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 
 
 b 
 
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. 
 
13 
 
 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 
 
 C 
 
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. 
 
30 
 
 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. 
 
43 
 
 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 
 
 E 
 
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- 
 
 F 
 
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. 
 
 G 
 
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. 
 
 Register. The following is from the papers of the 24th 
 September and 1st October, 1861 : — 
 
 " 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. 
 
 L 
 
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. 
 
 M 
 
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. 
 
 N 
 
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. 
 
 O 
 
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. 
 
 T 
 
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. 
 
 Q 
 
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. 
 
 S 
 
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 
 
 T 
 
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.