[ocr errors]

commenting on this law, then we see completed the highest and most astounding result of the forged literature of the middle ages. The little fountain-head of pious fraud, which broke out in the early ages, has given rise to a mighty river, emptying itself into a boundless ocean of unfathomable delusion and fraud.

How great the influence of these forgeries has been, may be learned from the confessions even of candid Roman Catholics. The testimony of Daunou has been given. Henry, though not so severe, is no less explicit in testifying to their pernicious influence on the Church. With him coincides Bossuet; and the celebrated Charles Butler, in a brief account of the Roman and the canon law, in an appendix to bis life of the Chancellor D’Aguesseau, does not hesitate to say, “ To the compilations of Isidore and Gratian, one of the greatest misfortunes of the Church, the claim of the Popes to temporal power by divine right, may, in some measure, be attributed. That a claim so unfounded and so impious, so detrimental to religion, and so hostile to the peace of the world, should have been made, is strange-stranger yet is the success it met with."

It is no less strange that so intelligent a man could not discorer that all the remaining claims of the Pope are alike unfounded and impious, detrimental to religion), and hostile to the peace of the world.

To give some idea of the donation of Constantine, we transcribe a few sentences. The Emperor Constantine is introduced as saying :-“We ascribe to the See of Peter all dignity, all glory, all imperial power. Besides, we give to Sylvester and his successors, our palace of Lateran, which is beyond question the most beautiful palace on earth; we give him our crown, our mitre, our diadem, and all our imperial vestments, we remit to him the imperial dignity. We give as a pure gift

, to the holy pontiff, the city of Rome, and all the Western cities of Italy, as well as the Western cities of other countries. In order to give place to him, we yield our dominion over all these provinces, by removing the seat of our empire to Byzantium, considering that it is not right that a terrestrial emperor should preserve the least power, where God hath established the head of religion.” For centuries a miserably forged document like this, had the force of law!

In view of such facts it is that Gibbon severely, but justly remarks, that the Vatican and Lateran were an arsenal and manufactory, which, according to the occasion, have produced or concealed a various collection of false or genuine, or corrupt, or suspicious acts, as they tended to promote the interests of the Romish Church. Before the end of the eighth century, some apostolical scribe, perhaps the notorious Isidore, composed the Decretals, and the Donation of Constantine, the two magic pillars of the spiritual and temporal monarchy of the Popes." “ This humble

' 1 ji., 339.




title 'peccator,' was ignorantly, but aptly turned into mercator? -his merchandize was indeed profitable-a few sheets of paper were sold for much wealth and power.”. “ The edifice has subsisted after the foundations have been undermined."

To form any adequate idea of these abominable and blasphemous forgeries, they must be read. They are written in an assumed style of conscientious sanctity. Their authors pretend to be watchmen for souls, accountable to God for their fidelity, and the penalty of disobedience is eternal damnation. Yet the impious forgery betrays itself on every page. Of the events and wants of their own age, they say, and seem to know nothing. With the hierarchical claims of the distant future centuries they are perfectly familiar. They do not know the times of their own lives, or pontificates, or deaths. Some date their letters before they were popes—some after they were dead. They quote the Latin Vulgate long before it was made. They quote writers who, in their day, had not written ; laws that had not been made; councils that had not been held; and use words, and a style of language, then not in existence. Nor were they ever quoted before the ninth century, amid controversies on which they would have been decisive. Such are the documents which Nicholas I. promulgated in the name of God, and which for centuries ruled the world.

Let us, in conclusion, consider the subsequent state and power of the system.

The Church of Rome has indeed retreated from certain positions, from which she has been irresistibly driven. But never has she abandoned the practice of the system; and if any have seemed in her name to condemn it in principle, this condemnation is but a new specimen of pious fraud. She cannot condemn it. It is wrought into her whole history. Moreover it is a case of necessity to that Church to lie. Her existence depends on it. All true history is against her. Hence we see a constant tendency to rely on and defend forged documents, in Baronius, and to forge lies, in Bellarmine, as in his infamous narrative of the death of Calvin ; also, in Andrin's Life of Calvin, the same course is pursued. In the same spirit, a stupendous

a enterprise was once undertaken to alter and expurgate all the Fathers, on the great scale.

Hence, Platino's History of the Lives of the Popes has been altered and corrupted by papal scribes ; so that only the Venice edition, 1479, and the editions published in Holland, 1640, 1645, 1664, are worthy of confidence. Hence we may account for the omission, in some editions, of the statements concerning Gregory VII., which De Cormenin quotes. Hence, too, the systematic writing of false histories, for the use of Jesuit schools, and the falsification of Ranke's History of the Popes, of which he complains, and the circulation and use of such falsified copies in Je

[ocr errors][merged small]

suit schools, as his. Pagi says—“Much has been said of the Popes by other historians, but very little by their own.”

Bower adds—“That the very little has been thought too much; whence some of them, Platino in particular, have been made in all their editions since the middle of the sixteenth century, to speak with more reserve, and to suppress or disguise some truths they had formerly told.” i

When to the influence of principles so corrupt, is added the bias of party rage, as in the long strifes of the Guelphs and Ghibbelines, or in the great schism, one can easily imagine the extent to which lying would be carried, and how much the difficulty of coming at the truth in many cases is augmented. As these parties fought with the sword, so, says Bower, did historians with more rage fight with their pens; and the same persons, especially the popes and emperors, are, by opposing writers, painted in very different colors.

