Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

which time he prepared a numerous synod, and invited the bishops both of Africa and Gaul; but Eulalius could not endure that delay, and spoiled his business by his impatience; for whether he distrusted his right, or whether he was of a restless temper, he returned to Rome the 16th of March, and would have staid there notwithstanding the emperor's orders, which obliged Symmachus to use violence to drive him out of Rome; and the emperor having been informed of his disobedience, waited for no other judgment, but caused Boniface to be put in possession in the beginning of April, 419."-Du Pin, vol. 1. p. 417.

The Holy Spirit, then, by the emperor Honorius, an Arian, too, (if I recollect right,) establishes a vicar for Christ in the person of Boniface I. What, says bishop Purcell, have emperors to do with Christ's church?! Once, then they had a great deal to do with it; and where is infallibility now?

Next comes pope Symmachus. Again the church's head is the fruit of bloodshed and war.

"After the death of pope Anastasius, which happened at the end of the year 498, there was a fierce contention in the church of Rome between Laurentius and Symmachus, which of them two was duly promoted to that see. Symmachus who was deacon, was chosen, and ordained by the far greater number; but Festus a Roman Senator, who had promised the Emperor Anastasius, that his edict of agreement with the bishop of Rome should be signed, procured Laurentius to be chosen and ordained. This schism divided the church and the city of Rome, and the most eminent both of the clergy and the senate took part with one of these two bishops: but at length both parties agreed to wait upon King Theodoric at Ravenna for his decision in the case, which was this, That he should continue bishop of Rome, who had been first chosen, and should be found to have the far greater number of voices for him. Symmachus had the advantage of Laurentius on both these accounts, and so was confirmed in the possession of the holy see, and he ordained Laurentius bishop of Nocera, if we may believe Anastasius. At the beginning of the next year he called a council, wherein he made a canon against the ways of soliciting nuns' voices, which were then used for obtaining the papal dignity: but those who opposed the ordination of Symmachus, seeing him possessed of the holy see against their mind, used all their endeavours to turn him out of it, for which end they charged him with many crimes, they stirred up a part of the people and senate against him, and caused a petition to be presented to king Theodoric, that he would appoint a delegate to hear the cause. He named Peter bishop of Altinas, who deposed the pope from the government of his diocese, and deprived him of the possessions of the church. This division was the cause of so great disorders in Rome, that from words they came many times to blows, and every day produced fighting and murders: many ecclesiastics were beaten to death, virgins were robbed, and driven away from their habitation, many lay-men were wounded or killed, insomuch that not only the church, but also the city of Rome suffered very much by this schism. King Theodoric being desirous to put an end to these disorders, called a council; wherein the bishop being possessed with a good opinion of Pope Symachus, would not enter upon the examination of the particulars alleged against him, but only declared him innocent before his accusers, of the crimes that were laid to his charge: and they prevailed so far by their importunity, that the king was satisfied with this sentence, and both the people and the senate who had been very much irritated against Symmachus, were pacified, and acknowledged him for pope. Yet some of the discontented party still remained, who drew up a writing against the synod and spread their calumnies, forged against Symmachus, as far as the east. The emperor Anastasius objected them to him, which obliged Symmachus to write a letter to him for his own vindication; but notwithstanding these efforts of his enemies, he continued in possession of the holy see until the year 514 wherein he died." Du Pin. Vol. I. p. 527.

If we cannot find Christ's church some where out of the Roman church at this time, we shall have a hard task to find her there!

46

Again, we shall read a few words concerning Eoniface II.

'Boniface, the second of that name, the first pope of the nation of the Goths, was promoted to the holy see, under the reign of king Alaricus on the 14th day of October, in the year 529. At the same time one part of the clergy chose Dioscorus

who was formerly one of the deputies sent into the east by Hormisdas. Boniface was ordained in the church of Julius, and Dioscorus in that of Constantine. But this last died the 12th day of November. Boniface seeing himself left in sole possession used his utmost endeavors to bring over those who had been of the other party: he threatened them with an anathema, and forced them to subscribe. He called together the clergy, and condemned the memory of Dioscorus, accusing him of simony. He proceeded yet further, and, as if it were not enough for him to be secured of the holy see for himself, he would also appoint himself a successor, and having called a synod, he engaged the bishops and clergy by oath, and under their hands, that they should choose and ordain in his room the deacon Vigilius after his death. This being against the canons, he himself acknowledged publicly his fault, and burned the writing which he extorted from them." Du Pin. Vol. I. p. 542.

