basely bend the knee to the golden calf of old? No. Sooner—much sooner—would they lay their heads upon the block. They would look upon it as a denial of their God, and a recantation of their faith in him. Would your Puritan forefathers give the right hand of fellowship to the worshippers of a wooden image? Would they give their money to a priest, to build churches, and teach his followers that they could hew out for them images of wood, possessing power to work miracles, or in other words, to change the laws of nature, which the Eternal Law-Maker alone can change or suspend?

Custom, the point of the bayonet, or even that cruel tyrant, early education, may enforce such idolatry on the Old World; but the free-born American, unbiassed by education—unawed by tyrants—has no apology. His submission to such doctrines is an unqualified surrender of his reason, his religion, and the liberties of his country.

When the star of our independence first arose, it was hailed by the Christian philosophers of the old world, as a foreshadowing of the downfall of tyranny, superstition, and idolatry. They looked upon it as fatal to the bastard Paganism, taught in the Popish church; but what must be their astonishment, if permitted at the present day to look down upon our country, and see our people practising that same Paganism, nicknamed Christianity, and asking from our government protection—a privilege which the framers of our constitution never intended should be extended to tyrants or idolaters!

Here I would stop, and never more put pen to paper, for or against Popery, did I not see many of my fellow-citizens, possessing the finest minds and precious souls, falling victims to the sophistry, ingenuity, and quibbling casuistry of Popish priests and bishops.

It is not long since I saw a letter from the Roman Catholic bishop Fenwick, of the diocese of Massachusetts, in which he informs the authorities of Rome that he is making converts from some of the first families in his diocese. This, I presume, is correct, and these are the very individuals most easily imposed upon. They know nothing of Popery. They are not aware that Papists have two sides to the picture, which they exhibit of their church. One is fair, brilliant, dazzling, and seductive. Nothing is seen in their external forms of worship but showy vestments, dazzling tights, and the appearance of great devotion. Nothing is heard but the softest and most melting strains of music. No wonder these should captivate minds which are strangers to guilt; nor is it strange that they should bring into their church those who are most guilty, in the full assurance that their guilt shall be forgiven, and their crimes effaced from the records of heaven, by only confessing them to one of their priests.

Will the heads of those respectable families, to whom Bishop Fenwick alludes, and from whom he is making so many converts, permit me to ask them, whether they have ever reflected upon what they were doing, in permitting Romish priests to come among them? I have myself been a Catholic priest, as I have more than once stated; I am without any prejudice whatever. If I know myself, I would do an injustice to no man; but I hesitate not to tell those heads of families, whether they are the parents or guardians of those converts to the Romish church, of whom mention is made, that if they have not used all their authority with which the laws of nature and of the land invests them, to prevent these conversions, they are highly culpable. If they are parents, they have become the moral assassins of their own children, and perhaps their own wives. Do any of those fathers know the questions which a Romish priest puts to those children, at confession? Do husbands know the questions which priests put to their wives, at confession? Though a married man, I would blush to mention the least of them.

Though not so fastidious as others, I cannot even think of them, much less name them, without a downcast eye and crimsoned cheek, and particularly those which are put to young and unmarried ladies.

Fathers, mothers, guardians, and husbands of these converts, fancy to yourselves the most indelicate, immodest, and libidinous questions which the most immoral and profligate mind can conceive!!!!! fancy those ideas put into plain English, and that by way of question and answer—and you will then have a faint conception of the conversation which takes place between a pampered Romish priest and your hitherto pure-minded daughters. If, after two or three of these examinations, in that sacred tribunal, they still continue virtuous, they are rare exceptions. After an experience of some years in that church, sooner—far sooner—would I see my daughters consigned to the grave, than see them go to confession to a Romish priest or bishop. One is not a whit better than the other. They mutually confess to each other.

It was not my intention, when I commenced this work, to enter into any thing like a discussion of the doctrines maintained by the Romish church. My sole object was to call the attention of American Republicans to the dangers which were to be apprehended, and would inevitably follow, from the encouragement which they are giving to Popery amongst them. I have, however, deviated a little from my first intention, in more than one instance; but I trust, not without some advantage to many of my readers. I am aware that I have exposed myself to the charge of carelessness and indifference to public opinion, in not paying more attention to the construction and order of my sentences. Did I write for fame, or the applause of this world, I would have been more careful; but, as my object is only to state facts, in language so plain that none can misunderstand it, I have no doubt the reader will pardon any defects which he may find in the language, or want of consecutiveness in the statements, which these pages contain.

I will now ask the attention of the reader, for a few moments, to the Popish doctrine of Indulgences; and I do so because priests and bishops deny that such things as indulgences are now either taught or granted to Catholics. They say from their pulpits and altars that indulgences are neither * bought nor sold by Catholics, and never were.

It is an axiom in our courts of law—and should be one in every well-regulated court of conscience—that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The meaning of this axiom is, that he who tells a falsehood in one case will do so in every other. If this be true—and it is as true as that two and two make four—I pronounce all Roman Catholic priests, bishops, Popes, monks, friars, and nuns, to be the most deliberate and wilful set of liars that ever infested this or any other country, or disgraced the name of religion. I assert, and defy contradiction, that there is not a Roman Catholic church, chapel, or house of worship in any Catholic country, where indulgences are not sold. I will even go further, and say, that there is not a Roman Catholic priest in the United States, who has denied the fact, that does not sell indulgences himself; and yet these priests, and these bishops—these men of sin, falsehood, impiety, impurity, and immorality—talk of morals, and preach morals, while in their sleeves, and in their practices, they laugh at such ideas as moral obligations. Here I would appeal even to Irish Catholics who are in this country. I would ask all, or any of them, if ever they have heard mass in any Catholic chapel in Dublin, or any other city in Ireland, without hearing published from the altar, a notice in the following words, or words of similar import.

“Take notice, that there will be an indulgence on——day, in————church. Confessions will be heard on———day, to prepare those who wish to partake of the indulgence.” I have published hundreds of such notices myself; and any American, who may visit Ireland, or any Catholic country, and has the curiosity to enter any of the Romish chapels, can hear these notices read; but when he returns to the United States, he will hear the Roman priests say that “there are no indulgences sold by the Romish Church.” Beware, Americans! How long will you be the dupes of Popish priests?

Will the reader permit me to take him back a few years, and show him in what light indulgences were viewed in the 16th century, under the immediate eye of the Pope and full sanction of the infallible church!

The name Tetzel, is familiar to-every reader. He was an authorized agent for the sale of indulgences. I will give you one of his speeches, as recorded on the authority of Roman Catholic writers, and recently published in this country in D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation.

Indulgences—says this reverend delegate of the Pope—are the most precious and sublime of God’s gifts.

Draw near, and I will give you letters duly sealed, by which even the sins you shall hereafter desire to commit shall be all forgiven you.

I would not exchange my privileges for those of St. Peter in heaven; for I have saved more souls by my indulgences, than he by his sermons.

There is no sin so great, that the indulgence cannot remit it, and even if any one should—which is impossible—ravish the holy Mother of God, let him pay, let him only pay largely, and it shall be forgiven him. The very moment the money goes into the Pope’s box, that moment even the condemned soul of the sinner flies to heaven.

Examine the history of Paganism, and you will not find in its darkest pages any thing more infamously blasphemous than the above extract, taken from a speech delivered by one of the Pope’s auctioneers for the sale of indulgences. But even this would be almost pardonable, if priests did not try to persuade Americans that those sales have long since ceased.

It is not more than twelve months since I was in the city of Principe Cuba; and I beg permission to relate to my readers what I have there personally witnessed; or, as we would express it in our most homely language, seen with my own eyes.

At an early hour in the morning, I was aroused from my slumbers by a simultaneous ringing of all the bells in the city. On looking out, I witnessed the marching of troops, firing of cannons, field-officers in their full uniforms, all the city authorities wearing their official robes, with innumerable priests and friars bustling about from one end of the city to the other. My first impression was, that a destructive fire must have broken out somewhere, or that some frightful insurrection had taken place: but, on inquiry, what think you, reader, caused this simultaneous movement of the whole population of Principe, amounting in all to about sixty thousand? “Tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon:” A huge bull of indulgences had arrived from the Pope of Rome, and they turned out—troops and all—to pay it due homage, and hear it read in the cathedral of Principe.

A day was appointed for the sale of the indulgences contained in the aforesaid bull! Accompanied by a Scotch gentleman, with whom I had the pleasure of forming an acquaintance, we went, with others, to the house of the spiritual auctioneer, and I there purchased of the priest, for two dollars and fifty cents, an indulgence for any sin I might commit, except four, which I will not mention. These, I was told, could only be forgiven by the Pope, and would cost me a considerable sum of money.

Many of our citizens are in the habit of visiting Havana, and can purchase those indulgences at any sum from twelve and a half cents to five hundred dollars. Will you still listen to Popish priests, who tell you that indulgences are neither sold nor bought now in the Romish church?

From Cuba I immediately proceeded in the United States’ ship Vandalia, to Vera Cruz, and from thence to the city of Mexico. I felt desirous of ascertaining the state of Popery in that exclusively Popish country, and availed myself of every opportunity to do so. Accordingly, soon after my arrival in Mexico, I strolled into the cathedral, and saw in the centre aisle a large table, about forty feet long and four wide, covered with papers, resembling, at a distance, some of our bank checks. Curiosity induced me to examine them, and, instead of bank checks, I found checks on Heaven; or, in other words, indulgences for sins of all descriptions.

I resolved upon purchasing; but, knowing full well that Americans, though the most intelligent people in the world, but long the dupes of Roman Catholics, would scarcely believe me if I told them that I bought an indulgence in Mexico. I went back and requested of our consul there, Mr. Black, to come with me to the cathedral and witness the purchase of, and payment by me for an indulgence. Will Catholic priests tell you there is no truth in this? If they do, be not hasty in making up your minds on the question. There are two or 8* three lines of packets running from New York to Vera Cruz, and you can easily ascertain, from Mr. Black, whether I am telling truth, or whether Papists are humbugging you, as they have been for the last half century.

But why go abroad for evidence to fix upon Romish priests the indelible stigma of falsehood on the subject of indulgences? I have sold them myself, in Philadelphia and in Europe! The first year I officiated in Philadelphia as a Roman Catholic priest, I sold nearly three thousand of these indulgences, as the agent of holy mother, the infallible church; and though several years have elapsed since, many of those who bought them are still living in that city.

Some explanation is necessary here, as I cannot presume that Americans are yet acquainted with a doctrine called Pious Frauds, held and acted upon by the infallible church.

The Pope of Rome and the Propaganda, taking into consideration the savage ignorance of Americans, deemed it prudent to substitute some other name for the usual name indulgences, and something else for the usual document specifying the nature of the indulgence which was given to pious sinners in “the New World:” they thought it possible that Yankees might have the curiosity to read the written indulgences. This, said they in their wisdom, must be prevented; and here is a case where our doctrine of pious frauds comes beautifully into play. After singing the “Veni Creator spiritus”—as usual in such cases—they resolved that indulgences should be in future called Scapulas, and thus piously enable all Roman Catholic priests and bishops to swear on the Holy Evangelists that no indulgences were ever sold in the United States. This is what holy mother calls pious fraud.

All the indulgences which I sold in Philadelphia were called scapulas. They are made of small pieces of cloth, with the letters I. H. S. written on the outside, and are worn on the breast. I will give you an idea of the revenue arising from the sale of those scapulas in the United States, by stating to you the price at which I sold them.

The scapula costs the purchaser one dollar. The priest who sells it tells him that to make it thoroughly efficacious, it is necessary that he should cause some masses to be said, and the poor dupe gives one, five, ten, or twenty dollars, according to his or her means, for those masses. I may safely say, that, on an average, every scapula or indulgence sold in the United States costs at least five dollars. What think you now of the word, the honor, or the oath of a Popish priest? Are you not ashamed to be so long their dupes? Do you not blush at the reflection, that you have given so much of your money, your sympathy, and hospitality, to such arrant knaves? Sad is the reflection to me, and dark are the thoughts, that I should have ever belonged to a church, which imbodies in its doctrines all that is degrading to humanity, and reduces man, from being “little lower than the angels,” to a thing, such as a Papist priest, in full communion with the Pope, having nothing in common with his fellow-beings but the form of humanity.

The folly of uniting with the Catholic Church

You, Americans, who have thoughtlessly united yourselves with these priests in their church, come out, I beseech you, from among them. Entail not upon your children the curse of Popery. Flee from them as Lot did from Sodom. To err is the lot of man. To fall and to trip in his passage through life, is the lot of even the best of men. You have erred in joining the Romish church, but you will doubly err by continuing in membership with her. The country which gave you birth is a glorious one; it has all the advantages of nature; it is fertilized by salubrious seas, and its own beautiful lakes. There is nothing you want which the God of nature has not given, and blessed for your use. There is but one dark speck upon the horizon of your national prosperity and greatness, but that is a deep one. It is a sad one, and may be a bloody one. Popery hovers over it, like some ill-omened bird, waiting only a favorable opportunity to pounce upon its prey; or some foul exhalation, which, being checked in its soaring, turns to a fog, causing darkness and scattering disease, wherever it falls. Alas, fellow-citizens, it has already fallen amongst us, and is growing with fearful rapidity; like the more noxious weed, it loves a rich soil; it cannot fail to flourish in ours.

Take heed, Americans, lest you allow this weed to come to maturity. Eradicate it in time; let it not ripen amongst you; allow not its capsule to fill, blossom, and ripen; if you do, mark what I tell you: it will burst, scattering its noxious, sickening, and poisonous odors amid the pure breezes of that religious and political freedom, which have so long, so gracefully and sweetly played over this beloved “land of the free and home of the brave.”

If you will look around you, and visit our courts of law; if you extend your visits to your prisons, your houses of industry and reformation; if you go farther, and examine your penitentiaries, what will you find? Permit me to show you what you will behold in one single city, the city of New York. This, of itself, were there no other cause of alarm, should be sufficient to arouse your patriotism, for you must not forget that nearly all the foreigners, enumerated in the document which I here subjoin, are Roman Catholics, or reduced to their present condition while living in Catholic countries. But let the document speak for itself. It is official, and may be relied on.. It came from a committee of the Board of Aldermen of the city of New York upon the subject of alien passengers. Taking this as your data, you may be able to form some idea of what you suffer in money, in virtue, and in your morals, from the introduction of foreign Papists among you.

“The Foreign Poor in our Alms-Houses, and the Foreign Criminals in our Penitentiaries.—We hasten to lay before our readers a highly interesting document, from a committee in the Board of Aldermen, upon the subject of bonding alien passengers in New York. From the document, it appears that the bonds of nine firms in this city exhibit the enormous liabilities of $16,000,000: that of the 602 children supported by the city, at the Farm Schools, 457 are the children, (many, if not the most of them, illegitimate) of foreign parents; that of the latest-born infants at nurse, at the city’s expense, 32 are foreign, and only two American, and that of the whole number of children, 626 have foreign parentage, and 195 Amer-can; exhibiting the average of more than three foreigners to one native, and an alarming increase of the ratio of foreigners in the more recent births.’

“The whole number of inmates in our penitentiary is 1419, showing an increase of 400 since July last; of these 333 are Americans, and 1198 foreigners. The number of prisoners and paupers, to support whom we all pay taxes, is 4344, showing an increase, since July last, of nearly 1000.

“In view of these alarming facts, and remember* ing that over 60,000 immigrants were commuted and bonded here the last year, the committee make some forcible appeals to the country, which cannot be without their effect. The enormous taxation to which we are subject, in order to support foreign paupers and criminals, is a great and growing evil, which presses heavily upon industry, as well as upon the character, morals, and politics of the country.”

This is a frightful picture of things, especially in a country abounding and almost overflowing with the means of sustaining and abundantly supplying fifty times the population it contains.

Examine well the results of Popery, in a religious, moral, and political point of view, especially during the last thirty years, and you will find that there is no vice, no crime, no folly or absurdity, which time has brought into the old world, as Milton expresses it, “in its huge drag-net,” that Papists are not introducing among you; and there is no consequence which followed it there which we shall not see here, unless you are to a man “up and doing,” until this noxious weed is rooted from amongst you. I wish these unfortunate Papists no evil; far be such a sentiment from my mind. I would be their best friend; but who can befriend them, while they permit themselves to be controlled and deluded by their priests.

A Roman Catholic priest is, pro tanto, the worst enemy of man. He degrades his mind by rendering him the slave of his church. He debauches his morals, and those of his wife and children, by withholding from them the word of God. He weakens his understanding, by filling his mind with absurd traditions. He evokes, and indirectly invites, the indulgence of his worst passions, by promising him the pardon of his sins. He checks the noblest aspirations and finest charities of his soul, by instilling into it the rankest hatred and animosity towards his fellow-being, whom God has commanded him to love as he loves himself, but whom the priest tells him to curse, hate, and exterminate. In a word, he almost degrades him to a level with the beast, by teaching him to lower that holy flag, on which should be written, Glory be to God on high,—and raising above it the bloodstained flag of Popery.

This American Protestants know full well. They feel it. It is known and felt in every Protestant land; but it seems as “if some strange spirit was passing over people’s dreams.” Though found to be unsound, and even bad policy; though destructive to agricultural, commercial, and every other interest, yet we see no efforts made to arrest its advance amongst us. Neither are there any means taken, as far as the writer knows, in other Protestant countries, to suppress this religious, political, and commercial nuisance; on the contrary, we find that even in Great Britain further stimulants are being applied to Popish insolence.

Sir Robert Peel, the premier of England, has, or is about introducing a bill into parliament, with a view of making further appropriations for the Romish college of Maynooth, in Ireland; and, much to my surprise, as well I believe as to that of every man who correctly understands the spirit of Popery, he has some supporters. Even some of the British reviewers give him high praise.

“The credit to which Sir Robert Peel is entitled,” says one of the British Quarterlies, “is greatly increased by reason of the prejudices of some of his supporters; but (continues the same Quarterly) his resolution is taken and his declaration made. This should read, in my humble apprehension his resolution is taken, and his infatuation complete.”

I have been a student in that college; I know what is taught and done in that institution. I am well acquainted with all the minutiae of its business and theological transactions; and I could tell Sir Robert Peel that he either knows not what he is doing, or is a traitor to his government! Does Sir Robert know that in that college are concocted all the plans and all the measures which O’Connell is proposing, and has been pursuing during the last thirty years, for emancipation, and now for the repeal of the Union? Does he know that Maynooth is the focus from which radiate all the treasons, assassinations, and murders of Protestants, in Ireland? Is he aware that this very Maynooth is the great Popish eccaleobion, in which most of those priests who infest Ireland, and are now infesting the United States, are hatched? Does he know that Daniel O’Connell and that college are the mutual tools of each other? O’Connell, riding on the backs of the priests into power and into wealth, and they alternately mounted upon Dan, advancing the glory of the infallible church!

It is not probably known to Mr. Peel that thirty years or more have elapsed since it was secretly resolved in Maynooth that none but a Catholic should wear the British crown, and that he should receive it as a fief from the Pope of Rome. Every move and advance which O’Connell makes in remans a step gained towards this object, and upon this his ambitious eye rests with intense avarice. For this, Maynooth and its priests thirst with insatiable desire. It is not many years since O’Connell and Maynooth asked for emancipation, and they obtained it. Protestants of England were duped into the belief that Papists would now be satisfied, and unite in supporting the government; but, scarcely was this granted, when the great agitator, with the advice and consent of Maynooth, asked for—what, think you, reader? Nothing less than a dismemberment of the British government—nothing less than a repeal of the Union; or, in other words, to permit one of the most turbulent demagogues that ever lived, Daniel O’Connell, to become king of Ireland, and to receive his crown from the Pope of Rome.

This is now the avowed object of repeal; but there is another object, not yet seen nor dreamed of by those who are not Roman Catholics; and I beg the reader to keep it in his recollection. It is this. O’Connell, by agitating Ireland, and scattering firebrands throughout England, believes that he and the Catholics will ultimately succeed in dethroning the sovereign of England, and placing the crown on some Popish head. Were the college of Maynooth further endowed through the efforts or folly of Sir Robert Peel, does he believe, or can any man, acquainted with the genius of Popery believe, that this would satisfy O’Connell or the Pope’s agents in Ireland? The very reverse would be the case. It would only imbolden them still further. It would only increase their insolence; it would only add a new impetus to their treasonable demands, and give an increased momentum to their disorganizing meetings.

Should the British Government grant all O’Con-nell asks, or should parliament pass a bill for the repeal of the Union, is it to be supposed that O’Connell and the Irish bishops—the sworn allies of the king of Rome—would be satisfied? Not they. The truth is—and I wish I could impress it upon the minds of every Protestant in England as well as in this country—nothing short of the total overthrow of the government of Great Britain and the Protestant religion will content the Popish church, whose cats-paw Daniel O’Connell is. Should Providence, in his inscrutable designs, grant them this, our experiment in the science of self-government is at an end. We shall become an easy prey to any alliance which should be formed against our republican institutions. The jackals of Popery are amongst us: they have discovered us; and Popish priests, the natural enemies of free institutions and of the Protestant religion, will soon destroy our republic and our religion.

It is useless to deny the fact. It cannot be denied. It were folly to conceal it. The extirpation of heresy, or, in other words, of the Protestant religion, is the grand object which O’Connell and the Pope have now in view; and, to effect this, they have judiciously divided and advantageously posted all their forces. These forces are well officered by Jesuits and priests, men without honor, principle, or religion; whose time is spent in advancing. Popery and the grossest indulgence of their own passions. The Pope and O’Connell have, in this country, an army of nearly two millions of reckless desperadoes, who have given already strong evidences of their thirst for American Protestant blood. It is necessary to watch them well. Americans must recollect that these men receive their orders from Rome, through O’Connell, who, I sincerely believe, is this moment the worst man living, though the Pope calls him the greatest layman living. He is upon earth what the pirate is upon the seas, inimicus humani generis—the enemy of mankind. During the last thirty years he has kept the poor of Ireland in a state of poverty and excitement bordering upon madness. He has filched from them the last farthing they possessed. He has withdrawn them by thousands from their ordinary pursuits of industry: he has sown amongst them mutual hatred and a general discontent with their situations in life. But that is not all. He has pursued the poor people even to this country. He robs them here of their little earnings. They make remittances to him of hundreds and thousands of dollars; and this, while many of them, to my own knowledge, and not a hundred yards from where I write, are shivering in the cold blasts of winter,—all for their good, while O’Connell himself is feasting in Ireland, and enjoying the sports of the chase, on about three hundred thousand dollars a year.

This is not all. The great agitator, this national beggar, Daniel O’Connell, has recently discovered that there were some little glimmerings of Protestantism in France; that Louis Phillippe was neither a Don Miguel, a Ferdinand, nor a very strong advocate of Popery, opens upon him a battery of abuse. This foul-mouthed brawler was not content with sowing discord among the poor Irish, and scattering treason among the people of Great Britain, he tries what he can do with the inflammable people of France, who are now in the enjoyment of more domestic happiness and national glory than they have had for the last century. But even this is not enough; the genius of the great national beggar, fertile in schemes, treasons, rebellions, scurrility, and Popery, must cross the Atlantic and denounce Americans, who, since the declaration of their independence, have been the best and warmest friends of his poor countrymen; they have received them, employed them, giving them bread and clothing in abundance. They permitted them to bring with them their priests and their religion; they shielded and protected them in their lives and liberties. This country was to the Irish, a land flowing with milk and honey, and they might have enjoyed it, and been happy, had it not been for their accursed religion and its priests.

The great Dan saw and felt this. A stop must be put to it. The holy church saw that this state of things, would not answer her purposes. The harmony, which existed for so long a time between the hospitable and generous Americans and the forlorn Irish, must be broken, lest Papists should become Protestants and forget their allegiance to the Pope; and accordingly, the great agitator, this enemy to order, to God, and to peace, commenced denouncing Americans, as usurers and infidels, who had not even a national law of their own. He calls upon the Irish to come out from among them, and have nothing to do with them.

Soon after this, the Pope sends over some bulls making similar demands upon the Irish and all other Catholics, under pain of excommunication; and what is the result? The name of an Irishman is now a by-word, in the United States, especially if he is a Roman Catholic. It is associated with every thing that is low, vulgar, and bigoted. No longer do the Americans receive the Irish with open arms: no longer do they welcome them to their shores; nor in fact is it safe for them longer to do so. And what occasioned this? That demagogue, O’Connell, and the Pope of Rome.

Does Mr. Peel reflect, when he is moving in parliament for an additional appropriation for the college of Maynooth, in Ireland, that he is only adding fuel to the political fire, which these men are trying to enkindle, and have actually enkindled in a great part of Europe, and in the United States? Has the fact escaped his notice, that the Pope and the greatest layman living, as his royal holiness calls O’Connell, have no misunderstanding with Spain, Portugal, or any other government, strictly Popish?

They have no feeling of compassion for the degraded Italian, the ignorant and half-starved Spaniard or Portuguese, or the wretched Mexican slave. O, no! It is only for a Papist under a Protestant government, that their compassion is moved. Their condition must be ameliorated, or in plain English, these governments must be overthrown and Popery must reign supreme. Let Mr. Peel reflect upon this single fact, and he and his supporters cannot fail to see, that, in giving further aid to the Popish college of Maynooth, he is but “sowing dragons’ teeth, from which armed men will spring up.” He is only throwing an additional force into that Trojan horse, which his predecessors had introduced into unfortunate Ireland, and which Popes and priests have secretly stolen into these United States.

I know O’Connell well. I have had, in my younger days, some personal acquaintance with him; and I can tell Mr. Peel, that with the college of Maynooth to back him, he,—Mr. Peel and his party—are no match for him in craft and intrigue. All O’Connell’s plans for the extirpation of Protestanism are devised in Rome. They are submitted to the Propaganda, and from thence sent to Maynooth to be there revised and corrected. As soon as this is done, a copy is forwarded to each of the metropolitan bishops of Ireland, who return it with such observations as they deem necessary, and all things being prepared, secundum ordinem, the usual Veni, Creator is sung; the project, whatever it may be, is sanctioned; every priest in Ireland is prepared to carry it into effect; and all that now remains to be done is, to give the great beggar his secret orders. What can Peel, or his few supporters, do against such a party as this? Nothing, unless the government changes its mode of proceeding against O’Connell, Maynooth, and the Irish bishops. But it is to be feared, that this will not be done while Peel is at the head of affairs.

England, once indomitable, and always brave; England, proud of her religion and of her laws, seems recently to forget her ancient glories. She is showing the white feather; she is dallying with Popery, and singing lullabies to quiet and put asleep Daniel O’Connell and his Irish bishops, whose treason and political treachery can only be stopped, and should have been stopped long since, by consigning the greatest layman that ever lived, and a few of his right reverend advisers, to transportation for life.

Americans may think this wrong, but though I have not the least pretension to the faculty of prophesying, I think I can safely tell them, that, in less than twenty years, they will have to enact much severer laws against Roman Catholics than any which are now recorded against them on the statute book of Great Britain. It must be borne in mind, that Popery never bends, and therefore it should and must be broken. It was in this college of Maynooth, and from those bishops and priests, with whom Sir Robert Peel is dallying, I first learned that the king of England was an usurper. It was they, who first taught me that the Pope of Rome—virtute clavorum, by virtue of the keys—was the rightful sovereign of England, as well as of all the kingdoms of the earth. It was in the college of Maynooth, I was taught to keep no faith with heretics, and that it was my solemn duty to exterminate them; it was there I first learned, that any oath of allegiance, which I may take to a Protestant government, was null and void, and need not be kept.

It was at this same college of Maynooth, that nine tenths of the priests in this country received their education; and is it not deplorable to reflect, that such men as Sir Robert Peel, in England, and several equally distinguished in this country, should be so entirely blindfolded and unmindful of the interest of their respective countries, as to give any countenance, aid, or support to Popery, or Popish institutions among them? I trust, however, and fondly hope, that this imprudent, impolitic, and ill-advised scheme of Sir Robert Peel’s, will be resisted and thrown out of parliament, with such marks of disapprobation as becomes every honest Protestant and true Briton. Will those who sympathize with Popery in the United States, look back to the page of history? and if they will not take instruction from me, let them take it from the past. Let them listen to the voice of the dead, and learn a lesson from them. Let them read the history of France. Who urged on all the oppositions that have been made, from time to time, to the government and constituted authorities of that country? What were the causes, remote or immediate, of all the blood that has been shed in France for centuries back? The Pope of Rome and his agents.

It is truly to be lamented, that Napoleon had not lived longer; he might, it is true, have caused some disturbance, and hastened the fall of some of the tottering thrones of Europe. Spain, Italy, Portugal, and even Austria and Prussia, might have ceased to have kings, by divine right; but a far better order of things could not fail soon to have arisen. The Pope would have been hurled from his throne; Napoleon would have stripped from him the trappings of royalty; he would have taught him to feel, and reduce to practice the heavenly declaration of his Divine Master, which his holiness now repeats in solemn mockery, regnum meum nan est de hoc mundo. He would have confined him to his legitimate duty, in place of spending his time in dictating political despatches to foreign powers, and sending bulls of excommunication which are now become laughing-stocks to all intelligent men; he might be devoted to the advancement of true Christianity, and the world saved from those contentions and disturbances, occasioned by this man of sin and his agents.

Why will not our statesmen reflect upon these things, lest in some future contest with the powers of Europe the scales of victory may be turned against them by this man of sin, whose agents in this country, as 1 have heretofore remarked, amount to nearly two millions. The defeat or subversion of the government of Great Britain, by Popish power, is equivalent to a victory gained by it over the United States. I tell the Protestants of England and of the United States, that their respective governments are doomed to fall, if Popery gains the ascendency over either; and all those who try to foment or urge any difficulties between them, are not the friends of either, but the enemies of both. It is only by the combined efforts of Protestants, all over the world, that Popery can be crushed, and peace, and religion, and fraternal love, restored to mankind.

I have produced some facts that admit of no denial, and I put the question, confidently, to every honest and sensible Protestant in England or America, who is unwarped by prejudice or interest, whether the cause of liberty is not in danger, and likely to decline, if we any longer submit to or acquiesce in the doctrines of Popery! And I ask every reflecting American in particular, whether the influence which Popery has now in this country, is not likely to create anarchy, or even despotism amongst us, though we may preserve the forms of a free constitution!

I have alluded to the struggles in England with Popery; I have mentioned the name of that demagogue, O’Connell, because he is the agent of the Pope for both countries, and because I believe it is the mutual interest of the two to unite, and stand shoulder to shoulder in opposition to Popish intrigues, evolved in the proceedings of this selfish and dangerous man, O’Connell. The designs of O’Connell and the Irish bishops, and those of the Pope and his Jesuit agents in the United States, are proved upon testimony which admits of no denial, viz: their own admissions. O’Connell, the mouthpiece of Popery in Ireland, avows publicly that Protestant England shall not govern Irish Papists, and the Pope’s agents in the United States declare and swear, that Americans shall not rule them. How are the English and Americans to treat this common enemy? Let them go into the enemy’s armory, divest themselves of their mawkish sympathy, buckle on the very armor which their enemy wears, and adopt the mode of warfare used by them. Give the common enemy no quarters, assail them from every point, and the subjects of his holiness the Pope, either in Great Britain or the United States, will not long remain insensible to the miseries, into which the great national rent beggar has plunged them. This, however, I find cannot be easily done in the United States. The difficulty with our people is this, they would find it much easier to assume the armor used by the common enemy, than to lay down that of sympathy and hospitality, which they have heretofore worn, and thus, although a moral and religious people, their zeal is but dim and sluggish, while that of their adversaries, the Pope and his agents, burns higher and clearer every day. This must not be. God and freedom forbid it.

The political contest, which has just ended, has tended greatly, at least for the moment, to im-bolden and encourage Popery. Each party courted the Papists, and they supported him from whom they expected most favors. They laid their meshes, nets, and traps for President Polk; but I believe they have been “caught in their own traps.” That gentleman is said to be a moral and religious man, and one of the last in the world to countenance idolatry, blasphemy, or treason amongst us. But now that the contest is over, and no further avowal of distinct party principles is necessary or profitable, it is to be hoped that the good and virtuous of both parties will unite in passing such laws, as will shield our country and our people from any further Popish interference with our government or our institutions. He, who shall bring about this desirable result, and those who aid him, will merit the gratitude of their country.

In the present position of parties, much is expected from the great “American Republican” association, which has recently been formed throughout the United States. Every eye is fixed upon its movements, and the hopes of all Protestants hang upon its success. Do not disappoint us, American Republicans. You alone can save the Protestant foreigner from the persecutions of Popery, and we call upon you, by the memory of your sires, to shield us from it.

You have a great part to act; you are young; but the purity of your principles, and the justice of your cause, abundantly supply what is wanting in age. You are the mediators between two great political parties, whose extremes cannot meet, of if they did, would only tend to render their respective centres still more corrupt, by their internal powers of contamination. Neither of those parties will ever consent to be governed by the other; nor has either of them the moral courage to come forth boldly and say to Popery, Stand off, thou unclean thing. Thou hast polluted all Europe for ages past; stand aloof from us; wash thy polluted hands and bloodstained garments; until then, thou art unfit to enter the temple of our liberties. Thou art, in thy very nature, impure, and hast already diffused amongst us too much of thy deadly poison before we took the alarm. Like an infected atmosphere, thou hast silently entered the abodes of moral health; thou hast penetrated the strong holds of our freedom, without giving us any warning! Avaunt, thou scarlet LADY of Babylon! recede to the Pontine marshes, whence thou earnest, and no longer infect the pure air of freedom! The foul stains of thy corruption shall no longer be permitted to spot the pure and unsullied insignia of independence! I am aware that the sympathizers with Popery will say that such language as the above is rather harsh. They will tell us it is cruel. They will assert, in their usual mawkish style, that it was never the intention of the framers of our constitution to treat those who come amongst us with unkindness. They themselves invited the oppressed of every land, creed, and people, to our shores. They extended the hand of friendship to all, without distinction of party, sect, or religion. So they did, and so do their descendants. Any and every man is welcome to this country. Whether he comes from the banks of the Euphrates, shores of the Ganges, or bogs of Ireland, he is sure to receive from Americans a warm and hospitable reception. His person, his liberty, and his property, are protected; but there is a condition under which this reception is given, and without which it never should be granted. The recipient of all these favors is required to yield obedience to the mild and equitable laws of the United States; forswearing at the same time, all allegiance to any other king, potentate, or power whatever. This condition, so just, so reasonable, and so politic, is generally complied with by all foreigners, who land in these United States, with the exception of Roman Catholics. All others come amongst us, and either refuse at once to become citizens, or honestly incorporate themselves with us. The Papist alone refuses incorporation with Americans. He alone comes amongst us the avowed enemy of our institutions, and the sworn subject of a foreign king, the Pope of Rome. Among all the foreigners who land upon the shores of this country, none but Papists avow any hostility to its institutions. They alone would dare say, “Americans sha’n’t rule us.” On them alone have Americans just cause to look as traitors to their government, and foes to their religion; and they alone should be singled out as just objects of fear and jealousy.

I have, in the preceding pages, traced the origin of the Papal temporal power to its proper source; and endeavored to follow the course of its turbid and muddy stream, through many of its sinuosities and canonical—if I may use such a term—gyrations, down to the middle of the 16th century. I freely admit that I have made many “short cuts” and have been obliged to pass unnoticed several of its acute angles. Were I to proceed “pari passu” with its course, taking all its bearings and accompanying them with the necessary observations, it would require a volume at least ten times as large as that which I now respectfully present to the public. I shall, however, if Providence leaves me health, continue the subject of Popery as it was and as it is. I will dissect the Body Papal, so that every American, who honors me with the perusal of my observations, will see its inmost structure. I have studied its anatomy; I understand all its minutiæ; and if any can view the skeleton without horror and shame for having so long contributed to feast and fatten the monster, it shall not be my fault. The performance of this operation will be, in every point of view, extremely unpleasant. Whichever way I look, the prospect must be disagreeable. Behind, I can only see an object in which I once felt an interest, and with which I was unfortunately connected: and before, nothing is to be seen but further persecutions and calumnies. But, most what it may, it shall not be said of me by friend or foe, that I have shrunk from the performance of a duty which I owe to the cause of morality, and to my adopted country.

I have merely touched upon the persecuting and treacherous spirit of the Popish church. The profligacy of its priests are scarcely noticed by me as yet. Its idolatries and blasphemies are barely alluded to. Indulgences, miracles, and the iniquities committed in nunneries, are scarcely glanced at. The twilight view, which I have given of these subjects, is only intended for a better observation of them, under the full light of some mid-day sun.

Before I conclude this volume, permit me to give you a brief view of Popery as it is at this very day on which I write. I have a double object in doing this. First, what I am about stating has perhaps escaped the notice of many of my fellow-citizens; and secondly, it will confirm one of the most serious charges which I have made against Papists; and thirdly it will prove to a demonstration, that Roman Catholic priests and bishops, who surround us and live amongst us, are a set of barefaced liars, whose entire disregard for truth fits them for no other society than that of brigands and felons.

The reader will bear in mind that Roman Catholics are the loudest advocates of religious freedom. He will also not forget that I have charged them with being its most inveterate enemies. The Papists and myself are now fairly at issue.

Either they are right and I am wrong, or vice versa. I have sustained my accusation against them by proofs derived from their own general councils, and from their uniform practice for centuries back. Still, these Catholics will say and assert publicly, in their pulpits, and at their meetings religious and political, that they were always and are now the advocates of religious toleration. Let the past for a moment be forgotten. I presume no one will question what the practices of the Romish church have been in relation to religious toleration in former times. Let us rather see what it is now among our neighbors in Madeira; and as all Roman Catholics are a unit in faith and practice, we may judge from what we see in Madeira, of what may be seen, and if not seen, is felt, in the United States. I submit the following letter to my readers. It is from one of the most respectable men in Madeira.

“Religious Persecution in Madeira. We have just had a sort of miniature civil war. Dr. Rally, who has been converting the natives, is the original cause of it. He converted the woman they sentenced to death here not long since. Having been imprisoned for some time, the doctor was at last liberated, and resumed his habit of preaching to the people in his house; and it was not generally known, until within a short time, that he had made several hundred converts. On ascertaining this fact, the Governor, Don Oliva de Correa, at the request of the priests of the established church, who feared that the people might throw off their allegiance to the Roman Catholic church, appointed a country police to prevent the Protestants from assembling together. On Sunday week, the converts of St. Antonia de Sierra, while engaged in prayer, were assailed by the police, who broke in the door, knocked down the person who was officiating in the service, broke the benches, and dispersed the people, except four or five whom they took prisoners, and then proceeded to town. After going two miles, the police were overtaken by the populace, armed with pitchforks, rusty muskets, hoes, &c.

“The police were overpowered, and after being ducked in the river by the mob, they were tied together by the hands and feet and left on the road; the Protestants returning to the mountains with their rescued comrades. One of the police officers, who escaped from the mob, made his way to town and alarmed the government. Three hundred and fifty soldiers were immediately ordered out; the police were released from their confinement on the road-side, and the army marched to the villages of the ‘Rallyites.’ The dwellings were fired indiscriminately; several aged women, who could not fly to the mountains, were put to the torture, to make them reveal the places of concealment of the ‘heretics.’ The Catholic army then proceeded up the mountain to massacre the Protestants; but in passing the foot of the hill they were assailed by the Protestants above, who threw down stones and rocks upon them, killing eight soldiers and wounded forty others severely. As soon as the troops could be gathered after their fright and alarm, they opened a deadly fire upon the Protestants, chasing them five miles over the country, taking eighty or ninety prisoners, and killing and wounding several of the unfortunate wretches.

“The army marched their prisoners down to the sea-coast, to Machico, where they were put on board the Diana fifty gun frigate, and taken thence to Punchal. The vessel of war, Don Pedro, was left at anchor on Machico to awe the country, but another, the Vouga, which had been despatched to Lisbon with official accounts of the battle, ran aground and had to return for repairs. The Don Pedro will therefore go to Lisbon. The captives will be sent to Lisbon, I suppose for trial, some time next week. Dr. Rally, the cause of the disturbance, remains at his house unmolested, which is singular. I don’t think they will let him be quiet long. The Yorktown, American sloop-of-war, was here the other day. We have had a beautiful winter so far. About four hundred people have come here this year for the benefit of their health.”

The above letter was received in New York a few weeks ago, and needs no comment. If any Papist doubts it, he can easily write to Madeira and ascertain its truth or falsehood. Until then he has no reason to be surprised if American Protestants shall refuse to hold any connection or communion with them.

There is one feature in the letter to which I would call the attention of the reader. It shows not only the persecuting spirit of Popery, but the uniformity and consistency of their mode of operation. Go back to the former persecutions of the Popish church against the followers of Wickliffe and the Huguenots. The Wickliffites had to fly to the mountains for shelter; but they were hotly pursued and cut down by the swords of their fiendish persecutors. They were massacred and butchered, even in the fissures and caves of their native rocks and mountains. The Protestants in Madeira, only a few weeks ago, had to fly to the mountains from a bloodthirsty, Popish soldiery, headed by their priests and monks. There, at our very doors, and in a country with which we have treaties of friendship and alliance, American Protestants are butchered and slaughtered by Popish savages, under the mask of religion; and when the news of this transaction reached our own shores, what action has been taken upon the subject? Was there any indignation meeting called? Were there any resolutions passed? Were there any ambassadors appointed in New England or elsewhere to ascertain the cause of this bloody tragedy? Did our government demand any explanation from the authorities at Madeira? The writer is not aware of any. Our government is too much occupied with affairs of more importance, viz., Who shall be Secretary of State, who shall be Secretary of War, &c. The interest of morality seems a matter of minor importance with the “powers that be.” The blood of our Protestant fellow-citizens, the cries of their widows and orphans cannot reach the eye or ear of our grave law-makers. The question with them seems, not what our country may become, by the treachery and persecutions of Popery, which are witnessed along the whole line and circumference of our own coast—a question of far more importance to them seems to be, Who shall hold the fattest office, or whether Massachusetts or South Carolina is in the right on the subject of the imprisonment of a few citizens, belonging to the former, by the latter: while they witness all around, and in the very midst of them, Popish priests and bishops persecuting their fellow-citizens abroad, and gnawing at their very vitals at home. Fatal delusion this on the part of our government and people!

I have accused the Romish church and her priests of treachery, prevarication, and fraud, in all their dealings with Protestants. Their guilt has been established by proofs and evidences such as they cannot deny, viz., the canons of their church and their own admission. There is not a people in the world more anxious for correct information on all subjects than Americans; and it is, therefore, the more singular that they should be so indifferent to the all-important subject of Popery.

This, however, may be accounted for, in some measure. The moral monstrosities—if I may use such language—of Popery, are such, that it requires something more than ordinary faith to believe them, and a greater power of vision than generally falls to the lot of man, even to look at them. There are objects on which the human eye cannot rest without blinking, and upon which nothing but force or fear can induce it to fix its gaze for any length of time. It will always gladly turn from them, and rest upon something else. This may account for the fact that my adopted countrymen and fellow Protestants pay so little attention to the subject of Popery, or the hideous crimes and revolting deeds which it has ever taught, and its priests have ever practised.

I cannot otherwise account for the apparent indifference and unconcern of our government and people on the subject of our relations with Catholic countries, and the encouragement given to Popish emissaries in the United States. I have myself seen so much of Popery, that my mind shrinks from the further contemplation of its iniquities. I can assure my Protestant friends, that nothing but an inherent love of liberty, and a desire, as far as in my power, to ward off that blow which I see Popery treacherously aiming at Protestants and the Protestant religion in the United States, could ever have induced me to publish these pages; and, although I feel that I have already drawn too heavily on the indulgence of my readers, I cannot dismiss the subject without laying before them another evidence of Popish treachery, which occurred only a few weeks ago, on the island of Tahiti.

It seems that in 1822, or thereabouts, an individual, named M. Moerenhout, representing himself a native of Belgium, arrived in Valparaiso, and obtained a situation as clerk from Mr. Duester, the Dutch consul in that city. After some time, he gains the confidence of his employer, on whom, together with two more merchants, he prevailed to charter a vessel and send a cargo by her to the Society Islands, with himself as supercargo. They did so accordingly in 1829, and the worthy supercargo appropriated to his own use the whole profits of the voyage, and continued for some time longer upon the island, selling whisky, brandy, and other liquors. In 1834, (says the Quarterly Review, from which, together with other sources, I derived my information,) this gentleman departed for Europe, with a view of communicating with the French government; or rather, as I am informed upon good authority, to confer with the order of Jesuits in that country. On his way to Europe, this Moerenhout came to the United States, obtained some letters of introduction in New York and Boston, with which he proceeded to Washington; and on the strength of them, was appointed United States’ consul for Tahiti. With the title of consul-general of the United States, this diplomatist proceeds to France, and immediately—no doubt according to previous arrangement—entered into all the plans of the Jesuits for the extirpation of Protestantism in the Society Islands. He became the agent of the Propaganda in France, an institution placed under the patronage of St. Xavier. The duty of converting all the islands of the Pacific, from the South to the North Pole, is committed to this Propaganda, and a decretal to that effect was confirmed by the Pope on the 22d June, 1823. A bishop was appointed for Eastern Oceania, and several priests preceded him to the islands. Among these priests was an Irish catechist, by the name of Murphy. The bishop, it seems, established himself at Valparaiso, while the priests proceeded to Tahiti.

I here give an instance of the manner in which those Popish missionaries discharge their duties. You will find it the October number of the Foreign Quarterly Review. You may rely upon the statement.

The Popish missionaries have acted in the case just as I should have done myself when a Romish priest, in obedience to the instructions given by the infallible church.

“I always bear about me,” says the reverend Jesuit, Patailon, “a flask of holy water and another of perfume. I pour a little of the latter upon the child, and then, whilst its mother holds it out without suspicion, I change the flasks and sprinkle the water that regenerates, unknown to any one but myself.” This is what the holy church calls a pious fraud; and this is what the priests of Boston are doing, in a little different manner, to the children of Protestant mothers. In Tahiti, Popish priests make Christians by jugglery, under the very eye of the mother. In the United States they make Christians of Protestant children by ordering their Catholic nurses to bring them secretly to the priest’s house to be baptized.

But let us resume the subject of the Jesuit missionaries from the Propaganda in France to Tahiti. The Jesuits, always wary and cautious, deemed it necessary, before they landed upon the island in a body, to send one of their number in advance, in order to ascertain “how the land lay,” and what their prospects of success were; and accordingly, in 1836, the Irish Jesuit, Murphy, proceeded alone disguised as a carpenter, and landed safely at a place called Papeete. The unsuspecting inhabitants received the scoundrel among them just as Americans receive Jesuits in this country; and while he was acting the traitor, and clandestinely writing to Jesuits, they shared with him the hospitality of their tables—precisely as Americans have done, for the last fifty years, to other Murphies, in this country.

