The Saviour, when about to leave his apostles, prayed the Father, that as he till then had kept them, so they might be kept when he was no longer personally with them, adding: “I pray not that thou shouldst take them from the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one” (John 17:15). And his prayer was answered, for though Jew and Gentile sought their death, yet they were preserved until the church stood forth in the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ—till the perfect had come. And what a perfection it was! Perfect unfolding of the love of God, so far as that can be comprehended in this life; perfect exhibition of the plan of salvation; perfect deliverance of the faith; perfected canon of Scripture; perfected church policy; perfected hope, blooming with immortality. The last of the apostles were preserved to the church till the entire apostolic work was done. The perfect had thus come, and apostles were no more needed, and have no more been had.
But notwithstanding perfection so varied, the world is not yet brought to the Saviour. This would surprise us did we not know that departure from the faith and order has been as complete and widespread as could be. This sad condition, however, did not come unawares upon the church, for our Saviour himself, and his apostles, foretold the apostasy, and so minutely that its very existence stands out that prophets and apostles “spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.”
In the Sermon on the Mount we have this solemn note of warning: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.... By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:15-20). These false prophets were men who would tear andrend the sheep to satisfy their own greed; coming not only as enemies, but “in sheep’s clothing,” arising from among the flock.
On careful examination it will be found that the apostles never taught the disciples to look for an unbroken triumph of Christianity. Paul gives warning to the Ephesian elders concerning grievous wolves who would not spare the flock in the following words: “Take heed unto yourselves, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:28-30). These grievous, tearing wolves were to arise, not only in the church, but from among the elders. They would care for the fleece, not for the flock; speaking perverse things to draw away from the truth of God. Paul’s epistles repeat the warning to the Ephesian elders in various and awful forms. He wrote his second letter to the church in Thessalonica for the express purpose of guarding the church against the expected return of the Lord before the “falling away” in the church, “and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God setting himself forth as God” (II Thess. 2:3, 4). In this it is clearly set forth that a principle was at work in the church that would work out developments and organizations that would set aside the authority of God. The place or prerogative of God is to sit as lawmaker, to make laws for his kingdom and his people, and whoever or whatever proposes to legislate, make, repeal or modify the laws of God, add to or take from what God has said, is the man of sin, the son of perdition. Organizations in the church or over the church to do the work that God has committed to individual Christians and the churches are the works of the man of sin.
Concerning false apostles Paul gave this warning: “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ. And no marvel; foreven Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light” (II Cor. 11:12, 14). It was no wonder that false prophets and apostate elders were transforming themselves into apostles of Christ when their master was setting them the example. All who sought to turn people from God’s appointments were ministers of Satan, even though they thought they were serving God. The end of all such shall correspond to their works. From this we learn a needful warning in our day, that a man calling himself an apostle, or the successor of the apostles, is no security that Satan is not his prompter. No wonder, then, the apostasy came soon and lasts long.
In the following the apostle again plainly foretells the apostasy: “But the Spirit expressly saith that in latter times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies” (II Tim. 4:1, 2). Every one that teaches that man can in any manner set aside the law and appointments of God, or substitute man’s devices for the order of God, is a seducing spirit that turns man from the truth. Seducing spirits carry on their evil work through men who speak lies in hypocrisy.
Again the apostle brings up the awful subject: “But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, implacable, slanderous, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, head-strong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof: from these also turn away” (II Tim. 3:1-5). The condition here depicted was as certain as important. Timothy was to have no doubt about it, and he was to be continually calling it to mind. The men of the last times were to be “lovers of self” and avaricious. Men had always been so in all ages; but the characteristic of the men in question was that they were to be “holding a form of godliness,” but denying the power thereof.
But Paul is not the only one who confirms the predictionof the Lord. The whole body of the apostles are at one on this point. James says: “Whence come wars and whence comes fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your pleasures that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not; ye kill, and covet, and can not obtain: ye fight and war; ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may spend it on your pleasures” (James 4:1-3). The wolfish work had already begun; but it was little compared with what was to follow, when the proud, money-loving priest would find emperors and kings to arm in his quarrel. Peter, too, writes: “But there arose false prophets among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of” (II Peter 2:1, 2).
Jude also gives warning against the apostates predicted by Christ, and Paul, and Peter, and denounced by James. He says: “For there are certain men crept in privily, even who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). The self-styled vicar of Christ, with all his horde of dignitaries, and all the multitude of corruptions in other sectarian bodies, are sure that this can have no reference to them, because they have never denied Christ; but on the other hand have filled the world with their various creeds and confessions of faith. But it deserves consideration, whether works are not always more weighty than words. “Lord, Lord,” is loathsome to him in the mouths of the “workers of iniquity”; and Paul expressly declares that some “profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate” (Titus 1:16).
Coming down to John, the last of the apostles, and, in point of time, nearest to the apostasy, we read: “Little children, it is the last hour; and as ye heard that antichristcometh, even now have there risen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they are not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they are not of us” (I John 2:18, 19). These antichrists were not open enemies, but wolves in the garb of sheep. Then we read: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (I John 4:1). Not into the world as openly declaring their departure from the faith, but as destroyers thereof by false doctrine, while professing to be servants of Christ. Further: “For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh.” This is the deceiver and the antichrist. They went forth into the world professedly as preachers of the Gospel of Christ, yet denying his true character. Again: “I wrote somewhat unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not. Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he doeth, prating against us with wicked words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth and casteth them out of the church” (III John 9,10). Thus this bloated wolf had acquired such power in the church as to exclude those who held the truth as taught by the apostles. In the last message that God ever made to man, he said: “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, he that walketh in the midst of seven golden candlesticks: I know thy works, and thy toil and patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men, and didst try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and didst not find them false” (Rev. 2:1, 2). Thus it appears that what Paul informed the elders of the church at Ephesus he knew would come to pass after his leaving them. The wolves in that case claimed to be the accepted apostles of Christ, but were found liars.
The origin of the Roman hierarchial system is obscured in pious frauds; but it is certain that it arose gradually. As we have already learned, the apostolic churches had a plurality of elders or bishops. At the first the elders of any particular congregation would select one of their number to preside at their meetings for the transaction of business, and in the course of time he came to be known as “The Bishop.” Little by little he came to feel his importance till he was exalted above his fellow elders. This the presbyters would not concede. Divisions arose out of these troubles, and the authority of the bishops, closely united among themselves, came victorious over the presbyters, who opposed them singlehanded. The power and authority of these bishops were regulated by the prominence of the cities in which they presided. As Rome was the chief city of the world at that time, the bishops of cities of less importance regarded it an honor to themselves to concede to the bishop of Rome the pre-eminence in all things; and so he extended his authority from time to time, till almost the whole world bowed to his authority.
