But the statement that she was a harlot merely, does not entirely describe her character. She was a drunken harlot. Drunken with what—wine? No indeed; that were a very small sin for her. She was "drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." Romanists positively declare that their church never persecutes; but with the picture of this drunken prostitute before our eyes, we shall be hard to convince. To illustrate this point fully would be to write a book of martyrs much larger than the present work; so, for lack of space only, we shall have to content ourselves with merely bringing forward a few of many historical proofs showing that they themselves claim the right to exterminate heretics.
Innumerable provincial and national councils have issued the most cruel and bloody laws for the extermination of the Waldenses and other so-called heretics; such as the Councils of Oxford, Toledo, Avignon, Tours, Lavaur, Albi, Narbonne, Beziers, Tolosa, etc. Since Papists will assert that these had no authority to establish a doctrine of the church (although they clearly reflect its spirit), I remind the reader that some of their General Councils have by their decrees pronounced the punishment of death for heresy. At least six of these highest judicial assemblies of the Romish church, with the Pope at their head, have authoritatively enjoined the persecution and extermination of heretics. Extracts from the Acts of these Councils could be given if space permitted. 1. The second General Council of Lateran (1139), in its twenty-third canon. 2. The third General Council of Lateran (1179), under Pope Alexander III. 3. The fourth General Council of Lateran (1215), under the inhuman Pope Innocent III., which exceeded in ferocity all similar decrees that had preceded it. 4. The sixteenth General Council, held at Constance in 1414. This Council, with Pope Martin present in person, condemned the reformers Huss and Jerome to be burned at the stake and then prevailed on the emperor Sigismund to violate the safe-conduct that he had given Huss, signed by his own hand, in which he guaranteed the reformer a safe return to Bohemia; and the inhuman sentence was carried out, with the haughty prelates standing by to satiate their eyes on the sight of human agony. This council also condemned the writings of Wickliffe and ordered his bones to be dug up and burnt, which savage sentence was afterwards carried into effect; and after lying in their grave for forty years, the remains of this first translator of the English Bible were reduced to ashes and thrown into the brook Swift. Well has the historian Fuller said, in reference to this subject, "The brook Swift did convey his ashes into Avon, the Avon into Severn, the Severn into the narrow seas, and they into the main ocean. And thus the ashes of Wickliffe are the emblem of his doctrie, which is now dispersed all over the world." 5. The Council of Sienna (1423), which was afterwards continued at Basil. 6. The fifth General Council of the Lateran (1514). The laws enacted in each succeeding Council were generally marked, if possible, with augmented barbarity.
Says the learned Edgar, in his Variations of Popery: "The principle of persecution, being sanctioned not only by theologians, Popes and provincial synods but also by General Councils, is a necessary and integral part of Romanism. The Romish communion has, by its representatives, declared its right to compel men to renounce heterodoxy and embrace Catholicism, and to consign the obstinate to the civil power to be banished, tortured, or killed." St. Aquinas, whom Romanists call the "angelic Doctor," says, "Heretics are to be compelled by corporeal punishments, that they may adhere to the faith." Again, "Heretics may not only be excommunicated, but justly killed." He says that "the church consigns such to the secular judges to be exterminated from the world by death."
Cardinal Bellarmine is the great champion of Romanism and expounder of its doctrines. He was the nephew of Pope Marcellus, and he is acknowledged to be a standard writer with Romanists. In the twenty-first and twenty-second chapters of the third book of his work entitled De Laicis, he enters into a regular argument to prove that the church has the right, and should exercise it, of punishing heretics with death. The heading is his, together with what follows.
"Chapter XXI. That heretics, condemned by the church, may be punished with temporal penalties and even death. We will briefly show that the church has the power and ought to cast off incorrigible heretics, especially those who have elapsed, and that the secular power ought to inflict on such temporal punishments and even death itself. 1. This may be proved from the Scripture. 2. It is proved from the opinions and laws of the emperors, which the church has always approved. 3. It is proved by the laws of the church ... experience proves that there is no other remedy; for the church has tried step by step all remedies—first excommunication alone; then pecuniary penalties; afterward banishment; and lastly has been forced to put them to death; to send them to their own place.... There are three grounds on which reason shows that heretics should be put to death: the first is, Lest the wicked should injure the righteous; second, That by the punishment of a few many may be reformed. For many who were made torpid by impunity, are roused by the fear of punishment; AND THIS WE DAILY SEE IS THE RESULT WHERE THE INQUISITION FLOURISHES," etc.
