There is a passage in the book of Judith[1] which intimates
to us, that the ancestors of the Jews themselves were persecuted
upon account of their religion. Achior, captain of
the sons of Ammon, gives Holofernes this account of the
origin of that nation. “This people are descended of the
Chaldeans; and they sojourned heretofore in Mesopotamia,
because they would not follow the gods of their fathers,
which were in the land of Chaldea; for they left the way of
their ancestors, and worshipped the God of heaven, the
God whom they knew. So they cast them out from the
face of their gods, and they fled into Mesopotamia, and
sojourned there many days.” St. Austin[2] and Marsham[3]
34both take notice of this tradition; which is farther confirmed
by all the oriental historians, who, as the learned
Dr. Hyde[4] tells us, unanimously affirm, that Abraham suffered
many persecutions upon the account of his opposition
to the idolatry of his country; and that he was particularly
imprisoned for it by Nimrod in Ur. Some of the eastern
writers also tell us, that he was thrown into the fire, but that
he was miraculously preserved from being consumed in it
by God. This tradition also the Jews believed, and is
particularly mentioned by Jonathan[5] in his Targum upon
Gen. xi. 28. “Nimrod threw Abraham into a furnace of
fire, because he would not worship his idol; but the fire had
no power to burn him.” So early doth persecution seem
to have begun against the worshippers of the true God.
[A]Socrates,[6] who, in the judgment of an oracle, was the
wisest man living, was persecuted by the Athenians on the
account of his religion, and, when past seventy years of age,
brought to a public trial, and condemned. His accusation
was principally this: “That he did unrighteously and
curiously search into the great mysteries of heaven and
earth; that he corrupted the youth, and did not esteem the
gods worshipped by the city to be really gods, and that he
introduced new deities.” This last part of his accusation
was undoubtedly owing to his inculcating upon them more
35rational and excellent conceptions of the Deity, than were
allowed by the established creeds of his country, and to his
arguing against the corruptions and superstitions which he
saw universally practised by the Greeks. This was called
corrupting the youth who were his scholars, and what,
together with his superior wisdom, raised him many enemies
amongst all sorts of people, who loaded him with reproaches,
and spread reports concerning him greatly to his disadvantage,
endeavouring thereby to prejudice the minds of his
very judges against him. When he was brought to his trial,
several of his accusers were never so much as named or
discovered to him; so that, as he himself complained, he
was, as it were, fighting with a shadow, when he was
defending himself against his adversaries, because he knew
not whom he opposed, and had no one to answer him.
However, he maintained his own innocence with the noblest
resolution and courage; shewed he was far from corrupting
the youth, and openly declared that he believed the Being
of a God. And, as the proof of this his belief, he bravely
said to his judges; “that though he was very sensible of his
danger from the hatred and malice of the people, yet that,
as he apprehended, God himself had appointed him to teach
his philosophy, so he should grievously offend him should
he forsake his station through fear of death, or any other
evil; and that for such a disobedience to the Deity, they
might more justly accuse him, as not believing there were
any gods:” adding, as though he had somewhat of the
same blessed spirit that afterwards rested on the apostles of
Christ, “that if they would dismiss him upon the condition
of not teaching his philosophy any more, ‘I will obey God
rather than you, and teach my philosophy as long as I live’.”
However, notwithstanding the goodness of his cause and
defence, he was condemned for impiety and atheism, and
ended his life with a draught of poison, dying a real martyr
for God, and the purity of his worship. Thus we see that
in the ages of natural reason and light, not to be orthodox,
or to differ from the established religion, was the same thing
36as to be impious and atheistical; and that one of the wisest
and best men that ever lived in the heathen world was put
to death merely on account of his religion. The Athenians,
indeed, afterwards repented of what they had done, and
condemned one of his accusers, Melitus, to death, and the
others to banishment.
I must add, in justice to the laity, that the judges and
accusers of Socrates were not priests. Melitus was a poet,
Anytus an artificer, and Lycon an orator; so that the prosecution
was truly laic, and the priests do not appear to
have had any share in his accusation, condemnation, and
death. Nor, indeed, was there any need of the assistance of
priestcraft in this affair, the prosecution of this excellent man
being perfectly agreeable to the constitution and maxims of
the Athenian government; which had, to use the words of a
late reverend author,[7] “incorporated or made religion a part
of the laws of the civil community.” One of the Attic laws
was to this effect: “Let it be a perpetual law, and binding at
all times, to worship our national gods and heroes publicly,
according to the laws of our ancestors.” So that no new
gods, nor new doctrines about old gods, nor any new
rites of worship, could be introduced by any person whatsoever,
without incurring the penalty of this law, which was
death. Thus Josephus tells us,[8] that it was prohibited by
law to teach new gods, and that the punishment ordained
against those who should introduce any such, was death.
Agreeably to this, the orator Isocrates,[9] pleading in the
grand council of Athens, puts them in mind of the custom
and practice of their ancestors: “This was their principal care
to abolish nothing they had received from their fathers in
matters of religion, nor to make any addition to what they
had established.” And therefore, in his advice to Nicocles, he
exhorts him to be “of the same religion with his ancestors.”
37So that the civil establishment of religion in Athens was
entirely exclusive, and no toleration whatsoever allowed to
those who differed from it. On this account, the philosophers[10]
in general were, by a public decree, banished from
Athens, as teaching heterodox opinions, and “corrupting the
youth” in matters of religion; and, by a law, very much
resembling the famous modern Schism Bill, prohibited from
being masters and teachers of schools, without leave of the
senate and people, even under pain of death. This law,
indeed, like the other, was but very short-lived, and Sophocles,
the author of it, punished in a fine of five talents.
Lysimachus[11] also banished them from his kingdom. It is
evident from these things, that, according to the Athenian
constitution, Socrates was legally condemned for not believing
in the gods of his country, and presuming to have better
notions of the Deity than his superiors. In like manner,
a certain woman,[12] a priestess, was put to death, upon an
accusation of her introducing new deities.
Diogenes Laertius[13] tells us, that Anaxagoras, the philosopher,
was accused of impiety, because he affirmed, that “the
sun was a globe of red-hot iron;” which was certainly great
heresy, because his country worshipped him as a god.
Stilpo[14] was also banished his country, as the same writer
tells us, because he denied “Minerva to be a god, allowing her
only to be a goddess.” A very deep and curious controversy
this, and worthy the cognizance of the civil magistrate.
Diagoras[15] was also condemned to death, and a talent decreed
to him that should kill him upon his escape, being accused
of “deriding the mysteries of the gods.” Protagoras
also would have suffered death, had he not fled his country,
because he had written something about the gods, that
differed from the orthodox opinions of the Athenians. Upon
38the same account, Theodorus, called Atheus, and Theotimus,[16]
who wrote against Epicurus, being accused by Zeno,
an Epicurean, were both put to death.
The Lacedemonians[17] constantly expelled foreigners, and
would not suffer their own citizens to dwell in foreign parts,
because they imagined that both the one and the other
tended to corrupt and weaken their own laws; nor would
they suffer the teaching of rhetoric or philosophy, because
of the quarrels and disputes that attended it. The Scythians,
who delighted in human blood, and were, as Josephus says,[18]
little different from beasts, yet were zealously tenacious of
their own rites, and put Anacharsis, a very wise person, to
death, because he seemed to be very fond of the Grecian
rites and ceremonies. [D]Herodotus[19] says, that he was shot
through the heart with an arrow, by Saulius their king, for
sacrificing to the mother of the gods after the manner of the
Grecians; and that Scyles, another of their kings, was
deposed by them, for sacrificing to Bacchus, and using the
Grecian ceremonies of religion, and his head afterwards cut
off by Octamasades, who was chosen king in his room. “So
rigid were they,” says the historian,[20] “in maintaining their
own customs, and so severe in punishing the introducers of
foreign rites.” Many also amongst the Persians[21] were put to
death, on the same account. And, indeed, it was almost the
practice of all nations to punish those who disbelieved or
derided their national gods; as appears from Timocles,
who, speaking of the gods of the Egyptians,[22] says, “How
shall the ibis, or the dog, preserve me?” And then adds,
“Where is the place that doth not immediately punish those
who behave impiously towards the gods, such as are confessed
to be gods?”
39
Juvenal[23] gives us a very tragical account of some disputes
and quarrels about religion amongst the Egyptians,
who entertained an eternal hatred and enmity against each
other, and eat and devoured one another, because they did
not all worship the same god.
“
[24]Ombos and Tentyr, neighbouring towns, of late,
Broke into outrage of deep fester’d hate.
Religious spite and pious spleen bred first
This quarrel, which so long the bigots nurst.
Each calls the other’s god a senseless stock,
His own, divine, tho’ from the self-same block.
At first both parties in reproaches jar,
And make their tongues the trumpets of the war.
Words serve but to inflame the warlike lists,
Who wanting weapons clutch their horny fists.
Yet thus make shift t’ exchange such furious blows,
Scarce one escapes with more than half a nose.
Some stand their ground with half their visage gone,
But with the remnant of a face fight on.
Such transform’d spectacles of horror grow,
That not a mother her own son would know,
One eye remaining for the other spies,
Which now on earth a trampled gelly lies.”
All this religious zeal hitherto is but mere sport and
childish play, and therefore they piously proceed to farther
violences; to hurling of stones, and throwing of arrows, till
40one party routs the other, and the conquerors feast themselves
on the mangled bodies of their divided captives.
“Yet hitherto both parties think the fray
But mockery of war, mere children’s play.
This whets their rage, to search for stones——
An Ombite wretch (by headlong strait betray’d,
And falling down i’th’ rout) is prisoner made.
Whose flesh torn off by lumps the ravenous foe
In morsels cut, to make it farther go.
His bones clean pick’d, his very bones they gnaw;
No stomach’s balk’d, because the corps is raw.
T’ had been lost time to dress him: keen desire
Supplies the want of kettle, spit, and fire.”
Plutarch[25] also relates, that in his time some of the Egyptians
who worshipped a dog, eat one of the fishes, which
others of the Egyptians adored as their deity; and that
upon this, the fish eaters laid hold on the other’s dogs, and
sacrificed and eat them; and that this gave occasion to a
bloody battle, in which a great number were destroyed on
both sides.
Antiochus Epiphanes, though a very wicked prince,
yet was a great zealot for his religion, and endeavoured to
propagate it by all the methods of the most bloody persecution.
Josephus[26] tells us, that after he had taken Jerusalem,
41and plundered the temple, he caused an altar to be built in
it, upon which he sacrificed swine, which were an abomination
to the Jews, and forbidden by their laws. Not content
with this, he compelled them to forsake the worship of the
true God, and to worship such as he accounted deities;
building altars and temples to them in all the towns and
streets, and offering swine upon them every day. He commanded
them to forbear circumcising their children, grievously
threatening such as should disobey his orders. He
also appointed overseers, or bishops, to compel the Jews to
come in, and do as he had ordered them. Such as rejected
it, were continually persecuted, and put to death, with the
most grievous tortures. He ordered them to be cruelly
scourged, and their bodies to be tore, and, before they
expired under their tortures, to be crucified. The women,
and the children which they circumcised, were, by his command,
hanged; the children hanging from the necks of their
crucified parents. Wherever he found any of the sacred
books, or of the law, he destroyed them, undoubtedly to
prevent the propagation of heretical opinions, and punished
with death such as kept them. The same author tells us
also, in his History of the Maccabees, that Antiochus put
forth an edict, whereby he made it death for any to observe
the Jewish religion, and compelled them, by tortures, to
abjure it. The inhuman barbarities he exercised upon
Eleazar and the Maccabees, because they would not renounce
their religion, and sacrifice to his Grecian gods, are
not, in some circumstances, to be paralleled by any histories
of persecution extant; and will ever render the name and
memory of that illustrious tyrant execrable and infamous.
It was on the same religious account that he banished the
philosophers[27] from all parts of his kingdom; the charge
against them being, “their corrupting the youth,” i. e. teaching
them notions of the gods, different from the common
42orthodox opinions which were established by law; and commanded
Phanias, that such youths as conversed with them
should be hanged.
The very civil constitution of Rome was founded upon
persecuting principles. [B]Tertullian[28] tells us, “that it was
an ancient decree that no emperor should consecrate a new
god, unless he was approved by the senate;” and one of
the standing laws of the republic was to this effect, as
Cicero[29] gives it: “that no one should have separately new
gods, no nor worship privately foreign gods, unless admitted
by the commonwealth.” This law he endeavours to vindicate
by reason and the light of nature, by adding,[30] “that for
persons to worship their own, or new, or foreign gods,
would be to introduce confusion and strange ceremonies in
religion.” So true a friend was this eminent Roman, and
great master of reason, to uniformity of worship; and so
little did he see the equity, and indeed necessity of an universal
toleration in matters of religion. Upon this principle,
after he had reasoned well against the false notions of
God that had obtained amongst his countrymen, and the
public superstitions of religion, he concludes with what was
enough to destroy the force of all his arguments:[31] “It is the
part of a wise man to defend the customs of his ancestors,
by retaining their sacred rites and ceremonies.” Thus narrow
was the foundation of the Roman religion, and thus inconsistent
43the sentiments of the wisest heathens with all the
principles of toleration and universal liberty.
And agreeable to this settlement they constantly acted.
A remarkable instance of which we have in Livy, the Roman
historian; he tells us,[32] “that such a foreign religion spread
itself over the city, that either men or the gods seemed
entirely changed; that the Roman rites were not only forsaken
in private, and within the houses, but that even publicly,
in the forum and capitol, great numbers of women
flocked together, who neither sacrificed nor prayed to the
gods, according to the manner of their ancestors.—This
first excited the private indignation of good men, till at
length it reached the fathers, and became a public complaint.
The senate greatly blamed the Ædiles and capital
Triumvirs, that they did not prohibit them; and when they
endeavoured to drive away the multitude from the forum,
and to throw down the things they had provided for performing
their sacred rites, they were like to be torn in
pieces. And when the evil grew too great to be cured by
inferior magistrates, the senate ordered M. Atilius, the
prætor of the city, to prevent the people’s using these religions.”
He accordingly published this decree of the senate,
that “whoever had any fortune-telling books, or prayers, or
ceremonies about sacrifices written down, they should bring
all such books and writings to him, before the calends of
April; and that no one should use any new or foreign rite
of sacrificing in any public or sacred place.”
Mecenas,[33] in his Advice to Augustus, says to him: “Perform
divine worship in all things exactly according to the
custom of your ancestors, and compel others to do so also;
and as to those who make any innovations in religion, hate
and punish them; and that not only for the sake of the gods,
but because those who introduce new deities, excite others
to make changes in civil affairs. Hence conspiracies, seditions,
44and riots, things very dangerous to government.”
Accordingly Suetonius, in his life of this prince,[34] gives him
this character: “that though he religiously observed the
ancient prescribed ceremonies, yet he contemned all other
foreign ones; and commended Caius, for that passing by
Judea, he would not pay his devotions at Jerusalem.” He
also, as the same author tells us,[35] made a law, very much
resembling our test act, by which he commanded, “that
before any of the senators should take their places in
council, they should offer frankincense and wine upon the
altar of that god in whose temple they met.” It was no
wonder therefore that Christianity, which was so perfectly
contrary to the whole system of pagan theology, should be
looked upon with an evil eye; or that when the number of
Christians increased, they should incur the displeasure of
the civil magistrate, and the censure of the penal laws that
were in force against them.
The first public persecution of them by the Romans was
begun by that monster of mankind, Nero; who to clear himself
of the charge of burning Rome, endeavoured to fix the
crime on the Christians; and having thus falsely and tyrannically
made them guilty, he put them to death by various
methods of exquisite cruelty. But though this was the
pretence for this barbarity towards them, yet it evidently
appears from undoubted testimonies, that they were before
hated upon account of their religion, and were therefore
fitter objects to fall a sacrifice to the resentment and fury of
the tyrant. For [C]Tacitus tells us,[36] “that they were hated
for their crimes.” And what these were, he elsewhere sufficiently
informs us, by calling their religion “an execrable
superstition.” In like manner Suetonius, in his life of Nero,
speaking of the Christians, says, “they were a set of men
who had embraced a new and accursed superstition.” And
45ïtherefore Tacitus farther informs us,[37] that those who confessed
themselves Christians, “were condemned, not so much
for the crime of burning the city, as for their being hated by
all mankind.” So that it is evident from these accounts,
that it was through popular hatred of them for their religion,
that they were thus sacrificed to the malice and fury of Nero.
Many of them he dressed up in the skins of wild beasts, that
they might be devoured by dogs. Others he crucified. Some
he cloathed in garments of pitch and burnt them, that by
their flames he might supply the absence of the day-light.
The persecution begun by Nero was revived, and carried
on by Domitian, who put some to death, and banished others
upon account of their religion. Eusebius mentions Flavia
Domitilla,[38] neice to Flavius Clemens, then consul, as
banished for this reason to the island Pontia. Dion the
historian’s account of this affair is somewhat different. He
tellstells us,[39] “that Fabius Clemens, the consul, Domitian’s cousin,
who had married Flavia Domitilla, a near relation of Domitian,
was put to death by him, and Domitilla banished to
Pandataria, being both accused of atheism; and that on the
same account many who had embraced the Jewish rites
were likewise condemned, some of whom were put to death,
and others had their estates confiscated.” I think this
account can belong to no other but the Christians, whom
Dion seems to have confounded with the Jews; a mistake
into which he and others might naturally fall, because the
first Christians were Jews, and came from the land of Judea.
The crime with which these persons were charged, was
atheism; the crime commonly imputed to Christians, because
they refused to worship the Roman deities. And as
there are no proofs, that Domitian ever persecuted the Jews
upon account of their religion, nor any intimation of this
nature in Josephus, who finished his Antiquities towards the
latter end of Domitian’s reign; I think the account of
46Eusebius, which he declares he took from writers, who were
far from being friends to Christianity, is preferable to that
of Dion’s; and that therefore these persecutions by Domitian
were upon account of Christianity. However, they
did not last long; for as Eusebius tells us,[40] he put a stop to
them by an edict in their favour. Tertullian[41] also affirms
the same; and adds, that he recalled those whom he had
banished. So that though this is reckoned by ecclesiastical
writers as the second persecution, it doth not appear to
have been general, or very severe. Domitian[42] also expelled
all the philosophers from Rome and Italy.
Under Trajan, otherwise a most excellent prince, began
the third persecution, in the 14th year of his reign. In
answer to a letter of Pliny, he ordered: “that the Christians
should not be sought after, but that if they were
accused and convicted of being Christians they should be
punished; such only excepted as should deny themselves to
be Christians, and give an evident proof of it by worshipping
his gods.” These were to receive pardon upon
this their repentance, how much soever they might have
been suspected before. From this imperial rescript it is
abundantly evident, that this persecution of the Christians by
Trajan was purely on the score of their religion, because he
orders, that whosoever was accused and convicted of being
a Christian should be punished with death, unless he
renounced his profession, and sacrificed to the gods. All
that was required, says Tertullian,[43] was “merely to confess
the name, without any cognizance being taken of any
crime.” Pliny himself, in his letter to the emperor, acquits
them of every thing of this nature, and tells him,
“that all they acknowledged was, that their whole crime
or error consisted in this, that at stated times they were
used to meet before day-light, and to sing an hymn to
Christ as God; and that they bound themselves by an
47oath not to commit any wickedness, such as thefts, robberies,
adulteries, and the like.” And to be assured of the
truth of this, he put two maids to the torture, and after
examining them, found them guilty of nothing but “a wicked
and unreasonable superstition.” This is the noblest vindication
of the purity and innocency of the Christian assemblies,
and abundantly justifies the account of Eusebius,[44] from
Hegesippus: “that the church continued until these times
as a virgin pure and uncorrupted;” and proves beyond all
contradiction, that the persecution raised against them was
purely on a religious account, and not for any immoralities
and crimes against the laws, that could be proved against
the Christians; though their enemies slandered them with
the vilest, and hereby endeavoured to render them hateful
to the whole world. “Why,” says Tertullian,[45] “doth a
Christian suffer, but for being of their number? Hath any
one proved incest, or cruelty upon us, during this long
space of time? No; it is for our innocence, probity, justice,
chastity, faith, veracity, and for the living God that we are
burnt alive.” Pliny was forced to acquit them from every
thing but “an unreasonable superstition,” i. e. their resolute
adherence to the faith of Christ. And yet, though innocent
in all other respects, when they were brought before his
tribunal, he treated them in this unrighteous manner: he
only asked them, whether they were Christians? If they confessed
it, he asked them the same question again and again,
adding threatenings to his questions. If they persevered in
their confession, he condemned them to death, because whatever
their confession might be, he was very sure, “that
their stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy deserved punishment.”
So that without being convicted of any crime, but
that of constancy in their religion, this equitable heathen,
this rational philosopher, this righteous judge, condemns
them to a cruel death. And for this conduct the emperor,
his master, commends him. For in answer to Pliny’s question,
48“Whether he should go on to punish the name itself,
though chargeable with no crimes, or the crimes only which
attended the name?” Trajan in his rescript, after commending
Pliny, orders, “that if they were accused and convicted
of being Christians, they should be put to death, unless they
renounced that name, and sacrificed to his gods.” Tertullian
and Athenagoras, in their Apologies, very justly inveigh
with great warmth against this imperial rescript; and
indeed, a more shameful piece of iniquity was never
practised in the darkest times of popery. I hope also my
reader will observe, that this was lay-persecution, and owed
its rise to the religious zeal of one of the best of the Roman
emperors, and not only to the contrivances of cruel and
designing priests; that it was justified and carried on by a
very famous and learned philosopher, whose reason taught
him, that what he accounted superstition, if incurable, was
to be punished with death; and that it was managed with
great fury and barbarity, multitudes of persons in the several
provinces being destroyed merely on account of the Christian
name, by various and exquisite methods of cruelty.
The rescript of Adrian, his successor, to Minutius Fundanus,
pro-consul of Asia, seems to have somewhat abated the
fury of this persecution, though not wholly to have put an
end to it. Tertullian tells us[46] that Arrius Antoninus, afterwards
emperor, then pro-consul of Asia, when the Christians
came in a body before his tribunal, ordered some of them to
be put to death; and said to others: “You wretches! If
you will die, ye have precipices and halters.” He also says,
that several other governors of provinces punished some
few Christians, and dismissed the rest; so that the persecution
was not so general, nor severe as under Trajan.
Under Antoninus Pius the Christians were very cruelly
treated in some of the provinces of Asia, which occasioned
Justin Martyr to write his first Apology. It doth not, however,
appear to have been done, either by the order or
49consent of this emperor. On the contrary, he wrote letters
to the cities of Asia, and particularly to those of Larissa,
Thessalonica, Athens, and all the Greeks, that they should
create no new troubles to them. It is probable, that the
Asiatic cities persecuted them by virtue of some former
imperial edicts, which do not appear ever to have been
recalled; and, perhaps, with the connivance of Antoninus
Philosophus, the colleague and successor of Pius in the
empire.
Under him began, as it is generally accounted, the
fourth persecution, upon which Justin Martyr wrote his
second Apology, Meliton his, and Athenagoras his Legation
or Embassy for the Christians. Meliton, as Eusebius relates
it,[47] complains of it as “an almost unheard of thing, that
pious men were now persecuted, and greatly distressed by
new decrees throughout Asia; that most impudent informers,
who were greedy of other persons’ substance, took
occasion from the imperial edicts, to plunder others who
were entirely innocent.“ After this he humbly beseeches
the emperor, that he would not suffer the Christians to be
any longer used in so cruel and unrighteous a manner.
[E]Justin Martyr,[48] in the account he gives of the martyrdom
of Ptolemæus, assures us, that the only question asked him
was, “whether he was a Christian?” And upon his confession
that he was, he was immediately ordered to the
slaughter. Lucius was also put to death for making the
same confession, and asking Urbicus the prefect, why he
condemned Ptolemy, who was neither convicted of adultery,
rape, murder, theft, robbery, nor of any other crime, but
only for owning himself to be a Christian. From these
accounts it is abundantly evident, that it was still the very
name of a Christian that was made capital; and that these
cruelties were committed by an emperor who was a great
master of reason and philosophy; not as punishments upon
50offenders against the laws and public peace, but purely for
the sake of religion and conscience; committed, to maintain
and propagate idolatry, which is contrary to all the
principles of reason and philosophy, and upon persons of
great integrity and virtue in heart and life, for their adherence
to the worship of one God, which is the foundation of
all true religion, and one of the plainest and most important
articles of it. The tortures which the persecutors
of the Christians applied, and the cruelties they exercised
on them, enough, one would think, to have overcome the
firmest human resolution and patience, could never extort
from them a confession of that guilt their enemies would
gladly have fixed on them. And yet innocent as they were
in all respects, they were treated with the utmost indignity,
and destroyed by such inventions of cruelty, as were abhorrent
to all the principles of humanity and goodness. They
were, indeed, accused of atheism, i. e. for not believing in,
and worshipping the fictitious gods of the heathens. This
was the cry of the multitude against [F]Polycarp:[49] “This is
the doctor of Asia, the father of the Christians, the subverter
of our gods, who teaches many that they must not
perform the sacred rites, nor worship our deities.” This
was the reason of the tumultuous cry against him, “away
with these atheists.” But would not one have imagined
that reason and philosophy should have informed the emperor,
that this kind of atheism was a real virtue, and
deserved to be encouraged and propagated amongst mankind?
No: reason and philosophy here failed him, and his
blind attachment to his country’s gods caused him to shed
much innocent blood, and to become the destroyer of “the
saints of the living God.”[50] At last, indeed, the emperor
seems to have been sensible of the great injustice of this
persecution, and by an edict ordered they should be no
longer punished for being Christians.
51I shall not trouble my reader with an account of this
persecution as carried on by Severus, Decius, Gallus,
Valerianus, Dioclesian, and others of the Roman emperors;
but only observe in general, that the most excessive and
outrageous barbarities were made use of upon all who
would not blaspheme Christ, and offer incense to the imperial
gods: they were publicly whipped; drawn by the
heels through the streets of cities; racked till every bone
of their bodies was disjointed; had their teeth beat out;
their noses, hands and ears cut off; sharp pointed spears
ran under their nails; were tortured with melted lead
thrown on their naked bodies; had their eyes dug out;
their limbs cut off; were condemned to the mines; ground
between stones; stoned to death; burnt alive; thrown
headlong from high buildings; beheaded; smothered in
burning lime-kilns; ran through the body with sharp
spears; destroyed with hunger, thirst, and cold; thrown
to the wild beasts; broiled on gridirons with slow fires;
cast by heaps into the sea; crucified; scraped to death with
sharp shells; torn in pieces by the boughs of trees; and,
in a word, destroyed by all the various methods that the
most diabolical subtlety and malice could devise.
It must indeed be confessed, that under the latter emperors
who persecuted the Christians, the simplicity and
purity of the Christian religion were greatly corrupted, and
that ambition, pride and luxury, had too generally prevailed
both amongst the pastors and people. [G]Cyprian,
who lived under the Decian persecution, writing concerning
it to the presbyters and deacons,[51] says: “It must be owned
and confessed, that this outrageous and heavy calamity,
which hath almost devoured our flock, and continues to
devour it to this day, hath happened to us because of our
sins, since we keep not the way of the Lord, nor observe his
heavenly commands given to us for our salvation. Though
52our Lord did the will of his Father, yet we do not the will
of the Lord. Our principal study is to get money and
estates; we follow after pride; we are at leisure for nothing
but emulation and quarrelling; and have neglected
the simplicity of the faith. We have renounced this world
in words only, and not in deed. Every one studies to
please himself, and to displease others.” After Cyprian,
Eusebius the historian gives a sad account of the degeneracy
of Christians, about the time of the Dioclesian
persecution: he tells us,[52] “That through too much liberty
they grew negligent and slothful, envying and reproaching
one another; waging, as it were, civil wars between themselves,
bishops quarrelling with bishops, and the people
divided into parties: that hypocrisy and deceit were grown
to the highest pitch of wickedness; that they were become
so insensible, as not so much as to think of appeasing the
divine anger, but that, like atheists, they thought the world
destitute of any providential government and care, and thus
added one crime to another; that the bishops themselves
had thrown off all care of religion, were perpetually contending
with one another, and did nothing but quarrel with,
and threaten, and envy, and hate one another; were full of
ambition, and tyrannically used their power.” This was
the deplorable state of the Christian church, which God,
as Eusebius well observes, first punished with a gentle
hand; but when they grew hardened and incurable in their
vices, he was pleased to let in the most grievous persecution
upon them, under Dioclesian, which exceeded in severity
and length all that had been before.