During this whole time that Murphy was on the island, working as a carpenter, he had secret interviews with the American consul, Moerenhout, until he succeeded in bringing into the island his brother missionaries. They could not, however, remain on the island without permission from the queen, and the payment of a certain sum of money. The queen refused them permission to remain, under any circumstances, fearing, as she well might, that some treason was contemplated against her government. The Jesuits called a meeting, and, under the patronage of the American consul, they urged their demand to remain, comparing themselves to St. Peter, and the Protestants to St. Simon, the magician. I use the language of the Quarterly.

I must here observe, in justice to our government, that the conduct of Moerenhout, United States’ consul at Tahiti, was promptly disavowed, and he was immediately removed from office. But, notwithstanding the improper interference of the American consul, they were ordered to leave the island. It is due to the Protestant missionaries to state, that they took no part whatever in the expulsion of these Jesuits; nor could they, in justice to themselves or to the cause of morality, interfere in preventing it. A French writer, speaking of the occupation of Tahiti, says: “The Catholic priests, instead of going to civilize barbarous nations and checking debauchery, seem, on the contrary, only desirous of becoming rivals to the Protestant ministers, and decoying away their proselytes.” As soon as the expelled Jesuits arrived in France, one of them proceeded to Rome, to consult with his holiness the Pope; the result of which was, an immediate order to a French captain, named Dupetit Thouars, who was then stationed at Valparaiso, to proceed to Tahiti, and demand reparation for a supposed indignity to France.

Here we see the influence of the Pope, and an evidence of Jesuit intrigue. In what consisted the alleged indignity to France? Had not the queen of Tahiti the right to receive or refuse those Jesuit missionaries, if she had evidence that they were spies among her people? If it appeared clear to her that the object of those reverend intriguers’ visit was only to overthrow her government, and to decoy away from the path of virtue and religion both herself and her subjects, what right had Louis Phillippe or the French government to look upon this as an indignity to the French nation? The fact is, if the whole truth were known, Louis Phillippe knew but little of this affair, and his minister for foreign affairs, or some other member of his cabinet, was either imposed upon or bribed by Jesuits.

A statement of the difficulties, into which the hitherto peaceful island of Tahiti has been thrown by Jesuits, could not fail to be interesting to my readers; but, as the whole affair is to be found in the Foreign Quarterly, I refer the public to that work. I cannot, however, dismiss the subject, without asking the reader’s particular attention to the Irish Jesuit, Murphy, who figures so conspicuously in the transaction. A brief view of the conduct of this reverend spy cannot fail to have a good effect, and must tend greatly to remove that delusion under which the Protestants of the United States have so long labored.

I have been recently conversing with a very intelligent member of the Massachusetts legislature, on the subject of Jesuitical intrigue. I stated to him that it was a common practice among them, ever since the formation of that society, to keep spies in all Protestant countries, under various disguises and in different occupations. But though I had given him such proofs as could scarcely fail to satisfy any man, yet he replied, as American Protestants generally do, on all such occasions, “Those times are gone by. The Romish church is not at all now, what it was in the days you speak of.” But, when the fact was made plain to him—when he learned from authority, admitting of no doubt, that only a few weeks ago, a Jesuit, and an Irishman too, crept into Tahiti in the disguise of a carpenter, and continued to work there, in that character, until he laid a proper foundation for the overthrow of the Protestant religion on that island, his incredulity seemed to vanish; the cloud, which so long darkened his vision, evaporated into thin air; and my impression is, that he no longer thinks our country safe, unless something is done to exclude forever all Papists, without distinction, from any participation in the making and administration of our laws.

This Murphy, to whom allusion is made, appeared in great distress when he arrived among the natives of Tahiti. He seemed entirely indifferent upon the subject of religion; all he wanted, apparently, was employment. This was procured for him among the simple natives by the American consul, both of whom soon united themselves together, according to some previous arrangement; and, while they were “breaking bread” with the natives, they were laying plans for their destruction. A blow was aimed at their national and moral existence, and the death of both has nearly been the result. Thus we see a harmless and inoffensive people, only just rescued from a savage state by the laudable efforts of Protestant missionaries, partly thrown back again into their original condition by infidel Popish priests, whose “god is their belly,” whose religion is allegiance to their king, the Pope, and whose sports and pastimes consist in debauching the good and virtuous of every country.

The flourishing condition of Tahiti, before the Jesuits found access to it, is well known in this country. Peace, plenty, and religion flourished among its people—all produced by the efforts of our Protestant missionaries. But what sad changes have Jesuits effected among them! By their intrigues they have caused a difficulty between Tahiti and France. The French government fancied itself insulted; false representations were made by the Jesuits; and, with the aid of their brethren in France, the government was deceived and the island blockaded, until reparation was made by the inoffensive queen, Pomare. I will quote an instance of the conduct of the French—all Roman Catholics, and under the advice of Jesuits—after they entered Tahiti. It is taken from the Foreign Quarterly Review of October, and not denied by the French themselves.

“After persuading four chiefs, who were authorized to act in the absence of the queen, to affix their names to a document, asking ‘French protection,’ a boat was sent by the French captain, Dupetit Thouars, to a place called Eimeo, with a peremptory order for queen Pomare to sign it within twenty-four hours.

“It was evening before the boat reached the place whither Pomare had retired with her family. Her situation was one in which it is the custom for women to receive the most anxious and respectful attention from all of the opposite sex, especially if they call themselves gentlemen. She was every moment expected to give birth to a child; and, according to custom, had come to lie-in at Eimeo, leaving Paraita, who basely betrayed his trust, re gent in her absence. On learning the demand made by Thouars, the queen, surprised and alarmed, sent for Mr. Simpson, the missionary of the island, and a long and painful consultation ensued. Armed resistance was obviously impossible. The only alternative was between dethronement and protection. Pomare at first determined to choose the former, but her friends pressing round her, represented that Great Britain, the court of appeal whither all the grievances of the world are carried for redress, would certainly interfere; that subjection would be but temporary, and that she would ultimately triumph. Stretched on her couch, in the first pangs of labor, the unfortunate queen withstood all supplications until near morning. Mr. Simpson observes, that this was indeed ‘a night of tears.’ Many hours were passed in silence, interrupted only by the sobs of the suffering Pomare.

“Let us leave her for a while, and turn to consider in what manner the French buccaneer and his crew passed the same night. We refer to no inimical statement. Our authority is a letter which went the round of all the Paris papers, written by an officer on board the Reine Blanche, who did not seem to perceive any thing at all immoral in what he related. His intention was merely to excite the envy of his fellow-countrymen by detailing the delights that, were to be found in the new Cythera of Bougainville. We dare not follow him into his details. It will be enough to state that more than a hundred women were enticed on board the ship, and there compelled to remain all night, under pretence that it would be dangerous to row them back in the dark, Some were taken to the officers’ cabin, others were sent to the youthful midshipmen, the rest to the crew. When this account made its appearance, the government, alarmed at the effect it might produce, published an official declaration in the ‘Moniteur,’ (30 Mars,) addressed to ‘French mothers,’ denying the truth of the statement. But M. Guizot, or whoever directed this disavowal, merely argued from the silence of his own despatches—if they were silent—and not long before, in the voyage of Dumont d’Urville, published by royal ‘ordon-nance,’ a description of conduct, still more atrocious, had been given to the world.

“Towards morning, the sufferings of Pomare increasing, her resolution began to fail her, and at length she signed the fatal document. Then bursting into a flood of tears, she took her eldest son, aged six years, in her arms, and exclaimed, ‘My child, my child, I have signed away your birthright!’ In another hour, with almost indescribable pangs, she was delivered of her fourth child. Meanwhile the boat which carried the news of her yielding, sped for the port of Papeete. The sea was rough, and the wind threatened every moment to shift. The white sail was beheld afar off by the look-out on the mast of the Reine Blanche, and it was thought impossible she could reach by the appointed time. Thouars, however, troubled himself but little about all these things. He was fixed in his resolve, that if the answer did not arrive before twelve he would bombard Papeete. The guns were loaded, gun-boats stationed along the shore; and whilst the frightened inhabitants crowded down to the beach, beseeching, with uplifted hands, that their dwellings might be spared, the ruthless pirate, bearing the commission of the king of France, was giving his orders, and burning to emulate the exploits of Stopford and Napier at St. Jean d’Acre, by destroying a few white-washed cottages on the shore of a little island in the Pacific. Hero! worthy the grand cross of the legion of honor which was bestowed on him for this achievement! Worthy the sword raised by farthing subscriptions among ‘haters of the English,’ which was presented to him for so distinguished an exploit! What exultation must have filled his breast as he beheld the white sail of the boat scud for a moment past the entrance of the port; and what sorrow, when, by a skilful tack, it bore manfully along the very skirts of the breakers, and rushed through the hissing and boiling waters into the placid bay of Papeete, exactly one half hour before mid-day!

“We must pass rapidly over the arrangements which followed. The treaty of protection professed to secure the external sovereignty to the French, but to leave the internal to the queen. The former, however, were empowered ‘to take whatever measures they might judge necessary for the preservation of harmony and peace.’ When we learn that the ever recurring M. Moerenhout was appointed royal commissioner to carry out this treaty, we at once perceive that Pomare had in reality ceased to reign. How this base person employed his power may be discovered from the fact, that it became his constant habit, when he desired to obtain the signature of the queen to any distasteful document, to vituperate her in the lowest language, and shake his fist in her face.

“It has been asserted, in this country and elsewhere, that the passive resistance of the queen and people to the proper establishment of the protectorate, did not begin until the arrival of Mr. Pritchard on the 25th of February, 1843. The object of this has been to attribute all the subsequent difficulties experienced by the French to him. But the fact is well known, that before he made his appearance the queen had written to the principal European powers, stating that she had been compelled against her will to accept the protectorate of France. On the 9th of February also, a great public meeting, presided at by the queen, was held, in which speeches of the most violent description were made. It was resolved, however, that by no overt act the French should be furnished with an excuse for further arbitrary proceedings. The determination come to, was to write for the opinion of Great Britain. The morning after this meeting Moerenhout went to the queen and acted in a manner so gross and insulting, that she determined to complain to Sir Thomas Thompson, of the Talbot frigate, who promised her protection. All this happened, as we have seen, before the arrival of Mr. Pritchard, who, in truth, instead of proving a firebrand, introduced moderation and caution into the councils of Pomare. Sir Toup Nicolas, it is true, commanding the Tiudictive, which brought our consul to Tahiti, did go so far, despising some of the forms which were perhaps necessary, as threaten that unless the French ceased to molest British subjects, he would use force to compel them. He is said even to have cleared for action. When we consider what was daily passing under his eyes, there was some excuse for this gallant captain’s warmth. Setting aside the insults offered to our own countrymen, he was the spectator of constant tyrannical conduct towards the queen. Messrs. Reine and Vrignaud, under whose name all this was done, were but instruments in the hands of the sagacious Moerenhout. The following letter of queen Pomare, hitherto, we believe, unpublished, will throw some light on his conduct. It is addressed to Toup Nicolas, who took measures to fulfil the wishes it contains.

Pagfae, March 5, 1844.

‘O Commodore, ‘I make known unto you that I have oftentimes been troubled by the French consul, and on account of his threatening language I have left my house. His angry words to me have been very strong. I have hitherto only verbally told you of his ill-actions towards me; but now I clearly make these known to you, O Commodore, that the French consul may not trouble me again. I look to you to protect me now at the present time, and you will seek the way how to do it.

‘This is my wish, that if M. Moerenhout, and all other foreigners, want to come to me, they must first make known to me their desire, that they may be informed whether it is, or is not, agreeable to me to see them.

‘Health and peace to you,

‘O servant of the Queen of Britain, (Signed)

‘Pomare,

‘Queen of Tahiti, Mourea, &c. &c.’

“During the time that elapsed between the establishment of the protectorate and the third visit of Dupetit Thouars to Tahiti, the only overt act which the French could complain of was the hoisting of a fancy flag by the queen over her house. Whatever difficulties existed at the outset, had been in reality overcome in spite of the ‘intriguing Mr. Pritchard.’ Even M. Guizot has declared in his place in the chamber of deputies: ‘There existed on the admiral’s arrival none of those difficulties which are not to be surmounted by good conduct, by prudence, by perseverance, by time, or which require the immediate application of force.’ Nevertheless, on the first of November, 1843, our buccaneering admiral entered the harbor of Papeete, and wrote immediately to inform the queen that unless she pulled down the flag she had hoisted, he would do so for her, and at the same time depose her. In spite of his threats, however, she refused compliance; and Lieutenant D’Aubigny landed at the head of five hundred men, to occupy the island. The speech in which this person inaugurated French dominion in Tahiti was one of the richest specimens of bombast and braggadocia ever uttered.

“Much merriment might be excited by its repetition, but it has already caused the sides of Europe to ache, more than once. Suffice it to say, that the deposed queen fled on board the British ship of war, the Dublin, commanded by Capt. Tucker, and Papeete was, for many days, like a town taken by storm. Drunkenness, debauchery, rioting, filled its streets, and every means were taken to undo what the missionaries had, by half a century’s labor, accomplished.”

The above is another melancholy evidence of the spirit of Popery; and if any thing can open the eyes of our people to a sense of danger from it, this evidence cannot fail to do so. I lay it down as a truth—though I may be censured for the boldness of such an assertion—that there is not a man of common sense, or ordinary penetration, who does not see, at a glance, that our danger as a nation, and our morals as a people, are eminently periled by the continuance of Popery amongst us. There are certain truths which need not be proved; they prove themselves. Like the sun, which is seen by its own light, they carry with them their own evidence; and, among those self-evident truths, I see none more clear or more lucid, than that Popery, which has taken root in this country, will—if not torn up and totally uprooted before long—dash to pieces the whole frame of our republic. Sympathizers, Puseyites, and all other such bastard Protestants, may think differently. Be it so. Valueless as my opinion may be, let it be herein recorded, that I entirely disagree with them.

It seems that another speck of Popery is just making its appearance on the north-west horizon of our national firmament. It appears, by accounts very recently received from Oregon, that the Propaganda in Rome has sent out a company of Jesuits and nuns to that territory. Popish priests and Jesuits seldom travel without being accompanied by nuns: they add greatly to their comforts while on their pilgrimage for the advancement of morality and chastity. Hitherto the occupants of Oregon have advanced quietly. They have adopted a temporary form of government, established courts of law, and such municipal regulations as they deemed best calculated to forward their common interest. But the modern serpent, Jesuitism, has already entered their garden: the tree of Popery has been planted: it is now in blossom, and will soon be seen in full bearing. It is truly a melancholy reflection to think that this pest; Popery, should find access to all places and to all people. One year will not pass over us, before the aspect of things in Oregon will be entirely changed. These Jesuits who arrived there haye been preceded by some Popish spy—some reverend Irish Murphy, in the capacity of carpenter, or perhaps horse-jockey, has gone before them, and has been laying plans for their reception. I venture to say, it will be discovered, at no distant day, that all the good which our Protestant missionaries have done there will soon be undone by Popish agents. They will commence, as they have done in Tahiti, by causing some panic among the resident settlers. They will find in Oregon, as well as in our United States, some functionary who may want their aid; and he, like many of the unprincipled functionaries among ourselves, will give them his patronage in exchange.

Liberty has, in reality, but few votaries among officeholders, in comparison with Popery; and this is one of the chief causes of the great advances which the latter is making, and has been making, especially for the last six or eight years. Look around you, fellow-citizens, and you will scarcely find an individual in office, from the President to the lowest office-holder, possessed of sufficient moral courage to raise his voice against Popery. But justice to Americans requires me to say, that in this the great mass of the people are without blame—for I cannot call certain leading, unprincipled politicians, the people. The first steps which foreign priests and Jesuits have taken, in disturbing the harmony of our republican system of government, might have been easily checked; but those who have represented the people, and who held offices of honor and emolument, were not, and will not be, disturbed by a moment’s reflection on a proper sense of their duty. The whole responsibility of the gross outrages offered to our Protestant country, by Popish priests and Papal allies, rests upon our representatives in Congress. They could, if they would, have long since checked Popery; and it is now high time that the people should take this matter into their own hands, and so alter the constitutions of their respective states, as to exclude Papists from any positive or negative participation in the creation or execution of their laws.

Jesuits calculate with great accuracy upon the selfishness of man: they know that, generally speaking, it is paramount to all other considerations. Artful, intriguing, avaricious, and more licentious themselves than any other body of men in the world, they soon discover all that is vulnerable in the American character, and take advantage of it. They discover that popular applause is greatly coveted by Americans; and this is the reason why we see established among us so many repeal associations. The writer understands that several of those associations are now formed in Oregon; and it was at their request that the Pope had sent out Jesuits and nuns amongst them. Repeal is looked upon as the great lever by which the whole political world can be turned upside down. Its members meet in large numbers, in order to show the gullible Americans the consequent extent of their power, and the great advantage which some office-hunter may gain by bringing them over to his views. The bait has taken well hitherto; but as we have—solemnly attested by the sign manual of the Pope himself—seen his object in causing to be established repeal societies, the American, who continues hereafter to encourage them, deserves the execration of every lover of freedom. The Pope tells Americans, through his agent, O’Connell, what the design and objects of all the movements of Papists in the United States are; and I trust, when Americans see them in their true colors, they will sink deeply into their hearts.

Hear, then, I entreat you, Americans, the language of O’Connell, as the Pope’s agent, as uttered by him in the Loyal National Repeal Association in Dublin, Ireland. It is addressed to Irish Catholics in the United States. Where you have the electoral franchise, give your votes to none but those who will assist you in so holy a struggle. You should do all in your power to carry out the pious intentions of his holiness the Pope. This is plain language; there is no misunderstanding it. It is ad-dressed to Papists, whether in Oregon or the United States, and what are the pious intentions of the Pope? I will tell you. I understand those matters probably better than you do. The object is, in the first place, to extirpate Protestantism; and, secondly, to overthrow this republican government, and place in our executive chair a Popish king. This is the sole design of all the ramifications of the various repeal clubs throughout the length and breadth of the United States and its territories. O’Connell—the greatest layman living—is the nuncio of the Pope for carrying this vast and holy design into execution. Will Americans submit to this? Will they again attend repeal associations? Does not every meeting of the repeal party impliedly make an assault upon our constitution? Is not this foreign demagogue endeavoring to pollute our ballot-box? and will you any longer trust an Irish Papist, who is the fettered slave of the Pope? Aye! a greater slave than the African, the Mussulman, or the Chinese. Never before was there such a combination formed for the destruction of American liberty, as that of Irish repealers, and never before was such an insidious attempt made to pollute the morals of the wives and daughters of Americans, as that which Jesuits have for years made, and are now making, by the introduction of priests and nunneries among them.

Repeal unchains the loud blasts of conspiracy, and opens the bloody gates of sedition; yet this Repeal lives in the very midst of us. I can almost hear, while I am writing these lines, the wild shouts of its lawless members; and to the shame and everlasting disgrace of Americans, the sons of free and noble sires, there are many of them, at the very repeal meetings to which I allude, aiding and abetting them in aiming their mad and wild blows at liberty, while she sleeps sweetly, perhaps dreaming that she was safe, with the spirits of Washington, Warren, and others, watching over her slumbers. Sleep on, fair goddess! Popish traitors cannot, shall not disturb thee. American Republicans will not let them; and to you, Protestant foreigners, I would most earnestly appeal. Let us stand by those noble patriots. We know what tyranny is! We felt many of its pains and penalties. We know what Popery is! It has desolated our native land 1 It has made barren our fairest fields! It has sealed up from our parents, our brothers, sisters, and relatives, the eternal fountain of life! It is drunk with the blood of the saints! It has closed against us the gates of liberty! It has rendered us strangers to its blessings, and it was not until we landed upon these shores, that we were first permitted to inhale its fragrance or taste its fruits. But now that we enjoy all these blessings, let us thank God for them. Let us be grateful to Americans for receiving us among them, and prove by our deeds that we are not unworthy of the kind and hospitable reception which they gave us, by being foremost amongst them in resisting and warding off the blows which that enemy of mankind, the Pope, and his foul-mouthed nuncio, Daniel O’Connell, with his Irish repealers, are striking at American freedom! They shall not succeed. The slaves of a Pope cannot succeed.

“The sensual and the dark rebel in vain,
Slaves by their own compulsion!
In mad game They burst their manacles, and wear the name
Of freedom, graven on a heavier chain
O Liberty! with profitless endeavor
Have I pursued thee many a weary hour;—
But thou nor swell’st the victor’s strain, nor ever
Didst breathe thy soul in forms of human power.
Alike from all, howe’er they praise thee—
Nor prayer, nor boastful name delays thee—
Alike from priestcraft’s harpy minions,
And factious blasphemy’s obscener slaves,
Thou speedest on thy subtle pinions,
The guide of horseless winds, and playmate of the waves!
And there I felt thee!—on that sea-cliffs verge,
Whose pines, scarce travelled by the breeze above,
Had made one murmur with the distant surge;—
Yea, while I stood and gazed, my temples bare,
And shot ray being through earth, sea, and air,
Possessing all things with intensest love,
O Liberty! my spirit felt thee there!”




The Papal System – VIII. The Council of Trent

The Papal System – VIII. The Council of Trent

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

As this ecclesiastical legislature has a wider reputation and influence in the Church of Rome than any convention of prelates known to history, and as it interests Protestants more than any assemblage of Catholic bishops ever called together, a brief sketch of the synod is indispensable to the completeness of this work. The Council of Trent acted on the baseless assumption that

The Holy Spirit directed its Decisions.

In the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles there is an account given of a consultation between the apostles and elders about circumcision in its bearings upon Gentile converts. The conference ended in a decree which was introduced in these words: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” The apostles, of course, were inspired men, qualified by the Spirit of God to write Scripture, and give infallible decisions about everything pertaining to the government and instruction of the Church of God. From this record of the proceedings of inspired apostles at Jerusalem, Romish ecclesiastics have found the doctrine that their uninspired bishops, convened in a General Council, are led by the Holy Spirit in everything; and, as a result, that their decrees are the decisions of the Fountain of Wisdom, incapable of error, and invested with perpetual force. Acting upon this conviction, the decree of a General Council, for ages, begins thus: “The sacred and holy (Ecumenical and General Synod of _________, lawfully assembled, in the Holy Spirit.” There is no more authority for the assumption that the Comforter leads a Catholic Council to right conclusions because he discharged this office for the apostles, than there would be to imagine that he would enable it to make Holy Scripture whenever a synod tried its hand at writing “Revelations,” because he gave this power to the apostles. Nothing has made great synods look more ridiculous than this, even in the opinion of some Catholics.

At Trent, the idea that the Spirit governed the council was a standing joke with many of the witty fathers. As nothing could be done without orders from Rome, it became a common proverb among the bishops that: “The synod was guided by the Holy Spirit, sent thither from time to time from Rome in a cloak-bag.”

The Bishop of “Five Churches,” one of the leading men in the synod, declared that: “The Holy Spirit had nothing to do in that assembly; that all the counsels given there proceeded from human policy, and tended only to maintain the pope’s immoderate and shameful domination; that answers were expected from Rome as from the oracles of Delphos and Dodona (sarcasm); that the Holy Spirit, which they boast doth govern their councils, was sent from thence in a postilion’s cloak-bag, which, in case of any inundations, could not come thither (a thing most ridiculous), until the waters were assuaged. So it came to pass that the Spirit was not upon the waters, as it is in Genesis, but by the waters. Oh, monstrous, extraordinary madness!”

The Causes which led to the calling of the Council of Trent

The court of Rome, in the early part of the sixteenth century, was flagrantly corrupt. No language could be too strong to describe its falsehood and treachery, and its accursed love of money, its sumptuous extravagance, its loathsome licentiousness, its fierce despotism, and its unrelenting cruelty. Its turpitude was known over the world, and shocked the moral sense of all Christian nations; so that, wherever the name of Jesus was breathed with reverence, there was one universal demand, that there should be a reformation in the Church, in its head and in its members. Princes were disquieted on their thrones by these demands; popes shook in the chair of the Fisherman as they rung in their ears; and all Europe felt the first vibrations of a coming earthquake, that would shake, and eventually overturn, the throne of the Man of Sin, and give an impetus to liberty and intelligence that would reach the ends of the earth, and the limits of the empire of-time.

St. Bernard writes to Pope Eugenius: “Your court receives good men, but makes them not: lewd men thrive there; the good pine and fall away.” This statement was true to the letter of the court of Clement VII. Indeed his predecessor, A drian VI., admitted that “the mischief proceeded from the court of Rome and the ecclesiastical order,” which had provoked Germany, and excited heart-burnings in all Christian countries.

Dante, in his visit to the infernal regions; represents himself as seeing a pope in a part of hell where exquisite torture was inflicted, of whom he says:

He a new Jason shall be called; of whom
In Maccabees we read; and favor such
As to that priest his king indulgent showed,
Shall be of France’s monarch shown to him,
I know not if I here too far presumed,
But in this strain I answered: Tell me, now,
What treasures from St. Peter at the first
Our Lord demanded, when he put the keys
Into his charge? Surely, he asked no more,
But follow me! Nor Peter, nor the rest,
Or gold, or silver of Matthias took,
When lots were cast upon the forfeit place
Of the condemned soul. Abide thou there;
Thy punishment of right is merited;
And look thou well to that ill-gotten coin,
Which against Charles thy hardihood inspired.
If reverence for the keys restrained me not,
Which thou in happier days didst hold, I yet
Severer speech might use. Your avarice
O’ercasts the world with mourning, under foot
Treading the good, and raising bad men up.
Of gold and silver you have made your god,
Differing wherein from the idolater,
But that he worships one, a hundred you?
Ah! Constantine, to how much ill gave birth,
Not thy conversion, but that plenteous dower
Which the first wealthy Father gained from thee.”

Such, in Dante’s day, was the common opinion among thinking men about several popes. The conviction grew stronger towards the sixteenth century; and, in its first half, the universal remedy for these evils was a general council. As Luther commenced his great work, the papal system, the work of ages, and the pride of millions, tottered to its underworld foundations, the wildest excitement rolled over Europe; a vast upheaval threatened to overturn German thrones, and the foundations of society in that land. Its princes, Diet and emperor, time and again, demanded a council, and other countries united in the urgent appeal. Clement VII. is frightened by the cry. He is of illegitimate birth, a stain which, in his day, was regarded as a disqualification for Peter’s chair. And he is charged with securing the popedom by unhallowed means. A general council might depose him, as Constance served John XXIII. But he is compelled, in 1531, to promise a synod which he never intended to gather.

At first, Mantua is the proposed place of meeting for the council, then Piacenza. But, as in either place the synod would be wholly at the mercy of the pontiff, the Germans made resistance, and insisted that it should be held in their country. There was, however, no council till Clement was in his grave. After an agitation running over many years and all Christendom, it was at last decided by Paul III. to call a council.

Those who were invited to the Council.

Paul summoned all patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots, and those who, by privilege, should appear in a general synod; also, the emperor, king of France, and all other kings, dukes and princes; and, should they be unable to appear in person, they were to send representatives.

The council was most anxious to have the Protestants represented in it; and, to induce them to appear at its meetings, it sent them several safe-conducts, whose proffered protection they obstinately refused. They demanded that it should be held in Germany; that the bishops should be released from their oath of obedience to the pope; that he, neither in person nor by legates, should preside in the council; and that, if they came to it, they should be entitled to vote as well as to deliberate; and, failing to secure these requisites of justice, they utterly refused to take any part in the discussions of the approaching great synod. The council met December 13th, 1545, at

Trent.

Trent is in the southern part of the Tyrol, on the left bank of the Adige, in a beautiful valley, surrounded by lofty hills. It is nearly fifty miles north of Verona. It is an Austrian possession. Its cathedral was commenced in the beginning of the thirteenth century, and it is a fine architectural work. The Church of Santa Maria Maggiore stands on the site of the structure in which the Council of Trent held its meetings.

The Synod.

Its presiding officers were the legates, Cardinal John Maria de Monte, Cardinal Marcellus Cervinus, and Cardinal Reginald Pole. Paul III. gave these cardinals their positions.

At the session held on the 7th of January, 1546, there were present, beside the legates and the cardinal of Trent, four archbishops, twenty-eight bishops, three abbots and four generals of religious orders. Of the archbishops, two were titular, that is bishops without flocks. One of these was Robert Venante, a Scotchman, Archbishop of Armagh in Ireland, who, though nearsighted, had a splendid reputation in Italy as the “best post-rider in the world.” These two bishops had lived for years on papal alms, and they gratefully came to Trent to vote for their benefactor’s measures.

Only the ambassador of the king of the Romans was present at the first session, At a later period every state of any note belonging to the Catholic Church was represented by secular ambassadors in the synod, who made speeches in that body, and took an active part in its affairs. What a scanty delegation of bishops to legislate for the universal Church in a general council.

The modes of transacting Business adopted by the Council.

A special congregation or committee was appointed to examine every question, and frame decrees for the general congregation, in which all were free to express their sentiments, and fit the subject under discussion for formal proclamation as a decree or canon. A session was the meeting when the perfected work received the final vote, and the solemn sanction of the synod as a part of the code of the Catholic Church.

In a congregation the prelates wore caps; in a session they appeared with miters in all the pomp of episcopal dignity.

The right of speaking in the synod in 1551 was given to the pope’s representatives first; the emperor’s spoke next; the bishops of Louvain sent by the queen next; after them the divines who came with the electors; secular clergymen in the order of their promotion next; and after them the friars.

The bishops of the council were a jury; inferior clergymen were the lawyers who made speeches; and after their addresses had exhausted the debate, the bishops were generally ready to vote. Of the powerful and learned speeches delivered in the synod, few came from the bishops.

The council decided that the Holy Scriptures might be quoted as authorities, the traditions of the apostles, the decisions of councils, constitutions, the authority of popes and holy fathers, and the consent of the Catholic Church.

The Position of the Pope in the Council of Trent.

The pontiffs watched the deliberations of the synod with unwearied vigilance; they viewed its every movement with unhidden jealousy. They used every effort manly and mean to regulate its entire affairs, insignificant and important. If any father was troublesome, means must be used to keep him quiet. If fearless bishops at any time were too numerous, good prelates, who would speak and vote as they were instructed, came speedily from Rome or from some other part of Italy. If the council became conscious of their manhood and their episcopal rank, the synod was threatened with suspension or removal; or the council was disbanded for.a time; or it was transferred to some Italian city where the pope was all powerful, or where the persuasive eloquence of an adjacent inquisition would suggest. submission to papal dictation.

Every bishop in the Council of Trent at his consecration had to take this oath:

    “I., N. C., bishop, will henceforward bear true faith to St. Peter, and to the holy apostolic Roman Church, to my lord the Pope N. and his successors, who shall enter canonically. I will not be a means, either by word or deed, that he may lose either life or member, or be taken prisoner; I will not reveal any counsel he may impart unto me, either by letter or message which may be any way damageable to him; I will help to defend and maintain the papacy of the Church of Rome against all the world, and the rules of the holy fathers.”

Each bishop in the synod of Trent was bound hand and foot by this oath, to obey the successor of St. Peter. And the pontiff sent orders to his legates who presided over the council, about the business which was to be pushed forward, or that which was to be excluded, and nothing was formally discussed which had not his approval. He was master of the entire deliberations of Trent.

He used Sacred Bribes and Holy Jests.

To make his authority undoubted he employed ecclesiastics, who watched every father at the synod: at the head of these men, for some time was Simoneta, the confidential manager of the council for his Holiness. Simoneta, with other agents, employed a number of needy bishops who could jest soberly, and by provoking independent men, make them look ridiculous, while they remained unmoved themselves. These artful operators often broke up congregations of the synod by their sober jokes at the expense of worthy bishops. By their sarcastic interruptions and sneering criticisms at the conclusion of an opposition address, they often created the greatest confusion and, secured the adjournment of a debate which was becoming troublesome to the friends of the pontiff. And as the hirelings of Simoneta were numerous and needy, and as his funds were regularly and largely replenished from Rome, he could silence most opponents, or so tarnish their reputation or orthodoxy by private slanders, that their influence was destroyed.

In 1563, the Emperor Ferdinand wrote Pius IV. to give liberty to the council, of which it had been deprived by three causes: first, everything must be managed at Rome before being presented to the synod; the second difficulty was, that only the presidents could make propositions in the council; and the last was, that prelates bent on the pope’s glory rendered their brethren powerless. This difficulty was occasioned by the grave jesters who aided the holy spirit which guided Catholic councils to reach proper conclusions. It can he easily seen that a council whose members were bound to the pope by solemn oaths, whose propositions must all come from his legates, and whose bishops were bribed, browbeaten, or ridiculed, was a mere expression of the pope’s will.

One of the Decrees of Trent.

    “That the memory of paternal incontinency may be banished as far as possible from places consecrated to God, which purity and holiness most especially become, it shall not be lawful for the sons of clerks, who are not born from lawful wedlock, to hold, in those churches, in which their fathers have, or have had an ecclesiastical benefice, any benefice whatsoever, even though a different one, nor to minister in any way in the said churches, nor to have pensions out of the fruits of benefices which their fathers hold, or have at another time held. And if a father and a son shall be found, at this present time, to hold benefices in the same church, the son shall be compelled to resign his benefice, or to exchange it for another out of that church, within the space of three months; otherwise he shall, by the very fact, be deprived thereof.”

A law in any Protestant church forbidding the sons of its clergy, born out of lawful wedlock, to enjoy a benefice jointly with their fathers, would have a ring of iniquity too loud and clear to be misapprehended.

Controversies in the Council.

Men differed in opinions, in feelings, and in proposed acts, And not a few instances of apparent harmony were but compulsory submissions.

The cup (of the Communion ceremony) excited a deeply interesting and prolonged discussion in Trent. It may be safely asserted that three-fourths of the Catholics in Europe were in favor of having it given with the bread. And this preponderance was nearly as great among the clergy as among the laity. In 1562, the ambassador of the Duke of Bavaria, in the council, demanded the cup for the laity in the name of his master, declaring that Paul III. had granted it to Germany; and he insisted in a spirit of honest earnestness that it should not be refused. The ambassadors of the Emperor Ferdinand about the same time presented a paper to the council, in which they declared, that there were Catholics in Hungary, Austria, Moravia, Silesia, Carinthia, Carniola, Styria, Bavaria, Suevia, and other parts of Germany, who desired the cup with great zeal, In Hungary, said they, “They force the priests to give them the cup by taking away their goods, and threatening to kill them;” and in manly words they appealed for the chalice given by Jesus to all. The legates themselves were strongly inclined to yield to the appeal, and grant the cup to Germany. Pius IV. was equally disposed to gratify one of the most popular desires that ever agitated the Catholic Church. Nor was Charles IX., King of France, a whit less anxious for the cup than the Catholic Emperor and princes of Germany: with him and his people the desire amounted to a passion, and on many occasions it was urged with vehemence on the bishops at Trent.

The Council of Constance, in 1414, had first changed the character of the Supper, by keeping back the chalice: the date was too recent, and the change too senseless to make the people calm, when another council gave them an opportunity to restore the honored forms of other days. Against the change, the talented but unscrupulous party who governed the council, urged that if the Holy Spirit guided councils, he ruled at Constance, and it would be impiety to reverse the decree he inspired there; besides, they said, many demands were made, and if the synod began: to yield, it would be difficult to find a stopping place. They brought in Scripture in abundance to support their positions; they instanced the case in St. John, where it is said: “He that eateth this bread shall live forever;” they pointed to the disciples going to Emmaus, who only knew Jesus in the breaking of bread, not in the drinking of wine: to St. Paul, ready to suffer shipwreck, who blesses bread, but speaks not of wine; to the Lord’s Prayer, in which daily bread is asked without any allusion to wine; to the manna which represents the Eucharist, and yet has no drink in it; to Jonathan, who tasted the honey, but did not drink.

James Payva, a Portuguese, declared that when Christ gave the bread to his disciples first, they were all laymen, but when he ordained them priests, in these words: “Do this in remembrance of me,” he then gave them the cup. And the cup was therefore only for priests, while the bread was for all.

Another argued in the council that “the cup being the blood of Christ might fall on the ground, or hang on the beard of a layman; that the vessels to hold it would not be kept clean, and that giving it to a layman would make him the equal of a priest.” But reasons of this character weighed little; and when the discussion was exhausted there were three opinions, one that it should not be granted, another that the cup should be permitted with conditions, and still another that it should be referred to the pope. And “fifty of the most intelligent persons in the synod maintained that the cup should be conceded with some cautions.” And when the question was to be decided, it was found that it could not receive the number required to pass it as a doctrine, it could only receive the vote needed for a decree of reformation.

It was a maxim in Trent, that “a decree of faith could not be made if a considerable part contradicted; but to establish a decree of reformation, a major part of voices was sufficient.” And the cup resolution, though recognized as an article of faith, owing to the impossibility of passing it in its true character for lack of requisite votes, was introduced as a decree of reformation, and by this artifice it became the permanent law of the Catholic Church, and a lasting insult to Jesus.

Claims of the Clergy over Secular Affairs.

Perhaps the most exciting controversy in the Council of Trent was aroused by the presentation of certain articles giving the clergy supremacy in many affairs purely civil. One of these articles declared that ecclesiastical persons should not be judged in a secular court; another, that the civil magistrate shall not interfere in any spiritual case, such as one about matrimony, heresy, patronage, benefices, tithes, ecclesiastical fees, temporal jurisdiction of churches, and other cases civil, criminal, or mixed, belonging to the Ecclesiastical Court; another, that laymen shall not appoint ecclesiastical judges; another declares that the ecclesiastical judge shall be free from secular authority in imposing or revoking excommunications, in summoning whom he will, and in pronouncing sentence of condemnation on him, and in having officers to execute it; another forbids the Emperor, or any other prince, to interfere with ecclesiastical causes or persons by edicts, or otherwise, and commands all sovereigns to lend the secular arm to execute ecclesiastical decisions; another declares that the letters, citations and sentences of ecclesiastical judges, especially of the Court of Rome, shall be immediately executed by all rulers without any consent from the civil authorities. These articles, no doubt, contained the sentiments of three-fourths of the fathers at Trent. In many countries, the articles had been laws at work for centuries, if not fully developed, at least in a modified form. But they raised an immense commotion in every court in Europe, and most of all in Catholic courts. The ambassadors at Trent, were indignant at their presentation, and took the earliest occasion to denounce them.

De Ferrieres, one of the ambassadors of France, among other things, told the council, that their proposed reforms of princes were not the plaster of Isaiah, to heal the wound, but of Ezekiel, to make it raw, though healed before; that these additions of excommunications and curses, were without example in the ancient Church; that their articles had no other aim than to take away the liberty of the French Church, and offend the majesty of the most Christian kings, who, by the example of Constantine, Justinian, and other emperors, have made many ecclesiastical laws. He said, the king marveled at two things: one, that they, the fathers, adorned with so great ecclesiastical power, assembled only to restore church discipline, not regarding this, should bind themselves to reform those whom they ought to obey, though they were stiffnecked; another, that they should think they can and ought, without any admonition, excommunicate and anathematize kings who are given by God to men, which ought not to be done to any ordinary man, though persevering in a most grievous offense.

He said that Michael, the archangel, durst not curse the devil, and yet they were wholly conversant with maledictions against kings, and against his sovereign, if he will defend the laws of his ancestors, and the liberties of the Gallican Church. He told them that the king desired the council not to decree anything against those laws; and his ambassadors to oppose such decrees as he did then oppose them. Afterwards, speaking not for the king but himself, he invoked heaven, earth and the fathers to consider, whether the king’s demands were just; whether it were honest for them to make orders for themselves throughout the whole world; whether this was a time to take compassion, not upon the church, nor upon France, but upon themselves, their dignity, reputation, and revenues, which cannot be preserved but by the arts by which they were first obtained; that in so great confusion they must be wary, and not cry when Christ comes, “SEND US INTO THE SWINE;” that if they would restore the Church to its ancient reputation, and compel the adversaries to repentance, and reform princes, they should follow the example of Hezekiah, who did not imitate his father, nor his first, second, third, or fourth grandfather, who were imperfect, but went higher, to the imitation of his perfect ancestor; so the council must not look to its next predecessors, though very learned, but ascend as far as Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom, who overcame the heretics, not by arming princes for war, while they sat picking their nails at home, but by prayers, a holy life, and sincere preaching. For the fathers, becoming like these ancient worthies, will make princes to become Theodosii, Honorii, Areadii, Valentinianii, and Gratiani, which he hoped for, and would praise God if it should he so.

The oration stirred up a perfect tempest in the sacred breasts of the assembled clergy. It was assailed publicly and privately with all kinds of weapons. But its author was sustained by the combined monarchs of Europe, for whom he was scourging the insolence of the council; and both he and his hearers knew well that he had the keen intellect and the material resources which fitted him to defy them. The subject was discussed at great length, and then was allowed to fall into an untimely grave, No spirit guided the Council of Trent but the unholy spirit of cunning, tyranny, worldliness, obsequiousness, and superstition. Little wonder that the witty French made a proverb: That the modern council has more authority than that of the apostles, for its own pleasure only was a sufficient ground for its decrees, without admitting the Holy Spirit.

Numbers and Character of the Council.

In 1546 the council was composed of five cardinals and forty eight bishops. It was at this time it issued its famous decrees about the scriptures, giving inspired authority to apocryphal writings and uncertain traditions; and authenticity or superiority over all other copies of the word of God to the Vulgate, a mere version, and one so full of errors that the council itself had to appoint a committee of six to correct it; and restraining men in their proper liberty to discover its meaning.

Among the prelates in the council at this time, there was no man “remarkable for learning, some were lawyers, perhaps learned in that profession, a few divines, but of less than ordinary merit, the greater number were gentlemen or courtiers. As to their dignities, some were only titular, and the greater part bishops of such small cities, that if each one represented his people, it could not be said that one in a thousand of Christendom was represented, And from Germany at this time there was not one bishop or divine.”

In the sixth session, which issued the decrees on justification, there were present four cardinals, ten archbishops, and forty-seven bishops; in the thirteenth, which defined transubstantiation, there were four legates, six archbishops, and thirty-four bishops; in the last session there were, according to Labbé and Cossart, seven legates, two cardinals, three patriarchs, thirty-three archbishops and two hundred and thirty-seven bishops, besides eleven proxies. Of these about two-thirds were from Italy, the rest, with few exceptions, from France and Spain. These Italian bishops and the natives of Italy wearing titular dignities, were all the mere creatures of the pope, and through them the council was constantly in the power of the holy father.

At the close of the proceedings of the council, according to the authoritative report of its doings, four legates, two cardinals, three patriarchs, twenty-five archbishops, one hundred and six eight bishops, seven abbots, thirty-nine proctors of absent prelates, and seven generals of religious orders, subscribed with their own hand the decrees of the council. The number, notwithstanding this statement, at the last meeting of the council, is not to be fully credited. But that most of its sessions were very slenderly attended, and that the attendance was made up of men of limited attainments and ability, is undoubted. Even Paul IV. said scornfully of the council: “It was a great vanity to send into the mountains sixty bishops of the least able and forty doctors of the most insufficient, as was twice done already (1556), and to believe that by those the world could be better regulated than by the vicar of Christ aided by his cardinals, prelates, and doctors at Rome.”

The Bishop of Five Churches, in a letter to the Emperor Maximilian, says of the Council of Trent:

    “What good could be done in that council in which the votes were not weighed but numbered? If goodness of cause and reason had been the weapons, though we were but few, we had vanquished a great army of our enemies. The pope had a hundred for one, and in case that were not sufficient, he could have created a thousand. We daily saw hungry and needy bishops come to Trent; youths, for the most part, who just began to have beards, given over to luxury and riot, hired only to give their voices as the pope pleased. They were unlearned, and simple, but supplied with impudent boldness. When these were added to the pope’s old flatterers, iniquity triumphed, and it was impossible to determine anything but as they pleased.

    “There was a grave and learned man, who was not able to bear so great an indignity, and as he made the fact known, he was traduced (maligned) as not a good Catholic, and he was terrified, threatened and persecuted that he might approve things against his will. Matters were brought to this pass by the iniquity of those who came there, fitted and prepared, that the council seemed to consist, not of bishops, but of disguised maskers, not of men but of images, such as Dedalus made, that moved by nerves which were none of their own. They were hireling bishops, who, as country bagpipes, could not speak but as breath was put into them. The Holy Spirit had nothing to do in this assembly.”

Such is the testimony of a man of great power, truth and observation. And yet this council, composed of such materials as it was, gave their present cast to all the doctrines and usages of the Catholic Church. These youthful bishops were no doubt titular prelates, bearing the name of an eastern diocese, and performing no episcopal acts except voting at the Council of Trent.

The Pontiffs who Reigned during the Sessions of the Council.

These were Paul III., Julius III., and Pius IV. The council first assembled in 1545, and after several prorogations (interruptions), and some protracted intermissions, it finally adjourned in 1563.

Influence of the Council.

It exerted for centuries, and it enjoys still, the greatest power ever springing from any assembly of ecclesiastics. The world is more familiar with its name than with the insignificance of its membership; and it is remarkable that such a body should stretch long and vigorous arms over the gulf of time since its dissolution, and over all the Catholic countries of the world, and hold the entire papal nations in its powerful grasp. Several causes contribute to this result: the first is the profound reverence entertained for councils in the Catholic Church. In several Protestant communities there are ecclesiastical legislatures who make authoritative enactments for the government of their churches, but such laws are regarded, even by those who make them, as wise or unwise, according to the principles embodied in them. But a Catholic council, constituted in proper form, is believed to be an “Inspired Assembly,” speaking by the promptings of the unerring Jehovah, whose decisions are the revealed will of the Lord of all, which ought not to be questioned, and can never be repealed.

As the clergyman who addressed the Council of Trent, when Mascarenius the Portuguese ambassador was received, said:

    “The authority of councils is so great that their decrees are to be received as divine oracles.”

Such is the general doctrine of the Catholic Church. And this view of councils gave great force to the decrees issued at Trent.

The second was the extensive range of the council in the adoption of new articles of faith. The synod received every sanctified folly, almost without exception, revered in any quarter of the Romish communion, as a tenet of the Church; and in this way gained a wide extent of favor.

Another reason was the able management of the council by the pontiffs, who selected the shrewdest strategists of the entire papal Church and employed them to direct the decisions of the council.

Another reason is found in the extraordinary deference paid by the bishops of Rome to the canons and enactments of Trent.