The changes which produced this condition are strikingly expressed by Lyman Coleman. He says:
1. In the college of equal and co-ordinate presbyters, some one would naturally act as moderator or presiding officer; age, talent, influence, or ordination by the apostles, might give one an accidental superiority over his fellows, and appropriate to him the standing office of president of the presbytery. To this office the title of bishop was assigned; and with the office and the title began to be associated the authority of a distinct order. Jerome alleges that the standing office and authority of a bishop were a necessary expedient to still the cravings and strife for preferment which by the instigation of Satan, arose in process of time among the presbyters. Whatever may have been the cause, a distinction began to be made, in the course of the second century, between bishops and presbyters, which finally resulted, in the century following, in the establishment of the episcopal prerogatives.2. Without reference to the causes which occasioned the distinction between the clergy and the laity, this is worthy of notice as another important change in the constitution of the Church, which gradually arose in connection with the rise of episcopal power. In opposition to the idea of universal priesthood, the people now became a distinct and inferior order. They and the clergy begin to feel the force of conflicting interests and claims, the distinction widens fast, and influence, authority and power centralize in the bishop, the head of the clerical order.3. The clergy claim for themselves the prerogatives, relations and authority of the Jewish priesthood. Such claims, advanced in the third century by Cyprian, were a great departure from the original spirit and model of the Church derived from Christ and the apostles. It was falling back from the New to the Old Testament, and substituting the outward for the inward spirit. It presented the priesthood again as a mediating office between man and his God. It sought to invest the propitiating priest with awful sanctity, as the appointed medium by which grace is imparted to man. Hence the necessity of episcopal ordination, the apostolical succession, and the grace of the ordinances administered by consecrated hands. The clergy, by this assumption, were made independent of the people; their commission and office were from God; and, as a Mosaic priesthood, they soon began to claim an independent sovereignty over the laity. “God makes the priests” was the darling maxim of Cyprian, perpetually recurring in identical and varied phraseology. No change, perhaps, in the whole history of the changing forms of church government can be specified more destructive to the primitive constitution of the Church, or more disastrous to its spiritual interests. “This entire perversion of the original view of the Christian Church,” says Neander, “was itself the origin of the whole system of the Roman Catholic religion—the germ from which sprang the popery of the Dark Ages.”4. Few and simple were the offices instituted in the Church by the apostles; but after the rise of episcopacy, ecclesiastical offices were multiplied with great rapidity. They arose, as may appear in the progress of this work, from different causes and at different times; many were the necessary results of changes in the Church and in society; but, generally, they will be found to have, as their ultimate effect and end, the aggrandizement of the episcopate. They are an integral, if not an essential, part of the ceremonial, the pomp and power of an outward religion, that carnal perversion of the true idea of the Christian Church, and the legitimate consequence of beginning in the spirit and seeking to be made perfect in the flesh. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, pages 97-99.)
1. In the college of equal and co-ordinate presbyters, some one would naturally act as moderator or presiding officer; age, talent, influence, or ordination by the apostles, might give one an accidental superiority over his fellows, and appropriate to him the standing office of president of the presbytery. To this office the title of bishop was assigned; and with the office and the title began to be associated the authority of a distinct order. Jerome alleges that the standing office and authority of a bishop were a necessary expedient to still the cravings and strife for preferment which by the instigation of Satan, arose in process of time among the presbyters. Whatever may have been the cause, a distinction began to be made, in the course of the second century, between bishops and presbyters, which finally resulted, in the century following, in the establishment of the episcopal prerogatives.
2. Without reference to the causes which occasioned the distinction between the clergy and the laity, this is worthy of notice as another important change in the constitution of the Church, which gradually arose in connection with the rise of episcopal power. In opposition to the idea of universal priesthood, the people now became a distinct and inferior order. They and the clergy begin to feel the force of conflicting interests and claims, the distinction widens fast, and influence, authority and power centralize in the bishop, the head of the clerical order.
3. The clergy claim for themselves the prerogatives, relations and authority of the Jewish priesthood. Such claims, advanced in the third century by Cyprian, were a great departure from the original spirit and model of the Church derived from Christ and the apostles. It was falling back from the New to the Old Testament, and substituting the outward for the inward spirit. It presented the priesthood again as a mediating office between man and his God. It sought to invest the propitiating priest with awful sanctity, as the appointed medium by which grace is imparted to man. Hence the necessity of episcopal ordination, the apostolical succession, and the grace of the ordinances administered by consecrated hands. The clergy, by this assumption, were made independent of the people; their commission and office were from God; and, as a Mosaic priesthood, they soon began to claim an independent sovereignty over the laity. “God makes the priests” was the darling maxim of Cyprian, perpetually recurring in identical and varied phraseology. No change, perhaps, in the whole history of the changing forms of church government can be specified more destructive to the primitive constitution of the Church, or more disastrous to its spiritual interests. “This entire perversion of the original view of the Christian Church,” says Neander, “was itself the origin of the whole system of the Roman Catholic religion—the germ from which sprang the popery of the Dark Ages.”
4. Few and simple were the offices instituted in the Church by the apostles; but after the rise of episcopacy, ecclesiastical offices were multiplied with great rapidity. They arose, as may appear in the progress of this work, from different causes and at different times; many were the necessary results of changes in the Church and in society; but, generally, they will be found to have, as their ultimate effect and end, the aggrandizement of the episcopate. They are an integral, if not an essential, part of the ceremonial, the pomp and power of an outward religion, that carnal perversion of the true idea of the Christian Church, and the legitimate consequence of beginning in the spirit and seeking to be made perfect in the flesh. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, pages 97-99.)
This testimony is confirmed by Neander, who says:
The changes which the constitution of the Christian Church underwent during this period related especially to the following particulars: (1) The distinction of bishops from presbyters, and the gradual development of the monarchico-episcopal church government; (2) The distinction of the clergy from the laity, and the formation of a sacerdotal caste, as opposed to the evangelical idea of the priesthood; (3) The multiplication of church offices. (Church History, Vol. I, page 259.)
The changes which the constitution of the Christian Church underwent during this period related especially to the following particulars: (1) The distinction of bishops from presbyters, and the gradual development of the monarchico-episcopal church government; (2) The distinction of the clergy from the laity, and the formation of a sacerdotal caste, as opposed to the evangelical idea of the priesthood; (3) The multiplication of church offices. (Church History, Vol. I, page 259.)