From these accounts it evidently appears, that the Christian
world alone is not chargeable with the guilt of persecution
on the score of religion. It was practised long
before Christianity was in being, and first taught the
Christians by the persecuting heathens. The most eminent
philosophers espoused and vindicated persecuting
53principles; and emperors, otherwise excellent and good,
made no scruple of destroying multitudes on a religious
account, such as Trajan, and Aurelius Verus. And I think
I may farther add, that the method of propagating religion
by cruelty and death, owes its invention to lay policy and
craft; and that how servilely soever the priesthood hath
thought fit to imitate them, yet that they have never exceeded
them in rigour and severity. I can trace out the
footsteps but of very few priests in the foregoing accounts;
nor have I ever heard of more excessive cruelties than those
practised by Antiochus, the Egyptian heretic eaters, and the
Roman emperors. I may farther add on this important
article, that it is the laity who have put it in the power of
the priests to persecute, and rendered it worth their while
to do it; they have done it by the authority of the civil
laws, as well as employed lay hands to execute the drudgery
of it. The emoluments of honours and riches that
have been annexed to the favourite religion and priesthood
is the establishment of civil society, whereby religion hath
been made extremely profitable, and the “gains of godliness”
worth contending for. Had the laity been more
sparing in their grants, and their civil constitutions formed
upon the generous and equitable principle of an universal
toleration, persecution had never been heard of amongst
men. The priests would have wanted not only the power,
but the inclination to persecute; since few persons have
such an attachment either to what they account religion or
truth, as to torment and destroy others for the sake of it,
unless tempted with the views of worldly ambition, power
and grandeur. These views will have the same influence
upon all bad minds, whether of the priesthood or laity, who,
when they are determined at all hazards to pursue them, will
use all methods, right or wrong, to accomplish and secure
them.
As, therefore, the truth of history obliges me to compliment
the laity with the honour of this excellent invention,
for the support and propagation of religion; and as its continuance
54in the world to this day is owing to the protection
and authority of their laws, and to certain political ends and
purposes they have to serve thereby; the loading the priesthood
only, or principally, with the infamy and guilt of it, is
a mean and groundless scandal; and to be perpetually objecting
the cruelties that have been practised by some who
have called themselves Christians, on others for conscience-sake,
as an argument against the excellency of the Christian
religion, or with a view to prejudice others against it, is an
artifice unworthy a person of common understanding and
honesty. Let all equally share the guilt, who are equally
chargeable with it; and let principles be judged of by what
they are in themselves, and not by the abuses which bad
men may make of them. If any argument can be drawn from
these, we may as well argue against the truth and excellency
of philosophy, because Cicero espoused the principles of
persecution, and Antoninus the philosopher authorized all the
cruelties attending it. But the question in these cases is
not, what one who calls himself a philosopher or a Christian
doth, but what true philosophy and genuine Christianity lead
to and teach; and if persecution be the natural effect of either
of them, it is neither in my inclination or intention to defend
them.
It may be thought needless to bring the Mahometans
into this reckoning, it being well known that their avowed
method of propagating religion is by the sword; and that it
was a maxim of Mahomet, “not to suffer two religions to
be in Arabia.” But this is not all; as they are enemies to
all other religions but their own, so they are against toleration
55of heretics amongst themselves, and have oftentimes
punished them with death. [H]Hottinger[53] gives us an account
of a famous dispute amongst them concerning the Coran,
whether it was “the created” or “uncreated word of God?”
Many of their califfs were of opinion that it was created, and
issued their orders that the Musselmen should be compelled
to believe it.[54] And as for those who denied it, many were
whipped; others put in chains; and others murdered. Many,
also, were slain, for not praying in a right posture towards
the temple at Mecca.[55] The same author farther tells us,
that there are some heretics, who, whenever they are found,
are burnt to death. The enmity between the Persians and
Turks,[56] upon account of their religious difference, is irreconcileable
and mortal; so that they would, each of them,
rather tolerate a Christian than one another. But I pass
from these things to the history of Christian persecution.
BOOK II. OF THE PERSECUTIONS UNDER THE CHRISTIAN EMPERORS. — SECT. I. Of the dispute concerning Easter. — SECT. II. Of the persecutions begun by Constantine. — SECT. III. The Nicene Council. — SECT. IV. The first council of Constantinople; or second general council. — SECT. V. The council of Ephesus; or third general council. — SECT. VI The council of Chalcedon; or fourth general council. — SECT. VII. The second council at Constantinople; or fifth general council. — SECT. VIII. The third council at Constantinople; or sixth general council. — SECT. IX. The second Nicene council; or seventh general council.
56
If any person was to judge of the nature and spirit of
the Christian religion, by the spirit and conduct only of too
many who have professed to believe it in all nations, and
almost throughout all ages of the Christian church, he could
scarce fail to censure it as an institution unworthy the God
of order and peace, subversive of the welfare and happiness
of societies, and designed to enrich and aggrandize a few
only, at the expence of the liberty, reason, consciences,
substance, and lives of others. For what confusions and
calamities, what ruins and desolations, what rapines and
murders, have been introduced into the world, under the
“pretended authority” of Jesus Christ, and supporting and
propagating Christianity? What is the best part of our
ecclesiastical history, better than an history of the pride
and ambition, the avarice and tyranny, the treachery and
cruelty of some, and of the persecutions and dreadful
miseries of others? And what could an unprejudiced person,
acquainted with this melancholy truth, and who had
never seen the sacred records, nor informed himself from
thence of the genuine nature of Christianity, think, but that
it was one of the worst religions in the world, as tending to
destroy all natural sentiments of humanity and compassion,
and inspiring its votaries with that “wisdom which is from
beneath,” and which is “earthly, sensual, and devilish!” If
this charge could be justly fixed upon the religion of Christ,
it would be unworthy the regard of every wise and good
man, and render it both the interest and duty of every nation
in the world to reject it.
57
It must be allowed by all who know any thing of the
progress of the Christian religion, that the first preachers
and propagators of it, used none of the vile methods of persecution
and cruelty to support and spread it. Both their
doctrines and lives destroy every suspicion of this nature;
and yet in their times the beginnings of this spirit appeared:
“Diotrephes loved the pre-eminence,” and, therefore, would
not own and receive the inspired apostle. We also read,
that there were great divisions and schisms in the church of
Corinth, and that many grievous disorders were caused
therein, by their ranking themselves under different leaders
and heads of parties, one being for Paul, another for Apollos,
and others for Cephas. These animosities were with
difficulty healed by the apostolic authority; but do not, however,
appear to have broken out into mutual hatreds, to the
open disgrace of the Christian name and profession. The
primitive Christians seem for many years generally to have
maintained the warmest affection for each other, and to have
distinguished themselves by their mutual love, the great
characteristic of the disciples of Christ. The gospels, and
the epistles of the apostles, all breathe with this amiable
spirit, and abound with exhortations to cultivate this God-like
disposition. It is reported of St. John,[57] that in his extreme
old age at Ephesus, being carried into the church by
the disciples, upon account of his great weakness, he used to
say nothing else, every time he was brought there, but this
remarkable sentence, “Little children, love one another.”
And when some of the brethren were tired with hearing so
often the same thing, and asked him, “Sir, why do you
always repeat this sentence?” he answered, with a spirit
58worthy an apostle, “It is the command of the Lord, and the
fulfilling of the law.” Precepts of this kind so frequently
inculcated, could not but have a very good influence in keeping
alive the spirit of charity and mutual love. And, indeed,
the primitive Christians were so very remarkable for this
temper, that they were taken notice of on this very account,
and recommended even by their enemies as patterns of beneficence
and kindness.
But at length, in the second century, the spirit of pride
and domination appeared publicly, and created great disorders
and schisms amongst Christians. There had been a
controversy of some standing, on what day Easter should be
celebrated. The Asiatic churches thought that it ought to
be kept on the same day on which the Jews held the passover,
the fourteenth day of Nisan, their first month, on whatsoever
day of the week it should fall out. The custom of
other churches was different, who kept the festival of Easter
only on that Lord’s day which was next after the fourteenth
of the moon. This controversy appears at first view to be
of no manner of importance, as there is no command in the
sacred writings to keep this festival at all, much less specifying
the particular day on which it should be celebrated.
Eusebius tells us[58] from Irenæus, that Polycarp, bishop of
Smyrna, came to Anicetus, bishop of Rome, on account of
this very controversy; and that though they differed from
one another in this and some other lesser things, yet they
embraced one another with a kiss of peace; Polycarp neither
persuading Anicetus to conform to his custom, nor Anicetus
breaking off communion with Polycarp, for not complying
with his. This was a spirit and conduct worthy these
Christian bishops: but Victor, the Roman prelate, acted a
more haughty and violent part; for after he had received
the letters of the Asiatic bishops, giving their reasons for
their own practice, he immediately excommunicated all the
churches of Asia, and those of the neighbouring provinces,
for heterodoxy; and by his letters declared all the brethren
59unworthy of communion. This conduct was greatly displeasing
to some other of the bishops, who exhorted him to
mind the things that made for peace, unity, and Christian
love. [I]Irenæus especially, in the name of all his brethren,
the bishops of France, blamed him for thus censuring whole
churches of Christ, and puts him in mind of the peaceable
spirit of several of his predecessors, who did not break off
communion with their brethren upon account of such lesser
differences as these. Indeed, this action of pope Victor was
a very insolent abuse of excommunication; and is an abundant
proof that the simplicity of the Christian faith was
greatly departed from; in that, heterodoxy and orthodoxy
were made to depend on conformity or non-conformity to
the modes and circumstances of certain things, when there
was no shadow of any order for the things themselves in the
sacred writings; and that the lust of power, and the spirit of
pride, had too much possessed some of the bishops of the
Christian church. The same Victor also excommunicated
one Theodosius, for being unsound in the doctrine of the
Trinity.[59]
However, it must be owned, in justice to some of the
primitive fathers, that they were not of Victor’s violent and
persecuting spirit. Tertullian, who flourished under Severus,
in his book to Scapula, tells us, “Every one hath a
natural right to worship according to his own persuasion;
for no man’s religion can be hurtful or profitable to his
neighbour; nor can it be a part of religion to compel men to
religion, which ought to be voluntarily embraced, and not
through constraint.” Cyprian, also, agrees with Tertullian
his master. In his letter to Maximus[60] the presbyter, he says,
“It is the sole prerogative of the Lord, to whom the iron
rod is committed, to break the earthen vessels. The servant
cannot be greater than his lord; nor should any one arrogate
to himself, what the Father hath committed to the Son only,
60viz. to winnow and purge the floor, and separate, by any
human judgment, the chaff from the wheat. This is proud
obstinacy and sacrilegious presumption, and proceeds from
wicked madness. And, whilst some are always assuming to
themselves more dominion than is consistent with justice,
they perish from the church; and whilst they insolently extol
themselves, they lose the light of truth, being blinded by
their own haughtiness.” To these I shall add Lactantius,[61]
though forty years later than Cyprian. “They are convinced,”
says he, “that there is nothing more excellent than
religion, and therefore think that it ought to be defended
with force. But they are mistaken, both in the nature of
religion, and in the proper methods to support it: for religion
is to be defended, not by murder, but persuasion;
not by cruelty, but patience; not by wickedness, but faith.
Those are the methods of bad men; these of good. If you
attempt to defend religion by blood, and torments, and evil,
this is not to defend, but to violate and pollute it: for there
is nothing should be more free than the choice of our religion;
in which, if the consent of the worshipper be wanting,
it becomes entirely void and ineffectual. The true way,
therefore, of defending religion, is by faith, a patient suffering
and dying for it: this renders it acceptable to God,
and strengthens its authority and influence.” This was the
persuasion of some of the primitive fathers: but of how different
a spirit were others!
As the primitive Christians had any intervals from persecution,
they became more profligate in their morals, and
more quarrelsome in their tempers. As the revenues of the
several bishops increased, they grew more ambitious, less
capable of contradiction, more haughty and arrogant in their
behaviour, more envious and revengeful in every part of
their conduct, and more regardless of the simplicity and
gravity of their profession and character. The accounts I
have before given of them from Cyprian and Eusebius before
61the Dioclesian persecution, to which I might add the latter
one of St. Jerom,[62] are very melancholy and affecting, and
shew how vastly they were degenerated from the piety and
peaceable spirit of many of their predecessors, and how
ready they were to enter into the worst measures of persecution,
could they but have got the opportunity and power.
Under Constantine the emperor, when the Christians
were restored to full liberty, their churches rebuilt, and the
imperial edicts every where published in their favour, they
immediately began to discover what spirit they were of; as
soon as ever they had the temptations of honour and large
revenues before them. Constantine’s letters are full proof
of the jealousies and animosities that reigned amongst them.[63]
In his letters to Miltiades, bishop of Rome, he tells him, that
he had been informed that Cæcilianus, bishop of Carthage,
had been accused of many crimes by some of his colleagues,
bishops of Africa; and that it was very grievous to him to
see so great a number of people divided into parties, and the
bishops disagreeing amongst themselves.[64] And though the
emperor was willing to reconcile them by a friendly reference
of the controversy to Miltiades and others; yet, in spite
of all his endeavours, they maintained their quarrels and
factious opposition to each other, and through secret grudges
and hatred would not acquiesce in the sentence of those
he had appointed to determine the affair. So that, as he
complained to Chrestus bishop of Syracuse, those who
ought to have maintained a brotherly affection and peaceable
62disposition towards each other, did in a scandalous and
detestable manner separate from one another, and gave occasion
to the common enemies of Christianity to deride and
scoff at them. For this reason, he summoned a council to
meet at Arles in France, that after an impartial hearing of
the several parties, this controversy, which had been carried
on for a long while in a very intemperate manner, might be
brought to a friendly and Christian compromise. [J]Eusebius[65]
farther adds, that he not only called together councils in the
several provinces upon account of the quarrels that arose
amongst the bishops, but that he himself was present in them,
and did all he could to promote peace amongst them. However,
all he could do had but little effect; and it must be
owned that he himself greatly contributed to prevent it, by
his large endowment of churches, by the riches and honours
which he conferred on the bishops, and especially by his authorizing
them to sit as judges upon the consciences and faith
of others; by which he confirmed them in a worldly spirit,
the spirit of domination, ambition, pride, and avarice, which
hath in all ages proved fatal to the peace and true interest
of the Christian church.
In the first edict, given us at large by Eusebius,[66] published
in favour of the Christians, he acted the part of a wise,
good, and impartial governor; in which, without mentioning
any particular sects, he gave full liberty to all Christians,
and to all other persons whatsoever, of following that
religion which they thought best. But this liberty was of
no long duration, and soon abridged in reference both to
the Christians and heathens. For although in this first
mentioned edict he orders the churches and effects of the
Christians in general to be restored to them, yet in one
immediately following he confines this grant to the Catholic
church. After this, in a letter to Miltiades bishop of
Rome, complaining of the differences fomented by the
63African bishops, he lets him know, that he had so great a
reverence for the Catholic church, that he would not have
him suffer in any place any schism or difference whatsoever.
In another to Cæcilianus bishop of Carthage,[67] after giving
him to understand, that he had ordered Ursus to pay his
reverence three thousand pieces, and Heraclides to disburse
to him whatever other sums his reverence should have occasion
for; he orders him to complain of all persons who
should go on to corrupt the people of the most holy Catholic
church by any evil and false doctrine, to Anulinus the
pro-consul, and Patricius, to whom he had given instructions
on this affair, that if they persevered in such madness they
might be punished according to his orders. It is easy to
guess what the Catholic faith and church meant, viz. that
which was approved by the bishops, who had the greatest
interest in his favour.
As to the Heathens,[68] soon after the settlement of the
whole empire under his government, he sent into all the
provinces Christian presidents, forbidding them, and all
other officers of superior dignity, to sacrifice, and confining
to such of them as were Christians the honours due to their
characters and stations; hereby endeavouring to support the
kingdom of Christ, which is not of this world, by motives
purely worldly, viz. the prospects of temporal preferments
and honours; and notwithstanding the excellent law he had
before published, that every one should have free exercise
of his own religion, and worship such gods as they thought
proper, he soon after prohibited the old religion,[69] viz. the
worship of idols in cities and country; commanding that
no statues of the gods should be erected, nor any sacrifices
offered upon their altars. And yet, notwithstanding this
abridgment of the liberty of religion, he declares in his
letters afterwards, written to all the several governors of his
provinces,[70] that though he wished the ceremonies of the
64temples, and the power of darkness were wholly removed,
he would force none, but that every one should have the
liberty of acting in religion as he pleased.
It is not to be wondered at, that the persons who advised
these edicts to suppress the ancient religion of the heathens,
should be against tolerating any other amongst themselves,
who should presume to differ from them in any articles of
the Christian religion they had espoused; because if erroneous
and false opinions in religion, as such, are to be prohibited
or punished by the civil power, there is equal reason
for persecuting a Christian, whose belief is wrong, and
whose practice is erroneous, as for persecuting persons of
any other false religion whatsoever; and the same temper
and principles that lead to the latter, will also lead to and
justify the former. And as the civil magistrate, under the
direction of his priests, must always judge for himself what
is truth and error in religion, his laws for supporting the
one, and punishing the other, must always be in consequence
of this judgment. And therefore if Constantine and
his bishops were right in prohibiting heathenism by civil
laws, because they believed it erroneous and false, Dioclesian
and Licinius, and their priests, were equally right in
prohibiting Christianity by civil laws, because they believed
it not only erroneous and false, but the highest impiety and
blasphemy against their gods, and even a proof of atheism
itself. And by the same rule every Christian, that hath
power, is in the right to persecute his Christian brother,
whenever he believes him to be in the wrong. And in
truth, they seem generally to have acted upon this principle;
for which party soever of them could get uppermost,
was against all toleration and liberty for those who differed
from them, and endeavoured by all methods to oppress and
destroy them.
The sentiments of the primitive Christians, at least for
near three centuries, in reference to the Deity of our Lord
Jesus Christ, were, generally speaking, pretty uniform; nor
do there appear to have been any public quarrels about this
65article of the Christian faith.[71] Some few persons, indeed,
differed from the commonly received opinion. One Theodotus
a tanner, under the reign of Commodus, asserted
Christ was a mere man, and on this account was excommunicated,
with other of his followers, by pope Victor, who
appears to have been very liberal in his censures against
others. Artemon propagated the same erroneous opinion
under Severus. Beryllus[72] also, an Arabian bishop under
Gordian, taught, “that our Saviour had no proper personal
subsistence before his becoming man, nor any proper godhead
of his own, but only the Father’s godhead residing in
him;” but afterwards altered his opinion, being convinced
of his error by the arguments of Origen. [K]Sabellius[73] also
propagated much the same doctrine, denying also the real
personality of the Holy Ghost. After him Paulus Samosatenus,[74]
bishop of Antioch, and many of his clergy, publicly
avowed the same principles concerning Christ, and
were excommunicated by a large council of bishops. But
though these excommunications, upon account of differences
in opinion, prove that the bishops had set up for judges of
the faith, and assumed a power and dominion over the consciences
of others, yet as they had no civil effects, and were
not enforced by any penal laws, they were not attended with
any public confusions, to the open reproach of the Christian
church.
But when once Christianity was settled by the laws of
the empire, and the bishops free to act as they pleased,
without any fear of public enemies to disturb and oppress
them, they fell into more shameful and violent quarrels,
upon account of their differences concerning the nature and
dignity of Christ.[75] The controversy first began between
Alexander bishop of Alexandria, and [L]Arius,[76] one of his
66presbyters, and soon spread itself into other churches,
enflaming bishops against bishops, who out of a pretence
to support divine truth excited tumults, and entertained
irreconcileable hatreds towards one another. These divisions
of the prelates set the Christian people together by the ears,
as they happened to favour their different leaders and heads
of parties; and the dispute was managed with such violence,
that it soon reached the whole Christian world, and gave
occasion to the heathens in several places to ridicule the
Christian religion upon their public theatres.[77] How different
were the tempers of the bishops and clergy of these
times from the excellent spirit of Dionysius bishop of Alexandria,
in the reign of Decius, who writing to Novatus
upon account of the disturbance he had raised in the church
of Rome, by the severity of his doctrine, in not admitting
those who lapsed into idolatry in times of persecution ever
more to communion, though they gave all the marks of a
true repentance and conversion, tells him, “one ought to
suffer any thing in the world rather than divide the church
of God.”
The occasion of the Arian controversy[78] was this.[79] Alexander,
bishop of Alexandria, speaking in a very warm manner
67concerning the Trinity before the presbyters and clergy of
his church, affirmed there was “an Unity in the Trinity,”
and particularly that “the Son was co-eternal and consubstantial,
and of the same dignity with the Father.” Arius,
one of his presbyters, thought that the bishop, by this doctrine,
was introducing the Sabellian heresy, and therefore
opposed him, arguing in this manner: “If the Father
begot the Son, he who was begotten must have a beginning
of his existence; and from hence,” says he, “it is manifest,
that there was a time when he was not; the necessary consequence
of which” he affirmed was this,[80] “that he had his
subsistence out of things not existing.” Sozomen adds
farther, that he asserted, “that by virtue of his free-will
the Son was capable of vice as well as virtue; and that he
was the mere creature and work of God.” The bishop
being greatly disturbed by these expressions of Arius, upon
account of the novelty of them, and not able to bear such
an opposition from one of his presbyters to his own principles,
commanded (“admonished, as president of the council,
to whom it belonged to enjoin silence, and put an end
to the dispute”) Arius to forbear the use of them, and
to embrace the doctrine of the consubstantiality and co-eternity
of the Father and the Son. But Arius was not
thus to be convinced, especially as a great number of the
68bishops and clergy were of his opinion, and supported him;
and for this reason himself and the clergy of his party were
excommunicated, and expelled the church, in a council of
near an hundred of the Egyptian and Lybian bishops met
together for that purpose, by the bishop, who in this case
was both party and judge, the enemy and condemner of
Arius. Upon this treatment Arius and his friends sent
circular letters to the several bishops of the church, giving
them an account of their faith, and desiring that if they
found their sentiments orthodox, they would write to Alexander
in their favour; if they judged them wrong, they
would give them instructions how to believe. Thus was
the dispute carried into the Christian church, and the
bishops being divided in their opinions, some of them
wrote to Alexander not to admit Arius and his party into
communion without renouncing their principles, whilst
others of them persuaded him to act a different part. The
bishop not only followed the advice of the former, but wrote
letters to the several bishops not to communicate with any
of them, nor to receive them if they should come to them,
nor to credit Eusebius,[81] nor any other person that should
write to them in their behalf, but to avoid them as the
enemies of God, and the corrupters of the souls of men;
and not so much as to salute them, or to have any communion
with them in their crimes. Eusebius,[82] who was bishop
of Nicomedia, sent several letters to Alexander, exhorting
him to let the controversy peaceably drop, and to receive
Arius into communion; but finding him inflexible to all his
repeated entreaties, he got a synod to meet in Bithynia,
from whence they wrote letters to the other bishops, to
engage them to receive the Arians to their communion, and
to persuade Alexander to do the same. But all their endeavours
proved ineffectual, and by these unfriendly dealings
the parties grew more enraged against each other, and the
quarrel became incurable.
69It is, I confess, not a little surprising, that the whole
Christian world should be put into such a flame upon account
of a dispute of so very abstruse and metaphysical a
nature, as this really was in the course and management of
it. Alexander’s doctrine, as Arius represents it in his letter
to Eusebius of Nicomedia,[83] was this: “God is always, and
the Son always. The same time the Father, the same time
the Son. The Son co-exists with God unbegottenly, being
ever begotten, being unbegottenly begotten. That God
was not before the Son, no not in conception, or the least
point of time, he being ever God, ever a Son: for the Son
is out of God himself.” Nothing could be more inexcusable,
than the tearing the churches in pieces upon account
of such high and subtle points as these, except the conduct
of Arius, who on the other hand asserted, as Alexander,
his bishop, in his letter to the bishop of Constantinople,[84]
tells us, “that there was a time when there was no Son
of God, and that he who before was not, afterwards existed;
being made, whensoever he was made, just as any man
whatsoever; and that therefore he was of a mutable nature,
and equally receptive of vice and virtue,” and other things
of the like kind. If these were the things taught, and publicly
avowed by Alexander and Arius, as each represents
the other’s principles, I persuade myself, that every sober
man will think they both deserved censure, for thus leaving
the plain account of scripture, introducing terms of their
own invention into a doctrine of pure revelation, and at last
censuring and writing one against another, and dividing
the whole church of Christ upon account of them.
But it is no uncommon thing for warm disputants to
mistake and misrepresent each other; and that this was
partly the case in the present controversy, is, I think,
evident beyond dispute; Alexander describing the opinions
of Arius, not as he held them himself, but according to the
consequences he imagined to follow from them. Thus
70Arius asserted, “the Son hath a beginning, and is from none
of the things that do exist;” not meaning that he was not
from everlasting, before ever the creation, time, and ages
had a being, or that he was created like other beings, or
that like the rest of the creation he was mutable in his
nature. Arius expressly declares the contrary, before his
condemnation by the council of Nice, in his letter to Eusebius,
his intimate friend, from whom he had no reason to
conceal his most secret sentiments, and says,[85] “This is what
we have and do profess, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor
in any manner a part of the unbegotten God, nor from any
part of the material world, but that by the will and council
of the Father he existed before all times and ages, perfect
God, the only begotten and unchangeable, and that therefore
before he was begotten or formed he was not,” i. e. as
he explains himself, “there never was a time when he was
unbegotten.” His affirming therefore that the Son had a
beginning, was only saying, that he was in the whole of his
existence from the Father, as the origin and fountain of his
being and deity, and not any denial of his being from
before all times and ages; and his saying that he was no
part of God, nor derived from things that do exist, was not
denying his generation from God before all ages, or his
being completely God himself, or his being produced after
a more excellent manner than the creatures; but that as
he was always from God, so he was different both from him,
and all other beings, and a sort of middle nature between
God and his creatures; whose beginning, as Eusebius of
Nicomedia writes to Paulinus,[86] bishop of Tyre, was “not
only inexplicable by words, but unconceivable by the understanding
of men, and by all other beings superior to men,
and who was formed after the most perfect likeness to the
nature and power of God.” This is the strongest evidence
that neither Arius nor his first friends put the Son upon a
level with the creatures, but that they were in many respects
71of the same sentiments with those who condemned
them. Thus Alexander declares the Son to be “before all
ages.” Arius expressly says the same, that he was “before
all times and ages.” Alexander, that “he was begotten,
not out of nothing, but from the Father who was.” Arius,
that “he was the begotten God, the Word from the Father.”
Alexander says, “the Father, only, is unbegotten.” Arius,
that “there never was a time when the Son was not begotten.”
Alexander, that “the subsistence of the Son is inexplicable
even by angels.” Eusebius, that “his beginning
is inconceivable and inexplicable by men and angels.” Alexander,
that “the Father was always a Father because of the
Son.” Arius, that “the Son was not before he was begotten;”
and, that “he was, from before all ages, the begotten
Son of God.” Alexander, that “he was of an unchangeable
nature.” Arius, that “he was unchangeable.” Alexander,
that “he was the unchangeable image of his Father.” Eusebius,
that “he was made after the perfect likeness of the
disposition and power of him that made him.” Alexander,
that “all things have received their essence from the Father
through the Son.” Arius, that “God made by the Word
all things in heaven and earth.” Alexander, that “the
Word, who made all things, could not be of the same nature
with the things he made.” Arius, that “he was the perfect
creature or production of God, but not as one of the creatures.”[87]
Arius, again, that “the Son was no part of God,
nor from any thing that did exist.” Alexander, that “the
only begotten nature was a middle nature, between the unbegotten
Father, and the things created by him out of
nothing.” And yet, notwithstanding all these things, when
Alexander gives an account of the principles of Arius to the
bishops, he represents them in all the consequences he
thought fit to draw from them, and charges him with holding,
that the Son was made like every other creature, absolutely
out of nothing, and that therefore his nature was
72mutable, and susceptive equally of virtue and vice; with
many other invidious and unscriptural doctrines, which
Arius plainly appears not to have maintained or taught.
I do not, however, imagine that Alexander and Arius
were of one mind in all the parts of this controversy. They
seemed to differ in the following things. Particularly about
the strict eternity of the generation of the Son. Alexander
affirmed, that it was “absolutely without beginning;” and,
that there was no imaginary point of time in which the
Father was prior to the Son; and, that the soul could not
conceive or think of any distance between them. Arius, on
the other hand, maintained, “The Son hath a beginning,
there was a time when he was not;” by which he did not
mean, that he was not before all times and ages, or the
creation of the worlds visible and invisible; but that the
very notion of begetting and begotten doth necessarily, in the
very nature of things, imply, that the begetter must be some
point of time, at least in our conception, prior to what is
begotten. And this is agreeable to the ancient doctrine of
the primitive fathers. They held, indeed, many of them,[88]
such as Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Tertullian,
Novatian, Lactantius, &c. that Logos, i. e. power, wisdom,
and reason, existed in God the Father strictly from eternity,
but without any proper hypostasis or personality of its own.
