nion, and not to the actual transfer of the western part of the Roman empire by Constantine, or to the pretended inheritance of the patrimony of St. Peter, must be ascribed the origin of that political spirit and secular influence, which were subsequently displayed by the successive occupants of the chair of St. Peter's. It is well known to the readers of ecclesiastical history, that the title of Patriarch was bestowed upon the Prelates of Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople; and though the Bishop of Rome was allowed to take the precedence, simply because his see was fixed in the ancient capital of the empire, yet the Bishops of the new metropolis, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, were viewed at Rome with feelings of jealousy, and were regarded as dangerous and successful rivals. In the year 589 a Synod was convened at Constantinople, and John, the Patriarch of that see, obtained for himself and his successors the title of "universal Bishop." On the reception of this intelligence at Rome, Pelagius, the Bishop of that see, gave utterance to the language of abuse and threatening; and his successor in the Pontificate, Gregory the Great, pronounced that, any Bishop who should assume the title of "universal" was unquestionably the precursor of Antichrist: "I confidently say, that whosoever calls himself the universal Priest,' or desires to be so called, in his arrogance, is a forerunner of Antichrist." (Gregory's Works, cited by Faber, in his Dissertations on the Prophecies, iii. 282.) It is, however, a remarkable fact, that, notwithstanding this denunciation by Gregory, who, on the avowed principles of Popery, must have been infallible, Boniface III., who succeeded the immediate successor of Gregory in the Papal chair, accepted from the sanguinary tyrant Phocas, in 606, the very title of "universal Bishop," which had been assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople; but which Gregory had deemed impious and presumptuous, and the unquestionable precursor of Antichrist! Though the Bishop of Rome accepted, at this period, the title of "universal Bishop," from a man who, from the testimony of history, was a monster of iniquity, yet it was reserved for the daring spirit of Hildebrand, who assumed the title of Gregory VII., and was elevated to the Papal chair in 1073, to consolidate the power of the Roman see. He claimed an ecclesiastical supe riority over the whole world; and assumed the power of interfering in the political concerns of Sovereigns, and of actually deposing them. This power he exercised in the case of his own Sovereign; "who," according to Mosheim, "passed the Alps, amidst the rigour of a severe winter, and arrived in the month of February, 1077, at the fortress of Canusium, where the sanctimonious Pontiff resided at that time with the young Matilda, Countess of Tuscany, the most tender and affectionate of all the spiritual daughters of Gregory. Here the suppliant Prince, unmindful of his dignity, stood, during three days, in the open air at the entrance of the fortress, with his feet bare, his head uncovered, and- with no other raiment but a wretched piece of coarse woollen cloth thrown over his body to cover his nakedness. The fourth day he was admitted to the presence of the lordly Pontiff, who, with a good deal of difficulty, granted him the absolution he demanded." Gregory succeeded in establishing the celibacy of the Clergy; and by this unnatural and anti-scriptural policy, he insulated them from the societies to which they naturally belonged, and rendered it probable that their accumulated wealth would descend to the Church; and he conciliated for the ecclesiastical body the favourable regards of ignorance and fanaticism, by giving to it the appearance of unusual sanctity and mortification. The maxims of his policy have been digested under twenty-seven heads, and are known as the “ Hildebrandine Dictates." The most remarkable of these articles are the following:-"That the Church of Rome was founded by our Lord alone; that the Bishop of Rome only has the right to be styled universal Bishop; that all Princes must kiss his feet; that from his sentence there lies no appeal; that the Church of Rome never erred, or will err; and that he has the power to absolve subjects from their allegiance to civil Governors." To Hildebrand may be ascribed the unenviable pre-eminence of having, by his daring arrogance, contributed, more than any other man who ever sat in the Papal chair, to constitute the Papal Church the greatest enemy of civil and religious liberty, that was ever permitted, in the mystery of Providence, to enslave, oppress, and exterminate the family of man. It is impossible, from the prescribed brevity of this general view of the Papal Church, to adduce even a tithe of those instances of ignorance, arrogance, and profligacy, which are the most prominent features in the personal character of some of the pretended successors of St. Peter. It is related respecting Gregory the Great, that one of the objects which he was ambitious