Since it has been shown that episcopacy was the outgrowth of a wicked ambition for leadership and power that culminated in the papacy, I deem it important to give ample proof, since it is yet very popular in many of the denominations of this day. I now invite attention to the testimony of Mosheim. He says:
1. The form of church government which began to exist in the preceding century was in this century more industriously established and confirmed in all its parts. One president, or bishop, presided over each church. He was created by the common suffrage of the whole people. With presbyters for his council, whose number was not fixed, it was his business to watch over the interest of the whole Church, and to assign to each presbyter his station. Subject to the bishop and also to the presbyters were the servants or deacons, who were divided into certain classes, because all the duties which the interests of the Church required could not well be attended to by them all.2. During a great portion of this century [second] all the churches continued to be, as at first, independent of each other, or were connected by no consociations or confederations. Each church was a kind of small, independent republic, governing itself by its own laws, enacted or at least sanctioned by the people. But in the process of time it became customary for all the Christian churches within the same province to unite and form a sort of larger society or commonwealth; and in the manner of confederated republics, to hold their conventions at stated times, and there deliberate for the common advantage of the whole confederation. This custom first arose among the Greeks, with whom a political confederation of cities, and the consequent convention of their several delegates, had been long known; but afterward, the utility of the thing being seen, the custom extended through all the countries where there were Christian churches. Such conventions of delegates from several churches assembled for deliberation were called by the Greeks synods and by the Latins councils; and the laws agreed upon in them were called canons, that is, rules.3. These councils—of which no vestige appears before the middle of this century—changed nearly the whole form of the Church. For by them, in the first place, the ancient rights andprivileges of the people were very much abridged; and, on the other hand, the influence and the authority of the bishops were not a little augmented. At first the bishops did not deny that they were merely the representatives of their churches, and that they acted in the name of the people; but little by little they made high pretensions, and maintained that power was given them by Christ himself to dictate rules of faith and conduct to the people. In the next place, the perfect equality and parity of all bishops, which existed in the early times, these councils gradually subverted. For it was necessary that one of the confederated bishops of a province should in those conventions be intrusted with some authority and power over the others; and hence originated the prerogatives of metropolitans. And lastly, when the custom of holding these councils had extended over the Christian world and the universal Church had acquired the form of a vast republic composed of many lesser ones, certain head men were to be placed over it in different parts of the world as central points in their respective countries. Hence came the Patriarchs, and ultimately the Prince of Patriarchs, the Roman Pontiff. (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I, pages 116, 117.)
1. The form of church government which began to exist in the preceding century was in this century more industriously established and confirmed in all its parts. One president, or bishop, presided over each church. He was created by the common suffrage of the whole people. With presbyters for his council, whose number was not fixed, it was his business to watch over the interest of the whole Church, and to assign to each presbyter his station. Subject to the bishop and also to the presbyters were the servants or deacons, who were divided into certain classes, because all the duties which the interests of the Church required could not well be attended to by them all.
2. During a great portion of this century [second] all the churches continued to be, as at first, independent of each other, or were connected by no consociations or confederations. Each church was a kind of small, independent republic, governing itself by its own laws, enacted or at least sanctioned by the people. But in the process of time it became customary for all the Christian churches within the same province to unite and form a sort of larger society or commonwealth; and in the manner of confederated republics, to hold their conventions at stated times, and there deliberate for the common advantage of the whole confederation. This custom first arose among the Greeks, with whom a political confederation of cities, and the consequent convention of their several delegates, had been long known; but afterward, the utility of the thing being seen, the custom extended through all the countries where there were Christian churches. Such conventions of delegates from several churches assembled for deliberation were called by the Greeks synods and by the Latins councils; and the laws agreed upon in them were called canons, that is, rules.
3. These councils—of which no vestige appears before the middle of this century—changed nearly the whole form of the Church. For by them, in the first place, the ancient rights andprivileges of the people were very much abridged; and, on the other hand, the influence and the authority of the bishops were not a little augmented. At first the bishops did not deny that they were merely the representatives of their churches, and that they acted in the name of the people; but little by little they made high pretensions, and maintained that power was given them by Christ himself to dictate rules of faith and conduct to the people. In the next place, the perfect equality and parity of all bishops, which existed in the early times, these councils gradually subverted. For it was necessary that one of the confederated bishops of a province should in those conventions be intrusted with some authority and power over the others; and hence originated the prerogatives of metropolitans. And lastly, when the custom of holding these councils had extended over the Christian world and the universal Church had acquired the form of a vast republic composed of many lesser ones, certain head men were to be placed over it in different parts of the world as central points in their respective countries. Hence came the Patriarchs, and ultimately the Prince of Patriarchs, the Roman Pontiff. (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I, pages 116, 117.)
Concerning this, I note the following facts:
1. That in the second century they digressed so far from apostolic practice as to have one bishop over each church, and that he had his elders under his control. He was the pastor of that church.
2. That there was a confederation of churches into councils.
3. These councils began to be held about the middle of the second century, and resulted in augmenting the power of the bishops and diminishing the privileges of the people. This power on the part of the clergy was not assumed all at once, but gradually assumed as the people would bear it. These councils soon began to enact laws, and claimed authority from Christ to thus dictate to the people.
4. That when the custom of holding these councils had extended over the Christian world, and the Church had acquired the form of a vast republic composed of many lesser ones, certain head men were placed over it in different parts of the world; hence came the patriarchs, and ultimately a prince of patriarchs, the Roman pontiff.
For centuries the struggle between the Church of Rome and the State raged furiously, so that when we reach theage of Hildebrand (A.D. 1073-1085) we find plots and counterplots the order of the day. It was the height of his ambition to subordinate the State to the Church, and subject the Church to the absolute authority of the Pope. The course pursued by Hildebrand and by aspiring pontiffs who succeeded him resulted in an open conflict between the papacy and the empire. In the persistent contest which followed the papacy gained a decided advantage. That the emperor was commissioned to preside over the temporal affairs of men, while it was left for the pope to guide and govern them in spiritual things, was a rule too vague for defining the limits of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction. The co-ordination, the equilibrium of the two powers was a relation with which neither party would be content. It was a struggle on both sides for universal monarchy. The popes, by strategy and shrewd diplomacy, gained complete supremacy over Western Europe, and for many years the pope was everywhere acknowledged head of the Latin Church.