But that before the creation of the worlds, God the Father
did emit, or produce, or generate this Logos, reason or
wisdom; whereby, what was before the internal Logos, or
wisdom of the Father, existing eternally in and inseparably
from him, had now its proper hypostasis, subsistence, or
personality. Not that the Father hereby became “destitute
of reason,” but that this production proceeded after an
ineffable and inexplicable manner. And this production of
the Word some of them never scrupled to affirm was posterior
to the Father, and that the Father was prior to the Son as
thus begotten. They considered the Son under a twofold
73character, as the reason, and as the word of God. As “the
reason of God,” he was eternally in the Father, “unoriginated,
unbegotten, underived.” As “the word of God,”
he was Missus, Creatus, Genitus, Prolatus, and received his
distinct subsistence and personality then, when God said,
“Let there be light;” and on this account the Father was,
as Novatian speaks, “as a Father prior to the Son.” And,
as Tertullian says, “God is a Father and a Judge. But it
doth not thence follow that he was always a Father and
always a Judge, because always God: for he could not be a
Father before the Son, nor a Judge before the offence. But
there was a time when there was no offence, and when the
Son was not, by which God became a Judge and Father.”
Another thing in which Alexander and Arius differed,
was in the use of certain words, describing the production
and generation of the Son of God. Alexander denied that
he was made or created, and would not apply to him any
word by which the production of the creatures was denoted.
Whereas Arius, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, did not scruple
to affirm that he was created, founded, and the like. And
for this they quoted that passage, Prov. vii. 22, &c. as rendered
by the LXX. “The Lord created me the beginning
of his way, he founded me before the age, and begat me before
all the hills.” They did not, however, hereby put him
upon a level with the creatures. For though Arius says, he
was the “perfect creature of God,” yet he immediately subjoins,
“yet not as one of the creatures;” and affirms that
he was “begotten not in time,” or “before all time,”
which could not be affirmed of the creatures. And his friend
Eusebius says, that he was “created, founded, and begotten
with an unchangeable and ineffable nature.” Nor were the
primitive fathers afraid to use such-like words. Justin
Martyr says, he was “the first production of God,” Apol.
I. c. 66. Tatian, that he was “the first born work of the
Father.” Tertullian, that Sophia was “formed the second
person.” And indeed most of the primitive fathers expounded
the before-mentioned passage of the Proverbs of
74the eternal generation of the Son, and thereby allowed him
to be “created and founded.”
Another thing in which Alexander and Arius seemed to
differ, was about the voluntary generation of the Son of God.
Alexander doth not, I think, expressly deny this, but seems
to intimate, that the generation of the Son was necessary.
Thus he says of the Son, “He is like to the Father, and inferior
only in this, that he is not unbegotten,” or “that the
Father only is unbegotten;” the consequence of which seems
to be, that he apprehended his generation as necessary as
the essence of the Father. Arius on the contrary, and his
friends, affirmed, that “he was begotten by the will of the
Father;” a doctrine not new nor strange in the primitive
church. Justin Martyr, speaking of the Word, says,[89] “this
virtue was begotten by the Father by his power and will.”
And again, explaining the scripture Gen. xix. 24. “The
Lord rained down fire from the Lord from heaven,” he says,
“There was one Lord on earth, and another in heaven, who
was the Lord of that Lord who appeared on earth;[90] as his
Father and God, and the author or cause to him of being
powerful, and Lord, and God,” Cont. Tryph. Pars secund.
And again, he expressly affirms him “to be begotten by the
will of his Father.” In like manner Tatian, “that he did
come forth by the pure will of the Father.” And Tertullian,
Cont. Prax. “He then first produced the Word, when it
first pleased him.” I do not take upon me to defend any of
these opinions, but only to represent them as I find them;
and I think the three particulars I have mentioned were the
most material differences between the contending parties.
I know the enemies of Arius charged him with many
other principles; but as it is the common fate of religious
disputes to be managed with an intemperate heat, it is no
wonder his opponents should either mistake or misrepresent
him, and, in their warmth, charge him with consequences
which either he did not see, or expressly denied. And as
75this appears to be the case, no wonder the controversy was
never fairly managed, nor brought to a friendly and peaceable
issue. Many methods were tried, but all in vain, to
bring Alexander and Arius to a reconciliation, the emperor
himself condescending to become a mediator between them.
The first step he took to heal this breach was right and
prudent: he sent his letters to Alexandria,[91] exhorting Alexander
and Arius to lay aside their differences, and become
reconciled to each other. He tells them, that “after he
had diligently examined the rise and foundation of this affair,
he found the occasion of the difference to be very trifling,
and not worthy such furious contentions; and that therefore
he promised himself that his mediation between them for
peace, would have the desired effect.” He tells Alexander,
“that he required from his presbyter a declaration of their
sentiments concerning a silly, empty question.” And Arius,
“that he had imprudently uttered what he should not have
even thought of, or what at least he ought to have kept
secret in his own breast; and that therefore questions about
such things should not have been asked; or if they had,
should not have been answered; that they proceeded from
an idle itch of disputation, and were in themselves of so high
and difficult a nature, as that they could not be exactly comprehended,
or suitably explained;” and that to insist on
such points too much before the people, could produce no
other effect, than to make some of them talk blasphemy, and
others turn schismatics; and that therefore, “as they did
not contend about any essential doctrine of the gospel, nor
introduce any new heresy concerning the worship of God,”
they should again communicate with each other; and finally,
that notwithstanding their sentiments in these unnecessary
and trifling matters were different from each other, they
should acknowledge one another as brethren, and, laying
aside their hatreds, return to a firmer friendship and affection
than before.
76But religious hatreds are not so easily removed, and the
ecclesiastical combatants were too warmly engaged to follow
this kind and wholesome advice. The bishops of each
side had already interested the people in their quarrel,[92] and
heated them into such a rage that they attacked and fought
with, wounded and destroyed each other, and acted with
such madness as to commit the greatest impieties for the
sake of orthodoxy; and arrived to that pitch of insolence,
as to offer great indignities to the imperial images. The
old controversy about the time of celebrating Easter being
now revived, added fuel to the flames, and rendered their
animosities too furious to be appeased.
[M]Constantine being greatly disturbed upon this account,
sent letters to the bishops of the several provinces
of the empire to assemble together at Nice in Bithynia, and
accordingly great numbers of them came, A. C. 325,[93] some
through hopes of profit, and others out of curiosity to see
such a miracle of an emperor, and many of them upon much
worse accounts. The number of them was 318, besides vast
numbers of presbyters, deacons, Acolythists, and others.
The ecclesiastical historians tell us, that in this vast collection
of bishops some “were remarkable for their gravity,
patience under sufferings, modesty, integrity, eloquence,
courteous behaviour,” and the like virtues; that “some
were venerable for their age, and others excelled in their
77youthful vigour, both of body and mind.” They are called
“an army of God, mustered against the devil: a great
crown or garland of priests, composed and adorned with the
fairest flowers; confessors: a crowd of martyrs; a divine and
memorable assembly; a divine choir,” &c. But yet they
all agree that there were others of very different characters.
Eusebius tells us, that after the emperor had ended his
speech, exhorting them to peace, “some of them began to
accuse their neighbours, others to vindicate themselves, and
recriminate; that many things of this nature were urged on
both sides, and many quarrels or debates arose in the beginning;”
and that some came to the council with worldly
views of gain. Theodorit says,[94] that those of the Arian
party “were subtle and crafty, and like shelves under water
concealed their wickedness;” that amongst the orthodox
some of them “were of a quarrelling malicious temper, and
accused several of the bishops, and that they presented their
accusatory libels to the emperor.” Socrates says that “very
many of them, the major part of them, accused one another;
and that many of them the day before the emperor came to
the council, had delivered in to him libels of accusations, or
petitions against their enemies.” Sozomen goes farther, and
tells us, “that as it usually comes to pass, many of the priests
came together, that they might contend earnestly about
their own affairs, thinking they had now a fit opportunity
to redress their grievances; and, that every one presented
a libel to the emperor, of the matters of which he accused
others, enumerating his particular grievances. And that
this happened almost every day.” Gelasius Cyzicenus’s
account of them is,[95] “that when all the bishops were
gathered together, according to custom, there happened
many debates and contentions amongst the bishops, each one
having matters of accusation against the other. Upon this
they gave in libels of accusation to the emperor, who received
them; and when he saw the quarrels of such bishops
78with one another, he said, &c. and endeavoured to conceal
the wicked attempts of such bishops from the knowledge of
those without doors.” So that, notwithstanding the encomiums
of this council, the evil spirit had plainly got amongst
them; for after the emperor had exhorted them to lay aside
all their differences, and to enter into measures of union and
peace, instead of applying themselves to the work for which
they were convened, they began shamefully to accuse each
other, and raised great disturbances in the council by their
mutual charges and reproaches. Sabinus also saith,[96] they
were generally a set of very ignorant men, and destitute of
knowledge and learning. But as Sabinus was an heretic of
the Macedonian sect, probably his testimony may be thought
exceptionable; and even supposing his charge to be true,
yet [N]Socrates brings them off by telling us, that they were enlightened
by God, and the grace of his holy spirit, and so could
not possibly err from the truth. But as some men may possibly
question the truth of their inspiration, so I think it
appears but too plain, that an assembly of men, who met
together with such different views, were so greatly prejudiced
and inflamed against other, and are supposed, many
of them, to be ignorant, till they received miraculous
illuminations from God, did not seem very likely to heal
the differences of the church, or to examine with that
wisdom, care, and impartiality, or to enter into those measures
of condescension and forbearance that were necessary
to lay a solid foundation for peace and unity.
However, the emperor brought them at last to some
temper, so that they fell in good earnest to creed-making,
and drew up, and subscribed that, which, from the place
where they were assembled, was called the Nicene. By the
accounts of the transactions in this assembly, given by
[O]Athanasius himself, in his letter to the African bishops,[97] it
79appears, that they were determined to insert into the creed
such words as were most obnoxious to the Arians, and thus
to force them to a public separation from the church. For
when they resolved to condemn some expressions which the
Arians were charged with making use of, such as, “the Son
was a creature; there was a time when he was not,” and the
like; and to establish the use of others in their room, such
as, “the Son was the only begotten of God by nature, the
Word, the Power, the only Wisdom of the Father, and true
God;” the Arians immediately agreed to it: upon this the
fathers made an alteration, and explained the words, “from
God,” by the Son’s “being of the substance of God.”
And when the Arians consented also to this, the bishops
farther added, to render the creed more exceptionable, that
“he was consubstantial, or of the same substance with the
Father.” And when the Arians objected, that this expression
was wholly unscriptural, the Orthodox urged, that
though it was so, yet the bishops that lived an hundred and
thirty years before them, made use of it. At last, however,
all the council subscribed the creed thus altered and amended,
except five bishops, who were displeased with the word
“consubstantial,” and made many objections against it: and
of these five, three, viz. Eusebius, Theognis, and Maris,
seem afterwards to have complied with the rest, excepting
only, that they refused to subscribe to the condemnation of
Arius.
Eusebius,[98] bishop of Cæsarea, was also in doubt for a
considerable time, whether he should set his hand to it, and
refused to do it, till the exceptionable words had been fully
debated amongst them, and he had obtained an explication
of them suitable to his own sentiments. Thus when it was
asserted by the creed, that “the Son was of the Father’s
substance,” the negative explication agreed to by the
bishops was exactly the same thing that was asserted by
Arius, viz. that “he was not a part of the Father’s substance.”
80Again, as the words “begotten, not made,” were
applied to the Son, they determined the meaning to be,
that “the Son was produced after a different manner than
the creatures which he made,” and was therefore of a more
excellent nature than any of the creatures, and that the manner
of his generation could not be understood. This was
the very doctrine of Arius, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, who
declared, that “as the Son was no part of God, so neither
was he from any thing created, and that the manner of his
generation was not to be described.” And as to the word
“consubstantial” to the Father, it was agreed by the council
to mean no more, than that “the Son had no likeness
with any created Beings, but was in all things like to him
that begot him, and that he was not from any other hypostasis,
or substance, but the Father’s.” Of this sentiment also
were Arius, and Eusebius his friend, who maintained not
only his being of a more excellent original than the creatures,
but that he was formed “of an immutable and ineffable
substance and nature, and after the most perfect likeness of
the nature and power of him that formed him.” These were
the explications of these terms agreed to by the council,
upon which Eusebius, of Cæsarea, subscribed them in the
creed; and though some few of the Arian bishops refused to
do it, yet it doth not appear to me, that it proceeded from
their not agreeing in the sense of these explications, but because
they apprehended that the words were very improper,
and implied a great deal more than was pretended to be
meant by them; and especially, because an anathema was
added upon all who should presume not to believe in them
and use them. Eusebius, of Cæsarea, gives a very extraordinary
reason for his subscribing this anathema, viz.
because “it forbids the use of unscriptural words, the introducing
which he assigns as the occasion of all the differences
and disturbances which had troubled the church.”
But had he been consistent with himself, he ought never to
have subscribed this creed, for the very reason he alledges
why he did it; because the anathema forbids only the unscriptural
81words of Arius, such as, “He was made out of
nothing; there was a time when he was not,” and the like;
but allowed and made sacred the unscriptural expressions of
the orthodox, viz. “Of the Father’s substance, and consubstantial,”
and cut off from Christian communion those
who would not agree to them, though they were highly
exceptionable to the Arian party, and afterwards proved
the occasions of many cruel persecutions and evils.
In this public manner did the bishops assert a dominion
over the faith and consciences of others, and assume a
power, not only to dictate to them what they should believe,
but even to anathematize, and expel from the Christian
church, all who refused to submit to their decisions, and
own their authority.[99] For after they had carried their
creed, they proceeded to excommunicate Arius and his
followers, and banished Arius from Alexandria. They also
condemned his explication of his own doctrine, and a certain
book, called Thalia, which he had written concerning it.
After this they sent letters to Alexandria, and to the
brethren in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, to acquaint them
with their decrees, and to inform them, that the holy synod
had condemned the opinions of Arius, and were so zealous
in this affair, that they had not patience so much as to hear
his ungodly doctrine and blasphemous words, and that they
had fully determined the time for the celebration of Easter.
Finally, they exhort them to rejoice, for the good deeds
they had done, and for that they had cut off all manner of
heresy, and to pray, that their right transactions might be
established by Almighty God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
When these things were over, Constantine[100] splendidly
treated the bishops, filled their pockets, and sent them
honourably home; advising them at parting to maintain
peace amongst themselves, and that none of them should
envy another who might excel the rest in wisdom and eloquence,
and that such should not carry themselves haughtily
82towards their inferiors, but condescend to, and bear with
their weakness. A plain demonstration that he saw into
their tempers, and was no stranger to the pride and haughtiness
that influenced some, and the envy and hatred that
actuated others. After he had thus dismissed them he sent
several letters, recommending and enjoining an universal
conformity to the council’s decrees both in ceremony and
doctrine, using, among other things, this argument for it,[101]
“That what they had decreed was the will of God, and
that the agreement of so great a number of such bishops,
was by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.”
It is natural here to observe, that the anathemas and
depositions agreed on by this council, and confirmed by the
imperial authority, were the beginning of all those persecutions
that afterwards raged against each party in their turns.
As the civil power had now taken part in the controversies
about religion, by authorising the dominion of the bishops
over the consciences of others, enforcing their ecclesiastical
constitutions, and commanding the universal reception of
that faith they had decreed to be orthodox; it was easy to
foresee, that those who opposed them would employ the same
arts and authority to establish their own faith and power,
and to oppress their enemies, the first favourable opportunity
that presented: and this the event abundantly made
good. And, indeed, how should it be otherwise? For doctrines
that are determined merely by dint of numbers, and
the awes of worldly power, carry no manner of conviction
in them, and are not likely therefore to be believed on
these accounts by those who have once opposed them. And
as such methods of deciding controversies equally suit all
principles, the introducing them by any party, gives but too
plausible a pretence to every party, when uppermost, to use
them in their turn; and though they may agree well enough
with the views of spiritual ambition, yet they can be of no
service in the world to the interest of true religion, because
83they are directly contrary to the nature and spirit of it; and
because arguments, which equally prove the truth and excellency
of all principles, cannot in the least prove the truth
of any.
If one may form a judgment of the persons who composed
this council, from the small accounts we have left of
them, they do not, I think, appear to have met so much with
a design impartially to debate on the subjects in controversy,
as to establish their own authority and opinions, and oppress
their enemies. For besides what hath been already observed
concerning their temper and qualifications, [P]Theodorit informs
us,[102] that when those of the Arian party proposed in
writing, to the synod, the form of faith they had drawn up,
the bishops of the orthodox side no sooner read it, but they
gravely tore it in pieces, and called it a spurious and false
confession; and after they had filled the place with noise
and confusion, universally accused them of betraying the
doctrine according to godliness. Doth such a method of
proceeding suit very well with the character of a synod
inspired, as the good emperor declared, by the Holy Ghost?
Is truth and error to be decided by noise and tumult? Was
this the way to convince gainsayers, and reconcile them to
the unity of the faith? Or could it be imagined, that the
dissatisfied part of this venerable assembly would acquiesce
in the tyrannical determination of such a majority, and
patiently submit to excommunication, deposition, and the
condemnation of their opinions, almost unheard, and altogether
unexamined? How just is the censure passed by
[Q]Gregory Nazianzen[103] upon councils in general? “If,” says
he, “I must speak the truth, this is my resolution, to avoid all
councils of the bishops, for I have not seen any good end
answered by any synod whatsoever; for their love of contention,
and their lust of power, are too great even for words
84to express.” The emperor’s conduct to the bishops met at
Nice[104] is full proof of the former; for when they were met in
council, they immediately fell to wrangling and quarrelling,
and were not to be appeased and brought to temper, till Constantine
interposed, artfully persuading some, shaming others
into silence, and heaping commendations on those fathers
that spoke agreeable to his sentiments. The decisions they
made concerning the faith, and their excommunications and
depositions of those who differed from them, demonstrate
also their affectation of power and dominion. But as they
had great reason to believe, that their own decrees would
be wholly insignificant, without the interposition of the imperial
authority to enforce them, they soon obtained their
desires; and prevailed with the emperor to confirm all they
had determined, and to enjoin all Christians to submit themselves
to their decisions.
His first letters to this purpose were mild and gentle,[105]
but he was soon persuaded by his clergy into more violent
measures; for out of his great zeal to extinguish heresy, he
put forth public edicts, against the authors and maintainers
of it; and particularly against the Novatians, Valentinians,
Marcionists, and others, whom after reproaching “with
being enemies of truth, destructive counsellors, and with
holding opinions suitable to their crimes,” he deprives of the
liberty of meeting together for worship, either in public or
private places, and gives all their oratories to the orthodox
church. And with respect to the Arians,[106] he banished Arius
himself,[107] ordered all his followers, as absolute enemies of
Christ, to be called Porphyrians, from [R]Porphyrius, an heathen,
who wrote against Christianity; ordained that the
books written by them should be burnt, that there might be
no remains of their doctrine left to posterity; and most
cruelly commanded, that if ever any one should dare to keep
85in his possession any book written by Arius, and should not
immediately burn it, he should be no sooner convicted of
the crime but he should suffer death. He afterwards put
forth a fresh edict against the recusants, by which he took
from them their places of worship, and prohibited not only
their meeting in public, but even in any private houses
whatsoever.
Thus the orthodox first brought in the punishment of
heresy with death,[108] and persuaded the emperor to destroy
those whom they could not easily convert. The scriptures
were now no longer the rule and standard of the Christian
faith. Orthodoxy and heresy were from henceforward to be
determined by the decisions of councils and fathers, and religion
to be propagated no longer by the apostolic methods of
persuasion, forbearance, and the virtues of an holy life, but by
imperial edicts and decrees; and heretical gainsayers not to
be convinced, that they might be brought to the acknowledgment
of the truth and be saved, but to be persecuted and destroyed.
It is no wonder, that after this there should be a
continual fluctuation of the public faith, just as the prevailing
parties had the imperial authority to support them, or that
86we should meet with little else in ecclesiastical history but
violence and cruelties committed by men who had left the
simplicity of the Christian faith and profession, enslaved
themselves to ambition and avarice, and had before them
the ensnaring views of temporal grandeur, high preferments,
and large revenues. “Since the time that avarice hath
encreased in the churches,” says [S]St. Jerome,[109] “the law is
perished from the priest, and the vision from the prophet.
Whilst all contend for the episcopal power, which they unlawfully
seize on without the church’s leave, they apply to
their own uses all that belongs to the Levites. The miserable
priest begs in the streets—they die with hunger who
are commanded to bury others. They ask for mercy who
are commanded to have mercy on others—the priests’ only
care is to get money—hence hatreds arise through the avarice
of the priests; hence the bishops are accused by their
clergy; hence the quarrels of the prelates; hence the causes
of desolations; hence the rise of their wickedness.” Religion
and Christianity seem indeed to be the least thing that either
the contending parties had at heart, by the infamous methods
they took to establish themselves and ruin their adversaries.
If one reads the complaints of the orthodox writers
against the Arians, one would think the Arians the most
execrable set of men that ever lived, they being loaded with
all the crimes that can possibly be committed, and represented
as bad, or even worse, than the devil himself. But
no wise man will easily credit these accounts, which the
orthodox give of their enemies, because, as Socrates tells
us,[110] “This was the practice of the bishops towards all they
deposed, to accuse and pronounce them impious, but not to
tell others the reasons why they accused them as such.”
It was enough for their purpose to expose them to the public
odium, and make them appear impious to the multitude,
that so they might get them expelled from their rich sees,
87and be translated to them in their room. And this they did
as frequently as they could, to the introducing infinite calamities
and confusions into the Christian church. And if the
writings of the Arians had not been prudently destroyed, I
doubt not but we should have found as many charges laid by
them, with equal justice, against the orthodox, as the orthodox
have produced against them; their very suppression of
the Arian writings being a very strong presumption against
them, and the many imperial edicts of Constantine, Theodosius,
Valentinian, Martian, and others, against heretics,
being an abundant demonstration that they had a deep share
in the guilt of persecution.
Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in his letter to the
bishop of Constantinople,[111] complains that Arius and others,
desirous of power and riches, did day and night invent
calumnies, and were continually exciting seditions and persecutions
against him; and Arius in his turn, in his letter to
Eusebius, of Nicomedia, with too much justice charges pope
Alexander with violently persecuting and oppressing him
upon account of what he called the truth, and using every
method to ruin him, driving him out of the city as an atheistical
person, for not agreeing with him in his sentiments
about the Trinity. Athanasius also bitterly exclaims
against the cruelty of the Arians, in his Apology for his
flight.[112] “Whom have they not,” says he, “used with the
greatest indignity that they have been able to lay hold of?
Who hath ever fallen into their hands, that they have had
any spite against, whom they have not so cruelly treated,
as either to murder or to maim him? What place is there
where they have not left the monuments of their barbarity?
What church is there which doth not lament their treachery
against their bishops?” After this passionate exclamation
he mentions several bishops they had banished or put to
death, and the cruelties they made use of to force the orthodox
to renounce the faith, and to subscribe to the truth of
88the Arian doctrines. But might it not have been asked,
who was it that first brought in excommunications, depositions,
banishments, and death, as the punishments of heresy?
Could not the Arians recriminate with justice? Were
they not reproached as atheists, anathematized, expelled their
churches, exiled, and made liable to the punishment of death
by the orthodox? Did not even they who complained of the
cruelty of the Arians in the most moving terms, create numberless
confusions and slaughters by their violent intrusions
into the sees of their adversaries? Was not Athanasius himself
also accused to the emperor, by many bishops and
clergymen, who declared themselves orthodox, of being the
author of all the seditions and disturbances in the church,[113]
by excluding great multitudes from the public services of it;
89of murdering some, putting others in chains, punishing
others with stripes and whippings, and of burning churches?
And if the enemies of Athanasius[114] endeavoured to ruin him
by suborned witnesses and false accusations, Athanasius
himself used the same practices to destroy his adversaries;
and particularly Eusebius of Nicomedia, by spiriting up a
woman to charge Eusebius with illicit connections, the
falsehood of which was detected at the council of Tyre.
His very ordination also to the bishopric of Alexandria,
was censured as clandestine and illegal. These things being
reported to Constantine,[115] he ordered a synod to meet at
Cæsarea in Palestine, of which place Eusebius Pamphilus
was bishop, before whom Athanasius refused to appear.
But after the council was removed to Tyre, he was obliged
by force to come thither, and commanded to answer to the
several crimes objected against him. Some of them he
cleared himself of, and as to others he desired more time
for his vindication. At length, after many sessions, both
his accusers, and the multitude who were present in the
council, demanded his deposition as an impostor, a violent
man, and unworthy the priesthood. Upon this, Athanasius
fled from the synod; after which they condemned him, and
deprived him of his bishopric, and ordered he should never
more enter Alexandria, to prevent his exciting tumults and
seditions. They also wrote to all the bishops to have no
communion with him, as one convicted of many crimes, and
as having convicted himself by his flight of many others, to
which he had not answered. And for this their procedure
they assigned these reasons; that he despised the emperor’s
orders, by not coming to Cæsarea; that he came with a
great number of persons to Tyre, and excited tumults and
disturbances in the council, sometimes refusing to answer
to the crimes objected against him, at other times reviling
all the bishops; sometimes not obeying their summons, and
at others refusing to submit to their judgment; that he was
90fully and evidently convicted of breaking in pieces the
sacred cup, by six bishops who had been sent into Egypt to
inquire out the truth. Athanasius, however, appealed to
Constantine,[116] and prayed him, that he might have the
liberty of making his complaints in the presence of his
judges. Accordingly Eusebius of Nicomedia, and other
bishops came to Constantinople, where Athanasius was; and
in an hearing before the emperor, they affirmed that the
council of Tyre had done justly in the cause of Athanasius,
produced their witnesses as to the breaking of the sacred
cup, and laid many other crimes to his charge. And though
Athanasius seems to have had the liberty he desired of confronting
his accusers, yet he could not make his innocence
appear: for notwithstanding he had endeavoured to prejudice
the emperor against what they had done, yet he confirmed
their transactions, commended them as a set of wise
and good bishops, censured Athanasius as a seditious, insolent,
injurious person, and banished him to Treves, in
France. And when the people of Alexandria, of Athanasius’s
party, tumultuously cried out for his return,
Antony the Great, a monk, wrote often to the emperor in
his favour. The emperor in return wrote to the Alexandrians,
and charged them with madness and sedition,
and commanded the clergy and nuns to be quiet; affirming
he could not alter his opinion, nor recall Athanasius, “being
condemned by an ecclesiastical judgment as an exciter of
sedition.” He also wrote to the monk, telling him it was impossible
“he should disregard the sentence of the council,”
because that though a few might pass judgment through
hatred or affection, yet it was not probable that such a large
number of famous and good bishops should be of such a
sentiment and disposition; for that Athanasius was an
injurious and insolent man, and the cause of discord and
sedition.
Indeed Athanasius, notwithstanding his sad complaints
91under persecution, and his expressly calling it a diabolical
invention,[117] yet seems to be against it only when he and his
own party were persecuted, but not against persecuting the
enemies of orthodoxy. In his letter to Epictetus, bishop of
Corinth, he saith,[118] “I wonder that your piety hath suffered
these things,” (viz. the heresies he had before mentioned)
“and that you did not immediately put those heretics
under restraint, and propose the true faith to them; that
if they would not forbear to contradict they might be declared
heretics; for it is not to be endured that these
things should be either said or heard amongst Christians.”
And in another place[119] he says “that they ought to be had
in universal hatred for opposing the truth;” and comforts
himself, that the emperor, upon due information, would put
a stop to their wickedness, and that they would not be long
lived. And to mention no more, “I therefore exhort
you,” says he,[120] “let no one be deceived; but as though the
Jewish impiety was prevailing over the faith of Christ, be
ye all zealous in the Lord. [121]And let every one hold fast
the faith he hath received from the fathers, which also the
fathers met together at Nice declared in writing, and
endure none of those who may attempt to make any innovations
therein.” It is needless to produce more instances
of this kind; whosoever gives himself the trouble of looking
over any of the writings of this father, will find in them
the most furious invectives against the Arians, and that he
studiously endeavours to represent them in such colours,
as might render them the abhorrence of mankind, and excite
the world to their utter extirpation.
