"Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?" 2 Cor. 3:1.
The apostle here brings before us a class of letters which must have been in frequent use in his day, even as now, by which travelers or teachers were commended by one person to the good offices of others.
In the last part of the previous chapter he speaks of the important work of the servant of God, either for life or death; and then says, "We are not as many, which corrupt the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." They had been faithful in their ministrations, and, therefore, did not need letters of commendation; for, he continues:—
"Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men." Verse 2.
Here was something that everyone could read. They revealed the word wrought in them by the "manifestation of the truth" (chapter 4:2); and as Jesus is "the truth" (John 14:6), the manifestation of the truth was the life of Jesus made manifest in their mortal flesh (2 Cor. 4:10, 11). And thus they bore credentials from heaven which all men, of whatever nation or language, could read, and know that they were genuine.
"Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart." Verse 3.
They were the epistle, or writing of Christ, ministered, or executed, by the apostles. This writing was accomplished, "not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God." Again, it was "not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart," just where under the new covenant the law of God is written. Heb. 8:10. The presentation of this covenant, the preaching of this gospel, which places the law in the heart, God committed to his servants, and the apostle is discoursing, in 2 Corinthians 3, on his work as a new testament (or covenant) minister, or servant. Verse 6. What, then, is his subject thus far?—Manifestly, the object of that covenant,—the writing of the law of God in the heart, or its enthronement in the affections.
The working out of that law in the human heart is simply the manifestation of the life of Jesus in the body; for says Jesus, "I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart." Ps. 40:8. And near the close of his earthly ministry he again said, "I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." John 15:10. The principles of the law are therefore identified with the principles of the life of Christ. That person, therefore, in whose heart the law of God is written, in whose heart that love is made supreme, that law being holy, just, good, and spiritual (Rom. 7:12, 14), will "out of the good treasure of the heart bring forth good fruit" (Matt. 12:35). His life will be in perfect accord with the great principles of righteousness embodied in that law, which is the "good treasure," or accumulated wealth of his heart. And such a life will commend itself "to every man's conscience in the sight of God." 2 Cor. 4:2. Even unbelievers and the most bitter enemies of God and his truth will take knowledge of such "that they have been with Jesus."
Bear in mind that the apostle, as a minister of the new testament, was God's agent for the accomplishment of this work in the hearts of the Corinthian brethren. He proceeds:—
"And such trust have we through Christ to Godward; not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God." Verses 4, 5.
In this the apostle manifests the mind of Christ, which led him to "empty himself" (Phil. 2:7, R. V.), and roll himself on the Lord (Ps. 22:8, margin), to trust in God for his sufficiency. Likewise, again we hear Paul saying, "We are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." Phil. 3:3. But, while not sufficient of ourselves, the apostle tells us from whence our sufficiency comes:—
"But our sufficiency is of God; who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament [covenant]; not of the letter [of the new covenant], but of the spirit [of the new covenant]; for the letter [of the new covenant] killeth; but the spirit [of the new covenant] giveth life." Verses 5, 6.
The supplying of the words of "the new covenant," in this verse, after the words "letter" and "spirit" each time they occur, does no violence to the text whatever, as will appear from the consideration of the remainder of the chapter:—
"But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away; how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?" Verses 7, 8.
We are here carried back to the ministration of the law of God by Moses, and to a certain experience in his ministration when it brought condemnation, the end of which is death.
During the long time which Moses spent in communion with God, his countenance reflected the glory of the divine Presence, unknown to himself. His face shone with a dazzling light when he descended from the mountain. See Ex. 34:29, 30. But while he was in the mount the first time, to receive the tables of the law, the Israelites had fallen into idolatry, had erected a golden calf, and were worshiping it; and now he comes down with the law again. "In their conscious guilt, feeling themselves still under the divine displeasure, they could not endure the heavenly light, which, had they been obedient to God, would have filled them with joy." See Ex. 34:30-35. If it had not been for their sin, the same glory which shone from Moses' face would have been reflected from theirs, and thus that ministration would have been far more glorious.