“It was during the progress of the struggle with the empire,” says Professor Fisher, “that the papal power may be said to have culminated. In the eighteen years (1198-1216) in which Innocent III reigned the papal institution shone forth in full splendor. The enforcement of celibacy had placed the entire body of the clergy in closer relation to the sovereign pontiff. The vicar of Peter had become the vicar of God and of Christ. The idea of a theocracy on earth, in which the pope should rule in this character, fully possessed the mind of Innocent, who united to the courage, pertinacity and lofty conceptions of Gregory VII a broader range of statesmanlike capacity. In his view the two swords of temporal and ecclesiastical power had both been given to Peter and to his successors, so that the earthly sovereign derived his prerogative from the head of the Church. The king was to the pope as the moon to the sun; a lower luminary shining with borrowed light. Acting on this theory, he assumed the post of arbiter in the contention of nations, and claimed the right to dethrone kings at his pleasure.” In the Church he assumed the character of universal bishop, under the theory that all episcopal power was originallydeposited in Peter and his successors, and communicated through this source to bishops, who were thus only the vicars of the pope, and might be deposed at will. Being thus lifted up, he said: “Jesus Christ wills that the kingdom should be priestly, and the priesthood kingly. Over all he has set me as his vicar upon earth, so that as before Jesus ‘every knee shall bow,’ in like manner to his vicar all shall be obedient, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” Moreover, he applied to himself the words of Jesus, “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.” And again, we hear one of them say: “For every human creature it is a condition of salvation to submit to the Roman pontiff.” Not only did they assert the necessity of obedience to the pope, but they actually claimed the power to forgive sins and to bestow eternal life. This is a striking fulfillment of what Paul said to the Thessalonians: “He opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God” (II Thess. 2:4).
The corruption of the government of the Church naturally led to the corruption of everything connected with Christianity. A departure from the divine government in one thing opens the way for other departures. Such a course will soon cause men to lose sight of the Lord’s directions and cause them to follow the doctrines and commandments of men. Prominent among the early departures from the divine order was the substitution of infant baptism for that of believers. This practice originated in the third century, and grew out of the doctrine of original sin. It was contended that baptism was regeneration in the sense of washing away original sin; that infants were depraved by original sin, and could not be saved without this washing away of that sin, and therefore they baptized infants that they might be saved. On this point Neander testifies:
But when now, on the one hand, the doctrine of corruption and guilt, cleaving to human nature in consequence of the first transgression, was reduced to a more precise and systematic form, and, on the other from duly distinguishing between what is outward and what inward in baptism (the baptism by water and the baptism by the Spirit), the error became more firmly established that without external baptism no one could be deliveredfrom that inherent guilt, or could be saved from the everlasting punishment that threatened him, or raised to eternal life; and when the notion of a magical influence, a charm connected with the sacraments, continually gained ground, the theory was finally evolved of the unconditional necessity of infant baptism. About the middle of the third century this theory was already generally admitted in the North African Church. (Church History, Vol. I, pages 426, 427.)
But when now, on the one hand, the doctrine of corruption and guilt, cleaving to human nature in consequence of the first transgression, was reduced to a more precise and systematic form, and, on the other from duly distinguishing between what is outward and what inward in baptism (the baptism by water and the baptism by the Spirit), the error became more firmly established that without external baptism no one could be deliveredfrom that inherent guilt, or could be saved from the everlasting punishment that threatened him, or raised to eternal life; and when the notion of a magical influence, a charm connected with the sacraments, continually gained ground, the theory was finally evolved of the unconditional necessity of infant baptism. About the middle of the third century this theory was already generally admitted in the North African Church. (Church History, Vol. I, pages 426, 427.)
To the same import is the testimony of Dr. Philip Schaff. He says:
The practice of infant baptism in the church, with the customary formula, “for the remission of sins,” and such accompanying ceremonies as exorcism, presupposes the dominion of sin and of demoniacal powers even in infancy. Since the child, before the awakening of self-consciousness, has committed no actual sin, the effect of baptism must relate to the forgiveness of original sin and guilt. This was a very important point from the beginning of the controversy, and one to which Augustine frequently reverted.... Constrained by the idea of original sin, and by the supposed necessity of baptism to salvation, he does not shrink from consigning unbaptized children to damnation itself.... The Catholic doctrine of the necessity of outward baptism to regeneration and entrance into the kingdom of God, forbade him a more liberal view respecting the endless destiny of that half of the human race which die in childhood. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, pages 835, 836.)
The practice of infant baptism in the church, with the customary formula, “for the remission of sins,” and such accompanying ceremonies as exorcism, presupposes the dominion of sin and of demoniacal powers even in infancy. Since the child, before the awakening of self-consciousness, has committed no actual sin, the effect of baptism must relate to the forgiveness of original sin and guilt. This was a very important point from the beginning of the controversy, and one to which Augustine frequently reverted.... Constrained by the idea of original sin, and by the supposed necessity of baptism to salvation, he does not shrink from consigning unbaptized children to damnation itself.... The Catholic doctrine of the necessity of outward baptism to regeneration and entrance into the kingdom of God, forbade him a more liberal view respecting the endless destiny of that half of the human race which die in childhood. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, pages 835, 836.)
The departure from the practice of immersion, the original act performed in baptism, to affusion, was largely due to the idea of the magical effect of water to cleanse the polluted souls of men. It was believed to contain the whole forgiving power of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. On this account many put off baptism till death threatened them, that their iniquities might be removed as the King of terrors carried them into the land of spirits. The first case of the kind on record is that of Novatian (A. D. 251), who was “baptized by affusion in the bed as he lay.” At first this practice caused a schism in the Church, but in the course of time that which was the exception became the rule. On this radical change from apostolic practice the learned Roman Catholic bishop, Karl Joseph Hefele, says:
The Church has always been tender toward the sick; she has hastened to confer baptism upon them, because it is necessary to salvation; and for that reason she introduced clinical baptism. (History of Church Councils, page 153.)
The Church has always been tender toward the sick; she has hastened to confer baptism upon them, because it is necessary to salvation; and for that reason she introduced clinical baptism. (History of Church Councils, page 153.)
There were no serious controversies about the Lord’s Supper until the early part of the ninth century, when one Paschasius Radbert, a monk of “great acuteness of mind,” wrote a book in which he promulgated the doctrine of transubstantiation. In this book he took the position that the wine in the Lord’s Supper is “the very blood that ran out of the Saviour’s side upon the cross, and for that reason water is mingled with the eucharistical wine;” and the bread “is the very flesh of our Saviour which was born of the Virgin.” At first the doctrine was repugnant to the cultivated, but it was broached in a rude age, and the monks favored it; the materialistic character of European thought assisted it, and gradually it had a host of friends and was prepared to frown down all opposition. The controversy, however, continued with fury till A. D. 1215, when Pope Innocent III assembled a council in Rome, in the Lateran Church, consisting of 412 bishops, in whose hearing he read seventy canons which he had drawn up; among these was the famous canon which gave transubstantiation a legal place in the Catholic Church. The important part of the canon is:
There is one universal church of the faithful, out of which no one at all is saved; and in which Jesus Christ himself is at once priest and sacrifice; whose body and blood, in the sacrament of the altar, are truly constrained under the species of bread and wine, which, through the divine power, are transubstantiated, the bread into the body, and the wine into the blood; that for the fulfillment of the mystery of unity, we may receive of that which he received of ours.