I write not these things out of any aversion to the memory,
or peculiar principles of Athanasius. Whether I
agree with him, or differ from him in opinion, I think
myself equally obliged to give impartially the true account
92of him. And as this which I have given of him is drawn
partly from history, and partly from his own writings, I
think I cannot be justly charged with misrepresenting him.
To speak plainly, I think that Athanasius was a man of a
haughty and inflexible temper, and more concerned for
victory and power, than for truth, religion, or peace. The
word “consubstantial,” that was inserted into the Nicene
creed,[122] and the anathema denounced against all who would
or could not believe in it, furnished matter for endless debates.
Those who were against it, censured as blasphemers
those who used it; and as denying the proper subsistence
of the Son, and as falling into the Sabellian heresy. The
consubstantialists, on the other side, reproached their adversaries
as heathens, and with bringing in the polytheism of
the Gentiles. And though they equally denied the consequences
which their respective principles were charged
with, yet as the orthodox would not part with the word
“consubstantial,” and the Arians could not agree to the
use of it, they continued their unchristian reproaches and
accusations of each other. Athanasius would yield to no
terms of peace, nor receive any into communion, who would
not absolutely submit to the decisions of the fathers of Nice.
In his letter to Johannes and Antiochus[123] he exhorts them to
hold fast the confession of those fathers, and “to reject all
who should speak more or less than was contained in it.”
And in his first oration against the Arians he declares in
plain terms,[124] “That the expressing a person’s sentiments
in the words of scripture was no sufficient proof of orthodoxy,
because the devil himself used scripture words to
cover his wicked designs upon our Saviour; and even
farther, that heretics were not to be received, though they
made use of the very expressions of orthodoxy itself.”
With one of so suspicious and jealous a nature there could
scarce be any possible terms of peace; it being extremely
unlikely, that without some kind allowances, and mutual
93abatements, so wide a breach could ever be compromised.
Even the attempts of Constantine himself to soften Athanasius,
and reconcile him to his brethren, had no other influence
upon him, than to render him more imperious and
obstinate; for after Arius had given in such a confession of
his faith as satisfied the emperor,[125] and expressly denied
many of the principles he had been charged with, and thereupon
humbly desired the emperor’s interposition, that he
might be restored to the communion of the church; Athanasius,
out of hatred to his enemy, flatly denied the emperor’s
request, and told him, that it was impossible for those
who had once rejected the faith, and were anathematized,
ever to be wholly restored. This so provoked the emperor
that he threatened to depose and banish him, unless he submitted
to his order;[126] which he shortly after did, by sending
him into France, upon an accusation of several bishops, who,
as Socrates intimates, were worthy of credit, that he had
said he would stop the corn that was yearly sent to Constantinople
from the city of Alexandria. To such an height
of pride was this bishop now arrived, as even to threaten
the sequestration of the revenues of the empire. Constantine
also apprehended, that this step was necessary to the
peace of the church, because Athanasius absolutely refused
to communicate with Arius and his followers.
Soon after these transactions Arius died,[127] and the manner
of his death, as it was reported by the orthodox, Athanasius
thinks of itself sufficient fully to condemn the Arian heresy,
and an evident proof that it was hateful to God. Nor did
Constantine himself long survive him; he was succeeded by
his three sons, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans. Constantine
the eldest recalled Athanasius from banishment,[128]
and restored him to his bishopric; upon which account[129] there
94arose most grievous quarrels and seditions, many being killed,
and many publicly whipped by Athanasius’s order,
according to the accusations of his enemies. Constantius,
after his elder brother’s death, convened a synod at Antioch
in Syria, where Athanasius was again deposed for these
crimes, and Gregory put into the see of Alexandria. In
this council a new creed was drawn up,[130] in which the word
“consubstantial” was wholly omitted,[131] and the expressions
made use of so general, as that they might have been equally
agreed to by the orthodox and Arians. In the close of it
several anathemas were added, and particularly upon all
who should teach or preach otherwise than what this council
had received, because, as they themselves say, “they
did really believe and follow all things delivered by the
holy scriptures, both prophets and apostles.” So that now
the whole Christian world was under a synodical curse, the
opposite councils having damned one another, and all that
differed from them. And if councils, as such, have any
authority to anathematize all who will not submit to them,
this authority equally belongs to every council; and therefore
it was but a natural piece of revenge, that as the council
of Nice had sent all the Arians to the devil, the Arians, in
their turn, should take the orthodox along with them for
company, and thus repay one anathema with another.
Constantius himself was warmly on the Arian side, and
favoured the bishops of that party only, and ejected Paul
the orthodox bishop from the see of Constantinople, as a
person altogether unworthy of it, Macedonius being substituted
in his room.[132] Macedonius was in a different scheme,
or at least expressed himself in different words both from the
orthodox and Arians,[133] and asserted, that the Son was not
consubstantial, but ὁμοιουσιος, not of the same, but a like substance
with the Father; and openly propagated his opinion,
95after he had thrust himself into the bishopric of Paul.[134] This
the orthodox party highly resented, opposing Hermogenes,
whom Constantius had sent to introduce him; and in their
rage burnt down his house, and drew him round the
streets by his feet till they had murdered him. But notwithstanding
the emperor’s orders were thus opposed, and
his officers killed by the orthodox party, he treated them
with great lenity, and in this instance punished them much
less than their insolence and fury deserved. Soon after this,
Athanasius and Paul[135] were restored again to their respective
sees; and upon Athanasius’s entering Alexandria great disturbances
arose, which were attended with the destruction
of many persons, and Athanasius accused of being the author
of all those evils. Soon after Paul’s return to Constantinople
he was banished from thence again by the emperor’s
order, and Macedonius re-entered into possession of that
see, upon which occasion 3150 persons were murdered, some
by the soldiers, and others by being pressed to death by the
croud. Athanasius,[136] also, soon followed him into banishment,
being accused of selling the corn which Constantine
the Great had given for the support of the poor of the
church of Alexandria, and putting the money in his own
pocket; and being therefore threatened by Constantius
with death. But they were both, a little while after, recalled
by Constans, then banished again by Constantius;
and Paul, as some say, murdered by his enemies the Arians,
as he was carrying into exile; though, as Athanasius himself
owns,[137] the Arians expressly denied it, and said that he
died of some distemper. Macedonius having thus gotten
quiet possession of the see of Constantinople, prevailed with
the emperor to publish a law,[138] by which those of the consubstantial,
or orthodox party, were driven, not only out of
the churches but cities too, and many of them compelled to
96communicate with the Arians by stripes and torments, by
proscriptions and banishments, and other violent methods
of severity. Upon the banishment of Athanasius,[139] whom
Constantius, in his letter to the citizens of Alexandria, calls
“an impostor, a corrupter of men’s souls, a disturber of
the city, a pernicious fellow, one convicted of the worst
crimes, not to be expiated by his suffering death ten times;”
George was put into the see of Alexandria, whom the emperor,
in the same letter, stiles “a most venerable person,[140]
and the most capable of all men to instruct them in heavenly
things;” though Athanasius, in his usual style, calls him “an
idolater and hangman, and one capable of all violences,
rapines, and murders;” and whom he actually charges with
committing the most impious actions and outrageous cruelties.
Thus, as Socrates observes,[141] was the church torn in
pieces by a civil war for the sake of Athanasius and the
word “consubstantial.”
The truth is, that the Christian clergy were now become
the chief incendiaries and disturbers of the empire, and the
pride of the bishops, and the fury of the people on each side
were grown to such an height, as that there scarce ever was
an election or restoration of a bishop in the larger cities,
but it was attended with slaughter and blood. Athanasius
was several times banished and restored, at
the expense of blood; the orthodox were deposed, and
the Arians substituted in their room, with the murder
of thousands; and as the controversy was now no longer
about the plain doctrines of uncorrupted Christianity, but
about power and dominion, high preferments, large revenues,
and secular honours; agreeably hereto, the bishops
were introduced into their churches,[142] and placed on their
thrones, by armed soldiers, and paid no regard to the ecclesiastical
rules, or the lives of their flocks, so they could get
possession, and keep out their adversaries: and when once
97they were in, they treated those who differed from them
without moderation or mercy, turning them out of their
churches, denying them the liberty of worship, putting them
under an anathema, and persecuting them with innumerable
methods of cruelty; as is evident from the accounts given
by the ecclesiastical historians, of Athanasius, Macedonius,
George, and others, which may be read at large, in the forementioned
places. In a word, they seemed to treat one
another with the same implacable bitterness and severity,
as ever their common enemies, the heathens, treated them;
as though they thought that persecution for conscience sake
had been the distinguishing precept of the Christian religion;
and that they could not more effectually recommend
and distinguish themselves as the disciples of Christ, than
by tearing and devouring one another. This made Julian,[143]
the emperor, say of them, “that he found by experience,
that even beasts are not so cruel to men, as the generality
of Christians were to one another.”
This was the unhappy state of the church in the reign
of Constantius, which affords us little more than the history
of councils and creeds, differing from, and contrary to each
other; bishops deposing, censuring, and anathematizing
their adversaries, and the Christian people divided into
factions under their respective leaders, for the sake of words
they understood nothing of the sense of, and striving for
victory even to bloodshed and death. Upon the succession
of Julian to the empire, though the contending-parties could
not unite against the common enemy, yet they were by the
emperor’s clemency and wisdom kept in tolerable peace and
order.[144] The bishops, which had been banished by Constantius
his predecessor, he immediately recalled, ordered their
effects, which had been confiscated, to be restored to them,
and commanded that no one should injure or hurt any
Christian whatsoever. And as Ammianus Marcellinus,[145]
an heathen writer of those times, tells us, he caused the
98Christian bishops and people, who were at variance with
each other, to come into his palace, and there admonished
them, that they should every one profess their own religion,
without hindrance or fear, provided they did not disturb the
public peace by their divisions. This was an instance of
great moderation and generosity, and a pattern worthy the
imitation of all his successors.
In the beginning of Julian’s reign[146] some of the inhabitants
of Alexandria, and, as was reported, the friends of
Athanasius, by his advice, raised a great tumult in the city,
and murdered George, the bishop of the place, by tearing
him in pieces, and burning his body; upon which Athanasius
returned immediately from his banishment, and took
possession of his see, turning out the Arians from their
churches, and forcing them to hold their assemblies in private
and mean places. [T]Julian, with great equity, severely
reproved the Alexandrians for this their violence and cruelty,
telling them, that though George might have greatly injured
them, yet they ought not to have revenged themselves
on him, but to have left him to the justice of the laws.
Athanasius, upon his restoration, immediately convened
a synod at Alexandria, in which was first asserted the divinity
of the Holy Spirit, and his consubstantiality with the
Father and the Son.[147] But his power there was but short; for
being accused to Julian as the destroyer of that city, and all
Egypt, he saved himself by flight,[148] but soon after secretly
returned to Alexandria, where he lived in great privacy till
the storm blown over by Julian’s death, and the succession
of Jovian to the empire, who restored him to his
see, in which he continued undisturbed to his death.
Although Julian behaved himself with great moderation,
upon his first accession to the imperial dignity, towards the
Christians, as well as others, yet his hatred to Christianity
99soon appeared in many instances.[149] For though he did not,
like the rest of the heathen emperors, proceed to sanguinary
laws, yet he commanded, that the children of Christians
should not be instructed in the Grecian language and learning.
By another edict he ordained, that no Christian should
bear any office in the army, nor have any concern in the
distribution and management of the public revenues.[150] He
taxed very heavily, and demanded contributions from all
who would not sacrifice, to support the vast expences he
was at, in his eastern expeditions. And when the governors
of the provinces took occasion from hence to oppress and
plunder them, he dismissed those who complained with this
scornful answer, “your God hath commanded you to suffer
persecution!” He also deprived the clergy of all their immunities,
honours, and revenues, granted them by Constantine;
abrogated the laws made in their favour, and ordered
they should be listed amongst the number of soldiers. He
destroyed several of their churches, and stripped them of
their treasure and sacred vessels. Some he punished with
banishment, and others with death, under pretence of their
having pulled down some of the pagan temples, and insulted
himself.
The truth is, that the Christian bishops and people
shewed such a turbulent and seditious spirit, that it was
no wonder that Julian should keep a jealous eye over them;
and, though otherwise a man of great moderation, connive at
the severities his officers sometimes practised on them.
Whether he would have proceeded to any farther extremities
against them, had he returned victorious from his Persian
expedition, as Theodorit[151] affirms he would, cannot, I
think, be determined. He was certainly a person of great
humanity in his natural temper; but how far his own superstition,
and the imprudencies of the Christians, might have
altered this disposition, it is impossible to say. Thus much
is certain, that the behaviour of the Christians towards him,
100was, in many instances, very blameable, and such as tended
to irritate his spirit, and awaken his resentment. But whatever
his intentions were, he did not live to execute them,
being slain in his Persian expedition.
He was succeeded by Jovian,[152] who was a Christian by
principle and profession. Upon his return from Persia the
troubles of the church immediately revived, the bishops and
heads of parties crowding about him, each hoping that he
would list on their side, and grant them authority to oppress
their adversaries. Athanasius,[153] amongst others, writes to
him in favour of the Nicene creed, and warns him against
the blasphemies of the Arians; and though he doth not directly
urge him to persecute them, yet he tells him, that it is
necessary to adhere to the decisions of that council concerning
the faith, and that their creed was divine and apostolical;
and that no man ought to reason or dispute against it, as the
Arians did. A synod also of certain bishops met at Antioch
in Syria; and though several of them had been opposers of
the Nicene doctrine before, yet finding that this was the
faith espoused by Jovian, they with great obsequiousness
readily confirmed it, and subscribed it, and in a flattering
letter sent it to him, representing that this true and orthodox
faith was the great centre of unity. The followers also
of Macedonius, who rejected the word “consubstantial,”
and held the Son to be only “like to the Father,” most
humbly besought him, that such who asserted the Son to be
unlike the Father might be driven from their churches, and
that they themselves might be put into them in their room;
with the bishops names subscribed to the petition. But
Jovian, though himself in the orthodox doctrine, did not
suffer himself to be drawn into measures of persecution by
the arts of these temporizing prelates, but dismissed them
civilly with this answer: “I hate contention, and love those
only that study peace;” declaring, that “he would trouble
none upon account of their faith, whatever it was; and that
101he would favour and esteem such only, who should shew
themselves leaders in restoring the peace of the church.”
Themistius the philosopher, in his oration upon Jovian’s
consulate, commends him very justly on this account, that
he gave free liberty to every one to worship God as he
would, and despised the flattering insinuations of those who
would have persuaded him to the use of violent methods;
concerning whom he pleasantly, but with too much truth,
said, “that he found, by experience, that they worship not
God, but the purple.”
The two emperors, Valentinianus and Valens, who succeeded
Jovian, were of very different tempers, and embraced
different parties in religion. The former was of the orthodox
side;[154] and though he favoured those most who were of
his own sentiments, yet he gave no disturbance to the Arians.
On the contrary, Valens, his brother, was of a rigid and sanguinary
disposition, and severely persecuted all who differed
from him. In the beginning of their reign[155] a synod met in
Illyricum, who again decreed the consubstantiality of Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost.[156] This the two emperors declared in
a letter their assent to, and ordered that this doctrine should
be preached. However, they both published laws for the
toleration of all religions, even the heathen and Arian.[157] But
Valens was soon prevailed on by the arts of Eudoxius,[158]
bishop of Constantinople, to forsake both his principles of
religion and moderation, and embracing the Arian opinions,
he cruelly persecuted all those who were of the orthodox
party. The conduct of the orthodox synod met at Lampsacus
was the first thing that enraged him; for having obtained
of him leave to meet, for the amendment and settlement
of the faith, after two months consultation they decreed
the doctrine of the Son’s being like the Father as to his
essence, to be orthodox, and deposed all the bishops of the
102Arian party. This highly exasperated Valens, who, thereupon,
called a council of Arian bishops, and commanded
the bishops that composed the council at Lampsacus to embrace
the opinions of Eudoxius the Arian; and upon their
refusal immediately sent them into banishment, and gave
their churches to their enemies, sparing only Paulinus, for
the remarkable sanctity of his life. After this he entered
into more violent measures, and caused the orthodox,
some of them to be whipped, others to be disgraced, others
to be imprisoned, and others to be fined.[159] He also put
great numbers to death, and particularly caused eighty of
them at once to be put on board a ship, and the ship to be
fired when it was sailed out of the harbour, where they
miserably perished by the water and the flames. These
persecutions he continued to the end of his reign, and was
greatly assisted in them by the bishops of the Arian party.
In the mean time great disturbances happened at Rome.[160]
Liberius, bishop of that city, being dead, Ursinus, a deacon
of that church, and Damasus, were both nominated to succeed
him. The party of Damasus prevailed, and got him
chosen and ordained. Ursinus being enraged that Damasus
was preferred before him, set up separate meetings, and
at last procured himself to be privately ordained by certain
obscure bishops. This occasioned great disputes amongst the
citizens, which should obtain the episcopal dignity; and the
matter was carried to such an height, that great numbers were
murdered in the quarrel on both sides, no less than one hundred
and thirty-seven persons being destroyed in the church
itself, according to Ammianus,[161] who adds, “that it was no
wonder to see those who were ambitious of human greatness,
contending with so much heat and animosity for that dignity,
because, when they had obtained it, they were sure to be
enriched by the offerings of the matrons, of appearing abroad
in great splendor, of being admired for their costly coaches,
103sumptuous in their feasts, out-doing sovereign princes in
the expenses of their tables.” For which reason Prætextatus,
an heathen, who was prefect of the city the following
year, said, “Make me bishop of Rome, and I’ll be a
Christian too.”
Gratian, the son of Valentinian, his partner and successor
in the empire, was of the orthodox party, and after
the death of his uncle Valens recalled those whom he had
banished, and restored them to their sees. But as to the
Arians,[162] he sent Sapores, one of his captains, to drive them,
as wild beasts, out of all their churches. Socrates and
Sozomen tell us, however, that by a law he ordained, that
persons of all religions should meet, without fear, in their
several churches, and worship according to their own way,
the Eunomians, Photinians, and Manichees excepted.
Theodosius, soon after his advancement by Gratian to
the empire, discovered a very warm zeal for the orthodox
opinions;[163] for observing that the city of Constantinople was
divided into different sects, he wrote a letter to them from
Thessalonica, wherein he tells them, “that it was his pleasure,
that all his subjects should be of the same religion
with Damasus bishop of Rome, and Peter bishop of Alexandria;
and that their church, only, should be called catholic,
who worshipped the divine Trinity as equal in honour;
and that those who were of another opinion should be
called heretics, become infamous, and be subject to other
104punishments.”punishments.” He also forbid assemblies and disputations
in the Forum, and made a law for the punishment of those
that should presume to argue about the essence and nature
of God. Upon his first coming to Constantinople,[164] being
very solicitous for the peace and increase of the church, he
sent for Demophilus the Arian bishop, and asked him whether
he would consent to the Nicene faith, and thus accept
the peace he offered him: adding this strong argument, “if
you refuse to do it, I will drive you from your churches.”
And upon Demophilus’s refusal, the emperor was as good
as his word; and turned him and all the Arians out of the
city, after they had been in possession of the churches there
for forty years.[165] But being willing more effectually to extinguish
heresy, he summoned a council of bishops of his own
persuasion, A. C. 381, to meet together at Constantinople, in
order to confirm the Nicene faith: the number of them were
one hundred and fifty; to these, for form’s sake, were added
thirty-six of the Macedonian party. And accordingly this council,[166]
which is reckoned the second oecumenical or general one,
all of them, except the Macedonians, did decree that the Nicene
faith should be the standard of orthodoxy; and that all
heresies should be condemned. They also made an addition
to that creed, explaining the orthodox doctrine of the Spirit
against Macedonius, viz. after the words Holy Ghost, they
inserted, “the Lord, the Quickner, proceeding from the
Father, whom with the Father and the Son we worship and
glorify, and who spake by the prophets.” When the council
was ended,[167] the emperor put forth two edicts against heretics;
by the first prohibiting them from holding any assemblies;
and by the second, forbidding them to meet in fields or villages,
ordering the houses where they met to be confiscated,
and commanding that such who went to other places to
teach their opinions, or perform their religious worship,
105should be forced to return to the places where they dwelt,
condemning all those officers and magistrates of cities who
should not prevent such assemblies. A little while after
the conclusion of this council,[168] finding that many disorders
were still occasioned through the opposition of the several
parties to one another, he convened the principal persons
of each, and ordered them to deliver into his hand a written
form of their belief; which after he had received, he retired
by himself, and earnestly prayed to God, that he would
enable him to make choice of the truth. And when after
this he had perused the several papers delivered to him, he
tore them all in pieces, except that which contained the doctrine
of the indivisible Trinity, to which he intirely adhered.
After this he published a law, by which he forbid heretics
to worship or preach, or to ordain bishops or others, commanding
some to be banished, others to be rendered infamous,
and to be deprived of the common privileges of
citizens, with other grievous penalties of the like nature.
[U]Sozomen, however, tells us, that he did not put these laws
in execution, because his intention was not to punish his
subjects, but to terrify them into the same opinions of God
with himself, praising at the same time those who voluntarily
embraced them. Socrates also confirms the same,
telling us,[169] that he only banished Eunomius from Constantinople
for holding private assemblies, and reading his
books to them, and thereby corrupting many with his doctrine.
But that as to others he gave them no disturbance,
nor forced them to communicate with him, but allowed them
all their several meetings, and to enjoy their own opinions
as to the Christian faith. Some he permitted to build
churches without the cities, and the Novatians to retain
their churches within, because they held the same doctrines
with himself.
Arcadius and Honorius,[170] the sons and successors of
106Theodosius, embraced the orthodox religion and party, and
confirmed all the decrees of the foregoing emperors in their
favour. Soon after their accession to the imperial dignity,
Nectarius bishop of Constantinople died, and John, called
for his eloquence Chrysostom, was ordained in his room:
he was a person of a very rigid and severe temper, an enemy
to heretics, and against allowing them any toleration.
Gaina, one of the principal officers of Arcadius, and who
was a Christian of the Arian persuasion, desired of the emperor
one church for himself, and those of his opinion,
within the city. Chrysostom being informed of it, immediately
went to the palace, taking with him all the bishops
he could find at Constantinople; and in the presence of the
emperor bitterly inveighed against Gaina, who was himself
at the audience, and reproached him for his former poverty,
as also with insolence and ingratitude. Then he produced
the law that was made by Theodosius, by which heretics
were forbidden to hold assemblies within the walls of the
city; and turning to the emperor, persuaded him to keep in
force all the laws against heretics; adding, that it was better
voluntarily to quit the empire, than to be guilty of the impiety
of betraying the house of God. Chrysostom carried
his point, and the consequence of it was an insurrection of
the Goths, in the city of Constantinople; which had like to
have ended in the burning the imperial palace, and the
murder of the emperor, and did actually end in the cutting
off all the Gothic soldiers, and the burning of their church,
with great numbers of persons in it, who fled thither, for
safety, and were locked in to prevent their escape. His
violent treatment of several bishops,[171] and. the arbitrary manner
of his deposing them, and substituting others in their
room, contrary to the desires and prayers of the people, is
but too full a proof of his imperious temper, and love of
power. Not content with this, he turned his eloquence
against the empress Eudoxia, and in a set oration inveighing
107against bad women, he expressed himself in such a manner,
as that both his friends and enemies believed that the invective
was chiefly levelled against her. This so enraged her
that she soon procured his deposition and banishment.
Being soon after restored, he added new provocations to the
former, by rebuking the people for certain diversions they
took at a place where the statue of the empress was erected.
This she took for an insult on her person, and when Chrysostom
knew her displeasure on this account, he used more
severe expressions against her than before, saying, “Herodias
is enraged again; she raises fresh disturbances, and
again desires the head of John in a charger.” On this and
other accounts he was deposed and banished by a synod convened
for that purpose, bishops being always to be had in
those days easily, to do what was desired or demanded of
them by the emperors. [V]Chrysostom died in his banishment,
according to the Christian wish of Epiphanius,[172] “I hope
you will not die bishop of Constantinople;” which Chrysostom
returned with a wish of the same good temper,
“I hope you will not live to return to your own city;” so
deadly was the hatred of these saints and fathers against
each other. After Chrysostom’s death, his favourers and
friends were treated with great severity, not indeed on the
account of religion, but for other crimes of sedition they
were charged with; and particularly, for burning down one
of the churches in the city,[173] the flames of which spread themselves
to the senate house, and entirely consumed it.
Under the same emperors the Donatists[174] gave sad specimens
of their cruelty in Africa towards the orthodox, as St.
Austin informs us. They seized on Maximianus, one of the
African bishops, as he was standing at the altar, beat him
unmercifully, and ran a sword into his body, leaving him for
dead. And a little after he adds, that it would be tedious
108to recount the many horrible things they made the bishops
and clergy suffer; some had their eyes put out; one bishop
had his hands and tongue cut off, and others were cruelly
destroyed. I forbear, says Austin, to mention their barbarous
murders, and demolishing of houses, not private ones
only, but the very churches themselves. Honorius[175] published
very severe edicts against them, ordaining, that if they did
not, both clergy and laity, return to the catholics by such a
day, they should be heavily fined, their estates should be
confiscated, the clergy banished, and their churches all given
to the catholics. These laws Austin commends as rightly
and piously ordained, maintaining the lawfulness of persecuting
heretics by all manner of ways, death only excepted.
Under the reign of Theodosius, Arcadius’s son, those
who were called heretics were grievously persecuted by the
orthodox. Theodosius,[176] bishop of Synnada in Phrygia,
expelled great numbers of the followers of Macedonius from
the city and country round about, “not from any zeal for the
true faith,” as Socrates says, “but through covetousness, and
a design to extort money from them.” On this account he
used all his endeavours to oppress them, and particularly
Agapetus, their bishop; armed his clergy against them, and
accused them before the tribunal of the judges. And because
he did not think the governors of the provinces sufficient
to carry on this good work of persecution, he went to
Constantinople to procure fresh edicts against them; but by
this means he lost his bishopric, the people refusing him
admission into the church upon his return, and choosing
Agapetus, whom he had persecuted, in his room.
Theophilus,[177] bishop of Alexandria, the great enemy of
Chrysostom, being dead, Cyrill was enthroned in his room,
not without great disturbance and opposition from the
people, and used his power for the oppression of heretics;
for immediately upon his advancement he shut up all the
109churches of the Novatians in that city, took away all their
sacred treasures, and stripped Theopemptus their bishop of
every thing that he had. Nor was this much to be wondered
at, since, as Socrates observes,[178] from the time of
Theophilus, Cyrill’s predecessor, “the bishop of Alexandria
began to assume an authority and power above what belonged
to the sacerdotal order.” On this account the great
men hated the bishops, because they usurped to themselves
a good part of that power which belonged to the imperial
governors of provinces; and particularly Cyrill was hated
by Orestes, prefect of Alexandria, not only for this reason,
but because he was a continual spy upon his actions. At
length their hatred to each other publicly appeared. Cyrill
took on him, without acquainting the governor, or contrary
to his leave, to deprive the Jews of all their synagogues, and
banished them from the city, and encouraged the mob to
plunder them of their effects. This the prefect highly resented,
and refused the bishop’s offers of peace and friendship.
Upon this, about fifty monks came into the city for
Cyrill’s defence, and meeting the prefect in his chariot,
publicly insulted him, calling him sacrificer and pagan;
adding many other injurious reproaches. One of them,
called Ammonius, wounded him in the head with a stone,
which he flung at him with great violence, and covered him
all over with blood; and being, according to the laws, put
by Orestes publicly to the torture, he died through the
severity of it. St. Cyrill honourably received the body into
the church, gave him the new name of Thaumasius, or, the
Wonderful; ordered him to be looked on as a martyr, and
lavishly extolled him in the church, as a person murdered
for his religion. This scandalous procedure of Cyrill’s the
Christians themselves were ashamed of, because it was publicly
known that the monk was punished for his insolence;
and even St. Cyrill himself had the modesty at last to use
his endeavours that the whole affair might be entirely forgotten.
110The murder also of Hypatia,[179] by Cyrill’s friends
and clergy, merely out of envy to her superior skill in philosophy,
brought him and his church of Alexandria under
great infamy; for as she was returning home from a visit,
one Peter, a clergyman, with some other murderers, seized
on her, dragged her out of her chariot, carried her to one of
the churches, stripped her naked, scraped her to death with
shells, then tore her in pieces, and burnt her body to ashes.
