Full text of "The novelties of Romanism; in three parts: I. Development of doctrines. II. Chronological arrangement. III. Old and new creeds contrasted"

See other formats

M- ^ Cornell University

^' 'J Library

The original of tliis book is in
tine Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031445517

Cornell University Library

3 1924 031 445 517
olJn,anx

THE

NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM,

IN THREE PARTS:

I.— DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINES.
II.— CHRONOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT.
III.— OLD AND NEW CREEDS CONTRASTED.

CHAELES HASTINGS COLLETTE.

SECOND EDITION.
REVISED AND ENLARGED.

LONDON:
THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETT;

56, PATEKNOSTEE EOW, 65, ST. PAUL'S CHTTECHTAED, AND
164, PICCADILLT: AOTJ SOID BY THE BOOKSBtLEES.

" Hoc enira vel maxim^, frater, laboramiis, et laliorare debemus, ut unitateiii a Domino,
et per Jposlolos nobis successoribus traditani, quantum possumus, obtenere curemus," Sic.

Cyphian, Epist. xlv., p. 91. Lipsiaej 1838.

PREFACE.

The two leading claims made by the Church of Eome are
Infallibility and Immutalility.

I. As to InfalUhillty : she claims to be guided in all her
dehberations by the presiding presence of the Holy Ghost.
In what way this infallibility is proved to exist has never
yet been made apparent; nor are the members of this Church
agreed as to the locality or official organ of this Divine
attribute. The claim is made, and that is sufficient. Her
maxim is —

£oma locuta est : causa finita est.

II. As to Immutahility : she claims to be absolutely un-
changeable. She asserts that her doctrines and discipline
have been the same always and everywhere. Her maxim
and motto are —

Semper eadem !

While ascribing these two attributes to their Church, we
cannot be surprised to find that the doctors of the Council
of Trent professed to found all their decrees on alleged

PEEFACB.

anterior fundamental truths, recognised as having existed
from the introduction of Christianity. They declared that
all the doctrines and practices which they, in that council,
decided to be true and obhgatory, were always the received
doctrines and practices of the " Catholic church " in every
age, without any variation from the time of Christ and his
apostles, from whom each of such doctrines and practices
originated; and that they were handed down by one unbroken
tradition to the time of the assembly of this last (so-called)
General Council of the Church. The assembled doctors
professed to have simply declared what was of faith pre-
vious to that time. They do not pretend to have invented
any new doctrine, but simply to have defined and declared
what the doctrine of the Church was and always had been
from the time of the apostles down to the meeting of the
Council.^

1 The following are a few of the sentences continually recurring in the
proceedings of the Council of Trent : —

" Semper hcec fides in Ecclesia Dei fuit." Seas. xiii. c. 3.

"Ideo persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit, idque nunc denuo sancta
hoec S3'nodus declarat." Seas. xiii. u. 4.

" Pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto." Sess. xiii. c. 5.

"Universa Ecclesia semper intelexit." Sess. xiv. c. 5.

" Perauasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit : et verissimum ease Synodua
hfiec confirmat." Sess. xv. c. 7.

" Sacrffi literse ostendunt et Catholicse Ecclesiee traditio semper docuit."
Sess. xxiii. c. 1.

" Cum, ScriptursB testimonio, apoatolica traditione, et patrum unanimi
consensu, peropicuum sit : — dubitare nemo debet." Sess. xxiii. o. 3.

"Cum, igitur,' — sancti patres nostri, Concilia, et universalis Ecclesise
traditio, semper docuerunt : — aancta et universulia Synodua, prtedictorum
achismaticorum hiereses et errorea, — exterminandoa duxit." Seaa. xxiv.

See alao Sess. v. and Sess. xiii.

PREFACE. V

In perfect accordance with these views, thus decidedly
enunciated by the Papal Church, a Eoman Catholic
bishop, at a public meeting at Warrington, on the occa-
sion of the consecration of a buiial ground, recently
stated "that he was the representative in this country
of no new system of rehgion, and the teacher of no new
doctrines/'

This pubhc declaration suggested to the writer the com-
pilation of the facts constituting the present volume, under
the title of " Novelties of Eomanism," as a reply to the
broad and positive assertions thus confidently put forward
by the Eomish Church. These facts, he believes, are now
for the first time brought together in such a manner as
win enable the reader to trace the rise, progress, and
final development of each successive novelty of that
Church, in chronological order, divested of all controver-
sial bias.

Part I. must not be considered otherwise than as furnish-
ing a few plain proofs of the novelties of the doctrines
treated. It was not the intention of the writer to attempt
a refutation of the doctrines in question. That necessarily
follows if they are proved to be of modern invention.

Part II., following the order of time, traces, through
successive centuries, the chronological development of
papal error, superstition, ecclesiastical arrogance, and priestly
assumption.

VI PRErACE.

Part III. presents the contrast between the simple scrip-
tural creed of the primitive Church and that of Romanism, as
fully developed and consolidated by the Council of Trent.

While the writer claims for his labour the merit of a
compilation only, he may be permitted to hope that the
reader will be thus furnished with a body of facts and
trustworthy materials, which will be found useful in these
times, should circumstances bring him into controversy
with a Eomanist.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

Inteoduction xvii

The objection of a Priest of Home to argue with, a Laymaii, because he
is a Priest, considered. Title to Priestly Orders questioued. The doctrine
of Intention. Cardinal Bellarmine'a testimony as to tlie uncertainty of
Priestly Orders, grounded on the doctrine of Intention. Bishop Caterino's
opinion to the like effect. Orders not a Sacrament, and so admitted by
Dominicus Soto. The Koman Catholic Priest cannot prove himself to be
otheiwiee than a Layman.

PAET I.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINES.
CHAPTER I.

SUPBEMACT

Bellannine's proposition that the Pope's Supremacy is proved by his titles,
considered, 3. Prince of Priests — High Priest, 3. Universal Bisliop, 3.
Pelagius II. and Gregory I. reject the title, 3. Simon Vigorius on title
"Universal Bishop," 5. Applied to Athanasius by Gregory Nazianzen, 5.
Vicar of Christ, 6. Synods of Compiegne and Melmi, 6. Dens on this
title, 7. The title of Pope, 7. The restricted authority of the Bishop of Rome,
even in Italy, 8. The Bishops of Milan, Aquilia, and Ravenna, independent of
the Bishop of Rome, 8. "Mother and Mistress of all Chui'ches," 8. Claims
refuted by Ecclesiastical History, 9. Councils; Nice, Constantinople,
Ephesus, Chalcedou, Constantinople II. and III., Nice II., 9— 11. The Greek
Church, 11.

vai CONTENTS.

CHAPTER II.

PACK

Canon op Sceiptuee 13

Decree of Trent Coimcii, 13. List of Apocryphal Boolts, 14. Trent declara-
tion cliallenged, 14. List of Fathers and Doctors from the Apostles to the ICth
century, iu regular succession, who rejected the Apocrypha, 16 — 20.

CHAPTER III.

Canon op Scriptuee (continued) 20

Authorities rehed on by Komanists to prove the Apocrypha canonical, con-
sidered, 20. Council of Sardis— Council of Carthage, 21. Augustine, 24.
Cajetan on the Sacred Canon, 25. Innocent I., 27. Isidore, 27. Gelasius, 28.
Council of Toledo, 28. Council of Florence, 29. The Comicil of Trent shown
to be the only authority, 29.

CHAPTER IV.

J NTEEPRETATION OF SCEIPTUEE 30

The Interpretation of the Church and of the Fathers, the Doctrine of Home, 31.
This Doctrine invented in 1664, 31. The difficulties of the doctrine, 31,32.

T. The Interpretation of the Church. — Tlie startling statements of Cardinals
Hosius and Cusaams, 35. What is the Church ? 33. Bellarmine's several defini-
tions : " The Representative Church," or Councils — " llie Essential Church,"
including Laymen and Priests, have pubUshed no interpretation, 33. "The
Consistorial Church," or " Court of Rome " — examples of interpretation ex-
amined and shown to be erroneous, 33. " Tlie Virtual Church," i.e., the
Pope — examples given and admitted to be erroneous, 35. The Parish Priest, 37-

II. Interpretation of Fathers, their unanimous agreement required, 38. A
"deadlock" as to the Scriptures, 38. Exiiniples of leading texts on which
Romanists rely, to prove peculiar doctrines on which Fathers either differed
among themselves or modern Romanists differ from them, 39. And instances
of interpretation given by Fathers expressly rejected by Romanists because
they go against tlieir modem doctrines, 40. Cornelius Mus on Relative value
of Popes and Fathers, 42.

CHAPTER V.

Tra n substantiation 43

Definition, 43. Pope Nicholas II., 44. Berengarius — BeEarmme, 45.
Doctrine alleged to be founded on authority of Scripture, examined, 46,

CONTENTS. IX

PAGE

Ou the alleged conversion of the subataaice of the elements, 46. Admission
by Cardinals and Romish Doctors that it cannot be proved liy Scripture, 47-
Cajetan— Suarez — Bishop IFisher— Scotus— Alliaco, 47, 48— Augustine and
Cajetan on tlie parallel between the two expressions "this is my body," and
"the rock was Clirist," 48. Rests on the authority of Pope Innocent III., 49.
Observation on the Fourtli Lateran Council, 49.

Proofs or admissions that the doctiine is modem : Scotus, Peter Lombard,
Gelasius, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Ephrem, 50 — 52.

On the alleged " Real Presence," 53. The elements, symbols, figures,
types, or images, 54. Clementme Liturgy, 54. Origen — Irenasus — Clement
of Alexandria — Tertullian — Eusebius — Cyril of Jerusalem — Gregory Nazi-
anzen — Marcarius — Ambrose — Jerome — Augustine — Theodoret — Gelaaius,
55 — 57- The Greeks at the Council of Florence, 58..

CHAPTER VI.

Invocation of Saints 59

The true question at issue stated, 59. Trent definition, 60. A religious
worship — Delahogue — Veron, 60.

I. The theory pre-supposes that the person invocated must be in a beatific
state — Bellarmine's explanation why saints were not invocated in Old Testa-
ment, 60. Canonination.—fo^e said to be infallible in act of, 61. Decree of
Alexander III., 61. Dens' reasoning why tlie Pope should be infalhbly correct,
63. Not an Article of Faith, 63. Veron's opinion destroys the whole
system, 63.

II. State of souls after death, speculation on, 65. Prayers for the Dead, 65,
Led to the introduction of Saint "Worship, 66. Romish difficulties: Luke xv.
10, 67 — Eccles. ix. 5, 68. Romish doubts as to how Saints perceive our
prayers, 68. Bellarmine — Biel— Veron, 69.

III. The alleged Antiquity of Doctrine, 69. Bellarmine— why prayers to
Saints not mentioned in the Old Testament— Ecldus admits not recognised
in the New Testament — Veron's acknowledgment — alleged tradition examined,
70. When first used in Liturgies — Negative testimony from Fathers, 71.
Positive testimony of Irenaeus against the practice, 73- Delahogue and Perron's
reasons why the doctrine is not found in tlie l''athers, 73, 73. Fii'st act
ofAngelWorsliip condemned by CouncilofLaodicea, 73. This Council strangely
perverted by Merlin and Crabbe, 73. The Fathers included in then: prayers for
the Dead those now invoked by Romanists, 74. Controversies as to state of
soul after death, 74. Those who held that Saints do not enjoy the Presence of
God imtil Day of Judgment, 75. Augustine's testimony, 75. The points estab-
hshed, 76.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER VII.

PACK

iMAaB Worship , '^^

Trent doctrine, 77. Various opinions of Eomish Doctors as to quality of
worship, 78. Trent doctrine of Relative "Worship, 78. Repudiated by Aquinas
and others, 79. Tlie doctrine of Relative Worship examined, 80. A Heathen
argument condemned by Amobius, Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine, 80.
Introduction of Images in churches, opposed by Lactantius, 83. The testimony
of Erasmus, Cornelius Agrippa and Agobard, 83, 84. A " Papal war " of
opinions from a.d. 300 to Council of Trent, 1563, 84—87.

CHAPTER VIII.
Image Worskip (continved) 88

On the Second Commandment, 88. On the translation " graven image," 88.
On the word "adore," 90. On the division of the Commandments, 90.
Omission of the Second Commandment from various Catecliisms, 91 — 96.

CHAPTER IX.

PUEGATOET ^^

Importance of Doctrine, 96. Definition, 97. First Conciliar Decree (a.d. 1459).
98, Admission by Benedictine Editors of Ambrose's Works, that the doctiine
could not have been admitted until 1439, 98. Dr. "Wiseman admits doctrine
not taught in Scripture, 99. His theory examined, 100. Verou's " Rule of
Catholic Faith," 101.

The doctrine founded on Prayers for the Dead, and alleged evidence of
Fathers, 101. First suggested by Origen, but liis theory was condemned by
a General Councd and by Augustine, 104. Augustine's theory, 105. That of
Gregory I., 105. Admission of Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, that the doctrine
is of modern date, 106.

CHAPTER X.

pENAJf CE 106

One of Rome's Seven Sacraments, 106. The number seven first fixed by
Council of Florence, 14^39, 107 — Cassander traces the adoption of this number
to ll'tO, 107. The alleged effect of the Sacraments conferring grace, modem
invention, 108.

Penance defined — The first integral part, Contrition and Attrition, 108.
Forgiveness of sin granted without contrition, i.e., true repentance, 110. The
object of the teacliing, 110. The Priest represents Christ, 110. The second
integral part. Confession and Absolution, proved to be a modern invention, 112.
Celestial Treasure of the Church, 114. Third integral part. Satisfaction — One
man satisfying for another — The enormity of the doctrine, 114.

CONTENTS. XI

CHAPTER XI.

PACK
iNDULaENCES 115

Alleged popular Protestant fallacies, 115. Pardon of Sin promised,
proved to be so by Pope's Bulls, 117. Alleged to be only a remission of
punishment due to the sin already forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance, 118.
Tliis position refuted, 118. Benefit alleged to depend on the disposition
of the recipient, proved to be fallacious, 120. Sales denied, 122. Sales
proved, 123. The theory of the " Celestial Treasure," 124. Contradictory
opinions held by Romanists themselves, 135. Veron's tlieory of Indulgences,
125. Contradicted by Popes, 127.

Jubilee defined, 130. First Jubilee, 130. Various periods for granting
Jubilees, altered by successive Popes from 100 years, to 6 years, 131. Immoral
effects of, 132. Tei-ms on which benefit of Jubilee may be gauied, according
to Dr. Wiseman, 133. These terms examined, and contradictory opinions
of Romanists quoted, 134.

The fundamental principles onvi^hich Indulgences are based, challenged, 135.
The alleged antiquity of the doctrine, challenged, 138. A pious &aud, 139.

CHAPTER XII.

Tbadition 139

Previously mentioned doctrines assumed to depend on Tradition, 140. The
allegation of the Trent CouncU, and definition, 140. Importance of the doctrine,
141. Alleged to be of greater authority tlian Scripture, 141. Costerus, 141.
The Trent allegation proved to be untrue, 141. Traditions founded on
alleged matters of fact, 142. Various opinions expressed at Trent Council on,
143. Admissions by Romanists that they teach doctrines not revealed in
Scripture, 144. Dr. Wiseman's definition of Tradition, 144. Reduced, never-
theless, to writing, 145. Difficulties attending the system, 146. Authority of
the Fathers, 147. Remarkable adniiaaions of the Fathers : Irenaeus, Ter-
tullian, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theophilus of
Alexandria, 148—150. The case stated on the ground of Tradition, 151.

XU CONTENTS.

PAET 11.

CHRONOLOGICAL AKRANGEMENT.

Cueist is the found;ition. The Doctrine of tlie Apostles, 155.
Original simplicity of worship, as testified by Justyn Martyr, 156.

A.D. 109 — rirst innovation, mixing water with tlie wine at the Lord's Supper, 157-
„ 110 — Offerings at the celebration of tlie Lord's Supper in course of time called

Oblations, and then " Sacrifices," 158.
„ 113 — Holy Water, Pagan origin and Heathen rise, 158 (see post, a.d. 852),

and present abuse, 159. Customs considered at that time heretical,

now orthodox in modern Roman Church, 160.
„ 140— Fast of Lent, 160.
„ 160 — Annual commemorations of the departed, 161, not a religious woraliip,

but which led to Prayers for the Dead, intercession of departed, and

ultimately the Sacrifice of the Mass, 162.
„ 200 — Offerings in memory of Martyrs, led to Offerings for the Dead, 162,

and Prayers for tlie Dead, but had no reference to Purgatory, 163.
„ 240 — First step to Intercession of Saints, but it was the departed for the

living, 163.
„ 250 — Attempt of the Bishop of Rome to domineer ecclesiastically, but re-
buked, 163.
„ 257 — Hallowing Priests' vestures, altar-clotlis, and church ornaments, 164.
„ 260 — Monasticism, 164 Sign of tlie Cross, 165. Discipline and Pubbc Penance

led to Indulgences, 166.
„ 290— Orders of the Priesthood. 166.
„ 300— Altars, 167- Sacrifice (the meaning of tlie word), note ^,' 167- Relics

of Martyrs, of Pagan origin, 167- Consecration of Churches, and

Ceremonies, 168
„ 325 — First General Council, 168. Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Metropolitan

Bishops declared, 16S. The position of Rome and Constantinople de-
fined, 168, 169. Celibacy of Priests mooted, 169. Friday a fast-day,

171.
„ 347 — The supposed decree of tlie Council of Sardis as to authority of Bishop

of Rome, 171- Contradicts tlie previous council of Antioch, 173.
„ 350— The derivation of the term "The Mass," 172. Its history, of Pagan

origin, 173.
„ 366— The Appellate Jurisdiction of the Church of Rome under an order of the

Emperor Valentinian, 173. Extended only to tlie West, 173. Did not

extend to criminal cases, 174. Reasons for this precedence to Rome, 174.
„ 370 — Apostrophes to Saints, which led to their Invocation, 174. Angel Worship

condemned by the Council of Laodicea, 175.
„ 380 — Praying for the Dead in general use, but no reference to Purgatory, 176.

Paintings in churches opposed, 176.
„ 386— First Decree (if not spurious) against the Marriage of Priests, 177.

Examples of married Priests, Bishops, and Popes, 177. Cyprian and

Augustine as to corruptions and innovations, 178.

CONTENTS. XIU

A.B. 390— First Private Confessiona, 179. Tlie Penitentiary Presbyter, 179.
„ 397— Mass ordered to be sfiid fasting, 180.
„ iOO — Speculation on an intermediate future state the ori^n of Purgatory, 180.

When the Bishop of Bome was first styled simply as " Pope," 181 (see

A.D. 1073).
417— Pascal cundles, 181.
„ 419 — First interference in the election of a Bishop of Rome, 181.
„ 431 — First civil Law passed granting asylum to fugitives in churches, 182

(see A.D. 620). The origin of the " Keys *' aa a papal emblem of, 182.
„ 434 — ^The right of calling Councils, supposed to be assumed by Sixtus III.;

the document spurious, and also the documents quoted to establish

appeals to Borne, 183.
„ 450 — Interference by the Bishop of Bome in election of other Bishops, 185.

But practised by other Bishops, 185. Leo assumes a supremacy in the

West — ^resisted by Hilary, 186.
„ 460— Fasts of Lent and Whitsuntide, 188.
„ 470 — Invocation of a Saint (first act of), 188. "Mother of God" used in

Prayers, 188. Commemoration changed to Invocation, 188.
„ 493 — Soaking or dipping bread at the Eucharist, 189. The introduction of

half communion, but restrained by Bishops Leo and Gelasius, 189.

Gelasius denied the conversion of elements in the Eucharist, 190.
„ 500 — ^Images first used as historical monuments, 191.
„ 528 — Extreme Unction introduced, but not as a sacrament, 191.
„ 529— Order of Benedictine Monks founded, 192.
„ 535— Processions before festival of Easter, 192.
„ 536— Clergy exempted from civil jurisdiction, 192.
„ 538 — ^Turning the face to the east, and its history, 193. Feast of Purification —

Candlemas, 194. Burning tapers in honour of the Virgin, 194. Pro-
cession of Wax-lights, 194.
„ 595— Title of Universal Bishop assumed by the Bishop of Constantinople and

opposed by the Bishop of Bome, 194. The pagan origin of the title

"Pontifex Maximus," and "Summus Sacerdos," 195.
„ 600 — Invocation of Saints recognised, 196. The ora pro nobis introduced, 196.

Invocation of Saints of Pagan origin, 196. Progress of Purgatory and

Masses for the Dead, 197. The Office of the Mass, 198. Pontifical

habits — Processions and Pictures of the Virgin Mary— Perfumes—

Candleg— Fasting, 198.
„ 604— BituaUstic use of Lamps and Wax-tapers, of Pagan origin, 198.
„ 607— Spiritual Primacy, 199.
^^ 610 — Dedication of Temples to Saints — All Saints, 200. Tonsure, its Pagan

origin, 200.
^^ 617— Invocation of Saints introduced into the Latin Liturgy, 201.
„ 620— Law making churches a place of protection confirmed, 201 (see a.d. 431).
„ 631 — Invention and Exaltation of the Cross, 302.
^^ 666— Service in Latin, 302.

682 — First act of absolving a subject from his allegiance to the King, 203.
685 — To this date election of the Bishop of Bome vested in the Emperor, 203.
700_Priv-ate or Solitary Masses, 204. Tlie Wafer, 205.
^^ 760— Absolution after Confession, 205.

752 — Elevating the Bishop of Bome on the shoulders, on his election, 206.

:X1V CONTENTS.

A.D. 754— Image Worsliip condemnetl, 206. Invocation of the Virgin Maiy and

tlie Saints first enjoined nnder Anatliema by a Council, 206.

^^ 763— "First act of compulsory oral confession, 206. Ecclesiastical Order of

Canons ; hence Secular and Regular Canons, 206.
„ 768— Tithes made compulsory, 207.

„ .770— Decree on Image Worship by a Provincial Council, 207.
^^ 787— Image Worship decreed by a General Council, 207- Lighting tapers, 208.

Remarks on the progress of Transubstantiation, 208.
„ 795— Incense introduced, 211.
„ 800— The Temporal Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome established, 211. The

Forged Decretals, 215.
„ 818^Transubstantiation progresses, but receives a check, 215.
„ 845 — Confirmation instituted as a sacrament, 217-
I I „ 850 — Unction sanctioned and made a'sacranient, 218.

„ 852— Sprinkling of Holy Water on people, cattle, etc., 218 (see ante, a.d. 113).
„ 855 — Peast of the Assumption, 218.

„ 869— Tradition i^iitten (not oral) established as of authority, 218.
„ 884 — Canonization of Saints, 219. Invocation of Saints authorized, 220.
„ 956— The first time a Pope changed his name on his election, 220.
„ 965— Baptism of Bells, 221.

„ 1000— Before this date the modem Romish doctrine of Absolution unknown,
221. Consecrations, 222. The Little Office of the Virgin, 222. Sacri-
ficing Priests, 222. The Sacrament of the Euchai'ist changed into a
Sacrifice, 223.
„ 1003 — Peast of All Souls, founded on Paganism, 223.
„ 1032 — Penance commuted for money, 223.
„ 1055— Redemption of Penances, 224. Wlupping, 224.
f 1059 — Berengarius' forced recantation, 225. Transubstantiation recognised

225.
„ 1060— Election of Bishops of Rome restricted to the unanimous consent of the

Cardinals, Clergy, and Laity, 325.
„ 1070 — Purgatory progresses, 226.
„ 1073— The title of Pope exclusively applied to the Bishop of Rome, 226 (see

A.D. 400).
„ 1074 — Compulsory Celibacy, 226. The opinions of Roman Doctors on the
Suljject, 227. Deposition of Sovereigns, 329.
I „ 1090— Chaplets— Paternosters, 229.

,, 1095 — Communion in one kind prohibited by Council, 230 (see a.d. 1414)

„ 1098 — Order of Cistercians founded, 330. Carthusians (a.d. 1084) — Carmelites

(A D. 1185), 230.
„ 1123 — Decree against Marriage of Presbyters, Deacons, etc., 231.
3, 1130— Sacraments defined to be Seven, 331.

„ 1140 — The Festival of the Conception introduced, but opposed, 231 (see a.d,
1476). The tliree parts of Penance, Contrition, Confession, and Satis-
faction, first defined, 232.
„ 1151— Gratian's Decretals— Canon Law, 333.
„ 1160— No Saint to be acknowledged, as such, unless canonized by a Pope, 233.

Indulgences, 234.
„ 1182 — The Election of Popes restricted to the Cardinals by General Council, 234.

CONTENTS. XV

A.D. 1215— Auricular ConfesBion eBtabliahed, 236. A heathen cuatom, 235. Prayers
in a tongue not understood by the people, not tlie practice of this
age, 236. Transubstantiation coufirmed, 338. Pixea, 238.

„ 1217— Elevation and adoration of the Host, 339.

„ 1239— The Bible forbidden to the Laity, 343.

„ 1330— Little Bell added to the Mass, 243.

„ 1237— Salve Regina, 243.

„ 1238— The Pope of Rome excommunicated by the Patriarch of Antioch, 248.

„ 1345— Cardinals' red hats and cloaks, 343.

„ 1264— Feast of "Ffite Dieu," or Corpus Christi Day; its history, 243. Eccle-
siastical Treasure and Works of Supererogation, 345.

„ 1300 — First Jubilee, 345. Indulgences extended to souls in Purgatory, 246,

„ 1317— Clementine Constitutions, Ave Maria, 346.

„ 1360— Procession of tlie Host, derived from the heathens, 346.

„ 1363— The first use of the triple crown, 247. The coronation of Popes, 247.

„ 1366— The Rose of Gold, 248.

„ 1390— The Sale of Indulgences, 248.

„ 1414— Half Communion, 249 (see a.d. 1095, p. 230).

„ 1438— The Pragmatic Sanction, the rampart of the Gallican Church against
Rome's usurped power, 250.

„ 1439 — Seven Sacraments, 250. The Primacy asserted by Council of Florence,
251. Repudiated by tlie Greeks, 353. Pope called Vicar of ChriBt, 353.

„ 1470 — Rosary of the Virgin Mary, and origin of the term, 253.

„ l476— Feast of the Conception, 254. A history of the doctrine of the " Im-
maculate Conception," 354.

„ 1478— Tlie Inquisition, 358.

„ 1495 — Dispensations to marry within prohibited degree, 259.

„ 1515 — Tlie Great Sale of Indulgences, and Reformation, 359.

„ 1540— Tlie Order of the Jesuits, 359.

„ 1545— Council of Trent, 360.

„ 1546— Tradition, 360. Apocryphal Books, 260. Original Sin and Justification, 261.

„ 1547— Priestly Intention, 262. Seven Sacraments confirmed, 363.

„ 1551— Doctrine of Attrition, 264.

„ 1552 — The Lord's Prayer allowed to he said to the Saints, 365.

„ 1563 — Purgatory confirmed, 36S.

„ 1564 — When a new Creed was pubUshed, and the following were added as
Articles of Faith, for the first time, 365 :

1, All Observances and Constitutions of the Church of Rome, 366.
3. The Interpretation of Scriptures according to the sense of the
Church of Rome, 266.

3. The Interpretation of Scriptures only according to the unani-

mous agreement of the Fathers, 366.

4. All the received and approved Ceremonies of the Church of Rome,

and all other things defined by (Ecumenical Councils, 367-

5. The Church of Rome to be the Mother and Mistress of all

Churches ; obedience to the Pope of Rome, as successor of St-
Peter and Vicar of Christ, 367.

XVI CONTENTS.

PAET III.

THE OLD AND NEW CREEDS CONTRASTED.

The Acts and Objects of the Reformers, 371. Creeds : IrenEeus, TertuUian, Origen,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Nicene-Constantinopolitan, 273 — 276. Filioque, 276.
Councila of Ephesus and Chalcedon oppose innovations, 276. Tlie trutlis handed
dovra by the Church of Rome in contrast with her errors, 278. Cyprian aDd
TertulUan on the claims of Custom and Antiquity, 280.

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX A— Extract from the Work of Bertram of Corby, 287.
APPENDIX B.— BdU of Pope Pius IV., 293.

INTRODUCTION.

The incident which led to the preparation of the present
volume has already been adverted to in the preface. It is a
reply to the allegation of a Eoman Catholic bishop " that
he was the representative, in this country, of no new system
of rehgion, and the teacher of no new doctrines." A copy
of a previous edition of the work, on its first appearance,
was duly forwarded to the rev. doctor, calling in question
his broad assertions.

When a professed minister of the gospel presents himself
before a mixed audience, and voluntarily makes a bold and
startling statement, he is supposed to be prepared with
evidence to support that statement ; and, when questionedj
to be ready to vindicate what he beUeves, or asserts to be,
the truth. Acting, however, on the principle of his sect,
the bishop in question maintained a strict silence.

The writer is aware that a priest of the church of Eome
makes it a rule not to enter into a discussion with a layman,
because he is a layman. The same objection, however, may
be raised to any ordained Protestant minister ; for, in the
priest's estimation, his ordination is invalid, and, therefore, he
also is a layman : his challenge may, therefore, with equal
show of reason, be rejected. The Eomanist may thus escape
all explanation when called upon to act on the precept of
St. Paul, " to prove all things" (1 Thess. v. 21), and^ on the

XVm INTRODUCTION.

injunction of St. Peter, to be "ready always to give an
answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope
that is in you."

JBut the claim to the title of " priest " by the Roman
priesthood is very questionable ; and^ when examined on the
theory of their own Church, they would have some difficulty
in proving that they themselves are anything but laymen.

They derive their title from their ordination, come down
to them through an alleged regular and unbroken succession
from the apostles. The act of ordination, being a sacra-
ment of their Church, must necessarily be performed by a
duly ordained priest, who is also a bishop ; and the chain
must be perfect in every link from the beginning. By the
eleventh canon passed at the seventh session of the Council
of Trent it was declared, that intention in the officiating
priest to perform a sacrament is necessary to its validity : —

" If any one shall say that intention (at least of doing what
the Church does) is not reqvdred in ministers when they per-
form and confer sacraments, let Mm be aocursed."

And further, the same Council declares that even if the
officiating priest be in deadly sin, provided he performs the
essentials which belong to the administration and conferring
of the sacrament, nevertheless a true sacrament is conferred,
and if any one deny this also, he is anathematized.^

Hence, therefore, the very logical conclusion of Cardinal
Bellarmine, that —

" None can be certain, by ,the certainty of faith, that he

1 "Si(jui8 dixerit, in ministris, dum eacramenta conficiunt et conferunt,
non requiri intentionem saltern faciendi quod facit ecclesia, anathema sit."
"Si quis dixerit, ministrum in peccato mortali existentem, modo omnia
essentialia quie ad sacramentum oonficienduni aut conferendum pertinent,
servaverit, non conficere, aut oonferre sacramentum; anathema sit." — Can.
et Deer. Concl. Trid. sess. VII. "De Saoramentis in Genera," can. xi
xii. p. 79. Paris, 1842.

INTRODUCTION. XIX

receives a true sacrament, since a sacrament cannot be cele-
brated without tbe minister's intention ; and no one can see the
intention of another." '

Since the sacrament of Orders depends for its validity on
the intention of him who ordains, what certainty has the
Eoman priest of the intention of the bisliop who ordained
him? What proof has he of the vahdity of his ordination?
But Bellarmine goes a step further : —

" If we consider in bishops their power of ordination and
jurisdiction, we have no more than a moral certainty that they
are true bishops." '

The higher we go, we multiply the chances, and in proportion
decrease the moral certainty.

Thus, then, according to Bellarmine, no single priest of
the Eomish church can have more than a moral certainty
that he is a priest. But we may go further and say that he
cannot have even this moral certainty. This is no imagi-
nary position or " theological deduction ; " the subject was
formally discussed at the seventh session of the Council
of Trent on passing the eleventh and twelfth canons just
referred to.

One of the essentials is intention in the priest. Will it
be argued that a priest in deadly sin can have the true in-
tention ? Hear what Ambrogio Caterino, bishop of Minori,
said at the Council of Trent, when those decrees were under
discussion : —

1 "Neque potest certus esse, certitudine fidei, se percipere verum Bacra-
mentum, cum sacramentum sine intentione rainistri non conflciatur, etin-
tentionem alterius nemo videre possit."— " Bell. Disput. de Justificatione,"
lib. iii. c. 8, sec. 5, tom. iv. p. 488. Prag. 1721, and Paris, 1608, torn. iv.

col. 946, A. , « 1 nw i •• DO

2 Bellar. de Milit. Eccles. lib. m. c. x. ad Secundum, o. 37, tom. u. p. si.

Prag. 1721.

XX INTKODUCTION.

" But supposing the necessity of mental intention — if a
priest, charged with the care of four or five thousand souls,
was an unbeliever, but a hypocrite, who, whether in the baptism
of children, or in the absolution of penitents, or in the conse-
cration of the eucharist, had no intention of doing what the
church does, we must say that all the children were damned,
the penitents not absolved, and all those who have received the
communion have received no advantage from it."

And he added : —

" If any said that these cases were rare — would to God that
in this corrupt age there were no cause to think that they are
very frequent. But, even admitting them to be very rare, or
even unique ; yet suppose, for example, a bad priest, who is a
hjrpocrite, and who has no intention of administering true
baptism to a child, and that afterwards this child should be-
come bishop of a great city, and during a long succession of
years he has ordained a great number of priests, we must
admit that, this chUd not being baptized, will not have received
ordination, and consequently, all those whom he may have
ordained will have received nothing, and that thus there will
be in this great city neither sacrament, nor penance, nor
eucharist, since these cannot exist without ordination, nor
ordination without a true bishop, nor any bishop if he has not
been previously baptized ; and thus, by the malice of a single
minister, a million sacraments will be rendered nugatory." '

1 "Que cependant en supposant la necessite d'une intention interieure si
un pr^tre charg^ du Boin de quatre ou cinq mille ames etait un incredule
mais grand hypocrite, qui, soit dans le bapteme des enfants, soit dans I'abso-
lution des penitens, soit dans la consecration de I'Eucharistie eut intention de
ne point faire ce que fait I'Eglise, il faudrait dire que tous les enfants sont
damn^s, lea penitens nonabsous, et que tous ceux qui ont communie, n'en
ont retire aucun fruit." * » » * "jjt si quelqu'un disait que
ces cas sont rares, pl&t a Dieu," ajoutait-il, " que dans ce siecle corrumpu il
n'y eftt pas lieu de croire qu'ils sont assez frequens! Mais meme en admet-
tent qu'ils sont fort rares, et meme uniques, qu'on suppose par exemple un
mauvais prfitre, h3'pocrite et qui n'ait point I'intention d'administrer le veri-
table bapteme a uu enfant, et qu'ensuit cet enfant devienne Eveque d'une
grande ville, et que pendant une longue suite d'annees, il ait ordonne un
grand nombre de pi^tres ; il faudra dire que cet enfant n'etant point baptise,
u'aura point re(;u d' ordination, et que par consequent tous ceux qu'il aura

INTEODTJCTION. XXI

This is the testimony and opinion of a Eoman Catholic
bishop !

But to place the matter on still higher grounds — the
essence of the title is based on the supposition that
" orders " are a sacrament. We deny that " orders "
were considered, even by the Roman church, a sacrament,
properly so called, for the first six centuries of the Christian
era ; or that " intention " was considered requisite to give
validity to a sacrament, for fifteen centuries after Christ.
Bellarmine admits that Dominicus Soto said that " episcopal
ordination is not truly and properly a sacrament;"^ and if
not truly and properly a sacrament, then those who
ordained during the first six centuries of the Church
could not have had the true intention of performing a
sacrament.

Here, then, are two essentials, wanting in former ordi-
nations; which, according to modern notions, must, if
wanting, render them invalid ! It is the fashion with
Romish priests to question " Anglican orders ;" it would
be as well for them to look at home and examine their own
title to " orders.''

Irrespective, however, of all such abstract questions,
when the truth of an assertion made by a minister of the
gospel is publicly challenged in a respectful and dignified

ordonn^s lui merae n'auront rien re^u, et qu'ainsi il n'y aura dans cette
grande viUe ni sacrement ni penitence, puisqu'il n'y en peut avoir sans ordi-
nation, ni ordination sans un veritable Eveque, ni aucun Eveque s'il n'a
auparavant 6te baptise, et qu'ainsi par la malice d'un seul ministre on rendra
nuls un million de sacraments." — "Histoire de Concil de Trente, ecrite en
Italien [par Paul Sarpi] traduite de nouveau en Fran(jois, avec des notes,
etc., par Pierre Francois le Courayer," torn. i. lib. ii. pp. 432, 433. Amst.
MDCOLI. Father Paul was the principal of the Order of Servites (a.d. 1600).
Courayer was a Romish divine, Canon Regular and Librarian of the Abbey of
St. Genevieve. The third volume of this edition contains a Defence of the
Translation by the author.
1 Beliarm. torn. iii. p. 718. Prag. 1721.

XXU INTRODUCTION.

manner, it behoves that man as publicly to vindicate what
he believes to be the truth. A conscientious belief in that
truth will lead him to " condescend to men of low estate,"
with the hope of convincing them of their error.

With these few preliminary observations, the writer sub-
mits the result of a long and careful examination of facts
and documents, which has left in his mind the sincere con-
viction that the Eoman religion is a monstrous delusion,
invented to bring man under the subjection of a priest-
hood which has for many years traded on the credulity
of mankind at the imminent risk of the salvation of im-
mortal souls.

PAET I.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINES.

THE DEVELOPMENT OE DOCTRINES.

CHAPTER I.

SUPREMACY.

"Neither be ye called masters; for one is your Master, even Christ.
But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever
shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself
shall be exalted." — Matt, xxiii. 10 — 12.

A Roman Catholic prelate in this country lately dehvered
an address on the occasion of the consecration, by him, of a
piece of ground allotted for the burial of members of his
church, in which he is reported to have solemnly maintained
that he stood before his hearers as the representative of
no new system of religion, the exponent of no novel doctrine ;
and that the doctrines now taught by his church are the
same as those which were preached in this country " by
men sent by the pope to convert our poor Saxon fore-
fathers," and as handed down by the apostles. This broad
assertion of an alleged historical fact must rest or fall on
the evidence adduced to support it.

It is on this assertion that issue is joined, and to its
disproof the following pages are devoted.

2 THE NOVELTIES OP EOMANISM.

I. We begin with the subject of prime importance^
" Supremacy."

Cardinal Bellarmine says that the doctrine of the Pope's
Supremacy is the " sum and substance of Christianity." ^
He says again : — " The Supremacy of the bishop of Eome
may be proved by fifteen several names or titles^ as, namely,
the ' Prince of Priests,' the ' High Priest,' the ' Vicar of
Christ,' the ' Universal Bishop/ and the like." ^

Proof is challenged that any of these titles were given to
the bishop of Eome exclusively, from the days of the first
bishop of Eome to and including Gregory I., which
embraces a period of 500 years .^ The early Eathers would
have shrunk from giving the bishop of Eome the titles of
"Prince of Priests," "The High Priest," due alone to
Christ. Such an exclusive title, as applied to any one
bishop, was never contemplated by the Scriptures. All the
people of God are called in Scripture " a royal priesthood."
When, however, the term " High Priest" was ever used,
it was equally applicable to all bishops. We have a
remarkable instance of this recorded in the " Acts of the
Councils" by the Jesuit Labbeus, wherein Anacletus, a
bishop of Eome, of the second century, in liis second

1 "De qu9. re agitur, cumdeprimatu Pontifiois agitur ? Brevissime dicam,
de aummi re Christian^." In Lib. de Sum. Pont, in Prsefat. sec. ii. Edit.
Prag. 1721.

2 Ibid. Lib. ii. c. 31, sec. i.

3 Some curious details are given by the learned Benedictine, Dom de
Vaines (in his Bictionnaire Haisonne de Diplomatique, Paris, 1774, p. 161), on
the gradual development of the pope's titles). In the first four centuries the
title of Pope (Papa) was usually given to bishops indiscriminately. In the
ninth century, bishops of France were reprimanded by Gregory IV. for calling
him Papa and Frater. Gregory VII., in the eleventh century, was the first
who restricted the term Papa to the Bishop of Home. The title. Vicar of
Peter, is not earlier than the ninth century : in the thirteenth, the bishops of
Eome limited that of the Vicar of Christ to themselves ; it had been pre-
viously borne by other Bishops. See Wordsworth's " Letters to Mr. Gondon."
Letter II., p. 43. London, 1848.

SUPREMACY. 6

epistle^ writes — " The High Priests, Uaf is, Bishops, are to
be judged of God."^

As to the title of " Universal Bishop," it was specially
repudiated by the bishops of Eome, Pelagius II., and
Gregory I., when assumed by John, bishop of Constan-
tinople, _/or the first time in the church, and afterwards by
his successor, John Cyriacus.

Pelagius II. (a.d. 590) denounced the assumption of the
title of "Universal" as an unlawful usurpation, and. testi-
fied that none of his predecessors assumed such a profane
appellation : —

" Regard not," lie said, " the name of universality wlich John
has imlawftLlly usurped to himself, for let none of the Patriarchs
ever use this so profane appellation. Tou may well estimate
what mischief may be expected rapidly to follow, when even
among priests such perverted heginnings break forth ; for he
is near respecting whom it is written. He himself is King over
all the sons of pride."^

And his immediate successor, Gregory I., expressed
himself no less strongly : —

" My fellow priest John attempts to be called the Universal
Bishop. I am compelled to exclaim : O times ! O manners !
Priests seek to themselves names of vanity, and glory in new
ajid profane appellations. Do I, in this matter, defend only my
own proper cause P Do I vindicate an injury specially offered
to myself? Do not I rather take up the cause of God

1 " Summi Sacerdotes, id est, Episcopi, a Deo judicandi." Cone. Labb.,
torn. i. ; Anacleti Tapse, Epist. ii. col. 621. C. Paris, 1671.

2 " Universalitatis nomen, quod sibi illicite usurpavit, nolite attendere : —
nullua enim patriaroharum hoc tam profano vocabulo imquam utatur. — Per-
pendltis, fratres carissimi, qui de vicino Bubsequatur, cum et in Baoerdotibus
erumpunt tam perversa priraordia. Quia enlm juxta est ille, de quo sorip-
tum est: 'Ipse est rex super unirersos filios superbise." Pap. Pelag. II.
Ep. viii. ; Labb. et Cobs., torn. v. col. 949, 950. Paris, 1671.

4) THE NOTELTIES OF EOMANISM.

Omnipotent, and tlie cause of tte ciurcli universal P Far from
the very hearts of Christians be that name of blasphemy in
which the honour of all priests is taken away, while it is arro-
gated madly to himself by a single individual,"'

And, again, the same bishop said :

" No one of my predecessors ever consented to use this so
profane appellation ; for if a single patriarch be styled TJni-
versal, the name of Patriarch is taken from the others. But
far, very far, be it from a Christian mind, that any person
should wish to snatch himself a title, whence he may seem, in
any even the smallest degree, to diminish the honour of his
brethren."*

" What," exclaims the same Gregory to his presumptuous
brother of Constantinople ; " what wilt thou say to Christ, the
true Head of the universal church, in the examination of the
last judgment — thou who attemptest to subjugate all his mem-
bers to thyself by the title of Universal ? In the use of so
perverted a title, who, I ask, is proposed for thy imitation,
save he, who, despising the legions of angels constituted in a
common authority with himself, endeavoured to break forth to
the summit of an isolated dignity. To consent to the adoption
of that wicked appellation is nothing less than to apostatize
from the faith."3

1 " Consacerdos meus Johannes vocari Universalis JEpiscopus conatur.
Exclamare compellor ac dicere : tempora ! mores ! sacerdotes vanitatis
sibi nomina expetunt, et novis ac profanis vocabuUs gloriantur. Nunquid
ego, hac in re, propriam causam defendo ? Nunquid specialetn injuriam
vindico, et non magis causam Omnipotentis Dei et causam universalis ec-
clesise ? Si'd absit a cordibus Christianorum nomen iUud Blasphemise, in
quo omnium sacerdotum honor adimitur, dum ab uno sibi dementer arroga-
tur." Pap. Greg. I. Epist. lib. iv. ; Epist. xx. ; Opera, tom. ii. p. 748.
Bened. Edit. 1705.

2 "NuUua unquam decessorura meorum hoc tarn profane vocabulo uti
conaensit ; quia, videlicet, si unus patriarcha TJnirersalis dicitur, Patriarch-
arum nomen casteris derogatur. Sed absit, hoc absit a Christiana mente, id
sibi velle, quenquam arripere, unde fratrum suorum honorem imminuere, ex
quantulacunque parte videatur !*' Pap. Gregor. I., Epist. lib. v. Ep. xxv.
Opera, torn. ii. p. 771. Edit. Bened. 1705.

3 Tu quid Christo, universalis scilicet ecclesise capiti, in extremi judicii es
dioturus examine, qui ouncta ejus membra tibimet eonaris Universalis a.me\-
latione supponere .' Quis, rogo, in hoc tam perverso vocabulo, nisi ille ad
imitandum proponitur, qui despeotis angelorum legionibus secum socialiter

SUPREMACY. 5

And, once again, he says : —

" I, indeed, confidently assert that whosoever either calls him-
self, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, that person, in his
vain elation, is the precursor of Antichrist, because, through his
pride, he exalts himself above the others."'

This title, then, so late as a.d. 601, was not given to, or
assumed by the bishop of Rome, though it was, not-
withstanding the above denunciations, assumed by Gregory's
successor, Boniface III., in a.d. 605.

Simon Vigorius, an eminent Eoman- Catholic French
writer of the sixteenth century, properly defines the value
of the expression. He says : —

" When the western Fathers caU the Roman bishops. Bishops
of the Universal Church, it is not that they look upon them
as universal bishops of the whole church, but in the same sense
that the patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria,
Jerusalem, are called so, either as they are universal over the
churches under their Patriarchate, or that in the CBcumenical
Councils, they preside over the whole church."^

In this sense we must understand the words of Gregory
Nazianzen, when he said of St. Athanasius " That, in being
made bishop of Alexandria, he was made bishop of the

constitutis, ad culmen conatua est singularitatis, erumpere ? — In isto tam
Bcelesto Toeabulo consentire, nihil est aliud quam fidem perdere," Pap.
Gregor. I. Epist. lib. v.; Epist. 8. Opera, torn. ii. p. "42. Edit. Bened. 1705.

1 Ego vero fideuter dico, quia quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat,
vel vocari desiderat, in elatione su^ Antichristum prsecurrit quia superbiendo
cseteris prjeponit. Pap. Greg. I. Epist. lib. vii. ; Epist. xxiii. torn. ii. p. 881.
Bened. Edit. Paris 1705, and Lab. et Coss. torn. v. col. 1027, et seq. Pai-is,
1671.

2 Cum occidentales Patres pontifiees Eomanos vocant Universalis Ecclesise
Episeopos id more earum ecclesiarum facere, et ea ratione, non quod
putent totius orbis universalis, universales ease episeopos, sed eadem qua
Constantinopolitanus, Alexandrinua, Antiochanus, Hierosolyraitanus, dicuntur
universales; aut ut universales ecclesiarum quae sunt sub eorum Patriar-
chatu, aut quod in Conciliis OUcumenicis totius eoclesise prsesint. Opera omnia
Simonis Vigorii, Paris, 1683; ad responsionem Syn. Concil. Basil. Commarl.
pp. 37, 38.

6 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

whole world:"! ^^^ of j^sil when he spoke of him as
" havmg the care of the churches^ as much as of that which
was peculiarly committed to him/'' ^

The title "Vicar of Christ" was never applied to a
bishop of Rome exclusively before the Council of Morence,
1439; and, even then, it was expressly stated to be so
apphed "reserving the rights of the bishop of Constanti-
nople." The spiritual power was to be exercised only " ac-
cording as it is contained in the acts of general councils and
in the holy canons," ^ which acts and canons we shall
presently briefly notice. We find this title in Cyprian's
12th Epistle; but it is apphed to all bishops. So also it
was used in the Synod of Compiegne, under Gregory IV.,
A.D. 833 :—

" It is convenient that all Cliristians stonld know wliat kind
of office that of bishop is — who, it is plaia, are the Vicars of
Christ, and keep the keys of the kingdom of heaven." i

And so at the Synod of Melun, under Sergius II., a.d.
845:—

" And although all of us unworthy, yet we are ' the Vicars of
Christ, and successors of the Apostles.' " °

As a matter of doctrine or faith, it is not necessary, at
the present day, to hold that the pope is the vicar of

1 Oral. xxi. torn. i. p. 377. Edit. Morell. Paris, 1630.

2 Ep. 69, torn. iii. Ben. Edit, p. 161.

3 " Quemadmodum etiam in actis cecumenicorum conciliorum et in sacris
canonibua continetur." Cone. Lab. et Cobs. torn. xii. ; Cone. Florent.
Sess. X. col. 154, et seq. Paris, 1671.

4 "Omnibus in Christian^ religions constitutis scire convenit quale sit
ministeriiim episeoporum — quos eonstat esse Vicarios Cbristi et elavigeros
regni ecclorum," etc. Coucil. General, apud Binium, torn. iii. p. i. p. 673.
Col. Agripp., 1606, and Lab, et Coss., torn. 7ii. col. 1686. Paris, 1671.

5 " Nos omnes licet indigni, Christi tamen Yicarii, et Apostolorum suc-
cessores." Bin., p. i. p. 607, torn. iii. Edit, as above, and Lab. et Coss., torn.
Tii. col, 1818. Edit, as aboye.

SUPREMACY. 7

Clirist. Dens, in Ms Theologia/ says that "it ia probably
a matter of faith that a modern pontiff is the vicar of
Christ, but not a matter of obligatory faith." * And, in page
22, he further states :— " It is, however, to be noted, that a
modern pontiff being the successor of Peter and vicar of
Christ is not a matter of obligatory faith, for that is not
sufficiently propounded to the whole church with the neces-
sity of believing it." If this be so, then a Eomanist may
disbeheve that the pope is successor of Peter and vicar of
Christ. Not only, therefore, is the supremacy not proved
by the assumption of this title, or by the alleged fact of the
pope being successor of Peter, but the whole fabric and
superstructure of Popery, resting as it does on these assumed
facts, stands on a rotten basis.

We will go further. We assert that for 1000 years
after Christ the title of Pope was not the exclusive privilege
of the bishop of Eome. Pope Hildebrand (Gregory VII.)
was the first who declared that this title should be exclu-
sively applied to the bishop of Eome.^ Cyprian, bishop
of Carthage, was addressed, even by presbyters of Eome, as
"Pope Cyprian." Cyril of Alexandria addressed Athana-
sius as "Pope Athanasius," and so Jerome addressed Augus-
tine, bishop of Hippo, in Africa, as "Pope Augustine;"
and many other similar examples might be adduced. Nay,

1 A book of admitted authority, and used as a text-book at Maynooth Col-
lege, to instruct the students in their theological studies, dedicated to Arch-
bishop Murray, and published with his expressed approbation, "Ejus cum
appr(K)atione Busceptam." As we shall have again to quote Dens, we may
here mention that Peter Dens is stated, on the title-page of this work, to
have been an ecclesiastic of high consideration in Belgium in the middle of
the last century, Licentiate of Theology in Louvain, Canon of the Metropo-
litan Church at MechUn, and President of the Archiepiscopal Seminary
there ; whence, in June, 1758, his fourth volume of this book was published,
and dedicated to the Archbishop of Mechlin.

2 Dens' Theologia, vol. ii. p. 19. No. xiv., Dublin Edit., 1832.

3 " Biographie Universelle," Paris, 1817. Art. Gregoire VII., p. 396.

8 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

SO far from the bishop of Eome being the head of the
Christian churchy the authority of Gregory I. did not extend
even over Italy. ^ The archbishop of Milan was wholly
independent of Home up to the days of Hildebrand, about
A.D. 1073. The bishop of Aquilia resisted the attempts of
Gregory I. to establish by armed force his jurisdiction (a.d.
590). Eavenna, even so late as 649^ was independent of
Eome^ and its archbishop, Maurus, received the pall from
the Emperor.^ Vitalian, bishop of Eome, endeavoured to
exercise a supremacy over him, by summoning him to appear
at Eome, but Maurus refused to obey.

Our first proposition is, therefore, that the present claim
and titles of the bishop of Eome, so far as the modern
doctrine of Supremacy is concerned, are new.

II. The Council of Trent, Seventh Session, in the third
canon on " Baptism," declared the church of Eome to be
" The Mother and Mistress of all Churches ;" and by the
13th Article of the present Eomish Creed, every Eoman
Catholic is called upon to declare the Eoman church to be
" the Mother and Mistress of all Churches." Our second
proposition is, that this allegation, now made part of the
creed of a Christian church, never was required to be be-
lieved before the publication of the pope's Bull in ISBi,
and that it is not true as an historical fact. It is,
therefore, a new doctrine, imposed as an Article of Faith
by the Eoman church since 1.564. The Creed of Pope
Pius IV. did not exist before that date. The only symbol
of faith required to be subscribed even by Eoman Cathohcs,

1 Bingliam, in his " Ecclesiastical Antiquities," shows that in the early
times the juvisdictiou of the pope of Eome extended only to the lower part
of Italy, the Islands of Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia. Book ix. cap. i.
sees. 9 — 12.

3 "Hist. Eevennant, Hieronymo." Kubeo, lib. iv. p. 205. Venet. 1590.

SUPREMACY. 9

was the Nicene Creed. The church of Rome was not
mistress of the early Cliristian churches, and as a matter of
factj she is not so now — she is neither mistress of the Greek
and other eastern churches, nor of the church of England
and other Protestant churches.

As an historical fact, the Greek church, represented by
the successive bishops of Constantinople, and the African
church, represented by its bishops, were never subject to
the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the bishop or see of Eome.
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, a.d. 250, has sufficiently
defined the Eoman episcopate. From him we learn that a
precedence was given to the see of Eome, " because Eome
for its magnitude ought to precede Carthage,"^ and this was
written by Cyprian to the bishop of Eome. Eegaltius, the
famous commentator on Cyprian's works, said that " Eome
was called by Cyprian the principal church, because it was
constituted in the principal city ; "^ holding, for this reason,
a precedence of rank, but not any superior Ecclesiastical
jurisdiction.

The first General Council of Nice, a.d. 325, by the
sixth canon reserved to every church its independent
honour and dignity, and this old custom was to prevail in
Lybia, Egypt, Alexandria, as in Eome.* By the second
canon of the next General Council, that of Constantinople,
A.D. 381, the sixth canon of Nice was confirmed.* And by

1 " Quoniam pro magnitudine su^ debeat Carthaginem Eoma praeoedere."
Ep. 49, alios ; Ep. 48, ad Cornel, p. 54. Paris, 1836.

2 "Ecclesia principalis, id est;%ii urbe principali constituta." Eegalt. in
Cypr., Ep. .55, p. 84. Paris, 1666.

3 Honos 6UU3 cuique servetur eccleaisB— Ita ut Alexandrinus Episcopus
horum omnium habeat poteetatem, quia et urbis Romas Episoopo parilia
mos eat." Surius Concil., tom. i. p. 342. Colon. Agripp., 1567, and Labb.
et Coss., tom. ii. col. 32. Paris, 1671.

4 Lab. Concil, tom. ii. p. 947. Paris, 1671, and Surius, tom, L p. 4S7.
Col. Agrip., 1567.

10 THE NOVELTIES OP EOMANISM.

the third General Council^ that of Ephesus, a.d. 4-3 1^ the
see of Cyprus was declared to be independent of all other
bishops} The fourth General Council, that of Chalcedon,
A.D. 451, determined that the archbishop of Constantinople
should have the same primacy of honour as the bishop of
Eome ; but certain privHegps were given to the bishop of
Kome, not on account of any supposed Divine right, but
because it was the seat of empire.^ The ninth canon in
question on the subject of appeals declared : — " But if a
bishop or clergyman have a dispute with the metropolitan of
the province, let him have access either to the exarch of the
diocese, or to the throne of the imperial Constantinople, and
let it be judged there.'"^ Here we have an appeal to a secular
tribunal ! a proceeding considered by Komanists as heretical.
The fifth General Council, the second of Constantinople,
A.D. 553, speaking of Leo, bishop of Eome and Cyril of
Alexandria, said, "The Synod giveth like honour to the
bishops of Eome and Alexandria."* The sixth General
Council, the third of Constantinople, a.d. 680, by the thirty-
sixth canon, decreed "That the see of Constantinople should
enjoy equal privileges with the ancient see of Eome;"^ and
it is worthy of remark that this council declared that if any
city, in respect of the civil state, be reconstituted and exalted
by the princely power, that the order also of ecclesiastical
matters should follow, that is, it should be chief also in

1 Lab. Concil., torn. iii. p. 802 ; and Surius, torn. i. p. 608.

2 "Sedi senioris Eomse, propter imperium civitatis illius, etc. Can. 28,
Con. Lab., torn. ir. p. 769. Paris, 1671, ffnd Surius, torn. ii. p. 209.

3 *'Et5e irpbs toi' ttJs aurij? ejrapxt'a? MijTpoiro^iTrjc 'Ettio-koitos t] KXripLKO-; afji^iir-
^jjTOirj KaToXafj-fiavEToi 7J TOv E^apxov rijs 5ioiKTJ(retug, rj rhv TTjs /SacriAeuovCTTjs Kuv<rravTi-
voTToKem^ SpocOF, /cat eV aiTW fii/ca^c'cr^w." Ibid., Can. 19 et 17.

4 " Qui Eequaliter, ab hac eynodo, pro statu orthodoxaj fidci honorati sunt."
Ibid., action, i.

5 " Decernimus ut thronus C. P. sequalia privilegia cum antiquae BomEe
throno obtineat." Surius, torn. ii. p. 1046.

SUPREMACY. 11

ecclesiastical as in civil matters : proving incontestably that
whatever privileges Eome enjoyed it was on account of her
civil position. We may refer to the seventh General
Council, that of Nice, a.d. 787, and draw attention to the
fact that Adrianus, bishop of Rome, writmg to Tharasius,
bishop of Constantinople, as recorded in the proceedings,
seventh General Council, a.d. 787, thus addressed him:
" To my beloved Brother Tharasius, Universal Patriarch,
etc. "^ Constantinople being at this time the seat of Empire,
and thus it was declared in the Imperial Constitutions that
"the city of Constantinople hath the prerogative of old
Eome."^ And Nilus, the Greek patriarch, thus challenged
the bishop of Eome, " If, because Peter died at Rome, thou
count the Roman see great, Jerusalem shall be far greater,
seeing our Saviour Jesus Christ there undertook his living
death."^ It will be observed here that Nilus did not refer
to the figment of Peter's supposed episcopate, — an invention
of a later date, — but only to his death at Rome.

It is worthy of note, with reference to the Greek church,
that the Greek bishops maintained their independence. At
the Council of Florence, 1439, a desperate attempt was made
to induce certain Greek bishops, who were present, to
recognise the Papal supremacy. They were by dint of force,
fraud, and bribery, prevailed on to join in articles of
agreement or union. It will be remembered that this
Council claimed a primacy " over the whole world."* But
when the Greek deputies returned to Constantinople^ the
church there indignantly repudiated all that had been done,

1 "Dilecto Fratri Tarasio, universali Patriarchse." Surius, Coucl. torn,
iii. p. 72. Colon. Agripp., 1567.

2 "Urbe Constantinopolitan. veteris Eomse prssrogativa Isetetur." Cod.
lib. i. Tit. V. 1. Ti. Honor. Theodos.

3 Edit. CI. Salmas., Honov., 1608, p. 94.

* Lab. et Coss., Concil., torn. xiii. col. 515. Paris, 1671.

12 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

which repudiation was confirmed by a council held at
Constantinople, a.d. 1440. The proceedings of the Floren-
tine Council were declared nuU;^ Gregory the Patriarch,
who was inclined to the Latins, was deposed, and
Athanasius chosen in his stead. At this council the bishops
of all the principal Greek sees were present, thus making
the protest of the Greek church universal and complete.

There is no pretence whatever for alleging that, iu the apos-
tohc times, the church of Eome was either Mother or Mistress
of the Seven Churches of Asia. Antioch claimed greater
antiquity than that of Rome, where Peter is said to have
presided six years before he and Paul together (according to
Trenseus), while founding the church of Eome, appointed
Linus to be ihefrst bishop of that See. It was at Antioch
that Christians were first so called (Acts xi. 26). But the
church at Jerusalem was the recognised Mother of aU
Churches, and thence the Apostles first preached. Por many
years afterwards, she was so recognised, as is recorded in
the proceedings of the Great and General Council of Constan-
tinople,^ and subsequently by Jerome, a presbyter of Eome.^

" It was not so at the beginning," nor is it true now,
that the church of Eome either was or is, T/ie Mother and
Mistress of all Clmrclies.

1 Con. Constant., Sess. 2, Ibid., torn. xiii. col. 1367. Paris, 1671, and see
Percival's ''JRoman Schism." London, 1836, p. 93.

2 *' T^s fie 76 /.iTjTpbs cLTTcuTiiiv TOiv eKK\t)aiMV T^s ei/ 'IcpotroXv^oLS." Epist. Synod.

Concil. Const, apud Theodoret. Hist. Eoeles., lib. v. u. 9, p. 207. Cantab.,
1720.

3 " Sed in Hierosoluma, primum fundata eeclesia, totius orbis ecclesiaa
seminavit." .ffztfrow. Comment, in Esai. ii. 3. Opera., tom. iv. p. 7. Basil
Edit., 1537.

CHAPTER II.

CANON OF SCRIPTURE.

" It depends upon the mere will and pleasure of the bishop of Rome to
have what he lists sacred, or of authority, in the whole church." — Cardinal
Baronius, " Annales ad Ann.," 553, u. 224.

Let us now test the assertion, that the Eoman priests in this
country are the " representatives of no new system" — " the
preachers and representatives of no novel doctrines" — with
reference to the teaching of their church on the Canon of
Scripture.

Eomanists admit the Scriptures to he the word of God,
and, combined with tradition, to be the rule of faith of
their church, subject to certain restrictions. It is of the
utmost importance, therefore, to ascertain what is included
in the " word of God." There is a remarkable unanimity
on the canon of Scripture among all classes of Protestants
of the present day ; but their teaching differs materially
from that taught by the Eoman church.

To state what the Papal church does teach, let us go to
head quarters, the " Council of Trent." In April, 1546, at
the Fourth Session, believers were called upon for the
first time, on pain of " anathema " (that is, of being abso-
lutely, irrevocably, and entirely separated from the commu-
nion of the faithful), to admit into the sacred canon of
Scripture " the Apocrypha." The decree is as follows : —

" Tbe sacred and toly CEoumenical and General Synod of
Trent — perceiving that this truth and discipline are contained
in the written Books, and the unwritten Tradition, which
[books and traditions], received by the Apostles from the

14 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

moutli of Christ himself, or from tte Apostles themselves,
the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even tmto us, trans-
mitted, as it were, from hand to hand ; [the Synod] following
the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with
equal piety and reverence all the books of the Old and New
Testament — seeiag that one God is the author of both — and
preserved hy a continuous succession in the church. And it (the
Synod) has thought it meet that a catalogue of the Sacred
Books be inserted in this decree, lest doubt arise in any one's
mind as to which are received by this Synod."

Then a list is appended, in which are included not only
the books of the Old and New Testament, admitted by
Protestants of the present day, but, beyond these, are what
we call the Apocryphal Books, such as Tobit, Judith,
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and "the rest of the
Book of Esther and Daniel" — that is, from after the 3rd
verse of the 10th chapter of Esther to the end of the 16th
chapter ; and from and including the 13th and 14th of
Daniel (so-called), including the Story of Susanna, Bel and
the Dragon, and the Song of the Three Children, as they at
present stand in the Douay version.

Here, then, we have it boldly asserted that the " ortho-
dox Fathers" and the Catholic church " by continuous
succession" held the Apocryphal Books, and the other
books enumerated in the decree, "with equal piety and
veneration." This is notoriously untrue ; and if there is
any subject ou which the " orthodox Fathers " and a
succession of divines in the Eoman church ever agreed, it
was the rejection of the Apocrypha from the sacred canon
of Scripture. In this packed Council, at the Fourth
Session, when there were not more than forty-nine bishops
present, there was much diversity of opinion. The bishops
behaved so clamorously, that it was necessary to direct

CANON OF SCRIPTUEE. 15

them to give their votes one by one, and to number
them as they were received : so great was the diversity of
opinion on this subject, even so late as April, 1546. It is
a popular error to suppose that the Trent Council merely
declared what was previously of faith: so far from this,
some of the venerable Fathers came even to blows, and
tugged at each other's beards to enforce their own private
opinions. It is true they passed their decrees, and asserted
the authority of Fathers and Apostolic Tradition in their
favour ; but the assertion was not true. It was and is
unsupported by evidence.

St. Paul tells us that " unto the Jews were committed
the oracles of God," and this he actually wrote to the
Eomans (iii. 2), as if in prophetic warning : the Jews
rejected the Apocrypha; and the early Christians pro-
fessed to receive the code or canon of the Old Testament
from the Jews.

Neither Christ, nor any of the inspired writers of the
New Testament, ever quoted the Apocrypha or referred
to it.

We have several successive Christian writers, who have
left us lists of the sacred canon of Scripture, as accepted
in their respective periods. We now name some of the
leading Fathers of the early Christian church, and other
divines (aU claimed by the church of Rome), in each
successive century, who rejected the Apocrypha, and who,
therefore, bear evidence to the belief of the church in their
respective ages. The references given in a note at the end
of this chapter are easily accessible.

The modern church of Eome, through the Council of
Trent, a.d. 1546, hurled a curse against those who rejected
the books of Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith,

16 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

Baruchj Wisdonij as included in the inspired canon of
Scriptures.^ Apocryphal books were rejected from the
Sacred Canon, expressly by wordj or indirectly by giving a
list excluding them, by ^ —

In the Second Century — Melito, bishop of Sardis.

In the third — Origen.

In the TovLTth-^Sainis Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jeru-
salem, Cyprian, Gregory of Nazianzen, and Eusebius,
bishop of Cesarsea, Amphilochius, and the bishops assem-
bled at the Council of Laodicea,^ confirmed by a decree of
the General Council of Chalcedou, and by the sixth General
Council in Trullo. can. 2, and therefore binding on the
church of Rome.*

In the I'ifth — Saints Jerome, Epiphanius, and Augustine.

In the Sixth' — Junilius (an African bishop), and some
add Isidore, bishop of Seville.

In the Seventh, we have no less authority than Pope
Gregory the Great himself. Even the Vatican edition ^ of

^ " Si quia libros ipsos [Hester, Danielis, Baruch, Ecelesiastici, Sapientiae,
Judith, Tobise, duorum Maccabseorum] pro sacris et caiiouicie non susceperit,
anathema sit." Coucil. Trid., Sess. iv. decret. de can. Scrip., p. 27. Paris,
1848.

2 Some few of the writers here referred to admit in their list " Baruch,"
hut these exceptions will be noticed in the note of editions at the end of this
chapter.

3 It may he useful here to remark that, with regard to the Council of
Laodicea, the books of Baruch and Lamentations, and Epistles, are inserted
in some copies. (Labb. et Coss., torn. i. p. 1607-8. Paris, 1671). They are
found in the version of Gentian Hervet ; but in the Latin copies of previ-
ous date they have no place. (See Merlin and Crab, apud Cosin Scholast.
Hist, of the Canon, sec. Ixi., note). Neither Aristenus nor Caranza have
them in their transcript. (See Beveridge's Synodicon. torn. i. p. 481); and
Caranza Summa Conciliorum (Paris, 1677, p. 140), published with permis-
sion and approbation. And as to the 6th Gen. Council, see Binius Concil.,
Laod. p. 305, tom. i. Paris, 1636.

* The third Council of Carthage, A.D. 397. Can. 47. This CouncO admits
some of the Books, but omits Baruch and the two books of Maccabees, that is
to say, no Greek copies admit them, though Dionysius Exiguus has added
them to his collection. Lab. et Coss. Concil., tom. ii. col. 1177. Paris, 1671.
See the learned Bishop Beveridge's note on this canon.

5 Rome, 1608. Ex Typogr. Vatican, tom. ii. p. 899.

CANOTJ OF SCRIPTURE. 17

Gregory's Works testifies that he rejected the Apocrypha
from the Sacred Canon.

In the Eighth — Saint John Damascene, the founder of
School Divinity among the Greeks, and Alcuinus, abbot of
St. Martins, Tours, France.

In the Ninth — Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople,
and the " Ordinary Gloss " begun by Alcuin or by Strabus,
and enlarged by divers writers.

In the Tenth— The Monk Flaviacensis and J]]lfrick,
abbot of Malmesbury.

In the Eleventh — Peter, abbot of Clugni.

In the Twelfth — Hugo de Sancto Yictore, Ricardus de
Sancto Victore, Eohert, abbot of^Duits, the author of the
"Gloss upon Gratian," and the English translation of the
Bible of this date in the College Library, Oxford.

In the Thirteenth — Hugo Cardinalis and Saint Bona-
venture.

In the Eourteenth — Eichard Eitz Ealph, archbishop of
Armagh and Primate of Ireland; Nicholas Lyra, and
Wycliffe.'^

In the Eifteenth — Alphonsus Tostatus, Thomas Wal-
densis, and Dionysius Carthusianus.