"For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory." Verse 9.
The ministration of Moses in this instance was one of condemnation, because of their sin, but had they yielded to the influence of the Spirit of God, the law would have been written in their hearts, and they would have known righteousness (Isa. 51:7; Rom. 8:4), and would have rejoiced at the glory of the law, because it was a witness to their righteousness by faith. That law in its condemnation was glorious, but as a witness to the righteousness which comes by faith, which, in other words, is the law in the heart, the gospel is more glorious. So also the ministration, or service, of that condemnation, as represented in Moses, was glorious; but the ministration, or service, of the gospel which places the law in the heart is more glorious.
"For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth." Verse 10.
When compared with the glory that attends the ministration of the law of God when it brings righteousness, as it always does to the one who will permit it to be written in the heart, the glory of the ministration of the law, when it only brings condemnation, is eclipsed, even as the glory of the moon is swallowed up by the glory of the rising of the sun. But suppose an individual yields to the Lord, the condemnation is done away (Rom. 8:1), and righteousness takes its place (Rom. 8:4); and if it "remaineth," then there is glory indeed.
"For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech." Verses 11, 12.
And why not use great plainness of speech, since it is such a glorious hope?
"And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished; but their minds were blinded; for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which veil is done away in Christ." Verses 13, 14.6"When Moses came from the Divine Presence in the mount, where he received the tables of the testimony, guilty Israel could not endure the light that glorified his countenance." "It was the heavenly light streaming from Calvary, no less than the glory of the law of God, that shed such a radiance upon the face of Moses." As before stated, the Israelites had but a short time before this taken part in a national apostasy in the erection and worship of the golden calf, and, being conscious of guilt, they felt themselves still under the divine displeasure, therefore could not endure the heavenly light streaming from Calvary, which would have filled them with joy had they been steadfast in their obedience to the law of God. Had they been true to God, the righteousness of God through his Son would have been put upon them, to which the law would have witnessed. Rom. 3:21, 22.
"But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart." Verse 15.
The truthfulness of this is demonstrated in the experience of Stephen when he was brought before the council. "And all that sat in the council, looking steadfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel." Acts 6:15. Beginning with Abraham, he traced the experience of Israel, especially speaking of Moses, and how God wrought through him in their deliverance from Egypt; then to the tabernacle of witness which they had in the wilderness, and the tabernacle built by Solomon for the God of Jacob, etc. Seeing their anger, he suddenly turns upon them with a scathing rebuke, saying: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers; who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it." Acts 7:51-53.
When he told them that they were uncircumcised in heart, murderers, and law breakers, the Holy Spirit witnessing to it, "they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth." Verse 54. He manifested the life of Jesus before them, and the glory of that life shining in his countenance, which is the same glory which shone in the face of Moses, commended itself to their consciences. But as they were not willing to bring their lives into harmony with the law which they were transgressing, and thus manifest the same life which they attempted to put away from before them by killing Stephen, that glory condemned them. Their minds were so blinded, and their hearts so veiled by unbelief, that they could not see that which, had they been obedient to it, would have filled them with joy. This was the "ministration of condemnation."
"Nevertheless, when it [the heart] shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away." Verse 16.
When Peter on the day of Pentecost convinced the people that they had killed the Prince of Life, "they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:37, 38. The heart turned to the Lord, "the veil was taken away," "and the same day there was added unto them about three thousand souls." Verse 41. Here is an example of the "ministration of righteousness" which exceeds in glory. Oh, that everyone who reads these lines may know this most glorious experience and be kept therein!
"Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory." Verses 17, 18.
The heart having turned to the Lord, and the veil having been taken away, we can with open face behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, which is his character. Realizing that the condemnation is gone, and that the righteousness of Christ has taken its place, we "rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." 1 Peter 1:8. "The soul that is free from sin will not wish to hide from the light of heaven."