What an excellent head, truly, for the church of Christ!

We shall next see, that other women besides queen Elizabeth, whom my opponent denounces for being head of the English church, had something to do in pope manufacturing.-Pope Sylverius and pope Vigilius come next:

"The deacon Vigilius remained at Constantinople after the death of Agapetus, who had for a long time aspired to the bishopric, and made use of this occasion to get himself promoted to it. He promised the empress, that if she would make him pope he would receive Theodosius, Authimus, and Severus into his communion, and that he would approve their doctrine. The empress not only promised to make him pope, but also offered him money if he would do what she desired. Vigilius having given the empress all the assurances that she could wish, departed with a secret order addressed to Bellisarius to make him successful in his design. Vigilius being come into Italy, found all things well prepared for him, the siege of Rome was raised when he arrived there, but during the siege Silverius was suspected to hold correspondence with the Goths, and so he was rendered odious for refusing expressly to accept the empress's proposals of receiving Authimus. Thus Vigilius having delivered to Bellisarius the order which he brought, and having promised him two hundred pieces of gold over and above the seven hundred which he was to give him, found no great difficulty to persuade him to drive away Silverius."

[blocks in formation]

*

"This was put in execution, he was delivered to the guards of Vigilius, and he was banished into the Isles of Pontienna and Panctataria, which were over against the mount Cirrellus, where he died of a famine in great misery, if we may believe Liberatus. Procopius, in his secret history, seems to insinuate, that he was killed by one named Eugenius, a man devoted to Antonina-the wife of Bellisarius: but what Procopius says, may be understood not of the death of Silverius, but rather of his accusation or apprehension.”

66

[blocks in formation]

*

Although Vigilius was promoted to the see of Rome, by a way altogether unjust, yet he continued in the possession of it after the death of Silverius, and was acknowledged for a lawful pope, without proceeding to a new election, or even confirming that which had been made. The conduct which he had observed during this pontificate answered well enough to its unhappy beginning. He had at first approved the doctrines of Authimus, and that of the Acephali, to satisfy the empress: but the fear of being turned out by the people of Rome, whom he hated, made him quickly recall this approbation; yet he did not, by this, gain the hearts of the Romans. They could not endure an usurper, who Laving been the cause of the death of their lawful bishop, would abuse them also. They accused him also, of having killed his secretary with a blow of his fist, and of having whipped his sister's son till he died. The empress who was not satisfied with him because he had gone back from his word, sent Authimus to Rome with an order to bring him into Greece, and at his departure the people gave him all sorts of imprecations." Ib. Vol. I. page 552.

We shall only at this time give the details of another column of the history of the popes in the work before us. It speaks for itself -tells how all the evil passions of human nature co-operated in the election and creation of Christ's vicars.

Under head-" An account of the popes, and of the church of Rome, from the time of Sylvester II. to Gregory VII. After his death there was a schism in the church of Rome, between Benedict VIII. son to Gregory, the count of Frescati, who was first elected by his father's interest; and one Gregory, who was elected by some Romans, who outed Benedict. He fled to Henry, king of Germany, who immediately raised forces, and marched into Italy to re-establish him. As soon as the king arrived, Gregory fled for it, and Benedict was received without any opposition. He conferred the imperial crown on that prince, and on queen Chunegonda his wife. Benedict died in the year 1034, and some authors say, that after his death he appeared mounted on a black horse, and that he showed the place where he had deposited a treasure, that so it might be distributed to the poor, and that by these alms, and the prayers of St. Odilo, he was delivered from the torments of the other life. We have only one Bull of his, in favor of the Abby of Cluny."

"The count of Frescati, that the popedom might be still in his family, caused his other son to be elected in the room of Benedict VIII. though he was not then in orders. He was ordained and called John, which, according to us, is the eighteenth of that name, but according to others the twentieth. "Tis said, that some time after this pope being sensible that his election was vicious and simoniacal, he withdrew into a monastery there to suffer penance, and that he forbore performing any part of his function, till such time as he was chosen again by the clergy."