In the Sixteenth, we have the famous Cardinal Cajetan.
This illustrious prelate of the Roman church wrote a
Commentary on the Historical Books of the Old Testament,
which he dedicated to Pope Clement VIII. This book
appeared only twelve years before the meeting of the Trent
CoTincil. In the dedicatory epistle, the cardinal adopts
Jerome's rule relative to the broad distinction made by him
between the Canonical Books, properly so called, and the
Apocryphal. His words are : —

" Most blessed Father, — The waiversal Latin Chwrch is most

18 THE KOVBLTIES OP EOMANISM.

deeply indebted to St. Jerome, not only on account of Ms anno-
tations on tlie Scripture, but also because lie distinguislied
the Canonical Books from the non-canonical, inasmuch as he
thereby freed us fi-om the reproach of the Hebrews, who other-
wise might say that we were forging for ourselves books or
parts of books belonging to the ancient canon which they
never received." '

Jerome (a.d. 418) distinctly adhered to the books con-
stituting the Jewish canon^ and expressly rejected the
several Apocryphal books by name/ and this is admitted
by Cardinal BeUarmine himself.^

But what does Cardinal BeUarmine, one of the greatest
controversial writers the church of Rome has produced, say
to these authorities? The facts are too notorious to be
denied ; so he admits them, as already stated, but blunder-
ingly " confesses and avoids ■" (as lawyers say) the difficulty.
" It was no sin (he said) , no heresy in them [Augustine,
Jerome, Gregory, etc.] to reject these books, because no
General Council in their days had decreed anything touch-
ing them."* This may be the best reason that can be
advanced ; but it does not support the Trent theory.

Thus, then, we have taken some leading names of men
from each successive century, all (except Wycliffe) claimed
by the church of Rome as members of her communion, who
rejected the A])ocrypha. We come, then, to the following
conclusions — that, down to April, 1546, the Apocryphal
books formed no part of the canon of Scripture enjoined
by the church : that they became a part of the canon only

1 Cajetan Epis. dedio. ad P. Clem. VII. ante Coram, in lib. Hist. V. T.
Parisiis, 1546.

2 Hier. Ep. ad Paulinum. Oper. Ben. Edit. 1693. Tom, iv. col. 571-4;
and Prffifat. in Libros Solom. torn. i. pp. 938, 939.

3 De Veibo Dei. lib. i. c. x. sec. xx. torn. 1. p. 20. Edit. Prag. 1721.

4 Ibid, Id., sec. vii. p. 18.

CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 19

since that date : that the Council of Trent then invented
this new code, and that RomanistSj in maintaining that the
Apocrypha forms a part of the sacred canon of Scripture,
represent a new system and teach a novel doctrine.

Our readers will reasonably ask. Had not the Trent
Fathers some authority for what they did ? We now pro-
pose to examine the alleged authorities, for the subject is
an important one.

References to editions of the ^^ Fathers" mentioned in pages 16, 17.

Melito, A.D. 177 [he rejects all]. In Epist. ad Oneeium, apud Euseb.

Eocles. Hist. iv. c. 26, p. 191. Cantab., 1700; Bell, de verbo Dei.

lib. i. c. XX. p. 38, sect. 15. Prag. 1721.
Origen^ a.d. 200 [he rejects all]. In Expositione primi Psalmi, apud Euse-

bium. Hist. Eccles., lib. vi. c. 25, pp. 289, 290. Edit. Reading, Cantab.

1720. [But see Dupin, vol. i. p. 28. Loudon, 1692, as to Esther and

Ruth.]
Cyprian, a.d. 250 [or Uuffinus], excludes them all. See Bell, de verb. Dei.

lib, i. c. 20, p. 38, torn. i. Prag. 1721 ; Ibid. can. lib. ii. c. 11, p. 67.

Colon. 1605.
Athanasitis, a.d. 340 [rejects all but Baruch]. Epist. in Alex. AristeniEpp.

quEB dicuntur Cauoniose, Synopsi., Btveridge's Pandect, ii. Oxford,

1672 ; Athan. Oper. in Synops. torn. ii. p. 39. Paris, 1627.
miartj, A.D. 350 [rejects all] Prolog, iu Lib. Psaltn. sect. 15, p. 145.

Edit. Wirceburg, 1785 ; Bell, de verbo Dei., lib. ii. c. 1, sect. 15, torn. i.

p. 38. Prag. 1721.
Cyril of Jerusalem, a.d. 370. Numbers 22 books and rejects the Apocrypha,

but in these he is supposed to number " Baruch and the Epistles of

Jeremiah." Catech. iv. sect. 20. Oxon, 1703.
Gregory of Nazianzen, a.d. 370 [he rejects them all]. Ex Metricis ejus

Poematibus, p. 194, torn. ii. Paris, 1630, and see Beveridge's Pandect.

torn. ii. p. 178. Oxford, 1672.
Eusebius, a.d. 315, see above. Eccl. Hist, lib, iv. c. 26., lib. vi. c. 25,

p. 289, 90. Cantab. 1700. Chrou. lib. ii. ex Hier. versione, c. 10, p. 69.

Colon, 1605.
Zaodicea, Council of a d. 367. Can. Ix, ; Labbe. et Coss. torn. i. col. 1507.

Paris, 1671 [rejects all], but see note above, and Bin. Concil. Laod.

p. 305, torn. i. Paris, 1636.
Ainphilochius, a.d. 370 [who rejects them all]. Ex lambis ad Seleucum.

Beveridge's Pandect, ii. p, 179. Oxford, 1672.
Epiphanius, a,d. 390 [excludes them all]. De Mens, et Ponder, torn. ii.

p. 161. Colon. 1682.
Jerome, a.d. 392 [rejects them all]. (Symbolum Eufflni), torn, iv. p. 143;

Prsefatio in I'roverbia Soltimonis, torn. iii. 8, i, k ; Prsefatio in Hiere-

mian ; ibid, 9, c; Prsefatio in Danielem ; ibid. 9, g; Pisef. in librum

Kegum. ; ibid. p. 6, m, 6, a, b, c, Edit. Basil, 1525. Bell, de verb.

Dei., lib. i. c. 10, sect, xx, p. 20, torn. i. Prag. 1721.

20 THE NOVELTIES OF EOIIANISM.

Chalcedon, Council of, a.d. 451, which confirmed the canons of the Council

of Laodicea, art. 15, can. i. ; Lab. Cone. iv. col. 755. Paris, 1671.
Augustine, a.d. 420 [excludes them all from the sacred canon]. De Mirab.

SacriE. Scrip, lib. ii. c. 34, p. 26, torn, iii, pt. i. Paris, 1686. De Civ.

Dei, 1. 18, 0. 36 p. 519, torn. vii. Paris, 1685. Aug. contra. Secundum

Ep. Gaud. lib. i. c. 31, p. 821. Edit. Bass. 1797.
Junilius, A.D. 545 [he excludes Judith, Wisdom, and Maccabees]. De part.

divinas leges, lib. i. cap. 3, p. 80, torn. xii. Bibl. Patrum. Venet, 176.5.
Gregory I. a.d. 601, followed the list of Jerome. Greg. Mor. lib. 19, on

39th chap, of Job ; Bened. Edit. 1705, and Eomne, 1608, torn. ii. p. 899 ;

see Occam. Dial, pt. 3 ; Tract, i. lib. 3, c. 16. Lugd. 1495.
Damascene, a.d. 787 [rejected them all]. Orth. fid. lib. It. c. 18, p. 153.

Basil, 1539. See Canus. Loc. Theol. lib. 2, c. x. p. 69. Colon. 1605.
Alcuinus, A.D. 790 [rejected them all]. Advers. Elepant. lib. i. col. 941.

Paris, 1617.
Nicephorus, a.d 800 [rejected them all]. Nicep. Patr. C. P. Canon. Script.

in Operibus Pithei, cited by H. Lynd, Yia Devia, sec. 6, p. 159. Edit.

1850, London.
N.B.— For the remaining references, which, being of so late date, are only
valuable as showing a succession of testimony, the reader is referred to
H. Lvnd's Via Devia, sect. 5. London, reprint 1850, and Birkbeck's
Port. Evidence. Lond. 1849, vol. 2. (See Table of Contents, p. iii.)

CHAPTER III.

CANON or SCRIPTURE — [continue^.

'* As the church is evidently more ancient than the Scriptures, so the
Scriptures were not authentic, save by the authorit}- of the church." —
Eckii, Enchiridion de Ecclesid et ejus Autoritate,'eUi., p. 21. Colonic. 1567.

The authorities usually relied on in support of the asser-
tion that " the orthodox Fathers" received the Apocryphal
and the other books "with equal piety and reverence/''
and thus preserved them by a continuous succession of
witnesses in the churchy are : —

1. The Council of Sardis, a.d. 347.

2. The Council of Carthage, a.d. 397.

3. Saint Augustine, a.d. 397.

4. Pope Innocent I., a.d. 405.

CANON OP SCEIPTXIEB. 21

5. Pope Gelasius, a.d. 494.

6. The Council of Toledo, a.d. 675.

7. The Council of Morence, a.d. 1439.

8. The Trent Council, a.d. 1546.

I. The Council of Sardis. Father Calmet (a.d. 1730)
was the first, we believe, who advanced this council as an
authority. Independently of the fact that the genuineness
of the decrees of this alleged council is challenged, we
assert that these decrees, such as they are, give no list of
canonical books whatever. Dupin, the famous Trench
ecclesiastical historian, who has ransacked all the Councils,
and advanced all the authorities he could find, does not
refer to this council as an authority.

II. The Council of Carthage. This council is supposed,
by the 47th Canon, to have included the Apocrypha in the
canon or list of Scripture. Our objections to this au-
thority are the following.

Taking for granted, for the moment, that the decree is
genuine — this council was not a General, but only a
Provincial Council, and cannot, therefore, be cited to
establish a doctrine, or bind the church universal. It can
only be cited to establish a local custom. Cardinal
BeUarmine objected to the citation of this council on
another subject. He said, " This Provincial Council
cannot bind the bishop of Eome, nor the bishops of other
provinces,"! because the 26th Canon of this same council
declared that the bishop of Eome was not to be called
Chief Priest, and the council otherwise opposed the Eoman
Supremacy. Surely this was an heretical council.

But we may be reminded of Calmet^s argument, that the

1 Bell, de Pont. Kom., lib. ii. u. xxxi. sec. viii. p. 387, torn. i. Prag.
1721.

23 THE NOVELTIES OF KOMANISM.

canons of this council were confirmed by the council of
Constantinople, in TruUo, a.d. 695. Be it so ! But, alas !
for the over zeal of Calmet, who relies on this proof. Was
he not aware that this latter council was wholly con-
demned by popes, as we are informed by the Jesuit
Fathers, Labbe and Cossart P^ A rather awkward mistake
this ! But, alas ! again, for consistency — this same council
in Trullo also confirmed the canons of the council of
Laodicea ! ^ which expressly rejected the Apocrypha. Did
the two liundred and eleven bishops in Trullo confirm two
conflicting hsts ? It is more reasonable to suppose that they
confirmed those of the earher council, whose decrees had
never been questioned, but, on the contrary, had already
been confirmed by the General Council of Chalcedon.

But it may be also objected, that the Council of Laodicea
was equally a Provincial Council. We admit it; but the
60th Canon of this council, which recites the Canonical
Books,^ was confirmed by the General Council of Chalcedon,
A.D. 451, •■ and is therefore binding on every member of the
Eomish church. And while some Romanists prefer the
authority of Cartilage over Laodicea, because Leo IV.
(a.d. 847) is stated to have confirmed the decrees of the
former, they overlook the fact that Leo IV., in the same
place, contirmed the decrees of the Council of Laodicea also,
and thus make a pope confirm two different lists. An
additional reason is thus afforded for supposing that the
canon of the later council, that of Carthage, was forged, and
not knoflu to Leo IV., and the recognition falsely attri-
buted to him.

1 Lab. et Coss. Cond. Genl., torn. vi. col. 1316. Paris, 1671.

2 Lab et Cos. Concl. Genl, torn vi., ool. 1140, can. ii. Paris, 1671.

3 Binius Concl., Cone. Laod. can. Ix., torn. i. p. 304. Paris, 1636.

* See Cosin's "Scholast. Hist, of the Canons," sec. Ix.-sxv. London, 1672.

CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 23

The second difficulty Eomanists have to contend with
is, that the list now professed by their church does not
agree with the list supposed to be given in the 47th Canon
of the Council of Carthage, the canon relied on.^ Por
instance, the books of Maccabees are not found in any of the
Greek copies or manuscripts of this council, but only in
Latin translations, which argues a forgery somewhere.
Then, again, by a strange blunder, the council has enume-
rated Jive books of Solomon — that is, — besides Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which are in the
Hebrew Canon, and, what is called in the Septuagint, the
Wisdom of Solomon, attributed to him, — but also "the
Book of Jesus the Son of Sirach/' written eight hundred
years after the death of Solomon.

Sericius was at this date (a.d. 397) bishop of Rome,
Caesarius and Atticns being Consuls, as the council itself
relates ; and yet the canon which is alleged to contain the
list of Canonical Books refers to Pope Boniface, who was
not bishop until 418, twenty years after,^ a very cogent
reason for supposing that the man who forged the canon
lived so long after the council was held, that he forgot who
was bishop of Rome at the time.

Eomanists are not at all agreed among themselves as
to the genuineness of tliu particular canon. Cardinal
Baronius, the famous annahst, was obliged to admit that —
" Not all the canons of this council are established ; but
they are allowed in divers other Councils of Carthage, as,
namely, that canon wherein the number of Sacred Books is
defined "^ and Binius, the pubhsher of the " Councils," said
"fifty canons which were attributed to that council, were

1 Labb. et Coss., torn. ii. col. 117 Paris, 1671.

2 See the I.ist of the Popes. Ibid., torn. xvi. col. 130.

3 Baron. Annal. Ann. 397, n. 56, p. 249. Edit. Lucse. 1740.

24 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

not all confirmed by it, but by other Councils of Carthage^ as,
namely, the 47th Canon." ^ So that it is a mistake after all
to refer us to the Council of a.d. 397 ! Take for granted it
was another council — say that of a.d. 419, to which the
decree is sometimes shifted over — then we have another
difficulty. Dupin informs us that this council merely pro-
posed the list, and that other churches were to be consulted
for its confirmation.^ But it is quite a mistake to suppose
that even this council published a list ; and the question is
scarcely worth while arguing until Romanists are themselves
agreed upon the precise council which did pass the alleged
canon or list, and at what date.

So much, then, for this authority.

III. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, is supposed to have
subscribed the 47th Canon of the Council of Carthage,
above referred to. But we have shown that there was no
such canon. Are we to suppose that he professed a
different Rule of Faith from that of Jerome ? If so, where
is the unity of teaching ? Augustine was bishop in Africa ;
Jerome a presbyter at Rome. But it is certain that Augustine
expressly excluded these various Apocryphal books by
name from the canon of Sacred Scripture f and he distin-
guished what he means by the Divine Canon from the
ordinary canon.' Here Bellarmine comes again to the
rescue. He says "that St. Augustine was most certain
that all Canonical Books were of infallible truth ; but was
not alike certain that all the Books of Scripture were
canonical : for, if he did think so, yet he knew the point was

1 Bin. Concl. Carth. III., p. 722. Tom. i. Lutet. Paris, 1636.

2 Dupin. Vol. i. pp. 8, 9, fol. edit. London, 1699.

3 Ang. de Civit. Bei. lib. xvii. c. 20, p. 508, and p. 483. Lib. xviii. c. 26,
torn. vii. Paris, 168.5.

4 De Mirab. Sacrse. Scrip. Lib. ii. cap. 34, p. 26, torn. iii. Paris, 1680.

CANON OP SCEIPTUEE. 25

not as yet defined ly a General Cotmcil ; and therefore,
without any stain of heresy, some books might be received
by some persons for Apocryphal." ^ In other words, this is
an apology for Augustine for not holding, in a.d. 397, the
same belief as the Council of Trent in a.b. 1546 ! We are
quite aware that, in his " Christian Doctrine" Augustine is
supposed to give a Kst of the canon of Scripture, in which
the Apocryphal books are included. But this is easily
answered; and we prefer to do so in the words of the
eminent Komish divine, Cardinal Cajetan, who wrote on this
subject as follows : —

" Here we end our commentariea on the Historical Books of
the Old Testament; for the remainder — viz., Judith, Tobit,
and the books of Maccabees, a/re not included by St. Jerome
among the Canonical Boohs, but are placed along with "Wisdom
and Ecclesiasticus, among the Apocryphal. Do not be uneasy,
tyro, if you should anywhere find those (Apocryphal) books
enumerated amongst the canonical, either by holy councils,
or by holy doctors ; for the words both of councils and of
doctors must be reduced to the judgment of Jerome; and,
according to his decision, these boohs (the Apocryphal books
enumerated), and if there are any others like them in the
canon of the Bible, a/re not canonical — that is to say, do not
contaiu rules for confirming Articles of Faith; they may, how-
ever, be called canonical, as containing rules for the edification of
the faithful, inasmuch as they have been admitted into this
canon of the Bible, and authorized for this very purpose.
With this distinction, you wiLL be able to discern the meaaiug of
the words of Augustine (de Doctr. Christ., lib. ii.), as also the
decrees of the Council of Florence, under Eugenius IV., and
the Provincial Councils of Carthage and Laodicea, and of
Popes Iimocent and Gelasius." ^

1 Bell, de Terbo. Dei, lib. i. cap. x., sec. vii. p. 18, torn. i. Prag. 1721.

2 Cajetan ia omnes authenticos Vet. Test. Hist. Lib. Comment, p. 482,
Parisiis, 1546.

26 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

It may be mentioned, by the way, that Cajetan was most
highly esteemed by his contemporaries : he was called the
" incomparable theologian ''' — " to whom, as to a common
oracle, men were wont to resort in all difficult questions
of theology."

Now, what do we learn from this illustrious doctor and
cardinal of the aide-Tient Roman church ! First, that the
church of Eome, in his day (a.d. 1533), did not admit the
Apocrypha into the sacred canon of Scripture as of any
authority on questions of faith, but allowed them to be
read for the edification of the faithful, assigning to them
exactly the same value as that accorded by the church of
England, in her Sixth Article, at the present day. On the
other hand, the Council of Trent (which now rules the teach-
ing of the church of Eome), twelve years after Cajetan wrote
the above, placed the two classes of books exactly on the
same level, as being of equal authority in establishing ques-
tions of faith, and for which purpose they are now quoted.
The same council, too, cursed to all eternity, all who
presumed to oppose this, her modern innovation ! And
secondly, we learn from Cajetan in what light we are to
regard the word " canonical " when used by Augustine and
the other authorities relied on who make a marked distinc-
tion between the sacred canon, as authority in questions of
faith, and the ordinary phrase " C!anon of the Bible " [in
canone Bihiia, are his words). Since Cajetan wrote, the
alleged lists of Carthage, Innocent, and Gelasius have been
proved to be spurious.

Augustine (on the sixth Psalm, sec. 9) said, "The Jews
carry the colione on which the Christian faith is built ; they
have been constituted our librarians." And his contemporary,
Jerome, said — " The church knows nothing of the Apo-

CANON OF SCEIPTTIRE. 27

cryplia; recourse mnst be had to the Hebrew hooh, from
whicli the Lord speaks, and out of which the disciples take
their example." ^

We may here mention that Cardinal Bellarmine, in his
extreme anxiety to press Augustine into the service of Ilome,'
quotes a passage from a work entitled "Ad Orosium,"
to prove " Ecclesiasticus " canonical Scripture ; but, when
the same tract is quoted against the church of Rome on
another of her dogmas, with the short memory peculiar to
this Jesuit writer, he says — " It is not St. Augustine's work,
as learned men confess." ^ We should not have thought
this worth mentioning were not Bellarmine Rome's great
controversial authority.

IV. The next authority relied on is a hst said to be in a
decretal of Pope Innocent I., a.d. 405.* No one ever
heard of this alleged list of Innocent's for 460 years after
the date of that letter ; and we hear of it for the first time
in the ninth century, when the mass of forged decretals
appeared. We challenge Romanists to prove the contrary.
None but a dishonest controversiahst would, at the present
day, quote this epistle as genuine.

The list stands just at the end, where it was convenient
for a forger to add to it, and to render the difficulty still
more oppressing, in the earliest copies of this letter we do
not find the book of "Tobit." ^

We should not omit to notice here the testimony of
Isidore of Pelusium,* quoted by Messrs. Kirk and Berington,
in their " Faith of Catholics," as a witness in favour of the

1 Hieron, Prsof. in Paralipon.

2 Lib. i., De Verbo Dei, cap. 14.

3 Bell, de Miss. lib. ii. c. 12, p. 913, torn. iv. Edit. Colon. 1617.

* Ep. ad Exuperium, n. 7, torn. ii. col. 1256, Lab. Concil. Pans, 1671.

5 Merlin's Councils, fol. clxxxv. Colon. 1535.

6 L. i. Ep. 369, CjTO., p. 96. Paris, 1633.

28 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

Eomish canon. We give the quotation as we find it, and
we are quite prepared to subscribe to what he says : —

" The sacred volumes, wHch contain tlie testimonies of the
Divine wi-itinga, are steps whereby we ascend unto God. All
those books, therefore, that are set before thee in the church
of God, receive as tried gold, they having being tried in the
fire by the Divine Spirit of truth. But leave aside those
which are scattered about without that church — even though
they may contain something persuasive to holiness."

V. At a council supposed to have been held by GelasiuSj
at Eome, 494, a list of Canonical Books, it is alleged, was
published, which included the Apocrypha. We assert, in
the first place, that one of the oldest copies in existence, that
in the pope's library, actually gives this council without any
list of the hooks of Scripture in it ! ■"■ thus showing the list
relied on to be a later addition. But the whole council is
such a manifest forgery — resting only on the authority of
Isidore Mercator, of the ninth century, an impostor re-
pudiated by all learned men — that no controversialist of the
present day would risk his credit as an honest man by
seriously advancing such an authority. Dr. Milner, who
was bold enough to assert anything to serve his purpose,
relied on this as an authority ; and so also do Messrs. Kirk
and Berington, in their " Faith of Catholics."

"VI. Father Calmet also refers us to the Council of
Toledo, in Spain, a.d. 675. Surely he must be hard
pressed for evidence ! At this Provincial Council only
seventeen bishops were assembled. They published no
list : they merely quoted a passage from the " Book of
Wisdom,'' and this is brought forward to prove the canon-
ical authority of the whole of the Apocrypha ! Messrs.

1 See Berhard in Canones Gratiani. roL ii. p. 316.

CANON OF SCEIPTIIEE. 29

Kirk and Berington quote this council as follows : — " If
any one sliall say, or shall believe, that other Scriptures,
besides those which the Catholic church has received, are to
be esteemed of authority, or to be venerated, let him be
anathema -."^ to which we should be quite willing to sub-
scribe, but for the curse.

VII. Father Calmet, and some others, recklessly rely on
the Council of Florence, held under Pope Eugenius IV.,
A.D. 1439. Here is another blunder. This council said
nothing at all about the books of Scripture ! After the
council had closed its sittings, Eugenius drew up some
decrees, as "instructions to the Armenians," and which
contained a list including the Apocrypha. We have aheady
seen what Cajetan thought of this list. Besides, a pope's
decree does not bind the Eoman church unless confirmed
by a General Council.

This brings us to the middle of the fifteenth century — a
period not sufficiently ancient to produce authorities of any
value ; thus we are brought — ■

VIII. To the decree of Trent, (1546), as the sole autho-
rity on which the Romanist has to rely to support his bold
assertion. Cardinal Bellarmine, referring to another equally
untenable assertion, says as to this council — " This testimony
ought to sufBce, if they had no other ;" ^ but we, perverse,
stiffuecked heretics, think differently.

Sufficient has surely been said to warrant our having
called in question the pretensions to antiquity, and autho-
rity for the teaching of the Roman church in the question
of the " Canon of Scripture."

1 Waterworth's edition. London, 1846, vol. i. p. 335. The reference
to the council is— Can. xii. col. 1228, torn. ii. Lab. Council. Paris, 1671.

2 Bell, de effectu Saor. lib. ii. c. 25. sect. 4. p. 109, torn. iii. Prag.
1721.

CHAPTER IV.

INTEEPEETATION OF SCEIPTUEE.

*' If any one has the interpretation of tiie church of Rome concerning any
text of Scripture, although he does not understand how the interpretation
suits the text, yet he possesses the identical Word of God." — Card. Sosius de
Expresso Verba Dei, p. 623. Ed. 1584.

The interpretation of Scripture is next in importance to the
integrity of the Canon. We shall now consider what
modern Rome teaches on this head.

In November, 1564, for the frst time, professors of the
Roman religion were practically precluded from all benefit of
the Scriptures.'^ By the third article of Pope Pius' Creed,
they " promise, vow, and swear most constantly to hold and
profess " as follows : —

" I also admit the Scriptures, according to the sense whicli
the Holy Mother Church has held and does hold, to whom it
belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the
Scriptures ; nor will I ever take and interpret them otherwise
than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

Lest any objection be taken, we have adopted the trans-
lation of the eminent Roman Catholic layman, Charles
Butler, Esq. In his "Book of the Roman Catholic Church,"'^
he says that the Creed, from which the above is extracted,
" was received throughout the universal church, and has
ever [since its publication] been considered, in every part oi
the world, as an accurate and explicit summary of the
Roman Catholic faith. Non-Catholics, in their admission

1 We have not forgotten the Councils of Toulouse, A.D. 1229, and that of
Oxford, 1408, which prohibited the use of vernacular translations ; but these
were provincial councils.

2 Page 6. London, 1825.

INTEEPEETATION OP SCRIPTURE. 31

into the Catholic church, pubhcly repeat and testify their
assent to it, without restriction or reservation." And
Dr. Milner, in his " End of Controversy " (Letter XIX.),
says that this Creed is " everywhere recited and professed to
the strict letter."

There are two new propositions here : —

1. This church requires us to admit the Scriptures only
according to the sense she puts upon them, to whom (as she
pretends) it belongs to judge of their true sense.

%. That we are never to advance an interpretation of them,
except the Fathers are all agreed on that interpretation.

Every Eomish bishop and priest swears " to God on his
Holy Gospels" to "procure as far as lies in his power"
that this doctrine " shall be held, and taught, and preached
by all who are under them, or are entrusted under their care."

I. With regard to these propositions, we assert that
never was such a yoke imposed upon Christians before
November, 1564, and therefore on these two points
Eomish priests in England represent a new system of
religion, " anything they may assert to the contrary thereof
in anywise notwithstanding."

The church of Eome requires of its members two impos-
sibilities. The Eoman church has never published any
authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures, nor is there
any possibility of ascertaining what interpretation of Scrip-
ture she has or does hold. Even the notes invariably
appended to the Eomish editions, (and indeed without which
no editions whatever are allowed), are of no recognised
authority. Before a Eomanist can advance an interpretation,
he must prove that that particular interpretation has always
been and still is held by the church. It is not what this
priest, what this bishop, or that pope, has said, but what

32 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISK.

THE CHUECH says ; and we repeat that the church of Eome
has never published an authoritative interpretation of even
one single chapter of the BiLle ! The church cannot speak
except by the mouth of a General Council^ and no General
Council has thus spoken out. If any has spoken^ let the
interpretation be produced.

It is true that Cardinal Hosius said, " If any one has the
interpretation of the church of Eome concerning any text of
Scripture, although he does not understand hovr the inter-
pretation suits the text, yet he possesses the identical Word
of God." 1 It is right that the cardinal should say, if any
one has ! Were this a secular matter, we should be tempted
to say, "first catch your hare.'" But when we are told
where we are to find the church's interpretation, we shall be
the better able to judge whether we possess the identical
word of God; as yet, we are satisfied that we have the
word of God, without the church's interpretation of it.

But when we have found an interpretation, we may dis-
cover it to be contradictory to that given by the same church
at another period under different circumstances ; and this is
admitted by no less an individual than Cardinal Cusanus,
who was the pope's legate, sent to Bohemia about the
middle of the 15th century: "Nor is it surprising," said
this prelate, while endeavouring to induce the Bohemians
to accept the interpretation of the church as to half com-
munion, "if the practice of the church interprets the Scrip-
tures at one time in one manner and at another in another
— for the Scriptures follow the church, which is the earlier
of the two, and on account of which Scripture (is given), and
not conversely." ^

1 Card. HoBius de Expreeso Verbo Dei, p. 623. Ed. 1584.

2 Card. Cusan. Epia. vii. ad Bohem. 0pp. torn. ii. pp. 857, 858. Basil,
1565.

INTEKPRETATION OF SCRIPTUUE. 33

We presume that we are correct in defining tlie cliurch,
for the purpose of enunciating an authoritative declaration^
to be a General Council. Bellarmine tells uSj " A lawful
council, by the most general consent, is most properly
termed the Church." ^ This is what he calls the "Kepre-
sentative Church." ^ The Trent Council, " a lawful coun-
cil," according to Eomish belief, tried its hand at an autho-
ritative interpretation of the 6th chapter of St. John's
Gospel, but could not agree on the matter, and abandoned
even the hope of coming to an agreement. Then there is
the "Essential Church," which Bellarmine defines in the
same place to be " a company of men professing the same
Christian faith and sacraments, and acknowledging the bishop
of Eome to be the Chief Pastor and Yicar of Christ on
earth." Independently of the impossibility of appeal to
such a tribunal to obtain the sense of the church, we have
here laymen, joined with clerics, made a court of appeal.
As yet, such a tribunal has not published the sense of the
church on any single text of Scripture. Then there is
the " Consistorial Church," which Bellarmine tells us con-
sists of " the pope and cardinals," and is called " The
Court of Eome." Here we approach something more
tangible. Directly, this tribunal has published no interpre-
tation of the Scriptures ; but it has indirectly sanctioned
and published interpretations of isolated texts. " The Sacred
Congregation of Eites," at Eome, holds a delegated authority
from this tribunal. We shall give a few examples of inter-
pretations (the " sense of the church ") sanctioned by them.
We have before us the London edition, 1853, of Liguori's
" Glories of Mary," bearing Dr. Wiseman's own sanction

1 Bell, de Cone, et Eccles. lib. i. c. 18, sec. 5. Prag. 1721.
'' Ibid. id. lib. iii. c. 2, de Eccles.

34 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

and "cordial recommendation to the faithful." In the
preface (p. xviii.) we are told — " Eememberj dear reader,
that it [this book] has been strictly examined by the
authority which is charged by God himself to instruct
you, and that that authority has declared that it contains
NOTHING! worthy of censure." The authority here
pointed out is the " Sacred Congregation of Eites," dele-
gated by the " Consistorial Church." In page 215, we
have a very original interpretation of the church's sense of
that beautiful and encouraging exhortation of St. Paul
(Heb. iv. 16), "Let us, therefore, come boldly unto the throne
of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help
in time of need." To this text, set out verbatim, is added,
" Mary [i.e., the Blessed Virgin] is that throne of grace to
which the apostle Saint Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews
(iv. 16), exhorts us to fly with confidence, that we may ob-
tain Divine mercy, and all the help we need for our salva-
tion !" Again (page 88), " In the first chapter of the book
of Genesis, we read that ' God made two great lights ; a
greater light to rule the day, and a lesser light to rule the
night' (Gen. i. 16)." We are told in this book "that
Christ is the greater hght to rule the just, and Mary the
lesser hght to rule sinners!" Again (p. 11), the inspired
psalmist exclaimed, " God hath anointed thee with the oil
of gladness" (Psalm xlv. 7). We, simple Protestants, be-
lieve that David spoke this of our King, High Priest, and
Eedeebier, Christ : the " Consistorial Church," however,
thinks otherwise, for it tells us — " This was foretold by the
prophet David himself, for he says that God (so to speak)
consecrated Mary, Queen of Mercy, anointing her with the
oil of gladness I" Once more. In the " Song of Solomon"

1 The capitals are in the original.

INTERPKETATION OP SCEIPTUEE. 35

(i. 6) we read — " They made me keeper of the vineyards."
The " Consistorial Church" tells us (p. 23)— "This refers
to the Most Blessed Virgin !" And so we might illustrate
numerous interpretations of texts of Scripture in this
book, by which it is evident that this tribunal (the
Consistorial Church) has wholly forfeited its re])utation as
an interpreter of Scripture, and as an exponent of the
" sense of the church ;" for it is evident that the church
has not always held these interpretations.

We now come to what Bellarmine calls " The Virtual
Church," that is, " the bishop of Rome, who is said to be
the chief pastor of the whole church, and hath in himself
eminently and virtually both truth and infallibility of judg-
ment, and upon whom dependeth all that certainty of truth
which is found in the whole church." Here, then, we come
to something apparently/ practical ! But let us see whether
we are practically benefited by this ready source of appeal.
In the first place, no pope has ever published or sanctioned
an interpretation of the Scriptures. Popes, however, have
sanctioned editions of Scripture ; but these were miserably
faulty. Clement VIII. published an edition of the Vulgate,
and condemned the previous edition of Pope Sixtus V., who
had subjected to excommunication any one who should dare
to alter his edition, even in the smallest particle, and had
declared that the offender was not to be absolved even by
a pope !

We have, however, had the advantage of obtainmg from
some popes infallible interpretations of isolated texts.
Take, for instance, the text from Gen. i. 16, the sense of
which, as we have seen, the "Consistorial Church" has
fixed. Pope Gregory IX. has sanctioned in his Decretals
another interpretation. He says : —

36 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

" God made two great lights in the firmament of heaven, the
gi-eater light to ride the day and the lesser light to mle the
night. Tor the firmament of the heaven, that is, of the
universal church, God made two great lights, that is, He
appointed two dignities, which are the pontifical authority
and the kingly power." ^

This exposition was addressed by Pope Innocent III. to
the emperor of Constantinople, and thus it had the sanction
of two popes. It is given in a Decretal Epistle, one
of the most solemn papal documents ; and Gratian, in the
Eoman Canon Law, asserts that the Popes^ Decretal Epistles
are to be counted among the Canonical Scriptures.^ But
hear how contemptuously a Roman Catholic priest, Dr.
Doyle, treated the interpretation of Scripture by popes.
We transcribe Dr. Doyle's own words : —

" As to the arguments from Scripture or tradition adduced
by him [Pope Gregory VII.] or by any of his successors, they
are such as will amuse or rather excite the pity of a serious
mind. One [Pope Boniface VIII.] wisely observed, that be-
cause an apostle said to our Lord, ' Behold, there are two
swords here,' the popes have a right to depose kings. Such
an inference might appear plausible to him, who was already
resolved on an usurpation of right ; hut a Christian is forced to
Mush at such a profanation of the word of God. Gregory
* * * quotes from St. Paul to the Oorinthiaus (1 Cor. vi. 3),
' Know you not that we shall judge angels themselves ? how
much more worldly things ?' and from this passage he claims
to be invested with power of invading the rights of kings and
emperors, nay, of remodelling the state of society through-
out the world ; * * # but to offer arguments against such
theories is too humiliating to the common sen^e of men." ^

1 Decret. D. Greg. P. IX. de Majoritate et obedientii. Tit. 33, p. 424,
Turin. IG-ll; and Gcata Innocentii III. vol. i. 29, ed. 1632.

'- Cor. Jur. Can. torn. i. Dis. xix. part. i. cap. vi. p. 90. Paris, 1612, and
col. 35. EJit. Lcipsic, 1839.

3 Dr. Jnines Doj'le, "Essay on the Catholic Claims," etc. Dublin, John
Coyne, 1826, pp. 52—67.

INTEEPEETATION OF SCUIPTCRE. , 37

The " Virtual Church " is here taken to task by a priest,
in no measured terms, for advancing profane interpretations
of the Scriptures ; and we doubt much if the " Virtual
Church " will be considered infallible, when generally known,
even by " good Catholics."

There is yet another tribunal, and that is the parish
priest. It is a great delusion under which some lay
Eomanists are labouring, when they are led to believe that
the parish priest, as the representative of the church in his
district, is enabled to give the church''s infallible interpreta-
tion of any given text. Whether every parish ])riest assumes
this position we do not know : we have had the advantage of
hearing the expositions of some of them, and we can give but
a poor report of their infallibility in proposing the church's
interpretation : their great authority, Bellarmine, may, we
presume, be taken as a type. Take one example of his inter-
pretation, namely, on the text Job i. 14 — " The oxen were
ploughing, and the asses feeding beside them." " By the
oxen (says the cardinal) are meant the learned doctors of the
church : by the asses are meant the ignorant people, which,
out of simple belief, rest satisfied in the understanding of
their superiors." ^ We do not quote this in ridicule ;
yet, while protesting against this interpretation, we must
admit our conviction that there is a great deal of truth in
Bellarmine's estimation of the relative position of the parish
priest and his flock.

But even the parish priest dares not offer an interpreta-
tion of any proposed text, unless it can be shown that his
church has held and does hold that particular interpreta-
tion : so that, in fact, we come back to the original
diificulty in ascertaining what the church has taught and

1 Bell. Lib. i. de Justif, chap. vii. sec. ix. Prag. 1721.

38 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

does teach, for we might show that individual priests
have interpreted the same texts differently. This fact is
notorious ; and the difference is more apparent between the
ante and post Tridentine divines. We conclude, there-
fore, that, if the Eomanist be required to hold that
interpretation alone which his church has always held
and does hold, he will have an insuperable difficulty put in
his way in reading or understanding the Scriptures with any
profit to himself; for we challenge the production of such
an interpretation.

II. Having treated of that part of the Eomish creed
which restricts the interpretation of the Scriptures " to the
sense which the Holy Mother Church has held and does
hold," we now proceed to the continuation of this Article of
Paith, to believe which is declared to be necessary for our
salvation : — " Nor wiU I ever take or interpret them [the
Scriptures] otherwise than according to the unanimous
consent (or agreement) of the Fathers.''-' This additional
restriction placed on the Scriptures by the church of Rome
was for \k<i first time imposed on the Christian world in
November, 1564. We challenge Romanists to produce
this unanimous agreement of the Fathers on any text of
Scripture on which modern Romish controversialists rely in
order to support any of the modern doctrines against which
Protestants protest.

It is a striking fact that, at the Fourth Session of the
Trent Council (April, 1546), the assembled divines took
this very subject under their consideration, and passed a
decree, in which they stated that, " in order to restrain

1 "Nee earn unquam nisi juxta unanimem eonBensum Patrum accipiam et
interpretabor." Pope I'ius' Creed. Art. iii. Coiicil. Trid. Apud Bullas,
p. 311. Eoma?, 1564.

INTEEPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 39

petulant spirits, no one, relying on liis own skill, shall, in
mattei's of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification
of Christian practice, wresting the sacred Scriptures to his
own sense, dare to interpret them contrary to the unanimous
agreement of the Fathers."^

This is reasonable enough ; for he would indeed be a
rash man who, " relying on his own skill," should put an
interpretation on any given text contrary to the universally
accepted interpretation of all Christian divines from the
time of the apostles, where such interpretation can be
ascertained; but this is a very different thing from what
the present creed of the Eoman church requires, which
precludes aU interpretations whatever, unless aU these
Christian Fathers are agreed on that particular interpreta-
tion advanced. We may, therefore, safely assume that,
down to November, 1564, no Christian was ever required
to subscribe such a declaration of faith. It is, therefore,
evident that this is a new " Article of Faith," invented by
Pope Pius IV., unless, indeed, it be considered as but a
modification and an approval of the requirements of the third
canon of the fourth Lateran Council, and of the injunctions
of Pope Innocent IV. to the authorities of Lombardy.^

But how does this rule work, when practically put to
the test ? Take the leading text, Matt. xvi. 18, relied on
by Eomanists to estabhsh the supremacy of Peter, and, by
assumed deduction, that of the pope of Kome, by declaring
that Peter was the roch on which Christ was to build his
church. Bellarmine asserted that the Fathers were unani-
mous in this interpretation. This drew forth the rebuke of

1 "Aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum." Sess. iv. Decret.
de edit, et usu sacrorum librorum.

2 Lab. et Coss. torn. xiv. col. 440, et seq. Paris, 1671.

40 THE NO'VELTIES OF EOMANISM.

a celebrated Roman Catholic writer, Launoy/ who, in
reply, showed that sixteen Fathers and Doctors interpreted
the text in question as referring to Christ, and not to Peter :
eight held that the church was not to be built on Peter
alone, but on all the apostles equally ; flhilst only seventeen
adopted the modern Eoman interpretation. Not one of
them, however, derived from that text the pope's Supre-
macy. The Fathers differing, then, in interpretation, this
important text must, according to modern Papal theory,
remain a dead letter to Eomanists.^ Take another famous
text — 1 Cor. iii. 15, which is now continually advanced to
prove the Eomish doctrine of Purgatory. Bellarmine^
divides the text into five heads, or five great diificulties, and
on each head or difficulty he shows various conflicting
opinions of the Fathers, and none of them agreeing with
the modern Romish interpretation. He, nevertheless,
concludes that the text does refer to the Romish pur-
gatory ; but, so satisfied was Bellarmine that there was no
unity of interpretation among the Fathers, that he was
constrained to admit that "their writings were not the rule
of faith, neither have they any authority to bind."* So
conscious, indeed, are Romanists of their weakness in this
respect, that they have corrupted the genuine text of some
of these Fathers, to make them speak modern Popery :

1 Laiinoii Opera, torn. v. p. ii. pt. 95, Epist. vii. lib. v. Gul. Voello. Col.
AUob. 1731.

2 The Reductio ad absurdiim sometimes forcibly proves the fallacy of a
proposition. The Romanists contend for literal interpretation here and else-
where. "The rnck" (say they) "must be Pc^rr— it cannot be the doctrine just
before propounded by Feter." In this very same chapter, Matt, xvi., in the
23rd verse, flhrist addresses Peter — " Get thee behind me, Satan ;" therefore
Peter was literally the Devil; therefore the church of Eome, being founded
on Peter, is founded on Satan.

3 Bell. De Purg. lib. i. torn. i. c. 4. Prag. 1721.

i ScriptaPatrum non sunt regula-fidci, nee habent auctoritatemohligandi.
Bell, de Concil. author. Lib. ii. c. 12, sec. xii. Prag. 1721.

INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 41

at other times^ they have ordered various passages to be
expunged from their works : not unfrcquently they palm off
spurious productions of later date, as the works of an early
Eather ; and when the evidence against them is too pal-
pable, they do not hesitate to reject the authority altogether.
Eor instance, take one of the most esteemed of all the
Fathers, Augustine, who referring to the text 1 Cor. iii. 15,
said — " By this fire is meant the fire of tribulation in this
world." BeUarmine says — " This opinion of his we have
rejected."'- Again, Augustine says — " Those words of St.
Luke, ' I will not henceforth drink of the fruit of the vine,'
are to be understood of the sacramental cup" — and
deduced that there was no change of the substance of
the elements ; BeUarmine again therefore opposed him, and
said — "He did not well consider of that text, which
appears by this that he passed it over lightly."^

Another curious illustration we have in the works of the
Jesuit Maldonatus. Augustine said — " The Israelites ate of
the same spiritual meat, but not the same corporeal which
we eat ; for they ate manna, we another meat ; but both the
same spiritual meat." Maldonatus said — " I am verily per-
suaded that if Augustine had been living in these days, and
had seen the Calvinists so interpret St. Paul, he would have
been of another mind, especially being an utter enemy to
heretics." ^ Once more, Augustine said — " Christ spoke
these words : ' This is my body,' when he gave a sign of his
body." Harding, the opponent of Jewel, made a curious
explanation, peculiarly characteristic of Eomanists and
Eomanism. He explains this most palpable contradiction to

1 Bell, de Purg. lib. i. cap. v. sec. 36. Prag. 1721. I am indebted for
some of these facts to Sir H. Lynd's " Via Hevia."

2 Bell, de Euch. lib. i. cap. xl. sec. 61.

3 Maid, in Job. vi. n. 50, p. 1476. Lug. 1615, and col. 732, Mussip. 1596.

42 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

the Romisli theory thus : — " St. Augustine, fighting against
the ManicheeSj oftentimes useth not his own sense and
meaning, but those things which by some means, however
it were, might seem to give him advantage against them, so
as he might put them to the worst." ^ So tlaat a Romanist
would even wilfully misinterpret Scripture if thereby he
could secure an advantage over his opponent— so that " the
end sanctifies the means \"

Thus we might go on. In fact, the " unanimous agree-
ment of the Fathers" is not only not to be found, but when
a Father disagrees from modern Romanism, the point in
question is at once repudiated, the interpretation rejected,
and the book expurgated or prohibited.

Cornelius Mus, indeed, most ingenuously confessed that
he would rather give more credit to one pope in matters
of faith, than to thousands of Augustines, Jeromes, or
Gregories.^

There is, however, another peculiarity which we desire to
note on this article of the Romish creed. We have not yet
met with one Papal controversialist, who has undertaken to
vindicate this particular doctrine of his church. While all
the other points of faith are combated for and defended as
either Scriptural or apostolic, this one stands alone, unde-
fended, unsupported, and uuvindicated.

1 Jewel. Art. xii. p. 346. Lond. 1609.

2 Ego ut ingenue fateor, plus uni summo Pontifici credereni, in his qate
fidei mj'steria tangunt, quam mille Augustiiiia, Hieronymis, Gregoriis, etc.
Cornel. Musaus Epise. Bitunt. in En. ad Roman, i. cap. 14, p. 606. Venet.
1.388.

CHAPTER V.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

" That we may in all things attain the truth, that we may not err in any-
thing, we ought ever to hold it a fixed principle, that what I see white I
believe to he black, if the Hierarchical church so define it to be." l —
Ignatius Loyola.

In tHs chapter we propose to consider the doctrine of
Trans ubstantiation, which teaches that there is a conversion
of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the
whole substance of the wine into the blood of Christ, after
the priest has pronounced the words of consecration. ^
Nothing is supposed to remain of the pre-existing elements
but what Eomanists call the accidents — namely, the size,
shape, and smell, of bread and wine. The bread and wine
cease to exist, but in their place comes "entire Christ,"
the true body, blood, bones, nerves, soul, and divinity,^ —
the very same body which was crucified, was buried, rose
again, and ascended into heaven, — under the " appearance "
of bread and wine.

1 "The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola, translated from the
authorized Latin," by Charles Seager, M.A., " to which is prefixed a Preface
by the Right Rev. Nicholas "Wiseman, D.D.," pp. 180. London, 1847.

2 "Atque in sanctissimo Eucharistise Sacramento esse vere, realiteret sub-
stantialiter corpus et sanguinem, una cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri
Jesu Christi, fierique conversionem totius substantise panis in corpus, et
totius substantise vini in sanguinem." — Pope Pius' Creed. " Ordo Adminis-
trandi Sacramenti," p. 67. London, 1840. And Can. i. Decree concerning
this sacrament, sess. xiii. Council of Trent.

^ " Continetur tofum corpus Christi, scilicet ossa, nervi, et alia." — Thos.
Aquin. Summa, torn. iii. 2. 76, o. i., Lyons, 1567. " Comprahendens camera,
ossa, nervos, etc." Dens' Theo. torn. v. p. 276. Dublin, 1832. "Jam vero
hoc loco a pastoribus explicandum est, non solum verum Christi, corpus,
et quidquid ad veram corporis rationem pertinet, velut ossa et nervos, sed
etiam totum Christum in hoc sacramento contineri." Catech. Concil. Trid.
pars. ii. sec. xxxi. de Euchar. Saor. p. 235, Paris, 1848.

44 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

Dr. Butler, in his Catechism, "revised, corrected, en-
larged, etc., approved and recommended by Dr. Doyle "
(Dublin edition, 1848), thus sums up this last proposition.

" Q. (p. 59) Are both tlie body and blood of Clirist under tbe
appearance of bread and under the appearance of wine ?

" A. Yes ; Clirist is whole and entire true God and true man,
under tlie appearance of eacli.

" Q. Are we to believe that the God of all glory is under the
appearance of our corporeal food ?

" A. Tes ; as we must also believe that the same God of all
glory suffered death under the appearance of a criminal on the
cross.

" Q. (p. 60) Is the mass a different sacrifice from that of the
cross ?

" A. No. The same Christ who once offered himself a
bleeding victim to his heavenly Father on the cross, continues
to offer himself, in an unbloody manner, by the hands of the
priest on their altars."

And again, as the wine has been denied to the laity, it is
asserted that in the bread alone, without the wine, the body
and blood, soul and divinity, of Christ are received; nay,
further, if one consecrated wafer be broken, then, even in
each separate piece, " entire Christ " is still alleged to exist
without extra benediction. ^ However startling the proposi-
tion may be, nothing can be more plain and literal than the
language of the Romish church; there is nothing typical,
or symbolical, or spiritual, in the doctrine. A literal, car-
nivorous process is to be gone through ; the idea is repul-
sive, but the system suggests it. This process of manduca-
tion was (if the doctrine be true) properly defined in the

1 *' Si quis neg:averit, in veoerabili Sacramento Eucharistia; sub iinaquaque
specie, et sub singulis cujusque spcciei partibus, separalioue facta, totum
Christum contineri, anathema sit." — Cou. Trid. de Sacra. Euchar. Sacra,
sess. xiii. can. ili,, p. 118. Paris, 1848.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 45

decree of Pope Nicholas II., at a council held at Eome,
1059, as recorded in the Decretals or Book of Canon Law
of the Roman church. When Berengarius ^ was compelled
to recant his alleged heresy in denying Transubstantiation,
he was compelled to admit that the body and blood of
Christ were sensibly not only in the sacrament, but verily
handled by the priest, and broken and rent with the teeth
of the faithful.2

The council at Eome, under Pope Nicholas, was, as was
just said, held a.d. 1059 ; but as some Romanists of the
present day may declare that the declaration then made was
«Ki!e-Tridentine, and therefore obsolete, it may be stated
that the same proposition was revived by Cardinal Arch-
bishop Bellarmine, who lived some time after the Council of
Trent. He endorsed what was required of Berengarius.
He said : —

" We truly and properly say that the body of Christ is re-
moved, lifted up, and set down, put on the paten or on the
altar, and carried from hand to mouth, and from mouth to the
stomach: as Berengarius was forced to acknowledge in the
Roman council under Pope Nicholas, that the body of Christ
was sensibly touched by the hands of the priest and broken." ^

1 Berengarius was archdeacon of Angers, in France, and Scholasticus and
Master of the Chair of Divinity of the same church.

2 '■ Corpus et sanguinem Domini sensualiter non solum Sacramento, sed
veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi, et fidelium dentibus atteri." —
Gratian Corp. Jur. Can. torn. i. p. 2104, par. iii. Dist. 2, c. 42. Paris,
1612. See Baronii Annales, ad ann. 1059, sec. 18.

3 " Itaque vere et proprie dicimus, Christi corpus in Eucharisti^ attolli,
deponi, deferri, collocari in altari Tel in pixide, transferri a manu ad os, et
ab ore ad stomachum. Denique in coneilio Eomano sub Nicholo II. compul-
sus est Berengarius confiteri, corpus sensualiter sacerdotum manibus tangi
et frangi." — Bellarm. de Eucharisti^, lib. ii. cap. ii. ratio 5 et seq., torn. ii.
Prag. 1721.

We have been unable to consult the^rst edition of Bellarmine'swork, which,
no doubt, quoted the whole decree, including the "dentibus atteri," torn
with the teeth. These words are omitted from the second and all subsequent
editions. The words are given, as in the last note above, in the latest
edition of the canon law. Leipsic, 1839. Pars. iii. Dist. ii. c. 42. It is

46 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

On what is this Popish theory based ? Not on Scripture.
Christj it is true, when he had pronounced a blessing, took
bread and said, "This is my body." But what did he
mean by the words ? ^ Eomish controversialists of the
present day, boldly declare that it is under a literal interpre-
tation and sanction of this text that they believe in the
doctrine of Transubstantiation, and that such has always
been the sense of their church. Assertions, however, in
controversy go for nothing. The allegation is modern. No
doctrine can be based on a text the hteral interpretation
of which is disputed ; and not one of the old Fathers can
be cited who alleged the doctrine of the conversion of elements
resting on the literal interpretation of these words.

On the conversion of tlie substance of the elements — the
question at issue — Cardinal Cajetan, who wrote about twelve
years before the Council of Trent met, lays it down that such
a doctrine is not to be found in the Gospels, but is received
expressly from the church." His words are rather start-
ling. He says: —

" There appears notldiig out of the Gospel that may enforce

worthy of observation, that Bellarraine, immediately previous to the quota-
tion from the decree of Nicholas II., drawing our attention, as it were, to
the ancient and modern belief in the days of Augustine, of the fourth cen-
tury, and Nicholas II. of the eleventh, quotes the following passage from
Augustine: — "Augustinus serm. 2, de verbis Apostoli : — 'Quod in Sacra-
mento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritiialitcr manducatur.' De-
nique in concilio Eomano sub Nicholo 11. compulsus est Berengarius confiteri,
Christi corpus sensualiter sacerdotum manibus tangi et frangi." Thus
Augustine spealts of a spiritual^ Nicholas II. a sensual eating !

1 If /i7e?'fjHnterpretation is to be carried thus far, the Komanist must in
the eucharist swallow the chalice. For St. Paul says — *' As often as ye
eat this bread, and drink this cup," 1 Cor. xi. 26.

2 *' . . Dico autem ab ecclesi^ cura non appareat ex cvan::eUo coactionura
aliquod ad intelligendum hsec verba proprie quod Evangelium non expli-
cavit expresse ab ecclesia accepimus, viz., conversioneni panis in corpus
Christi." — Cajetan in iii. q. 75, ar. 1, p. 130, col. 1. Veuet, 1612. And
Index. Expurg. Quiroga. p. 98. Madrid, 1667.

TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 47

US to understand Cliiist's words properly, yea, nothing in the
text hinders but that these words (' this is my body') may as well
be taken in a metaphysical sense, as those words of the apostle,
' the rock was Christ ;' that the words of either proposition
may well be true, though the things there spoken of be not
understood in a proper sense, but in a metaphysical sense.''

And he adds —

" That part which the Gospel hath not expressed — viz., the
conversion of the bread into the body and blood of Christ, we
have received expressly from the chv/rch."

The Jesuit Suarez admitted that Cardinal Cajetan taught
that the words, " this is my body/' do not of themselves
sufficiently prove Transubstantiation without the authority
of the church, and therefore, by the command of Pius V.,
that part of his commentary is left out in the Eoman
edition of his works.^

Fisher, the Eomish bishop of Eochester, and a great
opponent of the Eeformers, specially stated that '-'there
are no vrords in St. Matthew's Gospel whereby it may be
proved that in the mass is made the very presence of
the body and blood of Christ." He goes so far as to say
that "it cannot be proved by any Scripture."^ And
Cardinal Bellarmine was compelled to admit that —

"It is not altogether improbable that there is no express
place of Scripture to prove Transubstantiation without the de-
claration of the church, as Scotus said ; for although the Scrip -

1 "Ex Catholicia solus Cajetanus in commentario hujus articuli, qui
jussu Pii V. in Komacti editione expunctus est, docuit, secius ecclesia^
auctoritate verba ilia (Hoo est corpus meum) ad veritatem hanc confirman-
dam non sufficere." — Suarez. torn. 3, disp. 46, sec. 3, p. 515, edit. Mogunt,
1616.

2 "Hactenus Matthseus, qui et solus Testamenti novi meminit, neque
ullum hlc verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra missa veram fieri
carnis et sanguinis Christi priEsentiam." — "Non potest igitur per uUani
Scripturam probari."^J. Fisher, Contra capt. Babyl. c. 10, n. 8, et 0. lol.
Ixxx. Colon. 1525.

48 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISJf.

tures seem to us so plain that they may compel any but a re-
fractoiy man to believe them, yet it may justly be doubted
whether the text be clear enough to enforce it, seeing the most
acute and learned men, such as Scotus was, have thought the
contrary."^

But another illustrious Romisli bisliop, Peter Ailly (or^
as he is generally called, Cardinal l)e Alliaco^ who was
Doctor of Divinity in 1380, and Chancellor of the
University of Paris in 1389, and made bishop of Cambray
in 1396, and cardinal in 1411), said : —

" That manner or meaning, which supposeth that the sub-
stance of bread to remaiu still, is possible, neither is it con-
trary to reason, nor to the authority of Sci-ipture ; nay, it is
more easy and more reasonable to conceive, if it would accord
with the determination of the church." ^

It may be observed in passing, that Cardinal Cajetan
draws a parallel between the text (1 Cor. x. 4) "that rock
was Christ," and the text in question, as Augustine did in
his work, " The City of God." Augustine says — " All
symbols (significantia) seem in a manner to sustain the
persons of those things which they signify ; as the apostle
says, ' the rock flas Christ/ because that rock of which this
is spoken signified Christ."^ And he carries out the same

1 " Secundo dicit Scotus, non extare locum ullum Scripturre tarn expressum,
ut sine ecclesiaB deterniinatione evidenter cogat transubstantionem admittere,
atque id non est ouinino improbabile. Non etiam si Scripturte, nobis tarn
apeita3 videantur, ut cogaiit lioininem non protervum, tamen merito dubitari
potest cum homines doctissiini et acutissimi qualis imprimis Scotus fuit,
aliter sentiant." — Bell, de Euchar. lib. iii. cap. 23, torn. iii. sec. 2, p. 337.
Prag, 1721.

2 ''I'atet quod ille modus sit possibilis nee repugnat rationi, nee auctori-
tati Biblia;, inio facilior ad intelligendum et rationabilior, quam, etc." In 4
Sentent, q. 6, art. i. fol. ccxvi. Edit. Paris (without date). [We are indebted
for some of these references to Sir li. Lynd's *' T7a Tuta'*]

3 " Quodamraodo omnia significantia videntur earuin rerum quas signifi-
cant sustinere personaa, sicut dictum est ab apostolo, Petra erat Christua,
quoniam Petra ilia de qua hoc dictum est signifieabat utique Christum." De
Civit. Dei, lib. xviii., cap. 48, Edit. Paris, 1685, and torn, v., col. 1120,
Edit. Basil, 1569.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 49

idea in his commentary on St. John's Gospel (Tract xlv.)
" See how the signs are varied, faith remaining the same.
There {i.e., in the wilderness) the Bock was Christ; to us
that which is placed on God's altar is Christ." ^ And,
to drive the matter home, he said, " Christ did not hesitate
to say, 'This is my body,' when he gave a siffn of his
body." ^ These words are too plain to require any
comment.

It will be observed, therefore, that the doctrine of
Transubstantiation stands solely on the dictum or authority
of " the [Eomish] church." The word ^ itself first autho-
ritatively appeared in the proceedings of the Council of
Lateran, held under Pope Innocent III. (Nov. 1215), in the
first part of the seventy chapters alleged to have been
drawn up by Innocent himself, relating to the extirpation of
heretics. These constitutions are denied by some to be the
work of the council, and are said to be by Pope Innocent
alone. If so, the doctrine will scarcely be admitted even
to have received at this time conciliar sanction. Indeed,
it is quite common in the present day for Romanists to
deny that these canons, and especially the " third " of
these chapters (which anathematizes heretics, and orders
them to be delivered up to the secular power to be punished),
had the sanction even of this council.*

1 " Quid enim illi bibebant ? Bibebant enim de spirituali sequente petr^ ;
petra autem erat Christus. Videte, ergo, fide manente, signa variata. Ibi
petra Ohristus, nobis Christuslquod in altari Dei ponitur." Edit. Basil, 1569,
torn, ix. col. 333.

2 " Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere. Hoc est corpus meum, cum eignum
daret corporis sui." Cont. Adimantum. c. xii. p. 124, tom. viii. Paris,
1688.

3 The- doctrine had been already announced in the several Councils of
Versailles and Paris, 1050 ; of Tours, 1054 ; Borne, 1058 and 1079 ; at which
several synods, Berengarius was condemned for denying the change of sub-
stances.

* Those who deny that the statutes of Lateran IV., and especially the
third canon, ever were sanctioned by the council, call Collier as a witness

50 THE NOVELTIES OP EOMANISM.

That eminent scholastic divine, the acute and learned
John Duns Scotus/ as Bellarmine calls him, gave it as his
opinion that^ "before the Council ofLateran, Transubstan-
tiation was not believed as a point of faith," and indeed he
clearly and plainly confessed that, "properly speaking,
Transubstantiation is not a change." ^ \Yas Scotus justified
in the assertion, that before that period this doctrine was not
taught by the church ? Take another very famous theo-
logian, called " the Master of the Sentences," Peter Lombard,
avchbishop of Paris (a.d. 1150). If Transubstantiation
be true, the so-called sacrifice on the Popish altar and the
sacrifice on the cross are one and the same, and the former is
not a commemoration of the latter. What was his opinion ?
He asks, "Can that which the priest transacts be rightly
called a sacrifice or immolation, and is Christ daily immo-
lated or was he only once immolated ?" He answers the
question thus : —

" That wMcli is oiFered and consecrated by the priest is called
a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memorial and represen-
tation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation accomplished
upon the altar of the cross. Christ died once upon the ci'oss,

that it is not to be found in the JIaz.iriiie copy, coeval with the council. An
unfurtunate witness: for whilst Collier states, erroneousl}', that the third
canon is not found with the others, he assigns to the others a place in the
jMtfzarine copy! The fact is, that the third canon is found in the Maza-
rine copy; ^portion of it havin^^ been removed mechanically. Should any
one get possession of the MS. of Hume's History of England, and tear out a
piution of his history of Charles I., or James II., he might as justly contend,
and on the verj' same grounds, that the history of these monarchs "is not
found in the Hume MS." See the llev. John Evan's " Statutes of the Fourth
Lateran Council;" London, 1843.

1 Duns Scotus was professor of theology at Oxford in 1301, and afterwards
reiiio\ ed to Paris in 130i, where he w as placed at the head of the theological
schools.

'2 " Unum addit Scotus, quod minime probandum, quod ante Lateranense
Concilium non fuisset dogma fidei."^Bell. lib. iii. de Euchr. cap. xxiii. sec.
12, p, 337, torn. iii. Prag. 1721. Scotus, fol. 55, p. 2, col. 2. Venet, 1597.

3 " Dice proprie loqnendo, quod transubstantio non est mutatio." In 4
Sent, Art. xi. sec. 1, ad propositum. Edit, aa above.

TEANSUBSTANTIATION. 51

and was there in himself sacrificed ; but He is daily sacrificed
in the Sacrament, because in the Sacrament a commemoration
is made of that which was done only once." ^

To go up to an earlier date, Gelasius, bishop of Eome
(a.d. 492), wrote : —

" Certainly, the sacraments of the body and blood of the
Lord, which we receive, are a Divine thing ; because by these
we are made partakers of the Divine nature. Nevertheless the
substance or natwre of the hread and wine ceases not to exist ; and,
assuredly, the image and similitude of the body and blood of
Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries." 2

Cardinal Baronius and some other zealous Eomanists have
endeavoured to deny the authenticity of this passage by
attributing the work to Gelasius of Cyzicus (of the fifth
century nevertheless) ; and Eome, ashamed of its teacher,
has placed the passage in question in the Eoman Expurga-
tory Index.^ There are, however, honest men in this Church,
such as Dupin and others, who admit its authenticity.

To go still higher, Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus (a.d. 430),
wrote * that " the mystical signs do not depart from their

1 " Quseritur si quod gerit sacerdos proprie dicatur saorifioium vel immo-
latio : et si Christus quotidie immoletur, aut semel tamen immolatus sit ?
* * * * illud quod oft'ertur et consecratur, a sacerdote, vooari
sacrificium et oblationem : quia memoria est, et reprajsentatio veri saciificii,
et sanctae immolationis faotae in ari cruois. Et semel Christus mortuus in
cruce est, ibique immolatus est in semetipso : quotidie autem immolatur in
Sacramento, quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel."
— Pet. Lombard. Sentent, lib. iv., distinct. 12, p. 745, ed. Mogunt. 1632.

2 " Certe sacramenta qua sumimus corporis et sanguinis Domini Christi
Divina res est, propter quodet per eadem Divinse efficimur consortes naturae.
Et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini : et certe imago
et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum cele-
brantur." — Gelas. de Duabus in Christo naturis, contra. Eutychen. et Nest.
in Bib. Patr. torn, iv., par. i. col. 422, Paris, 1689 ; and p. iii. torn. v. p.
671. Colon. 1618.

3 See Mendham's Literary Folky of the Church of Eome, p. 121. Second
edition, London, 1830.

4 "Neque enim signa mystica reeedunt a natur^ suS., manent enim in

Sriore substantia,, figure, et forma, et rideri et tangi possunt."— Theodor.
per. Dialog, lib. ii. cap. 24, p. 924. Paris, 1608.

rr2

THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

nature, but remain in their former substance, figure, and
form." This passage has also been tampered with.^

Again, we have Chrysostom (a.d. 406), who, in his
Epistle to Cesarius, said : —

" Before tlie bread is consecrated, we caJl it bread ; but when
tbe grace of God, by the priest, has consecrated it, it is no
longer called bread, but is esteemed worthy to be called the
Lord's body, although the nature of bread still remains in it." '

Cardinals Perron and Bellarmine, feeling the force of
this formidable passage, accused Peter Martyr (a.d. 1548)
of having forged the treatise in question, and actually
asserted that the epistle never existed ; though they do not
undertake to explain how it is that this same epistle was
quoted as the genuine production of Chrysostom, by John
Damascene (a.d. 740), Anastasius (a.d. 600), and the Greek
Pather ISTicephorus (a.d. 800), as shown by Wake. To
this we may add the words of the Prench ecclesiastical
historian, Dupin, " It appears to me that one ought not to
reject it as a piece unworthy of St. Chrysostom." '

Again, we have Ephrem, of Antioch (a.d. 336), who
testified as to the belief in his day : —

" The body of Christ, which is taken by the faithful, neither
departs from its sensible substance, nor remaias separated from
intellectual grace on the other hand." *

1 See Faber's Difficulties of Romanism. B. ii. k. iv. p. 274. London,
18.53,

2 " Sicut enim antequam eanctificetur panis, panem nominamus : Divina
autem ilium sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem
appellatione panis ; dignus autem liabitus est Dominici Corporis appella-
tiouc, etiamsi naiura panis in ipso permansit." Cbrysost; ad C'desarum
Monachum. Oper. Chrjsost. torn. iii. p. 744, fol. Bened. Edit. Paris, 1721.

3 " U me semble meme que Ton ne doit pas rejetter comrae une piece in-
digne da S. Chrysostom." — Dupin, Nov. Bib. des auteurs Eoeles. torn. iii. p.
37. Piiris, 1698.

4 " To napa T(Zi/ TTLcmav KaiJ.^av6iJ.€vov cwjaa XpitTTOV, koI rrjs aic^Ti)? outrta? ouk
efi'trraTai, Kcti. ttjs voijtt}? aSiaipeTOv jueVei xo^piTOS." EphiaeiU. Theopolitan. apud

Phot. Bibl. cod. ccxxix. p. 794, Edit. Hathomag. 1653.

TllANSUBSTANTIATION. 53

This passage has also been perverted in the Latin version
of the Jesuit editor with native adroitness.^

The signal failure of all the attempts to prove these passages
to be either spurious, or to tamper with them, or to put
them in the Eoman Index as prohibited, establishes our case
triumphantly.

Without further evidence, we are now in a position boldly
to challenge Romanists to disprove the allegation — that the
doctrine of Transubstantiation is a modern invention of their
church.

We proceed now to what is called the " Eeal Presence."

B/Omish controversialists artfully attempt to separate the
consideration of this doctrine from that of transubstantia-
tion ; but with them they are one and the same. Their
" real presence " means the presence of the body, blood,
(and as the Roman catechism adds) bones and nerves, soul
and divinity, of our Lord, in the consecrated host. They
assert, however, that the early English divines and all the
early Fathers of the church, held a real presence of Christ.
That is true ; but that presence was a real spiritual presence
without any idea of a transubstantiation or change of the
substance of the elements, which is the very essence of the
alleged real presence in the host. It is equally true, that
the early Christian writers often referred to the elements as
the hodi/ and Hood of Christ ; and asserted that the body and

1 "Qui locus in ee perspicuus, misere corruptus fuit ab Andrea Sootto
Jesuita, cum videret ejus eanam interpretationera evertere tranaubstantionera.
Ideo verba ilia t^5 attrflTjr^s ov<rtas ovk e^ttrraraL, vertit -sensibilis essentia non
coffnoscitur, cum notum sit, verbum efitn-antai, idem esse ac degenero^ de statu
dejicior, etc. ; verba autem sequentia de baptismo, to lUov -rij! iio-e>;T^s oio-i'as
Tou uSaTos Aeyw, fiiaerw^et ; quorum perspicuus est sensus, servat propHum sen-
sibilis substanticB aquce dim. Sic infeliciter et veteratorie interpolat : hocque
substantia visibilis proprium est, per aquam, inquam, salvat : ubi nuUus est
sensus." Eiveti Critici Sacri, lib. iv. cap. xxvi. p. 1148. Koterodami,
1652.

54 THE NOVELTIES OF UOMANISM.

blood are received at the sacrament. And so did also
Dr. Watts, in his hymns : —

" The Lord of life tMs table spread
With his own flesh and dying blood." (vi. b. 3.)

Again —

" Thy blood, like wine, adorns thy board.
And thine own flesh feeds every guest." (xix. b. 3.) '

And yet no one accuses Watts of holding the Popish doc-
trine of the real presence. But who can say that a hundred
years hence it will not be said of him by Papists — if Popery
then exist— that he believed in transubstantiation ?

On the other hand, it is equally clear that many of the
early Pathers expressly stated that they understood the
words of our Lord not literally, but figuratively ; and the
consecrated elements are spoken of by them as types,
or figures, or symbols, or representations of the body and
blood of Christ — language wholly incompatible with the
idea of a real corporeal presence of Christ. Thus, it is said
in the Clementine Liturgy, as set forth in the " Apostolic
Constitutions :"

" "We moreover give thanks, O Father, for the precious blood
of Jesus Christ, which, on our behalf, was poured out, and for
his precious body, of which also we celebrate these elements as
the antitypes, He himself having commanded us to set forth
his death." '

Origen (a.d. 216), in his commentary upon Matt.
XV. 11, after showing that it is the prayer of faith which

1 Quoted bv Dr. Cumming in the Hammersmith Discussion. London,
1848j p. 214. "

2 " Ert evxo-pi-inovfJiii', Tldrep ijfxoiv, vtrep tov tijuiou ailjuaTog 'ItjctoO Hpiarov tov
eKXv64vTO<; vwkp ijfiuv, Kal tov Tifj-iov <r<t>ixaTOs, QV KaX 'at^truTra ravra smTeXovfjiev, avTOv
Si.aTa$a.iJ.evov i^juu' KarayyeWeLV toi- auTOV 9ava.rQv." Clem. Liturg, in CoDSt. ApusC.

lib. vU. c. 25j Cotel. Patr. Apostol. Amstel. 1724.