There is one universal church of the faithful, out of which no one at all is saved; and in which Jesus Christ himself is at once priest and sacrifice; whose body and blood, in the sacrament of the altar, are truly constrained under the species of bread and wine, which, through the divine power, are transubstantiated, the bread into the body, and the wine into the blood; that for the fulfillment of the mystery of unity, we may receive of that which he received of ours.
Another step was taken about 350 years later, when the Council of Trent declared the host an atoning sacrifice:
And, since in the divine sacrifice which is performed in the mass, the same Christ is contained and offered in an unbloody manner, who, on the altar of the cross, offered himself, with blood, once for all; the holy synod teaches that that sacrifice is, and becomes of itself, truly propitiatory, so that if, with a true heart and a right faith, with fear and reverence, we approach to God, contrite and penitent, we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. The Lord, forsooth, being appeased by the offering of this, and granting grace and the gift of repentance, remit crimes and sins, even great ones; for it is one and the same host, the same person now offering by the ministry of the priests, who when offered himself upon the cross, only in a different manner of offering; and by this unbloody sacrifice, the fruit of that bloody one areabundantly received; only far be it that any dishonor should be done to that by this. Wherefore according to the tradition of the apostles, offering is duly made, not only for the sins, pains, and satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are alive, but also for the dead in Christ, who are not yet wholly cleansed.
And, since in the divine sacrifice which is performed in the mass, the same Christ is contained and offered in an unbloody manner, who, on the altar of the cross, offered himself, with blood, once for all; the holy synod teaches that that sacrifice is, and becomes of itself, truly propitiatory, so that if, with a true heart and a right faith, with fear and reverence, we approach to God, contrite and penitent, we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. The Lord, forsooth, being appeased by the offering of this, and granting grace and the gift of repentance, remit crimes and sins, even great ones; for it is one and the same host, the same person now offering by the ministry of the priests, who when offered himself upon the cross, only in a different manner of offering; and by this unbloody sacrifice, the fruit of that bloody one areabundantly received; only far be it that any dishonor should be done to that by this. Wherefore according to the tradition of the apostles, offering is duly made, not only for the sins, pains, and satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are alive, but also for the dead in Christ, who are not yet wholly cleansed.
This same council further declared:
If any one shall deny that in the sacrament of the most holy eucharist, there is contained really, truly, and substantially, the body and the blood together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so whole Christ, but shall say he is only in it in sign, or figure, or power, let him be accursed.
If any one shall deny that in the sacrament of the most holy eucharist, there is contained really, truly, and substantially, the body and the blood together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so whole Christ, but shall say he is only in it in sign, or figure, or power, let him be accursed.
Not content with this it declares that:
If any one shall say that in the holy sacrament of the eucharist, there remains the substance of the bread and wine, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and remarkable conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, while only the appearance of bread and wine remain, which conversion the Catholic Church most appropriately names transubstantiation; let him be accursed.
If any one shall say that in the holy sacrament of the eucharist, there remains the substance of the bread and wine, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and remarkable conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, while only the appearance of bread and wine remain, which conversion the Catholic Church most appropriately names transubstantiation; let him be accursed.
The Council of Tridentine says there is a whole Christ in every particle of the Mass:
If any one shall deny that Christ entire is contained in the venerable sacrament of the eucharist, under each species, and, when they are divided, under every particle of each kind; let him be accursed.
If any one shall deny that Christ entire is contained in the venerable sacrament of the eucharist, under each species, and, when they are divided, under every particle of each kind; let him be accursed.
The climax of blasphemy is reached when the Council of Trent asserts:
There is, therefore, no reason to doubt but that all Christ’s faithful people, in their veneration, should render this most holy sacrament the same worship which is due to the true God, according to the custom which the Catholic Church has always received.
There is, therefore, no reason to doubt but that all Christ’s faithful people, in their veneration, should render this most holy sacrament the same worship which is due to the true God, according to the custom which the Catholic Church has always received.
As the mass is the aggregate of the Romish doctrine, the confessional is the chief of the papal system. By it the decrees of the “infallible Church” are applied and carried out with unequaled measure of minuteness and rigor.
That the New Testament requires the confession of sin is not denied; but such a thing as secret confession in the ear of a priest, to secure his absolution, was entirely unknown in the early churches. Even in Rome it was not till about the year 390 that there was a place appointed for the reception of penitents, when they stood mourning during the public service, from which they were excluded. They cast themselves upon the ground with groans and lamentations; the bishop who conducted the ceremony prostrated himself and wept; flooded with fears the people groaned aloud; then the bishop arose from his humble position and summoned up the people, and, after praying for the people, he dismissed them. This custom, with slight changes, was universal. For some sins men were required to do penance during the whole of their lives, and absolution was only granted them in death; but the common course of penance consigned men for ten, fifteen or twenty years to its various humiliating stages. After the long, distressing penance was completed, “the candidate for restoration knelt down between the knees of the bishop, or, in his absence, between those of the presbyter, who, laying his hand upon his head, solemnly blessed and absolved him. The people received him with transports of joy, as one escaped from the coils of the old serpent.”
They were then received into communion with the imposition of hands, and the prayer of the whole church for them. The form of their prayer was:
O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, that takest away the sin of the world, remit, blot out and pardon their sins, both voluntary and involuntary, whatever they have done by transgression and disobedience. And whereinsoever thy servants have erred from thy commandments, in word or deed, or whatever curse or peculiar anathema they have fallenunder, we pray and beseech thine ineffable goodness to absolve them with thy word, and remit their curse and anathema, according to thy mercy. O Lord and Master, hear our prayer for thy servants and deliver them from eternal punishment.
O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, that takest away the sin of the world, remit, blot out and pardon their sins, both voluntary and involuntary, whatever they have done by transgression and disobedience. And whereinsoever thy servants have erred from thy commandments, in word or deed, or whatever curse or peculiar anathema they have fallenunder, we pray and beseech thine ineffable goodness to absolve them with thy word, and remit their curse and anathema, according to thy mercy. O Lord and Master, hear our prayer for thy servants and deliver them from eternal punishment.