The fifth reason why the Council of Trent became such a potent power in the papal Church is to be found in the condition of Catholicism when the council held its meetings. The Reformation, like an earthquake, had shaken and shattered the Romish world, and burst the ties which bound the system together, its old mighty ties of force and terror; and it compelled the council to give a new shape to nearly all her ancient doctrines; and such a cast as would fit them to bear the most searching scrutiny. As worn out rails are rolled again, and after the process come forth totally unlike their former ground, ragged, rusty selves: so in the foundry at Trent, through canons, decrees and the Catechism, the old rails of the Romish system were rolled over again, and some of them received a greater thickness; some of them an altered shape, and all of them new and additional sleepers, to sustain without injury the thundering trains of the great Reformation.

The Church of Rome before the Council of Trent was like a tower built of stones from many ancient structures. A great many came from Solomon’s temple, and quite a number from the buildings adjoining the manger in Bethlehem; some jagged rocks were placed upon the tower that once formed a part of a temple of Moloch; not a few stones from a temple of Jupiter; and a block of marble beautifully sculptured from a temple of Venus. Cement made from the rock of Calvary, well crushed, and bitumen from the Dead Sea joined the stones together. The tower was strong, and a source of terror to the world. Lightning from Wittemburg struck it fiercely several times and burned off the roof, exposing the inmates to the pelting fury of the storms, and so shattering the walls that the fathers at Trent, thinking it was going to tumble to pieces, carefully took down the tower and rebuilt and greatly enlarged it. They put in every old stone, carefully placing it in a new position; they procured new materials from the walls of the Sorbonne, the graves of St. Bernard, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Peter Lombard, Gregory VII., and Innocent III., from the battlefields of Judas Maccabeus, and from nearly every quarter of the world. They made the many window sashes and doors out of the wood of the true cross and the nails with which the Saviour was fastened on it. Each one of its many hundred guards imagined that he carried the identical spear with which the soldier pierced the Saviour’s side, and every one of them wore some garment which belonged to the Saviour or his mother; the tower was intended to reach heaven, and was indeed a very lofty structure; it was designed as a home for the heroes who should conquer the world, As we have seen a school-house once, whose walls, on close inspection, showed angel figures, a sculptured Holy Spirit, several saints, the plunder of an ancient neighboring nunnery: so, on closely examining this massive tower, you easily detected representations in the stones of Moses, Aaron, Levi, a Jewish altar and sacrifice, a censer, Judas Maccabeus making an offering for his dead soldiers, the virgin and child, Jupiter, Venus, Moloch, the Angelic Doctor, the Master of the Sentences, and other scholastic divines by the hundred, and saints and angels without number, with an occasional scene from purgatory. The architecture was a mixture of all orders; the building was of all shapes, and the careful observer could easily see above its main doorway its name: BABEL, CONFUSION. While on its corner stone were cut the words: Built by the fathers of Trent, after designs sent from Rome.

Continued in The Papal System – IX. Baptism

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart




A Method for Prayer — by Matthew Henry

A Method for Prayer — by Matthew Henry

Introduction

Matthew Henry (18 October 1662 – 22 June 1714) was a nonconformist minister and author, born in Wales but spending much of his life in England. He is best known for the six-volume biblical commentary Exposition of the Old and New Testaments.

Matthew Henry’s classic, describing how Christians can rightly conduct prayers for public occasions, has for centuries been a valuable source for believers.

Writing in the 1710s, the author reflected on his lifetime as a man of God who had conducted many official ceremonies and events in his church. The concerns of his congregation, many of whom experienced the heights of joy and depths of despair that life offers, led Matthew Henry to devise a methodology for praying to the Lord rich in example.

This method is intended to both respect and properly consult the divine, and also give comfort to believers who are in a state of distress or anxiety. Requests to God to fulfil a desire, to forgive a sin, as well as communications of life. Simple prayers of praise, wherein the Lord is given thanks for good fortune or daily small blessings, are also detailed.

Most of Henry’s recommendations reference Biblical scripture as a source: with the Holy Bible as his backing, the advices and methods of the author are beyond question. The language he uses is reminiscent of the King James Version of the text, which was the dominant Bible in the 17th and 18th centuries. Despite the passage of centuries, the authority and authenticity of Henry’s prayer method is undiminished.

There are other text versions of this online, but the one I saw used the English Standard Version of the Bible which I don’t like. I found a good PDF file of this book that used the KJV and copied and pasted the text from it to make this post on my website.

I believe this book can strengthen our prayer life.

Chapter I Adoration of God

OF THE FIRST PART OF PRAYER, WHICH IS ADDRESS TO GOD, ADORATION OF HIM, WITH SUITABLE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, PROFESSIONS, AND PREPARATORY REQUESTS

Our spirits being composed into a very reverent serious frame, our thoughts gathered in, and all that is within us charged in the name of the great God carefully to attend the solemn and awful service that lies before us, and to keep close to it, we must with a fixed intention and application of mind, and an active lively faith, set the Lord before us, see His eye upon us, and set ourselves in His special presence, presenting ourselves to Him, as living sacrifices, which we desire may be holy and acceptable, and a reasonable service; and then bind these sacrifices with cords to the horns of the altar, in such thoughts as these: Romans 12:1. Psalm 118:27.

Matthew Henry

Matthew Henry

LET us now lift up our hearts with our eyes and our hands unto God in the heavens. Lamentations 3:41. John 17:1.

Let us stir up ourselves to take hold on God, to seek his face, and to give him the glory due unto his name. Isaiah 64:7. Psalm 27:8. Psalm 29:2.

Unto thee, O Lord, do we lift up our souls. Psalm 25:1.

Let us now, with humble boldness, enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, in the new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us through the vail. Hebrews 10:19, 20.

Let us now attend upon the Lord without distraction, and let not our hearts be far from him when we draw nigh to him with our mouths, and honour him with our lips. 1 Corinthians 7:35. Matthew 15:8.

Let us now worship God who is a Spirit, in the spirit and in truth; for such the Father seeks to worship him. John 4:24, 23.

Having thus engaged our hearts to approach unto God, Jeremiah 30:21.

WE MUST SOLEMNLY ADDRESS OURSELVES TO THAT INFINITELY GREAT AND GLORIOUS BEING WITH WHOM WE HAVE TO DO, AS THOSE THAT ARE POSSESSED WITH A FULL BELIEF OF HIS PRESENCE, AND A HOLY AWE AND REVERENCE OF HIS MAJESTY, WHICH WE MAY DO IN SUCH EXPRESSIONS AS THESE

HOLY, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which art and wast, and art to come. Revelation 4:8.

O thou whose name alone is JEHOVAH, and who art the most high over all the earth. Psalm 83:18.

O God, thou art our God, early will we seek thee; Our God, and we will praise thee; our fathers God, and we will exalt thee. Psalm 63:1. Exodus 15:2.

O thou who art the true God, the living God, the one only living and true God, and the everlasting king. THE LORD OUR GOD WHO IS ONE LORD. Jeremiah 10:10. 1 Thessalonians 1:9. Deuteronomy 6:4.

― And we may thus distinguish ourselves from the worshippers of false gods.

The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, they are vanity and a lie, the work of mens hands; they that make them are like unto them, and so is every one that trusteth in them. But the portion of Jacob is not like them, for he is the former of all things, and Israel is the rod of his inheritance, the Lord of hosts is his name; God over all, blessed for evermore. Psalm 115:4, 8. Jeremiah 10:15, 16. Romans 9:5.

Their rock is not our Rock, even the enemies themselves being judges, for he is the Rock of ages, THE LORD JEHOVAH, with whom is everlasting strength. Whose name shall endure for ever, and his memorial unto all generations, when the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, shall perish from off the earth, and from under those heavens. Deuteronomy 32:31. Isaiah 26:4. Psalm 135:13. Jeremiah 10:11.

WE MUST REVERENTLY ADORE GOD AS A BEING TRANSCENDENTLY BRIGHT AND BLESSED, SELF-EXISTENT AND SELF-SUFFICIENT, AN INFINITE AND ETERNAL SPIRIT, THAT HAS ALL PERFECTIONS IN HIMSELF, AND GIVE HIM THE GLORY OF HIS TITLES AND ATTRIBUTES

O LORD our God, thou art very great, thou art clothed with honour and majesty, thou coverest thyself with light as with a garment, and yet as to us makest darkness thy pavilion, for we cannot order our speech by reason of darkness. Psalm 104:1, 2. Psalm 18:11. Job 37:19.

This is the message which we have heard of thee, and we set to our seal that it is true, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all: And that God is love, and they that dwell in love, dwell in God, and God in them. 1 John 1:5. John 3:33. 1 John 4:16.

Thou art the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness or shadow of turning, and from whom proceedeth every good and perfect gift. James 1:17.

Thou art the blessed and only Potentate; the King of kings, and Lord of lords, who only hast immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen nor can see. 1 Timothy 6:15, 16.

― We must acknowledge His being to be unquestionable and past dispute.

The heavens declare thy glory, O God, and the firmament sheweth thy handy work, and by the things that are made is clearly seen and understood thine eternal power and GODHEAD. So that they are fools without excuse, who say there is no God; for verily there is a reward for the righteous, verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth, and in heaven too. Psalm 19:1. Romans 1:20. Psalm 14:1. Psalm 58:11.

We therefore come to thee, believing that thou art, and that thou art the powerful and bountiful rewarder of them that diligently seek thee. Hebrews 11:6.

― Yet we must own His nature to be incomprehensible.

We cannot by searching find out God, we cannot find out the Almighty unto perfection. Job 11:7.

Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable. Psalm 145:3.

Who can utter the mighty acts of the Lord, who can shew forth all his praise? Psalm 106:2.

― And His perfections to be matchless and without compare.

Who is a God like unto thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders? Exodus 15:11.

Who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? O Lord God of hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee, or to thy faithfulness round about thee? Psalm 89:6, 8.

Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord, neither are there any works like unto thy works: For thou art great, and dost wondrous things; thou art God alone. Psalm 86:8, 10.

There is not any creature that has an arm like God, or can thunder with a voice like him. Job 40:9.

― And that He is infinitely above us and all other beings.

Thou art God and not man; hast not eyes of flesh, nor seest thou as man seeth: Thy days are not as the days of man, nor thy years as man’s days. Hosea 11:9. Job 10:4, 5.

As heaven is high above the earth, so are thy thoughts above our thoughts, and thy ways above our ways. Isaiah 55:9.

All nations before thee are as a drop of the bucket, or the small dust of the balance, and thou takest up the isles as a very little thing: They are as nothing, and are counted to thee less than nothing, and vanity. Isaiah 40:15, 17.

― Particularly in our adorations we must acknowledge,

1. That He is an eternal immutable God, without beginning of days, or end of life, or change of time.

Thou art the King eternal, immortal, invisible. 1 Timothy 1:17.

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting thou art God; the same yesterday, to day, and for ever. Psalm 90:2. Hebrews 13:8.

Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands: They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea all of them shall wax old like a garment, as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. Psalm 102:25, 26, 27.

Thou art God, and changest not; therefore is it that we are not consumed. Malachi 3:6.

Art thou not from everlasting, O Lord our God, our Holy One? The everlasting God, even the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, who faintest not, neither art weary; there is no searching out of thine understanding. Habakkuk 1:12. Isaiah 40:28.

2. That He is present in all places, and there is no place in which He is included, or out of which He is excluded.

Thou art a God at hand, and not a God afar off; None can hide himself in secret places that thou canst not see him, for thou fillest heaven and earth. Jeremiah 23:23, 24.

Thou art not far from every one of us. Acts 17:27.

We cannot go any whither from thy presence, or flee from thy spirit: If we ascend into heaven, thou art there; if we make our bed in hell, in the depths of the earth, behold thou art there; if we take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead us, and thy right hand shall hold us, that we cannot outrun thee. Psalm 139:7-10.

3. That He hath a perfect knowledge of all persons and things, and sees them all, even that which is most secret, at one clear, certain, and unerring view.

All things are naked and open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do; even the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:13, 12.

Thine eyes are in every place beholding the evil and the good; they run to and fro through the earth, that thou mayest shew thyself strong on the behalf of those whose hearts are upright with thee. Proverbs 15:3. 2 Chronicles 16:9.

Thou searchest the heart, and triest the reins, that thou mayest give to every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. Jeremiah 17:10.

O God, thou hast searched us and known us, thou knowest our downsitting and our uprising, and understandest our thoughts afar off: Thou compassest our path and our lying down, and art acquainted with all our ways: There is not a word in our tongue, but lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Such knowledge is too wonderful for us, it is high, we cannot attain unto it. Psalm 139:1-4, 6.

Darkness and light are both alike to thee. Psalm 139:12.

4. That His wisdom is unsearchable, and the counsels and designs of it cannot be fathomed.

Thine understanding, O Lord, is infinite, for thou tellest the number of the stars, and callest them all by their names. Psalm 147:5, 4.

Thou art wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working. Wise in heart, and mighty in strength. Isaiah 28:29. Job 9:4.

O Lord, how manifold are thy works, in wisdom hast thou made them all; all according to the counsel of thine own will. Psalm 104:24. Ephesians 1:11.

O the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out. Romans 11:33.

5. That His sovereignty is uncontestable, and He is the owner and absolute Lord of all.

The heavens, even the heavens are thine, and all the hosts of them: The earth is thine, and the fulness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein. In thy hand are the deep places of the earth, and the strength of the hills is thine also: The sea is thine, for thou madest it, and thy hands formed the dry land: All the beasts of the forest are thine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills: Thou art therefore a great God, and a great King above all gods. Psalm 115:16. Psalm 24:1. Psalm 95:4, 5. Psalm 50:10, 11. Psalm 95:3.

In thy hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind. Job 12:10.

Thy dominion is an everlasting dominion, and thy kingdom is from generation to generation: Thou dost according to thy will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay thy hand, or say unto thee, What doest thou, or Why doest thou so? Daniel 4:34, 35.

6. That His power is irresistible, and the operations of it cannot be controlled.

We know, O God, that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee: Power belongs to thee; And with thee nothing is impossible. Job 42:2. Psalm 62:11. Luke 1:37.

All power is thine both in heaven and in earth. Matthew 28:18. holden from thee: Power belongs to thee; And with thee nothing is impossible. Job 42:2. Psalm 62:11. Luke 1:37.

All power is thine both in heaven and in earth. Matthew 28:18.
holden from thee: Power belongs to thee; And with thee nothing is impossible. Job 42:2. Psalm 62:11. Luke 1:37.

All power is thine both in heaven and in earth. Matthew 28:18.
Thou killest and thou makest alive, thou woundest and thou healest, neither is there any that can deliver out of thy hand. Deuteronomy 32:39.

What thou hast promised thou art able also to perform. Romans 4:21.

7. That He is a God of unspotted purity and perfect rectitude.

Thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel: Holy and reverend is thy name; and we give thanks at the remembrance of thy holiness. Psalm 22:3. Psalm 111:9. Psalm 30:4.

Thou art of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, neither shall evil dwell with thee. Habakkuk 1:13. Psalm 5:4.

Thou art the Rock, thy work is perfect, all thy ways are truth and judgment; a God of truth, and in whom there is no iniquity. Thou art our rock, and there is no unrighteousness in thee. Deuteronomy 32:4. Psalm 92:15.

Thou art holy in all thy works, and holiness becomes thy house, O Lord, for ever. Psalm 145:17. Psalm 93:5.

8. That He is just in the administration of His government, and never did, nor ever will do wrong to any of His creatures.

Righteous art thou, O God, when we plead with thee, and wilt be justified when thou speakest, and clear when thou judgest. Jeremiah 12:1. Psalm 51:4.

Far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should commit iniquity; for the work of a man shall he render unto him. Job 34:10, 11.

Thy righteousness is as the great mountains, even then when thy judgments are a great deep! And though clouds and darkness are round about thee, yet judgment and justice are the habitation of thy throne. Psalm 36:6. Psalm 97:2.

9. That His truth is inviolable, and the treasures of His goodness inexhaustible.

Thou art good, and thy mercy endures for ever. Thy lovingkindness is great towards us, and thy truth endureth to all generations.

Psalm 136:1. Psalm 117:2. Psalm 100:5.

Thou hast proclaimed thy name: The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin. And this name of thine is our strong tower. Exodus 34:6, 7. Proverbs 18:10.

Thou art good and dost good; good to all, and thy tender mercy is over all thy works. But truly God is in a special manner good to Israel, even to them that are of a clean heart. Psalm 119:68. Psalm 145:9. Psalm 73:1.

O that thou wouldst cause thy goodness to pass before us; that we may taste and see that the Lord is good; and his loving kindness may be always before our eyes. Exodus 33:19. Psalm 34:8. Psalm 26:3.

10. Lastly, that when we have said all we can of the glorious perfections of the divine nature, we fall infinitely short of the merit of the subject.

Lo these are but parts of thy ways, and how little a portion is heard of God! But the thunder of his power who can understand? Job 26:14.

Touching the Almighty we cannot find him out, he is excellent in power and in judgment, and in plenty of justice; and he is exalted far above all blessing and praise. Job 37:23. Nehemiah 9:5.

WE MUST GIVE TO GOD THE PRAISE OF THAT SPLENDOR AND GLORY WHEREIN HE IS PLEASED TO MANIFEST HIMSELF IN THE UPPER WORLD

THOU hast prepared thy throne in the heavens, and it is a throne of glory, high and lifted up, and before thee the seraphims cover their faces. And it is in compassion to us that thou holdest back the face of that throne, and spreadest a cloud upon it. Psalm 103:19. Isaiah 6:1, 2. Job 26:9.

Thou makest thine angels spirits, and thy ministers a flame of fire. Thousand thousands of them minister unto thee, and ten thousand times ten thousand stand before thee, to do thy pleasure: They excel in strength, and hearken to the voice of thy word. And we are come by faith and hope and holy love into a spiritual communion with that innumerable company of angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect, even to the general assembly and church of the first-born, in the heavenly Jerusalem. Psalm 104:4. Daniel 7:10. Psalm 103:21, 20. Hebrews 12:22, 23.

WE MUST GIVE GLORY TO HIM AS THE CREATOR OF THE WORLD, AND THE GREAT PROTECTOR, BENEFACTOR AND RULER OF THE WHOLE CREATION

THOU art worthy, O Lord, to receive blessing, and honour, and glory, and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure, and for thy praise they are and were created. Revelation 4:11.

We worship him that made the heaven and the earth, the sea and the fountains of waters; who spake and it was done, who commanded and it stood fast; who said, Let there be light, and there was light; Let there be a firmament, and he made the firmament; and he made all very good; and they continue this day according to his ordinance; for all are his servants. Revelation 14:7. Psalm 33:9. Genesis 1:3, 6, 7, 31. Psalm 119:91.

The day is thine, the night also is thine; thou hast prepared the light and the sun: Thou hast set all the borders of the earth, thou hast made summer and winter. Psalm 74:16, 17.

Thou upholdest all things by the word of thy power, and by thee all things consist. Hebrews 1:3. Colossians 1:17.

The earth is full of thy riches; so is the great and wide sea also. The eyes of all wait upon thee, and thou givest them their meat in due season: Thou openest thy hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing. Thou preservest man and beast, and givest food to all flesh. Psalm 104:24, 25. Psalm 145:15, 16. Psalm 36:6. Psalm 136:25.

Thou, even thou art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all things that are therein, the seas and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all: And the host of heaven worshippeth thee, whose kingdom ruleth over all. Nehemiah 9:6. Psalm 103:19.

A sparrow falls not to the ground without thee. Matthew 10:29.

Thou madest man at first of the dust of the ground, and breathedst into him the breath of life, and so he became a living soul. Genesis 2:7.

And thou hast made of that one blood, all nations of men, to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hast determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation. Acts 17:26.

Thou art the most High, who rulest in the kingdom of men, and givest it to whomsoever thou wilt; for from thee every man’s judgment proceeds. Daniel 4:25. Proverbs 29:26.

Hallelujah, the Lord God omnipotent reigns, and doth all according to the counsel of his own will, to the praise of his own glory. Revelation 19:6. Ephesians 1:11, 12.

WE MUST GIVE HONOUR TO THE THREE PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD DISTINCTLY, TO THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY GHOST, THAT GREAT AND SACRED NAME INTO WHICH WE WERE BAPTIZED, AND IN WHICH WE ASSEMBLE FOR RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, IN COMMUNION WITH THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH

WE pay our homage to the three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; for these three are one. 1 John 5:7.

We adore thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth; and the eternal Word, who was in the beginning with God, and was God, by whom all things were made, and without whom was not any thing made that was made, and who in the fulness of time was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and shewed his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. Matthew 11:25. John 1:1, 2, 3. Galatians 4:4. John 1:14.

And since it is the will of God that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father, we adore him as the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person; herein joining with the angels of God, who were all bid to worship him. John 5:23. Hebrews 1:3, 6.

We pay our homage to the exalted Redeemer, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten from the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth, confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Revelation 1:5. Philippians 2:11.

We also worship the Holy Ghost the Comforter, whom the Son hath sent from the Father, even the Spirit of truth who proceedeth from the Father, and who is sent to teach us all things, and to bring all things to our remembrance; who indited the scriptures, holy men of God writing them as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. John 15:26. John 14:26. 2 Peter 1:21.

WE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE OUR DEPENDANCE UPON GOD, AND OUR OBLIGATIONS TO HIM, AS OUR CREATOR, PRESERVER, AND BENEFACTOR

THOU, O God, madest us, and not we ourselves, and therefore we are not our own, but thine, thy people and the sheep of thy pasture; Let us therefore worship, and fall down and kneel before the Lord our maker. Psalm 100:3. 1 Corinthians 6:19. Psalm 95:6.

Thou, Lord, art the former of our bodies, and they are fearfully and wonderfully made, and curiously wrought. Thine eye did see our substance yet being imperfect, and in thy book all our members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. Psalm 139:14, 15, 16.

Thou hast clothed us with skin and flesh, thou hast fenced us with bones and sinews; Thou hast granted us life and favour, and thy visitation preserves our spirits. Job 10:11, 12.

Thou art the Father of our spirits; for thou formest the spirit of man with him, and madest us these souls. The Spirit of God hath made us, and the breath of the Almighty hath given us life. Thou puttest wisdom in the inward part, and givest understanding to the heart. Hebrews 12:9. Zechariah 12:1. Jeremiah 38:16. Job 33:4. Job 38:36.

Thou art God our maker, who teachest us more than the beasts of the earth, and makest us wiser than the fowls of heaven. Job 35:10, 11.

We are the clay, and thou our potter, we are the work of thy hand. Isaiah 64:8.

Thou art he that tookest us out of the womb, and keepest us in safety when we were at our mother’s breasts; We have been cast upon thee from the womb, and holden up by thee, thou art our God from our mother’s bowels, and therefore our praise shall be continually of thee. Psalm 22:9, 10. Psalm 71:6.

In thee, O God, we live and move, and have our being; for we are thine offspring. Acts 17:28.

In thy hand our breath is, and thine are all our ways; for the way of man is not in himself, neither is it in man that walketh to direct his steps; but our times are in thy hand. Daniel 5:23. Jeremiah 10:23.

Psalm 31:15.

Thou art the God that hast fed us all our life long unto this day, and redeemed us from all evil. Genesis 48:15, 16.

It is of thy mercies that we are not consumed, even because thy compassions fail not, they are new every morning, great is thy faithfulness. Lamentations 3:22, 23.

If thou take away our breath we die, and return to the dust out of which we were taken. Psalm 104:29, 30.

Who is he that saith and it cometh to pass, if thou commandest it not? Out of thy mouth, O most High, both evil and good proceed. Lamentations 3:37, 38.

WE MUST AVOUCH THIS GOD TO BE OUR GOD, AND OWN OUR RELATION TO HIM, HIS DOMINION OVER US, AND PROPRIETY IN US

OUR souls have said unto the Lord, Thou art our Lord, though our goodness extendeth not unto thee, neither if we are righteous art thou the better. Psalm 16:2. Job 35:7.

Thou art our King, O God: Other lords besides thee have had dominion over us, but from henceforth by thee only will we make mention of thy name. Psalm 44:4. Isaiah 26:13.

We avouch the Lord this day to be our God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken to his voice, and give ourselves unto him to be his peculiar people as he hath promised, that we may be a holy people unto the Lord our God; and may be unto him for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory. Deuteronomy 26:17, 18, 19. Jeremiah 13:11.

O Lord, truly we are thy servants, we are thy servants born in thy house, and thou hast loosed our bonds; we are bought with a price, and therefore we are not our own; but yield ourselves unto the Lord, and join ourselves to him in an everlasting covenant that shall never be forgotten. Psalm 116:16. 1 Corinthians 6:20, 19. 2 Chronicles 30:8. Jeremiah 50:5.

We are thine, save us; for we seek thy precepts: It is thine own, Lord, that we give thee, and that which cometh of thine hand. Psalm 119:94. 1 Chronicles 29:16.

WE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE IT AN UNSPEAKABLE FAVOUR, AND AN INESTIMABLE PRIVILEGE, THAT WE ARE NOT ONLY ADMITTED, BUT INVITED AND ENCOURAGED TO DRAW NIGH TO GOD IN PRAYER

THOU hast commanded us to pray always, with all prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, and to watch thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; to continue in prayer; and in every thing with prayer and supplication to make our requests known to God. Ephesians 6:18. Colossians 4:2. Philippians 4:6.

Thou hast directed us to ask and seek and knock, and hast promised that we shall receive, we shall find, and it shall be opened to us. Matthew 7:7, 8.

Thou hast appointed us a great high priest, in whose name we may come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may find mercy and grace to help in time of need. Hebrews 4:14-16.

Thou hast assured us that while the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, the prayer of the upright is his delight; and that he that offers praise glorifies thee, and the sacrifice of thanksgiving shall please the Lord better than that of an ox or bullock that has horns and hoofs. Proverbs 15:8. Psalm 50:23. Psalm 69:30, 31.

Thou art he that hearest prayer, and therefore unto thee shall all flesh come. Psalm 65:2.

Thou sayest, Seek ye my face, and our hearts answer, Thy face, Lord, will we seek. For should not a people seek unto their God? Whither shall we go but to thee? Thou hast the words of eternal life. Psalm 27:8. Isaiah 8:19. John 6:68.

WE MUST EXPRESS THE SENSE WE HAVE OF OUR OWN MEANNESS AND UNWORTHINESS TO DRAW NEAR TO GOD, AND SPEAK TO HIM

BUT will God in very deed dwell with man upon the earth? that God whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain, with man that is a worm, and the son of man that is a worm. 2 Chronicles 6:18. Job 25:6.

Who are we, O Lord God, and what is our father’s house, that thou hast brought us hitherto, to present ourselves before the Lord; that we have through Christ an access by one Spirit unto the Father: And yet as if this had been a small thing in thy sight, thou hast spoken concerning thy servants for a great while to come, and is this the manner of men, O Lord God? 2 Samuel 7:18. Ephesians 2:18. 2 Samuel 7:19.

What is man that thou art thus mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him? and dost thus magnify him. Psalm 8:4. Job 7:17.

O let not the Lord be angry, if we that are but dust and ashes take upon us to speak unto the Lord of glory. Genesis 18:30, 27.

We are not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth which thou hast shewed unto thy servants; nor is it meet to take the childrens bread, and cast it to such as we are; yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master’s table: And thou art rich in mercy to all that call upon thee. Genesis 32:10. Matthew 15:26, 27. Romans 10:12.

WE MUST HUMBLY PROFESS THE DESIRE OF OUR HEARTS TOWARDS GOD AS OUR FELICITY AND PORTION, AND THE FOUNTAIN OF LIFE AND ALL GOOD TO US

WHOM have we in heaven but thee; and there is none upon earth that we desire besides thee, or in comparison of thee: When our flesh and our heart fail, be thou the strength of our heart, and our portion for ever; the portion of our inheritance in the other world, and of our cup in this, and then we will say that the lines are fallen to us in pleasant places, and that we have a goodly heritage. Psalm 73:25, 26. Psalm 16:5, 6.

The desire of our souls is to thy name, and to the remembrance of thee; with our souls have we desired thee in the night, and with our spirits within us will we seek thee early. Isaiah 26:8, 9.

As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth our soul after thee, O God; our soul thirsteth for God, for the living God; who will command his loving-kindness in the day-time, and in the night his song shall be with us, and our prayer to the God of our life. Psalm 42:1, 2, 8.

O that we may come hungering and thirsting after righteousness; for thou fillest the hungry with good things, but the rich thou sendest empty away. Matthew 5:6. Luke 1:53.

O that our souls may thirst for thee, and our flesh long for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is, that we may see thy power and thy glory, as we have seen thee in the sanctuary. Thy lovingkindness is better than life; our souls shall be satisfied with that as with marrow and fatness, and then our mouths shall praise thee with joyful lips. Psalm 63:1, 2, 3, 5.

WE MUST LIKEWISE PROFESS OUR BELIEVING HOPE AND CONFIDENCE IN GOD, AND HIS ALL-SUFFICIENCY, IN HIS POWER, PROVIDENCE, AND PROMISE

IN thee, O God, do we put our trust, let us never be ashamed; yea let none that wait on thee be ashamed. Psalm 31:1. Psalm 25:3.

Truly our souls wait upon God; from him cometh our salvation; he only is our rock and our salvation: In him is our glory, our strength, and our refuge, and from him is our expectation. Psalm 62:1, 2, 7, 5.

When refuge fails us, and none cares for our souls, we cry unto thee, O Lord; Thou art our refuge and our portion in the land of the living. Psalm 142:4, 5.

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will remember the name of the Lord our God. We will trust in thy mercy, O God, for ever and ever, and will wait on thy name, for it is good before thy saints. Psalm 20:7. Psalm 52:8, 9.

We have hoped in thy word; O remember thy word unto thy servants, upon which thou hast caused us to hope. Psalm 119:74, 49.

WE MUST INTREAT GOD’S FAVOURABLE ACCEPTANCE OF US AND OUR POOR PERFORMANCES

THERE be many that say, Who will shew us any good? But this we say, Lord, lift up the light of thy countenance upon us, and that shall put gladness into our hearts more than they have whose corn and wine increaseth. Psalm 4:6, 7.

We intreat thy favour with our whole hearts; for in this we labour, that whether present or absent we may be accepted of the Lord. Psalm 119:58. 2 Corinthians 5:9.

Hear our prayers, O Lord, give ear to our supplications; in thy faithfulness answer us. And be nigh unto us in all that which we call upon thee for; for thou never saidst to the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain. Psalm 143:1. Deuteronomy 4:7. Isaiah 45:19.

Thou that hearest the young ravens which cry, Be not silent to us, lest if thou be silent to us, we be like them that go down to the pit. Psalm 147:9. Psalm 28:1.

Let our prayer be set forth before thee as incense, and the lifting up of our hands be acceptable in thy sight as the evening sacrifice. Psalm 141:2.

WE MUST BEG FOR THE POWERFUL ASSISTANCE AND INFLUENCE OF THE BLESSED SPIRIT OF GRACE IN OUR PRAYERS

LORD, we know not what to pray for as we ought, but let thy Spirit help our infirmities, and make intercession in us. Romans 8:26.

O pour upon us the spirit of grace and supplication; the Spirit of adoption teaching us to cry, Abba Father; that we may find in our hearts to pray this prayer: Zechariah 12:10. Romans 8:15. 2 Samuel 7:27.

O send out thy light and thy truth, let them lead us, let them guide us to thy holy hill, and thy tabernacles; to God our exceeding joy. Psalm 43:3, 4.

O Lord, open thou our lips, and our mouth shall shew forth thy praise. Psalm 51:15.

WE MUST MAKE THE GLORY OF GOD OUR HIGHEST END IN ALL OUR PRAYERS

THIS is that which thou, O Lord, hast said, that thou wilt be sanctified in them that come nigh unto thee, and before all the people thou wilt be glorified; we therefore worship before thee, O Lord, that we may glorify thy name; and therefore we call upon thee, that thou mayest deliver us, and we may glorify thee. Leviticus 10:3. Psalm 86:9. Psalm 50:15.

For of thee, and through thee, and to thee, are all things. Romans 11:36.

WE MUST PROFESS OUR ENTIRE RELIANCE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST ALONE FOR ACCEPTANCE WITH GOD, AND COME IN HIS NAME

WE do not present our supplication before thee for our own righteousness; for we are before thee in our trespasses, and cannot stand before thee because of them: But we make mention of Christ’s righteousness, even of his only, who is THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Daniel 9:18. Ezra 9:15. Psalm 71:16. Jeremiah 23:6.

We know that even spiritual sacrifices are acceptable to God only through Christ Jesus, nor can we hope to receive any thing but what we ask of thee in his name, and therefore make us accepted in the beloved; that other angel, who puts much incense to the prayers of saints, and offers them up upon the golden altar before the throne. 1 Peter 2:5. John 16:23. Ephesians 1:6. Revelation 8:3.

We come in the name of the great high priest, who is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, who was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and is therefore able to save to the uttermost all those that come to God by him, because he ever lives making intercession. Hebrews 4:14, 15. Hebrews 7:25.

Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed, in whom thou hast by a voice from heaven declared thyself to be well pleased; Lord, be well pleased with us in him. Psalm 84:9. Matthew 3:17.

Chapter II Confession of sin

OF THE SECOND PART OF PRAYER, WHICH IS, CONFESSION OF SIN, COMPLAINTS OF OURSELVES, AND HUMBLE PROFESSIONS OF REPENTANCE

Having given glory to God, which is His due, we must next take shame to ourselves, which is our due, and humble ourselves before Him in the sense of our own sinfulness and vileness; and herein also we must give glory to Him, as our judge, by whom we deserve to be condemned, and yet hope, through Christ, to be acquitted and absolved. Joshua 7:19.

IN THIS PART OF OUR WORK, WE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE GREAT REASON WE HAVE TO LIE VERY LOW BEFORE GOD, AND TO BE ASHAMED OF OURSELVES WHEN WE COME INTO HIS PRESENCE, AND TO BE AFRAID OF HIS WRATH, HAVING MADE OURSELVES BOTH ODIOUS TO HIS HOLINESS, AND OBNOXIOUS TO HIS JUSTICE

O OUR God, we are ashamed and blush to lift up our faces before thee, our God; for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens. Ezra 9:6.

Matthew Henry

Matthew Henry

To us belongs shame and confusion of face, because we have sinned against thee. Daniel 9:8.

Behold we are vile, what shall we answer thee? we will lay our hand upon our mouth, and put our mouth in the dust, if so be there may be hope; crying with the convicted leper under the law, Unclean, unclean. Job 40:4. Lamentations 3:29. Leviticus 13:45.

Thou puttest no trust in thy saints, and the heavens are not clean in thy sight: How much more abominable and filthy is man, who drinketh iniquity like waters! Job 15:15, 16.

When our eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts, we have reason to cry out, Woe unto us, for we are undone. Isaiah 6:5.

Dominion and fear are with thee, thou makest peace in thy high places: There is not any number of thine armies, and upon whom doth not thy light arise? How then can man be justified with God, or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? Job 25:2, 3, 4.

Thou, even thou art to be feared, and who may stand in thy sight, when once thou art angry? Even thou, our God, art a consuming fire, and who knows the power of thine anger? Psalm 76:7. Hebrews 12:29. Psalm 90:11.

If we justify ourselves, our own mouths shall condemn us, if we say we are perfect, that also shall prove us perverse; for if thou contend with us, we are not able to answer thee for one of a thousand. Job 9:20, 3.

If we knew nothing by ourselves, yet were we not thereby justified, for he that judgeth us is the Lord; who is greater than our hearts, and knows all things. But we ourselves know that we have sinned, Father, against heaven, and before thee, and are no more worthy to be called thy children. 1 Corinthians 4:4. 1 John 3:20. Luke 15:21.

WE MUST TAKE HOLD OF THE GREAT ENCOURAGEMENT GOD HATH GIVEN US TO HUMBLE OURSELVES BEFORE HIM WITH SORROW AND SHAME, AND TO CONFESS OUR SINS

IF thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who should stand? But there is forgiveness with thee that thou mayest be feared; with thee there is mercy, yea with our God there is plenteous redemption, and he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities. Psalm 130:3, 4, 7, 8.

Thy sacrifices, O God, are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise: Nay, though thou art the high and lofty One that inhabitest eternity, whose name is Holy; though the heaven be thy throne, and the earth thy footstool, yet to this man wilt thou look, that is poor and humble, of a broken and a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at thy word, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. Psalm 51:17. Isaiah 57:15. Isaiah 66:1, 2. Isaiah 57:15.

Thou hast graciously assured us, that though they that cover their sins shall not prosper, yet those that confess and forsake them shall find mercy. And when a poor penitent said, I will confess my transgression unto the Lord, thou forgavest the iniquity of his sin, and for this shall every one that is godly in like manner pray unto thee, in a time when thou mayest be found. Proverbs 28:13. Psalm 32:5, 6.

We know that if we say, We have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us; but thou hast said that if we confess our sins, thou art faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:8, 9.

WE MUST THEREFORE CONFESS AND BEWAIL OUR ORIGINAL CORRUPTION IN THE FIRST PLACE, THAT WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF APOSTATE AND REBELLIOUS PARENTS, AND THE NATURE OF MAN IS DEPRAVED, AND WRETCHEDLY DEGENERATED FROM ITS PRIMITIVE PURITY AND RECTITUDE, AND OUR NATURE IS SO

LORD, thou madest man upright, but they have sought out many inventions; And being in honour did not understand, and therefore abode not, but became like the beasts that perish. Ecclesiastes 7:29. Psalm 49:12, 20.

By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned; By that one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, and we among the rest. Romans 5:12, 19.

We are a seed of evil doers; our father was an Amorite, and our mother a Hittite, and we ourselves were called (and not miscalled) transgressors from the womb, and thou knewest we would deal very treacherously. Isaiah 1:4. Ezekiel 16:3. Isaiah 48:8.

The nature of man was planted a choice and noble vine, wholly a right seed, but it is become the degenerate plant of a strange vine; producing the grapes of Sodom, and the clusters of Gomorrah. How is the gold become dim, and the most fine gold changed! Jeremiah 2:21. Deuteronomy 32:32. Lamentations 4:1.

Behold we were shapen in iniquity, and in sin did our mothers conceive us. For who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one. We are by nature children of wrath, because children of disobedience, even as others. Psalm 51:5. Job 14:4. Ephesians 2:3, 2.

All flesh hath corrupted their way, we are all gone aside, we are all together become filthy, there is none that doth good, no, no not one. Genesis 6:12. Psalm 14:3.

WE MUST LAMENT OUR PRESENT CORRUPT DISPOSITIONS TO THAT WHICH IS EVIL, AND OUR INDISPOSEDNESS TO AND IMPOTENCY IN THAT WHICH IS GOOD. WE MUST LOOK INTO OUR OWN HEARTS, AND CONFESS WITH HOLY BLUSHING

1. The blindness of our understandings, and their unaptness to admit the rays of the divine light.

BY nature our understandings are darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in us, because of the blindness of our hearts. Ephesians 4:18.

The things of the Spirit of God are foolishness, to the natural man, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14.

We are wise to do evil, but to do good we have no knowledge. We know not, neither do we understand, we walk on in darkness. Jeremiah 4:22. Psalm 82:5.

God speaketh once, yea twice, but we perceive it not; but hearing we hear, and do not understand, and we see men as trees walking. Job 33:14. Matthew 13:14. Mark 8:24.

2. The stubbornness of our wills, and their unaptness to submit to the rules of the divine law.

We have within us a carnal mind, which is enmity against God, and is not in subjection to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Romans 8:7.

Thou hast written to us the great things of thy law, but they have been accounted by us as a strange thing, and our corrupt hearts have been sometimes ready to say, What is the Almighty that we should serve him? And that we would certainly do whatsoever thing goes forth out of our own mouth. For we have walked in the way of our own heart, and in the sight of our eyes, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind. Hosea 8:12. Job 21:15. Jeremiah 44:17. Ecclesiastes 11:9. Ephesians 2:3.

Our neck hath been an iron sinew, and we have made our heart as an adamant; we have refused to hearken, have pulled away the shoulder, and stopped our ears, like the deaf adder, that will not hearken to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely. Isaiah 48:4. Zechariah 7:12, 11. Psalm 58:4, 5.

How have we hated instruction, and our heart despised reproof, and have not obeyed the voice of our teachers, nor inclined our ear to them that instructed us? Proverbs 5:12, 13.

3. The vanity of our thoughts, their neglect of those things which they ought to be conversant with, and dwelling upon those things that are unworthy of them, and tend to corrupt our minds.

Every imagination of the thought of our heart is evil, only evil, and that continually, and it has been so from our youth. Genesis 6:5. Genesis 8:21.

O how long have those vain thoughts lodged within us! those thoughts of foolishness which are sin. From within out of the heart proceed evil thoughts; which devise mischief upon the bed, and carry the heart with the fool’s eyes into the ends of the earth. Jeremiah 4:14. Proverbs 24:9. Matthew 15:19. Micah 2:1. Proverbs 17:24.

But God is not in all our thoughts, it is well if he be in any: Of the Rock that begat us we have been unmindful, and have forgotten the God that formed us: We have forgotten him days without number, and our hearts have walked after vanity, and become vain. Their inward thought having been that our houses should continue for ever; this our way is our folly. Psalm 10:4. Deuteronomy 32:18. Jeremiah 2:32, 5. Psalm 49:11, 13.

4. The carnality of our affections, their being placed upon wrong objects, and carried beyond due bounds.

We have set those affections on things beneath, which should have been set on things above, where our treasure is, and where Christ sits on the right hand of God, the things which we should seek. Colossians 3:2, 1. Matthew 6:21.

We have followed after lying vanities, and forsaken our own mercies; have forsaken the fountain of living waters, for cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water. Jonah 2:8. Jeremiah 2:13.

We have panted after the dust of the earth, and have been full of care what we shall eat, and what we shall drink, and wherewithal we shall be clothed, the things after which the Gentiles seek, but have neglected the kingdom of God and the righteousness thereof. Amos 2:7. Matthew 6:31, 32, 33.

We have lifted up our souls unto vanity, and set our eyes upon that which is not, have looked at the things that are seen which are temporal, but the things that are not seen that are eternal, have been forgotten and postponed. Psalm 24:4. Proverbs 23:5. 2 Corinthians 4:18.

5. The corruption of the whole man: irregular appetites towards those things that are pleasing to sense, and inordinate passions against those things that are displeasing, and an alienation of the mind from the principles, powers and pleasures of the spiritual and divine life.

We are born of the flesh, and we are flesh: Dust we are: We have borne the image of the earthly; and in us, that is, in our flesh, there dwells no good thing: For if to will is present to us, yet how to perform that which is good we find not; for the good that we would do we do it not, and the evil which we would not do that we do. John 3:6. Genesis 3:19. 1 Corinthians 15:49. Romans 7:18, 19.

We have a law in our members warring against the law of our mind, and bringing us into captivity to the law of sin that is in our members: So that when we would do good, evil is present with us, and most easily besets us. Romans 7:23, 21. Hebrews 12:1.

The whole head is sick, the whole heart faint, from the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in us, but wounds and bruises, and putrifying sores. Isaiah 1:5, 6.

There is in us a bent to backslide from the living God: Our hearts are deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know them? They start aside like a broken bow. Hosea 11:7. Jeremiah 17:9. Hosea 7:16.

WE MUST LAMENT AND CONFESS OUR OMISSIONS OF OUR DUTY, OUR NEGLECT OF IT, AND TRIFLINGS IN IT, AND THAT WE HAVE DONE SO LITTLE SINCE WE CAME INTO THE WORLD OF THE GREAT WORK WE WERE SENT INTO THE WORLD ABOUT, SO VERY LITTLE TO ANSWER THE END EITHER OF OUR CREATION OR OF OUR REDEMPTION, OF OUR BIRTH OR OF OUR BAPTISM, AND THAT WE HAVE PROFITED NO MORE BY THE MEANS OF GRACE

WE have been as fig-trees planted in the vineyard, and thou hast come many years seeking fruit from us, but hast found none; and therefore we might justly have been cut down and cast into the fire for cumbering the ground: Thou hast come looking for grapes, but behold wild grapes; or we have been empty vines, bringing forth fruit unto ourselves. Luke 13:6, 7. Matthew 3:10. Isaiah 5:4. Hosea 10:1.

We have known to do good, but have not done it: We have hid our Lord’s money, and therefore deserve the doom of the wicked and slothful servant. James 4:17. Matthew 25:18, 26.

We have been unfaithful stewards, that have wasted our Lord’s goods; for one sinner destroys much good. Luke 16:1. Ecclesiastes 9:18.

Many a price hath been put into our hand to get wisdom, which we have had no heart to; or our heart has been at our left hand. Proverbs 17:16. Ecclesiastes 10:2.

Our childhood and youth was vanity, and we have brought our years to an end, as a tale that is told. Ecclesiastes 11:10. Psalm 90:9.

We have not known, or improved, the day of our visitation, have not provided meat in summer, nor gathered food in harvest, though we have had guides, overseers and rulers. Luke 19:44. Proverbs 6:8, 7.

We are slow of heart to understand and believe, and whereas for the time we might have been teachers of others, we are yet to learn the first principles of the oracles of God, have need of milk, and cannot bear strong meat. Luke 24:25. Hebrews 5:12.

We have cast off fear, and restrained prayer before God; have not called upon thy name, nor stirred up ourselves to take hold on thee. Job 15:4. Isaiah 64:7.

We have come before thee as thy people come, and have sat before thee as thy people sit, and have heard thy words, when our hearts at the same time have been going after our covetousness. And thus have we brought the torn, and the lame, and the sick for sacrifice, have offered that to our God, which we would not have offered to our governor; and have vowed and sacrificed to the Lord a corrupt thing, when we had in our flock a male. Ezekiel 33:31. Malachi 1:8, 14.

WE MUST LIKEWISE BEWAIL OUR MANY ACTUAL TRANSGRESSIONS, IN THOUGHT, WORD, AND DEED

WE have sinned, Father, against heaven and before thee; we have all sinned, and have come short of the glory of God; for the God in whose hand our breath is, and whose are all our ways, have we not glorified. Luke 15:18. Romans 3:23. Daniel 5:23.

Against thee, thee only have we sinned, and have done much evil in thy sight; neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his laws which he hath set before us; though they are all holy, just, and good. Psalm 51:4. Daniel 9:10. Romans 7:12.

Who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou us from secret faults. Psalm 19:12.

In many things we all offend; and our iniquities are more than the hairs of our head. James 3:2. Psalm 40:12.