The heavenly light from Calvary combined with the glory of the law of God which radiated from the face of Moses, "illustrates the blessings to be received by God's commandment-keeping people through the mediation of Christ. It testifies that the closer our communion with God, and the clearer our knowledge of his requirements, the more fully shall we be conformed to the divine image, and the more readily do we become partakers of the divine nature." If we walk in the light, keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, beholding his glory, we will be changed into the same image from glory to glory, from character to character, until the divine nature will have been perfected in us. Oh, blessed hope! Who would not give up this poor, "sin-polluted heart for Jesus to purify, to cleanse by his own blood, and to save by his matchless love"? Who would not tear off the veil of unbelief, and turn the eyes upon the undimmed glory of the character of Jesus, and thus be made like him? But if we do not make this choice, as guilty Israel could not endure the light that glorified the countenance of Moses, how much less can we look upon the Son of God when he shall appear in the glory of his Father, surrounded by all the heavenly host, to execute judgment upon the transgressors of his law and the rejecters of his atonement! Those who have disregarded the law of God, and trodden underfoot the blood of Christ, will in that day say "to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" But those who have kept the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, to them the prayer of Christ will be answered, "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me." And then, freed from the trouble of his soul, shall he see the good and be satisfied.
MY REDEEMER.
By J. P. Lorenz
BY J. P. LORENZ.
THE Lord is my Redeemer,
My strength and my delight;
He leads me to the Fountain
Of waters pure and bright.
In him my soul doth glory,
For he has died for me;
I cannot help but praise him
That he has set me free.
My heart is full of gladness,
My soul is full of light;
All gloomy looks are banished,
For Christ is my delight.
He is my joy and comfort
When grief and cares come in;
He causes peace from heaven
To fill my soul within.
Henceforth I trust in Jesus,
For now I truly know
That he can guide and keep me
In paths where I should go.
If cares and tribulation
Henceforth my lot should be,
I know that One is ready
To comfort, strengthen me.
Buffalo, N. Y.
THE CHURCH IN POLITICS.
By S. N. Curtiss
BY S. N. CURTISS.
REV. J. Z. ARMSTRONG, pastor of the Independence Avenue Methodist Episcopal Church, Kansas City, Mo., has of late made quite a stir in that city on account of his denunciations of the Roman Catholic Church.
Sunday evening, February 25, his subject was "Our Citizenship; Its Relation to the Liquor Traffic, and to the Roman Catholic Church." He dwelt at some length on the duties incumbent upon Christian voters, especially with reference to the coming municipal election. He said he believed there were enough good, pure, true citizens to fill all the offices of trust, and that such men could be elected to these positions if all of the Christian people would do their duty at the primaries and at the polls. He urged this matter, and referred to his text, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's," as bearing on this point. "As Christians, render to government that which belongs to it, and to God, that which belongs to God," said he.
He then went on to say, "I belong to a church which meddles with both religion and politics." The statement is certainly true, so far as "meddling with politics" is concerned, for we remember that the Methodist Episcopal Church worked earnestly with Congress to get this government committed to religious legislation in the matter of closing the World's Fair on Sunday. It was this same church that "brought some influence to bear" upon a member of the Columbian Committee of the House of Representatives, which he found it "difficult to resist."
Dr. Armstrong said that all of the offices in the land should be taken out of the hands of "those who disregard righteousness," according, it is obvious, to his standard of righteousness. Of course this "Christian nation" ought to have "Christian" officials; and is it not a fact that our lawmakers already discern this? and do we not read in the daily papers of this senator and that one who offered public prayer? Have these men experienced a change of heart, or do they see what qualifications the churches will demand in the coming legislator, and are they "for a pretense" making these "long prayers"? Mark 12:40.
After some remarks on the saloon system, Mr. Armstrong came to that part of his subject before which he said the other questions were as dwarfs. "I don't believe it is right or safe at the present time to elect any Roman Catholic to office. Not because he is a Catholic in religion, but because, as a Roman Catholic, he has taken the most solemn oath of allegiance to a foreign power." These were his words, and all this is true, for Catholics do regard the command of the church above the law of the land, and there is the greatest of danger from the encroachments of the Papacy in this country.