TRANSTIBSTANTIATION. 55

is said over the elements, which becomes profitable to the
soul, concludes :

"... For it is not the matter of the bread, but the word that is
said over it, which profiteth him who eateth it worthily of the
Lord. Thus much conceming the typical and symbolical body."'

The following quotations may be added to those already
given, selected from the many at our disposal.

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (a.d. 178) : —

" Wherefore also the oblation of the Eucharist is not carnal
but spiritual, and in that respect pure. For we offer unto
Grod the bread and the cup of blessing, giving thanks unto
him, because he has commanded the earth to produce these
fruits for our food : and then, having finished the oblation, we
invoke the Holy Spirit, that he would make this sacrifice, both
the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ,
in order that they who partake of these amtitypes may obtain
remission of sins and life eternal. Wherefore they who bring
these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, approach not to
the dogmas of the Jews ; but worshipping spiritually they shall
be called the sons of wisdom."'

Clement of Alexandria, a.d. 190 : —

" The Scripture has named wine a mystic symbol of the holy
blood." 3

TertuUian, a.d. 195 : —

" The bread which He had taken and distributed to his dis-

1 **...Kal OUK rj vAij Tov aprov aAA' 6 ctt* auTio elfyriii€VOi Aoyog, etrnv o unj}€Xijiv TOv fiij
'afofuDS TOV Kvpiov €(rdCovTa avTov. Kal TauTa jxev Trepl TOV TVTrtKOV (cat ov^^oAiKov

o-ujLLaTos." Orig. comment, in Matt. vol. iii. p. 500. Ben. Edit. Paris, 1733.

2 *' Upotrt^epo^ef yap t^ 9e(S roe oprov koX to n*oTT)pioi' rrj^ evXoyia^, ev;(aptoTOvvT«s
avTU, OTt TYi yfj eKe'Aeutre EK^vo-ai TOUS Kopirovs toutous et? Tpo^v rjixerepav, Kai ivravBa,
Tyjv TTpoiT^opav TeAeVavTCSj eKKoAoufiev to Ili/ev^a rh 'A^ioi*, OTrtus ajroif>r]vrj rrfv Bvtriav
TaVTTlv, Kai Toi' aprov atSfia TOV XptoTOV, Kal to TroTqpiov to al^a tov XpiOTOv, iva ot
jOeToAajSovTeff tovtwc Tt5v avriTVlriov, T^s at^eVeu? riSv afj.apTtiJiv, Kal Tvjs ^to^s aitaviov,
TVYtoxrtv, Ot oiv TavTtt? Tas npoa^iopa^ kv t^ aj'a/iv^o'et tov Kvpt'ov a-yovTts, oil Toty Ttuf
'lovSattov Sov/xtwrt irpotrepxoiTatj aAAa, irvevjuaTtKois AetTOupYOVi/Tes, t^s ^iTotjiias vtot
KKi\BJi<rovTai.. Iren. Fragment, in Append, ad Hippol. Oper. torn. ii. pp. 64, 65.
Hamburgi, 1716.

3 Mvo-Ttfcbi' apa trvllfiokov Tf ypati>r] at/AaTOS ayCov otvov uiv6p.a(Tcv. Clem. Alex.

Pffidag. lib. ii. c. 2. Oper. p. 156. Colon. 1688.

56 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

ciples He made his body, by sajrLng, ' Tbis is my body,' that is,
the figure of my body." '

And again : —

" Nor the bread, by which he represents his body." ^

Eusebius, bishop of Cesaraeaj a.d. 325 : —

" Chiist himself gave the symbols of the Divine economy to
his own disciples, com.manding that the image of his own body
should be made. He appointed them to use bread as a symbol
of his own body." ^

Cyril of Jerusalem^ a.d. 363 : —

" With all assurance let us partake, as it were, of the body
and blood of Ohi'ist : for, in the ty2)e of bread, the body is given
to thee ; and, in the type of wine, the blood is given to thee ; in
order that thou mayest partake of the body and blood of
Christ, becoming with him joint body and joint blood." ^

Gregory of Nazianzen, a.d. 370 : —

"... How could I dare to offer to Him that which is from
without, the antitj^e of the great mysteries." ^

Macarius of Egypt, a.d. 371 : —

" In the church are offered bread and wine, antitype of
Christ's flesh and blood ; and they who partake of the visible
bread eat the flesh of the Lord spiritually."^

1 Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus suum ilhim fecit, Hoc
est corpus meum dicfiido, id iist,Jic/nra corporis ruei. Tert. Adv. Marci. lib.
5, p. 458. Parisiis, 1675.

2 . . nee puriem, quo ipsum corpus repra)sentat. Idem. ibid. lib. i. sec. ix.

3 lid^tv yap aiiTos to cvti^oKa T^s €v Beov o'lKovofiiai TOi? avTOV TropeSiSoy ^tadrjTai^,
rriv eiKOva. tou IBiov (Tw^aTOs TroteitT'^at TrapoKeAei'd/Aei/os. — *ApTt^ Se XP^^^^ (rvjj.^o\io,

70V 'i&iov o-wfiaToq TrapeSiSou. Euseb. Demons. Evan. lib. viii. c. 2, p. 236. Paris,
Stephan. lot-1.

i "flcTTe, fxeTo. TTa(rq^ 7rA)jpoi^opLa5, OK (TtiijaaTos Kai aip.tt.TOs p.eTa\apPdvu)p.ev XptOTOu,
ev TVTTToj, yap apTov SiSorai <roi Tu <TtZp.a. Ka\, kv tuttw oivou, hihoTai (rot to aXp.a, iva y4i^
p.eTaKafib}V o-tu/xaroy Kal aip.aTOs Xpiarov, avaaitip.O'; Kai (TwVaijuos avTOv. Cvril.

Hicros. Cat. Myst. sec. iii. p. 300. Ed. Paris, 17^0.

5 ITois eptWov dapfiTJiraL irpotr^ipeiv awriii TrfV, i^tiiOev, rfiv Tiav jncyoAuv iixxTTrj-

ptwi/ 'ovTirun-oi' ; Gregor. Nazianzeu. Orat. i. oper. i. torn. i. p. 38. Pans,
1630.

6 Ei.' T/] eKKAijaiij, Trpo<T(j>epeT(U apros Koi oivo<;, 'avriTUTrov ttjs (rapKog ainov kclI toi?
ai/iaT05, Kai oi /A€TaAaju,|3ixi'0iTes £« tov iftaivoixdvov dprov, TTvevfj-ariKiZs Trjv crapKa tou

KvpCov ea-elova-i. Macar. iEgj pt. Homil. xxvii. p. 168. Lipsiae, 1698.

TRAN SUBSTANTIATION. 57

Ambrose, bishop of Milan, a.d. 385 : —

" In the law was the shadow ; in the gospel is the image ; in
heaven is the reality. Formerly a lamb was offered, a calf was
offered ; now Chi-ist is offered. — Here he is in an image ; there
he is in reality." '

Jerome, a presbyter of Rome, a.d. 390 : —

" He did not offer water, but wine, as a type of his blood." ^

Augustine, bishop of Hippo in Africa, a.d. 400 : —

" The Lord did not doubt to say, ' This is my body,' when he
gave the sign of his body." ^

" These are sacraments in which, not what they are, but
what they show forth, is the point to be always attended to :
for they are the signs of things, being one thing and signifying
another thing." *

Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus in Syria, a.d. 424 : —

"The mystic symbols, after consecration, pass not out of
their own proper nature. — Place, then, the image, by the order
of the archetype, and thou wilt see the similitude : for it is
meet that the type should be similar to the reahty." *

We cannot complete these extracts more appropriately
than by adding the decision of Pope Gelasius, a.d. 496 : —

1 Umbra in lege: imago in evangelis: Veritas in ooelestibus. Ante,
agnus offerebatur, offerebatur vitulus : nunc Christus oflertur. — Hie, in
imagine : ibi, in veritate." Ambros. Offioior. lib. i. c. 48, Oper. col. 33.
Paris, 1649.

2 "In typo sanguinis eui non obtulit aquam sed vinum." Hier. lib. ii.
adversus Jovinianum, torn. ii. p. 90. Paris, 1602.

3 See note 2, p. 49. . , . ,

i " Hseo enim sacramenta sunt, in quibus, non quid sint, Bed quid ostend-
ant, semper attenditur : quoniam signa sunt rerum, aliud existentia, et aliud
significantia. Aug. cent. Maxim, lib. ii. sec. 3. torn. viii. col. 725. Bened.
Edit. , . . . .„

5 OiiSe yap, fiera. toi/ aytatriiov, Ta fivtrrtKa (n/jii)3o\a ttjs oi/fetas efiCTrarai cpucreb)?. — •
UapaSei Toivm t«> ofx^riwif ■riji' emora, Knl oi/iei rriv 'oiiiiOTqTO, XPV Y«P eouce'i/m T^

amtOedf Tor- tuitoi/. Theod. Dial. u. Oper. cap. 24, fol. 113, veros ed. Tiguri,
1593. '

58 THE NOVELTIES OP ROMANISJI.

" Assuredly the image and similitude of the body and blood
of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries." '

Having brought our extracts from divines up to the end of
the fifth centur}', no reasonable person can doubt that- the
modern Roman theory of the real carnal presence was
unknown to the early Christian church.

For every single passage that may be adduced by
Romanists, referring to the elements as the body and blood
of Christ, we can place beside it one or more extracts from
the same Father who spoke of the consecrated elements
as the images, types, or symbols, of the same body and blood
which modern Romanists assert to be really and substantially
present. If this be true, and most certainly it is, we can
safely assert that " the real presence " of modern Romanism
is evidently different from the real [_spirituar\ presence main-
tained by the early Christian writers. It may indeed be
admitted that some of these Fathers held the doctrine
of consubstantiation, subsequently revived by Luther, but
condemned by the Romish church. It is nevertheless true
that transubstantiation and the Romish doctrine of the real
presence are equally inventions of the modern Papal church,
and were not held by the church as an accepted doctrine
for, at the very least, eight hundred years after Christ. And
we challenge proof to the contrary.

A striking fact in corroboration of this proposition is, that
the Greek church, which was formerly in communion with
the Western churches, never did, nor does it now, hold the
doctrine of transubstantiation. This was made plain at the
Council of Florence (a.d. Ii'-i9), where the Greeks alleged

1 Certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione myste-
riorum celebrantur. Gelas. de duab. Christ, natur. cent. Nestor, et Eutj ch.
in Bibliotli. I'atr. torn. iv. p. 422. Paris, 1389.

INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 59

that " the body and blood of Christ are truly mysteries ; not
that these are changed into human flesh, but we into
them." 1

In denying that conciliar sanction for the doctrine of
transubstantiation can be found, we really take the view
most favourable to Eomanists ; for, in the other case, we
have the boasted unity of the church at once destroyed, and
a council, and a General Council, ignoring the opinion of
Rome's dearest sons. We must, in such a case, come to
the conclusion either that these men affirmed " they knew
not what," or that the church does not at all times hold the
same doctrine. " Utrum mavis " — alas for Eome and
infalUbihty in either case !

CHAPTER VI.

INVOCATION OY SAINTS.

"The sacred Scriptures do not teach, even in effect or by implication,
that prayers are to be made to the saints, etc. Therefore it is sufficiently
clear that many things belong to the [Roman] Catholic Faith which have
no place in the sacred page." — Dominie Banhes. In Secundum Secundie
Thorn. Q. i. Art. x., Concil. ii. col. 52U Venet. 1587.

In considering the Romish doctrine of the Invocation and
Worship of Saints, the question should be carefully freed
from the evasions and subtleties attempted to be introduced
into it. The question is, not whether saints or angels

1 See the whole of this proposition stated in Sir H. Lynd's " Via Devia."
New edition. London, 1850, p. 191, sec. viii., and wherein Binius' perver-
sion of the text is exposed. The word used at the Council of Florence is
Te\eio5!9iii, which Binius falsely translated " Transubstantiari." Binius in
Concil. Flor. sess. xxv. p. 839, torn. viii. Paris, 1636.

60 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

in heaven offer up their prayers for us who are on earth ;
but whether (as declared by the Trent Council at its
Twenty-fifth Session) it is " a good and useful thing
suppliantly to invoke them (mentally or verbally), and to flee
to their prayers, help, and assistance," or in any way to rely
on their " merits " for assistance. This decree points to a
direct invocation of saints for their intercession, aid, and
help, and assumes that they can hear or perceive our verbal
or mental prayers.

Dr. Delahogue, the Maynooth Professor, admits that the
worship rendered to saints is a religious worship, " though
the Tridentine Fathers did not use that word." ^

This theory must presuppose two important proposi-
tions : —

First, that the particular saint invoked is actually in a
beatific state, and —

Second, that the departed spirit has a knowledge, directly
or indirectly, of our prayers, either verbal or mental ; in fact,
that the spirit is neither in bell, nor in purgatory, but
actually in heaven, and also in efi'ect is omniscient and
omnipresent.

I. And, firstly. Cardinal Bellarmine, on this very subject,
in the 20tli chapter of the first book "Be Beatitudine et
CuU4 Sanctorum" informs us (as his opinion of course), by
way of excuse for the patriarchs of the Old Testament not

1 Trait, de Mj'sterio S.S. Trinitatis. Autore L. A. Delahogue. E. Coyne.
Dublin, 1822. Appendix de Cultu Sanctorum, p. 218. It is proper here to
state, that Veron, in his ^^ JRule of Catholic Faith^'* pp, 96, 97, Birmingham,
1833, says, that it is not an article of Romish faith that this veneration is
to be called a religious veneration ; but he admits that their " writers differ
on the question. Marsilius thinks that the honour which is shown to God
and the saints is the exercise of one and the same virtue," but of different
degrees. "Derlincourt (he says) goes farther, and maintains, in a pamphlet
written expressly on this subject, that a religious honour ought to be given
to the Blessed Virgin."

INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 61

being invoked^ that until Christ's death they were not in
a state of beatitude ; " for," says he, " it belongs to perfect
beatitude to know these things."

"We ask any Eoman Catholic what proof he has that the
particular saint he invokes is actually in that beatific state,
so as to be able to have cognizance of our mental or verbal
prayers, and that the alleged saint does not, in fact, himself
require that assistance which the devotee is asking of him.

Some Eomanists declare themselves satisfied if the in-
dividual invocated be but canonized by a pope. Cardinal
Bellarmine, and others of his school, declare that in the act
of canonization the pope is infallible.^ But there are diffi-
culties in the way before we can accept this theory.

It was decreed by Alexander III. that no one should
be acknowledged as a saint and invoked, unless he had
been declared to be a saint (in other words, canon-
ized) by the bishops of Rome ; and the reason given was,
lest idolatry be committed by invoking one not in a
state of happiness.^ The church of Eome must claim for
herself infallibility, if she takes upon herself so daring and
presumptuous a task as to anticipate God's decree, by
authoritatively declaring that such an one is a happy spirit
in heaven, bearing in mind also the inevitable result,
should an error be committed. But if, as Veron asserts,
canonization be not a doctrine of the church of Rome, it
may be disbeUeved.

Again, the alleged proofs on which the claim to canoniza-
tion depends are questions of fact, supposed to have been
investigated. But if the pope, even in General Council, may
err in deciding matters of fact, then the whole system of saint

1 Bellarmine's " Church Triumphant," vol. ii. p. 871. Cologne, 1617.

2 Polydore Virgil. In Rer. Invent. Book vi. c. vii. fol. cxxii. London,
1551.

62 THE NOVELTIES OP ROMANISM.

worship being based on false principles, will be rotten from
the foundation, and must fall.

It is true that Dens, enlightened by the dictum of Alex-
ander III., tells us why the church of Rome oiigkt to be
believed to be infallibly right in her judgment concerning
the character of any person when she decrees a canonization.
He says that, were she not infallibly correct in her judgment,
" the whole church would be involved in a superstitious
worship, should he be invoked as a saint who is associated
with the damned in hell."

If such a process of reasoning be admitted, any other act of
idolatry might be sanctioned, merely because the church of
Eome sanctioned it. But the question is. Are Romanists
themselves bound to believe that a saint, officially canonized,
is really in heaven ? and that the pope is right in his
decision ? and that Eomanists are bound to accept the deci-
sion ? These questions are put by Dens, in the same place
whence we have extracted the last passage : — " Is it to be
believed with divine faith that a canonized person is a saint
or holy person ?" He answers this important question by
saying, " That is not clear j * * * it appears that this
thing is not a matter of certain faith." ^

Again, a no less authority, Veron, in his " Rule of

1 Dens' Theologia, torn. ii. pp. 138, 139. Dublin, R. Coyne, 1832. The
authority of this work we have given before, p. 7, note. Mr. Coyne, in his
catalogue, stitched into the Priest's *' Ordo," or Directory, for the year 1832,
informs us that "at a meeting of the Roman prelates, held at Dublin, Sept.
14th, 1808, it was unanimously agreed that Dens Theologia was the best
book that could be published, as containing the most secure guidance for
those ecclesiastics who could not have access to libraries, or an opportunity
of consulting those placed in authority over them ;" and the Rev. David
O'Croly, a Romish priest, iu his postscript to his "Address to the lower
orders of the Roman Catholics of Ireland," p. 25, declares that the Theology
of Peter Dens is "a standard work of Irish Catholic orthodoxy, and of Roman
Catholic orthodoxy universally." It was published in Ireland and on the
Continent, permissu superiorum, and no exception was ever taken to it, either
in whole or in part.*'

INVOCATION OP SAINTS. 63

Catholic Faith,"^ on the same subject, gives tlie following
important information : —

" The canonization of tie saints is not an article of faith ; in
other words, it is no article of our faith that the saints whom
we invoke — for instance, St. Lawrence, St. Vincent, St. Gervase,
St. Blase, St. Ohrysostom, St. Amt>rose, St. Dominic, etc.,
are really saints, and in the number of the blessed. [He makes
one exception only, St. Stephen, who is said in the sacred text
to have slept in the Lord.] This is proved — 1. From the
silence of our creed, and the Council of Trent. — 2. It is clear
that there is no evidence to prove, either from the written or
unwritten word of God, that these persons werfe saints. — 3.
Besides, it is not even an article of our faith that such men
were even in existence, and therefore much less are we bound
to believe that they really lived saintly Hves, or were after-
wards canonized. All these are, undoubtedly, questions of
fact, and not of doctrine. [ An d after stating that miracles, the
foundation of canonization, were not matters of faith, ' how
should a canonization grounded upon them — a judgment of the
church as to their sanctity, be an article of Catholic faith ?' he
proceeds.] No bulls, therefore, of their canonization, though
they generally emanate from the popes, as they merely con-
tain a question of fact, declaring that such an one is a saint,
are anywise matters of Catholic belief. I may again observe,
that neither the pope, nor even a General Council, is guided
infallibly in the canonization of a saint. The proof of this is
drawn in our general rule of faith, namely, that all Catholics
[in italics] are agreed that the pope, even in General Council,
may err on mere matters of fact, which, as such, depend prin-
cipally, if not wholly, on the means of information and the
testimony of individuals."

' Birmingham, 1833, pp. 84, 85. This work was written expressly to re-
move erroneous notions of the Romish system. The translator, Dr. Water-
worth, in his preface, begins by declaring that its " authority is universally
acknowledged ;" and Dr. Murray, a Komish bishop, in his examination
before a Committee of the House of Commons, declared that this book,
among others, contained a most authentic exposition of the Romish faith.
See Phelau and O'SuUivan's Digest of the Report of the State of Ireland,
1824, 1825. H. Commons' Report, p. 224, 22nd March, 1826.

64 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

Now, what is the result? By the creed of Trent,
Eomanists declare that they "firmly hold that the saints
reigning together with Christ are to be venerated and
invoked ; " and the Trent Council, at its twenty-fifth
session, " admonished all those to whom the office of teaching
has been entrusted, diligently to instruct the faithful — that
the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their
prayers to God for man ; that it is good and profitable
suppliantly to invoke them — and that it is an impious
opinion which denies that the saints, who enjoy eternal happi-
ness in heaven, are to be invoked."

All this presupposes that the saints are reigning with
Christ, a matter of fact first to be ascertained. But no saint
must be invocated unless canonized by a pope's bull ; and it
is not a matter of faith that the individual saint is in a state
of beatitude. The alleged fact may therefore be disbelieved,
as it is admitted to be a matter of uncertainty. Nevertheless
nine-tenths of the religious worship of Eomanists is made
up of the invocation of one saint or another. What certainty,
therefore, have Eomanists in acting up to the precepts and
customs of their church, when, according to the showing of
their own teachers, they may be involved in " superstitious
worship," invoking men who may, according to Yeron,
" never have had any existence ;" or who, according to Dens,
" may be associated with the damned in hell !" And this is
the system, called a religion, which we are declared to be
heretics for not embracing !

We therefore ask again, what proofs do Eomanists adduce
that the person invocated is in heaven? We challenge
them to give a satisfactory reply ; and, until they do so,
cannot admit this proposition. The great final judgment,
and the knowledge who are saved and who are condemned.

INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 65

are respectively reserved for the coming of Christ (1 Cor.iv. 5),
and must be left to the foreknowledge of God alone.

II. The state of the soul immediately after death and
until the day of judgment (whenever that may happen), and
its attributes and employments in the invisible world, are
mysteries not given to man to know. These were matters
of speculation among the early Christian writers, who
delivered various opinions on the subject : a proof that the
invocation of the departed was not a doctrine of the church
in their day ! But it is an acknowledged fact, that, before
the corrupt practice of invocating departed spirits began,
prayers for them were ofTered up. We find, therefore, the
writings of Epiphanius (a.d. 370), Cyril of Jerusalem
(a.d. 386), etc., quoted by Romanists in favour of prayers
for the dead ; but in aU. these instances we also find included
in the same prayers, in the very same form of words, the
patriarchs, prophets, apostles, Yirgin Mary, martyrs, etc., a
notion wholly incompatible with the doctrine of modem
saint worship, which presupposes that the saints are in a
beatific state, and are above the want of our assistance and
prayers.

The early Christians of the second and third centuries
commemorated the death of martyrs, etc. (usually at their
tombs), on the anniversary of their death, which led to
the custom of the departed being included in their prayers,
not to but for them. So certain is this fact, that Dr.
Wiseman, in his lectures on " The Principal Doctrines and
Practices of the [Roman] Catholic Church," is constrained
to admit that — "there is no doubt that in the ancient
liturgies the saints are mentioned in the same prayer
as the other departed faithful, for the simple circum-
stances that they were so united lefore the public mf-

66 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

f rages of the church proclaimed them to belong to a happier
order " ^ — that is, declared them to be canonized. But,
according to Veron/ it was not decided by the Roman
church until the beginning of the 15th century, at the
Council of Florence (a.d. 1439), "whether the souls of the
blessed are received into heaven and enjoy the clear vision
of God, before the resurrection and the last day of final
judgment." It was, therefore, not until the 15th century
that the papal church took upon herself to proclaim
any departed individual to belong to a happier order ;
therefore even a firm believer of this latter Papal assump-
tion is precluded, according to the theory of his church,
from believing that any saint could have been lawfully
invoked before that comparatively late date.

The custom, however, of praying/or the departed was in-
troduced about the latter end of the third or beginning of
the fourth century, and hence arose the subsequent corruption
of Christianity of addressing prayers to the departed.

Before that period, we challenge the production of any
genuine Father of the church who taught or advocated the
invocation of saints.^ Indeed, the first trace we find of the
departed being invoked by particular individuals (for it
formed no doctrine of the church) was in orations, not in
prayers; and then even such ejaculations were accompanied
by doubts and suggestions j/'the person apostrophized heard
the speaker. Of this we have notable examples in the
orations of Gregory of Nazianzen (a.d. 318), when he
invoked the spirits of the dead. In his first Invective
against Julian the emperor, he says, " Hear, thou soul of

1 Lecture SI., vol. ii., p. 66. London, I80I.

2 Veron's " Rule of Catholic Faith," p. 82. Birmingham, 1833.

3 This subject has been very ably treated by the Eev. J. E. Tyler in his
" Primitive Ohristian Worship."

INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 67

great Constantine, if thou hast any understanding of these
things, and all ye souls of kings before him who lived in
Christ." 1 And again, in the funeral oration delivered on
the death of his sister Gorgonia, he introduces the following
apostrophe : — " J/" thou hast any care of the things done by
us ; if holy souls receive this honour from God, that they
have any feeling of such things as these, receive this oration
of ours," etc. ^ This is the first trace we can find of invoca-
tion of the departed. It was introduced, as we have said,
raising the very question at issue, whether the departed
have any cognizance of our words and acts on earth ; and
this is pertinent to our second question, How is a Eomanist
assured that a departed spirit has any knowledge of the
prayers, much less of any mental action, of individuals on
earth ?

Here, then, are two insuperable difficulties in the way of
a Christian before he can adopt the Komish theory. The
Eomanist must make clear, as a matter of certainty, that the
departed whom he invokes are actually in a beatific state,
and that they are endowed with two, at least, of the attri-
butes of the Divinity, viz.. Omnipresence and Omniscience.

The text in St. Luke's Gospel (xv. 10), "There shall be
joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance"
(Eomish version), is often cited on this subject. But let the
context immediately preceding be examined. The man who
had lost a sheep, when he found it came home rejoicing ;
and then calling his neighbours together, told them of his
lost sheep being found, and bade them rejoice with him; so
the angels being informed of the lost sheep on earth return-
ing, by repentance, to the fold, are also bidden to rejoice ;

1 Tom. i. p. 78. Paris, 1778.

2 Greg. Naz., Orat. ii., in Gorgon., p. 190. Paris, 1630.

b» THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

not that they of themselves knew of the fact from any
prayers being offered to them, but from it being told to them
by the great Shepherd who has brought back the lost sheep
into the true fold. And this interpretation is borne out by
a note in the Douay Bible, appended to Ecclesiastes ix. 5 —
"The dead know nothing more" — which is as follows :
" Know notliwg more, viz., as to the transactions of this
world, in which they have now no part, unless it be revealed
to them." Besides, the text from Luke has reference to
angels (ayYtXoi) — the messengers of God — not departed
spirits. What reason have we for believing that Pope
Pius v., who anathematized our Elizabeth, or the extermi-
nator, Dominic, the haughty and traitorous a'Becket, or
Thomas Aquinas, who taught the doctrine of killing heretics
if they persisted in their refusal to believe Eome's doctrines
(all invocated by Eomanists as saints), are angels in
heaven?

It is yet a matter of doubt in this so-called infallible
church how or in what manner saints have any knowledge
of our prayers. Bellarmine, in the treatise already quoted,
book i. cap. 20, on " The Beatitude of Saints," declares
that there are four theories held by doctors .• —

"1. Some say tliat they know from the relation of the angels,
who at one time ascend to heaven, and at another time descend
thence to us.

" 2. Others say that the souls of the saints, as also the
angels, by a certain wonderful swiftness that is natural to
them, are in some measure everywhere, and themselves hear
the prayers of the supplicants.

" 3. Others say the saints see in God all things, from their
beatitude, which in any way appertain to themselves, and
hence even our prayers that are directed to them.

" 4. Others say, lastly, that the saints do not see in the Word

INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 09

our prayers from the beginning of their blessedness, but that
our prayers are only then revealed to them by God when we pour
them forth.''

And so again, Gabriel Biel, a great schoolman and divine
(a.d. 1460), gives it as liis opinion that the saints, of their
own knowledge, do not hear our prayers by reason of their
great distance from us, and that it is no part of their beatitude
that they should know what is going on here, nor that it
was " altogether certain " that they do know of our prayers ;
and he concludes by sajong that it was "probable — but
that it by no means followed of necessity "■ — that God
reveals our prayers to them.^ And so Veron, in his
" Hule of Catholic Faith" ^ says, " that it is not of faith
that the saints in heaven hear the prayers of the living."
But he asserts that they do in fact hear " our prayers which
are revealed to them probably by the Almighty, or made
known to them in various ways explained by St. Augus-
tine," etc.

Let Romanists tell us how they know that our prayers
are revealed to departed spirits. That we should pray to
saints with the doubt in our minds whether they hear us,
or with the belief that God reveals to them the fact that
some one on earth is asking their aid, is a complication
and corruption of Christianity worthy of the darkest ages,
and reserved for Rome to consummate.

III. Romanists of the present day, in accepting this doc-
trine, with all its uncertainties and difficulties, nevertheless
declare that they profess no new doctrine.

Have Romanists the sanction of Scripture or apostolic
tradition ? We maintain that they have neither.

J Gab. Biel in the Canone Missse., Lect. 31. Lugdun. 1527.
2 Birmingham, 1833, pp. 81, 82.

70 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

Some remarkable admissions on the part of fiomanists
themselves may be introduced here.

Cardinal Bellarmine admits that, before the coming of
Christj invocation of saints was not practised : —

" It is to be noted (He says) because the saints which died
before the coming of Christ did not enter into heaven, neither
did see God, nor could ordinarily take knowledge of the prayers
of such as should petition unto them ; therefore it was not the
use in the Old Testament to say, St. Abraham, pray for me." '

And another Romanist, Eckius, writes, to the same effect,
but he adds that the doctrine is not even taught in the
New Testament. ^ And Yeron, in his " Rule of Catholic
Faith.," 2 says : —

" Moreover, although it be revealed in the word of God, at
least in the unwritten word, that the saints are to be invocated,
and it follows, therefore, that they hear us, still the close con-
nexion does not make this consequence, however just and
necessary, a revealed doctrine or an article of faith."

The consequence, however, depends on the supposition
that the saints are to be invocated, and so assumes the whole
matter in dispute.

It is admitted, therefore, notwithstanding the forced in-
terpretation given to some texts by over-zealous contro-
versialists, that the doctrine of invocation of saints is not
revealed in, or enjoined by, either the Old or New Testa-
ment, — the written word. To us Protestants such an
admission is a surrender of the whole question ; for of what
value can any custom be, however ancient, if not sanctioned

1 Bellar. de Sanct. Beat., lib. i. c. 19, sect. 2, p. 412, torn. ii. Prag. 1751 ;
and torn. ii. p. 833. Ingolstadii, 1601.

2 Eckiue, Euch. cap. de Sanct. Yen., pp. 179, 180. Colonise, 1567.

3 Birmingham, 1833, p. 82. Father Waterworth's Translation.

INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 71

by the word of God ? But Veron tells us that it is at least
sanctioned " in the unwritten word," namely, the assumed
apostolic tradition of the church, which, with Romanists, is
of equal authority with the written word. Worthless as
this assertion is, it can nevertheless be shown to be ground-
less.

According to Bellarmine, all these alleged traditions,
" although not written in the Scriptures, are nevertheless
written in the monuments of the ancients, and in ecclesias-
tical books ;" ^ and we shall have presently to record Dr.
Wiseman's declaration to the like effect.'' The question
reduces itself, therefore, to a matter of fact, capable of
proof one way or the other.

Now, as to this alleged tradition, there is the startling
fact, that the invocation of saints was only first used in public
liturgies under Boniface V., a.d. 618. We challenge the
production of any genuine, weU-authenticated liturgy, of
anterior date, which contains any prayers to saints. This is
strong negative testimony against the alleged antiquity of
the custom. But further, Justin Martyr (a.d. 150),
Clement, bishop of Alexandria (a.d. 180), and Tertullian,
his contemporary, have handed down to us the public forms
of Christian service and rehgious exercises of the primitive
Christians. In these no trace whatever can be found, or
mention made of prayers to saints, but to God alone through
the mediation of Christ. In this fact we have strong grounds
for believing that invocation of saints was not, in. the
second century, either a doctrine or practice of the church.

1 " Etsi enim non sint scripts traditiones in divinis litteris, sunt tamen
scriptae in monumentis veterum, et in libris ecclesiasticis." Bell, de Verbo
Dei non Scripto, lib. iv. c. 12. Edit. Prag. 1721.

2 Lectures. No. iii. vol. i. p. 61. London, 1851. See our chapter on
" Purgatory."

72 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, martyred a.d. 165, testified as
follows : —

" The cliurcli throughout the whole world does nothing by
invocation of angels, nor by incantations, nor other depraved
and curious means ; but, with cleanliness, purity, and openness,
directing prayers to the Lord who made all things, and call-
ing upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, it exercises its
powers for the benefit, and not for the seducing of mankind." '

An endeavour is made to explain away this striking
passage, by the assertion, that Irenaeus was alluding to evil
spirits. This is an assumption not warranted by the eon-
text ; besides, angels are absolutely named by him, and he
makes an opposition to this by telling us whom Christians
did invoke — that they directed their prayers to the Lord who
made all things, and they called on the name of Jesus. We
are not left in uncertainty, for we find passages of an unequi-
vocal nature which leave no doubt as to the singleness of
worship of the early Christians, and the acknowledgment by
them of one only Mediator between God and man, Christ
Jesus, without any subtle distinction of a mediator of mercy
and a mediator of grace. Indeed, as to the "Monuments of
the Ancients," Delahogue, the Maynooth Professor, is con-
strained to admit that —

" If any monuments of the invocation of saints are not found
in the first and second centuries, that ought not to appear
strange ; for, as persecutions were then ragiag, the pastors of
the churches were more anxious to instruct and to prepare the
faithful for martyrdom than to write books. Besides, very few
monuments of those ages have reached us." ^

1 Ecclesia per universum mundum, — nee invocationibus angelicia faciat
aliquid, nee incantationibua, nee aliqu^ prav^ euriositate, sed munde, et pure
et manifeste orationes dirif^entes ad Dominum, qui omnia facit et nomen
Domini nostri Jesu Cliristi [invocans, virtutes] secundum utilitateshominum,
sed non ad seductionem perfecit. Irenseua, Oper. lib. ii. o. 35, sec. 6, p. 166.
Paris, Benedictine Edit. 1710 [sic Agit Fevardentius].

2 Si autem in primo et secundo sseoulo multa non reperiantur invocationis

INVOCATION 01' SAINTS. 73

And to the lite effect Cardinal Perron said : — " No trace
of the invocation of saints can be found in the authors who
lived nearest to the times of the apostles;" but he " accounts
for this fact/' in a like most convenient, but not convincing
manner, " by the circumstance that most of the writings of
that early period have perished." ^ Under this plea any
modern invention or absurdity might be sanctioned. But
the cardinal has forgotten that, in those writings which are
extant, there is ample evidence to prove what has been
before asserted.

It should be noted here, as a fact in the history of angel
worship, that about the year 366 a sect called Angelites
seem to have gained many followers in Phrygia. They
dedicated oratories and chapels to St. Michael, to whom
they prayed, and whom they called the Chief Captain of God's
Host. This heresy, became so important, that a council,
assembled at Laodicea in Phrygia, passed a decree against it.

This decree was as follows — "We ought not to leave
the church of God and invocate angels [angelos)'"^ The
Romish canonists. Merlin and Crabbe/ feeling the force
of this evidence against their modern teaching, artlessly,
though deceivingly, altered angelos to angulos, and make
this learned assembly decree that " we must not leave

Sanctorum monumenta, id mirum videri non debet ; tunc enim, furentibus
persecutionibus pastores ecclesiarum de instruendis at ad martyrium prse-
parandis fidelibus magis soliciti erant, quam de libris scribendia. Prseterea
paucissima illorum sseculorum monumenta ad noa pervenerunt. Traotatua de
My8teri6 S.S. Trinitatis, Delahogue. K. Coyne, Dublin, 1822. Appendix
de Cultu Sanctorum, etc., p. 233.

1 See StiUingfleet's Mational Account of the Grounds of the Protestant
Religion, pt. iii. c. 3, sec. xix. p. 590. Fol. Camb. 1701.

2 Non oportet Christianos EcclesiS. Dei derelictEt, abire atque Angelos
nominare. Can. 35. Concil. Laodio. JBinius. ConciL torn. i. p. 301. Lutet,
Paris, 1636. Can. 35. Labb. Concil. torn. i. col. 1.504. Paris, 1671.

3 Non oportet Christianos, derelicts Ecclesii Dei, abire in Angulos. Con-
ciliorum quatuor Gen. etc. Edit. J. Merlinus, Fol. 68, Edit. Coloniaj,
1530. Conciliorum omnia, etc. P. Grabbe. Fol. 226, Edit. 1538.

74 THE NOVELTIES OP ROMANISM.

the church of God and have recourse to angles" (or
corners) !

With regard to the testimony of the early Christian
writers, called the Fathers of the church, we have yet to
record another remarkable and important admission of
Romanists, which cuts at the root of the whole system if
attempted to be based on the traditions of the church. We
have seen that Dr. Wiseman accounts for the fact, that the
early Christians, in their prayers for the departed, included
patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, the Virgin Mary, etc.,
by asserting that the suffrages of the church had not then
declared them to belong to a happier order; and also that
Yeron admitted it was not until a.d. 1439, at the Council of
Florence, that the church made. the declaration that the holy
departed were in heaven. Bearing in mind the theory laid
down by Cardinal Bellarmine, that it is essential that the
saint invocated should be in the actual enjoyment of heaven,
we draw attention to the candid acknowledgment of a
Eomish writer, Franciscus Pagua. He states that we are
assured by three eminent Romanists, thecelebratedFranciscan
Castrus, also Medina, and Scotus, that " it was a matter
in controversy of old whether the souls of the saints, before
the day of judgment, did see God and enjoy the Divine
vision ; seeing many worthy men, and famous both for learn-
ing and holiness, did appear to hold that they do not see
and enjoy it before the day of judgment, until, receiving
their bodies together with them, they should enjoy Divine
blessedness.'" He then enumerates the Fathers who held this
opinion. Again, Stapleton, the celebrated Romish con-
troversialist, and Regius Professor of Divinity at Douay (a.d.
1598), admitted that " these so many famous ancient Fathers
[naming them] did not assent to this sentence which now in

INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 75

the Council of Morence was at length, after much disputing,
defined as a doctrine of faith, that the souls of the right-
eous enjoy the sight of God before the day of judgment ; but
did deliver the contrary sentence thereto." ^

The following admonition of Augustine on this important
subject, may be regarded as conclusive testimony as to the
opinion prevailing in the early part of the fifth century : —

" Let not our religion be tlie -worship of dead men, because
if they lived piously ttey are not so disposed to seek such
honours ; but they wish Him to be worshipped by us, by whom
being enlightened they rejoice that we are deemed worthy of
being partakers with them. They are to he honoured, then, on
the gronmd of imitation, not to he adored on the ground of reli-
gion ; and if they lived ill, wherever they be, they must not be
worshipped. This also we may believe, that the most perfect
angels themselves, and the most excellent servants of God, wish
that we, with themselves, should worship God, in the contem-
plation of whom they are blessed. * * * Therefore, we
honour them, with love, not with service. Nor do we build tem-
ples to them ; for they are unwilling to be so honoured by us,
because they know that, when we are good, we are as temples to
the most high God. Well, therefore, is it written, that a man
was forbidden by an angel to adore him." '

1 Fr. Pagna. in part ii. Direotorii Inquisitor. Comment, xxi. Stapleton .
Defens. Ecclesiastic. Auctor. contra Whitaker, lib. i. cap. 2. Antvp. 1696.
Quoted by Usber, Answer to a Challenge, etc., cap. ix. p. 376. Camb. 1835.

The following is the list of names referred to by one or other of the two
last named, to which we add the dates, etc. : —

(A.D.) 100. Clemens ilomanus, bishop ; 150. Justin, the martyr and saint ;
165. Irenseus, bishop of Lyons ; 200. Tertullian ; 230. Origen, pupil of
Clement, bishop of Alexandria; 300. Lactantius ; 348. Prudentia; 370.
Ambrose, bishop of Milan ; 370. Victorinus ; 416. Chrysostom ; 420. Augus-
tine; 430. Theodoret; 1050. (Ecumenius; 1070. Theophylact; 1118.
Euthymius ; 1130. Bernard, the last of the Fathers.

It is evident that none of these could have known of the modern Bomish
theory of saint worship. A clear fact, thus admitted by Romanists them-
selves, is worth a thousand arguments founded on subtleties, theories, and
suppositions.

2 Non sit nobis religio oultus hominum mortuorum, quia si pie vixerunt,
non sic habentur ut tales quaerant honores ; sed ilium a nobis coli volunt,
quo illuminante Isetantur meriti sui nos esse consortes. Honorandi ergo sunt

76 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

We need not weary our readers, nor occupy space, in
going over the ground already so thoroughly traversed, by
quoting extracts from the writings of Fathers in successive
centuries, by exposing the perversions and misquotations
advanced by Eomanists.

The following points may be regarded as conclusively
established : —

In the first place, negatively, that the Christian writers,
throughout the first tliree centuries and more, never refer to
the invocation of saints and angels as a practice with which
they were familiar ; that they have not recorded or alluded
to any forms of invocation of the kind used by themselves
or by the church in their dayj and that no services of the
earliest times contain hymns, litanies, or collects, to angels,
or to the spirits of the faithful departed.

In the second place, positively, that the principles which
they habitually maintained and advocated are irreconcilable
with such a practice.

As to the worship or invocation of the Virgin Mary,
which forms the principal item in modern Eomish devotions,
it has been shown by the Rev. J. E. Tyler, after a diligent
and impartial investigation of the records of the early
councils,and the works of the early Christian writers to the end
of the first five hundred years, that they all testify, " as with
one voice, that these writers and their contemporaries knew
of no belief in the present [supposecl~\ power of the Virgin
Mary, and of her influence with God; no practice, in public

propter iraitationem, non adorandi propter religionem. .Quare honoramus eos
caritate non servitute ; nee eis ternpla construimus. Nolunt enim se sic
honorari a nobis, quia nos ipsos, cum boni sumus, templa sumrua Dei esse
noverunt. ll-ecte itaque scribitur, etc. Augustine on " True Rdigion"
torn. i. p. 786. Benedictine Edition. Paris, 1700. There is a similar passage
in Augustine's book De Civit. Dei, lib. 8, c. 27.

IMAGE WORSHIP. 77

or private, of praying to God through her mediation ; or of
invoking her for her good offices of intercession^ and advo-
cacy, and patronage ; no offering of thanks and praise made
to her; no ascription of divine honour or glory to her name.
On the contrary, all the writers of those ages testify that, to
the early Christians, God was the only object of prayer, and
Christ the only Mediator and Intercessor in whom they had
put their trust."

CHAPTER VII.

IMAGE WORSHIP.

" As to the images of saintB, it is certain that, when the gospel was first
preached, there was for some time no use of images among Christians, espe-
cially in churches." — Cassander, Consult. Art. xxi. de Imag., p. 163.
Lugd. 1608.

There is no point of doctrine on which the Romanist is
more tender than that of " Image Worship,'' or the use of
images in his religious exercises. Idolatry, or idol worship,
is a grave charge to be brought against a professed Chris-
tian. Without using hard words or calling names, let us
for a moment dispassionately examine what is taught by
orthodox members of the Papal church on this point of
their faith.

At the twenty-fifth session of the Council of Trent (a.d.
1563), " all bishops and others sustaining the office and
charge of teaching " were directed " especially to instruct
the faithful that images of Christ, the Virgin, and other
saints are to be had and retained, particularly in churches ;

78 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMAITISM.

* * * and that due honour and veneration are to be awarded
to them." The decree does not define what is the nature of
this " due honour :" but it specially permits us to kiss the
image, to uncover the head, and to prostrate ourselves before
it.'^ The council having left this important matter to the
teaching of bishops, priests, etc., their opinions on the
subject, as might be expected, are divided. The illustrious
champion of Eomanism, Cardinal Bellarmine, in his second
book on "Sacred Images,"'^ tells us that there are different
opinions on the question proposed — "With what sort of
worship are images to be honoured ?" The first opinion he
rejects, namely : " That the faithful ought to do no more,
with regard to images, than to worship before them the pro-
totype, the exemplar, the original Being, of which the image
is a representation." The second opinion he does not abso-
lutely object to, which is : " That the same honour is due to
the image as to the exemplar ; and thence that the image of
Christ is to be worshipped with the worship of Latria [the
species of worship rendered by Eomanists to the Most High
God], the image of the blessed Virgin with the worship of
liyperdulia, and the images of the other saints with the
worship of Bulia." He names several " Catholic theolo-
gians" who taught this doctrine, and among them Alexander,
the "blessed saint" St. Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal Cajetan,

1 "Imagines porro Christi, Deiparae Virginia et aliorum sanctorum, in
templis praasertim habendas, et retinendas, eisque debitum honorem et vene-
rationem impertiendam ; non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas, vel
virtus, propter quam sint colendaa ; vel quod ab eia sit aliquid peteudum ;
vel quod fiducia in iraaginibus sit Agenda, veluti olim fiebat a gentibus quae
in idolis spem suam coUocabant ; sed quoniam hones qui eis exhibetur, re-
fertur ad prototypa, quae illae reprseseutant ; ita ut per imagines, quas
oBcuIamur, et coram quibus caput aperimus et procumbimua, Christum
adoremus, et sanctoa, quorum illae similitudinem gerunt, veneremur." Sess.
XXV. Decretum de Invocatione, Veneratione, et reliquiis Sanctorum, et sacris
Imaginibus. Lab. et Coss. conol. tom. xiv. col. 895. Paris, 1671.

2 Cap. 20. Edit. Prag. 1721.

IMAGE WORSHIP. 79

the "blessed saint" Bonaventure, Marsilius, Almagne,
" and others."

With regard to Aquinas, it may be as well to remark,
that he justifies himself for giving the self-same worship to
the wooden cross which he gives to God himself, by quot-
ing the ritual of his church. His words are : —

" Because Christ himself is adored with Divine honour, it
follows tliat his image is to be adored with Divine honour. —
We offer the supreme adoration of the Latvia to that Being in
whom we place our hope of salvation ; but we place our hope
of salvation in the Cross of Christ, for the church sings : ' Hail,
O Cross, our only hope in this time of passion; increase
righteousness to the pious, and grant pardon to the guilty.'
Therefwe the Gross of Christ is to be adored with the supreme
adoration of the Latvia." '

This is no figurative language ; for the " Pontificale
Exjmanum " directs that the cross of the pope's legate shall
be carried in the right hand, "because Latria is due to it."^

In justice, however, to BeUarmine, we should add, that he
said of the theory taught by Aquinas' and his school — "Those
who maintain that images are to be adored with divine honour
are driven to use such subtle distinctions as they themselves
can scarcely understand, much less the ignorant." And so
say we. Whether this teaching, sanctioned as it is by such
high authorities, is or is not idolatry in its worst sense, is
happily not our inquiry. We have merely stated the
Eomanist's case in his own words, and if he is charged with
teaching an idolatrous practice, we are not to blame. But
our present object is to prove that what the present Roman

1 ThoB. Aquinas, Theo. Sum. part iii.'quses. 25, art. 1 — 4; Eomae, 1686;
aad see Lib. iii. Dixt. ix. Sale ot. iv. p. 126, torn. xxiv. Venice, 1787.

2 " Quia debetur ei Latria." Pontificale Eomanum, p. 468. Edit. Komse,
1818.

3 De Kelig. Sao. Lit. e. xxii. sec. 4. Prag. Edit. 1721.

80 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMiNISM.

cliurcli does authoritatively teach as her doctrine is a modern
invention.

We have seen that the cliurch by her mouthpiece, the
Trent Council, has not defined the meaning of the expression
" due honour." It may be, as Aquinas has it, that supreme
worship is to be given to the image of Christ, a less worship
to that of the Virgin, and a lower degree to that of saints.
But the decree says that these images are to be retained in
churches, and " that due honour and veneration are to be
awarded to them;" because "the honour which is shown
unto them [the sacred images] is referred to the prototypes
which they represent, in such wise that by the images which
we kiss, and before which we uncover the head and prostrate
ourselves, we adore Christ, and venerate the saints, whose
similitude they bear." It is argued, therefore, that after
all, the worship, whatever it may be, is only a relative
worship. They do not worship what they see, but the Being
represented by the image before them. This is refined
Popery^ and not much understood by the people ; and has
led, as we shall see, to absolute idolatry. Let us, however,
take the declaration in the most liberal sense ; and we shall
find that even this species of refined Eomanism was expressly
condemned by the early Christian writers, as a proposition
advanced by the heathens and image-worshippers of their
day.

I. And first, on the theory of relative worship.

ArnobiuSj who flourished at the beginning of the third
century, was himself a zealous pagan before his conversion
to Christianity, and therefore practically knew what he was
writing about. He thus remonstrated with the heathen
idolaters of his day : —

" Tou say, ' We worship the gods through the images.' What

IMAGE WORSHIP. 81

then ? If these images did not exist, would the gods not know
they were worshipped, nor be aware of any honour being paid
to them by you P What can be more unjust, more disrespect-
ful, more cruel, than to recognise one as a God, and offer up
supplication to another thing ; to hope for help from a Divine
Being, and pray to an image which has no sense P"

Again, lie says : —

" But ye say, — You are mistaken ; we do not consider mate-
rials of brass, or silver, or gold, or other things of which the
statues are made, to be of themselves gods or sacred divinities ;
but in these materials we worship and venerate those gods
whom the holy dedication brings in, and causes to dwell iu the
images wrought by the craftsmen." ^

Origen, a Father of the third century, in his writings
against Celsus, strongly condemned, by anticipation, the
same theory. He says : —

"What sensible person would not laugh at a man who
# # * * looks to images, and there offers up Ms prayer
to them, or, beholding them, refers it to the being contem-
plated in his mind, to whom he fancies that he ought to ascend
from the visible object, which is the symbol of him (whom the
image is supposed to represent) P" ^

Saint Ambrose, bishop of Milan, in the fourth century,
also thus speaks of this species of heathen worship : —

" This gold, if carefully handled, has an outward value ; but
inwardly it is mere ordinary metal. Examine, I pray you, and
sift thoroughly the class of Gentiles. The words they utter
are rich and grand : the things they defend are utterly devoid
of truth : they talk of God — they worship an image." ^

Saint Augustine, a Father of great authority with

1 Arnob., lib. v. c. ix. and o. xvii. Leipsic Edit. 1816.

2 Origen eont. Cels., lib. vii. c. xliv. Paris, 1733.

3 Amb. ad Valen. Epist. cap. i. xviii. Venice, 1781.

82 THE NOVELTIES OP ROMANISM.

Romanists (when he speaks for them), arguing against the
nice distinctions made by the heathen idolaters of his day,
says : —

" But those persons seem to themselves to belong to a more
purified religion who say — ' I worship neither an image nor a
demon [this does not mean a devil, hut a departed spiiit], hut
I regard the bodily figure as the representation of that Being
whmn I ought to icorsliip.' * * * And when, again, with
regard to these, they [the more enlightened heathens] begin
to be pressed hard on the point, that they worsbip bodies,
* * * they are bold enough to answer that they do not
worship the images themselves, hut the divinities which preside
over and rule them." ^

And, again, he says : — •

" But some disputant comes forward, and, very wise in his
own conceit, says — ' I do not worship that stone nor that in-
sensible image; your prophet could not say they have eyes
and see not, and I be ignorant that that image neither hath a
soul, nor sees witb his eyes, nor hears with his ears. I do not
worship that, but I adore what I see, and serve him whom I do
not see.' And who is he ? — a certain invisible divinity, which
presides over tbat image." ^

And once again, he says : —

" And lest any one should say, ' I do not worship the
image, but that which the images signify,' it is immediately
added, and they worshipped and served the creature more than
the Creator. Now, understand weU, they either worship the
image or a creature ; he who worships the image converts the
truth of God into a he." '

Whether Ambrose and Augustine (both saints canonized
by the church of Eome) were right or wrong in their con-

1 Aug., in Psalm xciii. part 2, torn. iv. p. 1261. Paris, 1679.

2 Aug., in Psalm xcvi. torn. iv. p. 1047.

3 Aug., Serm. oxvii. torn. v. p. 905.

IMAGE WORSHIP. 83

demnation of this theory of relative worship, subsequently
revived by the Roman church a.d. 787, at the second
Council of Nice, it is evident that the doctrine was not
universally admitted by the Christian church until very
many years after their day, and therefore must be accounted
a novel doctrine.

II. On the second head, as to the introduction of images
in churches for religious worship, we may observe generally,
that it was the opinion of Lactantius, an eloquent Latin
Father, called the Christian Cicero, who wrote at the end of
the third century, that, "beyond aU doubt, wherever an
image is, there is no religion." ^ But, without going to the
writings of the early Fathers, whose works are replete with
denunciations against the use of images in religious worship,
let us take the opinion of modern Eomish divines. Two or
three instances wiU suffice.

The great scholar, Erasmus, who was ordained a priest in
1492, said — "Down to Saint Jerome^s time (a.d. 400)
those of the true religion would suffer no image, neither
painted nor graven, in the church; no, not the picture of
Christ." And he adds, " No man can be free from show of
superstition that is prostrate before an image, and looks on
it intentionally, and sj)eaks to it, and kisses it ; nay, although
he does but (only) pray before an image." ^

Henry Cornelius Agrippa, a divine of great and varied
attainments, who died 1535, said : —

" The corrupt manners and false religion of the Gentiles
have infected our religion also, and brought into the church
images and pictures, with many ceremonies of external pomp,

1 Lact. Divin. Instit., lib. ii. o. xix. torn. i. Paris, 1748.

2 "Usque ad aetatem Hieronymi erant probatas religionis viri, qui in
templis nullum ferebant imaginem, neo picturam, nee sculptam, etc." EraBin.
Symbol. Catch, torn. v. p. 1187. Edit. L. Bat. 1703.

81 THE NOVELTIES OF U05IANISM.

none wliereof was found amongst tlie first and true Chris-
tians." '

To go up to a higlier date^ Agobard/arclibishop of Lyons
(a.d. 816), said: —

" The orthodox Fathers, for avoiding of superstition, did
carefully provide that no pictures should be set up in churches,
lest that which is worshipped should be painted on the walls.
There is no example in all the Scriptures or Fathers, of adora-
tion of images : they ought to be taken for an ornament to
please the sight, not to instruct the people." ^

Such testimony we might multiply, but to what purpose ?
Eomanisin stands self-convicted.

III. As to councils. Here we have a regular "Papal
war.'" The thirty-sixth canon of the Council of Elvira or
lUiberis, Spain, a.d. 305, decreed that "no pictures should
be in churches, lest that should be worshipped which was
painted on the walls."

In 730, the Council of Constantinople, under the emperor
Leo (the Isaurian), passed a decree, not only against the
abuse, but against the use of any images or pictures in
churches. Perceiving how the Christian church was becom-
ing immersed in gross idolatry, and feeling that the Arabian
imposture (Mohammedanism) would be promoted by such an
innovation on Christianity, Leo undertook to abolish the
sinful practice altogether. He issued an edict, directing
that images should be removed from churches and sacred
places, and be broken up or committed to the flames, with
the threat of punishment for disobedience of orders. Con-
stantine, to whom the image worshippers, in derision, gave

1 Cornel. Agrippa, de inceit. et vanit. Soient., u. Ivii. p. 10.5, torn. ii.
Lugd.

2 Agobard Opera. Lib. de Imag. torn. i. p. 226. Edit. Baluzius, Paris,
1665.

IMAGE WORSHIP. 85

the name of CopronymuSj followed in his father's footsteps.
In A.D. 754j he summoned another council at the same
place, which was attended by 388 bishops, who enjoined
the absolute rejection of every image or picture from every
church.

In 787, at the seventh session of the second Council of
Nice, images, etc., were, for the first time, authoritatively
permitted. It was declared that " there should be paid to
them the worship of salutation and honour, and not that
true worship which is accorded by faith and belongs to God
alone;" and that "the honour so paid to them was trans-
mitted to the originals they represent." In this year, the
Empress Irene, the Jezebel of that day (who became regent,
on the death of her husband, Leo IV., and during the
minority of her son, Constantine VI.), convoked the council,
and was mainly instrumental in effecting the firm establish-
ment of image worship. She was heathen by instinct, and
conceived the idea that this idolatry would soon make the
world forget the profligacy of her past life. But, in 794, the
Council of Frankfort, by its second canon, condemned the
said decree of the second Council of Nice, and all worship
of images; as did also, in 815, a Council of Constanti-
nople, which decreed that all ornaments, paintings, etc., in
churches should be defaced. In 825, the Council of Paris
condemned the decree of the second Council of Nice,
declaring that it was no light error to say that even some
degree of holiness could be attained through their means.
This Council of Paris was continued at Aix-la-Chapelle ; the
French bishops still resisting the decree of the second
Council of Nice, though the pope had approved it. But in
842, at the Council of Constantinople, under the emperor
Michael, and Theodora his mother, the decree of the second

8b THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

Council of Nice -ii-as confirmedj the image-breakers anathe-
matized, and images restored to churches.

In 870, at the tenth session of the Council of Constanti-
nople, the third canon again enjoined the worship of the
cross and the images of the saints. And at the same place,
at another council, a.d. 7 SO, in the fifth session, the decrees
of the second Council of Nice were approved and confirmed.

Again, in lOSt, at another Council of Constantinople,
the decree made in the council of 842, in favour of the use
of images, was confirmed.

The worship of images, after this time, appears to have
taken such deep root among the people, that, in 151'9, the
Council of Mayence decreed that people should be taught
that images were not set up to be worshipped ; and priests
were enjoined to remove the image of any saint to which
the people flocked, as if attributing some sort of a divinity
to the image itself, or as supposing that God or the saints
would perform what they prayed for by means of that par-
ticular image, and not otherwise.-'

Such was the fearful idolatry to which the introduction
of images into churches led; so that the assembly of French
bishops, at the celebrated conference at Poissi, a.d. 1561,

* The following are references to the above Councils : —

"Placuit picturas in ecclesi^esse non debere; ne quid colituret adora-

tui- in parictibus." Council of Eliberi, a.d. 300, can. xxxvi. Labb.

at Coss. Cone. torn. i. col. 974. Paris, 1671.
Council of Constant., A.D. 730. Ibid. torn. vi. col. 1461.
Council of Constant., a.d. 7o4. Ibid. torn. vi. col. 1661.
Council of Nicea II., a.d. 7S7. Ibid. pp. 449, 899, torn. vii.
Council of Frankfort, A.D. 794. Can. ii. Ibid. torn. vii. col. 1013.
Council of Constant., a.d. 815. Ibid. torn. vii. col. 1299.
Council of I'arie, A.D. 825. Ibid. torn. vii. col. 1542.
Council of Constant., A.D. 842. Ibid. torn. vii. col. 1782.
Council of Constant., A.D. 870, session x. Can. iii. Ibid. torn. viii.

col. 962.
Council of Constant., A.D. 879, session v. Ibid. torn. ix. col. 324.
Council of Mayence, A.D. 1549. Ibid. torn. xiv. col. 667.

IMAGE WORSHIP. 87

enjoined on the priests to use their endeavours to abolish
all superstitious practices; to instruct the people that
images were exposed to view in the churches for no other
reason than to remind persons of Jesus Christ and the saints ;
and it was decreed that all images which were in any way
indecent, or which merely illustrated fabulous tales, should
be entirely removed i^ — a proof of the corruption of the
times that such a decree should be needed. And the Council
of Eouen (a.d. 1445), in its seventh canon, condemned the
practice of addressing prayers to images under peculiar
titles, as " Our Lady of Eecovery," " Our Lady of Pity,'" of
"Consolation," and the alike, alleging that such practices
tended to superstition, as if there was more virtue in one
image than in another."

It remained for the Council of Trent (at the twenty-fifth
session, a.d. 1563) to confirm, and for Rome to give its
authoritative sanction to the worship of images, and their use
in churches, as part of the religious worship of Christians.

Such, then, is the rise and progress of image worship in
the church, now confirmed by Eome ; caU it idolatry, or caU
it what you will, "it was not so from the beginning."
" They that make a graven image are all of them vanity."
(Isaiah xliv. 9.)

1 See Landon's " Manual of Councils,'' p. 495. London, 1846.

2 Labb. et Coss. Concil. torn. xiii. Concl. Eothomagense, Can. vii. col.
1307. Paris, 1671.

88 THE NOTMLTIES OF ROMANISM.

CHAPTER YIII.
IMAGE WOESHIP {coiitiimecl) .

•' Te shall not add unto the word which I command you,'neither shall ye
diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord
your God which I command you." — Deut. It. 2.

No chapter on image worship would be complete without
some observation on the treatment, by priests of Rome, of
what we designate the "Second Commandment." And first,
a few words on the translations of Exodus xx. 4, 5. The
Latin Vulgate translation is as follows : —

" Non facies tibi sculptile, neque omnem simOitudinem, quffi
est in coelo desuper et quae in terra deorsum, nee eorum quae
stmt in aqnis snb terra. Non adorabis ea, neque coles." '

The Douay [Romish] translation is : —

" Thon sbalt not make to tbyself any graven thing, nor the
likeness, * * * tbou shalt not adore them nor serve them."

And the Protestant authorized version : —

" Tbou sbalt not make unto tbee any graven image, or any
likeness, * * * tbou sbalt not how down tbyself to tbem nor
serve tbem.''

1. The word imaffe is alleged to be a mistranslation.^
For a reply let us go first to Rome and the Papal press.
Two editions of an Italian translation of the Catechism of
the Council of Trent were simultaneously issued at Rome,

1 Biblia Sacra Vulgatae editionis Sixti. Pont. Maxjussu recognita, et de-
mentis VIII. auctoritate, etc. Venetiis, mdclxxvii. Apud Nicholaum Pez-
zana.

2 See Dr. Doyle's Abridgment of Christian Doctrine, E. Coyne, Dublin,
1846, p. 49 ; and Dr. Dixon's General Introduction to the Sacred Scrtjjturvs,
Duffy, Dublin, 1862, who devotes a chapter to the subject.

IMAGE WORSHIP. 89

with the authoritative approval of Pope Pius V. (a.d. 1567).
At page 375, we have the translation given as follows :—

" Non ti farai alcuna imagine scolpita, etc. : — non le adorerari,
ne le honorerari."

That is :—

" Thou shalt not make thee any scubpiwred image — thou stalt
not adore them, nor shalt thou honour them." i

Passing over to Austria, we find that in the Austrian
" Great Eeading Book for German Normal and Upper
Schools in the Imperial and Eoyal Provinces " ^ the com-
mandments are professedly set out as they are given in the
Bible, and here the word " bild," image, is used. And the
correctness of our translation is also confirmed by the
"Catechism in use in all the churches in the empire of
IVance." ^ The pupil is requested to recite the command-
ments " as God gave them to Moses :" here again the
translation is " aucune image taiUee," any cut or graven
image.

And in England also we have the same translation recog-
nised in " The Poor Man's Catechism, by the E-ev. John
Mannock, A.S.E." In p. 133, section iii., we read —
" Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image." And
in the foot-note to the Douay translation * of Exod. xx. 4,
is added : —

All such imMges and likenesses are forbidden by this com-

1 These two editions are in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. See
Catholic Laymon^ December, 1852, p. 142. Dublin.

2 Grosses Lehrebuch fiir die deutsohen Normal und Haupt-Schulen in
den Kais Konigl. Staaten. Religions- Lehre Wien., 1847, p. 69. **Dusollflt
dir kein geschnitztea Bild machen dassi-lbe anzubeten."

3 Catechisme a 1' usage de toutes les Eglises de 1' empire Francjais," Paris,
1806. "D. Eecitez ces Commandements tels que Dieu les a donne a Mo'ise"
— "tu ne feras aueune image taillee," p. 51.

4 Published by Richardson and Son, with the approval of Dr. Wieeman,
dated from Birmingham, 1847.

90 THE NOVELTIES OP EOMANISM.

mandment as are made to be adored and served," thougli tte
text is " graven thing."

We are entitled, therefore, by the admissions of Eoman
Catholics themselves, to claim for our version accuracy of
translation when it uses the word image.

2. The second peculiarity to be observed is the use of the
word " adore " in all the Eomish versions, and in all
catechisms where this commandment is set oiit, while our
translation renders it " bow down."

The best authority on this subject is, perhaps, Dr.
Walton's well-known " Polyglot." ^ Here we have the
Hebrew text with an interlinear literal translation of Pagnini
compared with the Hebrew by Ben Ariam IN^otanius, and
others. The rendering of the original is non incurvahis,
which means, that a literal bending of the body is prohibited.
The Trent Council permits, as we have already shown, a
prostration before the image ; hence the necessity of chang-
ing the meaning of the word. The Septuagint translators
render it wpoaKwriaei^, which literally means a bending of
the body.^

3. The next peculiarity to be observed is, the division of
the commandments in the Eomanist Pibles and manuals.
When all the commandments are given, the first and second
are blended into one and considerably curtailed, and the

1 Folio edition, torn. i. p. 310.

2 See the word used in the following texts : — Gen. xviii. 2 ; xxvii. 29 ;
xxxiii. 3, 6, 7 ; xxxvii. 7 ; xlix. 8 ; and Isa. xlv. 14. The original Hebrew
signifies to '' bow down," and the Greek " to prostrate oneself in homage ;**
but in a secondary sense both words apply to the mental act of adoration
and honouring: but if mental adoration be forbidden, how much more the
outward act by which it is signified ? It is the outward act by which man
is made cognizant of the feeling of adoration in another, and although
the outward act may be insincere, yet it acquiesces in the propriety of the
feeling, and would, of course, be forfiidden when it testified to the presence of
a forbidden sentiment.

IMAGE WORSHIP. 91

tenth is divided into two. The Bible clearly makes the
second commandment a distinct precept from the first.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before [or but] me."
" Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. . . .
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them [the images],
nor serve them." The first forbids the acknowledgment
of any other than the one true God. The second forbids
the use of images in religious worship. Clearly, these
are two distinct commands. Whenever the church of
Eome does give the second part, she blends the two precepts
into one, and thus endeavours to evade the direct force and
prohibition of the command to abstain from the use of all
images in religious worship. For instance, in Dr. Doyle's
"General Catechism," i are the following questions and
answers : —

" Q. Say the Ten Commandments of God.

" A. 1. I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange
gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself either an idol
or any figure to adore it.

"2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in
vain," etc.

And the tenth is divided into two, in order to make up
the number thus : —

" 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
" 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods."

It is worthy of observation that this tenth commandment,
according to our arrangement, embraces one subject, " Thou
shalt not covet;" and so obvious is this, that the Trent
Catechism is compelled to consider the whole as one, " their
subject not being dissimilar," though it designates it as the

1 Stereotyped edition. Kichard Grace, Dublin, 1843, p. 25.

93 THE NOVELTIES OP UOMANISJI.

ninth and tenth commandments. There is this further
peculiarity : when divided^ the commandments are thus
given : —

" 9. Thou sialt not covet tliy neighbour's wife.
" 10. Thou shalt not covet tliy neighbour's goods."

But the Trent Catechism gives the order thus : —

Of the Ninth and Tenth Commandments.
" Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house ; thou shalt not
covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-
seiTant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his."

So thatj following this authority, the division should
be—

" 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house.
" 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife."

And, on the principle of making these different precepts,
there is sufficient omitted for an eleventh commandment !

The object for adopting this division is obvious : it
enables compilers to omit what we place as the second com-
mandment, without any alteration of the numbers, when
that omission may suit a purpose.

It is true that Augustine is cited as an authority for this
division ; but Augustine gives both divisions, as may be found
by a reference to his " Epist-ola ad Bdu'ifaaum" and the
" Speciiluiii ex iJeiileronomhi." Augustine's theory was, that
the first tJiree precepts contained our duty to God, and by this
division he desired to symbolize the Trinity ; a mischievous
mysticism which brought much evil into the church." On
the other hand, we follow the division adojited by the Jews,

1 Cat. Concl. Tridt, Part iii., cap. .x, q. 1.

2 See a ^■ery clever p:iiiiphlet entitled ^^Why does the Church of Rome hide
the Second Commandment from the People i" by Dr. M'Caul.

IMAGE WORSHIP. 93

as testified by Josephus/ and also by the Greek church ;
and among the Fathers, we may reckon on our side
Tertullian, ^Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory Nazi-
anzen, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, John
Cassion, Sulpicius Severus, etc.^

4. This leads us to one of the gravest charges we have to
bring against Koman Catholics, namely, the entire omission
from the Decalogue of what we may now safely call ilie second
commandment. This has been done in most of the cate-
chisms, the exception being when the omission is not made,
and, in that case, attention is pointedly called to the fact.
Por instance, in the catechism of Dr. Doyle, above quoted,
in p. 26, the following question is asked : — -

" Q. Is any "part of tlie commandments left out ?
" A. No. — But some wm-ds are omitted."

But in none of those catechisms which do omit the second
precept or commandment is tliis question asked !

To quote all the examples and references would be need-

^ Josephus' " Jewish Antiquities," book iii. u. v. Works, vol. i. p. 207.
London, 1716.

■■^ Bishop Taylor, in his " Christian Law the great Rule of Conscience,"
(b. ii. c. ii. Rule vi. vol. xii. p. 360, et seq., Heber's edit. Lond. 1822),
quotes Athanasius, Cyril, Jerome, and Hesychius, as making the introduction
to be one of the commandments, and those which we call the first and
second, to be the second only. Of the same opinion of uniting these two, he
quotes Clemens Alexandrinus, Augustine, Bade, and Bernard, the ordinary
Gloss, Lyra, Hugo Cardinalis, and Lombard. On the other side, two distinct
commandments are made by the Chaldee Paraphrast, and by Josephus,
Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine (or
the author of The Question on the Old and New Testaments), Sulpicius
Severus, Zonaras, and admitted as probable by Bcide, followed by Calvin and
other Protestants, not Lutherans. Athanasius, in his St/nop. Scrip., gives
the division as follows : — " The Book hath these Ten Commandments in
tables : the Jirst is ' I am the Lord thy God ; ' the second, ' Thou shalt not
make an idol to thyself, nor the likeness of anything." " And Cyril (lib. v.
cent. Jul.) brings in Julian thus accounting them : — " I am the Lord thy
God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt ; the second after this —
' Thou shalt have no other gods besides me ; thou shalt not make to thyself
{simulacrum) a graven image.' "

94 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

lessly extending our work; we give only a few. Of catechisins
published in England, we have to notice " The Catechism
or Christian Doctrine by way of Question and Answer, illus-
trated by the Sacred Text and Tradition." ^ We read : —

" Q. How many commandments has God given P

"A. Ten.

