Source Book for Bible Students
“P” Entries
Pagan Rites, in the Christian Church.—See Apostasy, 36, 37; Sabbath, Change of, 472, 473. SBBS 323.5
Paganism, Ruin of Roman.—The ruin of paganism, in the age of Theodosius [a. d. 379-395], is perhaps the only example of the total extirpation of any ancient and popular superstition; and may therefore deserve to be considered as a singular event in the history of the human mind. The Christians, more especially the clergy, had impatiently supported the prudent delays of Constantine, and the equal toleration of the elder Valentinian; nor could they deem their conquest perfect or secure, as long as their adversaries were permitted to exist.—“The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” Edward Gibbon, chap. 28, par. 1. SBBS 323.6
The generation that arose in the world after the promulgation of the imperial laws [forbidding the pagan worship], was attracted within the pale of the Catholic Church: and so rapid, yet so gentle, was the fall of paganism, that only twenty-eight years after the death of Theodosius, the faint and minute vestiges were no longer visible to the eye of the legislator.—Id., par. 10. SBBS 323.7
Paganism, Time of Overthrow of, in the Roman Empire.—Licinius, having made war against Constantine, a. d. 314, and again in 324, after the conversion of the latter to Christianity, was supported by the good wishes and the power of the pagan priests. Constantine believed that paganism was a danger to the throne, and began to discourage it. In 331 he ordered the destruction of the pagan temples throughout the Roman Empire. Julian, in 361, began to rebuild them, but the work ceased with his death. In 385 Theodosius I issued an edict against pagan sacrifices, and soon afterwards closed the temples and the shrines. In 388 the Roman senate renounced paganism, and in 391 it was legally abolished through the whole Roman Empire, and afterwards gradually died away.—The Encyclopadic Dictionary, art. “Paganism,” p. 3441. Philadelphia: Syndicate Publishing Company. SBBS 323.8
Thus, by character and education, deeply impressed with Christianity, and that of a severe and uncompromising orthodoxy, Theodosius undertook the sacred obligation of extirpating paganism, and of restoring to Christianity its severe and inviolable unity.... SBBS 323.9
The laws of Theodosius against the pagan sacrifices grew insensibly more and more severe. The inspection of the entrails of victims, and magic rites, were made capital offenses. In a. d. 391, issued an edict prohibiting sacrifices, and even the entering into the temples. In the same year, a rescript was addressed to the court and prefect of Egypt, fining the governors of provinces who should enter a temple fifteen pounds of gold, and giving a kind of authority to the subordinate of ficers to prevent their superiors from committing such offenses. The same year, all unlawful sacrifices are prohibited by night or day, within or without the temples. In 392, all immolation is prohibited under the penalty of death, and all other acts of idolatry under forfeiture of the house or land in which the offense shall have been committed.—“The History of Christianity,” Henry Hart Milman, D. D., Vol. III, pp. 61, 62. London: John Murray, 1867. SBBS 324.1
Paganism, Transfer of, to the Church.—“It was a maxim with some of the early promoters of the Christian cause to do as little violence as possible to existing prejudices. They would run the risk of Barnabas being confounded with Jupiter, and Paul with Mercury. In the transition from pagan to papal Rome much of the old material was worked up. The heathen temples became Christian churches; the altars of the gods, altars of the saints; the curtains, incense, tapers, votive tablets, remained the same; the aquaminarium was still the vessel for holy water; St. Peter stood at the gate, instead of Cardea; St. Roque or St. Sebastian in the bedroom, instead of the ‘Phrygian Penates;’ St. Nicholas was the sign of the vessel, instead of Castor and Pollux; the Matre Deum became the Madonna; ‘alms pro Matre Deum’ became alms for the Madonna; the Festival of the Matre Deum, the Festival of the Madonna, or Lady Day; the hostia, or victim, was now the host; the ‘Lugentes Campi,’ or dismal regions, purgatory; the offerings to the manes were masses for the dead.” SBBS 324.2
Such is the testimony of Blunt, who adds in a note that the very name purgatory is heathen; since the annual Feast of Purification in February was called “Sacrum Purgatorium.” ... SBBS 324.3
The following quotation, also from Picart, illustrates the principle, alluded to above, of doing no violence to sinful prejudices and habits; in other words, of doing evil that good may come: SBBS 324.4
“In order to win the pagans to Christ, instead of pagan watchings and commemorations of their gods, the Christians rejoiced in vigils and anniversaries of their martyrs; and, to show that they had regard to the public prosperity, in place of those feasts in which the heathen priests were wont to supplicate the gods for the welfare of their country-such as the Ambarvalia, Robigalia, etc.—they introduced rogations, litanies, and processions made with naked feet, invoking Christ instead of Jupiter.” (Vol. I, p. 26.) And this, according to the writer, is the reason why “our fetes and ceremonies have generally a pagan origin.” SBBS 324.5
Thus we trace what has been faithfully called the introduction of a baptized heathenism.—“Rome: Pagan and Papal.” Mourant Brock. M. A., pp. 25, 26. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1883. SBBS 324.6
In further confirmation of the previous chapters on the early corruption of Christianity, we quote the following passage from Merivale’s “Lectures on Early Church History,” in which the dean gives his view of the paganized condition of the church in the fifth century-a period which many are wont to consider comparatively pure: SBBS 324.7
“But neither Leo-that is Leo the Great, pope from a. d. 440 to a. d. 461-nor, I think, the contemporary doctors of the church, seem to have had an adequate sense of the process by which the whole essence of paganism was, throughout their age, constantly percolating the ritual of the church, and the hearts of the Christian multitude. It is not to these teachers that we can look for a warning- SBBS 325.1
“That the fasts prescribed by the church had their parallel in the abstinence imposed by certain pagan creeds; SBBS 325.2
“That the monachism which they extolled so warmly, and which spread so rapidly, was, in its origin, a purely pagan institution, common to the religions of India, Tibet, and Syria; SBBS 325.3
“That the canonizing of saints and martyrs, the honors paid to them, and the trust reposed in them, were simply a revival of the old pagan mythologies; SBBS 325.4
“That the multiplication of ceremonies, together with processions, lights, incense, vestments, and votive offerings, was a mere pagan appeal to the senses, such as can never fail to enervate man’s moral fiber; SBBS 325.5
“That, in short, the general aspect of Christian devotion was a faint, and rather frivolous, imitation of the old pagan ritual. SBBS 325.6
“The working of true Christianity was never more faint among the masses; the approximation of church usage to the manners and customs of paganism never really closer. SBBS 325.7
“Surely we must complain that all this manifest evil was not, at this time, denounced by the teachers of the Christian church; nay, that it was rather fostered and favored by them.” SBBS 325.8
A little further on he remarks: SBBS 325.9
“The spirit of the old (heathen) traditions had become to a great extent merged in the popular Christianity, and actually assimilated to it.” SBBS 325.10
“The multitudes, half Christian and half pagan, met together in those unhappy days to confuse the Feast of the Nativity with the Feast of the Saturnalia (in honor of Saturn); the Feast of the Purification with the Feast of the Lupercalia (in honor of Pan); and the Feast of Rogations with the Feast of the Ambarvalia (in honor of Ceres).” SBBS 325.11
Such is the opinion of Dean Merivale. We will now cite the testimony of a layman to the same effect, an extract from a well-known book, “Matthew’s Diary of an Invalid:” SBBS 325.12
“Amongst the antiquities of Rome you are shown the temple of Romulus, built round the very house in which they say he lived. Need we go further to seek the prototype of the tale of the house of Loretto? SBBS 325.13
“The modern worship of saints is a revival of the old adoration paid to heroes and demigods. SBBS 325.14
“What are nuns with their vows of celibacy, but a new edition of the vestal virgins? SBBS 325.15
“What the tales of images falling from heaven, but a repetition of the old fable of the Palladium of Troy? SBBS 325.16
“Instead of tutelary gods, we find guardian angels. SBBS 325.17
“The canonization of a saint is but another term for the apotheosis of a hero. SBBS 325.18
“The processions are clearly copied from ancient patterns. SBBS 325.19
“The lustral water, and the incense of the heathen temple, remain without alteration in the holy water and in the censer of the church. SBBS 325.20
“The daily ‘sacrifice of the mass’ seems to be copied from the victim-hostia-of the heathen ritual. SBBS 325.21
“The ceremonial of Isis to have been revived in the indecent emblems presented by women; e. g., at Isernia, near Naples, up to the year 1790, as votive offerings at the shrine of St. Cosmo in that city. SBBS 325.22
“Nay, some would trace the Pope himself, with the triple crown on his head and the keys of heaven and hell in his pocket, to our old acquaintance Cerberus with his three heads, who keeps guard as the custos of Tartarus and Elysium. SBBS 326.1
“The very same piece of brass which the old Romans worshiped as Jupiter, with a new head on its shoulders-like an old friend with a new face-is now, in St. Peter’s, adored with equal devotion by the modern Italians. SBBS 326.2
“And, as if they wished to make the resemblance as perfect as possible, they have, in imitation of his pagan prototype, surrounded the tomb of the apostle with a hundred ever-burning lights.” SBBS 326.3
“Centum aras posuit, vigilemque sacraverat ignem.” 21 SBBS 326.4
The writer further observes that “some traces of the old heathen superstitions are indeed constantly peeping out from under their Roman Catholic disguises. We cannot so inoculate our old stock but that we shall relish by it. If anything could have improved the tree, it must have borne better fruit by being grafted with Christianity. But in many particulars, so far as Italy is concerned, all the change produced has been a mere change of name” (p. 90). SBBS 326.5
Just in the same strain Forsyth [” Italy,” p. 134], a man well acquainted with Italy, and possessed of a fine classic taste, writes as follows: SBBS 326.6
“I have found the statue of a god pared down into a Christian saint; a heathen altar converted into a church box for the poor; a Bacchanalian vase officiating as a baptismal font; a Bacchanalian tripod supporting the holy water basin; the sarcophagus of an old Roman adored as a shrine full of relics; the brass columns of Jupiter Capito linus now consecrated to the altar of the blessed sacrament; and the tomb of Agrippa turned into the tomb of a pope.” SBBS 326.7
And indeed all writers who are acquainted with antiquity-be they lay or clerical, Protestant or papal, Italian or foreign-agree as to the pagan origin of Rome’s present usages and ceremonies.—“Rome, Pagan and Papal,” Mourant Brock, pp. 28-31. SBBS 326.8
Paganism, Revived in Romanism.—Romanism is simply the old Roman paganism revived under Christian names. Romanism and paganism bear to each other the most exact and extraordinary resemblance. SBBS 326.9
Had paganism its temples and altars, its pictures and images? So has popery. Had paganism its use of holy water and its burning of incense? So has popery. Had paganism its tonsured priests, presided over by a pontifex maximus, or sovereign pontiff? So has popery; and it stamps this very name, which is purely heathen in origin, upon the coins, medals, and documents of the arrogant priest by whom it is governed. Had paganism its claim of sacerdotal infallibility? So has popery. Had paganism its adoration of a visible representative of Deity carried in state on men’s shoulders? So has popery. Had paganism its ceremony of kissing the feet of the sovereign pontiff? So has popery. Had paganism its college of pontiffs? So has popery, in the College of Cardinals. Had paganism its religious orders? So has popery. Had paganism its stately robes, its crowns and crosiers of office? So has popery. Had paganism its adoration of idols, its worship of the queen of heaven, its votive offerings? So has popery. Had paganism its rural shrines and processions? So has popery. Had paganism its pretended miracles, its speaking images, and weeping images, and bleeding images? SBBS 326.10
So has popery. Had paganism its begging orders and fictitious saints? So has popery. Had paganism its canonization of saints, as in the deification of the dead Casars? So has popery. Had paganism its idolatrous calendar and numerous festivals? So has popery. Had paganism its enforced celibacy, its mystic signs, its worship of relics? So has popery. Had paganism its cruel persecution of those who opposed idolatry? So has popery. Was paganism satanically inspired? So is popery. God overthrew paganism; Satan revived it under Christian names: but God shall yet destroy it, and sweep its hateful presence from the earth.—“Romanism and the Reformation,” H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., pp. 198, 199. London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1891. SBBS 327.1
Paganism. -See Apostasy, 37; Idolatry, 214-217; Popery, 388, 389; Priesthood, 391; Purgatory, 405; Sabbath, Change of, 472, 473; Seven Churches, 489, 490. SBBS 327.2
Papacy, Wylie on.—The Papacy, next to Christianity, is the great fact of the modern world.... Fully to trace the rise and development of this stupendous system, were to write a history of Western Europe. The decay of empires; the extinction of religious systems; the dissolution and renewal of society; the rise of new states; the change of manners, customs, and laws; the policy of courts; the wars of kings; the decay and revival of letters, of philosophy, and of arts,-all connect themselves with the history of the Papacy, to whose growth they ministered, and whose destiny they helped to unfold.—“The Papacy,” Rev. J. A. Wylie, p. 1. Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1851. SBBS 327.3
Papacy.—It is impossible to deny that the polity of the Church of Rome is the very masterpiece of human wisdom. In truth, nothing but such a polity could, against such assaults, have borne up such doctrines. The experience of twelve hundred eventful years, the ingenuity and patient care of forty generations of statesmen, have improved that pol ity to such perfection that, among the contrivances that have been devised for deceiving and oppressing mankind, it occupies the highest place.—Lord Macaulay, in his Essay on Ranke’s “History of the Popes of Rome,” par. 33. SBBS 327.4
The rise of the Papacy, from the persecuted head of an insignificant local church to the supreme domination over both the spiritual and the temporal hierarchy of Europe, is one of the most curious problems in history.—“Studies in Church History,” Henry C. Lea, p. 112. Philadelphia: Henry C. Lea’s Son & Co., 1883. SBBS 327.5
Papacy, Revealed by Inspiration.—The Roman Papacy is revealed by the far-reaching light of the divinely written Word. Its portrait is painted; its mystery is penetrated; its character, its deeds are drawn; its thousand veils and subterfuges are torn away. The unsparing hand of inspiration has stripped it, and left it standing upon the stage of history deformed and naked, a dark emanation from the pit, bloodstained and blasphemous, blindly struggling in the concentrated rays of celestial recognition, amid the premonitory thunders and lightnings of its fast-approaching doom.—“Romanism and the Reformation,” H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., F. R. A. S., pp. 83, 84. London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1891. SBBS 327.6
Papacy, Prophecies Concerning.—There are three distinct sets of prophecies of the rise, character, deeds, and doom of Romanism. The first is found in the book of Daniel, the second in the epistles of Paul, and the third in the letters and Apocalypse of John; and no one of these three is complete in itself. It is only by combining their separate features that we obtain the perfect portrait. Just as we cannot derive from one Gospel a complete life of Christ, but in order to obtain this must take into account the records in the other three: so we cannot from one prophecy gather a correct account of Antichrist; we must add to the particulars given in one those supplied by the other two. Some features are given in all three prophecies, just as the death and resurrection of Christ are given in all four Gospels. Others are given only in two, and others are peculiar to one. SBBS 327.7
As might be expected from the position and training of the prophet who was a statesman and a governor in Babylon, Daniel’s foreview presents the political character and relations of Romanism. The apostle Paul’s foreview, on the other hand, gives the ecclesiastical character and relations of this power; and John’s prophecies, both in Revelation 13 and 17, present the combination of both, the mutual relations of the Latin Church and Roman State. He uses composite figures, one part of which represents the political aspect of Romanism as a temporal government, and the other its religious aspect as an ecclesiastical system.—“Romanism and the Reformation,” H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., F. R. A. S., p. 7. London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1891. SBBS 328.1
Papacy, Daniel’s View of.—The Papacy has existed for thirteen centuries, has had to do with forty or fifty generations of mankind in all the countries of Christendom. Its history is consequently extremely complicated and various. It embraces both secular and ecclesiastical matters, and has more or less to do with all that has happened in Europe since the fall of the old Roman Empire. The time is long, the sphere vast, the story exceedingly complex. I want you to tell it all, in outline at least, in a narrative that you could read in less than five minutes or write in ten. You must bring in every point of importance: the time and circumstances of the origin of the Papacy, its moral character, its political relations, its geographical seat, its self-exalting utterances and acts, its temporal sovereignty, and a comparison of the extent of its dominions with those of the other kingdoms of Europe; its blasphemous pretensions, its cruel and longcontinued persecutions of God’s people, the duration of its dominion, its present decay, and the judgments that have overtaken it; and you must, moreover, add what you think its end is likely to be, and explain the relation of the whole history to the revealed plan of divine providence. You must get all this in, not in the dry style of an annual Times summary of the events of the year, but in an interesting, vivid, picturesque style, that will impress the facts on the memory, so that to forget them shall be impossible. SBBS 328.2
Can you do it? I might safely offer a prize of any amount to the person who can solve this puzzle and write this story as I have described. But hard, even impossible, as it would be for you to do this, even if you perfectly knew the history of the last thirteen centuries, how infinitely impossible would it be if that history lay in the unknown and inscrutable future, instead of in the past and present! If no eye had seen, nor ear heard it; if it was an untraversed continent, an unseen world, a matter for the evolution of ages yet to come,-who then could tell the story at all, much less in brief? SBBS 328.3
Now this is precisely what the prophet Daniel, by inspiration of the omniscient and eternal God, has done. He told the whole story of the Papacy twenty-five centuries ago. He omitted none of the points I have enumerated, and yet the prophecy only occupies seventeen verses of a chapter which can be read slowly and impressively in less than five minutes. This is because it is written in the only language in which it is possible thus to compress multum in parvo [much in little], the ancient language of hieroglyphics. God revealed the future to Daniel by a vision in which he saw, not the events, out living, moving, speaking hieroglyphics of the events. These Daniel simply describes, and his description of them constitutes the prophecy written in the seventh chapter of his book.—“Romanism and the Reformation,” H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., F. R. A. S., pp. 20, 21. London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1891. SBBS 328.4
Papacy, Age and Vigor of.—There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that church joins together the two great ages of human civilization. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheater. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. SBBS 329.1
The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and useful vigor. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which, a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe. The members of her communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred and fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all other Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty millions. SBBS 329.2
Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished in Antioch, when idols were still worshiped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigor when some traveler from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.—Lord Macaulay in his Essay on Ranke’s “History of the Popes of Rome.” SBBS 329.3
Papacy, a Mystery of Contradictions.—Who can measure it [the Papacy], or analyze it, or comprehend it? The weapons of reason appear to fall impotent before its haughty dogmatism. Genius cannot reconcile its inconsistencies. Serenely it sits, unmoved amid all the aggressions of human thought and all the triumphs of modern science. It is both lofty and degraded; simple, yet worldly wise; humble, yet scornful and proud; washing beggars’ feet, yet imposing commands on the potentates of earth; benignant, yet severe on all who rebel; here clothed in rags, and there reveling in palaces; supported by charities, yet feasting the princes of the earth; assuming the title of “servant of the servants of God,” yet arrogating the highest seat among worldly dignitaries. Was there ever such a contradiction?-“glory in debasement and debasement in glory,”-type of the misery and greatness of man? Was there ever such a mystery, so occult are its arts, so subtle its policy, so plausible its pretensions, so certain its shafts? How imposing the words of paternal benediction! How grand the liturgy brought down from ages of faith! How absorbed with beatific devotion appears to be the worshiper at its consecrated altars! How ravishing the music and the chants of grand ceremonials! How typical the churches and consecrated monuments of the passion of Christ! Everywhere you see the great emblem of our redemption,-on the loftiest pinnacle of the medieval cathedral, on the dresses of the priests, over the gorgeous altars, in the ceremony of the mass, in the baptismal rite, in the paintings of the side chapels; everywhere are rites and emblems betokening maceration, grief, sacrifice, penitence, the humiliation of humanity before the awful power of divine Omnipotence, whose personality and moral government no Catholic dares openly to deny. SBBS 329.4
And yet, of what crimes and abominations has not this government been accused? If we go back to darker ages, and accept what history records, what wars has not this church encouraged, what discords has she not incited, what superstitions has she not indorsed, what pride has she not arrogated, what cruelties has she not inflicted, what countries has she not robbed, what hardships has she not imposed, what deceptions has she not used, what avenues of thought has she not guarded with a flaming sword, what truth has she not perverted, what goodness has she not mocked and persecuted? Ah, interrogate the Albigenses, the Waldenses, the shades of Jerome of Prague, of Huss, of Savonarola, of Cranmer, of Coligny, of Galileo; interrogate the martyrs of the Thirty Years’ War, and those who were slain by the dragonnades of Louis XIV, those who fell by the hand of Alva and Charles IX; go to Smithfield, and Paris on St. Bartholomew; think of Gunpowder Plots and Inquisitions, and Jesuit intrigues and Dominican tortures, of which history accuses the papal church,-barbarities worse than those of savages, inflicted at the command of the ministers of a gospel of love! ... SBBS 330.1
As for the supreme rulers of this contradictory church, so benevolent and yet so cruel, so enlightened and yet so fanatical, so humble and yet so proud,-this institution of blended piety and fraud, equally renowned for saints, theologians, statesmen, drivelers, and fanatics; the joy and the reproach, the glory and the shame of earth,-there never were greater geniuses or greater fools: saints of almost preternatural sanctity, like the first Leo and Gregory, or hounds like Boniface VIII or Alexander VI; an array of scholars and dunces, ascetics and gluttons, men who adorned and men who scandalized their lofty position.—“Beacon Lights of History,” John Lord, LL. D., Vol. V, pp. 99-102. New York: James Clarke & Co. SBBS 330.2
Papacy, Essence of.—The supremacy is the essence of the whole Roman system. Take away the assertion of St. Peter’s supremacy and the Pope’s equal power as his successor, and the Roman Church is Roman and imperial no longer: it is then no more to the rest of Christendom than the church of Ethiopia or Armenia would be, except so far as one branch might be more pure, enlightened, or efficient than another.—“The Rise of the Papal Power,” Robert Hussey, B. D., Preface, p. xxx. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1863. SBBS 330.3
Papacy, Offspring of Man.—No one can study the development of the Italian ecclesiastical power without discovering how completely it depended on human agency, too often on human passion and intrigues; how completely wanting it was of any mark of the divine construction and care-the offspring of man, not of God, and therefore bearing upon it the lineaments of human passions, human virtues, and human sins.—“History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,” John William Draper, M. D., LL. D., Vol. I, p. 382. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1876. SBBS 331.1
Papacy, Growth of.—We undertake to trace the story of the Roman see from the earliest evidence that can be found, to show that in the primitive times there neither existed in fact, nor was claimed as of right, any such supremacy as that which the see of Rome now claims; we undertake to show how the Roman power advanced step by step, in age after age, until at length, not by any prerogative divinely conferred on it from the beginning, but by a slow, gradual, and distinctly traceable progress, by means which, without forgetting the overruling control of the divine Providence, we may call simply natural, it attained its greatest fulness under such popes as Gregory VII in the latter half of the eleventh century, and Innocent III in the beginning of the thirteenth.—“Plain Lectures on the Growth of the Papal Power,” James Craigie Robertson, M. A., pp. 4, 5. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. SBBS 331.2
The history of the growth of the papal power, i. e., popery, properly so called, exhibits clearly the rise and progress of a worldly principle within the church. SBBS 331.3
Setting out from an acknowledged precedence among equals in rank, possessing from the first an actual influence well earned by distinguished merit, Rome proceeded by degrees to the fictions of St. Peter’s supremacy, and the Pope’s inheritance of a divine right to govern the whole church. When we observe how these doctrines, unheard of in primitive ages, were first obscurely intimated, then more broadly asserted, after this perpetually referred to, introduced into every opening, never omitted, but every incident taken advantage of, and all circumstances dexterously turned into an argument to support them; how succeeding popes never retracted, but adopted and uniformly improved upon the pretensions of their predecessors; how an Innocent went beyond a Julius, as Leo beyond Innocent, and a Gregory VII, in later times, overshot him; when we see the care and anxiety with which popes seem in all things, and sometimes above all things, to have provided for the security of their own authority; and how this end was carried out by interpolations and falsification of ecclesiastical documents, which, when detected, were never retracted or disavowed, and somewhat later grew into a notorious and scandalous system of forgery; when we weigh all these things, it seems impossible for unprejudiced readers to acquit the papal seat of the charge of worldly ambition and corrupt motives.—“The Rise of the Papal Power,” Robert Hussey, B. D., pp. 148, 149. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1863. SBBS 331.4
Papacy, Culmination of Apostasy.—The history of the Christian church does not record a steady progress in the pathway of truth and holiness, an uninterrupted spread of the kingdom of God on earth. On the contrary, it tells the story of a tremendous apostasy. Even in the first century, as we learn from the New Testament, there set in a departure from the gospel, and a return to certain forms of ritualism, as among the Galatians. In the second and third centuries, antichristian doctrine and antichristian practices, sacramentarianism and sacerdotalism, invaded the church, and gradually climbed to a commanding position, which they never afterwards abandoned. In the fourth cen tury, with the fall of paganism, began a worldly, imperial Christianity, wholly unlike primitive apostolic Christianity, a sort of Christianized heathenism; and in the fifth and sixth centuries sprang up the Papacy, in whose career the apostasy culminated later on.—“Romanism and the Reformation,” H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., F. R. A. S., pp. 60, 61. London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1891. SBBS 331.5
Papacy, Five Steps in the Development of.—The papal power was gradually developed, and it is not difficult to trace the principal steps of its development. SBBS 332.1
First Step.-The influence of the pseudo-Clementine Letters and Homilies, a forgery probably of the middle of the second century. These writings profess to be from the hand of Clemens Romanus, who writes to James after the death of Peter, and states that the latter shortly before his death appointed the writer his successor. Here we have the origin of the story, repeated by Tertullian, that Clement was ordained Bishop of Rome by St. Peter. The bishop of Manchester is of opinion that “the whole early persuasion of St. Peter’s Roman Episcopate ‘was due’ to the acceptance in the third and following centuries of the Clementine fiction as genuine history.... No one had any suspicion that the Clementine romance was a lie invented by a heretic. The story was accepted on all sides.” SBBS 332.2
With this view coincides the encyclical letter of the Holy Orthodox Church of the East already referred to: “Those absolutistic pretensions of popedom were first manifested in the pseudo-Clementines.” SBBS 332.3
Second Step.-The action of the Council of Sardica (a. d. 343) in giving a right of appeal to the Bishop of Rome on the part of any bishop who considered himself unjustly condemned. This led to the consolidation of power in the hands of the Bishop of Rome, although the decree of the council was not accepted by the churches of Africa or the East. SBBS 332.4
Third Step.-The decree of the emperor Valentinian 1, that all ecclesiastical cases arising in churches in the empire should be henceforth referred for adjudication to the Bishop of Rome. SBBS 332.5
Fourth Step.-The appeals provided for by the Council of Sardica and by the decree of Valentinian were voluntary appeals; but Pope Nicolas I, in the ninth century, set up the claim that, with or without appeal, the Bishop of Rome had an inherent right to review and decide all cases affecting bishops. SBBS 332.6
Fifth Step.-The forged Isidorian Decretals, which pretended to be a series of royal orders, and letters of ancient bishops of Rome, represented that primitive Christianity recognized in the bishops of Rome supreme authority over the church at large. They became a strong buttress and bulwark of the vast powers now claimed by the popes in the person of Nicolas I.—“Romanism in the Light of History,” Randolph H. McKim, D. C. L., pp. 97, 98. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1914. SBBS 332.7
Papacy, “the First Essay of Papal Usurpation.”—But what most of all distinguished the pontificate of Victor was the famous controversy about the celebration of Easter, between the Eastern and Western bishops; the former keeping that solemnity on the 14th day of the first moon, on what day soever of the week it happened to fall; and the latter putting it off till the Sunday following.... SBBS 332.8
Victor, not satisfied with what his two immediate predecessors had done, took upon him to impose the Roman custom on all the churches that followed the contrary practice. But, in this bold attempt, which we may call the first essay of papal usurpation, he met with a vigorous and truly Christian opposition.—“The History of the Popes,” Archibald Bower, Vol. I, p. 18. Philadelphia: Griffith and Simon, 1847. SBBS 332.9
Papacy, Formal Claim to Supremacy by.—The supremacy of the see of Rome began in the fourth century. Then for the first time the precedence among equals willingly conceded to Rome in early ages was turned into a claim of authority; which was demanded on a new ground, and from that time never ceased to advance in pretensions, until it assumed the form of The Supremacy, that is, absolute dominion throughout Christendom.—“The Rise of the Papal Power,” Robert Hussey, B. D., p. 1. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1863. SBBS 333.1
Papacy, Effect of Removal of Capital from Rome to Constantinople.—The removal of the capital of the empire from Rome to Constantinople in 330, left the Western Church practically free from imperial power, to develop its own form of organization. The Bishop of Rome, in the seat of the Casars, was now the greatest man in the West, and was soon forced to become the political as well as the spiritual head. To the Western world Rome was still the political capital-hence the whole habit of mind, all ambition, pride, and sense of glory, and every social prejudice favored the evolution of the great city into the ecclesiastical capital. Civil as well as religious disputes were referred to the successor of Peter for settlement. Again and again, when barbarians attacked Rome, he was compelled to actually assume military leadership. Eastern emperors frequently recognized the high claims of the popes in order to gain their assistance. It is not difficult to understand how, under these responsibilities, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, established in the pre-Constantine period, was empnasized and magnified after 313 [Edict of Milan]. The importance of this fact must not be overlooked. The organization of the church was thus put on the same divine basis as the revelation of Christianity. This idea once accepted led inevitably to the medieval Papacy.—“The Rise of the Mediaval Church,” Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph. D., Litt. D., pp. 168, 169. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1909. SBBS 333.2