Indeed so thoroughly has this leprosy of pious lying struck the Romish Church, that all who are approximating to her seem naturally

to fall into it. Of this we find a striking example in the English Puseyites, who are reviving the doctrine of economy, or accommodation, i. e. lying, so far as is necessary to keep their hearers from revolting from their sentiments, till they can lead them along, step by step, to Rome. Hence Newman's fierce assaults on Rome, as he begun his Puseyite movement, were all a pious fraud, according to the principles of the economical system, to be recanted when they had enabled him to corrupt all whom he could. On the same principles, Jesuits in secret may join any church and profess anything, in order to work in the dark for Rome.

No maxim has ever been so constantly carried out in all ages, as that to lie for the Romish Church is not only no sin, but a virtue of the highest kind. On this principle, pious frauds are at this day knowingly carried on in Mexico, as described by Waddy Thompson, in Rome, and in other parts of the Romish world. Such a system under the government of God cannot last for ever; but it has a great temporary power.

For a hierarchy of priests, many of them men of education, and great intellectual power and learning, and trained to lie on system, to sustain their own corporate power and wealth, can keep the masses subjected to their power in Romish countries, in utter ignorance of the facts of history, as is universally the case; and by

bold assertions can paralyse, to a certain extent, the power of history in Protestant countries.

The bold impudence of Pope Zosimus staggered all the assembled bishops of Africa. He declared certain canons of the provincial Council of Sardica to be canons of the Council of Nice, though it was held twenty years before that of Sardica.

'p. 15. Vol. I.

[ocr errors]

The canons of Sardica were in none of the African copies of the Council of Nice. The African bishops proposed to send for copies to Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch.

“It matters not,” replied the conscious legate, “whether or not those canons are to be found in your copies, or indeed in any other. You must know, that the canons and ordinances of Nice, which have been handed down to us BY TRADITION, and established by custom, are no less binding than those that have been conveyed to us by writing.” A fine specimen of matchless impudence. But so has Rome made tradition in all ages her grand thesaurus of lies.

The African Bishops would not be so deluded. They sent for the copies as proposed; exposed the fraud, and held up the Pope as a barefaced impostor.

Bower well calls it one of the most impudent and barefaced impostures recorded in history; yet Bishop Kenrick has not a word of censure for the Pope, and tries, like Baronius and Bellarmine, to gloss it over as a mistake.

The truth is, on the principles of that Church, there was no sin in the lie, but merely in attempting it in so bungling a way as to be found out and exposed. So did Purcell, of Cincinnati, twice lie, and was publicly exposed.

But multitudes of other impostures, equally gross and impudent, were not found out, and made the Papal power what it is; and the same impudent system of lying will still be pursued, for nothing else can preserve it from ruin. This general view should not, however, lead to despair of a final victory of truth, nor to historical scepticism. Let a man look at one of our counterfeit detectors, containing scores of pages of counterfeits. He might at first say, it is of no avail to try to distinguish between forged and true bills. But with care and practice it can be done. So is it in history. Many forgeries have been so exposed that none dare now advocate them ; and notwithstanding the delusions and lies of the hierarchy, God has foretold under the symbol of the false prophet his doom. He shall be taken by the son of man and cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

To conclude, all Protestants are simpletons who do not judge Romanist ecclesiastics in view of their principles, and their past history. He that is simple believeth every word of such men ; but the prudent looketh well to his going.

In conclusion I would say that the good of our nation requires a more full exposure of this subject than we can now make, with the facts of history classified and arranged. We are contending with a matchless system of compacted fraud, and need to have å perfect understanding of it, and its principles and deeds.




By Prof. N. PORTER, JR., Yale College.

I SAID what I thought;" was the impatient answer of the fervid Rousseau, when asked wherein lay the charm of his writings, which were then electrifying all Europe. This reply not only well describes

the secret of the power of this, and of every great writer, but it suggests the best definition of the word Literature-than which no word is more vaguely, though none, it would seem, ought to be more easily, understood.

Literature, after the judgment and usage of not a few, is an amusement, a pastime, a thing of luxury and refinement. It is not the utterance of clear and strong thoughts, but the enunciation of the high and mysterious fancies of certain unhappy wights, who deem themselves inspired to say they know not what. It is not the expression of honest emotions, which have been too strongly felt not to be uttered, but rather of exaggerated and sickly feelings, which have been distorted by unnatural use, or over-refined by foolish indulgence. Then, too, to make known the thoughts and feelings of a writer, something is thought to be necessary besides human language, condensed to its utmost vigor of expression, or wrought into the highest splendor of description, or burning with the intensest fire of feeling. Instead of this, there is demanded a studied prettiness of expression, a far-fetched nicety of conceits, and a lisping effeminacy of manner, to entitle a production to a place in what is, par eminence, Literature. In contrast with these views of the matter and form of Literature, it should be defined as the expression of worthy thoughts and feelings, in worthy language. The theme should be worthy to be expressed, and the expression should be worthy of the theme; not only worthy to represent and convey it for the moment, but as a crystal shrine, to preserve and adorn it, if need be, for all time.

This view of Literature is, in no sense, illiberal, unworthy, or utilitarian. So far from it, it is the only view that is truly liberal, inasmuch as it is comprehensive enough to include everything which is worthy of a place within its ample enclosure. In Greek Literature, it would find room for the subtle Aristotle, the splendid Plato, the fiery Demosthenes, no less than for Homer the sublimely melodious, the sad Euripides, and the sparkling Anacreon. In the German, it would own the all-crushing” Kant, as well as boast the all-comprehending Goethe. In the English,


« VorigeDoorgaan »