As a fountain casteth out her waters, so do our hearts cast out wickedness; and this hath been our manner from our youth up, that we have not obeyed thy voice. Jeremiah 6:7. Jeremiah 22:21.

Out of the evil treasure of our hearts we have brought forth many evil things. Matthew 12:35.

1. We must confess and bewail the workings of pride in us.

We have all reason to be humbled for the pride of our hearts, that we have thought of ourselves above what hath been meet, and have not thought soberly, nor walked humbly with our God. 2 Chronicles 32:26. Romans 12:3. Micah 6:8.

We have leaned to our own understanding; and trusted in our own hearts; and have sacrificed to our own net. Proverbs 3:5. Proverbs 28:26. Habakkuk 1:16.

We have sought our own glory more than the glory of him that sent us; and have been puffed up for that for which we should have mourned. John 7:18. 1 Corinthians 5:2.

2. The breaking out of passion and rash anger.

We have not had the rule which we ought to have had over our own spirits, which have therefore been as a city that is broken down, and has no walls. Proverbs 25:28.

We have been soon angry, and anger hath rested in our bosoms. And when our spirits have been provoked, we have spoken unadvisedly with our lips; and have been guilty of that clamour and bitterness which should have been put far from us. Proverbs 14:17. Ecclesiastes 7:9. Psalm 106:33. Ephesians 4:31.

3. Our covetousness and love of the world.

Our conversation has not been without covetousness, nor have we learned in every state to be content with such things as we have. Hebrews 13:5. Philippians 4:11.

Who can say he is clean from that love of money, which is the root of all evil, that covetousness which is idolatry. 1 Timothy 6:10. Colossians 3:5.

We have sought great things to ourselves, when thou hast said, Seek them not. Jeremiah 45:5.

4. Our sensuality and flesh-pleasing.

We have minded the things of the flesh more than the things of the Spirit, and have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton, and have nourished our hearts as in a day of slaughter. Romans 8:5. James 5:5.

We have made provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts of it; even those lusts which war against our souls: and in many instances have acted as if we had been lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. Romans 13:14. 1 Peter 2:11. 2 Timothy 3:4.

When we did eat, and when we did drink, did we not eat to ourselves, and drink to ourselves? Zechariah 7:6.

5. Our security and unmindfulness of the changes we are liable to in this world.

We have put far from us the evil day, and in our prosperity have said we should never be moved, as if to morrow must needs be as this day, and much more abundant. Amos 6:3. Psalm 30:6. Isaiah 56:12.

We have encouraged our souls to take their ease, to eat and drink and be merry, as if we had goods laid up for many years, when perhaps this night our souls may be required of us. Luke 12:19, 20.

We have been ready to trust in uncertain riches more than in the living God; to say to the gold thou art our hope, and to the fine gold thou art our confidence. 1 Timothy 6:17. Job 31:24.

6. Our fretfulness and impatience and murmuring under our afflictions, our inordinate dejection, and distrust of God and His providence.

When thou hast chastised us and we were chastised, we have been as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke; and though our own foolishness hath perverted our way, yet our heart hath fretted against the Lord; and thus in our distress we have trespassed yet more against the Lord. Jeremiah 31:18. Proverbs 19:3. 2 Chronicles 28:22.

We have either despised the chastening of the Lord, or fainted when we have been rebuked of him; and if we faint in the day of adversity, our strength is small. Proverbs 3:11. Proverbs 24:10.

We have said in our haste we are cut off from before thine eyes, and that the Lord hath forsaken us, our God hath forgotten us, as if God would be favourable no more; as if he had forgotten to be gracious, and had in anger shut up his tender mercies. This has been our infirmity. Psalm 31:22. Isaiah 49:14. Psalm 77:7, 9, 10.

7. Our uncharitableness towards our brethren, and unpeaceableness with our relations, neighbours and friends, and perhaps injustice towards them.

We have been verily guilty concerning our brother; for we have not studied the things that make for peace, nor things wherewith we might edify one another. Genesis 42:21. Romans 14:19.

We have been ready to judge our brother, and to set at nought our brother, forgetting that we must all shortly stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Romans 14:10.

Contrary to the royal law of charity, we have vaunted ourselves, and been puffed up, have behaved ourselves unseemly, and sought our own, have been easily provoked, have rejoiced in iniquity, and been secretly glad at calamities. 1 Corinthians 13:4, 5, 6. Proverbs 17:5.

We have been desirous of vain-glory, provoking one another, envying one another; when we should have considered one another to provoke to love and to good works. Galatians 5:26. Hebrews 10:24.

The bowels of our compassion have been shut up from those that are in need; and we have hidden ourselves from our own flesh. Nay, perhaps our eye has been evil against our poor brother, and we have despised the poor. 1 John 3:17. Isaiah 58:7. Deuteronomy 15:9. James 2:6.

And if in any thing we have gone beyond and defrauded our brother, if we have walked with vanity, and our foot hath hasted to deceit, and any blot hath cleaved to our hands, Lord, discover it to us, that if we have done iniquity, we may do so no more. 1 Thessalonians 4:6. Job 31:5, 7. Job 34:32.

8. Our tongue-sins.

In the multitude of our words there wanteth not sin, nor can a man full of talk be justified. Proverbs 10:19. Job 11:2.

While the lips of the righteous feed many, our lips have poured out foolishness, and spoken frowardness. Proverbs 10:21. Proverbs 15:2. Proverbs 10:32.

Much corrupt communication hath proceeded out of our mouths; that foolish talking and jesting which is not convenient; and little of that which is good, and to the use of edifying, and which might minister grace unto the hearers. Ephesians 4:29. Ephesians 5:4.

If for every idle word that men speak they must give an account, and by our words we must be justified, and by our words we must be condemned, Woe unto us, for we are undone! for we are of unclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips. Matthew 12:36, 37. Isaiah 6:5.

What would become of us, if God should make our own tongues to fall upon us. Psalm 64:8.

9. Our spiritual slothfulness and decay.

We have been slothful in the business of religion, and not fervent in spirit, serving the Lord. Romans 12:11.

The things which remain are ready to die, and our works have not been found perfect before God. Revelation 3:2.

We have observed the winds, and therefore have not sown, have regarded the clouds, and therefore have not reaped; and with the sluggard have frightened ourselves with the fancy of a lion in the way, a lion in the streets, and have turned on our bed as the door on the hinges; still crying, Yet a little sleep, a little slumber. Ecclesiastes 11:4. Proverbs 26:13, 14. Proverbs 6:10.

We have lost our first love, and where is now the blessedness we sometimes spake of? Revelation 2:4. Galatians 4:15.

Our goodness hath been as the morning cloud and the early dew which passeth away. Hosea 6:4.

And that which is at the bottom of all, is the evil heart of unbelief in us, which inclines us to depart from the living God. Hebrews 3:12.

WE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE GREAT EVIL THAT THERE IS IN SIN, IN OUR SIN; THE MALIGNITY OF ITS NATURE, AND ITS MISCHIEVOUSNESS TO US

1. The sinfulness of sin.

O THAT sin may appear sin to us, may appear in its own colours, and that by the commandment we may see it to be exceeding sinful; because it is the transgression of the law. Romans 7:13. 1 John 3:4.

By every wilful sin we have in effect said, We will not have this man to reign over us; And who is the Lord, that we should obey his voice? And thus have we reproached the Lord, and cast his law behind our backs. Luke 19:14. Exodus 5:2. Numbers 15:30. Nehemiah 9:26.

2. The foolishness of sin.

O God, thou knowest our foolishness, and our sins are not hid from thee: We were foolish in being disobedient; and our lusts are foolish and hurtful. Psalm 69:5. Titus 3:3. 1 Timothy 6:9.

Foolishness was bound up in our hearts when we were children; for though vain man would be wise, he is born like the wild ass’s colt. Proverbs 22:15. Job 11:12.

Our way hath been our folly, and in many instances we have done foolishly, very foolishly. Psalm 49:13. 2 Samuel 24:10.

So foolish have we been and ignorant, and even as beasts before God. Psalm 73:22.

3. The unprofitableness of sin.

We have sinned and perverted that which was right, and it profited us not. Job 33:27.

What fruit have we now in those things whereof we have cause to be ashamed; seeing the end of those things is death? And what are we profited, if we should gain the whole world, and lose our own souls? Romans 6:21. Matthew 16:26.

4. The deceitfulness of sin.

Sin hath deceived us, and by it slain us; for our hearts have been hardened through the deceitfulness of sin; and we have been drawn away of our own lust, and enticed. Romans 7:11. Hebrews 3:13. James 1:14.

It hath promised us liberty, but has made us the servants of corruption; hath promised that we shall not surely die, and that we shall be as gods; but it has flattered us, and spread a net for our feet. 2 Peter 2:19. Genesis 3:4, 5. Proverbs 29:5.

The pride of our heart particularly has deceived us. Obadiah 3.

5. The offence which by sin we have given to the Holy God.

By breaking the law we have dishonoured God, and have provoked the Holy One of Israel to anger most bitterly. And many a thing that we have done hath displeased the Lord. Romans 2:23. Isaiah 1:4. Hosea 12:14. 2 Samuel 11 (v. 27).

God has been broken by our whorish heart, and our eyes that have gone a whoring after our idols. Ezekiel 6:9.

We have tempted him, and proved him, and grieved him in the wilderness; have rebelled and vexed his holy Spirit, and pressed him with our iniquities, as a cart is pressed that is full of sheaves. Psalm 95:9, 10, 8. Isaiah 63:10. Amos 2:13.

We have grieved the holy Spirit of God, by whom we are sealed to the day of redemption. Ephesians 4:30.

6. The damage which by sin we have done to our own souls, and their great interests.

By our iniquities we have sold ourselves, and in sinning against thee have wronged our own souls. Isaiah 50:1. Proverbs 8:36.

Our sins have separated between us and God, and have kept good things from us; and by them our minds and consciences have been defiled. Isaiah 59:2. Jeremiah 5:25. Titus 1:15.

Our own wickedness hath corrected us, and our backslidings have reproved us, and we cannot but know and see, that it is an evil thing, and bitter, that we have forsaken the Lord our God, and that his fear hath not been in us. Jeremiah 2:19.

O what fools are they that make a mock at sin! Proverbs 14:9.

WE MUST AGGRAVATE OUR SINS, AND TAKE NOTICE OF THOSE THINGS WHICH MAKE THEM MORE HEINOUS IN THE SIGHT OF GOD, AND MORE DANGEROUS TO OURSELVES

WE bewail before thee all our sins, and all our transgressions in all our sins. Leviticus 16:21.

1. The more knowledge we have of good and evil, the greater is our sin.

We have known our Master’s will, but have not done it, and therefore deserve to be beaten with many stripes. Luke 12:47.

We have known the way of the Lord, and the judgments of our God, and yet have altogether broken the yoke, and burst the bonds. Jeremiah 5:4, 5.

We have known the judgment of God, that they which do such things are worthy of death, and yet have done them, and have had pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:32.

We have taught others, and yet have not taught ourselves; and while we profess to know God, we have in works denied him. Romans 2:21. Titus 1:16.

2. The greater profession we have made of religion, the greater hath been our sin.

We call ourselves of the holy city, and stay ourselves upon the God of Israel, and make mention of his name, but not in truth and righteousness. For we have dishonoured that worthy name by which we are called, and given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. Isaiah 48:2, 1. James 2:7, 23. 2 Samuel 12:14.

We have named the name of Christ, and yet have not departed from iniquity. 2 Timothy 2:19.

3. The more mercies we have received from God, the greater hath been our sin.

Thou hast nourished and brought us up as children, but we have rebelled against thee. Isaiah 1:2.

We have ill requited thee, O Lord, as foolish people and unwise: Though thou art our Father that hast made us, and bought us, and established us, yet our spot has not been the spot of thy children. Deuteronomy 32:6, 5.

We have not rendered again according to the benefit done unto us. 2 Chronicles 32:25.

4. The fairer warning we have had from the word of God, and from our own consciences, concerning our danger of sin, and danger by sin, the greater is the sin if we go on in it.

We have been often reproved, and yet have hardened our neck; and have gone on frowardly in the way of our heart. Proverbs 29:1. Isaiah 57:17.

Thou hast sent to us, saying, O do not this abominable thing which I hate; but we have not hearkened, nor inclined our ear. Jeremiah 44:4, 5.

The word of God hath been to us, precept upon precept, and line upon line; and though we have beheld our natural faces in the glass of it, yet we have gone away, and straitway forgot what manner of men we were. Isaiah 28:13. James 1:23, 24.

5. The greater afflictions we have been under for sin, the greater is the sin if we go on in it.

Thou hast stricken us, but we have not grieved, we have refused to receive correction, and have made our faces harder than a rock; and the rod hath not driven the foolishness out of our hearts. Jeremiah 5:3. Proverbs 22:15.

Thou hast chastened us with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men, yet we have not turned to him that smiteth us, nor have we sought the Lord of hosts. 2 Samuel 7:14. Isaiah 9:13.

When some have been overthrown as Sodom and Gomorrah were, we have been as brands plucked out of the fire, yet have we not returned unto thee, O Lord. And when thy hand has been lifted up, we have not seen it. Amos 4:11. Isaiah 26:11.

6. The more vows and promises we have made of better obedience, the greater has our sin been.

We have not performed the words of the covenant which we made before thee, but as treacherous dealers we have dealt treacherously. Jeremiah 34:18. Isaiah 24:16.

Did we not say we would not transgress, we would not offend any more? We did, and yet we have returned with the dog to his vomit; have returned to folly after God hath spoken peace. Jeremiah 2:20. Job 34:31. 2 Peter 2:22. Psalm 85:8.

WE MUST JUDGE AND CONDEMN OURSELVES FOR OUR SINS, AND OWN OURSELVES LIABLE TO PUNISHMENT

AND now, O our God, what shall we say after this, for we have forsaken thy commandments? We have sinned, what shall we do unto thee, O thou preserver of men? Ezra 9:10. Job 7:20.

We know that the law curseth every one that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them; that the wages of every sin is death; and that for these things sake cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Galatians 3:10. Romans 6:23. Ephesians 5:6.

And we are all guilty before God; the scripture hath concluded us all under sin; and therefore thou mightest justly be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us; so that there should be no remnant, nor escaping. Romans 3:19. Galatians 3:22. Ezra 9:14.

If thou shouldest lay righteousness to the line and judgment to the plummet, thou mightest justly separate us unto all evil, according to all the curses of the covenant, and blot out our names from under heaven. Isaiah 28:17. Deuteronomy 29:21, 20.

Thou mightest justly swear in thy wrath, that we should never enter into thy rest; mightest justly set us naked and bare, and take away our corn in the season thereof, and our wine in the season thereof, and put into our hands the cup of trembling, and make us drink even the dregs of that cup. Psalm 95 (v. 11). Hosea 2:3, 9. Isaiah 51:22.

Thou art just in whatever thou art pleased to lay upon us; for thou hast done right, but we have done wickedly: Nay, thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities have deserved. Nehemiah 9:33. Ezra 9:13.

Thou therefore shalt be justified when thou speakest, and clear when thou judgest; and we will accept of the punishment of our iniquity, and humble ourselves under thy mighty hand, and say the Lord is righteous. Psalm 51:4. Leviticus 26:43. 1 Peter 5:6. 2 Chronicles 12:6.

Wherefore should a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins? No, we will bear the indignation of the Lord, because we have sinned against him. Lamentations 3:39. Micah 7:9.

WE MUST GIVE TO GOD THE GLORY OF HIS PATIENCE AND LONG-SUFFERING TOWARDS US, AND HIS WILLINGNESS TO BE RECONCILED

O THE riches of the patience and forbearance of God! how long-suffering is he to us ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Romans 2:4. 2 Peter 3:9.

Thou hast not dealt with us according to our sins, nor rewarded us after our iniquities; but thou waitest to be gracious to us. Psalm 103:10. Isaiah 30:18.

Sentence against our evil works has not been executed speedily; but thou hast given us space to repent, and make our peace with thee; and callest even backsliding children to return to thee, and hast promised to heal their backslidings; And therefore, behold we come unto thee, for thou art THE LORD OUR GOD. Ecclesiastes 8:11. Revelation 2:21. Jeremiah 3:22, 23.

Surely the long-suffering of our Lord, is salvation; and if the Lord had been pleased to kill us, he would not as at this time have shewed us such things as these. 2 Peter 3:15. Judges 13:23.

And O that this goodness of God might lead us to repentance! for though we have trespassed against our God, yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. Romans 2:4. Ezra 10:2.

Thou hast said it, and hast confirmed it with an oath, that thou hast no pleasure in the death of sinners, but rather that they should turn and live: Therefore will we rent our hearts and not our garments, and turn to the Lord our God; for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, who knows if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind him. Ezekiel 33:11. Joel 2:13, 14.

WE MUST HUMBLY PROFESS OUR SORROW AND SHAME FOR SIN, AND HUMBLY ENGAGE OURSELVES IN THE STRENGTH OF DIVINE GRACE, THAT WE WILL BE BETTER AND DO BETTER FOR THE FUTURE

LORD, we repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; to which thou hast exalted thy Son Christ Jesus to give repentance and remission of sins. Matthew 3:2. Acts 5:31.

We have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now our eye sees thee; wherefore we abhor ourselves, and repent in dust and ashes. Therefore will we be like the doves of the valleys, every one mourning for his iniquities. Job 42:5, 6. Ezekiel 7:16.

O that our heads were waters, and our eyes fountains of tears, that we might weep day and night for our transgressions, and might in such a manner sow in those tears, as that at last we may reap in joy; may now go forth weeping, bearing precious seed, and may in due time come again with rejoicing, bringing our sheaves with us. Jeremiah 9:1. Psalm 126:5, 6.

Our iniquities are gone over our heads as a heavy burden, they are too heavy for us; but weary and heavy laden under this burden we come to Christ, who has promised that in him we shall find rest for our souls. Psalm 38:4. Matthew 11:28, 29.

O that knowing every man the plague of his own heart, we may look unto him whom we have pierced, and may mourn, and be in bitterness for him as one that is in bitterness for a first-born. That we may sorrow after a godly sort, with that sorrow which worketh repentance unto salvation, not to be repented of; and that we may remember and be confounded, and never open our mouth any more, because of our shame when thou art pacified towards us. 1 Kings 8:38. Zechariah 12:10. 2 Corinthians 7:10. Ezekiel 16:63.

And, O that we may bring forth fruits meet for repentance! and may never return again to folly! for what have we to do any more with idols? Sin shall not have dominion over us, for we are not under the law, but under grace. Matthew 3:8. Psalm 85:8. Hosea 14:8. Romans 6:14.

We have gone astray like lost sheep; seek thy servants, for we do not forget thy commandments. Psalm 119 (v. 176).

Chapter III Petitions and requests

Matthew Henry

Matthew Henry

OF THE THIRD PART OF PRAYER, WHICH IS PETITION AND SUPPLICATION FOR THE GOOD THINGS WHICH WE STAND IN NEED OF

Having opened the wounds of sin, both the guilt of it, and the power of it, and its remainders in us, we must next seek unto God for the remedy, for healing and help, for from Him alone it is to be expected, and He will for this be enquired of by us. And now we must affect our hearts with a deep sense of the need we have of those mercies which we pray for, that we are undone, for ever undone, without them; and with a high esteem and value for them, that we are happy, we are made for ever, if we obtain them; that we may like Jacob wrestle with Him in prayer as for our lives, and the lives of our souls. But we must not think in our prayers to prescribe to Him, or by our importunity to move Him. He knows us better than we know ourselves, and knows what He will do. But thus we open our wants and our desires, and then refer ourselves to His wisdom and goodness: And hereby we give honour to Him as our protector and benefactor, and take the way which He Himself hath appointed of fetching in mercy from Him, and by faith plead His promise with Him; and if we are sincere herein, we are through His grace qualified according to the tenor of the new covenant to receive His favours, and are to be assured, that we do and shall receive them. Ezekiel 36:37. John 6:6. Mark 11:24.

AND now, Lord, what wait we for? Truly our hope is even in thee: Deliver us from all our transgressions, that we may not be the reproach of the foolish. Psalm 39:7, 8.

Lord, all our desire is before thee, and our groaning is not hid from thee; even the groanings which cannot be uttered: For he that searcheth the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit. Psalm 38:9. Romans 8:26, 27.

We do not think that we shall be heard for our much speaking; for our Father knows what things we have need of before we ask him; but our Master hath told us, that whatsoever we ask the Father in his name he will give it us. And he hath said, Ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. Matthew 6:7, 8. John 16:23, 24.

And this is the confidence that we have in him, that if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. 1 John 5:14, 15.

WE MUST EARNESTLY PRAY FOR THE PARDON AND FORGIVENESS OF ALL OUR SINS

LORD, we come to thee, as the poor publican, that stood afar off, and would not so much as lift up his eyes to heaven, but smote upon his breast; and we pray his prayer, God be merciful to us sinners. The God of infinite mercy be merciful to us. Luke 18:13.

O wash us throughly from our iniquity, and cleanse us from our sin, for we acknowledge our transgressions, and our sin is ever before us. O purge us with hyssop and we shall be clean, wash us and we shall be whiter than snow: Hide thy face from our sins, and blot out all our iniquities. Psalm 51:2, 3, 7, 9.

Be thou merciful to our unrighteousness, and our sins and our iniquities do thou remember no more. O forgive us that great debt. Hebrews 8:12. Matthew 18:32.

Let us be justified freely by thy grace through the redemption that is in Jesus, from all those things from which we could not be justified by the law of Moses. Romans 3:24. Acts 13:39.

O let not our iniquity be our ruin; but let the Lord take away our sin that we may not die, not die eternally: that we may not be hurt of the second death. Ezekiel 18:30. 2 Samuel 12:13. Revelation 2:11.

Blot out as a cloud our transgressions, and as a thick cloud our sins; for we return unto thee because thou hast redeemed us. Isaiah 44:22.

Enter not into judgment with thy servants, O Lord, for in thy sight shall no flesh living be justified. Psalm 143:2.

Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously; Heal our backslidings, and love us freely, and let thine anger be turned away from us; for in thee the fatherless findeth mercy. Hosea 14:2, 4, 3.

Though our sins have been as scarlet, let them be as white as snow, and though they have been red like crimson, let them be as wool, that being willing and obedient, we may eat the good of the land. Isaiah 1:18, 19.

We will say unto God, Do not condemn us, but deliver us from going down to the pit, for thou hast found the ransom. Job 10:2. Job 33:24.

For the encouraging of our faith, and the exciting of our fervency in this petition for the pardon of sin, we may plead with God,

1. The infinite goodness of His nature, His readiness to forgive sin, and His glorying in it.

Thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and rich in mercy to all them that call upon thee. Thou art a God full of compassion and gracious, long-suffering and plenteous in mercy and truth. Psalm 86:5, 15.

Thou art a God of pardons, merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness; that dost not always chide, nor keep thine anger for ever. Nehemiah 9:17. Psalm 103:9.

Thou, even thou art he that blottest out our transgressions for thine own sake, and wilt not remember our sins; which we are here to put thee in remembrance of, to plead with thee and to declare that we may be justified. Isaiah 43:25, 26.

And now we beseech thee, let the power of our Lord be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying, The Lord is long-suffering and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression. Pardon, we beseech thee, the iniquity of thy people, according unto the greatness of thy mercy; and as thou hast forgiven, even until now. Numbers 14:17, 18, 19.

For who is a God like unto thee, that pardonest iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of thine heritage; who retainest not thine anger for ever, because thou delightest in mercy. O that thou wouldest have compassion upon us, and subdue our iniquities, and cast all our sins into the depths of the sea. Micah 7:18, 19.

2. The merit and righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ, which we rely upon as our main plea in our petition for the pardon of sin.

We know that as thou art gracious and merciful, so thou art the righteous God that loveth righteousness, and wilt by no means clear the guilty. We cannot say, Have patience with us, and we will pay thee all; for we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. But Jesus Christ is made of God to us righteousness; being made sin for us, though he knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Psalm 11:7. Exodus 34:7. Matthew 18:26. Isaiah 64:6. 1 Corinthians 1:30. 2 Corinthians 5:21.

We have sinned, but we have an advocate with the Father, JESUS CHRIST THE RIGHTEOUS, who is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:1, 2.

It is God that justifieth, who is he that shall condemn? It is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again, and now is even at the right hand of God; who also maketh intercession for us, and whose blood speaks better things than that of Abel. Romans 8:33, 34. Hebrews 12:24.

We desire to count every thing loss for Christ; and dung that we may win Christ, and be found in him, not having any righteousness of our own, but that which is through the faith of Christ. Philippians 3:7, 8, 9.

This is the name whereby we will call him, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. In him, Lord, we believe, help thou our unbelief. Jeremiah 23:6. Mark 9:24.

Lord, remember David and all his troubles; the Son of David. Remember all his offerings, and accept his burnt sacrifice; and turn not away the face of thine anointed; who by his own blood is entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Psalm 132:1. Psalm 20:3. Psalm 132:10. Hebrews 13:12. Hebrews 9:24.

Hast not thou thyself set forth thy Son Christ Jesus to be a propitiation for sin through faith in his blood, to declare thy righteousness for the remission of sins, to declare at this time thy righteousness, that thou mayest be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus; And we now receive the atonement. Romans 3:25, 26. Romans 5:11.

3. The promises God hath made in His word to pardon and absolve all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe His Holy gospel.

Lord, is not this the word which thou hast spoken, that if the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and return unto the Lord, even to our God, that thou wilt abundantly pardon, wilt multiply to pardon? Isaiah 55:7.

To thee the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against thee. Daniel 9:9.

Is not this the covenant which thou hast made with the house of Israel, that thou wilt take away their sins; that thou wilt forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more; that the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found? Romans 11:27. Jeremiah 31:34. Jeremiah 50:20.

Hast thou not said, that if the wicked will turn from all his sins which he hath committed, and keep thy statutes, he shall live, he shall not die, all his transgressions shall not be mentioned unto him? Ezekiel 18:21, 22.

Hast thou not appointed that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in Christ’s name unto all nations? Luke 24:47.

Didst thou not promise, that when the sins of Israel were put upon the head of the scapegoat, they should be sent away into the wilderness, into a land not inhabited? And as far as the east is from the west, so far dost thou remove our transgressions from us. Leviticus 16:21, 22. Psalm 103:12.

O remember these words unto thy servants, upon which thou hast caused us to hope. Psalm 119:49.

4. Our own misery and danger because of sin.

For thy name’s sake, O Lord, pardon our iniquity, for it is great; for innumerable evils have compassed us about, our iniquities have taken hold upon us, so that we are not able to look up. Be pleased, O Lord, to deliver us; O Lord, make haste to help us. Psalm 25:11. Psalm 40:12, 13.

O remember not against us former iniquities, let thy tender mercies speedily prevent us, for we are brought very low. Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy name; deliver us, and purge away our sins for thy name’s sake. Psalm 79:8, 9.

Remember not the sins of our youth, nor our transgressions; according to thy mercy remember thou us, for thy goodness sake, O Lord. Psalm 25:7.

5. The blessed condition which they are in whose sins are pardoned.

O let us have the blessedness of those whose transgression is forgiven, and whose sin is covered; of that man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. Psalm 32:1, 2.

O let us have redemption through Christ’s blood, even the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of thy grace; wherein thou hast abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence. That being in Christ Jesus, there may be no condemnation to us. Ephesians 1:7, 8. Romans 8:1.

That our sins, which are many, being forgiven us, we may go in peace: And the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick, if the people that dwell therein be forgiven their iniquity. Luke 7:47, 50. Isaiah 33 (v. 24).

WE MUST LIKEWISE PRAY THAT GOD WILL BE RECONCILED TO US, THAT WE MAY OBTAIN HIS FAVOUR AND BLESSING, AND GRACIOUS ACCEPTANCE

1. That we may be at peace with God; and His anger may be turned away from us.

BEING justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and through him let us have access into that grace wherein believers stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Romans 5:1, 2.

Be not thou a terror to us, for thou art our hope in the day of evil. Jeremiah 17:17.

In Christ Jesus let us, who sometimes were afar off, be made nigh by the blood of Christ; For he is our peace, who hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, and that he might reconcile us to God by his cross, hath slain the enmity thereby, so making peace. Through him therefore let us who had made ourselves strangers and foreigners, become fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God. Ephesians 2:13-16, 19.

Fury is not in thee, who would set the briers and thorns against thee in battle, thou wouldest go through them, yea thou wouldst burn them together; but thou hast encouraged us to take hold on thy strength that we may make peace, and hast promised that we shall make peace; O let us therefore acquaint ourselves with thee, and be at peace, that thereby good may come unto us. Isaiah 27:4, 5. Job 22:21.

Heal us and we shall be healed, save us, and we shall be saved, for thou art our praise. Be not angry with us for ever, but revive us again, that thy people may rejoice in thee. Shew us thy mercy, O Lord, and grant us thy salvation. Jeremiah 17:14. Psalm 85:5-7.

2. That we may be taken into covenant with God, and admitted into relation to Him.

Be thou to us a God, and take us to be to thee a people; and make us a willing people in the day of thy power. Hebrews 8:10. Psalm 110:3.

Though we are no more worthy to be called thy children; for how shouldest thou put us that have been rebellious among the children, and give us the pleasant land? But thou hast said that we shall call thee our Father, and not turn away from thee. Shall we not therefore from this time cry unto thee, Our Father, thou art the guide of our youth. Luke 15:19. Jeremiah 3:19, 4.

Lord, we take hold of thy covenant, to thee we join ourselves in a perpetual covenant; O that thou wouldest cause us to pass under the rod, and bring us into the bond of the covenant, that we may become thine. Isaiah 56:4. Jeremiah 50:5. Ezekiel 20:37. Ezekiel 16:8.

Make with us an everlasting covenant, even the sure mercies of David. Isaiah 55:3.

3. That we may have the favour of God, and an interest in His special love.

We intreat thy favour, O God, with our whole hearts; be merciful to us according to thy word, for in thy favour is life, yea thy loving kindness is better than life itself. Psalm 119:58. Psalm 30:5. Psalm 63:3.

Lord, make thy face to shine upon us, and be gracious unto us; Lord, lift up the light of thy countenance upon us, and give us peace. Numbers 6:25, 26.

Remember us, O Lord, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people, O visit us with thy salvation, that we may see the good of thy chosen, and may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, and may glory with thine inheritance. Psalm 106:4, 5.

4. That we may have the blessing of God.

O God, be merciful to us and bless us, and cause thy face to shine upon us; yea let God, even our own God, give us his blessing. Psalm 67:1, 6.

The Lord that made heaven and earth, bless us out of Zion; bless us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things by Christ Jesus. Psalm 134:3. Ephesians 1:3.

O that thou wouldest bless us indeed! Command the blessing upon us, even life for ever more; For thou blessest, O Lord, and it shall be blessed. 1 Chronicles 4:10. Psalm 133:3. 1 Chronicles 17:27.

Let us receive the blessing from the Lord, even righteousness from the God of our salvation. Psalm 24:5.

Hast thou but one blessing? Yea, thou hast many blessings: Bless us, even us also, O our Father; yea, let the blessing of Abraham come upon us, which comes upon the Gentiles through faith. And the blessing of Jacob, for we would not let thee go, except thou bless us. Genesis 27:38. Galatians 3:14. Genesis 32:26.

5. That we may have the presence of God with us.

If thy presence go not up with us, carry us not up hence; never leave us nor forsake us. Exodus 33:15. Hebrews 13:5.

O cast us not away from thy presence, nor ever take thy holy spirit away from us; but let us always dwell with the upright in thy presence. Psalm 51:11. Psalm 140:13.

WE MUST PRAY FOR THE COMFORTABLE SENSE OF OUR RECONCILIATION TO GOD, AND OUR ACCEPTANCE WITH HIM

1. That we may have some evidence of the pardon of our sins, and of our adoption.

O MAKE us to hear joy and gladness, that the bones which sin hath broken may rejoice. Psalm 51:8.

Say unto each of us, Son, Daughter, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee. Matthew 9:2.

Let the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge our conscience from dead works to serve thee the living God. Hebrews 9:14.

Let thy Spirit witness with our spirits that we are the children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. Romans 8:16, 17.

Say unto our souls, that thou art our salvation. Psalm 35:3.

2. That we may have a well-grounded peace of conscience; a holy security and serenity of mind arising from a sense of our justification before God, and a good work wrought in us.

The Lord of peace himself give us peace, all peace, always, by all means; that peace which Jesus Christ hath left with us, which he gives to us, such a peace as the world can neither give nor take away; such a peace as that our hearts may not be troubled or afraid. 2 Thessalonians 3:16. John 14:27.

Let the work of righteousness in our souls be peace, and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever. Isaiah 32:17.

Speak peace unto thy people and to thy saints, and let not them turn again to folly. Psalm 85:8.

O create the fruit of the lips, Peace, peace to them that are afar off and to them that are nigh, and restore comfort to thy mourners. Isaiah 57:19, 18.

Where the sons of peace are, let thy peace find them out, and rest upon them. Luke 10:6.

Cause us to hear thy loving kindness, and to taste that thou art gracious, for in thee do we trust. Psalm 143:8. 1 Peter 2:3.

Let the peace of God which passeth all understanding, keep our hearts and minds through Christ Jesus; and let that peace rule in our hearts, unto which we are called. Philippians 4:7. Colossians 3:15.

Now the God of hope fill us with all joy and peace in believing, that we may abound in hope through the power of the Holy Ghost. Romans 15:13.

WE MUST PRAY FOR THE GRACE OF GOD, AND ALL THE KIND AND POWERFUL INFLUENCES AND OPERATIONS OF THAT GRACE

WE come to the throne of grace, that we may obtain not only mercy to pardon, but grace to help in every time of need; grace for seasonable help. Hebrews 4:16.

From the fulness that is in Jesus Christ (in whom it pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell) let every one of us receive, and grace for grace. John 1:16. Colossians 1:19.

1. We must pray for grace to fortify us against every evil thought, word and work. Having been earnest for the removing of the guilt of sin, that we may not die for it as a crime; we must be no less earnest for the breaking of the power of sin, that we may not die by it as a disease; but that it may be mortified in us.

O let no iniquity have dominion over us, because we are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:14.

Let the flesh be crucified in us with its affections and lusts; that walking in the Spirit we may not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. Galatians 5:24, 16.

Let our old man be crucified with Christ, that the body of sin may be destroyed, that henceforth we may not serve sin; and let not sin reign in our mortal bodies (in our immortal souls) that we should obey it in the lusts thereof. But being made free from sin, let us become the servants of righteousness. Romans 6:6, 12, 18.

Let the law of the Spirit of life, which is in Christ Jesus, make us free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2.

Give us grace to put off the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, that we may put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Ephesians 4:22, 24.

That the world may be crucified to us, and we to the world, by the cross of Christ. Galatians 6:14.

― And that the temptations of Satan may not overcome us.

We pray that we may not enter into temptation: Or however, that no temptation may take us but such as is common to men, and let the faithful God never suffer us to be tempted above what we are able, but with the temptation make way for us to escape. Matthew 26:41. 1 Corinthians 10:13.

Put upon us the whole armour of God, that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil, to withstand in the evil day, and having done all to stand; Let our loins be girt about with truth: put on us the breast-plate of righteousness, and let our feet be shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace. Give us the shield of faith, wherewith we may quench all the fiery darts of the wicked, and the helmet of salvation; and let the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, be always ready to us. Ephesians 6:11-17.

Enable us so to resist the devil, as that he may flee from us; to resist him stedfast in the faith. And the God of peace tread Satan under our feet, and do it shortly. James 4:7. 1 Peter 5:9. Romans 16:20.

2. We must pray for grace to furnish us for every good thought, word, and work; that we may not only be kept from sin, but may be in every thing as we should be, and do as we should do.

Let Christ be made of God to us not only righteousness, but wisdom, sanctification and redemption. 1 Corinthians 1:30.

Let us be planted together in the likeness of Christ’s death and resurrection, that as he was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. Romans 6:5, 4.

(a) That the work of grace may be wrought there where it is not yet begun.

Lord, teach transgressors thy ways, and let sinners be converted unto thee; and let the disobedient be turned to the wisdom of the just; and made ready, a people prepared for the Lord. Psalm 51:13. Luke 1:17.

Let those be quickened that are yet dead in trespasses and sins: Say unto them, Live; yea, say unto them, Live; and the time shall be a time of love. Ephesians 2:1. Ezekiel 16:6, 8.

Open their eyes, and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them which are sanctified. Acts 26:18.

By the blood of the covenant send forth the prisoners out of the pit in which is no water, that they may turn to the strong hold, as prisoners of hope. Zechariah 9:11, 12.

Let the word of God prevail to the pulling down of strong holds, and the casting down of imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and let every thought be brought into obedience to Christ. 2 Corinthians 10:4, 5.

(b) That where it is begun it may be carried on, and at length perfected, and the foundation that is well laid may be happily built upon.

Fulfil in us all the good pleasure of thy goodness, and the work of faith with power. 2 Thessalonians 1:11.

Let the God that has begun a good work in us, perform it unto the day of Christ. Philippians 1:6.

Perfect, O God, that which concerns us: Thy mercy, O Lord, endures for ever; forsake not the work of thine own hands. Psalm 138:8.

Lord, let thy grace be sufficient for us, and let thy strength be made perfect in weakness; that where we are weak there we may be strong; strong in the Lord and the power of his might. 2 Corinthians 12:9, 10. Ephesians 6:10.

3. More particularly we must pray for grace.

(a) To teach and instruct us, and make us knowing and intelligent in the things of God.

Give us so to cry after knowledge, and lift up our voice for understanding, to seek for it as silver, and to search for it as for hid treasure, that we may understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God. Proverbs 2:3, 4, 5.

Give us all to know thee, from the least even to the greatest, and to follow on to know thee; and so to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, as may be life eternal to us. Hebrews 8:11. Hosea 6:3. John 17:3.

Give us the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Christ, that the eyes of our understanding being enlightened, we may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and may experience what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us ward who believe; according to the working of his mighty power. Ephesians 1:17, 18, 19.

Open thou our eyes, that we may see the wondrous things of thy law and gospel. Psalm 119:18.

Give us to know the certainty of those things wherein we have been instructed; and let our knowledge grow up to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, even of the Father and of Christ. Luke 1:4. Colossians 2:2.

Deal with thy servants according to thy mercy, and teach us thy statutes; we are thy servants, give us understanding that we may know thy testimonies. Let our cry come before thee, O Lord, give us understanding according to thy word; that good understanding which they have that do thy commandments; whose praise endureth for ever. Psalm 119:124, 125, 169. Psalm 111:10.

(b) To lead us into, and keep us in the way of truth, and if in any thing we be in an error, to rectify our mistake.

Let the Spirit of truth guide us into all truth, and cause us to understand wherein we have erred. John 16:13. Job 6:24.

That which we see not teach thou us, and enable us so to prove all things, as to hold fast that which is good. Job 34:32. 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

Lord, grant that we may not be as children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into Christ in all things, who is the head. Ephesians 4:14, 15.

Lord, give us so to do thy will, as that we may know of the doctrine whether it be of God; and so to know the truth, as that the truth may make us free, may make us free indeed. John 7:17. John 8:32, 36.

Enable us, we pray thee, to hold fast the form of sound words, which we have heard, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus, and to continue in the things which we have learned and been assured of. 2 Timothy 1:13. 2 Timothy 3:14.

(c) To help our memories, that the truths of God may be ready to us, whenever we have occasion to use them.

Lord, let thy Spirit teach us all things, and bring all things to our remembrance, whatsoever thou hast said unto us; that the word of Christ may dwell richly in us in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. John 14:26. Colossians 3:16. Colossians 1:9.

Lord, grant that we may give a more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we let them slip, and may keep in memory what hath been preached to us, and may not believe in vain. Hebrews 2:1. 1 Corinthians 15:2.

Lord, make us ready and mighty in the scriptures, that we may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works; and being well instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, may as the good householder, bring out of our treasure things new and old. Acts 18:24. 2 Timothy 3:17. Matthew 13:52.

(d) To direct our consciences, to shew us the way of our duty, and to make us wise, knowing, judicious Christians.

Lord, give us a wise and an understanding heart, that wisdom which in all cases is profitable to direct; that wisdom of the prudent which is to understand his way. 1 Kings 3:9, 12. Ecclesiastes 10:10. Proverbs 14:8.

This we pray, that our love may abound yet more and more in knowledge, and in all judgment, that we may discern things that differ, and may approve things that are excellent; That we may be sincere and without offence unto the day of Christ, and may be filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God. Philippians 1:9, 10, 11.

O that we may be filled with the knowledge of thy will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; That we may walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God. Colossians 1:9, 10.

Teach us thy way, O God, and lead us in a plain path, because of our observers. Psalm 27:11.

When we know not what to do, our eyes are up unto thee; Then let us hear the word behind us, saying, This is the way, walk in it, that we turn not to the right hand, or to the left. 2 Chronicles 20:12. Isaiah 30:21.

Order our steps in thy word, and let no iniquity have dominion over us. Psalm 119:133.

(e) To sanctify our natures, to plant in us all holy principles and dispositions, and to increase every grace in us.

The very God of peace sanctify us wholly, and we pray God our whole spirit, and soul and body, may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; for faithful is he that calleth us, who also will do it. 1 Thessalonians 5:23, 24.

Create in us a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within us; Cast us not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy spirit away from us; Restore unto us the joy of thy salvation, and uphold us with thy free spirit. Psalm 51:10, 11, 12.

Write thy law in our hearts, and put it in our inward part, that we may be the epistles of Christ written by the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart, that the law of our God being in our heart, none of our steps may slide, and we may delight to do thy will, O God, may delight in the law of God after the inward man. Hebrews 8:10. 2 Corinthians 3:3. Psalm 37:31. Psalm 40:8. Romans 7:22.

O that we may obey from the heart that form of doctrine into which we desire to be delivered, as into a mould, that our whole souls may be leavened by it; and that we may not be conformed to this world, but transformed by the renewing of our mind; may not fashion ourselves after our former lusts in our ignorance, but as obedient children may be holy in all manner of conversation, as he which hath called us is holy. Romans 6:17. Matthew 13:33. Romans 12:2. 1 Peter 1:14, 15.

1) We must pray for faith.

Unto us (Lord) let it be given to believe; for the faith by which we are saved is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. Philippians 1:29. Ephesians 2:8.

Lord, increase our faith; and perfect what is lacking in it, that we may be strong in faith, giving glory to God. Luke 17:5. 1 Thessalonians 3:10. Romans 4:20.

Lord, give us so to be crucified with Christ, as that the life we now live in the flesh we may live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved us, and gave himself for us; And so to bear about with us continually the dying of the Lord Jesus, as that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal bodies. Galatians 2:20. 2 Corinthians 4:10.

As we have received Christ Jesus the Lord, enable us so to walk in him, rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith as we have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Colossians 2:6, 7.

Let every word of thine profit us, being mixed with faith, by which we receive thy testimony, and set to our seal that God is true. Hebrews 4:2. John 3:33.

We beseech thee work in us that faith which is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen, by which we may look above the things that are seen that are temporal, and may look at the things that are not seen that are eternal. Hebrews 11:1. 2 Corinthians 4:18.

Enable us by faith to set the Lord always before us, and to have our eyes ever towards him; that we may act in every thing as seeing him that is invisible, and having a respect to the recompence of reward. Psalm 16:8. Psalm 25:15. Hebrews 11:27, 26.

Let our hearts be purified by faith, and let it be our victory overcoming the world. And let us be kept from fainting by believing that we shall see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. Acts 15:9. 1 John 5:4. Psalm 27:13.

2) We must pray for the fear of God.

Lord, work in us that fear of thee, which is the beginning of wisdom, which is the instruction of wisdom, and which is a fountain of life to depart from the snares of death. Proverbs 1:7. Proverbs 15:33. Proverbs 14:27.

Unite our hearts to fear thy name, that we may keep thy commandments, which is the whole of man. Psalm 86:11. Ecclesiastes 12:13.

O put thy fear into our hearts, that we may never depart from thee. Let us all be devoted to thy fear; And let us be in the fear of the Lord every day, and all the day long. Jeremiah 32:40. Psalm 119:38. Proverbs 23:17.

3) We must pray that the love of God and Christ may be rooted in us, and in order thereunto, that the love of the world may be rooted out of us.

Give us grace (we beseech thee) to love thee the Lord our God with all our heart and soul, and mind and might, which is the first and great commandment, to set our love upon thee, and to delight ourselves always in thee, and therein we shall have the desire of our heart. Matthew 22:37, 38. Psalm 91:14. Psalm 37:4.

Circumcise our hearts to love thee the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, that we may live. Deuteronomy 30:6.

O that the love of God may be shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost. Romans 5:5.

O that Jesus Christ may be very precious to us, as he is to all that believe, that he may be in our account the chiefest of ten thousands, and altogether lovely; and that he may be our beloved and our friend: That though we have not seen him, yet we may love him, and though now we see him not, yet believing we may rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory. 1 Peter 2:7. Canticle (Song of Solomon) 5:10, 16. 1 Peter 1:8.

Let the love of Christ to us constrain us to live, not to ourselves, but to him that died for us and rose again. 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15.

And, Lord, grant that we may not love the world, nor the things that are in the world, because if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him; that we may set our affections on things above, and not on things that are on the earth. 1 John 2:15. Colossians 3:1, 2.

4) We must pray that our consciences may be always tender, and that we may live a life of repentance.

Lord, take away the stony heart out of our flesh, and give us a heart of flesh. Ezekiel 11:19.

Make us afraid of all appearances of evil, and careful not to give Satan advantage against us, as being not ignorant of his devices. 1 Thessalonians 5:22. 2 Corinthians 2:11.

Lord, give us the happiness which they have that fear always; that when we think we stand, we may take heed lest we fall. Proverbs 28:14. 1 Corinthians 10:12.

5) We must pray to God to work in us charity and brotherly love.

Lord, put upon us that charity which is the bond of perfectness, that we may keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and may live in love and peace, that the God of love and peace may be with us. Colossians 3:14. Ephesians 4:3. 2 Corinthians 13:11.

Lord, give us to love our neighbour as ourselves, with that love which is the fulfilling of the law; to love one another with a pure heart fervently, that hereby all men may know that we are Christ’s disciples. Romans 13:9, 10. 1 Peter 1:22. John 13:35.

And as we are taught of God to love one another, give us to abound therein more and more, and as we have opportunity to do good to all men, and as much as in us lies to live peaceably with all men; always following after the things that make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 1 Thessalonians 4:9, 10. Galatians 6:10. Romans 12:18. Romans 14:19.