Papacy, Effect of Fall of Western Empire upon.—The fall of the shadowy empire of the West, and the union of the imperial power in the person of the ruler of Constantinople, brought a fresh accession of dignity and importance to the Bishop of Rome. The distant emperor could exercise no real power over the West. The Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy scarcely lasted beyond the lifetime of its great founder, Theodoric. The wars of Justinian only served to show how scanty were the benefits of the imperial rule. The invasion of the Lombards united all dwellers in Italy in an endeavor to escape the lot of servitude and save their land from barbarism. In this crisis it was found that the imperial system had crumbled away, and that the church alone possessed a strong organization. In the decay of the old municipal aristocracy the people of the towns gathered round their bishops, whose sacred character inspired some respect in the barbarians, and whose active charity lightened the calamities of their flocks. SBBS 333.3
In such a state of things Pope Gregory the Great raised the Papacy to a position of decisive eminence, and marked out the course of its future policy.—“A History of the Papacy,” M. Creighton, D. D., Vol. I, pp. 7, 8. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899. SBBS 333.4
Papacy, Successor of Imperial Rome.—Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded, the whole previous relation, anomalous, and annulled again and again by the vices and outrages of the emperors, was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire. The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order, peace, law, and safety. And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of St. Peter, as once before from his own, no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the vicar of Jesus Christ.—“The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ,” Henry Edward Manning, D. D. (R. C.), Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862. SBBS 333.5
If any man will consider the original of this great ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the Papacy is none other than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof.—Thomas Hobbes, of Malmesbury. SBBS 334.1
Out of the chaos of the great Northern migrations, and the ruins of the Roman Empire, there gradually arose a new order of states, whose central point was the Papal See. Therefrom inevitably resulted a position not only new, but very different from the former. The new Christian Empire of the West was created and upheld by the Pope. The Pope became constantly more and more (by the state of affairs, with the will of the princes and of the people, and through the power of public opinion) the chief moderator at the head of the European commonwealth, and, as such, he had to proclaim and defend the Christian law of nations, to settle international disputes, to mediate between princes and people, and to make peace between belligerent states. The Curia became a great spiritual and temporal tribunal. In short, the whole of Western Christendom formed, in a certain sense, a kingdom, at whose head stood the Pope and the emperor-the former, however, with continually increasing and far preponderating authority.—“The Church and the Churches,” Dr. Döllinger (R. C.), pp. 42, 43. London: Hurst and Blackett, 1862. SBBS 334.2
Papacy, Exaltation of, After the Fall of Rome.—With Rome would have fallen her bishop, had he not, as if by anticipation of the crisis, reserved till this hour the masterstroke of his policy. He now boldly cast himself upon an element of much greater strength than that of which the political convulsions of the times had deprived him; namely, that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, and, in virtue of being so, is Christ’s vicar on earth. In making this claim, the Roman pontiffs vaulted at once over the throne of kings to the seat of gods: Rome became once more the mistress of the world, and her popes the rulers of the earth.... SBBS 334.3
In the violent contention which raged between Symmachus and Laurentius, both of whom had been elected to the pontificate on the same day, we are furnished with another proof that at the beginning of the sixth century not only was this lofty prerogative claimed by the popes, but that it was generally acquiesced in by the clergy. We find the council convoked by Theodoric demurring to investigate the charges alleged against Pope Symmachus, on the grounds set forth by his apologist Ennodius, which were “that the Pope, as God’s vicar, was the judge of all, and could himself be judged by no one.” “In this apology,” remarks Mosheim, “the reader will perceive that the foundations of that enormous power which the popes of Rome afterwards acquired were now laid.” Thus did the pontiffs, providing timeously against the changes and revolutions of the future, place the fabric of the primacy upon foundations that should be immovable for all time.—“The Papacy,” Rev. J. A. Wylie, pp. 34-36. Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1851. SBBS 334.4
Papacy, Experiences of, in the Sixth Century.—The power of Rome seems to have made no further advance for some years after the middle of the sixth century. The Lombard wars and the plague depressed the energies of the Romans: and the see began to feel more sensibly the weight of Constantinopolitan influence when the conquests of Belisarius and Narses had brought Italy into subjection to the emperor of the East again. The patriarchs had never submitted to the popes; from Vigilius’s time they were in open feud with Rome; and now they had often the authority of the emperor on their side against Rome. Vigilius was banished by Justinian. Pelagius I, who succeeded him, was opposed by the Romans, but supported by Narses, Justinian’s general.... SBBS 335.1
The great and good Pope Gregory I, a. d. 590, in remonstrating against the patriarch’s claim of the title, “Universal Bishop,” has left on record his own judgment against the popes of later ages, who in their pretensions and their language went far beyond all that John of Constantinople claimed. “John, bishop of Constantinople,” he wrote, “in opposition to God and the peace of the church, in contempt and to the injury of all the priesthood (bishops), exceeded the bounds of modesty and of his own measure, and unlawfully took to himself in synod the proud and pestilent title of Ecumenic, that is, Universal (bishop).”-“The Rise of the Papal Power,” Robert Hussey, B. D., pp. 151, 152. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1863. SBBS 335.2
Agapetus died at Constantinople, April 22, 536. His successor Silverius was elected at Rome, under the influence of the Gothic king Theodatus, and his lot fell in troubled times. While Belisarius was besieged by the Goths under Vitiges, he was accused of favoring the Goths, and thereupon banished by Belisarius. He died soon afterwards, starved to death, it is reported, in his exile, a. d. 538. SBBS 335.3
Vigilius, who was elected next, came in upon the interest of the court of Constantinople: he having, as it is said, given a promise to the empress that he would favor the Monophysite party. His career was not a glorious one in the annals of the popedom.—Id., pp. 145, 146. SBBS 335.4
The immediate effect of the conquest of Italy [535-554] was the reduction of the popes to the degraded condition of the patriarchs of Constantinople. Such were the bitter fruits of their treason to the Gothic king. The success of Justinian’s invasion was due to the clergy; in the ruin they brought upon their country, and the relentless tyranny they drew upon themselves, they had their reward.—“History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,” John William Draper, M. D., LL. D., Vol. I, p. 355. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1876. SBBS 335.5
Papacy, Degeneracy of, in the Tenth Century.—It is usual to denominate it the iron age, on account of its barbarism and barrenness of all good; also the leaden age, on account of the abounding wickedness by which it was deformed; and the dark age, on account of the scarcity of writers.... One can scarcely believe, nay, absolutely cannot credit, without ocular demonstration, what unworthy conduct, what base and enormous deeds, what execrable and abominable transactions, disgraced the Holy Catholic See, which is the pivot on which the whole Catholic Church revolves; when temporal princes, who, though called Christians, were most cruel tyrants, arrogated to themselves the election of the Roman pontiffs. Alas, the shame! Alas, the mischief! What monsters, horrible to behold, were then raised to the Holy See, which angels revere! What evils did they perpetrate; what horrible tragedies ensued! With what pollutions was this see, though itself without spot or wrinkle, then stained; what corruptions infected it; what filthiness defiled it; and hence what marks of perpetual infamy are visible upon it!-Baronius (R. C.), Annales, ad ann. 900 (for the year 900). SBBS 335.6
That the history of the Roman pontiffs of this century, is a history of monsters, a history of the most atrocious villainies and crimes, is acknowledged by all writers of distinction, and even by the advocates of popery.—“Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,” John Laurence von Mosheim, D. D. (Protestant), Vol. II, book 3, cent. 10, part 2, chap. 2, par 2. London: Longman & Co., 1841. SBBS 336.1
Papacy, Degradation of, in Eleventh Century.—Throughout the greater part of the tenth and almost all the first half of the eleventh century, the Papacy had been sunk in the deepest moral degradation. This deplorable state of things had been created largely by the interference in the papal elections-which were nominally in the hands of the Roman clergy and people-by rival feudal factions at Rome which set up and pulled down popes at will. Through such influences it often happened that persons of scandalous life were, through violence and bribery, elevated to the papal chair.—“Mediaval and Modern History,” Phillip Van Ness Myers, p. 113. Boston: Ginn and Company. SBBS 336.2
Papacy, in Thirteenth Century.—So low, indeed, was sunk the moral dignity of Christianity under the papal rule, so oppressive was that power, that of the three great potentates of Christendom at this period [thirteenth century], Frederick II was suspected of preferring the Koran to the Bible, and both Philip Augustus and John are believed to have entertained the desire of adopting the tenets of the Arabian impostor; and all three were no doubt objects of polished scorn to the cultivated Arabs of Bagdad and Cordova.—“Historical Studies,” Eugene Lawrence, p. 46. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1876. SBBS 336.3
During this period [the thirteenth century] the organization of the papal hierarchy was perfected. At the head stood the all-powerful and absolute Pope as God’s agent on earth; hence, at least in theory and claim, he was the ruler of the whole world in temporal and spiritual affairs. He was the defender of Christianity, the church, and the clergy in all respects. He was the supreme censor of morals in Christendom and the head of a great spiritual despotism. He was the source of all earthly justice and the final court of appeal in all cases. Any person, whether priest or layman, could appeal to him at any stage in the trial of a great many important cases. He was the supreme lawgiver on earth, hence he called all councils and confirmed or rejected their decrees. He might, if he so wished, set aside any law of the church, no matter how ancient, so long as it was not directly ordained by the Bible or by nature. He could also make exceptions to purely human laws, and these exceptions were known as dispensations. He had the sole authority to transfer or depose bishops and other church officers. He was the creator of cardinals and ecclesiastical honors of all kinds. He was the exclusive possessor of the universal right of absolution, dispensation, and canonization. He was the grantor of all church benefices. He was the superintendent of the whole financial system of the church and of all taxes. He had control over the whole force of the clergy in Christendom, because he conferred the pallium, the archbishop’s badge of office. In his hands were kept the terrible thunders of the church to enforce obedience to papal law, namely, excommunication and the interdict.—“The Rise of the Mediaval Church,” Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph. D., Litt. D., pp. 575, 576. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. SBBS 336.4
Papacy, Noon of.—“In each of the three leading objects which Rome has pursued,” says Hallam-“independent sovereignty, supremacy over the Christian church, control over the princes of the earth-it was the fortune of this Pontiff [Innocent III] to conquer.” “Rome,” he says again, “inspired during this age all the terror of her ancient name; she was once more mistress of the world, and kings were her vassals.” She had fought a great fight, and now she celebrated an unequaled triumph. Innocent appointed all bishops; he summoned to his tribunal all causes, from the gravest affairs of mighty kingdoms to the private concerns of the humble citizen. He claimed all kingdoms as his fiefs, all monarchs as his vassals, and launched with unsparing hand the bolts of excommunication against all who withstood his pontifical will. Hildebrand’s idea was now fully realized. The pontifical supremacy was beheld in its plenitude-the plenitude of spiritual power, and that of temporal power. It was the noon of the Papacy; but the noon of the Papacy was the midnight of the world.—“The History of Protestantism,” Rev. J. A. Wylie, LL. D., Vol. I, pp. 15, 16. London: Cassell and Company. SBBS 337.1
Papacy, Medieval, Fall of.—With Boniface VIII fell the medieval Papacy. He had striven to develop the idea of the papal monarchy into a definite system. He had claimed for it the noble position of arbiter amongst the nations of Europe. Had he succeeded, the power which, according to the medieval theory of Christendom, was vested in the empire, would have passed over to the Papacy no longer as a theoretical right, but as an actual possession; and the Papacy would have asserted its supremacy over the rising state-system of Europe. His failure showed that with the destruction of the empire the Papacy had fallen likewise. Both continued to exist in name, and set forth their old pretensions; but the empire, in its old aspect of head of Christendom, had become a name of the past or a dream of the future since the failure of Frederick II. The failure of Boniface VIII showed that a like fate had overtaken the Papacy likewise. The suddenness and abruptness of the calamity which befell Boniface impressed this indelibly on the minds of men. The Papacy had first shown its power by a great dramatic act; its decline was manifested in the same way. The drama of Anagni is to be set against the drama of Canossa.—“A History of the Papacy,” M. Creighton, D. D., Vol. I, p. 32. London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1899. SBBS 337.2
Papacy, Decline of.—Thus we have seen that the personal immoralities and heresy of the popes brought on the interference of the king of France, who not only shook the papal system to its basis, but destroyed its prestige by inflicting the most conspicuous indignity upon it. For seventy years [from 1305] Rome was disfranchised, and the rivalries of France and Italy produced the great schism, than which nothing could be more prejudicial to the papal power. We have seen that, aided by the pecuniary difficulties of the Papacy, the rising intellect of Europe made good its influence and absolutely deposed the Pope. It was in vain to deny the authenticity of such a council; there stood the accomplished fact. At this moment there seemed no other prospect for the Italian system than utter ruin; yet, wonderful to be said, a momentary deliverance came from a quarter whence no man would have expected. The Turks were the saviors of the Papacy.... SBBS 337.3
No more with the vigor it once possessed was the Papacy again to domineer over human thought and be the controlling agent of European affairs. Convulsive struggles it might make, but they were only death throes. The sovereign Pontiff must now descend from the autocracy he had for so many ages possessed, and become a small potentate, tolerated by kings in that subordinate position only because of the remnant of his influence on the uneducated multitude and those of feeble minds.—“History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,” John William Draper, M. D., LL. D., Vol. II, pp. 103, 104. New York: Harper & Brothers. SBBS 338.1
Papacy, Babylonish Captivity of.—Under Innocent III and his immediate successors the Papacy had attained its greatest power. The gigantic oak of the Holy Empire had spread forth its branches and overshadowed all lands. Glorious in its own luxuriance, it could henceforth only await the slow decline of time, and the storms which would break it to pieces in ages to come. Already under Boniface VIII the signs of a coming tempest were gathering in the horizon. The sharp breeze which in his time set from France against Rome portended evil. Now Boniface was dead: the breeze had increased to a gale; and the first storm which, sweeping over the medieval Papacy, left it despoiled of a portion of its power, was the successful assertion of their political authority by the kings of France during the seventy years’ residence of the popes at Avignon. That change of residence, marking as it does the time when the glories of the Papacy were over, and when it lost the political supremacy which it had previously enjoyed, has not inaptly been called the Babylonish captivity. It was the beginning of a new epoch in the history of the Papacy and the history of the empire-a period of decline for both.—“The See of Rome in the Middle Ages,” Rev. Oswald J. Reichel, B. C. L., M. A., pp. 409, 410. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1870. SBBS 338.2
Papacy, the Borgias.—The next phase in which the Papacy exhibits itself is the natural result of the possession of absolute temporal and spiritual power; the next representative Pope is a Borgia. In no other place than Rome could a Borgia have arisen; in no other position than that of Pope could so frightful a monster have maintained his power. Alexander VI, or Roderic Borgia, a Spaniard of noble family and nephew to Pope Calixtus III, was early brought to Rome by his uncle, and made a cardinal in spite of his vices and his love of ease. He became Pope in 1492 by the grossest simony. Alexander’s only object was the gratification of his own desires and the exaltation of his natural children. Of these, whom he called his nephews, there were five, one son being Casar Borgia, and one daughter the infamous Lucrezia. Alexander is represented to have been a poisoner, a robber, a hypocrite, a treacherous friend. His children in all there traits of wickedness surpassed their father. Casar Borgia, beautiful in person, and so strong that in a bullfight he struck off the head of the animal at a single blow-a majestic monster ruled by unbridled passions and stained with blood-now governed Rome and his father by the terror of his crimes. Every night, in the streets of the city, were found the corpses of persons whom he had murdered either for their money or for revenge; yet no one dared to name the assassin. Those whom he could not reach by violence he took off by poison. His first victim was his own elder brother, Francis, Duke of Gandia, whom Alexander loved most of all his children, and whose rapid rise in wealth and station excited the hatred of the fearful Casar. Francis had just been appointed duke of Benevento; and before he set out for Naples there was a family party of the Borgias one evening at the papal palace, where no doubt a strange kind of mirth and hilarity prevailed. The two brothers left together, and parted with a pleasant farewell, Casar having meantime provided four assassins to waylay his victim that very night. The next morning the duke was missing; several days passed, but he did not return. It was believed that he was murdered; and Alexander, full of grief, ordered the Tiber to be dragged for the body of his favorite child. An enemy, he thought, had made away with him. He little suspected who that enemy was. SBBS 338.3
At length a Sclavonian waterman came to the palace with a startling story. He said that on the night when the prince disappeared, while he was watching some timber on the river, he saw two men approach the bank, and look cautiously around to see if they were observed. Seeing no one, they made a signal to two others, one of whom was on horseback, and who carried a dead body swung carelessly across his horse. He advanced to the river, flung the corpse far into the water, and then rode away. Upon being asked why he had not mentioned this before, the waterman replied that it was a common occurrence, and that he had seen more than a hundred bodies thrown into the Tiber in a similar manner. SBBS 339.1
The search was now renewed, and the body of the ill-fated Francis was found pierced by nine mortal wounds. Alexander buried his son with great pomp, and offered large rewards for the discovery of his murderers. At last the terrible secret was revealed to him; he hid himself in his palace, refused food, and abandoned himself to grief. Here he was visited by the mother of his children, who still lived at Rome. What passed at their interview was never known; but all inquiry into the murder ceased, and Alexander was soon again immersed in his pleasures and his ambitious designs. SBBS 339.2
Casar Borgia now ruled unrestrained, and preyed upon the Romans like some fabulous monster of Greek mythology. He would suffer no rival to live, and he made no secret of his murderous designs. His brother-in-law was stabbed by his orders on the steps of the palace. The wounded man was nursed by his wife and his sister, the latter preparing his food lest he might be carried off by poison, while the Pope set a guard around the house to protect his son-in-law from his son. Casar laughed at these precautions. “What cannot be done in the noonday,” he said, “may be brought about in the evening.” He broke into the chamber of his brother-in-law, drove out the wife and sister, and had him strangled by the common executioner. He stabbed his father’s favorite, Perotto, while he clung to his patron for protection, and the blood of the victim flowed over the face and robes of the Pope. SBBS 339.3
Lucrezia Borgia rivaled, or surpassed, the crimes of her brother; while Alexander himself performed the holy rites of the church with singular exactness, and in his leisure moments poisoned wealthy cardinals and seized upon their estates. He is said to have been singularly engaging in his manners, and most agreeable in the society of those whom he had resolved to destroy. At length, Alexander perished by his own arts. He gave a grand entertainment, at which one or more wealthy cardinals were invited for the purpose of being poisoned, and Casar Borgia was to provide the means. He sent several flasks of poisoned wine to the table, with strict orders not to use them except by his directions. Alexander came early to the banquet, heated with exercise, and called for some refreshment; the servants brought him the poisoned wine, supposing it to be of rare excellence; he drank of it freely, and was soon in the pangs of death. His blackened body was buried with all the pomp of the Roman ritual. SBBS 339.4
Scarcely is the story of the Borgias to be believed: such a father, such children, have never been known before or since. Yet the accurate historians of Italy, and the careful Ranke, unite in the general outline of their crimes. On no other throne than the temporal empire of Rome has sat such a criminal as Alexander; in no other city than Rome could a Casar Borgia have pursued his horrible career; in none other was a Lucrezia Borgia ever known. The Pope was the absolute master of the lives and fortunes of his subjects; he was also the absolute master of their souls; and the union of these two despotisms produced at Rome a form of human wickedness which romance has never imagined, and which history shudders to describe.—“Historical Studies,” Eugene Lawrence, pp. 51-54. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1876. SBBS 340.1
Papacy, Condition of, at Beginning of the Reformation.—The downward course of the Papacy, from the time of Boniface VIII to the age of the Reformation, we have already contemplated. The removal of the Papal See to Avignon, the great schism, the ever bolder demand for general councils which should be superior to the Pope, the history of these councils themselves and of what followed them, the internal moral corruption which in Innocent VIII and Alexander VI recalled the times of the pornocracy in the tenth century, from the pollution of which Hildebrand had saved the church, may be cited in illustration of the decline of which we speak. And yet at the beginning of the Reformation, the nimbus which surrounded the papal dignity had not dis appeared, nor was that dignity the object of the first attack either of Luther or of Zwingle; only when Rome betrayed the trust reposed in her by the Reformers, and shut her ear to their cry for help, was this opposition regarded by them as a proof that instead of the Holy Father of Christendom they had to do with Antichrist.—“History of the Reformation in Germany and Switzerland Chiefly,” Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, Vol. I, p. 10. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1878. SBBS 340.2
Papacy, General View of Growth and Decline.—This hierarchical centralization, which is so conspicuous in the Middle Ages, was a new thing in the seventh century, and in fact a result growing out of the church’s altered relations. Such claims as were put forth by the popes in the eleventh and thirteenth centuries, would have been impossible in the first four centuries of Christendom. They were the claims of a city no longer mistress of the world, to be mistress of the world; the claims of a spiritual person to occupy the place once held by a political sovereign; the claims of one who felt the strength of his position, who, having been left to himself, had learned what it was to be free, and who, having learned what it was to be free, coveted to rule over others. They were the claims of a civilized ecclesiastic feeling his moral ascendancy over nations rude and uncultivated, and adroitly using his moral ascendancy for political purposes. Moreover, these claims were first advanced in the cause of civilization and Christianity. The error was that they were persevered in by those who had tasted the sweets of power, long after the rudeness and want which had first called them forth had passed away. Nay, are they not even now persevered in, although those upon whom they are made are far in advance of those who make them in intellectual enlightenment? SBBS 340.3
It is interesting to watch the progress of these claims, not forgetting that they form the basis on which the Holy Empire was built, and to see the oscillations of power from the temporal to the spiritual head, and back to the temporal head again. For, in the Holy Empire, religion and politics were ever combined. At one time the religious power is the strongest; at another, the two are equal; again the civil power has secured the upper hand, and seeks to dethrone the ecclesiastical altogether. When the connection between the two is finally severed, the Holy Empire is really at an end. SBBS 341.1
Three definite stages may therefore be distinguished in the history of the See of Rome in the Middle Ages-an age of growth, an age of greatness, and an age of decline. SBBS 341.2
In the first of these stages, the age of growth, the Latin system may be watched rapidly spreading over Europe with hardly a single obstacle. Civilization is confounded with Christianity, and Christianity with the Papacy. The spiritual power is continually rising in importance, and founds the empire. SBBS 341.3
In the next of these stages-the age of greatness-the Pope has become a spiritual autocrat, ruling the church absolutely, and through the church ruling the empire. That rule brings him into collision with the emperor. A struggle goes on ostensibly between popes and emperors, really between the old world and the new world, between the old despotic Latin spirit and the new freedom-loving Teutonic spirit. And such is the power of the Papacy, that the emperors succumb in the struggle. In the moment of the greatest triumphs of the Papacy, however, the handwriting is seen on the wall. SBBS 341.4
With the fourteenth century, marked nationalities begin to show themselves in language, literature, and distinct kingdoms. Europe has reached man’s estate and will no longer be held in thraldom. Soon the system of the Papacy, as a living power, is seen to crumble away, declining far more rapidly than it had grown, and dragging down with it into ruin at once the popes and the emperors. During the papal residence at Avignon, the political supremacy of the popes was lost. By the Great Schism of the West, their ecclesiastical supremacy was undermined. And when vice had deprived them of what moral weight they still possessed, Western Christendom broke off its fetters, and the result was the Reformation.—“The See of Rome in the Middle Ages,” Rev. Oswald J. Reichel, B. C. L., M. A., pp. 4-6. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1870. SBBS 341.5
Papacy, Historical Notes on Papal Absolutism.—The idea of papal absolutism and infallibility, like that of the sinlessness of Mary, can be traced to apocryphal origin. It is found first, in the second century, in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, which contain a singular system of speculative Ebionism, and represent James of Jerusalem, the brother of the Lord, as the bishop of bishops, the center of Christendom, and the general vicar of Christ; he is the last arbiter, from whom there is no appeal; to him even Peter must give an account of his labors, and to him the sermons of Peter were sent for safe keeping. SBBS 341.6
In the Catholic Church the same idea, but transferred to the Bishop of Rome, is first clearly expressed in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, that huge forgery of papal letters, which appeared in the middle of the ninth century, and had for its object the completion of the independence of the episcopal hierarchy from the state, and the absolute power of the popes, as the legislators and judges of all Christendom. Here the most extravagant claims are put into the mouths of the early popes, from Clement (91) to Damasus (384), in the barbarous French Latin of the Middle Ages, and with such numerous and glaring anachronisms as to force the conviction of fraud even upon Roman Catholic scholars. One of these sayings is: “The Roman Church remains to the end free from stain of heresy.” Soon afterwards arose, in the same hierarchical interest, the legend of the donation of Constantine and his baptism by Pope Silvester, interpolations of the writings of the Fathers, especially Cyprian and Augustine, and a variety of fictions embodied in the Gesta Liberii and the Liber Pontificalis, and sanctioned by Gratianus (about 1150) in his Decretum, or collection of canons, which (as the first part of the Corpus Juris Canonici) became the code of laws for the whole Western Church, and exerted an extraordinary influence. By this series of pious frauds the medieval Papacy, which was the growth of ages, was represented to the faith of the church as a primitive institution of Christ, clothed with absolute and perpetual authority. SBBS 341.7
The popes since Nicholas I (858-867), who exceeded all his predecessors in the boldness of his designs, freely used what the spirit of a hierarchical, superstitious, and uncritical age furnished them. They quoted the fictitious letters of their predecessors as genuine, the Sardican canon on appeals as a canon of Nicaa, and the interpolated sixth canon of Nicaa, “the Roman Church always had the primacy,“. of which there is not a syllable in the original; and nobody doubted them. Papal absolutism was in full vigor from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII. Scholastic divines, even Thomas Aquinas, deceived by these literary forgeries, began to defend papal absolutism over the whole church, and the Councils of Lyons (1274) and of Florence (1439) sanctioned it, although the Greeks soon afterwards rejected the false union based upon such assumption. SBBS 342.1
But absolute power, especially of a spiritual kind, is invariably intoxicating and demoralizing to any mortal man who possesses it. God Almighty alone can bear it, and even he allows freedom to his rational creatures. The reminiscence of the monstrous period when the Papacy was a football in the hands of bold and dissolute women (904-962), or when mere boys, like Benedict IX (1033), polluted the papal crown with the filth of unnatural vices, could not be quite forgotten. The scandal of the papal schism (1378 to 1409), when two and even three rival Popes excommunicated and cursed each other, and laid all Western Christendom under the ban, excited the moral indignation of all good men in Christendom, and called forth, in the beginning of the fifteenth century, the three Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basle, which loudly demanded a reformation of the church, in the head as well as in the members, and asserted the superiority of a council over the Pope. SBBS 342.2
The Council of Constance (1414-1418), the most numerous ever seen in the West, deposed two popes-John XXIII (the infamous Balthasar Cossa, who had been recognized by the majority of the church), on the charge of a series of crimes (May 29, 1415), and Benedict XIII, as a heretic who sinned against the unity of the church (July 26, 1417), and elected a new pope, Martin V (Nov. 11, 1517), who had given his adhesion to the council, though after his accession to power he found ways and means to defeat its real object, i. e., the reformation of the church. SBBS 342.3