" Q. Say them.

"A. [N.B. Placed in inverted commas as a quotation from the
BihW] ' I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the
land of Egypt and out of the house of bondage ; thou shalt not
have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not take the name
of the Lord thy God in vain. Remember to keep holy the
Sabbath day. Honour thy father and thy mother. Thou shalt
not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou 'shalt not
bear false witness against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not
covet thy neighbour's wife. Thou shalt not covet thy neigh-
bour's goods.' Exod. XX. 3, etc."

Again, in "A Catholic Catechism methodically arranged
for the use of the uninstructed, translated from the Italian
of the Very Kev. Antonio Eosmini-Serbati, D.D., Founder
and General of the Institute of Charity, by the Eev. U. S.
Agar," ^ the commandments are thus given : —

" 1. I am the Lord thy God ; thou shalt not have other gods
before me.

" 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in
vain.

"3. Remember thou keep holy the days appointed." [!]
etc., etc., etc.

Of those published in Ireland, we may cite " Dr. James

1 Pages 25 and 26. London, C. Dolman, 61, New Bond Street, 1843. This
book contains 249 pages, and is alleged to be, on the title-page, " permissu
Buperiorum."

2 Pages 33 and 34. London and Dublin : Richardson and Son (con-
taining 203 pages). There is no date, but it is now on sale. This translation
is dedicated to Dr. UUathorne, one of the [illegal] Komisb bishops in this
country.

IMAGE WOESHIP. 95

Butler's Catechism^ revised, enlarged, approved and recom-
mended by the four E.G. archbishops in Ireland as a
general catechism for the kingdom," ^ p. 36.

"A Catechism: or an abridgment of the Christian
Doctrine. By the Most Reverend Dr. Reilly. Dublin :
Eichard Grace, Catholic bookseller, 1845,-" p. 20.

Butler's Catechism (title as before], " approved and recom-
mended by the Eight Eev. James Doyle, D.D., bishop of
Kildare and Leighlin. Dublin : printed by Eichard Grace
and Son, 1848," p. 36.

The commandments in all these are thus given, at the
several pages indicated : —

" 1. I am tte Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange
gods before me.

" 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in
vain.

" 3. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.

tP ^ * ^ ^ ^

" 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
" 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods."

With this evidence of the suppression of God's command
against the worship of images, we may be spared the enume-
ration of examples from foreign catechisms. The curious
on this subject may obtain further information by consulting
the little pamphlet of the Eev. Dr. M'Caul before cited,
where all these foreign catechisms are quoted, and the writer
thus sums up his evidence : —

" Here, then, are twenty -nine Catechisms in use iu Rome and
Italy, France, Belgium, Austria, Bavaria, Silesia, Poland, Ireland,

1 The edition before us is the " 27th edition carefully corrected and im-
proved with amendments. Dublin : John Coyne, 1844."

96 THE NOVELTIES OE EOMANISM.

England, Spain, and Portugal, in 27 of which the second com-
mandment is totally omitted ; in 2 mutilated, and only a por-
tion expressed. Is not, then, the charge proved, that the
church of Rome hides the second commandment from the
people p"

Any further comment on this treatment of the word of
God by Eomanists would be superfluous.

CHAPTER IX.

PURGATOEY.

" PuKGATORY — The Priests' Kitchen."

-J Italian Proverh.

In conversation with an inteUigent Italian, a man of emi-
nent ability and professedly a Eoman Catholic^ we took
occasion, among other topics, . to speak to him of his
religion. We asked him what he thought of the doctrine of
purgatory ? " Oh ! (said he), we call purgatory here (Italy)
the priest's kitchen !" The idea is a good one; for purga-
tory is the foundation for masses, indulgences, and prayers
for the dead. Credulous people are taught to believe that
the faithful departed are detained in torments, if not in
actual flames, till they can be relieved and set free by the
help of these religious performances ; and priests are paid,
and have death-bed bequests made them to do this work,
under the representation that they can accelerate the transit
of the sufferer from purgatory to heaven. The doctrine is
one of very considerable importance to the Eomish church,
and worth maintaining at all hazards. Those who die in
mortal sin go to hell; but those who die in what this

PUUGATOUY. 97

church asserts to be venial sins, for which satisfaction has
not been made in this life, or for which satisfaction has not
been remitted by indulgences, go to purgatory. Again, we are
told, " when a man's sins are forgiven him, and he is justified,
there yet remains an obhgation to the payment of temporal
punishment, either in this world, or the world to come, in
purgatory ;" ^ then by indulgences these temporal punish-
ments can be remitted. The mass is also stated to be
"propitiatory," and "rightly offered," not only for the
living, " but also for those who are departed, in Christ, and
who are not as yet fully purified and purged " ^ — namely,
for those in purgatory. And the Trent Catechism tells us
that purgatory is a purgatorial, literal fire, in which the
souls of the pious, being tormented for a defined time, are
purged of their guilt, by which means an entrance is gained
into heaven.^ The system is a masterpiece of imposition
and priestcraft : and the only surprise is, that men in the
nineteenth century can be found to believe in it. There is,
first, the arbitrary distinction between venial and mortal sins,
the line where one ends and the other begins being judged
of by the priest in the confessional : a system wholly un-
known to the early Christian church. As God alone
knoweth the heart, what an impious assumption in the
priest to take upon himself to draw the line ! Then comes
the absolution from the sin, by the priest, leaving the punish-
ment due to the sin, to be undergone in this life or in purga-
tory. Conceive for a moment a criminal, found guilty of
some offence, being told that he received the Queen's most

1 Concl. Trident. Sess. vi. can. xxx.

2 Ibid. Seas. xxii. cap. ii.

3 " Est PurgatoriuB ignis, quo pionim animse ad definitum tempus cruciaim
expiantur." Catech. Concl. Trid. Pars. i. b. v. Purg. Ignis, p. 61. Paris
Edit. 1848.

yo THE NOVELTIES 01' EOMANISM.

gracious pardon because lie had repented and confessed his
guilt, but nevertheless that he must still undergo the punish-
ment due to the crime ! It would be difficult to make the
man appreciate either the value of the pardon or the justice
of the proceeding. Yet such is the modern Eomish theory,
which we challenge Eomanists to support by any evidence
from the early Christian church.

The proposition of a purgatory was first submitted for
discussion at the second session of the Council of Ferrara,
15th March, 1438, and before that date it formed no part
of any creed, nor was it recognised as the admitted
doctrine of the church. It was first admitted as a doctrine
of the Romish church at the Council of Florence, 1439.^

We may here record a remarkable admission on this sub-
ject. The doctrine involves a decision, on the part of those
who profess it, as to the state of departed souls ; any uncer-
tainty on which head, must also involve an uncertainty in
the belief in the doctrine itself. The Benedictine editors of
the works of Ambrose (a.d. 370) make the following
acknowledgment : —

"It is not, indeed, wondei-ful tliat Ambrose should have
written in this manner about the state of souls ; but it may
seem almost incredible how uncertain and how little consistent
the holy fathers have been on that question 6'om the very times of
the apostles to the pontificate of Gregory XI. and the Council
of Florence, that is, in the space of nearly fourteen hundred
years. For not only do they differ one from another, as in
matters not [yet] defined by the church as likely to happen,
but they are not even sufiiciently consistent with themselves." '

1 The Council of Florence was a continuation of that of Ferrara.

2 " Mirum quidem non est hoc modo de aniraarum statu scripsisse Ambro-
sium, sed illud propemodum incredibile videri potest, quam in eS. qu^stione
sancti patres ab ipsia apostolorum temporibus ad Gregorii XI. Pontificatum,
Florentinumque Concilium, hoc est toto ferme quatuordecim sEeculorum
spatio, iacerti ao parum constantes exstiterint. Won enim solum alius ab

PTJKGATOEY. 99

What better information, what new revelation^ had the
doctors of the Council of !Florencej which the Christians of
the time of Ambrose had not? The fact is, the Bible
speaks only of heaven and hell, and of no such intermediate
place as purgatory. The Bible having ceased to be the
guide of the church of Eome, that church, acting on her
own authority, invented and then defined what she chose
about purgatory, and afterwards assumed the power of
assisting souls therein : canonizing this man, and sending
another to the " bottomless pit :" impudently claiming
antiquity in her favour as sanctioning her teaching, and
dogmatically anathematizing every one who would not
implicitly believe what she chose to dictate.

On what evidence is this doctrine supported? Dr.
Wiseman, in his " Moorfields Lectures,"^ admits that the
doctrine of purgatory cannot be proved directly from
Scripture ; he admits it to be there laid down " indirectly"
only. Dr. Wiseman's theory is important. He says that
it is unreasonable to demand that Eomanists should prove
every one of their doctrines individually from the Scriptures.
His church (he alleges) was by Christ constituted the
depository of His truths, and that although many were
recorded in Holy Writ, stiU many were committed to
traditional keeping. "It is on this authority that the
Catholic grounds his behef in the doctrine of purgatory;
yet not but that its principle is laid down, indirectly at
least, in the word of God."

Dr. Wiseman makes purgatory a theological principle
deduced from another doctrine of his church, "praying for

alio, ut in hujuamodi qusestionibus necdum ab ecclesii definitis contingere
amat, dissentiunt t verum etiam non satis cohoerent sibi ipsi." St. Amb.
Oper. torn. i. p. 385, Admonitio ad Leotorem. Edit. Bened. Parisiis, 1686.
1 London, 1851. Led. xi. vol. ii. p. 53.

100 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISII.

the dead •'' which" he asserts to be both Scriptural and
apostoHcal, and practised by the early Christian church.
" This practice " (he says) " is essentially based on the belief
in purgatory, and the principles of both are consequently
intimately connected together." If he proves the one, he
asserts that the other necessarily follows, as a theological
consequence and conclusion ; " for, if the ancient Christians
prayed for the dead, what else could they pray for but to
relieve the soul from this distressing position ?" This is
his argument. It is important here to observe, that Dr.
Wiseman gives us a rule whereby to test the genuineness of
a doctrine. In the same " Lectures"^ he says : —

" Suppose a difficulty to arise regarding any doctrine — that
men were to diifer, and not know what precisely they should be-
lieve — and that the church thought it pmdent and necessary
to examine into this point, and define what was to he held :
the method pursued would he to examine most accurately the
writings of the oldest fathers of the church, to ascertain what
in different coimtries and different ages was held by them ; and
then collecting the sufEi-ages of all the world and of all times
— not indeed to create new articles of faith — but to define that
such and such has always been the faith of the Catholic church.
It is conducted in every instance as a matter of historical in-
quiry, and all human prudence is used to arrive at a judicious
decision."

We will not comment on the hopeless task proposed to
us, before wc can assert what is, or what ought to be, of
faith on a disputed point ; but all we require is the ad-
mission that tlie question is resolved into an hidorical
inqHiri/ — a matter of fact.

Dr. Wiseman, it will be observed, does not rely on the
modern theory of " development.^'

1 London, 1851. Lect. xi. vol. i. p. 61.

PURGATOUY. 101

Now, let us draw attention to the Eev. Father Water-
worth's edition of Yeron's Bule of Catholic Faith} which
is "well known and universally acknowledged." The
Eomish priest. Dr. Murray, in his examination before
a committee in the House of Commons,^ on oath deposed
that in this book, among others, was "to be found the
most authentic exposition of the faith of the Catholic
church."

Veron, in order that the meaning of his church should
not be misrepresented, lays down the following rules : —

" I. That, and tliat only, is an article of Catholic faith, which
has been revealed in the word of God, and proposed by the
Catholic church to all her children, as necessary to be believed
with Divine faith (Cap. i. sec. i. p. 1). It no longer belongs to
tliis heavenly deposit if either of these conditions fail (p. 3).

' ' II. No doctrine is an article of faith which is grounded on
texts of Scripture which have been interpreted in various
senses by the holy fathers (Sec. iv. 3, p. 8).

" III. We do not admit as an article of Catholic faith any
consequences, however certain, or however logically deduced
from premises, one of which is of faith, and the other clear by
the mere light of reason (4, p. 8).

" lY. It must be laid down as a certain and undeniable
position, that theological conclusions are not articles of faith"
(Ibid. p. 10).

Alas ! for Dr. Wiseman's theory, which falls foul at once
of Eules I. and IV.

With regard to the theory of treating purgatory as a
necessary consequence of the custom of praying for the
dead, it is admitted that this latter practice, though not

1 Birmingham, 1833. The admitted authority of this we have already
proved, ante, p. 63, note.

2 Phelan and O'Sullivan's Digest of Evidence and Commons' Eeport.
March 22nd, 1825. Keport, p. 224.

102 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

Scriptural, is ancient. To what end, asks Dr. Wiseman,
did they pray for the dead, if they did not pray for the
release of souls from purgatory ? First, let Romanists pro-
duce from the writings of the early Fathers, or the genuine
old liturgies, one single prayer or collect, for the delivery of
souls out of that imaginary place. No such prayer can be
found. Nor is there in the old Eoman offices — we mean
the vigils said for the dead — one word of purgatory or its
pains. Passage."^ are cited indeed from interpolated liturgies,
but the fact of their interpolation is admitted. It is like-
wise true that Dr. Wiseman quotes a passage from the
funeral oration delivered by Ambrose on the death of
Theodosius, wherein he leads us to suppose that he unceas-
ingly prayed for the deceased emperor; but Dr. Wiseman,
with his wonted talent for misquoting the Fathers, actually
omits, from the very middle of the passage he pretends to
qaote, the fact that Ambrose declared he knew Theodosius
was then " in the kingdom of the Lord Jesus, and carefully
beholding his temple " — " that he had put on the robe of
glory" — was "a tenant of Paradise" — "an inhabitant of
that city which is above \" Why he omits these passages
is obvious — none of his readers would believe that to be a
popish purgatory, which was spoken of by Ambrose. So
also in the passages he cites as from Epiphanius and
Cyril of Jerusalem, to prove that these Fathers offered
prayers for the dead for the benefit of their souls in purga-
tory, he omits that in their prayers were included "patriarchs,
prophels, apostles, bishops, and martyrs !•'■' By falsifying
passages from the Fathers, he may easily make them appear
to say that white is black.

This leads us to the second head. It is admitted by
Eomanists that the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, the Virgin

PURGATORY. 103

Mary, the martyrs, etc., did not go to purgatory. Now, in
almost every prayer for the departed, which is quoted to
prove the custom of praying for the dead, the prayer is ex-
tended to or includes the above class. If, therefore. Dr.
Wiseman's theory is to hold good, then all these went to
purgatory, which no Romanist will admit; then it must
be also admitted that purgatory is not based on the custom
of praying for the dead, as practised by the early church.
Dr. Wiseman was quite aware of the difficulty, and he boldly
meets it : —

" There is no doubt " (he says) " that in the ancient liturgies
the saints are mentioned in the same prayer as the other de-
parted faithful, for the simple circumstance that they were so
united before the pubKo suffrages of the church proclaimed
them to belong to a happier order." '

The first act of canonization took place at the Council of
Rome, A.D. 99-3 -^ and, as it is not pretended that the Virgin
and the apostles and martyrs did go to purgatory, it is
evident that the doctrine of purgatory must be of later date
than 993. When were the saints _^«^ proclaimed to belong
to a happier order? We reply not before a.d. 1439, at the
Council of Florence.' We would ask Dr. Wiseman, Who
authorized the church of Some to proclaim the apostles,
prophets, etc., to belong to a happier order, and whether
they would not have belonged to " a happier order " with-
out the proclamation of the church of Eome ?

On the other hand, if we foRow the course suggested by
Dr. Wiseman, and examine accurately the writings of the
oldest [Fathers to ascertain what, in different countries and

1 The MoorfieldB Lectures. Lect. xi. vol. ii. p. 67. London, 1851.

2 Labb. et Cosa. Corel., torn. ix. p. 741. Paris, 1671.

3 See ante, pp. 66, 75.

104 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

in different ages, was by them held, what do we find ? We
find that the doctrine of purgatory was wholly unknown to
the Greek Fathers and the Greek church ;^ and we have the
striking fact that the Greek church now practises prayers
for the dead, but rejects the doctrine of purgatory ! And
as to the Latin church, the very first Father, TertuUian,
quoted by Dr. Wiseman, destroys his theory. He tells us of
a widow who is advised by Tertulhan to pray for the soul of
her deceased husband. Now, Dr. Wiseman asserts that
this practice is sanctioned by Scripture, while Tertulhan
(his own authority) gives us testimony exactly to the con-
trary ; for he says that, " if we ask for the law of Scripture"
as to this custom among others, " none can be found ;" but
he defends the practice as a traditional custom only.^
Dr. Wiseman contradicts, at once, Yeron's Eule I., and
explodes at the same time his own theory ! Origen, who,
by teaching that all, including the apostles, and even the
devH, would pass through fire and be ultimately saved,
first paved the way for the introduction of this super-
stition. His theory was, however, condemned by the fifth
General Council, a.d. 5.53,^ though Dr. Wiseman has the
boldness to quote in his Lectures this very condemned theory
as the teaching of the universal church !

This heretical dogma led to the introduction of a specula-
tion, which shortly afterwards sprang up, of a purgatorial
fire ; but that was not a present fiery purgatory, but was

1 " Sed et Greecis ad hunc usque diem [t.e., Concl. Floren. a.d. 1439] non
eat creditum purgatorium esse." Assert. Lutheran, confutat. per Joan.
Eoffene, Art. xviii. Colon. 1559. See also the same admission made by
Alphonsus a Castro "Adversus Hieres." lib. xii. p. 155. Paris, 1543.

2 TertuUian de CoroD^ Militis, p. 289. Edit. Both. 1662.

3 Bals. apud Beveridg. Synod, vol. i. p. 150. Oxon. 1672. And also by
Augustine, Aug. lib. de Hares, c. xliii. torn. viii. p. 10. Edit. Bened.
Paris, 1685.

PUEGATOUY. 105

postponed to the judgment day; and AugustinCj among
others, referred to the belief of a purging fire as a possibility
only, not incredible ;i which, while it proves that he did not
believe in the doctrine of purgatory, also proves that it was
not then an article of faith. Indeed, he says positively,
" Catholic faith, resting on Divine authority, believes the first
place the kingdom of heaven, and the second hell. A third
place we are wholly ignorant of; yea, we shall find in Scrip-
ture that it is not." -

If the childish and absurd dialogues which pass under
the name of Gregory I. be genuine, which is very improbable,
then we are mainly indebted to him for a more formal re-
cognition of the doctriue; but even his speculations, and
private opinions, and the theory of the seventh century, differ
greatly from the modern teaching. His system was, that
souls were punished by expiating their sins ; whereas the
doctrine of modem purgatory presupposes a forgiveness of
the sin, and that it is a place of punishment after the sin is
forgiven.

If Scripture be appealed to, as it is by some advocates
less discreet than Dr. Wiseman, to support the doctrine,
then we confront them with Veron's Eule II. ; for it can be
shown from the writings of the Fathers that the texts usually
relied on, are variously interpreted by them. And we deny
that any of these Fathers advanced a text of Scripture in
order to support the papal theory.^

1 " Tale aliquid etiam post banc vitam fieri incredibite non est^ et utrum
ita sit quseri potest, et aut inveniri aut latere." Aug. in Enohirid. de fide,
etc., ad Laurentium, cap. 69, torn. yi. col. 222. Edit. Bened. 1685.

2 " Tertium penitus ignoramus, immo, nee esse in Scripturis Sanctis inverii-
emus." Aug. Hypog. 1. 5. torn. vii. Basil, 1529.

3 For a critical examination of the various texts advanced by Bomanists
to support the doctrine of purgatory, see CoUette's "Milner Refuted,"
Part IL London, 1867.

106 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

We, therefore, now challenge Romanists to show that the
modern Tridentine doctrine was held by the early Christian
church. And, to assist their investigation, we would call
their attention to the notable admission on this head made
by a zealous opposer of Luther, the learned Fisher, who was
Eoman Cathohc bishop of Rochester, a.d. 1504, and divi-
nity professor at Cambridge. He says : —

" Wlo will, let tim read the commentaries of tlte ancient
Greeks, and, so far as my opioion goes, he shall find very sel-
dom mention of purgatory, or none at all [he having admitted,
as already shown, that the doctrine was rejected by the
Greeks] ; and the Latias [in the Westera church] did not re-
ceive the truth of this matter altogether, but by little and
little ; neither, indeed, was the faith either of purgatory or
indulgences so needful in the primitive church as now it is." >

In advocating this doctrine, therefore, Roman Catholics
must give up their claim to antiquity.

CHAPTER X.

PENANCE.

" So that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he
is God." — 2 Thess. ii. 4.

In proceeding still further to test the claim to antiquity and
the assertion that the Roman priests are the " representatives
of no new^ system of religion, the exponents of no new

1 " Legat qui velit Grascorum veterum commentarios, et nullum, quantum
opinor, aut quam rarissime de purgatorio sermonem inveniet. Sed neque
Latini simul omnes at sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt ; neque tarn
necessaria fuit sive Purgatorii, sive Indulgentiarum, fides in pvimitiv&.
eeclcsi^ atque nunc est." Assert. Lutheran. Confutat. per Joan. Koffens,
Art. xviii. p. 200. Colon. 1559.

PENANCE. 107

doctrine," and " that the doctrines now taught by them are
the same as those that were preached in this country when
Gregory sent to us " his emissaries, let us take one of the
most popular tenets of that church — the doctrine of penance
as now taught, and called the " Sacrament of Penance."

I. The Eomish church, by her Trent Council, requires us
to acknowledge no less and no more than seven sacraments,
with all their attendant ceremonies and appurtenances,
under pain of no less than eighty -nine distinct anathemas or
damnations. Two of the above number we admit to be sacra-
ments — Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The five others are
Matrimony, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Confir-
mation. The number, seven, was first " insinuated " by the
Council of Florence, a.d. 1439; and only dogmatically
declared to be an article of Christian faith at the seventh
session of the Council of Trent, held in March, 1547. It
was asserted by an eminent divine of the Eomish church,
Cassander, after considerable research, that previous to the
time of Peter Lombard (the great Master of the sentences),
A.D. 1140, the number of the sacraments, as being seven, was
not determined. 1

The Eoman priesthood represent, therefore, a church hold-
ing this new doctrine, not even taught before a.d. 1140 ; and
we challenge them to prove that the early Christian church
held, as a doctrine of faith, neither more nor less than seven
sacraments, or that the Eomish doctrine of penance was then
considered a sacrament ordained by Christ.

II. The eighth canon of the seventh session of the

' "Non temere quenquam reperiea ante Petrum Lombardum, qui certum
aliquem et de6nitum Sacramentorum numerum statuerat : et de his septem
non omnia quidem Seholastioi 83que- proprie Sacramenta vooabant." Cas-
sander de numero Sacrament. Art. xiii., p. 951. Paris, 1616. And p. 107,
Consultat. Lugd. 1608.

108 THE NOVELTIES OF BOMANISM.

Council of Trent declares that each of these so-called
sacraments confers grace ex opere operato — by the act per-
formed ; which dogma we are now bound to believe under
pain of damnation. This also is a novel teaching of the
Eomish church. For take one of these so-called sacraments —
Matrimony. Peter Lombard distinctly denies that grace was
conferred by matrimony, and this is attested by another
Roman Catholic, Cassander.^ And so in the Romish canon
law, or rather by the author of the Gloss upon Gratian, we
are told that the grace of the Holy Spirit is not conferred in
matrimony as in the other sacraments.^ Durandus, a most .
learned divine of the Roman church, goes stiU further by
saying "that it (matrimony) does not confer 'Ja&firit grace,
nor does it increase grace.^

We repudiate, therefore, this novel teaching, added by the
Romish church, and wliich they have added to the creed as a
new article of faith.

III. This so-caUed sacrament of penance is stated to
be as necessary to salvation for those who have sinned
after baptism, as baptism itself for the unregenerate;'*
and the Trent Catechism says, ''' There is no sin however
grievous, no crime however enormous or however frequently
repeated, which penance does not remit." " To it belongs
in so special a manner the efficacy of remitting actual guilt,

1 " De Matrimonic Petrua Lombardus negavit in eo gratiam eonferri."
Cassand. Consult., ut supra., p. 9.51. £dit. Paris, 1616.

2 " In hoc Sacramento non (^onfertur gratia Spiritiis Sancti, sicut in aliis."
Corp. Jur. Can., vol. i. col. 1607- Lugd. 1671. Causa 1, Q. 1, c. 101, and
32, Q. 2, 0. 13.

3 " Ipse vero Durandua hoc argumento utitur ; matrimonium non confert
primam gratium, qua3 est ipsa justificatio a peccatis ; neque secundam gra-
tiam, sive gratis incrementum ; nullam igitur gratiam confert." See
Bellarmine de Matrim. Sacram. Lib. i. c. v. torn iii. p. 506. Colon. 1616.
Durand, fol. cccxviii. Paris, 1508.

4 "Concl. Trid.. Bess. xiv. cap, ii. ad Jin.

PENANCE, 109

that, without its intervention, we cannot obtain or hope for
pardon." ^ The three necessary or component parts are
stated to be contrition (or more correctly attritmi,) confes-
sion and absolution, and satisfaction, which are the matter
of the sacrament.^ It is modestly admitted that contrition
alone (that is, a sorrow and detestation of past sin from a
lore to God, and a determination to sin no more), without
confession, absolution, and satisfaction, but with a desire
for them, will obtain the grace and pardon of God. But
imperfect repentance {attrition), (that is, a turning from sia,
from a selfish motive, such as a fear of punishment,) will not
alone obtain pardon ; but, nevertheless, when accompanied
by confession and absolution, and satisfaction, it will obtain
grace and pardon in this so-called sacrament of penance.
That is to say, an imperfect repentance of sin in the so-
caUed sacrament of penance is sufficient to obtain pardon
of sin ! ^ Delahogue plainly lays down the rule — " Perfect
repentance is not required in order that a man may obtain
the remission of his mortal sins in the sacrament of pe-

' See Donovan's Translation, pp. 260, 261. Dublin, 1829. Donovan was
a Professor at Maynooth College.

2 Concl. Trid., Sess. siv. cap. 3.

3 See Donovan's Translation as above, pp. 269, 270, 271, and Concl. Trid.,
Sess. xiv. c. 4. "L' attrition est cette douleur qu'on eprouve d' avoir offense
Dieu par un motif moins parfait, par exemple k cause de la noirceur du
peche, c'est-a-dire a cause de Tenfer qu'on a merits et du paradis qu'on a
perdu. De sorte que la contrition est une douleur du peche a cause de
I'injure faite a Dieu, et I'attrition est une douleur de I'offense faite a Dieu a
cause du mal qu'elle nous cause." — Liguori (Euv. Completes, tom. xxviii.
Paris, 1842. Instruction pour les Cures et les Missionaires. Chap. v. De
la Penitence. Sec. ii. De la Contrition. No. xx. p. 199. Liguori thus
states this doctrine — "XXI. Quand on a la contrition, on obtient aussitot la
grace avant de recevoir le sacrement aveo 1' absolution du confesseur, pourvu
que le penitent ait I'intention, au moius implicite, de recevoir le sacrement
en se confessant." — Concl. Trent, Sess. 14, c. iv. _

4 " Contritio perfecta non requiritur ut homo, in Sacramento poenitentias,
peccatorum mortalium remissionem obtineat." Tract, de Sacr. Poenit. Dub-
lin, 1826.

110 THE NOVELTIES OP EOMAIflSM.

This is in accordance with the teaching of the Trent
Council, which, whUe it admits that, by means of true
repentance, reconciliation to God does take place before the
so-called sacrament of penance is received ; yet, in order to
exalt the church and priesthood, asserts that this re-
conciliation is not to be ascribed to that repentance unless
there is a desire for the sacrament, which is alleged to be
included therein. Thus it places the mercy of God and his
forgiveness, not upon God's promise to forgive the re-
pentant sinner, but upon the desire to conform to the
ordinance of the church of Eome ; and again, to give
further importance to this ordinance of the fioman church,
while it declares that a sinner whose repentance is imperfect
will not meet with mercy without penance, it holds out the
delusive hope of salvation through it.-"^ The reason for aU
this is, because the power vested in the Deity is sought to
be transferred to the priest; for the Trent Catechism
proceeds to say that " his (the penitent's) sins are forgiven
by the minister of religion, through the power of the keys :
the priest acting a judicial, not a ministerial part, and
judging in the causes in which this discretionary power is
to be exercised."^ In fact, the sentence is pronounced by

1 "Docet praeterea, etsi contritionem hano aliquando caritate perfeotam
esse contingat, hominemque Deo reconciliari, priusquam hoc sacramentum
actu Buscipiatur ; ipsam nihilommus reconciliationem ipsi contritioni, sine
sacramenti voto, quod in ilia includitur, uoji esse adscribendam. Illam vero
contritionem imperfectam, quif attritio dicitur, quoniam vel ex turpitudinia
peccati cousideratione, vel ex gehennEe et pcenarum metu comrauniter con-
cipitur, si voluntatem peccandi excludat, cum spe venire, declarat, non solum
non facere hominem hypocritam et magis peecatorem, verum etiam donum
Dei esse, et Spiritus Sancti impulsum, non adhuc quidem inhabitantis, sed
tantum moventis, quo pcenitens adjutus viam sibi ad justitiam parat. Et
quamvis sine Sacramento Pcenitentise per se ad justiticationem perducere
peceatorum nequeat, tamen eum ad Dei gratiam in Sacramento Posnitentise
impetrandum disponit." Concl. Trid. Sess. xiv. De Posnit. caput, iv. De
Contritione, pp. 136, 137. Paris, 1848.

2 Cat. Concl. Tridt. Donovan's Translation, pp. 271, 273. Dublin, 1829.

PENANCE. Ill

him as a judge.^ The priest "sits in the tribunal of
penance as his (the penitent's) legitimate judge. * * *
He represents the character and discharges- the oifice of
Jesus Christ."^ This same Trent Catechism goes on to
assert that the Eoman priest represents the person of God
upon earth, " and therefore they are justly called not only
angels, but gods, because they possess amongst us the
strength and power of the immortal God;" giving as a
reason, that they not only have the power of " making and
offering the body and blood of our Lord," but also " of
remitting sins, which is conferred upon them."^ " So that
he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself
that he is God," 2 Thess. ii. 4.

The distinction which is drawn between attrition and
contrition in the doctrine of penance is one of vital
importance, and the Romanists may be confidently chal-
lenged to adduce any Scriptural authority for it, or to show
that such a distinction was recognised by the early Christian
church.

IV. The second " integral part " of this so-called sacra-

i " Non est solum nudum mini&terium, vel annuutiandi Evangelium, vel
declarandi remissa esse peccata; sed ad instar actus judicialis quo ab ipso
velut a judice, sententia pronunciatur." Concl. Trid. Sess. xiv. de Pcenit.
caput, vi. De Ministro hujus Sacramenti, et Absolutione ; et Can. ix.,
whereby all are anathematized who deny this doctrine.

2 Trent Catech. as above, p. 260.

3 '* Cum episcopi et sacerdotes tanquam Dei interpretes et intemuncii
quidam sint, qui ejus nomine Divinam legem et vitse prsecepta homines
edocent, et ipsius Dei personam in terris gerunt ; perspicuum est earn esse
illorum functionem, quS, nulla major excogitari possit. Quare merito non
solum angeli, sed Dii etiam, quod Dei immortalis vim et numen apud nos
teneant, appellantur. Quamvis autem omni tempore summam dignitatem
obtinuerint, tamen Novi Testamenti sacerdotes cseteris omnibus honore longe
antecellunt ; potestaa enim turn corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri confioi-
endi et offerendi, turn peccata remittendi, quae illis coUata est, humanam
quoque rationem atque intelligentiam superat; nedum ei aliquid par et
simile in terris inveniri queat." Catech. Concil. Tridentini, pars. ii. ; De
Ordinis Sacramento, sec. ii. p. 327. Edit. Paris, 1848.

112 THE NOVELTIES OP EOMANISM.

ment, whicli is declared necessary for our salvation, is
" confession and absolution/'

By confession is meant secret oral confession to a priest.
This is rendered absolutely necessary by the modern church
of Rome. This church, at the fourth Council of Lateran,
A.D. 1315, first authoritatively decreed and required every
believer of either sex, after arriving at the age of discretion,
under pain of mortal sin, to confess at least once a year to
a priest.^ This decree was recognised and confirmed by
a decree of the Trent Council.^ Peter Lombard teUs us
that, in his day, oral confession to a priest or private confes-
sion to God were both advocated, but the doctrine was
not defined by the church ; and learned men differed on the
subject.^ Mosheim, in his Ecclesiastical History, says that,
before the decree of Lateran, "it was left to every Christian's
choice to make this confession to the Supreme Being, or, to
express it in words, to a spiritual confidant and director." *
And the Eoman Catholic historian, Pleury, clearly lays it
down, that the invention of compulsory oral confession was
the work of Chrodegang, bishop of Metz, a.d. 763, but only
as a private discipline for his monastic institution. " This
is the first time," writes Pleury, " that I find confession com-
manded." ^

No case can be adduced to prove that compulsory oral
confession, now alleged to be necessary for all, was a doctrine
of the church before a.d. 1215. In this essential point,
therefore, she has invented a new doctrine.

V. The absolution which follows the oral confession of

1 Lab. et Coss. Concil. Lat. IV. Can. 21, torn. xi. p. 147. Paris, 1671.

2 Seas. xiv. Can. viii. De Pcenitentia.

3 Pet. Lombard, Sent. 1. lib. iy. dist. xvii. pp. 102, 107. Lugdun. 1618.

4 Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. Cent. xiii. part. ii. cap. iii. see. 2. See Appendix,
No. iv. Maclain'a Edition.

5 Fleury, Eccl. Hist., torn. ix. p. 300. Paris, 1769.

PENANCE. 113

the penitent, consists in the utterance by the priest of the
words, JEgo alsolvo te, " I absolve thee." It is clearly laid
down by the Catechism of the Council of Trent,^ that no
absolution takes place unless the priest utters those words : —

" Every sacrament [says this CatecMsm] consists of two
things — ' matter,' which is called the element, and ' form,'
which is commonly called the word. * * # In the sacra-
ments of the new law, the /orm is so definite that cmy, even a
casual deviation from, it, renders the sacrament null. These,
then, are the parts which belong to the nature and substance
of the sacraments, and of which every sacrament is necessarily
composed."

Take away the form of this sacrament, the words " I
absolve thee," then there will be no sacrament, no pardon,
no salvation for those who have sinned after baptism ; yet
no fact in the history of the church is more certain than
this, ^ that these words, "I absolve thee," were never con-
tained in any form of absolution used in the church for
more than one thousand years after Christ.^

Here, then, is another difficulty. Let the priests of Eome
produce such a form if they can. If they cannot, this
favourite doctrine — priestly absolution — so earnestly con-
tended for by them, also vanishes like the " baseless fabric
of a vision."

YI. By absolution the . guilt of sin is supposed to be
remitted, but not the punishment due to tlie sinner. The
priest, therefore, imposes as a " satisfaction " some peniten-
tial work. These penitential works can, however, be
remitted by " indulgences," which are defined to be a " remis-
sion of the temporal punishment due to sin after the sin

1 Donovan, p. 259. Dublin, 1829.

2 See " Catholic Layman" Dublin, 1854.

114 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

is remitted in the sacrament of penance," ^ by the applica-
tion to the penitent of a share of the superabundant merits
of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, and of the saints, called the
" celestial treasure of the church," supposed to be in the cus-
tody of the pope, and unlocked and distributed at his pleasure.
And these penitential works can even be done by another
for the sinner. " One person (says the Trent Catechism)
can make satisfaction to God for another, which indeed
is, in a pre-eminent sense, a property of this part of
penance." ^ Peter Dens says that " it is imposed with
good effect as a sacrament, that the penitent shall see to
have works of satisfaction performed for him by others."
But mark the ingenuity of the evasion : " yet these
works performed by others are not part of the sacrament ;
but the act of the penitent himself attending to it, that
these should be performed for him, is part of the sacra-
ment." ^

To ask a Romanist to prove the antiquity of this piece
of priestcraft would be a mockery of religion; it is a
modern and vain invention — an attempt to cheat the devil
by proxy.

Thus, whichever way we take this so-called sacrament of
penance, as a whole or in its parts, it is a modern invention
of the Eomish church— a piece of priestcraft without its
parallel in the Christian church.

1 Cat. Christian Doctrine, p. 158. London, 1850.

2 Satisfaceie potest unua pro alio, etc. Pars. ii. de Poenit. Sacr. No. cix.
ex., p. 312. Paris, 1848.

3 Dens' Theol. torn. vi. p. 242. Dublin, 1832.

115

CHAPTER XL

INDULGENCES.

• »*»•••* II Omnia Eomse

Cum pretio." Juvenal, Sat. iii. 183, 184.

(**«•*«* "Yenalia nobis

Templa, sacerdotes, altaria, saora, coronEe,

Ignes, thura, preces, coslum est venale, Deusque."

B. Mantuani de Calamit. lib. iii.

After image worship, " indulgences " is the doctrine on
which a Roman Cathohc is the most sensitive. So sensi-
tive, indeed, are Romanists when sordid or unworthy motives
are attributed, that, in whatever recognised phase we may
present their teaching, it will be repudiated when such re-
pudiation is convenient; and the very vagueness in the
definition of the doctrine by the church of Rome, in her
creed and the decrees of Trent, gives the opportunity
for any and every repudiation. The exposures of the
nefarious traffic have been so damaging to the papal system,
that the anxiety has been to explain away, or soften down,
the practical teaching of the church and the express language
of popes. Indulgences are a cunningly devised scheme for
raising money by "making merchandise of souls." The
system is too valuable to be renounced.

I. The priests tell us that it is a popular fallacy and a
libel to say that an indulgence is a pardon of sin. They say
that it " does not include the pardon of any sin at all, httle
or great, past, present, or to come ;" ^ and yet, in the l^pok
of canon law of the church of Rome, we find recorded in

1 Dr. Milner's "End of Meligiom Controversy," Letter xlii.

116 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

the bull of Boniface Till., on the first issue of a jubilee —
"We grant not only full, and larger, but most full re-
mission of all sins." And so, likewise, Clement VI.
declared in his bull that the recipients of the indulgence
should obtain " most fuU pardon of all their sins ;" and
Sixtus IV. called them "indulgences and remission of
sins." ^ One would suppose this to be plain language, and
easily understood by those simple-minded people for whose
benefit the indulgences were issued. No such thing ; for
we are told by more modern apologists that such expres-
sions as venia peccatomm (pardon of sins) and remism
peccatorum (the remission of sins), used in these bulls,
" are technical expressions, as familiarly understood by
a Catholic theologian as any legal technicality is by a
gentleman of the law ;" ^ and, in fact, do not mean at
all what the words appear to indicate. Eeally, these gentle-
men should not be so sensitive on this point; for, when we
come to consider the matter, they are only splitting straws.
They will tell us that an indulgence only remits the punish-
ment due to the sin already forgiven. Granted; but by
whom is the sin supposed to be forgiven, and when ? By
none other than the priest in the so-called sacrament of
penance : and the penitent, they tell us, must have first ful-
filled the proper conditions before he can avail himself of an
indulgence — that is, confess and receive absolution. So,
whether the sin be forgiven by the indulgence itself, or by
means of the prior ordeal, in the so-called sacrament of

1 "Non solum plenam et largiorem, sed plenissimam concedimus veniam
omnium peccatorum." Extrav. Commun. lib. v. tit. ix. c. 1. Corp. Jur. Can.
torn. ii. p. 316. Paris, 1612. "Suorum omnium obtinerent plenissimam
Teniam peccatorum." Ibid. p. 317, torn. ii. "Indulgentias et remissiones
peccatorum." Ibid. p. 319, tom. ii.

2 "The Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth," by the
Eev. T. S. Green [Komish priest at Tixall], London, T. Jones, 1838, p. 28.

INDULGENCES. 117

penance, through the absolution of the priest, matters little ;
for it is the priest who is supposed to forgive the sin judi-
cially, and then the punishment due to the sin is remitted
through the indulgence which emanates from the pope.
But, to be " technically " correct, we concede that it is not
defined by the Roman church that an indulgence does
extend to the forgiveness of the sin, though it is equally a
fact thatRomanists themselves do associate in their minds the
forgiveness of sin with the indulgences, and this is candidly
admitted by Dr. Hirscher, Professor of Theology in the
Eoman Catholic University of Freiburg. He says : —

" A further practical and deeply- seated evil, to which the
attention of the church must be dii'ected, is the idea enter-
tained by the popular mind concerning indulgences. Say what
you will, there it remains : the people xinderstand by indul-
gences the remission of sins. Explain to them that not the
sins, but only the penalties of sin, are affected by indulgences ;
very well, it is the penalty, and not the guilt of sin, which the
people regard as the important thing; and whatever frees
them from the punishment of sin, fi-ees them, so far as they
care about it, from the sin itself." '

Our assertion is, nevertheless, that popes — for instance,
Clement VI. and VIII., Boniface VIII. and IX., and
Urban VIII.^ — have, in the most orthodox fashion and in
the most solemn manner, extended indulgences to the most
fuU pardon of sins. We have nothing to do with the question
of ikt fallibility/ or infallibility of these popes : we merely
deal with facts, and challenge contradiction.

II. Other apologists af&rm that the indulgence extends

1 Hirscher, "State of the Church," p. 210. Quoted by the Eev. W. E.
Scudamore in his " Englamd and Rome." — Eivington, London, 1855, p. 399.

2 See Cherubini. Bullar. torn. i. p. 145, and torn. iii. pp. 23, 76, etc.
Luxemb. 1727.

118 THE NOVELTIES OP ROMANISM.

only to the remission of punishment due to the sin forgiven
in the sacrament of penance — that is, after attrition, confes-
sion, and absolution (by the priest) of the sin; the indulgence,
they say, extends only to the remission of the punish-
ment consequent on the sin which has been forgiven, and
which otherwise must be undergone to satisfy God's justice.
This is a favourite evasion. Dens, in his " Theologia,'" tells
us that an indulgence " is the remission of temporal punish-
ment due to sins, remitted as to their guilt, by the power of
the keys, without the sacrament, by the application of the
satisfactions which are contained in the treasure of the
church."' 1 The priest, on pronouncing the absolution,
measures out the amount of satisfaction to be undergone,
called the penal part of the sacrament of penance, and an
indulgence in this instance, they tell us, is awarded to
remit this penalty of sin. But the assertion that this
theory is restricted to the remission of the satisfaction to be
performed at the bidding of the priest in the sacrament of
penance, is at once put to the rout by the admission of
Dens, and also by the fact that it was quite a common thing
to grant indulgences for a long period of years. For
instance, the following is recorded in the Hours of the blessed
Virgin Mary according to the ritual of the church of Salis-
hury : ^ — " This prayer, made by St. Austin, affirming that
he who says it daily, kneeling, shall not die in sin, and
after this life shall go to everlasting joy and bliss. Our
holy father, the Pope Bonifacius Yl., hath granted to all

1 " Quid est indulgentia ? E. Est poenss temporalis pecoatis, quoad cul-
pam remissis, debitso remissio, facta potestate claviuni, extra sacramentum

£er applicationem satiefactionum quie in thesauro Eeelesiie coiitinentur."
lens' Tlieologia, torn. vi. ; Tract de Indulg., No. 30; De Indulgentiarum
Natura. Dublin, 1832.

2 Edit. Paris, 1526. See Burnet's Hist, of the Reformation. Eecords,
Book i. xxvi. p. 280, vol. iv. Nares' Edition.

INDULGENCES. 119

them that say devoutly this prayer following, between
the elevation of our Lord and the Agnus Dei, 10,000
years' pardon" (fol. 58), or an indulgence for that period.
And, in folio 42, we are told that Sixtus IV. granted 11,000
years of pardon to all who should devoutly say a prescribed
prayer before "the image of our Lady." And again, in
folio 54, we read — " To all them that before this image of
pity devoutly say five Pater Nosters, five Ave Marias, and a
Credo, piteously beholding those arms of Christ's passion,
are granted 32,755 years of pardon; and Sixtus IV., pope
of Eome, hath made the fourth and fifth prayer, and hath
doubled his foresaid pardon" [i.e. 65,510 years]. And, in
folio 72, there is this strange form of indulgence : —

" And these prayers written in a table hanged at Rome in
St. Peter's Churcli, nigli to the high altar there, as our holy
father the pope evely is wont to say the office of the Mass ; and
who that devoutly, with a contrite heart, daUy say this orison,
if he be that day in the state of eternal damnation, then his
eternal pain shall be changed him into temporal paia of pur-
gatory ; then, if he hath deserved the pain of purgatory, it
shall beforgottenandforgiven, through theinfinite mereyof God."

It is true that indulgences of thousands of years are not
now issued, simply because the absurdity would be too
glaring for this advanced age ; so they are reduced to days.
But what was orthodox and good for Christians in the six-
teenth century, must be, according to Romish teaching, good
in the nineteenth. The principle is exactly the same. The
extreme illustrates the case better. What we maintain is,
therefore, that this principle of granting indulgences is
wholly incompatible with the doctrine of penance and the
remission of the satisfaction imposed by the priest. Let us

120 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

apply the proposition. An individual is stated to be in a
state of grace — that is^ has confessed and been absolved;
the priest tells him that his sins are forgiven^ but he has to
undergo a penance of 33,755 years ! To be sure, he has an
easy method of escaping from even double the penance by an
indulgence on the terms prescribed by Sixtus IV. The pro-
position would rather startle the penitent. But what is to
be said of the last extract from the ritual above quoted ?
has that any reference to the sacrament of penance ? An
indulgence, therefore, is not necessarily connected with the
sacrament of penance.

III. Again, we are told that the benefit of the indulgence,
like that of absolution, entirely depends upon the disposition
of the sinner. The real doctrine of Romish absolution does
not depend on the disposition of the sinner. The priest
represents Jesus Christ in the confessional, and is supposed
to know the mind of the penitent. When he absolves,
his words are, " I absolve thee ;" not, " if truly penitent
I absolve thee." He ^cis judicially/. The sentence, accord-
ing to Eomish theory, is irrevocable ; yet the recipient may
still not really be in a proper disposition. God alone knoweth
the heart. If there is any condition or uncertainty, then the
priest does not represent Christ, for Christ could not be
deceived, and he could not delegate his functions to so
falhble a representative. But let us test this proposition
also. It is quite a common thing to see appended to indul-
gences — "These indulgences are also applicable to the
faithful departed," or "to souls in purgatory." What does
this mean but that, when we obtain an indulgence or
pardon for having done some notorious act in the eyes of
the church of Rome, and having obtained, say 10,000
years' pardon, we have the option of applying all or part

INDULGENCES. 121

of these years to the souls of persons whom we may name,
supposed to be in purgatory. For instance, in a little tract
now on sale, called "Devotions of the Scapular," in
page 24, indulgences are given to the wearer of the
scapular ; and we are told that " these indulgences are also
applicable to the souls in purgatory by a constitution of
Clement X." We are quite aware of what some assert,
that it is by " suffrage " only that indulgences are ap-
plicable to the dead — that is, by the united voice given in
public prayer — another of the " technicalities" of Eomanism.
Indulgences nevertheless are, in one way or another, apph-
cable to the dead. How will the objector apply his proposi-
tion, that the indulgence entirely depends upon the disposi-
tion of the sinner, when the supposed recipient is dead and
gone, and, for anything we know to the contrary, has no
disposition one way or the other ? Therefore the benefit of
the indulgence does not depend on the disposition of the
supposed recipient.

IV. Again, when we assert that indulgences are bartered
for money at the present day, it is indignantly denied. We,
nevertheless, assert that it is an almost every day practice,
even in this country. Buying and selling is a mutual ex-
change of some commodity for money. Here is a devout
Eomanist in a state of grace — he has gone through the pre-
scribed forms, he has confessed, attended masses, has said
the prescribed number of prayers before an image, or the
prescribed number of Aves and Pater Nosters, but still he
has not got the indulgence. This can be obtained; yes,
even a plenary indulgence, that is, a forgiveness of all
punishment due for past sins up to that day, for £20, or by
paying £1 Is. annually. We find this advertised, ahaost
weekly, in the Eomish papers^ the Tablet and the Weelcly

122 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMAmCSM.

" The Eev. Mother Superior of the Female Orphanage at
Norwood offers to present each perpetual or life subscriber to
the institution with a copy in facsimile of the rescript of his
holiness Pius IX., containing the written signature of the
holy father, and granting a plenary indulgence to the bene-
factors of the Orphans of Our Blessed Lady."

In other words, to every annual subscriber of £1 Is., or
a life subscriber of £20 (for these figures are actually given),
is guaranteed by the pope a plenary indulgence ; so that the
happy possessor, if he die forthwith, is supposed to have
given even purgatory the " go by," and to have a passport
to heaven direct !

While it must be admitted that this is a clear case of
bargain and sale, we doubt whether the signatures of the
so-called " Vicar of Christ " will be honoured at the gat«s of
that "heavenly Jerusalem which is above," though the
receipt for the due payment of the subscription be duly
certified by the "Rev. Mother Superior." Of course the
sale is denied. The mother only " offers to present ;" in
fact, the indulgence is given moay. These " technical "
words mean nothing. But take another case. Dr. Wiseman,
writing to his clergy, desirous of making a collection for the
"Poor School Committee Festival," says, "You will inform
them (the people) of the plenary indulgence which they will
gain on the following Sunday by giving alms to this pious
work, and going to confession or commuuion on that day, or
within eight days after. See Directory, p. 146. "^ On con-
sulting the directory indicated, we find, '^' and communion,"

1 " CatJwUo Standard," now " Weekly Megister,'' June 8, 1850, No. 35,
p. 3

INDULGENCES. 123

that is, communion added to confession ; and the grant is
made perpetual, in favour of this committee, by the pope.
Of course it will be asserted that the plenary indulgence is
also given in consideration of the " confession or commu-
nion," and not for the subscription ; but the rescript of his
holiness says, " and subscribe to the fund " in question.
There can be no mistake. You give the money, and I
will give you the indulgence. This we call buying and
selling. Such acts are of daily occurrence.

V. We have stated that indulgences were the subject of
barter or sale. That money is an element in the transaction,
we have proved. What, then, is given in exchange ? The
theory is simply as follows. There is supposed to exist an
inexhaustible store of the superabundant merits of Christ, of
the blessed Virgin, and other departed saints. Of Christ,
they say, one drop of his blood was sufficient to wash away
all the sins of the world ; but he gave his life for us, and
therefore there is a vast surplus of saving material at the
disposal of the church ; and, added to this, saints who have
departed this life have acquired more merit than was suffi-
cient to save themselves ; the surplus of this is also, in like
manner, placed at the same disposal. This accumulation is
called the " treasure of the church," and the pope, for the
time being, has the distribution of it. The document by
which he transfers a stated portion of this treasure to the
fortunate recipient is called an indulgence. These used to
be documents regularly drawn up in legal form, signed and
sealed.^ The reverend mother superior of the convent of
Norwood, as we have shown, has at her disposal the distri-
bution of such documents. The purchaser, in exchange for

1 For examples ani fao- similes, see Mendham's "Spiritual Venality of
Some." London, 1832,

124 THE NOVELTIES OF KOMANISM.

his money, has transferred to him, certified by this document,
a given quantity of these merits from the bank of " celestial
treasure" to make up the deficiency that may exist in
himself, so that, by transferring the same to his own
account he, pro tanto, cancels a debt of punishment due to
his sins, by which means he is supposed to have satisfied the
wrath of God for the sins committed. He has often the
option given him of transferring a portion for the benefit of
a friend or relative supposed to be suffering in purgatory.
If it be a limited indulgence, then he escapes, say forty years'
punishment; or, as we have seen, perhaps receives even
32,755 years' pardon. The theory is rather startling, and
we may add, so monstrous and difficult of belief, that we
are not surprised to find the whole system repudiated. Such
a step is convenient, and even at times absolutely necessary.
We will give an instance of such repudiation. Veron wrote
a book professedly to dispel "popular errors and mis-
statements " with reference to Eomish doctrines. It has
been translated by father Waterworth,^ and published for the
object of softening down genuine Romanism, and making it
palatable to Enghsh tastes. This monstrous doctrine, as
before defined, is wholly repudiated. He writes (p. 52) : —

" Witli regard to tlie power of granting indulgences, it is
not of faith that there is in the church a power to grant such
indulgences as actually will remit at the tribunal of God,
either in this life or in the life to come, the temporal punishment
which may remain due after our sins have been pardoned ; or,
in other words, it is not an article of OathoHc faith that the
church can grant an indulgence, the direct eifect of which
shall be the remission of the temporal punishment which is
due to the justice of God, and which would otherwise have to
be undergone either in this life or iu purgatory."

1 Birmingham, 1833.

INDULGENCES. ] 25

And Veron alleges that —

" There are Catholic wiiters who deny in plain and un-
doubted terms that indulgences are of any use to the dead."
" The grant of indulgences is an exercise of jurisdiction. Now,
as the pope has not been appointed judge over the souls in
purgatory, he has no jurisdiction over them." " Even our
private suffrages in favour of the dead are far from beittg neces-
sarily beneficial to them ; how much more doubt must there
be as to the effect of indulgences" (pp. 57, 58).

Again, he says (p. 45) : —

" It is not an article of faith that there is in the church a
treasure composed of the satisfaction of the saints ; and conse-
quently, it is not of faith that indulgences, whether in favour
of the living or the dead, are granted, by making them par-
takers of that treasure."

In pages 46 and 47, the following passages are found: —

" The treasure of the church is not formed of satisfactions of
the saints ; and an indulgence is not an application of any of
these satisfactions towards the remission of the temporal punish-
ment due to sin." " The existence of a treasure in the church,
composed of the satisfactions of the saints, is not to be admitted
as an article of faith."

All this is very reasonable, plain, and straightforward. We
do not deny the necessity of the repudiation; hut is Yeron's
dilution the doctrine of his church ? It is not, as the fol-
lowing extracts prove. Our first extract is the definition of
an indulgence as given in a book pubUshed by "E. Grace and
Son," 45, Capel-street, Dublin (the authorized or recognised
pubUshers of papal books), entitled "Indulgences granted
by Sovereign Pontiifs to the Faithful, collected by a member
of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences in Eome, trans-
lated into English with the permission of superiors." As
this book appears to be for aU time, it bears no date, but is
now on sale. In page 5, we read : —

126 THE NOTELTIES OF KOMANISM.

"An indulgence is the remission of the temporal punishment
which generally remains due to sins already forgiTen, in the
sacrament of penance, as to the guilt and eternal punishment.
This remission is made by the application of the merits and
satisfactions which are contained in the treasures of the church.
These treasures are the accumulation of the spiritual goods
arising from the infinite merits and satisfaction of Jesus Christ,
with the superabundant merits and satisfaction of the holy
martyrs, and of the other saints, which ultimately derive their
efficacy from the merits and satisfactions of Christ, who is the
only Mediator of redemption. These celestial teeasubbs,
as they are called by the Council of Trent, are committed by
the Divine bounty to the dispensation of the church, the sacred
spouse of Christ, and are the ground and matter of indulgences.
They are infinite in reference to the merits of Christ, and can-
not, therefore, he ever exhausted."

Dens^ in the place before quoted, informs ns that —

" This treasure is the foundation or inatter of indulgences,
and is that infinite treasure made up in part from the satisfac-
tions of Christ, so as never to be exhausted ; and it daily receives
the superabundant satisfactions of pious men." ^

Now, let us take the opinion of an illustrious doctor and
canonized saint, Thomas Aquinas. He is quoted as '''the
Mighty Schoolman," " the Seraphic Doctor," and " the
Blessed Thomas ;" and, on the 17th March in each year,
Eomanists are taught to pray thus : —

" O God, who dost enlighten thy church by the wonderful
erudition of the blessed Thomas thy confessor, and makest it
fruitful by thy holy operation, grant to us, we beseech thee, to
embrace with our understanding what he taught, and to fulfil,
by our imitation, what he did through the Lord." ^

This seraphic doctor taught —

" That there actually exists an immense treasure of merit

1 Dens' Theologia, torn. vi. p. 417. No. 30, Tract, de Indulg. Dublin, 1832.

2 Missal for the Use of the Laity, p. 560. London, 1810.

INDULGENCES. 127

composed of the pious deeds and virtuous actions wHch the
saints had performed beyond what was necessary for their own
salvation, and which is, therefore, applicable to the benefit of
others ; that the guardian and dispenser of this precious trea-
siu-e is the Roman pontiff; and that, of consequence, he is em-
powered to assign to such as he thinks proper a portion of this
inexhaustible source of merit proportioned to fheir respective
guilt, and sufficient to deliver them fi-om the punishment due
to their crimes." ^

These superabundant merits Cardinal Bellarmine terms
"Thesaurus Ecclesiee/' or "the Treasure of the Church."^

But, to go to a higher authority. Pope Leo X., who
issued a special buU on the subject of indulgences. The
following is a literal translation of part of the document
which relates to this subject : —

" The Roman church, whom other churches are bound to
follow as their mother, hath taught that the Roman pontiff, the
successor of Peter in regard to the keys, and the vicar of Jesus
Christ upon earth, possessing the power of the keys, by which
power all hindrances are removed out of the way of the faithful
— that is to say, the guUt of actual sins by the sacrament of
penance, and the temporal punishment due to those sins accord-
ing to the Divine justice by the ecclesiastical indulgence ; that
the Roman pontiff may, for reasonable cause, by his apostolic
authority, grant indulgence 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 ; and that in
thus dispensing the treasure of the merits of Jesus Christ and
the saints, he either confers the indulgence by way of absolu-
tion, or transfers it by the method of suffrage. Wherefore all
persons, whether living or dead, who reaUy obtain an indul-
gence of this kind, are delivered from so much temporal punish-

1 Quoted by Mosheim in his Eccl. Hist. cent. xii. pt. ii., cap. iii. sec. 3.

2 Bell, de Indulg., sec. iii. p. 657, torn. iii. Piag. 1761, and lib. De
Purg. 8.

128 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

ment due, according to Divine justice, to their actual sins, as is
equivalent to tlie value of tte indulgence bestowed and re-
ceived." ^

But this is not all ; for this same pope, in this same buU,
denounces by an excommunication all who deny this doc-
trine. And to come more to our own time, Leo XII., in
1825, in his buU for the observance of the jubilee of that
year, said —

" We tave resolved, by virtue of tte authority given to us
from heaven, fuUy to unlock that sacred treasure composed of
the merits, suiFerings, and virtues of Christ our Lord and of
his Virgiu mother, and of all the Saints, which the Author of
human salvation has entrusted to our dispensation. To you,
therefore, venerable brethren, patriarchs, primates, archbishops,
bishops, it belongs to explain with perspicuity the power of
indulgences ; what is their efficacy in the remission, not only
of the canonical penance, but also of the temporal punishment
due to the Divine justice for past sin; and what succour is
afforded out of this heavenly treasure, from the merits of Christ
and his saints, to such as have departed real penitents in God's
love, yet before they had duly satisfied, by fruits worthy of
penance for sins of commission and omission, and are now
purifying in the fire of purgatory, that an entrance may be
opened for them into that eternal country where nothing
defiled is admitted." ^

1 "Monument, ad Historiam Concilii Tridentini." Judooi Le Plat. 4to.
torn. ii. pp. 21, 24. Lovanii, 1782.

^ Laity's Directory for 1825. Keating and Brown, London. It is worthy
of remark that Leo XH. struck a medal to commemorate this jubilee,
bearing on one side his own image, on the other that of the church of Kome,
symbolized as a Woman, holding in her right hand a cup, with the inscription
around her, Sedet super universum, which may be rendered " the whole
world is her seat." (See Elliott's "Horse," voL iv. p. 30. London, 1851.)
The mystical Babylon of the Apocalypse is represented as having a cup in
her hand (Rev. xvji. 4) full of abominations. This Queen is supposed to
rule over all nations. We know the queen of Babylon was worshipped as
Bhea {Chronicon i'aschale, vol. i. p. 65. Bonn, 1832), the great mother of
the gods (Hesiod, Theogonia, v. 453, p. 36. Oxford, 1737), whose cup was
brimful of abominations ofthemost atrocious character, and this apocalyptical

INDULGEKCES. 129

Here, then, we have Romisli divines expressing opinions
on the same doctrine diametrically opposed to each other.
We Protestants can afford to look on this Bellmn papale, or
war of opinions, with a smile, and suggest to our Romish
brethren that, when they have agreed among themselves on
their own doctrine, it will be time enough for them to prove
us to be heretics for not believing as they do.

As a matter of doctrine ot faith, the creed of the church
of Eome simply says, " I also aifirm that the power of indul-
gences was left by Christ in the church, and that the use of
them is most wholesome to Christian people." The Trent
Council does not give any definition, but adds "that
moderation should be shown in granting indulgences, ac-
cording to ancient and approved custom of the Church, lest
by too much laxity ecclesiastical discipUne be weakened."
Now we maintain, that, while the church of Eome has
wandered from the ancient custom, the statements last given
embrace the " custom " of the church of Rome of the present
day, whatever Veron or anyother Romanist, who is ashamed of
the practical teaching of his church, may state to the contrary.
As has been already said, we have nothing to do with the
fallibiUty or infallibihty of popes, or the variation of opinions
existing in the so-called centre of unity. The definition
given is the accepted and practical teaching of the church
of Rome at the present day, however monstrous, how-
ever degrading, however anti-Scriptural it may be, and cer-
tainly is.

emblem of the harlot with the cup iu her hand was embodied in the symbols
of idolatry derived from ancient Babylon as they were exhibited in Greece,
for thus was the Greek Venus originally represented. See Kitto's Bible Cy-
clopaedia, which gives an engraving of the woman with cup from Babylon.
Pausanias describes a heathen goddess with a cup in her right hand, lib. i.
Attica, cap. xxxiii. p. 81. Leipsic, 1696.

130 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

TI. Intimately connected with the subject of indulgences
is the issue by popes of "jubilees." A jubilee is thus
defined : —

" A jubilee signifies a plenary indulgence in its most ample
form, granted at different periods by tbe sovereign pontiff to
those who, eitber residing in tbe city of Rome or visiting it,
perform tliere tbe visitations of the churches and other pre-
scribed vForks of piety, prayer, fasting, and alms-deeds, with
confession and communion, which are always enjoined for the
giving of these indulgences, in order to facilitate the return of
sinners to God by the last-mentioned exercise of i-eb'gion." '

Boniface VIII., in a.d. 1300, was the first pope who
took upon himself to proclaim a jubilee, though not under
that name. His predecessors, Calixtus II., Eugenius III.,
and Clement III., had reaped such rich harvests by the
issue of simple indulgences, that this more daring pope
went a step further, probably to see how far he could impose
on the credulity of mankind, knowing that if he succeeded
a rich harvest would be certain. To make the " outpour-
ing " of the treasure of the church more precious, Boniface
proclaimed that a jubilee should occur but once in a cen-
tury. So jealous was he of this privilege that he closed his
bull thus : —

" Let no man dare to infi-inge this bull of our constitution,
which if he presume to attempt, let him know he shall incur
the indignation of Almighty God, and of Peter and Paul,
etc." »

1 " Instructions and DeTotions for the Forty Hours' Adoration ordered in
the Churches during the Jubilee of 1852. Published with the approbation
of the most Rev. Dr. Cullen." Duffy, Dublin, 18o2.

2 *'Nulli hominura liceat banc paginam nostrie constitutionis .... infrin-
gere, siquis attentare pra;sumpserit indignationem omnipotentis Dei ....
noverit se incursurum." Corpus, Juris. Canon, lib. v. tit. 9, c. 1, vol. ii. p.
315. Paris, 1612 ; and for the Bull of Clement VI. ibid, p. 317.

INDULGENCES. 131

Forty years, however, had scarcely elapsed, when Clement
VI., A.D. 1343, burned with a desire to benefit mankind
and to reap the advantage to be gained by the exchange of
earthly treasures for heavenly. He therefore reduced the
period to fifty years, and imposed the very same curse, and
in the same words as his predecessor, on those who violated
his decree. It was this pope who invented the name of
" Jubilee." Fifty years was a convenient division of time ;
but Urban VI., in 1389, notwithstanding the aforesaid
prohibition and threatened indignation, having also a keen
eye to the commercial value of the commodity placed at his
disposal, soon found an excuse for issuing another jubilee :
he reduced the period to 33 years, that being the age of our
Saviour. Such was his excuse. Paul II., a.d. 1464, was
not to be outdone by his predecessors : he braved the
tempest also, and disinterestedly reduced the period to 25
years, thus placing the benefit within the reach of each
generation, — that was his excuse : while the present
pope, in the exercise of that benevolent spirit which we
are told he enjoys in a superabundant degree, reduced the
period to six years ! He issued a jubilee in November,
1851, and again another in September, 1857. And why
not (if there is any practical good in a jubilee) once a year,
or even oftener ?

On announcing the fact of this last jubilee to his flock,
the gentleman who claims to be "bishop of Shrewsbury"
used these words : —

" Ton wiU probably have heard from your brethren of some
of the other dioceses, that the holy father has vouchsafed
to open again the spiritual treasury of the church, and to grant
a jubilee to the whole world." ^

1 " The Weelcly RegisUr" for May 1, 1858.

]32 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISJI.

The pecuniary profit to Eome by these jubilees was
enormouSj as they brought together iu that city an immense
number of the devout (?), to gain the benefit of the plenary
indulgence, who paid ready cash in exchange.' People came
professedly to have their sins wiped away ; but^ if we are to
credit the Roman Catholic historian, Fleury, another efi^ect
was produced. He tells us that Alexander VI. proclaimed
a jubilee in a.d. 1500 ; and although the numbers in attend-
ance were not so numerous as on former occasions, on
account of the wars which then troubled Italy, yet " license
and disorder reigned at Eome beyond any other place
in the world. Crime was on the throne ; and never, per-
haps, had so monstrous a corruption of morals been seen,
especially among the clergy." ^

It will complete our definition if we here add the terms
on which the benefit of the last jubilee might be gained.

1 "The Bisliops,'' says MoBheim, "when they wanted money for their
private pleasures, or for the exigences of the church, granted to their flock
the power of purchasing the remission of the penalties imposed upon trans-
gressors, by a sum of money, which was to be applied to certain religious
purposes ; or, in other words, they purchased Indulgences, which became an
inexhaustible source of opultnce to the episcopal orders, and enabled them,
as is well known, to form and execute the most difficult schemes for the en-
largement of their authority, and to erect a multitude of sacred edifices
which augmented considerably the external pomp and splendour of the
church. To justify, therefore, these scandalous measures of the pontiffs, a
most monstrous and absurd doctrine was now invented by St. Thomas in the
following century (the thirteenth), and which contained, among others, the
following enormities: — 'That there actually existed an immense treasure of
merit composed of the pious deeds and virtuous actions which the saints had
performed beyond what was necessary for their own salvation, and which
were therefore applicable to the benefit of others; that the guardian and
lispenser of this precious treasure was the Koman pontiff ; and that, of con-
sequence, he was empowered to assign to such as he thought proper a portion
of this inexhaustible source of merit, suitable to their respective guilt, and
sufficient to deliver them from the punishment due to their crimes! It is a
most deplorable mark of the power of superstition, that a doctrine, so absurd
in its nature, and so pernicious in its effects, should yet be retained and
defended by the church of Rome."' — Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. Cent. xii. cap. iii.
sec. 3. London, 1825. See also Neander's Church History, vol. vii. p. 485.
London, 1852.

2 l''leury's Eccl. History, tom. xxiv. p. 399. Paris, 1769.

INDULGENCES. 133

Under date of 2nd February, 1858, Dr. Wiseman issued
what he called a " Lenten Indult and Proclamation/' which
appeared in all the Eomish journals of the week, declaring
" the conditions for gaining the jubilee/' which are stated
to be as follows : —

" 1st. A contrite and sincere confession of sin, and sacra-
mental absolution.

"2nd. The "vroi-tliy and devout receiving of tie blessed
Eucbarist.

" 3rd. A visit to three churches, or three visits to one.

" 4tb. At eacb visit to pray for a sbort space for tbe exalta-
tion and prosperity of boly mother churcb and of tbe apostolic
see : for the uprooting of heresy ; and for tbe peace and concord
of Cbristian princes, and tbe peace and unity of tbe wbole
Christian people.

" 5tb. To give first an alms to tbe poor, and second, to con-
tribute towai'ds ' tbe propagation of the faitb,' for wbich dis-
tinct .object an alms-chest, legibly labelled, and poiuted out
by the priest reading this pastoral, shall be set aside in eacb
churcb.

" 6tb. To fast one day.

" On observance of tbese conditions, tbe Holy Fatber grants
tbe most plenary indulgence, in form of jubilee, wpplicahle to
the faithful departed,."

Now, Ave challenge the whole of these conditions, and
declare them to be an imposition and a cheat.