to accomplish was the extinction of ancient classical literature, and the promotion of Monkish learning. "I scorn that art of speaking," was his language," which is conveyed by external teaching; the very tenor of this epistle shows that I do not avoid the clashing of metacism, nor the obscurity of barbarism. I despise all trouble about prepositions and cases, because I hold it most unworthy to put the heavenly oracles under the restraints of a grammarian." (O'Donoughue's History of the Church and Court of Rome, vol. i. 44.) The Emperor Leo issued an edict, in which he prohibited the adoration of images, and commanded them to be removed from all the churches. This edict was forwarded to Gregory II. The haughty Pontiff published a Bull, in which he declared that "Leo ought no longer to be acknowledged as vested with imperial authority; that he absolved all his subjects from their oaths of allegiance to him; and that it was unlawful to pay him any more tribute." His successor, Gregory III., in his zeal for image-worship, arrogantly wrote to the Emperor in the following haughty terms:-" Because ye are unlearned and ignorant, we are obliged to write to you rude discourses, but full of sense and of the word of God. We conjure you to quit your pride, and hear us with humility. You say, that we adore stones, walls, boards. It is not so, my Lord: but these symbols make us recollect the persons whose names they bear, and exalt our grovelling minds. We do not look upon them as gods; but if it be the image of Jesus, we say, 'Lord, help us.' If it be the image of his mother, we say, 'Pray to your Son to save us.' If it be of a Martyr, we say, St. Stephen, pray for us.' We might, as having the power of St. Peter, pronounce punishment against you; but as you have pronounced the curse upon yourself, let it stick to you. You write to us to assemble a General Council; of which there is no need. Do you cease to persecute images, and all will be quiet. We fear not your threats." (O'Donoughue, i. 70.) The personal conduct of several of the Pontiffs was infamous. Their moral history is that of monsters, rather than men: yet they were the successors of St. Peter! Cardinal Baronius, at the close of the tenth century, gives the following picture of the morals of the Pontiffs:"What then was the face of the Roman Church? How very filthy, when the most powerful and sordid harlots then ruled at Rome, at whose pleasure sees were changed, and bishoprics were given, and, what is horrible to hear, and most abominable, their gallants were obtruded into the see of St. Peter, and made false Popes; for who can say they could be lawful Popes, who were intruded by such harlots, without law?" (O'Donoughue, i. 96.) Alexander VI. has been described as "the reproach of human nature; who, before he was chosen Pope, was a prodigy of lust and other vices, and continued to be so to the last." Mosheim (iii. 430) says, "The life and actions of this man show, that there was a Nero among Popes, as well as among the Emperors. He was not only destitute of all religious and virtuous principles, but even regardless of decency, and hardened against the very feeling of shame." Leo X., who was Pope at the time of the Reformation, was remarkable for prodigality, luxury, and impiety. Such was the general character of the Roman Pontiffs! The spirit which was predominant in the supreme Pontiff's, pervaded the lower orders of the Clergy. At a very early period of the Christian era, that spirit of laborious zeal, self-denying effort, and disinterested perseverance, by which the Apostles of Christ and their immediate successors were distinguished, had nearly become extinct, and was succeeded by a spirit of luxurious indolence, and official arrogance; accompanied with the most glaring profligacy in their private deportment, and even in their public manners. They were distinguished by their luxury, their gluttony, and their lust. They had so far extinguished every principle of fear and shame, that they became incorrigible; nor could the various laws enacted against their vices, set bounds to their licentiousness, or bring about their reformation." That the Clergy of this period were justly entitled to this character, is admitted by Bossuet, the most crafty and most plausible defender of the Papal Church, in his History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches. He admits, that a Reformation in matters of discipline was desired for several ages. "Who will grant me," says St. Bernard, as quoted by Bossuet, "before I die, to see the church of God such as she had been in the primitive times?" And he proceeds to state (vol. i. 19) that "from the time of the Council of Vienne, a great Prelate, commissioned by the Pope to prepare matters there to be discussed, laid it down as a groundwork to this holy assembly to reform the Church in the head and members.