This council was a complete triumph of the Episcopal system, and the papal absolutists and infallibilists are here forced to the logical dilemma of either admitting the validity of the council, or invalidating the election of Martin V and his successors. Either course is fatal to their system. Hence there has never been an authoritative decision on the ecumenicity of this council, and the only subterfuge is to say that the whole case is an extraordinary exception; but this, after all, involves the admission that there is a higher power in the church over the Papacy. SBBS 342.4
The Reformation shook the whole Papacy to its foundation, but could not overthrow it. A powerful reaction followed, headed by the Jesuits. Their general, Lainez, strongly advocated papal infallibility in the Council of Trent, and declared that the church could not err only because the Pope could not err. But the council left the question undecided, and the Roman catechism ascribes infallibility simply to “the Catholic Church,” without defining its seat. Bellarmine advocated and formularized the doctrine, stating it as an almost general opinion that the Pope could not publicly teach a heretical dogma, and as a probable and pious opinion that Providence will guard him even against private heresy. Yet the same Bellarmine was witness to the innumerable blunders of the edition of the Latin Vulgate prepared by Sixtus V, corrected by his own hand, and issued by him as the only true and authentic text of the Sacred Scriptures, with the stereotyped forms of anathema upon all who should venture to change a single word; and Bellarmine himself gave the advice that all copies should be called in, and a new edition printed with a lying statement in the preface making the printers the scapegoats for the errors of the Pope! This whole business of the Vulgate is sufficient to explode papal infallibility; for it touches the very source of divine revelation. Other Italian divines, like Alphonsus Liguori, and Jesuitical textbooks, unblushingly use long-exploded medieval fictions and interpolations as a groundwork of papal absolutism and infallibility. SBBS 343.1
It is not necessary to follow the progress of the controversy between the Episcopal and the papal systems during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is sufficient to say that the greatest Catholic divines of France and Germany, including Bossuet and Möhler, together with many from other countries, down to the eighty-eight protesting bishops in the Vatican Council, were anti-infallibilists; and that popular catechisms of the Roman Church, extensively used till 1870, expressly denied the doctrine, which is now set up as an article of faith necessary to eternal salvation.—“Rome and the Newest Fashions in Religion,” William E. Gladstone, pp. 99-102. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1875. SBBS 343.2
Papacy, Future Extension of.—It may be that the vicars of Jesus Christ have only begun their toil and their tutelage of the monarchies and dynasties of princes and their royal houses; that a wider, larger, and weightier mission is before them to the nations and confederation of commonwealths, and to the wayward turbulence of the popular will. The gospel of the kingdom has not yet been preached to all nations. The Christian family has not yet assimilated to itself more than one third of the human race. The leaven is in the meal, but it has, as yet, penetrated only a portion. We know that “the whole must be leavened.” The Christendom of today may be no more than the blade, or at most the stalk, to the full corn in the ear, which shall be hereafter. The pontificate and the sovereignty of the vicars of Jesus Christ will then reign with their divine authority over a fold which shall inclose nations as yet neither Christian nor civilized, to which all the Christendom of the past is but as the first fruits to the harvest.—“The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ,” Henry Edward Manning, D. D. (R. C.), Preface, p. liii. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862. SBBS 343.3
Papacy, Builders of, Leo I, Aspiration of.—It was the sublime effort of Leo to make the church the guardian of spiritual principles and give to it a theocratic character and aim, which links his name with the mightiest moral movements of the world; and when I speak of the church, I mean the Church of Rome, as presided over by men who claimed to be the successors of St. Peter, to whom they assert Christ had given the supreme control over all other churches as his vicars on the earth. It was the great object of Leo to substantiate this claim, and root it in the minds of the newly converted barbarians; and then institute laws and measures which should make his authority and that of his successors paramount in all spiritual matters, thus centering in his see the general oversight of the Christian church in all the countries of Europe. SBBS 343.4
It was a theocratic aspiration, one of the grandest that ever entered into the mind of a man of genius, yet, as Protestants now look at it, a usurpation,-the beginning of a vast system of spiritual tyranny in order to control the minds and consciences of men. It took several centuries to develop this system, after Leo was dead. With him it was not a vulgar greed of power, but an inspiration of genius,-a grand idea to make the church which he controlled a benign and potent influence on society, and to prevent civilization from being utterly crushed out by the victorious Goths and Vandals. It is the success of this idea which stamps the church as the great leading power of Medieval Ages,-a power alike majestic and venerable, benignant yet despotic, humble yet arrogant and usurping.—“Beacon Lights of History,” John Lord, LL. D., Vol. IV, pp. 361, 362. New York: James Clarke & Co. SBBS 344.1
Papacy, Builders of, Leo I.—Celestine’s second successor, Leo, who held the see from 440 to 461, is one of those popes who stand out most prominently as agents in the exaltation of the Papacy. To this cause Leo the Great (as he is called) brought the service of a lofty and commanding mind, of great political skill, and of a theological knowledge which surpassed that of any one among his predecessors. And we may not doubt that, in his exertions for the elevation of the Roman see, he believed himself to be laboring, not for its benefit only, but for the benefit of the whole church. Yet while allowing this, we must not let ourselves be blinded to the striking fault of his character-the overmastering love of domination. Barrow styles him, “this vixenly Pope,” and although the use of the epithet is rather strange, we may understand what Barrow means by it, and perhaps he did Leo no injustice. Leo, with a reckless defiance of historical fact, declared the pretensions and practices of his church to be matter of unbroken apostolical tradition, ascribing that venerable character to rules which had been introduced within the last half century by Siricius, and even by later bishops. And under such pretenses he tried to enforce the usages of Rome on the whole church.—“Plain Lectures on the Growth of the Papal Power,” James Craigie Robertson, M. A., pp. 94, 95. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. SBBS 344.2
During Leo’s pontificate arose the controversy occasioned by the opinions of Eutyches. Like most other controversies of those ages, it began in the East; and in 449 a council, which was intended to be general, met at Ephesus for the decision of the questions which had been raised.... It disgraced itself by the furious violence of its proceedings (among other outrages, the aged Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, was so savagely treated that he died in consequence): it decided amidst tumult and uproar in favor of the heretic Eutyches.... SBBS 344.3
Leo, on hearing how things had gone, declared that the late assembly was not a synod, but a meeting of robbers-Latrocinium-a name by which it has continued to be known. He asked the emperor Theodosius II to summon a fresh council, to be held in Italy; and this was one of the occasions on which he cited the Sardican canon on appeals as if it had been the work of the Council of Nicaa, “decreed,” as he says, “by the priests of the whole world.” The application was in vain; but when Theodosius had been succeeded, a few months later, by his sister Pulcheria, who bestowed her hand and the Eastern empire on Marcian, a new general council was resolved on.... Marcian, as emperor of the East, was resolved that the council should be held within his own dominions; and it met in 451 at Chalcedon, on the shore of the Bosporus, opposite to Constantinople. SBBS 344.4
The legates whom Leo commissioned to act for him were charged to assume the presidency of the council, and to suffer nothing to be done except in their presence; but although much was allowed them, they were not able to exercise that entire supremacy which their master intended; and there was much in the proceedings of the council which was deeply distasteful to him.... SBBS 345.1
That which was most offensive to Leo was a canon (the 28th) relating to the see of Constantinople. We have already seen that the second general council, in 381, assigned to the bishops of Constantinople a position next to the Bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops were dissatisfied with this. But differences had also arisen in the East as to the privileges of Constantinople; for, whereas the canon of 381 had bestowed on it nothing but precedence, the bishops of Constantinople, whose dignity and influence had been continually on the increase, had also set up claims to patriarchal jurisdiction over Thrace, Asia, and Pontus. The twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon, then, was intended to settle the privileges of Constantinople; and in so doing it repeated, with far greater distinctness, that reason for the precedence of Constantinople, which in the canon of the second general council had greatly offended the Romans.... SBBS 345.2
On receiving a report of the council, Leo expressed himself strongly against the twenty-eighth canon. He denied, with his usual audacity in such matters, that the precedence of sees had ever depended on the importance of the cities in which they were. He asserted that the canon of the second general council had never been acted on or notified to the Roman see; although (not to mention other instances to the contrary) his own legates at the first session of Chalcedon had admitted the canon of the second general council by joining in a complaint against the Latrocinium for having degraded Flavian of Constantinople from the second to the fifth place among the bishops. He pretended that the new canon contradicted the Nicene Council by subjecting Alexandria and Antioch to Constantinople; he declared it to be annulled by the authority of St. Peter, and loudly complained of the ambition of Anatolius in seeking the exaltation of his see. But, notwithstanding all this vehemence, the canon, from the time of its enactment, was steadily enforced by the Eastern court.... SBBS 345.3
Before leaving Leo, however, let me mention that he introduced a novelty of considerable importance, by establishing a bishop at Constantinople as his representative, instead of the clergy of lower rank whom his predecessors had employed in that capacity. This bishop was evidently meant, not so much to watch over the interests of Rome in the East, as to overlook and coerce the Patriarch of Constantinople; and the manner in which Leo interfered even in the internal concerns of that church would probably have led to an open breach with the patriarch Anatolius, but for the death of Anatolius in 458.—“Plain Lectures on the Growth of the Papal Power,” James Craigie Robertson, M. A., pp. 100-109. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. SBBS 345.4
There was wanted a man who could make the see of St. Peter take the place of the tottering imperial power: there was wanted a man capable above all things of disciplining and consolidating Western Christendom, so that it might present a firm front to the heretical barbarians, and remain in unshaken consistency through all that stormy period which links the ancient with the modern world. The church must be strong, while all else of that old empire was weak. The church, preserving her identity, must give the framework for the society which was to be. In order then that she might fulfil her function, large sacrifices must be made to the surpassing necessity for unity, solidity, and strength. And Leo was the man for the post: lofty and severe in life and aims; rigid and stern in insisting on the rules of ecclesiastical discipline; gifted with an indomitable energy, courage, and perseverance, and a capacity for keeping his eye on many widely distant spheres of activity at once; inspired with an unhesitating acceptance and an admirable grasp of the dogmatic faith of the church, which he was prepared to press everywhere at all costs; finally, possessed with, and unceasingly acting upon, an overmastering sense of the indefeasible authority of the Church of Rome as the divinely ordained center of all church work and life, Leo stands out as the Christian representative of the imperial dignity and severity of old Rome, and is the true founder of the medieval Papacy in all its magnificence of conception and uncompromising strength.—“A Dictionary of Christian Biography,” edited by William Smith and Henry Wace, Vol. III, art. “Leo I,” p. 654. London: John Murray, 1882. SBBS 346.1
Leo was, without all doubt, a man of extraordinary parts, far superior to all who had governed that church before him, and scarce equaled by any who governed it after him. He is extolled by the ancients chiefly for his unwearied zeal in defending the Catholic faith, and unshaken steadiness in combating the opposite errors, that either sprung up or were revived in his time. And truly their encomiums on that score are not ill bestowed; though on some occasions he had better have tempered his zeal, and acted with more moderation. But then his ambition knew no bounds; and to gratify it, he stuck at nothing; made no distinction between right and wrong, between truth and falsehood; as if he had adopted the famous maxim of Julius Casar, or thought the most criminal actions ceased to be criminal, and became meritorious, when any ways subservient to the increase of his power or the exaltation of his see.... So much was he attached to that object, that after he had procured, with infinite labor and pains, the assembling of an ecumenical council, as the only means of ascertaining the Catholic faith, and saving the church, at that time in the utmost danger from the prevailing party of Eutyches and Dioscorus in the East, he was ready, notwithstanding his extraordinary zeal, to undo all he had been doing, and to render that very council ineffectual, had not his legates been allowed to preside; an undeniable proof that he had more at heart the advancement of his see, that is, of his own power and authority, than either the purity of the faith or the welfare of the church.... I shall therefore only observe here, that he has, and ever will have, the demerit of establishing an everlasting warfare between the East and the West, between Constantinople and Rome; the bishops of Constantinople, and their brethren in the East, thinking themselves bound to stand to a decree which had been so unanimously enacted by their predecessors, in an ecumenical council; and none of the later bishops of Rome, how peaceably soever inclined, daring to receive as valid a determination which one of the greatest of their predecessors had, with so much warmth, maintained to be null. SBBS 346.2
Of this dispute we shall see the dreadful effects in the sequel of the present history; and they ought all to be charged to Leo’s account. For his authority drew in all the Western bishops to take the same part, and extended its influence over their successors, as well as his own. But as his ambition, in the pursuit of its own ends and designs, tended also to raise and promote the greatness of his see, that very crime became the cause of his sanctification, being more meritorious to Rome than all his virtues. Indeed, he was a principal founder of her exorbitant power. He brought with him to the pontificate, not only greater abilities, but more experience and practice in state affairs, than any of his predecessors; and used these advantages, through a long course of years, to advance the dignity and prerogatives of his see, with great skill and address, as well as intrepid assurance and courage.—“The History of the Popes,” Archibald Bower. Vol. I, pp. 247, 248. Philadelphia: Griffith and Simon, 1847. SBBS 347.1
Papacy, Builders of, Gregory I.—The Papacy, when Gregory the First, a great and also a good Pope, was elected to it in 590, had risen to a position far higher than that which it occupied in the time covered by the earlier part of our inquiry. Gregory (who is styled the Great) stands in the foremost rank of popes who have contributed to the exaltation of their see. Those who may be classed with him in this respect are Leo the Great (440-461), Nicholas I (858-867), Gregory VII (1073-1085), and Innocent III (1198-1216); and to these, if his attempts had been crowned with success, you might add Boniface VIII (1294-1304), who carried the claims of the Papacy higher than any of his predecessors. SBBS 347.2
But Gregory differs from all the rest of them in this respect, that he is the only one of these popes whose memory we can regard with much affection. Whatever the gifts of the others may have been, and although we may make all possible allowance for their sincerity in thinking that the exaltation of the Roman see was the necessary means towards promoting the welfare of the whole Christian church and the highest interests of mankind, there is yet about them something which, although we may admire them, makes it impossible that we should love them. However pure and unselfish their motives may have been, their conduct looks too much as if it were prompted by a politic and unscrupulous ambition. SBBS 347.3
Gregory I, on the other hand, is a man with whom we feel a sympathy which in the case of the others is impossible. His letters, between 800 and 900 in number, and those passages of his sermons or other writings which bear a reference to his personal circumstances, show him to us in a very favorable light, as a man of truly human feelings, as struggling with great difficulties, as kind, generous, tolerant, while he is zealous for the propagation of the faith, and thoroughly devoted to the cause of the church. SBBS 347.4
There are, indeed, two special blots on his character, and, although attempts have been made by some writers of more zeal than discretion to wash out these blots, there they remain. I mean (1) his subservient behavior to the emperor Phocas, a detestable usurper and tyrant in whom no trace of goodness can be discovered; and (2) his frequent compliments to the Frankish queen Brunichild or Brunehaut, who, unless she has been misrepresented more than probability will allow us to suppose, was a very strange object for the praises which Gregory bestows on her. SBBS 347.5
These things, no doubt, are unpleasant to read of; but the right way of treating them, if we wish to deal kindly with Gregory, is not to deny clear historical facts, or to do violence to our own sense of right and wrong, but to admit that he was not without human weaknesses-that he was an impulsive man, liable to do in haste things of which he might have cause to repent at leisure; liable, in his feeling of zeal for the church, to forget the duty of looking at all sides of a question, and to welcome such things as seemed to be for the church’s immediate advantage, without taking account of all the circumstances which ought to have entered into his consideration.—“Plain Lectures on the Growth of the Papal Power,” James Craigie Robertson, M. A., pp. 115-117. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. SBBS 347.6
In 568, the Lombards under Alboin descended into Italy; they wrested the northern part of the peninsula from the empire; they afterwards got possession of the Duchy of Beneventum, and in Gregory’s days they threatened Rome itself. In this state of things, the Pope was necessarily called to take an active part in politics. The emperor was too far off, and too much engrossed in other affairs, to give any help to his Italian subjects; the exarchs cared for nothing but how to squeeze the highest possible amount of taxes out of the distressed and miserable people; they made no effective opposition to the Lombards.... SBBS 348.1
In these circumstances, then, as the pressure of the Lombards made it urgently necessary that something should be done, and as no help was to be expected either from local authorities or from their distant master, the emperor, the Pope was compelled to act for himself, not only in his spiritual character, but as a great landowner. He did what he could to provide for the defense of the country, and he took it on himself to negotiate a peace with the Lombards,-a measure for which he received no better reward from the court of Constantinople than slights and ridicule, but which endeared him to the people whom he had rescued from the miseries of war. Here, then, you see the Pope, as a great landowner, drawn, through the apathy or the helplessness of the imperial authorities, to enter into political engagements; and thus Gregory will be found to have paved the way for the great political influence exercised by his successors, and for the temporal sovereignty which they acquired.—Id., pp. 118-120. SBBS 348.2
One thing more there is to be noted as to Gregory-his quarrel with John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, as to the use of the term “ecumenical,” which John had assumed as part of his style. We have already seen that this title had been sometimes given by Orientals to the bishops of Rome, the first instance having been at the Council of Chalcedon, when it was used by some Alexandrians who wished to recommend themselves to Leo the Great; that it was sometimes also given to the patriarchs of Constantinople; and that, according to the Eastern usage, it had not that exclusive sense which we might naturally ascribe to it; but that the world was supposed to have room for more than one ecumenical bishop, since the emperor Justinian gave the title alike to the bishops of Rome and of Constantinople. This, however, the Latins could not or would not understand; they translated the Greek word by universalis, and supposed that ecumenical or universal bishop could not mean anything less than sole and supreme bishop of the whole church. When, therefore, John of Constantinople styled himself Ecumenical, the title was vehemently objected to, first by Pelagius II, Gregory’s predecessor, and then by Gregory himself. Gregory declares it to be a “proud and foolish word;” that the assumption of it was an imitation of the devil, who exalted himself above his fellow angels; that it was unlike the behavior of St. Peter, who, although first of the apostles, did not pretend to be more than of the same class with the rest (this, you will see, is not very consistent with the modern pretensions of the Papacy); that it was a token of Antichrist’s speedy coming.—Id., pp. 124-126. SBBS 348.3
Papacy, Builders of, Nicolas I.—The second successor of Leo was Nicolas I, who held the see from 858 to 867. The impression which this Pope made on those who lived near his own time, yet far enough from it to be able to view him without exaggerating his importance, will appear from the words of Regino, abbot of Prüm, who wrote about a century later. “In the year of our Lord’s incarnation, 868,” says Regino (but it was really in May of the year before), “the most holy and blessed Pope Nicolas, after many labors for Christ, and many contests for the inviolable state of the holy church, departed to the heavenly realms, to receive from the most bountiful Lord a crown of glory that fadeth not away, for the faithful administration of the stewardship committed to him. From the time of Bishop Gregory to our own time, no bishop who has been exalted with pontifical power in the city of Rome, appears worthy to be compared to him. He gave his commands to kings and tyrants, and ruled over them with authority as if he were lord of the world; to bishops and religious priests who observed the divine commands he appeared humble, mild, piteous (pius), and gentle; to the irreligious and those who strayed from the right path he was terrible, and full of austerity; so that in him another Elias may deservedly be believed to have arisen in our time, God raising him up as another Elias, if not in body, yet in spirit and power.” ... SBBS 349.1
Nicolas may be described as sincerely zealous for the enforcement of discipline in the church, and as filled with a conscientious sense of the greatness of his position, while he never failed in acting up to his conception of it with resolute firmness, and with great political skill. And circumstances favored his exertions by offering to him opportunities of interfering in the concerns of princes and of churches in such a manner that his actions appeared to be in the interests of justice, and so carried the opinion of mankind with him, while every step which he took was also in effect a step in advance for the Papacy. His idea of the rights of his see was such as to lead him to aim at making all secular power subject to the church, and reducing all national churches into absolute obedience to Rome; and, whether he was fully conscious of this ambitious scheme or not, he labored very powerfully towards realizing it.—Id., pp. 169-172. SBBS 349.2
Papacy, Builders of, Gregory VII.—Hildebrand was the chief representative, the very soul, of a party which had been lately growing up in the church. He was filled with the loftiest hierarchical ideas; he desired to make the Papacy the supreme governing power of the world, not only altogether independent of, but superior to and controlling, all secular power.... SBBS 349.3
For these objects Hildebrand was prepared to labor with thorough conviction, with unswerving steadiness, with a far-sighted patience, with a deep, subtle, and even unscrupulous policy. In conversations at Besançon he persuaded Bruno to forego any claim to the Papacy which was derived from the emperor’s nomination, and to look only to the clergy and people of Rome, whose exclusive privilege it was, according to the views of the hierarchical party, to elect the successors of St. Peter. Bruno laid aside the ensigns of pontifical dignity, and, taking Hildebrand as his companion, proceeded in the guise of a simple pilgrim to Rome, where he declared to the Romans assembled in St. Peter’s, that it was for them to confirm or to set aside the choice which had been made of him. He was hailed with loud acclamations as Leo IX, and from that time, under him and his four successors, from 1049 to 1073, Hildebrand was the real director of the Papacy.... SBBS 349.4
Let us pass on to the pontificate of Hildebrand himself, who was elected in 1073, and assumed the name of Gregory VII. His election was made by the cardinals and approved by the acclamations of the people, according to the decree of Nicolas II; and, agreeably to the same decree, he sent notice to the emperor, and requested him to confirm the choice. This was the last time that the imperial confirmation was sought for an election to the Papacy; for Gregory soon carried things far beyond the point at which Nicolas had left them.... SBBS 350.1
Gregory’s view of the relations of church and state was, that the two powers are irreconcilably hostile to each other, and that the spiritual power is vastly above the secular. In the beginning of his pontificate, indeed, he spoke of the two powers as being like the two eyes in the human body, a comparison which would seem to imply an equality between them. But at a later time he likens them to the sun and the moon respectively, a comparison by which a great superiority is given to the priesthood.... SBBS 350.2
The doctrines here enounced [in the Dictate of Gregory] are far in advance of what we have seen in the forged decretals, both as to the claims which are asserted for the church against the state, and as to the despotism which they would establish for the Papacy over all the rest of the church. It is laid down that the Roman Pontiff alone is universal bishop. To him alone it belongs to depose or to reconcile bishops; and he may depose them either with or without the concurrence of a synod. He alone is entitled to frame new laws for the church; he alone may use the insignia of empire; all princes are bound to kiss his feet; he has the right to depose kings or emperors, and to absolve subjects from their allegiance. His power supersedes the diocesan authority of bishops, and from his sentence there is no appeal. All appeals to him must be respected, and to him the greater causes of every church must be referred. No council may be styled general without his command. The Roman Church never has erred, and, as Scripture testifies, never will err; the Pope is above all judgment, and by St. Peter’s merits is undoubtedly rendered holy.... SBBS 350.3
Such, then, were some of Gregory’s principles; and, although they were not so fully realized by him as they were by Innocent III, somewhat more than a century later, it is Gregory VII-Hildebrand-that must always be regarded as the man from whom, above all others, the papal pretensions derived their greatest development.... SBBS 350.4
On the 25th of May, 1085, he breathed his last at Salerno. His latest words are said to have been, “I have loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore I die in exile.”-Id., pp. 196-212. SBBS 350.5
When Gregory VII declared that it was sin for the ecclesiastic to receive his benefice under conditions from a layman, and so condemned the whole system of feudal investitures to the clergy, he aimed a deadly blow at all secular authority. Half of the land and wealth of Germany was in the hands of bishops and abbots, who would now be freed from the monarch’s control to pass under that of the Pope. In such a state of things government itself would be impossible.—“The Holy Roman Empire,” James Bryce, p. 158. London: Macmillan & Co., 1892. SBBS 350.6
Gregory VII did not aim at securing the papal monarchy over the church; that had been established since the days of Nicolas I. He aimed at asserting the freedom of the church from the worldly influences which benumbed it, by setting up the Papacy as a power strong enough to restrain church and state alike. In ecclesiastical matters Gregory enunciated the infallibility of the Pope, his power of deposing bishops and restoring them at his own will, the necessity of his consent to give universal validity to synodal decrees, his supreme and irresponsible jurisdiction, the precedence of his legates over all bishops. In political matters he asserted that the name of Pope was incomparable with any other, that he alone could use the insignia of empire, that he could depose emperors, that all princes ought to kiss his feet, that he could release from their allegiance the subjects of wicked rulers. Such were the magnificent claims which Gregory VII bequeathed to the medieval Papacy, and pointed out the way towards their realization.—“A History of the Papacy,” M. Creighton, D. D., Vol. I, pp. 17, 18. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899. SBBS 351.1
Papacy, Builders of, Innocent III.—In 1198, Innocent III, the most powerful of all the popes, was elected at the early age of thirty-seven. He was a man of many noble and admirable qualities, but devoted above all things to the aggrandizement of his see; and for this object he labored throughout his pontificate of eighteen years with skilful and vigorous exertion. Innocent boldly asserted, in a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, that to St. Peter had been committed, not only the whole church, but the whole world. By him that comparison of the spiritual and the secular powers to the sun and moon respectively which I have mentioned in connection with Gregory VII was elaborated and developed more strongly than before. As the moon (he says) borrows from the sun a light which is inferior both in amount and in quantity, so does the regal power borrow from the pontifical. As the light which rules over the day-i. e., over spiritual things-is the greater, and as that which rules over the night-i. e., over carnal things-is the lesser, so is the difference between pontiffs and kings like that between the sun and the moon. SBBS 351.2
Innocent’s words on this subject were adopted into the decretals compiled under the authority of Gregory IX; and a commentator, who probably took his measurements from the astronomy of the time, interprets them very precisely as meaning that the Pope is one thousand seven hundred and forty-four times more exalted than emperors and all kings. This was certainly no small advance from the original form of Hildebrand’s illustration, in which the two powers were likened to the two eyes in the human head, as if they were equal and co-ordinate with each other. And in accordance with such lofty pretensions Innocent acted; he declared that the empire had been transferred from the Greeks to the Germans by the papal authority, and he claimed for the Papacy the right of “principally and finally” disposing of the imperial crown.... SBBS 351.3
Throughout all the other kingdoms of Europe Innocent made himself felt by the vigor and the vigilance of his administration, and not only by asserting the loftiest pretensions of the Roman see, but by enforcing the obligations of Christian morality. This was indeed (as I have already said while speaking of Nicolas I) one of the means which, by enlisting popular feeling on his side, as the cause of right and justice, by teaching men to regard the Pope as the vindicator of innocence against oppression, tended most powerfully to facilitate the advance of the Roman Pontiff to that position of supreme arbiter and controller which he now attained among the kingdoms of Western Christendom. SBBS 351.4
In whatever direction we may look, we see Innocent interfering with a high hand, and claiming for his office the right of giving laws to sovereigns. In France, Philip Augustus, by putting away his wife Ingeburga, a Danish princess, and entering into an irregular marriage with Agnes of Merania, gave the Pope a pretext for intervention. An interdict was pronounced on the whole kingdom; and, although Philip for a time endeavored to resist the sentence, and to evade his obligations, the terrors of this sentence were so severely felt that he found himself compelled to yield to the general voice of his subjects, and to submit to the Pope’s commands by doing a tardy justice to Ingeburga. SBBS 352.1
Still more remarkable was Innocent’s triumph as to England, where, taking advantage of the contemptible character of the sovereign, John, he forced his nominee, Stephen Langton, into the primacy, in disregard of the rights of the national church and of the crown, and brought the king to submit to resign his crowns into the hands of a legate, and to hold the kingdoms of England and Ireland on condition of paying a heavy annual tribute to the Papacy. SBBS 352.2