Bingham informs us that the form, “I absolve you,” was not known in the practice till the beginning of the thirteenth century. Thomas Aquinas was one of the first men to write in defense of it. In his day the expression excited much opposition. Pope Innocent III, ambitious to establish a number of superstitions, called the fourth Council of the Lateran, A. D. 1215, which declared that “the church has always understood that an entire confession of sins was always appointed by the Lord, and that it is of divine requirement necessary to all who have lapsed after baptism. Because our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left his priests, his vicars, to be, as it were, the presidents and judges, to whom all mortal sins into which Christ’s faithful people should fall should be brought, in order that, by the power of the keys, they might pronounce sentence of remission or retention. For it is plain that the priest can not exercise this judgment without knowledge of the cause, nor can they observe equity in enjoining penalties if men declare their sins only generally, and not particularly and separately. From this it is inferred that it is right that the penitent should recount in confession all the deadly sins of which, upon examination, their conscience accuses them, even though they be the most secret, and only against the last two commandments, which not unfrequently grievously wounds the soul and are more dangerous than those which are openly practiced.” This invests the priesthood with the prerogative of God himself, who is the searcher and discerner of “the thoughts and intents of the heart.” To this demand all the members of the Catholic Church, whether old or young, are required to bow, as is shown by the twenty-first canon of the Lateran Council, which is as follows:
Every one of the faithful of both sexes, after he shall have reached the years of discretion, shall, by himself alone, faithfully confess all his sins, at least once a year, to his own priest, and strive to perform according to his ability the penance imposed upon him, reverently partaking of the sacrament of the eucharist, at least at Easter; unless perhaps, by the advice of his priest, for some reasonable cause, he should judgethat for a time he should abstain from partaking of it; otherwise, let the living be hindered from entering the church, and let the dead be deprived of Christian burial. On this account this salutary statute shall be frequently published in the churches that no one may pretend as an excuse the blindness of ignorance. But if any one should wish to confess his sins to a foreign priest, for proper reasons, he must first ask and obtain a license from his own priest, since otherwise he would not be able to bind or loose him.
Every one of the faithful of both sexes, after he shall have reached the years of discretion, shall, by himself alone, faithfully confess all his sins, at least once a year, to his own priest, and strive to perform according to his ability the penance imposed upon him, reverently partaking of the sacrament of the eucharist, at least at Easter; unless perhaps, by the advice of his priest, for some reasonable cause, he should judgethat for a time he should abstain from partaking of it; otherwise, let the living be hindered from entering the church, and let the dead be deprived of Christian burial. On this account this salutary statute shall be frequently published in the churches that no one may pretend as an excuse the blindness of ignorance. But if any one should wish to confess his sins to a foreign priest, for proper reasons, he must first ask and obtain a license from his own priest, since otherwise he would not be able to bind or loose him.
The confessional as it exists today is chiefly the work of the Council of Trent, and those who lived in the age immediately after. In order to strike terror to the hearts of all who might refuse to accede to the demands of the priesthood, the Council of Trent published a number of canons on penance, pronouncing the most awful curses on those who refused obedience. I have not space to give the canons, but they teach that the form of the sacrament of penance in which its force especially lies is placed in the words, “I absolve thee,” and that this absolution is not in words merely, but that “the ministers of God truly absolve.” The priest is declared to represent Christ in the confessional, and therefore is invested with divine attributes and powers. The language used is: “Moreover, in the priest who sits a legitimate judge over him, he should venerate the person and power of Christ the Lord; for in administering the sacrament of penance, as in the other sacraments, the priest discharges the office of Christ.” They further teach that the confession of sins to a priest is necessary to salvation; and that every mortal sin, even the most secret and infamous, must be confessed to a priest, otherwise there can be no pardon from God. Thus we see that they make the priest the judge of the soul, and that in the confessional he sits instead of Jesus Christ and that he can keep the sins of any man bound upon him, or loose them, according to his discretion.
In the confessional the penitent kneels beside the priest, makes the sign of the cross, saying: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” Then with her lips near the cheek of the priest she asks the priest’s blessing in these words: “Pray, father, give me your blessing. I have sinned,” after which the penitent repeats:
I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary, ever Virgin, to blessed Michael, the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to you, father, that I have sinned exceedingly, in thought, word and deed, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault!
I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary, ever Virgin, to blessed Michael, the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to you, father, that I have sinned exceedingly, in thought, word and deed, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault!
Many of the questions of the confessional are too horrible to quote. Were I to do so I would lay myself liable to prosecution by the Government authorities. But every question put by the priest must be answered by the penitent on the peril of damnation; he sits instead of Christ, the penitent is confessing to God, the voice of the priest is Immanuel’s; it is the Almighty that is addressing the trembling penitent. And for this reason the priest hears everything, however shocking, shameful, frightful; everything in thoughts, feelings, words, looks and deeds. That the modesty of women should be placed on the rack in the confessional by a bachelor priest, full of curiosity as well as sanctity, and torn and lacerated, under the awful sanctions of the Almighty, is indeed a dreadful thought.
“The confessional is the most odious espionage ever invented by cunning despots. It is the most flagitious outrage upon the rights of husbands and wives, parents and children, the sinning and the sinned against, that ever shocked modesty or ground trembling hearts under its fatal heel. It is strongly believed to be the greatest incitement to vice that a holy God ever permitted; frightful examples of which are on record. It turns priests into odious receptacles for the accumulated stench and nastiness of all the foul corruptions of thousands, making them the sons of the Man of Sin, ready bearers of the iniquities of whole communities.” Yes, it is a withering curse, a cruel tyranny, without one redeeming quality, “which the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming.”
In order to make the absolution effective, the sacrament of confession comprises penances by which the wrongs done are paid. Originally the amount of satisfaction was measured by the time alone during which the state of penance should last. As we have already seen, this situation inflicted the greatest disgrace, and caused the greatest distress of mind. But gradually a change was wrought, and penitents who showed undoubted sorrow were relieved of their penance earlier than the old usage demanded. This abridgement of the long sentence was called an indulgence, and was really the beginning of that system which reached its infamous maturity under Leo X and in the preaching of the wicked Tetzel. In that age no one knew anything of purgatory or the treasury of merits acquired by the saints, and disposed by the Pope; or even of the supreme bishop at Rome, with authority over all the churches and clergy everywhere.
At first indulgences were limited exclusively to church penances, but in process of time they embraced all the temporary punishments due the soul on earth and in purgatory. Christ, it was said, had endured and removed the eternal penalties of sin; but the sufferings short of everlasting continuance must be borne in purgatory, pilgrimages, or be removed by indulgence. The earthly sufferings could be enduring by deputy—any amount of fasting, flagellation or pilgrimage work could be discharged by substitute—and throngs of monks in time of papal darkness were competitors for the repulsive service.