"John XVIII. dying Novr. 7, in the year 1033, Alberi count of Frescati, caused his son to be seated on St. Peter's chair. He was nephew to the two last popes the count's brothers, and was not above eighteen years of age at the most. He changed his name of Thophylact into that of Benedict IX.

year

Peter Darnien, speaks of him as a man that lived very disorderly, and was very unworthy of that dignity to which he had been advanced by the tyranny of his father. However, he enjoyed the popedom very quietly for ten years together; but at last the Romans, weary of his abominable irregularities, outed him, and put up in his place, the bishop of St. Sabina, who took upon him the name of Sylvester III. He enjoyed his dignity but three months; for though Benedict voluntarily resigned the popedom, yet he returned to Rome, and with the assistance of Frescati's party, drove out his competitor, and re-assumed the papal chair. But being altogether uncapable of governing it, and having nothing more in his thoughts than the gratifying of his brutal appetite, he made a bargain about the popedom with John Gracian, archbishop of the church of Rome, and made it over to him for a sum of money, reserving to himself the revenues due from England to the holy see. This Gracian took upon him the name of Gregory VI. In the meantime, king Henry, who had succeeded his father, Conrad, in the 1039, being incensed against Benedict, who had sent the imperial crown to the king of Hungary, after he had defeated that prince, resolved to march into Italy to put an end to that schism. After he came thither he caused these three popes to be deposed in several synods as usurpers, simonists, and criminals. Benedict fled for it; Gregory VI. was apprehended and afterwards banished; and Sylvester III. was sent back to his bishopric of St. Sabina. He caused Suidger, bishop of Hamberg, to be elected in their stead, who took upon him the name of Clement II. and was acknowledged as lawful pope by ail the world. He crowned Henry emperor, and as he was waiting upon him home to Germany, died beyond the Alps, October 7, in the year 1047, nine months after his election. Immedi ately upon this, Benedict IX. returns to Rome, and a third time remounts the papal chair, which he held for eight months, notwithstanding the emperor had sent from Germany Poppo, bishop of Bresse, who was consecrated pope under the title of Damasus II. but he did not long enjoy that dignity, for he died of poison, as is supposed, at Palestrina, three and twenty days after his coronation.'

[ocr errors]

"It is no wonder that these popes have not left us the least monument of their pastoral vigilance, either in councils or by letters, since all their care and aim was how to gratify their ambition and the rest of their passions, without watching over the flock of Jesus Christ." Du Pin, vol. ii. p. 206.

Observe, a single count has the controlling power of some three popes during this administration; and may be said to have the church under his special management! Comment on such a narrative is unnecessary. [Time expired.]

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

I should prefer replying to the last part of my friend's argument at once, but order requires that I should follow him through all his points. We were told the old Irish story' of St. Patrick sailing on a millstone. Well, the Irish have always been remarkable for telling a good story; but this is told for them, and it is not even witty, much less has it any bearing on the argument. There is not, I presume, one educated Catholic in the world who believes a tale so ridiculous. For my own part, I had never even heard it before; but I have heard of a life of St. Patrick and St. Bridget, written by some young Protestant wag who gathered together all the absurd stories he could find and gave them this name. My friend must have felt the want of better arguments when he introduced such a silly tale, at this debate, for the purpose of weakening the authority of the most sacred documents. I will not call this profane, but I must say, that, in my opinion, it is indecorous.

I have been charged with exciting the laughter of this audience, at the expense of my friend; this is not my fault; what alternative but ridicule for the story we have just heard? It was thus that Elias mocked the false priests of Baal, by saying, "Cry louder on your god-peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked." 3d. Kings 15, 27.