In the East, the pontificate of Innocent was marked by an important event. A crusading force, which had been gathered for the holy war of Palestine, allowed itself to be diverted to Constantinople, where it restored a dispossessed emperor to his throne; and afterwards, when this emperor and his son had been again dethroned by a kinsman-when the younger prince had been murdered, and the father had died of grief-the crusaders put down the usurper, and established a Latin sovereignty in the capital of the Eastern Empire. The Pope had at first vehemently denounced the change of purpose from a war against the infidels to an attack on a Christian state; but the brilliant success of the expedition reconciled him to the irregularity, and he sanctioned the establishment of a Latin empire at Constantinople, with a Latin patriarch and clergy intruded to the exclusion of the hated native hierarchy of Greece. SBBS 352.3
In the south of France, this pontificate was disgraced by the beginning of a war carried on with singular atrocity against the Albigensian heretics, which ended in the establishment of orthodoxy by the slaughter of multitudes, and in the desolation of the rich and flourishing country It was in this war that the famous Spanish monk Dominic first became conspicuous, and to Innocent is to be referred the sanction of the two great mendicant orders-the Preaching Friars, founded by Dominic, and the Minorites, founded by Francis of Assisi. These orders enjoyed the especial favor of the Papacy, and, from the manner in which they penetrated, as none had before done, to the humblest classes of society, in them the Papacy found its most active and most serviceable agents. SBBS 352.4
On the whole, it may be said that Innocent was the greatest and the most successful of popes. In him the power of the Roman see attained its height; and his successors, by endeavoring to carry it still higher, provoked a reaction which was disastrous to it.—“Plain Lectures on the Growth of the Papal Power,” James Craigie Robertson, M. A., pp. 233-240. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. SBBS 352.5
It was reserved, however, for Innocent III to realize most fully the ideas of Hildebrand. If Hildebrand was the Julius, Innocent was the Augustus, of the papal empire. He had not the creative genius nor the fiery energy of his great forerunner; but his clear intellect never missed an opportunity, and his calculating spirit rarely erred from its mark. A man of severe and lofty character, which inspired universal respect, he possessed all the qualities of an astute political intriguer. SBBS 352.6
He was lucky in his opportunities, as he had no formidable antagonist; among the rulers of Europe his was the master mind. In every land he made the papal power decisively felt. In Germany, France, and England, he dictated the conduct of the kings.—“A History of the Papacy,” M. Creighton, D. D., Vol. I, p. 21. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899. SBBS 353.1
The first step in Innocent’s plan was to make himself the political head of Europe. In Italy he first made himself absolute sovereign of Rome by removing all vestiges of imperial rule. The senators and the prefect, who held their commissions from the emperor, were required to take oaths to him as their sovereign. The imperial judges were also replaced by his own appointees. By persuasion or tactful diplomacy he gained a mastery over the warring Roman nobles. From Rome he gradually extended his sway over the rest of Italy. He was made regent of Frederick II, the youthful son of Henry VI, now king of Sicily. He forced the Tuscan cities to recognize his suzerainty instead of that of the German emperor, and subdued the march of Ancona and the duchy of Spoleto. He posed as the champion of Italian independence and liberty against foreign rule. His leadership was generally recognized and he was called “The Father of His Country.” “Innocent III was the first Pope who claimed and exercised the rights of an Italian prince.” When Emperor Otto IV ceded all the lands claimed by the Papacy under grants from former rulers, an indisputable title to the Papal States was established.—“The Rise of the Mediaval Church,” Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph. D., Litt. D., pp. 549, 550. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. SBBS 353.2
No other wearer of the papal tiara has left behind him so many results pregnant with good and ill for the future of the church. Under him [Innocent III] the Papacy reached the culmination of its secular power and prerogatives. The principles of sacerdotal government were fully and intelligently elaborated. The code of ecclesiastical law was completed and enforced. All the Christian princes of Europe were brought to recognize the overlordship of the successor of St. Peter. All the clergy obeyed his will as the one supreme law. Heresy was washed out in blood. The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and the dreams of Hildebrand had been realized. Yet in this very greatness, wealth, and strength, were the germs of weakness and disease which were eventually to overthrow the great structure reared by Innocent III and his predecessors.—Id., pp. 566, 567. SBBS 353.3
Papacy, Builders of, Boniface VIII, His Quarrel with Philip the Fair of France.—The conflict began in 1296, when the Pope issued a bull, known from its initial words as Clericis laicos, which pronounced the ban on all princes and nobles who under any pretext imposed tallages on the church and clergy. Although the bull did not mention Philip by name, it was clearly aimed at him; the Pope’s object being to induce Philip by fear of wanting supplies to refer his dispute with the English king Edward I to himself for decision. In this object he failed at the time, having entirely misjudged the character of his opponent. Philip retaliated by prohibiting the exportation of gold and silver out of France, thus depriving Boniface of an important portion of his revenues, and Boniface found it best for his own interests to repeal the bull with regard to France, and to court the favor of Philip. Friendly relations were restored, and Philip agreed to accept the arbitration of the Pope. Thus by a yielding policy Boniface succeeded in obtaining a success which he had been unable to gain by force; but whilst the gain was personal, a sacrifice had been made of the dignity of his office. SBBS 353.4
A year or two later the quarrel broke out afresh; Philip being dissatisfied with the Pope’s award; Boniface charging Philip with oppressing the church. Saiset de Pamiers, the papal legate, threatened the king with excommunication, his whole kingdom with the interdict. To Philip Boniface wrote: “Thou art to know that in things spiritual and temporal thou art subject to us.... Those who think otherwise we hold to be heretics.” The French prelates he summoned to Rome to confer with him on the abuses in Philip’s administration; Philip himself he cited to appear before them, bidding him observe, so the letter ran, “what the Lord our God utters through us.” The celebrated bull, Unam Sanctam, was put forth, repeating in a still more advanced form the principles of Innocent III, declaring that to St. Peter, as the one head of the church, and to his successors, two swords had been committed, the one temporal, the other spiritual; that the temporal sword was to be used for the church, the spiritual by the church; and concluding by the assertion that for every human being subjection to the Pope was necessary for salvation. To crown the whole, a bull was issued on April 13, 1303, pronouncing sentence of excommunication on the king. SBBS 354.1
To all these menaces Philip replied with equal boldness; Saiset, the legate, who was moreover a subject of France, he contemptuously sent out of the kingdom unanswered. To Boniface’s laconic letter he replied by one equally laconic: “Let thy most consummate folly know that in temporal things we are subject to no man.... Those who think otherwise we hold to be foolish or mad.” He forbade the prelates to leave the kingdom, and sequestrated the goods of those who disobeyed, and assembling the States General, to assure himself of the support of his subjects, he recounted the attacks which had been made on his sovereignty. The bull, Unam Sanctam, was publicly burnt, and to the bull of excommunication he replied by preferring before the States General a list of charges against the Pope, and making a solemn appeal to a general council to examine these charges. Thus for the second time in Philip’s reign an appeal was made from the Pope to a council; the sympathies of the States General were enlisted on the side of the king; and the weapon which Hildebrand had first employed against the clergy was now employed by Philip against Hildebrand’s successor. SBBS 354.2
The sequel of the struggle is soon told. Boniface had gone too far to be able to withdraw, and Philip was not disposed to give way. Whilst the Pope thought to celebrate his triumph over France, the handwriting was seen on the wall. Before Anagni, his native city, whither he had withdrawn with his cardinals from the summer heat of Rome, William de Nogaret, Philip’s keeper of the seals, appeared on Sept. 7, 1303, at the head of a troop of armed men. He entered the city at early dawn, and soon the cry resounded: “Death to Pope Boniface! Long live the King of France!” The people took part with the soldiers; the cardinals fled. SBBS 354.3
Not losing his self-command, but declaring himself ready to die like Christ, if like Christ he were betrayed, Boniface put on the stole of St. Peter, and with the imperial crown on his head, the keys of St. Peter in one hand, the cross in the other, took his seat on the papal throne; and, like the Roman senators of old, awaited the approach of the Gaul. But he had not been three days in the hands of Nogaret, when the citizens of Anagni by a sudden impulse turned round; the French were driven from Rome, and Boniface was once more at liberty. To Rome he returned; no longer to exercise that sway over men’s minds which he had wielded in the days of his prosperity, but to find himself a prisoner, the Sacred College his enemies. In an access of fury, the Ghibelline historians relate, brought on by wounded pride and ambition, the fallen Pontiff sat gnawing the top of his staff, and at length beat out his brains against the wall. SBBS 354.4
In the fall of Boniface was shadowed forth the fall of the papal supremacy, which for so long had held dominion over men’s minds and bodies. In the bold and unscrupulous use of ecclesiastical power no Pope had ever been the equal of Boniface; there is nothing in the life of the great Innocent III which equals Boniface’s crusade against the Colonnas, nothing in that of Gregory VII which approaches the series of bulls hurled at the head of Philip. Nevertheless, had all other signs of decline been wanting, and could the last scene of Boniface’s life be expunged from history, those two appeals to a general council, that successful enlistment of the sympathies of the States General against Boniface, showed that the papal power had begun to decline. The year of Jubilee, with its lavish grant of indulgences, provoked the reaction which prepared the way for the era of the Reformation.—“ The See of Rome in the Middle Ages,” Rev. Oswald J. Reichel, B. C. L., M. A., pp. 272-278. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1870. SBBS 355.1
Papacy. -See Antichrist; Gregory VII; Holy Roman Empire; Little Horn; Reformation, 411; Sabbath, Change of. SBBS 355.2
Papal Supremacy, Rivalry of Rome and Constantinople.—The Patriarch of Constantinople, however, remained virtually only primus inter pares [first among equals], and has never exercised a papal supremacy over his colleagues in the East, like that of the Pope over the metropolitans of the West; still less has he arrogated, like his rival in ancient Rome, the sole dominion of the entire church. Toward the Bishop of Rome he claimed only equality of rights and co-ordinate dignity. SBBS 355.3
In this long contest between the two leading patriarchs of Christendom, the Patriarch of Rome at last carried the day. The monarchical tendency of the hierarchy was much stronger in the West than in the East, and was urging a universal monarchy in the church.—“History of the Christian Church,” Philip Schaff, (7 vol. edition) Vol. III, pp. 285, 286. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1889. SBBS 355.4
Papal Supremacy, Rome the Historic Seat of World Empire.—Then, too, considered even in a political point of view, old Rome had a far longer and grander imperial tradition to show, and was identified in memory with the bloom of the empire; while New Rome marked the beginning of its decline. When the Western Empire fell into the hands of the barbarians, the Roman bishop was the only surviving heir of this imperial past, or, in the well-known dictum of Hobbes, “the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof.”-Idem, p. 287. SBBS 355.5
Papal Supremacy, Advancing Claims.—Let me only add, with reference to Pope Symmachus, who held the Pontificate at the opening of the sixth century, that a council having been convened at Rome, a. d. 501, by King Theodoric’s command, to judge of certain charges against him, the council demurred on entering on the matter, on the ground of in-competency; considering that the person accused was supreme above all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. And, a little after (to crown all) another Roman synod [a. d. 503], with Symmachus himself presiding and consenting, in the most solemn manner adopted a book written by Ennodius, in defense of the resolutions of the former synod: in which book it was asserted, “that the Pope was Judge as God’s Vicar, and could himself be judged by no one.” It was just in accordance with the previous Roman council, that had shouted in acclamation to Gelasius, “We behold in thee Christ’s Vicar:” a term this sometimes incautiously applied before to bishops generally, in their own particular restricted spheres of action, and in the character of Christ’s ambassadors; but now attached to, and assumed by, this one bishop distinctively and alone, with the world itself as his sphere, and in the character of God’s own appointed and supreme administrator and judge. It was a step per saltum, mightier than the imagination can well follow, by which he vaulted at once from the mere ecclesiastical rank of Patriarch, to that of supremacy over all the kings of the earth. The haughty assumption was repeated by Pope Boniface. So evidently, says Mosheim, was the foundation laid even thus early of the subsequent papal supremacy; so evidently, I must add, was it laid, both before kings and people, in papal pretensions that realized the precise predicted character and even appellation of Antichrist.—“Horo Apocalyptica,” Rev. E. B. Elliott, A. M., part 4, chap. 5; Vol. III, pp. 132-134, 3rd edition. London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1847. SBBS 355.6
Note.—Antichrist means vice-Christ or vicar of Christ, the title formally as sumed. See “Antichrist, Vicar of Christ” and “Antichrist, Meaning of.”-Eds. SBBS 356.1
Papal Supremacy, the Pivotal Age of Justinian.—The sixth century may be called the age of Justinian.... He may be likened to a colossal Janus bestriding the way of passage between the ancient and medieval worlds.... On the one side his face was turned towards the past. His ideal, we are told, was to restore the proud aspect of the old Roman Empire.... Moreover, he represents the last stage in the evolution of the Roman Imperium; in him was fulfilled its ultimate absolutism.... On the other hand, he was a great innovator and a destroyer of old things.... SBBS 356.2
His military achievements decided the course of the history of Italy, and affected the development of Western Europe; ... and his ecclesiastical authority influenced the distant future of Christendom.—“History of the Later Roman Empire,” J. B. Bury, Trinity College, Dublin, Vol. I, pp. 351-353. Cambridge: Macmillan & Co., 1889. SBBS 356.3
Papal Supremacy, Changes of a Generation.—The reign of Justinian is more remarkable as a portion of the history of mankind, than as a chapter in the annals of the Roman Empire, or of the Greek nation. The changes of centuries passed in rapid succession before the eyes of one generation.—“Greece under the Romans,” George Finlay. p. 231. Edinburgh and London: Wm. Blackwood and Sons, 1844. SBBS 356.4
Papal Supremacy, Character of Justinian, by a Contemporary.—In his zeal to bring all men to agree in one form of Christian doctrine, he recklessly murdered all who dissented therefrom, under the pretext of piety, for he did not think that it was murder, if those whom he slew were not of the same belief as himself.—“Secret History of the Court of Justinian” (attributed to Procopius, but authorship uncertain), chap. 13, p. 110. Athens: Athenian Society’s Publications, 1896. SBBS 356.5
Papal Supremacy, Description of Justinian.—A fair, fierce-looking, red-cheeked man, with long nose and shaven chin, and curly grizzled hair, rather thin about the crown, carrying his shapely figure with a fine air of distinction, and although now somewhat past the prime of life, still consciously vigorous with the strength of an iron constitution inherited from a hardy stock of Dacian peasants.... SBBS 356.6
“Of all the princes who reigned at Constantinople,” writes Agathias, “he was the first to show himself absolute sovereign of the Romans in fact as well as in name” (Hist. V. 14).... He gathered all the wires into his hands, and his puppets had to dance as he directed. Nor would he ever tolerate the least infraction of obedience, for he himself was perfectly persuaded that “nothing was greater, nothing more sacred, than the imperial majesty” (Cod. Just. 1. xiv. 12).—“Life of Gregory the Great,” F. H. Dudden, Vol. I, pp. 17-19. SBBS 357.1
Papal Supremacy, Justinian’s Imperial Recognition of, in 533.—Justinian, victor, pious, fortunate, famous, triumphant, ever Augustus, to John, the most holy Archbishop and Patriarch of the noble city of Rome. Paying honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, as always has been and is our desire, and honoring your blessedness as a father, we hasten to bring to the knowledge of Your Holiness all that pertains to the condition of the churches, since it has always been our great aim to safeguard the unity of your apostolic see and the position of the holy churches of God which now prevails and abides securely without any disturbing trouble. Therefore we have been sedulous to subject and unite all the priests of the Orient throughout its whole extent to the see of Your Holiness. 22 Whatever questions happen to be mooted at present, we have thought necessary to be brought to Your Holiness’s knowledge, however clear and unquestionable they may be, and though firmly held and taught by all the clergy in accordance with the doctrine of your apostolic see; for we do not suffer that anything which is mooted, however clear and unquestionable, pertaining to the state of the churches, should fail to be made known to Your Holiness, as being the head of all the churches. For, as we have said before, we are zealous for the increase of the honor and authority of your see in all respects.—Cod. Justin., lib. 1, title 1; Baronii “Annales Ecclesiastici,” Tom. VII, an. 533, sec. 12; translation as given in “The Petrine Claims,” R. F. Littledale, LL. D., D. C. L., p. 293. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1889. SBBS 357.2
Note.—The Latin of this letter follows: “Epistula Justiniani ad Joannem Romanum Pontificem, a. d. 533.—Reddentes honorem Apostolica Sedi et vestra sanctitati (quod semper nobis in voto et fuit et est) ut decet patrem honorantes vestram beatitudinem, omnia qua ad Ecclesia statum pertinent, festinavimus ad notitiam deferre vestra sanctitatis: quoniam semper nobis fuit magnum studium, unitatem vestra Apostolica Sedis, et statum sanctarum Dei Ecclesiarum custodire, qui hactenus obtinet et incommoté permanet, nulla intercedente contrarietate: Ideoque omnes sacerdotes universi Orientalis tractus et subjicere at unire vestra sanctitati properavimus. In prasenti ergo qua commota sunt. quamvis manifesta et indubitata sint, et secundum Apostolica vestra Sedis doctrinam ab omnibus semper sacerdotibus firme custodita et pradicata: necessarium duximus, ut ad notitiam vestra sanctitatis perveniant. Nec enim patimur quicquam quod ad Ecclesiarum statum pertinet, quamvis manifestum et indubitatum sit quod movetur, ut non etiam vestra innotescat, sanctitati, qua caput est omnium sanctarum Ecclesiarum. Per omnia enim (ut dictum est) properamus honorem et auctoritatem crescere vestra Sedis.”-“Annales Ecclesiastici,” Casare Baronio, Tom. VII, under 533, sec. 12, p. 230. Colonia Agrippina: Joannis Gymnici, and Antonij Hierati, sub Monocerote, 1609. SBBS 357.3
Papal Supremacy, Date of Justinian’s Letter.—The emperor’s letter must have been sent before the 25th of March, 533. For, in his letter of that date to Epiphanius he speaks of its having been already dispatched, and repeats his decision, that all affairs touching the church shall be referred to the Pope, “Head of all bishops, and the true and effective corrector of heretics.” [“Vel eo maxime, quod quoties in his locis haretici pullularunt, et sententia et recto judicio illius venerabilis sedis correcti sunt.”]—“The Apocalypse of St. John,” Rev. George Croly, A. M., p. 170. London: C. & J. Rivington, 1828. SBBS 357.4
Papal Supremacy, Formally to be Recognized by Civil Authority.—The Papacy being a spiritual power within the limits of the Roman Empire, Mr. Faber argues, I think rightly, when he says, that the giving the saints into the hand of the Papacy must be by some formal act of the secular power of that empire constituting the Pope to be the head of the church. It is not, in fact, easy to conceive in what other mode the saints could be delivered into the hand of a spiritual authority, which, in its infancy at least, must have been in a great measure dependent upon the secular power for its very existence, and much more for every degree of active power which it was permitted to assume or exercise. SBBS 358.1
Accordingly we are informed, by the unerring testimony of history, that an act of the secular government of the empire was issued in the reign of Justinian, whereby the Roman Pontiff was solemnly acknowledged to be the head of the church.... SBBS 358.2
The epistle which was addressed to the Pope, and another to the Patriarch of Constantinople, were inserted in the volume of the civil law; thus the sentiments contained in them obtained the sanction of the supreme legislative authority of the empire; and in both epistles, the above titles were given to the Pope. SBBS 358.3
The answer of the Pope to the imperial epistle was also published with the other documents; and it is equally important, inasmuch as it shows that he understood the reference that had been made to him, as being a formal recognition of the supremacy of the see of Rome. SBBS 358.4
From the date of the imperial epistle of Justinian to Pope John, in March, 533, the saints, and times, and laws of the church, may therefore be considered to have been formally delivered into the hand of the Papacy, and this is consequently the true era of the 1260 years.—“A Dissertation on the Seals and Trumpets of the Apocalypse,” William Cuninghame, Esq., pp. 185, 186, 4th edition. London: Thomas Cadell, 1843. SBBS 358.5
Papal Supremacy, Old Writers on Epoch of Justinian.—This epoch has not been fixed on, as a fit commencing epoch to the period of Papal supremacy, for the first time by modern commentators; or with a view only to the support of ex-post facto prophetic theories, that regard the French Revolution as the correspondent terminating epoch. It is an epoch noted by Protestant commentators, such as Brightman, Cressener, Mann, etc., anterior to the time of the French Revolution. Nay, Romanists too have remarked as early on it; for example the Jesuit Gordon, 23 and Gothofred, the learned editor of Justinian’s Corpus Juris. The latter especially, speaking of Justinian’s decretal epistle to the Pope, notes it as the first imperial recognition of the primacy of Rome over Constantinople; i. e., of the absolute primacy. “It is hence evident,” he says, “that they who suppose Phocas to have been the first that gave imperial recognition to the primacy of the Roman see over that of Constantinople are in error; Justinian having acknowledged it before.” 24 -“Hora Apocalyptica,” Rev. E. B. Elliott, A. M., Vol. III, p. 253, 3rd edition. London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1847. SBBS 358.6
Papal Supremacy, Justinian, Not Phocas, the Source.—Towards the close of the sixth century, John of Constantinople, surnamed for his pious austerities the Faster, summoned a council and resumed the ancient title of the see, “Universal Bishop.” The Roman Bishop, Gregory the Great, indignant at the usurpation, and either hurried away by the violence of controversy, or, in that day of monstrous ignorance, unacquainted with his own distinctions, furiously denounced John, calling him a “usurper aiming at supremacy over the whole church,” and declaring, with unconscious truth, that whoever claimed such supremacy was Antichrist. The accession of Phocas at length decided the question.... That Phocas repressed the claim of the Bishop of Constantinople is beyond a doubt. But the highest authorities among the civilians and annalists of Rome spurn the idea that Phocas was the founder of the supremacy of Rome; they ascend to Justinian as the only legitimate source, and rightly date the title from the memorable year 533.—“The Apocalypse of St. John,” Rev. George Croly, A. M., pp. 171-173, 2nd edition. London: C. & J. Rivington, 1828. SBBS 359.1
Papal Supremacy, Not Conferred by Phocas.—Paulus Diaconus and Anastasius, the only original historians who mention the grant of Phocas, do it in such terms as to show that no new title was given by this emperor, but that he merely renewed and confirmed the title of head of all the churches, which had been granted by Justinian, but was afterwards disputed by the see of Constantinople, which wished to appropriate the title to itself. Besides, it may be observed, that the grant of Phocas has not been preserved, and it wants the requisite formality of having been recorded in the volume of the laws of the empire.—“A Dissertation on the Seals and Trumpets of the Apocalypse,” William Cuninghame, pp. 187, 188, 4th edition. London: Thomas Cadell, 1843. SBBS 359.2
Papal Supremacy, Justinian’s Design to Clear the Arian Power from Italy.—When Justinian first meditated the conquest of Italy, he sent ambassadors to the kings of the Franks, and adjured them, by the common ties of alliance and religion, to join in the holy enterprise against the Arians.—“The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” Edward Gibbon, chap. 41, par. 32 (Vol. IV, p. 175). New York: Harper & Brothers. SBBS 359.3
Papal Supremacy, Belisarius’s Army Let into Rome (a. d. 536) by the Clergy.—The Goths consented to retreat in the presence of a victorious enemy; to delay till the next spring the operations of offensive war; to summon their scattered forces; to relinquish their distant possessions, and to trust even Rome itself to the faith of its inhabitants. Leuderis, an ancient warrior, was left in the capital with four thousand soldiers; a feeble garrison, which might have seconded the zeal, though it was incapable of opposing the wishes, of the Romans. But a momentary enthusiasm of religion and patriotism was kindled in their minds. They furiously exclaimed that the apostolic throne should no longer be profaned by the triumph or toleration of Arianism; that the tombs of the Casars should no longer be trampled by the savages of the North; and, without reflecting that Italy must sink into a province of Constantinople, they rondly hailed the restoration of a Roman emperor as a new era of freedom and prosperity. The deputies of the Pope and clergy, of the senate and people, invited the lieutenant of Justinian to accept their voluntary allegiance, and to enter the city, whose gates would be thrown open for his reception.—Id., chap. 41, par. 22 (Vol. IV, p. 158). SBBS 359.4
Papal Supremacy, Unsuccessful Siege of Rome by Goths (537-538).—The whole nation of the Ostrogoths had been assembled for the attack, and was almost entirely consumed in the siege of Rome. If any credit be due to an intelligent spectator, one third at least of their enormous host was destroyed in frequent and bloody combats under the walls of the city.... But every attempt was defeated by the intrepid vigilance of Belisarius and his band of veterans, who, in the most perilous moments, did not regret the absence of their companions; and the Goths, alike destitute of hope and subsistence, clamorously urged their departure before the truce should expire, and the Roman cavalry should again be united. One year and nine days after the commencement of the siege, an army, so lately strong and triumphant, burned their tents, and tumultuously repassed [538] the Milvian bridge.—Id., chap. 41, par. 30 (Vol. IV, pp. 172, 173). SBBS 360.1
Papal Supremacy, The Siege of 538 a Turning Point of History.—With the conquest of Rome by Belisarius, the history of the ancient city may be considered as terminating; and with his defense against Witiges [a. d. 538], commences the history of the Middle Ages.—“Greece under the Romans,” George Finlay, p. 295. Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood & Sons, 1844. SBBS 360.2
Note.—The period known as the Middle Ages, roughly speaking, the age of the Papacy.—Eds. SBBS 360.3
Papal Supremacy, Decisive Character of Gothic Defeat of 538.—Some of them [the retreating Goths] must have suspected the melancholy truth that they had dug one grave deeper and wider than all, the grave of the Gothic monarchy in Italy.—“Italy and Her Invaders,” Thomas Hodgkin, book 5, chap. 9, last par. SBBS 360.4
The utter failure of the Gothic enterprise against Rome did not, as might have been expected, immediately bring about the fall of Ravenna [the Gothic capital]. Unskilful as was the strategy of the Ostrogoths, there was yet far more power of resistance shown by them than by the Vandals. In three months the invasion of Africa had been brought to a triumphant conclusion. The war in Italy had now lasted for three years, two more were still to elapse before the fall of the Gothic capital announced even its apparent conclusion.—Id., chap. 10, first par. SBBS 360.5
Papal Supremacy, The Struggle with the Goths fob Rome.—The Gothic war forms an important epoch in the history of the city of Rome; for within the space of sixteen years it changed masters five times, and suffered three severe sieges. Its population was almost destroyed.—“Greece under the Romans,” George Finlay, p. 294. Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1844. SBBS 360.6
Papal Supremacy, Passing of Old Rome.—It was the last time [on Belisarius’s entry, in 536] that Imperial Rome-the old imperial Rome of Italy as distinguished from the new imperial Rome by the Bosporus, the Rome created by Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Vespasian, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus, Severus, and Caracalla-was to be seen by mankind.... Rome when it was entered by Belisarius was the Rome that mankind had known for centuries.... But this Rome was to be seen no more. When eighteen years later the Gothic war was ended, a battered ruin was all that remained; classical Rome had passed away forever, to be succeeded after a time by the squalid and miserable city which is the Rome of the Middle Ages.—“East and West Through Fifteen Centuries,” C. F. Young, Vol. II, p. 222. SBBS 360.7
Papal Supremacy, The Ancient Seat Preserved for the Papacy.—When, in 546, Totila, king of the Goths [who was in possession of the city], had resolved to make of Rome “pasture land for cattle,” Belisarius wrote to dissuade him from putting such a barbaric idea into execution. “Beyond all doubt Rome surpasses all other cities in size and in worth. It was not built by the resources of one man, nor did it obtain its magnificence in a short time. But emperors and countless distinguished men, with time and wealth, brought together to this city architects, workmen, and all things needful from the ends of the earth; and left as a memorial to posterity of their greatness the glorious city, built by little and little, which you now behold. If it be injured, all ages will suffer, for thus would the monuments of the worth of the ancients be removed, and posterity would lose the pleasure of beholding them” (De Bello Gothico, iii, c. 22).-“Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages,” Rev. H. K. Mann, Vol. I, p. 17. SBBS 361.1
Papal Supremacy, Imperial Arms Place Vigilius on Papal Seat, a. d. 538.—Vigilius, a pliant creature of Theodora, ascended the papal chair under the military protection of Belisarius (538-554).—“History of the Christian Church,” Philip Schaff, Vol. III, p. 327. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893. SBBS 361.2
Papal Supremacy, A New Order of Popes Began a. d. 538.—Down to the sixth century all popes are declared saints in the martyrologies. Vigilius (537 25 -555) is the first of a series of popes who no longer bear this title, which is henceforth sparingly conferred. From this time on the popes, more and more involved in worldly events, no longer belong solely to the church; they are men of the state, and then rulers of the state.—“Medieval Europe,” Bemont and Monod (revised by George Burton Adams), p. 120. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1902. SBBS 361.3
Papal Supremacy, Conferred by State, Used by State.—Under Vigilius the prestige of the Roman Church suffered most severely. The emperor had usurped the place of the Pope, and compelled him to abject submission.... As Rome’s ascendancy had been vastly enhanced through the fourth ecumenical council (Chalcedon), so it sank to its lowest point through the fifth. And yet Vigilius’s pontificate contained the germ of its revival. He it was, who, by a letter dated April, 550, and by his appeal to the Frankish embassy at Byzantium, first pointed out the future alliance with the Frankish king, so pregnant of consequences in the future.—“History of All Nations,” Vol. VII, “The Early Middle Ages,” Julius von Pflugk-Harttung. pp. 221, 222. SBBS 361.4
Note.—While it is the verdict of history that the prestige of the Papacy sank to the lowest point under Vigilius, because of the dominating spirit of Justinian, it is to be observed that this very use of the Papacy by Justinian established but the more securely the idea that the Pope was to command and direct in all ecclesiastical affairs.—Eds. SBBS 361.5
Papal Supremacy, New Order of Popes Demands Sword.—Pelagius [successor of Vigilius] endeavored to enlist the civil power in his aid. He wrote several letters to Narses, who seems to have shrunk from using violence, urging him to have no scruples in the matter. These letters are an unqualified defense of the principle of persecution.—“Dictionary of Christian Biography,” art. “Pelagius (Pope),” Smith and Wace. SBBS 361.6