"Alas," said he, "for the man who has read up to the present time and can be so blinded" as not to see this danger from Rome! And, alas, we say, for the man who has read Rome's history as portrayed in the Bible and in history profane, and who knows what her arrogant and wicked purposes have been all these years, and what they still are, and who can be blinded to the extent that he will still render homage to her, and receive the "mark" of her power by his observance of her holy day—Sunday!
The position of such an one is as though he were standing with his feet upon the lever which set in motion mighty machinery, and then, still in the same position, he should seek by grasping belts or pulleys to stop the motion of the wheels. He could do nothing whatever, for his very position gives a mightier power to his opponent, and nothing he can do in that position will stop its onward course.
So it is with Rome. In order to successfully oppose her influence and power, he and all Protestants must "retire from Catholic territory," leaving Rome in possession of her man-made sabbath, set their feet upon the solid Rock, Christ Jesus, accept the Sabbath of the Lord,—the mark of God's creative power in creation and in redemption. In this position they will be "strengthened with all might," and even the "gates of hell" shall not prevail against them. Will Dr. Armstrong and others who still occupy this "suicidal" position "retire from Catholic territory" entirely, become Protestants indeed, and true and loyal citizens of the kingdom of Christ on earth? In this way, and this way only, can they consistently combat Rome's mighty advances. But then the weapons of their warfare will not be carnal, but the spiritual weapons of the truth of God.
THE VICEGERENTS OF GOD
By Percy T. Magan
A REVIEW OF SUNDAY LEGISLATION IN CENTURY NINETEEN. NO. 16.
THE VICEGERENTS OF GOD.
It is one of the fundamental doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that the Roman pontiff is the vicar of Christ upon earth. He is the head of the church, and defines the faith and the doctrines of the church. Now a man's faith can only be intelligently understood and judged by his life and his actions. If the latter are bad, his faith is a bad faith. His religion is a bad religion. I will therefore submit to the reader some incidents in the lives of some of the popes and priests of Rome, so that all who read may know something of the enormities of CHRIST'S INFALLIBLE VICARS!!! And if it can be shown that as a class for several centuries they were atrociously vile, it will most certainly logically follow that this fundamental doctrine of Rome is a false doctrine, and, hence, the religion of Rome a bad religion for any man to believe in.
Liberius, bishop of Rome, died in September, A.D. 366. The clergy and people of the city could not agree upon his successor. Two different parties elected two different aspirants for the holy office. The name of the one was Damasus; the other was called Ursinus. This double election gave rise to a dangerous schism, a kind of civil war within the walls of the city, which did not end without a great deal of bloodshed. I quote from Bower:—
By this double election the citizens of Rome saw themselves, before they were aware, involved in a civil war. The whole people were divided, some siding with Damasus, and some with Ursinus; and neither of the competitors showed the least inclination to yield to the other. No day passed without skirmishes and bloodshed. . . . The two authors I have often quoted write that both Juventus and Julian were bribed by Damasus, who, taking advantage of the absence of his competitor, armed his followers with clubs and swords, hoping thus to intimidate the friends of the exiled bishop, and bring them in the end to acknowledge him. Seven presbyters of the party of Ursinus were seized, at the request of Damasus, in order to be sent into exile, but rescued by the people of the same party, and carried in triumph to the Basilic of Liberius; which Damasus no sooner heard than, arming all his followers, both clergy and laymen, with clubs, swords, axes, etc., he marched at the head of the seditious and enraged multitude to the Basilic, which he and his partisans immediately invested, and attacked with the utmost fury. It was set on fire in several places; the doors were forced, the roof uncovered, and thence showers of tiles discharged on the people assembled there; great was the massacre; one hundred and sixty persons, men and women, were inhumanly murdered on the side of Ursinus, and a great many more wounded, some of whom died of their wounds. On the side of Damasus, not one single person was killed. This riot began on the 25th of October, 366, at eight in the morning.