Innocent[180] also, bishop of Rome, grievously persecuted
the Novatians, and took from them many churches; and,
as Socrates observes, was the first bishop of that see who
disturbed them. Celestine also, one of his successors,
imitated this injustice, and took from the Novatians the remainder
of their churches, and forced them to hold their
assemblies in private;[181] “for the bishops of Rome, as well
as those of Alexandria, had usurped a tyrannical power,
which, as priests, they had no right to;” and would not suffer
those who agreed with them in the faith, as the Novatians
did, to hold public assemblies, but drove them out of their
oratories, and plundered them of all their substance.
Nestorius bishop of Constantinople, immediately upon
his advancement, shewed himself a valiant persecutor; for
as soon as ever he was ordained, he addressed himself to
the emperor before the whole congregation,[182] and said, “Purge
me, O emperor, the earth from heretics, and I will give thee
in recompence the kingdom of heaven. Conquer with me
the heretics, and I with thee will subdue the Persians.”
And, agreeable to his bloody wishes, the fifth day after his
consecration, he endeavoured to demolish the church of the
Arians, in which they were privately assembled for prayer.
The Arians, in their rage, seeing the destruction of it determined,
set fire to it themselves, and occasioned the burning
down the neighbouring houses; and for this reason, not only
the heretics, but those of his own persuasion, distinguished
111him by the name of Incendiary. But he did not rest here,
but tried all tricks and methods to destroy heretics; and, by
these means, endangered the subversion of Constantinople
itself. He persecuted the Novatians, through hatred of
Paul their bishop for his eminent piety. He grievously
oppressed those who were not orthodox, as to the day of
keeping Easter, in Asia, Lydia, and Caria, and occasioned
the murders of great numbers on this account at Miletus
and Sardis.
Few indeed of the bishops were free from this wicked
spirit. Socrates, however, tells us,[183] that Atticus, bishop of
Constantinople, was a person of great piety and prudence,
and that he did not offer violence to any of the heretics, but,
that after he had once attempted to terrify them, he behaved
more mildly and gently to them afterwards. Proclus[184] also,
bishop of the same city, who had been brought up under
Atticus, was a careful imitator of his piety and virtue, and
exercised rather greater moderation than his master, being
gentle towards all men, from a persuasion that this was a
much more proper method than violence, to reduce heretics
to the true faith, and therefore he never made use of the
imperial power for this purpose. And in this he imitated
Theodosius the emperor, who was not at all concerned or
displeased that any should think differently of God from
himself. However, the number of bishops of this temper
was but small. Nothing pleased the generality of them
but methods of severity, and the utter ruin and extirpation
of their adversaries.
Under the reign of this emperor, the Arians also, in
their turn, used the orthodox with no greater moderation
than the orthodox had used them. The Vandals, who were
partly pagans, and partly Arians, had seized on Spain and
Africa, and exercised innumerable cruelties on those who
were not of the same religion with themselves. Trasimond,
their general in Spain, and Genseric, in Africa, used all
112possible endeavours to propagate Arianism throughout all
their provinces. And, the more effectually to accomplish
this design, they filled all places with slaughter and blood;
by the advice of the bishops of their party, burning down
churches, and putting the orthodox clergy to the most
grievous and unheard of tortures, to make them discover
the gold and silver of their churches, repeating these kind of
tortures several times, so that many actually died under them.
Genseric seized on all the sacred books he could find, that
they might be deprived of the means of defending their
opinions. By the counsel of his bishops, he ordered that
none but Arians should be admitted to court, or employed
in any offices about his children, or so much as enjoy the
benefit of a toleration. Armogestes, Masculon, and Saturus,
three officers of his court, were inhumanly tortured to make
them embrace Arianism; and, upon their refusal, they were
stripped of their honours and estates, and forced to protract
a miserable life in the utmost poverty and want. These
and many more instances of Genseric’s cruelty towards the
orthodox, during a long reign of thirty-eight years, are related
by Victor, l. 1. in fine.
During these transactions, a new controversy, of a very
extraordinary and important nature, arose in the church,
which, as the other had done before, occasioned many disorders
and murders, and gave birth to the third general
council. Nestorius,[185] the persecuting bishop of Constantinople,
although tolerably sound in the doctrine of the real
113deity of the Logos, yet excepted against the Virgin Mary’s
being called “mother of God,” because, as he argued, “Mary
was a woman, and that, therefore, God could not be born
of her;” adding, “I cannot call him God, who once was not
above two or three months old;” and, therefore, he substituted
another word in the room of it, calling her “mother
of Christ.” By this means he seemed to maintain not only
the distinction of the two natures of Christ, for he allowed
the proper personality and subsistence of the Logos, but
that there were also two distinct persons in Christ; the one
a mere man, absolutely distinct from the word, and the other
God, as absolutely distinct from the human nature. This
caused great disturbances in the city of Constantinople, and
the dispute was thought of such consequence, as to need a
council to settle it. Accordingly, Theodosius convened one
at Ephesus,[186] A. C. 431. of which Cyrill was president; and
as he hated Nestorius, he persuaded the bishops of his own
party to decree, that the Virgin was, and should be, the
mother of God, and to anathematize all who should not
confess her in this character, nor own that the word of God
the Father was united substantially to the flesh, making one
Christ of two natures, both God and man together; or
who should ascribe what the scriptures say of Christ to
two persons or subsistences, interpreting some of the man,
exclusive of the word; and others of the word, exclusive
of the human nature; or who should presume to call the
man Christ, “the bearer, or the receptacle of God,” instead
of God; and hastily to depose Nestorius five days before
the coming of John, bishop of Antioch, with his suffragan
bishops. John, upon his arrival at Ephesus, deposed Cyrill,
in a council of bishops held for that purpose, and accused
him of being the author of all the disorders occasioned
by this affair, and of having rashly proceeded to the desposition
of Nestorius. Cyrill was soon absolved by his own
council, and, in revenge, deposed John of Antioch, and all
114the bishops of his party. But they were both reconciled by
the emperor, and restored each other to their respective sees,
and, as the effect of their reconciliation, both subscribed to
the condemnation of Nestorius, who was sent into banishment,
where, after suffering great hardships, he died miserably;
being thus made to taste those sweets of persecution
he had so liberally given to others, in the time of his power
and prosperity. The emperor himself,[187] though at first he
disapproved of this council’s conduct, yet afterwards was
persuaded to ratify their decrees, and published a law, by
which all who embraced the opinions of Nestorius, were, if
bishops or clergymen, ordered to be expelled the churches;
or, if laymen, to be anathematized. This occasioned irreconcilable
hatreds amongst the bishops and people,[188] who
were so enraged against each other, that there was no passing
with any safety from one province or city to another,
because every one pursued his neighbour as his enemy, and,
without any fear of God, revenged themselves on one
another, under a pretence of ecclesiastical zeal.
Marcian,[189] the successor of Theodosius in the empire,
embraced the orthodox party and opinions, and was very
desirous to bring about an entire uniformity in the worship
of God, and to establish the same form of doxologies amongst
all Christians whatsoever.[190] Agreeably to this his temper,
Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, addressed him soon after his
115promotion, in these words: “God hath justly given you
the empire, that you should govern all for the universal
welfare, and for the peace of his holy church: and, therefore,
before and in all things, take care of the principles of
the orthodox and most holy faith, and extinguish the roarings
of the heretics, and bring to light the doctrines of piety.”
The legates also of Leo, bishop of Rome, presented him
their accusations against Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria;
as did also Eusebius, bishop of Dorylæum, beseeching the
emperor that these things might be judged and determined
by a synod. Marcian consented, and ordered the bishops
to meet first at Nice, and afterwards at Chalcedon, 451.
This was the fourth oecumenical or general council, consisting
of near six hundred prelates. The principal cause of
their assembling was the Eutychian heresy. Eutyches, a
presbyter of Constantinople, had asserted, in the reign of
Theodosius, jun.[191] that “Jesus Christ consisted of two natures
before his union or incarnation, but that after this he
had one nature only.” He also denied that “the body of
Christ was of the same substance with ours.” On this account,
he was deposed in a particular council at Constantinople,
by Flavian, bishop of that place; but, upon his complaining
to the emperor that the acts of that council were
falsified by his enemies, a second synod of the neighbouring
bishops met in the same city, who, after examining those acts,
found them to be genuine, and confirmed the sentence
against Eutyches. But Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria,
who was at enmity with Flavian of Constantinople, obtained,
from Theodosius, that a third council should be held on this
affair; which accordingly met at Ephesus, which the orthodox
stigmatized by the name of the thieving council, or
Council of Thieves. Dioscorus was president of it, and,
after an examination of the affair of Eutyches, his sentence
of excommunication and deposition was taken off, and himself
restored to his office and dignity; the bishops of Constantinople,
116Antioch, and others, being deposed in his stead.
But the condemned bishops, and the legates from Rome,
appealed from this sentence to another council, and prevailed
with Theodosius to issue his letters for the assembling one:
but as he died before they could meet,[192] the honour of determining
this affair was reserved for his successor, Marcian;
and when the fathers, in obedience to his summons, were
convened at Chalcedon, the emperor favoured them with his
presence; and, in a speech to them, told them, “that he
had nothing more at heart than to preserve the true and
orthodox Christian faith, safe and uncorrupted, and that,
therefore, he proposed to them a law, that no one should
dare to dispute of the person of Christ, otherwise than as it
had been determined by the council of Nice.” After this
address of the emperor, the fathers proceeded to their synodical
business, and, notwithstanding the synod was divided,
some of the fathers piously crying out, “Damn Dioscorus,
banish Dioscorus, banish the Egyptian, banish the heretic,
Christ hath deposed Dioscorus;” others, on the contrary,
“Restore Dioscorus to the council, restore Dioscorus to his
churches;” yet, through the authority of the legates of
Rome, Dioscorus was deposed for his contempt of the sacred
canons, and for his contumacy towards the holy universal
synod. After this, they proceeded to settle the faith according
to the Nicene creed, the opinions of the fathers, and the
doctrine of Athanasius, Cyrill, Cælestine, Hilarius, Basil,
Gregory, and Leo; and decreed, that “Christ was truly
God, and truly man, consubstantial to the Father as to his
deity, and consubstantial to us as to his humanity; and
that he was to be confessed as consisting of two natures
without mixture, conversion of one into the other, and without
division or separation; and that it should not be lawful
for any person to utter, or write, or compose, or think, or
teach any other faith whatsoever;” and that if any should
presume to do it, they should, if bishops or clergymen, be
117deposed; and if monks or laicks, be anathematized. This
procured a loud acclamation: “God bless the emperor,
God bless the empress. We believe as pope Leo doth.
Damn the dividers and the confounders. We believe as
Cyrill did: immortal be the name of Cyrill. Thus the
orthodox believe; and cursed be every one that doth not
believe so too.” Marcian ratified their decrees,[193] and banished
Dioscorus, and put forth an edict, containing very severe
penalties against the Eutychians and Apollinarists. By this
law the emperor ordained, “that they should not have
power of disposing their estates, and making a will, nor of
inheriting what others should leave them by will. Neither
let them receive advantage by any deed of gift, but let whatsoever
is given them, either by the bounty of the living, or
the will of the dead, be immediately forfeited to our treasury;
nor let them have the power, by any title or deed of
gift, to transfer any part of their own estates to others.
Neither shall it be lawful for them to have or ordain
bishops or presbyters, or any other of the clergy whatsoever;
as knowing that the Eutychians and Apollinarists,
who shall presume to confer the names of bishop or presbyter,
or any other sacred office upon any one, as well as
those who shall dare to retain them, shall be condemned to
banishment, and the forfeiture of their goods. And as to
those who have been formerly ministers in the Catholic
church, or monks of the orthodox faith, and forsaking the
true and orthodox worship of the Almighty God, have or
shall embrace the heresies and abominable opinions of Apollinarius
or Eutyches, let them be subject to all the penalties
ordained by this, or any foregoing laws whatsoever, against
heretics, and banished from the Roman dominions, according
as former laws have decreed against the Manicheans.
Farther, let not any of the Apollinarists, or Eutychians,
build churches or monasteries, or have assemblies and conventicles
either by day or night; nor let the followers of
118this accursed sect meet in any one’s house or tenement, or
in a monastery, nor in any other place whatsoever: but if
they do, and it shall appear to be with the consent of the
owners of such places, after a due examination, let such
place or tenement in which they meet be immediately
forfeited to us; or if it be a monastery, let it be given to
the orthodox church of that city in whose territory it is.
But if so be they hold these unlawful assemblies and conventicles
without the knowledge of the owner, but with
the privity of him who receives the rents of it, the tenant,
agent, or steward of the estate, let such tenant, agent, or
steward, or whoever shall receive them into any house or
tenement, or monastery, and suffer them to hold such unlawful
assemblies and conventicles, if he be of low and mean
condition, be publicly bastinadoed as a punishment to himself,
and as a warning to others; but if they are persons of
repute, let them forfeit ten pounds of gold to our treasury.
Farther, let no Apollinarist or Eutychian ever hope for any
military preferment, except to be listed in the foot soldiers,
or garrisons: but if any of them shall be found in any
other military service, let them be immediately broke, and
forbid all access to the palace, and not suffered to dwell in
any other city, town or country, but that wherein they were
born.”
“But if any of them are born in this august city, let them
be banished from this most sacred society, and from every
metropolitan city of our provinces. Farther, let no Apollinarist
or Eutychian have the power of calling assemblies,
public or private, or gathering together any companies, or
disputing in any heretical manner; or of defending their
perverse and wicked opinions; nor let it be lawful for any
one to speak or write, or publish any thing of their own, or
the writings of any others, contrary to the decrees of the
venerable synod of Chalcedon. Let no one have any such
books, nor dare to keep any of the impious performances
of such writers. And if any are found guilty of these crimes,
let them be condemned to perpetual banishment; and, as
for those, who through a desire of learning shall hear others
119disputing of this wretched heresy, it is our pleasure that they
forfeit ten pounds of gold to our treasury, and let the teacher
of these unlawful tenets be punished with death. Let all
such books and papers as contain any of the damnable opinions
of Eutyches or Apollinarius be burnt, that all the
remains of their impious perverseness may perish with the
flames; for it is but just that there should be a proportionable
punishment to deter men from these most outrageous
impieties. And let all the governors of our provinces, and
their deputies, and the magistrates of our cities, know,
that if, through neglect or presumption, they shall suffer
any part of this most religious edict to be violated, they
shall be condemned to a fine of ten pounds of gold, to be
paid into our treasury; and shall incur the farther penalty
of being declared infamous.” For this law, pope Leo
returns him thanks,[194] and exhorts him farther, that he would
reform the see of Alexandria, and not only depose the heretical
clergy of Constantinople from their clerical orders, but
expel them from the city itself.
At the same time that they published these cruel laws,
the authors of them, as Mr. Limborch[195] well observes,
would willingly be thought to offer no violence to conscience.
Marcian himself, in a letter to the Archimandrites
of Jerusalem, says, Such is our clemency, that we use no
force with any, to compel him to subscribe, or agree with us,
if he be unwilling; for we would not by terrors and violence
drive men into the paths of truth. Who would not wonder
at this hypocrisy, and at such attempts to cover over their
cruelties? They forbid men to learn or teach, under the
severest penalties, doctrines which they who teach them
are fully persuaded of the truth of, and think themselves
obliged to propagate; and yet the author of such penalties
would fain be thought to offer no violence to conscience.
But for what end are all these penalties against heretics
ordained? For no other, unquestionably, but that men may
120be deterred, by the fear of them, from openly professing
themselves, or teaching others, principles they think themselves
bound in conscience to believe and teach; that being
at length quite tired out by these hardships, they may join
themselves to the established churches, and at least profess
to believe their opinions. But this is offering violence to
conscience, and persecution in the highest degree. But to
proceed:
Proterius[196] was substituted by this council bishop of
Alexandria, in the room of Dioscorus; and upon his taking
possession of his bishopric, the whole city was put into the
utmost confusion, being divided, some for Dioscorus, some
for Proterius. The mob assaulted with great violence
their magistrates,[197] and being opposed by the soldiers, they
put them to flight by a shower of stones; and as they betook
themselves to one of the churches for sanctuary, the
mob besieged it, and burnt it to the ground, with the soldiers
in it. The emperor sent two thousand other soldiers
to quell this disturbance, who increased the miseries of the
poor citizens, by offering the highest indignities to their
wives and daughters. And though they were for some
time kept in awe,[198] yet, upon Marcian’s death, they broke out
into greater fury, ordained Timotheus bishop of the city,
and murdered Proterius, by running him through with a
sword. After this, they hung him by a rope, in a public
place, by way of derision, and then, after they had ignominiously
drawn him round the whole city, they burnt him to
ashes, and even fed on his very bowels in the fury of their
revenge. The orthodox charged these outrages upon the
Eutychians; but Zacharias, the historian, mentioned by
Evagrius, says, Proterius himself was the cause of them, and
that he raised the greatest disturbances in the city: and,
indeed, the clergy of Alexandria, in their letter to Leo, the
emperor, concerning this affair, acknowledge, that Proterius
121had deposed Timotheus, with four or five bishops, and several
monks, for heresy, and obtained of the emperor their
actual banishment. Great disturbances happened also in
Palestine[199] on the same account; the monks who opposed
the council forcing Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, to quit his
see, and getting one Theodosius ordained in his room. But
the emperor soon restored Juvenal, after whose arrival the
tumults and miseries of the city greatly increased, the different
parties acting by one another just as their fury and
revenge inspired them.
Leo succeeded Marcian,[200] and sent circular letters to the
several bishops, to make inquiries concerning the affairs of
Alexandria, and the council of Chalcedon. Most of the
bishops adhered to the decrees of those fathers, and agreed
to depose Timotheus, who was sent to bear Dioscorus company
in banishment.
Under Zeno, the son-in-law and successor of Leo, Hunnerick
the Vandal grievously persecuted the orthodox in
Africa. In the beginning of his reign he made a very equitable
proposal, that he would allow them the liberty of
choosing a bishop, and worshipping according to their own
way, provided the emperor would grant the Arians the same
liberty in Constantinople, and other places. This the orthodox
would not agree to, choosing rather to have their own
brethren persecuted, than to allow toleration to such as
differed from them. Hunnerick was greatly enraged by this
refusal, and exercised great severity towards all who would
not profess the Arian faith, being excited hereto by Cyrill,
one of his bishops, who was perpetually suggesting to him,
that the peace and safety of his kingdom could not be maintained,
unless he extirpated all who differed from him as
public nuisances. This cruel ecclesiastical advice was
agreeable to the king’s temper, who immediately put forth
the most severe edicts against those who held the doctrine
of the consubstantiality, and turned all those laws which
122had been made against the Arians, and other heretics,
against the orthodox themselves; it being, as Hunnerick
observes in his edict, “an instance of virtue in a king, to
turn evil counsels against those who were the authors of
them.” But though the persecution carried on by the
orthodox was no vindication of Hunnerick’s cruelty towards
them, yet I think they ought to have observed the justice of
divine Providence, in suffering a wicked prince to turn all
those unrighteous laws upon themselves, which, when they
had power on their side, they had procured for the punishment
and destruction of others. A particular account of the
cruelties exercised by this prince may be read at large in
Victor de Vandal. Persec. l. 3.
Zeno, though perfectly orthodox in his principles, yet
was a very wicked and profligate prince, and rendered himself
so extremely hateful to his own family, by his vices and
debaucheries, that Basiliscus, brother of Verina, mother of
Zeno’s empress, expelled him the empire, and reigned in
his stead;[201] and having found by experience, that the decrees
of the council of Chalcedon had occasioned many disturbances,
he by an edict ordained, that the Nicene creed alone
should be used in all churches, as being the only rule of the
pure faith, and sufficient to remove every heresy, and perfectly
to unite all the churches; confirming at the same time
the decrees of the councils of Constantinople and Ephesus.
But as to those of the council of Chalcedon, he ordered,
that as they had destroyed the unity and good order of the
churches, and the peace of the whole world, they should be
anathematized by all the bishops; and that wherever any
copies of those articles should be found they should be immediately
burnt. And that whosoever after this should
attempt, either by dispute or writing, or teaching, at any
time, manner or place, to utter, or so much as name the
novelties that had been agreed on at Chalcedon contrary
to the faith, should, as the authors of tumults and seditions
123in the churches of God, and as enemies to God and himself,
be subject to all the penalties of the laws, and be deposed,
if bishops or clergymen; and if monks or laicks, be punished
with banishment, and confiscation of their effects, and even
with death itself.[202] Most of the eastern bishops subscribed
these letters of Basiliscus; and being afterwards met in
council at Ephesus, they deposed Acacius, the orthodox
bishop of Constantinople, and many other bishops that
agreed with him. They also wrote to the emperor to
inform him, that “they had voluntarily subscribed his
letters,” and to persuade him to adhere to them, or that
otherwise “the whole world would be subverted, if the
decrees of the synod of Chalcedon should be re-established,
which had already produced innumerable slaughters, and
occasioned the shedding of the blood of the orthodox
Christians.” But Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, soon
forced Basiliscus to alter his measures, by raising up the
monks and mob of the city against him; so that he recalled
his former letters, and ordered Nestorius and Eutyches,
with all their followers, to be anathematized, and soon after
he quitted the empire to Zeno.[203] Upon his restoration he
immediately rescinded the acts of Basiliscus, and expelled
those bishops from their sees, which had been ordained
during his abdication. In the mean time the Asiatic
bishops, who in their letter to Basiliscus had declared,
that the report of their “subscribing involuntarily, and by
force, was a slander and a lie;” yet, upon this turn of
affairs, in order to excuse themselves to Acacius, and to
ingratiate themselves with Zeno, affirm, “that they did
it not voluntarily, but by force, swearing that they had
always, and did now believe the faith of the synod of Chalcedon.”
Evagrius leaves it in doubt, whether Zacharias
defamed them, or whether the bishops lied, when they
affirmed that they subscribed involuntarily, and against
their consciences.
124Zeno[204] observing the disputes that had arisen through
the decrees of the last council, published his Henoticon, or
his “uniting and pacific edict,”[205] in which he confirmed the
Nicene, Constantinopolitan, and Ephesine councils, ordained
that the Nicene creed should be the standard of orthodoxy,
declared that neither himself nor the churches have, or had,
or would have any other symbol or doctrine but that, condemned
Nestorius and Eutyches, and their followers; and
ordered, that whosoever had, or did think otherwise, either
now or formerly, whether at Chalcedon or any other synod,
should be anathematized. The intention of the emperor by
this edict, was plainly to reconcile the friends and opposers
of the synod of Chalcedon; for he condemned Nestorius
and Eutyches, as that council had done, but did not anathematize
those who would not receive their decrees, nor submit
to them as of equal authority with those of the three former
councils: but this compromise was far from having the
desired effect.
During these things several changes happened in the
bishopric of Alexandria.[206] Timothy, bishop of that place,
being dead, one Peter Mongus was elected by the bishops
suffragans of that see, which so enraged Zeno, that he
intended to have put him to death; but changed it for
banishment, and Timothy, successor of Proterius, was substituted
in his room. Upon Timothy’s death, John, a presbyter
of that church, obtained the bishopric by simony, and
in defiance of an oath he had taken to Zeno, that he would
never procure himself to be elected into that see. Upon this
he was expelled, and Mongus restored by the emperor’s
order. Mongus immediately consented, and subscribed to
the pacific edict, and received into communion those who
had formerly been of a different party. Soon after this he
was accused by Calendio,[207] bishop of Antioch, for adultery,
and for having publicly anathematized the synod of Chalcedon
125at Alexandria; and though this latter charge was true,
yet he solemnly denied it in a letter to Acacius,[208] bishop of Constantinople,
turning with the time, condemning and receiving
it, just as it suited his views, and served his interest.
But being at last accused before Felix,[209] bishop of Rome, he
was pronounced an heretic, excommunicated, and anathematized.
Anastasius,[210] who succeeded Zeno, was himself a great
lover of peace, and endeavoured to promote it, both amongst
the clergy and laity, and therefore ordered, that there should
be no innovations in the church whatsoever. But this moderation
was by no means pleasing to the monks and bishops.
Some of them were great sticklers for the council of Chalcedon,
and would not allow so much as a syllable or a letter
of their decrees to be altered, nor communicate with those
who did not receive them. Others were so far from submitting
to this synod, and their determinations, that they
anathematized it; whilst others adhered to Zeno’s Henoticon,
and maintained peace with one another, even though
they were of different judgments concerning the nature of
Christ. Hence the church was divided into factions, so that
the bishops would not communicate with each other. Not
only the eastern bishops separated from the western, but
those of the same provinces had schisms amongst themselves.
The emperor, to prevent as much as possible these quarrels,
banished those who were most remarkably troublesome from
their sees, and particularly the bishops of Constantinople
and Antioch, forbidding all persons to preach either for or
against the council of Chalcedon, in any places where it had
not been usual to do it before; that by allowing all churches
their several customs, he might prevent any disturbances
upon account of innovations.[211] But the monks and bishops
prevented all these attempts for peace, by forcing one
another to make new confessions and subscriptions, and by
126anathematizing all who differed from them as heretics; so
that by their seditious and obstinate behaviour they occasioned
innumerable quarrels and murders in the empire.
They also treated the emperor himself with great insolence,
and excommunicated him as an enemy to the synod of Chalcedon.
Macedonius,[212] bishop of Constantinople, and his
clergy raised the mob of that city against him, only for
adding to one of their hymns these words, “who was crucified
for us.” And when for this reason Macedonius was
expelled his bishopric, they urged on the people to such an
height of fury as endangered the utter destruction of the
city; for in their rage they set fire to several places in it,
cut off the head of a monk, crying out, he was “an enemy of
the Trinity;” and were not to be appeased till the emperor
himself went amongst them without his imperial diadem, and
brought them to temper by proper submissions and persuasions.[213]
And though he had great reason to be offended
with the bishops for such usage, yet he was of so humane
and tender a disposition, that though he ordered several of
them to be deposed for various offences, yet apprehending
that it could not be effected without bloodshed, he wrote to
the prefect of Asia, “not to do any thing in the affair, if it
would occasion the shedding a single drop of blood.”
Under this emperor, Symmachus,[214] bishop of Rome, expelled
the Manichees from the city, and ordered their books to
be publicly burnt before the doors of the church.
Justin[215] was more zealous for orthodoxy than his predecessor
Anastasias, and in the first year of his reign gave a
very signal proof of it. Severus, bishop of Antioch, was warm
against the council of Chalcedon, and continually anathematizing
it in the letters he wrote to several bishops; and
because the people quarrelled on this account, and divided
into several parties, Justin ordered the bishop to be apprehended,
and his tongue to be cut out; and commanded that
127the synod of Chalcedon should be preached up through all
the churches of the empire. Platina also tells us,[216] that he
banished the Arians, and gave their churches to the orthodox.
Hormisda also, bishop of Rome, in imitation of his
predecessor Symmachus, banished the remainder of the Manichees,
and caused their writings to be burnt.
Justinian,[217] his successor in the empire, succeeded him
also in his zeal for the council of Chalcedon, and banished
the bishops of Constantinople and Antioch, because they
would not obey his orders, and receive the decrees of that
synod. He also published a constitution, by which he anathematized
them and all their followers; and ordered, that
whosoever should preach their opinions should be subject to
the most grievous punishments. By this means nothing was
openly preached in any of the churches but this council; nor
did any one dare to anathematize it. And whosoever were
of a contrary opinion, they were compelled by innumerable
methods to come into the orthodox faith. In the third year
of his reign[218] he published a law, ordering that there should
be no pagans, nor heretics, but orthodox Christians only,
allowing to heretics three months only for their conversion.
By another he deprived heretics of the right of succession.[219]
By another he rendered them incapable of being witnesses
in any trial against Christians. He prohibited them also
from baptizing any persons, and from transcribing heretical
books, under the penalty of having the hand cut off. These
laws were principally owing to the persuasions of the bishops.