Be not alarmed at the idle talk of some, crying out against persecution, and reproaching the church, as if she delighted in cruelty, when she punishes evil with wholesome severities, or procures the salvation of souls. He alone persecutes who forces to evil: but to restrain men from doing evil, or to punish them because they have done it, is not persecution or cruelty, but love of mankind. Now that schism, or a separation from the apostolic sees, is an evil, no man can deny; and that schismatics may and ought to be punished, even by the secular power, is manifest both from the canons of the church, and the Scripture.—Pope Pelagius to Narses, general of Justinian in Italy; cited in “The History of the Popes,” Archibald Bower, Vol. I, p. 372. Philadelphia: Griffith and Simon, 1847. SBBS 362.1
Papal Supremacy, Recognized in Age of Persecution.—The reign of Justinian was a uniform yet various scene of persecution; and he appears to have surpassed his indolent predecessors, both in the contrivance of his laws and the rigor of their execution. The insufficient term of three months was assigned for the conversion or exile of all heretics; and if he still connived at their precarious stay, they were deprived, under his iron yoke, not only of the benefits of society, but of the common birthright of men and Christians.—“The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” Edward Gibbon, chap. 47, par. 24 (Vol. IV, pp. 528, 529). New York: Harper & Brothers. SBBS 362.2
Papal Supremacy, The Pope Ruling as a King.—Long ages ago, when Rome through the neglect of the Western emperors was left to the mercy of the barbarous hordes, the Romans turned to one figure for aid and protection, and asked him to rule them; and thus, in this simple manner, the best title of all to kingly right, commenced the temporal sovereignty of the popes. And meekly stepping to the throne of Casar, the vicar of Christ took up the scepter to which the emperors and kings of Europe were to bow in reverence through so many ages.—Rev. James P. Conroy, in American Catholic Quarterly Review, April, 1911. SBBS 362.3
Papal Supremacy, Followed by Dark Ages.—It is impossible to read the history of the early Middle Ages without feeling that, for the first six centuries after the fall of the Western Empire, there is little or no progress. The night grows darker and darker, and we seem to get ever deeper into the mire.—“Italy and Her Invaders,” Thomas Hodgkin. book 3, chap. 9 (Vol. II, p. 536). SBBS 362.4
Papal Supremacy, Sir Isaac Newton on the Prophetic Period of Daniel 7:25.—Three times and a half; that is, for 1260 solar years, reckoning a time for a calendar year of 360 days, and a day for a solar year. After which the judgment is to sit, and they shall take away his dominion, not at once, but by degrees, to consume, and to destroy it unto the end.—“Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John.” Sir Isaac Newton, part 1, chap 8, p. 114. London: J. Darby and T. Browne, 1733. SBBS 362.5
Papal Supremacy, Bishop Newton on Daniel 7:25.—We must therefore compute the time according to the nature and genius of the prophetic language. A time, then, and times, and half a time are three years and a half; and the ancient Jewish year consisting of twelve months, and each month of thirty days, “a time and times and half a time,” or three years and a half, are reckoned in the Revelation 11:2, 3; 12:6, 14, as equivalent to “forty and two months,” or “a thousand two hundred and threescore days:” and a day in the style of the prophets is a year: “I have appointed thee each day for a year,” saith God to Ezekiel 4:6; and it is confessed that “the seventy weeks” in the ninth chapter of Daniel are weeks of years; and consequently 1260 days are 1260 years.—“Dissertations on the Prophecies,” Thomas Newton. D. D., p. 247. London: William Tegg & Co., 1849 (Preface dated 1754). SBBS 362.6
Papal Supremacy, Maintained in General till the French Revolution.—Till the French Revolution, the Papal power, notwithstanding the partial resistance which it experienced from some of the sovereigns of Europe, continued throughout all the central territories of the Roman Empire of the West to hold the saints in subjection. Neither in Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, nor Savoy, were the Protestants tolerated; and the only part of what may be considered a central part of the Western Empire, where toleration existed, was in some of the cantons of Switzerland.—“A Dissertation on the Seals and Trumpets of the Apocalypse,” William Cuninghame, p. 194. London: Thomas Cadell, 1843. SBBS 363.1
Papal Supremacy, The Papal Power in France Before the Revolution.—The church still enjoyed political power. No one in France had a legal right to live outside its pale. It controlled the schools; it kept the parish registers, on which a man’s title to his property and his name depended; for the sake of Catholic truth it burned its adversaries; and, through its censorship of the press, it silenced all assailing tongues.—“The French Revolution,” Charles Edward Mallet, p. 15. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900. SBBS 363.2
Papal Supremacy, Another Pivotal age, 1260 Years After Justinian.—There is no period in the history of the world which can be compared, in point of interest and importance, to that which embraces the progress and termination of the French Revolution. In no former age were events of such magnitude crowded together, or interests so momentous at issue between contending nations. From the flame which was kindled in Europe, the whole world has been involved in conflagration; and a new era has dawned upon both hemispheres from the effects of its extension.—“History of Europe,” Sir Archibald Alison, Bart., F. R. S. E., Vol. I, Introduction, p. 1, 9th edition. Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1853. SBBS 363.3
The Revolution had lasted five years. These five years are five centuries for France. Never perhaps on this earth, at any period since the Christian era, did any country produce, in so short a space of time, such an eruption of ideas, men, natures, characters, geniuses, talents, catastrophes, crimes, and virtues.—“History of the Girondists,” Alphonse de Lamartine, book 61, sec. 16 (Vol. III, p. 544). SBBS 363.4
Papal Supremacy, End of Political Absolutism, Era of Constitutionalism.—Absolute monarchy breathed its last without a struggle.—Edmund Burke, “On the French Revolution” (of 1789); cited in “Hora Apocalyptica,” E. B. Elliott, A. M., Vol. III, pp. 299, 300, 3rd edition. London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1847. SBBS 363.5
Note.—The Papacy had stood for absolutism, not only in the church, but in the state. The terrible excesses of the Revolution constituted the protest of despair against an age-long system of which the Papacy had been a supporter. SBBS 364.1
Papal Supremacy, The Old Interdict Returned upon the Church.—On the 23rd November [1793] atheism in France reached its extreme point, by a decree of the municipality ordering the immediate closing of all the churches, and placing the whole priests under surveillance.... SBBS 364.2
48. The services of religion were now universally abandoned. The pulpits were deserted throughout all the revolutionized districts; baptism ceased; the burial service was no longer heard; the sick received no communion, the dying no consolation. A heavier anathema than that of papal power pressed upon the peopled realm of France-the anathema of Heaven, inflicted by the madness of her own inhabitants.—“History of Europe,” Sir Archibald Alison, Bart., F. R. S. E., Vol. III, p. 23, 9th edition. Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1854. SBBS 364.3
Papal Supremacy, Religion Itself Abolished by Papacy’s Chief Supporter.—On Nov. 26, 1793, the Convention, of which seventeen bishops and some clergy were members, decreed the abolition of all religion.—“Age of Revolution,” W. H. Hutton, p. 156. SBBS 364.4
Papal Supremacy, Period Terminating in French Revolution.—And as the recognition of the supremacy of the Pope seemed thus to be complete in the year 533, on the part of the emperor [Justinian] who put the power in his hands, so, in like rapid and yet graduated progress, with the same appointed space intervening, the dominion of the Papacy was destroyed and disannulled in that kingdom which had been its chief stay for ages, in the year 1793, the power was wholly taken out of the hands of the Pope, and infidelity, or rather atheism, was proclaimed, and popery abolished. SBBS 364.5
“The churches were in most districts of France closed against priests and worshipers-the bells were broken, and cast into canon-and the whole ecclesiastical establishment destroyed.”-Scott’s “Life of Napoleon,” Vol. II, p. 306; quoted in “The Signs of the Times,” Rev. Alexander Keith, Vol. II, pp. 93, 94, 3rd edition. Edinburgh: William Whyte & Co., 1833. SBBS 364.6
Papal Supremacy, Retribution: He That Took the Sword Slain by the Sword.—It is mentioned by Burke that the ancient chronicles were searched and cited by the revolutionary leaders, in exemplification of the cruelty of papists in other days against those whom they called heretics: and that, more especially, the horrid Huguenot massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day was represented in the theater; the Cardinal de Lorraine, in his robes of function, being depicted as the chief actor and instigator. Nor was it in vain. At Paris (witness especially the Septembrist massacres in the prisons), at Lyons, in La Vandée, and elsewhere, the examples thus set before them were copied too faithfully: copied by a populace again “drunk with fanaticism;” only not, as once, that of popery, but of atheism,-not as once against Protestant fellow citizens, but against papists. The shootings, the drownings, the roastings of the Roman Catholic loyalists, both priests and nobles (not to speak of other injuries great, yet less atrocious), had all their prototypes in the barbarities of another age, practised under the direction of the Pope and French papists, both priests and nobles, against their innocent Huguenot fellow countrymen.—“Hora Apocalyptica,” Rev. E. B. Elliott, A. M., Vol. III, pp. 321. 322, 3rd edition. London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1847. SBBS 364.7
Papal Supremacy, Reaping What Had Been Sown.—Of the horrors of the French Revolution it were needless to write. It is enough to say, that the blood of the saints began to be avenged. France had for ages yielded the neck to the papal yoke, and lent its aid to bind it on other nations; but never, even under the dictation of the Abbot of Citeaux, did the counts, or knights, and soldiers of France exercise more atrocious cruelties against the saints of the Most High, than those of which churchmen and loyalists were then the victims. Tithes were abolished; monasteries suppressed; church lands confiscated; the priests despoiled and beggared; and, at a time when every other form of faith was tolerated, and atheism itself esteemed rather a virtue than a vice, and religious liberty proclaimed, the clergy of France were required to abjure all allegiance to the see of Rome, and that church was “deprived of its earthly power,” or the dominion forcibly taken from its hands.—“The Signs of the Times,” Rev. Alexander Keith, Vol. II, pp. 114, 115, 3rd edition. Edinburgh: William Whyte & Co., 1833. SBBS 365.1
Papal Supremacy, A Stroke of the Sword at Rome.—Begun in France, the spoliation of the ... church, and of its papal patron and head, spread quickly into the other countries of Christendom. A propagandist spirit, in respect of this as in respect of its other principles, was one of the essential characteristics of the Revolution; and the tempests of war gave it wings. Its first translation was into Belgium and the Rhenish provinces of Germany; the latter the chief seat, as Ranke observes, of the ecclesiastical form of government. Thither it brought with it ecclesiastical changes analogous to those in France. SBBS 365.2
In the years 1796, 1797, French dominion being established by Bonaparte’s victories in northern Italy, it bore with it thither the similar accompaniment, as of French democratism and infidelity, so too of French anti-papalism. And then, Rome itself being laid open to Bonaparte, and the French armies urging their march onward to the papal capital, the Pope only saved himself and it by the formal cession in the Treaty of Tolentino of the legations of Ferrara, Bologna, and Romagna (Peter’s Patrimony), together with the city of Ancona; the payment of above L1,500,000 sterling,-a sum multiplied threefold by exactions and oppression,-and the surrender of military stores, and of a hundred of the finest paintings and statues in the Vatican. The French ambassador wrote from Rome to Bonaparte: “The payment stipulated by the treaty of Tolentino has totally exhausted this old carcass: we are making it consume by a slow fire.” It was the very language of an Apocalyptic metaphor. The aged Pope himself, now left mere nominal master of some few remaining shreds of the Patrimony of Peter, experienced in person soon after the bitterness of the prevailing antipapal spirit. In the Sistine Chapel of the Vatican, the ante-hall to which is covered with frescoes representing the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day, (was the scene ordered as a memento of God’s retributive justice?) while seated on his throne, and receiving the congratulations of his cardinals on the anniversary of his election to the popedom, he was arrested [February, 1798] by the French military, the ring of his marriage with the Church Catholic torn from his finger, his palace rifled, and himself carried prisoner into France, only to die there in exile shortly after.—“Hora Apocalyptica,” Rev. E. B. Elliott, A. M., Vol. III, pp. 351-353, 3rd edition. London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1847. SBBS 365.3
Papal Supremacy, French Plans to End the Papacy.—One of the first measures of the new government was to dispatch an order to Joseph Buonaparte at Rome, to promote, by all the means in his power, the approaching revolution in the papal states; and above all things to take care that, at the Pope’s death [he was ill, 1797], no successor should be elected to the chair of St. Peter. 26 -“History of Europe,” Sir Archibald Alison, Bart., F. R. S. E., Vol. IV, p. 129, 9th edition. Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons, 1854. SBBS 365.4
Papal Supremacy, Deposition of 1798, Another View.—One day [February, 1798] the Pope was sitting on his throne in a chapel of the Vatican, surrounded by his cardinals who had assembled for the purpose of offering him their congratulations on his elevation to his high dignity. On a sudden, the shouts of an angry multitude penetrated to the conclave, intermingled with the strokes of axes and hammers on the doors. Very soon a band of soldiers burst into the hall, who tore away from his finger his pontifical ring, and hurried him off, a prisoner, through a hall, the walls of which were adorned with a fresco, representing the armed satellites of the Papacy, on St. Bartholomew’s Day, as bathing their swords in the blood of unoffending women and helpless children. Thus it might seem as if he were to be reminded that the same God who visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation, had made him the victim of his retributive justice for a deed of atrocity which had long been crying aloud to him for vengeance. The Pope, after having been hurried away from his territory, and treated with every indignity, at length died at Valence in Dauphny [France] in 1799. 27 -“Epochs of the Papacy,” Rev. Arthur Robert Pennington, M. A., F. R. Hist. Soc., pp. 449, 450. London: George Bell and Sons, 1881. SBBS 366.1
Papal Supremacy, the Pope Removed by Force of Arms.—The Pope, who had been guarded by five hundred soldiers ever since the entry of the Republicans, was directed to retire into Tuscany; his Swiss guard relieved by a French one, and he himself ordered to dispossess himself of all his temporal authority. He replied, with the firmness of a martyr, “I am prepared for every species of disgrace. As supreme Pontiff, I am resolved to die in the exercise of all my powers. You may employ force-you have the power to do so; but know that though you may be masters of my body, you are not so of my soul. Free in the region where it is placed, it fears neither the events nor the sufferings of this life. I stand on the threshold of another world; there I shall be sheltered alike from the violence and impiety of this.” Force was soon employed to dispossess him of his authority; he was dragged from the altar in his palace, his repositories were all ransacked and plundered, the rings even torn from his fingers, the whole effects in the Vatican and Quirinal inventoried and seized, and the aged Pontiff conducted, with only a few domestics, amidst the brutal jests and sacrilegious songs of the French dragoons, into Tuscany.—“History of Europe,” Sir Archibald Alison Bart., F. R. S. E., Vol IV, p. 131. 9th edition. Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons, 1854. SBBS 366.2
Papal Supremacy, Europe Thought Papacy Dead.—When, in 1797, Pope Pius VI fell grievously ill, Napoleon gave orders that in the event of his death no successor should be elected to his office, and that the Papacy should be discontinued. SBBS 366.3
But the Pope recovered. The peace was soon broken; Berthier entered Rome on the tenth of February, 1798, and proclaimed a republic. SBBS 366.4
The aged Pontiff refused to violate his oath by recognizing it, and was hurried from prison to prison in France. Broken with fatigue and sorrows, he died on the nineteenth of August, 1799, in the French fortress of Valence, aged eighty-two years. No wonder that half Europe thought Napoleon’s veto would be obeyed, and that with the Pope the Papacy was dead.—“The Modern Papacy,” Rev. Joseph Rickaby, S. J, (Jesuit Society), p. 1. London: Catholic Truth Society. SBBS 367.1
Papal Supremacy, The Papacy Apparently Extinct.—The Papacy was extinct: not a vestige of its existence remained; and among all the Roman Catholic powers not a finger was stirred in its defense. The Eternal City had no longer prince or pontiff; its bishop was a dying captive in foreign lands; and the decree was already announced that no successor would be allowed in his place.—“Rome and Its Papal Rulers,” Rev. George Trevor, Canon of York, p. 440. SBBS 367.2
Note.—Thus, in a. d. 533 came the notable decree of the Papacy’s powerful supporter, recognizing its supremacy: and then the decisive stroke by the sword at Rome in a. d. 538, cleaving the way for the new order of popes-the rulers of state. SBBS 367.3
Exactly 1260 years later, in 1793. came the notable decree of the Papacy’s once powerful supporter. France.—“the eldest son of the church,”-aiming to abolish church and religion, followed by a decisive stroke with the sword at Rome against the Papacy, in 1798.—Eds. SBBS 367.4
Papal Supremacy, End of, Seen as a Fulfilment of Prophecy.—The downfall of the papal government, by whatever means effected, excited perhaps less sympathy than that of any other in Europe: the errors, the oppressions, the tyranny of Rome over the whole Christian world, were remembered with bitterness; many rejoiced, through religious antipathy, in the overthrow of a church which they considered as idolatrous, though attended with the immediate triumph of infidelity; and many saw in these events the accomplishment of prophecies, and the exhibition of signs promised in the most mystical parts of the Holy Scriptures.—“History of France from 1790,” John Leycester Adolphus, Vol. II, p. 379. London, 1803. SBBS 367.5
Papal Supremacy, Clarke on Closing Events of Period.—“Until a time and times and the dividing of time.” In prophetic language a time signifies a year; and a prophetic year has a year for each day. Three years and a half (a day standing for a year, as in chap. 9: 24) will amount to one thousand two hundred and sixty years, if we reckon thirty days to each month, as the Jews do. SBBS 367.6
If we knew precisely when the papal power began to exert itself in the antichristian way, then we could at once fix the time of its destruction. The end is probably not very distant; it has already been grievously shaken by the French. In 1798 the French republican army under General Berthier took possession of the city of Rome, and entirely superseded the whole papal power. This was a deadly wound, though at present it appears to be healed.—Commentary, Adam Clarke, LL. D., on Daniel 7:25, Vol. IV, p. 597. New York: Phillips and Hunt. SBBS 367.7
Papal Supremacy, Supremacy Ended, but Papacy Recovered.—Many of the men in those days [of 1798] imagined that the dominion of the Pope had come to an end, and that the knell of the temporal power was then sounding among the nations. This supposition, however, proved to be erroneous. The French republicans were very anxious that Rome should not have another Pope. But as the reverses of the revolutionary armies had left southern Italy to its ancient masters, the cardinals were able to proceed to an election at Venice. They elected on March 14, 1800, Barnabas Chiaromonti, who assumed the name of Pius VII. SBBS 367.8
The first transaction of this Pope was a negotiation with the government of France, of which Napoleon Buonaparte was the First Consul. [p. 450] ... He [Napoleon] felt that, as the large majority of the inhabitants of France knew no other form of faith than Romanism, it must become the established religion of the country. Accordingly we find that he now began negotiations with the Pope, which issued in a Concordat in July, 1801, whereby the Roman Catholic religion was once more established in France. He also left Pius in possession of his Italian principality. [p. 452]-“Epochs of the Papacy,” Rev. Arthur Robert Pennington, M. A., F. R. Hist. Soc., pp. 450, 452. London: George Bell & Sons, 1881. SBBS 368.1
Papal Supremacy, Pope Again Exiled by the Revolution.—He [Pius VII] was assailed with one demand after another, his compliance with which would have involved the loss of his temporal power. He was firm in his determination not to surrender those which he considered to be the inalienable rights of the Papacy. Napoleon hereupon took possession of Rome with a large body of troops, and assumed the government of the papal territory. A decree was passed on May 17, 1809, formally annexing the remaining papal territories to the empire. Then followed in rapid succession the bull of excommunication against the emperor, the seizure of the Pope’s person by the French commander on account of the strong impression which it made on the public mind in Rome, and his imprisonment, first at Grenoble, afterwards at Savona, and finally at Fontainbleau [France], where he remained in close confinement till the overthrow of Napoleon in 1814.... Then followed his [Napoleon’s] abdication, after which Pius was at liberty to return to his territories. He entered Rome on May 24, 1814, after an absence of five years. SBBS 368.2
Many even of the devoted adherents of Papal Rome, when they witnessed, during the period just described, one judgment after another descending upon her, imagined that the time of her long domination had come to an end, and that her glory was extinguished forever. That supposition proved to be erroneous. The princes restored after the fall of Napoleon, convinced that, in their warfare with the Church of Rome, they had struck down a power which could aid them in curbing the evil spirits of democracy and anarchy, endowed it with a greater than its original strength, that it might assist them in subduing the domestic enemies who were banded together against them.—Id., pp. 454-456. SBBS 368.3
Papal Supremacy, Revolution Still Pursued the Pope.—From that time [late in 1848.—Eds.] law and order disappeared from the holy city. The chamber of deputies was without power, and became so weakened by the withdrawal of many members that it was scarcely competent to form legal resolutions; the democratic popular club, together with the rude mob of Trastevere, controlled matters. Many cardinals withdrew; Pius IX was guarded like a prisoner. SBBS 368.4
Enraged at these acts and threatened as to his safety, the Pope finally [November 24] fled to Gaeta, in disguise, aided by the Bavarian ambassador Count Spaur. Here he formed a new ministry and entered a protest against all proceedings in Rome. This move procured at first the most complete victory for the republican party in the Tiberian city. A new constitutional assembly was summoned, which in its first sitting deprived the Papacy of its worldly authority, established the Roman republic, and resolved to work for the union of Italy under a democraticrepublican form of rule. A threat of excommunication from the Pope was met with scorn by the popular union.—“The Historians’ History of the World,” Henry Smith Williams, LL. D., Vol. IX, pp. 596, 597. New York: The Outlook Company, 1904. SBBS 368.5
The Pope did not return to Rome till the beginning of April, 1850. As all the world knows, Louis Napoleon insured his safety from his enemies by surrounding him with a guard of his own soldiers. He brought back with him the worst abuses of his predecessors. After his return, he became the uncompromising champion of absolutism.—“Epochs of the Papacy,” Rev. Arthur Robert Pennington, M. A., F. R. Hist. Soc., p. 463. London: George Bell & Sons, 1881. SBBS 369.1
Papal Supremacy, The Decree of Infallibility Followed by Loss of Temporal Power.—It is a remarkable coincidence that the promulgation of the dogma of Papal Infallibility [July 18, 1870] was followed on the very next day, July 19, by the breaking out of the war between France and Germany, and very soon by the defeat of Louis Napoleon, the Pope’s protector, the recall of the French troops to their native country, the entrance of the troops of the king of Italy within the walls of Rome on Sept. 20, 1870, and the transfer of the Italian capital to Rome by the suffrages of the Romans themselves on July 3, 1871, when, amid the acclamations of assembled thousands, Victor Emmanuel rode through the streets of the Eternal City. After these events the Pope [Pius IX] was left in possession of the Vatican, to which he confined himself during the last years of his life.—“Epochs of the Papacy,” Rev. Arthur Robert Pennington, M. A., F. R. Hist. Soc., p. 472. London: George Bell & Sons, 1881. SBBS 369.2
Papal Supremacy, Rome’s History Connecting Past and Present.—Rome is the meeting place of all history; the papal succession, oldest and newest in Europe, filling the space from Casar and Constantine to this democratic world of the twentieth century, binds all ages into one and looks out towards a distant future in many continents.—“The Papal Monarchy,” William Francis Barry, D. D., p. 428. London: T. Fisher Unwin; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1902. SBBS 369.3
Papal Supremacy, Speaking “Great Words” (Daniel 7:25).—See Little Horn, 286-289; Pope, Exaltation of, 376-379; Rome, 428. SBBS 369.4
Papal Supremacy, Wearing Out Saints (Daniel 7:25).—See Little Horn; Massacre; Persecution. SBBS 369.5
Papal Supremacy, Thinking to Change Times and Laws.—See Little Horn; Sabbath, Change of, 474. SBBS 369.6
Papal Supremacy, Prophetic Period of 1260 Years.—See French Revolution; Two Witnesses of Revelation 11; Year-Day Principle. SBBS 369.7
Papal Supremacy.—See Councils, 123, 124; French Revolution, 173; Seven Churches, 491. SBBS 369.8
Pardon, for Sin.—See Indulgences; Keys, Power of. SBBS 369.9
Passover.—See Easter, Seventy Weeks, 523, 524, 525. SBBS 369.10
Penance, Defined.—The Latin word panitentia (from punire in an archaic form panire) means sorrow or regret, and answers to the Greek [Greek word, transliterated “metanoia”], change of mind or heart. As a theological term, penance is first the name of a virtue which inclines sinners to detest their sins because they are an offense against God. Then penance came to mean the outward acts by which sorrow for sin is shown.... SBBS 369.11
In a more restricted sense still, penance is used for the penitential discipline of the church, or even for the third station of public penitents (so, e. g., I. Concil. Tolet. canon 2), and again for the satisfaction which the priest imposes on the penitent before absolving him from his sins. Lastly, penance is a sacrament of the new law instituted by Christ for the remission of sin committed after baptism. SBBS 370.1
So understood, penance is defined as a “sacrament instituted by Christ in the form of a judgment for the remission of sin done after baptism, this remission being effected by the absolution of the priest, joined to true supernatural sorrow, true purpose of amendment, and sincere confession on the part of the sinner.” The Council of Trent (Sess. XIV) defines that priests have real power to remit and retain sins, that persons are bound by the law of God to confess before the priest each and every mortal sin committed after baptism, so far as the memory can recall it, and also such circumstances as change the nature of these sins, and that the sacrament of penance is absolutely necessary for the forgiveness of post-baptismal sin. SBBS 370.2
It is true that perfect sorrow for sin which has offended so good a God at once and without the addition of any external rite blots out the stain and restores the peace and love of God in the soul. “There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” But this perfect sorrow involves in a well-instructed Catholic the intention of fulfilling Christ’s precept and receiving the sacrament of penance when opportunity occurs. SBBS 370.3
This implicit desire of confession and absolution may exist in many Protestants who reject the Catholic doctrine on this point. They desire the sacrament of penance in this sufficient sense, that they earnestly wish to fulfil Christ’s law, so far as they can learn what it is. In this sense the sacrament is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen into mortal sin after baptism. They must receive it actually or by desire, this desire being either explicit or implicit. This point is of capital importance for the apprehension of Catholic doctrine. We in no way deny that God is ready to forgive the sins of non-Catholics who are in good faith and who turn to him with loving sorrow.—“A Catholic Dictionary,” William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, M. A., art. “Penance,” p. 697. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1893. SBBS 370.4
Penance, Canon on.—Canon I. If any one saith that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling the faithful unto God, as often as they fall into sin after baptism; let him be anathema.—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” p. 115. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912. SBBS 370.5
Pepin (Pipin, Pippin).—See Rome, Its Barbarian Invader 453. 454; Temporal Power of the Pope, 548-550. SBBS 370.6
Pergamos, Chaldean College at.—See Babylon, 67. SBBS 370.7
Persecution and Punishment, Roman Catholic View of.—Persecution cannot be lawful in favor either of truth or error. I mean persecution properly so called, that is to say, violence employed against an unoffending religion or error. But if such religion or error becomes, on the contrary, turbulent and hurtful, its acts may be reproved like any other offense, in which case it suffers punishment, not persecution. In the same way, if a member of the church becomes unfaithful, and falls into heresy, or commits some other great crime, such member can be punished by the ecclesiastical authority on whom he depends. The church [i. e. the Church of Rome] has a right not only to censure her subjects, but, if she thinks proper, she can also inflict external penalties, and have recourse to the secular power. In this case it would be punishment and not be persecution that the offender would undergo.—“A Course of Religious Instruction,” Rev. Father F. X. Schouppe, S. J. (R C.), p. 74.* SBBS 370.8
Persecution Justified by St. Thomas Aquinas.—If counterfeiters of money or other criminals are justly delivered over to death forthwith by the secular authorities, much more can heretics, after they are convicted of heresy, be not only forthwith excommunicated, but as surely put to death.—“Summa Theologica,” St. Thomas Aquinas (R. C.), 2a 2ae, qu. xi, art. iii (“Moral Theology,” Second of the Second, question 11, article 3). SBBS 371.1
Persecution Defined.—There is not complete religious liberty where any one sect is favored by the state and given an advantage by law over other sects. Whatever establishes a distinction against one class or sect is, to the extent to which the distinction operates unfavorably, a persecution; and if based on religious grounds, a religious persecution. The extent of the discrimination is not material to the principle; it is enough that it creates an inequality of right or privilege.—“A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations,” Thomas M. Cooley. LL. D., pp. 575, 576 (6th ed.). Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1890. SBBS 371.2
Persecution Defended.—Every part is referred to the whole as the imperfect to the perfect; and therefore every part naturally exists for the whole. And therefore we see that if it be expedient for the welfare of the whole human body that some member should be amputated, as being rotten and corrupting the other members, the amputation is praiseworthy and wholesome. But every individual stands to the whole community as the part to the whole. Therefore, if any man be dangerous to the community, and be corrupting it by any sin, the killing of him for the common good is praiseworthy and wholesome. For “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump.” ... SBBS 371.3
Man by sinning withdraws from the order of reason, and thereby falls from human dignity, so far as that consists in man being naturally free and existent for his own sake; and falls in a manner into the state of servitude proper to beasts, according to that of the psalm: “Man when he was in honor did not understand: he hath matched himself with senseless beasts and become like unto them;” and, “The fool shall serve the wise.” And therefore, though to kill a man, while he abides in his native dignity, be a thing of itself evil, yet to kill a man who is a sinner may be good, as to kill a beast. For worse is an evil man than a beast, and more noxious, as the philosopher says.—“Aquinas Ethicus,” Joseph Rickaby, S. J. (R. C.), Vol. II, pp. 40, 41. London: Burns and Oates, 1892. SBBS 371.4
The church has persecuted. Only a tyro in church history will deny that.... One hundred and fifty years after Constantine the Donatists were persecuted, and sometimes put to death.... Protestants were persecuted in France and Spain with the full approval of the church authorities. We have always defended the persecution of the Huguenots, and the Spanish Inquisition. Wherever and whenever there is honest Catholicity, there will be a clear distinction drawn between truth and error, and Catholicity and all forms of heresy. When she thinks it good to use physical force, she will use it.... But will the Catholic Church give bond that she will not persecute at all? Will she guarantee absolute freedom and equality of all churches and all faiths? The Catholic Church gives no bonds for her good behavior.—The Western Watchman (R. C.), Dec. 24, 1908. SBBS 371.5