Thus the above mentioned writer, Rufinus, writes in general terms that the illegal election of Ursinus, in opposition to Damasus, occasioned such a tumult, or rather civil war, among the people, some siding with the one and some with the other, that the places destined for prayer streamed with human blood.
And all of this headed by Catholic bishops fighting for holy office! How different was this to the fights in the Forum when Cæsar, Cicero, Piso, Bibulus & Co. contended for the first places in the Roman nation? They were precisely the same, and the streets of Rome ran blood in the days of Christian bishops, at their elections, as in the days of consuls, tribunes, and Cæsars.
The bloodthirstiness of these prelates was only exceeded by their luxury and extravagance. I will quote from Bower, who, himself once a papist of high station, was well qualified to speak:—
The heathen Marcellinus, after telling us that Damasus and Ursinus aspired with equal ambition to the episcopal chair, adds the famous remark, which I shall set down in his own words: "I must own," says he, "that when I reflect on the pomp attending that dignity, I do not at all wonder that those who are fond of show and parade should scold, quarrel, fight, and strain every nerve to attain it, since they are sure, if they succeed, to be enriched by the offerings of the ladies; to appear no more abroad on foot, but in stately chariots, and gorgeously attired; to keep costly and sumptuous tables, nay, and to surpass the emperors themselves in the splendor and magnificence of their entertainments."
. . . And that Damasus was fond of all that pomp, grandeur, and parade, that he had such a voluptuous life, as Ammianus here so justly censures and condemns in the bishops of Rome, is not to be doubted, since Prætextatus, a man of the first quality, honored with the greatest employments of the empire, and zealously attached to paganism, in conversing familiarly with him, used pleasantly to say, "Make me bishop of Rome and I'll immediately turn Christian."
But when ambition began to take the place of charity, the poor were forgotten, and nothing thought of but splendid equipages, numerous retinues, princely apparel, sumptuous tables, and whatever else could feed the vanity of these upstart princes [the bishops] and put them upon the level with the greatest monarchs. To such purposes were the oblations of the faithful perverted. Baronius [a Catholic historian] takes it very much amiss of Ammianus [a pagan] that he should find fault with the costly tables and entertainments of the popes, since it is manifest from St. Austin that the Christians of Rome, and no doubt the popes with the rest, kept a rigorous fast three days in the week; so that in his opinion they ought not to be blamed for rioting four days in the week, provided they fasted three.
All of this was bad enough; but things soon grew worse, till the emperors were obliged to enter upon a series of "class legislation" enactments to make the clergy behave themselves, for the persons and the properties of the people of Rome were in danger from the clergy.
In the reign of Valentinian—
the insatiable avarice of the Roman clergy, the mean and scandalous arts they were daily practicing to circumvent the orphans, plunder the widows, and rob the lawful heirs of their just inheritance, cried loudly for a reform, but were evils too strong for the curb of exhortation, admonition, or censures merely ecclesiastical; and Damasus himself was not quite free from imputations of this nature. It was therefore necessary that the secular power should interpose, in defense of the deluded laity, against the craft and rapines of the ravenous clergy. A law was accordingly enacted by the Emperor Valentinian in the year 370, addressed to Damasus, bishop of Rome, and read, on the 29th of July, in all the churches of that city, strictly forbidding the ecclesiastics and such of them as professed celibacy, meaning the monks, to visit the houses of orphans or widows, or to accept from those whom they attended under the veil of religion, anything whatsoever by way of donation, legacy, or profferment in trust. Whatever was thus given or accepted, is declared forfeited to the public treasury.