It was argued that when a man performs his allotted task for the day he deserves additional reward or credit for any further services he may render. Such labors are beyond what his agreement demands; they are works of supererogation. So when a Christian leading a blameless life is persecuted and killed, as his sins did not draw his sufferings, these pains were meritorious, they were higher thana man’s deserts—these were works of supererogation. It was claimed that millions of saints in heaven had left a legacy of such merits to the Church, and that in it she had a treasury of good deeds of immense value, incapable of exhaustion, no matter how many drafts, through indulgences, the Holy Mother might make upon it. Sometimes it was said that one drop of the Saviour’s blood was sufficient for the sins of the whole world, and that all the rest went into the treasury, which the Church might give to souls in purgatory, or rich men on earth who had money to buy it, or to men not so wealthy who had some means. This was the paid-up capital of the bank of indulgences. The doctrine and practice of indulgence constitute the very center of the hierarchial system.
In the fifteenth century the disposal of indulgences became a common traffic, and public sale of them was generally preceded by some specious pretext. Often the pretenses for selling them were in reality bloody, idolatrous and superstitious. Pope John XXIII empowered his legates to absolve penitents from all sorts of crimes upon the payment of sums of money proportioned to their guilt. D’Aubigne, in his “History of the Reformation,” tells us that when such indulgences were to be published, the disposal of them was commonly farmed out; for the papal court could not always wait to have the money collected and conveyed from every country of Europe. And there were rich merchants at Genoa, Milan, Venice and Augsburg who purchased the indulgences for a particular province, and paid to the papal chancery handsome sums for them. Thus both parties were benefited. The chancery came at once into large sums of money, and the farmers did not fail of a good bargain. They were careful to employ skillful men to sell the indulgences, persons whose boldness and impudence bore due proportion to the eloquence with which they imposed upon the simple people. Yet, that this species of traffic might have a religious aspect, the Pope appointed the archbishops of the several provinces to be his commissaries, who in his name announced that indulgences were to be sold, and generally selected the men to sell them, and for this service shared the profits with the merchants who farmed them. Thesepapal hawkers enjoyed great privileges, and, however odious to the civil authorities, they were not molested. Complaints, indeed, were made against these contributions, levied by the popes upon all Europe. Kings and princes, clergy and laity, bishops, monasteries and confessors, all felt themselves aggrieved by them; the kings, that their countries were impoverished, under the pretext of crusades that were never undertaken, and of wars against heretics and Turks; and the bishops, that their letters of indulgence were rendered inefficient, and the people released from ecclesiastical discipline. But at Rome all were deaf to all these complaints, and it was not till the revolution produced by Luther that unhappy Europe obtained the desired relief.
Leo X, in order to carry on the expensive structure of St. Peter’s Church in Rome, published indulgences, with a plenary remission to all such as should contribute toward erecting that magnificent building. The right of promulgating these indulgences in Germany, together with a share in the profits arising from the sale of them, was granted to John Tetzel, a Dominican friar, a licentious wretch, but an active and enterprising spirit, and remarkable for his noisy and popular eloquence. Assisted by the monks of his order, selected as his chief agent for retailing them in Saxony, he executed the commission with great zeal and success, but with no less indecency.
That my readers may have some idea of the course pursued, I give one of his harangues. After the cross had been erected and the arms of the Pope suspended from it, Tetzel went into the pulpit, and with a tone of assurance began to extol the value of indulgences in these words:
Indulgences are the most precious and most noble of God’s gifts. This cross has as much efficacy as the very cross of Jesus Christ. Come and I will give you letters, all properly sealed, by which even the sins you intend to commit may be pardoned. I would not change my privileges for those of Saint Peter in heaven; for I have saved more souls by my indulgences than the apostle by his sermons. There is no sin so great that an indulgence can not remit; and even if one (which it doubtless is impossible) had offered violence to the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, let him pay—only let him paywell, and all will be forgiven him. Reflect then, that every mortal sin you must, after confession and contrition, do penance for seven years, either in this life or in purgatory; now, how many mortal sins are there not committed in a day, how many in a week, how many in a month, how many in a year, how many in a whole life! Alas, these sins are almost infinite, and they entail an infinite penalty in the fires of purgatory. And now, by means of these letters of indulgence, you can once in your life, in every case except four, which are reserved for the apostolic see, and afterward in the article of death, obtain a plenary remission of all your penalties and all your sins!Do you know that if any one desires to visit Rome, or any country where travelers incur danger, he sends his money to the bank, and for every hundred florins that he wishes to have, he gives five or six or ten more, that by means of the letters of this bank he may be safely repaid his money at Rome or elsewhere.... And you, for a quarter of a florin, will not receive these letters of indulgence, by means of which you may introduce into paradise not a vile metal, but a divine and immortal soul, without its running any risk.But more than this, indulgences avail not only for the living, but for the dead. For that repentance is not even necessary. Priests! nobles! merchant! wife! youth! maiden! do you not hear your parents and your other friends who are dead, and who cry from the bottom of the abyss: “We are suffering horrible torments! A trifling alms would deliver us; you can give it, and you will not!” At the very instant that the money rattles in the bottom of the chest, the soul escapes from purgatory, and flies liberated to heaven. Oh, stupid and brutish people, who do not understand the grace so richly offered! Now heaven is everywhere opened! Do you refuse to enter now? When, then will you enter? Now you can ransom so many souls! Stiff-necked and thoughtless man! with twelve groats you can deliver your father from purgatory, and you are ungrateful enough not to save him! I shall be justified in the day of judgment; but—you will be punished so much the more severely for having neglected so great salvation. I declare to you, though you should have but a single coat, you should strip it off and sell it, in order to obtain this grace. The Lord our God no longer reigns. He has resigned all power to the pope.Do you know why our most Holy Lord distributes so rich a grace? It is to restore the ruined Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, and those of a multitude of martyrs. The saintly bodies, through the present state of the building, are now, alas, beaten upon, inundated, polluted, dishonored, reduced to rottenness, by the rain and the hail. Alas, shall these sacred ashes remain longer in the mire and in degradation?“Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see:for I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things, which ye hear, and have not heard them!”
Indulgences are the most precious and most noble of God’s gifts. This cross has as much efficacy as the very cross of Jesus Christ. Come and I will give you letters, all properly sealed, by which even the sins you intend to commit may be pardoned. I would not change my privileges for those of Saint Peter in heaven; for I have saved more souls by my indulgences than the apostle by his sermons. There is no sin so great that an indulgence can not remit; and even if one (which it doubtless is impossible) had offered violence to the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, let him pay—only let him paywell, and all will be forgiven him. Reflect then, that every mortal sin you must, after confession and contrition, do penance for seven years, either in this life or in purgatory; now, how many mortal sins are there not committed in a day, how many in a week, how many in a month, how many in a year, how many in a whole life! Alas, these sins are almost infinite, and they entail an infinite penalty in the fires of purgatory. And now, by means of these letters of indulgence, you can once in your life, in every case except four, which are reserved for the apostolic see, and afterward in the article of death, obtain a plenary remission of all your penalties and all your sins!