Lord, make us able to love our enemies, to bless them that curse us, and to pray for them that despitefully use us, and to do good to them that hate us, forbearing one another, and forgiving one another in love, as Christ forgave us. Matthew 5:44. Colossians 3:13.

6) We must pray for the grace of self-denial.

Lord, give us grace to deny ourselves, to take up our cross daily, and to follow Christ, to keep under the body, and bring it into subjection. Matthew 16:24. 1 Corinthians 9:27.

Lord, keep us from being lovers of our own selves, from being wise in our own conceit, and leaning to our own understanding. 2 Timothy 3:2. Proverbs 3:7, 5.

Lord, give us to seek not our own only, but every one his brother’s welfare. 1 Corinthians 10:24.

And grant that none of us may live to ourselves, or die to ourselves, but whether we live or die we may be the Lord’s, and may live and die to him. Romans 14:7, 8.

7) We must pray for humility and meekness.

Lord, give us all to learn of Christ to be meek and lowly in heart, that we may find rest to our souls; and that herein the same mind may be in us that was also in Christ Jesus. Matthew 11:29. Philippians 2:5.

Lord, hide pride from us, and clothe us with humility, and put upon us the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which in thy sight is of great price. Job 33:17. 1 Peter 5:5. 1 Peter 3:4.

Lord, give us grace to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering forbearing one another in love. Ephesians 4:1, 2.

Let anger never rest in our bosoms, nor the sun ever go down upon our wrath; but enable us to shew all meekness towards all men, because we ourselves also were sometimes foolish and disobedient. Ecclesiastes 7:9. Ephesians 4:26. Titus 3:2, 3.

Let us be clothed as becomes the elect of God, holy and beloved, with bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, and long-suffering; that being merciful as our Father which is in heaven is merciful, we may be perfect as he is perfect. Colossians 3:12. Luke 6:36. Matthew 5 (v. 48).

8) We must pray for the grace of contentment and patience, and a holy indifferency to all the things of sense and time.

Lord, teach us whatsoever state we are in therewith to be content; let us know both how to be abased, and how to abound, every where and in all things let us be instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need; And let godliness with contentment be great gain to us; and a little with the fear of the Lord and quietness, is better than great treasure and trouble therewith. Philippians 4:11, 12. 1 Timothy 6:6. Proverbs 15:16. Proverbs 17:1.

Lord, grant that our conversation may be without covetousness, and we may always be content with such things as we have; still saying, The will of the Lord be done. Hebrews 13:5. Acts 21:14.

Enable us in our patience to possess our own souls; and let patience always have its perfect work, that we may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. Luke 21:19. James 1:4.

Lord, give us grace to weep as though we wept not, and to rejoice as though we rejoiced not, and to buy as though we possessed not, and to use this world as not abusing it, because the time is short, and the fashion of this world passeth away. 1 Corinthians 7:29, 30, 31.

9) We must pray for the grace of hope; a hope in God and Christ, and a hope of eternal life.

Let patience work experience in us, and experience hope, such a hope as maketh not ashamed. Through patience and comfort of the scriptures let us have hope, and be saved by hope. Romans 5:4, 5. Romans 15:4. Romans 8:24.

Let the God of Jacob be our help, and our hope always be in the Lord our God. Psalm 146:5.

Let us be begotten again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and let that hope be to us as an anchor of the soul, sure and stedfast, entering into that within the vail, whither the forerunner is for us entered. 1 Peter 1:3. Hebrews 6:19, 20.

Let us have Christ in us the hope of glory, and never be moved away from that hope of the gospel; but enable us to give diligence unto the full assurance of hope unto the end. Colossians 1:27, 23. Hebrews 6:11.

10) We must pray for grace to preserve us from sin, and all appearances of it and approaches towards it.

Now we pray to God that we may do no evil, but may be blameless and harmless as the children of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. 2 Corinthians 13:7. Philippians 2:15.

Turn away our eyes from beholding vanity, and quicken thou us in thy way; Remove from us the way of lying, and grant us thy law graciously. Psalm 119:37, 29.

Incline not our hearts to any evil thing, to practise wicked works with them that work iniquity, and let us not eat of their dainties. Psalm 141:4.

O cleanse us from our secret faults, keep back thy servants also from presumptuous sins; let not them have dominion over us, but let us be upright and innocent from the great transgressions, and grant that hereby we may prove ourselves upright before thee, by keeping ourselves from our own iniquity. Psalm 19:12, 13. Psalm 18:23.

Let thy word be hid in our hearts, that we may not sin against thee, and thy grace be at all times sufficient for us, ready to us, and mighty in us, and never give us up to our own hearts lusts, to walk in our own counsels. Psalm 119:11. 2 Corinthians 12:9. Psalm 81:12.

Enable us to walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, so circumspectly, that we may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion to blaspheme that worthy name by which we are called, and with well-doing may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, and may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour, in all things. Ephesians 5:15. 2 Corinthians 11:12. James 2:7. 1 Peter 2:15. Titus 2:10.

4. We must pray for grace to enable us, both to govern our tongues well, and to use them well.

Lord, enable us to take heed to our ways, that we offend not with our tongue, and to keep our mouth as it were with a bridle, that it may not be hasty to utter any thing. Psalm 39:1. Ecclesiastes 5:2.

Set a watch, O Lord, before our mouth, keep the door of our lips, that we may not offend in word. Psalm 141:3. James 3:2.

Let our speech be always with grace seasoned with salt, and enable us always out of the good treasure of our heart to bring forth good things. Let our mouth speak wisdom, and our tongue talk of judgment; and let not thy words depart out of our mouth, nor out of the mouth of our seed, or our seed’s seed, from henceforth and for ever. Colossians 4:6. Matthew 12:35. Psalm 37:30. Isaiah 59:21.

Enable us always to open our mouth with wisdom, and let the law of kindness be in our tongue: Give us to know what is acceptable, that our tongue may be as choice silver, and our lips may feed many. Proverbs 31:26. Proverbs 10:32, 20, 21.

5. We must pray for grace to direct and quicken us to, and to strengthen and assist us in our duty in the whole course of our conversation.

Let the grace of God, which hath appeared to us, and to all men, bringing salvation, effectually teach us to deny all ungodliness and worldly fleshly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world, looking for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works. Titus 2:11-14.

(a) That we may be prudent and discreet in our duty.

Thou hast said, If any man lack wisdom, he must ask it of God, who gives to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him. Lord, we want wisdom, make us wise as serpents, and harmless as doves, that wisdom may make our face to shine, and may be better to us than weapons of war. James 1:5. Matthew 10:16. Ecclesiastes 8:1. Ecclesiastes 9:18.

Enable us to walk in wisdom towards them that are without, redeeming the time. Colossians 4:5.

Give us to order all our affairs with discretion; and to behave ourselves wisely in a perfect way, with a perfect heart. Psalm 112:5. Psalm 101:2.

(b) That we may be honest and sincere in our duty.

Let our wisdom be not that from beneath, which is earthly, sensual, devilish, but wisdom from above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. James 3:15, 17.

O that we may always have our conversation in the world in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God. 2 Corinthians 1:12.

Lord, uphold us in our integrity, and set us before thy face for ever, and let integrity and uprightness preserve us, for we wait on thee. Psalm 41:12. Psalm 25:21.

Let our hearts be sound in thy statutes, that we be not ashamed; and let our eye be single, that our whole body may be full of light. Psalm 119:80. Matthew 6:22.

(c) That we may be active and diligent in our duty.

Lord, quicken us to work the works of him that was sent us, while it is day, because the night comes wherein no man can work; and what good our hand finds to do, to do it with all our might, because there is no work or knowledge in the grave, whither we are going. John 9:4. Ecclesiastes 9:10.

Lord, grant that we may never be slothful in any good business, but fervent in spirit serving the Lord; stedfast and unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as we know that our labour is not in vain in the Lord. Romans 12:11. 1 Corinthians 15:58.

Lord, make us zealously affected in every good work; and what we do enable us to do it heartily as unto the Lord, and not unto men.

Galatians 4:18. Colossians 3:23.

Lord, enable us to do the work of every day in its day, according as the duty of the day requires, redeeming the time, because the days are evil; that when our Lord comes he may find us doing. Ezra 3:4. Ephesians 5:16. Luke 12:43.

(d) That we may be resolute and courageous in our duty, as those that know that though we may be losers for Christ, we shall not be losers by Him in the end.

Lord, teach us to endure hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ; that we may not fear the reproach of men, or their revilings, nor be ashamed of Christ or of his words, knowing whom we have believed, even one who is able to keep what we have committed to him against that day. 2 Timothy 2:3. Isaiah 51:7. Mark 8:38. 2 Timothy 1:12.

Though bonds and afflictions should abide us, Lord, grant that none of these things may move us, and that we may not count life itself dear to us, so we may finish our course with joy. Acts 20:23, 24.

Enable us in all things to approve ourselves to God, and then to pass by honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report, clad with the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, as those that account it a very small thing to be judged of man’s judgment, for he that judgeth us is the Lord. 2 Corinthians 6:4, 8, 7. 1 Corinthians 4:3, 4.

(e) That we may be pleasant and cheerful in our duty.

Lord, enable us to rejoice evermore; to rejoice in the Lord always, because he hath again said unto us, Rejoice; that we may go on our way rejoicing, may eat our bread with joy, and drink our wine with a merry heart, as we shall have reason to do if God now accepteth our works. 1 Thessalonians 5:16. Philippians 4:4. Acts 8:39. Ecclesiastes 9:7.

Give us grace to serve thee the Lord our God with joyfulness and gladness of heart in the abundance of all things; And to sing in the ways of the Lord, because great is the glory of our God. Deuteronomy 28:47. Psalm 138:5.

Let us have that cheerfulness of heart which doth good like a medicine, and deliver us from that heaviness which maketh the heart stoop, and that sorrow of the world which worketh death. Proverbs 17:22. Proverbs 12:25. 2 Corinthians 7:10.

(f) That we may do the duty of every condition of life, every event of providence, and every relation wherein we stand.

Lord, enable us, in a day of prosperity to be joyful, and in a day of adversity, to consider, because God hath set the one over against the other; to add to our knowledge temperance, and to temperance patience. Ecclesiastes 7:14. 2 Peter 1:6.

Give us grace to abide with thee in the calling wherein we are called; and in all our ways to acknowledge thee, and be thou pleased to direct our steps. 1 Corinthians 7:24. Proverbs 3:6.

Let those that are called, being servants, be the Lord’s freemen, and those that are called, being free, be Christ’s servants. 1 Corinthians 7:22.

Let all in every relation dwell together in unity, that it may be as the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion. O that we may dwell together as joint-heirs of the grace of life, that our prayers may not be hindered. Psalm 133:1, 3. 1 Peter 3:7.

Give us grace to honour all men, to love the brotherhood, to fear God, and to be subject to the higher powers, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 1 Peter 2:17. Romans 13:1,

5. (g) That we may be universally conscientious.

O that we may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. Colossians 4:12.

O that our ways were directed to keep thy commandments! And then shall we not be ashamed, when we have a respect to them all. Psalm 119:5, 6.

Teach us, O Lord, the way of thy statutes, and we shall keep it unto the end: Give us understanding, and we shall keep thy law, yea we shall observe it with our whole heart: Make us to go in the path of thy commandments, for therein do we delight. Incline our hearts unto thy testimonies, and not to covetousness. Psalm 119:33-36.

Grant us, we pray thee, according to the riches of thy glory, that

we may be strengthened with all might by thy Spirit in the inner man: That Christ may dwell in our hearts by faith, and that we being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, and may know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge; and be filled with a divine fulness, and may partake of a divine nature. Ephesians 3:16-19. 2 Peter 1:4.

And let the love of Christ constrain us to live not to ourselves, but to him that died for us, and rose again. 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15.

6. We must pray for grace to make us wiser and better every day than other.

Lord, give us to increase with the increases of God; to grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; to hold on our way, and having clean hands to grow stronger and stronger. Colossians 2:19. 2 Peter 3:18. Job 17:9.

Let our path be as the shining light, which shines more and more to the perfect day. Proverbs 4:18.

We have not yet attained, nor are we already perfect; Lord, grant that therefore forgetting the things that are behind, we may reach forth to those things that are before, for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Philippians 3:12, 13, 14.

Be thou as the dew unto us, that we may grow as the lily, and cast forth our roots as Lebanon; that our branches may spread, and our beauty be as the olive-tree. And let the Sun of righteousness arise upon us with healing under his wings, that we may go forth and grow up as calves of the stall. Hosea 14:5, 6. Malachi 4:2.

7. We must pray for effectual support and comfort under all the crosses and afflictions that we meet with in this world.

We know that we are born to trouble as the sparks fly upward; but in six troubles, be thou pleased to deliver us, and in seven let no evil touch us. Job 5:7, 19.

Let the eternal God be our refuge, and underneath be the everlasting arms; that the spirit thou hast made may not fail before thee, nor the soul that thou hast redeemed. Deuteronomy 33:27. Isaiah 57:16. Psalm 71:23.

Let us be strengthened with all might according to thy glorious power, unto all patience and long-suffering with joyfulness. Colossians 1:11.

Let thy statutes be our songs in the house of our pilgrimage; and let thy testimonies, which we have taken as a heritage for ever, be always the rejoicing of our hearts. Psalm 119:54, 111.

When we are troubled on every side, yet let us not be distressed, and when we are perplexed, yet let us not be in despair; but as sorrowful, and yet always rejoicing, as having nothing, and yet possessing all things. 2 Corinthians 4:8. 2 Corinthians 6:10.

8. We must pray for grace to preserve us to the end, and to fit us for whatever lies before us betwixt and the grave.

Lord, deliver us from every evil work, and preserve us to thy heavenly kingdom, being kept from falling, that we may be presented faultless at the coming of thy glory with exceeding joy. 2 Timothy 4:18. Jude 24.

Lord, make us to increase and abound in love one towards another, and towards all men, that our hearts may be established unblameable in holiness, before God even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints. 1 Thessalonians 3:12, 13.

If Satan desire to have us that he may sift us as wheat, yet let Christ’s intercession prevail for us, that our faith fail not. Luke 22:31, 32.

Till we are taken out of the world, let us be kept from the evil, and sanctified through thy truth; thy word is truth. John 17:15, 17.

Build us up, we pray thee, in our most holy faith, and keep us in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. Jude 20, 21.

Grant that we may continue to call upon thee as long as we live, and till we die may never remove our integrity from us; and that our righteousness we may hold fast, and never let it go, and our hearts may not reproach us so long as we live. Psalm 116:2. Job 27:5, 6.

9. We must pray for grace to prepare us for death, and to carry us well through our dying moments.

Lord, make us to know our end, and the measure of our days what it is, that we may know and consider how frail we are; and that our days are as a hand breadth, and that every man at his best state is altogether vanity, and our days upon earth are as a shadow, and there is no abiding. Psalm 39:4, 5. 1 Chronicles 29:15.

Lord, teach us so to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom, and make us to consider our latter end. Psalm 90:12. Deuteronomy 32:29.

Lord, make us always ready, with our loins girded about, and our lights burning, because the Son of man comes at an hour that we think not. Luke 12:35, 40.

Keep us all the days of our appointed time, waiting till our change comes; and then shalt thou call, and we will answer. Job 14:14, 15.

Bring us to our grave as a shock of corn in its season; satisfy us

with life, whether it be longer or shorter, and shew us thy salvation. Job 5:26. Psalm 91 (v. 16).

And when we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, be thou with us, that we may fear no evil, let thy rod and thy staff comfort us. Psalm 23:4.

Let goodness and mercy follow us all the days of our life, and let us dwell in the house of the Lord for ever. Mercy and truth be with us. Psalm 23:6. 2 Samuel 15:20.

Redeem our souls from the power of the grave, and receive us; Guide us by thy counsel, and afterwards receive us to glory. Psalm 49:15. Psalm 73:24.

10. We must pray for grace to fit us for heaven, and that we may at length be put in possession of eternal life.

Lord, make us meet to partake of the inheritance of the saints in light; let God himself work us to the self-same thing, and give us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. Colossians 1:12. 2 Corinthians 5:5.

O that we may now have our conversation in heaven, that we may from thence with comfort look for the Saviour the Lord Jesus, who shall change our vile bodies, that they may be fashioned like unto his glorious body. Philippians 3:20, 21.

O that now we may set our affections on things above, and that our life may be hid with Christ in God, that when Christ who is our life shall appear, we may also appear with him in glory; that when he shall appear we may be like him, and may see him as he is, may behold his face in righteousness, and when we awake may be satisfied with his likeness. Colossians 3:2, 3, 4. 1 John 3:2. Psalm 17:15.

When we fail, let us be received into everlasting habitations, in the city that hath foundation, whose builder and maker is God, that we may be together for ever with the Lord, to see as we are seen, and know as we are known. Luke 16:9. Hebrews 11:10. 1 Thessalonians 4:17. 1 Corinthians 13:12.

And in the mean time help us to comfort ourselves and one another with these words; and having this hope in us to purify ourselves even as Christ is pure. 1 Thessalonians 4:18. 1 John 3:3.

Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort our hearts, and stablish us in every good word and work. 2 Thessalonians 2:16, 17.

11. We must pray for the good things of this life, with an humble submission to the will of God.

Lord, thou hast told us, that godliness hath the promise of the life that now is, as well as of that which is to come; And that if we seek first the kingdom of God and the righteousness thereof, other things shall be added to us; and therefore we cast all our care about these things upon thee, who carest for us, for our heavenly Father knows that we have need of all these things. 1 Timothy 4:8. Matthew 6:33. 1 Peter 5:7. Matthew 6:32.

(a) We must pray to be preserved from the calamities to which we are exposed.

Thou, Lord, art our refuge and our fortress, and under thy wings will we trust, thy truth shall be our shield and buckler; Let us therefore not be afraid for the terror by night, nor for the arrow that flieth by day. Having made the Lord our refuge, and the most High our habitation, let no evil befall us, nor any plague come nigh our dwelling. Psalm 91:2, 4, 5, 9, 10.

Let the Lord be our keeper, even he that keepeth Israel, and neither slumbers nor sleeps. Let the Lord be our shade on our right hand; That the sun may not smite us by day, nor the moon by night; Let the Lord preserve us from all evil, the Lord preserve our souls; The Lord preserve our going out and coming in, from this time forth, and even for ever more. Psalm 121:4-8.

Lord, make a hedge about us, about our houses, and about all that we have round about; and take sickness away from the midst of us. Job 1:10. Exodus 23:25.

(b) We must pray to be supplied with the comforts and supports we daily stand in need of.

O that the beauty of the Lord our God may be upon us, prosper thou the work of our hands upon us, yea the work of our hands establish thou it; Save now, we beseech thee, O Lord; O Lord, we beseech thee send now prosperity. Psalm 90:17. Psalm 118:25.

Let our sons be as plants grown up in their youth, and our daughters as corner stones polished after the similitude of a palace: Let our garners be full, affording all manner of store; And let there be no breaking in or going out; no complaining within our streets: Happy is the people that is in such a case, yea rather happy is the people whose God is the Lord. Psalm 144:12-15.

Let us be blessed in the city, and blessed in the field, let our basket and store be blessed, let us be blessed when we come in, and when we go out. Deuteronomy 28:3, 5, 6.

Let thy good providence so order all events concerning us, as that they may be made to work for good to us, as thou hast promised they shall to all that love thee and are called according to thy purpose. Romans 8:28.

Give us to trust in the Lord and do good, and then we shall dwell in the land, and verily we shall be fed; and be thou pleased to bring forth our righteousness as the light, and our judgment as the noonday. Psalm 37:3, 6.

Let us be hid from the scourge of the tongue, and not be afraid of destruction when it cometh; let us be in league with the stones of the field, and let the beasts of the field be at peace with us; let us know that our tabernacle is in peace, and let us visit our habitation and not sin. Job 5:21, 23, 24.

And if God will be with us, and will keep us in the way that we go, during our pilgrimage in this world, and will give us bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that we may come to our heavenly Father’s house in peace, then the Lord shall be our God. Genesis 28:20, 21.

12. We must plead the promises of God for the enforcing of all our petitions, put these promises in suit, and refer ourselves to them.

Lord, thou hast given us many exceeding great and precious promises, which are all yea and Amen in Christ. Now be it unto thy servants according to the word which thou hast spoken. 2 Peter 1:4. 2 Corinthians 1:20. Luke 1:38. 2 Samuel 7:25.

Give us to draw water with joy out of those wells of salvation, to suck and be satisfied from those breasts of consolation; And now, O Lord God, let the word which thou hast spoken concerning thy servants be established for ever, and do as thou hast said. Isaiah 12:3. Isaiah 66:11. 2 Samuel 7:25. 1 Chronicles 17:23.

Deal with us according to the tenor of the everlasting covenant, which is well ordered in all things and sure, and which is all our salvation, and all our desire. 2 Samuel 23:5.

Look upon us and be merciful to us, as thou usest to do unto those that love thy name, and do more for us than we are able to ask or think, and supply all our needs according to thy riches in glory by Christ Jesus. Psalm 119:132. Ephesians 3:20. Philippians 4:19.

Chapter IV Thanksgivings for mercy

OF THE FOURTH PART OF PRAYER, WHICH IS THANKSGIVING FOR THE MERCIES WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM GOD, AND THE MANY FAVOURS OF HIS WE ARE INTERESTED IN, AND HAVE AND HOPE FOR BENEFIT BY

Matthew Henry

Matthew Henry

Our errand at the throne of grace is not only to seek the favour of God, but to give unto Him the glory due unto His name, and that not only by an awful adoration of His infinite perfections, but by a grateful acknowledgment of His goodness to us, which cannot indeed add any thing to His glory, but He is pleased to accept of it, and to reckon Himself glorified by it, if it come from a heart that’s humbly sensible of its own unworthiness to receive any favour from God, that values the gifts, and loves the giver of them.

WE MUST STIR UP OURSELVES TO PRAISE GOD, WITH THE CONSIDERATION BOTH OF THE REASON AND OF THE ENCOURAGEMENT WE HAVE TO PRAISE HIM

UNTO thee, O God, do we give thanks, unto thee do we give thanks, for that thy name is near thy wondrous works declare. Psalm 75:1.

Let our souls bless the Lord, and let all that is within us bless his holy name; yea, let our souls bless the Lord, and not forget any of his benefits. Psalm 103:1, 2.

We will praise the Lord, for it is good, it is pleasant, and praise is comely for the upright, yea it is a good thing to give thanks unto the Lord, and to sing praises unto thy name, O most High, to shew forth thy loving-kindness in the morning, and thy faithfulness every night. Psalm 147:1. Psalm 92:1, 2.

We will extol thee our God, O king, and will bless thy name for ever and ever; Every day will we bless thee, and will praise thy name for ever and ever; we will abundantly utter the memory of thy great goodness, and sing of thy righteousness. Psalm 145:1, 2, 7.

We will sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints; O let Israel rejoice in him that made him, let the children of Zion be joyful in their King; Let the saints be joyful in glory, and let the high praises of God be in their hearts, and in their mouths. Psalm 149:1, 2, 5, 6.

While we live we will bless the Lord, and will sing praises unto our God while we have any being; and when we have no being on earth, we hope to have a being in heaven to be doing it better. Psalm 146:2.

We are here through Jesus Christ to offer the sacrifice of praise to thee, which we desire to do continually, that is the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to thy name. And thou hast said that he that offers praise glorifies thee, and that this also shall please the Lord better than an ox or bullock that hath horns and hoofs. Hebrews 13:15. Psalm 50 (v. 23). Psalm 69:31.

We will mention the loving-kindnesses of the Lord, and the praises of the Lord, according to all that the Lord hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness towards the house of Israel which he hath bestowed on them, according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his loving kindnesses. Isaiah 63:7.

WE MUST BE PARTICULAR IN OUR THANKSGIVINGS TO GOD

1. For the discoveries which He has made to us in His word of the goodness of His nature.

WE give thanks unto the God of gods, unto the Lord of lords, for his mercy endures for ever. Psalm 136:2, 3.

Thy goodness is thy glory, and it is that for which all thy works do praise thee, and thy saints do bless thee. Exodus 33:19. Psalm 145:10.

Thou art gracious and full of compassion, slow to anger, and of great mercy, and hast told us that thou dost not afflict willingly, or grieve the children of men, but though thou cause grief, yet thou wilt have compassion, according to the multitude of thy mercies. Psalm 145:8. Lamentations 3:33, 32.

Thou takest pleasure in them that fear thee, in them that hope in thy mercy. Psalm 147:11.

2. For the many instances of His goodness.

A) The goodness of His providence relating to our bodies, and the life that now is; and this,

1) First, with reference to all the creatures, and the world of mankind, in general.

Thou hast stretched out the heavens like a curtain, and in them hast thou set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. And thou causest thy sun to shine on the evil and on the good, and sendest rain on the just and on the unjust. Psalm 104:2. Psalm 19:4, 5. Matthew 5:45.

When we consider the heavens the work of thy fingers, the sun, the moon, and the stars which thou hast ordained, Lord, what is man that thou thus visitest him? For truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun: All the glory be to the Father of lights, who commandeth the morning, and causeth the dayspring to know his place. Psalm 8:3, 4. Ecclesiastes 11:7. James 1:17. Job 38:12.

Thou didst not leave thyself without witness among the heathen, in that thou didst good, and gavest them rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness. Acts 14:17.

Thou coverest the heavens with clouds, and preparest rain for the earth, and makest grass to grow upon the mountains: Thou givest to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry. Psalm 147:8, 9.

Thou causest it to rain on the wilderness where there is no man, to satisfy the desolate and waste ground. Job 38:26, 27.

Thou visitest the earth, and waterest it, thou greatly enrichest it with the river of God, which is full of water; thou preparest them corn when thou hast so provided for it: Thou waterest the ridges thereof abundantly, thou settlest the furrows thereof, thou makest it soft with showers, thou blessest the springing thereof; Thou crownest the year with thy goodness, and thy paths drop fatness. Psalm 65:9, 10, 11.

Thou sendest the springs into the valleys which run among the hills; and they give drink to every beast of the field; and by them the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches. Psalm 104:10, 11, 12.

Thou hast laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever, and settest bounds to the waters of the sea, that they turn not again to cover the earth; Thou hast shut up the sea with doors, and broken up for it thy decreed place, saying, Hitherto shalt thou come but no further, here shall thy proud waves be stayed. And thou hast made good what thou hast sworn, that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth. Psalm 104:5, 9. Job 38:8, 10, 11. Isaiah 54:9.

Thy covenant of the day and of the night is not broken, but still thou givest the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night; and art faithful to that covenant of providence, that while the earth remains, seed-time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease. Jeremiah 33:20. Jeremiah 31:35. Genesis 8:22.

The heaven, even the heavens are thine, but the earth thou hast given to the children of men; and thou hast put all things under their feet, and made them to have dominion over the works of thy hands; so that the fear of man and the dread of man is upon every beast of the earth, and upon the fowl of the air, and into his hand they are delivered, because thou hadst a favour to him, and thy delights were with the sons of men. Psalm 115:16. Psalm 8:6. Genesis 9:2. Proverbs 8:31.

Thou causest the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man, that thou mayest bring forth food out of the earth; Wine that makes glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengthens man’s heart. Psalm 104:14, 15.

Thou givest to all life and breath and all things, and the earth, O Lord, is full of thy mercy. Acts 17:25. Psalm 119:64.

All the creatures wait upon thee, that thou mayest give them their meat in due season; That thou givest them they gather, thou openest thy hand, they are filled with good: Thou sendest forth thy spirit they are created, thou renewest the face of the earth. This thy glory shall endure for ever, and thou rejoicest in these works. Psalm 104:27, 28, 30, 31.

It is through thy goodness, O Lord, that as one generation of mankind passeth away, another generation comes, and that thou hast not blotted out the name of that corrupt and guilty race from under heaven. Ecclesiastes 1:4. Deuteronomy 29:20.

2) Secondly, with reference to us in particular.

(a) We must give thanks that He hath made us reasonable creatures, capable of knowing, loving, serving and enjoying Him, and that He hath not made us as the beasts that perish.

We will praise thee, for we are fearfully and wonderfully made, and that our souls, our nobler part, know right well; for what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Psalm 139:14. 1 Corinthians 2:11.

Thou hast made us of that rank of beings which is little lower than the angels, and is crowned with glory and honour; For there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. And the spirit of a man is the candle of the Lord. Psalm 8:5. Job 32:8. Proverbs 20:27.

Our bodies are capable of being the temples of the Holy Ghost, and our souls of having the Spirit of God dwell in them; we therefore glorify thee with our bodies, and with our spirits, which are thine. 1 Corinthians 6:19. 1 Corinthians 3:16. 1 Corinthians 6:20.

Thou, Lord, hast formed us for thyself, that we might shew forth thy praise. Isaiah 43:21.

(b) We must give thanks for our preservation, that our lives are prolonged, and that the use of our reason and understanding, our limbs and senses, is continued to us.

It was owing to thy good providence that we died not from the womb, and did not give up the ghost when we came out of the belly, that the knees prevented us, and the breasts that we should suck. Job 3:11, 12.

Though we were called transgressors from the womb, yet by thy power we have been borne from the belly, and carried from the womb; and thou holdest our souls in life, and sufferest not our foot to be moved. Isaiah 48:8. Isaiah 46:3. Psalm 66:9.

All our bones shall say, Lord, who is like unto thee, for thou keepest all our bones, not one of them is broken. Psalm 35:10. Psalm 34:20.

We lay us down and sleep, for thou, Lord, makest us to dwell in safety. Psalm 3:5. Psalm 4:8.

Thou hast given thine angels a charge concerning us, to keep us in all our ways, to bear us up in their hands, lest we dash our foot against a stone. And they are all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for the good of them that shall be heirs of salvation. Psalm 91:11, 12. Hebrews 1:14.

(c) For signal recoveries from danger by sickness, or otherwise.

When perhaps there has been but a step between us and death, and we have received a sentence of death within ourselves, and have been ready to say in the cutting off of our days we should go to the gates of the grave, and were deprived of the residue of our years, yet thou hast in love to our souls delivered them from the pit of corruption, and cast all our sins behind thy back. 1 Samuel 20:3. 2 Corinthians 1:9. Isaiah 38:10, 17.

When the sorrows of death have compassed us, and the pains of hell have got hold upon us, we have called upon the name of the Lord, and have found that gracious is the Lord and righteous, yea, our God is merciful; we have been brought low and he hath helped us, and hath delivered our souls from death, our eyes from tears, and our feet from falling. We will therefore walk before the Lord in the land of the living. Psalm 116:3-6, 8, 9.

(d) For the supports and comforts of this life, which have hitherto made the land of our pilgrimage easy and pleasant to us.

Blessed be the Lord, who daily loads us with his benefits, even the God of our salvation. Psalm 68:19.

Thou makest us to lie down in green pastures, thou feedest us

beside the still waters: Thou preparest a table for us in the presence of our enemies, thou anointest our head, and our cup runs over. Psalm 23:2, 5.

It may be we were sent forth without purse or scrip, but lacked we any thing? Nothing, Lord. Luke 22:35.

The candle of God hath shined upon our head, and by his light we have walked through darkness, and the secret of God has been in our tabernacle. Job 29:3, 4.

Thou hast given us all things richly to enjoy, and into our hands hast brought plentifully. 1 Timothy 6:17. Job 12:6.

Many a time we have eaten and been filled, and have delighted ourselves in thy great goodness. Nehemiah 9:25.

When we remember all the way which the Lord our God hath led us for so many years in this wilderness, we must here set up a stone and call it Eben-ezer, for hitherto the Lord hath helped us. Deuteronomy 8:2. 1 Samuel 7:12.

(e) For success in our callings and affairs, comfort in relations, and comfortable places of abode.

It is God that girdeth us with strength, and maketh our way perfect; that hath blessed the work of our hands, and it may be so as that though our beginning was small, yet our latter end hath greatly increased. Psalm 18:32. Job 1:10. Job 8:7.

Our houses have been safe from fear, and there hath been no rod of God upon us; so that the voice of rejoicing and salvation hath been in our tabernacle from day to day. Job 21:9. Psalm 118:15.

With our staff it may be we have passed over this Jordan, and now we are become two bands; and it is God that setteth the solitary in families. Genesis 32:10. Psalm 68:6.

If we have lived joyfully with our relations, and they have been to us as the loving hind and as the pleasant roe, we must give thee thanks for it; for every creature is that to us, and no more, that thou makest it to be. Ecclesiastes 9:9. Proverbs 5:19.

(f) For our share in the publick plenty, peace, and tranquillity.

When we have eaten and are full, we have reason to bless thee for the good land which thou hast given us: A land which the eyes of the Lord our God are always upon, from the beginning of the year even to the end of the year. Deuteronomy 8:10. Deuteronomy 11:12.

Thou makest peace in our borders, and fillest us with the finest of the wheat: We are delivered from the noise of archers at the places of drawing water; there therefore will we rehearse the righteous acts of the Lord, even his righteous acts towards the inhabitants of his villages. Psalm 147:14. Judges 5:11.

We thank thee that the powers that are set over us are ministers of God to us for good, that they seek the welfare of our people, speaking peace to all their seed. Romans 13:4. Esther 10:3.

B) The goodness of His grace relating to our souls, and the life that is to come.

But especially blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ. Ephesians 1:3.

1) First, we must give God thanks for His kindness to the children of men relating to their better part and their future state, and His favours to the church in general.

(a) We must give thanks for the gracious design and contrivance of man’s redemption and salvation, when he was lost and undone by sin.

O how wonderfully did the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man appear, not by any works of righteousness, which he had done, but according to his mercy he saved us: We had destroyed ourselves, but in thee, and thee only was our help. Titus 3:4, 5. Hosea 13:9.

When we were cast out in the open field, and no eye pitied us, thou sawest us polluted in our own blood, and thou saidst unto us, Live; yea, thou saidst unto us, Live; and the time was a time of love. Ezekiel 16:5, 6, 8.

When the redemption of the soul was so precious, as that it must have ceased for ever, and no man could by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him, then thou wast pleased to find a ransom, that we might be delivered from going down to the pit. Psalm 49:8, 7. Job 33:24.

When we must needs die, and were as water spilt upon the ground, which cannot be gathered up again, then didst thou devise means that the banished might not be for ever expelled from thee. 2 Samuel 14:14.

When thou sparedst not the angels that sinned, but didst cast them down to hell, thou saidest concerning the race of mankind, Destroy it not for a blessing is in it. 2 Peter 2:4. Isaiah 65:8.

Herein appears the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world for our glory. 1 Corinthians 2:7.

(b) For the eternal purposes and counsels of God concerning man’s redemption.

We are bound to give thanks always to thee, O God, because thou hast from the beginning chosen some to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit: That there is a remnant according to the election of grace, whom God hath chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and without blame before thee in love, having predestinated them to the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ unto thyself, according to the good pleasure of thy will, to the praise of the glory of thy grace. 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Romans 11:5. Ephesians 1:4, 5, 6.

Thine they were, and thou gavest them to Christ, and this is thy will, that of all that thou hast given him he should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. John 17:6. John 6:39.

(c) For the appointing of the Redeemer, and God’s gracious condescension to deal with man upon new terms, receding from the demands of the broken covenant of innocency.

We bless thee that when sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, and in it hadst no pleasure, that then the eternal Son of God said, Lo I come to do thy will, O God, and a body hast thou prepared me: And that as in the volume of the book it was written of him, he did delight to do thy will, O God, yea, thy law was within his heart. Hebrews 10:5, 6, 7. Psalm 40:7, 8.

Thou hast laid help upon one that is mighty, one chosen out of thy people: Thou hast found David thy servant with thy holy oil, thou hast anointed him, even with the oil of gladness above his fellows, and didst promise that with him thy hand should be established, and thy arm should strengthen him, and that thou wouldest make him thy first-born, higher than the kings of the earth. Psalm 89:19, 20. Psalm 45:7. Psalm 89:21, 27.

We bless thee that the Father now judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son: That as he has life in himself, so he hath given to the Son to have life in himself, and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man: That the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. And that the counsel of peace is between them both. John 5:22, 26, 27. John 3:35. Zechariah 6:13.

That he is thy servant whom thou dost uphold, thine elect in whom thy soul delighteth: Thy beloved Son in whom thou art well pleased: That thou hast given him for a covenant of the people, and that through him we are not under the law, but under grace. Isaiah 42:1. Matthew 17:5. Isaiah 49:8. Romans 6:14.

That God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16.

(d) For the early and ancient indications of this gracious design concerning fallen man.

We bless thee, that as soon as ever man had sinned, it was graciously promised that the seed of the woman should break the serpent’s head; and that in the old testament sacrifices Jesus Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Genesis 3:15. Revelation 13:8.

And that by faith the elders, though they received not the promise, yet obtained a good report, for they obtained witness that they were righteous. Hebrews 11:39, 2, 4.

We bless thee for the promise made to Abraham, that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed, and to Jacob that the Shiloh should come, and to him should the gathering of the people be: And that the patriarchs rejoiced to see Christ’s day, and they saw it and were glad. Genesis 12:3. Genesis 49:10. John 8:56.

(e) For the many glorious instances of God’s favour to the old testament church.

We adore that wisdom, power and goodness with which thou broughtest the vine out of Egypt, didst cast out the heathen and plant it; thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land. Psalm 80:8, 9.

And they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them, but thy right hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, because thou hadst a favour to them. Psalm 44:3. Psalm 136:10. & others.

We bless thee that to the Jews were committed the oracles of God; that they had the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises: And that there did not fail one word of all thy good promise, which thou promisedst by the hand of Moses thy servant. Romans 3:2. Romans 9:4. 1 Kings 8:56.

We bless thee for all that which thou didst at sundry times and in divers manners speak in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, those holy men of God, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, and prophesied of the grace that should come unto us, testifying beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow, and that not to themselves only, but to us they ministered those great things, things which the angels themselves desire to look into. Hebrews 1:1. 2 Peter 1:21. 1 Peter 1:10, 11, 12.

And especially we bless thee that thou hast provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Hebrews 11:40.

(f) For the wonderful and mysterious incarnation of the Son of God, and His coming into the world.

We bless thee that when the fulness of time was come, thou didst send forth thy Son made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Galatians 4:4, 5.

That the eternal Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and there were those who saw his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, that God was manifested in the flesh. John 1:14. 1 Timothy 3:16.

We bless thee that to this end he was born, and for this cause he came into the world, that he might bear witness of the truth, and we believe and are sure, that he is that Christ, the Son of the living God; that it is he that should come, and we are to look for no other. John 18:37. John 6:69. Matthew 11:3.

We bless thee that the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost; that he is come that we might have life, and that we might have it more abundantly, and that for this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Luke 19:10. John 10:10. 1 John 3:8.

Lord, we receive it as a faithful saying, and well worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, even the chief. 1 Timothy 1:15.

We bless thee that forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same: That he took not on him the nature of angels, but our nature, and was in

all things made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest, in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people; and that he is not ashamed to call them brethren. Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17, 11.

And that the first begotten was brought into the world with a charge given to all the angels of God to worship him. Hebrews 1:6.

(g) For God’s gracious owning of Him in His undertaking, and in the carrying of it on.

We bless thee that thou wast in Christ reconciling the world to thyself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and that thou hast committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 2 Corinthians 5:19.

That thou hast thyself given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people. That he was sanctified and sealed and sent into the world, and that the Father which sent him did not leave him alone, for he always did those things that pleased him. Isaiah 55:4. John 10:36. John 6:27. John 8:29.

Glory be to God in the highest, for in and through Jesus Christ there is on earth peace, and good-will towards men. Luke 2:14.

In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 1 John 4:9.

We thank thee for the power thou hast given him over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as were given him. John 17:2.

(h) For His Holy life, His excellent doctrine, and the glorious miracles He wrought to confirm His doctrine.

We bless thee for the assurance we have that he is a teacher come from God, since no man could do those miracles which he did, except God were with him. John 3:2.

That thou hast in these last days spoken unto us by thy Son, whose doctrine was not his, but his that sent him, and he spake as one having authority, and that we are encouraged to come and learn of him, because he is meek and lowly in heart, and in learning of him we shall find rest to our souls. Hebrews 1:2. John 7:16. Matthew 7 (v. 29). Matthew 11:29.

We bless thee that he hath left us an example, that we should follow his steps, in that he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, and when he was reviled, he reviled not again; and his meat and drink was to do the will of his Father; in that he was holy, harm-

less, undefiled, separate from sinners. O that we may be armed with the same mind, and that as he was so we may be in this world; and that we may so walk even as he walked. 1 Peter 2:21, 22, 23. John 4:34. Hebrews 7:26. 1 Peter 4:1. 1 John 4:17. 1 John 2:6.

We bless thee that the works which he did, the same bore witness of him that the Father had sent him, that by his power the blind received their sight, the lame walked, the lepers were cleansed, the deaf heard, the dead were raised up, and the poor had the gospel preached to them; and even the winds and the sea obeyed him; for which we glorify the God of Israel. Doubtless this was the Son of God. John 5:36. Matthew 11:5. Matthew 8:27. Matthew 15:31. Matthew 27:54.

(i) For the great encouragements Christ gave to poor sinners to come to Him.

We bless thee that Jesus Christ came to call, not the righteous, but sinners (such as we are) to repentance, and had power on earth to forgive sin; that he came to save his people from their sins; and is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, and that he is (to his honour, not to his reproach) a friend to publicans and sinners. Matthew 9:13, 6. Matthew 1:21. John 1:29. Matthew 11:19.

We thank thee for the gracious invitation he gave to those who are weary and heavy laden, to come to him for rest: And for the assurance he hath given that whosoever comes unto him he will in no wise cast out. Matthew 11:28. John 6:37.

That he made a gracious offer, that whosoever thirsts might come unto him and drink. John 7:37.

(j) For the full satisfaction which He made to the justice of God for the sin of man by the blood of His cross, for the purchases, victories, and triumphs of the cross, and for all the precious benefits which flow to us from the dying of the Lord Jesus.

Herein indeed God commendeth his love to us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us, that we might be reconciled to him by the death of his Son. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world; that he tasted death for every man, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. Romans 5:8, 10. 1 John 4:10. 1 John 2:2. Hebrews 2:9, 14.

We bless thee, that by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, that he hath finished transgression, made

an end of sin, made reconciliation for iniquity, and hath brought in an everlasting righteousness. Hebrews 10:14. Daniel 9:24.

That he hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, by being made a curse for us. Galatians 3:13.

That what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God hath done by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, who by a sacrifice for sin condemned sin in the flesh. Romans 8:3.

That he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities, and that the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed; and that the Lord having laid upon him the iniquity of us all, it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and put him to grief. Isaiah 53:5, 6, 10.

That appearing to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, he did by the eternal Spirit offer himself without spot unto God, and by his own blood entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Hebrews 9:26, 14, 12.

That he hath spoiled principalities and powers, and made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in his cross, and hath blotted out the hand-writing of ordinances which was against us, which was contrary to us, taking it out of the way by nailing it to his cross. Colossians 2:15, 14.

That he is our peace, who having broken down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, hath made himself of twain one new man, hath reconciled both unto God, in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. Ephesians 2:14, 15, 16.

That he hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us unto our God kings and priests. Revelation 1:5, 6.

O the height, and depth, and length, and breadth of that love of Christ which passeth knowledge; that great love wherewith he loved us. Ephesians 3:18, 19. Ephesians 2:4.

Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing; for he was slain, and hath redeemed us to God by his blood. Revelation 5:12, 9.

(k) For His resurrection from the dead on the third day.

We thank thee that as he was delivered for our offences, so he rose again for our justification, and was declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead. Romans 4 (v. 25). Romans 1:4.

That though he was dead, yet he is alive, and lives for evermore, and hath the keys of hell and death, and being raised from the dead, he dies no more, death has no more dominion over him. Revelation 1:18. Romans 6:9.

That now is Christ risen from the dead, and is become the first fruits of them that slept, that as in Adam all died, so in Christ all might be made alive, and every one in his own order. 1 Corinthians 15:20, 22, 23.

That God suffered not his Holy One to see corruption, but loosed the pains of death, because it was impossible he should be holden of them, and so declared to all the house of Israel, that that same Jesus whom they crucified, is both Lord and Christ. Acts 2:27, 31, 24, 36.

And that for this end Christ both died and rose and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living, and that whether we wake or sleep, we might live together with him. Romans 14:9. 1 Thessalonians 5:10.

(l) For His ascension into heaven, and His sitting at God’s right hand there.

We bless thee that our Lord Jesus is ascended to his Father and our Father, to his God and our God; is ascended up on high, having led captivity captive, and hath received gifts for men, yea, even for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them. John 20:17. Psalm 68:18.

That as the fore-runner he is for us entered; entered into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us, a Lamb as it had been slain standing in the midst of the throne. Hebrews 6:20. Hebrews 9:24. Revelation 5:6.

That he is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, angels, and authorities, and powers being made subject to him. Hebrews 8:1. 1 Peter 3:22.

That he is gone before to prepare a place for us in his Father’s house, where there are many mansions; and though whether he is gone we cannot follow him now, yet we hope to follow him hereafter, when he shall come again to receive us to himself, that where he is there we may be also. John 14:2. John 13:36. John 14:3.

(m) For the intercession which He ever lives to make in the virtue of His satisfaction.

We thank thee that having borne the sins of many, he makes intercession for transgressors; and prays not for those only that were given him when he was upon earth, but for all that shall believe on him through their word; That they all may be one. Isaiah 53:12. John 17:20, 21.

That we have an advocate with the Father, even JESUS CHRIST THE RIGHTEOUS, who is therefore able to save to the uttermost all those that come to God as a Father by him as mediator, seeing he ever lives making intercession. 1 John 2:1. Hebrews 7:25.

That we have a high priest taken from among men, and ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifice for sin, who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way, and that he is become the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. Hebrews 5:1, 2, 9.

(n) For the dominion and sovereignty to which the Redeemer is exalted.

We thank thee that because our Lord Jesus humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, therefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name, that in the name of JESUS every knee might bow, and every tongue confess (as we do at this time) that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:8-11.

That all power is given unto him both in heaven and in earth, that thou hast set him over the works of thy hands, and hast put all things in subjection under his feet, and so hast crowned him with glory and honour. Matthew 28:18. Hebrews 2:7, 8, 9.

That he is KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS; that the Ancient of days hath given him dominion and glory and a kingdom, an everlasting dominion, and a kingdom which shall not be destroyed. Revelation 19:16. Daniel 7:13, 14.

That the government is upon his shoulders, and that his name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, and The Prince of Peace; And of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end. Isaiah 9:6, 7.