As to the first condition — the sin of the penitent must
be first absolved by confession and absolution. If it be
asserted that a sincere and true repentance (technically called
contrition) is demanded as an element, then we neither require
confession to the priest, nor his absolution to wipe away the
sin, nor the indulgence to remit the punishment due to the sin
supposed to be forgiven or absolved ; for the Trent Council
declared — " that perfect contrition reconciles a man to God

134 TUB NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

before the sacrament of penance is received;" and the
Trent Catechism puts it clearer^ thus :

" Contrition can never be rejected by God, never prove un-
acceptable to Mm; nay more, as soon as we have conceived this
contrition in our bearts our sios are forgiven. ' I said I will
confess my injustice to tbe Lord, and tbou bast forgiven tbe
wickedness of my sin.' " '

If God forgives the sin, he, being a just God, also remits
the punishment. This no Romanist will deny, and in that
case the indulgence is useless. If, on the other hand, a
priest tells us that he has power, by means of confession,
to .absolve the sinner of his sin, when the repentance
is imperfect, which he does pretend to have, then he takes
upon himself the authority and prerogative to admit into
the kingdom of heaven those whom God would exclude ;
or, in other words, to forgive the sin which God himself
has not forgiven. In either case, therefore, the application
of the indulgence, even in a time of jubilee, can have no
effect on the condition stated by Dr. Wiseman.

Again, as to the other conditions. We will place against
Dr. Wiseman's theory the dictum of other Eomanists. Dr.
Murray, an Irish papal archbishop, deposed on oath before a
committee of the House of Commons, that in Veron's '^Uuk
of Catholic Faitli," from which we have already quoted several
passages, " was to be found (among other books) the most
authentic exposition of the faith of the Catholic church."^
Dr. Wiseman makes the reception dependent on the
performance of certain specified acts, and the contribution

1 Catenh. Concl. Trent. Professor Donovan's Translation, p. 269. Dublin,
1829. And Council of Trent, Sess. xiv. chap. 4.

2 Digest of Evidence, etc., on the State of Ireland, March 22, 1825. Com-
mona' Report, p. 225. Pheian and O'Sullivan. p. 171. London, 1826.

INDULGENCES. 135

of funds to the coffers of the church to propagate the
Eomish faith. Veron repudiates this system : he says
(p. 61) :-

" No jubilee or indulgence granted by the pope or by|a council,
whetlier plenary or otherwise, and confined to a special number
of years ; or particular, that is, granted for particular reasons, or
depending on the performance of certain specified works, is an
article of faith; or, ia other words, tie validity of no such
jubilee or indulgence is of that certainty which is essential to
every article of faith ; wHlst many of these are merely probably
vaUd ; and others, wbich have a certain currency, having no
other object but sordid gain, are scandalous, and, as such,
consequently are by aU means to be done away with. — Indul-
gences granted by popes are still less of faith."

If such be not of faith, then all the specified conditions
may be rejected ; and thus we can safely question Dr.
AViseman''s conditions. Take away his conditions and the
indulgence itself is not obtained; for, according to lois
theory, all the conditions must be fulfilled, including the
subscription of money, which, according to Veron, is scan-
dalous. If OUT position be questioned, we require that
Verona's theory, backed by the authority of Archbishop
Murray, should first be proved erroneous.

VII. We call in question, in the next place, aU the founda-
tions on which the doctrine of indulgences is built, namely —

1. That punishment does remain due after the forgive-
ness of sin.

If the sin be forgiven, why is not the penalty remitted ?
What authority have priests for saying that the two do not
go together? We do not ask the reason for upholding
their system, for that is obvious. The two processes have

136 THE NOVELTIES OP EOMANISM.

their advantages : the confession gives a moral influence ;
the barter for indulgences gives a material advantage to the
priest. He has a double hold on the deluded votary, con-
trolling both his conscience and his purse.

The punishments usually inflicted are prayers, fastings,
and almsdeeds. These are, or should be, acts of religious
devotion ; and if done for sordid motives, or as a punish-
ment or penance, they cannot be pleasing in the sight of
God. Acts of devotion cannot be considered punishments ;
and if not punishments, what is the value of the indulgence ?

2. That there is a purgatory.

This doctrine we have proved to be a modern invention.
Ksher, the celebrated Eomish bishop of Eochester (a.d.
1504), wrote i—

" It is not sufficiently manifest from wliom indulgences liad
their original. Of purgatory there is very little or no mention
among tte ancient fatliei's : — but after purgatory began to terrify
the world, after men tad for some time trembled at tlie tor-
ments thereof, indulgences began to be in request. As long as
purgatory was not cared for, there was no man sought for par-
dons ; for the whole price of pardons hangs on pui'gatory. Take
away purgatoi-y, and what shall we need of pardons ?" '

But, even supposing there is a purgatory, Yeron says
that it is not of faith, that is, it may be disbelieved " that
the remission of punishment is caused by the application of
our satisfaction to the souls in purgatory."- The principal
value of indulgences, according to Eisher, depends on the

1 ". . ,Quam diu nulla fuerat de purgatorio cuva, nemo qusesivit indulgen-
tias. Nam e-s. illo pendet omiiis indulgentiarum existimatio — Coeperunt
igitur indulgentia', postquam ad purgatorii cruciatus aliquandiu tvepidatuni
erat." Jon. Euff'ens, Epia. art. 18, Assert. Lutheran. Confut. I'ol. 132.
Colon, 1624, and fol. iii,2. Antw. 1623.

2 Birmingham, 1S33. " The Catholic Rule of Faith," p. 69.

INDULGENCES. 137

existence of purgatory. We leave our readers to reconcile
the teaching of Veron and Msher as best they can.

3. That there are merits and works of supererogation.

If there are no such merits, tlien there can be no
indulgences. Veron, as we have seen, declares that the
existence of suchi merits is not an article of faith. We, on
the authority of Scripture, deny their existence. We are
saved by the mercy and grace of God, not by our merits ;
for, "if the righteous scarcely be saved," what will there
be to spare of their merits for the ungodly ?

4. That these merits, if they exist, can be transferred by
a priest for the benefit of the Kving or the dead.

Though specially and emphatically asserted by the
Eoman priesthood in the affirmative, Hilary, bishop of
Poictiers, accounted a canonized saint by the Roman church,
laid it down " that no man, after this life, can be helped or
delivered by the good works or merits of others, because
every man must necessarily provide oil for his own lamp." ^
And where is the authority for the assumption of this
power ? Where is the evidence of the alleged results ?
Nowhere. We have seen that it is not of faith that
merits or satisfactions can be transferred to the dead ; and
Veron says that " it is not a doctrine of the Catholic
church [that is, it may be disbeheved or rejected] that the
just man can merit for others, in any of the various mean-
ings of the word merit, not even by merit of congruity ; or
obtain by his merit the conversion of a sinner, or any other
grace whatever." ^ Now if this be so, the whole groundwork
of indulgences fails.

1 "Alienis operibus ao meritis neminem adjuvandum, quia iraicuique
lampadi suse emere oleum fit necesse." Hilary, Comment, in Matt, canon.
27, p. 591. ■ Paris, 1631.

2 Birmingham, 1833. " The Catholic Sule of Faith," p. 34.

138 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

YIII. We deny the antiquity of the doctrine as now
taught.

We admit that, in the third century, it was a custom
to enjoin mortifications and severities on those who had been
found guilty of ecclesiastical offences. These have since been
called penances. These punishments the bishops of the
church had power, but as a matter of discipline only, to
mitigate or relax : this mitigation was called a pardon or
indulgence. The " lapsed,'" during the persecutions, more
particularly, had to undergo these canonical punishments.
Martyrs, or those confined in prison for the faith, frequently
interceded for a mitigation of the punishment ; and the
bishops remitted them on this ground, on condition that
the offenders gave adequate proof of repentance ; and the
lapsed were received again into communion with the church.
There is not the faintest resemblance in all this to the
modern doctrine of indulgence. Dr. Wiseman alleges that
"there are the strongest reasons to believe that, in most
cases, absolution preceded the allotment of penance, or at
least that it was granted during the time of its performance."!
There is not the slightest ground for this assertion : we
deny the allegation and demand the proof.

Alphonsus a Castro, the celebrated Franciscan friar and
archbishop (a.d. 1550), after admitting that there was no
subject on which the Scriptures had expressed less, or of
which the ancient fathers had written less, than that of
indulgences, added — " and it seems the use of them came
but lately into the church ;" ^ and the famous Cardinal
Cajetan said "there is no authority of Scripture, or ancient

1 Lectures. London, 1851. Vol. ii. p. 76. Lecture XI. "Indulgences."

2 .. .Harum usus in ecclesiam videtur sero receptus. Alph. contra hseres.
viii. Verbo Indulgentia, p. 115. Paris, 1513.

TBADITION. 139

fathers, Greek or Latin, that brings them [indulgences] to
our knowledge," ^ He could trace the origin no further
back than Gregory I. (a.d. 601), who instituted the Indul-
gences of Stations ; and he adds, " After him some popes
granted indulgences very imprudently and to no purpose."
This is letting them off very easily, and we shall do so in the
same spirit by giving them credit for good intentions, admit-
ting, with those quoted by Thomas Aquinas,^ who said that an
ecclesiastical indulgence of itself could remit no punishment,
either in the judgment of the church or in the judgment of
God ; but that it was a kind of pious fraud, whereby the
church, by promising such remission, might allure men to
the devout performance of good works.

CHAPTER XII.

TRADITION.

" He [Ignatius, a.d. 70] exhorted them [the churches] to adhere firmly to
the Tradition of the Apostles, which, for the sake of greater security, he
deemed it necessary to attest, by committing to writing." — Eusebius, lib. iii.
cap. 36. Paris, 1678.

We have now passed in review some of the leading doctrines
taught by the modern church of Eome, and have shown
them to be of human invention. Though some of these

1 ". . .Verum quia nulla Soripturee sacra, nulla priscorum doctorum Grse-
corura aut Latinorum authoritas scripta, hunc ad nostram deduxit notitiam,
etc." Thorn, de Vio Cajetan Opusc. Tract. 15. De Indulg. cap. i. torn. i.
p. 129. August, Taurin, 1582.

2 "...Errant, qui dicunt indulgentias tantum Talere, quantum fides, et
devotio recipientis exiget : et ecclesiam ideo sic eas pronunciare, ut quadam
pid, fraude homines ad bene faciendum alliciat." Thorn. Summas Theol.
Supp. Tert. pars, quiest. xxv. art. ir. 4to. Colon. 1620; and Greg, de
Valent. de Indulg. o. 2, p. 1784. Paris, 1609.

140 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

may be old, they are not old enough to sustain the character
of being apostolic^ nor even sanctioned by what is called
apostolic tradition. This brings us to consider our last
head — namely, the doctrine of tradition.

The Council of Trent, by the first decree at its fourth
session — having stated that " ha-ving constantly in view the
removal of error and the preservation of the purity of the
gospel in the church, which gospel, promised before by the
prophets in the sacred Scripture, was first orally published by
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who afterward com-
manded it to be preached by his apostles to every creature, as
the source of all saving truth and discipline " — declared, that
" this truth and discipline are contained both in written
books, and in unwritten traditions, which have come down to
us either received by the apostles from the lips of Christ him-
self, or transmitted by the hands of the same apostles, under
the dictation of the Holy Spirit." It further declared, that,
" following the example of the orthodox Fathers, the council
doth receive and reverence, with equal sentiments of piety and
veneration, all the books as well of the Old as of the New
Testament ; and also the aforesaid traditions, pertaining both
to faith and manners, whether received from Christ himself
or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic
church by continual succession." And it is important to
observe that, " lest any doubt should arise respecting the
sacred books which are received by the council," it "judged
proper " to set out a list of such books, but it does not set
out what are the points of faith handed down by " continual
succession," as forming the unwritten tradition. The object
of this omission is apparent; for what cannot be proved by
Scripture finds shelter under the dark mantle of tradition.
As the Eomish bishop, Canus, ingenuously observed, " Tradi-

TIIADITION. 141

tion is not only of greater force than the Scriptures, but
almost all disputations with heretics are to be referred to
traditions." ^ The all-importance of traditions to the
Eomish church is summed up in the following passage from
a work of a popular writer of Ms day, Costerus. Expa-
tiating on the excellence and importance of tradition, he
says : —

" Tte excellency of the unwritten word dott far surpass the
Scripture, which the apostles left us in parchments ; the one is
written by the finger of God, the other by the pen of the
apostles. The Scripture is a dead letter, written on paper or
parchment, which may be razed or wrested at pleasure ; but
tradition is written in men's hearts, which cannot be altered,
The Scripture is like a scabbard which will receive any sword,
either leaden, or wooden, or brazen, and suflfereth itself to be
drawn by any interpretation. Tradition retains the true
sword in the scabbard ; that is, the true sense of the Scripture
in the sheath of the letter. The Scriptures do not contain
clearly aU the mysteries of religion, for they were not given to
that end to prescribe an absolute form of faith ; but tradition
contains in it all truth, it comprehends all the mysteries of faith,
and all the estate of the Christian religion, and resolves all doubts
which may arise concerning faith ; and from hence it will follow
that tradition is the interpreter of all Scriptures, the judge of
aU controversies, the remover of all errors, and from whose
judgment we ought not to appeal to any other judge; yea,
rather, ^H. judges are bound to regard and follow this judg-
ment.'' •

The importance of the doctrine, therefore, is undeniable.
But to return to the Trent decree, on which we have to
make three observations : —

1 Mel. Canus Loc. Theol. 3, cap. iii. p. 156. Colon. 1605.

2 Coster. Eucharist, cap. 1. p. 44. Colon. 1606. Quoted by Sir H. Lynd.
Via Devia, Bee. viii.

142 THE NOVELTIES OP EOMANISM.

1. The admission of unwritten tradition^ as of authority
in points of faith^ tends decidedly to tlie estabhshment of
error instead of its removal ; and to the corruption of the
gospel instead of, as is erroneously asserted, the preser-
vation of its purity.

2. That it is notoriously untrue that the framers of the
above decree did follow the example of the "orthodox
Fathers/'' We challenge the production of any one of the
orthodox Fathers who held unwritten tradition with " equal
sentiments of piety and veneration" as the written word
on points oi faith.

3. If Eomanists will produce to us any unwritten tradition
received from Christ, or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and
preserved in the church by continual succession, on some
reliable evidence of its authenticity, we will receive it.

The Trent decree asserts, as a matter of fact, that the ex-
ample of the orthodox Fathers was followed in framing the
foregoing declaration of faith. It is admitted, however,
that ^ " it is no article of Cathohc Faith that the church
cannot err in matters of fact relating to faith, or in matters
of speculation, or civil policy depending on mere human
judgment or testimony." According to Dr. Wiseman, in
order to arrive at a judicious decision on this "historical
inquiry," all " human prudence " must be used to arrive at
the fact. Alleged matters of fact may, therefore, be dis-
believed without the charge of heresy ; and it is incumbent
on those who allege a matter, as a fact, to prove it to be so.
The very essence of tradition is, or ought to be, based on
fact. That fact should be so patent as to recommend itself
to our belief in a most undoubted and palpable manner. It

1 Kirk and Berington'a "Faith of Catholics," Prop. xi. p. 477. London,
1846.

TUADITION. 143

is alleged^ however, (as we shall presently see), that these
traditions are now recorded in writing. The alleged facts
can, therefore, if true, be put beyond doubt by adequate
proof. While, then, we are ready to admit all those doctrines
which can be proved to have been received from Christ him-
self, or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the
Christian church, we emphatically deny that the charac-
teristics of Eomanism come within this definition of tradi-
tion.

Again, it is important to observe, that had the doctrine of
tradition been admitted by the Fathers, and handed down
" from hand to hand," as alleged, to the time when the
doctors of Trent met (April, 1546), the council would have
had simply to declare the teaching of the church on this
head, and there would have been no question ; but it was
far otherwise, for Cardinal Pallavicino and Father Paul
Sarpi, who wrote histories of the Trent Council, testified
that, when the question of tradition came to be discussed,
there were as many opinions as tongues. ^

If, then, the question whether tradition was to be held in
the same reverence as the Scriptures formed the subject of
hot debate, (the doctrine itself being proposed only on the
authority of tradition), on what principle can we be asked to
accept propositions as points of faith which professedly are
only based on tradition ? Eomanists tell us that there is in
the church an authority, in matters of doctrine, of equal
value with the Scriptures — namely, tradition. We assert,
without fear of contradiction, that it was at the Council of
Trent, a.d. 1546, that oral tradition was foe the piust
TIME declared to be of equal authority with the Scriptures,

1 "Tot sententias quot liuguas tunc fuisse comperio." Pallav. lib. ii.
c. 2. Eomie, 1656. Sarpi, lib. ii. s. 45, 47. Gen. 1629.

144 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

and that they both were to be received with equal sentiments
of piety and reverence.

Eome does not disguise the fact that she teaches points
of doctrine as articles of faith, which are not to be found in
the Holy Scriptures. Melchior Canus, who was summoned
by Paul III. to the Council of Trent, testified that " many
things belong to the doctrine and faith of Cliristians which
are not contained either plainly or obscurely in Holy
Scripture ;" ^ and Dominic Banhes said : " Not all things
that belong to the Catholic faith are contained in the canonical
books, either clearly or obscurely." — "AH things necessary
to salvation have not been committed to the Scriptures." ^

To explain exactly what tradition means, we adopt the
definitions given by Dr. "Wiseman, in his own words, in his
lectures on "The Doctrine and Practices of the Roman
Cathohc Church." ^ He admits the Scriptures to be the
revealed word of God, which he calls the written word ;" *
but the apostles, he says, did not consider the Scriptures as
the sole foundation on which they built the church. They
employed, in fact, two codes — the written and the unwritten.
He says :^ —

" Aji authority to teach was commmiicated to the apostles,
and by them to their successors, together with au tmwritteii
code ; so that what was afterwards wi-itten by them was but a
fixing and recording oi^art of that which was already in posses-
sion of the church."

1 Mel. Canus de Loc. Theol. hb. hi. c. 3, Opera, torn. i. p. 198. Matrit.
1785. He says that this has been proved by Innocent III. in his treatise
Be Cekbratione.

2 In Secundum Secundse, S. ThomEB, q. i. Art. x. Concl. ii. col. 619,
Venice, 1S87. Ibid. Concl. v. col. 542, quoted by Soudamore. England
and Rome, p. 326. London, 1855.

3 Lectures. London, 1851.

4 Lecture III. pp. 58, 60.
* Lecture V. pp. 128, 130.

TRADITION. 145

But this unwritten word he asserts to be a " body of
doctrines which, in consequence of express declarations in
the written word, we believe not to have been committed,
in the first instance, to writing, but delivered by Christ to
his apostles, and by the apostles to their successors ;" ^ and
he says further, — " I have more than once commented on
the incorrectness of that method of arguing which demands
that we prove every one of our doctrines individually from
the Scriptures." He maintains that " many of these truths
were committed to traditional keeping ;" ^ but he desires to
guard us from falling into the popular error of supposing
that these traditions are not fixed and certain : in fact, that
they are not now reduced to writing. The cardinal overlooks
the fact that he assumes the very point he has to prove,
namely, that there was a precise time when they were first
committed to writing. Were they so committed by the
apostles ? or by whom ?

" By the term unwritten word (he says) it is not to be under-
stood that these articles of faith or traditions are nowhere re-
corded. Because, on the contrary, suppose a difficulty to arise
regarding any doctrine, so that men shoxdd differ, and not
know what precisely to believe, and that the church thought it
prudent or necessary to define what is to be held, the method
pursued would be to examine most accurately the writings of the
fathers of the church, to ascertain what, in different coxmtries
and in different ages, was by them held ; and then collecting
the suffrages of aU. the world and of all times — not, indeed, to
create new articles of faith, but to define what has always been
the faith of the Catholio church. It is conducted in every iu-
stance as a matter of historical iaquiry, and all human prudence
is used to arrive at a judicious decision." '

The investigation, therefore, resolves itself into an histori-

1 Lecture III. p. 60. 2 Lecture XI. vol. ii. p. 53.

Lecture III. vol. i. p. 61.

146 THE NOVELTIES OF UOMANISM.

cal inquiry, in which any person extraordinarily gifted with
patience, and with a knowledge of the dead languages, can
arrive at a decision as to what was, or what was not, of faith
in the early church, as well as Dr. Wiseman or any other
Eomish priest. W e maintain that this very investigation will
result, and has resulted, in the demonstration that the pecu-
liar doctrines of Eomanism, now forming the standard creed
of the papal church, formed no part of any accepted creed
or article of faith of the Christian church for the first five
centuries. In no point of the Romish faith does this stand
out in more bold relief than in the dogma now under con-
sideration. While it is admitted that certain ceremonies
were at an early date introduced into Christian worship,
from which doctrines were subsequently deduced, and were
imposed on Christians under the assumed authority of the
church by interested ecclesiastics, we nevertheless maintain
that these several innovations were without the sanction of
Scripture, and had only the authority of doubtful and un-
authoritative tradition to support them. All the Romish
traditions were introduced subsequently to the days of the
apostles. Step by step, little by little, custom became
rooted in the system, and eventually took the form of doc-
trine, and was finally imposed as such, untiL we find the
mass of corruptions of preceding ages heaped together,
sanctioned and codified, as it were, by the doctors of Trent.
And, in 1564, for the first time, twelve articles in addition
to the old creed were put forward, embracing these novelties,
and enforced under pain of eternal damnation. One of
these articles alone is sufiiciently sweeping, but rather vague.
We are required to accept all things taught and defined
not only by the Council of Trent, but by all other General
Councils ! The church that requires this, actually has not

TRADITION. 147

yet authoritatively defined which of the councils are or are
not to be considered general. Romanists are not even
agreed as to which parts of these councils are to be admitted
and which to be rejected. But there is a more formidable
difficulty. Cardinal BeUarmine says that "the books of
councils being negligently kept, abound with many errors \"^
And as to the testimony of the fathers to whom Dr. Wise-
man would send us, no authoritative list of their works has
been published by his church, nor will she vouch for the
accuracy or authenticity of any of them ; nor will it be denied
that the writings of many of the fathers have been grossly
corrupted, amended, and expurgated, when it suited the
views of the church for the time being.

We are, in precise terms, referred to written documents by
which the truth and source of tradition are established. If
the text of these written documents is admitted to be cor-
rupt, what reliance can be placed on them as affording the
evidence sought to be adduced ? But if these same writings
are placed before us as evidence against Protestantism, then
it is quite legitimate for us to adduce them in evidence to
overthrow the theory advanced by Dr. Wiseman. We
assert, then, that, if a careful examination be made of the
earliest records that can be produced, we shall find that
practices were, from time to time, introduced into the
church, and their use sanctioned only on the authority of
tradition, but that to establish points of doctrine, the sacred
Scriptures were alone appealed to as of authority. Nay,
further, when the early Christians applied the term tradition
to points of doctrine, they expressly referred to the traditions
handed down by the apostles in their writings. In arguing

1 " Libri oonciliorum negligenter conaerrati sunt, et multis vitiis scatent."
Bell, de Concil, Ub. i. c. 2, sect. 1. Prag. 1721.

148 THE NOVELTIES OF KOMAWISM.

with the heretics of his day (a.d. 140)^ Irenseus apphed
this word tradition to those doctrines which Eomanists
themselves admit to be clearly taught by the Scriptures.
He declared that " the Scriptures are perfect as having
oeen dictated by the Word of God and his Holy Spirit." ^
And he says : —

" For we have become acquainted with the dispensation of our
salvation through no other men than those through whom the
gospel has come to us ; which indeed they then preached, but
afterwards, by the vrill of God, dehvered to us in the Scriptures
to be the foundation and pillar of our faith." ^

Andj in fact^ this same father accused the heretics of his
day of using, on this very subject, the argument invari-
ably advanced by Eomanists of the present day, against
Protestants : —

" When they (the heretics) are confuted out of the Scriptures
they turn round and accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they
were not accurate, nor of authority, and because they are
ambiguous, and because the truth cannot be discovered by
those who are ignorant of the tradition, for that the ti-uth was
not delivered in writing, but orally." ^

And while TertuUian (a.d. 194) set great value on
usage, custom, and tradition, which he admitted not to be
authorized by Scripture, on questions of doctrine he looked

1 " Scripturco quidem perfectae sunt, quippe & Verbo et Spiritu ejus diotse,"
Iren. cont. hteres. lib. ii. c. 47, p. 173. London, 1522 ; and Edit. Grabe, 1853 ;
and 0. 25. p. 117. Edit. Basil, 1526.

2 "Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostrse cognovimus, quam per
eos perquos evangeliura pervenit ad nos; quod quidem tunc prEeconiaverunt,
postea ver6 per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum
et columnam fidei nostra) futurum." Iren. Advers. hseres. lib. iii. o. 1, p.
198. Oxon. 1702; andp. 117. Basil, 1526.

3 (Haeretici) " quum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem con-
vertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte babeant, neque sint es
autboiitate, et quia vari^ sint dictse, et quia non possit ex bis inveniri Veri-
tas ab his qui nesciunt traditionem, non enim per literas traditam illam,
sed per vivam vocem." Iren. cont. hseres. lib. iii. c. 2. in Init. same
edition ; and p. 140. Edit. Basil, 1526.

TKADITION. 149

to the Scriptures alone as of authority. In arguing with the
heretics, he demanded from them proofs from Scripture —
"If it is not ■written, let them fear the curse allotted to such
as add or diminish." ^ Suicer, the eminent professor of
Greek, whose works are almost indispensable to the study
of the Fathers, furnishes examples of the fact that the word
7rapaSo(Ttc, tradiiio — tradition — was used as " identical with
the written word."

The passages from the early Christian fathers, which
insist on the Scriptures as alone of authority in matters of
doctrine, are so numerous and so well known, that it is at
the present day almost labour and time lost to repeat them :
they are to be found in almost every Protestant controver-
sial work. We will, nevertheless, transcribe two or tliree
of these, merely as illustrations. What could be more
striking than the words dehvered at the first General Coun-
cil of Nice (a.d. 325) by Eusebius, bishop of Cccsarea, in
the name of the three hundred and eighteen bishops then
assembled ? " Beheve the things that are written : the
things that are not written, neither think upon nor inquire
into."^ And Gregory, bishop of Nyssa (a.d. 379), said,
" Let a man be persuaded of the truth of that alone which
has the seal of the written testimony." ^ And Cyril, bishop
of Jerusalem (a.d. 386), places the matter very clearly
before us. He said : —

" Not even the least of tlie Divine and holy mysteries of the
faith ought to be handed down without the Divine Scriptures.

1 "... Si non est ecriptum, timeat v<e illud, adjicientibus aut detrahentibuB
destinatum." Tert. contra Hermog. p. 272. Paris, 1580; and cap. xxii.
vol. ii. p. HI. Edit. Semler. Halaj. Magd. 1773.

2 ** Tots yeypoflfievoi/f jrtoreve, ra ^ij yeypofi-iJ^va jlit) ewoei jUijSe ^rjTei." — Euseb. ad

Philosp. in Gelas. Cyzic. Comment. Act. Cone. Nio. P. 2, c. xix. p. 185.
Edit. Balf.

3 " 'El/ TOVT^ jiidytji Tqc oAiJfletai/ ri^eVSw, (3 a^payU en-eWi Tn? vpou^iKT}g juaprupias."

— Greg. Nyfls. Dialog, de Anima et Kesurreot. torn. i. p. 639. Edit Grajuolat.

150 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

Do not simply give faitli to me while I am speaking these
things to you, except you have the proof of what I say from the
holy word. Tor the security and preservation of our faith are
not supported by ingenuity of speech, but by the proofs of the
sacred Scriptures." '■

Such passages might be multiplied. They all tend to
prove that the modem practice of placing tradition on a level
with Scriptures to establish a point of faith, was then con-
sidered most heretical. Indeed, one father, Theophilus,
bishop of Alexandria (a.d. 412), emphatically said, "It is
the part of a devilish spirit to foUow the sophisms of
human falsehoods, and to think anything to be divine that
is not authorized by the Holy Scriptures." ^

The doctrine of tradition cannot, however, be dispensed
with ; for, as "\ve have seen, it is freely admitted that
Romanists do hold doctrines which are not proved by Scrip-
ture. All these are most conveniently classed under the
head of apostolical traditions. The assertion that they are
such is easily made, and reliance is placed on the difBculty
of disproof. Logic and fair dealing require that the affirma-
tive be established. No one should be called upon to prove
a negative. We will, however, endeavour to accomplish
this task in the following manner. We shall take each
successive age, and note Aowa, in chronological order, clear
and undisputed historical facts, which wiU. show the origin,
progress, and full development of each of the modern popish '

^ At( yap, Trept toiv 6ei(iiV koX dyCuyu ttj^ TriiTTetDy fJi.v(rrrjpC(ov, /litjSc to TV\hv ai^ev n^v
Oeitov TTapa SiSoaOai ypa^iav ixr^Bt aTrAwy Tri,9ai'dT-)]Ti koX A.oyui' KaracTKeuaLS irapa^ep€<T6ai
^Tj6e efiol T(p TOVTo. (TOi KdyovTi. a7rA.cos TrioreuoTj?, eav ttjv CLKoSei^LV — Ttilc KO-ToyyeK-
A.o/ieVtoi' OLTTO TWi' BeCuiv p.ij A.a|8]7? ypatftijov. t) trtoTepta -yap aunj r)j9 TricrTetus yjp-tav, ovk e^
€vpe(TLKoyiai. aAAo. e^ aTToSei'leajy tcoc OcCtov eort ypa^wi'." — Cyril Hiers. Catech. iv.

sect. 17, p. ]U8. Monac. 1S4,S.

2 "Dit'inoniaci spiritus esset instinctus, sophismata humanarum mentium
sequi, et illiquid extra Script itriirum auctoritatem putare divinum." Theo-
phil. Alex. (A.D. 402) Op. Epiat, Paschal, i. 8. 6, in Biblioth. Vet. Petium,
torn. vii. p. 617. Edit. Gallaiid.

TRADITION. 151

dogmas against which we protest. "We maintain that, pre-
viously to the dates recorded, no evidence can be adduced
from any authentic records to show that the doctrine
referred to existed as an article of faith.

The inquiry we are about to enter upon is as interesting
as it is curious. It is a common device of Eomanists,
when it is alleged that their peculiar doctrines are new,
to inquire, in turn, first, when and how the innovation
came about ; and, secondly, why and how it came to pass
that the fact of the innovation was not detected and
remedied at the time. As to the latter question, were it a
part of the inquiry, we could show a regular succession of
witnesses who have, from the time of the apostles to the
date of the Reformation, borne testimony to the truth, and
directly or indirectly, or in anticipation, protested against
each error and heresy. The former question we now pro-
pose to answer.

PAET 11.

CHRONOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT.

CHRONOLOGICAL AKMNGEMENT.

" Where is your religion f Where is the reverence due to your fathers ?
Ton have renounced your ancestors, in your manners, your living, your
teaching, your manner of thinking, finally, in your very language. Tou are
constantly applauding antiquity, and yet daily live in novelties. Thus it
appears that, whilst you depart from the good institutions of your ancestors,
you keep and retain those which you ought not to do, and those which you
ought to retain yon do not." -~Teriullian.l

THE APOSTOLIC AGE.

The foundation of the Christian religion is Jesus Chkist.
What he did and taught must be our rule. We only know
of him and his precepts from the testimony of those who
have recorded his acts and teaching, as eye and ear wit-
nesseSj or^ as in the case of St. Luke, from the testimony
of those who had the advantage of a personal intercourse
with our Saviour. When the apostles whom God had
singled out to build his church upon Christ, the only Foun-
dation, were removed from their labours, they left us,
in writing, an inspired book, to guide us in the right way,
and teach us the saving truths entrusted to them by their
Divine Master. They acknowledged no object of adoration
but God, no intercessor but Christ, no expiatory sacrifice but
his death, no other way of justification but through paith

1 " Ubi religio ? ubi veneratio majoribus debita a vobis ? habitu, victu,
instructu, censu, ipso denique sermone proavis renuntiastis. Laudatis
semper antiquitatem, et nove de die vivitis. Per quod ostenditur, dum'a bonis
majorum institutis deceditis, ea vos retinere et custodire quae non debuistis,
cum quse debuistis non custoditis.". — Apehg. adv. gentes., cap. vi. p. 20,
vol. V. Halie Magd. 1773.

156 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

in their blessed Redeemer. We read of no altar at tlie
supper, nor image in temples, no universal bishop in the
church, no souls in purgatory, nothing of a queen in heaven,
nor merits of saints, nor pompous ceremonies. The greatest
ornaments of the church were simplicity of doctrine and
sanctity of life.

Any deviation from the written and inspired word of God
must be based on human invention — and what is human is
fallible. What has been added to the Word is " wood, hay,
and stubble." The introduction of .Jewish and heathen
ceremonies by the early converts to Christianity, the pomp
of paganism, the ignorance of the people, and the con-
nivance or craft of those who would be teachers, gradually
obscured the word of God, under the guise of tradition.
Innovations were introduced by degrees ; and, step by step,
we find consummated in the sixteenth century, that huge
deformity called Popeet.

In the foUomng pages, the gradual development of papal
errors and corruptions tstH be traced in chronological order.
It wiU be seen how, age after age, a succession of unscrip-
tural novelties crept in, and were by degrees incorporated
with the faith of the primitive church, till at length the
heterogeneous mass of truth and error which makes up the
creed of Eome was sanctioned and authorized by the
council of Trent.

THE SECOND CENTURY.

The characteristic of the apostolic age was simpHcity.
Justyn ]\Iartyr (a.d. 130) has left us a record of the service
and worship of that day. He thus describes it : —

SECOND CENTTJEY. 157

" On tte day tliat is called Svmday there is an assembly, in
tlie same place, of those who dwell in towns or in the country ;
and the histories of the apostles and the writings of the pro-
phets are read, whilst the time permits; then the reading
ceasing, the president verbally admonishes and exhorts the
imitation of these good things. Then we all rise in common
and offer prayers, bread and wine and water are offered, and
the president in Kke manner offers prayers and thanksgivings,
as far as it is in his power to do so, and the people joyfully cry
out, saying — Amen. And the distribution and the communica-
tion is to each of those who have returned thanks, and it is
sent by the deacons to those who are not present. And this
food is called by us the Eucharist. And in all that we offer we
bless the Maker of all things by his Son Jesus Christ and by
the Holy Spirit. Of those who are rich and willing, each
according to his own pleasure, contributes ; and what is thus
collected is put away by the president, and he assists the orphans
and widows, and those who through sickness or any other
cause are destitute." '

Sucli was the simplicity of worsliip in those early days ;
but even here we trace an innovation, in the addition of
water to the wine, not sanctioned by the sacramental insti-
tution or apostolic ordinance.^

1 Second Apology for Christians, p. 97. Paris, 1615.

2 According to Polydore Vergil, this custom was introduced by Alexander I. ,
bishop of Kome, a.d. 109. Polydore Vergil, De Invent. Ker., B. t. c. vii.
p. 108. Langley's Edition, London, 1551. Polydore Vergil was a member
of the Koman church, a man of great learning and genius of the Idth
century. He was sent into this country by Pope Alej^ander II. to collect
the papal tribute. The work from which we quote, and to which we shall
have frequently to refer, is the " De Inventionibus Efirum." This honest
■writer could not be tolerated, so his boolc was ordered to be corrected, and
we find it accordingly expurgated in several places, both in the Expurgatory
Belgic Index, and that of Madrid ; and Possevine tells us in his " Apparatus
Saoer," a catalogue of ecclesiastical books (tom. ii. p. 294 ; Cologne, 1607),
that the edition which Pope Gregory XIII. commanded to be purged at
Eome, 1576, might be read, which varies considerably from the edition
published by Eobert Stephen ; printed at Paris, 1628. For further infor-
mation see "Defence of Sir H. Lynd'e," " Via Tuta." London, 1850,
pp. 96, 97.

158 THE NOVELTIES OP EOMANISM.

A.D. 110 {circa). — It has been seen that the celebration
of the Lord^'s Supper formed an important part of the wor-
ship of the primitive church. The Jews, when they made
their solemn appearances before God, took offerings with
them, usually the produce of the earth, in token of their
grateful acknowledgment of daily mercies. The early
Christians, who were mostly Jews by birth, retained this
custom; and, at the public assemblies, brought with them
bread and wine, fruits, corn, and grain. These, when con-
secrated by prayer, seem to have been used in part for the
communion, and the rest distributed to the poor, etc.^
The gifts thus brought retained the name of offerings, and
from this simple beginning we can trace the complicated
superstitions of the mass. From these offerings the eucha-
rist was called an oblation, afterwards a sacrifice, gratulatory
and not expiatory. It was the offering of the first fruits of
the earth, not of the body of Christ — though this furnished
a pretence for changing the supper into a sacrifice, by reason
of the several attendant circumstances connected with the
services, as hereafter stated [a.d. 787].

A.D. 113.— Platina, in his Lives of the Popes, attributes
the introduction of the use of holy water to Alexander I.^
(a.d. 108 — 117). The authority for this statement is a
decretal epistle of doubtful authenticity, to say the least of it.
But even if introduced, the practice was condemned by
some of the subsequent Fathers as a pagan custom. The
emperor Julian, to spite the Christians, ordered the pro-
visions in the markets to be sprinkled with lioly water from

1 See PfafF. Dissert, de Oblaf. et Consec. Eucharistiz ; in his Stigmata
Dissert. Theologia. Stut., 1720.

2 In the Clementine Constitutions the authorship of Holy "Water is attributed
to St. Matthew. Lib. viii. c. xxix, in Jjabb. Conoil. Tom. i. col. 494. Lutet.
Paris, 1671.

SECOND CENTUKY. 159

the heathen temples, on purpose, as Middleton observes,
either to starve them, or force them to eat what they
esteemed polluted. The use of holy water by the heathens
at the entrance of their temples, to sprinkle themselves
with, is admitted by Montfaugon and the Jesuit La Cerda
— the latter, in his notes on a passage of Virgil where this
practice is mentioned, says — " Hence was derived the cus-
tom of holy church, to provide purifying or holy water at
the entrance of their churches/^ The modern priests use
the same " aspergiUium," or sprinkler, which was used by
pagan priests for the same purpose, as seen on ancient bas-
reliefs and coins. The Indians, the Brahmins, etc., also use
holy water in sprinkKng their houses, etc., and believe that
they can thereby wipe out their sins.^

But the abuse of this custom was not until some cen-
turies after. {See post, a.d. 852.)

Whatever might have been the first intention of the
originators of the custom it is very certain that the present
use is mingled with the grossest superstitions. MarsUius
Columna, archbishop of Salerno, attributes to the use of
holy water seven spiritual virtues : 1. To frighten away
devils j 3. To remit venial sins ; 3. To cure distractions;
4. To elevate the mind; 5. To dispose it to devotion;
6. To obtain grace; 7. To prepare for the sacrament. As
to corporal gifts : 1. To cure barrenness ; 2. To multiply

1 " La purification du corps, quelque genante qu'elle puiese Hie, est bien
plus aisee que cette de Tame. H falloit conaerver 1' usage de eelui-ci et
c'est ce qui tit instituer I'usage de feau Itistrale que la ileligione Chretienne a
abolie dans la suit pour lui subatituer I'Uau benite. Les Pretres et le Peuple
prenoient de cette eau lustrale, quand lis entroient dans les Temples pour
faire leura sacrifices. Ceux d'entre lea Cbretiens qui ont retenu I'usage de
I'Eau benite lui attribuent plusieurs qualites qui approche beaucoup dea
miracles. Les Indiens ont aussi leur jEau lustrale. lis arrosent tous lea
matins le devant de leurs maisous aveo de I'urine de vacbe, et pretendent
s'attirer par ce moien la benediction des Dieux. Ila croient encore que cette
a la, force d'effacer ^entierement leurs pdcliea." Picard'sj Ceremonies et
Cotltumes Keligieuae, vol. i, p. xviii. note b. Amsterdam, 1723.

160 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

goods; 3. To procure health.; 4. To purge the aur from
pestilential vapours. ^ There are other virtues attributed
to holy water that are not fit to be spoken of to modest
ears.2 While we feel humbled that any who call them-
selves Christians should be slaves to such degrading super-
stitions, we feel thanMul that Protestantism is a foil to such
priestcraft.

Even at this early period, divers heresies existed in the
church, such as the Valentinian, the Gnostic, the Encratite.
These heretics declared against marriage and forbade eating
flesh. The Montanists were likewise enemies to marriage,
especially of the clergy. Almost all the present papal
heresies existed in some form or other during these early
periods, either among the pagans or Jews, or one or other
of the heretical sects. We shall see how and when they
were successively engrafted on Christianity. Cardinal
Baronius, in his Annals, under the year 740, says that —
"■ It is allowable for the church to transfer to pious uses
those ceremonies which the pagans employed impiously to
superstitious worship, after they had been purified by con-
secration : for the devil is the more mortified to see those
things returned to the service of Jesus Christ, which were
instituted for his own."'

A.D. 140. — Telesphorus, bishop of Rome, instituted the
fast of Lent upon a pretended tradition of the apostles.
Easts and festivals were practised and observed by the Jews
and pagans. The admission of these into Christianity is

' MarsiUus Columna. Hydragiolog. a. iii. o. ii. p. 281, etc. Rom. 1686.

2 See Domenieo Magri Notigia de vocaboli Ecclesiastioi in aqu^ Bene-
dicts, p. 41. Rom. 1669.

3 Referring to pagan ceremonies, he says : — ** Consulto introductum
videtur, ut quae erant Gentilatia; superstitionis officia, eadem veri Dei
cultui sanctiflcata in verae religionis cultum impenderentur." Baron :
Annales, torn. ii. p. 384, col i. Luc. 1738.

SECOND CBNTUEY. 161

harmless when not abused. When commanded periodically,
fasts become pharisaical forms.

A.D. 160. — This was an age of violent persecutions and
martyrdom. It was a custom among the Greeks to cele-
brate the memory of their heroes at their tombs, to excite
the survivors to emulate their deeds of valour. Christians,
in order to encourage each other to suffer death for the
gospel, imitated this Greek custom. They gathered such
of the relics of the martyrs as could be saved, and honourably
buried them. An annual commemoration, called the day of
their nativity, or birthday to heaven, at their tombs or at
their place of martyrdom, was then celebrated on the days of
their death.^ At their assemblies, after prayers and exposition
of the Scriptures, they rehearsed in order the names of the
martyrs and their deeds. Then were thanksgivings to God
offered up for giving them victory. The proceedings
terminated with the celebration of the eucharist. The
intent of these meetings was obviously to teach that those
who died in Christ lived with the Lord, and in the memory
of the church, and to excite survivors to constancy and
faith. This is recorded by the ecclesiastical historian,
Eusebius.^ " There (namely, where their bones were depo-
sited), if it be possible, meeting together in joy and gladness,
the Lord grant us to celebrate the birthday of this martyr-
dom, both in memory of those who have wrestled before
us, and for the exercise and preparation of those that
come after." No rehgious worship was rendered to

1 Tertullian De Oor. Militis, Edit. Eoth. 1662, p. 289 ; and see De la Cerda,
Soe. Jesu, in loo. Tert, Oper. Paris, 1624, p. 657 ; and Priorius in loo.
Tert. Oper. p. 102. Paris, 1664. And see the Epistle of the Church of
Smyrna to Philomelius in Eusebius' Eocl. Hist. lib. iv. c. xv.

2 Eusebius' Eccl. Hist. lib. v. c. ix., and lib. iv. o. xv. Paris, 1659,
p. 135 ; and Edit. R. Stephaui. Paris, 1554, and lib. xiii., o. xi. de Prsep.
Evang.

162 THE KOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

the martyrs themselves ; for Eusebius, in the treatise last
referred to^ thus expresses himself, touching these cere-
monies — " We are taught to worship God only, and
to honour those blessed powers that are about him,
with such honour as is fit and agreeable to their estate
and condition." And again, " To God only will we give
the worship due unto his name, and him only do we
religiously worship and adore.''^ From this harmless, nay,
laudable, custom, arose prayers for the dead, interces-
sion of the departed, and ultimately the sacrifice of the
mass.

THE THIRD CENTURY.

A.D. 200. — Offermgs now began to be presented
at the celebrations in memory of martyrs j the action,
however, still being one of commemoration only. Hence
arose the custom of offerings for the dead. These
offerings were generally made by the parents of the
deceased.^ The gifts were distributed to the poor. Erom
this arose saints'-days. The transition was easy to prayers
for the dead; and this was the first great innovation in
Christianity. It is important to observe that it is clearly
admitted by Tertullian, a writer of this age, that this
practice was founded on custom and not on Scripture/
and therefore was called a tradition, and hke all traditions

1 And see Euseb. de Proep., Evang. lib. iv. c. x. pp. 88, |89. Edit.
Stephani, Paris, 1544; and lib. iv. c. xxi. p. 101.

2 Neander, in his Church History^ vol. iii. pp. 469, 470, London, 1851,
works out this part of our subject with great precision, and adds references
to the early writers of this and subsequent periods.

3 Tertullian. De Cor. Militis. cap. iii. p. 121. D. Paris, 1634.

THIRD CENTUBY. 163

liable to abuse. It must be clearly noted that, though
some Christians did now begin to pray for the dead, it was
not that they should be freed from purgatory or its pains.
It was a common belief that souls did not enjoy the beatific
vision until the day of resurrection and the last judgment ;
but there is no trace of a behef at this period that they
were in a place of torment.^ They prayed for the con-
summation of their glory^ and that they themselves might
join the departed in the resurrection of the just — a
custom having no sanction in Scripture, but still differing
widely from the modern practice and intention of praying
for the dead.

A.D. 240. — The next step in advance was a mistaken
zeal of martyrs and others in the prospect of death. They
began to make mutual agreements with each other, to the
effect that he who should first depart should remember the
survivor, and implore God on his behalf when in the next
world.^ Here we have the beginning of intercession of
saints, but it was the departed for the living.

A.D. 250. — About this time, and for some time after,
the bishop of Eome took upon himself to interfere in

1 " Sixtus Senuensia says, and he says very truly, that Justin Martyr,
TertuUian, Tictorinus Martyr, Prudentius, St. Chrysostom, Ai-ethas,
Enthymius, and St. Bernard (lib. vi., Bibl. Sanct. Annot. 345), did all affirm,
that before the day of judgment the souls of men all slept in secret
receptacles, reserved, until the sentence of the great da)^, and that before
then no man receives according to his works done in this life. "We do not
interpose in this opinion to say that it is true or false, probable or impro-
bable ; for these Fathers intended it not as a matter of faith, or necessary
belief, so far as we find ; but we observe from hence, that, if their opinion
be true, then the doctrine of purgatory is false ; if it be not true, yet the
doctrine of purgatory, which is inconsistent with this so generally received
opinion of the Fathers, is at least new, no Catholic doctrine, nor believed in
the primitive church ; and therefore the Boraan writers are much troubled
to excuse the Fathers in this article, and to reconcile them to some seeming
concord with their new doctrine." Jeremy Taylor's "Works " Dissuasive
from Popery," c. i., sec. iv. Edit, by Heber, vol. x. p. 149. London, 1839.

2 Cyprian. Ep. ad Cornel. Ep. 67, p. 96. Edit. Paris, 1726.

164 THE NOVELTIES OP EOMANISM.

matters which had been adjudged or determined by the
bishop of Africa. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, opposed
this newly assumed power, and denied the right of the
bishop of Rome to intermeddle with the decisions of other
bishops in their own sees. He wrote to the bishop of
Eome, and told him that " it was decreed by the African
bishops that every case was to be heard where the crime
was committed."^ These interferences continued for some
time, and were always resisted, until the Council of Melevi,
in Numidia (a.d. 415), passed a decree, signed by sixty
bishops, among whom Avas St. Augustine, prohibiting aR
appeals to any other tribunal than the primate of the
province where the subject matter arose. ^

A.D. 257. — "The hallowing of priests' vestures and
altar cloths, with other ornaments of churches, and the
diversities of vestures of sundry orders, was taken out of the
Hebrew priesthood and used in our church first by Stephen,
the first bishop of Eome of that name. Por, at the be-
ginning, priests in their massing used rather inward virtues
of soul than outward apparel of the body, which is rather
a glorious gaze than any godly edifying."^

A.D. 260. — By reason of the persecutions of this age
some began to seek the deserts, and a monastic life. Paul
was the first hermit who fled from Alexandria into the
desert, on account of the persecutions in the time of the
emperor Yalerian. Fleury, the celebrated Eoman Catholic

1 Ep. ad Cornel, p. 136. Oxon, 1682. Paris edit., 1836, p. 73, Ep. 59.

2 Can. xxii. "Itemplacuitutpresbyteri, diaconi,velc8eteriinferiore8 clerici,
in causls quas habuerint, si de judiciis epiacoporum suorum questi fuerint,
vieini episcopi eia audiant, et inter eos quicquid est, finiant .... Quod si
ab eis provocandum putaverint, non provocent nisi ad Africana concilia, vel
ad primates provinciarum suarum. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit
appellandum, anullo infra Africam in communionem susoipiatur." Mansi's
Councils, torn. iv. p. 507. Venetiis, 1785.

3 Polydore Vergil, b. vi. c. viii. p. 126. London, 1551.

THIRD CENTURY. 165

ecclesiastical historian, canonist, and confessor of Louis
XV. A.D. 1716, from whose ecclesiastical history we shall
have frequent occasion to quote, says,^ " Monasticism was
introduced into favour mainly by the influence of Athana-
sius (a.d. 370) ; but, in the year 341, the profession of a
monk was despised at Eome as a novelty." And Polydore
Vergil says, " The institution of this state of things came,
I grant, of a good zeal to godliness ; but the evil perverter
of aU good things did so empoison the hearts of them that
followed, that they had more trust in their monks than
faith in Christ's blood; and then every man began new
rules of monks to be their own saviours, and went so
superstitiously to work, that it was out of rule and abomi-
nable in the sight of God."^

The Christians being now much mixed with pagans, and
suffering from their taunts and persecutions, made them-
selves known to each other by making the sign of a cross
on the forehead, in token that they were not ashamed of
the cross of Christ. It was a kind of badge of their
profession, and a silent calling on the name of Christ.
There was no virtue attributed to the action, but a profession
made of Christ, whose name was tacitly invoked. In
modern times, this original custom has been perverted. It
is now supposed that the signing of the cross drives away
evil spirits. What was at first harmless, has degenerated
into a superstition.

J "St. Athanase pouvait vingt-troia ans quand il vint a Eome, il commeiKja
a y faire conuoitre la profession monastique, principalement par I'ecrit

3u'ii avoit compose de la vie de St. Antoine, quoique ce saint vecut encore,
usque-la cette profession etoit meprisee comme nouvelle ; elle etoit
meme inconnue aux dames Eomaines." Fleury, Histoire Ecclesiastique.
Paris, 1722—1734; torn. iii. pp. 340, 341, and Fleury, tom. iii. p. 283.
Paris, edit., 1760—1774.
2 Polydore Yergil, b. vii. o. i. p. 131. London, 1551.

166 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

It was about this period that a custom became preva-
lent from Avhich the modern theory of Indulgence has
been derived. Christians who had been convicted of crimes
were required to make confession of them publicly before
the whole congregation, to implore pardon, and to undergo
whatever punishment the church thought fit to impose on
them. This was done as well for example as to pre-
vent reproach to the Christian religion amongst infidels.
These punishments were not supposed to be satisfactions
to God. Such an idea cannot be traced in any of the
writers of the age who mention the practice. At the latter
end of the third century, when many had lapsed through
fear of persecution, the punishment and period of probation
became more severe and lengthened before they were re-
admitted. Sometimes the period was protracted for years
together. Hence arose the custom of prescribing times or
periods — five, ten, or more years — of penance : but, lest
the penitent should lose heart, or be driven to despair, the
bishops took upon themselves, under certain circumstances,
to mitigate the period of punishment. This act was termed
a relaxation or remission. It was not tiU long after this
that the term indulgence was substituted, and when intro-
duced, it was in quite another sense to its modern use.
It signified only a discharge, or a mitigation, of ecclesiastical
censures and penalties inflicted by the church, and not a
remission of the penalty due to Code's justice for the sin
of the penitent Mliich had been forgiven, which is the
modern theory. But the transition from one to the other
can fl'eli be comprehended, when we have craft and avarice
on the one side, and superstition and ignorance on the other.

A.D. 290. — As to divers orders of the priesthood, Poly-
dore Vergil says — ■

POTJETH CENTUKY. 167

" The bishops of Rome, following tte shadows of the old
abrogated law of the Hebrews, have ordained a swarm of
divers other orders, as porters or sextons, readers, exor-
cists, acolytes, sub-deacons, deacons, priests, bishops, arch-
bishops, as a certain degree, one above another. Caius (a.d.
290), bishop of Rome, did begin the orders first ; yet some say
Hygenius (a.d. 140) ordained those degrees long before Oaius'
time. Hygenius might be the first deviser of them, and after-
ward Gains accomplished the work and brought it to a final
consummation." '

THE FOUETH CENTURY.

A.D. 300. — The Emperor Constantine becoming a Chris-
tian, the churchj now emancipated from persecutions, began
to assume a pageantry and splendour ill-suited to the sim-
phcity of its founders. We trace now more frequently the
terms sacrifice and altar, though still used in a different sense
to their modern application.^ Freedom from persecution
gave opportunities of collecting the relics of martyrs. These
were now re-interred under the communion-table. This
custom was of decidedly pagan origin. A similar custom
among the Athenians is related by Plutarch in his life of

1 B. IT. c. iv. p. 83. London, 1551.

2 When the word " sacrifice " was used by the Fathers, it was not in the
sense in which it is now used ; and this is evident from the fact that they
used the same term as applied to " baptism," as admitted by Melchior Canus.
He said ; — " But you demand what cause had many of the ancient JFaihers
that they called baptism a sacrifice, and therefore said there remained no
sacrifice for sin, because baptism cannot be repeated. Truly, because in
baptism we die together with Christ, and by this sacrament the sacrifice of
the cross is applied unto us to the full remission of sin, hence they call
baptism metaphorically a sacrifice." (Canus Loc. Theol. lib. xii. fol.
42 1 1 26. Louvan. 1.569.) And for the same purpose did they call the
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper a sacrifice, metaphorically being a memorial
of the sacrifice on the cross. Here we may appropriately refer the reader
to the passage from Peter Lombard, quoted ante, p. 50.

168 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

Theseus ; and, as they did of old with their heroes, so the
modern Eomanists deposit relics of the so-called saints, with
processions and sacrifices. The building of churches led
to superstitious consecrations, and other ceremonies. Euse-
bius informs us that, " this emperor, to make the Christian
religion more plausible to the Gentiles, adopted the exterior
ornaments which they used in their religion." The con-
secration of (temples) churches, with superstitious ceremonies,
is decidedly of pagan origin; the vestal virgins sprinkled
the ground with lustral water. This and many similar
ceremonies were now adopted.

A.D. 325. — A General Council, the first of Nice, met
at this date, and settled certain points of discipKne. It
was determined that the bishop of each metropolitan
church should rule the district attached to that church,
and be independent, in his ecclesiastical jurisdiction, of
any other bishop .■•■ Eome, however, in consequence of
being the seat of empire, had a precedence of honour, but
not of ecclesiastical rank. The bishop of Constantinople,
by conciliar decree, enjoyed the same primacy and eccle-
siastical prerogatives with the bishop of Eome.^

^ " Ta ap;^ata e5»j KpaTeCriii, ra ev AiyuTTTtii Kal Ai^utj KalIIevTa7r6X6L,(ii(7Te TOi/'AAe^af-
8peict^ iiii(lK.OTvov iravToiv cx*^" "^^ e^ov<rCtw, CTreiSij Kal Tcp iv Pco/iT/ ejrKTKOTrw touto
(nJvqOds edTLv, 'Ojxoiui^ Se Kai Kara rriv 'AjTioxetav, KaX iv Tais aWais sTToLpxiciiS Ta

Trpeo-^aia (7u)^6(75at Tat? eKKATjtri'aiy." k. t. A. — See the Gtii canoD of the first Coun-
cil of Nice. Labb. et Cosa. torn. ii. col. 32. Paris, 1671.

^ " Ilai'Taxoii Tot? Tuiv ayCttiv Trarepniv opoi? CTTO/necoi, Kat tov apTtioi avayviairdivTa
Ko-vova TMV pi/. &60(^t.S.e(TTa.T(jjv eTTHTKOTTiav yvoipi^ovTe^, Ta auTa Kai Tj/xei? bpi^ofj.ev Kal
i^ij0t^djae0airepLTuIi';Trpe(rPeLtdi'rTjsayta)TaTT;5eKKATjcrtagKtiji'(TTat'Tti'OV7r6A€a)s,v€'as'Pw/ii)?'
Kal "yap rut 6p6vw Tijy Trpefr/SrTepas 'Ptii/iTjs, Sia^TO jSatrtXeveii' T^v ttoKlv cKCitTji', oi TraTepes
cLKOTw? (XTToSeStoKacn Ta Trpetr^eta. Kal Tco avT<2 trKoirtij KLV0vp.ev0i ol pv'. ©eO(/)t\e'trTaTot
eTTiVKOTTOi, Ta ttra 7rp€£r)3eia aTrdveijj-av Ta> T^s Teas 'Fuip.-(}s ayibiTdrw 6p6vwy euAoyus
Kptf ai/Tes, Trjv ^aaiKeCa Kal avyKKrJTfa TifJLTjQeZaav itoKlv koX tiZv latnv anoXavovaav TrpetT-
^etMv T}j TrpecrPuTe'pa )3ao"LAi5t 'PwiMip, koX cv tois eKKATjfftaaTiKOts, W5 eKolvrjv, iJ.eya\v-
veudai. Trpdy/xao-L, SeuTe'pa;' p-er' eiceivrjv virapxovaav. K. t. A." — CouUCll Chalced.

can. 28; ibid. torn. iv. col. 769. Paris, 1671.

FOTJETH CENTURY. 169

This decree is important, for not only did it declare
the rights of the see of Constantinople, but it expressly
points out the nature of the precedency enjoyed by Eome,
a precedency arising from the fact of Eome having been
the seat of empire; this precedency was now shared by
Constantinople for the same reason. The 28th canon is
as follows : —

" We everywliere foUowing the decrees of the holy Fathers,
and acknowledging the canon which has just been read of the
150 bishops most dear to God [namely the sixth canon of Nice],
do also ourselves decree and vote the same things concerning
the precedency of the most holy church of Oonstantiaople, New
Rome ; for the Fathers, with reason, gave precedency to the
throne of Old Rome, because it was the imperial city ; and the
150 bishops, beloved of God, moved by the same consideration,
awarded eqnal precedency to the most holy throne of New Rome,
reasonably judging that a city which is honoured 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."

It was at this council that the question of the cehbacy
of ecclesiastical persons was seriously mooted. Marriage
was then allowed to all, though it had been previously the
subject of discussion.i Ecclesiastics, on taking their charge,
stated whether they would refrain from marrying or not;
and if they answered that they would refrain, they were

1 The Council of Elvira in Spain, a.d. 305, was the first to announce the
law that the clergy of the first three grades should ahstain from all
marriage intercourse, or be deposed. (Neander's " Church History," vol,
iii. p. 208. London, 1851.) The other orders were left to the free choice
of each individual. By the Council of Neo-Cffisarea (a.d. 314), presbyters
were not allowed to marry ; and it enjoined the degradation of priests who
married after ordination. (Labb. et Coss. Conoil. tom. i. col. 1479. Paris,
1671.) And the Council of Ancyra, held shortly previous, but in the same
year, by the 10th canon allowed those persons who, at the time of their
being made deacons, declared their intentions to mai'ry, to do so, and to

170 THE NOVELTIES OP ROMANISM.

not allowed to marry, otlierwise they were allowed. The
question first arose in consequence of the persecutions of
the times and the poverty of the church. At the Synod
of Nice, however, it was debated whether cehbacy should
be compulsory. Bishop Paphnutius protested against a law
being passed on the subject, on the ground that such a
prohibition would produce great imHiorality, and was
contrary to Scripture.^ It was ultimately decreed that
such as were received already into the number of the
clergy, being as yet unmarried, should not be allowed to
marry; but the custom was not universally received, for
we find after this that the bishops Hilary, Gregory
Nyssen, Gregory Nazianzen, and Basil, were all married
men. Synesius, in the fifth century, when made bishop
of Ptolemais in Pentapolis, was also a married man.
This, however, was the fijst step towards the establish-
ment of this unnatural and anti-Christian doctrine, or
rather discipline, of compulsory celibacy. Even so late as
A.D. 692, at the Sixth General Council, it was decreed by
the thirteenth canon, that they should be deposed who
should presume to deprive deacons and priests, after the
receiving of orders, of the company of their lawful wives,
and that they who, after the taking of orders, under the
pretence of greater holiness, should put away their wives,

remain in the ministry : those who did not so declare their purpose, but
were ordained professing continence, to be deposed if they afterwards
married. (Labb. et Coss. Concil. tom. i. col. 1456, and Neander, as above,
p. 209.) The Council of Gangra {circa. A.D. 380) by the 4th canon
decreed, " If any one shall contend against a married presbyter, that it ie not
fitting to communicate in the oblation when he celebrates the holy offices,
let him be accursed." (Labb. Concl. ii. p. 419. Paris, 1671.) This is
directly contradicted by the decree of the 2nd Lateran (a.d. 1139), 7th canon,
which decrees, " We command that no one hear the masses of those whom
he may know to be married." (Labb. Concl. vol. x. p. 999.)

1 Sozomen. Hist. Eceles. lib. i. cap. .xxiii. p. 41. Cantab, 1720. Socrates,
Hist. Eceles. lib. i. cap. xi. p. 39. Cantab. 1720.

POUETH CENTUEY. 171

should be deposed and properly excommunicated.-^ In
factj the Roman canon law did admit that the marriage of
the clergy is not prohibited by the law, the gospel, or the
apostles, but that it is strictly prohibited by the church.^

Cehbacy was most esteemed amongst the heathen philo-
sophers ; and Jerome, in his second book against Jovinian,
relates some curious customs practised by the Athenian and
Egyptian priests. Josephus and Pliny also inform us of the
customs of the Jewish church with respect to this subject.

Constantine, in the commemoration of the Passion, now
first ordered Friday to be held as a solemn fast.

A.D. 347. — The CouncU of Sardis is supposed by the
fifth canon to have ordered that if a bishop, condemned
in his own province, should choose to be judged by the
bishop of Eome, and desire him to appoint some of his
presbyters to judge him in his name, together with the
bishops, the bishop of Eome may grant him his request.
Dr. Barrow, in his treatise on the Pope's Supremacy,
has advanced very good reasons for supposing that the
canon is spurious, it being wholly unknown to those who
at the time would have made good use of the precedent,
if then existing ; but in any case the Sardic was a pro-
viucial council, and its decrees were not confirmed or
recognised. This direction was clearly contrary to a decree

1 Si quia ergo fuerit auaua preeter apostolicos canones incitatus aliquem
eorum qui sunt in sacris, presbyterorum, inquimus, vel diaconorum, vel
hypodiaconorum, conjuncLione cum legitime, uxore et consuetudine privare,
deponatur. Similiter et ei quia presbyter vel diaconuB suam uxorem prsetali
prsetextu ejecerit, segregatur et si perseveret, deponatur. Can. xiii. Concl. in
Trullo. A.D. 692. col. 947. E. torn. xi. Mansi. Florentise, 1765, and Surius
Concl. torn. ii. p. 1042. Col. Agrip. 1567.

2 Ante, quani evangelium claresceret, multa permittebantur, quae tempore
perfections disciplince penitus sunt eliminata. Copula namque sacerdotalis
vel consanguineorum nee legali, neo evangelica, vel apostolica auctoritate
prohibetur, ecolesiastica tamen lege penitus interdicitur," Decreti Secunda
Pars. Cause xxvi. Q. ii. c. i. fol. 884.

172 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

passed at the Council of Antioch six years before, which
referred all such cases to the neighbouring bishops, whose
judgment, if unanimous, was to be irreversible,^ and it
directly contradicts the sixth canon of the Council of
Nice.2

A.D. 350. — About this date we have to record the deriva-
tion of an important term in the Latin church, the sense of
which has been perverted from its original meaning. After
the sermon, the eucharist was celebrated. At this period
there were three classes of persons who were not permitted to
partake of this sacrament — the Catechumens, or those under
instruction; the Penitents, not as yet received into the
church; and Demoniacs, or those supposed to be possessed
with devils. The sermon being ended, the deacon intimated
to these that they should withdraw, dismissing them with
these words, " Ite, missa est," a valedictory expression, or
solemn leave-taking of them, which did not apply to the
ceremony which followed. In succeeding ages, these words
began to be contracted into Mass, and the eucharist, which
followed, was called from thence The Mass?

Even this is of pagan origin. In the work by which
Apuleius, a Platonic philosopher of the second century,
made himseK best known, entitled "De Asino Aureo,"

1 Labb. et Cosa. Concl. Synod. Ant. c. 16. torn. ii. p. 1674. Paris, 1671 ;
and see Syn. Ant. c. 9. Ibid. torn. ii. p. 584.

2 Ibid. torn. ii. col. 32, fol. 1675. Paris, 1671. See ibid. torn. iii. p. 1675.
Venet, 1728. Concl. Afric. ad Papam. Celest.

3 Neander, in his Church Htstory^ gives this as the origin of the term.
See vol. iii. p. 461, 7ioU. London, 1851. Cardinal Baronius (Annales, ann.
Eccl. 34. No. 69. torn. i. p. 136. Lucaj, 1738), and Cardinal ToUett (Instit.
Sacerdot. lib. ii. c. iv. Lugd. 1614), and see Bellarmine (Lib. i. de Missa,
cap. i. torn. iii. p. 710. Paris, 1608), pretend that the word is derived from
the Hebrew word Missah. But the learned Jesuit Azorius (Inatit. Moral,
lib. X. c. 18. torn. i. pp. 989, 990) opposes this speculation, stating that the
word is rather a Latin than a Hebrew word.

FOURTH CENTURY. 173

The Golden Ass, we read that, in imitation of an old ceremony
among the Greeks, when the worship of Isis was concluded,
the people were dismissed by two Greek words, signifying
their discharge. The pagan Eomans, when their devotions
were over, discharged the people with the words, " Ite
Missio est." This, by corruption, passed into Massa.
Polydore Vergil says : —

"Wten mass is ended, the deacon, tiaming to the people,
sayeth, Ite missa est, wMch words are borrowed from the rite of
the pagans, and signifieth that then the company may be dis-
missed. It was used in the sacrifices of Isis, that when the
observances were duly and fully performed and accomplished,
then the minister of religion should give warning or a watch-
word what time they should lawfully depart. And of this
springs our custom of singiag Ite missa est for a certain signi-
fication that the fall service was finished." '

A.D. 366. — Fleury afExes this date as the real com-
mencement of the appellate authority or jurisdiction of the
bishop of Rome ; he says that the emperor Valentinian
ordered that the bishop of Rome, with his colleagues,
should examine the causes of other bishops.^

The decree empowered (in matters not canonical) the
metropoHtans to judge the inferior clergy, and the bishop of
Rome to judge the metropolitans ; but this only extended
the jurisdiction of Rome westward. This privilege was
conceded to Damasus, whose election was by no means
canonical.^ At a council subsequently held at Rome, a.d.

1 Book V. c. ix. p. 110. Edit. London, 1551.
■ 2 "Deale commencement de ceschiBme, Valentinien ordonna que I'ev^que
de Borne examineroit, lea causes des autrea evequea, avec sesoollegues, et en
general 11 ordonna par une loi, que dans les causes de la foi, ou de I'ordre
ecclesiastique, le juge devoit etre d'une dignity ^gale ; c'est-a-dire, que les
eveques seroient jugez par des eveques et non par des laiques." Fleury,
Eccl. Hist. torn. iv. p. 146. Paris, 1724, and tom. iv. p. 154. Paris, 1760.

3 A double election of bishops was made, Damasus placing himself at the
head of his party, clergy'and laymen, who, armed with clubs, swords and axes,

174 THE NOVELTIES OP EOMANISM.

378j Damasus addressed a memorial to the emperor
Gratian, to confirm the above decree, the object of which
was to shift the clergy from civil to ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tioiij or to the emperor himself; but it is important to note
that they accepted the boon as an indulgence, or concession
from the emperor. The notion of " divine right," now so
confidently appealed to, was not then introduced. The
" exemption" did not extend to criminal cases. It was from
these small beginnings, concessions made by temporal
princes, that the huge ecclesiastical fabric and papal
hierarchy was ultimately constructed.

The preference given to the see of Eome arose from the
splendour and importance of the city, and the magnificence
and luxury, even at this early age, of the bishop of that see.
rieury gives the words of a pagan historian of the day, who
said that he was not at all surprised to see the strifes to
attain the see, when he considered the splendour of Eome,
where the chief bishop is enriched by offerings from ladies,
and that they drove in chariots, clothed splendidly, lived
weUj their tables surpassing even those of kings. This
author jokingly said to Damasus, "Make me bishop of
Eome, and I will become Christian. """^

A.D. 370. — This age was famous for orators. They^
displayed their talents on the occasions of celebrating the

attacked his opponent, Urinus. The affray resulted in a massacre of 160
persons, including women. Fleury, Ecc. Hist. Tol. iv. pp. 145, 146.
Paris, 1724.

1 " Ammian Marcellin auteur paien, qui vivit alors, rapportant cette his-
toire, [namely, the strife for the seat of bishop oi Eome] bl^me egalement
I'animosite des deux partis, et ajo<ite. * Quand je considere la splendeur de
Rome, je ne nie pas que ceux qui desirent cette place, ne doivent faire tous
leurs efforts pour y arriver, puis qu'elle leur procure uu etablissement stir, oil
ila sont enrichis des offrandes des dames, ils sortent dans des chariots, vetua
splendidement, et font si bonne chere, que leurs tables surpassent celles des
rois, — 11 disoit par plaisanterie au meme pape Damase, Faites moi ev^que
de Eome, et aussi-t6t je serai Chretien." Fleury, Eccl. Hist. toI. iv. p. 146.
Paris, 1724.

