Violation of Faith-Theologians, Popes and Councils-Pontifical Maxims — Pontifical Actions-Councils of Rome and DiamperCouncils of the Lateran, Lyons, Pisa, Constance, and Basil-Era and influence of the Reformation.

THE Roman pontiffs, unsatisfied with the sovereignty over king and heretics, aimed, with measureless ambition, at loftier pretentions and more extensive domination. These vice-gods extended their usurpation into the moral world and in vaded the empire of heaven. The power of dissolving the obligation of vows, promises, oaths, and indeed all engagements, especially those injurious to the church, and those made with the patrons of heresy, was, in daring blasphemy, arrogated by those vicegerents of God. This involves the shocking maxim, that faith, contrary to ecclesiastical utility, may be violated with heretics. The popedom, in challenging and exercising this authority, has disturbed the relations which the Deity established in his rational creation, and grasped at claims which tend to unhinge civil society and disorganize the moral world.

Christendom, on this topic, has witnessed three variations. The early Christians disclaimed, in loud indignation, the idea of perfidy. Fidelity to contracts constituted a distinguished trait in the Christianity of antiquity. A second era commenced with the dark ages. Faith lessness, accompanied with all its foul train, entered on the extinction of literature and philosophy, and became one of the filthy elements of Romish superstition. The abomination, under the patronage of the Papacy, flourished till the rise of Protestantism. The Reformation formed a third era, and poured a flood of light, which detected the demon of insincerity and exposed it to the detestation of the world.

Fidelity to all engagements constituted one grand characteristic of primeval Christianity. Violation of oaths and promises is, beyond all question, an in

novation on the Christianity of antiquity, and forms one of the variations of Romanism. The attachment to truth and the faithfulness to compacts, evinced by the ancient Christians, were proverbial. The Christian profession, in the days of antiquity, was marked by a lofty sincerity, which disdained all falsehood, dissimulation, subterfuge, and chicanery. Death, say Justin and Tertullian, would have been more welcome than the violation of a solemn promise. A Roman bishop, in those days of purity, would have met an application for absolution from an oath with holy indignation; and the humblest of his flock, who should have been supposed capable of desiring such a dispensation, would have viewed the imputation as an insult on his understanding and profession.

But the period of purity passed, and the days of degeneracy, at the era of the dark ages entered. The mystery of ini quity, in process of time, and as Paul of Tarsus had foretold, began to work.— Christianity, by adulteration, degenerated into Romanism, and the popedom became the hot-bed of all abomination. Dispensations for violating the sanctity of oaths formed, perhaps, the most frightful feature in the moral deformity of Popery. This shocking maxim was, for many ages, sanctioned by theologians, canonists, popes, councils, and the whole Romish communion.

The theologians and canonists, who have inculcated this frightful maxim, are many. A few may be selected as specimens. Such were Bailly, Dens, Cajetan, Simanca, Aquinas, Bernard, Cornelio, the Jesuits, the Parisian university, the French clergy, and a party in the diet of Worms.

Bailly, in the class-book used in the Maynooth seminary, ascribes to the church a power of dispensing in vows and oaths.'* This the author attempts

Bailly, 2. 140. Maynooth, Report, 283.Gibert, 3. 512.

to show from the words of Revelation, which confer the prerogative of the keys in binding and loosing, and which. he concludes, being general, signify not only the power of absolving from sin, but also from promises and oaths. The moral theologian, in this manner, abuses the inspired language for the vilest purpose, and represents his shocking assumption as taught in the Bible and as an article of faith. The church, in this hopeful proposition, means the Roman pontiff, whom the canon law characterizes as the interpreter of an oath.

Dens, in his theology, the modern standard of Catholicism in Ireland, authorizes this maxim.* The dispensation of a vow, says this criterion of truth, is its relaxation by a lawful superior in the place of God, from a just cause. The superior, as the vicar of God in the place of God, remits to a man the debt of a plighted promise. God's acceptance, by this dispensation, ceases: for it is dispensed in God's name.' The precious divine, in this manner, puts man in the stead of God, and enables a creature to dissolve the obligation of a vow.

A confessor, the same doctor avers, 'should assert his ignorance of the truths which he knows only by sacramental confession, and confirm his assertion, if necessary, by oath. Such facts he is to conceal, though the life or safety of a man, or the destruction of the state, depended on the disclosure.' The reason, in this case, is as extraordinary as the doctrine. "The confessor is questioned and answers as a man. This truth, however, he knows not as man, but as God ;" and. therefore, (which was to be proved,) he is not guilty of falsehood or perjury.