Thus Agapetus, bishop of Rome, who had condemned Anthimus,
and deposed him from his see of Constantinople, persuaded
Justinian to banish all those whom he had condemned
for heresy. Pelagius also desired,[220] that heretics
and schismatics might be punished by the secular power, if
they would not be converted. The emperor was too ready
128to comply with this advice. But notwithstanding all this
zeal for orthodoxy, and the cruel edicts published by him for
the extirpation of heresy, he was infamously covetous,[221] sold
the provinces of the empire to plunderers and oppressors,
stripped the wealthy of their estates upon false accusations
and forged crimes, and went partners with common whores
in their gains of prostitution; and what is worse, in the
estates of those whom those wretches falsely accused of
rapes and adulteries. And yet, that he might appear as
pious as he was orthodox, he built out of these rapines and
plunders many stately and magnificent churches; many religious
houses for monks and nuns, and hospitals for the relief
of the aged and infirm. Evagrius[222] also charges him with
more than bestial cruelty in the case of the Venetians, whom
lie not only allowed, but even by rewards encouraged to
murder their enemies at noon-day, in the very heart of the
city, to break open houses, and plunder the possessors of
their riches, forcing them to redeem their lives at the expence
of all they had. And if any of his officers punished
them for these violences, they were sure to be punished
themselves with infamy or death. And that each side might
taste of his severities, he afterwards turned his laws against
the Venetians, putting great numbers of them to death, for
those very murders and violences he had before encouraged
and supported.
129
During his reign, in the 24th year of it, was held the
fifth general council at Constantinople, A. C. 553, consisting
of about 165 fathers. The occasion of their meeting was
the opposition that was made to the four former general
councils, and particularly the writings of Origen, which
Eustachius, bishop of Jerusalem, accused, as full of many
dangerous errors.[223] In the first sessions it was debated,
whether “those who were dead were to be anathematized?”
One Eutychius looked with contempt on the fathers for
their hesitation in so plain a matter, and told them, that
there needed no deliberation about it; for that king Josias
formerly did not only destroy the idolatrous priests who
were living, but dug also those who had been dead long
before out of their graves. So clear a determination of the
point, who could resist? The fathers immediately were convinced,
and Justinian caused him to be consecrated bishop
of Constantinople, in the room of Menas, just deceased, for
this his skill in scripture and casuistry. The consequence
was, that the decrees of the four preceding councils were all
confirmed; those who were condemned by them re-condemned
and anathematized, particularly Theodorus bishop
of Mopsuestia, and Ibas, with their writings, as favouring
the impieties of Nestorius: and finally, Origen, with all his
detestable and execrable principles, and all persons whatsoever
who should think, or speak of them, or dare to defend
them. After these transactions the synod sent an account of
them to Justinian,[224] whom they complimented with the title
130of “the most Christian king, and with having a soul partaker
of the heavenly nobility.” And yet soon after these
flatteries his most Christian majesty turned heretic himself,
and endeavoured with as much zeal to propagate heresy, as
he had done orthodoxy before; he published an edict, by
which he ordained, that “the body of Christ was incorruptible,
and incapable even of natural and innocent passions;
that before his death he eat in the same manner as
he did after his resurrection, receiving no conversion or
change from his very formation in the womb, neither in his
voluntary or natural affections, nor after his resurrection.”
But as he was endeavouring to force the bishops to receive
his creed, God was pleased, as Evagrius observes,[225] to cut
him off; and notwithstanding “the heavenly nobility of
his soul, he went,” as the same author charitably supposes,[226]
“to the devil.”
HunnerickHunnerick,[227] the Arian king of the Vandals, treated the
orthodox in this emperor’s reign with great cruelty in
Africa, because they would not embrace the principles of
Arius; some he burnt, and others he destroyed by different
kinds of death; he ordered the tongues of several of them
to be cut out, who afterwards made their escape to Constantinople;
where Procopius, if you will believe him,
affirms he heard them speak as distinctly as if their tongues
had remained in their heads. Justinian himself mentions
them in one of his constitutions. Two of them, however,
who happened to be whore-masters, lost afterwards the use
of their speech for this reason, and the honour and grace of
martyrdom.
Justin the younger,[228] who succeeded Justinian, published
an edict soon after his advancement, by which he sent all
bishops to their respective sees, and to perform divine worship
according to the usual manner of their churches, without
making any innovations concerning the faith. As to his
131personal character, he was extremely dissolute and debauched,
and addicted to the most vile and criminal pleasures.
He was also sordidly covetous, and sold the very bishoprics
to the best bidders, putting them up to public auction. Nor
was he less remarkable for his cruelty;[229] he had a near relation
of his own name, whom he treacherously murdered;
and of whom he was so jealous, that he could not be content
till he and his empress had trampled his head under their
feet.[230] However, he was very orthodox, and published a new
explication of the faith, which for clearness and subtlety
exceeded all that went before it. In this he professes, that
“he believed in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the consubstantial
Trinity, one deity, or nature, or essence, and one
virtue, power and energy, in three hypostases or persons;
and that he adored the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in
Unity, having a most admirable division and union; the
Unity according to the essence or deity; the Trinity according
to the properties, hypostases or persons; for they are
divided indivisibly; or, if I may so speak, they are joined
together separately. The godhead in the three is one, and
the three are one, the deity being in them; or to speak
more accurately, which three are the deity. It is God the
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, when each
person is considered by itself, the mind thus separating
things inseparable; but the three are God, when considered
together, being one in operation and nature. We believe
also in one only begotten Son of God, God the Word—for
the holy Trinity received no addition of a fourth person,
even after the incarnation of God the Word, one of the holy
Trinity. But our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same,
consubstantial to God, even the Father, according to his
deity, and consubstantial to us according to his manhood;
liable to suffering in the flesh, but impassible in the deity.
For we do not own that God the Word, who wrought the
132miracles, was one, and he that suffered another; but we
confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, was
one and the same, who was made flesh and became perfect
man; and that the miracles and sufferings were of one and
the same: for it was not any man that gave himself for us,
but God the Word himself, being made man without change;
so that when we confess our Lord Jesus Christ to be one
and the same, compounded of each nature, of the godhead
and manhood, we do not introduce any confusion or mixture
by the union—for as God remains in the manhood, so also
nevertheless doth the man, being in the excellency of the
deity, Emanuel being both in one and the same, even one
God and also man. And when we confess him to be perfect
in the godhead, and perfect in the manhood, of which he is
compounded, we do not introduce a division in part, or
section to his one compounded person, but only signify the
difference of the natures, which is not taken away by the
union; for the divine nature is not converted into the
human, nor the human nature changed into the divine. But
we say, that each being considered, or rather actually existing
in the very definition or reason of its proper nature,
constitutes the oneness in person. Now this oneness as to
person signifies that God the Word, i. e. one person of the
three persons of the godhead, was not united to a pre-existent
man, but that he formed to himself in the womb of
our holy Lady Mary, glorious mother of God, and ever a
virgin, and out of her, in his own person, flesh consubstantial
to us, and liable to all the same passions, without sin,
animated with a reasonable and intellectual soul.—For considering
his inexplicable oneness, we orthodoxly confess one
nature of God the Word made flesh, and yet conceiving in
our minds the difference of the natures, we say they are
two, not introducing any manner of division. For each
nature is in him; so that we confess him to be one and the
same Christ, one Son, one person, one hypostasis, God and
man together. Moreover, we anathematize all who have,
or do think otherwise, and judge them as cut off from the
133holy Catholic, and apostolic church of God.” To this
extraordinary edict, all, says the historian, gave their consent,
esteeming it to be very orthodox, though they were
not more united amongst themselves than before.
Under Mauritius,[231] John bishop of Constantinople, in a
council held at that city, stiled himself oecumenical bishop,
by the consent of the fathers there assembled; and the
emperor himself ordered Gregory to acknowledge him in
that character. Gregory absolutely refused it, and replied,
that the power of binding and loosing was delivered to
Peter and his successors, and not to the bishops of Constantinople;
admonishing him to take care, that he did not provoke
the anger of God against himself, by raising tumults in
his church. This pope was the first who stiled himself,
Servus Servorum Dei,[232] servant of the servants of God; and
had such an abhorrence of the title of universal bishop, that
he said, “I confidently affirm, that whosoever calls himself
universal priest is the forerunner of Antichrist, by thus
proudly exalting himself above others.”
But, how ever modest Gregory was in refusing and condemning
this arrogant title, Boniface III.[233] thought better of
the matter, and after great struggles, prevailed with Phocas,
who murdered Mauritius the emperor, to declare that the
see of the blessed apostle Peter, which is the head of all
churches, should be so called and accounted by all, and the
bishop of it oecumenical or universal bishop. The church
of Constantinople had claimed this precedence and dignity,
and was sometimes favoured herein by the emperors, who
declared, that the first see ought to be in that place which
was the head of the empire. The Roman pontiffs, on the
other hand, affirmed, that Rome, of which Constantinople
was but a colony, ought to be esteemed the head of the
empire, because the Greeks themselves, in their writings,
stile the emperor Roman emperor, and the inhabitants of
134Constantinople are called Romans, and not Greeks; not to
mention that Peter, the prince of the apostles, gave the keys
of the kingdom of heaven to his successors, the popes of
Rome. On this foundation was the superiority of the
church of Rome to that of all other churches built; and
Phocas, who was guilty of all villanies, was one of the fittest
persons that could be found to gratify Boniface in this request.
Boniface, also, called a council at Rome, where this
supremacy was confirmed, and by whom it was decreed, that
bishops should be chosen by the clergy and people, approved
by the prince of the city, and ratified by the pope with these
words, “Volumus & jubemus,” for this is our will and command.
To reward Phocas for the grant of the primacy, he
approved the murder of Mauritius, and very honourably
received his images, which he sent to Rome. And having
thus wickedly possessed themselves of this unrighteous
power, the popes as wickedly used it, soon brought almost
the whole Christian world into subjection to them, and became
the persecutors general of the church of God; proceeding
from one usurpation to another, till at last they
brought emperors, kings and princes into subjection, forcing
them to ratify their unrighteous decrees, and to punish, in
the severest manner, all that should presume to oppose and
contradict them, till she became “drunken with the blood of
the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus,Jesus,
Babylon the great, the mother of harlots, and abominations
of the earth.”
The inquisition is the master-piece of their policy and
cruelty; and such an invention for the suppression of religion
and truth, liberty and knowledge, innocence and virtue,
as could proceed from no other wisdom but that which is
“earthly, sensual, and devilish.” And as the history of it,
which I now present my reader with a faithful abstract of,
gives the most perfect account of the laws and practices of
this accursed tribunal, I shall not enter into the detail of
popish persecutions, especially as we have a full account of
those practised amongst ourselves in Fox and other writers,
who have done justice to this subject. I shall only add a
135few things relating to the two other general councils, as they
are stiled by ecclesiastical historians.
Under Heraclius,[234] the successor of Phocas, great disturbances
were raised upon account of what they called the
heresy of the Monothelites, i. e. those who held there were
not two wills, the divine and human, in Christ, but only one
single will or operation. The emperor himself was of this
opinion, being persuaded into it by Pyrrhus patriarch of
Constantinople, and Cyrus bishop of Alexandria. And
though he afterwards seems to have changed his mind in
this point, yet in order to promote peace, he put forth an
edict, forbidding disputes or quarrels, on either side the
question. Constans, his grandson, was of the same sentiment,
and at the instigation of Paul bishop of Constantinople,
grievously persecuted those who would not agree with
him. Martyn,[235] pope of Rome, sent his legates to the emperor
and patriarch to forsake their errors, and embrace the
truth; but his holiness was but little regarded, and after
his legates were imprisoned and whipped, they were sent
into banishment. This greatly enraged Martyn, who
convened a synod at Rome of 150 bishops, who decreed,
that whosoever should “not confess two wills, and two operations
united, the divine and the human, in one and the
same Christ, should be anathema,” and that Paul bishop of
Constantinople should be condemned and deposed. The
emperor highly resented this conduct, and sent Olympius
hexarch into Italy to propagate the Monothelite doctrine;
and either to kill Martyn, or send him prisoner to Constantinople.
Olympius not being able to execute either design,
Theodorus was sent in his room, who apprehended the pope,
put him in chains, and got him conveyed to the emperor,
who after ignominiously treating him, banished him to Pontus,
where he died in great misery and want. The bishops of
Constans’s party[236] were greatly assistant to him in this work
136of persecution, and shewed more rage against their fellow-Christians,
than they did against the very barbarians themselves.
Constantine, the eldest son of Constans, cut off his
two younger brothers’ noses, that they might not share the
empire with him; but, however, happened to be more
orthodox than his predecessors; and by the persuasion of
Agatho,[237] pope of Rome, convened the sixth general council
at Constantinople, A. D. 680, in which were present 289
bishops. The fathers of this holy synod complimented the
emperor with being “another David, raised up by Christ,
their God, a man after his own heart; who had not given
sleep to his eyes, nor slumber to his eye-lids, till he had
gathered them together, to find out the perfect rule of faith.”
After this they condemned the heresy of one will in Christ,
and declared, “that they glorified two natural wills and
operations, indivisibly, inconvertibly, without confusion,
and inseparably in the same Lord Jesus Christ, our true
God, i. e. the divine operation, and the human operation.”
So that now the orthodox faith, in reference to Christ, was
this; that “he had two natures, the divine and human;
that these two natures were united, without confusion, into
one single person; and that in this one single person, there
were two distinct wills and operations, the human and
divine.” Thus, at last, 680 years after Christ, was the
orthodox faith, relating to his deity, humanity, nature and
137wills, decided and settled by this synod; who, after having
pronounced anathemas against the living and dead, ordered
the burning of heretical books, and deprived several bishops
of their sees; procured an edict from the emperor, commanding
all to receive their confession of faith, and denouncing
not only eternal, but corporal punishments to all
recusants; viz. if they were bishops, or clergymen, or
monks, they were to be banished; if laymen, of any rank
and figure, they were to forfeit their estates, and lose their
honours; if of the common people, they were to be expelled
the royal city. These their definitive sentences were concluded
with the usual exclamation, of, “God save the
emperor, long live the orthodox emperor; down with the
heretics; cursed be Eutyches, Macarius, &c. The Trinity
hath deposed them.”
The next controversy of importance was relating to the
worship of images. The respect due to the memories of the
apostles and martyrs of the Christian church, was gradually
carried into great superstition, and at length degenerated
into downright idolatry. Not only churches were dedicated
to them, but their images placed in them, and religious
adoration paid to them. Platina tells us, that amongst
many other ceremonies introduced by pope Sixtus III. in
the fifth century, he persuaded Valentinian the younger,
emperor of the West, to beautify and adorn the churches,
and to place upon the altar of St. Peter, a golden image of
our Saviour, enriched with jewels. In the next century the
images of the saints were brought in, and religious worship
paid to them. This appears from a letter of pope Gregory’s,
to the bishop of Marseilles, who broke in pieces certain
images, because they had been superstitiously adored.
Gregory tells him,[238] “I commend you, that through a pious
zeal, you would not suffer that which is made with hands to
be adored; but I blame you for breaking the images in
pieces: for it is one thing to adore a picture, and another
138to learn by the history of the picture what is to be
adored.” And elsewhere he declares,[239] that “images and
pictures in churches, were very useful for the instruction of
the ignorant, who could not read.” Sergius, after this,
repaired the images of the apostles. John VII. adorned a
great many churches with the pictures and images of the
saints. And at length, in the reign of Philippicus, Constantine
the pope, in a synod held at Rome, decreed, that images
should be fixed up in the churches, and have great adoration
paid them. He also condemned and excommunicated
the emperor himself for heresy; because he erased the pictures
of the fathers, which had been painted on the walls of
the church of St. Sophia, at Constantinople; and commanded
that his images should not be received into the church; that
his name should not be used in any public or private writings,
nor his effigies stamped upon any kind of money whatsoever.
This superstition of bringing images into churches was
warmly opposed, and gave occasion to many disturbances
and murders. The emperor Leo Isaurus greatly disapproved
this practice, and published an edict, by which he
commanded all the subjects of the Roman empire to deface
all the pictures, and to take away all the statues of the
martyrs and angels out of the churches, in order to prevent
idolatry, threatening to punish those who did not, as public
enemies. Pope Gregory II.[240] opposed this edict, and admonished
all Catholics, in no manner to obey it. This
occasioned such a tumult at Ravenna in Italy, between the
partisans of the emperor and the pope, as ended in the
murder of Paul, exarch of Italy, and his son; which enraged
the emperor in an high degree; so that he ordered all persons
to bring to him all their images of wood, brass, and
marble, which he publicly burnt; punishing with death all
such as were found to conceal them. He also convened a
synod at Constantinople; where, after a careful and full
139examination, it was unanimously agreed, that the intercession
of the saints was a mere fable; and the worship of
images and relicts was downright idolatry, and contrary to
the word of God. And as Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople,
favoured images, the emperor banished him, and
substituted Anastasius, who was of his own sentiments, in
his room. Gregory III.[241] in the beginning of his pontificate,
assembled his clergy, and by their unanimous consent,
deposed him on this account from the empire, and put him
under excommunication; and was the first who withdrew
the Italians from their obedience to the emperors of Constantinople,
calling in the assistance of Charles king of
France. After this, he placed the images of Christ and his
apostles in a more sumptuous manner than they were before
upon the altar of St. Peter, and at his own expence made a
golden image of the Virgin Mary, holding Christ in her
arms, for the church of St. Mary ad Præsepe.
Constantine Copronymus, Leo’s son and successor in the
empire, inherited his father’s zeal against the worship of
images, and called a synod at Constantinople to determine
the controversy. The fathers being met together, to the
number of 330, after considering the doctrine of scripture,
and the opinions of the fathers, decreed, “that every image,
of whatsoever materials made and formed by the artist,
should be cast out of the Christian church as a strange and
abominable thing; adding an anathema upon all who should
make images or pictures, or representations of God, or of
Christ, or of the Virgin Mary, or of any of the saints, condemning
it as a vain and diabolical invention; deposing all
bishops, and subjecting the monks and laity, who should set
up any of them in public or private, to all the penalties of
the imperial constitutions.” They also deposed Constantine,
patriarch of Constantinople, for opposing this decree;
and the emperor first banished him, and afterwards put him
to death; and commanded, that this council should be
140esteemed and received as the seventh oecumenical, or universal
one. Paul I.[242] pope of Rome, sent his legate to Constantinople,
to admonish the emperor to restore the sacred
images and statues which he had destroyed; and threatened
him with excommunication upon his refusal. But Copronymus
slighted the message, and treated the legates with great
contempt, and used the image worshippers with a great deal
of severity.
Constantine, bishop of Rome, the successor of Paul,
seems also to have been an enemy to images, and was there
tumultuously deposed; and Stephen III.[243] substituted in his
room, who was a warm and furious defender of them. He
immediately assembled a council in the Lateran church,
where the holy fathers abrogated all Constantine’s decrees;
deposed all who had been ordained by him bishops; made
void all his baptisms and chrisms; and, as some historians
relate, after having beat him, and used him with great indignity,
made a fire in the church, and burnt him therein.
After this, they annulled all the decrees of the synod of
Constantinople, ordered the restoration of statues and
images, and anathematized that execrable and pernicious
synod, giving this excellent reason for the use of images;
“that if it was lawful for emperors, and those who had deserved
well of the commonwealth, to have their images
erected, but not lawful to set up those of God, the condition
of the immortal God would be worse than that of men.”
After this the pope published the acts of the council, and
pronounced an anathema against all those who should oppose
it.
141
Thus the mystery of this iniquity worked, till at length,
under the reign of Irene and Constantine her son, a synod
was packed up of such bishops as were ready to make any
decrees that should be agreeable to the Roman pontiff, and
the empress. They met at Nice, An. 787, to the number of
about 350. In this venerable assembly it was decreed,
“that holy images of the cross should be consecrated, and
put on the sacred vessels and vestments, and upon walls and
boards, in private houses and public ways; and especially
that there should be erected images of the Lord our God,
our Saviour Jesus Christ, of our blessed Lady, the mother
of God, of the venerable angels, and of all the saints. And
that whosoever should presume to think or teach otherwise,
or to throw away any painted books, or the figure of the
cross, or any image or picture, or any genuine relicts of the
martyrs, they should, if bishops or clergymen, be deposed;
or if monks or laymen, be excommunicated.” Then they
pronounced anathemas upon all who should not receive
images, or who should call them idols, or who should wilfully
communicate with those who rejected and despised
them; adding, according to custom, “Long live Constantine
and Irene his mother. Damnation to all heretics. Damnation
on the council that roared against venerable images:
the holy Trinity hath deposed them.”
Irene and Constantine approved and subscribed these
decrees, and the consequence was, that idols and images
were erected in all the churches; and those who were
against them, treated with great severity. This council was
held under the popedom of Hadrian I. and thus, by the
intrigues of the popes of Rome, iniquity was established by
a law, and the worship of idols authorized and established
142in the Christian church, though contrary to all the principles
of natural religion, and the nature and design of the Christian
revelation.
It is true, that this decision of the council did not put an
entire end to the controversy. Platina tells us,[244] that Constantine
himself, not long after, annulled their decrees, and
removed his mother from all share in the government. The
synod also of Francfort, held about six years after, decreed
that the worship and adoration of images was impious; condemned
the synod of Nice, which had established it, and
ordered that it should not be called either the seventh, or
an universal council. But as the Roman pontiffs had engrossed
almost all power into their own hands, all opposition
to image worship became ineffectual; especially as they
supported their decrees by the civil power, and caused great
cruelties to be exercised towards all those who should dare
dispute or contradict them.
For many years the world groaned under this antichristian
yoke; nor were any methods of fraud, imposture and
barbarity, left unpractised to support and perpetuate it. As
the clergy rid lords of the universe, they grew wanton and
insolent in their power; and as they drained the nations of
their wealth to support their own grandeur and luxury, they
degenerated into the worst and vilest set of men that ever
burdened the earth. They were shamefully ignorant, and
scandalously vicious; well versed in the most exquisite arts
of torture and cruelty, and absolutely divested of all bowels
of mercy and compassion towards those, who even in the
smallest matters differed from the dictates of their superstition
and impiety. The infamous practices of that accursed
tribunal, the inquisition, the wars against heretics in the
earldom of Tholouse, the massacres of Paris and Ireland,
the many sacrifices they have made in Great Britain, the
fires they have kindled, and the flames they have lighted up
in all nations, where their power hath been acknowledged,
143witness against them, and demonstrate them to be very
monsters of mankind. So that one would really wonder,
that the whole world hath not entered into a combination,
and risen in arms against so execrable a set of men, and
extirpated them as savage beasts, from the face of the
whole earth; who, out of a pretence of religion, have defiled
it with the blood of innumerable saints and martyrs,
and made use of the name of the most holy Jesus, to countenance
and sanctify the most abominable impieties.
But as the inquisition is their master piece of hellish
policy and cruelty, I shall give a more particular account of
it in the following book.
BOOK III. OF PERSECUTIONS UNDER THE PAPACY, AND PARTICULARLY OF THE INQUISITION. — SECT. I. Of the progress of the Inquisition. — SECT. II. Of the Officers belonging to the Inquisition. — SECT. III. Of the crimes cognizable by the Inquisition, and the punishment annexed to them. — SECT. IV. Of the manner of proceeding before the tribunal of the Inquisition. — OF THE PRESENT STATE OF THE INQUISITION AT GOA, — THE ROMISH CHRISTIANS IN INDIA.
144
For several ages the method of proceeding against heretics
was committed to the bishops, with whom the government
and care of the churches were entrusted, according to
the received decrees of the church of Rome. But as their
number did not seem sufficient to the court, or because they
did not proceed with that fury against heretics, as the pope
would have them; therefore, that he might put a stop to
the increasing progress of heresy, and effectually extinguish
it, about the year of our Lord 1200, he founded the order of
the Dominicans and Franciscans. [W]Dominick and his followers
were sent into the country of Tholouse, where he
preached with great vehemence against the heretics of those
parts; from whence his order have obtained the name of
Predicants. Father Francis, with his disciples, battled it
with the heretics of Italy. They were both commanded by
the pope to excite the Catholic princes and people to extirpate
heretics, and in all places to inquire out their number
and quality; and also the zeal of the Catholics and bishops
in their extirpation, and to transmit a faithful account to
Rome: hence they are called inquisitors.
Dominick being sent into the country of Tholouse, was
confirmed in the office of inquisitor by the papal authority;
after which, upon a certain day, in the midst of a great concourse
of people, he declaredo penly in his sermon, in the
church of St. Prullian, “that he was raised to a new office by
145the pope;” adding, that “he was resolved to defend, with
his utmost vigour, the doctrines of the faith; and that if the
spiritual arm was not sufficient for this end, it was his fixed
purpose to call in the assistance of the secular one, and to
excite and compel the Catholic princes to take arms against
heretics, that the very memory of them might be intirely
destroyed.” It evidently appears that he was a very bloody
and cruel man. He was born in Spain, in the village of
Calaroga, in the diocese of Osma. His mother, before she
conceived him, dreamt that “she was with child of a whelp,
carrying in his mouth a lighted torch; and that after he was
born, he put the world in an uproar by his fierce barkings,
and set it on fire by the torch which he carried in his
mouth.” His followers interpret this dream of his doctrine,
by which he enlightened the whole world; but others, with
more reason, think that the torch was an emblem of that fire
and faggot, by which an infinite number of persons were
consumed to ashes.
Dominick being settled in the country of Tholouse, sent
a great number of persons, wearing crosses, to destroy the
Albigenses in those parts; and caused the friars of his order
to promise plenary indulgences to all who would engage in
the pious work of murdering heretics. He also caused
Raymond earl of Tholouse to be excommunicated, as a
defender of heretics, and his subjects to be absolved from
their oaths of allegiance. The cross-bearers, being thus
sent by Dominick, filled all places with slaughter and blood,
and burnt many whom they had taken prisoners. In the
year 1209, Biterre was taken by them; and the inhabitants,
146without any regard of age, were cruelly put to the sword,
and the city itself destroyed by the flames; and though there
were several Catholics in it, yet, lest any heretics should
escape, Arnold, abbot of Cisteaux, cried out, “Slay them all,
for the Lord knows who are his;” upon which they were all
slain, without exception. Carcassone also was destroyed,
Alby and La Vaur taken by force; in which last place they
hanged Aymeric, the governor of the city, who was of a noble
family, beheaded eighty of lower degree, and threw Girarda,
Aymeric’s sister, into an open pit, and covered her with
stones. Afterwards they conquered Carcum, where they
murdered sixty men. They seized on Villeneuve, a large
city near Tholouse, and burnt in it 400 Albigenses, and
hanged fifty more. They also took Castres de Termis, and
in it Raymond, lord of the place, whom they put in jail,
where he died; and burnt in one large fire, his wife, sister,
and virgin daughter, because they would not embrace the
faith of the church of Rome. They also took Avignon by
treachery, and, in despite of their oaths, plundered the city,
and killed great numbers of the inhabitants; and, at last,
forced the brave earl to surrender Tholouse itself, and then
stripped him of his dominions, and would not absolve him
from his excommunication, without walking in penance to
the high altar, in his shirt and breeches, and with naked feet.
Upon this conquest and destruction of the Albigenses, the
inquisition proceeded with vigour, and was established by
several councils at Tholouse and Narbonne.
In the year 1232, the inquisition was brought into Aragon,
and pope Gregory gave commission to the archbishop
of Tarracone, and his suffragans, to proceed against all
persons infected with heretical pravity; and accordingly
the inquisition was there carried on with the greatest rigour.
In 1251, pope Innocent IV. created inquisitors in Italy:
and the office was committed to the Friars Minors and Predicants.
The Friars Minors were appointed in the city of
Rome, the patrimony of St. Peter, Tuscany, the dutchy of
Spoletto, Campania, Maretamo, and Romania. To the Predicants
147he assigned Lombardy, Romaniola, the Marquisate
of Tarvesano, and Genoa; and gave them certain articles
to be prescribed to the magistrates and people subject to
their jurisdiction, with power to excommunicate all who refused
to observe them; and in process of time tribunals of
the inquisition were erected in Germany, Austria, Hungary,
Bohemia, Poland, Dalmatia, Bosnia, Ragusia, and in all
places where the power of the pope could extend itself. Innumerable
cruelties were practised upon those whom the
judges condemned for heresy; some were burnt alive, others
thrown into rivers, tied hand and foot, and so drowned; and
others destroyed by different methods of barbarity.
Ferdinand and Isabella having united the several kingdoms
of Spain by their inter-marriage, introduced, in the
year 1478, the inquisition into all their kingdoms, with
greater pomp, magnificence and power, than it had ever yet
appeared in. The Jews were the first who felt the fury of
it. A set time was appointed by the inquisitors for them to
come in and make confession of their errors, in the year
1481. Accordingly about 1700 of both sexes appeared, who
had their lives granted them. Many, however, refused to
obey, and persisted in their heresy. On this they were
immediately seized; and through the violence of their
torments great numbers confessed their crimes, and were
thrown into the fire; some acknowledging Christ, and others
calling on the name of Moses. Within a few years, two
thousand of them of both sexes were burnt. Others professing
repentance, were condemned to perpetual imprisonment,
and to wear crosses. The bones of others who were
dead were taken out of their graves, and burnt to ashes;
their effects confiscated, and their children deprived of their
honours and offices. The Jews being terrified by this
cruelty, fled, some into Portugal, others into Italy, and
France; and left all their effects behind them, which were
immediately seized on for the king’s use. At length, in
1494, to purge their kingdoms intirely from Jewish superstition,
Ferdinand and Isabel by a law ordered them to
148depart all their dominions within four years; forbidding
them ever to return to Spain, under the punishment of
immediate death. Most writers affirm that there were
170,000 families who departed; others say there were 800,000
persons; a prodigious number, almost exceeding belief.