"Chapter XXII. Objections answered. It remains to answer the objections of Luther and other heretics. Argument 1. From the history of the church at large. 'The church,' says Luther, 'from the beginning even to this time, has never burned a heretic. Therefore it does not seem to be the mind of the Holy Spirit that they should be burnt!' [He surely misunderstood Luther.] I reply that this argument proves not the sentiment, but the ignorance, or impudence of Luther; FOR AS ALMOST AN INFINITE NUMBER WERE EITHER BURNED OR OTHERWISE PUT TO DEATH, Luther either did not know it, and was therefore ignorant; or if he knew it, he is convicted of impudence and falsehood,—for that heretics were often burnt BY THE CHURCH may be proved by adducing a few from many examples. Argument 2. 'Experience shows that terror is not useful.' I reply EXPERIENCE PROVES THE CONTRARY—for the Donatists, Manicheans, and Albigenses WERE ROUTED AND ANNIHILATED BY ARMS," etc.
So this high dignitary of the Catholic church, a cardinal, a nephew of one Pope and the special favorite of others, freely admits the charge so often laid to Popery by creditable historians—the butchering of an "infinite number" of people that differed from them—and here labors hard to uphold it as a principle of righteousness. Their bloody crusades against the innocent, unoffending Waldenses, Albigenses, and other peoples, in which thousands, and in the aggregate millions, were slaughtered like venomous reptiles, stand out on the page of history with a prominence that can not be mistaken; and they themselves can not deny it. Dowling has well said that their "history is written in lines of blood. Compared with the butcheries of holy men and women by the Papal Antichrist, the persecutions of the Pagan emperors of the first three centuries sink into comparative insignificance. For not a tithe of the blood of martyrs was shed by Paganism, that has been poured forth by Popery; and the persecutors of Pagan Rome never dreamed of the thousand ingenious contrivances of torture which the malignity of Popish inquisitors succeeded in inventing." P. 541.
If any of my readers suppose that the character of Popery has changed with the lapse of ages, I must tell you that such is not the ease. Popery is unchangeable and this her ablest advocates declare. Chas. Butler, in the work he wrote in reply to Southey's book of the church, says, "It is most true that the Roman Catholics believe the doctrines of their church to be unchangeable; and that it is a tenet of their creed, that what their faith ever has been, such it was from the beginning, such it is now, and SUCH IT EVER WILL BE." A copy of the eleventh edition of The Faith of Our Fathers, published in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1883, lies before me. It was written by Archbishop (now Cardinal) James Gibbons, the highest authority of the Roman Catholic church in this country. In page 95 he says: "It is a marvelous fact, worthy of record, that in the whole history of the church, from the nineteenth century to the first, no solitary example can be adduced to show that any Pope or General Council ever revoked a decree of faith or morals enacted by any preceding pontiff or council. Her record in the past ought to be a sufficient warrant that she will tolerate no doctrinal variations in the future." So the doctrine of her inherent right to persecute and slay every one who disagrees with her, which has been enacted by Pontiffs and General Councils and so carried out in the past, is still in vogue and would now be enforced were it in her power to do so.
While this statement of Gibbons' shows the unchangeable spirit of Popery, still it is the basest presumption upon the historical knowledge of the reader. The facts are that the official acts of some of their Popes and General Councils have been so far wrong that Romanists themselves have been compelled to admit it. Thus the sixth General Council, which was held at Constantinople in 680, and which every Catholic accepts as Ecumenical, condemned, in the strongest terms, Pope Honorius as a Monothelite heretic. Let them attempt to deny it, and we will bring forward our proof. Romish authors themselves admit it, the well-known Dupin with the rest, as appears by the following extract from his writings: "The Council had as much reason to censure him as Sergius, Paulus, Peter, and the other Patriarchs o£ Constantinople." He adds in language yet more emphatic, "This will stand for certain, then, that Honorius was condemned, AND JUSTLY TOO, AS A HERETIC, by the sixth General Council." Dupin's Eccl. History, Vol. II, p. 16.
The Decretals of Isodore furnish another example of Papal infallibility (?). For ages these documents were the chief instrument of the Popes in extending their power and the proof of the righteousness of their assumptions to excessive temporal authority. Wickliffe declared them false and apocryphal. For this he was condemned by the sixteenth General Council, held at Constance in 1414, and his bones ordered dug up and burnt because of his daring impudence. The spurious character of these false decretals have since been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt; and since it is impossible to deny it longer, it is admitted even by Romanists. So, after all, this infallible Council was wrong, the Papists themselves being the judges.