That thou hast set him as king upon thy holy hill of Zion, and that he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, shall reign till he has put down all opposing rule, principality and power, till all his enemies are made his footstool, and then he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God may be all in all. Psalm 2:6. Luke 1:33. 1 Corinthians 15:24, 25. Ephesians 6:12. Hebrews 10:13. 1 Corinthians 15:24, 28.

(o) For the assurance we have of His second coming to judge the world.

We bless thee that thou hast appointed a day in which thou wilt judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom thou hast ordained, whereof thou hast given assurance unto all men, in that thou hast raised him from the dead. Acts 17:31.

That in that day the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: And shall come to be glorified in his saints, and admired in all them that believe; for them that sleep in Jesus he will bring with him. 2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8, 10. 1 Thessalonians 4:14.

That he shall then send forth his angels to gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and to gather together his elect from the four winds, and then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Matthew 13:41. Matthew 24:31. Matthew 13:43.

And we then, according to thy promise, look for new heavens, and a new earth, wherein dwells righteousness: Lord, grant that seeing we look for such things, we may give diligence to be found of him in peace without spot and blameless: And then come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. 2 Peter 3:13, 14. Revelation 22:20.

(p) For the sending of the Holy Spirit to supply the want of Christ’s bodily presence, to carry on His undertaking, and to prepare things for His second coming.

We bless thee that when our Lord Jesus went away he sent us another Comforter to abide with us for ever, even the Spirit of truth, who shall glorify the Son, for he shall take of his, and shall shew it unto us. John 14:16, 17. John 16:14.

That being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he poured it forth as rivers of living water. Acts 2:33. John 7:38.

Blessed be God for the signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, with which God bare witness to the great salvation. Hebrews 2:4, 3.

And blessed be God for the promise, that as earthly parents, though evil, know how to give good gifts to their children, so our heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him, that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession. Luke 11:13. Ephesians 1:13, 14.

(q) For the covenant of grace made with us in Jesus Christ, and all the exceeding great and precious privileges of that covenant, and for the seals of it.

We thank thee that in Jesus Christ thou hast made an everlasting covenant with us, even the sure mercies of David, and that though the mountains may depart, and the hills be removed, yet this covenant of thy peace shall never be removed. Isaiah 55:3. Isaiah 54:10.

That thou hast given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these we might be partakers of a divine nature: and that Jesus Christ is the mediator of this better covenant, which is established upon better promises. 2 Peter 1:4. Hebrews 8:6.

That though thou chasten our transgression with the rod, and our iniquity with stripes, yet thy loving kindness thou wilt not utterly take away, nor cause thy faithfulness to fail, thy covenant thou wilt not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of thy lips. Psalm 89:32, 33, 34.

That being willing more abundantly to shew to the heirs of promise the immutability of thy counsel, thou hast confirmed it by an oath, That by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us. Hebrews 6:17, 18.

That baptism is appointed to be a seal of the righteousness which is by faith, as circumcision was: That it assures us of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost; and that this promise is to us and our children. And that the cup in the Lord’s supper is the blood of the new testament, which was shed for many for the remission of sins. Romans 4:11. Acts 2:38, 39. Matthew 26:28.

(r) For the writing of the scriptures, and the preserving of them pure and entire to our day.

We thank thee that we have the scriptures to search, and that in them we have eternal life, and that they testify of Christ, and that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. John 5:39. 2 Timothy 3:16.

That whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scripture might have hope: And that we have this most sure word of prophecy as a light shining in a dark place. Romans 15:4. 2 Peter 1:19.

That the vision is not become to us as the words of a book that

is sealed, but that we hear in our own tongue the wonderful works of God. Isaiah 29:11. Acts 2:11.

We thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that the things which were hid from the wise and prudent, and which many prophets and kings desired to see and might not, are revealed unto us babes; Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. Luke 10:21, 24.

(s) For the institution of ordinances, and particularly that of the ministry.

We thank thee that thou hast not only shewed thy word unto Jacob, but thy statutes and judgments unto Israel, unto us: Thou hast not dealt so with other nations, and as for thy judgments, they have not known them. Psalm 147:19, 20.

That the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and that he hath set his sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore, and there will meet with the children of Israel. Revelation 21:3. Ezekiel 37:26. Exodus 29:43.

We thank thee that thou hast made known unto us thy holy sabbaths; and that still there remains the keeping of a sabbath to the people of God. Nehemiah 9:14. Hebrews 4:9.

And that when the Lord Jesus ascended up on high, he gave gifts unto men, not only prophets, apostles, evangelists, but pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ! And that while they teach us to observe all things which Christ hath commanded, he hath promised to be with them always even unto the end of the world. Ephesians 4:8, 11, 12, 13. Matthew 28:20.

(t) For the planting of the Christian religion in the world, and the setting up of the gospel church, in despite of all the oppositions of the powers of darkness.

We thank thee that the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the commandment of the everlasting God, and the gospel which was made known to all nations for the obedience of faith, was mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds. That the Lord wrought with it, and confirmed the word by signs following; so that Satan fell as lightning from heaven. Romans 16:25, 26. 2 Corinthians 10:4. Mark 16:20. Luke 10:18.

That though the gospel was preached in much contention, yet it grew and prevailed mightily, and multitudes turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven. 1 Thessalonians 2:2. Acts 19:20. 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10.

Now came salvation and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: And the exalted Redeemer rode forth with his bow, and with his crown conquering, and to conquer; and nations were born at once. Revelation 12:10. Revelation 6:2. Isaiah 66:8.

(u) For the preservation of Christianity in the world unto this day.

We bless thee that though the enemies of Israel have afflicted them from their youth up, have many a time afflicted them, yet they have not prevailed against them, though the plowers have plowed on their back, yet the righteous Lord has cut asunder the cords of the wicked. Psalm 129:1-4.

That Jesus Christ hath built his church upon a rock, which the gates of hell cannot prevail against, but his seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven. Matthew 16:18. Psalm 89:29.

(v) For the martyrs and confessors, the lights of the church, and the good examples of those that are gone before us to heaven.

We bless thee for all those who have been enabled to approve themselves to God in much patience in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, who when they have been brought before governors and kings for Christ’s sake, it has turned to them for a testimony, and God has given them a mouth and wisdom, which all their adversaries were not able to gainsay or resist. 2 Corinthians 6:4. Luke 21:12, 13, 15.

That those who for Christ’s sake were killed all the day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter, yet in all these things were more than conquerors through him that loved us. Romans 8:36, 37.

That they overcame the accuser of the brethren by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony, and by not loving their lives unto the death. Revelation 12:10, 11.

We bless thee for the cloud of witnesses with which we are compassed about, for the footsteps of the flock, for the elders that have obtained a good report, and are now through faith and patience inheriting the promises. Lord, give us to follow them as they followed Christ. Hebrews 12:1. Canticle (Song of Solomon) 1:8. Hebrews 11:2. Hebrews 6:12. 1 Corinthians 11:1.

(w) For the communion of saints, that spiritual communion which we have in faith and hope and holy love, and in prayers and praises with all good Christians.

We bless thee that if we walk in the light, we have fellowship one with another, even with all that in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours. 1 John 1:7. 1 Corinthians 1:2.

That we being many are one bread and one body, and that though there are diversities of gifts and administrations, and operations, yet there is the same Spirit, the same Lord, and the same God, which worketh all in all. 1 Corinthians 10:17. 1 Corinthians 12:4, 5, 6.

We thank thee that all the children of God, which were scattered abroad, are united in him, who is the head of the body the church; so that they are all our brethren and companions in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ. John 11:52. Colossians 1:18. Revelation 1:9.

(x) For the prospect and hope of eternal life, when time and days shall be no more.

We thank thee for the crown of life which the Lord hath promised to them that love him; the inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for us. James 1:12. 1 Peter 1:4.

That having here no continuing city, we are encouraged to seek the better country, that is, the heavenly, the city that hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Hebrews 13:14. Hebrews 11:16, 10.

That we are in hope of eternal life, which God that cannot lie hath promised; And that all true believers through grace have eternal life abiding in them. Titus 1:2. Acts 18:27. 1 John 5:13.

2) Secondly, we must give God thanks for the spiritual mercies bestowed upon us in particular, especially if we are called with an effectual call, and have a good work of grace begun in us.

(a) We must bless God for the strivings of His spirit with us, and the admonitions and checks of our own consciences.

We bless thee that thou hast not given us over to a reprobate mind, that our consciences are not seared, that thou hast not said concerning us, They are joined to idols, let them alone, but that thy spirit is yet striving with us. Romans 1:28. 1 Timothy 4:2. Hosea 4:17. Genesis 6:3.

We thank thee for the work of the law written in our hearts, our own consciences also bearing witness, and our own thoughts between themselves accusing or excusing one another. Romans 2:15.

(b) We must bless God if there be a saving change wrought in us by His blessed Spirit.

And hath God by his grace translated us out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of his dear Son? Hath he called us into the fellowship of Jesus Christ, and made us nigh by his blood, who by nature were afar off. Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory. Colossians 1:13. 1 Corinthians 1:9. Ephesians 2:13. Psalm 115:1.

We give thanks to God always for those to whom the gospel is come, not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance. 1 Thessalonians 1:2, 5.

Thou hast loved us with an everlasting love, and therefore with loving kindness thou hast drawn us, drawn us with the cords of a man, and the bands of love. Jeremiah 31:3. Hosea 11:4.

When the strong man armed kept his palace in our hearts, and his goods were in peace, it was a stronger than he that came upon him, and took from him all his armour, wherein he trusted, and divided the spoil. Luke 11:21, 22.

(c) We must give thanks for the remission of our sins, and the peace of our consciences.

We bless thee for the redemption we have through Christ’s blood, even the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of thy grace, wherein thou hast abounded towards us. Ephesians 1:7, 8.

That thou hast forgiven all our iniquities, and healed all our diseases; and hast in love to our souls delivered them from the pit of corruption; for thou hast cast all our sins behind thy back. Psalm 103:3. Isaiah 38:17.

When thou broughtest us into the wilderness, yet there thou spakest comfortably to us, and gavest us our vineyards from thence; and the valley of Achor for a door of hope. Hosea 2:14, 15.

(d) For the powerful influences of the divine grace, to sanctify and preserve us, to prevent our falling into sin, and to strengthen us in doing our duty.

Thou hast not quenched the smoking flax, nor broke the bruised reed, nor despised the day of small things, but having obtained help of God, we continue hitherto. Matthew 12:20. Zechariah 4:10. Acts 26:22.

In the day when we cried, thou hast answered us, and hast strengthened us with strength in our souls. Psalm 138:3.

We have been continually with thee, thou hast holden us by thy right hand, when our feet were almost gone, and our steps had well nigh slipped. Psalm 73:23, 2.

We have reason never to forget thy precepts; for by them thou hast quickened us; And unless thy law had been our delight, we should many a time have perished in our affliction; for thy statutes have been our songs in the house of our pilgrimage. Psalm 119:93, 92, 54.

Unless the Lord had been our help, our souls had almost dwelt in silence: But when we said, Our foot slippeth, thy mercy, O Lord, held us up: And in the multitude of our thoughts within us, thy comforts have been the delight of our souls. Psalm 94:17, 18, 19.

(e) For sweet communion with God in holy ordinances, and the communications of His favour.

We have been abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house, and thou hast made us drink of the river of thy pleasures. For with thee is the fountain of life, in thy light shall we see light. Psalm 36:8, 9.

Thou hast brought us to thy holy mountain, and made us joyful in thy house of prayer, and we have found it good for us to draw near to God. Isaiah 56:7. Psalm 73:28.

We have had reason to say, That a day in thy courts is better than a thousand, and that it is better to be door-keepers in the house of our God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness; For the Lord God is a sun and shield, he will give grace and glory, and no good thing will he with-hold from them that walk uprightly: O Lord of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee. Psalm 84:10, 11, 12.

We have sitten down under thy shadow with delight, and thy fruit hath been sweet unto our taste; Thou hast brought us into the banqueting house, and thy banner over us has been love. Canticle (Song of Solomon) 2:3, 4.

(f) For gracious answers to our prayers.

We have reason to love thee, O Lord, because thou hast heard the voice of our supplications, and because thou hast inclined thine ear unto us, we will therefore call upon thee as long as we live. Psalm 116:1, 2.

Out of the depths have we cried unto thee, O Lord, and thou hast heard our vows, and given us the heritage of those that fear thy name. Psalm 130:1. Psalm 61:5.

Nay, before we have called thou hast answered, and while we have been yet speaking thou hast heard, and hast said, Here I am, and hast been nigh unto us in all that which we call upon thee for. Isaiah 65:24. Isaiah 58:9. Deuteronomy 4:7.

Lord, thou hast heard the desire of the humble, thou wilt prepare their heart, and cause thine ear to hear. Psalm 10:17.

Blessed be God, who hath not turned away our prayer, or his mercy from us, for we have prayed, and have gone away, and our countenance has been no more sad. Psalm 66:20. 1 Samuel 1:18.

(g) For support under our afflictions and spiritual benefit and advantage by them.

Thou hast comforted us in all our tribulation, hast considered our trouble, and known our souls in adversity, and shewed us thy marvellous kindness as in a strong city. 2 Corinthians 1:4. Psalm 31:7, 21.

When afflictions have abounded, consolations have much more abounded. 2 Corinthians 1:5.

Though no affliction for the present hath been joyous, but grievous, nevertheless afterward it hath yielded the peaceable fruit of righteousness; and hath proved to be for our profit, that we might be partakers of thy holiness. Hebrews 12:11, 10.

We have had reason to say that it was good for us we were afflicted, that we might learn thy commandments; for before we were afflicted we went astray, but afterwards have kept thy word. Psalm 119:71, 67.

It has been but for a season, and when there was need that we were in heaviness, through manifold temptations: And we beg that all the trials of our faith may be found unto praise, and honour, and glory, at the appearing of Jesus Christ, whom having not seen we love, in whom though now we see him not, yet believing we rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; are longing to receive the end of our faith, even the salvation of our souls. 1 Peter 1:6-9.

(h) For the performance of God’s promises.

Thou hast dealt well with thy servants, O Lord, according to thy word, and thou hast been ever mindful of thy covenant, the word which thou hast commanded to a thousand generations. Psalm 119:65. Psalm 105:8.

There hath not failed one word of all the good promise which thou hast promised, to David thy servant, and Israel thy people. 1 Kings 8:56, 66.

And now what shall we render unto the Lord for all his benefits towards us. Let our souls return to him, and repose in him as their rest, because he hath dealt bountifully with us, we will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord; For the Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting, and his truth endureth to all generations. Psalm 116:12, 7, 13. Psalm 100:5.

We will bless the Lord at all times, yea his praise shall continually be in our mouths; we will sing unto the Lord as long as we live; and we hope to be shortly with those blessed ones, who dwell in his house above, and are still praising him, and who rest not day or night from saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty. Psalm 34:1. Psalm 104:33. Revelation 4:8.

Chapter V Intercession for others

OF THE FIFTH PART OF PRAYER, WHICH IS INTERCESSION, OR ADDRESS AND SUPPLICATION TO GOD FOR OTHERS

Our Lord Jesus hath taught us to pray, not only with, but for others: And the apostle hath appointed us to make supplication for all saints; and many of his prayers in his epistles are for his friends: And we must not think that when we are in this part of prayer, we may let fall our fervency, and be more indifferent, because we ourselves are not immediately concerned in it, but rather let a holy fire of love both to God and man here, make our devotions yet more warm and lively. Ephesians 6:18.

WE MUST PRAY FOR THE WHOLE WORLD OF MANKIND, THE LOST WORLD; AND THUS WE MUST HONOUR ALL MEN, AND ACCORDING TO OUR CAPACITY DO GOOD TO ALL MEN 1 PETER 2:17. GALATIANS 6:10.

WE pray, as we are taught, for all men, believing that this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth, and of Jesus Christ, who gave himself a ransom for all. 1 Timothy 2:1, 3, 4, 6.

O look with compassion upon the world that lies in wickedness, and let the prince of this world be cast out, that has blinded their minds. 1 John 5:19. John 12:31. 2 Corinthians 4:4.

O let thy way be known upon earth, that barbarous nations may be civilized, and those that live without God in the world may be brought to the service of the living God; and thus let thy saving health be known unto all nations: Let the people praise thee, O God, yea let all the people praise thee: O let the nations be glad, and sing for joy, for thou shalt judge the people righteously, and govern the nations upon earth. Psalm 67:2. Ephesians 2:12. Psalm 67:3, 4.

O let thy salvation and thy righteousness be openly shewed in the sight of the heathen, and let all the ends of the earth see the salvation of our God. Psalm 98:2, 3.

O give thy Son the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession! For thou hast said, It is a light thing for him to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel, but thou wilt give him for a light to the Gentiles. Psalm 2:8. Isaiah 49:6.

Let all the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ. Revelation 11:15.

FOR THE PROPAGATING OF THE GOSPEL IN FOREIGN PARTS, AND THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE CHURCH BY THE BRINGING IN OF MANY TO IT

O LET the gospel be preached unto every creature; for how shall men believe in him, of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without preachers? and how shall they preach, except they be sent? and who shall send forth labourers, but the Lord of the harvest? Mark 16:15. Romans 10:14, 15. Matthew 9:38.

Let the people which sit in darkness see a great light, and to them which sit in the region and shadow of death, let light spring up. Matthew 4:16.

Add unto thy church daily such as shall be saved; Enlarge the place of its tent, lengthen its cords, and strengthen its stakes. Acts 2 (v. 47). Isaiah 54:2.

Bring thy seed from the east, and gather them from the west; say to the north, Give up, and to the south, Keep not back: Bring thy sons from far, and thy daughters from the ends of the earth. Let them come with acceptance to thine altar, and glorify the house of thy glory; Let them fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows. Isaiah 43:5, 6. Isaiah 60:7, 8.

In every place let incense be offered to thy name, and pure offerings; And from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, let thy name be great among the Gentiles; and let the offering up of the Gentiles be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. Malachi 1:11. Romans 15:16.

O let the earth be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. Isaiah 11:9.

FOR THE CONVERSION OF THE JEWS

LET the branches which are broken off not abide still in unbelief, but be graffed in again into their own olivetree. And though blindness is in part happened to Israel, yet let the fulness of the Gentiles come in, and let all Israel be saved. Romans 11:17, 23-26.

Let them be made to look unto him whom they have pierced, and that they may turn to the Lord, let the veil which is upon their hearts be taken away. Zechariah 12:10. 2 Corinthians 3:15, 16.

FOR THE EASTERN CHURCHES THAT ARE GROANING UNDER THE YOKE OF MAHOMETAN TYRANNY

LET the churches of Asia, that were golden candlesticks, which the Lord Jesus delighted to walk in the midst of, be again made so. Revelation 1:11, 12. Revelation 2:1.

Restore unto them their liberties as at the first, and their privileges as at the beginning; purely purge away their dross, and take away all their tin, and turn again their captivity as the streams in the south. Isaiah 1:26, 25. Psalm 126:4.

FOR THE CHURCHES IN THE PLANTATIONS

BE thou the confidence of all the ends of the earth, and of those that are afar off beyond the sea; And let them have the blessing which came upon the head of Joseph, and upon the crown of the head of him that was separated from his brethren, even to the utmost bound of the everlasting hills. Psalm 65:5. Genesis 49:26.

Create peace to those that are afar off, as well as to those that are nigh. Isaiah 57:19.

And let those that suck of the abundance of the seas, and of treasures hid in the sand, call the people to the mountain, that they may offer sacrifices of righteousness. Deuteronomy 33:19.

FOR THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH WHERE-EVER DISPERSED, AND FOR ALL THE INTERESTS OF IT

OUR heart’s desire and prayer to God for the gospel Israel, is that it may be saved. Romans 10:1.

Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion, build thou the walls of Jerusalem. Peace be within her walls, and prosperity within her palaces; For our brethren and companions sake we will now say, Peace be within her. Psalm 51:18. Psalm 122:7, 8.

O that we may see the good of the gospel Jerusalem, all the days of our life, and peace upon Israel. And that thus we may have reason to answer the messengers of the nations, that the Lord hath founded Zion, and the poor of his people shall trust to that. Psalm 128:5, 6. Isaiah 14:32.

Save thy people, O Lord, and bless thine heritage: Feed them also, and lift them up for ever. Give strength unto thy people, and bless thy people with peace; with thy favour do thou compass them as with a shield. Psalm 28 (v. 9). Psalm 29 (v. 11). Psalm 5 (v. 12).

Grace be with all them that love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity; for thou knowest them that are thine; and give to all that name the name of Christ to depart from iniquity. Ephesians 6:24. 2 Timothy 2:19.

We pray for all that believe in Christ, that they all may be one; And since there is one body, and one Spirit, and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all, give to all Christians to be of one heart, and one way. John 17:20, 21. Ephesians 4:4, 5, 6. Jeremiah 32:39.

Let the word of the Lord in all places, have a free course, and let it be glorified. 2 Thessalonians 3:1.

FOR THE CONVICTION AND CONVERSION OF ATHEISTS, DEISTS, AND INFIDELS, AND OF ALL THAT ARE OUT OF THE WAY OF TRUTH, AND OF PROFANE SCOFFERS, AND THOSE THAT DISGRACE CHRISTIANITY BY THEIR VICIOUS AND IMMORAL LIVES

O TEACH transgressors thy ways, and let sinners be converted unto thee. Psalm 51:13.

O give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, the truth as it is in Jesus, the truth which is according to godliness, that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil. 2 Timothy 2:25. Ephesians 4:21. Titus 1:1. 2 Timothy 2:26.

Let those that are as sheep going astray return to Jesus Christ, the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. 1 Peter 2:25.

Shew those fools their folly and misery, that have said in their hearts there is no God, and that are corrupt, and have done abominable work. Psalm 14:1.

Lord, maintain the honour of the scripture, the law and the testimony, and convince those who speak not according to that word, that it is because there is no light in them; magnify that word above all thy name; magnify the law, magnify the gospel, and make both honourable. Isaiah 8:20. Psalm 138:2. Isaiah 42:21.

Let those that will not be won by the word, be won by the conversation of Christians, which we beg may be such in every thing, that they who believe not may be convinced of all, and judged of all, and may be brought to worship God, and to report that God is with them of a truth. 1 Peter 3:1. 1 Corinthians 14:24, 25.

FOR THE AMENDING OF EVERY THING THAT IS AMISS IN THE CHURCH, THE REVIVING OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY, AND THE POWER OF GODLINESS, AND IN ORDER THEREUNTO, THE POURING OUT OF THE SPIRIT

LORD, let thy spirit be poured out upon thy churches from on high, and then the wilderness shall become a fruitful field, then judgment shall return unto righteousness, and all the upright in heart shall follow it. Isaiah 32:15. Psalm 94:15.

Let what is wanting be set in order, and let every plant that is not of our heavenly Father’s planting, be plucked up. Titus 1:5. Matthew 15:13.

Let the Lord whom we seek come to his temple like a refiner’s fire, and fuller’s soap, and let him purify the sons of Levi, and all the seed of Israel, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness, pleasant to the Lord, as in the days of old, as in former years. Malachi 3:1-4.

Let pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father, flourish and prevail every where, that kingdom of God among men, which is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. O revive this work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known, and let our times be times of reformation. James 1 (v. 27). Romans 14:17. Habakkuk 3:2. Hebrews 9:10.

F

OR THE BREAKING OF THE POWER OF ALL THE ENEMIES OF THE CHURCH, AND THE DEFEATING OF ALL THEIR DESIGNS AGAINST HER

LET all that set themselves, and take counsel together against the Lord, and against his anointed, that would break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from them, imagine a vain thing. Let him that sits in heaven laugh at them, and have them in derision; speak unto them in thy wrath, and vex them in thy sore displeasure. Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give them? give them a miscarrying womb, and dry breasts. Psalm 2:15. Hosea 9:14.

O our God, make them like a wheel, and as stubble before the wind; Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek thy name, O Lord, and that men may know, that thou whose name is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth. Psalm 83:13, 16, 18.

Put them in fear, O Lord, that the nations may know themselves to be but men, and wherein the proud enemies of thy church deal proudly, make it to appear that thou art above them. Psalm 9:20. Exodus 18:11.

Let them be confounded and turned back that hate Zion, and be as the grass upon the house-tops, which withereth before it groweth up. Psalm 129:5, 6.

Let no weapon formed against thy church prosper, and let every tongue that riseth against it in judgment be condemned. Isaiah 54:17.

Make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people, and let all that burden themselves with it be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth should be gathered together against it; so let all thine enemies perish, O Lord, but let them that love thee be as the sun when he goes forth in his strength. Zechariah 12:3. Judges 5 (v. 31).

Lord, let the man of sin be consumed with the spirit of thy mouth, and destroyed with the brightness of thy coming: And let those be undeceived that have been long under the power of strong delusions to believe a lie, and let them receive the truth in the love of it. 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 8, 11, 10.

Let Babylon fall, and sink like a mill-stone into the sea; And let the kings of the earth, that have given their power and honour to the beast, be wrought upon at length to bring it into the new Jerusalem. Revelation 18:2, 21. Revelation 17:17. Revelation 21:24.

FOR THE RELIEF OF SUFFERING CHURCHES, AND THE SUPPORT, COMFORT AND DELIVERANCE OF ALL THAT ARE PERSECUTED FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS SAKE

WE desire in our prayers to remember them that are in bonds for the testimony of Jesus, as bound with them, and them which suffer adversity, as being ourselves also in the body. O send from above, and deliver them from those that hate them, and bring them forth into a large place. Hebrews 13:3. Psalm 18:16, 17, 19.

O let not the rod of the wicked rest upon the lot of the righteous, lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity. Psalm 125:3.

Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake as in the ancient days, as in the generations of old, and make the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed of the Lord to pass over. Isaiah 51:9, 10.

For the oppression of the poor and the sighing of the needy, now do thou arise, O Lord, and set them in safety from them that puff at them. Psalm 12:5.

O strengthen the patience and faith of thy suffering saints, that they may hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the Lord. Revelation 13:10. Lamentations 3:26.

O let the year of thy redeemed come, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion. Isaiah 63:4. Isaiah 34:8.

O that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion; and when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad. Psalm 14:7.

O let not the oppressed return ashamed, but let the poor and needy praise thy name. Psalm 74:21.

Lord, arise, and have mercy upon Zion, and let the time to favour her, yea the set time come; yea let the Lord build up Zion, and appear in his glory. Lord, regard the prayer of the destitute, and do not despise their prayer. Psalm 102:13, 16, 17.

O Lord God, cease we beseech thee, by whom shall Jacob arise, for he is small! O cause thy face to shine upon that part of thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake. Amos 7:5. Daniel 9:17.

Let the sorrowful sighing of thy prisoners come before thee, and according to the greatness of thy power preserve thou those that for thy name’s sake are appointed to die. Psalm 79:11.

Let those whose teachers are removed into corners, again see their teachers, though they have the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction. Isaiah 30:20.

FOR THE NATIONS OF EUROPE, AND THE COUNTRIES ABOUT US

THOU, Lord, art the governor among the nations: Who shall not fear thee, O King of nations? Thou sittest in the throne judging right; judge the world therefore in righteousness, and minister judgment to the people in uprightness. Psalm 22:28. Jeremiah 10:7. Psalm 9:4, 8.

Lord, hasten the time when thou wilt make wars to cease to the ends of the earth; when nation shall no more lift up sword against nation, nor kingdom against kingdom, but swords shall be beaten into plow-shares, and spears into pruning-hooks, and they shall not learn war any more. Psalm 46:9. Isaiah 2:4.

Make kings nursing fathers, and their queens nursing mothers to the Israel of God. Isaiah 49:23.

And in the days of these kings let the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, even the kingdom of the Redeemer. And whatever counsels there are in mens hearts, Lord, let thy counsel stand, and do thou fulfil the thoughts of thy heart unto all generations. Daniel 2:44. Proverbs 19:21. Psalm 33:11.

FOR OUR OWN LAND AND NATION, THE HAPPY ISLANDS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, WHICH WE OUGHT IN A SPECIAL MANNER TO SEEK THE WELFARE OF, THAT IN THE PEACE THEREOF WE MAY HAVE PEACE

1. We must be thankful to God for His mercies to our land.

WE bless thee that thou hast planted us in a very fruitful hill, and hast not made the wilderness our habitation, or the barren land our dwelling, but our land yields her increase. Isaiah 5:1. Job 39:6. Psalm 85:12.

Lord, thou hast dealt favourably with our land; We have heard with our ears, and our fathers have told us what work thou didst for us in their days, and in the times of old: And as we have heard, so have we seen; for we have thought of thy loving-kindness, O God, in the midst of thy temple. Psalm 85:1. Psalm 44:1. Psalm 48:8, 9.

Thou hast given us a pleasant land, it is Immanuel’s land, it is a valley of vision, thou hast set up thy tabernacle among us, and thy sanctuary is in the midst of us. Jeremiah 3:19. Isaiah 8:8. Isaiah 22:1. Ezekiel 37:27, 26.

We dwell safely, under our own vines and fig-trees, and there is peace to him that goeth out, and to him that comes in. 1 Kings 4:25. 2 Chronicles 15:5.

And because the Lord loved our people, therefore he hath set a good government over us to do judgment and justice; to be a terror to evil doers, and a protection and praise to them that do well. 1 Kings 10:9. Romans 13:3.

2. We must be humbled before God for our national sins and provocations.

But we are a sinful people, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil doers; And a great deal of reason we have to sigh and cry for the abominations that are committed among us. Isaiah 1:4. Ezekiel 9:4.

Iniquity abounds among us, and the love of many is waxen cold. Matthew 24:12.

We have not been forsaken nor forgotten of our God, though our land be full of sin against the Holy One of Israel. Jeremiah 51:5.

3. We must pray earnestly for national mercies.

(a) For the favour of God to us, and the tokens of His presence among us, as that in which the happiness of our nation is bound up.

O the hope of Israel, the saviour thereof in time of trouble, be not thou as a stranger in our land, or a way-faring man that turns aside to tarry but for a night; but be thou always in the midst of us, we are called by thy name, O leave us not: Though our iniquities testify against us, yet do thou it for thy name’s sake; though our backslidings are many, and we have sinned against thee. Jeremiah 14:8, 9, 7.

Turn us to thee, O Lord God of hosts, and then cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved. O stir up thy strength, and come and save us. Psalm 80:3, 2.

Shew us thy mercy, O Lord, and grant us thy salvation, yea let that salvation be nigh them that fear thee, that glory may dwell in our land: Let mercy and truth meet together, righteousness and peace kiss each other: Let truth spring out of the earth, and righteousness look down from heaven; yea let the Lord give that which is good: Let righteousness go before him, and set us in the way of his steps. Psalm 85:7, 9-13.

(b) For the continuance of the gospel among us, and the means of grace, and a national profession of Christ’s Holy religion.

O let the throne of Christ endure for ever, among us, even the place of thy sanctuary, that glorious high throne from the beginning. Psalm 45:6. Jeremiah 17:12.

Let our candlestick never be removed out of his place, though we have deserved it should, because we have left our first love. Never do to us as thou didst to thy place which was in Shiloh, where thou didst set thy name at the first. Revelation 2:4, 5. Jeremiah 7:12.

Let us never know what a famine of the word means; nor ever be put to wander from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth, to seek the word of God. Amos 8:11, 12.

Let wisdom and knowledge be the stability of our times and strength of salvation, and let the fear of the Lord be our treasure: Let the righteous flourish among us, and let there be those that shall fear thee in our land as long as the sun and moon endure throughout all generations, that there may be abundance of peace, and the children which shall be created may praise the Lord. Isaiah 33:6. Psalm 72:5, 7. Psalm 102:18.

(c) For the continuance of our outward peace and tranquillity, our liberty and plenty, for the prosperity of our trade, and a blessing upon the fruits of the earth.

Let God himself be a wall of fire round about us, and the glory in the midst of us, yea let his gospel be our glory, and upon all that glory let there be a defence; and create upon every dwelling-place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night. Zechariah 2:5. Isaiah 4:5.

Peace be within our borders, and prosperity within our palaces, the prosperity both of merchandize and husbandry, that Zebulun may rejoice in his going out, and Issachar in his tents. Psalm 122:7. Deuteronomy 33:18.

Appoint salvation to us for walls and bulwarks, and in order to that let the gates be opened, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in. Isaiah 26:1, 2.

Make our officers peace, and our exactors righteousness, let violence never be heard in our gates, wasting or destruction within our borders, but let our walls be called Salvation, and our gates Praise: Never let our land be termed Forsaken and Desolate, but let the Lord delight in us, and let our land be married to him. Isaiah 60:17, 18. Isaiah 62:4.

Let our peace be as a river, and in order to that, our righteousness as the waves of the sea: Let that righteousness abound among us which exalteth a nation, and deliver us from sin, which is a reproach to any people. Isaiah 48:18. Proverbs 14:34.

Never make our heavens as brass, and our earth as iron; nor take away thy corn in the season thereof, and thy wine in the season thereof, but give us rain moderately, the former and the later rain in due season, and reserve unto us the appointed works of harvest, giving us fair weather also in its season: Let our land yield her increase, and the trees their fruit; that we may eat bread to the full, and dwell in our land safely. Deuteronomy 28:23. Hosea 2:9. Joel 2:23. Jeremiah 5:24. Leviticus 26:4, 5.

Abundantly bless our provision, and satisfy our poor with bread, that they which have gathered it may eat and praise the Lord. Blow not thou upon it, for then when we look for much it will come to little, but bless our blessings, that all nations may call us blessed, and a delightsome land. Psalm 132:15. Isaiah 62:9. Haggai 1:9. Malachi 3:10, 12.

(d) For the success of all endeavours for the reformation of manners, the suppression of vice and profaneness, and the support of religion and virtue, and the bringing of them into reputation.

O let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end, but establish the just, O thou righteous God that triest the hearts and reins. Spirit many to rise up for thee against the evil doers, and to stand up for thee against the workers of iniquity. Psalm 7:9. Psalm 94:16.

Let the Redeemer come to Zion, and turn away ungodliness from Jacob; And let the filth of Jerusalem be purged from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and the spirit of burning. Romans 11:26. Isaiah 4:4.

Let all iniquity stop her mouth, and let the infection of that plague be stayed, by executing judgment. Psalm 107:42. Psalm 106:30.

Let those that are striving against sin never be weary or faint in their minds. Hebrews 12:4, 3.

Cause the unclean spirit to pass out of the land, and turn to the people a pure language, that they may call on the name of the Lord. Zechariah 13:2. Zephaniah 3:9.

Make us high above all nations in praise and in name and in honour, by making us a holy people unto the Lord our God. Deuteronomy 26:19.

(e) For the healing of our unhappy divisions, and the making up of our breaches.

For the divisions that are among us, there are great searchings of heart; for there are three against two, and two against three in a house. But is the breach wide as the sea, which cannot be healed! Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of our people recovered? Lord, heal the breaches of our land, for because of them it shaketh. Judges 5:16. Luke 12:52. Lamentations 2:13. Jeremiah 8 (v. 22). Psalm 60:2.

We beg in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that there may be no divisions among us, but that we may be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 1 Corinthians 1:10.

Now the God of patience and consolation grant us to be likeminded one towards another, according to Christ Jesus, that we may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and promote the common salvation. Romans 15:5, 6. Jude 3.

Lord, keep us from judging one another, and despising one another, and give us to follow after the things which make for peace,

and things wherewith one may edify another; that living in love and peace, the God of love and peace may be with us. Romans 14:3, 19. 2 Corinthians 13:11.

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory, but every thing in lowliness of mind, and grant that our moderation may be known unto all men, because the Lord is at hand. Philippians 2:3. Philippians 4:5.

(f) For victory and success against our enemies abroad, that seek our ruin.

Rise, Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered, and let those that hate thee flee before thee, but return, O Lord, to the many thousands of thine Israel. Numbers 10:35, 36.

Give us help from trouble, for vain is the help of man; Through God let our forces do valiantly, yea let God himself tread down our enemies, and give them as dust to our sword, and as driven stubble to our bow. Psalm 60:11, 12. Isaiah 41:2.

Let us be a people saved by the Lord, as the shield of our help and the sword of our excellency; and make our enemies sensible that the Lord fighteth for us against them. Deuteronomy 33 (v. 29). Exodus 14:25.

Those who jeopard their lives for us in the high places of the field, teach their hands to war, and their fingers to fight, give them the shield of thy salvation, and let thy right hand hold them up, and cover their heads in the day of battle. Judges 5:18. Psalm 144:1. Psalm 18:35. Psalm 140:7.

(g) For all orders and degrees of men among us, and all we stand in any relation to.

1) For our sovereign lady the Queen, that God will protect her person, preserve her health, and continue her life and government long a publick blessing.

Give the queen thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness, that she may judge the poor of the people, may save the children of the needy, and may break in pieces the oppressor. Psalm 72:1, 4.

Let her throne be established with righteousness, and upheld with mercy: Give her long life and length of days for ever and ever, and let her glory be great in thy salvation, and make her exceeding glad with thy countenance: Through the mercy of the most High let her not be moved. Proverbs 25:5. Proverbs 20:28. Psalm 21:4-7.

Clothe her enemies with shame, but upon herself let the crown flourish, and continue her long, very long a nursing mother to thine Israel. Psalm 132:18. Isaiah 49:23.

2) For the succession in the Protestant line, that a blessing may attend it, that the entail of the crown may prove a successful expedient for the establishing of peace and truth in our days, the securing of them to posterity, and the extinguishing the hopes of our popish adversaries, and all their aiders and abettors.

Lord, preserve to us the lamp which thou hast ordained for thine anointed, that the generation to come may know thee, even the children which shall be born, that they may set their hope in God, and keep his commandments. Psalm 132:17. Psalm 78:6, 7.

Let the Protestant succession abide before God for ever: O prepare mercy and truth which may preserve it, so will we sing praise unto thy name for ever. Thus let the Lord save Sion, and build the cities of Judah, and the seed of thy servants shall inherit it, and they that love thy name shall dwell therein. Psalm 61:7, 8. Psalm 69:35, 36.

Let their design who would make a captain to return into Egypt, be again defeated, and let not the deadly wound that hath been given to the beast be healed any more. Numbers 14:4. Revelation 13:11, 12.

Let our eyes see Jerusalem, the city of our solemnities, a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down: Let none of the stakes thereof be removed, nor any of the cords thereof broken, but let the glorious Lord be unto us a place of broad waters and streams; for the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king, he will save us. Isaiah 33:20, 21, 22.

3) For the privy counsellors, the ministers of state, the members of parliament, the ambassadors and envoys abroad, and all that are employed in the conduct of publick affairs.

Counsel our counsellors, and teach our senators wisdom: O give them a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and might, a spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord, to make them of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord. Psalm 105:22. Isaiah 11:2, 3.

O remove not the speech of the trusty, nor take away the understanding of the aged, nor ever let the things that belong to the nation’s peace be hid from the eyes of those that are intrusted with the nation’s counsels. Job 12:20. Luke 19:42.

Make it to appear that thou standest in the congregation of the mighty, and judgest among the gods, and that when the princes of the people are gathered together, even the people of the God of Abraham, the God of Abraham himself is among them; And let the shields of the earth belong unto the Lord, that he may be greatly exalted. Psalm 82:1. Psalm 47:9.

Let those that be of us build the old waste places, and raise up the foundations of many generations, that they may be called the repairers of the breaches, and restorers of paths to dwell in. Isaiah 58:12.

4) For the magistrates, the judges and justices of peace in the several counties and corporations.

Make those that rule over us just, ruling in the fear of God; and let those that judge remember that they judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with them in the judgment, that therefore the fear of the Lord may be upon them. 2 Samuel 23:3. 2 Chronicles 19:6, 7.

Make them able men, and men of truth, fearing God, and hating covetousness, that judgment may run down like a river, and righteousness as a mighty stream. Exodus 18:21. Amos 5:24.

Enable our magistrates to defend the poor and fatherless, to do justice for the afflicted and needy, to deliver the poor and needy, and to rid them out of the hand of the wicked; and let rulers never be a terror to good works, but to the evil. Psalm 82:3, 4. Romans 13:3. 1 Peter 2:14.

5) For all the ministers of God’s Holy word and sacraments, the masters of assemblies.

Teach thy ministers how they ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, that they may not preach themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and may study to shew themselves approved to God, workmen that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 1 Timothy 3:15. 2 Corinthians 4:5. 2 Timothy 2:15.

Make them mighty in the scriptures, that from thence they may be thoroughly furnished for every good work, in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, and sincerity, and sound speech, which cannot be condemned. Acts 18:24. 2 Timothy 3:17. Titus 2:7, 8.

Enable them to give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine, to meditate upon these things, to give themselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word, to give themselves wholly to them; and to continue in them that they may both save themselves, and those that hear them. 1 Timothy 4:13, 15. Acts 6:4. 1 Timothy 4:15, 16.

Let utterance be given to them, that they may open their mouths boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, that thereof they may speak as they ought to speak, as able ministers of the new testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit, and let them obtain mercy of the Lord to be faithful. Ephesians 6:19, 20. 2 Corinthians 3:6. 1 Corinthians 7:25.

Let the arms of their hands be made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; and let them be full of power by the spirit of the Lord of hosts, to shew thy people their transgressions, and the house of Jacob their sins. Genesis 49:24. Micah 3:8. Isaiah 58:1.

Make them sound in the faith, and enable them always to speak the things which become sound doctrine, with meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; and let not the servants of the Lord strive, but be gentle to all men, apt to teach. Titus 1:13. Titus 2:1. 2 Timothy 2:25, 24.

Make them good examples to the believers in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity; and let them be clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord, and let HOLINESS TO THE LORD be written upon their foreheads. 1 Timothy 4:12. Isaiah 52:11. Exodus 28:36.

Lord, grant that they may not labour in vain, or spend their strength for nought, and in vain, but let the hand of the Lord be with them, that many may believe, and turn to the Lord. Isaiah 49:4. Acts 11:21.

6) For all the universities, schools, and nurseries of learning.

Let the schools of the prophets be replenished with every good gift and every perfect gift from above from the Father of lights. James 1:17.

Cast salt into those fountains, and heal the waters thereof, that from thence may issue streams which shall make glad the city of our God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High. 2 Kings 2:21. Psalm 46:4.

7) For the common people of the land.

Give grace to all the subjects of this land, that they may under the government God hath set over us, live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty, dwelling together in unity, that the Lord may command a blessing upon us, even life for evermore. 1 Timothy 2:2. Psalm 133:1, 3.

Let all of every denomination that fear God and work righteousness be accepted of him; yea let such as love thy salvation say continually, The Lord be magnified that hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servants. Acts 10:35. Psalm 35:27.

8) For the several ages and conditions of men, as they stand in need of mercy and grace.

(a) For those that are young, and setting out in the world.

Lord, give to those that are young to remember their Creator in the days of their youth, that thereby they may be kept from the vanity which childhood and youth are subject to, and may be restrained from walking in the way of their heart, and in the sight of their eyes, by considering that for all these things God will bring them into judgment. Ecclesiastes 12:1. Ecclesiastes 11:10, 9.

Lord, make young people sober-minded, and let the word of God abide in them, that they may be strong, and may overcome the wicked one. Titus 2:6. 1 John 2:14.

From the womb of the morning let Christ have the dew of the youth, and let him be formed in the hearts of those that are young. Psalm 110:3. Galatians 4:19.

Keep those that are setting out in the world from the corruption that is in the world through lust; and give to those that have been well educated to hold fast the form of sound words, and to continue in the things which they have learned. 2 Peter 1:4. 2 Timothy 1:13. 2 Timothy 3:14.

(b) For those that are old, and are of long standing in profession.

There are some that are old disciples of Jesus Christ, Lord, give them still to bring forth fruit in old age, to shew that the Lord is upright, that he is their rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him. Now the evil days are come, and the years of which they say there is no pleasure in them, let thy comforts delight their souls. Acts 21:16. Psalm 92:14, 15. Ecclesiastes 12:1. Psalm 94:19.

Even to their old age be thou he, and to the hoary hairs do thou carry them, thou hast made, we beseech thee bear, yea do thou carry and deliver them. Isaiah 46:4.

Those whom thou hast taught from their youth up, and who have hitherto declared all thy wondrous works, now also when they are old and grey-headed leave them not, cast them not off in their old age, fail them not when their strength fails. Psalm 71:17, 18, 9.

Let every hoary head be a crown of glory to those that have it, being found in the way of righteousness, and give them to know whom they have believed. Proverbs 16:31. 2 Timothy 1:12.

(c) For those that are rich and prosperous in the world, some of whom perhaps need prayers as much as those that request them.

Lord keep those that are rich in the world from being highminded, and trusting in uncertain riches, and give them to trust in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy: That they may do good, and be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, that they may lay up in store for themselves a good security for the time to come. 1 Timothy 6:17, 18, 19.

Though it is hard for those that are rich to enter into the kingdom of heaven, yet with thee this is possible. Matthew 19:23, 26.

(d) For those that are poor and in affliction, for such we have always with us.

Lord, make those that are poor in the world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom, and give to them to receive the gospel. James 2:5. Matthew 11:5.

O that the poor of the flock may wait upon thee, and may know the word of the Lord. Zechariah 11:11.

Many are the troubles of the righteous, good Lord, deliver them out of them all, and though no affliction for the present seems to be joyous, but grievous, nevertheless afterward let it yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness to them that are exercised thereby. Psalm 34:19. Hebrews 12:11.

(e) For our enemies, and those that hate us.

Lord, give us to love our enemies, to bless them that curse us, and to pray for them that despitefully use us and persecute us. Matthew 5:44.

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do; and lay not their malice against us to their charge, and work in us a disposition to forbear and forgive in love, as thou requirest we should when we pray. Luke 23:34. Acts 7:60. Colossians 3:13. Mark 11:25.

And grant that our ways may so please the Lord, that even our enemies may be at peace with us. Let the wolf and the lamb lie down together, and let there be none to hurt or destroy in all the holy mountain; let not Ephraim envy Judah, nor Judah vex Ephraim. Proverbs 16:7. Isaiah 11:6, 9, 13.

(f) For our friends, and those that love us.

And we wish for all those whom we love in the truth, that they may prosper, and be in health, especially that their souls may prosper. 3 John 1, 2.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with their spirits. Philemon (v. 25).

To Be Continued…




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

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

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

When Elizabeth ascended the throne of England, she wrote to Sir Edward Carne, the English Ambassador at Rome, to notify his holiness of her accession to the throne. But Paul told the ambassador that England was a fief of the Holy See, that Elizabeth had no-right to assume the crown without his permission, that she was not born in lawful wedlock, and could not therefore reign over England, and that her safest course was to renounce all claims to the throne, and submit herself entirely to his will, then would he treat her as tenderly as possible. But if she refused his advice he would not spare her.