Cajetan teaches the same maxim. According to the cardinal, "the sentence of excommunication for apostasy from the faith is no sooner pronounced against a king, than, in fact, his subjects are freed from his dominion and oath.†

The Irish prelacy, in the publication of Dens, showed the same disingenuousness as the University of Louvain, as well as those of Salamanca and Valladolid. These

Dens, 4. 134. 135. Dens, 6. 219. † Cajetan in Aquin. 2. 50.

archbishops and bishops, in 1808, authorized this system of persecuting theology, and encouraged, with all their influence, its circulation. All its intolerant doctrines, these dignitaries, by this means, recommended to the inferior clergy, and through them, to the priest-ridden people. Yet these same men, before the parliamentary committees and the Maynooth inquiry, disclaimed on oath and in the highest tones of indignation, all intolerance and illiberality. Murray, Doyle, Kelly, Magaurin, Curtis, and others were, in 1825, examined before the committees of the British Lords and Commons. Murray, M'Hale, Crotty, Slevin, and a long train of other doctors were, in 1826, questioned on oath before the commissioners of education at Maynooth: and all these, in the loudest accents of bursting indignation, deprecated all persecution, and soaring, in lofty aspirations, on the expansive wings of universal philanthropy, rose to the giddiest pinnacle of modern liberalism, and embraced, in the boundless range of Christian benevolence, the vast amplitude of man. The prudent doctors, like experienced seamen, adjusted the sails to the current. The end, of course, sanctified the means. The pious fraud, at the trifling expense of a little hard swearing and mental reservation, which they could easily justify out of Dens, enabled the holy bishops gloriously to vindicate their own characters, and contribute at the same time to the good of the church.*

But the days of persecution, notwithstanding these terrible exertions, will, in all probability, never return to dishonour Christianity and curse mankind. The Inquisition, with all its engines of torment and destruction, may rest for ever in inactivity. The inquisitor may exercise his malevolence and vent his ferocity in long and deep execrations against the growing light of philosophy and the Reformation; but will never more regale his ears with the groans of the tortured victim, or feast his eyes in witnessing an ACT OF FAITH. The popedom may regret its departed power. The Roman pontiff and hierarchy may indulge in dreams of future greatness, prefer vain prayers for

⚫ Dens, 6. 219.

the restoration of persecution, or, in bitter lamentation, weep over the ashes of the Inquisition. But these supplications and tears, in all likelihood, will for ever be unavailing. Rome's spiritual artillery is, in a great measure, become useless, and the secular arm no longer, as formerly, enforces ecclesiastical denunciations, or consigns the abettors of heresy to the flames.

This atrocious maxim was taught by popes, as well as by theologians. A numerous train of pontiffs might be named, who, in word and in deed, disseminated this principle. These viceroys of heaven, indeed, for many ages, engaged, with hardly an exception, in violating faith both in theory and in practice. From this mass may, for the sake of exemplifying the theory, be selected Gregory, Úrban, Paul, Alexander, Clement, Benedict, and Innocent.

Gregory, in 1080, asserted his authority to dissolve the oath of fealty.* His infallibility supported his assertion by proofs, or pretended proofs, from Scripture and tradition. This authority, his holiness alleged, was conveyed in the power of the keys, consisting in binding and loosing, and confirmed by the unanimous consent of the fathers. The contrary opinion he represented as madness and idolatry.

Urban, in 1090, followed the example of Gregory. Subjects, he declared, "are by no authority bound to observe the fealty which they swear to a Christian prince, who withstands God and the saints and contemns their precepts." The pontiff accordingly prohibited Count Hugo's soldiery, though under the obligation of an oath, to obey their sovereign.

Gregory the Ninth, in 1229, followed the footsteps of his predecessors. According to his infallibility, "none should keep faith with the person who opposes God and the saints." Gregory, on this account, declared the Emperor Frederic's vassals freed from their oath of fidelity.

Urban the Sixth imitated Gregory the Ninth. This pontiff, in 1378, declared

* Labb. 12. 380, 439, 497.