FOURTH CENTUUY. 175

memorial of saintSj and in funeral orations, by reciting
their virtues. To give effect to their eloquence, they began
to apostrophize the departed. Gregory Nazianzen, in
the first oration, exclaimed, " Hear hkewise, thou soul of
great Constantine, if thou hast any understanding in these
things."^ And so the same orator, ia the second oration,
equally addressed his speech to the soul of Julian the apos-
tate, which he believed to be in hell. These apostrophes
were figures of rhetoric : the sentiments offered were no
enunciation of doctrine, and were very different from the
modern custom of invocation of saints. There is no doubt
that a way was thereby opened for the introduction of the
more modern heresy; for thenceforward, Kttle by little,
people began to address their requests to saints departed ;
but it was not until long after, that invocation of saints
was introduced into the church service as a recognised
practice.

Invocating angels became common in the province of
Phrygia. Oratories of St. Michael were erected. This
heresy was at once condemned by the Council of Laodicea,
held about this time, a.d. 368. The 35th canon is as
follows : " It does not behove Christians to leave the
church of God and go and invoke angels, and make assem-
blies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one be
detected idling in their secret idolatry, let him be accursed,
because he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of
God, and gone to idolatry." It may be urged by the advo-

1 Vol. i. p. 78. Paris, 1778. Benedictine Edition. The editor's note
on this is as follows, " ' If the dead are sensible of anything.' Thus
Isoorates, in the same words, but somewhat more fully, ' If there is any
perception of what is going on here.' " See the note of Greek Scholiast
(Schol. Graec. in priorem, Nazianzeni Invectivam, p. 2. Edit. Etonens),
" He spealcs according to the manner of Isocrates, that is to say, ' If thou
hast the power of hearing the things that are here.' "

176 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

cates of saint worship that " idolatry " alone is condemned^
but in passing such a decree the council would have made
some reservation for a legitimate innovation, had such been
the custom of the church in those days.i

A.D. 380. — Traying for the dead appears now to have
come into more general practice. Eusebius tells as, that on the
death of Constantine they prayed for his soul ; but it must
be noted, that the intent of these prayers was very diiferent
from the modern custom ; for the writers of this age testify
that, in the same prayers were included those whom the
modern church of Eome would exclude, namely, those sup-
posed to be in hell ; as also those who, it is now supposed,
do not require such prayers, but, on the contrary, are
prayed to, namely, patriarchs, prophets, evangelists, apos-
tles, martyrs, and the Virgin Mary.^ Here we have the
foundation on which the modern custom is based, which,
however, is inseparable from the doctrine of purgatory, not
then developed.

From a passage in Epiphanius,' we must presume that, at
this time, some desired to introduce paintings in churches ;
for he records the fact, that on finding in a certain village,
in Palestine, at the entrance of a church, a painted cloth
representing Christ, he cut it down.*

1 "*OTt ov Sci XpttTTtaroiis eyKaToAeiVeii' rrji* cjCKXijirtai' tov Q^ov, koX aTTiivat, Koi
ayyeKovs ovoiia^etv. koI (rvva^eLq ffotetr' anep airrjyopevrat. EI ti? otv evpeOfj raurjj 777
KeKpyfifi-eirg eiS(oA.oA.aTp»i^ trxoXd^tov, etrrw dvaOefia, ort eyKareXtTre to;' Kijpiov T}fX(iiV
'Irjuovv XpuTTov, TOV vtor TOV 9eov, koI 6i5tDA.oA.aTpeKf TTpocijXSev."- — Labb. et COSS.

Concil. Laodic. c 35. torn. i. col. 1503. Paris, 1671.

2 The references here might be numerous. See Cyril's Catech. xxiii.
Mystag. V. n. ix. x. p. 328. Paris, 1720. Chrysost. Horn. xxix. in Acts.
ix. Liturg. Oper. torn. xii. p. 1011. Paris, 1838. And admitted by Dr.
Wiseman in his Moorfields Lectures, Lecture xi. p. 66, note. London, 1851.

3 Epiph. Epist. ad Joan. Hierosolym. Hieron. tom. i. p. 251, Colon. 1682.

4 The authenticity of this epistle has been questioned by Bellarmine;
but it has been vindicated by the learned critic, Eivet, in his Crit. Sacer.
b. iii. c. 26, Epiph. Epist. ad Johan. Hieros. tom. ii. p. 317. Edit. 1682.

rOUETH CENTUEY. 177

A.D. 386. — If the document be not a forgery (which,
however, it is thought to be), Siricius, bishop of Rome,
was the first, by decree, to prohibit the clergy within his
jurisdiction from marrying. The previous Council of
Ancyra (a.d. 314) did not prohibit the marriage of the
clergy ; but the tenth canon expressly allowed those per-
sons who, at the time of their being made deacons, declared
their intention to marry, to do so, and to remain in the
ministry ; but those who did not declare their purpose,
but were ordained, professing that they would live a single
life, were to be deposed if they afterwards married.^
Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian of the fifth century,
designated this as a " new law."^ He ought rather to have
said that it was a revival of an old pagan custom. The
ancient Egyptian priests were prohibited from marrying.
It was a Manichean heresy.' It was not until a.d. 950
that the decree was observed in every Christian church :
for throughout the provinces of Europe many ecclesiastics
were married. Athanasius (a.d. 340), writing to Bishop
Dracontius, told him " that in his days many monks were
parents of children, and bishops were likewise fathers." *
Gratian does not hesitate to testify that many bishops of
Rome were priests' sons. He names popes Damasus, Hosius,
Boniface, Agapetus, Theodorus, Silverius, Fehx, Gelasius, as
all being popes and sons of priests, some even of bishops, and
he adds, ''there were many others also to be found who were
begotten of priests, and governed in the apostolic see." '

1 Labb. et Coss. Concl. Gen. Conol. Anoyra, can. x. torn. i. col. 1456.
Paris, 1671.

2 Socrates' Hist. Eccles. lib. i. c. ii. Bib. Max. Patr. torn. vii.

3 See Aug. Ep. 74. p. 848. torn. 2. Paris, 1679.

i Athanas. ad Dracontium, p. 739, torn. i. Heidel. 1601.
5 " Complures etiam alii inveniantur, qui de sacerdotibus iiati, Apostolicas
sedi praefuerunt." Grat. Par. 1, Dist. 56, c. 3, *p. 291, torn. i. Lug. 1671.

178 THE NOVELTIES OP UOMANISM.

Eoman bishops, descended from ecclesiastical parents,
were married during their clerkships ; as were Boniface I.,
Pelix III., Gelasius I., etc. Even so late as a.d. 1068,
we find that at a council held in Barcelona, by the Legate
Cardinal Hugo, it was unanimously agreed that the clergy
should not be married, " as had hitherto been permitted."^
The decree was authoritatively enforced in 1074, under
Hildebrand (see post, a.d. 1074), and renewed by the
twenty-first canon of the iirst Lateran Council, a.d. 1123,^
and also by the sixth and seventh canons of the second
Lateran Council (a.d. 1139). The latter canon forbade any
one to hear mass celebrated by a married priest,^ which canon,
by the way, is in direct contradiction to the fourth canon of
the Council of Gangra (a.d. 325, or, as some say, 380).*

There were many unscriptural and superstitious customs
practised at this period, under the pretended authority
of tradition ; and so great was the corruption of the age,
even at this early period of the church, that Cyprian
exclaimed that " the church of God, and spouse of Christ,
was fallen into this bad state, that, to celebrate the
heavenly mysteries, light borrowed discipKne even from
darkness itself, and Christians do the very same things
that antichrists do."^ And, in the succeeding century,
Augustine complained that such was the accumulation
of ceremonial observances, that the condition of the Jews
under the servile yoke of the law, was more supportable
than that of Christians under the gospel.^

• See Landon's Manual of Councils, p. 66. London, 1846.

2 Lab. et Coss. Concl. torn. x. col. 899. Paris, 1671.

3 Ibid. col. 1003.

* See ante, p. 170.

5 Cyprian, Epist. Pomp. Ej). Ixxiv. 224. Leipsic edit. 1838.

6 Aug. Epist. ad Januar. 6a, sec. 35, vol. ii. p. 142. Paris, 1700.

FOURTH CENTUUY. 179

A.D. 390. — A remarkable occurrence took place this
year as recorded by the historians Socrates and Sozomen/
with reference to private confession. Confession of sins
was in the early church made publicly before the whole
congregation. The penitent was, after a public confession
and performance of penance, readmitted into the communion
of the church. About the year 250, during and after the
Decian persecution, the numbers of penitents returning to
the faith was so great, that the bishops could not attend to
them all, and the public confession was scandalous; accord-
ingly a new officer was created as " penitentiary presbyter,"
to whom all who desired to be admitted to public penance
for private sins should first confess their sins to this officer,
and afterwards^ if not too scandalous for public ears, con-
fess them in public. This was also necessary, as some
public confessions entailed other and palpable inconveniences.
This was the first institution of the penitentiary priest. In
this year (a.d. 390) the office was suppressed, and with
it private confession abplished. This occurred at Constan-
tinople by order of Nectarius, bishop of that city, and the
example was followed all over the East. The circum-
stance came about by reason of a scandalous occurrence
happening to a lady of distinction after confession, the
crime having been committed in the church itself. The
misbehaviour of one priest was visited on all the clergy,
and set the whole city in an uproar ; and, to appease the
tumult, Nectarius not only deprived the offending deacon of
his office, but also removed the penitentiary, and with it
all private confessions; and the more effectually to pre-
vent for the future the scandal, inseparable, as it appears,

1 Socrates, lib. 5, c. 19. Soz. I. 7. c. 16.

180 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

from the system, abolished that office, and, to use the words
of Nectarius above referred to, "leaving any man free
to partake of the holy mysteries according to the direc-
tion of his own conscience," thus abohshing the custom
of private, or as it is now called auricular confession.
This was deemed then a human institution, and the con-
fession and penance enjoined were left optional to the
people. Private confession to a priest is now made com-
pulsory on every member of the Eomish church.

A.D. 397.— The Council of Carthage, held this year
under Aurelius the bishop, by the twenty-ninth canon,
ordered that mass [if we may give it that name at this
early period] should be said fasting.^

THE FIFTH CENTURY.

A.D. 400. — From a.d. 230 to this period, many different
speculations were broached as to the state of souls after
death. Origen (a.d. 230), a Greek father, seems to have
been the first to pave the way for the reception of purga-
tory. His idea was, that the faithful, as weU as unbelievers,
would pass through a fire which was to consume the world
on the last day, after the resurrection, when all, even the
devU himself, would be eventually saved. This speculation,
however, was condemned by a general council of the

I Labb. et. Cosa. Conol. Carth. can. xxix. torn. ii. col. 1165. Paris, 1671.

FIFTH CENTURY. 181

church.i The theory led to many other speculations as to
the existence of a purgatory. And about this time, St.
Augustine, though he condemned Origen's theory, put for-
ward his own speculations. Some such thing as a purga-
torial fire, he said, might be probable,^ but he did not treat
it as a matter of accepted faith or doctrine ; this is certain.
There was enough material here, however, out of which to
construct a doctrine, which, in course of time, came to
maturity.

It was at the Council of Toledo (a.d. 400) that the
bishop of Rome was for the first time spoken of simply by
the title of " Pope." ^ But it was not until much later
(a.b. 1073) that the title was assumed exclusively by the
bishop of Rome.

A.D. 417. — The custom of hallowing paschal candles on
Easter eve was commanded by Zosimus, and ordered to be
practised in every church.*

A.D. 419. — Boniface, when he found himself seated
on the papal throne, affected to be shocked at the scandals
witnessed at the elections of bishops of Rome. In order to
prevent cabals and intrigues on similar occasions to the
scandal of the Christian religion, from which he himself had
not been free, he petitioned the Emperor Honorius to pass a
law to restrain the ambition and intrigues of aspirants to the
papacy. Accordingly, Honorius made a decree to the effect
that, when two rival candidates were chosen, neither was to
hold the dignity, but the people and clergy were to proceed

1 By the General Council held at Constantinople, a.d. 353. See Bals. apud
Beveridge. Synod, torn. i. p. 150. Oxon, 1672. Augustine lib. de Hseree.
c. xliii. torn. viii. p. 10, Benedictine Edition. Paris, 1685.

2 Augustine, Enchiridion de Fide, Spe, et Caritate, torn. iv. p. 222. Paris,
1685.

3 See Laudon's Manual of Council. London, 1846, p. 578.

4 Polydore Vergil, b. vi. c. v. p. 120. London, 1551.

183 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

to a new election.^ This is the first instance in history,
says Bower, in his History of the Popes, of princes inter-
meddling in the election of the bishop of Eome, a necessity
imposed on the Roman church on account of the many
disorders of which the clergy and people were guilty in
those elections. The emperors reserved a right of confirma-
tion, which they exercised for many years after. A notable
example is in the case of Gregory I., who, when elected,
wrote to the emperor, entreating him not to confirm his
appointment.

A.D. 43 1. — The first law was passed this year granting
asylum in churches to fugitives.^

Mr. Elliott, in his Horse Apocalypticse,^ assigns this as
the date when the bishop of Eome distinctly assumed the
" keys'-" as a symbol of ecclesiastical power. The use of
the keys as symbolical of the papal power is, like many
other similar customs, curiously connected with pagan
mythology. The key was a symbol of two well-known
pagan divinities of Rome. Janus bore a key,* as did also
Cybele. It was only in the second century before the
Christian era that the worship of Cybele, under that name,
was introduced into Rome ; but the same goddess, under
the name of Cardea, with the " power of the key," was
worshipped in Rome, with Janus, many years before.^ Hence,
perhaps, the two keys that the pope emblazons on his
arms, as the ensigns of his spiritual authority. The device
was familiar to the Romans, and came home to their
ideas of such sovereignty. As the statue of Jupiter is now

1 See F. Pagi's Crit. Hist, in Anna!. Baroni. ad ann. 419.

2 Cod. Theodosius, lib. ix. Tit. 45, 1. 4, vol. iii. Lips. 1736. Neander's
Church Hist. vol. iii. p. 206. London, 1851. See post, A.D. 620.

3 Vol. iii. p. 139. London, 1851.

4 See Ovid's "Fasti," vol. iii. 1. 101. p. 346. Opera, Leyden, 1651.

5 Tooke's "Pantheon," "Cybele," p. 153. Loudon, 1806.

FIFTH CENTURY. 183

worshipped at Eome as the veritable image of Peter, so
the keys of Janus and Cybele have for ages been devoutly
believed to represent the keys of the same apostle.

A.D. 434. — This year is referred to for proof that the
bishop of Eome exercised a supreme authority over the
churchj as to the right of calling councils. With this
view, a long letter from Sixtus III. to the Eastern
bishops, as establishing several of the papal preroga-
tives, is quoted by Bellarmine ^ and others to prove that
councils ought to be called by none but the pope.
Sixtus is represented as saying, " The emperor Valen-
tinian has summoned a council by our authority." It
has been clearly proved, however, that the letter is
wholly made up of passages borrowed from the Eighth
Council of Toledo, from Gregory I., from Felix III., from
Adrian, and from the Theodosian and Justinian codes;
and, therefore, evidently spurious, and the passage in
question forged, in order to introduce a sentence supposed
to have been passed by the emperor Valentinian. A charge
of immorality has been invented against Sixtus, who is
supposed to have written the letter on the occasion of his
having cleared himself before a council ; but the Acts of
that council are so manifestly fabulous, that even Binius
and Baronius have been forced to give them up, though
the emperor, whom the Acts suppose to have assisted
at the council, is said to have referred the pronouncing
of the sentence to the pope himself, " because the Judge
of all ought to be judged by none." There can be no
doubt that it was in order to establish this maxim that
the Acts of this council were forged, as weU as those

1 Bell, de Conol. lib. 2, o. 12.

181. THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

of the alleged previous council of Sinuessa (a.d. 303)^ which
is supposed to have condemned Marcelinus^ and which,
at the expense of this mane's reputation, is cited to exalt
the see of Rome. No writers earlier than Anastasius,
librarian of the Vatican, who flourished in the ninth
century, and the historian Platina, who died a.d. 1481,
have treated the charge against Sixtus as a serious fact.
This letter, with other palpable forgeries, was for a long
time received as genuine, but is now wholly renounced.
If the Eoman system be of God, and the Roman church
founded on a rock, against which the gates of hell shall
never prevail, surely falsehood, fraud, and forgeries were
not required to prop it up. To the Acts of the council
referred to are added those of the judgment, supposed to
have been given at Rome, on the occasion of an appeal
made to that see by one Polychronius, said to have been
bishop of Jerusalem, and to have appealed from the
judgment of his colleagues in the east to that of the
bishop of Rome. This judgment also has been for a long
time held up as genuine, to prove that eastern bishops
appealed to the bishop of Rome. Nicholas I., in the
ninth century, appealed to these Acts as genume, in a letter
which he wrote to the emperor Michael. But that they
are mere forgeries is palpable on the face of them. One
is almost ashamed to waste time in confuting them,
but, in a chronological table like the present, it is neces-
sary to do so, as showing the growth of Romanism, and
to expose the rottenness of its foundation, though an-
tiquity is confidently appealed to in its support. The
judgment is supposed to have been given while the emperor
Yalentinian was the seventh time consul with Avienus,
that is, no fewer than eleven years after the death of

FIFTH CENTURY. 185

Sixtus III. ! Besides, it is manifest from the acts of the
councils of Ephesus (a.d. 431) and Chalcedon (a.d. 451),
that Juvenalis assisted at both as bishop of Jerusalem;
and the first of these two councils was held a year before
the election of Sixtus III., and the latter eleven years after
his death (Sixtus became bishop of Rome a.d. 432, and
died A.B. 440) ; so that Polychronius was not bishop of
Jerusalem in his time. Indeed it may be questioned whether
there ever was a bishop of Jerusalem bearing that name :
it cannot be found in any catalogues of the bishops of
that city that have been handed down to us.i

A.D. 450. — Leo I. seems to have been the first
bishop of Rome who interfered with the election of bishops
of other dioceses. He is reported to have interposed in
the institution of Anatolius, " by the favour of whose
assent he obtained the bishopric of Constantinople j"^ and
he is stated to have confirmed Maximus of Antioch,
and Donatus, an African bishop. But, on the other hand,
other bishops arrogated the same privilege — for instance,
Lucifer, a Sarduiian bishop, ordained Paulinus, bishop of
Antioch ; Theophilus, of Alexandria, ordained Chrysostom ;
Eustatheus, of Antioch, ordained Evagrius, bishop of Con-
stantinople, etc. ; and Acacius and Patrophilus expelled
Maximus, and instituted Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, in his
room. All these acts, and many more that might be cited,
were done without any reference to the bishop of Rome.

The bishop of Rome [Leo] now boldly assumed an
authority never before acted upon by any of his prede-
cessors, declaring that the supreme authority over Western
churches rested in him as bishop of Rome. " In the chair

1 See Bower's HiBtory of the Popes, vol. ii. pp. 6, 6. London, 1750.

2 Labb. at. Coss, Concl. torn. iv. col, 847. Paris, 1671.

186 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

of Peter (he said) dwelleth the ever living power, the
superabundant authority." The circumstances attending
this assumption of authority are important to be noted, as
it obtained the sanction of the emperor. Hilary, metro-
politan bishop of Aries, took upon himself the right of
ordaining all Galilean bishops. Leo was jealous of this
authority being vested in a rival. He bestirred himself,
and began by bringing false accusations against Hilary (see
his 9th and 10th Epistles), and eventually appealed to
Valentinian III., at this time emperor of the West, a
weak prince, who was no match for a man of Leo's
craft, address, and ambition. Leo represented Hilary as a
disturber of the peace, a rebel against the apostolic see,
and even against his Jlajesty. The emperor was induced
to issue the famous rescript, vesting in the bishop of
Eome an absolute and uncontrolled authority over the
Galilean churches and bishops. This rescript was addressed
to Aetius, general of the Eoman forces in Gaul, under
pretence of maintaining peace and tranquillity in the church,
and in it he calls Hilary a traitor and an enemy both to
the church and state. This document was no doubt
dictated by Leo himself. It is set out in full b}' Baronius
in his Annals (Ann. 115); we transcribe the following
passage to illustrate the nature of the power now first
usurped by the bishop of Eome : —

" In order, therefore, to prevent even the least disturbance
in the clnu'clies, and that discipline may not thereby be in-
fringed, we decree that, hereafter and for ever, not only no
Gallic bishops, but no bishop of any other province, be per-
mitted, in contradiction to ancient custom, to do anything
without the authority of the venerable pope of the eternal city ;
but, on the contrary, to them and to all men, let whatsoever the

FIFTH CENTTJRY. 187

authority of the holy see hath ordained, or doth or shall
ordain, be as law ; so that any bishop being summoned to the
judgment seat of the Roman pontiff, be thereunto com/pelled hy
the governor of the province."

Thus was tlie secular arm brought to bear to enforce
ecclesiastical usurpation. Hilary^ and with him other
Gallican bishops, opposed to the last this papal encroach-
ment, and would never acknowledge the authority of the
bishop of Kome. Notwithstanding Hilary's alleged trait-
orous conduct and repudiation of one of the alleged
fundamentals of the church of Christ, "the sum and
substance of Christianity," as Bellarmine has it, this same
Hilary is claimed by the modern church of Rome as a
canonized saint, standing side by side with his opponent
and oppressor, Leo ! The framer of this edict did not
hesitate to record a deliberate untruth when "ancient
custom " was alleged as authority. No such authority can
be adduced,^ and even Leo himself did not for long after
the event above alluded to, claim the authority of ordaining
bishops all over the Western provinces, for in his eighty-
ninth epistle, addressed to the bishops of Gaul, he expressly
disclaimed the authority. " We do not (he said) arrogate
to ourselves a power of ordaining in your provinces ;" ^ and
this would warrant us in suspecting that the edict itself is,
to a great extent, spurious. But it must be specially
noted as a fact that, while Leo placed himself at the
head of the Western bishops, he admitted the superior

1 It was only a few years previous to this, a.d. 421, that the Emperor
Theodosius referred the dispute of the election of Perigenes to the ^e of
Patrse in Achaia, one of the provinces of lUyricum, to the hishop of that
diocese after he had consulted the bishop of Constantinople. See Cod.
Theod. 1. 45. de Episcop. 1. 6.

2 "Non enira nobis ordiuationes vestrarum provinciarum defendiraus."
P. Leo. Ep. 89, quoted by Barrow. See " On the Pope's Supremacy," p. 343.
Kevised Edit. London, 1849.

188 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

authority of the State, appealing on all occasions to the
emperor as his superior in ecclesiastical matters, under
whose authority alone, since the first Christian emperor,
all the early General Councils were convoked, who, as
Eusebius expresses the sentiment of those days (referring
to Constantino), " as a common bishop appointed by God,
did summon synods of God's ministers." ^

A.D. 460. — Leo I., bishop of Eome, ordered the obser-
vance of four fasts, namely. Lent, Whitsuntide, the seventh
and tenth months.

A.D. 470. — The first recorded act we can find of the
invocation of a saint, is when the body of Chrysostom was
transported to Constantinople. The Emperor Theodosius
knelt down before it, praying it to forgive his parents, who
had persecuted it while living. But this superstition was
rebuked by the Fathers of this age.

Nicephorus, in his Ecclesiastical History, informs us,
that one Peter Gnapheous, patriarch of Antioch, a.d. 470,
was the first who introduced invocation of saints into the
prayers of the church, and ordered that " the Mother
of God" should be named in every prayer. But this man
was infected with the Eutychian heresy, for which cause he
was condemned by the Fourth General Council. A super-
stition, which was hitherto only private, became public; the
commemoration of the saints was changed into invocation ;
preachers, instead of addressing their discourse to the living,
to excite them to imitate the actions of their dead, began
now to direct their prayers to the dead on behalf of the
living. But, as yet, the custom was restricted to a sect of
the Greeks; the Latins did not receive it for 120 years after.

1 " OTa T19 KOii'bs 'En-tVKOTro5 €K deov Kadnrrd^evo^ trvvoSouff riatf tou 6€ov KeiTovpyiZv
crvj'eKpoTei."— EuBeb. de Mt. Const. I. 44, p. 524. Cantab. 1720.

FIFTH CENTUUY. 189

A.D. 493. — Another innovation M'as at this time at-
tempted to be introduced^ but checked. In the celebration
of the eucharist, a custom had arisen of soaking or
dipping the bread for those who would not drink wine.
Julius, bishop of Eoine, in a.d. 340, condemned this
custom ; notwithstanding which, the practice was subse-
quently re-introduced in the Eomish church. About a.d.
440, the Manichees, who held wine in abhorrence, attempted
to introduce the custom of taking the communion under
one species only, namely, the bread. Leo (a.d. 450) ^ and
Gelasius (a.d. 492),'' both bishops of Eome, condemned in
express terms this heresy, and ordered that the communion
should be received entire, as instituted by our Lord, or not
at all.

The words of Gelasius are so precise and so contradictory
to the modern Eomish teaching, that we have only to
quote them to convict the Eoman church of imposing on
Christians a doctrine most emphatically condemned by a
bishop of their own church. His words are —

" We find ttat some, taving received a portion of tlie holy
body only, do abstain from the cup of the toly blood, who,
donbtless (because they are bonnd by I know not what super-
stition), should receive the whole sacrament, or be driven from the
whole ; for the dividing of one and the same mystery cannot be
done without sacrilege." ^

As connected with the eucharist, we cannot pass over
this period without recording the deliberate opinion of this

1 Leon. Mag. Oper. Lut. 1623, col. 108, Serm. iv. de Quadrag.

2 Comperimus quod quidam, sumpta tantummodo corporis sacri portione, a
calice eruoris abstineant ; qui proculdubio (quoniam nescio qu^ auperstitione
docentur obstringi) aut Integra saoramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arce-
antur; quia divisio unius ejuedemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio nou
potest provenire. Gelas. in Corp. Juris Canon.. Decret. Grat. tert. pars, de
consecr. dist., ii. cap. lii. col. 1168. Ludg. 1661. And torn. i. col. 1918.
Ludg. 1671.

190

THE NOVELTIES OF KOMANISM.

same Gelasius, bishop of EomCj on what is now deemed a
fundamental doctrine of the Eoman church of the present
day. We mean transubstantiation, that is^ the alleged
conversion of the substance and nature of the elements of
bread and wine^ after the'consecration by the priest, into
the very and real body and blood of our Saviour Jesus
Christ. We place in parallel columns the dictum of Gela-
sius and the decree of Trent, clearly showing that transub-
stantiation was an invention after this date.

GELASitrs, A.B. 492.
" Certainly the sacrament
of the body and blood of our
Lord, wbicb we receiye, are a
Divine tbing ; because by
these we are made partakers
of the Divine nature. Never-
theless, the substance or nature
of the bread and wine cease
not to exist; and, assuredly,
the image and similitude of the
body and blood of Christ are
celebrated in the action of the
mysteries." '

The contradiction between the opinion of Pope Gelasius
and the decree of the Trent Council, which now rules the
doctrines of the church of Eome, is so obvious, that we
are not surprised to find a desperate attempt made to
explain away the otherwise obvious heresy of an early

Deceee op Teent, a.d. 1551.
" By the consecration of the
bread and wine, the whole sub-
stance of the bread is con-
verted into the substance of
the body of Christ, and the
whole substance of the wine is
converted into the substance
of his blood; which conver-
sion is suitably and properly
called by the Catholic church
Transubstantiation." ^

1 For the text see ante, p. 51, note.

2 " Per consecrationem panis et vini conTersionem fieri totius gubstantise
panis in fiubstantiam corporis Christi Domini nostri ; et totius substantise
vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus. Quae conversio convenienter et proprie
a sanct^ catholic^ ecclesi^ transubstantiatio est appellata." Concil. Trid.
Seseio. ziii. Deoret. de Sanot. Euchar. Sacramento, cap. iv. De Transub-
Btanlione.

SIXTH CENTUEY. 191

bishop of Rome. Baronius and Bellarmine were foremost
in their endeavours to explain the difficulty staring them
in the face. They hit upon the expedient of declaring that
some other person of the name of Gelasius^ but not Gela-
sius the bishop, was the writer of the treatise in question.
The Eoman Catholic historian, Dupin, however, has exposed
the hoUowness of this "pious fraud," and proves incon-
testably that the work in question is the genuine production
of Pope Gelasius, who was bishop of Rome a.d. 492,^
and in this important doctrine does the church of Rome
stand convicted of introducing a novelty in the Christian
creed.

THE SIXTH CENTURY.

A.D. 500. — Images now began to be used in churches,
but as historical memorials only, for which purpose alone
they continued to be used for about one hundred years after.
Even this use of images received from various bishops
violent opposition. They caused them to be broken in
pieces within their several dioceses.

A.D. 528. — The healing of the sick was a gift left by
our Lord to the Apostles, and it died with them. Though
the gift of heahng had ceased, stiU some heretics retained
the use of Unction, probably in imitation of the custom
referred to by St. James (v. 14). Bathers on leaving the
bath, and wrestlers on entering the arena, were anointed
with oil. Christians, in imitation of these customs, anointed
with oil those who were baptized, as being purified and
1 Tide Dupin, Eco. Hist. vol. i. p. 520. Dublin, 1723.

192 THE NOVELTIES OE ROMANISM.

singled out to contend with the world. This unction
formed^ as jetj no part of the sacrament. The Valeu-
tinian heretics arrogated to themselves the gift of the
apostlesj and anointed their sick with oil on the approach
of death. They pretended that this anointing, with prayers,
would conduce to the salvation of the soul, not to the
healing of the body. This superstition found no supporters
except among this sect of heretics. Innocent I., in his
letters to Decentius, bishop of Eugubium, refers to the
custom of anointing the sick with oil, which was to be
exercised not merely by the priesthood, but by all the
faithful, and was, therefore, evidently not considered as a
sacrament. The custom subsequently gained ground,
and about this year (528) Felix lY., bishop of Eome,
engrafted it on other Christian ceremonies, and first in-
stituted the rite of extreme unction, by declaring that such
as were in extremis should be anointed. -"^ Ceremonies
were in course of time superadded, and ultimately, but
long after, extreme unction received the quality of a sacra-
ment. The origin of this pretended sacrament is, in some
measure, derived from paganism.

A.D. 529. — Benedict of Nursia founded the order of
Benedictine monks. ^

A.D. 535. — Agapetus I. ordained processions before the
festival of Easter.

A.D. 536. — The clergy were exempted from civil juris-
diction by a decree, now for the first time made, by the
emperor Justinian. But Polydore Vergil says that Caius
(a.d. 290) had previously made a statute that a priest
should not be convened before a temporal judge.^

1 Polydore Vergil,, b. T. c. iii. p. 102. London, 1551.

2 Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. Cent. Yi. pt. ii, p. 448, vol. i. London, 1825

3 B. It. 0. fiii. p. 93. London, 1561.

SIXTH CENTURY. 193

A.D. 538. — Vigilius, bishop of Rome, ordered that the
priest standing at the altar should turn his face to the east,
an old pagan custom ; and from this there likewise arose
another custom, that of placing the altar to the east of the
church. Yitruvius, an eminent architect of the age of
Augustus, informs us that when the pagans built their
temples, they placed their choir and principal idols towards
the east : " Let those (he said) who sacrifice towards the
altars, look to the east part of the heavens, as also the
statue which is to stand in the temple, * * for it is neces-
sary that the altars of God be turned to the east."i The
ancient Romans turned to the east when they sacrificed.
The custom was, therefore, of pagan origin. Mosheim, in
his chapter on " Rites and Ceremonies," says that " nearly
aU the people of the east, before the Christian era, were
accustomed to worship with their faces directed towards the
sun-rising : for they all believed that God, whom they
supposed resembled light, or rather to be light, and whom
they limited as to place, had his residence in that part of
the heavens where the sun rises. When they became Chris-
tians, they rejected the erroneous belief; but the custom
which originated from it, and which was very ancient and
universally prevalent, they retained. Nor to this hour has
it been wholly laid aside."^ The ancient idolaters used to
worship the sun, turning to the east, Ezek. viii. 16, and
Deut. iv. 19. The Manichees also prayed towards the
east. Leo I., bishop of Rome (a.d. 443), ordained that,
in order to discern Catholics from heretics, the latter should
turn towards the west to pray.^ In the Christian temples

1 Lib. iv. c. V. Edit, de Laet. Amst. 1649.

2 Eccl. Hist. cent. ii. pt. ii. cap. iv. sec. 7.

3 " Ad occidentem conversi Deum colerunt." Binias Concl. torn. i. fol.
932. Colon. 1606, And Cardinal Baronius' Annal. ann. 443, num. 6. torn.
Tii. p. 656.

194 THE NOVELTIES OP KOMANISM.

at Antioch, in Syria, the altars were placed towards the
westj and not the east.^

To Vigilius is also attributed the institution of the
feast of the Purification of the Virgin Mary, or Candle-
mas. That was also of pagan origin. The pagans were
accustomed, in the beginning of February, to celebrate
the feast of Proserpine with burning of tapers. To make
the transition more easy from paganism, they instituted on
the same day a feast, and burned tapers in honour of the
Yirgin Mary. According to Picard, the institution of this
feast is attributed to Gelasius I., a.d. 496; and the pro-
cession of wax lights, to drive away evil spirits, to Sergius
I., A.D. 701.-

A.D. .595. — Towards the latter part of this century,
John, patriarch of Constantinople, assumed the title of
universal bishop. Pelagius II., and after him his successor,
Gregory I., bishops of Eome, were shocked at the assump-
tion of such a title by any individual, and denounced it
in the strongest terms of reprobation. Gregory, in his
letters to the emperor, said — " I confidently assert, who-
soever calls himself the universal bishop, is the fore-
runner of Antichrist.'"^ So spoke the bishop of Eome at
that time. And, as a question of historical fact, he pub-
licly asserted that none of his predecessors did ever assume
the profane title of universal bishop. What would
Gregory have said of his immediate successor, who assumed
the same title ?

Pontifex Maximus was of pagan origin. Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, gives a description of the " supreme pontiff"

1 Socrat. Eccl. Hist, in Euseb. lib. v. c. xxii. London, 1709.

2 Ceremonies et Co<ltumes Eeligieuses, Tol. i. pt. ii. p. 163, notes e and d.
Amsterdam, 1723.

3 See ante, "Supremacy," p. 5.

SIXTH CENTTJRY. 195

of the ancient Eomans, in his life of Numa PompiHus, as
also does Livy. We find coins of the time of the Caesars,
on which the emperor was called "Pont. Max/' and even
" Summus Sacerdos/' The heathen historian, Zosimus
(a.d. 426), gives the following account of the title before it
was assumed by a Christian bishop. He says that, " among
the Eomans, the persons who had the superintendence of
sacred things were the pontifices, who are termed Zephyreei,
if we translate the Latia word pontifices, which means
bridge-makers, iato the Greek." He proceeds : —

" The origin of that appellation was this. At a period before
mankind was acquainted with the mode of worshipping by
statues, some images of the gods were made in Thessaly. As
there were not then any temples (for the use of them was like-
wise unknown), they fixed up these figures of the gods on a
bridge over the river Pevensa, and called those who sacrificed
to the god Zephyrsei, priests of the bridge, from the place
where the images were first erected. Hence the Romans, de-
riving it from the Greeks, called their own priests Pontifices,
and enacted a law that kings, for the sake of dignity, should
be considered of the number. The first of the kings who en-
joyed this dignity was Numa Pompilius. After him it was
conferred not only upon the kings, but upon Octavianus and
his successors, in the Roman empire. ' Upon the elevation of
any one to the imperial dignity, the pontifices brought him the
priestly habit, and he was immediately styled Fontifex
Maximus, or chief priest. All former emperors, indeed, ap-
peared gratified with the dedication, and willingly adopted the
title. Even Constantine himself, when he was emperor,
accepted it, although he was seduced fi-om the path of recti-
tude, in regard to the sacred aifairs, and had embraced the
Christian faith. In like manner did all who succeeded him,
till Valentinian Nolens ; but when the pontifices brought the
sacred robe in the accustomed manner to Gratian, he, con-
sidering it a garment unlawful for a Christian to wear, rejected
the offer. When the robe was retwned to the priests who

196 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

brought it, their chief is said to have made an observation : —
' If the emperor refuses to become pontifex, we shall soon make
one.' " '

The title and office are, therefore, of admittedly pagan
origin, and founded on a heathen ceremony.

THE SEVENTH CENTUET.

A.D. 600. — Saints (so-called) began to take the places
of the "Dii minores" of the pagans, to them churches
were now dedicated, and festivals and sacrificing priests ap-
pointed. Invocation of saints, which was hitherto a private
superstition, now began to be publicly practised, but not yet
as an acknowledged doctrine. About the same time Gregory
entered the name of the Virgin Mary in the Litanies, with
the or a pro noils?

The modern theory of invocation of saints is also clearly
derived from paganism. Apuleius, to whom we have
already referred, in his book, "De Deo Socratis," thus
describes the pagan system : — " There are (he said) certain
middle divinities, betwixt the high heavens and this lower
earth, by whom our prayers and merits are carried to the
gods ; they are called demons in Greek ; they carry up the
prayers of men to the gods, and bring down the favours
of the gods to menj they go and come, to carry on one
side the petitions, on the other relief; tliey are as inter-
preters and salvation-carriers from the one to the other."

1 ZosimuB, B. iv. u. 36, p. 125. Edit. Grajce et Latine, Lipsas, 1784:
(English translation).

2 Polydore Vergil, B. viii. u. i. p. 143. London, 1651.

SEVENTH CENTUKY. 197

Is not this much the same system which is laid down by
the Trent Catechism ? " We ask the saints^ because they
have credit with God, that they may take us into their
protection, to the end that they may obtain from God those
things we stand in need of."' Different men and trades
have their patron saints, and so had the pagans of old.

Purgatory began now to assume a more defined shape,
though the theory as to the nature of the punishments
differed from the modern teaching. It came now to be
supposed that departed souls expiated their own sins (a
doctrine not now admitted, for, in the popish purgatory, sins
are supposed to be forgiven) in divers ways — by baths, ice,
hanging in air, etc. This was Gregory's theory,^ founded
on well-known pagan fables.

The eucharist, which was hitherto a sacrament for the
living, now began to be offered as a sacrifice for the dead.
The offerings bestowed in memory of the piety of the
departed were alms ; ^ these now were called oblations, and
formed part of the sacrament itself, and were offered in
expiation of the sins of the departed.

On receiving the offerings made by the people, the offi-
ciating minister besought God that those fruits of charity
might become acceptable to Him. The prayers or orisons
offered on these occasions were retained, but instead of
being rehearsed over the eleemosynary gifts of the faithful,
they were now pronounced over the elements of bread and
wine, designated the body of Jesus Christ.

1 Cat. Concl. Trid. part. iv. cap. vii. Q. 3.

2 Greg. lib. 4. Dialog, c. Iv. p. 464, torn. il. Paris, 1705.

3 "Scultetus Medulla Theologice Patrum." Amstil. 1603, p. 307. On ex-
amination of Scultetus' work, the reader will be satisiied that the attempt to
identify the Komish mass with the oblations or offerings of the early Chris-
tians must be abandoned by the modern Church of Home. Scultetus was a
Professor of Divinity at the University of Heidelberg (1598) ; see also B.
Khenan. in loc. Annot. to TertuUian. Frank. 1597, p. 43.

198 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

Gregory I. composed the ofRce of the mass ; and,
according to Pktina, in reducing the service to an uni-
formity of worship in the Western churches, the universal
use of the Latin language was enjoined.

Gregory likewise introdiiced unction into priestly orders ;
and enjoined the adoption of pontifical habits ; he ordained
the use of incense and the relics of saints at the consecra-
tion of churches, spaces for the reception of tapers, and
their being lighted in day time. He ordered pictures of
the Virgin Mary to be carried about in processions, and
statues to be introduced into churches for religious pur-
poses ; and, according to Polydore Vergil, first ordered
that neither flesh, milk, butter, eggs, etc., should be eaten
on days set apart for fasting, i

A.D. 604. — Sabinian, successor to Gregory, is said by
Platina to have ordered that lamps should be kept perpe-
tually burning in churches. This is still enjoined by the
Eoman ritual. The Egyptians, according to Herodotus,
were the inventors of the custom. The pagan Eomans
afterwards adopted it, the office of the Vestals being to keep
these lamps ahght. Apuleius describes the pagan Roman
processions as being attended by priests in surplices, the
peojde in white linen vestments singing hymns, and carry-
ing wax candles in their hands.^ This ceremony is prac-
tised to this day in Romish countries. Lactantius often
refers to the custom as a ridiculous superstition, deriding
the Romans " for lighting up candles to God, as if he hved
in the dark.""

There is supposed to be a hidden mystery in the use of

1 B. vi. c. iv. p. 119. London, 1.551.

2 Apuleius, vol. i. Metam. cap. ix. pp. 1014-1016, and cap. -v. pp. 1019,
1021. Leipsic, 1842.

3 Lactantius, " Institut." lib. vi. cap. 2, p. 289. Cambridge, 1685.

SEVENTH CENTUET. 199

these lighted tapers. Among the modern Eomans, as well as
the heathen, to whose religions the use is common, it has
reference to some evil spirits which are supposed to be pre-
sent. Among the Tungusians, near the lake Baikal, in
Siberia, wax tapers are placed before the gods or idols of
that country.^ In the Molucca Islands, wax tapers are used
in the worship of Nito, or devil, whom these islanders adore.^
" In Ceylon," says the same author, " some devotees, who
are not priests, erect chapels for themselves, but in each of
them they are obhged to have an image of Buddha, and
light up tapers or wax candles before it, and adorn it with
flowers." How closely do Eomanism and heathenism re-
semble each other ! The conversions they boast of can
only be a change of name.

A.D. 607. — Phocas having obtained the empire- by the
murder of the emperor Mauricius his predecessor, with his
wife and five children, made common cause with Boniface
III. against Cyriacus, bishop of Constantinople, who re-
fused to countenance his murderous and traitorous deeds.
The compact was, that Boniface should recognise Phocas as
lawful emperor, and the latter sliould recognise the church
of Rome to be the head of all churches, and the bishop of
that see as sovereign and universal bishop. This spiritual
title was thus given and confirmed to the bishop of Eome by
imperial edict, not by Divine right. It is under this title
that the succeeding bishops of Eome hold their spiritual
primacy.

In the same year, Mohammed appeared in Arabia ; so
that the eastern and western antichrists appeared together.
Prom this period we date the reign of Popery proper.

1 See ** Asiatic Journal," vol. xvii. pp. 593, 596.

3 Hurd's " Bites and Ceremonies," p. 91, col. 1, and p. 95, col. 2

200 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

Superstition now spread rapidly^ and the simplicity and
purity of the Christian faith soon became almost extinct.

A.D. 610. — Boniface IV. consummated the act of pagan
idolatry, by opening the Pantheon at Rome, and substitut-
ing therein images of the so-called saints, in place of the
pagan deities, consecrating the place for the purpose : hence
the feast of All Saints.

At this time also tonsure was introduced. The tonsure
was an old pagan custom, and was in imitation of the
ancient priests of Isis. ^ The tonsure was the visible in-
auguration of the priests of Bacchus. Herodotus mentions
this tonsure : —

" Tlie Arabians acknowledge no other gods than Bacchus
and Urania [i.e., the queen of heaven], and they say that their
hair is. cut in the same manner as Bacchus's is cut ; now they
cut it in a circular form, shaving it around the temples." ^

The priests of Osiris, the Egyptian Bacchus, were always
distinguished by the shaving of their heads. ^ The distin-
guisliing feature of the , priests of pagan Rome was the
shaven head,* and this was equally so in China and India.
Upwards of five hundred }'ears before the Christian era,
Gautama Buddha, when instituting the sect of Buddhism
in India, first shaved his own head in obedience, as he pre-
tended, to a Divine command, and was known by the title
" shaved-bead/' and "that he might perform the orders of
Vishnu, he formed a number of disciples of shaved heads
like himself." ^

1 Polyd. Vergil (book iv. c. x.) thinks this custom came from Egypt,
where the priests were shaven in token of sorrow for the death of their god
Apis.

2 Herodotus, "Historia," lib. iii. cap. 8, p. 185. Paris, 1592.

3 Ma<Tobius, lib. i. e. 23, p. 189. Saiicf. Colon. 1521.

i Tertullian, vol. ii. "Cnrmina," pp. 1105, 1106. Opera, Paris, 1844.
5 Soo Kennedy's "Buddha" in "Ancient Hindoo Mythology," pp. 263,
264. London, 1831.

SEVENTH CENTURY. 201

The priests and Levites were forbidden to " shave their
heads in a round " (see the Hebrew, Ezet. xliv. 20, Lev.
xxi. 5) ; modern papists, not being under the law, prefer
the pagan custom. The custom of shaving the crown was
adopted by the Donatists. Optatus, bishop of Mela, in
Africa (a.d. 370), reproved them for this, saying — "Show
where it is commanded you to shave the heads of priests ;
whereas, on the contrary, there are so many examples
furnished to show that it ought not to be." ■'• It is certain
that the custom was not sanctioned, if indeed it was not
condemned, at the beginning of the fourth century ; for by
the 55th canon of the Council of Elvira (at which nineteen
bishops were present, including Hosius of Cordova, twenty-
six priests assisting, besides deacons), it was declared, that
priests who had only a shaven crown like idolatrous sacri-
ficers, yet did not sacrifice to idols, after two years might
receive communion.^

A.D. 617. — Invocation of saints generally was first used
in the public liturgies in the Latin church under Boniface V.

A.D. 620. — Boniface V. confirmed the infamous law by
which churches became places of refuge to all who fied
thither for protection. The custom has no doubt the advan-
tage of being very old, being of pagan origin,^ and the Jews
also encouraged it ; but with this difference, that the
Jewish priests extended their protection to such who had
committed crimes through some unhappy accident, or

1 " Docete ubi vobis mandatutn est radere capita sacerdotum, cum e contra
sint tot exempla proposita fieri ron deberi." Optatus, lib. contra Parmenion.
Oper. de Schism. Donat., fol. Paris, 1679.

2 " Sacerdotes, qui tantum sacrificantium coronam portant, nee sacrificant
idolis, placuit post biennium eommunionem recipere." Surius, Concil.
Eliber, in can. 55. torn. i. p. 356, Colon. 1567, and Lab. et Coss. Concil.
torn. i. ool. 967. Paris, 1671.

3 Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. cent. vii. part ii. p. 28. toI. ii. London, 1768.

202 THE NOVELTIES OP EOMANISM.

without intention of malice ; but the Eomish priests threw
the protection of the church over notorious criminals.^

A.D. 631.— The festival of the Exaltation of the Cross
was instituted by the emperor Heraclius ; and was subse-
quently established in the "West by Honorius I., bishop of
Rome/ though Polydore Vergil places the Invention and
Exaltation of the Cross in the year 1260,^ which is probably
more correct.

A.D. 666. — Yitalius, bishop of Rome^ was the first who
ordered Divine service to be celebrated everywhere in the
Latin tongue.''' But it does not appear that this order took
the form of a binding decree^ since the Lateran Council,
A.D. 1215 (as after observed), relaxed the custom under
peculiar circumstances.

A.D. 682. — rieury records the first instance of a council
of bishops undertaking to absolve the subjects of a king
from their allegiance ; which assumed power soon passed
into the hands of the pope.^

A.D. 685. — Hitherto the election of the bishop of Rome
had been reserved for the confirmation of the emperor ; and

1 "Nous n'entrons point dans le detail des differentes ceremonies prati-
quees aux autels des Catholiques ; maia nous ferons seulement remarquer, que
par un abus qui deshonore le Ghristianisme, ils servent d'asile en Italie aux
plus determines scelerats. II est bien vrai que cet usage est fort aneien, et
que les juifs et les Paiens I'ont favorise ; mais les juifs ne Tout soufert que
pour les crimes conimis par malheurs et sans dessein ; et le respect que Ton
doit a la religion Cbietienne demanderoit qu'un abolit les niauvais usages
que I'ancien paganisme y a fait glisser." Picard's '* Ceremonies et Coiltumea
Eeligieuses," p. xxix. \'ol. i. Amsterdam, 1723.

2 See Baronius's Annals, ad ann. 628, and Beaumgarten " Earlauterung
der Christi. Alterthttmer," p. 310, quoted in Eeid's edition of Mosheim's Eccl.
Hist. 1852, p. 253.

3 Polydore Vergil, B. vi. c. vii. p. 122. London, 1551.

4 Wolphius Lect. Memorab. Centenar. Numeris Bestia Apoc. xiii. p. 149.
Frankfort, 1671.

5 "Au reste, c'est le premier exemple d'une pareille entreprise des ev^-
ques ; de dispenser les sujets du serment de tidelite fait a leur prince."
Fleury's Ec^cl. Hist. lib. xl. p. 71, torn. ix. Paris, 1703. And torn. ix. p.
71. Paris, 1769.

SEVENTH CENTDEY. 203

this rule continued in operation until the time of Pelagius II.,
A.D. 578. Platina, in the life of this pope, said — " Nothing
was then done by the clergy in the election of a pope, unless
the emperor approved the election."^ Pelagius was chosen
during the siege of Eome, but he sent Gregory, who was
afterwards pope, to the emperor to excuse himself for having
been elected without his confirmation. Gregory I. was also
elected by the emperor's consent. The election continued to
be in this form until 685, when the emperor Constantino
first remitted the right in favour of Benedict II., the fact
being that the emperors of the East had almost lost
their influence in the West. But when the empire was
established in the West under Charlemagne, Adrian I. (a.d.
795), in synod, delivered over to the emperor the right
and power of electing the bishop of Rome and ordaining
to this See. He, moreover, decreed that archbishops and
bishops in every province should receive investiture from
him ; and if a bishop were not commended and invested by
the emperor, he was not to be consecrated by any other ;
and any person acting against this decree, was to be sub-
jected to the ban of anathema. This is testified in the
Roman canon law.^

Louis, the son of Charlemagne, waived his right; but
Lothaire, his son, resumed and acted upon it. The right
was maintained until the time of Adrian III. (885). The
prerogative was not given up without a struggle. The

1 " Nihil a clero in eligendo pontifice actum erat nisi ejus eleetionem im-
perator approbasset." Plat, in Pelagio II. p. 81. Colon. 1568.

2 *'Hadrianu8 autem cum universS, eynodo tradiderunt jus et potestatem
eligendi pontificem, et ordinandi apostolicam Bedem. — Insuper Archiepis-
copos et epiacopos per singulas provincias ab eo investituram accipere
definivit ; et nisi a rege laudetur et investiatur episcopus, a nemine conse-
cretur ; et quicunque contra hoc decretum ageret, anathematis vinculo eum
innodavit." Corp. Jur. Can. vol. i. Dist. 63. cap. 22. Paris, 1695.

204 THE NOVELTIES OF KOMANISM.

emperor still elected some bishops of Eome after this.
Some indeed were deemed anti-popes; yet Clement II.
(a.d. 1046) is reckoned a true pope^ though elected by
the emperor. It was not, really, until a.d. 1080, under
Gregory YII., that the emperor's right was wholly super-
seded.^

THE EIGHTH CENTURY.

A.D. 700. — About this time the custom of saying private
masses (that is, the priest communicating alone without the
people attending) was introduced. This custom originated
in the lukewarmness of the people, including the clergy,
in their attendance on Divine service. Formerly, the
assembly communicated every day in the week ; devotion
waxing cold, the communion was restricted to the sabbath
and feast days, leaving the priest alone to officiate and
communicate on the other days. Hence solitary masses.
The capitular of Theodulf, bishop of Orleans (a.d. 787),
expressly forbade private or solitary masses,^ as did the
Council of Metz, a.d. 813, and the Council of Paris,
A.D. 839.='

1 See Burnet's Vindication of the Ordinations of the Churcli of England,
pp. 51—99. London, 1677.

2 "Le pr^tre ne eelebrera point la messe seul, il faut qu'il y ait des assis-
tans, qui puisent luy lepondre quand il salue le peuple : et le Seig:neur a dit
qu'il seroit au niiheude deux ou trois assemblez|en son nom." Fleury, Eccl.
Hist. liv. 44, p. 503, torn. ix. Paris, 1703. And torn. ix. p. 459. Paris,
1769.

3 ^'Aucuii pr^tre ne pent dire la messe seul: car comment dira-t'il; la
Seigneur soit :ivec vous, et le reste, qui marque des assistans?" Fleury's
Eccl. Hist. liv. xhi. p. 144, loni. x. Paris, 1704. And Neander's Church
History, vol. v. p. 188. London, 1852.

EIGHTH CENTURY. 205

The custom seems to have been creeping in so early as
the century previous ; for it met. the rebuke of Gregory I.
He saidj " The priest should never celebrate mass alone ;
for as the mass cannot be celebrated without the salutation
of the priest and the answer of the people^ it ought, con-
sequently, by no means to be celebrated by a single indi-
vidual; for there ought to be present some to whom he
may speak, and who, in like manner, ought to answer him,
and he must withal remember that saying of Christ,
' Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I
will be present with them.' "' The doctors of Trent, in
the sixteenth century, however, declared, in direct con-
tradiction to these earlier decisions, that " if any one shall
say that private masses, in which the priest alone doth
sacramentally communicate, are unlawful, and, therefore,
ought to be abrogated, let him be accursed."^

The roundness of the host was now insisted on by the
Eomish church. This shape is taken from the Egyptians.
"The thin round cake occurs in all the Egyptian altars."^
The form symbolized the sun.

A.'D. 750. — Eleury, the Roman Catholic historian, tells
us that the earliest instance of giving absolution to penitents
immediately after confession, without waiting till their
penance was fulfilled, occurred at this time in the rule
established by Boniface.*

1 " Sacerdos inissam solus nequaquam celebret ; quia siout ilia celebrari non
potest sine salutatione sacerdotis et responsione Bibilominus plebis, ita
nimirum nequaquam ab uuo debet celebrari, etc.'* Greg, in lib. Oapitulari,
cap. vii. apud Cassand. Liturg. 33, p. 83. Paris, 1605.

2 " Si quia dixerit, missas in quibus solus sacerdos sacramentaliter commu-
nicat, illicitasesse, idea que abrogandus anathema, sit." Concl.,Xrid. can. viii.
Bess. xxii. p. 150. Paris, 1832.

3 See Wilkinson's " Egyptians,'' vol. v. p. 358. London, 1837—1841.

4 " . . les canons touchant la reconciliation des penitents, chaque prStre
aussi-t6t qu'il aura re^ii leur confession, aura soin de lea reconcilier par la
priere, c'est Si dire qu'il n'attendra pas que la penitence soit accompUe."

206 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

A.D. 752. — Stephen II. was the first bishop of Eome
who was carried in processipn on men's shoulders on his
election. It was a pagan Roman custom.^

A.D. 754. — At a council held at Constautinople, image
worship was condemned.^

It was this council which first enjoined, under anathema,
the invocation of the Yirgin Mary and other saints.^

A.D. 763. — According to Fleury, Clirodegang, bishop
of Metz, first enjoined compulsory oral confession; but
this custom was restricted to his own monastery.*

The same bishop instituted the ecclesiastical order of
Canons. 5 Nicholas II., in 1059, at a council in Eome,
abrogated the ancient rules of the Canons, and substituted
others in their place. Hence arose the distinction of Secular
and Regular Canons. The former observed the decree of
Nicholas II., the latter subjected themselves to the more

Fleury's Eccl. Hist. torn. ix. lib. xliii. p. 390. Paris, 1703. And torn. ix.
p. 360. Paris, 1769.

1 "Edenne II. elu pape est le premier que Ton ait porte a I'Eglise sur les
epaules apres son election. Les Grands de rancienne Eome se faisoient porter
par des esclaves dans une espece de littiere (Lectica). II y a apparence que
la coytume de porter le pape sur les epaules s'inti'oduisit peu a peu apres la
ruine du paganisme dans Kome. Pour ce qui est d'Etienne II., il paroit,
par ce qu'on dit Platina, que le merite de ce pape contiibua a riionneur qu'on
leur fit de porter sur les Spaules." Picard, "Ceremonies et Coutumes Eeligi-
euses." Vol. i. pt. ii. p. 50, note g. Amsterdam, 1723.

2 Labb. et Coss. Concl. Gen., torn. vi. col. 1661. Paris, 1671.

3 " El Tis ovx itiio^oyel ttjv attnapBivov tJlapCav Kupi'ws ifal aA7)0a)s QeOTOKOv, inrepTe'par
T€ elvat JraOTJS opa-njs jcal dopaTOl' JcTiVcws, Kat jnera eiX-LKpivov^ TricrTtoJS Tas avTri? OVK
e^aiTetTat TrpeajSetay, (ii? TTapprjaCav exoii(r»)s irpbs rov 4^ aiiT^g TexSeVra ©ebc 7}jJi<jiV,

am^ep-a."— Labb. Concl. torn. vii. col. 524. Paris, 1671. " EI ns rets tovt^v

oiiK e^aiTetTai TrpotTevxo-s , <^ irapfnjtTLav exoVTbiv vnep Tou Koap-ov npea^eveiv, Kara ttjv
eKKKi)tTi.a(mKT)v TTapa&oalv, ava9ep.a." — Ibid. 528.

4 *' II est ordonn^ aux cleres de se confesser a I'ev^que deux fois Tannic ;
B(;avoir au commencement du carSme, et depuis la mi-Aoust jusqu'au pre-
mier jour de Novembre — Celuy qui aura cele quelque peche en i^e confessant
a Tc'veque, on chercbera a se confesser a I'autres : si 1 eveque le pent decou-
vrir, il le punira de foiiet ou de prison. C'est la premiere fois que je trouve
la confession commandee." Fleury, Eccl. Hist. liv. xliii. pp. 425, 426, torn,
ix. Paris, 1703.

5 Le Beuf, Memoire sur I'Histoire d'Auxerre, torn. i. p. 174. Paris, 1743.

EIGHTH CENTUHY. 307

severe regulations of the bishop of Chartres, and were
called Regular Canons of St. Augustine, professing to follow
the rules of St. Augustine.^

A.D. 768. — Hitherto the payment of tithes was enjoined,
but not compelled. King Pepin now ordered tithes to be
paid by all to the clergy.^

A.D. 769. — At a council held at Rome, a decree was
passed that images should be honoured, and the Council of
Constantinople, a.d. 754, was anathematized.^

A.D. 787. — Previous to this date, much altercation took
place as to the introduction and use of images in public
worship. Irene, the empress of Constantinople, a pagan
both by rehgion and nation, a woman of notoriously bad
character, who poisoned her husband in order to establish
her authority, entered into an alliance with Adrian, bishop
of Rome, and convoked the so-called Seventh General
Council, held at Nice. By her influence, the decree sanction-
ing the use of images in religious worship was passed.*
But this decree met with decided opposition at other synod-
ical meetings. The bishops who refused to submit to the
decree were punished, persecuted, or excommunicated. It
need scarcely be observed, that the use of images in
religious exercises is of pagan origin. This council invented
what is called a relative worship, that is, " that the honour
rendered to the image is transmitted to the prototype ; and
he who worships the figure, worships the substance of that

1 Mosheim, Eool. Hist., cent. xi. part ii. pp. 312, 313, toI. ii. London,
1758.

2 " C'est que les dixme n'etoient du commencement que dea aum6nes
Tolontaires." Fleury, Eccl. Hist. liv. xliii. p. 455, tom. ix. Paris, 1703, and
torn. ix. p. 416. Paris, 1679.

3 Labb. et Coss. Concl. tom. vi. col. 1721. Paris, 1671.

* Labb. et. Cose. Concl. tom. vii. col. 899. Nicen. II. Sess. vii. action 6.
Paris, 1671, and Surius Council, tom. iii. p. 150. Col. Agrip. 1567.

208 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

which is represented by it."^ And although this council
asserted^ with the usual bold assumption and effrontery
ever assumed by the Eoman church, that this institution
was established by " the holy fathers, and the tradition
of the Catholic church, which from one end of the earth to
the other had embraced the gospel/' we have shown in our
chapter on Images, that the doctrine of relative worship,
introduced into Christian worship at this period by the
Second Council of Nice, was the identical practice the
heathens adopted and defended, and was specially condemned
by the i'athers Arnobius and Origen, of the third century,
and Ambrose and Augustine of the fourth century."

The modern custom of consecration of images, and
lighting tapers before them, is only another retrograde step
towards heathenism and paganism, these being ancient
practices, as we read in the apocryphal book of Baruch
(cap. vi.) of the Babylonian idolaters. It was a mark of
religious veneration to kiss images (1 Kings xix. 18), as do
the modern Eomanists. Miracles too were attributed to
images by the pagan, as now by modern Eomanists. The
alleged modern examples are so numerous that they need
not here be repeated.

This wiU be a proper place to give some account of the
progress of the doctrine of the alleged real or substantial
presence of our Lord in the eucharist.

The sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or the celebration
of the eucharist, was regarded as the most solemn act of
the church. Figurative and mystical language was applied

^ ... ij yap T^y eiK0f09 tl^t) €Tri to TrptaTOTVTTov SioPaii/et* Kai o TrpoaKVVMV ttiv eiKdraj
^pomajvel iv o.vi-[j ToO r/ypow^OjueVou ttjv uTrdoTatrtv. Ovrio yap Kpa-njvera, ij Titiv ayuov
ircLTepitiv ripMiv 5t5ao-«aXia, elrovv irapdSoal^. t)js KadoXiKri^ e'/CKATjo-ia?, T^? djro Trepdrwy
its irepara Se^afiivT}^ eTjaYyeAlo;-." — Labb. et CoSS. COncil. tom. VU. col. 556.

Paris, 1671.
2 See ante, pp. 81, 82.

EIGHTH CENTURY. 209

to it, particularly by members of the Greek diurch ; as,
for instance, when Chrysostom spoke of the recipients'
mouths being made red with the blood. The elements
themselves took the names of the things they represented :
the cup of the blood; the bread of the body of Christ.
Augustine, of the fifth century, gives us several examples
of this, of which illustrations will be found in a preceding
page (p. 48).

While it is quite true that many of the early writers
spoke of the elements as the body and blood of Christ,
in terms which, when taken literally and detached from
their context, might be construed as favouring the Eomish
doctrine; yet such an interpretation becomes wholly impos-
sible of acceptance, when we find these same Christian
writers, in succession, from the very earhest periods,
speaking of the consecrated elements as simihtudes, images,
and types.^

As extravagance of speech was highest among the Greek
or Eastern church, so some individuals among them, misled
by these rhetorical phrases, began to teach the real sub-
stantial presence, but not as yet the transubstantiation of
the elements. Such appeared to have been the doctrine of
Anastatius of Mount Sinai (a.d. 680), and John, of
Damascus (a.d. 740), who went still further. He denied
the bread and wine to be the types of the body and blood
of Christ. The council held at Constantinople (a.d. 754),
which condemned image worship, checked this rising heresy
in the East. It maintained that " Christ chose no other
shape or type under heaven to represent his incarnatiDn
but the sacrament, which he delivered to his ministers

1 In proof of this see the chapter on Transubstantiation, especially pp. 54,
et seq.

210 THE NOVELTIES OF EOJIANISM.

for a type and a most effectual commemoration thereof;
commanding the substance of bread and wine to be offered/'
and this bread they atBrmed to be " a true image of his
natural flesh." ^

The Second Council of Nice (a.d. 787)^ which esta-
blished the use of images, condemned this statement that
the only true image of Christ was in the bread and wine,
the type of the body and blood of Christ. They declared
that Christ did not say, " Take, eat the image of my body,"
adding the bold assertion, that " nowhere did either our
Lord, or his Apostles, or the Fathers, call the unbloody
sacrifice offered up through the priest, an image, but they
call it the body itself, and the blood itself." ■'■

The bishops assembled at this council must have been
very little informed on the subject ; for Gelasius, bishop of
Eome, said — " Assuredly the image and simihtude of the
body and blood of Christ are illustrated in the performance
of the mysteries." ^ Numerous passages to a like effect may
be quoted from writers of a prior and even of a subsequent
date to this council.

Though this heresy was held by some in the Eastern
church, it had not as yet extended to the "West, as is
amply testified by Bede (a.d. 720). Druthmar (a.d.
800, a scholar of Bede), Amalar of Triers (a.d. S20),
and Walafrid Strabo (a.d. 860), and Elfric, the Saxon,

1 Concl. Nicen. II. Art. vi. Labb. et Coss. torn. vii. cols. 448, 449. Paris,
1671, and Concl. Gen. torn, iii. p. 599. Eomte, 1612. The sentence of the
Cituiicil of Constantinople is rehearsed after they had set down the words of
our Saviour, "This do in remembrance of me," — "Behold the whole image
of Lliat quickening body, the substance of bread." — "Ecce vivificantis illiua
corporis imaginem totam, panis, id est, substantiam," and see Surius. Concl.
torn. ill. p. 153. Colon. 1567.

2 . . et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actions
niysterium celebrantur. Gelas de duab. Christ, naturis. In Bib. Patr.
torn. iv. p. 422. Paris, 1589. See ante, p. 51.

EIGHTH CENTURY. 211

who lived at the close of the tenth century, all of whom
refer to the consecrated elements as types and images.'-

A.D. 795. — Leo III. ordered incense to be used in the
Latin church in her services.^

The use of incense in public worship was not only a
Jewish, but also a pagan custom. All the representations
of heathen sacrifices on the ancient monuments have a boy
in sacerdotal habits attending with an incense box, for the
use of the officiating priests ; and the same we see in the
present day at the popish altars.

We cannot pass over the eighth century without advert-
ing to one of the most important innovations in the papacy
— namely, the assumption of temporal power by the bishop
of Eome.

As yet the bishop of Eome held no temporal rule. It
was not until past the middle of the eighth century that a
temporal power was added to his spiritual jurisdiction.
This was eifected by a bargain similar to that struck with
Phocas.

It is as weU first to observe that, previous to the assump-
tion of the spiritual power by the bishop of Eome, the
protests of bishops Pelagius and Gregory have afforded us
undeniable proofs that previous to the seventh century no
single bishop, be he of the Eoman or Greek church, as-
sumed a supreme spiritual power over the whole church ;
so also have we a like testimony, afforded also by a bishop
of Eome, that previous to the fifth century, the assumption
of temporal power by the bishop of Eome was directly
repudiated by Pope Gelasius. Gelasius wrote, or is believed

1 For the original passage, see Faber's "Difficulties of Bomanism," b. ii.
u. iv. 2nd Edit. London, 1853.

2 Polydore Tergil, b. v. c. viii. p. 109. London, 1551,

212 THE NOVELTIES OP KOMAITISM.

to have written^ a treatise entitled Be Anathematis Vinculo,
" on the bond or tie of the anathema." It is one of four tracts
composed by him at different times, vhich are to be found
under his name in all the orthodox editions of the councilsj
such as Labbeus and Mansi's editions, that of Binius, and
others. It seems to have been written to explain an expres-
sion pronounced by his predecessor against one Acacius, to
the effect that he never should, nor ever could, be absolved
from an anathema pronounced against him. Though this
part is much confused, that which follows is as plain as it
is important. Gelasius in this tract, lays down a clear
distinction as then existing, between the temporal and the
spiritual jurisdiction of bishops and emperors or kings.
He states that anciently the royalty and priesthood were
often united in one and the same person, among the Jews
as well as the Gentiles ; but that since the coming of Christ
these two dignities, and the different powers that attend
them, have been vested in different persons; and from
thence he concludes that neither ought to encroach on the
other, but that the temporal power entire should be left to
princes, and the spiritual to priests ; it being no less
foreign to the institution of Christ for a priest to usurp the
functions of sovereignty, than it is for a sovereign to usurp
those of the priesthood. This is a very clear statement,
and could never have been made by a bishop of Eome had
he held the modern notions of the present possessor of the
papal See, who declares that the temporal is inseparable
from and is necessary to the spiritual rule.^ It is not,
however, our task to reconcile Eoman inconsistencies.

1 This declaration is so important tliat we give the original. We cannot
here enter into an examination whether the production is a genuine tract
from the pen of Gelasius ; it is sufficient for our purpose that it is attributed

EIGHTH CENTURY. 213

We have seen that the spiritual supremacy owed its
origin to a murderer j the temporal owes its origin to an
usurper.

Pepin, the son of Charles Martel, aspired to the throne
of France, then occupied by Childeric III. He consulted
Zachary, bishop of Eome, and desired to know if it were
lawful to depose the then lawful ruler. Zachary wanted
this daring soldier's help to protect himself from the Greeks
and Lombards; the result was an unholy compact, or
alliance, between them. Childeric was deposed by Pepin,
and the kingdom transferred to the latter. Tlie bishop of
Eome formally recognised the act. Stephen, the second
successor of Zachary, went to Prance again to solicit Pepin's
aid against the Lombards; and in 754, solemnly con-
firmed the decision of his predecessor, absolved Pepin from
his oath of allegiance to Childeric, and crowned him king
in his stead. In return, by force of arms, Pepin handed
over to the see of Eome the exarchate of Eavenna and
other provinces.^ Thus was the bishop of Eome now, for

to him by the canonists of the church of Eome, and ie inserted by them
among others attributed to Geiasius : —

" Quamvis enim membra ipsius, id est, veri regis atque pontificis, secun-
dum participationem naturse, magnifice utrumque in sacrtL generositate
sumpsisse dicantur, ut simul regale genus et saeerdotale subsistant : attamen
Christus memor fragilitatis humanse, quod suorum saluti congrueret, dispen-
satione magnifica teniperans, sic actionibus propriis dignitatibusque distinctis
officia potestatis utriusque discrevit, suos volens medicinali humilitate salvari
non humana superbia rursus intercipi; ut et Christiani imperatores pro
seternA vit^ pontificibus indigerent, et pontifices pro temporalium cursu rerum
imperialibus dispositionibus uterentur, quatenus epiritalis actio a carnalibus
distaret incursibus : et ideo militans Deo, minime se negotiis ssecularibus
implicaret : ac vicissim non ille rebus divinis praesidere videretur, qui esset
negotiis saecularibus implicatus, ut et modestia utriusque ordinis curaretur,
ne extoUeretur utroque suffultus, et competens qualitatibus actionum speci-
aliter professio aptaretur. Quibus omnibus rite collectis, satis e\identer
ostenditur, a saeculari potestate nee ligai'i prorsus nee solvi posset pontificera,"
etc. Sacro. Cone. Coll. torn, viii. cols. 93, 94, Mansi (edit. Fiorent. 1762) j
and Binius, Coucil. torn. ii. par. i. p. 487- Colon. 1618.