In the year 1500, the archbishop of Toledo took great
pains to convert the Moors of Granada to Christianity. He
first of all gained over some of their chief priests by gifts
and favours. Others, who refused to become Christians, he
put in irons in jail, and ordered them to be used with great
cruelty; and by these methods gained many converts.
Ferdinand at last published an edict against them, commanding
them in general to become Christians, or depart
his dominions within a certain day.
This tribunal, first erected to discover Jews and Moors,
soon began to proceed against heretics, and to exercise the
same cruelties against these as they had against the others.
Charles V. king of Spain, who with great difficulty had
brought the inquisition into the Netherlands, against the
Lutherans and reformed, recommended it to his son Philip
in his will; and Philip gave full proof of his zeal to execute
his father’s commands. For when he was requested by
many to grant liberty of religion in the Low Countries, he
prostrated himself before a crucifix, and uttered these words:
“I beseech the divine majesty, that I may always continue
in this mind; that I may never suffer myself to be, or to be
called the lord of those any where, who deny thee the
Lord.” Nor is this any wonder; for the popish divines
endeavoured to persuade the kings of Spain that the inquisition
was the only security of their kingdom. No one can
wonder, that under this persuasion, the Spanish kings have
been violent promoters of the inquisition; and that they
have inflicted the most cruel punishments upon the miserable
heretics. Philip II. not only in the Low Countries,
but also in Spain, shewed himself the patron of it; and that
the most outrageous cruelty was acceptable to him. He
gave some horrid specimens of it in the year 1559, in two
149cities of Spain, when he came thither from the Low Countries;
[245]“Immediately on his arrival,” as Thuanus relates,
“he began to chastise the sectaries. And whereas, before this,
one or more, just as it happened, were delivered to the
executioner, after condemnation for heresy; all that were
condemned throughout the whole kingdom were kept against
his coming, and carried together to Seville, and Valladolid,
where they were brought forth in public pomp to their
punishment. The first act of faith was at Seville, the 8th
of the calends of October; in which John Ponce de Leon,
son of Rhoderic Ponce Comte de Baylen, was led before the
others, as in triumph, and burnt for an obstinate heretical
Lutheran. John Consalvus, a preacher, as he had been his
companion in life, was forced to bear him company in his
death; after whom followed Isabella Venia, Maria Viroes,
Cornelia, and Bohorchés; a spectacle full of pity and indignation,
which was encreased, because Bohorchés, the youngest
of all of them, being scarce twenty, suffered death with the
greatest constancy. And because the heretical assemblies
had prayed in the house of Venia, it was concluded in her
sentence, and ordered to be levelled with the ground. After
these, came forth Ferdinand San Juan, and Julian Hernandez,
commonly called the Little, from his small stature, and
John of Leon, who had been a shoemaker at Mexico in New
Spain, and was afterwards admitted into the college of St.
Isidore; in which his companions studied, as they boasted,
the purer doctrine privately. Their number was encreased
by Frances Chaves, a nun of the convent of St. Elizabeth,
who had been instructed by John Ægidius, a preacher at
Seville, and suffered death with great constancy. From the
same school, came out Christopher Losada, a physician, and
Christopher de Arellanio, a monk of St. Isidore, and Garsias
Arias; who first kindled those sparks of the same religion
amongst the friars of St. Isidore, by his constant admonitions
and sermons, by which the great pile was afterwards set on
150fire, and the convent itself, and good part of that most opulent
city almost consumed. He was a man of uncommon
learning, but of an inconstant, wavering temper; and, being
exceeding subtle in disputing, he refuted the very doctrines
he had persuaded his followers to receive, though he brought
them into danger on that account from the inquisitors.
Having, by these arts, exposed many whom he had deceived
to evident hazard, and rendered himself guilty of the detestable
crime of breach of faith; he was admonished by John
Ægidius, Constantine Ponce, and Varquius, that he had not
dealt sincerely with his friends, and those who were in the
same sentiments with himself; to which he replied, that he
foresaw, that in a little time they would be forced to behold
the bulls brought forth for a lofty spectacle; meaning thereby,
the theatre of the inquisitors. Constantine answered, You,
if it please God, shall not behold the games from on high,
but be yourself amongst the combatants. Nor was Constantine
deceived in his prediction: for afterwards, Arias was
called on; and whether age had made him bolder, or whether,
by a sudden alteration, his timorousness changed into courage,
he severely rebuked the assessors of the inquisitory tribunal;
affirming, they were more fit for the vile office of mule
keepers, than impudently to take upon themselves to judge
concerning the faith, which they were scandalously ignorant
of. He farther declared, that he bitterly repented that he
had knowingly and willingly opposed, in their presence,
that truth he now maintained, against the pious defenders
of it; and that from his soul he should repent of it whilst
he lived. So at last, being led in triumph, he was burnt
alive, and confirmed Constantine’s prophecy. There remained
Ægidius and Constantine, who closed the scene;
but death prevented their being alive at the shew. Ægidius
having been designed by the emperor, Philip’s father, for
bishop of Tortona, upon the fame of his piety and learning,
being summoned, publicly recanted his errors, wrought on
either by craft, or the persuasion of Sotus, a Dominican;
and hereupon was suspended for a while from preaching,
and the sacred office, and died some time before this act.
151The inquisitors thought he had been too gently dealt with,
and therefore proceeded against his body, and condemned
him dead to death, and placed his effigies in straw on high
for a spectacle. Constantine, who had been a long while
the emperor’s confessor, and had always accompanied him in
his retirement, after his abdication from his empire and
kingdoms, and was present with him at his death, was
brought before this tribunal, and died a little before the act,
in a nasty prison. But, that the theatre might not want
him, his effigies was carried about in a preaching posture.
And thus this shew, terrible in itself, which drew tears from
most who were present, when these images were brought on
the scene, excited laughter in many, and at length indignation.
They proceeded with the same severity, the following
October, at Valladolid, against others condemned for the
same crime; where king Philip himself being present,
twenty-eight of the chief nobility of the country were tied
to stakes and burnt.” Bartholomew Caranza, archbishop
of Toledo, was also accused; who for his learning, probity
of life, and most holy conversation, was highly worthy of
that dignity. He was cast into prison, and stripped of all his
large revenues. His cause was brought before Pius V. at
Rome, and Gregory XIII. pronounced sentence in it.
Philip, not content to exercise his cruelty by land,
established the inquisition also in the ships. For in the
year 1571, a large fleet was drawn together under the command
of John of Austria, and manned with soldiers listed
out of various nations. King Philip, to prevent any corruption
of the faith, by such a mixture of various nations and
religions, after having consulted pope Pius V. deputed one
of the inquisitors of Spain, fixed on by the inquisitor general,
to discharge the office of inquisitor; giving him power to
preside in all tribunals, and to celebrate acts of faith, in all
places and cities they sailed to. This erection of the inquisition
by sea, Pius V. confirmed by a bull sent to the general
inquisitor of Spain, beginning, “Our late most dear son
in Christ.” Jerome Manrique exercised the jurisdiction
152granted him, and held a public act of faith in the city of
Messina, in which many underwent divers punishments.
He also established it beyond Europe, not only in the
Canary islands, but in the new world of America; constituting
two tribunals of it, one in the city of Lima, in the province
of Peru; the other in the province and city of Mexico.
The inquisition at Mexico was erected in the year 1571,
and in a short space gave large proofs of its cruelty. Paramus
relates, that in the year 1574, the third after its
erection, the first act of faith was celebrated with a new and
admirable pomp, in the Marquisses, market-place, where
they built a large theatre, which covered almost the whole
area of the market-place, and was close to the great church;
where were present the viceroy, the senate, the chapter, and
the religious. The viceroy, the senate, and a vast number
of others, went with a large guard, in solemn procession, to
the market-place, where were about eighty penitents; and
the act lasted from six in the morning to five in the evening.
Two heretics, one an Englishman, the other a Frenchman,
were released. Some for judaizing, some for polygamy, and
others for sorceries, were reconciled. The solemnity of this
act was such, that they who had seen that stately one at
Valladolid, held in the year 1559, declared, that this was
nothing inferior to it in majesty, excepting only that they
wanted those royal personages here, which were present
there. From this time they celebrated yearly solemn acts
of the faith, where they brought Portuguese Jews, persons
guilty of incestuous and wicked marriages, and many convicted
of sorcery and witchcraft.
The method of the tribunal of the inquisition, as now in
use in Spain, is this. The king proposes to the pope the
supreme inquisitor of all his kingdoms, whom the pope confirms
in his office. The inquisitor thus confirmed by the
pope, is head and chief of the inquisition in the whole kingdom,
and hath given him by his holiness full power in all
cases relating to heresy. It belongs to his office to name
particular inquisitors, in every place where there is any tribunal
153of the inquisition, who nevertheless cannot act unless
approved by the king; to send visitors to the provinces of
the inquisitors, to grant dispensations to penitents and their
children, and to deliberate concerning other very weighty
affairs. In the royal city the king appoints the supreme
council of the inquisition, over which the supreme inquisitor
of the kingdom presides. He hath joined with him five
counsellors, who have the title of apostolical inquisitors,
who are chosen by the inquisitor general upon the king’s
nomination. One of these must always be a Dominican.
The supreme authority is in this council of the inquisition.
They deliberate upon all affairs with the inquisitor general,
determine the greater causes, make new laws according to
the exigency of affairs, determine differences amongst particular
inquisitors, punish the offences of the servants, receive
appeals from inferior tribunals, and from them there is no
appeal but to the king. In other tribunals there are two or
three inquisitors: they have particular places assigned them,
Toledo, Cuenca, Valladolid, Calahorre, Seville, Cordoue,
Granada, Ellerena; and in the Aragons, Valencia, Saragossa,
and Barcelona.
These are called provincial inquisitors. They cannot
imprison any priest, knight, or nobleman, nor hold any
public acts of faith, without consulting the supreme council
of the inquisition. Sometimes this supreme council deputes
one of their own counsellors to them, in order to give the
greater solemnity to the acts of faith.
These provincial inquisitors give all of them an account
of their provincial tribunal once every year to the supreme
council; and especially of the causes that have been determined
within that year, and of the state and number of their
prisoners in actual custody. They give also every month
an account of all monies which they have received, either
from the revenues of the holy office, or pecuniary punishments
and fines.
This council meets every day, except holy-days, in the
palace-royal, on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in
154the morning; and on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays
after vespers; in these three last days two counsellors of
the supreme council of Castile meet with them, who are
also counsellors of the supreme council of the inquisition.
This tribunal is now arisen to such an height in Spain,
that the king of Castile, before his coronation, subjects himself
and all his dominions, by a special oath, to the most
holy tribunal of this most severe inquisition.
In the year 1557, John III. king of Portugal, erected the
tribunal of the inquisition in his kingdom, after the model
of that in Spain. It was chiefly levelled against the Jews,
who groan under the cruel yoke of it to this day, without
any mitigation of their punishment, being liable to all the
penalties ordained against heretics. And because the Jewish
wickedness spread every day more and more in the parts of
the East Indies, subject to the kingdom of Portugal, Cardinal
Henry, inquisitor general in the kingdom of Portugal,
erected, anno 1560, the tribunal of the inquisition in the
city of Goa, the metropolis of that province; where it is
carried on at this time with great magnificence and solemnity.
And that the inquisition might proceed every where
without any impediment, pope Paul III. anno 1542, deputed
six cardinals to be inquisitors general of heretical
pravity, in all Christian nations whatsoever; and gave them
authority to proceed without the bishops against all heretics,
and persons suspected of heresy, and their accomplices
and abettors, of whatsoever state, degree, order, condition
and pre-eminence; and to punish them, and confiscate their
goods; to degrade, and deliver over to the secular court
the secular and regular clergy in holy orders; and to do
every thing else that should be necessary in this affair.
Pius IV. enlarged their power; and in 1564, gave them
authority to proceed against all manner of persons, whether
bishops, archbishops, patriarchs or cardinals, who were
heretics, or suspected of heresy. At length Sixtus V.
anno 1588, appointed fifteen congregations of the cardinals,
155and assigned to each of them their proper business.
To these were added a commissary, and an assessor
general. Whatever the majority of these cardinals agree,
is looked on as the decree of the whole congregation. They
meet twice a week; on Wednesdays in St. Mary’s church,
supra Minervam; and on Thursdays in the pope’s presence.
In this congregation his holiness decides or confirms the
votes of the counsellors and cardinals, and makes a prayer
when the congregation comes in.
These are the inquisitors; the judge of the forfeited
effects, the executor, the notaries, the jail-keeper, the messenger,
the door-keeper, the physician, the assessors, the
counsellors, the familiars, the promoter fiscal, the receiver
of the forfeited effects, and the visitors of the inquisitors.
The inquisitors are persons delegated by the pope to enquire
concerning all heresies, and to judge and punish heretics.
Generally speaking, no one can be deputed to this
office who is not forty years old. But if a person is remarkable
for knowledge and prudence, he may, in Spain and Portugal,
be created inquisitor sooner. This office is accounted of so
great dignity in the church of Rome, that the title of “most
reverend” is given to the inquisitors as well as the bishops.
Their privileges are many and great. They can excommunicate,
suspend, and interdict. None excommunicated
by them can be absolved, without command of the pope, except
in the article of death. They may apprehend heretics,
though they take sanctuary in churches; and make statutes,
and encrease the punishments against them. They can grant
indulgences of twenty or forty days, and give full pardon of
156sins to all their officers who died in their service; and have
themselves granted a plenary indulgence in life and death.
Whosoever shall damage the effects of the inquisitor, or his
officer, or shall kill, strike or beat any one of them, is to be
immediately delivered over to the secular court. They are
freed from serving of all offices. They are to have lodgings,
provisions, and other necessaries provided for them. They
may proceed against all persons whatsoever, few excepted;
against bishops, priests, and friars; and all laicks whatsoever,
even princes and kings. They may cite persons of any sex
or condition for witnesses: a famous instance of which there
is in Joan, daughter of the emperor Charles V. whom they
cited before their tribunal to interrogate her concerning a
certain person, in some matters relating to the faith. The
emperor himself had such an awe of them, that he commanded
his daughter without delay to make her deposition,
to avoid the sentence of excommunication. Upon which,
she actually appeared before the archbishop of Seville, inquisitor
general, and gave in her evidence. In Spain also
the inquisitors pretend to have a jurisdiction over the subjects
of other kings. Of this, we have an instance in Thomas
Maynard, consul of the English nation at Lisbon, who was
thrown into the prison of the inquisition, under pretence
that he had said or done something against the Roman religion.
M. Meadows, who was then resident, and took care of
the English affairs at Lisbon, advised Cromwell of the affair;
and, after having received an express from him, went to the
king of Portugal, and in the name of Cromwell demanded the
liberty of consul Maynard. The king told him, it was not
in his power; that the consul was detained by the inquisition,
over which he had no authority. The resident sent this
answer to Cromwell; and having soon after received new instructions
from him, had again audience of the king, and
told him, that since his majesty had declared he had no
power over the inquisition, he was commanded by Cromwell
immediately to declare war against it. This unexpected
declaration so terrified the king and the inquisition, that they
157immediately determined to free the consul from prison; and
immediately opened the prison doors, and gave him leave to
go out. The consul refused to accept a private dismission;
but in order to repair the honour of his character, demanded
to be honourably brought forth by the inquisition. The same
Maynard continued many years after under the same character,
in the reigns of Charles and James II. and lived at
Lisbon till he was about eighty years old, without any molestation
from the inquisition. This story was well known
to all foreign merchants, who lived at that time, and many
years after, at Lisbon.
The inquisitors may also compel the governors of cities to
swear that they will defend the church against heretics; and
to extirpate with all their power, from their governments,
all who are noted for heretics by the church. They may
also command all secular magistrates to seize and keep in
custody all heretics, and to carry them wheresoever they
order. And for the better apprehending of heretics, the
inquisitors may go with an armed attendance, and bear
arms themselves. They may compel witnesses to give evidence
by fines, pledges, excommunication, or torture. They
have also power to excommunicate all lay persons disputing
about the faith, publicly or privately; and those who do
not discover heretics, by themselves or other persons. And
finally, they may condemn and prohibit all heretical books,
and suspected of heresy, or containing propositions erroneous,
or differing from the Catholic faith.
If the inquisitors are negligent or remiss in their office,
they are prohibited from entering the church for four years;
or if they offend by unjustly extorting money, they are punished
by the prelates of their order; but in such a manner,
however, as not to lessen men’s opinion of the dignity and
authority of the holy office. From this precaution it is,
however, very plain, that the tribunal of the inquisition is not
so very holy and blameless, as they would have them believe
in Spain and Portugal; but that the inquisitors punish innocent
men sometimes very unjustly, throwing them into
158prison, and treating them in a very barbarous and unworthy
manner. Of this we have a fresh instance in the inquisition
at Goa, in relation to father Ephraim, a Capucine; whom,
out of mere hatred and revenge, they seized by craft and
subtlety, and carried away to Goa, and there shut him up in
the prison of the inquisition. The story is this: Father
Ephraim having had an invitation from some English merchants,
built a church in the city of Madrespatan, which was
near to the city of St. Thomas. To this place, several of the
Portuguese came from St. Thomas’s, to have the benefit of
Ephraim’s instruction. By this, he incurred the hatred of
the Portuguese; and, upon some disturbance that was raised,
father Ephraim was called to St. Thomas to appease it;
where he was seized by the officers of the inquisition, and
carried to Goa, bound hands and feet, and at night coming
from on board the ship, hurried into the prison of the inquisition.
All men wondered that this Capucine should be
brought prisoner before the tribunal of the inquisition as an
heretic, who was known to be a person of great probity and
zeal for the Roman religion. Many were concerned for his
delivery; and especially friar Zenon, of the same order,
who tried every method to effect it. When the news of his
imprisonment came to Europe, persons were very differently
affected. His brother, the lord Chateau des Bois, solicited
the Portugal ambassador at Paris, till he prevailed with him
to send letters to his Portuguese majesty, to desire his peremptory
orders to the inquisitors at Goa, to dismiss Ephraim
from his prison. The pope also himself sent letters to Goa,
commanding him to be set free, under the penalty of excommunication.
The king also of Golconda, who had a friendship
for him, because he had given him some knowledge of
the mathematics, commanded the city of St. Thomas to be
besieged, and to be put to fire and sword, unless Ephraim
was immediately restored to his liberty. The inquisitors
not being able to surmount all these difficulties, sent him
word that the prison gates were open, and that he might
have his liberty when he pleased. But he would not leave
159his jail, till he was brought out by a solemn procession of
the ecclesiastics of Goa. And although there are many instances
of the like injustice, yet they very seldom publicly
punish the injustice and cruelty of the inquisitors, lest their
authority, which they would have always accounted sacred,
should be contemned. The inquisitor may also appoint a
vicar general over his whole province, with a power of proceeding
to a definitive sentence on the impenitent and relapsed,
and of receiving informations and accusations against
any persons, and of citing, arresting, and putting in irons
witnesses and criminals, and of putting them to the question
or torture; and in general, of doing every thing which the
inquisitor himself, if present, could do.
The counsellors or assessors of the inquisition are skilful
persons, such as divines, canonists, and layers, whom the inquisitors
call in, in difficult cases, to assist them with their
advice. When any questions happen in the trials of the causes
of heresy, relating to the quality, i. e. the nature and degree
of guilt in any propositions spoken by heretics, or persons
suspected of heresy, the decision in such affairs belongs to
the divines, who are thence called qualificators; who are to
determine whether it be heretical, or favours of heresy, or
erroneous, or such as offends pious ears, or rash, or scandalous,
or schismatical, or seditious, or blasphemous, or injurious.
The layers are consulted about the punishment or
absolution of offenders, and other the like merits of causes.
However, the inquisitors are not bound necessarily to follow
the advice of these counsellors; but after they have heard
their opinions, are free to determine and act what they think
proper. These counsellors are sworn to secrecy, and are
not acquainted with the names of the criminals or witnesses.
The promoter fiscal is that officer of the inquisition, who
acts the part of accuser. It belongs to him to examine the
depositions of the witnesses, and give information of criminals
to the inquisitors; to demand their apprehension and
imprisonment, and, when apprehended or admonished, to
accuse them.
160The notaries, registers, or secretaries of the inquisition,
write down the injunctions, accusations, and all the pleadings
of the causes; the depositions of the witnesses, and answers
of the criminals; and whether the colour of their face
changes; whether they tremble or hesitate in speaking, whether
they frequently interrupt the interrogatories by hawking
or spitting, or whether their voice trembles; that by these
circumstances, they may know when to put the criminals to
the torture. These notaries may be chosen either of the
laity, or from the monks and clergy. They swear them
faithfully to execute that office, and to keep the strictest
secrecy.
The judge and receiver of the forfeited effects, is the
attorney belonging to the treasury of the inquisition; who
demands, defends, and sells, the confiscated goods of heretics,
and pays the salaries and other expences of the holy
office.
The executors are they who execute and perform the
commands of the inquisitors. They apprehend and keep in
custody criminals, and pursue them in any places to which
they may have escaped; and may, when needful, put them
in irons. All persons, whether magistrates or others, are
obliged to assist them, when they are endeavouring to apprehend
any person, or seize his effects, upon penalty of a
large fine, and being put under the ban.
The familiars are the bailiffs of the inquisition, which,
though a vile office in all other criminal courts, is esteemed
so honourable in this of the inquisition, that there is not a
nobleman in the kingdom of Portugal who is not in it; and
these are commonly employed by the inquisitors to take persons
up. If several persons are to be taken up at the same
time, the familiars must so order things, that they may know
nothing of each other’s being apprehended. And at this the
familiars are so expert, that a father and his three sons and
three daughters, who lived together at the same house,
were all carried prisoners to the inquisition, without knowing
any thing of one another’s being there till seven years
161afterwards, when they of them who were alive, came forth
in an act of faith.
There is a particular kind of these familiars, who wear
crosses, instituted by Dominic; who vow upon oath, before
the inquisitors, that they will defend the catholic faith,
though with the loss of fortune and life. The inquisitors
give them red crosses, which they have blessed, and may
compel them to perform their vow.
The visitor of the inquisition is one who goes into all
the provinces where the inquisitors are, and reports to the
inquisitor general and council whatever he thinks proper to
be amended; and whether the several inquisitors have observed
the several orders and rules prescribed to them, that
in case of any offences, they may be duly punished.
The civil magistrate is under great subjection to these
inquisitors and their officers. He swears to defend the
catholic faith, and to cause all the constitutions relating to
the inquisition to be observed, and that he will study to exterminate
all persons marked out for heretics by the church.
And if any temporal lord shall, after admonition by the
church, neglect to purge his dominions from heretical pravity,
for the space of a year after such admonition, his
country is ordered to be seized, and the person seizing it allowed
to possess it without contradiction. When any persons
are condemned for heresy by the inquisitors, the civil magistrate
is obliged to receive them as soon as delivered to
him, and to punish them with the deserved punishment;
without presuming directly or indirectly to hinder any judgment,
sentence, or process of the inquisitors.
The office of the jail-keepers is not to be described;
though some account of their jail will not be amiss.
All criminals have not alike places of imprisonment, their
cells being either more terrible and dark, or more easy and
chearful, according to the quality of the persons and their
offences. In reality, there is no place in the prison of the
inquisition that can be called pleasant or chearful, the whole
jail is so horrible and nasty.
162These jails are called in Spain and Portugal “Santa
Casa,” i. e. the holy house. Every thing it seems in this
office must be holy. The prisons are so built, as the author
of the History of the Inquisition at Goa describes them, that
they will hold a great number of persons. They consist of
several porticoes; every one of which is divided into several
small cells of a square form, each side being about ten feet.
There are two rows of them, one being built over the other,
and all of them vaulted. The upper ones are enlightened
by iron grates, placed above the height of a tall man. The
lower ones are under ground, dark, without any window,
and narrower than the upper ones. The walls are five feet
thick. Each cell is fastened with two doors; the inner one
thick, and covered over with iron, and in the lower part of
it there is a little small window, through which they reach to
the prisoner his meat, linen, and other necessaries, which is
shut with two iron bolts. The outer door is entire, without
any opening at all. They generally open it in the morning,
from six o’clock till eleven, in order to refresh the air of the
prison.
In Portugal all the prisoners, men and women, without
any regard to birth or dignity, are shaved the first or second
day of their imprisonment. Every prisoner hath two pots
of water every day, one to wash, and the other to drink;
and a besom to cleanse his cell, and a mat made of rushes to
lie upon, and a larger vessel to ease nature, with a cover to
put over it, which is changed once every four days. The
provisions which are given to the prisoners, are rated according
to the season, and the dearness or plenty of eatables.
But if any rich person is imprisoned, and will live
and eat beyond the ordinary rate of provisions, and according
to his own manner, he may be indulged, and have what
is decent and fit for him, and his servant, or servants, if he
hath any, with him in the jail. If there are any provisions
left, the jail-keeper, and no other, must take them, and
give them to the poor. But Reginald Gonsalvius observes,
p. 106. that this indulgence is not allowed to prisoners of
163all sorts, but to such only as are taken up for small offences,
who are to be condemned to a fine. But if they find by the
very accusation that any persons are to be punished with
forfeiture of all their effects, they do not suffer them to live
so plentifully, but order them a small pension for their subsistence,
viz. about thirty maravedis, of the value of ten
Dutch stivers. This agrees with the account of Isaac
Orobio, who had a plentiful fortune at Seville, and was
nevertheless used very hardly in the prison of the inquisition
there. Although his estate was very large, yet he was
allowed a very small pension to provide himself provision.
This was flesh, which they made him sometimes dress and
prepare for himself, without allowing him the help of any
servant. In this manner are the richer prisoners treated.
As to the poorer, and such who have not enough to supply
themselves in jail, their allowance is fixed by the king, viz.
the half of a silver piece of money, called a real,[246] every
day; and out of this small sum, the buyer of their provision,
whom they call the dispenser, and their washer, must
be paid, and all other expences that are necessary for the
common supports of life. Besides, this very royal allowance
for the prisoners doth not come to them but through the
hands of several persons, and those none of the most honest;
first by the receiver, then the dispenser, then the cook, then
the jail-keeper, who, according to his office, distributes the
provisions amongst the prisoners. Gonsalvius adds, that
he gave this particular account of this matter, because all
these persons live, and have their certain profits out of this
small allowance of the king to the prisoners; which coming
to them through the crooked hands of these harpies, they
cannot receive it till every one of them hath taken out more
than a tenth part of it.
164The author of the History of the Inquisition at Goa tells
us, this order is observed in distributing the provisions.
The prisoners have meat given them three times every day;
and even those who have the misfortune to be in this case,
though they have money, are not treated much better than
others, because their riches are employed to make provision
for the poorer. I was informed by Isaac Orobio, that in
Spain they sometimes give the prisoners coals, which they
must light, and then dress their own food. Sometimes they
allow them a candle. Those who are confined in the lower
cells generally sit in darkness, and are sometimes kept there
for several years, without any one’s being suffered to go or
speak to them, except their keepers; and they only at certain
hours, when they give them their provision. They are
not allowed any books of devotion, but are shut up in darkness
and solitude, that they may be broke with the horrors
of so dreadful a confinement, and by the miseries of it forced
to confess things which oftentimes they have never done.
And how dreadful the miseries of this prison are, we
have a famous instance given us by Reginald Gonsalvius
Montanus.[247] In the age before the last, a certain English
ship put in at the port of Cadiz, which the familiars of the
inquisition, according to custom, searched upon the account
of religion, before they suffered any person to come ashore.