Admit my learned opponent's reasoning, and you cannot be sure that ever there was such a man as Peter: admit it, and you cannot pretend to say that you have had grandfathers or grandmothers, or at least that they had had any themselves: you have never seen them; how then can you be sure they ever existed! Sometimes forged notes get into circulation; conclude with my friend, that you may as well part com. pany at once with the genuine notes you may possess, for you can no longer prove them, to any man's satisfaction, to be worth having. I will go still farther: admit Mr. C.'s curious reasoning, and you can never be sure that such a personage as Jesus Christ ever existed, much less that he wrought miracles to prove the divinity of his mission! You did not see the miracles; the book that records them was written long after they occurred; and many of the most important portions of this very book were doubted of for upwards of 300 years after Christ, even by Luther himself, in the enlightened 16th century! His author, Du Pin, says there were abundance of false gospels, false epistles, false acts, in the early ages. How then, according to his principles, can we be sure of the authenticity of a single book of the Old or New Testament, seeing we have no voucher for the truth but the testimony of men? Here are chasms to be bridged, and links in the chain of scriptural testimony, to be welded, for full 300 years, ay, 1600 years, before the various books of scripture were collected together: and when they were collected, this collection was made by men, who, he says, were liable to be mistaken like ourselves; and who knows to this day but they were mistaken! Such are the horrid consequences of his illogical reasoning-another sad illustration that, for the deserter from the Catholic church, there is no resource but to deny every thing, to become a deist. I would advise my friend, when he goes back to Bethany, to prove in the Harbinger that such a thing as the present controversy never occurred. I am sure that he can make some people believe, all editorials to the contrary notwithstanding, that it is all a hoax,

He gratuitously mixes up the names of the first five or six popes, in a way unknown to antiquity, whereas Eusebius, Optatus, Tertullian, and Irenæus, agree perfectly in the enumeration of Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander-and two of these authors have been translated by Protestants! The mixture of the books of scripture is for him a far more insurmountable difficulty. There was much disputing for hundreds of years as to the time and place where the epistles and gospels were written; must we, therefore, reject them altogether? According to his rule of reasoning, we should reject them; but, thank God, Catholics admit no such rule. A few discrepancies about the minor points, where there is perfect unanimity as to the substance, only confirm our conviction of the historian's good faith. And there is as much indisputable testimony of the succession in the chair of Peter, as there is to prove any book of scripture whatsoever. I might, in fact, say there is more. I have already nailed Dupin to the counter; he leans on a broken reed. He quotes St. Paul, to prove that neither he nor Peter founded the church of Rome, whereas St. Paul says no such thing, but only that they should not indulge in foolish disputes about the ministers who had preached to them the word of life, "I am for Paul, I am for Apollos," but give all glory to Christ who died for them. There were christians at Rome before St. Peter or St. Paul went thither. The Roman soldiers who saw Christ crucified, and witnessed the prodigies attending his death, were, doubtless, many of them, as well as the centurion who smote his breast, and cried out "truly this man was the Son of God," converted to christianity; who, when they returned home to Rome, related what they had seen, to their countrymen, and made others converts. The apostles, afterwards, went to Rome and founded the see. So it was in England. Long before Gregory sent St. Augustin to that country, there were Catholics there even in the days of pope Eleutherius.

What was the use of quoting Waddington as an author of infallible weight with me? He could not avoid making splendid acknowledgments to the church of Rome. The truth was too strong for him. But if we believe a man when he testifies against himself, is that any reason we should believe him when he testifies for himself? In fact, the inexplicable confusion of which Waddington speaks, is not to be found in any of the historians I have named and whose works I have exhibited from which too I have read to this assembly. If any confusion exist, it is with respect to the time when each succeeded each, although in this respect the earliest historians agree, as you have seen. Linus, Cletus, (or Anencletus,) and Clement, are all spoken of in the epistles of St. Paul. They held a conspicuous rank in the church; their names and services in these high places were often seen, and hence could have occurred a mixture of their names and of the dates But in every case of their pontificates, among now remote historians. of doubt as to scripture, or ecclesiastical history, the tests of sound criticism must be applied, and then the sibyls and the Mercurius Trismegistus are sure to go overboard. "Opinionum commenta delet dies," says Cicero, "naturæ judicia confirmat." Time exposes falsehood— and confirms truth.. What Cicero says time does, a more respectable agent, the church, has achieved-she has selected the genuine books of scripture and stamped forgery upon such as were spurious. Had There are other she not done this where would have been the Bible?

« AnteriorContinuar »