She declined it, and his hatred was genuine. So was the dislike of each successor of Paul during her reign. Sixtus V. promised Philip II. of Spain a million of scudi to aid in equipping his “Invincible Armada,” to destroy the throne of Elizabeth, and the only conditions he made in the bestowment of his gift were that, “He should have the nomination of the English sovereign, and that the kingdom should be a fief of the Church.” The Armada came to the coasts of England freighted with strange instruments of torture to cure the heresies of the subjects of Elizabeth, and with papal benedictions; but the storms of heaven, and the valor of Protestants, sent the boastful fleet to destruction on the coasts of Spain, never again to trouble Elizabeth.

Rome seldom hurled a fiercer excommunication than that launched by Pius V. at this queen, a woman with the intellect of a hundred ordinary kings; but papal thunders then were nearly as harmless as they are now, and yet, as a specimen of the Romish system, it ought to be inserted here:

    “Pius, bishop, servant to the servants of God; for a perpetual memorial of the matter.

    “I. He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and in earth, committed one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, out of which there is no salvation, to one on earth, namely, to Peter the prince of the apostles, and to Peter’s successor, the Bishop of Rome, to be governed in fullness of power. Him alone he made prince over all people and all kingdoms, to pluck up, destroy, scatter, consume, plant and build, that he may retain the faithful that are knit together with the bond of charity, in the unity of the spirit, and present them spotless and unblamable to their Saviour. In discharge of which function, we, who are, by God’s goodness, called to the government of the aforesaid Church, do spare no pains, laboring with all earnestness, that unity and the Catholic religion, which the Author thereof hath for the trial of his children’s faith, and for our amendment, suffered to be exercised with so great afflictions, might be preserved incorrupt.

    “II. But the number of the ungodly hath gotten such power, that there is now no place left in the world, which they have not assayed to corrupt with their most wicked doctrines. Amongst others, Elizabeth, the pretended queen of England, a slave of wickedness, lending thereunto her helping hand, with whom, as in a sanctuary, the most pernicious of all men have found a refuge; this very woman having seized on the kingdom, and monstrously usurping the place of the supreme head of the Church in all England, and the chief authority and jurisdiction thereof, hath again brought back the said kingdom into miserable destruction, which was then nearly reduced to the most Catholic faith and to good order. For having by strong hand inhibited the exercise of the true religion, which Mary, the lawful queen of famous memory, had by the help of this see restored, after it had been formerly overthrown by Henry VIII., a revolter therefrom, and following and embracing the errors of heretics; she hath removed the royal council, consisting of the English nobility, and filled it with obscure men, being heretics, hath oppressed the embracers of the Catholic faith; hath placed impious preachers, ministers of iniquity, and hath abolished the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fastings, the distinction of meats, a single life, and the Catholic rites and ceremonies; hath commanded books to be read in the whole realm, containing manifest heresy and impious mysteries and institutions, by herself entertained and observed, according to the prescript of Calvin, to be likewise observed by her subjects; hath presumed to throw bishops, parsons of churches, and other Catholic priests out of their churches and benefices, and to bestow them and other church livings upon heretics, and to determine of church causes; hath prohibited the prelates, clergy and people to acknowledge the Church of Rome, or obey the precepts and canonical sanctions thereof; hath compelled most of them to condescend to her wicked laws, and to abjure the authority and obedience of the Bishop of Rome, and to acknowledge her to be sole lady in temporal and spiritual matters, and this by oath; hath imposed penalties and punishments on those who obeyed not, and exacted them of those who persevered in the unity of the faith, and their obedience aforesaid; and hath cast the Catholic prelates and rectors of churches into prison, where many of them, being spent with long languishing and sorrow, have miserably ended their lives.

    “III. All which things, seeing they are manifest and notorious to all nations, and by the gravest testimony of very many so substantially proved, that there is no place left at all for excuse, defense, or evasion; we seeing that impieties and wicked actions are multiplied one on another, and moreover, that the persecution of the faithful, and affliction for religion, groweth every day heavier and heavier, through the instigation and means of said Elizabeth; because we understand her mind to be so hardened and indurate, that she hath not only condemned the godly requests and admonitions of Catholic princes concerning her healing and conversion, but also hath not so much as permitted the nuncios of this see to cross the seas into England; are forced of necessity to betake ourselves to the weapons of justice against her, not being able to mitigate our sorrow, that we are constrained to take punishment on one to whose ancestors the whole state of Christendom hath been so much bounden.

    “IV. Being therefore supported with his authority, whose pleasure it was to place us, though unequal to so great a burden, in this supreme throne of justice, we do, out of the fullness of our apostolic power, declare the aforesaid Elizabeth being a heretic, and a favorer of heretics, and her adherents in the matter aforesaid, to have incurred the sentence of anathema, and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ.

    “And moreover, we do declare her TO BE DEPRIVED OF HER PRETENDED TITLE TO THE KINGDOM AFORESAID, AND OF ALL DOMINION, DIGNITY, AND PRIVILEGE WHATSOEVER. And also the nobility, subjects, and people of the said kingdom, and all others who have, in any sort, sworn to her, TO BE FOREVER ABSOLVED FROM ANY SUCH OATH, AND ALL MANNER OF DUTY, DOMINION, ALLEGIANCE OBEDIENCE; as we also do by the authority of these presents absolve them, and do DEPRIVE THE SAME ELIZABETH OF HER PRETENDED TITLE TO THE KINGDOM, and all other things above said. And we do command and interdict all and every the noblemen, subjects, people and others aforesaid that they presume not to obey her or her monitions, mandates, and laws; and those who shall do the contrary, we do innodate with the like sentence of anathema. And because it were a matter of too much difficulty to convey these presents to all places wheresoever it shall be needful, our will is, that the copies thereof, under a public notary’s hand, and sealed with the seal of an ecclesiastical prelate, or of his court, shall carry altogether the same credit with all people, judicial and extrajudicial, as these presents should do, if they were exhibited or showed.

    “Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, in the year of the incarnation of our Lord 1570, the fifth of the Calends of May, and of our popedom the fifth year.”

Had the power of Pius V. been equal to his extravagant claims, Elizabeth would have been driven from her throne to obscurity, or an untimely and cruel death, the brightest page in British history would have been torn out, the England of today might have been like modern Spain, a country splendid in memories of the past, but for the time being clothed in rags, steeped in ignorance, and covered with a dense cloud of superstition. While North America, the glorious daughter of Britain, instead of standing forth a miracle of light and progress, unmatched in the history of our race, would have appeared like Mexico, a country of beggars, bandits and priests, with the richest resources, and the most restless and improvident population that ever wasted the bounties of a generous climate and soil. But fortunately for the nations, happily for the liberties of the world, the “Virgin Queen,” notwithstanding her undoubted defects, had a hold on the English heart which the pope and all his allies could not shake; and her triumph over her enemies not only made her strong, but overwhelmed them with confusion and disgrace.

That the Pope is above Kings is the Doctrine of the great Expounders of Papal Rights.

Sixtus V. was probably as well informed about the claims of the Bishop of Rome as any of his predecessors or successors; and on the 22d day of March, 1590, he told Olivarez, the ambassador of Philip II., that

    “The pope is appointed by God as THE SUPERIOR OF EVERY OTHER SOVEREIGN.”

Innocent IV., in the Council of Lyons, July 16th, 1245, issued a decree against Frederic, Emperor of Germany, in which he says:

    “We hold on earth THE AUTHORITY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, .. . and we do hereby declare the above named prince, who has rendered himself unworthy of the honors of sovereignty, and for his crimes has been deposed from his throne by God, to be bound by his sins, and cast off by the Lord, and deprived of all his honors, and we do hereby sentence and deprive him, and all who are in any way bound to him by an oath of allegiance, we forever absolve and release from that oath, and by the apostolic authority, strictly forbid any one from obeying him, or in any way whatever attempting to obey him as Emperor or King; and we decree that any who shall henceforth give him assistance or advice, or show favor to him as Emperor or King, shall be ipso facto excommunicated; and those in the empire upon whom the election of an emperor devolves, MAY FREELY ELECT A SUCCESSOR IN HIS PLACE.”

And such was the reverence with which this act was regarded that the German princes elected Henry, landgrave of Thuringia, to the throne from which Innocent had expelled Frederic, and at his death, William, Count of Holland.

Gregory VII., with a rare grandeur of intellect, a towering ambition, a daring spirit, an unrivaled power of penetration, exhibits the claims of the popes in the boldest light. He thunders forth:

    “For the dignity and defense of God’s holy Church, in the name of Almighty God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I DEPOSE FROM IMPERIAL AND ROYAL ADMINISTRATION, King Henry, son of Henry, some time Emperor, who too boldly and rashly hath laid hands on thy Church; and I absolve all Christians subject to the empire from that oath whereby they were wont to plight their faith unto true kings; for it is right that he should be deprived of dignity who doth endeavor to diminish the majesty of the Church.

    “Go to, therefore, most holy princes of the apostles, and what I said, by interposing your authority, confirm; that all men may now at length understand, if ye can bind and loose in heaven, that ye also can upon earth TAKE AWAY AND GIVE EMPIRES, KINGDOMS, AND WHATSOEVER MORTALS CAN HAVE: for, if ye can judge things belonging unto God, what is to be deemed concerning these inferior and profane things? And if it is your part to judge angels, who govern proud princes, what becometh it you to do toward their servants? Let kings, now, and all secular princes, learn by this man’s example, what ye can do in heaven, and in what esteem ye are with God; and let them henceforth fear to slight the commands of holy Church; but put forth suddenly this judgment, that all men may understand that, not casually, but by your means, this son of iniquity doth fall from his kingdom.”

Gregory declared that kingly and papal government might be compared to the sun and moon. The pope’s government is like the sun, filling the world with its power and glory; the dominion of monarchs is like the moon, diminutive in its light, and derived exclusively from the mighty sun of the “Seven Hills.” His doctrine is:

    “That royal authority is ordained of God, and should remain within its proper limits, SUBORDINATE TO THE PAPAL POWER, WHICH IS SOVEREIGN OVER ALL.”

Gregory put forth prodigious efforts to persuade the sovereigns of Europe that their kingdoms were fiefs of St. Peter, and that they owed obedience to the Roman pontiff, his successor; and, with boundless zeal and commanding eloquence, and, we must add, undoubted sincerity, he tried to subject the entire affairs of kings and chief magistrates, and the concerns of the whole world, to a congregation of bishops meeting annually at Rome, of which, of course, he was to be master. His celebrated Dictates claimed power for the popes such as Jehovah alone possesses.

One is inclined to smile when he reads that Alexander VI., who, as vicar of Christ, owned all countries inhabited by infidels, gave to the crown of Castile the territories of all unbelievers which its servants should discover and subdue. And, lest this grant might conflict with his “deed of gift” to the Portuguese, he decreed that a line, supposed to be drawn from pole to pole, a hundred leagues westward of the Azores, should serve as a boundary between them. In the exercise of his world-wide sovereignty, he gave the countries east of this line to Portugal, and those west of it, to Spain.

“In 1254, the pope,” says Matthew Paris, “gave the kingdom of Sicily to Earl Richard; but Earl Richard told Albert, his legate, that, ‘unless the pope would give hostages from his own family as security for his good faith, aid an expedition with money, and deliver up some of his frontier fortresses to protect his army in case a retreat was necessary, his gift looked very much as if some one said: I give or sell you the moon; climb up and take it” The gift of Alexander bore the same features, and showed the same presumption.

But the claims of the bishops of Rome to universal temporal monarchy plunged all Europe, at various times, into confusion, and large parts of it into carnage. It would require volumes instead of a few pages to exhibit the bitter fruits produced by these usurpations.

If the Master said: “My kingdom is not of this world,” the Church of Rome is governed by another spirit; for, during eleven hundred years, her bishops have held an earthly scepter, and struggled, like the conqueror of Darius, for an empire bounded only by the limits of the globe; a monarchy in which kings are to be tolerated as papal viceroys, and nations are to be treated as dependent nurslings; chastised with a scourge, or rewarded with a smile, at the pleasure of the Holy Father.

These arrogant pretensions have never been recanted; and as the renunciation of one of them would prove the Roman Bishop a fallible mortal like the rest of us, not one of them shall ever be surrendered until the papacy is in ruins. And though masses of enlightened Catholics may repudiate and denounce them, they are still in the heart of the Romish creed; and, as in the past, they will live in the future history of the Catholic Church when an opportunity offers for their exhibition. Infallibility cannot change for the better; it can never admit the necessity for its own reformation.

Continued in VIII. The Council of Trent

All chapters of The Papal System by William Cathcart




The Vatican Jesuit Global Conspiracy by Dr. Ronald Cooke

The Vatican Jesuit Global Conspiracy by Dr. Ronald Cooke

I copied this tract from a PDF file to make it more accessible and easier to read on the Internet. My dear friend Annie likes Dr. Cooke’s material. Her eyesight is poor. Perhaps she will read this article easier than from a file in PDF format.

I wrote a book report about it.

Preface

This is the fourth in a series of booklets on the Vatican in the Western world today. In this booklet we try to sketch the role that the Vatican plays in world politics today and the goal and plan it has for the world. We also look at the enormous financial resources that the Vatican possesses and the billions more which are at its disposal.

We also look at the part that the Jesuits play in helping to implement the goal of the Vatican. In our travels and teaching we find that there is almost a total blackout concerning the sinister aspirations of the Vatican and the Jesuits. Men who purport to write on the great conspiracy that is out to control the world not only never mention the Vatican, but if they do, they make the Vatican out to be the target of the conspiracy rather than the originator of the conspiracy.

It is obvious to anyone who is even remotely interested in the Vatican conspiracy that times have certainly changed the attitudes of Protestant Christians toward the Jesuits. The word “Jesuit” used to conjure up in the minds of those who heard it a malevolent and satanic rictus. But times have changed. Today Jesuits are accorded reverence and respect in all segments of western society, and yes, even allowed back into Eastern society after being banned from countries like China for almost thirty years.

Former President Nixon used a Jesuit to write his speeches. Jesuits are leading lights in the modern irenic dialogue of the ecumenical movement so that at least in the United States an aura of respectability now surrounds the workings of the Jesuits. Not all Americans or even all American Roman Catholics are impressed with the Jesuits, but the plans of the Vatican Hierarchy are proceeding along clearly defined lines no matter whether some Roman Catholics may approve or not. The Vatican and the Jesuits have the same goal in mind. They are both working to bring the world to the feet of the Roman Pontiff. The Jesuits have been backing the Marxists in some trouble spots of the world, especially in Latin America. The Pope wants to retain the close backing he enjoys from men like Ronald Reagan; therefore, he pretended to reprimand the Jesuits for working with the Marxists in Central America. As we will see later, the Marxists in Central America, as in Northern Ireland, all have good Roman Catholic credentials.

What most people do not realize is that the Jesuits are the C.I.A. of the Vatican. That is, just as Washington often seems to conflict with, and disavow some of the covert activities of the C.I.A especially when they are going to prove embarrassing, so the Vatican from time to time will appear to disavow the activities of the Jesuits. In actuality just as Washington many times secretly hopes for the success of some clandestine operation of the C.I.A. although publicly disavowing any knowledge of it, so the Vatican hopes for the success of the Jesuits while publicly reprimanding them to appease those who are disturbed by their intrigue.

So although there may appear to be friction between the Jesuits and the Vatican, the friction has nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism per se as the American news media constantly affirms, it has to do with the possible break of some of the Marxists with the Vatican power structure, which might occur in countries like Nicaragua. The Vatican lost Cuba because it misjudged Fidel Castro, who at one time was a faithful son of the Church. It does not want to make the same mistake again with Ernesto Cardenal and his Roman Catholic henchmen in Nicaragua. So the preemptive moves of the Pope in Central America today are primarily self-serving. The Pope realizes that much governmental control will be lost in Central America if the “church” does not go along with the Marxist liberation movements fomented by “church” leaders. On the other hand if the Pope appears to support the Marxist liberation movements openly, he will lose the support of the United States in Latin America. So the present Pope gives the impression that he is against Marxism by calling upon the Jesuits to get out of politics in Latin America and by summoning the Brazilian liberation theologian Leonardo Boff to Rome for an investigation.

These moves and others, which the present Pope is making, get mixed reviews in the U. S. press, but as Yallup points out in his recent book, IN GOD’S NAME, this Pope came to the Vatican with the attitude “business as usual,” meaning that all the corruption which the former Pope, who was murdered, wanted cleaned up, would continue.

The present Pope (in 1985, Pope John Paul II) is a master politician, so he has spoken out against Marxism to retain the support of the United States in Poland. It is plainly a part of his overall strategy, a strategy which has always played both ends against the middle. The Pope backs the Marxist-oriented liberation movements of Latin America to the hilt as long as they remain subservient to the overall goals of the Vatican. It was to reinforce this subservience that he met with the Jesuits.

The Vatican realizes that it has lost out completely in most of Latin America if it does not back the Marxist revolutionaries, 99% of whom are Roman Catholics. So when the Pope visited the area, he alluded to the struggles for justice and human rights, which were going on in that part of the world. However, since the United States looks with concern on the Marxist revolutionaries, the Pope has since shifted course again and pretended to reprimand the clergy, who were, and are, involved in this region.

The C.I.A. of the papacy are without a doubt the Jesuits. They are working night and day to further the global aspirations of the Vatican. Their zeal and persistence are as great as they ever were even though they enjoy much more respectability than they once did. We try to show with documented evidence that the Vatican- Jesuit intrigue, far from being a “Protestant myth,” is a contemporary phenomenon, which is still functioning in the latter half of the twentieth-century.

Ronald Cooke
Manahath School of Theology
Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania
1985

The Jesuits in history

The true church of the Lord Jesus Christ has suffered reproach and endured persecution in almost every age since Stephen was martyred. In the early years of the church to confess Christ invited persecution and martyrdom. As the years rolled by and the church gained more power, it was not long until the church was doing the persecuting instead of being persecuted.

Augustine was one of the first, but certainly not the last, to advocate the necessity of force to extirpate error. As Farrar points out: “His writings became the Bible of the inquisition.”1 So from then on, inquisitorial methods became part and parcel of Rome’s intrigues although stridently denied by some contemporary writers.

Martin Luther was used of God to set forth the liberating doctrine of justification by faith in the finished work of Christ and so dealt a death blow to Roman Catholicism. For this great Biblical doctrine destroys completely the whole-sacramentarian-good-works-priestly enterprise known as Roman Catholicism. Since the time of Luther the Roman institution has been working day and night to overthrow Bible Protestantism and return the “separated brethren” to the one true fold—the Vatican. No greater effort has been made than that made by the Jesuits. The Society of Jesus, founded by Loyola, has been at the origin of many conspiracies directed against Protestantism. They are documented conspiracies, not figments of an over active imagination. So it is nothing short of amazing when Gary Allen, who claims to be an authority in the field of conspiracy, calls in Pedro Arrupe to substantiate his thesis that a conspiracy exists. At the time that Allen wrote ten years ago, Pedro Arrupe was the head of the Jesuits.

The Jesuits are famous in history for their conspiracies, intrigues, assassinations, and their undying hatred of the Protestant Reformation. Pedro Arrupe was the head of an organization which every well informed Protestant knows was the main force behind the Counter Reformation. The Counter-Reformation sought by every means, fair or foul, to overthrow and undo the work of the glorious Protestant Reformation.

If there were no other reason to be against the Jesuits but this, that they attempted wherever possible to stop or hinder the true work of revival and gospel enlightenment in the church, it would be more than enough. But there are many more reasons than this. So for anyone claiming to be knowledgeable in the field of conspiracy to align himself with the head of the Jesuits is a severe blow, to say the least, to his credibility. Yet thousands of fundamental and conservative preachers speak constantly about Allen’s “Insider” conspiracy without once stopping to consider the work of the Jesuits and their sponsor, the Vatican.

The Jesuits were so evil that they were feared even by Roman Catholic kings! MacPherson notes:

The (Roman) Catholic king of Portugal says: it cannot be but that the licentiousness introduced by the Jesuits, of which the three leading features are falsehood, murder and perjury, deprive the laws of their power, destroy the submission of subjects, allow individuals the liberty of killing, calumniating, lying, and forswearing themselves as their advantage may dictate.2

McKinley adds his testimony to that of MacPherson.

This society which has dared to appropriate to itself the Name, which is above every name, by calling itself, “The Order of Jesus,” deserved rather from the nature of its doctrines and from the work it has done in the world to be called the Order of Satan.3

Even the secular historian, W. E. Lunt, whose text was used for years in American colleges and universities, recognized the conspiracies of the Jesuits.

In this development the English Catholics had no small part…They were not a serious political menace until 1580 when two Jesuits came to England and began to plot with the Spanish ambassador…to place Mary on the throne. From that time Catholic plots were continually being hatched. Some had as their method a rebellion aided by foreign invasion while others sought their object by the simple mode of Elizabeth’s assassination. None of the plots succeeded… Walsingham…laid bare the plots….and arrested several of the conspirators.4

The Jesuits actually became so powerful and overbearing that they were disbanded by none other than the pope himself. In 1773 Ganganelli, who succeeded Clement XIII, issued a papal bull in which he declared them suppressed and extinct and their statutes annulled. They remained suppressed for forty years, but in 1814 Pius VII issued a bull solemnly restablishing the society under the constitutions of “St. Ignatius.”

The fact that the society was held in such disrepute even by its own institution is certainly not much of a recommendation for its evil practices. Yet, the man who headed this society when Gary Allen wrote his book, “NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY,” was called in by Allen to corroborate the fact that an international conspiracy exists. It is obvious that it is very easy to postulate a Bilderberger, Insider, or Trilateralist type of conspiracy without generating any animosity among the general public. Everyone and anyone can identify against a few rich evil men lurking in the shadows and working to take over the world. But to identify religious men as conspirators causes millions of people to bridle in anger and disbelief.

It is obvious that very few people know anything about the Jesuits today. Let us look at the organization that Ignatius of Loyola brought into being. There were several steps through which every well-trained Jesuit was to pass before he was graduated from his training.

1. The Spiritual Exercises.
These were undertaken with the object of inducing among other things a state of complete subjection of the will.5

2. If the trainee passed the first test, he was invited to become a novice.

From this time on, he is excluded from all earthly friends and is to have no will of his own as to his future. He is to put himself in the hands of his director as the interpreter of heaven toward him. Complete obedience is the thing that is absolutely required. His conscience must never assert itself in opposition to his superiors. Newman notes: “Absolute destruction of individual will and conscience is aimed at and to a great extent accomplished.”6

Can anyone imagine a better base upon which to build a global conspiracy than complete and unquestioning obedience? In every small conspiracy about which details can be studied, one of the primary goals is to get each conspirator to give his unquestioning and complete obedience to the plan.

The Novitiate usually lasts two years. If the novice is found to possess the right qualities, he is accepted as a Scholar. Notice the weeding out process that continues all through the entire program. Only the most dedicated make it through to the final stages of the Society.

The Scholar now undergoes a protracted course of training in various branches of knowledge. Attention is paid to the cultivation of a sound physical make-up. If the Scholar is able to meet the requirements of this stage, he becomes a Coadjutor. Those who attain this rank are to devote themselves wholeheartedly to the advancement of the society. They serve as priests, missionaries, teachers and businessmen for the society.

The next rung on the ecclesiastical ladder is a group called the Professed. These are composed of a small proportion of the Coadjutors who have proved themselves and have been tested as to their complete trustworthiness regarding the aims of the society. It is from this group the officers of the society are drawn. They are the ones who are entrusted with its secrets. Watchcare is another important part of the society. Each member including the general is responsible to another, and according to Newman:

to whom he must regularly make confession of his inmost thoughts, and who is required to exercise a watch care over him and to report every deviation from rectitude, according to the standards of the body.7

The aim of the Order was, according to Ignatius, the promotion of the greater glory of God. According to Newman:

The greater glory of God was identified by them in the most absolute way with the world wide and undisputed dominion of the Roman Catholic Church.8

The methods of the Order are well known. In most cases the Jesuits deny the charges against them. But it has been charged that they infiltrate into places of power using as their watchword, the phrase “the end justifies the means.” The fact that they deny such actions should not cause any surprise since that is part and parcel of their method of operation.

Their ethical system allows all kinds of loopholes by which to escape any situation that might cause embarrassment to the Society or to the Roman Catholic Church. The society did openly defend their recommendation that tyrants should be assassinated.9 Their doctrine of Probabilism, although rejected by some members, nevertheless secured papal recognition. Their ability to escape responsibility by the method of “directing the intention” also demonstrates that the phrase “the end justifies the means,” although never appearing in their writings, is there in their purpose as plain as day.

Another equally objectionable doctrine was their teaching on mental reservation or restriction, whereby one, without burden to his conscience, might tell a downright lie provided the word or clause that would make it true is in his mind.

Thus, one accused of having committed a certain act last week in a certain place may swear that he was not there, reserving the statement “this morning.”10 The Secret Instructions, supposed to be the frank directions of the generals to the provincials and others involving unscrupulous commands, can no longer be used. The genuineness of the document has been denied by the society. It was first published in 1612, and, if not genuine, was probably the production of the ex-Jesuit Hieronymus Zaorowski.11 However, as Newman cogently reasons:

The repudiation of the work by the Society is, of course, no conclusive evidence of its spuriousness. It has been the consistent policy of the society from the beginning to deny everything disadvantageous to the church or to itself.12

The supreme end as noted above was the greater glory of God. So any superior can declare an end, however diabolical, to involve the greater glory of God, and command his inferior to use any means whatever for the accomplishment of this end, including, as Newman points out: “deceit, theft, and even murder; and the inferior must unquestioningly obey.”13

Hodge also points out in his work the notoriety which the Jesuits attained through their principle of mental reservation.

The doctrine that the character of an act depended solely on the intention. If the intention be good, the act is good; whether it be falsehood, perjury, murder, or any other conceivable crime. Pascal quotes the Jesuit moralist Escobar as laying down the general principle, “that promises are not binding unless there was an intention of keeping them, at the time they were made.” On the same principle, that the intention determines the character of the act, the murder of Henry III, in 1589; of the Prince of Orange in 1584; of Henry IV, of France in 1610; and especially the massacres on the feast of St. Bartholomew, were all justified,.14

Gordon Liddy, who was also educated by the Jesuits, used the same type of reasoning for justifying his part in the Nixon Watergate scandal. It is very significant that Liddy, who now claims he does not believe in God, nevertheless uses the various definitions of the Roman moralists to justify murder.

It is the same rationale by which I was willing to obey an order to kill Jack Anderson. But I would do so only after satisfying myself that it was: (a) an order from legitimate authority; (b) a question of malum prohibitum; and (c) a rational response to the problem.15

Once we allow the reasoning of the Jesuits to prevail, then murder becomes a viable means of policy if we feel that it is necessary. It is tragic that many fundamental and evangelical Christians agree with this tvpe of reasoning today, showing that Jesuitical casuistry has made vast strides since the sixteenth century.

We believe in capital punishment. We do not believe, however, that any man has the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Once allow this type of thinking, and Tomas Torquemada and the Inquisition will not be far away.

The Jesuits were well received in Italy and in Portugal at first. However in Spain, Charles V was opposed to their methods and to their ideas of papal absolutism. Leading Roman Catholic Spanish theologians such as Melchior Canus denounced them as the forerunners of anti-Christ foretold by the Apostle in II Timothy 3:2.

In France they met with opposition but finally gained a foothold and permission to establish a college at Clermont. In Lyons, their presence and preaching resulted in the burning of the books and churches of the Huguenots. It is probable that the Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day was due in some measure to their influence.16 In England, Trevelyan says of the Jesuits that their policy aimed “at the overthrow of the existing regime and the forcible extirpation of Protestantism.”17 A likelier group to originate a global conspiracy would indeed be difficult to find. Their zeal knew no bounds. They were and are the heart and soul of the Counter-Reformation. As Newman, the great Southern Baptist Historian, points out:

The chief means that were used by the Counter-Reformation from this time onward (1541) were the Council of Trent, The Society of Jesus, and the Inquisition…These means of fortifying the church and repressing heresy are closely interlinked. The Council of Trent, especially in its later and more important phases, and the establishment and working of the Inquisition, like the policy of the papacy in general, were due to Jesuit influence.18

So for someone to call in Pedro Arrupe to comment on the possible existence of a conspiracy is like calling in Adolf Hitler to comment on the possible existence of Nazism. It is better to go with known facts about conspiracy than to hint at hidden conspiracies which may not even exist.

The Jesuits were indefatigable in their efforts to restore Romanism to its former glory in the areas where Protestantism had gained a foothold. Von Ranke tells of the return of the idolatry of Romanism to parts of Germany.

In Cologne it was again an honor to wear the Rosary. Relics were once more held up to public reverence in Treves, where for many years no one had ventured to exhibit them… the youth of Ingolstadt belonging to the Jesuit school walked… on a pilgrimage…in order to be strengthened for their confirmation “by the dew that dropped from the tomb of St. Wal-purgis.”19

The Jesuits were the first effective counter action against the progress of Protestantism that the Roman Catholic Church was able to wage. Yet few Protestants then, and now, fail to realize the eternal issues which are at stake in this battle. Grace and idolatrous works are mutually exclusive. Error is only defeated by the proclamation of the truth. It is never defeated by compromise, half-truths, or a failure to recognize its existence.

References

1. Farrar, F. W. History of Interpretation, Baker Book House, Reprint, p. 235

2. MacPherson, Hector, The Jesuits in History, Edinburgh, Scotland. 1914, pp. 104-105

3. Ash, McKinley, The Antichrist, Blackwood, N.J. p. 91

4. Lunt, W.E., History of England, p. 378

5. Newman, Albert Henry, A Manual of Church History, Vol. II, Philadelphia, 1947, p. 369

6. Ibid., p. 370

7. Ibid., p. 371

8. Ibid., p. 372

9. loc cit.

10. Ibid., p. 372

11. loc. cit

12. Ibid., p. 378

13. Ibid., p. 379

14. Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, Vol. Ill, N.Y. 1873, pp. 445-446

15. Liddy, G. Gordon, Will, Dell Pub. Co. 1981, p. 291

16. Newman, p. 381 17.Trevelyan, G.M., History of England, Vol II., Doubleday, N.Y. 1953, p. 158

18. Newman, p. 355

19. Von Ranke, Leopold, History of the Popes, Vol II, Collier, N.Y. 1901, p. 23

The Jesuits today

Many Americans, of course, while paying half-hearted attention to such historical matters are convinced that although there may be some misdeeds in history, the Jesuits of the present have changed. Others seem to believe that the intrigue of the Jesuits is needed today to counteract the communist menace.

G. Gordon Liddy of Watergate fame was taught by the Jesuits, and nowhere does he apologize for their teachings or for his philosophy of life which is based on the Jesuit teaching that the end justifies the means. In fact, he unashamedly advocates this teaching as the only way that America can survive.

In his autobiography he states:

Fordham was a feast for the mind and a challenge to the spirit. To begin with, it was still under the absolute control of the Jesuits…As much as I had admired the German Benedictines, I admired the Jesuits more…
The Society of Jesus was something special—the shock troop of the Catholic Church.1

He goes on to say that Heinrich Himmler used it as the model for his dreaded black-uniformed SS in Hitler’s Germany and that the SS swore a special oath of loyalty to the Fuhrer, just as the highest order of the Jesuits swore a special oath of loyalty to the Pope. Liddy says later on that “just as I do, John Sirica believes the end justifies the means.”2

The Jesuits obviously have gained respectability in our time. They have come a long way since John Adams, the second President of the United States, wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: “If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in Hell, it is this Society of Loyola.”3

John G. Schmitz, who ran for President on the American Party ticket a few years ago, was educated by the Jesuits. His education by the Jesuits was put forward as something in his favor rather than a liability. He also wrote the foreword to Gary Allen’s book, “NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY.” So we live in remarkable times when Jesuit trained leaders can write about conspiracy and be accepted not only by the general public, but by professed conservative Protestant Christianity.

Jerry Brown, the Governor of California, who has twice sought the presidential nomination, was also educated by the Jesuits. Again, this was not something considered a liability, rather it was advertised as proof of his moral fiber and strength of character. Times certainly have changed in America.

Harry Reasoner, as he was signing off his nationally televised newscast a few years ago, also demonstrated how far the Jesuits have come in gaining complete acceptance in the United States. He told a joke about three orders in the Roman Catholic Church. It went something like this. The Dominicans, the Franciscans and the Jesuits were all arguing about which order God loved the most. They went down to the altar and were told that they would receive the answer the next day. When they went back the next day, there was a note on the altar which said, “I love you all equally.” Signed, God, S.J. Harry signed off chuckling to himself. While we can appreciate a joke, we do not consider the Jesuits a laughing matter. For if the Bible is true, and we believe it is, then the Jesuit idea of salvation by works, masses, and ceremonies has led millions, and is still leading millions, to a lost eternity.

To those who cherish biblical truth and the freedom to preach the true Gospel, the rise of the Jesuits to a place of complete acceptance and indeed power in the United States today does not bode well for the future of this great land. Everything that Protestant Americans hold dear will be forfeited if these men ever gain the ascendancy in this land.

The greatest proof of all that the Jesuits have indeed gained complete respectability in the United States today is the startling fact that a man claiming to outline the global shadowy conspiracy that threatens the world should call in the leader of the Jesuits to substantiate and corroborate his thesis. No one informed in the area of church history would ever do such a thing unless he believed that the time had come when the Jesuits were no longer suspect themselves. Apparently, Gary Allen believes that this time has arrived. Millions of conservatively oriented Americans who agree with Allen are either totally ignorant of the historical record or believe that the Jesuits have changed. It can be said without fear of contradiction that whether or not one agrees with the idea of a Jesuit Conspiracy, no Protestant who has studied church history would ever call in the leader of the Jesuits to corroborate his view of conspiracy.

The Jesuits have not only gained complete respectability in the United States today, but they have also gained great power. They own a controlling interest in the Bank of America as well as other financial interests. They are thus able to influence Roman Catholic politicians to serve the ends of the Roman Catholic Church more vigorously. (We will look at the Vatican’s vast financial empire in more detail in the next chapter.)

The Jesuits were involved in intrigue at the highest levels of the United States government. During the administration of John F. Kennedy, the Jesuits had access to the most powerful office in the world. The Rev. James Vizzard, an American Jesuit who served as a labor lobbyist in Washington, disclosed that in 1963 he was having lunch with another Jesuit, Roger Vekemans, a Belgian priest on assignment to Chile, when a White House car picked Vekemans up and took him to a meeting with President Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and C.I.A. Director John Mc- Cone, certainly three of the most powerful men in the world at that time.

Vizzard said: “Roger came back with a big smile on his face and said, ‘I got $10 million—$5 million overt from AID (Agency for International Development) and $5 million covert from the C.I.A.’ “4

Since that time some other investigations have shown that there was a Roman Catholic bishop on the payroll of the C.I.A. in Vietnam as late as 1971, that millions of dollars were sent by the U.S. government to help the Jesuits in Chile, a country then beset by assassinations and intrigue and still embroiled in murder and mayhem, and at this writing still controlled by a Roman Catholic military dictatorship.

Only the tip of the iceberg has ever been seen. It is obvious that the subject of Jesuit intrigue in the C.I.A. has so far never been explored in any depth whatsoever. Licio Gelli whom some writers believe is the man who helps hold together the Vatican conspiracy, which is out to control the world, has strong links with the C.I.A. He is called II Burattinaco—The Puppetmaster. Yallop says of him, “Gelli was the puppetmaster with a few thousand strings. The strings appear to have led everywhere, to the heart of the Vatican, to the White House, to presidential palaces in a wide range of countries.”5

Gelli was the man who bought Exocet Missiles from France for Argentina in its war with Britain. Yallop says that the Vatican indirectly funded Celli through Calvi and the Bianco Ambrosiano. Gelli was an honored guest at Reagan’s presidential inauguration. Gelli, of course, has strong ties with Michele Sindona. He is the head of P2, the mysterious organization founded in Italy which functions in Argentina, Venezuela, Paraguay, France, Portugal, Nicaragua, Switzerland, and the United States. It interlocks with the Mafia in Italy, Cuba and the United States and also with military regimes in South America, and also with the C.I.A. and reaches right into the heart of the Vatican.6

So the tentacles of the Vatican power structure spread worldwide. Men come and go, but the organizations of the papacy perpetuate themselves and have done so for more than a thousand years, making the Vatican the source of the most formidable intrigue in world history. When Yallop sought to find out about the mysterious death of Pope John Paul, he said that:

The fact that men and women living within the heart of the Roman Catholic Church (Vatican City) cannot speak openly and be identified, is an eloquent comment on the state of affairs within the Vatican.7

The Pope has called for the Jesuits to cease from their intrigue in Central America. On March 2, 1982, over one hundred Jesuit Provincial Superiors, the leaders of the Order, were called to Rome for discussions with “Father” Paolo Dezza, the man the Pope had appointed to oversee the Order in 1981.

The Jesuits were accused by the Pope himself of engaging in “political activism under the guise of religious duties.”8 In the same article the Jesuits were reported to be “one of the primary groups controlling both extremes in Central America.”9

So the Jesuits are still in the thick of the murders and assassinations which are being carried out by both sides in the war in El Salvador. The Pope, like others before him, is trying to curb their zeal to keep all factions in the war subservient to Rome.

With the rise of the death squads like those in Ulster, the focus of world opinion is forcing the Pope to do something to at least give the impression that he is not in favor of the murders and killings in El Salvador. But the high degree of Jesuit involvement with the extremists on both sides of the conflict in El Salvador is now a matter of public record.

The Extremists on both sides of this conflict are Roman Catholics. Roman Catholic Marxists are fighting Roman Catholic conservatives. The church is charting a course that will enable it to identify with whoever wins in the end. The Acting Archbishop said recently, “The left has lost its struggle against the government and therefore the influential church here must stay in a neutral, centrist position.”10 The acting Archbishop made this statement after the killing of 3 Marxist nuns, 10 Marxist priests, and the assassination of Marxist Archbishop Oscar A. Romero. It was after this reign of terror by the Roman Catholic conservatives that the “influential church withdrew to its neutral, centrist position.” It is obvious that the conservative wing of Romanism, which has a large representation among the North American clergy, is backing the right-wing fighters in El Salvador. However, some local Roman Catholic leaders are calling for the United States to back off in El Salvador. So it looks like another capitulation to Marxism is shaping up in Central America.

Latin America sits on a veritable power keg because Romanism, which has been entrenched there for four hundred years, has not brought a scintilla of freedom or justice to the oppressed millions who live below the border of the United States and well below the abject poverty line. Romanism has managed to keep the multiplied millions in such a state of miserable existence that we have no hesitation in saying that if Americans rebelled against George III for his repression, they would have rebelled long ago against almost every government in Latin America.

Instead the United States bolsters the repression of Rome all over Latin America, paving the way for the inevitable revolution and “liberation” promised by the Marxists. It is time the United States stopped identifying with Romanism. But while the massive propaganda machine of Rome churns out its slanted coverage of the news, public opinion in the United States will enable Rome to keep its stranglehold on the people either by repressive fascist governments as in Chile or repressive Marxists government dictatorships as in Nicaragua. Not only that, but the Vatican wants the U.S. to fund the “rebuilding” of this region while the “church” retains control over the people.

Ed Asner has been blasted by many in the U.S. for his stand against U.S. involvement in El Salvador. Asner, of course, was the popular Hollywood actor in several recent television series. He was hounded into silence by being labelled a Communist or leftist or worse if that were possible. What was it that brought down the wrath of a large section of the American public upon Ed Asner? Simply because he spoke out on the situation in El Salvador. What is the situation in El Salvador that Asner deplores? It is the conservative Roman Catholic death squads massacring hundreds of civilians under the guise of eliminating leftists. It is amazing the leftists that are in the world today. Everyone who opposes Romanism is a leftist, Marxist or Communist. The possibility of a Protestant Christian opposing Rome is so remote today that apparently it is safe to label everyone who opposes Romanism as a leftist. (A few years ago one conservative west coast commentator even called Paisley a communist.)

This is the propaganda that Asner was challenging, that anyone who opposes the totalitarian poverty and ignorance-producing regimes of Latin America today must be a leftist. There are leftists to be sure who challenge Rome’s 400 year reign of terror and extreme poverty, and the sad thing that should be noted but never is, is that there are few Americans who would not have challenged such regimes long, long ago!! The poor peons ground into the dirt for centuries look to the U.S. to liberate them, and all they get in return is the backing of the rotten tyrannical dictatorships by the powerful U.S. government, a mere lackey of the Roman Catholic lobby in Washington. So they turn to whoever will help them in their struggle for some semblance of freedom. It is one of the great tragedies of our times that the only choice left to the people of Latin America in many cases is between Romanism on one side and Marxism on the other, and the Marxism even is the Jesuit brand. They are never given the choice of choosing neither Romanism nor Marxism but Protestantism. Protestantism has become so weak and has been betrayed by so many lily-livered compromisers that there is no viable choice left to many of the peoples of the world. Yet when the world is examined, Protestant countries with but few exceptions are the only ones where even a semblance of freedom remains.

Sister Ann Gormly, associate director of the U.S. Catholic Mission Association, in commenting on some of the allegations made against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua said, “I hear of no limitations to the work of the church in Nicaragua.” She also said that it is good to have four churchmen in high government posts in Nicaragua.11 So although there are many uncertain sounds emanating from Nicaragua, the Vatican is deeply embroiled in the present government, and no amount of double- talk can dispel the fact that at least four sons of the “church” have the highest posts in the Sandinista government.

We certainly do not try to play down the fact that there are apparently deep rifts between some local priests and nuns who side with the poor and believe in “liberation theology” and the present Pope, who is opposed to them. But the bottom line is loyalty. If the leftist leaning clergy and political leaders promise to remain loyal to the Vatican in all their intrigues, then the Pope will overlook their Marxist ideology even as a former Pope overlooked the Nazi ideology of Hitler and his henchmen.

One modern writer commenting on the situation in Nicaragua said:

The major target of the U.S. is the Sandinista government of Nicaragua, which is now considered a Marxist regime. The truth of the matter is that there are more Jesuits and Jesuit- controlled individuals in the Sandinista government than there are individuals in the whole of Nicaragua who have gone beyond the first chapter of Marx’s Capital.12

The same writer went on to note that it is difficult to tell the difference between Andropov and a Jesuit, especially when the “Jesuit is wearing a red Andropov T shirt.”13 In other words the “leftist” regime is very definitely and very closely intertwined with Roman Catholicism in general and the Jesuits in particular. The guru of the Sandinista revolution is Ernesto Cardenal, a Trappist Monk; the foreign minister is E’Escoto, a Maryknoll priest; and the brains behind the whole operation, Fernando Cardenal, is a Jesuit. When these three “Marxist” Roman Catholic clergymen join forces with the strongman Daniel Ortego, who preaches about a revolutionary being a Christian and vice-versa, it is indeed difficult to escape the blanket of Jesuit casuistry which seems to cover the revolution in Nicaragua.

If we are to believe the New Solidarity paper, which takes a definite Roman Catholic stance, there is not much hope for the liberation of Nicaragua from the hands of the Vatican-Jesuit connection. For this paper states that the man the U.S. is grooming to replace the Sandinistas, Eden Pastora, who is now building a base of operations in Honduras, is Jesuit-controlled himself. So that even if the Sandinistas were removed tomorrow, another Jesuit-controlled man would be installed, this time with the help of the C.I.A. and the U.S. government.

Where the Jesuits end and the Marxists begin is certainly a difficult question to answer, but one thing is certain as of this writing: the Jesuits are in control of Nicaragua. All the banks of Nicaragua were nationalized when the Sandinistas took over except the Ambriosano Group. This group mysteriously escaped nationalization. The reason being, of course, that the Ambrosiano Group is controlled by the Vatican.

The Vatican has kept the people in Central America in ignorance and misery for four centuries. It is in the interest of the Vatican to keep its stranglehold on these nations. They are doing so either by the death squads in El Salvador or the Jesuit Marxists in Nicaragua, but they are maintaining their hold over the people. The

U.S. as a Protestant country could bring some pressure to bear, which could really liberate the people from both warring factions, but alas, no such pressure is ever brought to bear on the Vatican. Instead the U.S. seems to become more and more the lackey of the Vatican, and the power that keeps the rotten status quo in place in Latin America.

A classic example of their failure to uphold the one truly free government in Central America was seen in the case of Rios Montt in Guatamala. Rios Montt was a charismatic Protestant. He had his limitations, to be sure, but he was beginning to bring some real liberty to the people of Guatamala. As far as we can ascertain the Roman Catholic church began to agitate for his removal. We only picked up small items of news here and there, but we did read that some “leaders” in Guatamala were concerned that unless he was removed, he was going to cause a civil war in Guatamala. One item also spoke of the fact that anti-catholic feeling was being generated by his fanatical form of Christianity. (All this is the same old Jesuit line we are seeing in Canada and the U.S. tdoay. That is, no one should say anything against the Pope or Roman Catholicism. As we are typing these pages we read that several people have been arrested in Canada for distributing “anti-catholic” literature. Imagine, if you can, getting arrested in a so-called free country for passing out literature of a theological nature. Truly the freedoms of the Protestant Reformation are being seriously abridged right now in North America.) Montt was deposed, and the Vatican returned to power in Guatamala with the tacit approval of the C.I.A. Protestant Americans better wake up!

The Vatican is the center of a never ending web of conspiracy. It is working day and night to bring the world to the feet of the Roman pontiff. The Vatican octopus has tentacles reaching into almost every government circle on earth. When the Red Chinese needed the off-shore oil drilling expertise of the United States (no other country possesses it) a bargain was struck so that the Jesuits were once again allowed into China. Surely such a move is almost incredible when viewed in the light of the fact that America is still an overwhelmingly Protestant nation at least in the numerical make-up of her population.

The Vatican works incessantly at building bridges over which its plans may be put into operation. Pedro Arrupe, then the head of the Jesuits, was the man that Pope Paul VI sent to Moscow in 1971. He met with the communists to try to get the then repressive government of Czechoslovakia to relax her repressive policies. When he returned from Moscow he stated that he saw signs of relaxation of religious persecution in Russia. (Billy Graham came back with the same line.) Arrupe was immediately challenged by the Director of Lithuanian Catholic Aid, Casimir Pugevicus, who said that Arrupe’s statement was a “time serving Soviet maneuver used in order to create a false impression.”14 It is obvious that the Vatican wants a soft line taken toward Communist Russia because the ultimate goal of the one world church envisaged by the Vatican is the total absorption of all into the one true fold of Romanism.