This law, taken in a literal sense, only forbids the ecclesiastics to accept of such donations as were made by the women whom they attended in spiritual matters as their guides or directors; but it was either understood and interpreted as extending to all donations from pious persons, or a new law was made at this time excluding the ecclesiastics from all such donations, as plainly appears from Jerome and Ambrose, of whom the former in one of his letters writes thus: "I am ashamed to say it, the priests of the idols, the stage-players, charioteers, are capable of inheriting estates, and receiving legacies; from this common privilege, clerks [priests] alone, and monks, are debarred by law; debarred, not under persecuting tyrants, but Christian princes. . . . From these testimonies it is manifest that, either by the above mentioned law, or some other published at this time, the ecclesiastics were restrained from receiving any donations or legacies whatever, by whomever bequeathed: and that such a law was absolutely necessary, is no less manifest from the unquestionable authority of Jerome, who lived at this very time in Rome, and describes as an eyewitness the arts that were practiced with great success by the Roman clergy to circumvent rich widows and old men. The clerks [clergy], says he, "who ought to instruct and awe the women with a grave and composed behavior, first kiss their heads, and then, stretching out their hand, as it were to bestow a blessing, slyly receive a fee for their salutation. The women, in the meantime, elated with pride in seeing themselves thus courted by the clergy, prefer the freedom of widowhood to the subjection attending the state of matrimony. Some of the clergy make it the whole business and employment of their lives to learn the names of the ladies, to find out their habitations, to study their humor. One of these [perhaps Antimus or Sophronius, two monkish harpies, of whom he speaks elsewhere] an adept in the art, rises with the sun, settles the order of his visits, acquaints himself with the shortest ways, and almost breaks into the rooms of the women before they are awake. If he sees any curious piece of household furniture, he extols, admires, and handles it; and, sighing that he too should stand in need of such trifles, in the end rather extorts it by force than obtains it by good will, the ladies being afraid to disobligate the prating old fellow that is always running from house to house." . . . To exaggerate the pretended hardship, they both [Jerome and Ambrose] observe that the pagan priests lay under no such restraints—an unseasonable observation, since it shows the difference between the pagan and Christian priesthood in a mortifying light. The former gave no occasion to such a law, their avarice wanted no such restraints; if it had, we may be sure that they met with no quarter from a Christian, nay, from an orthodox [Catholic] prince [Valentinian]; and if he had spared them, such partiality had not been tamely put up and passed over in silence, by the ecclesiastical writers of those times, namely by the two I have mentioned.
What could be worse than all of this? What could possibly show a more anarchical, licentious spirit than such deeds as these? And since the faith is to be judged and estimated by the deeds, what a fearful thing is the Roman Catholic creed! What an awfully wicked thing must this system be when such have been the crimes of its popes and priests! Well has God defined her "THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY." The Revised Version of 2 Thess. 2:7 reads "THE MYSTERY OF LAWLESSNESS." And that is just what Papal Rome is as verily as Pagan Rome, and more so. The pontificate of Damasus was no worse than the pontificates of many other popes. Paul I. was made pope A.D. 757. When he died, some of the bishops elected his brother Constantine in his room. Other more legitimate electors, A.D. 768, elected Stephen IV. His party put Constantine's eyes out, amputated the tongue of Bishop Theodorus, threw him into a dungeon, where they left him to die of thirst. In 795 A.D. the relatives of Pope Adrian seized his successor, Pope Leo III., and attempted to put out his eyes and to tear out his tongue. Boniface VI. followed Formosus in 896 A.D. He was succeeded by Stephen VIII. This man disinterred the body of Formosus, clothed the corpse in the "papal habiliments," propped it up in a chair, tried it before a council of bishops, and, to complete the disgraceful fiasco, cut off three of the fingers, and threw the body into the Tiber. The revolting crimes of Sergius III., in connection with the far-famed courtesan Theodora, cannot be commented upon in decent print. Marozia, the daughter of Theodora, overthrew Pope John X. "She surprised him in the Lateran Palace, killed his brother Peter before his face, threw him into prison, where he soon died, smothered with a pillow." For a while this amorous woman controlled the papal see.328
She made her own son pope, under name of John XI. Finally his son became pope; he was John XII. Nineteen years of age when he took the chair of St. Peter, he shocked the world to such an extent by his enormities that the emperor of Germany, Otho I., was obliged to take steps to make him behave himself. "A synod was summoned for his trial in the Church of St. Peter, before which it appeared that John had received bribes for the consecration of bishops, that he had ordained one who was but ten years old, and performed that ceremony over another in a stable." "All present" at the synod, "laymen as well as priests, cried out that he had drunk to the devil's health; that . . . he had invoked the help of Jupiter, Venus, and other demons." The bishops sent word to him to present himself before the council. Those who bore the message returned, saying they could not find him, that he had "gone out hunting." Next he sent an ultimatum to the bishops. Here it is:—
John the bishop, the servant of the servants of God, to all the bishops. We have heard tell that you wish to set up another pope; if you do this, by Almighty God, I excommunicate you, so that you may not have power to perform mass or to ordain no one.