The principal teachers of the church held back for centuries from accepting in these matters the practice of the civil rulers; they shrank particularly from such stern measures against heresy as torture and capital punishment, both of which they deemed inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity. But, in the Middle Ages, the Catholic faith became alone dominant, and the welfare of the commonwealth came to be closely bound up with the cause of religious unity. King Peter of Aragon, therefore, but voiced the universal conviction when he said: “The enemies of the cross of Christ and violators of the Christian law are likewise our enemies and the enemies of our kingdom, and ought therefore to be dealt with as such.”-The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, art. “Inquisition,” p. 35. SBBS 372.1
Persecution, Responsibility for.—In the bull Ad Exstirpanda (1252) Innocent IV says: “When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podesta, or chief magistrate, of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them.” ... Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decretals from the imperial constitutions Commissis nobis and Inconsutibilem tunicam. The aforesaid bull Ad Exstirpanda remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or re-enforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication, to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake.—Id., p. 34. SBBS 372.2
Early in the year the most sublime sentence of death was promulgated which has ever been pronounced since the creation of the world. The Roman tyrant [Nero] wished that his enemies’ heads were all upon a single neck, that he might strike them off at a blow; the Inquisition assisted Philip [II of Spain] to place the heads of all his Netherland subjects upon a single neck for the same fell purpose. Upon Feb. 16, 1568, a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of the king, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant execution, without regard to age, sex, or condition. This is probably the most concise death warrant that was ever framed. Three millions of people, men, women, and children, were sentenced to the scaffold in three lines.—“The Rise of the Dutch Republic,” John Lothrop Motley, D. C. L., LL. D., part 3, chap. 2, par. 12 (Vol. I, p. 626). New York: A. L. Burt. SBBS 372.3
Therefore by this present apostolical writing we give you a strict command that, by whatever means you can, you destroy all these heresies and expel from your diocese all who are polluted with them. You shall exercise the rigor of the ecclesiastical power against them and all those who have made themselves suspected by associating with them. They may not appeal from your judgments, and if necessary, you may cause the princes and people to suppress them with the sword.—Orders of Pope Innocent III concerning Heretics; quoted from Migne, 214, col. 71, in “A Source Book for Mediaval History,” Oliver J. Thatcher, Ph. D., and Edgar H. McNeal, Ph. D., p. 210. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905. SBBS 372.4
That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other institution that has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant who has a competent knowledge of history. The memorials, indeed, of many of her persecutions are now so scanty that it is impossible to form a complete conception of the multitude of her victims, and it is quite certain that no powers of imagination can adequately realize their sufferings.—“History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe,” William Edward Hartpole Lecky, Vol. II, p. 32. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1904. SBBS 373.1
Persecution in Southern France.—Then followed such scenes of horror as the sun had never looked on before. The army was officered by Roman and French prelates; bishops were its generals, an archdeacon its engineer. It was the Abbot Arnold, the legate of the Pope, who, at the capture of Beziers, was inquired of by a soldier, more merciful or more weary of murder than himself, how he should distinguish and save the Catholic from the heretic. “Kill them all,” he exclaimed; “God will know his own.” At the church of St. Mary Magdalene seven thousand persons were massacred, the infuriated crusaders being excited to madness by the wicked assertion that these wretches had been guilty of the blasphemy of saying, in their merriment, “S. Mariam Magdalenam fuisse concubinam Christi.” It was of no use for them to protest their innocence. In the town twenty thousand were slaughtered, and the place then fired, to be left a monument of papal vengeance. At the massacre of Lavaur four hundred people were burned in one pile; it is remarked that “they made a wonderful blaze, and went to burn everlastingly in hell.” SBBS 373.2
Language has no powers to express the atrocities that took place at the capture of the different towns. Ecclesiastical vengeance rioted in luxury. The soil was steeped in the blood of men, the air polluted by their burning. From the reek of murdered women, mutilated children, and ruined cities, the Inquisition, that infernal institution, arose. Its projectors intended it not only to put an end to public teaching, but even to private thought. In the midst of these awful events, Innocent was called to another tribunal to render his account. He died a. d. 1216.—“History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,” John William Draper, M. D., LL. D., Vol. II, p. 62. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1876. SBBS 373.3
Persecution, Summary of Roman.—Under these maxims Rome has always acted. What a long roll of bloody persecutions is her record! The extirpation of the Albigenses, the massacre of the Waldenses, the martyrdoms of the Lollards, the slaughter of the Bohemians, the burning of Huss, Jerome, Savonarola, Frith, Tyndale, Ridley, Hooper, Cranmer, Latimer, and thousands of others as godly and faithful as they, have been her acts; the demoniacal cruelties of the Inquisition were invented by her mind and inflicted by her hand-that Inquisition which was for centuries the mighty instrument of her warfare against devoted men and women whose crime was only this, that they “kept the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” SBBS 373.4
The ferocious cruelties of the Duke of Alva in the Netherlands; the bloody martyrdoms of Queen Mary’s reign; the extinction by fire and sword of the Reformation in Spain and Italy, in Portugal and Poland; the Massacre of St. Bartholomew; the long and cruel persecutions of the Huguenots, and all the infamies and barbarities of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which flung its refugees on every shore of Europe, were perpetrated by papal Rome. Her victims have been innumerable. In Spain alone Llorente reckons as the sufferers of the Inquisition 31,912 burnt alive, and 291,450 so-called penitents forced into submission “by water, weights, fire, pulleys, and screws,” and “all the apparatus by which the sinews could be strained without cracking, and the bones bruised without breaking, and the body racked exquisitely without giving up the ghost.” A million perished in the massacre of the Albigenses. SBBS 374.1
In the thirty years which followed the first institution of the Jesuits nine hundred thousand faithful Christians were slain. Thirty-six thousand were dispatched by the common executioner in the Netherlands, by the direction of the Duke of Alva, who boasted of the deed. Fifty thousand Flemings and Germans were hanged, burnt, or buried alive under Charles V. And when we have added to this the bloodshed of the Thirty Years’ War in Germany, and the long agony of other and repeated massacres of Protestants in England, Ireland, Scotland. France, Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands, we have to remember that for all this “no word of censure ever issued from the Vatican, except in the brief interval when statesmen and soldiers grew weary of bloodshed and looked for means to admit the heretics to grace.” SBBS 374.2
In the light of these facts we maintain that the fulfilment of the prophecy uttered of old in Patmos is plainly evident. The prediction of the apostle as to its leading features was this: that “a domineering power was to be established in the city of Rome, to corrupt the faith, to spread that corruption, to be distinguished by the display of gaudy splendors, to persecute the professors of the Christian faith, to intoxicate itself in the blood of persecution, to be supported by subservient kings, and to requite them for their homage with larger drafts of her cup of abominations.” We are justified in maintaining that the history of the Church of Rome has fulfilled every detail of the prophecy.—“Key to the Apocalypse,” H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., pp. 91-94. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899. SBBS 374.3
Persecution a Mark of Papal Rome.—But more than this, more than by any other mark, we recognize papal Rome by the last, the most marvelous characteristic which is given us in the sacred prediction-her strange and terrible inebriation with the blood of saints and martyrs! Old heathen Rome persecuted for a brief period the early church, but papal Rome through long centuries has held the preeminence as the persecutor of those faithful to the teachings of the gospel of Christ. She has been all along in her essential and unalterable character a persecuting church. Persecution has occupied a prominent place in her doctrines, decrees, canons, excommunications, tribunals, trials, condemnations, imprisonments, executions, and exterminating wars. Centuries of persecuting action witness against her. Her laws for the persecution and extermination of heretics have increased in malignity from their first rise down to modern times. Plainly and openly she has declared herself to be a persecuting church. She has gloried in her intolerance. Her avowed doctrine is “that heretics ought to be visited by the secular powers with temporal punishments, and even with death itself.”-“Key to the Apocalypse,” H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., pp. 89, 90. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899. SBBS 374.4
Persecution, Indictment of Rome for.—Hear me, though in truth 1 scarcely know how to speak upon this subject. I am almost dumb with horror when I think of it. I have visited the places in Spain, in France, in Italy, most deeply stained and dyed with martyr-blood. I have Visited the valleys of Piedmont. I have stood in the shadow of the great cathedral of Seville, on the spot where they burned the martyrs; or tore them limb from limb.... I have waded through many volumes of history and of martyrology, I have visited, either in travel or in thought, scenes too numerous for me to name, where the saints of God have been slaughtered by papal Rome, that great butcher of bodies and of souls. I cannot tell you what I have seen, what I have read, what I have thought. I cannot tell you what I feel. Oh, it is a bloody tale! SBBS 375.1
I have stood in that valley of Lucerna where dwelt the faithful Waldenses, those ancient Protestants who held to the pure gospel all through the Dark Ages, that lovely valley with its pine-clad slopes which Rome converted into a slaughter-house. Oh, horrible massacres of gentle, unoffending, noble-minded men! Oh, horrible massacres of tender women and helpless children! Yes; ye hated them, ye hunted them, ye trapped them, ye tortured them, ye stabbed them, ye stuck them on spits, ye impaled them, ye hanged them, ye roasted them, ye flayed them, ye cut them in pieces, ye Violated them, ye violated the women, ye violated the children, ye forced flints into them, and stakes, and stuffed them with gunpowder, and blew them up, and tore them asunder limb from limb, and tossed them over precipices, and dashed them against the rocks; ye cut them up alive, ye dismembered them; ye racked, mutilated, burned, tortured, mangled, massacred holy men, sainted women, mothers, daughters, tender children, harmless babes, hundreds, thousands, thousands upon thousands; ye sacrificed them in heaps, in hecatombs, turning all Spain, Italy, France, Europe, Christian Europe, into a slaughter-house, a charnel house, an Akeldama. Oh, horrible; too horrible to think of! The sight dims, the heart sickens, the soul is stunned in the presence of the awful spectacle. SBBS 375.2
O harlot, gilded harlot, with brazen brow and brazen heart! red are thy garments, red thine hands. Thy name is written in this book. God has written it. The world has read it. Thou art a murderess, O Rome. Thou art the murderess Babylon-“Babylon the Great,” drunken, foully drunken; yea, drunken with the sacred blood which thou hast shed in streams and torrents, the blood of saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.—“Romanism and the Reformation,” H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., F. R. A. S., pp. 107, 108. London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1891. SBBS 375.3
Persecution, a Catholic Professor on.—The Catholic Church is a respecter of conscience and of liberty.... She has, and she loudly proclaims that she has, a “horror of blood.” Nevertheless, when confronted by heresy, she does not content herself with persuasion; arguments of an intellectual and moral order appear to her insufficient, and she has recourse to force, to corporal punishment, to torture. She creates tribunals like those of the Inquisition, she calls the laws of the state to her aid, if necessary she encourages a crusade, or a religious war, and all her “horror of blood” practically culminates into urging the secular power to shed it, which proceeding is almost more odious-for it is less frank-than shedding it herself. Especially did she act thus in the sixteenth century with regard to Protestants. Not content to reform morally, to preach by example, to convert people by eloquent and holy missionaries, she lit in Italy, in the Low Countries, and above all in Spain, the funeral piles of the Inquisition. In France under Francis I and Henry II, in England under Mary Tudor, she tortured the heretics, whilst both in France and Germany, during the second half of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century, if she did not actually begin, at any rate she encouraged and actively aided, the religious wars.—“The Catholic Church, the Renaissance, and Protestantism,” Alfred Baudrillart (R. C.), Rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris, pp. 182, 183. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1908. SBBS 375.4
Persecution. -See Councils, 122; Inquisition; Jesuits, 272; Massacre of St. Bartholomew; Religious Liberty; Rome, 446. SBBS 376.1
Peter, Primacy of.—See Heresy, 203. SBBS 376.2
Phocas.—See Papal Supremacy, 359. SBBS 376.3
Photius.—See Greek Church, 194, 195. SBBS 376.4
Pilate, Governor of Judea.—See Seventy Weeks, 522, 523. SBBS 376.5
Pius IV.—See Creed of Pope Pius IV. SBBS 376.6
Pius IX.—See Councils, 121, 123. SBBS 376.7
Polygamy.—See Marriage. SBBS 376.8
Pope, Exaltation of.—The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. SBBS 376.9
The Pope is of such lofty and supreme dignity that, properly speaking, he has not been established in any rank of dignity, but rather has been placed upon the very summit of all ranks of dignities. SBBS 376.10
The Pope is called most holy because he is rightfully presumed to be such. SBBS 376.11
Nor can emperors and kings be called most holy; for although in civil laws the term “most sacred” seems sometimes to have been usurped by emperors, yet never that of “most holy.” SBBS 376.12
The Pope alone is deservedly called by the name “most holy,” because he alone is the vicar of Christ, who is the fountain and source and fulness of all holiness. SBBS 376.13
The Pope by reason of the excellence of his supreme dignity is called bishop of bishops. SBBS 376.14
He is also called ordinary of ordinaries. SBBS 376.15
He is likewise bishop of the universal church. SBBS 376.16
He is likewise the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. SBBS 376.17
Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions. SBBS 376.18
Moreover the superiority and the power of the Roman Pontiff by no means pertain only to heavenly things, to earthly things, and to things under the earth, but are even over angels, than whom he is greater. SBBS 376.19
So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the Pope. SBBS 376.20
For he is of so great dignity and power that he forms one and the same tribunal with Christ. SBBS 376.21
So that whatever the Pope does, seems to proceed from the mouth of God, as according to most doctors, etc. SBBS 376.22
The Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been intrusted by the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom. SBBS 376.23
The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine laws. SBBS 377.1
[In proof of this last proposition various quotations are made, among them these:] SBBS 377.2
The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and loosing his sheep. SBBS 377.3
Whatever the Lord God himself, and the Redeemer, is said to do, that his vicar does, provided that he does nothing contrary to the faith.—Extracts from Ferraris’s Ecclesiastical Dictionary (R. C.), article on the Pope. SBBS 377.4
Note.—The full title of this work is “Prompta Bibliotheca canonica. juridica, moralis, theologica nec non ascetica, polemica, rubricistica, historica.” There have been various editions of this book since the first was published in 1746, the latest one being issued from Rome in 1899 at the Press of the Propaganda. This shows that this work still has the approval of the Roman Catholic heirarchy, and the Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. VI, p. 48) speaks of it as “a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge” and “a precious mine of information.” It is therefore legitimate to conclude that the statements in this work represent the current Roman Catholic view concerning the power and authority of the Pope.—Eds. SBBS 377.5
One Consistory SBBS 377.6
Therefore the decision of the Pope and the decision of God constitute one [i. e., the same] decision, just as the opinion of the Pope and of his disciple are the same. Since, therefore, an appeal is always taken from an inferior judge to a superior, as no one is greater than himself, so no appeal holds when made from the Pope to God, because there is one consistory of the Pope himself and of God himself, of which consistory the Pope himself is the key-bearer and the doorkeeper. Therefore no one can appeal from the Pope to God, as no one can enter into the consistory of God without the mediation of the Pope, who is the key-bearer and the doorkeeper of the consistory of eternal life; and as no one can appeal to himself, so no one can appeal from the Pope to God, because there is one decision and one court [curia] of God and of the Pope.—From the writings of Augustinus de Ancona (R. C.), printed without title-page or pagination, commencing, “Incipit summa Catholici doctoris Augustini de Ancona potestate ecclesiastica,” Questio VI, “De Papalis Sententia Appellatione” (On an Appeal from a Decision of the Pope). (British Museum, London.) SBBS 377.7
We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.—Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, “The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII,” p. 304. New York: Benziger Brothers. SBBS 377.8
“Another God on Earth” SBBS 377.9
For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman; finally, thou art another God on earth.—From the Oration of Christopher Marcellus (R. C.) in the fourth session of the Fifth Lateran Council, 1512 (an address to the Pope); “History of the Councils,” Labbe and Cossart, Vol. XIV, col. 109. SBBS 377.10
Note.—In several editions of the Roman Canon Law printed previously to 1632, there is found in a gloss (note) upon the word Declaramus in the Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, title 14, chap. 4, the expression Dominum Deum nostrum Papam (Our Lord God the Pope). In the edition of the Extravagantes printed at Lyons in 1556 these words are found in column 140. In later editions of the Canon Law the word Deum (God) has been omitted, and Roman Catholic writers claim that it was inserted in some of the earlier editions by a mistake of the copyist. It is asserted by one writer, who affirms that he examined the original manuscript of the commentator Zenzelinus. in the Vatican library, that the word Deum did not appear in it. Under these circumstances Protestants do not seem to be warranted in using this particular expression as evidence against the Papacy.—Eds. SBBS 377.11
All Power SBBS 378.1
Christ intrusted his office to the chief Pontiff; ... but all power in heaven and in earth had been given to Christ; ... therefore the chief Pontiff, who is his vicar, will have this power.—Gloss on the “Extravagantes Communes,” 28 book 1, “On Authority and Obedience,” chap. 1, on the words Porro Subesse Rom. Pontiff. (See the collection of Canon Laws, published in 1556, “Extravagantes Communes,” col. 29.) SBBS 378.2
Called God SBBS 378.3
It is shown with sufficient clearness that by the secular power the Pope cannot in any way be bound or loosed, who it is certain was called God by the pious leader Constantine, and it is clear that God cannot be judged by man.—Decree of Gratian, part 1, div. 96, chap. 7. SBBS 378.4
Note.—While this is one of the interesting perversions of fact so common in the Decree of Gratian, yet it shows the extravagant teaching of the time concerning the person of the Pope. What Constantine actually said was quite different from what Gratian makes him say.—Eds. SBBS 378.5
Christ and the Pope SBBS 378.6
All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that he is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.—“On the Authority of Councils,” Bellarmine (R. C.), book 2, chap. 17 (Vol. II, p. 266), ed. 1619. SBBS 378.7
The Pope’s Power to Pardon Sin and to Annul the Canons of the Church SBBS 378.8
Peter and his successors have power to impose laws both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise to grant dispensation from these laws, and, when needful, to annul them. It is theirs to judge offenses against the laws, to impose and to remit penalties. This judicial authority will even include the power to pardon sin. For sin is a breach of the laws of the supernatural kingdom, and falls under the cognizance of its constituted judges.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, art. “Pope,” p. 265. SBBS 378.9
He [the Pope] is not subject to them [the canons of the church], because he is competent to modify or to annul them when he holds this to be best for the church.—Id., p. 268. SBBS 378.10
The Pope is the vicar of Christ, or the visible head of the church on earth. The claims of the Pope are the same as the claims of Christ. Christ wanted all souls saved. So does the Pope. Christ can forgive all sin. So can the Pope. The Pope is the only man who claims the vicarage of Christ. His claim is not seriously opposed, and this establishes his authority. SBBS 378.11
The powers given the Pope by Christ were given him not as a mere man, but as the representative of Christ. The Pope is more than the representative of Christ, for he is the fruit of his divinity and of the divine institution of the church.—Extract from a Sermon by Rev. Jeremiah Prendergast, S. J. (R. C.), preached in the Church of St. John the Baptist, Syracuse, N. Y., Wednesday evening, March 13, 1912, as reported in the Syracuse Post-Standard, March 14, 1912. SBBS 378.12
For not man, but God separates those whom the Roman Pontiff (who exercises the functions, not of mere man, but of the true God), having weighed the necessity or utility of the churches, dissolves, not by human but rather by divine authority.—“Decrctals of Gregory” (R. C), book 1, title 7, chapter 3, on the Transfer of Bishops. SBBS 379.1
In 1335 Bishop Alvarez Pelayo lays down the doctrine that as Christ partook of the nature of God and man, so the Pope, as his vicar, participates with him in the divine nature as to spiritual things and in the nature of man as to temporals, so that he is not simply a man, but rather a God on earth. These extravagances are perpetuated to modern times. During the sessions of the Vatican Council, on Jan. 9, 1870. Mermeillod, bishop of Hebron and coadjutor of Geneva, in a sermon preached in the church of San Andrea delle Valle, described three incarnations of Christ,-the first in Judea for the atonement, the next in the sacrifice of the eucharist, and now “the Saviour is once more on earth (he is in the Vatican in the person of an aged man),” and the promotion with which the preacher was rewarded showed that such adulation was duly appreciated. Scarcely less blasphemous were the expressions used by the Irish Church at the triduum, or celebration of papal infallibility in Dublin, in September, 1870: “The Pope is Christ in office, Christ in jurisdiction and power ... we bow down before thy voice, O Pius, as before the voice of Christ, the God of truth ... in clinging to thee, we cling to Christ.”-“Studies in Church History.” Henry C. Lea, p. 389. Philadelphia: Henry C. Lea’s Sons & Co., 1883. SBBS 379.2
Pope, Position of, Defined by the Council of Trent.—We define that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church, the father and doctor of all Christians; and that to him, in the person of blessed Peter, was given, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and govern the universal church, as is contained also in the acts of the ecumenical councils, and in the sacred canons.—“The Most Holy Councils,” Labbe and Cossart (R. C.), Vol. XIII, col. 1167. SBBS 379.3
Pope, Adoration of.—After his election and proclamation, the Pope, attired in the pontifical dress, is borne on the pontifical chair to the church of St. Peter, and is placed upon the high altar, where he is saluted for the third time by the cardinals, kissing his feet, hands, and mouth. In the meantime the Te Deum is sung; and. when the adoration and the hymn is over, the dean of the Sacred College chants some versicles and a prayer, then the Pontiff descends from the altar, and is carried to the Vatican; and after some days he is crowned in the church of St. Peter by the senior cardinal deacon.—Quoted from Notitia Congregationum et Tribunalium Curia Romana (Standing Orders of the Court of Rome); cited in “Letters to M. Gondon,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 310, 311. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848. SBBS 379.4
St. Paul predicted the appearance of a power, which he calls “mystery,” claiming adoration in the Christian temple, taking his seat in the sanctuary of the church of God, showing himself that he is God. Let us also remember that Daniel’s word “abomination,” which describes an object of idolatrous worship, is adopted by the Apocalypse; and that, in like manner, St. Paul’s word “mystery” is adopted in the Apocalypse; and that both these words are combined in this book, in the name of the woman, whose attire is described minutely by St. John, and whose name on her forehead is “Mystery, Babylon the Great, mother of abominations of the earth.” SBBS 379.5
Is this description applicable to the Church of Rome? SBBS 380.1
For an answer to this question, let us refer, not to any private sources, but to the official “Book of Sacred Ceremonies” of the Church of Rome. SBBS 380.2
This book, sometimes called “Ceremoniale Romanum,” is written in Latin, and was compiled three hundred and forty years ago, by Marcellus, a Roman Catholic archbishop, and is dedicated to a pope, Leo X. Let us turn to that portion of this volume which describes the first public appearance of the Pope at Rome, on his election to the pontificate. SBBS 380.3
We there read the following order of proceeding: “The Pontiff elect is conducted to the sacrarium, and divested of his ordinary attire, and is clad in the papal robes.” The color of these is then minutely described. Suffice it to say, that five different articles of dress, in which he is then arrayed, are scarlet. Another vest is specified, and this is covered with pearls. His miter is then mentioned; and this is adorned with gold and precious stones. SBBS 380.4
Such, then, is the attire in which the Pope is arrayed, and in which he first appears to the world as Pope. Refer now to the Apocalypse. We have seen that scarlet, pearls, gold, and precious stones are thrice specified by St. John as characterizing the mysterious power portrayed by himself. SBBS 380.5
But we may not pause here. Turn again to the “Ceremoniale Romanum.” The Pontiff elect, arrayed as has been described, is conducted to the cathedral of Rome, the basilica, or church, of St. Peter. He is led to the altar; he first prostrates himself before it, and prays. Thus he declares the sanctity of the altar. He kneels at it, and prays before it, as the seat of God. SBBS 380.6
What a contrast then ensues! We read thus: SBBS 380.7
“The Pope rises, and, wearing his miter, is lifted up by the cardinals, and is placed by them upon the altar-to sit there. One of the bishops kneels, and begins the ‘Te Deum.’ In the meantime the cardinals kiss the feet and hands and face of the Pope.” SBBS 380.8
Such is the first appearance of the Pope in the face of the church and the world. SBBS 380.9
This ceremony has been observed for many centuries; and it was performed at the inauguration of the present Pontiff, Pius IX; and it is commonly called by Roman writers the “Adoration.” It is represented on a coin, struck in the papal mint with the legend, “Quem creant, adorant” (Whom they create [Pope], they adore).” ... What a wonderful avowal! SBBS 380.10
The following language was addressed to Pope Innocent X, and may serve as a specimen of the feelings with which the Adoration is performed: SBBS 380.11
“Most Holy and Blessed Father, head of the church, ruler of the world, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, whom the angels in heaven revere, and whom the gates of hell fear, and whom all the world adores, we specially venerate, worship, and adore thee, and commit ourselves, and all that belongs to us, to thy paternal and more than divine disposal.” SBBS 380.12
What more could be said to Almighty God himself?-“Union with Rome,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 52-55. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1909. SBBS 380.13
Pope, Power of.—The kingly power is not superior to the pontifical, but is subject to it, and is bound to obey it.—“Decret. Greg. IX,” lib. i. tit. 33. cap. 6 (“Decretals of Gregory IX” (R. C.), book 1, title 33, chapter 6). SBBS 380.14
Pope, Opposite Views Concerning Power of.—Now [in the fourteenth century], as at all times, the strongest partisans of the supremacy both of the Papacy and of the church were found among the monks or “regulars” (churchmen who lived under a “rule”). In a. d. 1328 the monk Augustinus Triumphus, in his book, “Summa de Potestate Ecclesiastica (Of Church Power), maintained, with regard to the Pope’s position in the church, that he is universal bishop; that he can bind and loose in every part of the church; that while other bishops have a place, it is under his authority, and he can, when occasion calls for it, pass them by; that from the sentence of the Pope there is no appeal, not even to God; and that the honor due to saints and angels, and in a certain sense the honor due to God, is thus rightly given to the vicar of Christ on earth. Five centuries were yet to run before the proclamation by the Pope of his official infallibility. But most of the other powers to be attributed to him by the Vatican Council in the nineteenth century are already conceded by these partisans in the fourteenth; and Triumphus goes on to use those attributions in the conflict with the emperor. He argued that the only power held immediately of God is that of the Pope; that the power of sovereigns is a subdelegated power; that the Pope, being the vicar of Christ, is, of course, to be obeyed rather than the emperor; and that he can, in virtue of the same powers, choose an emperor or a dynasty and depose them, and can choose and depose kings of any realm in Christendom. SBBS 381.1
In a. d. 1330 Alvarus Pelagius followed with his book, “De Planctu Ecclesia” (Of the Church’s Complaint), and from the same premises drew like conclusions. He held “that the Pope is the sole authority of Christ upon earth; that from him general councils derive their power; that he is not bound even by his own laws, for he may dispense with them as and when he pleases; and that he has a universal jurisdiction in spiritual and in temporal things.” SBBS 381.2
On the imperial side, on the other hand, arose thinkers who, for the first time, were prepared not only to refuse the powers claimed for the Bishop of Rome in later centuries over the universal church, but, also in defense of the civil power, to limit or deny that original independence which the church itself now so grievously misused. The most remarkable book of this nature was the “Defensor Pacis,” the composition of Marsilius of Padua, now the emperor’s physician, but formerly rector of the great University of Paris, aided by John of Jandun, one of the imperial secretaries. In this work, published about a. d. 1325, it was argued in detail on the internal church question, that all presbyters or bishops were equal in the primitive church, greater authority being gradually given to one of them in each district only as a matter of convenience; that as Peter had no authority over the other apostles, so no one succeeding bishop had authority over others ruling elsewhere; and that the habit which other bishops and churches had got into, of consulting the pastor of the central church of the world, had gradually come to be considered a duty on their part, and had now led to an unfounded claim of authority by Rome over the churches and bishops, and even the princes of Christendom. The universal powers of the church, thus denied to any local bishop, were by this book assigned to a general council; and Scripture, interpreted when need is by the definitions of such a council, is held by it to be the sole guide to blessedness. SBBS 381.3
These principles, anticipating many results of historical criticism in modern times, had already been prepared for by the investigations of the universities, and were now spread through Europe by the incessant labors of William of Occam and others. But the Reformation was still two centuries distant, and they took little hold of the hearts of men.—“Church and State: A Historical Handbook,” A. Taylor Innes, 2nd ed., pp. 97, 98. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. SBBS 381.4