-The disorders of the Clergy, chiefly those of Germany, were represented in this manner to Eugenius IV., by Cardinal Julian: These disorders excite the hatred of the people against the whole ec clesiastical order; and should they not be corrected, it is to be feared lest the laity, like the Hunites, should rise against the Clergy, as they loudly threaten: for it will be said that the Clergy are incorrigible, and will apply no remedy to their disorders. When they shall no longer have any hopes of our amendment, then will they fall upon us. The minds of men are pregnant with expectation of what measures will be adopted, and are ready for the birth of something tragic. The rancour they have imbibed against us, becomes manifest; they will soon think it an agreeable sacrifice to God to abuse and rob Ecclesiastics, as abandoned to extreme disorders, and hateful to God and man. The little respect now remaining for the ecclesiastical orders will soon be extinguished. Men will cast the blame of these abuses on the Court of Rome, which will be considered as the cause of them, because it had neglected to apply the necessary remedy. I see the axe is at the root: the tree begins to bend, and, instead of propping it whilst in our power, we accelerate its fall. Bodies and souls will perish together. God hides from us the prospect of our dangers, as he is accustomed to do with those whom he destines for punishment: we run into the fire which we see lighted before us."" This testimony cannot be rejected. It is that of an avowed supporter of the Papal Church and the fact of its having been adduced by the wily Bossuet, at the time he was attacking Protestantism, demonstrates the truth of those charges which are justly to be preferred against the great body of the Clergy at that period, on account of the laxity of their principles and the general profligacy of their practice. : Another feature in the character of Popery arises from the general state of the various monastic orders at the period to which we refer. "All the writers of this age," is the statement of Mosheim, " complain of the ignorance, licentiousness, frauds, debaucheries, dissensions, and enormities, that dishonoured by far the greatest part of the monastic orders. However astonished we may be at such horrid irregularities among a set of men whose destination was so sacred, and whose profession was so austere, we shall still be more surprised to learn, that this degenerate order, so far from loosing their influence and credit on account of their licentiousness, were promoted, on the contrary, to the highest ecclesiastical dignities, and beheld their opulence and authority increasing from day to day." (Vol. ii. 526.) Among the various artifices to which the partisans of the Church of Rome resort for the extension of Popery, there is none more plausi ble in its character, or better calculated to make a false impression on the minds of those who are not acquainted with the internal history of the Papal Church, than the union of which they boast. Protestantism, though one in its leading principles, is divided into various denominational sections, whose distinctive peculiarities are proclaimed to the world in the most public manner. Of these distinctive divisions the advocates of Popery eagerly avail themselves in those accusations which they prefer against the adherents of Protestantism. It is, however, of great importance in estimating the character of Popery and of Protestantism, to bear in mind the fact, the truth of which can be proved beyond all successful contradiction, that the Papal Church, notwithstanding its boasted harmony under one supreme Head, has been, at various periods, disturbed by those conflicts which have taken place between the various monastic orders, which have been fostered and patronised by the infallible Pontiff. The celebrated Popish writer Bossuet does not hesitate to ascribe "the beginning of the quarrel" which brought about the glorious Reformation, to the jealousy of the Augustinian Friars, against the Dominicans, who had the preference in being selected to sell the indulgences. It is an undoubted fact, that Tetzel, the man who was engaged in the sale of indulgences in Germany, and by whose effrontery Luther was roused to engage in that momentous struggle with the Papal See, which finally terminated in the Reformation from Popery, was a Dominican Friar; Luther himself being of the order of the Augustinians. These were the two most powerful of the monastic orders: and the interminable struggles which took place between them, respecting certain abstruse theological questions, calling forth a spirit of the most deeply rooted animosity, have never yet been exceeded by the most sanguinary warriors who have engaged in civil and deadly conflicts. Yet these respective but conflicting orders were patronised by the infallible head of that Church, which boasts of its undisturbed and indissoluble union ! Among all the monastic orders, none enjoyed a higher degree of power and authority than the Dominicans, whose credit was great, and their influence universal. They filled very eminent stations in the Church; were the chief Confessors in every Court in Europe, by which they acquired the power and management of political