Bible Protestantism is the only faith that can never capitulate to Romanism. Romanism with its ability to absorb false religions into its fold will become the cage of every unclean bird. But it can never absorb Bible Protestantism because the difference between the two is of such a nature that union is spiritually and ecclesiastically impossible. This is the reason biblically ignorant newsmen speak of the bigotry of the bible-believing fundamentalists of our times; they do not realize the eternal difference that exists between vital biblical Christianty on the one hand and all false religions on the other. So Bible Protestantism must ultimately be the target of every conspiracy, and the target of the final apostate conglomerate.

References

1. Liddy G. Gordon, Will, Dell Publ. Co., 1981, p.54
2. Ibid., p.383
3. Canadian Revivalist, Nov./Dec, 1981, p.4
4. Church and State, Vol. 28, No. 8, p.3
5. Yallop, David, IN GOD’S NAME, Bantam Books, N.Y., N.Y., 1984, p.313
6. Ibid., p.117
7. Ibid., p.X
8. Small, Gretchen, New Solidarity, March 8, 1982, p.3
9. Ioc cit.
10. AP News Release
11. U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Sept. 3, 1984, p.46
12. New Solidarity, April 25, 1983, p.6
13. loc cit.
14. Martin, Malachi, The Final Conclave, Stein and Day, N.Y., 1978, p.86

A financial empire second to none

Whenever anyone writes on conspiracy money is always given a prominent place. In this regard the Vatican certainly does not take a back seat to anyone. The wealth of the Vatican, as we will see, is so vast that in all probability its true worth will never be known.

We are going to examine in some detail what various writers, who have tried to research the wealth of the Vatican, have said. Several of these writers are members of the Roman Catholic church. It is surely interesting to every Protestant that when Pope Paul brought his entourage from Milan to the Vatican, they were dubbed by Roman Catholic writers as the Milan Mafia.1

It is not within the bounds of this study to examine the Mafia in detail. But the Cosa Nostra, the Family, or The Mafia are a 100% Roman Catholic outfit. They originated in Sicily where Michele Sindona was also born. They control vast holdings in Italy and North America. They have gone what they call “legit” in many enterprises and were able to close down an entire cheese plant in Wisconsin. They did this to establish a monopoly in the Pizza business. This incident made the national news. Businessmen came in and brought the cheese factory. After they bought it, they closed it down. It was only later that Mafia involvement was discovered. As far as we know, the factory, which employed most of the town’s work force, is still closed down as of this writing.

It is interesting to notice the timing of the move by the Mafia to control the cheese and pizza business in the United States. Panatella, a Vatican controlled company dealing mainly in flour and pasta, lost two and a half million dollars just prior to the Mafia takeover and required financing of 4.8 million dollars to keep it afloat.

Martin discloses that by the late sixties both the Institute for Religious Words (whose assets were conservatively put at 3 billion dollars) and the Special Administration of Holy See Property were invested in every sector of Italian industry and commerce. He went on to say, “On the boards of directors of companies in which the Vatican had an interest there always sat a Vatican ‘ family ‘ man, somebody like Massimo Spada or Luigi Mennini.”2

Martin also pointed out that the Special Administration of Holy See Property, which was run by competent lay bankers, was advised by J. P. Morgan, Hambros Brothers of London, and the Rothschilds of Paris.

Ostling recounts the story of Boys’ Town, a Roman Catholic charity.

Boys Town now has a worth of well over $200 million, including a securities portfolio valued (very conservatively) at $157 million. Although the interest on such a nest egg is ample to operate the Town, it still spends millions to send the traditional tearjerker fund appeals to 34 million people and raises nearly $18 million a year. This means Boys Town has about three times the endowment of Notre Dame University, raises more money than the Greater New York United Fund, and would rank 372nd in assets on the Fortune 500 if if were a business corporation. All this for 700 boys.3

All this came to light after much digging by a weekly newspaper in Omaha, Nebraska.

According to Lo Bello, a Roman Catholic journalist, the Vatican is the only sovereign state that never publishes a budget. He was accused of exaggeration in his estimates of Vatican wealth, but suffice it to say, the wealth of the Vatican must be immense, for a simple honest disclosure of its holdings, if they do not constitute great wealth, would lay to rest all the “extravagant” estimates of various writers, but such a disclosure has not been forthcoming.

The Sindona debacle, which the Vatican sought to hide from the general public, resulted in a loss of close to one billion dollars. Yet the Vatican carried on as before, demonstrating its reservoir of financial reserves as nothing else could. Very few companies could sustain such a loss and carry on without so much as a whisper. (Chrysler Corporation lost half a billion and would have gone under but for the U. S. government.)

The financial tentacles of the Vatican reach into numerous banks in different countries. Yallop says that the Rothschilds in Paris have been doing business with the Vatican since early in the 19th century.4 He goes on to point out that, “Credit Suisse, Hambros, Morgan Guaranty, Bankers Trust, Chase Manhattan, and Continental Illinois among others became Vatican partners.”5

This financial empire which finances the Vatican conspiracy is filled with murder and mayhem. Yallop states, “The murder of Luciano-Pope John Paul I was to stop him from removing Marcinkus who was the foundation holding up Calvi, Sindona, and Celli.”6 When the dust had cleared from John Paul’s mysterious death, it left in its aftermath a series of murders, assassinations and “suicides” that only the Mafia could match for cold bloodedness. Of the main players in the scene only Marcinkus and Celli still remain in control. Yallop recounts in detail each one of the murders and “suicides,” and his pages, which are very difficult to refute, make grim reading. His book, IN GOD’S NAME,” merits close reading by all who are concerned about freedom.

Because of the criticism that no disclosure is ever made of its wealth, the Vatican has in recent years tried to reform some of its monetary policies, but much still remains to be done. No estimate can be given of the immense wealth of the Vatican, but one can get some glimpses of the multi-billion dollar enterprise through various works that have appeared in recent years.

Ostling, in his work, “Secrecy in The Church,” written from the standpoint of one sympathetic to the Church, does give some interesting insights into the wealth of the Papacy.

He recounts that the late Bishop James A. Pike (a convert from Romanism to Episcopalianism) wrote what he calls a sensational article in which he said that the Jesuits had a controlling interest in the Bank of America, the nation’s largest, and that they earned 250 million dollars a year from their investments (a quarter of a billion). He goes on to say that the Jesuits “sputtered, but they have never made a full accounting of their holdings.”7 Gollin, a freelance writer who tried to research Papal wealth, figured the securities and commercial properties of the Dioceses of the U.S. at almost “one billion dollars.”8 Nino Lo Bello put “the American Jesuit’s annual income at $250 million.” He claims that all Catholic units in the U.S. and Canada combined have assets of more than $80 billion and an annual income of nearly $12.5 billion.”9

It was none other than Cardinal Vagnozzi who observed concerning the Vatican’s finances:

It would take a combination of the KGB, the C.I.A. and Interpol to obtain just an inkling of how much and where the monies are. 10

According to this Cardinal three of the most powerful agencies in the world could only obtain an inkling of how much the Vatican is worth. Yallop points out that the “Vatican bought into General Motors, Shell, Gulf Oil, General Electric, Bethlehem Steel, IBM and TWA.” He went on to say that “the Vicar of Christ had acquired a new unofficial title: Chairman of the Board.”11

The Vatican also acquired “controlling interest in companies, in fields of insurance, steel, financing, flour and spaghetti, industry, cement and real estate.”12 It owns sections of downtown Montreal, Canada, sections of Mexico City in Mexico, many of the major hotels in Italy, blocks of real estate on the Champs D’Elysee in Paris, the Watergate area in Washington, D.C., real estate in New York City, and the entire satellite city of Lomas Verdes in Mexico. This is only the tip of the iceberg, for much of the Vatican’s wealth is hidden in holding companies so that it is difficult to come even close in an estimate of its vast wealth. It is interesting to observe also that Pope John Paul, who was murdered in the Vatican, intended to reform the Vatican’s finances. Yallop in his work claims that this could have been one of a half dozen reasons why he was murdered right in the Vatican. Another very interesting fact is that Pope John Paul confessed to Father Dezza. Even the Pope has a prelate to whom he confesses, and poor Pope John Paul for some reason chose the head of the Jesuits as his “Father Confessor.” If for any reason he chose to confide some of his proposed changes to Dezza, he may have unwittingly sealed his own death warrant.

Malachi Martin, former Jesuit professor at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, in his new book, “RICH CHURCH POOR CHURCH,” puts the wealth of the “church” at 300 billion (Webmaster’s note: I’m sure it’s a far higher amount today, more like hundreds of trillions) dollars. He points out that the Vatican is the:

largest single stockholder in the world with about $20 billion dollars traceably invested (but much more untraceably invested) with gold deposits exceeding those of most medium sized countries, and with a worldwide real estate operation.13

He goes on to say in another place:

a list of the companies and banks in Italy and abroad in which the Vatican acquired a controlling interest before the outbreak of World War II, when added to the list of those in which it acquired a minor but substantial interest, would fill some sixty or seventy pages of this book.14

Even Martin, who still classes himself as a Roman Catholic, is appalled at the extent of the Vatican’s wealth when contrasted with the impoverished millions of Roman Catholics around the world. The present Pope speaks much about economic justice. Although much has been written about the present Pope in glowing terms, Yallop does not share the international newsmen’s accolade. Yallop states candidly:

the papacy of John Paul II has been a case of business as usual. The business has benefitted immeasurably not only from the murder of Albino Luciana, but also from the murders that have followed that strange lonely death in the Vatican.15

He goes on to say:

Many millions of words have been written since the election of Karol Wojtyla in attempts to analyze and understand what kind of man he is. As can be seen, he is the kind of man who could allow men like Villot, Cody, Marcinkus, Mennini, De Strobel and Poletto to remain in office.16

He adds:

“It is a papacy of double standards, one for the Pope and one for the rest of mankind.
“There can be no defense on the grounds of ignorance, Marcinkus is directly answerable to the Pope.”17

References

1.Martin, Malachi, THE FINAL CONCLAVE, Stein and Day, New York, 1978. p. 18
2. Ibid., p. 26
3. Ostling, Richard, SECRECY IN THE CHURCH, Harper and Row, N.Y. 1974, p. 51
4.Yallop, David, IN GOD’S NAME, Bantam Books, N.Y., N.Y. 1984, p 97
5. loc. cit.
6. Ibid., p. 103
7. Ostling, p. 49
8. loc.cit.
9. Ibid., p. 50 10.Yallop,p. 105
11. Ibid., p. 99
12. Ibid., p. 98
13. Martin, Malachi, RICH CHURCH POOR CHURCH, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, N.Y., N.Y. 1984, p. 14
14. Ibid., p. 40
15.Yallop, p. 264
16. Ibid, p. 265
17. Ibid., p. 264

The conspiracy of misdirection

Satan has a plan for this world. His plan is doomed to failure, but that does not mean it is to be taken lightly or that it cannot affect men and nations and do untold harm before it is finally frustrated.

Dr. Stuart McBirnie retraced the steps of the Apostle Paul’s missionary journeys. In those cities where the great Apostle had established churches in the first century, the cause of Christianity has disappeared. McBirnie recounted how not only was he not able to find a church of any kind, but in some instances he could not even find one Christian. So although the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church of the Living Christ, some local churches do fold up and disappear under the onslaught of the devil and this world.

Satan has been at work since the fall of man. So his Satanic conspiracy to dominate this world is of age long duration. Satan’s primary area of operation we saw in our first study as the area of religion. Only God’s believing remnant can understand this aspect of the conspiracy, and even many of them are at sea at this point. Every unsaved person thinks that religion is a good thing when in fact only vital biblical Christianity is a good thing: every other religion is a satanic counterfeit. Satan is working to deceive the nations. He works through individuals. It should be obvious to every thinking person that there are people working day and night to overthrow vital biblical Christianity and many of these individuals are religious, even posing as “Christians.” In other words the battle we face is primarily a spiritual one. It will not be defeated by merely legal efforts or even protests unless the protests are centered on a proper interpretation of the Word of God.

Romanism has made unbelievable advances in the United States in the last one hundred years. As one leading Roman Catholic spokesman said, “We are less than one hundred years from Rum, Romanism and Rebellion, referring to the slogan of American politicians at the close of the nineteenth century. (See our first booklet for further documentation.)

Gary Allen in his examination of conspiracy fails to come to grips with known historical conspiracies. For one reason or another he obviously ignores the documented religious conspiracies of history. Roman Catholic conspiracies are part of the historical record. Papal plots have been discovered, and the conspirators arrested and brought to trial at various junctures of history. Father Chiniquy portrays Romanists as the main plotters in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. So the Vatican has been working night and day to shift the burden of conspiracy from its shoulders to some other group of conspirators. Since the McCarthy era, extremist groups have painted almost every leader in the United States as Communist, pro-communist, or an insider. NO ONE HAS EVER LOOKED AT THE PAPAL INTRIGUE, which is still going on today as it has for over 1,000 years. While men hunt for shadowy conspirators among America’s leaders, who evidence no continuity whatsoever, Romanism, with a continuity in conspiracy unparalleled in the history of man, continues to flourish and to call the shots in the area of religion and politics.

It should be obvious to every Bible-believer that one of the main tasks of the Satanic conspiracy is to direct those who are seeking to discover the conspiracy and alert Christians to it to some other apparent culprit. This we term the conspiracy of misdirection. Misdirection is written large in the field of conspiracy.

We see this conspiracy of misdirection focused in four main areas.

1. Toward the Masons
The Masons have become a favorite whipping boy for conspiratorialists writing on the great global conspiracy. While we do not approve of the Masons, we do not believe the Roman Catholic propaganda put out against the Masons. Yallop postulates a secret Masonic Conspiracy against the Vatican in his work, “IN GOD’S NAME.” Michele Sindona is also linked to the Masons by Yallop, Martin, and other writers. Sindona came out of Sicily, the reputed home of the Mafia but is regarded as a Mason by Martin. He is certainly a man of mystery. But to try to link him to the Masonic Lodge and hint at some hidden conspiracy by the Masons to destroy the Roman Catholic Church through financial embezzlement is more fiction than fact. It is true that Sindona was linked to the loss of almost one billion dollars, which the Vatican financial empire sustained, and that he at one time was a close friend of Pope Paul. According to Newsweek he was the brains behind

an intricate group of holding companies (and) he controlled a chain of hotels, a giant multinational real-estate operation, several industrial firms in Europe and America, half a dozen banks. Rumor had it that he was the Pope’s chief financial adviser, or alternatively, the Mafia’s number one banker.1

When Pope Paul realized the amount of money involved in the Sindona scandal, he said that Sindona was in the “hands of unknown powers,” hinting at some dark super-conspiracy against the Papacy. For it is a belief of many Roman Catholics and even some “Protestant” writers, that the great conspiracy is not directed by Rome but is directed at Rome. At least Malachi Martin seems to indicate as much in his work. He tells that:

Montini (who later became Pope Paul) had known that over in the Quirinal…and within the Vatican behind Pacelli’s back, there were men and women who dealt every day in millions of church dollars —the “Patrimony of St. Peter”— buying war and selling peace down the river, cynically scandalously…. Montini could almost see a Satanic rictus behind the whole affair.2

Martin also points out that late in the Sindona scandal, “It is now reported to Paul that Michele Sindona is a member of the Masonic order.”3 Before the whole affair with Sindona was over, Paul was to feel that Sindona was a shadowy figure behind some great conspiracy against the Papacy.

Roman Catholic writers, of course, do not believe in a Roman Catholic conspiracy. So they are constantly proffering Masonry or some other Bilderberger or Tri-lateralist conspiracy as the real one. Some conservative Protestants, who do not know their Bibles, have taken up the cry of the Roman Catholic conspiratorialists. But to try to link Michele Sindona to some conspiracy against the papacy is a difficult task. For the few things that we do know about his early education show that he was educated by the Jesuits. Also his bank failures, while definitely affecting the Vatican, also affected him. The Vatican not only lost millions, but Michele Sindona lost so much that he was wiped out. So if Sindona was in the hands of “unknown powers,” they must have been unknown to him too, for they certainly deserted him when he needed a friend. The powers, which seem to be connected with Sindona, were the Mafia. For the main government witness against him, Giorgio Ambroscoli, who had been appointed to liquidate the Sindona controlled banks in Italy, was killed in Milan. No one was ever charged with the crime.

Sindona had to flee to America where after another bank failure he was arrested and brought to trial and sentenced to five years on “65 counts of conspiracy, fraud and perjury.”4 The truth that must be grasped in this whole Sindona scenario is that Sindona, who drew a lot of attention to the Vatican, is now out of commission and thoroughly discredited. But the Vatican is still there, directing would-be conspiracy hunters away from the Vatican conspiracy to Insider, Bilderberger or other shadowy conspiracies. The enduring nature of the Vatican power base makes it a prime suspect in the field of conspiracy.

Michele Sindona was at one time one of the most powerful men in Italy. He was also closely identified with Vatican finances. It seems to us that there is much more substance to the assertion that Sindona was probably “done in” by the Vatican instead of vice-versa. Sindona was about to be investigated by the Italian government. The man sent to investigate his bank, who unearthed many things, some of them probably not complimentary to the Vatican, was murdered for his trouble. Yallop believes that he was murdered by the Mafia. However it appears obvious that Sindona had now become a very possible international embarrassment to the Vatican, and he himself maintained that he fled to the United states to escape being murdered.

After arriving here, even the bank that he owned in the United States went under. Again the only power on earth able to bring banks down in any one of fifty countries is the Vatican. It not only wields great financial clout but has hundreds of dedicated devotees in powerful positions in banks and financial institutions, which it does not even control, to help fulfil its plans. Sindona went down, down, down without a friend to help. His financial fortune for the most part disappeared almost over night. Yallop believes that Sindona is a suspect behind the murder of Pope John Paul I. It seems that Sindona for all his mystery really had little or no clout at all in the end. He just went to jail. As Hammer points out in his book, “THE VATICAN CONNECTION,” the Roman Catholic New York policeman, who linked the Vatican to the Mafia and to a billion dollar counterfeit scam, when nothing was ever done to bring the culprits to justice, said he had finally realized that if you are powerful enough, you are beyond the reach of the law. Sindona was not that powerful!

Hammer says of Coffey, the New York Irish American Roman Catholic policeman, who had tracked the links of the Mafia right into the heart of the Vatican in a billion dollar counterfeit scheme so vast that few would believe it:

There had been months of plodding along twisted and tangled pathways that seemed to be leading nowhere, and moments of startling breakthrough and discovery…Often during those years as the scope of the hunt and its consequence became clear, he had been convinced that this was what he had been born to do, that this would be the capstone of his career. And now it was over, ended not with the glittering victories he had foreseen but on a sour and cynical note. HE COULD NO LONGER DENY WHAT HE HAD NOT WANTED TO BELIEVE: THERE ARE PEOPLE SO POWERFUL AND SO HIGHLY PLACED THAT THEY ARE IMPERVIOUS TO THE LAW, AND THAT SOCIETY’S RULES AND CODES DO NOT APPLY TO THEM.5 (emphasis ours)

The main lesson that Hammer’s book teaches is that it is easier to bring down the President of the United States than a crook in the Vatican.

When the investigation ended, Aronwald, who was testifying before a Senate sub-committee in Washington said:

Because of serious allegations that had been made with respect to someone in the Vatican although the name of the individual was never given, the Department of Justice made contacts with the Vatican and obtained their cooperation… As a result of our visit and a result of the cooperation of the Vatican, we were able to conclude that there was no substance to the allegation that anyone within the Vatican was cuipably involved in this scheme.6

In other words, there was a complete whitewash of the whole investigation. So while the real criminals go free, lesser men are prosecuted and sent to jail. Michele Sindona was one of the ones who went to jail. So although a financial wizard, in some ways he proved to be quite vulnerable in the end while the Vatican men roll on without batting an eye, cleared of all culpability.

The charges against Sindona were also the same as those made against Nogara, the financial wizard who put the Vatican on the map financially. Nogara was the brains behind the reorganization of the whole financial structure of the Vatican in 1929. He succeeded in moving the Vatican fortunes from millions to billions before he retired in 1958. However, he was investigated on the charges that he was a Mason and belonged to a secret masonic society and was secretly conspiring against the Vatican. The same old story trotted out against Sindona and also written large in modern books dealing with Conspiracy. (See Yallop, Allen, and Bowen for corroboration.)

Not only was Nogara not a Masonic man, nor a conspirator against the “church,” he was one of the most loyal hard working sons of the “church” that Italy ever produced. Not only was he not out to ruin the Vatican, he helped it on to such financial success that it now has become one of the richest organizations on earth. When the investigation was completed by the Vatican loyalists, the taciturn Nogara was completely exonerated of all charges against him, and the record showed that he was completely trustworthy, a loyal son of the Vatican in every respect. Yet these rumors and charges persist in every generation and are still being made today.

We believe that the reason we hear of “secret Masonic conspiracies” is to keep the idea of a mock conspiracy before the people to keep them from seeing the real thing. These writers lack one thing in their writings on conspiracy, and that is an in-depth exegesis of Revelation 17-18. They focus attention on the Masons to draw away attention from the Vatican and to create sympathy for the Pope and Papacy, who are then considered victims of the conspiracy rather than the brains behind it.

2. The second theory that we see written large in contemporary works is the Insider theory. That is, that a certain group of financiers are at work to control the world. Gary Allen, of course, postulates this idea as do others like William Bowen. Allen states:

In the Bolshevik Revolution we have some of the world’s richest and most powerful men financing a movement which claims its very existence is based upon the concept of stripping of their wealth men like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Schiffs, Warburgs, Morgans, and Harrimans, and Milners. But obviously these men have no fear of international communism. It is only to assume that if they financed it and do not fear it, it must be because they control it…. Remember that for 150 years it has been standard operating procedure of the Rothschilds and their allies to control both sides of every conflict.7

It certainly is easy to direct attention toward the Rothschilds because of their great wealth and also because they are Jews. What Allen fails to see is that every accusation that can be made against the Rothschilds and their allies can also be made against the Vatican with much more weight. The Rothschilds’ wealth, although immense, is not in the same league with the Vatican’s. The tentacles of the Rothschilds do not reach into every government on earth with anything approaching the same degree as the Vatican’s. The longevity of the alleged conspiracy of the Rothschilds, according to Allen himself, goes back a mere 150 years— again nothing in comparison to the Papacy whose global ambitions and intrigue go back more than a thousand years.

Again the idea of operating on both sides of every major conflict with which Allen charges the Rothschilds can be seen in the history of Vatican power politics with far greater documentation to support it. It can even be seen right now in Central America at this very moment. The Vatican is on both sides in El Salvador and Nicaragua, and the intrigue of the Jesuits on both sides of the conflicts is causing such an uproar that the Pope traveled there to try to defuse the embarrassing situation.

3. The third idea of the conspiracy that faces America is “Secular humanism.” William Bowen in his book, “GLOBALISM-AMERICA’S DEMISE,” spends much time and effort trying to pin America’s troubles on the secular humanists. This has become a popular theme with other conservative writers as well. We would be the last to downplay the effect that secular humanism has had on America, but we do not think that secular humanism is the global conspiracy that confronts the world.

In fact we believe that the flurry over secular humanism at the present time is another case of misdirection. The real conspiracy is much more closely knit and has much clearer goals. The drift of America from her Protestant moorings allows the religious men to take over. We get tired of listening to those who speak of America’s Judeo-Christian ethic. America was founded upon historic Bible Protestantism. Anyone who has studied early American history knows that her people were made up of the persecuted Protestants of Europe who fled here for a refuge and built the greatest country the world has ever seen. It was built solidly on English-Puritanism, Scottish Presbyterianism, Scots-lrish-Presbyterianism, German Pietism and Dutch Calvinism. As for Jews and Roman Catholics, they were almost unheard of in the early days of America. And they certainly had little or no influence outside Rhode Island and Maryland. Why do we never hear of this in any of the writings which conservatives write today? You would think that American liberties came from the Jews and Roman Catholics. America is going down because the Protestant Puritan ethic upon which she was founded is being replaced not by a secular humanism but by an effete false religion which will not mention the past but will praise the Roman anti-christ. This is the crux of America’s trouble. God judges idolatry whether our half-baked modern Protestant Christian writers realize it or not. America is going down not from secular humanism nor a false pietism but from a love affair with idolatry and false religion.

It is indeed very strange that we hear nothing about the Inquisition today. In reading the “STEALING OF AMERICA,” we note that the secular humanists are the ones we have to fear. When illustrations are drawn of persecutions in the past, mention is made of the early Christians, who were thrown to the lions in the Roman arena and of Christians, who were tortured under Communism in Eastern Europe.

Various philosophers are named in recent books as the cause of the downfall of western civilization. In all this plethora of writing about the demise of America because of certain sinister forces, no mention is ever made of the Inquisition which lasted 500 years. Is that not passing strange?

We hear of the Hordes of the French Revolution but not tne Massacre of St. Bartholmew’s Day, carried out not by atheists, secular humanists or a totalitarian state, but by those claiming to be religious and belonging to the only true “church.” Secular humanism is made out to be the unstoppable force while Romanism flourishes in America as never before. While misguided Protestants stare at “Secular Humanism,” Romanism controls the White House, the C.I.A., the F.B.I., the Congress, and most of the leading posts in the present Reagan Administration. Manhattan observes:

The existence of such an organically oriented Catholic body would have been a matter of concern itself, but the fact that it enjoyed the patronage of the most eminent individuals of the U.S. political intelligence and military establishment, made their presence one of profound disquiet. The list, although minimal, was impressive: from General Alexander Haig, Secretary of State, (since deposed) to Mr. Casey, head of the Central Intelligence Agency; from D. Regan of the U.S. Treasury to Mr. Allen of the National Security; from Mrs. Kirkpatrick, UNO, to W. Clark, who replaced Allen in 1982, to W.S. Wilson, the U.S. envoy at the Vatican and a convert to Catholicism, and many others in less glamorous but nonetheless very influential posts up and down the administration.8

As of this writing President Reagan has appointed an ambassador to the Vatican, and he has pledged that if reelected he would fight for the family in the spirit of Pope John Paul II. So Vatican influence is written large in American politics today. (As for fighting for the family, the papacy has been the greatest enemy of the family in most Roman Catholic countries in the world, grinding the family under its tyrannical heel all over Central America, South America, Southern Europe, Eire, and wherever it has been entrenched for centuries.)

The blackout which has been thrown over the Inquisition and the massacres and persecutions of Romanism apparently is no accident. Conservative writers apparently believe that the United States has nothing to fear from the Vatican, and therefore, they seem to have tacitly agreed not to mention known historical horrors connected with Rome’s global ambitions.

The use of the word “Christian” today by many of these writers, who would alert us to the evils that confront us, is obviously an omnibus term. It obviously includes in its meaning, as used today, the unchristian religion of Romanism.

So in saving America from the secular humanist conspiracy, we are being herded along with Romanism to do the job. Such writing leaves a lot to be desired as far as the Biblical Christian is concerned. One has only to look at a nation where Romanism holds absolute sway to see that the Vatican can match anything any secular state has ever produced in the way of suppression and more.

Biblical Christians, keep to your Bibles! Do not be misled even by sincere men, who have not done their homework in church history nor apparently in Bible Doctrine.

4. The fourth idea put forward to misdirect us concerning the Global Conspiracy is the Usurper Theory. This theory links the Vatican to the conspiracy but maintains that the Pope is kidnapped or killed and his place taken by another man who is a Communist or atheist.

The idea is written large in contemporary works although it is not new. The Novel, “THE JANUS POPE,” is a story about the real pope being kidnapped and a Communist put in his place. Although this book has some of the characters saying nasty things about the Vatican, the idea that the Pope is God’s representative or God’s deputy is put forward a number of times. So the author apparently views the pope as Christ’s vicar upon earth.

Malachi Martin in his book, “THE FINAL CONCLAVE,” also alludes to this idea of usurpation. The national news media also gave large coverage to the Bulgarian Connection in their attempts to assassinate the Pope. So that the impression is given to the unthinking that the real conspiracy, even though it does involve the papacy, involves it only as the target of the intrigue and not as the originator of it.

Dean Alford in his “PROLEGOMENA TO THE REVELATION” points out that even Roman Catholic expositors see the papacy in Revelation 17 and 18.

From Joachim’s time…men’s mind even WITHIN THE ROMISH CHURCH, became accustomed to the idea that the apocalyptic Babylon was in some sense or other not only Pagan but PAPAL ROME; and that Antichrist was to sit, whether as an usurper or not, on the throne of the papacy. 9 (emphasis ours)

Joachim was Abbot of Flores in the 12th Century. He denounced even back then the corruption of the Roman clergy, the issue of indulgences, the deification of the Roman Church and the Crusades. He saw in the Revelation the description of the Papacy as Mystery Babylon the Great and the Mother of Harlot religion.

So with such a crushing weight to dispose of, it is not surprising that the idea of a usurper upon the seat of the papacy is written large in contemporary thought. Something had to be done to offset Protestant suspicions of a secret cabal in the heart of the Vatican. So a massive propaganda effort to educate Protestants in the niceties of the papacy and the evil machinations of some other shadowy conspirators out to destroy this nice institution had to be launched. The sad thing is that apparently millions of Protestants have bought this idea without even a second thought. Malachi Martin, a former Jesuit, may still imagine that there are many Protestants who believe in this secret cabal in the heart of the Vatican, but in actuality their number is very, very small. By far the majority of modern Protestants have swallowed the Vatican line.

References

1. Newsweek, Aug. 20,1979, p. 67
2. Martin, THE FINAL CONCLAVE, p. 29
3. Ibid., p. 64
4.Time, April 7,1980, p. 59
5. Hammer, Richard, THE VATICAN CONNECTION, Charter Books, N.Y. 1982, p. 309
6. ibid., p. 308
7. Allen, Gary, NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY, Concord Press, Rossmoor, California 1971, pp 73-75
8. Manhattan, Avro, THE VATICAN-WASHINGTON, MOSCOW ALLIANCE, Chick Pub., 1982, p. 65
9. Alford, Henry, THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, Vol. VI, Guardian Press, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1976., Reprint, p. 246

Concluding remarks

Malachi Martin says:

For too long now those in the higher echelons of the Church have been suspected of quite worldly aims: of secret-almost cabalistic-designs on the rights, liberties, and freedoms of ordinary people. Many a sincere modern Protestant is still convinced that this is true.1

Martin was a former Jesuit professor. He seems to write from a very open view point. But in his serious and even severe criticisms of the Vatican in his books, “THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN CHURCH, and “RICH CHURCH POOR CHURCH,” he never once criticizes the entity itself. Only things about it, bad things to be sure, but not the historical reality—and to him—the true and only church in all of history. Martin is very shrewd. His open criticism of the church establishes him in the minds of millions as an enemy of the church. He is far from it. But the idea that he is a critical enemy gives much more weight to his writings in the eyes of Protestants, thus enabling him to still latently push the idea of the Pope as Christ’s Vicar upon earth and the Roman Catholic Church, the only true church that exists.

His contention that many a sincere modern Protestant still is convinced that there is a cabal, an intrigue by a few powerful men to take over the world, and that they are centered in the Vatican, is probably less true now than at any point in Protestant history. We would have to say that VERY FEW modern Protestants even view the Papacy as other than another denomination, and even fewer still see anything even approaching cabalistic designs on the part of its leaders as the foregoing pages demonstrate. The powerful impact of papal propaganda is beginning to show itself together with the almost total apathy and indifference of most modern Protestants to Bible Interpretation. The complete failure of anything even approaching a Protestant solidarity against the obvious encroachments of papal teachings in once Protestant America proves the truth of the foregoing sentences.

The complete ignorance and apathy of most American Protestants to the Vatican designs on America is, to say the least, disturbing. Not only that, but even those, who are supposed to be informed and even write books to warn Americans about the dangers which this nation faces, never even mention Romanism much less examine its goals for America.

We hear much about perversion today and of how America will go down the tubes if the “Gays” have their way. But no one ever mentions doctrinal perversion. Doctrinal perversion is always the forerunner of sexual perversion. The Scriptures are clear at this point. “Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge God gave them over unto a reprobate mind to do those things which are not convenient.” The Scriptures teach clearly that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against those who hold back the truth in unrighteousness. Doctrinal perversion leads to idolatry which leads to sexual perversion according to Romans Chapter one.

When the Pope of Rome preaches the perverted doctrines of Romanism, enforced celibacy, purgatory, Mariolatry, etc., he is as much a threat to a pure America as any sexual pervert who clamours for “Gay” rights. This is the truth that we must see today or perish as a nation. Impure doctrines of demons affect a society more than the impure actions of some of its members.

The nature of our battle is spiritual. When the Biblical truths of the Word of God with which evil is defeated are replaced by the satanic drivel of false religion, that society which experiences the barrage of satanic drivel is every bit as bad off as any secular humanist society. Secular humanism is not the only evil facing North America! In fact, North America has far more to fear from religious idolatry than it has from secular humanists.

Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Francis Schaeffer and Ronald Reagan are all working to defeat the secular humanists. But none of them even has one word to say about the religious idolatry which curses America. Apparently, it is all right for that to flourish. In other words as long as a person can say he is religious, he is not considered a threat to the freedoms that many Americans still hold dear.

We would have to say candidly; the judgment of God has a far greater chance of falling upon America because of idolatrous false religion than it does because of secular humanism. We oppose the atheistic humanists without reservation, but we do not believe that this is where the heat of the battle rages in America today. We believe that America’s love affair with the Great Whore who sits on the Tiber poses a far greater threat to America’s freedoms than any other evil which America faces today.

We recognize the power of Communism. We recognize the power of Islam. We recognize the power of secular humanism. We also recognize the power of Romanism; and we would have to say that a candid look at America today will show that of the four evils mentioned, Romanism constitutes by far the biggest internal threat to America today than any of the others.

As America becomes more and more idolatrous, she comes more and more under the indictment of the Second Commandment. God’s wrath is repeatedly poured out in the Scriptures upon his chosen people for their idolatry. (This sin is never mentioned once by most modern writers.) In the second commandment, which is not taught in Roman Catholic schools, God is spoken of as “visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,” a fearful judgment which our modern writers never mention and perhaps do not even believe is actual. This judgmental visitation of God upon succeeding generations is because of IDOLATRY, not atheism nor pornography.

It is great to make accusations against the Bilderbergers and the Insiders and the llluminati because almost everyone in the world can identify against such people. The very capability of being able to identify against them, we believe, points up the weakness in such accusations. According to the Word of God, which is supposed to be the final authority for Bible Protestants, when false Christs and false prophets arise, the only ones who are not deceived are God’s elect people. In other words, as we pointed out in our first booklet, this world of people will go along with false religion, the rise of Mystery Babylon the Great, and will worship the Anti-Christ.

It is only God’s elect people who will in every generation stand against the encroachments of religious evil. So if the evil is so identified that most of the world can be antagonistic toward it, it is in all probability not the beginning, middle or end of the final apostate conglomerate, which is to rule the earth and be the cage of EVERY UNCLEAN bird.

The Vatican has been the center of evil and uncleanness now for more than a thousand years. It was the Mother of the Inquisition which tortured, persecuted and martyred multiplied millions of precious believers for 500 years. Wilder states in his careful study:

that the records of historians and martyrologists show that it may be reasonable to estimate that from fifty to sixty-eight millions of human beings died, suffered torture, lost their possessions, or were otherwise devoured by the Roman Catholic Church during the awful years of the Inquisition.2

According to Llorente, the official recorder for the Inquisition, until he became absolutely revulsed by it, more than 300,000 victims were immolated on the flaming faggots of the Spanish Inquisition alone.3 It has been the effort of modern Roman Catholic writers to try to play down the Inquisition and to deny its holocaust. But there are many reputable historians, who recount its atrocities for those interested in finding out the truth.

We have a two volume set which deals with the Spanish Inquisitors in Holland. The pages are filled with account after account of torture and horror that would make our ears tingle. It tells of one man who opposed the false doctrines of Rome, who was put on a spit and slowly roasted over an open fire.4

The Vatican not only has been the center of cruelty and persecution, it has also been the center of a never ending spate of false doctrine and practice, which if the Bible is true, will lead most of its adherents to a lost eternity. So that the true Bible believer, who is interested in the salvation of souls from sin and from eternal death, is impelled to stand against this onslaught and to warn those caught up in it.

The fact that the Vatican is evil is, of course, admitted by some Roman Catholic writers. They go into great detail in highlighting some of its ancient and modern evils. But the bottom line is that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church in spite of the evils of the Inquisition, the persecutions of the past, and even the heinous crimes of some of the popes. Malachi Martin criticizes the church severely. But one must be wary in reading such writings.

When Martin criticizes the Vatican, he is criticizing its financial and secular dealings. He is not criticizing its doctrines and teachings. He points out in his book on the decline of the church that it started to decline when it received all the money and land, etc. from Constantine; from then on a struggle developed between its spiritual mission and mammon. He even has in his latest books ideas on how the church is to rid itself of its financial empire, but what he fails to say is that there is to be no revision of nor ridding itself of, its erroneous dogmas and teachings. This is the crux of the whole matter.

To the Bible believing Protestant even if the Roman Catholic Church divested itself of every dime (something that will never happen if Revelation 17 and 18 are true) it would still be a reservoir of evil and error. Its unscriptural teaching on Purgatory is a producer of great evil in several ways. It makes people believe they can buy their way out of trouble in the hereafter, thus affecting everything they do in this life. It also deceives them as to the true nature of eternity so that those who die expecting to buy their way out of purgatory will instead be lost forever in the lake of fire with no hope of ever being released.

The unscriptural teaching inherent in the Mass is also a producer of great evil. Millions live any old way but believe that by taking a consecrated wafer from the hands of sinful man, they are receiving Christ. The Reformers, Puritans, and early Methodists called the Mass a blasphemous fable. They did not do this to be nasty. They did it because they believed that a proper interpretation of the Scriptures proved that Christ died once for all and his once for ali offering never needed to be repeated, for it was final, full, and sufficient to deal with the problem of man’s sin. No other offering was needed, and so no other could ever be offered especially by sinful men. The idea that sinful men could offer a sacrifice for sins they rightly believed constituted blasphemy. The reason they called it a fable was also established from Scripture. “This is my body” is obviously a figure of speech and not to be taken literally. Even as the cup, which is the New Testament in my blood, is also a similar figure. No one ever argues for the actual cup being the New Testament although thousands have engaged in the controversy over the elements.

It is a fable to assume that by the magic of a priest the bread actually becomes the actual body of Christ. It is an egregious fable to say the least. Yet this blasphemous fable is foisted upon an unsuspecting Protestant populace almost nightly especially when the Pope goes anywhere in the world today.

The unscriptural teaching of an enforced celibacy is also pushed upon us until we almost vomit. As we write these words, the Pope is visiting Canada. We get his face on every television news program and his speeches in every newspaper. In the Altoona Mirror, September 10, 1984, we were told this about the Pope in Canada.

John Paul began his twelve day tour of Canada on Sunday and followed his custom of getting straight to the point on controversial religious issues by reaffirming the Catholic (the writer obviously means Roman Catholic, and there is an eternal difference) Church’s stand that priests and nuns must never marry.

Three things need to be said about this statement.

1. The Bible says that an enforced celibacy is a doctrine of demons. I Timothy 4:1-3.

Now the Spirit speaks expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of demons; speaking lies in hypocrisy having their conscience seared with a hot iron; FORBIDDING TO MARRY….

So according to the Bible those who forbid others to marry are

a. departed from the faith.
b. heeding seducing spirits
c. teaching doctrines of demons
d. speaking lies
e. in hypocrisy (not only lies you see but hypocritical ones)
f. having their conscience seared with a hot iron.

What a devastating indictment from God’s inspired, infallible, inerrant and authoritative Word!

2. Notice it is all right for the Pope to go right to the point on controversial religious issues. Let any Protestant such as Ian Paisley, do the same thing, and he is immediately called a preacher of sectarianism, an arch-bigot or worse. Nobody calls the Pope an arch bigot, or Preacher of Sectarianism, even though he comes out with some of the most bigoted sectarian statements that ever appear in our modern newspapers.

3. Just a few months ago seven Roman Catholic priests were involved in a sexual scandal with a young woman in California. News about the incident was sketchy as anything detrimental to Rome’s good image seldom is considered newsworthy. However, we did learn the following facts. The young woman wanted to be a nun. She met with these priests who seduced her. She finally gave birth to a baby in the Philippines where the priests had sent her on the pretext that she was there studying. They had promised her money. When the money failed to come, she filed a paternity suit against the seven since they all apparently were involved with her. The filing of the suit is what brought the story into the news. We never heard another thing about it except that the Roman Catholic spokesman in Los Angeles intimated that the girl was of low morals and that was why she got the priests involved with her. This resulted in a second suit filed by the girl for defamation of character. She maintained that she was perfectly innocent of the charges and that she went at the start to be a nun in good faith and that the reason she submitted to all seven was because she was under their authority. So much for enforced celibacy! It is indeed a doctrine of demons and the producer of an immorality in the monastic sphere that has been legendary since the Middle Ages. The Bible does state that a person does not have to marry if he does not want to, but no one has the right to enforce that upon those who cannot bear it, for the Scripture also states categorically that it is better to marry than to be in a burning passion.

At the very time this story of the seven priests was told once and never mentioned again, the three part drama, “CELEBRITY,” was bring shown on a major network. We did not see the three parts, but we did see the end of the last part and gathered that the entire piece of fictional propaganda was directed against Bible Protestantism. The young man who was the center piece of this drama was a former rapist, who later became a Protestant evangelist. He was shown going kind of berserk. He shot his friend to death for being a homosexual. (Making out Protestant evangelists to be killers instead of portraying the sexual perverts as those who go around killing people, which would be much closer to the truth). At his trial he was stabbed to death by the woman he had formerly raped and left for dead, who apparently had not died. So this whole sorry show was a well orchestrated attempt to denigrate Protestant evangelists.

We recognize that there are unsavory characters in Protestant circles, who make money off the unsuspecting, but are they the only circles where unsavory characters reside? To look at the modern Hollywood movie industry the answer is a resounding yes. It is well then that the actual events of life help to counterbalance the bigoted trash of modern Hollywood and the hypocritical remarks of a Polish Pope (Pope John Paul II).

The enduring nature of Romanism is a sign that it is a devil- inspired conspiracy in a unique sense. After some of the most cruel atrocities of history, combined with the gross immoralities, which have been part and parcel of the whole system, it has still managed not only to survive but to grow.

Cardinal Manning said, “The Catholic Church is either the masterpiece of Satan or the Kingdom of God.” Cardinal Newman declared, “Either the Church of Rome is the house of God or the house of Satan.”5 According then to two of its most famous representatives our choices are very limited as to the origin and nature of Romanism. It is either of God or of Satan.

To the Bible-believing Protestant, God is holy and His church is also holy. When the origins of the Roman Catholic church are examined, they point to Satan rather than to Christ. Martin in his book, ‘•THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN CHURCH,” speaks of the method used in electing popes. “Vicious enmities were created. Blood was shed. Lives were taken.”6 He goes on to say:

At the election of Pope Damasus I in A.D. 366, thirty-seven corpses littered the environs of the Liberian Basilica after a fracas between the followers of Damasus and his archrival, Ursinus.7

He goes into much greater detail later on and tells about Pope Stephen bringing his archrival before him with his knee caps broken, his body whipped, and his eyes carved out. He further elaborates:

Within a year, Pope Stephen will have used Duke Desiderius to get Christophorus, Sergius, and Gratiosus imprisoned, first their eyes cut out, then their lives ended. He then will turn on Desiderius and by December of 771 will encompass his ruin and death.8

Martin again:

The high point in Marozia’s career came at the end of her very long life when she was visited in her Roman prison by an emperor who had just seized possession of the city—Otto III, a successor of Charlemagne. He had only one reason for visiting Marozia—to lay his eyes on the woman who was the mother of a pope, whom she had conceived by another pope, and who was the aunt of a third pope, the grandmother of a fourth pope, and with the help of her own mother, the creator of nine popes in eight years, of whom two had been strangled, one suffocated with a cushion, and four deposed and disposed of in circumstances that have never come to public light.9

So reads the pages of Martin’s book. Martin still believes in the Roman Catholic Church, but we ask the question how could any one believe that the Roman Cult is the kingdom of God after reading his book and after studying church history? It is absolutely inconceivable that the Holy Spirit of Truth has been connected with such atrocities, crimes, errors, and intrigues, for centuries. It is a spiritual and moral impossibility.

Nevertheless the Vatican has always shown great resiliency and adaptability in keeping abreast of national and international changes. It is working tirelessly toward one goal to bring the entire world to the feet of the Roman Pontiff. The methods used to achieve this goal have included and do include (as we have seen above) murder, massacre, Marxism, propaganda, irenic dialogue, revolution, repression, assassination, education, kindness, coercion, brotherhood, charity, monasticism, enforced celibacy, Jesuit casuistry, intrigue, financial threats and chicanery, and last but certainly not least, a global conspiracy with an historical continuity, and loyal henchmen to see that it continues to endure, unsurpassed in the annals of recorded history. The ends justify the means is no empty slogan, but the modus operandi of the global aspirations of the Jesuits and the Vatican.

As the final stages of the great Satanic religious conspiracy break upon the world, Bible believers need to watch their religious affiliation and fellowship. According to Revelation 18:4, some of God’s people are mixed up in the end-time unholy amalgam of Rome’s Harlot religion and the one world church. The Word says, “Come out of her, my people, that you be not partaker of her sins, and receive not of her plagues.” The one World Church, which will be dominated by Rome and ruled over by the Pope, is looming on the horizon. It may be years before we see the full-orbed picture of Mystery Babylon the Great in its final form, but every true Bible- believer in every generation stands against the Roman Catholic institution, for he sees in it all the seeds of the final apostate conglomerate which is described in Revelation chapters 17-19.

References

1. Martin, RICH CHURCH POOR CHURCH, p. 13
2. Wilder, John B., THE SHADOW OF ROME, Zondervan Pub. Co., Grand Rapids, Mich 1960, p. 87
3. Ioc. cit.
4. Motley, J. L, THE RISE OF THE DUTCH REPUBLIC, Vol I., London, 1913, pp. 294-316
5. Foster, J. M., THE FUNDAMENTALS, Vol. XI, p. 113 (in original edition) Chicago, III. No date
6. Martin, THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN CHURCH, Bantam Books, N.Y. 1981 p. 43
7. loc. cit.
8. Ibid., p. 70
9. Ibid., p. 99




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.