Pope, Deposing Power of, Defined.—The deposing power of the Pope,-what was it but that supreme arbitration whereby the highest power in the world, the vicar of the incarnate Son of God, anointed high priest, and supreme temporal ruler, sat in his tribunal, impartially to judge between nation and nation, between people and prince, between sovereign and subject? The deposing power grew up by the providential action of God in the world; to subjects obedience, and princes clemency.—“The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ,” Henry Edward Manning, D. D. (R. C.), p. 46. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862. SBBS 382.1
Pope, Deposing Power of.—I am aware of the fact that by many this power of the Roman Pontiff to depose apostate rulers is either denied, or at all events rendered doubtful; but how this can be done in good faith, we do not easily see, especially since it pertains to a most solemn matter, intimately connected with purity of the faith, concerning which unquestionable testimonies occur in history. Particularly should be noted the words which St. Gregory VII used: “Holding to the decrees of our holy predecessors, we, by our apostolic authority, absolve from their oath those who are bound by allegiance or oath to excommunicated persons, and we prohibit them from keeping faith with them in any way, until they make amends.” SBBS 382.2
Moreover, it will be worth our while to quote here the very famous words with which Boniface VIII [in the bull Unam Sanctam] set forth the superiority of the ecclesiastical power over the civil: SBBS 382.3
“In this church and in its power are two swords, to wit, a spiritual and a temporal, and this we are taught by the words of the gospel; for when the apostles said, ‘Behold, here are two swords’ (in the church, namely, since the apostles were speaking), the Lord did not reply that it was too many, but enough. And surely he who claims that the temporal sword is not in the power of Peter has but ill understood the word of our Lord when he said, ‘Put up again thy sword into his place.’ Both the spiritual and the material sword, therefore, are in the power of the church, the latter indeed to be used for the church, the former by the church, the one by the hand of the priest, the other by the hand of kings and soldiers, but by the will and sufferance of the priest. SBBS 382.4
“It is fitting, moreover, that one sword should be under the other, and the temporal authority subject to the spiritual power. For when the apostle said, ‘There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God,’ they would not be ordained unless one sword were under the other, and one, as inferior, was brought back by the other to the highest place.... For as the truth testifies, the spiritual power has to regulate the temporal power, and judge it if it takes a wrong course; thus with reference to the church and the ecclesiastical power, is fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah: ‘Behold, I have appointed thee today over nations and kingdoms.’ ... We, moreover, proclaim, declare, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” SBBS 382.5
Neither can I refrain from quoting also the striking words, possibly not sufficiently well known, by which the angelic doctor [St. Thomas Aquinas], with his customary keenness of intellect, proves in a very clear argument the preeminence of the chief Pontiff over all kings, by maintaining a distinction between the new law and the old.—“De Stabilitate et Progressu Dogmatis,” Alexius M. Lepicier (R. C.), pp. 211, 212; officially printed at Rome, 1910. SBBS 382.6
The common opinion teaches that the Pope has power over two swords, namely, the spiritual and temporal, which jurisdiction and power Christ himself gave to Peter and his successors (Matthew 16:19), saying, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” concerning which the doctors remark that he did not say “key” but “keys,” including both the temporal and the spiritual power. SBBS 383.1
This opinion is most widely confirmed by the authority of the holy Fathers, by the teaching of the canon and civil law, and by the apostolic constitutions.—“Prompta Bibliotheca” (Ecclesiastical Dictionary), Rev. P. F. Lucii Ferraris (R. C.), art. “Papa” (the Pope). SBBS 383.2
Unbelieving princes and kings by the decision of the Pope can be deprived in certain cases of the dominion which they have over the faithful,-as, if they have taken possession of the lands of Christians by force, or if they compel the faithful whom they have conquered to turn from the faith, and so on,-as is clearly shown by Cardinal Bellarmine in his “Apology Against the King of England,” chapter 4. SBBS 383.3
And hence the Pope grants the provinces which formerly belonged to Christians, but which have been seized by unbelievers, to be acquired by any of the Christian princes.—Ibid. SBBS 383.4
It is not to be wondered at if to the Roman Pontiff, as to the vicar of Him whose is the earth and the fulness thereof, the world and all who dwell therein, etc., there have been granted, when just cause de mands, the most complete authority and power of transferring king doms, of dashing in pieces scepters, of taking away crowns, not only unsheathing the spiritual but also the material sword. Which power in its fulness, not once but frequently, the Roman pontiffs have used, as occasion required, by girding the sword upon the thigh most effectively, as is perfectly well known; and to this not only do theologians give most complete testimony, but also the professors of pontifical and imperial law, and many historians of undoubted credibility, both profane and sacred, both Greek and Latin.—Ibid. SBBS 383.5
The authority of princes and the allegiance of subjects in the civil state of nature is of divine ordinance; and therefore, so long as princes and their laws are in conformity to the law of God, the church has no power or jurisdiction against them, nor over them. If princes and their laws deviate from the law of God, the church has authority from God to judge of that deviation, and to oblige to its correction.—“The Vatican Decrees,” Henry Edward (R. C.), p. 54. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1875. SBBS 383.6
Even after the Reformation, Simancas, bishop of Badajoz, declared that the popes have power to dethrone kings who are useless to their subjects and who adopt laws adverse to the interests of religion.—“Studies in Church History,” Henry C. Lea, p. 386. Philadelphia: Henry C. Lea’s Sons & Co., 1883. SBBS 383.7
Before me is an edition of the Bullarium Romanum, printed at Rome, “facultate et privilegio sanctissimi.” In it I find the bull by which Gregory VII (Hildebrand) deposed the emperor Henry the Fourth, and absolved his subjects from their allegiance. I see the same act repeated in another document in the same collection. Passing over the bulls in which Pope Gregory IX excommunicated the emperor Frederick II, and in which Pope Innocent IV deposed the same sovereign, I see there the bull in which Paul III, in 1535, excommunicated King SBBS 383.8
Henry the Eighth of England, and ordered his nobles to rebel against him: I proceed further, and find another similar document in which Pius V (now canonized as a saint of the Church of Rome) pretended to depose Queen Elizabeth, and to deprive her of what he called “pratenso regni jure” [her pretended right to the kingdom], and to declare her subjects “forever absolved from any oath, and all manner of duty, allegiance, and obedience to her;” and commanded them, on pain of excommunication, “not to presume to obey her monitions, mandates, and laws.” In the year 1640, Paul V, and in 1671 Clement X, anathematized all Protestant princes and subjects as heretics.—“Letters to M. Gondon,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 294, 295. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848. SBBS 384.1
But let the Papacy be reminded that in former times for six centuries it used its spiritual weapons in order to deprive others of their temporalities. Pope Gregory VII used them to dethrone the emperor of Germany, Henry IV; Pope Innocent III used them to dethrone the emperor Otho and King John of England. Popes Honorius III, Gregory IX, and Innocent IV used them to deprive Frederick II of his dominions. Pope Paul III used them to dethrone our Henry VIII. Pope Pius V (canonized as a saint) and Gregory XIII used them to depose Queen Elizabeth. Pope Urban VIII used them against our King Charles 1. And even at the present day, the Church of Rome eulogizes Pope Gregory VII in her Breviary, whom she has canonized as a saint, because he “deprived the emperor Henry IV of his kingdom, and released his subjects from their oaths of allegiance to him.”-“Union with Rome,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 100. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1909. SBBS 384.2
[The following extracts are taken from the bull of Pope Pius V, deposing Queen Elizabeth of England in 1570.—Editors.] SBBS 384.3
“He that reigneth on high, to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, has with all fulness of power delivered the rule of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one sole [ruler] upon earth, to wit, to Peter, the prince of the apostles, and to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter. Him alone he hath set as prince over all nations and all kingdoms, to pull up, to destroy, to overthrow, and to break down, to plant, and to build, that he may keep the people faithful, bound with the bond of mutual love, and in the unity of the Spirit, and present them unhurt and safe to his Saviour.” SBBS 384.4
The document then goes on to speak of “Elizabeth, the pretended queen of England, the slave of vices,” and concludes thus: SBBS 384.5
“Article 4. Moreover she herself is deprived of her pretended right to the aforesaid kingdom, and also of all dominion, dignity, and privilege whatsoever. SBBS 384.6
“Art. 5. And so we absolve the nobles, subjects, and peoples of the said kingdom, and all others who have taken any oath to her, from the obligation of their oath and besides from all duty of dominion, fidelity, and obedience: and we deprive the said Elizabeth of her pretended right to the kingdom and of all other things as is aforesaid: and we charge and order all and every the nobles, subjects, and peoples, and others aforesaid, not to venture to obey her monitions, commands, and laws. And we attach the like sentence of anathema to those who shall act otherwise.... SBBS 384.7
“Given at St. Peter’s at Rome 25th February, 1570, in the fifth year of our pontificate.”-“Our Brief Against Rome,” Rev. Charles Stuteville Isaacson, M. A., Appenaix B, p. 268. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1905. SBBS 384.8
Pope, Deposing Power Exercised by Gregory VII.—O blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, bend down to us, we beseech thee, thine ear; hear me, me thy servant, whom thou hast sustained from infancy and preserved till this day from the hands of the wicked, who hate me because I am faithful to thee. SBBS 385.1
And thou, my lady, mother of God, with blessed Peter, thy brother, among the saints, art my witness that the Holy Roman Church placed me, in spite of myself, at its helm, and that I sought not to raise myself to thy see, but would rather have ended my life in exile than to have taken thy place by considerations of worldly glory or in a secular spirit. Therefore it is, as I believe, by thy grace, O holy apostle, and not because of my works, that it has pleased thee, and that it pleases thee still, that the Christian people committed specially to thy care should obey me; for thy life has entered into me, and the power that God has given me to bind and to loose in heaven and on earth is thy grace. SBBS 385.2
So then, strong in this confidence, for the honor and safety of thy church, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, I depose King Henry [IV], son of the emperor Henry, who, by insolence unparalleled, has risen up against thy church, the governments of the Teutonic kingdom and of Italy. I loose all Christians from the oaths they have taken or may take to him, and I forbid all persons to obey him as king; for it is just that he who strives to diminish the honor of thy church should lose the honor he himself appears to possess. And as he has refused to obey as a Christian, and has not returned to the Lord he had forsaken, communicating with those that were excommunicated, committing many iniquities, despising the counsels I gave him for his salvation, as thou knowest, and separating himself from thy church, in which he has put division, I bind him, in thy name, with the bond of the anathema; I bind him, relying on thy power, so that the nations may know and prove the truth of these words: “Thou art Peter, and on this stone the living God has built his church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”-“Life of Gregory the Seventh,” M: Abel François Villemain, Vol. II, pp. 48, 49. London: Richard Bentley & Son, 1874. SBBS 385.3
In the second sentence of excommunication which Gregory [VII] passed upon Henry the Fourth are these words: “Come now, I beseech you, O most holy and blessed fathers and princes, Peter and Paul, that all the world may understand and know that if ye are able to bind and to loose in heaven, ye are likewise able on earth, according to the merits of each man, to give and to take away empires, kingdoms, princedoms, marquisates, duchies, countships, and the possessions of all men. For if ye judge spiritual things, what must we believe to be your power over worldly things? and if ye judge the angels who rule over all proud princes, what can ye not do to their slaves?”-“The Holy Roman Empire,” James Bryce, D. C. L., p. 161. London: Macmillan & Co., 1892. SBBS 385.4
Pope, Authority of, Now and in Ancient Church.—A Roman Catholic bishop derives all his authority from the Pope. No Romanist archbishop can consecrate a church, or confirm a child, without receiving the pallium from Rome. All Romanist prelates are what they are, not by divine providence or permission, but by the grace of the papal see! All this is in direct defiance of the laws and practice of the ancient church. It is notorious that “most princes in the West, as in Germany, France, and England, did invest bishops till the time of Gregory VII.” It is certain, also, that the popes of Rome, who now claim a right to ordain and place bishops throughout the world, were themselves appointed by the emperor till the ninth century.—“Letters to M. Gondon,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 326, 327. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848. SBBS 385.5
Pope, Power of, over Ecclesiastical Law.—Hence he [the Pope] is said to have a heavenly power, and hence changes even the nature of things, applying the substantial of one thing to another-can make something out of nothing-a judgment which is null he makes to be real, since in the things which he wills, his will is taken for a reason. Nor is there any one to say to him, Why dost thou do this? For he can dispense with the law, he can turn injustice into justice by correcting and changing the law, and he has the fulness of power.—“Decretals of Gregory” (R. C.), book 1, title 7, chap. 3, gloss on the Transfer of Bishops. SBBS 386.1
Pope, “Vicar of the Son of God.”—“Beatus Petrus in terris vicarius filii Dei videtur esse constitutus [Blessed Peter seems to have been appointed the vicar of the Son of God on earth].”—“Decretum Gratiani,” prima pars, dist. xcvi (“Decree of Gratian” (R. C.), part 1, division 96). SBBS 386.2
Pope, Mediation of, in National Affairs.—Here is the history of the Pope’s success as arbitrator, as furnished these days by the Bollettino Salesiano: SBBS 386.3
440-461-St. Leo I: With Attila, king of the Huns, in favor of Italy SBBS 386.4
590-604-St. Gregory I: With Agitulfo, king of the Lombards, in favor of the Romans. SBBS 386.5
590-604-St. Gregory I: Between the emperors of the Orient and the Lombards. SBBS 386.6
715-731-St. Gregory II: With Luitprandus, king of the Lombards, in favor of the Romans. SBBS 386.7
741-752-St. Gregory II: With Luitprandus, king of the Lombards, in favor of the Romans. SBBS 386.8
1094-1654-St. Leo IX: Between Emperor Henry III and King Andrew of Hungary. SBBS 386.9
1055-1057-Victor II: Between Emperor Henry III, Baldwin of Flanders, and Geoffrey of Lorene. SBBS 386.10
1198-1215-Innocent III: Between John of England and Philip Augustus of France. SBBS 386.11
1216-1227-Honorius III: Between Louis VIII of France and Henry III of England. SBBS 386.12
1243-1254-Innocent IV: Between the king of Portugal and his people. SBBS 386.13
1277-1280-Nicholas III: Mediator several times between Emperor Rudolf of the Hapsburgs and Charles of Anjou, king of Naples. SBBS 386.14
1316-1334-John XXII: Between King Edward of England and Robert of Scotland. SBBS 386.15
1334-1342-Benedict XII: Between Edward Plantagenet of England and Philip of Valois, king of France. SBBS 386.16
1370-1378-Gregory XI: Between the king of Portugal and the king of Castille. SBBS 386.17
1447-1455-Nicholas V: Mediations in Germany, Hungary, and Italy. SBBS 386.18
1484-1492-Innocent VIII: Mediations in Moscow, Austria, and England. SBBS 386.19
1492-1503-Alexander VI: Between Spain and Portugal. SBBS 386.20
1623-1644-Urban VIII: Mediations to allay the dissensions provoked by the succession to the duchies of Mantua and Monferrato. SBBS 386.21
1572-1585-Gregory XIII: Between the king of Poland and the czar of Moscow. SBBS 386.22
1878-1903-Leo XIII: Between Germany and Spain. SBBS 387.1
1878-1903-Leo XIII: Between the republics of Haiti and San Domingo. SBBS 387.2
1915—Benedict XV: Mediations between Germany, Austria, and Russia on the one part, and England, France, Belgium, Serbia, and Montenegro on the other, for the exchange of disabled prisoners and of interned civilians.—Baltimore Catholic Review (R. C.), June 5, 1915. SBBS 387.3
Pope, Superior to a Council.—It is clear, in the first place, that the Pope does not hold his authority from a council, but from God, or at all events chiefly from God, and secondarily from councils by the command or authority of God.... Therefore, neither the council nor the church ought to have it in its power to take away or remove this authority from him, and, consequently, neither to depose him nor to dismiss him.—“Jacobatius (R. C.) on the Councils,” p. 412. SBBS 387.4
Pope, Dispensing Power of.—2. A legislator can dispense in his own laws, in those of his predecessors, and in those of his subordinates by his ordinary jurisdiction; he cannot dispense in the laws of his superior unless he has received delegated authority for the purpose. SBBS 387.5
a. The Pope, then, can dispense in all ecclesiastical laws, even in those which have been made in a general council. He cannot dispense in the natural or divine law; but in vows, oaths, and in marriage which has not been consummated, the Pope can for good cause dispense in the name of God, or at least declare that in certain circumstances they have ceased to exist; for whether he then in the strict sense dispenses, or only declares the sense of the divine law, is a disputed point. In practice there is little difference between the two views.—“A Manual of Moral Theology,” Rev. Thomas Slater, S. J. (R. C.), Vol. I, p. 112. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1908.* SBBS 387.6
Pope, Bellarmine on Fifteen Titles of.—Argumentum postremum sumitur ex nominibus Episcopi Romani, qua sunt quindecim, [1] Papa, [2] Pater Patrum, [3] Christianorum Pontifex, [4] summus sacerdos, [5] Princeps sacerdotum, [6] Vicarius Christi, [7] Caput corporis Ecclesia, [8] Fundamentum adificii Ecclesia, [9] Pastor ovilis Domini, [10] Pater et Doctor omnium fidelium, [11] Rector domus Dei, [12] Custos vinea Dei, [13] Sponsus Ecclesia, [14] Apostolica sedis Presul, [15] Episcopus universalis.—“De Romano Pontifice,” Bellarmine, lib. ii, c. 31. Colonia Agrippina: Antonius and Arnoldus Hierati Fratres, 1628. SBBS 387.7
(Translation:) The last argument [of the previous chapter] is maintained from the names of the Roman bishop, which are fifteen: [1] Pope, [2] father of fathers, [3] the Pontiff of Christians, [4] high priest, [5] chief of the priests, [6] the vicar of Christ, [7] the head of the body of the church, [8] the foundation of the building of the church, [9] pastor of the Lord’s sheep, [10] the father and doctor of all the faithful, [11] the ruler of the house of God, [12] the keeper of God’s vineyard, [13] the bridegroom of the church, [14] the ruler of the apostolic see, [15] the universal bishop.—Eds. SBBS 387.8
Pope, Election of.—See Conclave. SBBS 387.9
Popes, Many Have Been Heretics.—Pope Adrian VI, in his Quastiones de Sacramentis in quartum Sententiarum librum (fol. xxvi. coll. 3., iv.), when treating of the minister of confirmation, discusses the question, “Utrum papa possit errare in his quae tangunt fidem”! [Whether the Pope can err in those things which touch faith?] He replies, “Dico primo quod si per ecclesiam Romanam intelligat caput ejus, puta pontifex, certum est quod possit errare, etiam in iis quae tangunt fidem, haresim per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo. Plures enim fuerunt pontifices Romani haretici.” [I say firstly, if by the church one understands its head, namely, the Pope, it is certain that he can err even in those matters which touch faith, by asserting heresy through his definition or decretal. For many Roman pontiffs have been heretics.] I quote from the edition published by Pope Adrian in 1522 during his pontificate, under his own eye at Rome.—“The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome,” F. W. Puller, pp. 398, 399, Note 2. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1900. SBBS 387.10
Popery, a Usurpation of All Authority.—It is to be remarked further, that a religious establishment is not to be estimated merely by what it is in itself, but also by what it is in comparison with those of other nations; ... and what is still more material, the value of our own ought to be very much heightened in our esteem, by considering what it is a security from, I mean that great corruption of Christianity,-popery, which is ever hard at work, to bring us again under its yoke. Whoever will consider the popish claims to the disposal of the whole earth, as of divine right; to dispense with the most sacred engagements; the claims to supreme absolute authority in religion; in short, the general claims which the canonists express by the terms “plenitude” of “power,”-whoever, I say, will consider popery as it is professed at Rome, may see that it is manifest open usurpation of all divine and human authority.—Bishop Butler, Sermon before the House of Lords in Westminster Abbey, on the King’s Accession, June 11, 1747; quoted in “Letters to M. Gondon,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 320. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848. SBBS 388.1
Popery and Christianity, Wylie on.—We are accustomed to speak of popery as a corrupt form of Christianity. We concede too much. The Church of Rome bears the same relation to the Church of Christ which the hierarchy of Baal bore to the institute of Moses; and popery stands related to Christianity only in the same way in which paganism stood related to primeval revelation. Popery is not a corruption simply, but a transformation. It may be difficult to fix the time when it passed from the one into the other; but the change is incontestable. Popery is the gospel transubstantiated into the flesh and blood of paganism, under a few of the accidents of Christianity.—“The Papacy,” Rev. J. A. Wylie, p. 14. Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1851. SBBS 388.2
Popery, Paganism of.—I am afraid that, after all that has been said, not a few will revolt from the above comparative estimate of popery and undisguised paganism. Let me, therefore, fortify my opinion by the testimonies of two distinguished writers, well qualified to pronounce on this subject. They will, at least, show that I am not singular in the estimate which I have formed. The writers to whom I refer, are Sir George Sinclair of Ulbster, and Dr. Bonar of Kelso. Few men have studied the system of Rome more thoroughly than Sir George, and in his “Letters to the Protestants of Scotland” he has brought all the fertility of his genius, the curiosa felicitas of his style, and the stores of his highly cultivated mind, to bear upon the elucidation of his theme. Now, the testimony of Sir George is this: “Romanism is a refined system of Christianized heathenism, and chiefly differs from its prototype in being more treacherous, more cruel, more dangerous, more intolerant.” The mature opinion of Dr. Bonar is the very same, and that, too, expressed with the Cawnpore massacre particularly in view; “We are doing for popery at home,” says he, “what we have done for idolaters abroad, and in the end the results will be the same; nay, worse; for popish cruelty, and thirst for the blood of the innocent, have been the most savage and merciless that the earth has seen. Cawnpore, Delhi, and Bareilly are but dust in comparison with the demoniacal brutalities perpetrated by the Inquisition, and by the armies of popish fanaticism.” These are the words of truth and soberness, that no man acquainted with the history of modern Europe can dispute. There is great danger of their being overlooked at this moment. It will be a fatal error if they be. Let not the pregnant fact be overlooked, that, while the Apocalyptic history runs down to the consummation of all things, in that divine foreshadowing all the other paganisms of the world are in a manner cast into the shade by the paganism of papal Rome. It is against Babylon that sits on the seven hills that the saints are forewarned; it is for worshiping the beast and his image preëminently, that “the vials of the wrath of God, that liveth and abideth forever,” are destined to be outpoured upon the nations.—“The Two Babylons,” Rev. Alexander Hislop, p. 285. London: S. W. Partridge & Co., 1907. SBBS 388.3
Porphyry.—See Daniel, 129, 133, 134. SBBS 389.1
Preaching Friars.—See Papacy, 352. SBBS 389.2
Preble, T. M.—See Advent Message, 23, 24. SBBS 389.3
Preston, Rachel D.—See Advent Message, 23. SBBS 389.4
Priesthood.—Sacrifice and priesthood are, by the ordinance of God, in such wise conjoined, as that both have existed in every law. Whereas, therefore, in the New Testament, the Catholic Church has received, from the institution of Christ, the holy visible sacrifice of the eucharist; it must needs also be confessed that there is, in that church, a new, visible, and external priesthood (can. i), into which the old has been translated. And the Sacred Scriptures show, and the tradition of the Catholic Church has always taught, that this priesthood was instituted by the same Lord our Saviour (can. iii), and that to the apostles and their successors in the priesthood was the power delivered of consecrating, offering, and administering his body and blood, as also of forgiving and retaining sins (Canon 1 29).—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” pp. 150, 151. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912. SBBS 389.5
Priesthood, Priests Called Gods.—As bishops and priests are as certain interpreters and heralds of God, who in his name teach men the divine law and the precepts of life, and are the representatives on earth of God himself, it is clear that their function is such, that none greater can be conceived; wherefore they are justly called not only “angels” (Malachi 2:7), but also “gods” (Psalm 81:6), holding as they do amongst us the power and authority of the immortal God. But although they at all times held a most exalted dignity, yet the priests of the new testament far excel all the others in honor; for the power of consecrating and offering the body and blood of our Lord, and of remitting sins, which has been conferred on them, transcends human reason and intelligence, still less can there be found on earth anything equal and like to it.—“Catechism of the Council of Trent,” translated by J. Donovan, D. D. (R. C.), p. 275. Dublin: James Duffy, Sons & Co. SBBS 389.6
Priesthood, The Priest “Another Christ.”—The priest is the man of God. the minister of God, the portion of God. the man called of God, consecrated to God, wholly occupied with the interests of God; he that despiseth him, despiseth God; he that hears him hears God: he remits sins as God, and that which he calls his body at the altar is adored as God by himself and by the congregation [italics his]. This shows Jesus Christ as God-man! ... The priest is not vested with the functions and powers of the priesthood except by a holy anointing. whence comes the name of Christ (anointed) given him in the Scriptures. This shows that the incarnation was for the Saviour an anointing altogether divine, celebrated by the prophets, which causes the name of Christ to be added to his name Jesus.... The priest daily offers a great sacrifice; and the victim which he immolates is the Lamb of God, bearing the sins of the world; and by continence, by apostolic self-devotion, he ought daily to associate himself with this great immolation. This shows Jesus Christ content to offer himself as a holocaust upon the altar of the cenacle and on that of the cross, for the salvation of the whole world.... From the virtue of this sacrifice, which he offers daily, the priest derives the power and the right to teach the faith, to administer the sacraments, to govern souls. It is because Jesus Christ, becoming our Redeemer, by the sovereign efficacy of his sacrifice, is thereby also teacher, pattern, pastor, legislator, supreme judge of all men, the eternal glory of the saints. In one word, the priest, such as he is in the Christian system, that is to say, the Catholic priest, presupposes, represents, shows forth Jesus Christ, the God-man, Jesus Christ as he is known and adored by the whole of Christendom.—“Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent,” Rev. A. Nampon, S. J. (R. C.), pp. 543, 544. Philadelphia: Peter F. Cunningham, 1869. SBBS 390.1
Priesthood, The Priest the Creator of the Creator.—With regard to the power of priests over the real body of Jesus Christ, it is of faith that when they pronounce the words of consecration, the Incarnate Word has obliged himself to obey and to come into their hands under the sacramental species.... We are struck with wonder when we ... find that in obedience to the words of his priests-Hoc est corpus meum [This is my body]-God himself descends on the altar, that he comes wherever they call him, and as often as they call him, and places himself in their hands, even though they should be his enemies. And after having come, he remains, entirely at their disposal; and they move him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they wish, shut him up in the tabernacle, or expose him on the altar, or carry him outside the church; they may, if they choose, eat his flesh, and give him for the food of others.... Besides, the power of the priest surpasses that of the Blessed Virgin Mary; for, although this divine mother can pray for us, and by her prayers obtain whatever she wishes, yet she cannot absolve a Christian from even the smallest sin.... SBBS 390.2
Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, since by saying the words of consecration, he creates, as it were, Jesus in the sacrament, by giving him a sacramental existence, and produces him as a victim to be offered to the eternal Father. As in creating the world it was sufficient for God to have said, Let it be made, and it was created,-He spoke, and they were made,-so it is sufficient for the priest to say, “Hoc est corpus meum,” and, behold, the bread is no longer bread, but the body of Jesus Christ. “The power of the priest,” says St. Bernardine of Sienna, “is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world.” And St. Augustine has written: “O the venerable sanctity of the hands! O happy function of the priest! he that created (if I may say so) gave me the power to create him; and he that created me without me is himself created by me!” As the word of God created heaven and earth, so, says St. Jerome, the words of the priest create Jesus Christ.... When he ascended into heaven, Jesus Christ left his priests after him to hold on earth his place of mediator between God and men, particularly on the altar.—“Dignity and Duties of the Priest; or Selva,” St. Alphonsus Liguori (R. C.), pp. 26-34. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1889. SBBS 390.3
Priesthood, The Roman, of Heathen Origin.—The title of the Pope, “Pontifex Maximus,” is entirely pagan. In all pagan countries, Babylon, Egypt, Rome, Peru, etc., the king or emperor was the chief priest, or Pontifex Maximus. Just also as the Pope is called “Vice-Deo” and “Vicar of Christ,” so was the pagan pontiff regarded as “the representative of the Divinity on earth,” and “a partaker of the divine nature.” This is also the case with the Grand Lama of Thibet, and the king and high priest of the Incas had similar attributes. Just also as the Pope is declared to be infallible, so was the Egyptian pontiff believed to be “incapable of error;” a characteristic which also applies to the Grand Lama. Like the Pope also, they were worshiped by the people. Just also as kings and ambassadors used to kiss the slippers of the Pope, so likewise the pontiff kings of Chaldea wore slippers for subject kings to kiss. SBBS 391.1
The Roman emperors, as high pontiffs, were paid divine honors; hence the alternative offered to the early Christians, “Sacrifice to Casar, or death.” But the homage paid to the pagan pontiff in every country did not exceed that demanded and received by the popes in the plenitude of their power. Such titles as “Our Most Holy Lord,” “Our Lord God the Pope,” “His Divine Majesty,” “Vice-God,” and the ordinary title of “Your Holiness,” which was also the ordinary title of the pagan pontiff, as well as the claim to infallibility, gave him of necessity all the attributes, and consequent position, of God to the peoples who were professedly the Christian church, “the temple of God;” “so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” SBBS 391.2
The miter worn by the Pope, cardinals, and bishops, with a slit down the middle, is not the Jewish miter, which was a turban, but the pagan miter. It is exactly the same as that worn by the Grand Lama, and the same as that worn by the emperor of China when, as high pontiff, he blesses the people. This miter is the representation of a fish’s head, and it is the same as that worn by the Egyptian high pontiff as the representative of the pagan god, who in one of his principal aspects was Oannes, the fish god, who was called “the Teacher of Mankind,” “the Lord of Understanding,” etc. It was in short the symbol of the pontiff’s claim to be infallible or “the Lord of Understanding.” SBBS 391.3
The crosier of the Pope and Roman Catholic bishops is the lituus of the pagan augurs, and was called the lituus by Roman Catholic writers previous to the Reformation. SBBS 391.4
The keys carried by the Pope are a resuscitation of the keys carried by the pontiff of pagan Rome as high priest of Janus and Cybele, each of whom bore a key, and the pontiff was attired in a similar way as their representative on earth.... SBBS 391.5