Pithou. 260. Decret. caus. 15. Quaest. 6. + Bruy. 3. 183.

that "engagements of any kind, even when confirmed by oath with persons guilty of schism or heresy, though made before their apostasy, are in themselves unlawful and void."*

Paul the Fourth, in 1555, absolved himself from an oath which he had taken in the Conclave. His holiness had sworn to make only four cardinals; but violated his obligation. His supremacy declared, that the pontiff could not be bound, or his authority limited, even by an oath. The contrary, he characterized "as a manifest heresy."+

Paul the Fifth canonized Gregory the Seventh, and inserted an office in the Roman breviary, praising his holiness "for feeing the Emperor Henry's subjects from the oath of fidelity." His absolution, as well as the deposition of the emperor, the pontiff represents as an act of piety and heroism. Paul's enactment, in this transaction, was sanctioned by Alexander, Clement, and Benedict.

Innocent the Tenth declared that "the Roman pontiff could invalidate civil contracts, promises, or oaths, made by the friends of Catholicism with the patrons of heresy." A denial of this proposi tion, his infallibility styled heresy; and those who rejected the idea of papal dispensation, incurred, according to his holiness, the penalty prescribed by the sacred canons and apostolic constitutions against those who impugn the pontifical authority in questions of faith.

The Roman pontiffs taught this diaboli. cal doctrine, not only by precept but also by example. The practice of annulling oaths and breaking faith was exemplified by Zachary, Gregory, Innocent, Honorius, Clement, Urban, Eugenius, Clement, Paul, and Pius, as the theory had been taught by Gregory, Urban, Paul, Alexander, Clement, Benedict, and Innocent. Pope Zachary, in 745, annulled the French nation's oath of fealty to King Childeric, and Stephen, Zachary's successor, afterward dissolved Pepin's allegiance to the French monarch.||

Gregory, in 1078, "absolved all from their fidelity, who were bound by oath to persons excommunicated." This sweeping and infernal sentence, his holiness, according to his own account, pronounced "in accordance with the statutes of his sacred predecessors and in virtue of his apostolic authority."*

Innocent, in 1215, "freed all that were bound to those who had fallen into heresy from all fealty, homage, and obedience."t His infallibility's dispensation extended to the dissolution of obligation and security of all kinds.

Honorius, in 1220, freed the King of Hungary from all obligations in some alienations of his kingdom, which his majesty had made and which he had sworn to fulfil. These, it appears, were prejudicial to the state and dishonourable to the sovereign. His holiness, however, soon contrived a remedy, which was distinguished by its facility and efficiency. The vicar-general of God, in the fulness of apostolic authority, "demolished the royal oath, and commanded the revocation of these alienations."‡

Clement, in 1306, emancipated Edward, King of England, from a solemn oath in confirmation of the great charter. The English monarch had taken this obligation in 1258 on the holy evangelists," and the ceremony was performed with an affecting solemnity and awful imprecations of perdition in case of violation or infringement. The Roman viceroy of heaven, however, soon removed these uneasy bonds, and furnished his British majesty with a ready license for the breach of faith and the commission of perjury. The pontiff published a bull, "granting the king absolution from his oath." The absolution, for greater comfort, was supported in the rear by an excommunication pronounced against all who should observe such an oath.

Urban imitated Clement. This plenipotentiary of heaven, in 1367, in the administration of his spiritual vicegerency, transmitted absolution to some French

Pithou, 260. Caus. 15. Q. 6. Pithou, 241. L. 5. T. 7. Greg. 9. L. 2. Tit. 24. c. 33. Pithou, 111. Bruy. 3. 358. Collier, 1. 400. Trivettus, Ann. 1306. Dachery, 3. 196, 230.

men, who had been taken prisoners by a gang of marauders who infested the French nation, and had sworn all whom they released, to remit a sum of money as the price of their liberation.* His holiness, however, having heard of the transaction, not only repealed the treaty; but with the whole weight of his pontifical authority, "dissolved the oath and interdicted the payment of the ransom.”