1 "Le roy en fit une donation a Buint Pierre, a I'Eglise Eomaine et a toua

214 THE NOVELTIES OP EOMAHISM.

the first time^ raised to the rank of a temporal prince.
Gregory (a.d. 741), the predecessor of Zachary, had already
offered to withdraw his allegiance from the emperor and
give it to Charles Martel, if he would deliver the city from
the Lombards. This scheme did not succeed; but his
successor, Zachary, carried out the negotiations with Pepin,
as above stated.

Charlemagne, the son of Pepin (a.d. 774), not only con-
firmed the grant made by his father, but added other Italian
provinces to the see of Rome. In return for Charlemagne's
donation, the bishop of Home gave him the title of " The
Most Christian King," and by his help made Charlemagne
emperor of all the ^Test.'^

The bishop of Eome (as yet he was not pope) having
attained to this high degree by fraud, a further fraud was now
perpetrated by the appearance of the infamous and notorious
forgeries known as the decretal epistles of the early popes.
These decretals were put forward to confirm their spiritual
and temporal power. Binius, archbishop of Cologne, who,
in 1608, published a collection of councils, while endeavour-

les papes a perpetuite. — II mit ainsi le pape en possession de toutes ces villes
au nombre de vingt-deux : s(javoir, Ravenne, Eimini, Pesaro, Fano, Cesene,
Sinig:aille, Jesi, Forlimpopnh, Forli, Castrocaro, Monte-Feltro, Acerragio,
que Ton ne cnnnoit plus, Moiit-Lucari, que Ton croit etre, Vocera, Serravole,
S. Marini, Bobio, Urbin, Ca^Uo, Luceoli pres de Candiano, Eugubio, Coni-
aichio, et Narni. C'est le deiionibrement qu'on fait Anastase. Et voila le
premier fondementdela seij^neurie temporelle de rEgliseRomaine." Fleury,
Hist. Eccl. liv. xliii. An. Too. cap, xviii. p. 382, 383. torn. ix. Paris, 1703.
1 *' In 7.55, King Pepin tonfirmed to the holy see, in the person of Stephen
II., the Exareliate of Ivavenna, and part of the Itomagna now wrested from
it; and in 77^, Charlemagne confirmed his father's gift, and added to it the
provinces of Perugia and Spoleto, which are now sought to be revolutionized,
that so a title of a thousand jears' possession (wljich few, if any other, of
European dynasties can pretend to) may, by a stroke of tlie pen, or a slash
of the sword, be c.incelled or rent." Dr. Wiseman's London Pastoral for
1860. See Tahht for April 21st, 1860, p. 243, col. iv. The wily doctor
uses the word "confirmed," whereas Pepin "gave," not "confirmed," these
provinces to the bishop of Eome. Lower down he calls it a " gift."

NINTH CENTURY. 215

ing to sustain the genuineness of these epistles, admitted
that " most of these letters of the popes ■were written about
the primacy of Peter ; the dominion of the Eoman church;
the ordination of bishops ; that priests are not to be injured,
nor accused, nor deposed ; and abdut appeals being made
to the apostolic see."

These documents were first published by Autgarius,
bishop of Mentz, in I'rance, about the year 836. They
were never heard of before. These forgeries, for nearly
700 years, deceived the world, and had their desired effect.^
The frauds were exposed at the time of the Reformation,
and are now admitted even by Romanists to be forgeries.
But the popes had the advantage of 700 years, during
which period their temporal and spiritual supremacy,
founded on these forged documents, was firmly believed to
be derived from St. Peter himself, and thus the belief
became grafted into the Roman system.^

THE NINTH CENTUKT.

A.D. 818. — "We have traced the rise and progress in the
East of the heresy of the alleged substantial presence of
Christ in the eucharist. It had now spread to the West.
Paschase Radbert advanced the following doctrine : —

1 See Fleury'sEccl. Hist. vol. ix. liv. 44, p. 500, et seq. Paris, 1703, and
torn. ix. p. 456. Paris, 1769, where the proofs of their being forgeries are
set out.

2 For a short, popular description of these forgeries, see Neander's Church
Histor}', vol. vi. p. 1, e( seq. ; and Life aud Times of Charlemagne ; Eeligious
Tract Society.

216 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

" That the body of Christ in the eucharist is the same body
as that which was born of the Virgin, which suffered upon
the cross, and which was raised from the grave." ^ This
theory, hitherto unknown in the West, was immediately
opposed. In 825, Eabanus, archbishop of Mentz, in his
epistle to Heribakl, specially condemned this new theory,
as then lately introduced. His words are : —

" Lately, indeed, some individuals, not thinking rightly con-
cerning tlie sacrament of tie body and blood of the Lord, have
said, ' tiat that very body and blood of the Lord which was
bom from the Virgin Mary, in which the Lord himself suffered
upon the cross, and in which he rose again from the sepulchre,
is the same as that which is received fi-om the altar.' In oppo-
sition to which error, as far as lay in our power, wiiting to the
abbot Egilus, we propounded what ought truly to be believed
concerning the body itself." '

He then proceeded to give a spiritual interpretation
deduced from our Lord''s words in St. John's Gospel, ch. vi.,
as being applied to the Lord's Supper. The theory then
lately introduced by some individuals, and condemned by
this archbishop, is exactly the same theory now taught by
the church of Eome. The Trent Catechism informs us that
the hody contained in the sacrament is identical " with the
true body of Christ, the same body which was born of the
Virgin Mary, and sits at the right hand of the Father." ^

1 Paschas. Eadbert de Sacram. Euehar. cap. iii. p. 19. Colon. 15.51.

2 "Nam quidam, nuper de ipso Sacramento corporis, et sanguinis domini
non recte sentientes dixerunt : 'hoc ipsum corpus et sanguinem domini;
quod de Maria Viigine natum est, et in quo ipse dominus passus est in cruce
et resurrexit de sepulchre, idem esse quod sumiter de altari.' Cui errori,
quantum potuiraus, ad Egilum abbatem scribentes, de corpoic ipso quid vere
credendum sit, aperuimus." Eaban Archiepis. Mogunt. Epist. ad Heribald.
Episc. Antissiodor. de Eucliar. c. xxxiii. ad calc. Eeginou. Abbat. Pruniens.
Libr. II. de Eccles. Disciplin. et Eelig. Christian, p. 516. Stephan. Baluz.
Tutel. Paris, 1671.

, 3 Catech. Coucl. Trent, p. 221. Donovan's Translation, Dublin, 1829.

NINTH CENTURY. 217

This teaching, as we have seen, was only introduced in
the ninth century. The doctrine was considered so offensive
and so novel that this archbishop not only wrote to the
abbot Egilus, but also to Heribald, to whom he declares
that the theory was then only lately introduced.

The Western church, however, now took the infection,
and it created some excitement; so much so that the
emperor Charles was induced to take the opinion of Bertram,
a monk of the abbey of Corbie. In reply to the emperor's
demand, he wrote a treatise on the body and blood of
Christ, wherein he not only repudiated the idea advanced
by Eadbert, word for word, but also declared that "the
bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ figura-
tively." 1

A.D. 845. — According to the acknowledgment of Alex-
ander of Hales, who was styled from his skill the "irre-
fragable doctor" (a.d. 1?.30), confirmation ^^&\v&\\ivXxA as
a sacrament in the Meldesium (Meaux) Council of this date.^
This was only a provincial council. Confirmation was
admitted by the church of Eome authoritatively as a sacra-
ment in 1547, at the seventh session of the Council of
Trent.

A.D. 850. — At a synod in Pavia, the custom of priestly
unction, especially in mortal ■ sickness, was sanctioned,
and was placed in the same rank with the other sacra-
ments.^

1 The whole of this reply is such a complete refutation of the modern
Eoman theory that we have added, in Appendix A, the entire passage with
the translation, to which we desire particular attention. Bertram.
Presbyt. de Corp. et Sanguin, Bomin. pp. 180 — 222. Colon. 1551, or sec.
Ixxxix. Oxon. 1838.

2 " Institutum fuit hoc sacramentum spiritus sancti instinctu in concilio
Meldensi." Alex. Ales. op. omn. Tol. iv. p. 109. Venet. 1575.

3 Neander'a Church History, vol. vi. p. 146. London, 1852.

218 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

A.D. 852. — The Capitular of Hincmar (an eminent bishop
of France) directed holy water to be sprinkled on the
people, houses, cattle, and the food of men and beasts.-"-
(See ante, a.d. 113.)

A.D. 855. — The feast of the Assumption of the Virgin
Mary has no warranty in any ancient document.^ Leo. IV.
now firmly established the festival, and added the octave to
invest it with greater dignity.^

A.D. 869. — Hitherto the sacred Scriptures were alone of
authority in the church. The Fourth Council of Constanti-
nople (a.d. 869), by the first canon, first passed a decree
recognising tradition ; but it was not an oral tradition, as
subsequently relied on by the Council of Trent, but a
tradition preserved in the records of the church by the
writings of a continual succession of witnesses in the church,
capable therefore of proof; nor did this council place this
tradition on an equal footing with the sacred Scriptures, as
the Council of Trent subsequently did, but as a " secondary
oracle " only. It was left for the Council of Trent, in 1546,
to consummate the corruption by converting the written to
an oral tradition, and placing the latter on the same footing
as the Scriptures. The decree in question is as follows : —

" Therefore we profess to preserve and keep the rules which
have been delivered to the holy Catholic apostoUc church, as well

1 "Tons les dimanches chaque prtoe avant la messe fera de I'eau benite,
dont on aypergera le peuple entrant dans I'eglise ; et ceux qui voudront en
emportfvoiit, pour en aspergcr leurs raaisonB, leurs terres, leurs bestiaux, la
nourrituiT dcs liommes et dea b^tes." Fleury's liccl. Hist., Lib. 44, p. 541.
Paris, 1704 ; ;>iid in torn. x. p. 462. Paris, 1769.

2 The v.nious spurious documents cited by Komnnists to prove the anti-
quity of this ((■!.ti\-al are ably exposed by the Rev. Mr. Tyler in his ""Wor-
ship of tile \'irgin Mar\," part ii. c. ii. London, 1851.

3 "II in^iitua I'oetuve de Tassomption do leSainte Vierge, qui ne se cele-
broit point encore a Home." Fleurv, Eccl. Hist. lib. xlix. p. 598, torn. x.
Paris, 170i, and Tom. x. p. 602. Paris, 1769.

NINTH CENTURY. 219

by tie holy and most illustrious apostles, as by the universal
as well as local councils of the orthodox, or even by any divinely
speaking father and master of the church ; governing by these
both our own life and manners, and canonicaUy decreeing that
both the whole list of the priesthood, and also'all who are counted
under the name of Christian, are subjected to the pains and
condemnations, and on the other hand, to the approbations and
justifications which have been set forth and defined by them.
To hold the traditions which we have received, whether by
word or by epistle of the saints who have shone heretofore, is
the plain admonition of the great apostle Paul." ^

A.D. 884. — Adrian III., bishop of Eome, was the first
who advised the canonization of saints ; but the authorita-
tive confirmation by decree was of later date, under Alex-
ander III. (a.d. 1160). The first act of canonization is
supposed to have taken place in a.d. 933, under John XV.
The happy individual was Uldaric, bishop of Augsburg, who
died about twenty years before.'' Eerraris,^ however, says it

1 . . Canon I. " IgUur regulas, quse'sanctaj Catholicse ao apoatolicae eccle-
sige, tarn a Sanctis famosissimis Apostolis, quam ab orthodoxorum universalibua,
necnon et localibus conciliis, vel etiam a quolibet diloque patri ac magistro
ecclesise traditse sunt, servare ac cuetodire profitemur ; his et propriam vitam,
et mores regentes, et omnem sacerdotii catalogura, sed et onines qui Christiano
censentur vocabulo, paenis et damnationibus, et & diverse receptionibus, ao
justificationibus quse perillas prolatss'sunt et definita subjici canonice decer-
nentes ; tenere qiiippe traditiones, quas aceepimis, sive per sermonem sive
per epistolam sanctorum qui antea fulserunt, Paulus admonet apertemagnus
apostolus." Labb. et Coss. Concl. tom. viii. cols. 1126, 1127. Paris,
1671.

2 Fleur/s Eccl. History, tom. xii. p. 275.

3 "Hinc non certo constat, quisnam fuerit primus summus pontifex, qui
solemniter canonizationem sanctorum celebraverit. Nam multi tenent, quod
prima canonizatio solemniter celebrata fuerit a Leone III., a.d. 804."
Ferraris, " Biblioth. Prompt., Veneratio Sanctorum," tom. vii. sec. xix.
Francof. 1781. And Picard says: — "On ne voit point d'exemple d'une
Canonization solennelle avant eelle de St. Suibert, que le Pape Leon III.
canonisa au commencement de neuvieme siecle mais quiques-una attribuent
au Pape Adrien la premiere canonisation solennelle, et quelques autres pre-
tendent que S. Udalric canonise en 993 par le Pape Jean XIV. ou XV. est le
premier St. canonise en ceremonie. II en a m^me qui donne au Pape
Alexander III. la gloire de cette institution." "Ceremonies et Codttimes
Keligieuses." PicarJ, tom. i. part ii. p. 143. Amsterdam, 1723,

220 THE NOTELTIES OF ROMANISM.

is not certain who was the first that celebrated the canoniza-
tion of a saintj and adds, that many believed that it was by
Leo. III., A.D. 804.

Neander, in his "Church History/'^ notes this last-men-
tioned period as the proper date for ascertaining the
authoritative introduction]^ of invocation of saints, which was
then recognised by the bull of Pope John XV.

THE TENTH CENTUEY.

A.D. 956. — Octavian was made bishop at the age of
eighteen under the title of John XII. "We note this as being
the first authentic instance of the adoption of a new name by
the bishop of Eome. It then became, and is now, the custom
for popes to change their names on their election. Adrian
VI. (a.d. 1522), a Dutchman, refused to follow this rule.
According to Polydore Vergil,^ Sergius I. (a.d. 701) first
ordained that the bishop of Eome might change his name
on election, after the example of Christ, who changed Simon
Barjonas to Peter. Polydore Vergil on this quaintly
observes, "The special prerogative and privilege of the
bishop of Rome is, that he may change his name if it may
seem to him not very pleasant to his ears. If he be a

1 Neander, "Church History," vol. vi. p. 1-t-t. London, 1852.

2 Book iv. 0. vii. p. 91. London, 1551. Picard has the following obser-
servation on this subject: — "Sergius III. ou IV. qui s'appelloit aupara-
Tant OS porci, est le premier des papes, qui se soit avise de changer le
nom a son^ exaltation au pontificat. Ses successeurs I'ont imite. D'autres
croient que les papes n'ont chang6 de nom que depuis Jean XII., qui aupara-
vant s'appelloit Octavien, et tient le si^ge pontifical en 956, long temps
apres Sergius 11. et plusieurs annees avant Sergius IV." "Ceremonies et
Coiituniea Eeligieuses," etc., Picard, torn. i. part ii. p. 49, note b. Amster-
dam, 1723.

ELEVENTH CENTURY. 221

malefactor^ he may call his name Bonifacius ; if he be a
coward, he may be called Leo ; a carter, Urbanus ; and for
a cruel man, Clemens; if not innocent, Innocentiiis ; if
ungodly. Plus."

A.D. 965.— John XIII.^ baptized the great bell of St.
John Lateran in Rome, naming it after himself; thence
arose the custom of baptizing bells. Bellarmine ^ iaforms
us that in these baptisms all the forms in baptizing children
were used — water, oil, salt, and godfathers and godmothers.
The baptized bell is dedicated to some saint, under whom
they hope to obtaui their demands from God, and they teach
that the sound drives away devils, etc.^ In a.d. 790, by the
Capitular of Charlemagne, the baptism of bells with holy
water was prohibited.*

THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.

A.D. 1000. — The modem form of absolution, " I absolve
thee," the alleged essence of the sacrament, cannot be traced
to any authentic record previous to this date. The ancient

1 See Picard, " Ceremonies et Ooutumes Eeligieusea,'' torn. i. part ii. p.
108, note g.

2 Bellarmine Disp. De Eom. Pont. lib. iv. c. xii. Prag. 1721.

3 "On ne doit paa oublier de mettre au rang des ablutions tenues pour
essentielles la benediction des cloches, telle qu'elle ae pratique chez lea
catholiquea. C'est une esp^oe de bapt€me, puis qu'on les lave aveo de I'eau
benite, et qu'on leur donne le nom de quelque saint, sous I'invocation duquel
en les offre a Dieu, afin qu'il (le saint) les protege et qu'il aide I'Egliae a
aboutir de Dieu celqu'elle lui demande, dit le rituel d'Alet — 1' ablution des
cloches est aocompagnee de la benediction, afin que lea cloches benites aient
la force de toucher les coeurs par la vertu du S. Eaprit .. . . et quand on les
Sonne, elle chaaaent les demons," etc. Picard, "Ceremonies et Costumes
Eeligieuses," vol. i. p. xix. Amsterdam, 1723.

4 " On ne baptisera point des cloches," etc. Fleury'a Eccl. Hist. torn. ix.
p. 520. Paris, 1769, and tom.x. p. 673. Paris, 1703, andHarduin Concilia,
torn. iv. p. 846. No. 18.

222 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

form of absolution used in the churcli of Kome was,
" Almighty God have compassion on thee, and put away thy
sins :" ^ a ministerial and not a judicial act. This was
changed to the present form, " I absolve thee/'' Thomas
Aquinas, who flourished about the middle of the thirteenth
century, points out the time of this remarkable change ; for
he tells us that the authoritative form of absolution was
found fault with by a learned man, his contemporary,
asserting that thirty years were scarce passed since the sup-
plicatory form only, "Almighty God give thee remission and
forgiveness," was used by all." The present authoritative
form was first established in England, in 12G8, when, at a
council held in London under Cardinal Ottoboni, the pope's
legate, all confessors were enjoined to use it.^

About this time, churches were first consecrated by the
sprinkling of holy water, in imitation of the pagan custom
of using lustral water for the same purpose.

According to Fleury, the Little OfBce of the Virgin was
introduced about this time,'' and was afterwards confirmed
by Urban II. in the Council of Clermont, a.d. 1095.^

About this time also, the eucharist was changed into a so-
called sacrifice; the ordination service was then also changed.
Priests who were hitherto called to preach the gospel, were
now ordained, according to the form prescribed in the

1 " Absolutio criminum. Miseratur tui omnipotens Deus, et dimittat tibi
omnia peccata tua," etc. — Confitentium Ceremonise Antiq. Edit. Colon.
Ann. 1530.

2 Aquin. Opus. 22, de forma absol. o. 5, quoted by Bower in Ma " History
of the Popes, '^ vol. ii. p. 135. London, 1750.

3 Collier's Eccl. Hist. vol. i. p. 474. Folio Edit.

4 " On ait aussi, que pour obtenir de Dieu un secour plus abondant en
cette grande entreprise (la croisade) le pape ordonna dans le concil de Cler-
mont que les clerca diroient le petit office de la vierge dejaintroduit chez les
moines par Saint Pierre Damien." Eccl. Hist. torn. xiii. p. 105. Paris,
1767, and p. 621. Paris, 1726.

5 Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. cent. a. pt. ii. cap. iv. sec. iii.

ELEVENTH CENTURY. 223

Eoman pontifical, for another purpose, namely, to sacrifice
— " Eeceive thou power to offer sacrifice to God, and to
celebrate masses as well for the living as for the dead, in
the name of the Lord." ^

A.D. 1003.— John XIV. allowed authoritatively the
feast of All Souls, appointing it to be celebrated upon the
morning after All Saints. This feast was instituted by
Odilon, abbot of Clugny, at the latter end of the previous
century. It is a commemoration of the dead by all the
people. This was an ancient pagan custom. It was cele-
brated, according to Plutarch, in his life of Eomulus, in
the month of Tebruary, called the month of expiation.
Modern Komanists have changed the time to November.
Polydore Vergil ^ said, "The custom of performing the
service for one's departed friends was long since adopted, as
Cicero shows in the first oration against Anthony. Thus
annual service was done — that is to say, annual sacrifices
were yearly offered up in honour of the dead. * * *
And there is all reason in the world to conclude that Odilon
from this took the yearly celebration of the service for the
dead." Komanism in this, as in so many other cases, is
only the re-adoption of paganism.

A.D. 1022.— The Council of Worms, at this date, first
undertook to legalize the commutation of penance for
money. Meury, the Eoman Catholic historian, thus refers
to the words extracted from the Decretum of Burchard,
bishop of Worms : — " He that cannot fast for one day on
bread and water shall sing fiifty psalms on his knees in the
church, and shall feed one poor man for that day, and for
which period he shall take such nourishment as he hkes

1 The form prescribed by our Common Prayer Book is " authority to
preach the Word of God, and to administer the Holy Sacraments."

2 Book ix. 0. X. Edit. London, 1551.

224 THE NO"VELTIES OF EOMANISM.

except 'wine, flesh, and grease. One hundred genuflexions
shall be accepted instead of the fifty psalms, and the rich

MAY EEDEEM THEMSELVES FOR MONEY." ^

A.D. 1055. — Victor II. was the first pope -n-ho authorized
what may be termed the redemption of penances. Hitherto
canonical penances were relaxed by the bishop. It was now
enacted that the penitent might buy off or redeem the
penance by " pecuniary mulcts," or fines, under the softer
expressions of alms or donations bestowed on the church.
Those who had no money might redeem the same by acts of
austerity, fasting, voluntary mortifications, etc., as above
stated. Hence the custom of whipping proceeded, and the
subsequent establishment of an order of friars called the
" Batusses," who, in their nightly processions, whipped and
otherwise mortified themselves. The priests of Bellona wore
haircloth, and inflicted stripes on their bodies. The priests
of Baal lacerated themselves. Polydore Yergil (Lib. vii.,
c. 6) teUs us that the custom was derived from the Egyp-
tians and Eomans. He says, " Those whom you see in the
public processions walk in order with their faces covered,
and their shoulders torn, which they scourge with whips, as
becomes true penitents, have copied after the Eomans, who,
when they celebrated the feast called Lupercale, marched
thus naked and masked through the streets with whips.
And if we must go farther to look for the origin of this
verberation, I wiU afiirm it to be derived from the Egyp-
tians, who, as Herodotus tells us," etc. Paganism and
Eomanism thus go hand in hand. The Eoman Breviary
and Lives of the Saints are replete with the examples of the
perpetration of tins barbarous custom of self-flagellation.

1 Fleury, Hist. Eccl. torn, xii. p. 413. Edit. Paris, 1769—1774, and p. 425.
Edit. Paris, 1722.

ELEVENTH CENTUUY. 225

A.D. 1059. — At a council held in Eome, under Nicholas
II., it was declared that the bread and wine are the very
body and blood of Christ ; and that Christ is sensibly felt,
broken, and torn by the teeth of the faithful.^ This is not
the precise doctrine of the modern Eoman church, nor was
the council which presented the doctrine a General Council.
The above was the form of recantation which Berengarius
was, for the third time, compelled to sign. Meury, never-
theless, informs us that, though the majority of the council
were against Berengarius, yet some of the members con-
tended that the terms of Scripture were to be taken
figuratively.^

At the same council, under Nicholas II., it was declared
that if any one should be elected bishop of Rome without
the unanimous and canonical consent of the cardinals, and
of the other clergy and the laity, he should not be regarded
as a pope, but as an intruder.^

A.D. 1060. — Polydore Vergil * says that the authority
to choose the bishop of Rome belonged first to the emperor
of Constantinople and the deputy of Italy, till, about a.d.
685, the emperor Constantine Pogonatus, empowered the
cardinals and the people of Rome to elect him. It is quite
certain that up to the time of Leo Till., a.d. 965, the
election of the bishop of Rome was vested in the clergy
and people.^ It is now in the cardinals alone.

1 Cor. Juris Can. torn. i. p. 2104. Part iii. dist. ii. c. xlil. Paris, 1612.
See ante, p. 45, for the original text.

2 Eecl. Hist. torn. xiii. p. 289. Paris, 1726, and pp. 367, 368. Paris, 1769.

3 Labb. et Cosb. Concl. torn. ix. col. 1099. Paris, 1671.

4 B. iv. c. vii. p. xcii. London, 1551.

5 " Qui statim Eomanorum inconstantise pertsesus authoritatem omnem
eligendi pontifiois a clero populoque Romano ad imperatorem transtulit."
Platina in Vit. Leo VIII. p. 154. Colonise, 1568. And see Picard, "Cere-
monies et Co4tumes Keligieuses," etc. Tom. i. pt. ii. p. 43, note e. Am-
sterdam, 1723.

236 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

A.D. 1070. — Purgatory was now being industriously
advocated by the priests ; but prayers to deliver souls out
of purgatory were first appointed by Odilon^ abbot of
Clugny, about the latter end of the previous century, by
instituting a festival for that purpose.^

A.D. 1073.— Up to this date the title of "pope/' or
" papa," father, was common to all bishops. Gregory VII.,
in a council at Eome, decreed that there should be but one
pope in the world, and that was to be himself. The title
of Pope was from thenceforth assumed by the bishop of
Eome exclusively among the Western bishops, though the
Eastern bishops still continued to retain the title. Prom
this date, however, the bishops of Eome only were properly
caUed "popes."

A.D. 1074. — The compulsory celibacy of the clergy
was now enforced by this same pope. The marriage of
priests was not altogether forbidden tUl the time of
Gregory YII." He deprived the clergy of their lawful
wives, compelled them to take a vow of continency, and
excommunicated the refractory. He held a council at
Eome (a.d. 1074), wherein it was declared that married
priests should not be permitted to celebrate mass, or to
discharge any of the superior offices of the altar. ^ At the
Council of Mayence, held the following year (a.d. 1075),
the decree of Gregory was published, which enjoined the
archbishop, under pain of deposition, to oblige the prelates
and other clergy of the province to give up either their
wives or their offices. The clergy present would not submit
to this decree, and opposed the archbishop, who, fearing for

1 This was in a.d. 998. See Slosheim's Eccl. Hiat. cent. x. pt. ii. o. iv.8. ii.

2 Pol. Vergil, De Her. Invent, lib. v. c. iv. p. 54. London, 1551.

3 Labb. et Coas. concl. torn. x. ool. 313. Paria, 1671.

ELEVENTH CENTURY. 227

his life, gave up the attempt, and left the enforcement of
the decree to Gregory himself.^

The first (so-called) General Council of the Eoman
church which authoritatively enjoined the celibacy of the
clergy was the First Lateran Council (a.d. 1123), held
under Calixtus 11.^

On the subject of priestly celibacy, the opinion of Jllneas
Sylvius, who afterwards (a.d. 1458) became pope, under
the name of Pius II., is noteworthy. " Perhaps (he said)
it were not the worse that many priests were married, for
by that means many might be saved in married priesthood
which now in celibate priesthood are damned."* Our
readers will not be surprised to hear that this work
has been placed in the index of prohibited books.* This
same .^neas Sylvius said thal^, " As marriage, for weighty
reasons, was taken from the priests, so, upon more weighty
considerations, it appears that it ought to be restored." ^
" Take away," said St. Bernard, " from the church [i.e. the
priesthood) honourable matrimony, and do you not fill it
with keepers of concubines ?" etc.* Polydore Vergil '' cited
the last quotation from JEneas Sylvius, in his book,

1 Labb. et Cobs, concl. torn. x. col. 34S. Fans, 1671.

2 Ibid. torn. x. col. 891, can. iii. The Provincial Council of Augsburg
(Augustanum), A.D. 952, forbade the clergy, including bishops and sub-
deacons, to marry, or to retain females in their houses. Ibid. torn. ix. col.
635. Paris, 1671.

3 ^neas Sylvius, " Commentarii de gestis EasUiensis Conoilii," lib. ii.
Opera, Basil, 1571.

4 See Index lib. prohib. Madrid, 1667, p. 30.

5 " Sacerdotibus magna ratione sublatas nuptias, majori restituendas
videri." Platin. in vit. Pii II. p. 328. Colon. 1611.

6 " Tolle de ecclesi^ honorabile connubium et torum immaculatum, nonne
reples earn concubinariis, incestuosia, seminifluis, molUbus, masculorum con-
cubitoribus, et orani denique genere immundorum." Bened. Serm. Ixvi. in
Cantica, post. init. vol. ii. p. i. p, 565. Paris, 1839. N. B. This sermon is
put among the " Opera dubia : " it is quoted as a grave assertion proved by
results to be true.

7 Published in 1499, and subsequently 1528. Parisiis ex ofBoiua, Koberti
Stephani.

228 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

" De Inventionibus Rerum," and he proved that the
marriage of priests was not contrary to the law of God,
that the custom continued for a long period in the church,
and added, " Furthermorej whilst the priests did beget
lawful sons, the church flourished with a happy off-
spring of men; then your popes were most holy, your
bishops most innocent, and your priests and deacons
most honest and chaste/' i He gave, in the same place,
also the reverse of the picture. " This I will affiim, that
this enforced chastity is so far from surpassing conjugal
chastity, that even the guilt of no crime ever brought
greater disgrace to the holy order, greater danger to rehgion,
or greater grief to aU men, than the stain of the clergy's
lust. Wherefore, it would, perhaps, be the interest as well
of Christianity as of the holy order, that at least the right
of public marriage were restored to the clergy, which they
might rather chastely pursue without infamy, than defile
themselves by such brutal lusts." As Rome cannot bear
to hear the truth, the compilers of the Belgian and other
Expurgatory Indices have ordered this fourth chapter of
the fifth book of Polydore VergiFs work for seven con-
secutive pages to be expunged.

There is a curious document extant, a letter written
by Udalric, or Ulrick, bishop of Augusta (a.d. 870),
to pope Nicholas I. A warm dispute had arisen be-
tween the bishop and the pope on the subject of priestly
marriages, the pope having censured Odo, the arch-
bishop of Vienna, for permitting one of his subdeacons
to marry. Ulrick reminded the pope that Gregory the

1 " Porro, dum sacerdotes geuerabant legitimos Alios, ecclesia felioi prole
virim vigebat; turn sanotiasimi erant pontifices, episoopi innocentissimi,
presbyteri diaconique integerrirai castissimique." De Invent. Rerum. lib. 5,
c. 4, pp. 86, 87. Ibid. c. 9. Edit. a8 above.

ELEVENTH CENTDEY. 229

Great by a decree had deprived priests of their wives ;
shortly after some fishermen, instead of making a take of
fish, took six thousand heads of infants which had been
drowned in the ponds. When the pope heard of the scandal,
the result of his decree, he immediately recalled it, and did
acts of penance for the occasion he had given of so many
deaths.^ That the prohibition has led to great scandals we
have, alas ! too many examples ; it is condemned by all good
and honest men.^

Popery proper may now be considered in its zenith;
aad this period is further remarkable for the fact, that now,
for the first time, the pope took upon himself to anathema-
tize, and depose an emperor. Gregory delivered this order
of deposition in presence of his council, and in the form of
a solemn address to St. Peter. It was hurled against the
emperor Henry. Fleury says that this was the first time
that a pope had undertaken to declare such a sentence, and
the whole empire was thrown into astonishment and indig-
nation. '

A.D. 1090. — Chaplets and paternosters were, with the

1 " Gregorium Magnum suo quodam decreto sacerdotibus aliquando uxores
ademiBse. Cum vero paulo post jussisset ex piscina sua pisues aliquot capi,
piscatores pro piseibus sex millia capitum infantum suffocatorum reperisse ;
quam csedem infantium cum intellexit Gregorius ex occuUis fornicationibus
vel adulteriis sacerdotum natam esse, continue revocavit decretum, et pec-
catum Buum dignis pcenitentise fructibus purgavit, laudans apostolioum illud,
'Melius est nubere quam uri' et de suo addens, 'Melius est nubere, quam
mortis ocoasionem preebere.' " Epist. Udalrici. apud Gerhard. Loo. Tlieolog.
de Minist. Eccles. lect. cccxxxix. torn. vi. p. 548, 4to. Jena^, 1619.

2 " Les Catholiques fuit garder de celibat a leurs pretres, et la regie de leur
charge les condamne a une chastite perpetuelle. Fardeau impossible ! dont
la reformatjpn des Protestants a tres-bien connu le poids. Leur ecclesiasti-
ques se marient et la religion n'est pas plus mal; bien qu'on pretende que le
marriage et les soins d'un menage et d'une ftimille dfetourne un pasteur des
soin de I'Eglise. Les ecclesiastiques qui sent privea du marriage ont tres
souvent des maitresses, et cela ne vaut pas mieux qu'une femme." Picard,
Dissertation sur le culte religieux, p. xv. torn. i. " Ceremonies et Coiitumes
Keligieuses." Amsterdam, 1723.

3 Eecl. Hist. tom. xiii. pp. 295, 301. Paris, 1769.

230 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

" Office and Hours of our Lady," invented by Peter the
Hermit ; ^ but the former were put in general practice at
the recommendation of Dominic (a.d. 1230)^ and he there-
fore passed as the author of this species of devotion.

A.D. 1095. — It may be worth recording here, by the way,
that at the Council of Clermont, held in November of this
year, by Pope Urban II., at the head of thirteen archbishops
and 250 bishops and abbots, by the twenty-eighth canon
it was directed that all who communicated should receive
the body and blood of Christ under both kinds, unless there
be necessity to the contrary."

A.D. 1098.— Kobert, abbot of Moleme, bishop of
Burgundy, founded a new order of monks called Cistercians,
so called from the place in wliich he located himself,
Citeaux, or Cistercium, within the bishopric of Chalon, not
far from Dijon, in Prance.

Bruno, an ecclesiastic of Cologne, and master of the
cathedral school at Eheims in 1084, settled down at
Chartreux (Cartusium), near Grenoble, and there founded
the order of Carthusian monks.' In 1185, a Greek monk
(a priest, Johannes Phocus) visited Mount Carmel, in
Palestine, where he found the ruins of an old monastery,
and where he also found an old priest of Calabria, one
Berthold, who had, in consequence of a vision, erected on
this spot a tower and small church, which he occupied, with
about ten companions. Hence arose the order of the
Carmelite monks.*

1 Polydore Vergil, b. v. c. vii. p. 107. London, 1551. ,

2 "Ne quis communicet de altari nisi corpus separatim et sanguinem
aimiliter sumat, nisi per necessitatem et per cautelam." Labb. et Coss, Concl.
Gen. torn. x. col. 506, can. 28. Paris, 1671.

^ Neander's Church History, vol. vii. page 367. Loudon, 1852,
i Ibid. vol. vii. p. 369.

231

THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

A.D. 1123. — Marriage of the presbyters^ deacons, and
sub-deacons was by the twenty-first canon of the I'irst
Council of Lateran prohibited. The following is the canon
in question : —

" We entirely forbid tlie presbyters, deacons, sub-deacons,
and monis to contract marriages ; and we judge that marriages
contracted by these sort of persons ought to be annulled, and
the persons brought to repentance, according to the decision of
the said canons."

A similar canon was passed by the Second Lateran
Council, A.D. 1139, canon vi. and vii.^ •

A.D. 1130. — Hugo de Victore, a Parisian moni, and
Peter Lombard, bishop of Paris (1140), first asserted or
defined the sacraments to be seven, but this was not yet
declared to be the doctrine of the Church ; the determinate
number of seven sacraments was mentioned for the first
time in the instruction given to Otto, of Bamberg, for
persons newly baptized (a.d. 1124).^

A.D. 1140. — The festival of the Immaculate Conception
of the blessed Yirgin Mary was introduced at Lyons, about
this time ; but was opposed by Bernard, as a novelty with-
out the sanction of Scripture or of reason.*

Bernard is a canonized saint of the Roman church, and
is accounted as the last of the Pathers. His opiuion on
doctrinal questions is greatly esteemed by Eomanists of the
present day. When Bernard heard of the introduction of

1 Labb. et Coss. Concl. torn. x. col. 899. Paris, 1671.

2 Ibid. torn. X. cols. 1003, 1004.

3 Neander's Church History, vol. vii. p. 465. London, 1852.

4 Fleury, xiv. p. 627. Paris, 1769, and p. 560. Paris, 1727.

232 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

this new festival, he wrote an epistle of protest to the church
of Lyons, wherein he said : " We can never enough wonder
that some of you could have the boldness to introduce a
feast which the church has not the least knowledge of,
which is neither supported by reason nor backed by any
tradition/' He asserted that the feast was founded on an
" alleged revelation, which is destitute of adequate autho-
rity," and inquired, " How can it be maintained that a con-
ception which proceeds, not from the Holy Ghost, but
rather from sin, can be holy ? or how could they conjure up
a holy day on account of a thing that is not holy in itself ?"
And he added that this feast " either honours sin, or autho-
rizes a false holiness." ^ It is difficult to conceive on what
ground the church of Eome, after such a declaration as the
above, could attempt to establish the " immaculate concep-
tion" as a doctrine. We shall below (a.d. 1476) continue
this subject as more appropriate to the period when the
doctrine was seriously revived.

Peter Lombard first determined the three parts of
Penance — contrition, confession, and satisfaction.^

A.D. 1151. — Gratian's collections of ecclesiastical decrees,
canons, etc., were allowed and authorized by Pope Eugene
III., who commanded them to be studied in the universities

1 "Unde toiramur satis, quid visum fuerit hoc tempore quibusdam yestrum
voluisse mutare colorem optimum, novam induceiido celebiitatem, quamritus
eoclesiffi nescit, non probat ratio, non comniendat antiqua traditio. . . .Sed
profertur scriptura superna?, ut aiunt, revelatiouis. Ipse mihi facile per-
suades acriptis talibus non moveri, quibus nee ratio suppeditare, iiec certa
invenitur favere auctoritas. . . .Cum btco ita se habeant, qutenam jam erit
festivee ratio conceptionis ? Quo pacto, aut sanctus asseretur conceptus, qui
de Spiritu Sancto non est, ne dicam de peccato est ? Aut festus habebltur,
qui minime sanctus est? Libenter gloriosa hoc honore carebit, quo vel pec-
catum honorari, vel falsa videtur induci sanctitas." S. Bernard. Epist.
174, Oper. torn, i, pp. 390, 391. Paris, 1839.

2 "Compunctio cordis, confessioris, satisfactio operis." Neander's Church
History, vol. vii. p. 483. London, 1852.

TWELFTH CENTURY. 233

and practised in the spiritual courts. This is the origin of
what is called the canon law. Gratian, who arranged this
new collection of ecclesiastical laws at Bologna, was a
Benedictine, or, according to another account, a Camaldu-
lensian monk.^ Gratian's doctrine, as to the authority of
this law, was — " The holy Eoman church gives authority to
the canons ; but she is not bound by the canons, nor does
she submit herself to them. As Jesus Christ, who made the
law, accomplished the law to sanctify it to himself, and,
afterwards, in order to show that he was its Master,
dispensed with it, and freed his apostles from its bondage."
The historian, Fleury, records these extravagant claims to
demonstrate their falsity.^

A.D. 1160. — Alexander III. decreed the canonization of
saints, and ordered that none should from that date be
acknowledged a saint unless declared to be such by a pope.

Polydore Vergil said : —

" The fashion to deify men that had done any benefits to the
commonwealth is one of the most ancient usages that I read of.
For antiquity, even from the beginning, was accustomed to
make gods of their kings, which, either by abundance of bene-
fits, or notable qualities of prowess, had won the hearts of the
commons. And specially the Romans did that with great pomp
and circumstance, and with many observances. Of them our
bishops learned, as by a pattern, their rite of canonizing saints ;
and the yearly sacrifices that Gregory and Felix appointed
concerned nothing else but to declare that those martyrs were
saints, and of the household of God. Last of all, Alexander III.
ordained that no such divine solemnities should be given to
any man openly, vdthout he were canonized and admitted to be
a saint by the bishop of Rome in his bull ; because no man

1 Neander's Church History, vol. vii. p. 282. London, 1852.

2 Tom. XV. p. 49. Paris, 1769.

234) THE NOVELTIES OP ROMANISM.

should himself choose any private saint, or commit any peculiar
idolatry." '

Pagans were not allowed to offer up their prayers but to
such as the senate, by their suffrages, had placed among
the gods. TertuUian, in the thirteenth chapter of his
Apology, referring to these heathen deities, said : —

" The condition of each of your gods depends upon the
approbation of the senate ; those are not gods whom men have
not decreed to be."

Is this not exactly the case with' Eomish saints ?

It is worthy of remark here, that, in 1165, Charlemagne
was canonized as a saint by the anti-pope Pascal III., and
though this canonization was made by an usurper, an anti-
pope, the act has never been repudiated, and his name is
still found in many calendars.^

This same pope (Alexander III.) is said to be the first
who issued indulgences.

A.D. 1182 — 3. — An important innovation took place in
the election of the pope (Lucius III.) Hitherto the
clergy and people had a voice in the election ; but now, by
virtue of a decree of the Third Lateran Council (a.d. 1179),
under Alexander III., the election was made by the
cardinals alone.* It was determined that the individual
chosen by two thirds of the cardinals should be lawful pope.^

1 B. vi. c. vi. p. 122. London, 1551. See ante, a.d. 884, p. 140.

2 TertuUian, " Apologetious adversus gentes," c. xiii. vol. v. p. 38. Edit,
Halse Madg. 1783.

3 "Ce n'est que depuis cette canonisation de Friderio Barbevousse, que
Charlemagne a commence d'etre honor^ comme saint, d'un culte public en
quelnues eglisea paKiculi6res, et quoique cette canonisation fut faite de I'au-
torite d'un antipape, les papes legitimes ne s'y sont pas opposes." Fleur)',
tom. XT. p. 192. Paris, 1769, and p. 219. Paris, 1719.

4 Labb. et Coss. Coucl. tom. viii. col. 1526. Paris, 1671. Fleury, vol. xv.
p. 437. Paris, 1769. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. cent. xi. pt. ii. p. 226, vol. ii.
London, 1768.

5 See Neander's Church History, vol. vii. p. 233. Loudon, 1852.

235

THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

A.D. 1215. — Auricular confession was, by the Fourth
Lateran Council, now first authoritatively required of all
persons of years of discretion, under pain of mortal sin.^
Confession was to be made at least once a year. Fleury
says, "This is the first canon that I know of which has
commanded general confession." ^

We have already noted under date a.d. 329 the first in-
troduction of secret or private confession to a priest, and the
suppression of the custom, and its subsequent reintroduc-
tion, A.D. 763. We now have the custom converted into
a doctrine of the Eoman church. This was another remtro-
duction into the Christian church of the heathen custom,
and in this she has followed out the Babylonian system,
which required a secret confession to the priest, according
to a prescribed form, of aU who were admitted to the
" Mysteries," and till such confession had been made, no
complete initiation could take place.* Eusebe Salverte *
refers to this confession as observed in Greece, in rites that
can clearly be traced to a Babylonian origin. He says : —

"AU the Greeks, from DelpM to Thermopliylse, were initiated
in the mysteries of tte Temple of DelpM. Their silence in re-
gard to everytMng they were commanded to keep secret, was
secured both by the fear of the penalties threatened to a
perjured revelation, and by the general confession exacted of

1 Labb. et Coss. Concl. torn. xi. pt. 1. Concl. Lat. IV. Deeret. xxi. cols.
171, 173. Paris, 1671, and see Neander's Church History, vol. vii. p. 491.
London, 1852.

2 Fleury's Ecol. Hist. torn. xvi. p. 375. Paris, 1769.

3 See a very remarkable book, "The Two Babylons; or, the Papal Wor-
ship proved to be the "Worship of Kimrod and his "Wife," by Alexander
Hislop. London and Edinburgh, 1862. Third Edition, p. 12.

4 Des Sciences Occultes, cap. xxvi. p. 428. Paris, 18S6.

236 THE NOVELTIES OP ROMANISM.

the aspirants after initiation — a confession wMoIl caused them,
greater dread of tlie indiscretion of the priest, than gave him
reason to dread their indiscretion."

Potter, in his " Greek Antiquities," ^ refers to this con-
fession in his account of the ELeusinian mysteries, though
from fear of offending he clothes under the word "etcetera"
the various subjects exacted from the penitent or postu-
lant in the confessional. Thus modern Eomanism vies
with ancient paganism even in the obscenity which it
suggests, and which is equally characteristic of the modern
system.

A.D. 121.'3. — The Council of Trent, at the twenty-second
session, declared that " although the mass do contain in it
great instruction for the people, yet it doth not seem expedient
to the fathers of the council that it should be everywhere
celebrated in the vulgar tongue." ^ And they proceeded to
decree that " whosoever shall say that the mass ought
to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only, let him be
accursed." ^

AVhen, how, and why, this strange custom came to pass,
is difficult to say ; but this is the first canon on record
which, so far from making the use of the vulgar tongue
compulsory, anathematises those who should declare that
the service should be performed in the language known
to the people. We conceive the decree of Trent to be
directly contradictory to the pre\dous canon passed at the
Pourth Lateran Council in a.d. 1215 ; and which council is

1 Potter, vol. i. "Eleusinia," p. 356. Oxford, 1697.

2 Etsi Missa magnani contineat populi fidelis erudicionem, non tamen ex-
pedire visumest patribus ut vulgari paseim linguaoelebraretur." Concl. Trid.
Sess. xxii. c. 8, p. 156. Paris, 1832.

3 Si quia dixerit, — lingua tantum vulgari Missam celebrari debere — ana-
thema sit. Ibid. can. 9, de Sacrifioio Misste, p. 150. Paris, 1832.

THIETEENTH CENTURY. 237

esteemed among Eomanists as a general council. The
words of the nuith canon are as follows : —

" Because in most parts there are within the same state or
diocese people of different languages mixed together, having
under one faith various rites and customs ; we distinctly
charge that the bishops of these states or dioceses provide
proper persons to celebrate the divine offices, and administer
the sacraments of the church according to the differences of
rites and languages, instructing them both by word and by
example." '

Herej then^ is a decree of a reputed general council, in a
most emphatic and clear manner, directing the divine
offices and sacraments of the church to be administered in
the language understood by the people. "We may add that
the pope in his own decretals publicly declared to the same
effect : —

" We command that the bishops of such cities and dioceses
where nations are mingled together, provide meet men to
minister the holy service according to the diversities of their
manners and languages." ^

And Cassander certified that the prayers, and especially the
words of consecration, were so read by the ancient Chris-
tians that all the people might understand.'

That modern Eomanists have changed the ancient custom,

1 Can. IX. " Quoniam in pleriBque partibua intra eamdem oivitatem sive
dicEcesim permixti 8unt populi dirersarum linguarum, habentes sub una fide
varies ritus et mores ; districte prsecipimus, ut pontifices bujusmodi civita-
turn sive dicecesium providebant viros idoneos, qui secundum diversitates
rituum et linguarum divina officia illis celebrent, et ecclesiastica sacramenta
ministrent instruendo eos verbo pariter et exemplo." Labb. et Coss. Conol.
torn. xi. p. 161. Paris, 1671.

2 Decret. Gregor. lib. 3, tit. 31, de offic. Jud. Ord. m, 14, see Cassander
liturg. p. 87. Paris, 1610.

3 " Canonioum precem, et imprimis Dominici corpori set sanguinis conse-
crationem ita veteras legebunt, ut a populo intelligi, et amen declamari
posset." Cassand. Liturg. o. 28, p. 17. Colon. 1558.

238 THE NOVELTIES OP KOMANISM.

is therefore certain. So little do the bulk of the people
understand the Latin service as it proceeds, that the peo-
ple not unfrequently read other prayers while the regular
service is proceeding, and this is permitted, if not encou-
raged by the priests.

Though the real corporeal presence of our Lord in the
sacrament was insisted on as a matter of fact, it was not
until the Fourth Lateran Council, under Innocent III., that
the bread was declared to be transubstantiated into the
body, and the wine into the blood of Christ, and thus
Transubstantiation became, for the first time, an article of
faith by decree of a general council ; or, as ISTeander ex-
presses it, was "definitely settled by the church at the
Lateran Council, 1215." ^

The canon is as follows : —

. . . . " But there is one universal oliurcli of tlie faitkfal, out
of wliicli no one at all is saved ; in wliicli Jesus Oiirist Mmself
is at once priest and sacrifice : wtose body and blood in tte
sacrament of the altar are truly contained under tlie species of
bread and wine, wliicli, through the Divine power, are tran-
substantiated — the bread into the body, and the wine into the
blood, that for the fulfilment of the mystery of unity, we may
receive of his that which he received of ours." ^

In pursuance of this decree, it was ordered that all
churches should be furnished with a cabinet or cupboard,
in which to keep the consecrated host not used ; hence the
use of pixes began. Heretofore the surplus bread and wine

1 Neander's Church History, vol. vii. p. 466. London, 1852.

2 "Una vero est fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino
salvatur. In qua idem ipse sacerdos et sacrificium Jesus Christus : cujus
corpus ct sanguis in sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter
continentur ; transubstantiatis, pane in corpus, vino in sanguinem, potestate
diving, ut ad perficiendum mysterium unitatis accipiamus ipsi de suo quod
accepit de nostro." Labb. Concl. torn. xi. p. 143. Paris, 1671.

THIETEENTH CENTUEY. 239

were either given away or burned. The host is supposed to
be very God. " We command (said Innocent) that in all
churches the eucharist be kept under lock and key, that it
may not be touched by sacrilegious hand." Arnobius, a
Christian writer of the third century, ridiculed the pagans
for locking up their gods for a similar reason : — " Why
keep you them locked up ? Is it for fear tliieves should
take them away by night ? If you are assured they are
gods, leave to them the care of keeping themselves ; leave
their temples always open." ^

A.D. 1217. — Honorius III. instituted the elevation and
adoration of the host.^ Pleury expressly states that the cus-
tom of elevating the host before the consecration of the
chalice was not in use until the commencement of this
century.^ The early Christian writers repeatedly and most
fully describe the way and manner of receiving the sacra-
ment, but we find no mention whatever of the elevation or
adoration of the Host. Further, " Erom the oldest liturgies,
and the eucharistic forms in them, it appears that there
was no such adoration given to the sacrament tiU of late,
for in none of them is there any such mention, either by the
priest or the people, as in the Eoman missal or ritual, nor
any such forms of prayer added to it, as in their breviary.
Cassander, a learned Eoman Catholic divine, who died a.d.
1566,* has collected together most of the old hturgies, and

1 Arnob. Notitia Literaria, lib. vi. vol. i. Edit. Lips. 1816.

2 " SacerdoB quilibet frequenter doceat plebem suam ut cum in celebra-
tione missariumlelevatur hostia salutaris, quilibet reverenter inclinet." See
Eaynaldus ad an. 1219. These words are in Honorius' Epistle to the Latin
bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch, a.d. 1219.

3 . . " Cette question n'auroit pas eu lieu si I'usage edt ete des lors d'adorer
et elever I'hostie avant la consecration du calice : aussi n'ai-je trouve jus-
qu'ici aucun vestige de cette ceremonie." Fleury, Eccl. Hist. vol. xv. liv.
74, p. 663, Paris, 1719 ; and torn. xv. p. SRO. Paris, 1769.

4 Cassandri Liturgio. oper. p. 10, etc. Paris, 1616.

240 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

endeavours, as far as he can, to show their agreement with
that of the Eoman church ; but neither in the old Greek,
nor in the old Latin ones, is there any instance to be pro-
duced of the priest's or the people's adoring the sacrament,
as soon as he had consecrated it. Notwithstanding the
elevation and adoration being one of the most prominent
features of the modern Eoman service, this last was added
or brought into the Eoman liturgy after the doctrine of
transubstantiation was estabhshed in that church, which has
produced a consequent alteration, not only in their liturgy,
but even their religion in good part, and made a new
sort of worship, unknown, not only in the first and best
times of the church, but for above a thousand years after
Christ." 1

It should be noted that Cardinal Guido seems not to have
contemplated an adoration of the host, but that on the
elevation the people should pray for pardon.^

The rituahsts Bona, Merati, Benedict XIT., Le Brun,
etc., acknowledge that there is no trace of the custom of
the elevation of the host, before the eleventh or twelfth
century, in the West.^

The elevation of the host appears to have been first in-
troduced into the diocese of Paris about a.d. 1200, by Odo
de SuUi, bishop of Paris ; * and even so late as a.d. 1536,

1 See Gibson's Preservative against Popery, new Edition, p. 141, vol. x.
London, 1848, and where the places alleged by Komanists out of the early
Christian writers in support of the custom are examined and explained.

2 " Bonam illic consuetudinem instituit, ut ad elevationem hostise omnis
populus in ecclesia ad sonitum nota; veniam peteret, sicque usque ad calicis
benedictionem protratus jaceret." Eaynaldus, an. 1203.

3 Bona, Eer. Liturgic. lib. ii. c. 12. — Gavanti Thesaurus a Merati — Lam-
bertinus, de Missa, p. 115. Le Brun. Ceremonies de la Messe. tom. i. p.
469, etc. (See Palmer's Treaties of the Church of Christ, vol. i. p. 240.
London, 1842.)

4 Harduini Concilia, tom. xi. p. 1945.

THIRTEENTH CENTURY. 241

the synod of Cologne explained that the people should on
the elevation of the host remember the Lord^s deathj and
return him thanks with minds raised to heaven.^

The veneration or adoration of the host itself was not
actually enjoined until 1551, by the sixth canon of the
thhteenth session of the Council of Trent. The fifth chapter
declares that there is no room left for doubting that aU the
faithful of Christj " according to the custom ever received
in the Catholic church, exhibit in veneration the worship of
Latria, which is the supreme worship due to God, to the
sacrament." And the sixth canon anathematizes those who
deny that the eucharist " is not to be proposed pubhcly to
the people to be worshipped."

The custom of worshipping or praying before the elevated
host, as before explained, was easily converted into an actual
worship of the elements as Christ, but no fixed date can be
assigned to the transition. That the elements themselves,
however, were worshipped before the passing of this canon,
is evident. Fisher, the Eomish bishop of Rochester, a.d.
1504<, said that if there was nothing more in the eucharist
but bread, then the whole church for sixteen centuries had
committed idolatry, for during all this time people must
have been worshipping the creature in the place of the
Creator.^ We cannot, however, trace any record of the fact
that the host was worshipped by the people under the sup-

1 " Post elevatioDem oonsecrati corporis ao sanguinis Domini .... ab
omni populo mortis Domiiiicse commemoratio habenda, prostratisque humi
corponbus, animis in coslum erectia, gratise agendae Christo Eedemptori, qui
nos sanguine euo lavit morteque redemit." Synod. Colon, an. 1536, para. ii.
can. H, Lab. tom. xiv. Paris, 1671-

2 " NuUi dubium esse poteat, si nihil in eucharistia prseter panem sit, quin
tota ecclesiajam xv. annoa centenarios, idololatria fuerit; ae, provide, quot-
quot ante nos hoc sacramento turn adoraverunt, omnes ad unum esse dam-
natos : nam creaturam pania adoraverint Creatoria loco." Fisher, Boffena.
cont. (Ecolamp, oper. p. 760. Wirceburg, 1507.

242 THE NOVELTIES OF KOMANISM.

position of Christ's presence therein before Durand, bishop
of Mende, who mentioned it a.d. 1286.^ John Daille, a
faithful and dihgent searcher of antiquity, says that he could
not find " among the interpreters of ecclesiastical offices in
the Latin church, the mention of any sort of elevation before
the eleventh century." ^

A.D. 1229. — The Bible was now, for the first time, for-
bidden to the laity ^ by the Council of Toulouse. The
decree was as follows : — " We forbid also the permitting of
the laity to have the books of the Old and New Testament,
unless any should wish, from a feeling of devotion, to have
a psalter or breviary for Divine service. But we most
strictly forbid them to have the above-mentioned books in
the vulgar tongue." * This council was attended by the
legate of the bishop of Eome, three archbishops, and several
bishops and other dignitaries.^

A.D. 1230.— Gregory IX. added the httle bell, to inform
the people when to kneel down to adore the host :—

"We are informed by Alberic, in Ms Chronicon ad Ann.
1200, that tlie Cistercian Abbott, Guido, wliom the pope bad
created a cardinal, and despatclied as bis legate to Cologne,
first introduced this practice at the elevation of tbe host in tbe
mass, on a signal given by a beU, for tbe people to prostrate
themselves, and to remain in that postui-e until tbe benedic-
tion of tbe cup." "

1 See his Kationale Divinonim Officium, iv. 41.

2 UallffiUB de Relig. Cult. Object, lib. 2, c. 5. Gen. 1664.

3 Tom. xvi. p. 633.

i "Prohibemus etiam, ne libros Veteris Teatamenti aut Novi, laid permit-
tantur habere ; nisi forte Psalterium, vel Breviariiim pro divinis oificiis, aut
Horas Beatas Marise, aliquis ex devotiona', habere velit. Sed ue prtemissos
libros habeant in vulgari translates, arctissinie inhibemus." Lab. et Coss.
Concl. torn. xi. part 1, col. 42.5, Concl. Tolosanum. can. 14. Paris, 1671.

3 For some useful information on this subject, see Massj^'s '* Secret History
of Romanism," pp. 72, 73. London, 1863.

6 See Moslieim's Ecel. Hist. cent. xii. pt. ii. a. iv. o. ii. p. 423, note 2.
Edit. London, 1852.

THIRTEENTH CENTURY. 243

It appears, however, that William, bishop of Paris, about
A.D. 1320, also ordered a bell to be rung at the elevation,
that the people might be excited to pray, but not to worship
the host.^

A.D. 1237. — The anthem Salve Eegina was introduced
by request of the preaching friars.^

A.D. 1238. — The patriarch of Antioch excommunicated
Gregory IX., and the whole Eoman church, as being
stained with a constant course of simony, usury, and all
kinds of crimes.^

A.D. 1245. — The Council of Lyons ordered that cardinals
should wear red hats and scarlet cloaks, "to show the
"readiness with which they are prepared to shed their blood
for the liberty of the church." According to Polydore
Yergil, Innocent IV. (a.d. 1254), by decree, ordered
cardinals to wear the red hat, and Paul II. (a.d. 1464), the
scarlet robes.*

A.D. 1264. — Urban IV., upon the pretended revelation
of a nun, instituted the festival of Corpus Christi (known
in Prance as the Pete Dieu) and its octaves. The in-
stitution was confirmed under Clement V., at a council held
at Vienna in 1311.^ Thomas Aquinas composed the oiEce.

The following is from Canon Wordsworth's "Tour in

Italy:"-

"The history of the institution of this festival is very sig-
nificant. In the thirteenth century (a.d. 1262), a time of

1 " Prsecipitur quod in celebratione missarum quando corpus Christi elevatur,
in ipsa elevatione, vel paulo ante, campana pulsetur, sicut alias fuit statu-
tum, ut sic mentes fidelium ad oratiouem excitentur." Bini. Concilia, torn,
vii. pars. 1. p. 536. Paris, 1636.

2 Fleury, xvii. p. 204. Paris, 1769.

3 Ibid, p. 225.

4 Polydore Vergil de Invent, rer. b. iv. c. vi. p. 90. Loudon, 1551.

5 See Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. cent. xiii. pt. ii. c. iv. s. ii. London, 1825.
Neander's Church History, vol. vii. p. 474. London, 1852.

244 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

moral- corruption and ungodliness, as Roman writers testify,
a priest, wlio did not believe the doctrine of transubstan-
tiation, was celebrating mass at Bolsena, in Tuscany, and
saw tlie host trickle with blood, which is the subject of
Raffaelle's frescoes in the Yatican, in the stanza of Helio-
dorus. Pope Urban IV. heard the tidings of the prodigy,
and went to Bolsena, and gave orders that the corporal
tinged with blood should be carried in procession to the
cathedral of Orvieto, where it is still shown. In the year
1230, a holy woman, near Liege, a Cistercian nun, Santa
Giuliana, had a vision, in which she beheld the moon,
which, although full, seemed to have a portion of it broken
off; and when she asked what was the meaning of this
fragmentary appearance, she was informed that the moon
represented the church, and the gap in it denoted the
absence of a great solemnity which was necessary to com-
plete its fulness ; and that this solemnity was the festival
of Corpus Domini. 1 It was revealed as the Divine will
that a certain day in every year should be set apart for the
veneration of the holy sacrament. The bishop of Liege
adopted the suggestion, and it was confirmed by the
apostolic legate in Belgium. Pope Urban IV., being
stimulated by what had occurred in Bolsena, and desirous
of providing a perpetual protest against the doctrines of
Berengarius, which were then rife, carried the matter further,
and decreed that the festival of the 'Corpus Domini'
should be celebrated every year on the Thursday after the
octave of Whit Sunday, and he gave a commission to the
celebrated Thomas Aquinas (the doctor Angelicus), then at

1 This account of the origin of the festival may be seen in a work now in
the 13th edition, by Dom. Giuseppe Riva, Penitentiary of the Cathedral of
Milan, a.d. 1862, p. 300.

rOURTEENTH CENTURY. 245

Eome, to compose a suitable religious office for the occa-
sion." The annual observance of the festival has received
additional sanction from the Council of Trent in 1551.1

Thomas Aquinas likewise invented the theory of works
of supererogation and celestial treasure (as ex])lained in the
chapter on Indulgences), being the supposed superabundant
merits of Christ and the Saints, placed at the disposal of the
pope, to be issued out by him by way of Indulgences.^

THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.

A.D. 1300. — Boniface VIII. instituted the first jubilee,
and ordered by bull that it should in future be solemnized
once in every 100 years. This period was subsequently
abridged by successive popes, as stated in the chapter on
Indulgences.

Polydore Vergil says that Boniface " assigned the years
according to the old feasts of Apollo and Diana, which the
Eoman heathens solemnized every 100 years, and that
they were called 'Ludi seculares.'" These jubilees, he
testifies, included " a clean remission, a pand et culpa, as
well from the punishment as from the sin itself.''^ Cardinal
Parie, referring to the jubilee, in a letter to Pope Paul II.,
designates it as an imitation of the " early superstition." *

Henry Cornelius Agrippa said that "the power of

1 Seas. xiii. cap. 5.

2 Moshelm's Eccl. Hist, cent, xii. pt. ii. c. iii. s. lii. London, 1825.

3 B. viii. 0. i. p. 144. London, 1551.

4 "Antiquae vanitates." See Picard's "Ceremonies et Coiitumes Keligi-
euses," torn. 1, pt. ii. p. 168. Amsterdam, 1723.

246 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

granting indulgences, extending to souls in purgatory, was
first decreed by Boniface VIII." ^

A.D. lol7. — John XXII. published what are called the
Clementine Constitutions.

The same pope ordered the Ave Maria, or the words
addressed by the angel Gabriel to the blessed Virgin, to be
added to the prayers of Christians.

A.D. 1360. — The procession, or carrying about of the
host under a canopy, was first instituted. Virgil, in his
first book of the Georgics, refers to the custom of the
yearly celebration of the feast of Ceres, directing the
farmers to accompany the hodia, when carried in proces-
sion : —

" AmiTia magnse sacra refer Cereri.

TT -TT TT ■«"

Terque novas circuin felix eat Hostia frages." —

B. i. 338—345.

And Ovid tells us that those who followed carried lighted
tapers, and were clothed in white. And so does the Romish
ritual direct " that the priest who carries it be covered with
a white cope, and that all who accompany him have lighted
tapers in their hands."

The Pastophorfe (initiated women in the religious pro-
cessions of the ancient Egyptians) carried the god Horns
in a box (pix) before them, and at stated intervals fell on
their knees, and offered the idol to the adoration of the
multitude. May not this have been the origin of the
custom in the Latin church of carrying the wafer in a box,

1 De Incertitudine et vanitate ecientiarum atque artium, c. 61, p. 115.
Lugd. s.a. [1531]. Agrippa was a physiciao, philosopher, and divine. He
died 153.3. An English translation of this book was puhlished in London,
1684, 8to.

rOURTEENTH CENTURY. 247

with considerable ceremony, attended as it is with the
adoration of the " multitude" in Romish countries ?

The language of Clemens Alexandrinus ^ (who mentions
the Pastophorse ^), with respect to the removing the veil of
the box, and the directions in the Canon Missse, are
curiously similar. The words of the mass-book would
seem to be almost a translation of the oXtyov iTravaaTtlXa^
rov KaTaTTiTaafiaro^, wg Sfi§wv tov debv, referred to by
Clemens.

A.D. 1363. — Urban Y. was the first pope who wore the
triple crown. The Triregne, as the Italians call it, seems
to have been of an early date, so far back, it is stated
(but on no sufficient authority), as the time of Clovis
the first Christian king, who sent one to Hormisdas, bishop
of Rome (a.d. 520), as a pledge that he owed his kingdom,
not to his sword, but to God. But this gift was not to
the bishop, but to the apostle Peter alone : the crown was
to be suspended before the altar, where the reHcs of the
apostle were supposed to be deposited. The first bishop
of Rome mentioned in history who was crowned, was
Damasus II. Before Bishop Mark (a.d. 335) no trace
exists of evidence that bishops of Rome wore any sort
of crown, except what was called the martyr's crown.
According to some writers, up to the time of Boniface
VIII. (a.d. 1294), bishops of Rome wore a tiara closed at
the top. This bishop added to this a second. The triple
crown was ordered to be carried in procession, as a mark of
the assumed triple jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over
the universe.^

1 See the Greek Thesaurus of Stephens, Valpy's Edition, vol. i. p. clxxxiii.

2 Pad. 3, 2.

3 See Picard's " Ceremonies et Costumes Eeligieuses," vol. i. pt. ii. pp.
60 — 52, notes h aud a. Amsterdam, 1723.

248 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

A.D. 1366. — Urban V. was the first who sent to Joanna,
queen of Sicily, a rose of gold in Lent, and decreed
the consecration of a like toy every year upon Lent Sunday.
The custom is still retained.

A.D. 1390. — The historian Platina, and Polydore Vergil,
say that Boniface IX. was the first who sold Indulgences,
and made merchandise of them. Polydore Vergil^ said —
" Who was the first author of them (indulgences) ? I have
not read in any writer, saving that Gregory proclaimed
pardons as a reward of those who came to his stations.
This seed sown by Gregory grew to a ripe harvest in the
time of Boniface IX., who reaped the money for that chaff.
Por what cause, or by what authority, indulgences were
first introduced into the church, has given modern divines a
great deal of trouble. In a subject which is by no means
clear, I think it better to use the testimony of John, bishop
of Rochester [Bishop Pisher, a.d. 1504],^ in a work he
wrote against Luther. ' Many persons,' saith he, ' are
inclined to place but little reliance upon indulgences, be-
cause their use seems to have come in rather late in the
church." And then he adds — 'No orthodox [Eoman
Catholic] doubts whether there is purgatory, concerning
which, nevertheless, there is either no mention, or the very
rarest mention in ancient writers. To this day, purgatory
is not believed in by the Greek church. As long, then, as
there was no anxiety concerning purgatory, no one looked
for indulgences ; for all the value of indulgences depends
upon it. If you take away purgatory, what use wiU

1 B. viii. c. i. p. 144. London, 1551, and p. 476. Amstel, 1671.

3 The passage from Fisher is as follows: '*Quandiu nulla fuerat de pnr-
gatorio oura, nemo qusesivit indulgentias. Nam ex illo pendet omnis indul-
gentiarum testimationis ; cosperunt igitur indulgentia), postquam ad purga-
torii cruciatus aliquando trepidatum erat." fioffens. art. 18, contra Lutherum,
fol. 132. Colon. 1624.

T'IFTEENTH CENTURY. 249

there be in indulgences? Indulgences, therefore, began
when people began to entertain fears about the torments of
purgatory.' These things saith the Bishop iFisher ; but
you, my reader, may perhaps think the subject of so gre^t
importance, that you might expect more certainty in the
matter from the mouth of God."

THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.

A.D. 1414. — It was at the Council of Constance that
the laity were first, by authority of the church of Eome,
deprived of the cup at the Lord's Supper. The decree
admits that Christ's ordinance was in both kinds, and that
the custom in the primitive church in this respect was to
give both the elements to the people, "notwithstanding
which" it decreed that the laity should be deprived of the
cup.i Previous to this date, and from 1220, when the
adoration of the host was instituted, the custom was in-
troduced and partially adopted, but not universally admitted
by the church of Eome.

A.D. 1438. — Though not strictly within the plan of this
work, we cannot omit to record the stand made by the
GaUican church against the usurpation of Rome. The

1 ,. Hinc est, quod hoc prgesens concilium sacrum generale Constantiense,
in SpirituSancto, etc. ; declarat, discernit, ctdifBnit, quod, licet Christuspost
ccenam instituerit, et suis discipulis administravit sub utraque specie panis

et vini, hoc venerabile sacramentum, tamen, hoc non obstante, etc Et

sicut consuetude hsec ad evitandum aliqua pericula et scandala est ration-
abiliter introducta, quod, licet in primitiva ecclesia hujusmodi sacramentum
a fidelibus sub utraque specie reciperetur ; postea, etc. Labb. et Coss. Con-
cilia, torn. xii. col. 99. Paris, 1672. See ante, a.d. 1095, p. 230.

250 THE NOVELTIES OP EOMANISM.

Council of Bourges/ convoked by Charles VII., who pre-
sided, drew up the decree, containing twenty-three articles,
which formed the basis of what was called the Pragmatic
Sanction, when confirmed by the Trench Parliament, 13th
July, 1439. These constitutions, which were called the
rampart of the Galilean church, took away from the popes
most of the power they possessed of presenting to benefices
and of judging iu ecclesiastical causes within the kingdom ;
and this iudependent power was retained until the concordat
with Eome, made between Leo X. and King Prancis I., at
Bologna. The pragmatic sanction was abrogated by the
pope's buU at the eleventh session of the Lateran Council,
A.D. 1516.2

A.D. 1439. — The Council of Florence was the first
council that authoritatively declared the sacraments to be
seven in number.' This doctrine received final sanction,
at a later date, at Trent.