Do you know that if any one desires to visit Rome, or any country where travelers incur danger, he sends his money to the bank, and for every hundred florins that he wishes to have, he gives five or six or ten more, that by means of the letters of this bank he may be safely repaid his money at Rome or elsewhere.... And you, for a quarter of a florin, will not receive these letters of indulgence, by means of which you may introduce into paradise not a vile metal, but a divine and immortal soul, without its running any risk.
But more than this, indulgences avail not only for the living, but for the dead. For that repentance is not even necessary. Priests! nobles! merchant! wife! youth! maiden! do you not hear your parents and your other friends who are dead, and who cry from the bottom of the abyss: “We are suffering horrible torments! A trifling alms would deliver us; you can give it, and you will not!” At the very instant that the money rattles in the bottom of the chest, the soul escapes from purgatory, and flies liberated to heaven. Oh, stupid and brutish people, who do not understand the grace so richly offered! Now heaven is everywhere opened! Do you refuse to enter now? When, then will you enter? Now you can ransom so many souls! Stiff-necked and thoughtless man! with twelve groats you can deliver your father from purgatory, and you are ungrateful enough not to save him! I shall be justified in the day of judgment; but—you will be punished so much the more severely for having neglected so great salvation. I declare to you, though you should have but a single coat, you should strip it off and sell it, in order to obtain this grace. The Lord our God no longer reigns. He has resigned all power to the pope.
Do you know why our most Holy Lord distributes so rich a grace? It is to restore the ruined Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, and those of a multitude of martyrs. The saintly bodies, through the present state of the building, are now, alas, beaten upon, inundated, polluted, dishonored, reduced to rottenness, by the rain and the hail. Alas, shall these sacred ashes remain longer in the mire and in degradation?
“Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see:for I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things, which ye hear, and have not heard them!”
When Tetzel concluded his discourse he immediately left the pulpit, ran to the money box, and, in the sight of the people, dropped into it a coin, being very careful to make it rattle so that it could be heard by the excited people. This was the signal that “indulgence had established its throne in the place with due solemnity.” Confessionals, decorated with the pope’s arms, were arranged in convenient places. On “each of these confessionals were posted in large letters the names, the surnames and titles of the under commissaries and of the confessors. Men, women and children crowded around these confessionals, all with money in their hands. Even those who lived on alms found money to buy indulgences!”
After having privately explained to each individual the greatness of indulgence, the confessors addressed the following question to each penitent: “How much money can you conscientiously spare to obtain so complete a remission?” “The demand,” said the instructions of the archbishop of Mentz to the commissaries, “should be made at this moment, in order that the penitents might be better disposed to contribute.”
To all who should aid in building the cathedral of Saint Peter in Rome, the following graces were promised: (1) The full pardon for every sin; (2) the right of choosing a confessor, who, whenever the hour of death appeared at hand, should give absolution for all sin, even from the greatest crimes reserved for the apostolic see; (3) a participation in all the blessings, works and merits of the Catholic Church, prayers, fasts, alms, and the pilgrimages; and (4) redemption of the souls that are in purgatory. To obtain the first of these graces it was said to be necessary to “have contrition of heart and confession of mouth, or at least an intention of confessing. But as for the three others they might be obtained without contrition, without confession, simply by paying.” The intention was to make it appear that whoever possessed money could, by using itin the purchase of indulgences, introduce souls into heaven. The indulgence mongers said:
As for those who would deliver souls from purgatory and procure the pardon of all their offenses, let them put money into the chest; contrition of heart or confession of mouth is not necessary. Let them only hasten to bring their money: for thus they will perform a work most useful to the souls of the dead, and to the building of the Church of Saint Peter.
As for those who would deliver souls from purgatory and procure the pardon of all their offenses, let them put money into the chest; contrition of heart or confession of mouth is not necessary. Let them only hasten to bring their money: for thus they will perform a work most useful to the souls of the dead, and to the building of the Church of Saint Peter.
The confession over, there was a rush to the trafficker, who examined very closely the dress, manner, gait and appearance of the applicant. The sum required was measured by his judgment of the financial ability of the individual. If he made a mistake about the price set, he was empowered to make the best bargain possible, “and all was to be arranged according to the data of sound reason, and the generosity of the donor.” For adultery, polygamy, sacrilege, perjury, murder, witchcraft, infanticide, and fratricide he had a particular tax. In fact, “there was no vein in the gold mine that they did not find the means of working.” Tetzel executed the commission with great zeal and success, but with no less indecency. He assured the purchasers that their crimes, however enormous, would be forgiven; that the efficacy of indulgences was so great that the most heinous sins would be expiated and remitted by them, and the person freed both from punishment and guilt; and that this was the unspeakable gift of God to reconcile men to himself.
In order that my readers may understand more fully the frightful extent of the wickedness to which the traffic led, I give the usual form of the letters of absolution, which was as follows:
May the Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve thee by the merits of his most holy passion. And I, by his authority, that of his apostles Peter and Paul, and of the most holy pope, granted and committed to me in these parts, do absolve thee, first, from all ecclesiastical censures, in whatever manner they may have been incurred; then from all thy sins, transgressions and excesses, how enormous soever they may be; even such as are reserved for the cognizance of our most holy father the pope and for the apostolic see. I remit to thee all punishment which thou deservest in purgatory on their account; and I restore thee to the holy sacraments of the Church, to the unity of the faithful, and to the innocence and purity which thou possessedst at baptism; so that whenthou diest the gates of punishment shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise of delights shall be opened; and if thou shall not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force when thou art at the point of death. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Friar John Tetzel, commissary, has signed with his own hand.
May the Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve thee by the merits of his most holy passion. And I, by his authority, that of his apostles Peter and Paul, and of the most holy pope, granted and committed to me in these parts, do absolve thee, first, from all ecclesiastical censures, in whatever manner they may have been incurred; then from all thy sins, transgressions and excesses, how enormous soever they may be; even such as are reserved for the cognizance of our most holy father the pope and for the apostolic see. I remit to thee all punishment which thou deservest in purgatory on their account; and I restore thee to the holy sacraments of the Church, to the unity of the faithful, and to the innocence and purity which thou possessedst at baptism; so that whenthou diest the gates of punishment shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise of delights shall be opened; and if thou shall not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force when thou art at the point of death. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Friar John Tetzel, commissary, has signed with his own hand.
This abolished all guilt and fear of hell in the minds of the purchasers, and inasmuch as the sale of indulgences was universally prevalent, the Church of Rome was everywhere triumphant, darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people; the children of God were driven to caves and secret places of the earth, hunted by armed bands at the command of the apostate Church. The condition was appalling!