Eugenius the Fourth reaped laurels in this field, and outshone many of his rivals in the skilful management of the oathannulling process. His holiness, who wielded his prerogative in this way toward Piccinine and in nullifying the Bohemian compacts, was followed, in this latter transaction, by Pope Pius.Eugenius, in 1444, also induced Ladislaus King of Hungary, to break his treaty with the Sultan Amurath, though confirmed by the solemn oaths of the king and the sultan on the Gospel and the Koran. His holiness, on this occasion, introduced a variety into the system established for the encouragement of perjury, by executing his plan by proxy. Julian, clothed with legatine authority, mustered all his eloquence to effect the design; and represented, in strong colours, the criminality of observing a treaty so prejudicial to the public safety and so inimical to the holy faith. The pontiff's vicegerent, in solemn mockery, dispensed with the oath, which, being sworn with infidels, was, like those with heretics, a mere nullity. "I absolve you," said the representative of the representative of God," from perjury, and I sanctify your arms. Follow my footsteps in the path of glory and salvation. Dismiss your scrupulosity, and devolve on my head the sin and the punishment." The sultan, it is said, displayed a copy of the violated treaty, the monument of papal perfidy, in the front of battle, implored the protection of the God of truth, and called aloud on the prophet Jesus to avenge the mockery of his religion and authority. The faith of Islamism excelled the casuistry of Popery. The perjurers, whom Moreri calls Christians, "falsified their oath," took arms

Daniel, 5. 145.

against the Turks, and were defeated on the plains of Varna.*

Clement, in 1526, absolved Francis II. the French king, from a treaty which he had formed in Spain. The Emperor of Germany had taken his Christian majesty a prisoner in the battle of Pavia, and carried him to Madrid. The conditions of his engagement, which were disadvantageous, Francis confirmed by an oath. This engagement, however, the pontiff, by his apostolic power, soon dissolved, for the purpose of gaining the French king as an ally in a holy confederacy, which his infallibility had organized against the German emperor. The convention, though ratified by a solemn oath, soon yielded to apostolic power, and, more especially, as its annihilation conduced to ecclesiastical utility.

Pope Paul III. in 1535, "forbade all sovereigns, on pain of excommunication, to lend any aid, under pretext of any obligation, or oath, to Henry VIII. King of England." His holiness also "absolved all princes from all such promises and engagements.' Pius IV. treated Elizabeth as Paul had treated Henry. "His holiness annulled the oath of allegiance, which had been sworn to his majesty, by her subjects." This constitution Gregory XIII and Sixtus V. renewed and confirmed. Henry and Elizabeth had patronized schism or heresy, and therefore forfeited all claim to enjoy the conditions of plighted faith.

Councils, as well as pontiffs, encouraged this principle of faithlessness. Some of these synods were provincial and some general. Among the provincial councils, which countenanced or practised this maxim were those of Rome, Lateran, and Diamper.

A Roman council, in 1036, absolved Edward the Confessor, King of England, from a vow which he had made to visit the city of Rome and the tombs of the holy apostles. The fulfilment of his engagement, it seems, was inconvenient to his sainted majesty, and contrary to the wish of the British nation. But Leo the

Ninth and a Roman council soon supplied a remedy. His holiness presided in this assembly, which eulogized Edward's piety, and in a few moments and with great facility, disannulled his majesty's troublesome vow.*

Gregory VII. in 1076, in a Roman synod, absolved all Christians from their oath of fealty to the Emperor Henry, who, in his infallibility's elegant language, had become a member of the devil, and an enemy to the vicar-general of God.† He also interdicted all persons from obeying Henry, as king, notwithstanding their oath. This sentence the pontiff, with the approbation of the council, pronounced as the plenipotentiary of heaven," who possessed the power of binding and loosing, in the name of Almighty God, for Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

A council of the Lateran, in 1112, freed Pascal the Roman pontiff from an oath, which he had sworn on the consecrated host, on the subject of investitures and excommunication. This obligation, in all its terrors, the holy assembly, with the utmost unanimity, "condemned and annulled."+ This decision, the sacred synod, in their own statement, "pronounced by canonical authority and by the judgment of the Holy Spirit."These patrons of perjury, in the annunciation of this infernal sentence, pretended, in the language of blasphemy, to the inspiration of heaven.

Gregory the Ninth, in 1228, convened a Roman council, consisting of the bishops of Lombardy, Tuscany and Apulia, and, with the approbation of this assembly, absolved, from their oath, all who had sworn fealty to Frederic the Roman emperor. The sacred synod issued this sentence, because, according to its own statement, no person is obliged to keep faith with a Christian prince when he gainsays God and the saints. The pontiff, on this occasion, declared, in council, that he proceeded against the emperor, as against one who was guilty of heresy and who despised the keys of the

* Andilly, 558. + Labb. 12. 600. Labb. 12. 1165. Bruy. 2. 580. Platina, in Pascal.

Bruy. 3. 189. Labb, 13. 114, 1223.