The priesthood of Rome claim to be the successors of the apostles, but they have been the chief opposers of the truth taught by the apostles and the chief agents in resuscitating the idolatry which Christ came to destroy. On the other hand they have a true and just claim to be the successors of the pagan priesthood. For not only are the title and office of Pontifex Maximus, and the orders, offices, sacerdotal dresses, symbols, doctrines, sorceries, and idolatries of the priesthood of Rome directly derived from the priesthood of paganism, but they are the rightful and direct successors of the supreme pontiffs and priesthood of ancient Babylon and pagan Rome.—“The True Christ and the False Christ,” J. Garnier, Vol. II, pp. 89-92. London: George Allen, 1900. SBBS 391.6
Note.—In an editorial in the Tablet (Roman Catholic) of June 13, 1914, Italy is mentioned as that nation “whose capital is also the center of Christendom, and against the spoliation of which as the seat of his necessary temporal dominion Christendom’s head, in the person of our High Priest [Italics ours], still makes his dignified protest.” It is thus made clear that Roman Catholics regard the Pope as “our High Priest.”-Eds. SBBS 392.1
Priesthood, The Jewish and Roman Systems.—It is only necessary to run over the books of the Old Testament, especially Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, to establish the fact that the Jewish church, called by the evangelists and the apostles the shadow and the figure of the Christian society, can in fact be the shadow and figure of the Catholic Church alone. In the Jewish system there is one visible head, Moses, continuing to live on in the sovereign pontiffs, the successive high priests, who sat in his chair. This head presides over a complete hierarchy, to which entire obedience is due under the severest penalties. These priests teach with authority, explain the law, preserve the traditions, maintain the practice of morality, pray, and offer sacrifices,-in a word, govern the religious society. In these features who cannot recognize Jesus Christ still living for the government of the Catholic Church in Peter and his successors, the Roman pontiffs presiding over the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy, over the authority, the consecration, and the functions of the priests of the new law? If Christ is come “not to destroy the law, but to carry it to perfection,” all that is imperfect in the synagogue ought to be perfect in the church: high priesthood, sacraments, sacrifice, etc., etc. This perfection of the law we perceive throughout the Catholic system; Protestants can find in theirs only the law destroyed.-“Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent,” Rev. A. Nampon, S. J. (R. C.), p. 62. Philadelphia: Peter F. Cunningham, 1869. SBBS 392.2
Priesthood, Canons on.—Canon IX. If any one saith that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but a bare ministry of pronouncing and declaring sins to be forgiven to him who confesses; provided only he believe himself to be absolved, or (even though) the priest absolve not in earnest, but in joke; or saith that the confession of the penitent is not required in order that the priest may be able to absolve him; let him be anathema. SBBS 392.3
Canon X. If any one saith that priests who are in mortal sin have not the power of binding and of loosing; or that not priests alone are the ministers of absolution, but that to all and each of the faithful of Christ is it said: “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven;” and, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained;” by virtue of which words every one is able to absolve from sins, to wit, from public sins by reproof only, provided he who is reproved yield thereto, and from secret sins by a voluntary confession; let him be anathema.—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” pp. 118, 119. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912. SBBS 392.4
Priesthood, Medieval Belief Concerning.—The requirements of the practical religion of everyday life were also believed to be in the possession of this ecclesiastical monarchy to give and to withhold. For it was the almost universal belief of medieval piety that the mediation of a priest was essential to salvation; and the priesthood was an integral part of this monarchy, and did not exist outside its boundaries. “No good Catholic Christian doubted that in spiritual things the clergy were the divinely appointed superiors of the laity, that this power proceeded from the right of the priests to celebrate the sacraments, that the Pope was the real possessor of this power, and was far superior to all secular authority.” SBBS 392.5
In the decades immediately preceding the Reformation, many an educated man might have doubts about this power of the clergy over the spiritual and eternal welfare of men and women; but when it came to the point, almost no one could venture to say that there was nothing in it. And so long as the feeling remained that there might be something in it, the anxieties, to say the least, which Christian men and women could not help having when they looked forward to an unknown future, made kings and peoples hesitate before they offered defiance to the Pope and the clergy. The spiritual powers which were believed to come from the exclusive possession of priesthood and sacraments went for much in increasing the authority of the papal empire and in binding it together in one compact whole.—“A History of the Reformation,” T. M. Lindsay, M. A., D. D., pp. 3, 4. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906. SBBS 393.1
Priesthood, New Testament Doctrine of.—In ancient times it was held that men in general could not have direct access to God, that any approach to him must be mediated by some member of the class of priests, who alone could approach God, and who must accordingly be employed by other men to represent them before him. This whole conception vanishes in the light of Christianity. By virtue of their relation to Christ all believers have direct approach to God, and consequently, as this right of approach was formerly a priestly privilege, priesthood may now be predicated of every Christian. That none needs another to intervene between his soul and God; that none can thus intervene for another; that every soul may and must stand for itself in personal relation with God-such are the simple elements of the New Testament doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, art. “Priesthood in the New Testament,” p. 2446. Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915. SBBS 393.2
Priesthood, The Heavenly Sanctuary.—Heaven is the sphere of his [Christ’s] ministry. When God said to Moses, to make all according to the pattern showed him in the mount, to serve as a shadow of the heavenly things; in the very appointment of the tabernacle, there was the indication that it was but a copy and promise of the true tabernacle, with its heavenly sanctuary.... All the ministry or service of the priests in the tabernacle had its fulfilment in him. The priests served in the tabernacle day by day, ordered everything for the service of God according to his will; as representatives of the people they received the assurance of God’s favor, and brought them out God’s blessing. Jesus is the minister of the heavenly sanctuary. He represents us there.... SBBS 393.3
A priest must have a sanctuary in which he dwells, to receive all who come to seek his God. Our great High Priest has his sanctuary in the heavens; there he dwells, there we find him; there he receives us, there he introduces us to meet God; there he proves that he is a priest who abides continually, and who gives those who come to God through him the power to do it too-to abide continually in his presence.—“The Holiest of All,” Rev. Andrew Murray, pp. 264, 265. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1895. SBBS 393.4
Private Judgment, From a Speech on, in the House of Commons, 1530.—Because each man is created by God a free citizen of the world, and obliged to nothing so much as the inquiry of these means by which he may attain his everlasting happiness, it will be fit to examine to whose tuition and conduct he commits himself.... Shall each man, without more examination, believe his priests, in what religion soever, and call their doctrine his faith? ... Must he take all that each priest upon pretense of inspiration would teach him, because it might be so? Or, may he leave all, because it might be otherwise? Certainly, to embrace all religions, according to their various and repugnant rites, tenets, traditions, and faiths, is impossible.... On the other side, to reject all religions indifferently is as impious; ... so that there is a necessity to distinguish.... Neither shall he fly thus to particular reason, which may soon lead him to heresy; but, after a due separation of the more doubtful and controverted parts, shall hold himself to common, authentic, and universal truths.... It will be worth the labor, assuredly, to inquire how far these universal notions will guide us, before we commit ourselves to any of their abstruse and scholastic mysteries, or supernatural and private revelations. SBBS 394.1
These, therefore, as universal and undoubted truths, should in my opinion be first received; they will at least keep us from impiety and atheism, and together lay a foundation for God’s service and the hope of a better life.... That will dispose us to a general concord and peace; for, when we are agreed concerning these eternal causes and means of our salvation, why should we so much differ for the rest? ... The common truths of religion, being firmer bonds of unity than that anything emergent out of traditions should dissolve them, let us establish and fix these catholic or universal notions ... so that whether my Lord Bishop of Rochester, Luther, Zwinglius, Erasmus, or Melanchthon, etc., be in the right, we laics may so build upon these catholic and infallible grounds of religion, as whatsoever structure of faith be raised, these foundations yet may support them.—“Parliamentary History,” Hansard, Vol. I, p. 506; cited in “British History and Papal Claims,” James Parton, B. A., Vol. I, pp. 48, 49. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1893. SBBS 394.2
Probabilism.—See Jesuits, 268, 269. SBBS 394.3
Prophecies, Maxims in the Interpretation of.—Ever since the time of the Reformation, the following maxims in the interpretation of the sacred prophecies have been generally received by the Protestant churches: SBBS 394.4
1. That the visions of Daniel commence with the times of the prophet. SBBS 394.5
2. That the events predicted in the Apocalypse begin from the time of [the] prophecy, or within the first century. SBBS 394.6
3. That the fourth beast denotes the Roman Empire. SBBS 394.7
4. That Babylon in the Apocalypse denotes Rome. SBBS 394.8
5. That the little horn in Daniel 7 denotes the Papacy. SBBS 394.9
6. That the man of sin relates to the same power. SBBS 394.10
7. That the prophecy in 1 Timothy 4 is fulfilled in past events. SBBS 394.11
8. That Babylon denotes, at least inclusively, Rome papal.—“First Elements of Sacred Prophecy,” Rev. T. R. Birks, p. 1. London: William Edward Painter, 1843. SBBS 394.12
Prophecies, Protestant Interpretation of.—The writers of the primitive church almost unanimously contradict the futurists, and agree with the Protestant interpreters, on the following points: SBBS 394.13
1. That the head of gold denotes the Babylonian Empire, not the person of Nebuchadnezzar, or Babylon and Persia in one. SBBS 395.1
2. That the silver denotes the Medo-Persian Empire. SBBS 395.2
3. That the brass denotes the Greek Empire. SBBS 395.3
4. That the iron denotes the Roman Empire. SBBS 395.4
5. That the clay mingled with the iron denotes the intermixture of barbarous nations in the Roman Empire. SBBS 395.5
6. That the mingling with the seed of men relates to intermarriages among the kings of the divided empire. SBBS 395.6
7. That the lion denotes the Babylonian Empire. SBBS 395.7
8. That the eagle wings relate to Nebuchadnezzar’s ambition. SBBS 395.8
9. That the bear denotes the Medo-Persian Empire. SBBS 395.9
10. That the rising on one side signifies the later supremacy of the Persians. SBBS 395.10
11. That the leopard relates to the Macedonian Empire. SBBS 395.11
12. That the four wings denote the rapidity of Alexander’s conquests. SBBS 395.12
13. That the fourth beast is the Roman Empire. SBBS 395.13
14. That the ten horns denote a tenfold division of that empire, which was then future. SBBS 395.14
15. That the division began in the fourth and fifth centuries. SBBS 395.15
16. That the rise of the ten horns is later than the rise of the beast. SBBS 395.16
17. That the vision of the ram and he goat begins from the time of the prophecy. SBBS 395.17
18. That the higher horn of the ram denotes the Persian dynasty, beginning with Cyrus. SBBS 395.18
19. That the first horn of the he goat is Alexander the Great. SBBS 395.19
20. That the breaking of the horn, when strong, relates to the sudden death of Alexander in the height of his power. SBBS 395.20
21. That the four horns denote four main kingdoms, into which the Macedonian Empire was divided.—Id., pp. 40, 41. SBBS 395.21
Prophecy, Nature and Object of.—The gradual progress of Christianity in the world, in the face of all opposition, the various persecutions with which the church of Christ was to be afflicted, its successes and reverses, its joys and its trials, its approximation to extinction, and its final and lasting triumph, are all the subject of express prophecies uttered by our Lord ana his apostles.—“Fulfilled Prophecy,” Rev. W. Goode, D. D., F. S. A., p. 9. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1891. SBBS 395.22
There is unity in these prophecies with respect to the source from which they profess to be derived. All were uttered by individuals between whom, as a body, there could be no mutual intercommunication; but all were worshipers of the same God, and professed to derive their inspiration from the same source. And all these various prophecies are connected together and interwoven with each other. We must, therefore, receive the whole as a divine revelation, or reject the whole as a human fabrication. And if we reject it, we must suppose that a series of prophecies was uttered at various times, during a period of four thousand years, by men separated from each other by long intervals of time,-prophecies differing from one another in circumstantials, but relating mostly to the same events, and all accomplished in those events,-without any interposition of more than human intelligence.—Id., p. 12. SBBS 395.23
We must remember, further, the great end of prophecy. It was not written to enable those who lived before the period of its fulfilment to know precisely what was about to happen. This was well understood by the ancient prophets; to whom it was revealed, says St. Peter, that not unto themselves, but unto us, they did minister the things which, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, they delivered to mankind. 1 Peter 1:12. Hence it was veiled in language to a certain extent dark and obscure, but which was exactly applicable to the events that fulfilled it, and became by them clear and plain. It was not ambiguous, or capable of various meanings, like the heathen oracles, so as to be adapted to almost anything that might happen, but had one definite signification, to which the event exactly answered, and thus proved the foreknowledge of it by him from whom the prophecy emanated. Thus it answered the purpose for which it was given, which was not to enable man to discern the exact course of future events, but that on its fulfilment we might see in it the proofs of a superintending divine agency in the affairs of men. To man the precise knowledge of future events would be anything but a blessing. It would produce a moral paralysis unfitting him for action. Prophecy, therefore, is, by the mercy of God, in consideration of our imperfection, clothed in language which, while it shadows forth the future with sufficient plainness for the purpose of warning or encouragement, awaits for its full interpretation the event of which it speaks.—Id., p. 15. SBBS 395.24
Thus the great object of prophecy is accomplished. That object appears to have been, so far to unveil the future as to reveal to man the prominent outlines of God’s subsequent providential dealings with mankind, and especially those events that were to have a decisive influence upon his present position or future hopes as a being destined for translation to another and an eternal world; but at the same time to reveal these things in terms which, until their accomplishment, should leave men unacquainted with the precise time and manner in which they were to be fulfilled.—Id., p. 20. SBBS 396.1
Prophecy.—See Advent, Second, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22-25; French Revolution, 173; Increase of Knowledge, 221-223; Little Horn; Mass, 300; Papacy, 327, 328; Papal Supremacy, 362, 363, 367; Ptolemy’s Canon, 403, 404; Reformation, 411; Rome, 431, 439; Sabbath, Change of, 474; Spiritualism, 532; Year-Day Principle. SBBS 396.2
Protest of the Princes.—See Bible, 78, 79; Idolatry, 217; Justification, 278; Reformation, 408, 409; Religious Liberty, 418. SBBS 396.3
Protestant, Origin of the Name.—The name “Protestant” originated from the “protestation” in which the leading German princes friendly to the Reformation united with fourteen cities of Germany on April 25, 1529, against the decree of the Roman majority of the second Diet of Speyer. It was a designation quite colorless from the religious point of view, and was first used as a political epithet by the opponents of those who signed the protest.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IX, art. “Protestantism,” p. 290, 291. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company. SBBS 396.4
Protestants, Religion of, Chillingworth’s Statement.—By the “religion of Protestants,” I do not understand the doctrine of Luther or Calvin or Melanchthon, or the Confession of Augsburg or Geneva, or the Catechism of Heidelberg, or the Articles of the Church of England, no, nor the harmony of Protestant confessions, but that wherein they all agree, and to which they all subscribe with a greater harmony, as a perfect rule of their faith and actions; that is, the Bible. The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants! Whatsoever else they believe besides it, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of opinion; but as matter of faith and religion, neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and most schismatical presumption. I for my part, after a long and (as I verily believe and hope) impartial search of “the true way to eternal happiness,” do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this Rock only.—Works of Wm. Chillingworth, M. A., Vol. II, pp. 409-411. Oxford University Press, 1838. SBBS 396.5
Protestants.—See Bible, 79; Church of Rome, 114; Heretics, 203, 204, 206, 209, 210; Reformation, 408, 409; Religious Liberty, 413; Tradition, 562, 563, 564. SBBS 397.1
Protestantism, Defined.—Protestantism is a principle which has its origin outside human society: it is a divine graft on the intellectual and moral nature of man, whereby new vitalities and forces are introduced into it, and the human stem yields henceforth a nobler fruit. It is the descent of a heaven-born influence which allies itself with all the instincts and powers of the individual, with all the laws and cravings of society, and which, quickening both the individual and the social being into a new life, and directing their efforts to nobler objects, permits the highest development of which humanity is capable, and the fullest possible accomplishment of all its grand ends. In a word, Protestantism is revived Christianity.—“The History of Protestantism,” Rev. J. A. Wylie, LL. D., Vol. I, chap. 1, last par. London: Cassell and Company. SBBS 397.2
Protestantism, Beliefs of.—It is important that we should know why we call ourselves Protestants. It is because we believe in the great principles of the Reformation. SBBS 397.3
1. We believe that we are justified by faith in Christ alone, and not by any works of ours. Good works are the fruits of faith and the proof of its sincerity. SBBS 397.4
2. We believe in the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures-that we need not go beyond them to learn how we should live and what doctrines we should hold. SBBS 397.5
3. We believe in the priesthood of all believers-that sinful men can approach God directly without any mediation save that of Jesus Christ. SBBS 397.6
4. We believe in an open Bible so that all men may learn for themselves what is the will of God for their salvation. SBBS 397.7
5. We believe that all should be encouraged to search Scripture at first hand and not be afraid of differing from “infallible” interpreters. SBBS 397.8
6. We believe in full liberty of conscience, and in the responsibility of each man to God for his faith and conduct.—Rev. J. M. Kyle, D. D., in Protestant Magazine, August, 1915. SBBS 397.9
Protestantism, Three Fundamental Doctrines of.—The Protestant goes directly to the Word of God for instruction, and to the throne of grace in his devotions; while the pious Roman Catholic consults the teaching of his church, and prefers to offer his prayers through the medium of the Virgin Mary and the saints. SBBS 397.10
From this general principle of evangelical freedom, and direct individual relationship of the believer to Christ, proceed the three fundamental doctrines of Protestantism-the absolute supremacy of (1) the Word, and of (2) the grace of Christ, and (3) the general priesthood of believers. The first is called the formal, or, better, the objective principle; the second, the material, or, better, the subjective principle; the third may be called the social, or ecclesiastical principle. German writers emphasize the first two, but often overlook the third, which is of equal importance.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IX, art. “Reformation,” p. 419. SBBS 397.11
Protestantism, The Center of.—The center of Protestantism is not a principle, not a power, not a doctrine, but a Person. In its innermost essence Protestantism is witness for Christ. Let this never be forgotten, let it be taken close to our hearts and held there forever. We are witnesses for Christ, for the power of Christ, for the love of Christ, for the sole claim of Christ upon our obedience, our allegiance, and our love. No one-no thing-shall stand between us and him-no person, however venerated; no system, however splendid; no organization, however ancient or imposing. Especially we are witnesses for the finished work of Christ as our only Saviour. We know that what is usually considered the cardinal doctrine of Protestantism is the doctrine of justification by faith. It was of this Luther became the champion, and it was this he called “the article of a standing or a falling church.” But what does it mean? We are saved by faith indeed, but faith in itself has no power to save. It is only a link uniting us to Him who saves. Justification by faith means justification by Christ-by trusting him, following him, having him. Faith in itself is nothing-Christ is all. That is what Protestantism means-Christ is all. As one of our martyrs said in the fire, crying it out again and again in his dying agonies: “None but Christ! None but Christ!” That is the center word of Protestantism-“None but Christ.” As long as we hold to that, we live, we grow, we triumph. Once let that go, and all goes.—“The Romance of Protestantism,” D. Alcock, pp. 70-72. New York: Eaton and Mains, 1908. SBBS 398.1
Protestantism, Test of Doctrines of.—Protestantism, as we have seen, was a resolve to let no church and no ceremony and no official stand between the sinner and his Saviour. This central doctrine of Protestantism, justification by faith alone, forbids any rite and any experience to come between us and Christ. Baptism, when used as a rite with independent power located mysteriously in “holy water,” by which regeneration and justification are supposed to be produced, is a rival of Christ and not a help towards him. And infused or inherent righteousness, when regarded as the sandy foundation of justification before God, only leads us away from the rock of his righteousness on which justification should be built. We object to “baptismal justification,” and we object to “justification through inherent righteousness,” on the same clear ground that they lead us away from Christ instead of leading us to him. Whatever interposes itself between us and him, so as to detract from his unique relation to us as Saviour and Lord, must be rejected. We need no other test than this regarding any doctrine. Does it detract from the Saviour’s rightful honor as Saviour of the world? If it does, it is to be in the name of Protestantism rejected, no matter what names can be quoted in its favor or what temporary purpose it may be supposed to serve.—“The Genius of Protestantism,” Rev. R. M’Cheyne Edgar, M. A., D. D., p. 162. Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson, and Ferrier, 1900. SBBS 398.2
Protestantism, First Foundation Stone of.—The righteousness of Christ instead of man’s righteousness is the first foundation stone upon which Protestantism was built.—“Modernism and the Reformation,” John Benjamin Rust, Ph. D., D. D., p. 71. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. SBBS 398.3
Protestantism, A Difference.—Calvin presupposes that in God alone certainty of salvation is to be found, and that the deepest difference between Catholicism and Protestantism lies in the fact that the former makes the certainty of salvation depend upon the priestly mediation of the church, and the latter builds it upon the immediate fellowship of God.—Id., p. 72. SBBS 399.1
Protestantism, What It Stood for.—Protestantism was actuated by zeal for the glory of God, the mediatorial work of Jesus Christ, and the divine authority of the Bible. The Protestants insisted upon the supreme authority of Scripture, and its sufficiency, over against the traditional interpretations which seemed to them to make void the Word of God, and to substitute human fallible authority for divine infallible authority. They urged the sovereign right of God to forgive sin, and were zealous against any kind of barter or purchase in ecclesiastical works. They knew that salvation was by divine grace alone, and they would not allow any place in it for human merit, or an opus operatum in the sacraments. Jesus Christ, to them, was their mediator, sacrifice, and priest, and they would not recognize any other sacrifice, any other mediators, or any other priests that in any way depreciated their Saviour’s mediatorial work. They worshiped God alone, and it was to them simply idolatry to worship, even in a secondary sense, Virgin and saints, relics, images, and pictures. They had such an exalted conception of the two sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, that they were unwilling to classify with them any, even the most sacred, Christian institutions. They were so filled with the gospel of Jesus Christ that the preaching of that gospel seemed to them such a great function of the Christian ministry that everything else fell into its shadow.—Prof. Charles Augustus Briggs, D. D., Litt. D., Union Theological Seminary (New York), in the Homiletic Review, March, 1912. SBBS 399.2
Protestantism, The Final Court of Appeal for.—We firmly believe, on what we consider very rational grounds, that the Bible is the final court of appeal in matters of faith and practice. The Bible self-interpreting and self-correcting-the Bible in its self-harmonized whole-the Bible studied, obeyed, illumined by the Holy Spirit, by whom it exists-the Bible, the tested, the proved, the ever new, the inexhaustible.—The Bible Record, March, 1911. SBBS 399.3
Protestantism, Triumphs of.—Within fifty years from the day on which Luther publicly denounced communion with the Papacy, and burned the bull of Leo before the gates of Wittenberg, Protestantism attained its highest ascendancy, an ascendancy which it soon lost, and which it has never regained. Hundreds, who could well remember Brother Martin, a devout Catholic, lived to see the revolution, of which he was the chief author, victorious in half the states in Europe. In England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, Livonia, Prussia, Saxony, Hesse, Wurtemburg, the Palatinate, in several cantons of Switzerland, in the northern Netherlands, the Reformation had completely triumphed; and in all the other countries on this side of the Alps and the Pyrenees, it seemed on the point of triumphing.—Lord Macaulay, in his Essay on Ranke’s “History of the Popes of Rome.” SBBS 399.4
Protestantism, Losses of.—The history of the two succeeding generations [after the Reformation] is the history of the struggle between Protestantism possessed of the north of Europe, and Catholicism possessed of the south, for the doubtful territory which lay between. All the weapons of carnal and of spiritual warfare were employed. SBBS 399.5
Both sides may boast of great talents and of great virtues Both have to blush for many follies and crimes. At first the chances seemed to be decidedly in favor of Protestantism; but the victory remained with the Church of Rome. On every point she was successful. If we overleap another half century, we find her victorious and dominant in France, Belgium, Bavaria, Bohemia, Austria, Poland, and Hungary. Nor has Protestantism, in the course of two hundred years, been able to reconquer any portion of what was then lost.—Lord Macaulay, in his Essay on Ranke’s “History of the Popes of Rome.” SBBS 400.1
Protestantism, Not a Schism.—Those who know the story of the strivings and yearnings of the centuries which preceded the Reformation know well that the Reformed Church is the church reformed, and that it is not to be viewed as if it were either a new communion or a mere secession from the Catholic Church. There never was a time, even when the mystery of iniquity was most potent, when there were not purity and piety and faith, or when there were not protests and attempts at reform. In the best sense Protestantism is not a breaking away from the undivided Church of the West, but is the evangelicalism of that church-that in virtue of which it survived and was a church, purified, strengthened, and, above all, made explicit.—“The Arrested Reformation,” Rev. William Muir, M. A., B. D., B. L., pp. 48, 49. London: Morgan & Scott, 1912. SBBS 400.2
Protestantism, Meaning of.—The secret of the strength of Protestantism lies in its name. Luther, Calvin, the Reformers everywhere, protested against the imposition upon them, in the name of religion, of things which were not true. They protested against papal indulgences, pretensions of priests to pardon sin, lying miracles, conscious falsehoods, and childish superstitions. Against these they fought, and died as martyrs, as the early Christians died for refusing to acknowledge the divinity of the emperor. They were required to say that they believed what they knew they did not believe, and they gave their lives rather than lie against their own souls.—“Lectures on the Council of Trent,” James Anthony Froude, p. 206. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1896. SBBS 400.3
Protestantism, Foundation Stone of.—His [Martin Luther’s] favorite book even now, however, was the Bible, an entire copy of which he found in the library of the convent also: it was the treasure from which he nevermore parted; it, the sacred thing into whose spirit he sought to press further and further; it, that higher wisdom, the meaning and consistent tenor of which he strove to realize more and more fully in his life. And thus it became also the foundation stone of Protestantism!-“History of the Reformation in Germany and Switzerland Chiefly,” Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, Vol. I, p. 84. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1878. SBBS 400.4
Protestantism.—See Council of Trent, 118; Jesuits, 275; Mass, 297; Religious Liberty, 413; Sacraments, 478. SBBS 400.5
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.—See Forgeries; Papacy, 332, 341, 350, 353. SBBS 400.6
Ptolemy.—See Greece, 189-194. SBBS 400.7
Ptolemy’s “Almagest.”—The same divine care which raised up Herodotus and other Greek historians to carry on the records of the past from the point to which they had been brought by the writings of the prophets at the close of the Babylonish captivity; the Providence which raised up Josephus, the Jewish historian, at the termination of New Testament history, to record the fulfilment of prophecy in the destruction of Jerusalem,-raised up also Ptolemy in the important interval which extended from Titus to Hadrian, that of the completion of Jewish desolation, to record the chronology of the nine previous centuries, and to associate it in such a way with the revolutions of the solar system as to permit of the most searching demonstration of its truth. SBBS 400.8
Ptolemy’s great work, the “Almagest,” is a treatise on astronomy, setting forth the researches of ancient observers and mathematicians with reference to the position of the stars, the exact length of the year, and the elements of the orbits of the sun, moon, and planets. This work was written in Greek, and subsequently translated into Arabic, Persian, Hebrew, and Latin, etc.; it became the textbook of astronomic knowledge both in the East and in Europe, and retained that high position for about fourteen centuries, or till the time of Copernicus, the birth of modern astronomy, three centuries ago. SBBS 401.1
The chronological value of the “Almagest” is owing to the fact that it interweaves a series of ancient dates with a series of celestial positions. It contains a complete catalogue of the succession of Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman monarchs, from Nabonassar to Hadrian and Antoninus, together with the dates of their accession and the duration of their reigns. Its astronomic events are referred to definite historic dates, and by this connection there is conferred on the latter the character of scientific certainty.—“Light for the Last Days,” Mr. and Mrs. H. Grattan Guinness, Appendix A, pp. 395, 396. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1893. SBBS 401.2
Ptolemy’s Canon. SBBS 401.3
| KINGS OF THE ASSYRIANS AND MEDES | Beginning of Reigns Julian Time | ||
| Each | Sum | b. c. | |
| 1. Nabonassar | 14 | 14 | Feb. 26, 747 |
| 2. Nadius | 2 | 16 | 23, 733 |
| 3. Khozirus and Porus | 5 | 21 | 22, 731 |
| 4. Jougaius | 5 | 26 | 21, 726 |
| 5. Mardocempadus | 12 | 38 | 20, 721 |
| 6. Archianus | 5 | 43 | 17, 709 |
| 7. First Interregnum | 2 | 45 | 15, 704 |
| 8. Belibus | 3 | 48 | 15, 702 |
| 9. Apronadius | 6 | 54 | 14, 699 |
| 10. Regibelus | 1 | 55 | 13, 693 |
| 11. Mesesimordachus | 4 | 59 | 12, 692 |
| 12. Second Interregnum | 8 | 67 | 11, 688 |
| 13. Asaridinus | 13 | 80 | 9, 680 |
| 14. Saosduchinus | 20 | 100 | 6, 667 |
| 15. Khuniladanus | 22 | 122 | 1, 647 |
| 16. Nabopolassar | 21 | 143 | Jan. 27, 625 |
| 17. Nabokolassar | 43 | 186 | 21, 604 |
| 18. Ilvarodamus | 2 | 188 | 11, 561 |
| 19. Nerikassolasar | 4 | 192 | 10, 559 |
| 20. Nabonadius | 17 | 209 | 9, 555 |