affairs; and they possessed the horrible distinction of presiding over the bloody and cruel tribunal of the Inquisition. But notwithstanding their influence, there were times when it began to decline: and nothing can be found in the pages of history more infamous than the frauds which they practised in order to support their declining power. Perhaps the most cruel and impious of those frauds to which they resorted, is that which was acted at Berne, in 1509. The stratagem in question was the consequence of a rivalship between the Franciscans and the Dominicans, concerning the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary. The former maintained that she was born without the blemish of original sin: the latter asserted the contrary. To support the credit of their order, one of the Dominicans, after having appeared in various forms, at length assumed that of the virgin Mary, and after having informed Tetzer, their dupe, that she was born in original sin, proceeded to imprint on him the five wounds that pierced Jesus Christ on the cross! (Mosheim, vol. iii. 18-22.) The simple fact, that such frauds could be practised with success upon the people, is palpable evidence of the general ignorance of the age. This state of things cannot excite the smallest degree of surprise, when it is known that the people were kept in a state of the most degrading ignorance. "The wretched and senseless manner of teaching theology, may be learned from the books which are yet extant. The number of those who were at all qualified to administer public instruction to the people was not very considerable; and their discourses, which contained little else than fictitious reports of miracles and prodigies, insipid fables, wretched quibbles, and illiterate jargon, deceived the multitude, instead of instructing them. Several of these sermons are still extant, which it is impossible to read with out indignation and contempt. The subjects were, the authority of the holy mother Church, and the obligations of obedience to her decisions; the virtues and merits of the saints, and their credit in the court of heaven; the dignity, glory, and love of the blessed virgin; the efficacy of relics; the duty of adorning churches, and endowing monasteries; the necessity of good works to salvation; the intolerable burnings of purgatory, and the utility of indulgences." (Mosheim, vol. iv. 25.) To complete this description of the general ignorance which prevailed, it is only necessary to state, that the holy Scriptures were withheld from the people; and even those who, from their official situations in the Church, might be presumed to have studied them, were awfully ignorant of their simple and sublime contents. One of the Mendicant Monks observed, in a sermon, "They have invented a new language, which they call Greek: you must be carefully on your guard against it; it is the mother of all heresy. I observe in the hands of many persons a book written in that language, and which they call the New Testament: it is a book full of daggers and poison. As to the He brew, my dear brethren, it is certain that those who learn it become instantaneously Jews." (Cox's History of the House of Austria.) That such ignorance should be found among those whose duty it was to instruct the people, is positive evidence of the general intellectual darkness of those who were doomed to receive religious instruction from such ignorant teachers. It must ever constitute a most serious charge against the Papal Church, that the Scriptures were withheld from the people. This has been denied by some of the adherents of Popery; and there are to be found, even among Protestants, those who doubt or deny the truth of the allegation. That the charge which we prefer against Popery is not a groundless one, will appear from the following decree of the Council of Trent, which may be justly regarded as embodying and enforcing those principles which had previously obtained in the Papal Church; as well as laying down the law by which to regulate the practice of the adherents of Popery in all successive ages. However vehemently modern Papists, in this country, may deny the charge which we prefer, and denounce it as a calumny, the testimony of authentic records, which are unimpeached and unimpeachable, verifies the fact, that the Church of Rome has interposed between man and his God, and has manifested to her members one of the greatest gifts; or assumed the power of granting them a licence to enjoy that boon, which is as much the common property of the human family, as the light of heaven. "Seeing it is manifest, by experience, that, if the holy Bible be permitted to be read every where, without difference, in the vulgar tongue, more harm than good results thence, through the rashness of men; let it, therefore, be at the pleasure of the Bishop or Inquisitor, with the advice of the parish Clerk or Confessor, to grant the reading of the Bible, as translated by Catholic authors, to those who, in their opinion, will thereby receive an increase of faith and piety. This licence let |