At this Council of Florence, departed saints were, for
the first time, authoritatively declared to be in a state of
beatitude ; and therefore now, for the first time, according
to Eomish theory, could be properly and lawfully invocated.
The doctrine cannot bear an anterior date.*

Purgatory now first received the approval of a concHiar
decree, but was finally confirmed at the Trent Council. The
decree is as follows : —

" In the name, then, of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and

1 Labb. et Coss. torn. xii. col. 1429. Paris, 1672.

2 Ibid, toiii. xiv. Concl. Lat. (A.D. 1612), Sess. xi. A.D. 1516. And see
L'Hist. de hi Prag. S. et Concordat, par Pithon.

3 Nova3 It'gis septera sunt sacramenta ; videlicet, baptismus, confirmatio,
eucharistia, poBiiitcntin, extrema uiictio, ordio, et matrimonium. Decretum
Concl. Floitnt, Lab. Concilia, torn. xiii. col. 534. Paris, 1672.

4 For the authorities, see ante, p. 66, the citation from Veron ; p. 75, from
Stapleton ; and p. 99, from the Benedictine Editors of Ambrose's Works.

FIFTEENTH CENTURY. 251

Holy Ghost, with the approbation of this sacred General
Council of Florence, we decree also that if any true penitents
shall depart this hfe in the lore of God, before they have
made satisfaction, by worthy fruits of penance, for faults of
commission and omission, their sotds are purified after death
by the pains of purgatory; and that for their release from their
pains, the suffrages of the faithful who are alive are pro-
fitable to them, to wit, the sacrifices of masses, prayers, and
alms, and other works of piety which, according to the appoint-
ment of the church, are wont to be made for the faithful for
other believers." '

"We may affirm, as a fact, that the belief in a.d. 1146
was only in progression, or in process of " development ;"
for at this date Otho Frisigensis refers to the belief thus —
" Some do aiEim that there is a place of purgatory after
death."^ The doctrine was not accepted by the Greeks.^

The primacy of the bishop of Rome and the precedency
of his see was now first defined by a so-called General
Council, namely, that of Florence, held under Eugenius
rV. It was thus defined at its tenth session : —

" Also we decree that the holy apostolical see and the Roman
pontiff has a primacy over the whole world ; and that the Roman
pontiff himself is the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the
apostles, and is the true vicar of Ohrist,'and head of the whole
church, and the father and teacher of all Christians ; and that
to him, in the person of the blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus

1 Session xxv. In nomine igitur Sancte Trinitatis, Patris et Filii et Spi-
ritus Sancti, hoc sacro universali approbantur Florentine Concilio : diffinimus,
item, si vere poenitentes in Dei caritate desesserint, antequam dignis peeni-
tentisB fructibus de commiasis satisfecerint ; et omissis, eorum animas poenis
purgatoriis, post mortem purgari et ut a poenis hujusmodi releventur, pro-
deese eis fidelium vivarum suffragia ; missarum scilicet sacrificia, orationes et
elemosynas, et alia pietatis officia, quse a iidelibus pro aliis fidelibus fieri
consueverunt, secundum ecclesise instituta. Lab. Cone. tom. xiii. p. 515.
Paris, 1671.

2 Chron. lib. viii. c. 26, quoted by Jeremy Taylor, "Dissuasiye from
Popery," c. i. 8. ix. Heber's Edition, vol. x. p. 149.

3 See ante, p. 104.

252 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

Christ has committed fuU power to feed, rule, and govern the
tmiversal cliuroli, according as is contained in the acts of
general councils and in the holy canons." '

This declaration is ranked by Benedict XIV. in his bull
dated 1742, as an " article of Catholic faith." ^

The " acts of the General Council" and " holy canons"
above referred to are mere inventions. They probably
relied on the forged decretal epistles which had been em-
bodied in the canon law.

The Greek empire was now drawing near its fall. The
Emperor Palseologus, with some Greek bishops, attended
this council, in the hope of obtaining aid against the Turks,
and were weak enough to be prevailed upon to subscribe
the above decree. But when the Greek deputies returned
to Constantinople, the church there indignantly rejected all
that had been done by the Greek bishops at this council ;
and in a council at Constantinople, held about eighteen
months after the termination of the Council of Florence,
the decrees of that council were declared nuU, and the
synod itself condemned.^ Gregory, the patriarch of Con-
stantiaople, who was inclined to the Latins, was deposed,
and Athanasius chosen in his stead. The patriarchs of
Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and the chief of the old
patriarchs of Ephesus, Heraclea, and Ctesarea were all
present at this latter council, and all concurred in the con-
demnation of the decrees of the Elorentine Council.

1 Lab. Concilia, torn. xiii. Concl. Florent. Sess. a. col. 154, et seq. Paris,
1671.

2 Bened. XIV. BuUar. torn. i. No. I. de Dog. et Eitib. sec. i. de Fide
Cathol. p. 345. Mechlin, 1826.

3 " 'EireiSi] apa navovpyiai^ Kal ^evaKt(TfJLOi^ KaX dvdyKais Kai ixrj eferairei oA-jj^etas

TO. TTJ? \}/evSocrvvaSov eKsCvrj^ irepa^ i\afie, Koi irapa -rijv rjjxeT^pav SidvoLav, axvpov to

eTTLTpoTrtKbi/ ^efe'Toj."— Labb. etCoss. Concil cone. Constantin. sess. 2, torn, xiii,
col. 1367. Paris, 1672.

FIFTEENTH CBNTUUY. 253

The title " Mother Church" was not then assumed.
Hitherto the title. Vicar of Christ, was a common appella-
tion, as applied to bishops generally. The Council of
Florence decreed that the title should be given to the
bishop of Rome, "reserving the rights of the bishop of
Constantinople." The title, however, is now assumed by
the pope of Rome exclusively.

A.D. 14)70. — Alane de la Roche, of the order of Jacobins,
inspired, as he said, by certain visions, invented the Rosary
of the Yirgin Mary, subsequently authoritatively approved
by Sixtus lY. Mosheim, however, places the invention of
this ecclesiastical toy at an earlier date, namely, the tenth
century.^ It is a string of beads used in prayers. The
same prayer is repeated a prescribed number of times, and
this number is checked by the beads, every tenth bead being
a large one. The word rosary means remembrancer. It
appears to be derived from the Chaldee Ro, " thought,"
and Share!) , " director." The idea, as well as the thing
itself, is of pagan origin. A certain number of prayers, it
is supposed, must be gone through, and the beads bring
the number in remembrance. A string of beads for the
same purpose was used by the ancient Mexicans.^ It is
common among the Brahmins and Hindoos.' In Thibet it
has been used in religious worship from time immemorial.
Among the Tartars, the rosary of 108 beads has become a
part of ceremonial dress, and there is " a small rosary of
eighteen beads of inferior size, with which the Bonzes
count their prayers and ejaculations, exactly as in the

1 Hosheim's Eool. Hist. cent. x. part ii. o. iv. a. iii. See Mabillon, Acta
flanctor, Ord. Bened. Prsef ad ssecul. x. p. Iviii. etc.

2 See Humboldt'8 " Mexican Eesearches," v. ii. p. 20. London, 1814.

3 See Kennedy's "Ancient and Hindoo Mythology," p. 332. London, 1831.

254 THE NOVELTIES OP ROMANISM.

Eomish ritual." ^ So that this Eomish custom, though a
novelty among Christians, is an old heathen or pagan
custom.

A.D. 1476. — Pope Sixtus lY. was the first who ordained
by decree the solemnization of the feast of the Immaculate
Conception of the Virgin Mary by an office or service,
though it was not then a doctrine of the church.

The festival of the conception of the Yirgin Mary was,
as we have said, introduced at Lyons about the year 114(J,
but was opposed by Bernard (now a canonized saint of the
Eoman church) as a novelty, without the sanction of
Scripture or reason. Bernard said that it was a " false,
new, vain, and superstitious" idea.^ According to Fieury,
it was John Scott, commonly called Duns Scotus, at the
beginning of the fourteenth century, who seriously broached
the doctrine of the immaculate conception.^

At the thirty-sixth session of the Council of Basle, a.d.
14.39 — a council condemned and rejected by the church of
Eome — it was declared that the doctrine which asserts
that the Virgin ilary was actually subject to original sin,
should be condemned ; but that the doctrine that she
was always free from all original and actual sin, and both
holy and immaculate, should be approved, and should be
held and embraced by all Catholics as being pious and
agreeable to ecclesiastical worship, to the Catholic faith, to
right reason, and the Scriptures, and that it should not be
lawful for any one to teach or preach to the contrary.''

1 Sir John F. Davis, "China," vol. i. p. 391. London, 1857.

2 Fleury's Etcl. Hist. torn, xiv, lib. Ixviii. p. 627. Paris, 1769, and 560,
torn. xiv. Paris, 1727. '' Nulla ei ratione placebit contra ecclesia? ritum
pra^eumpta novitas, mater temeritatis, soror auperetitionis, fiiia levitatis." S.
Bernard, Ep. 174, torn. i. col. 393. Paris, 1839, and see ante, p. 231.

3 Eccl. Hist. torn. xix. p. 150. Paris, 1769.

■1 Lab. et Coss. Concl. torn. xii. cols. 622, 623. Paris, 1671.

FIFTEENTH CENTURY. 255

The festival was directed to be celebrated on the 17th
December. The Council of Avignon, a.d. 1457, confirmed
this act of the Council of Basle, and forbade, under pain of
excommunication, any one to preach anything contrary to
the doctrine.^

The doctrine created a sore division in the church of
Some. The Dominicans following their leader, St. Thomas
Aquinas, combated the new dogma most vehemently, as
contrary to the Scriptures, tradition, and the faith of the
church; while it was as vehemently supported by the
Franciscans. The scandal became so great at each return-
ing festival day, that Sixtus IV. (a.d. 1483) issued a bull,
wherein he, of his own accord, and unsolicited, condemned
those who called the doctrine a heresy, the celebration of
the festival a sin, or declared that those who held the
doctrine were guilty of mortal sin, and subjected those to
excommunication who acted contrary to this decree. By
the same bull he enacted the like penalty against those who
maintained the opponents of the doctrine to be in heresy or
mortal sin, declaring as a reason that " this doctrine had
not yet been decided by the Roman church and the apostolic
see." ^ Despite this pope's bull, the discord continued, to
the great scandal of religion; and when the doctrine of
" original sin" came to be argued at the Council of Trent,
the Dominicans and Franciscans ranged themselves on
opposite sides and re-fought the battle. The debate became
so warm, that the pope ordered, through his legates, that
the council should "not meddle in this matter, which
might cause a schism among Cathohcs, but endeavour to

1 Lab. et Coss. torn. xiii. col. 1403. Paris, 1671.

2 This decree is found in the appendix of every authorized edition of the
Decrees of the Council of Trent.

256 THE NOVELTIES 01' EOMANISM.

maintain peace between the contending parties, and to seek
some means of giving them equal satisfaction ; but, above
all, to observe the brief of Pope Sixtus IV., which pro-
hibited preachers from taxing the doctrine [of the im-
maculate conception] with heresy.^

The Council of Trent (a.d. 1546) expressly excluded
from its decree on original sin the Virgin Mary; but
declared " that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV., which
it revives, are to be observed under the penalties contained
in those constitutions." Thus, both parties claimed the
victory. The theological contest raged as violently as ever.
In the seventeenth century, Spain was thrown into the
utmost confusion by these miserable disputes ; and it was
sought to bring them to a close by an appeal to the
supposed infallible head of the church, who was asked to
issue his bull to determine the question. " But (observes
Mosheim) after the most earnest entreaties and importunities,
all that could be obtained from the pontiff by the court of
Spain was a declaration intimating that the opinion of the
Franciscans had a high degree of probability on its side,
and forbidding the Dominicans to oppose it in a public
manner ; but this declaration was accompanied by another,
by which the Franciscans were prohibited in turn from
treating as erroneous the doctrine of the Dominicans." ^

Alexander VII., a.d. 1661, while reviving the constitu-
tion of Sixtus IV., vainly endeavoured to allay the feud ;
but admitted that the church had not decided the vexed
question, and that he by no means desired or intended to
decide it.^

1 F. Paul Sarpi. Hist. Concl. Trid. lib. ii. c. 68. Geneva, 1629.

2 Mosheim's Ecol. Hist. cent. xvii. sec. ii. part i. c. i. s. 48.

3 Alex. Sept. An. Dom. 1661. "Mag. Bull. Ilomanum," torn. vi. p. 158.
Edit. Luxumburghi, 1727.

FIFTEENTH CENTUKY. 257

Clement XI. appointed a festival in honour of the im-
maculate conceptionj to be annually celebrated by the church
of Eome ; but the Dominicans refused to obey this law.

Eventually Pope Pius IX. undertook to decide, as he
thought, for ever, the much vexed question. On the
2nd February, 1849, he issued an "Encyclical Letter,"
addressed to aU " patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and
bishops of the whole Catholic world," exhorting each
one to offer up prayers in his diocese, beseeching " of the
merciful Father of light to illuminate him (the pope) with
the superior brightness of his Divine Spirit, and inspire
him with a breath from on high, and that, in an affair
of such great importance, he might be able to take such
a resolution as should most contribute as well to the glory
of His holy name as to the praise of the blessed Yirgin
and the profit of the church mihtant," and desired to
know their opinions on the subject. On the 24th March
following, the Tablet, a Eomish journal, announced that
the pope was about to give a definitive decision on
the subject, and " determine a question which for 500
years had been open, and for a portion of that time hotly
debated to and fro. The Franciscans and Dominicans are
now agreed, and the whole [Eoman] Catholic world calls
for a definite sentence from the infallible judge."

In December, 1854, the pope, in an assembly of bishops,
from which all non-contents were excluded, issued his bull,
declaring the doctrine as a matter of faith.^ " Let no man
(says the decree) interfere with this our declaration, pro-
nunciation, and definition, or oppose or contradict it with
presumptuous rashness. If any should presume to assail

1 The "IJnivers," Paris, 20th January, 1855; the "Tablet," London,
27th January, 1865.

258 THE NOVELTIES 01' UOMANISM.

it, let him know that he will incur the indignation of the
Omnipotent God, and of his blessed apostles Peter and
Paul." Hence the Tablet observed, that " whosoever
should thenceforth deny that the blessed Virgin was herself,
by a miraculous interposition of Code's providence, conceived
without the stain of original sin, is to be condemned as
a heretic."

Such is a brief history of the doctriue of the immaculate
conception ; but it is a popular fallacy to suppose that it is
a doctrine of the Roman church. The pope of Eome,
according to the orthodox principles of that church, cannot
create doctrines of faith which have not emanated from a
General Council of the church.

A.D. 1478. — The Inquisition was established in the
kingdom of Castile, under Ferdinand and Isabella. We
note the fact because this was an ecclesiastical institution.
Fleury expressly says that it was done " by the counsel of
the archbishop of Seville, and by the authority of Pope
Sixtus lY." 1

We may trace the beginning of the institution to an
earlier date. At the Council of Verona, a.d. 1184, Pope
Lucius III. published a constitution against alleged heretics,
Avhereiu bishops were ordered, by means of commissaries, to
inform themselves of persons suspected of heresy, whether
by common report or private information. Should spiritual
terrors be of no avail, the offender was to be handed over
to the secular power, in order that temporal punishmBnt
might be inflicted.^ The Council of Toulouse, a.d. 1229,
formally established local Inquisitions.

At the Council of Narbonne, a.d. 1235,^ a series of

1 Fleury, Eccl. Hist. Cont. torn, xxiii. p. 478. Paris, 1769.

2 Lab. et Coss. Concl. torn. x. cols. 1737 and 1741. Paris, 1671

3 Ibid. torn. xi. col. 487.

SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 259

oppressive and cruel regulations against alleged heretics
was drawn up by the pope's command ; and at the Council
of Beziers, a.d. 1247j the Preaching Friars' Inquisition for
the provinces of Aix, Aries, and Ebrum was established
also by order of the pope. Forty-seven articles were drawn
up, which, with those passed at the Council of Narbonne,
formed the foundation of the rules afterwards adopted by
the Inquisition.^

A.D. 1495. — Alexander VI. assumed a new power,
namely, that of granting a dispensation to marry within a
prohibited degree. He gave a dispensation to Ferdinand,
the king of Naples, to marry Ms own niece, who was of the
age of fourteen years.^

THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.

A.D. 1515-17. — In these years took place the grand
sale of indulgences by Pope Leo X., which was one of the
immediate causes of the Eeformation. This method was
adopted to replenish his coffers, which were exhausted by
his prodigality, or rather his extravagances; and also to
complete the church of St. Peter, begun by Julius II.
Fleury informs us that Leo granted indulgences on " such
easy conditions, that men could hardly care at aU for their
salvation if they refused to gain them." ^

A.D. 1540. — The order of the Jesuits was founded by
Ignatius LoyoK Loyola was born a.d. 1491, in the pro-

1 Lab. et Cosb. torn. xi. col. 676.

2 Fleury, cont. torn. xxiv. p. 226. Paris, 1769.

3 Ibid. torn. XXV. pp. 497, 498.

260 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

vince of Guipuscoa, in Spain. He was educated for the
army, but, in process of time, left the service, and entered
the church. He died July, 1556. The order was con-
firmed by Paul III., first with limitations, and subsequently
without any restrictions.

A.D. 1545. — The Council of Trent assembled, which
collected in one mass former errors and superstitions, and
confirmed them by conciliar decree.

A.D. 1546. — Tradition was first placed on a level with
the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine is essential to the exist-
ence of the Eoman system, for, under the cloak of tradition,
all her innovations are attempted to be supported. They
declare Scripture to be insufficient, hence the absolute
necessity for tradition.

If there was one subject more than another on which
the early Christian fathers especially insisted, it was the
sufficiency and completeness of Scripture as a rule of faith,
and the only rule, and was so held in the Eoman church
up to this time. Take an eminent cardinal of that church,
who lived at the end of the fifteenth century. Gabriel Biel
affirmed that " the Scripture alone teaches aU things
necessary to salvation," and instances " in the things to be
done and to be avoided, to be loved and to be despised, to
be believed and to be hoped for." " The will of God is to
be understood by the Scriptures, and by them alone we
know the whole wiU of God."^ There was no room
left for tradition.

The Apocryphal Books ^ were for the first time autho-

1 "Et oaitera nostrEe saluti necessaria, qyas omnia sola doeet sacra Sorip-
tura." — "Hcec autem in sacris Scripturis discuntur, per i^uaB solus plenam
intelligere possumus Dei voluntatem." Lection, in Canon. Missse, fo. cxlvi,
p. 1, col. 2. Lugd. 1511.

2 See ante, Cap. III.

SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 261

ritatively recognised as part of the sacred canon of
Scripture.

In June, 1546, the Council of Trent, at its fourth session,
occupied itself in defining what \yas the doctrine of the
church on the subject of original sin, justification, good
works, and merit. The various opinions held by members
of the Eomish church up to this date render it certain
that the doctrine, on any of those points, was not fixed. It
is true that the priesthood, from sordid and corrupt motives,
had for many years preached up merit and good works as
a cause of salvation, to the almost entire exclusion of grace
and faith; but still many taught the true doctrine
of justification by faith. This council conveyed its
opinion under different heads, embodied in sixteen chapters
and thirty-three decrees, accompanied by as many anathemas,
or curses, if not accepted. These decrees, however, were
not passed without much unseemly brawling. The Fran-
ciscans and Dominicans were, as usual, at daggers drawn.
Two venerable prelates showed their zeal in maintaining
their private opinions by coming to blows, and tugging at
each other's beards ;^ and Charles Y. threatened to throw
them aU into the Adige if they could not behave better.
The opinions being so various, it was necessary to frame the
decrees ambiguously ; and so completely had the council
succeeded in mystifying the subject, that no sooner had the
council ended, than Domiaic k Soto, who took a leading
part in the debates, published a book on justification, which
was answered by Andreas Yega, who had opposed his views
at the council : and each claimed the authority of the same

1 " Turn vero Cavensis ut mos est, iracundi^ quam ultum ibat. — Nam in
Chironensis barbam injecIA manu, muHos ex ek pilos avulsit, et confestim
absoessit." — Card. Pallavioini's Hist. Concil. Trid. torn. i. p. 277. Aug.
Vind. 1775.

262 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

council in support of his particular views. These discussions
and debates^ between different sectSj continued in the Eomish
church for a long time after this council. Vie may safely
assert that^ previous to June, 1546, the doctrine on these
subjects was not defined by the Roman church. There are,
however, two poiats most clearly defined by this council.
First, by the twenty-fourth canon on justification, he is
anathematized who says that good works are the " fruits and
signs of justification received, and not the cause of its in-
crease." And second, " If any shall say the good works of
a justified man are in such sort the gifts of God as not to be
also the merit of the justified person; or that the justified
do not really merit increase of grace and eternal life," they
are equally cursed.^ It was a great Scriptural truth uttered
by St. Augustine, when he said that " all our good merits
are only wrought in us by grace ; and when God crowns
our merits, he crowns nothing else but his own gifts." ^ So
repugnant, however, was tliis sentiment to the interests
of a corrupt and sordid church, that the passage was
ordered to be expunged from his works. ^

A.D. 1547. — The necessity of the priest's intention to
give validity to a sacrament was first decreed at the seventh
session of the Council of Trent.* The idea was not invented

1 The reader is inyited to consult the following texts : 1 Kings viii. 46 ;
Rom. iii. 23 ; Isaiah liii. 10 ; Rom. iii. 22 ; Acts xiii. 39 ; Eph. ii. 8, 9 ; Rom.
xi. 10 ; Luke xvii. 10; Psalm cxliii. 2 ; Tit. iii. 5.

2 " Omne bonum meritum nostrum, in nobis faciatj et cum Deus
coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronat quam munera sua." — Aug. ad
Sextum. Epist. cv. torn. ii. Edit. Basil, 1529, and also p. 1116, torn. iv. part
ii. Paris, 1671.

3 "Ex Indice Augustini dele. Non merita nostra, sed dona sua Deus
coronat nobis." Index Expurgatorius jussu Rernardi de Sandoval et Roxas,
Kadriti, 1612, et per Turretin, Geneva), 1619.

4 "Si quis dixerit. In ministris, duni sacramenta conficiunt et conferunt,
non requiri intentionem saltern faciendi quod facit ecclesia ; anathema sit."
Con. Trid. Sess. VII, Decretum de Sacram'entis. in genere. Can. xi. p. 77.
Paris, Edit. 1818.

SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 263

by the Council of Trent, but it formed no part of the
doctrine of the Roman church previous to this date, as is
evident by the discussions on the subject, and the oppo-
sition it received when proposed.^ It was mentioned in the
decree of Eugene at the Council of Florence, 1439.** It is
certain that for 1200 years no trace whatever of this
doctrine can be found in any ecclesiastical writer. The
original introduction is attributed to the extreme ignorance
of some of the priests, the service being performed in Latin,
a language they did not understand ; hence their uninten-
tional mutilation of the text, not understandmg the words.
This gave rise to a discussion among schoolmen, whether
a priest who corrupts the sacramental words in pronouncing
them celebrated a valid sacrament. The opinions seemed
to be thatj though the priest knew nothing of what he was
saying, yet if the intention of doing what the church did
was there, it was sufficient. This appears to have been
the reasoning of Pope Zachary, in his answer to Boniface,^
about the ignorance of a priest in Bavaria, who had baptized
in nomine Patria, Filia, et Spiritua Sancta.* Down to the
passing of the decree at Trent (March, 1547), declaring
the intention of the priest essentially necessary, it appears
that all that was required was, that, provided the intention
existed, the sacrament was valid, though the form of words
was incorrect. It is, nevertheless, a fact that the church
of Eome now also requires that the/orm should be strictly
correct to give validity to the sacrament.

The seven (so-caUed) sacraments were coniirmed, as an

1 See Introduction to this work.

2 Lab. et Coss. concl. torn. xiii. col. 535. Paris, 1672.

3 Avent. Annal. B. 1. 3, p. 297. Ingolst. 1554."

* See " Gibson's Preservative," vol. viii. p. 208, revised edit. London,
1848.

264 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

article of faith, at the same seventh session of the Council
of Trent.i

Tliis particular number was first advanced by Peter
Lombard, bishop of Paris in the twelfth century, as a private
opinion.^ In l-i39, the Council of Florence passed a decree
on the subject; but this is denied by some to be a General
Council, and many after this date disputed on the doctrine,
and the matter formed the subject of serious debate, disputes,
and bickerings at the seventh session of the Trent Council.
The Scions of theology who formed this council sought to
support their theory from analogy. They could find no
better argument for their new conceit than that the number
seven was a mystical number; there were seven virtues,
seven capital vices, seven planets, seven defects which
came from original sin ; the Lord rested the seventh day ;
there were seven plagues in Egypt, seven candlesticks, etc. ;
and, therefore, there should be seven sacraments ; ^ but
Cardinal Bellarmine, perhaps, gives the most conclusive
reason why we should adopt this number, simply because
the Trent Council so decreed it.*

A.D. 1551. — The doctrine of Attrition was defined.^ Gib-
son, in his " Preservative from Popery," says that Bishop
Canus was the first that broached the doctrine — that

1 " Si quis dixerit, sacramenta nova3 legis non fuisse omnia a Jesu Christo,
Domino nostro, instituta; aut esse pluva vel pauciora quam septem ; ana-
thema sit." Cone. Tiid. sees. vii. Decretum de Sacramentis, can. i. Du
sacramen. et genere.

2 " Non temere quenqnam reperies ante Petrum Lombardum qui certum
aliquem ac definitum numerum saeramentorum statuerat." Cassander, Con-
sult. Art. 13, p. 951. Paris, 1616.

3 Vide Father Paul Sarpi's "History of the Council of Trent," lib. iii.
cap. 8.5, vol. i. p. 576. London, 1736.

4 "Quod testimonium etiara si nullum habemus aliud deberet sufficere."
Bell, de effect. Sacr. lib. ii. c. 25, s. 4, torn. iii. p. 109. Edit. Prag. 1721.

5 At the xiv. Session of the Council of Trent, c. iv. See chapter on
" Penance," p. 109, ante.

SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 265

attrition, joined with the sacrament of penance, is sufficient
to obtain forgiveness of sins.i

A.D. 1552. — At a council held at Edinburgh, by Arch-
bishop Andrews, it was declared that the Lord's prayer
might be said to the saints. ^

A.D. 1563. — The doctrine of purgatory finally con-
firmed at the twenty-fifth and last session of the Council of
Trent.

The Council of Trent passed, on matters of doctrine,
fifteen decrees, forty-four chapters, and one hundred and
thirteen canons; and it enforced these doctrines by one
hundred and twenty-five anathemas or curses. This
council was occupied also on internal reformation. On
this head it passed one hundred and forty-eight chapters.
Its sittings extended over eighteen years. The first session
was held in the month of December, 1545, and the last in
December, 1563.

A.D. 1564. — Until this date, all those who purely
and simply subscribed to the articles of the Nicene Creed
were declared members of the church of Christ, inasmuch as
no new creed or symbol of faith was proposed to any one
for belief as a test of his orthodoxy.

The doctors of the Trent Council, in February, 1546, at
the third session, ordained that " the symbol of faith which
the holy Roman church makes use of [the Nicene Creed],
as being that principle wherein all who profess the faith of
Christ must necessarily agree, and that firm and only foun-
dation against which the gates of hell shall never prevail, be

1 Gibson's Preservative, vol. ii. tit. viii. pp. 37, US, folio edit. London,
1738, and vol. x. p. 235, Edit. 1848, and Melchior Canus de Loc. Theolog.
Lovan, 1569. Dist. xiii. de Poenit. art. vii. Nob. 5, 6.

2 Bishop Skinner's Ecol. Hist. Scot. vol. ii. p. 39. London, 1788.

266 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

expressed in the very same words in which, it is read in all the
churches." From and after the 9th December of this year,
(a.d. 1564) Pope Pius IV., by virtue of his alleged apostolic
authority^ and according to a resolution of the Trent
Council, set forth and published a confession of faith to be
received everywhere under penalties enacted by the said
council. This new confession of faith consisted of the
" symbol of faith " just referred to, with the addition of
twelve further articles. From the last-mentioned date^
therefore, a new creed was for the first time imposed upon
the Christian world, to be accepted under pain of anathema.
This creed embraces in a few words a great part of what
has gone before; but the follo'U'ing are additional articles
of the new faith, then for the first time introduced by this
creed. (See Appendix B.)

1. Not only all apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions are
to be most steadfastly admitted and embraced, but also
" all other observances and constitutions " of the Eomish
church.

2. At the fourth session of the Council of Trent, it was
decreed that no one should dare, in matters of faith and
morals, to interpret the Scriptures contrary to the sense
which the church hath held or doth hold.^ Christians were
now for the first time compelled to admit the Holy Scrip-
tures according to that sense only which the church has
held or does hold — a notable difference, for previously to
this date. Christians might reject the interpretation of the
church, but were not allowed to advance an interpretation
of the Scriptures contrary to the sense of the church.

3. And so, at the same session, no person was allowed to

1 " Contra eum sensum, quern tenuit et tenet saucta mater Ecelesia."
Session iv, Decret. de edit, et usu sacr. libronim. " Juxta eum sensum,
etc.;" Bulla super forma jura. Prof, fidci, Pii IV.

SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 267

advance an interpretation of Scripture contrary to the
unanimous agreement of the Pathers.i But now, for the
first time, no Christian was permitted to understand or
interpret them except according to the unanimous consent
of the Fathers. That is, no intei-pretation must be given
unless the Fathers are unanimous on that interpretation.

4. And now, for the first time, all Christians were to re-
ceive and admit, as an article of faith, " aU the received and
approved ceremonies of the church in the solemn adminis-
tration " of all the seven sacraments, " and all other things
delivered and defined by the sacred canons and (Ecumenical
Councils j" thus forming the entire code of decrees of
councils, including ceremonies, into articles of faith.

5. And lastly, while for many centuries the pope of Eome
arrogated to himself the title of " supreme bishop," all were
now required, as an article of faith, to recognise the Eoman
church " as the mother and mistress of all churches," and
to " promise obedience to the pope as successor of St. Peter
and vicar of Christ." ^

Thus was this masterpiece of Eoman craft and invention
consummated in the year of our Lord 1564. WhQst the

1 "Contra unanimem conBensum Patrum." Session iv. Ibid, et Sic
Synodus in TruUo. o. six. quam putant Constant, vi. c. Exiit, circa fin. de ver.
Sig. in 6. — "Nisi juxta unanimem, etc." Bulla, etc. Pii IV.

2 "The mother church was the church at Jerusalem, which was in exist-
ence long before the church at Eome had any being. At Jerusalem, Jesus
Christ himself preached : there the apostles first planted Christianity (Acts
i. 4, A.D. 33) ; and thence was the gospel sent forth to be preached to all
nations (Luke xxiv. 47). Therefore, not Eome, but Jerusalem, should claim
the presidency, and be ' the mother of all churches.' The church at Samaria
was founded next to the church at Jerusalem (Acts viii., a.d. 34) ; and then
the churches at Cyprus and Phenice, and at Antioch, by those Christiana
who were dispersed in consequence of the persecution which followed the
martyrdom of Stephen (Acts xi. 19^21) . In short, not a single writer ever
affirmed that Eome is 'the mother of all churches.' On the contrary, the
majority of the bishops who were convened at the second General Council of
Constantinople expressly gave that appellation to Jerusalem, in their letter
to Damasus, bishop of the church in Jerusalem, ' which is the mother of all
the churches.' " Home's Popery Delineated. London, 1848, pp. 211, 212.

268 THE NOTELTIES OF EOMANISM.

Apostles were yet living, the evil leaven had begun to
work. St. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, warned
them that " the day of Christ 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." And he adds, " For the mystery of iniquity
doth already work." In another epistle he gives as signs
of the coming apostacy, "forbidding to marry, and com-
manding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to
be received with thanksgiving."

How fully these prophetic warnings have been verified in
the history of the papal Church, let the foregoing pages
testify. " Come out of hee, my people, that ye be not

PAETAKEES OE HEE SINS, AND THAT YE EECEIVE NOT OF HEE
PLAGUES."

PART III.

THE OLD AND NEW CREEDS
CONTRASTED.

THE

OLD AND NEW CREEDS CONTRASTED.

" They undermine our truths in order to build up their errors ; their work
rises by destruction of truth." — Teetullian, " De Praes. Haer." chap. xlii.
p. 56, vol. ii. Halffl. Magd. 1770.

Having given, in chronological order, the various
"Novelties of Romanism," their rise, progress, and final
adoption into the Roman church, we earnestly invite the
serious consideration of Roman Catholics to the facts set
forth, that they may appreciate the wisdom of the early
Christian ^Fathers, and of our Reformers, in adopting, as
their sole rule of faith, the written word, which is fixed and
certain ; and from experience learn the danger of wander-
ing into the regions of tradition, which, from its very
nature, is uncertain.

The work entrusted to our reformers and martyrs was
not to destroy, but, under the direction and guidance of
Divine Providence, to exhume and bring to light the hidden
truths which had been so long buried under the accumulated
rubbish of human tradition. The principle on which they
separated from the Roman church was, not that they had dis-
covered any new views of Scripture doctrine, but that they
desired to return to the primitive confession ; to the views
held by the apostles, as handed down to us by their writings.

272 THE NOVELTIES OP EOMANISM.

The great object of our reformers was, as Bishop Jewel
observed^ " to approach, as much as they possibly could, to
the church of the apostles and ancient Catholic bishops and
fathers ;" ^ and, as another testified, " to depart no further
from the church of Eome than she had departed from the
primitive churcli/' ^ And so anxious and careful were they
that preachers should not put forward their particular
fancies, and thus fall into the other extreme, that the Upper
House of Convocation, in the year 1571, directed that they
" should in the first place be careful not to teach anything
in their sermons, to be religiously held and believed by the
people, except that which is agreeable to the doctrine of
the Old and New Testaments, and which has been deduced
from the same by the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops."'
And on the re-establishment of the Protestant religion in
this country, on the accession of Queen Elizabeth, the first
Act of her reign (cap. i., sec. 36) was to declare that no
person having authority under the Crown "to reform or
correct errors, heresies, abuses, or enormities, by virtue of
that Act, should in any wise have authority or power
to order, determine, or adjudge any matter or cause to be
heresy, but only such as theretofore had been determined,
ordered, or adjudged to be heresy by the authority of the
canonical Scriptures, or by the first four General Councils,
or any of them, or by any other general council."

We will state in a few words what these first four General
Councils taught.

Previous to the year 325, it appears that the church had
not (authoritatively) drawn up a creed in a precise form of

1 Jewel's Apology, p. 124. London, 1685.

2 Neal'a "History of the Puritans," vol. i. p. 38. London, 1837.

3 Sparrow's Collection, p. 238. London, 1671.

THE OLD AND NEW CREEDS CONTRASTED. 273

words. What is called the " Apostles' Creed" is admitted
by all Christians ; but it is clear that the apostles them-
selves did not draw up that precise form, though it contains
the doctrine they taught. Neither Clement (a.d. 68— 107),
Ignatius (a.d. 107), Polycarp (a.d. 108—169), nor Justin
Martyr (163), have left any form of creed in their writings.
We find in the writings of Irenseus (a.d. 178—202) the
first form of creed, which he called the unalterable canon or
rule of faith, and which, he says, in the first chapter of
the first book " Against heresies," every man received in
baptism. He prefaces this creed with these words : — ■" The
church, though it be dispersed over all the world from one
end of the earth to the other, received from the apostles and
their disciples the —

" Belief in one God, the Fatter Almighty, Maker of heaven
and earth, the sea, and all things in them : and in one Christ
Jesus, the Son of God, who was incarnate for our salvation :
and in the Holy Ghost, who preached by the prophets the dis-
pensations of God, and the advent and the being bom of a
Virgin, the passion, and resurrection from the dead, and bodily
ascension into heaven in the flesh, of his beloved Son Jesus
Christ our Lord, and his coming again from heaven, in the
glory of the Father, to gather together in one all things, and
raise the flesh of all mankind : that according to the will of
the invisible Father, every knee should bow, both of things in
heaven and things in the earth, and things under the earth
to Jesus Christ our Lord and God; and that every tongue
should confess to him, and that he may exercise just judgment
upon all, consigning to everlasting fire all spiritual wickedness,
both of the angels who transgressed and became apostates,
with all ungodly, lawless, and blasphemous men ; and grant
Ufe unto all them that are just and holy, that have kept his
commandments, and persevere in his love, some from the
beginning of their lives, others after repentance, on whom

274 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

he confers immortality, and invests them with everlasting
life."'

It is to this declaration of faith that Irenseus especially
refers when he mentions the " Tradition of the Apostles/'
which he states they first gave by word of mouth, and
afterwards handed down to us in their writings.

TertuUian (a.d. 195 — 218) also gives a form, which he
prefaces with the words : — " There is one rnle of faith only,
wiiicli admits of no change or alteration." His form is as
follows : — •

" Believe in one God Almighty, the Maier of the world : and
in Jesus Christ his Son, who was bom of the Yirgin Mary,
crucified under Pontius PUate, the third day arose again from
the dead, was received into heaven, and sitteth at the right
hand of the Father, and shall come again to judge the quick
and the dead by the resurrection of the flesh." 2 # * *

We find the next form in the works of Origen (a.d. 216—
253), in the "Dialogues against the Marcionites," ^ where
we read that — " The things that are manifestly handed
down by the apostles' preaching are these : —

" First, there is one God, the Maker and Creator of all things,
and one that is from, him, God the Word, who is of one sub-
stance with him, and co-eternal : who in the last times (or last
ages) took human nature upon him of the (Virgin) Mary, and
was crucified, and raised again from the dead : I believe, also,
the Holy Ghost, who exists from eternity."

' Iren. Adv. Ha?res. cap. x. p. 50. Bcnt'dictine Edit. Paris, 1710.

2 Eegula quidem fidei una omnino est, etc. Tert. De Virginibus velandis,
cnp. i. vol. iii. p. 2. Edit. Hala? Magdeb. 1770. Teitullian gives another
form to the same tenor or effect as the above. *' De Pra^sciiptionibus Hsereti-
corum," cap. 13, torn. ii. p. 17. Same edition. " Kegiila est autem fidei,"
etc. And he repeats the same, with no material variation, in his book
".\dversus Praxen," chap. ii. vol. ii. p. 191.

3 Origen, Cent. Marc. Dial. i. p. 815, torn. ii. Edit Latin. Basil, 1571.
"Westenius, who first published these dialog\ies in Greek, ascribes them to
Origen ; but Huet, to one Maximus, of the time of Coustantine.

THE OLD AND NEW CREEDS CONTRASTED. 275

We have also handed down to us a form given by
Gregory, bishop of Neo-Csesarea (a.d. 255 — 270) ; and by
Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch, both of which, as to doc-
trine, agree with the above.

But we must not pass over the form held by the church
of Jerusalem, of whicli Cyril was bishop. It is believed to
be one of the most ancient summaries of faith extant at this
day. The introductory part is found in the liturgy ascribed,
though without any certainty, to St. James, alleged to have
been the first bishop : —

" I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven
and earth, and of all things visible and invisible : and in one
Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of
the Father before all ages, the true God, by whom all things
were made ; who was incarnate, and made man, crucified and
buried ; and who rose again from the dead the third day, and
ascended into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of the
Father, and shall come to judge the quick and the dead ; of
whose kingdom there shaU be no end : and in the Holy Ghost
the Comforter, who spake by the prophets ; in one baptism ot
repentance; in the remission of sins; and in one Catholic
church ; and in the resurrection of the flesh ; and in life ever-
lasting.'"

We now come to the first form of creed formally adopted
by the church, known as the " Nicene Creed," but which
should more properly be called " the Nicene-Constantino-
politan Creed," which is as follows : —

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth, and of aU things visible and invisible : and
in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father hefore all worlds, God of God, Light ot
Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one
substance with the Father ; by whom all things were made :

' C) I'il, Hier. Arch. Catechesis vi. p. 86. Paris, 1720.

276 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

who for TIB men and for our salvation came down from heaven,
and was incai-nate hy the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and
was made man, and teas crucified also for us under Pontius
Pilate : he suffered and ivas huried, and the third day he rose
again according to the Bcriptures, and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and shall come
again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose
Tcingdom shall have no end : and I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father [and
the Son'] , who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped
and glorified, who spalee hy the prophets : and I believe one
Catholic and apostolic church: I acknowledge one baptisin for the
remission of sins : and Iloolc for the resti/rrection of the dead;
and the life of the world to come." '■

This creed was the joint production of those two coun-
cilsj held respectively in the years 325 and 381. Those
parts in italics were added by the second council. The
words in brackets [ ] filioque^ " and the Son," were added
by the Latin church some time after, in opposition to the
Greeks, who opposed any change in the creed.

In A.D. 431, an attempt was made to alter this creed;
but the Third General Council, that of Ephesus, opposed
the proposition, and declared " that it should not be lawful
for any one to profess, to write, or to compose any other
form of faith than that defined by the holy Fathers, who,
with the Holy Ghost, had assembled at Nice." And this
council proceeded to declare respecting all "such as shall
presume either to compose or to provide or to offer any
other form of faith to those wishing to be converted to the
acknowledgment of the truth, whether from paganism or
from Judaism, or from any other form of heresy, that they,

1 Mansi's Edit, of Councils, torn. ii. p. 665. FlorentiEe, 1769.

2 According to Baronius, this addition was first made at the Council of
Toledo, A.D. 4i7. See Laudou's "Manual of Councils," p. 579. London,
1846.

THE OLD AND NEW CKEEDS CONTllASTED. &77

be they bishops or clergymen, should be deposed, the
bishops from their episcopacy, and the clergy from their
clerical office ; but if laymen, they should be subjected to
anathema." ^

And again, the General Council of Chalcedon (a.d. 461),
confirmed the decision of the three previous general councils ;
and when the creed was rehearsed, it is recorded in all the
histories of this council that the assembled bishops ex-
claimed : —

" No person makes any otter exposition of faith. We neither
attempt nor dare to do so. For the Fathers hare taught, and
in their writings are preserved, those thing which have been
set forth by them [namely, in the said creed], and other than
these we cannot speak. These principles which have been set
forth are sufficient ; it is not lawful to make any other exposi-
tion.'"

And so also the assembled divines at the third session of
the Trent Council (not contemplating what was to follow)
declared that this same creed was the —

"Summary in which aU who profess the faith of Christ
necessarily agree, and that firm and only foundation against
which the gates of hell shall never prevail ; and that it was to
be recited in those words in which it was read in all the
churches."

We now can appreciate the wisdom and moderation of
the reformers, at the time of Elizabeth, when they declared

1 " His igitur pi-aelectis, etatuit aancta synodus, alteram fidem nemiDi licere
proferre, aut consoribere aut componere, pi-aeter definitam a Sanctis patribus,
qui in Nicaea cum Spii'itu Sancto congiegati fuerunt. Qui vero ausi fuerint
aut componere fidem alteram, aut proferre, vel oflferre convert! volentibus ad
agnitionem veritatis, sive ex Gen tilitate, sive ex Judaismo, sive ex qualicumque
hseresi ; hos quidem, si sunt episcopi aut clerici, alienos esse episcopos ab
episcopatu, et clericos a clericatu, decrevit, si vero laici fuerint, anathemati
subjici." See Mansi's Edition of Councils as above, torn. iv. col. 1362.
Flcrent, 1759.

2 Ibid. torn. vi. col. 630.

278 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

that nothing should be deemed heresy but such things as
had been so declared by the authority of Scripture and the
first four general councils.

The church of Eome, acknowledging this Nicene-Con-
stantinopolitan creed^ in its entirety, as part of lier rule of
faith, has within her the truths handed down to us by the
apostles in their writings, but those truths lie hidden under
the accumulated rubbish of her traditions.

1. She admits the Bible to be the word of God ; but
she alleges that word to be imperfect, inasmuch as she
declares that we can only in part learn from it our salva-
tion; and she has, therefore, added to it certain apocryphal
books and traditions.

2. She admits that God is to be adored with a supreme
worship, for the Bible is explicit on this point ; but she
divides the honour with him by giving an inferior quality of
worship — a religious worship, nevertheless — to the Virgin
Mary and supposed saints ; for which she can show no
other authority than her traditions.

3. And for this purpose, while she admits that God is
the Judge of the " quick and the dead," because the Bible
tells her so, she has taken upon herself to forestall God's
judgment, by dogmatically declaring, before the day of
resurrection and judgment, who are actually beatified spirits
in heaven ! An assumption founded on a modern inno-
vation.

4. She admits Christ as a Mediator between God and
man, because she cannot set aside the plain words of
Scripture; but she teaches, ou her own authority, that he is
not the ouly Mediator. Siie includes those canonized saints
in that holy and exclusive office of our Bedeemer ; and, for
that purpose, awards to them certain attributes of the Deity

THE OLD AND NEW CREEDS CONTRASTED. 279

— namely, omniscience and omnipresence; otherwise how
could they hear the " mental and verbal " prayers of the
living offered up at different places at the same time ?

5. She admits the atonement of Christ offered up on the
cross, but which was, according to St. Paul, the one sacri-
fice offered up "once for all." It was essential to St.Paul's
doctrine that this sacrifice should not be repeated, otherwise
Christ would have often suffered (Heb. ix. 26) ; but the
church of Eome professes to offer up the same Christ daily,
under the hands of her priests : thus converting that which
©ught to be a commemoration of the sacrifice on Calvary, to
be a daily propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead.
This she does by a perversion of the whole gospel scheme
of the ONE Atonement and Ecdemption.

6. She admits that God is a Spirit, and is to be wor-
shipped in spirit, for the Bible is also plain on this point ;
but she also declares that he is to be worshipped under the
form of a consecrated piece of bread, made by men's
hands — an invention of priests to increase their dignity and
consequence, but degrading to the Deity.

7. She admits that God can and does pardon sin, and
teaches that his clemency is reserved for the contrite;
while it is left to the church, by her priests, through the
(so-called) sacrament of penance, to make up what is want-
ing in the penitent who brings only an imperfect repent-
ance ; and thus she would save those whom God rejects :
a modern invention which has not even the advantage of
tradition to support it. She takes upon herself to anti-
cipate the judgment of God by absolution of the penitent
from his sin, in this life.

8. She admits that God is a dispenser of graces and
mercies ; but she pretends to have a share in this power by

280 THE NOVELTIES OF EOMANISM.

having at her disposal an " ecclesiastical treasure " of
supposed accumidated merits of departed saints — a modern
invention to make money.

9. And, for this purpose, while she admits that the
merits of Christ are infinite, she also declares, contrary to
the doctrine of Scripture, that the justified not only can be
saved by their works, or rather thereby increase their right
to acceptance before God, but that they can do more than
is sufficient for their own salvation : which surplus can be
applied for the benefit of others who have come short of
the required standard.

10. She admits that God can pardon the punishment due
to the sin committed ; but she takes it upon herself to
anticipate that pardon, by remitting the punishments due
to sin in this life, as well as even the punishment supposed
to be inflicted on the departed who have not sufficiently
atoned for their sins in this life ; and this is supposed to be
accomplished by Indulgences, a process never mentioned in
Scripture.

11. And, for this latter object, while she admits the
existence of heaven and hell, the Bible clearly pointing them
out to us, she has invented a third place, which she calls pur-
gatory — a place of temporal torment after this hfe — a fable
invented to work on the fears and credulity of the people.
She assumes the power of delivering souls out of purgatory,
by which she enhances the power of her priests, and re-
plenishes her coffers.

12. She Mill allow confession of sin to God, because the
Bible sanctions it ; but she declares it absolutely necessary
to our salvation that we sliould confess to one of her priests,
at least once a year : a piece of priestcraft, the value of
which is well appreciated.

THE OLD AND NEW CREEDS CONTHASTED. 281

13. She admits that Christ instituted two sacraments,
baptism and the supper of the Lord, but to them she has
added live others ; but practically she denies us the benefit
of all these by declaring that such benefit shall depend on
the intention of the oificiating priest : a modern invention,
the object of which it is difficult to comprehend.

Such, then, are a few of the leading truths admitted by all
classes of Christians, put in contrast with the errors which
the church of Eome has superadded. " How has the pure
gold become dross" in her hands ! The reformers did no-
thing more than bring us back to that faith "once delivered
to the saints," which had long been hid — buried under the
novelties and innovations of successive ages, the inventions
of a corrupt priesthood. The reformers " came not to
destroy," but to uphold the doctrine of the apostles, which
the church of Eome had practically rendered of none effect
by her traditions.

A popular preacher has graphically represented the work
of the reformation by an illustrative incident recorded in
the travels of Lord Lindsay in Egypt : —

" He [Lord Lindsay] states, tliat in the course of Ms wander-
ings amid tlie pyramids of tliat patriarchal and interesting
land, he stumbled on a mummy, proved by its hieroglyphics to
be at least 2000 years of age. In examining the mummy,
after it was unwrapped, he found in one of its closed hands a
tuberous or bulbous root. He was interested in the question
how long vegetable life could last : and he therefore took that
tuberous I'oot from the mummy's hand, planted it in a srmny
soil, allowed the rains and dews of heaven to descend upon it,
and in the course of a few weeks, to his astonishment and joy,
that root burst forth and bloomed into a beauteous flower. It
seemed to me that we have in this an answer to the question,
Where was Protestantism before the Reformation? It was

280

THE NOVELTIES OE KOMANISM.

closed in the iron grasp of tlie Roman apostasy, and aU ttat
the Reformers did was to unclench that terrible hand, and ex-
tricate the seed of truth. Sowers started up in all lands, and
planted it in England, in Scotland, and in Germany ; and now
the living seeds, through the blessing of God, have spread
forth and grown up in all countries, and the vast number of
churches scattered throughout the land are its blossoms."

The utmost Rome can claim for her innovations is custom^
and for some few of them antiquity. We cannot more ap-
propriately close our remarks than by recording the opinion
of a venerable bishop of the church of Clirist, and a martyr
of the third century, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, on these
two claims. He wrote : —

" Custom, without truth, is but the antiquity of error ; and
there is a short way for religious and simple minds to find out
what is truth. For if we return to the beginning and original
of divine tradition, human error ceases. Thither let us return,
to our Lord's original, the evangelical beginning, the aposto-
lical tradition, and hence let the reason of our acts arise ; from
hence order and the beginning arose.

" If, therefore, Christ alone is to be the Head, we ought not
to regard what another, before us, thought fit to be done, but
what Christ, who is above all, did. For we ought not to follow
the customs of man, but the truth op God ; since God him-
self speaks thus by the Prophet Isaiah, ' In vain do they
worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of
men.' WMch very words our Lord again repeats in the
Gospel : ' Te reject the commandment of God that ye may keep
your own tradition.' " '

And once more. Tertullian, of the second century, and
the earliest of the Latin Fathers, said : —

" No one is able to raise any prescription against the truth —

1 Cyprian, Epiet. Ixiii ad Csecelium Fratrum, p. 155, et Hxiy. ad Pom-
peium, p. 215. Edit. Oxon, 1682.

THE OLD AND NEW CREEDS CONTRASTED. 288

not space of time, nov the pati'onage of persons, nor the privilege
of countries. From these things, indeed, custom, having gotten
a beginning, by ignorance or simplicity, and being grown strong
by succession, pleads against the truth. But our Lord Christ
calls himself the Truth, not custom. Nor does novelty so
much confute heresy as does truth. Whatsoever is against
truth, that will be heresy — even old custom." ^

1 " . .Hooexigere veritatem, cui nemo prsBsoribere potest, non spatium teni-
ponim, non patrocinia personarum, non privilegium regionum. Ex his enim
fere qoneuetudo inii^ium ab aliqui ignoranti^ Vel simplieiate sortita, in usum
per BUoceseionem corroboratur, et Ita adversus veritatem vindicatur. Sod
dominuB noster ChrlStus veritatem se, non consufitudinem, cagnominavit. Si
semper Christus, et prior omnSbus : Eeque Veritas sempiterna et antiqua res.
Viderint ergo quibus novum est quod sibi vetus est. Haereseis non tam novitas
quam Veritas revinoit. Quodcunque adversus veritatem sapit, hoo erit
haeresie, etiam vetus consuetude^" Tertullian de Virginibus velanJis.
cap. i. in mit. pp. 1, 2, vol. iii. Halee Magd. 1770.

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX A.

EXTRACT PROM THE TREATISE OF BERTRAM'
OF OORBT.

Quod in Ecclesia ore fide-
lium sumitur corpus et san-
guis Christi, quserit vestrae
magnitudinis excellentia, in
mysterio fiat, an in veritate. Id
est : Utram aUquid seer eti con-
tineat, quod oculis fidei solum-
modo pateat ! Ail, sine cujus-
cunque velatione mysterii,
too aspectus, intueatur corpo-
ris exterius, quod mentis visus
iaspiciat interius, ut totum,
quod agitui- in manifestationis
luce clarescat; et utrum ip-
sum corpus sit, quod de Maria
natum est et passum, mortu-
um et sepultum, quodqvie re-
surgens et coelos ascendens ad
dextram Patris consideat.

The Excellency of your
Highness asks me whether
the body and blood of Christ,
which, in the church, is re-
ceived by the mouth of the
faithful, is produced, only in a
mystery or in reaUty. In
other words, you ask me
whether it contains somewhat
secret, which is manifest to
the eye of faith exclusively;
or whether, without the veil
of any mystery, the corporeal
eye beholds that externally
which the mental eye beholds
internally, so that to the
broad light of day the whole
transaction is clear and open ;
whether, in short, it be the
identical body, which was bom
from Mary and suffered, and
died and was buried, and
which, rising again, and as-
cending to heaven, sits at the
right hand of the Father.

1 Bertram. Presbyt. de Corp. et Sanguin. Bomin., pp. 180, 222. Edit.
Colon. 1551, or p. v. — Ixxxi.^. Oxon. 1838. This work was addressed to Charles
the Bald ; but the Cologne Editors erroneously state that it was to
Charlemagne. Bertram relies throughout on the great Fathers of the Church,
Ambrose, bishop of Milan, and Augustine, bishop of Hippo. He flourished
in the 9th century.

288

THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM.

Hanim duanim qusestionum
priniam inspiciamus : et, ne
dubietatisambage detineamur,
definiamus, quid sit figura,
quid Veritas ; vit, certum ali-
quid contuentes, noverimus
quo rationis iter contendere
debeamus.

Figura est adumbratio quse-
dam, quibusdam velaminibua
quodintendit ostendens. Verbi
gratia, verbum volentes dicere,
panem nunoupamus. Siout,
in oratione dominica, panem
quotidianum dari nobis expos-
tulamus : vel cum Cbristus in
Evangelic loquitur, dicens,
' Ego sum panis vivus, de coelo
descend! :' vel cum seipsum
' vitem,' discipulos autem
palmites, appellat, ' Ego sum '
dicens ' vitis vera vos pal-
mites ;' liKC enim omnia
aliud dicunt, et aliud innu-
unt.

Veritas, vero, est rei mani-
festo demonstratio, nullis
umbrarum imaginibus obve-
lata?, sed puris et apertis (ut-
que planius eloquamur) natu-
ralibus significationibus insi-
nuate : utpote cum dicitur,
Christus natus de Virgioe,
passus, crucifixus, mortuus, et
sepultus. Kibil enim bic figu-
ris obvelantibus adumbratur ;
verum rei Veritas, naturalium
significationibus verboi-um ,

Of tbese two questions, let
us begin by inspecting the
first ; and, lest we should be
detained by the windings .of
dubiety, let us set out with
explicitly defining what is
figure, and what is reaUty.

Figure, then, is a certain
adumbration, showing its im-
port under certain coverings.
For example, wishing to men-
tion the Word, we name bread.
Thus, for instance, when, in
the Lord's Prayer, we beg for
our daily bread ; or when
Christ, in the Gospel, says
' I am the living bread which
descended from heaven ;' or
when he calls himself the
' vine,' and his disciples the
' branches :' all these expres-
sions say one thing, but mean
another.

Reajity, on the contrary, is
the demonstration of a thing
manifest, voiled in no images
of shadows, but expressed in
plain, and open, and natural
significance ; as when we say
that Christ was born of the
Yirgin, that he suifered, that
he was crucified, that he died,
and that he was buried. For
nothing is here shadowed out
under the veil of figures ; but
the reality of the matter is

APPENDIX A.

289

ostenditur : neque aliud Uc,
licet intelligi, quam dicitur.

At, in superioi-ibus, non ita ;
nam, substantialiter, neo panis
Christus, nee vitis Ckristus
nee palmites apostoli. Qua-
propter, hie figura ; superioii
vero Veritas in naiTatione
monstratur; id est, nuda et
aperta signifieatio.

Nunc redeamus ad ilia, quo-
rum causa dicta sunt ista;
videlicet, corpus et sanguinem
Ohristi.

Si enim nulla sub figura
mysterium illud peragitur,
jam mysterium non rite voci-
tatur: quum mysterium dioi
non potest, in quo nihil est
abditum, nibil a corporaKbus
sensibus remotum, nihil aUquo
velamine contectum. At ille
panis, quod per sacerdotis
ministerium Christi corpus
efficitur, aHud interius [ P ex-
terivis] humanis sensibus os-
tendit, et aliud inteiius fideli-
um mentibus clamat. — Vinum
quoque, quod sacerdotali con-
secratione Christi sanguinis
efficitur sacramentum, aUud

shown forth in the plain sig-
nification of natural words ;
nor can we here understand
anything beyond what is ab-
solutely spoken.

In the former instances,
however, it was not so ; for,
substantially, Christ is neither
bread, nor a vine, nor yet are
theapostles branches. Where-
fore, here, there is figure ;
but, there, reality is dis-
played in the statement ; that
is, the meaning is open and
manifest.

Let us now return to those
matters, for the sake of which
these definitions have been
laid down : I mean the " body
and blood of Christ.''

If that mystery be not cele-
brated imder a figure, it can-
not rightly be called a mys-
tery; because the name of
mystery cannot justly be
applied to that in which there
is nothing hidden, nothing
remote from the bodily senses,
nothing hidden by a veil.
But that bread which, through
the ministration of the priest,
is made the body of Christ,
shows one thing internally
[ P externally] to the human
senses, and speaks another
way to the minds of the faith-
ful. — The wine also which,

290

THE NOVELTIES OP EOMANISM.

supei-ficie tenus ostendit, aliud
interius continet. — Hsec ita
esse, dum nemo potest abne-
gare, claret, quia panis iUe
vinumque figurate Cliristi cor-
pus et sanguinis existet. — Nam,
si, secundum quosdam, figu-
rate nihil hie accipiatur, sed
totum in veritate conspioiatur;
nihil hie fides operatur : quum
nihil spirituale geritur ; sed,
quicquid iUud est, totum
secundum corpus accipitur.
— Secundum speciem namque
ci'eaturae formamque rerum
visibilium, utnimque hoc, id
est, panis et vinum, nihil
hahent in se permutatum.
Et, si nihil permutationis per-
tulerunt, nihil aHud existunt
quam quod prius fuere. —

Jam nunc secundee quses-
tionis propositum est inspioi-
endum, et videndum ; utrum
ipsum corpus, quod de
Maria natum est et passum,
mortuum et sepultum, quod-
que ad dexteram Patris con-
sideat, sit quod ore fidelium
per sacramentorummysterium
in ecclesia quotidie sumitur. —

through sacerdotal consecra-
tion, is made the sacrament of
the blood of Christ, shows one
thing superficially, but con-
tains another thing internally.
— Since, then, no person can
deny that such is the case, it
is manifest that that bread
and wine are thebody and blood
of Christ figuratively. — For if,
as some pretend, nothing is
here received figuratively, but
the whole is discerned in
reality, then there is no room
for the operation of faith ;
inasmuch as nothing spiritual
is transacted, but the whole is
received according to the
body. — According to the ap-
pearance of the creature, and
the form of things visible,
neither the bread nor the wine
experience in themselves any
transmutation. Therefore, if
they have experienced no
transmutation, they are no-
thing else but what they were
before.

Let us now pass to the
second question, and let us
consider whether the identical
body, which was bom from
Mary, and suffered, and died,
and was buried, and which
now sits at the right hand of
the Father, is that which in the
church is daily received by
the mouth of the faithful.

APPENDIX A.

291

Secundum ci-eaturarum sub-
stantiam, quod fuerunt ante
consecrationem, too et postea
consistunt. Panis et Tmum
prius extitere : in qua etiam
specie, jam consecrata, per-
manere videutur. — Nihil igi-
tur tic corporaliter ; sed
spiritualiter sentiendum. Cor-
pus Christi est, sed non cor-
poraliter : et sanguis Ohristi
est, sed non corporaliter. —
Corpus, quod sumpsit de
Maria Virgine, quod pas-
sum, quod sepultum est, quod
resui-rexit, corpus utique ve-
rum fuit ; idem, quod visibile
atque palpabile manebat ; at
vero corpus, quod mysterium
Dei dicitur, non est corporale,
sed spirituale. — Differunt, au-
tem, caro spiritualis quae
fideliumore sumiter, et sanguis
spiritualis qui quotidie cre-
dentibus potandus exbibitur,
a carae quss cnicifixa est, et
a sanguine qui militis efifusus
est lancea. Non idem igitur
sunt. —

In orationibus, qufE post
mysterium sanguinis et corpo-
ris Cbristi dicuntur, et a populo

througb tbe mystery of the
sacraments. —

According to the substance
of the creatures, what they
were before consecration, that
also they are after it ; previous
to consecration they were
bread and wine; and in
that same appearance, when
consecrated, they are seen still
to remain. — Nothing is here
transacted corporeally ; but it
must be spiritually appre-
hended. It is the body of
Christ — but not corporeally :
it is the blood of Christ — yet
not corporeally. — The body,
which Christ received from the
Virgiu Mary, which suffered,
which was buried, which rose
again, was a real body ; the
same which remained visible
and palpable ; but the body,
which is called the mystery
of God, is not corporeal,
but spiritual. — Spiritual flesh
which is received by the
mouth of the faithful, and
spiritual blood which is daily
given to be drunk by the
faithful, differ from the flesh
which was crucified and from
the blood which was shed by
the lance of the soldier. There-
fore they are not the same. —
In the prayers, which are
recited after the mysteries of
the blood and body of Christ,

292

THE NOVELTIES OP HOMANISM.

responditiir Amen, sic sacer-
dotis voce dicetur -. —

Pignus seternse vitse capi-
entes, humiliter imploramiis,
ut, quod imagine contingimus
sacramenti, manifesta saora-
menti.maiiifestaparticipatioiie
sumamus.

Et pignus enim et imago alte-
rius i-ei sunt : id est, non ad se,
sed ad aliiid, aspiciunt. — Pig-
nus enim illius rei est, pro qua
donatur; imago illiiis, cujus
simUitudinem ostendit. — Qua
de re et corpus Christi et san-
guis est, quod Eoclesia cele-
brat; sed tamquam pignus,
tamquam imago. —

Videmus, itaque, multa
differentia separai-i, mysteri-
um sanguinis et corporis
Christi quod nunc a fidelibus
Bumitur in Ecclesia, et illud
quod natum est de Virgine
Maria, quod passum, quod
sepultuni, quod resun'cxit,
quod ccelos ascendit, quod ad
dexteram Patris sedet.

and to whicli tlie people re-
spond Amen, the priest uses
the following language : —

" Receiving the pledge of
eternal life, we humbly beseech
Thee, that whatsoever in the
sacrament we touch in the
image we may receive the
same by manifest participa-
tion."

Now, a pledge and an
image, are a pledge and an
image of some other thing;
that is, they have respect, not
to themselves, but to some-
thing else. For a pledge is a
pledge of the thing for which
it is given, and an image is
an image of that whereof it
shows forth the similitude. —
Therefore, also, that which the
church celebrates is the body
and blood of Christ ; but still,
as a pledge; but stUl, as an
image. —

We see, then, that the
mystery of the blood and body
of Christ, which is now re-
ceived in the church by the
faithful, is separated by a
mighty difference fi-om that
which was born of the Virgin
Mary, which suffered, which
was buried, which rose again,
which ascended to heaven,
which sits at the right hand
of the Father.

APPENDIX B.

BULL OF POPE PIUS IV.

' TOTTCHIITG THE FOEM Or THE OATH Or THE PHOPESSION
OF FAITH."

" PiTJS, Bisliop, Servant of tte Servants of God, for the per-
petual memory hereof.

The office of Apostolic servitude enjoined on us requires,
that those matters, which Almighty God has vouchsafed
divinely to inspire into the minds of the holy Fathers, as-
sembled in His name for the provident guidance of his Church,
we should hasten unhesitatingly to execute, unto His praise
and glory. Whereas, therefore, according to the resolution of
the CouncU of Trent, all who may happen henceforward to be
placed over cathedral and superior churches, or who may have
to take care respecting their dignities, canonries, and any
other ecclesiastical benefices soever having the care of souls,
are bound to make a pubhc profession of the orthodox faith,
and to promise and swear that they wUl continue in obedience
to the Church of Rome ; we, willing that the same thing be
observed likewise by aU persons soever, who shall have the
charge of monasteries, convents, houses, and any other places
soever, of all regular orders soever, and besides, to the end
that the profession of one and the same faith be uniformly
exhibited by all, and that one only, and a certain form of it,
made known unto all. We, [willing] that a want of our soli-
eitude should by no means be felt by any one in this particular,
by strictly prescribing the tenor of those presents. We, by

294 THE NOVELTIES OF UOMANISM.

virtue of Our Apostolic authority, command, that the form
itself be published, and be received and obsei-ved everywhere
by those whom it concerns, in consequence of the decrees of
the Council itself, as well as the other particulars aforesaid,
and that the aforesaid profession be made solemnly according
to this, and no other form, under the penalties enacted by the
Council itself against all contravening, under the following
terms : —

" I, N., believe and profess, with a firm faith, all and every
one of the things which are contained in the symbol of faith
which is used in the Holy Roman Church, namely : —

" 1. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of
Heaven and Earth, &c. — [^The Nicene Creed.^

" 2. I most firmly admit and embrace Apostolical and Eccle-
siastical Traditions, and all other constitutions and observances,
of the same Church.

" 3. I also admit the Sacred Scriptures according to the
sense which the Holy Mother Church has held, and does hold,
to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpreta-
tion of the Holy Scriptures ; nor will I ever take or interpret
them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of
the Fathers.

" 4. I profess, also, that there are truly and properly Seven
Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our
Lord, and for the salvation of mankind, though all are not
necessary for every one ; namely. Baptism, Confirmation,
Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matri-
mony ; and that they confer grace ; and of these, Baptism,
Confirmation, and Orders, cannot be reiterated without sacri-
lege.

" 5. I receive and admit the Ceremonies of the Catholic
Church, received and approved in the solemn administration of
all the above said Sacraments.

" 6. I receive and embrace all and every one of the things
which have been defined in the holy CouncU of Trent, concern-
ing Original Sin and Justification.

" 7. I profess, likewise, that in the Mass is ofi'ered to the
true God, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and

APPENDIX B. 295

the dead ; and tliat in the most toly Sacrifice of the Eucharist
there is really, truly, and substantially, the body and blood,
together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ ;
and there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the
bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine
into the blood, which conversion the Church calls Transub-
stantiation.

" 8. I confess, also, that under either kind alone, whole and
entii'e, Christ and a true sacrament are received.

" 9. I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that
the souls detained there are helped by the suffrages of the
faithful.

" 10. Likewise, that the Saints reigning together with Christ
are to be honoured and invocated with Christ ; that they offer
prayers to God for ns, and that their relics are to be venerated.

" 11. I most firmly assert, that the Images of Christ and of
the Mother of God ever Virgin, and also of the other Saints,
are to be had and retained, and that due honour and venera-
tion are to be given them.

" 12. I also affirm, that the power of Indulgences was left by
Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most whole-
some to Christian people.

" 13. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic and Apostolical
and Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all

CHXTBCHES, and I PEOMISB AND SWEAK TBXTE OBEDIENCE TO

THE Roman Bishop, the successor of St. Peter the Prince of
the Apostles and the Yicar of Jesus Christ.

"14. I also profess and undoubtedly receive, all other things
delivered, defined, and declared by the Sacred Canon, and
General Councils, and particularly by the Coimcil of Trent ;
and likewise, I also condemn, reject, and anathematize all
things contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever, con-
demned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church.

" 15. This true Catholic Paith, on or which no one can
BE SAVED, which I now freely profess, and truly hold, I, N.,
promise, vow, and swear, most constantly to hold and profess
the same, whole and entire, with God's assistance, to the end of
my life ; cmd to procure as far as lies in my power, that the

296 THE NOVELTIES OF llOMANISM.

satne shall he held, taught, and preached hy all who are under nie,
or are entrusted to my care hy virtue of my office. So help me
God, and these Holy Gospels of God."

The foregoing is the translation given by Charles Butler,
Esq. J an eminent Eoman Catholic layman, in his work of
" The Roman Catholic Church," London, 1825, except those
parts in italics, which he has thought proper to omit ; and
we, therefore, give this last clause, 15, from the original :

" 15. Hanc veram Catholicain fidem, extra quam nemo
salvus esse potest, quam in prsesenti sponte profiteer, et
veraciter teneo, eandem integram, et inviolatam, usque ad
extremum vitse spiritum constantissime (Deo adjuvante) reti-
nere et conflteri, atque a meis subditis, vel illis quorum cura ad
me in munere meo spectabit, teneri, dooeri et prsedicari, quan-
tum in me erit curaturum, ego idem N. spondeo, voveo, ao juro,
Sic me Deus adjuvet, et hsec sancta Dei evangelia."

Condi. Trid. apud Bullas, p. 381, et seq., Romae, 1564.

THE END.

LONDON: KNIGHT, PBINTKK, BAEXHOLOMEW CLOSJi.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The novelties of Romanism; in three parts: I. Development of doctrines. II. Chronological arrangement. III. Old and new creeds contrasted"

See other formats