Some venerable ecclesiastics ventured to remonstrate with him. To them he "threateningly remarked" "that Judas, as well as the other disciples, received from his Master the power of binding and loosing, but that as soon as he proved a traitor to the common cause, the only power that he retained was that of binding his own neck." At last they dismissed him from his office, Leo VIII. being elected in his stead, A.D. 963. But, the fortunes of John XII. reviving once more, he captured his rivals, chopped off the hand of one, the nose, finger, tongue of others. He finally met a violent end. Anti-pope John XVI. was so mean that the emperor Otho came down from Germany with an army, captured him, put out his eyes, cut off his nose and tongue, "and sent him through the streets mounted on an ass, with his face to the tail, and a wine bladder on his head."
But the worst of all was Benedict IX., made pontiff at the age of twelve, in 1033. A later pope, Victor III., said of him "that his life was so shameful, so foul, so execrable, that he shuddered to describe it. He ruled like a captain banditti, rather than a prelate. The people at last, unable to bear his adulteries, homicides, and abominations any longer, rose against him. In despair of maintaining his position, HE PUT UP THE PAPACY TO AUCTION." This was in 1045 A.D. Exactly 852 years before this the Roman Empire had been put up to auction by the Pretorian Guards. Therefore we may pertinently ask, How much better was the rule of the Papacy than the rule of the military monarchy? None—the crimes of the pontiffs prove them to be the most infamous set of rulers who have held sway in Europe; some of them were just as bad as the worst of the Cæsars—Nero, that monster of cruelty.
At one time there were two popes. Both were infallible, of course. Each designated the other as antichrist. Both made all Europe ring with their mutual invectives and anathemas. Rome cried out against the corruptions of Avignon; and Avignon, with equal justice, recriminated on Rome. The plain Christian people, brought up in the belief that it was a sacred duty to be in communion with the head of the church, were unable to discover, amidst conflicting testimonies and conflicting arguments, to which of the two worthless priests who were cursing and reviling each other, the headship of the church rightfully belonged.
The pope who was most nearly infallible, to our mind, was Adrian VI., elected to the pontificate in 1522. He was an austere Netherlander, a native of Utrecht, and had been a professor in the university at Louvain. The Italians always hated him; but the people of Holland were proud that their country had given one pope to the church. "Utrecht planted; Louvain watered; the emperor gave the increase," was the inscription written on the hangings suspended from the fronts of the houses. A wag wrote below the words, "And God had nothing to do with it." But we are inclined to think that God had as much to do with it, and a little more, than any of the rest of the papal elections.
Adrian wrote a book during his pontificate, in which he said, "It is certain that the pope may err in the matter of faith." We agree with Adrian, and incline toward the idea that this statement was as nearly infallible as anything a pope ever said; for the popes have proven themselves infallibly fallible.
I know of no better comment wherewith to close this biographical sketch of the popes than the words of Draper, to whose valuable research I am indebted for many facts contained in this paper:—
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.
Such is the history of the holy Roman Church, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS, AND THE MISTRESS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.