They seized on several English persons who were on board,
observing in them certain marks of evangelical piety, and of
their having received the best instruction, and threw them
into jail. In that ship there was a child, ten or twelve
years, at most, old, the son of a very rich English gentleman,
to whom, as was reported, the ship and principal part
of her loading belonged. Amongst others, they took up
also this child. The pretence was, that he had in his hands
the psalms of David in English. But, as Gonsalvius tells
us, those who knew their avarice and cursed arts, may well
believe, without doing any injury to the holy inquisition,
165that they had got the scent of his father’s wealth, and that
this was the true cause of the child’s imprisonment, and of
all that calamity that followed after it. However, the ship
with all its cargo was confiscated; and the child, with the
other prisoners, were carried to the jail of the inquisition
at Seville, where he lay six or eight months. Being kept in
so strait confinement for so long a while, the child, who had
been brought up tenderly at home, fell into a very dangerous
illness, through the dampness of the prison, and the
badness of his diet. When the lords inquisitors were informed
of this, they ordered him to be taken out of the jail,
and carried, for the recovery of his health, to the hospital,
which they call the Cardinal. Here they generally bring
all who happen to fall ill in the prison of the inquisition;
where, besides the medicines, of which, according to the
pious institution of the hospital, there is plenty, and a little
better care, upon account of the distemper, nothing is abated
of the severity of the former jail; no person besides the physician,
and the servants of the hospital, being allowed to
visit the sick person; and as soon as ever he begins to grow
better, before he is fully recovered, he is put again into his
former jail. The child, who had contracted a very grievous
illness from that long and barbarous confinement, was carried
into the hospital, where he lost the use of both his legs:
nor was it ever known what became of him afterwards. In
the mean while it was wonderful, that the child, in so tender
an age, gave noble proofs how firmly the doctrine of
piety was rooted in his mind; oftentimes, but especially
morning and evening, lifting up his eyes to heaven, and
praying to him, from whom he had been instructed by his
parents, to desire and hope for certain help; which the jailkeeper
having often observed, said, he was already grown a
great little heretic.
About the same time[248] a certain person was taken up
and thrown into the same jail, who had voluntarily abjured
166the Mahometan impiety, and came but a little before from
Morocco, a famous city of Mauritania, and capital of the
kingdom, into that part of Spain which lies directly over
against it, with a design to turn Christian. When he had
observed that the Christians were more vicious and corrupt
than the Moors he had left, he happened to say, that the
Mahometan law seemed to him better than the Christian.
For this the good fathers of the faith laid hold of him, thrust
him into jail, and used him so cruelly, that he said publicly,
even when in confinement, that he never repented of his
Christianity, from the day he was baptized, till after his
having been in the inquisition, where he was forced against
his will to behold all manner of violences and injuries whatsoever.
The complaint of Constantine, the preacher of Seville,
was not less grievous concerning the barbarities of this
prison;[249] who, although he had not as yet tasted of the tortures,
yet often bewailed his misery in this jail, and cried
out: “O my God, were there no Scythians in the world,
no cannibals more fierce and cruel than Scythians, into
whose hands thou couldst carry me, so that I might but
escape the paws of these wretches?” Olmedus also, another
person famous for piety and learning, fell into the inquisitors
hands at Seville; and through the inhumanity of his treatment,
which had also proved fatal to Constantine, contracted
a grievous illness, and at last died in the midst of the nastiness
and stench. He was used to say, “Throw me any
where, O my God, so that I may but escape the hands of
these wretches.”
The author of the History of Goa agrees in this account,[250]
who frankly owns, that through the cruelty and length of
his imprisonment he fell into despair, and thereby often attempted
to destroy himself; first by starving himself; and
because that did not succeed, he feigned himself sick; and
when the physician of the inquisition found his pulse unequal,
167and that he was feverish, he ordered him to be let
blood, which was done again five days after. When the
doctor was gone, he unbound his arm every day, that so by
the large effusion of blood, he might continually grow
weaker and weaker. In the mean while he eat very little,
that by hunger, and loss of blood, he might put an end to
his miserable life. Whilst he was in this sad condition, he
had sent him a confessor of the Franciscan order, who, by
various arguments of comfort, endeavoured to recover him
from his despair. They also gave him a companion in his
jail, which was some comfort to him in his confinement.
But growing well again after about five months, they took
his companion from him. The lonesomeness of his jail
brought on again his melancholy and despair, which made
him invent another method to destroy himself. He had a piece
of gold money, which he had concealed in his clothes,
which he broke into two parts; and making it sharp, he
opened with it a vein in each arm, and lost so much blood,
that he fell into a swoon, the blood running about the jail.
But some of the servants happening to come before the
usual time to bring him something, found him in this condition.
The inquisitor hereupon ordered him to be loaded
with irons upon his arms and hands, and strictly watched.
This cruelty provoked him to that degree, that he endeavoured
to beat his brains out against the pavement and
the walls; and undoubtedly the ligaments upon his arms
would have been torn off, had he continued any longer in
that state. Upon this they took off his chains, gave him
good words, encouraged him, and sent him a companion,
by whose conversation he was refreshed, and bore his
misery with a little more easiness of mind. But after two
months they took him from him again, so that the solitude
of his jail was more distressing to him than before.
The prisoners,[251] as soon as ever they are thrown into jail,
are commanded to give an account of their name and business.
168Then they inquire after their wealth; and to induce
them to give in an exact account, the inquisition promises
them, that if they are innocent, all that they discover to
them shall be faithfully kept for, and restored to them;
but that if they conceal any thing, it shall be confiscated,
though they should be found not guilty. And as in Spain
and Portugal most persons are fully persuaded of the sanctity
and sincerity of this tribunal, they willingly discover all
their possessions, even the most concealed things of their
houses, being certainly persuaded, that when their innocence
shall appear, they shall soon recover their liberty and effects
together. But these miserable creatures are deceived; for
he that once falls into the hands of these judges, is stripped
at once of all he was possessed of. For if any one denies
his crime, and is convicted by a sufficient number of witnesses,
he is condemned as a negative convict, and all his
effects confiscated. If to escape the jail he confesses his
crime, he is guilty by his own confession, and in the judgment
of all justly stripped of his effects. When he is dismissed
from prison as a convert and penitent, he dares not
defend his innocence, unless he desires to be thrown again
into jail, and condemned; and, as a feigned penitent, to be
delivered over to the secular arm.
When the prisoner is brought before his judge,[252] he appears
with his head and arms, and feet naked. In this condition
he is brought out of jail by the warder. When he
comes to the room of audience, the warder goes a little forward,
and makes a profound reverence, then withdraws,
and the prisoner enters by himself. At the farther end of the
audience room there is placed a crucifix, that reaches almost
to the ceiling. In the middle of the hall is a table about
five feet long, and four broad, with seats all placed round it.
At one end of the table, that which is next to the crucifix,
sits the notary of the inquisition; at the other end the inquisitor,
and at his left hand the prisoner sitting upon a
169bench. Upon the table is a missal, upon which the prisoner
is commanded to lay his hand, and to swear that he will
speak the truth, and keep every thing secret. After they
have sufficiently interrogated him, the inquisitors ring a
bell for the warder, who is commanded to carry back his
prisoner to jail.
No one in the prison must so much as mutter, or make any
noise, but must keep profound silence. If any one bemoans
himself, or bewails his misfortune, or prays to God with an
audible voice, or sings a psalm or sacred hymn, the jail-keepers,
who continually watch in the porches, and can hear
even the least sound, immediately come to him, and admonish
him that silence must be preserved in this house.
If the prisoner doth not obey, the keepers admonish him
again. If after this the prisoner persists, the keeper opens
the door, and prevents his noise, by severely beating him
with a stick; not only to chastise him, but to deter others,
who, because the cells are contiguous, and deep silence is
kept, can very easily hear the outcries and sound of the
blows. I will add here a short story that I had from several
persons; which, if true, shews us with what severity they
keep this silence. A prisoner in the inquisition coughed.
The jailors came to him, and admonished him to forbear
coughing, because it was unlawful to make any noise in that
house. He answered, it was not in his power. However,
they admonished him a second time to forbear it; and because
he did not, they stripped him naked, and cruelly beat
him. This increased his cough; for which they beat him so
often, that at last he died through the pain and anguish of
the stripes.
They insist so severely on keeping this silence, that they
may cut off every degree of comfort from the afflicted; and
especially for this reason, that the prisoners may not know one
another, either by singing, or any loud voice. For it oftentimes
happens, that after two or three years confinement in
the jail of the inquisition, a man doth not know that his
friend, nor a father that his children and wife are in the
170same prison, till they all see each other in the act of faith.
And finally, that the prisoners in the several cells may not
talk with one another; which, if ever found out, their cells
are immediately changed.
If any one falls ill in the prison, they send to him a surgeon
and physician, who administer all proper remedies to
him to recover him to health. If there be any danger of his
dying, they send him a confessor, if he desires it. If the
criminal doth not ask for a confessor, and the physician
believes the distemper to be dangerous, he must be persuaded
by all means to confess; and if he judicially satisfies
the inquisitors, he is to be reconciled to the church before
he dies; and being absolved in judgment, the confessor
must absolve him sacramentally.
If he is well, and desires a confessor, some are of opinion
he may not have one granted him, unless he hath confessed
judicially. Others think he may; and in this case the confessor’s
business is to exhort him to confess his errors, and
to declare the whole truth, as well of himself as of others,
as he is bound de jure to do. However, he must add, that
he must not accuse himself or others falsely, through weariness
of his imprisonment, the hope of a more speedy deliverance,
or fear of torments. Such a criminal the confessor
cannot absolve, before his excommunication is first taken off,
and he is reconciled to the church. But in Italy the prisoners
are more easily allowed a confessor than in Spain.
They are particularly careful not to put two or more in
the same cell, unless the inquisitor for any special reason
shall so order, that they may not concert with one another
to conceal the truth, to make their escape, or to evade their
interrogatories. The principal reason, indeed, seems to be,
that through the irksomeness of their imprisonment, they
may confess whatsoever the inquisitors would have them.
But if an husband and his wife are both imprisoned for the
same offence, and there be no fear that one should prevent
the other from making a free confession of the crime, they
may be put in the same cell.
171The inquisitors[253] are obliged to visit the prisoners twice
every month, and to enquire whether they have necessaries
allowed them, and whether they are well or not. In this
visit they usually ask him in these very words; How he is?
How he hath his health? Whether he wants any thing?
Whether his warder is civil to him? i. e. Whether he speaks
to him in a reproachful and severe manner? Whether he
gives him his appointed provision, and clean linen? and the
like.[254] These are exactly the sentences and words they use
in these visits, to which they neither add any thing, nor act
agreeable; for they use them only for form’s sake, and when
the inquisitor hath spoken them he immediately goes away,
scarce staying for an answer. And although any one of the
prisoners complains that he is not well used, it is of no advantage
to him, nor is he better treated for the future. If
there be occasion or necessity, it will be convenient for them
to visit the prisoners three or four times every month, yea,
as often as they think proper; viz. when the criminal bears
with impatience the misfortune and infamy of his imprisonment,
in such case the inquisitor must endeavour to comfort
him very often, not only by himself, but by others; and to
tell him, that if he makes a free confession, his whole affair
shall be quickly and kindly ended.
The inquisitors must take care not to talk with the criminals,
when they are examined or visited, upon any other
affairs but such as relate to their business. Nor must the
inquisitor be alone when he visits, or otherwise gives them
audience; but must have with him his colleague, or at least
a notary, or some other faithful servant of the holy office.
This also they are particularly careful of, that the criminals
may not be removed from one cell to another, nor
associate with any other. If any prisoners have been shut
up together at once in the same cell, when they are removed
they must be removed together, that hereby they may be
172prevented from communicating any thing that hath been
transacted in the prison. This is more especially to be
observed, in case any of them recall their confession, after
they have been removed from one cell and company to
another. But if a criminal confesses, and is truly converted,
he may more easily be removed from one cell to another,
because the inquisitor is in no pain for fear of his retracting,
but may oftentimes make use of him to draw out the truth
from other prisoners.
If women are imprisoned, they must each of them have,
according to their quality, one honest woman at least for a
companion, who must never be absent from her, to prevent
all suspicion of evil. This companion must be ancient, of
a good life, pious and faithful. Sometimes when women
are to be imprisoned, they do not carry them to the jail of
the inquisitors, especially if they are regulars, if the jails be
within the walls of the monasteries, but to the convents of
the nuns. When this happens, they command the abbess or
prioress to admit nobody to discourse with the prisoner
without express leave of the inquisitor, but diligently to
observe the order given her. But when the cause is of
importance, and full of danger, and such they esteem all
that relate to the faith, they think it safer that women
should be imprisoned in the jails of the inquisitors. But
the cardinals inquisitors general are to be consulted in this
affair, who, after mature consideration, are to determine
whether it be most expedient that such criminals should be
kept in the jails of the bishops, or inquisitors regulars;
especially if they are young and handsome, as is often the
case of those who are taken up for telling people’s fortunes
about their sweethearts.
It is farther the custom and received use of this holy
tribunal, that such who are imprisoned for heresy are not
admitted to hear mass, and other prayers which are said
within the jail, till their cause is determined. Their principal
pretence for this custom is, that it may possibly happen,
when there is a great number of criminals, that the several
173accomplices, companions and partakers of the crime, may at
least by nods and signs discover to one another how they
may escape judgment, or conceal the truth.
But the true and genuine reason is, that the prisoner may
have nothing to contemplate besides his present misfortune;
that so being broken with the miseries of his confinement,
he may confess whatsoever the inquisitors would have him.
For this reason they deny them books, and all other things
that would be any relief to them in their tedious imprisonment.
If any one of the prisoners whatsoever prays the
inquisitor when he visits him, that he may have some good
book, or the holy Bible, he is answered, that the true book
is to discover the truth, and to exonerate his conscience before
that holy tribunal; and that this is the book which he
must diligently study, viz. to recover the remembrance of
every thing faithfully, and declare it to their lordships, who
will immediately prescribe a remedy to his languishing soul.
If the prisoner in the same or next visit is importunate about
it, he will be commanded silence; because if he asks to
please himself, they may grant or deny him according to
their pleasure.
The keeping the jail anciently belonged to the executor’s
office; and as often as he was absent, he was obliged to
provide another keeper at his own charge. But now the
jail-keeper is created by the inquisitor-general, and is different
from the executor.
Those who keep the jails for the crime of heresy, must
swear before the bishop and inquisitor that they will faithfully
keep their prisoners, and observe all other things
prescribed them.
Formerly there were two keepers to every jail, but now
there is only one jail-keeper appointed in every province,
chosen by the inquisitor general, who is not allowed to give
the prisoners their food. But the inquisitors choose some
proper person to this office, who is commonly called the
dispenser. The provisions they give the criminals are
generally prepared and dressed in the house of the inquisition;
174because if they were to be prepared in the houses of
the criminals themselves, or any where else, something
might easily be hid under them, that might furnish them
with the means to conceal the truth, or to elude or escape
judgment. This however is to be left to the prudence and
pleasure of the inquisitors, whether and when the criminals
may without danger prepare their provision in their own
houses. But upon account of the hazard attending it, the
inquisitors but seldom, and not without exquisite care,
gratify them in this particular. If any things are sent them
by their friends or relations, or domestics, the jail-keeper
and dispenser never suffer them to have them, without first
consulting the inquisitors.
As these keepers have it in their power greatly to injure
or serve their prisoners, they must promise by an oath,
before the bishop and inquisitors, that they will exercise a
faithful care and concern in keeping them; and that neither
of them will speak to any of them but in presence of the
other, and that they will not defraud them of their provision,
nor of those things which are brought to them. Their servants
also are obliged to take this oath.
But notwithstanding this law, a great part of the provision
appointed for the prisoners is withheld from them by
their covetous keepers; and if they are accused for this to
the inquisitors, they are much more gently punished, than if
they had used any mercy towards them. Reginald Gonsalve
relates,[255] that in his time Gaspar Bennavidius was keeper of
a jail. “He was a man of monstrous covetousness and
cruelty, who defrauded his miserable prisoners of a great
part of their provisions, which were ill dressed, and scarce
the tenth part of what was allowed them, and sold it secretly,
for no great price, at the Triana. Besides, he wholly
kept from them the little money allowed them to pay for the
washing of their linen; thus suffering them to abide many
175days together in a nasty condition, deceiving the inquisitor
and treasurer, who put that money to the keepers account,
as though it had been expended every week for the use of
the prisoners, for whom it was appointed. Neither was it
very difficult to deceive them, because they took but little
pains to inquire out the truth. If any one of the prisoners
complained, muttered, or opened his mouth upon account
of this intolerable usage, the cruel wretch, who had divested
himself of all humanity, had a remedy at hand. He brought
the prisoner immediately out of his apartment, and put him
down into a place they call Mazmorra, a deep cistern that
had no water in it. There he left him for several days
together, without any thing to lie on, not so much as straw.
His provision there was so very rotten, that it was more
proper to destroy his health by sickness, than to preserve it,
or support him in life. All this he did without ever consulting
the inquisitors, and yet fraudulently and villanously
pretended their command to his prisoner. If any one besought
him to complain to the inquisitors for so injurious a
treatment, for they could not do it by any other person, and
to desire an audience, the cunning wretch, knowing that the
whole blame must lie upon himself, pretended that he had
asked, but could not obtain it. By such forged answers he
kept the miserable prisoner in that deep pit twelve or fifteen
days, more or less, till he had fully gratified his anger
and cruelty. After this he brought him out, and threw him
into his former jail; persuading him that this favour was
owing to his humanity and care, having made intercession
for him with their lordships. In short, his thefts and injuries
with which he plagued his prisoners, who were otherwise
miserable enough, were so numerous, that some persons
of interest with the inquisitors at length accused him before
them. Upon this he was imprisoned himself; and being
found guilty of many false accusations, he received this sentence:
that he should come out at a public act of the faith,
carrying a wax candle in his hand, be banished five years
from the city, and forfeit the whole sum of money, which by
176virtue of his office he was to have received from the holy
tribunal.”
“This very man,[256] whilst he was keeper, had in his family
an ancient servant maid, who observing the distress of the
prisoners, labouring under intolerable hunger and nastiness,
through the wickedness and barbarity of her master, was so
moved with pity towards them, being herself well inclined
to the evangelical piety, that she often spoke to them through
the doors of their cells, comforted them, and as well as she
could exhorted them to patience, many times putting them
in meat under their doors, in proportion to the mean and
low abilities of her condition. And when she had nothing
of her own, by which to shew her liberality to the prisoners
of Christ, she stole good part of that provision from the
wicked thief her master, which he had stolen from the prisoners,
and restored it to them. And that we may the more
wonder at the providence of God, who so orders it that the
worst of parents shall not have always the worst of children,
but sometimes even the best, a little daughter of the keeper
himself was greatly assisting to the maid in these pious
thefts. By means of this servant the prisoners had information
of the state of the affairs of their brethren and fellow
prisoners, which much comforted them, and was oftentimes
of great service to their cause. But at length the matter
was discovered by the lords inquisitors, by whom she was
thrown into prison for a year, and underwent the same fate
with the other prisoners, and condemned to walk in the
public procession with a yellow garment, and to receive two
hundred stripes; which was executed upon her the following
day, through the streets of the city, with the usual pomp
and cruelty. To all this was added banishment from the
city and its territories, for ten years. Her title was, “The
favouress and aidress of heretics.” What excited the implacable
indignation of the lords, the fathers of the faith,
177against her, was, that they discovered in her examination,
that she had revealed the secrets of the most holy tribunal
to some of the inhabitants of the city, particularly relating
to the provision allotted to the prisoners. From both these
examples, and from their different and unequal punishment,
any one may see how much safer it is to add to the affliction
of the prisoners in their jail, than to comfort them by any
act of humanity and mercy whatsoever.”
And in order that the jail of heretics may be kept secret,
no one of the officials, no not the judge himself, can enter it
alone, or speak with the prisoners but before another of the
officials, nor without the previous order of the inquisitors.
All are obliged to swear that they will observe this, that no
one may see or speak to the prisoners besides the person
who gives them their necessaries; who must be a faithful,
honest person, and is obliged to swear that he will not
discover the secrets, and must be searched to prevent his
carrying any orders or letters to the prisoners.
This command they will have observed as most sacred,
because, as they say, secrecy is the strength of the inquisition,
which might easily be violated, unless this order be
punctually kept; and therefore they always most severely
punish those who transgress it. Gonsalvius Montanus[257] gives
us a very remarkable instance of this. “One Peter ab
Herera, a man not altogether vile, but of some humanity,
and not very old, was appointed keeper of the tower of
Triana, which is the prison of the inquisition. It happened,
as it often doth in such numerous and promiscuous imprisonments,
that amongst other prisoners committed to his custody,
there was a certain good matron, with her two
daughters, who were put in different cells, and earnestly desired
the liberty of seeing one another, and comforting each
other in so great a calamity. They therefore earnestly
entreated the keeper, that he would suffer them to be together
178for one quarter of an hour, that they might have the
satisfaction of embracing each other. He being moved with
humanity and compassion, allowed them to be together, and
talk with one another for half an hour; and after they had
indulged their mutual affections, he put them, as they were
before, in their separate prisons. A few days after this they
were put with great cruelty to the torture; and the keeper
being afraid, that through the severity of their torments,
they should discover to the lords, the fathers inquisitors, his
small humanity in suffering them to converse together for
half an hour without the inquisitors leave; through terror,
went himself to the holy tribunal, of his own accord confessed
his sin, and prayed for pardon; foolishly believing,
that by such his confession he should prevent the punishment
that threatened him for this action. But the lords inquisitors
judged this to be so heinous a crime, that they ordered
him immediately to be thrown into jail; and such was the
cruelty of his treatment, and the disorder of mind that followed
on it, that he soon grew distracted. However, his
disorder and madness did not save him from a more grievous
punishment. For after he had lain a full year in that cursed
prison, they brought him out in the public procession,
cloathed with the yellow garment, and an halter round his
neck, as though he had been a common thief; and condemned
him first to receive two hundred lashes through the
streets of the city, and then to the gallies for six years. The
day after the procession, as he was carried from the Triana
to be whipped with the usual solemnity, his madness, which
usually seized him every other hour, came on him; and
throwing himself from the ass, on which, for the greater
shame, he was carried, he flew upon the inquisitory Alguazile,[258]
and snatching from him a sword, had certainly killed
him, had he not been prevented by the mob who attended
him, and set him again upon the ass, and guarded him till
179he had received the two hundred lashes according to his
sentence. After this the lords inquisitors ordered, that as
he had behaved himself indecently towards the Alguazile,
four years more should be added to the six for which he was
at first condemned to the gallies.”
These keepers are answerable for the smallest fault, for
they are to use the same care in the custody of their prisoners,
as fathers ought to do in governing their families;
so that if they suffer any one to escape from jail, they are to
be punished according to the nature of their offence. It is
therefore their business frequently to visit and search the
cells of their prisoners, to prevent any thing from being
clandestinely carried in, by which they may destroy themselves,
dig through the walls, and so escape. Their care
of the women is to be peculiarly strict; since the sex is naturally
frail, and more subject than men to yield to passion
and despair, and so are more likely to seek an occasion of
destroying themselves. They must, above all other things,
take care that they do not behave themselves indecently towards
their women prisoners. Thus the congregation of
cardinals inquisitors general condemned a jail-keeper to
the gallies for seven years, and to perpetual banishment
from the place where he committed his offence, for having
carnal knowledge of a woman that was prisoner in the holy
office.
If the inquisitor thinks it necessary to prevent the escape
of any prisoners, he may lay them in irons. If the poverty
of the inquisitors is so great, or their jails so defective, as that
they are not fit to hold in safe custody, either for the thinness
of the walls, or for want of iron bars to the windows,
or sufficient bolts for the doors, if the magistrate be required
by the inquisitor, he must take care of the safe custody of
the prisoners.
What the several duties of the messenger, door-keeper,
and physician are, is plain enough from their very names.
They must be honest men, and not suspected, and born of
old christians.
180The salaries of the inquisitors and officers are differently
paid in different countries.
In Spain there are fixed salaries for the inquisitors, and
other ministers of the holy office, which are paid them at
stated times out of the forfeited effects.
“Every inquisitor hath annually allowed him 60,000,
which is now increased to an hundred thousand pieces,
every one of which is worth two of those brass pieces of
money, which they commonly call Albi. The judges of the
forfeited effects have each of them 30,000. The promoter
fiscal as many. The scribe or notary the same. The
executor 60,000. The receiver as many. The messenger
20,000. The door-keeper 10,000. The physician 5,000.
These salaries may be increased at the pleasure of the inquisitor
general, and are to be paid by the receiver at the fixed
times; which if he neglects to do, he may be deprived of
his office by the inquisitors.
“The assessors and counsellors have no stipend, but
must give their advice gratis, when the inquisitors desire it,
as some lawyers affirm; and though they may receive a
salary freely offered them, yet they cannot demand it,
because all Christians are bound to support and defend the
affair of the Catholic faith. However, these assessors, who
are the eyes of the judges in every cause, even though it be
spiritual, justly receive a salary for their service and labour:
for many things are justly received, which it would be injustice
to demand.
“Those advocates who defend the causes of the poor,
have a stipend out of the treasury, which is usually very
small, though honourable. But if the criminals are not
poor, the advocates are paid out of their effects.”
It is also provided in Spain, by many constitutions, that
inquisitors, who receive gifts, incur the sentence of excommunication,
and are deprived of their office, and fined double
the value of what they take. However, as the author of
the History of the Inquisition at Goa informs us, the inquisitors
know how to amass vast riches, by two methods.
181When the effects of the prisoners, after confiscation, are sold
by the cryer, the inquisitors, notwithstanding the interdict
to the contrary, usually send one of their domestics, who
bids a low price for such things as his master wants, being
pretty secure that nobody else will out-bid them; and by
this means they buy very valuable things for half price, or
less. Besides this, the inquisitors have a right to demand
the payment of the expences, and other necessary charges
they have been at, when, and in what sums they please,
whenever the money arising from the confiscations is carried
into the royal treasury; without ever giving any reason, or
any one’s daring to ask them for what purposes they employ
it.
Gonsalvius Montanus also tells us, in his Arts of the
Spanish Inquisition, cap. 10. that the inquisitors are sometimes
prevailed with to use their prisoners a little more
kindly, by some pretty presents made by their friends and
relations. But this matter must be dextrously managed,
that so the inquisitor may not refuse the offer. The first
thing, therefore, is, to bribe one of his servants; in which
there is no difficulty, provided it be done privately. When
the inquisitors themselves are tampered with, they generally
answer, that holy tribunal is incorrupt, and suffers no manner
of gifts whatsoever to be received. But they have
generally, amongst their attendance, some child of their
brother or sister; or, at least, a servant that they greatly
esteem, and who is to be highly respected, and who only
sees the inquisitor refuse the presents offered to him. This
servant comes to the prisoner’s friend, and privately points
out to him the relation of the lord inquisitor. This is giving
him to understand, unless the person be a stock, that though
before he in vain attempted to corrupt the integrity of this
holy tribunal, he may by this conveyance prevail upon the
inquisitor, though he would refuse to accept the same
present when more openly offered him.
182
The first and principal crime is heresy. Three things
are required to make any one properly an heretic. 1. That
he hath been baptized. 2. That he err in his understanding
in matters relating to the faith, i. e. differ in those points
which are determined by a general council, or the pope, as
necessary to be believed, or enjoined as an apostolic tradition.
3. Obstinacy of will; as when any one persists in his
error, after being informed by a judge of the faith that the
opinion he holds is contrary to the determination of the
church, and will not renounce it at the command of such a
judge, by abjuring it, and giving suitable satisfaction. This
crime is so widely extended by the doctors of the Romish
church, that they esteem every thing as heresy, that is contrary
to any received opinion in the church, though it be
merely philosophical, and hath no manner of foundation in
the scripture.
The punishments ordained against heretics are many,
and most grievous. The first is excommunication; by
which heretics are driven from the church, and expelled
the company of all Christians. The ceremony of it is thus:
when the bishop pronounces the anathema, twelve priests
stand round him, and hold lighted torches in their hands,
which they throw down on the ground, and tread under
foot at the conclusion of the excommunication; after which
a letter is sent to the proper parishes, containing the names
of the excommunicated persons, and the reason of their
sentence. Persons thus excommunicated, are deprived of
all ecclesiastical benefices and dignities, and are not to
receive Christian burial.
183Being excommunicated, all their effects are forfeited, all
donations by them are null and void, and even portions
paid to children must be revoked, and all legacies to wives
forfeited. The treasury of the inquisition devours all. The
consequence of this is, that the children of heretics are absolutely
disinherited; excepting only when a child accuses his
heretical parents. Heretics are also deprived of their natural
power over their children, and of that civil power they
have over their servants; so that slaves and servants are,
ipso facto, freed from servitude the moment their masters
fall into heresy. Subjects are also freed from obedience to
heretical princes and magistrates, and absolved from their
oaths of allegiance. In a word, heretics lose all right and
property in every thing that they have. Hence proceeds
the maxim, “that faith is not to be kept with heretics,”
because it ought never to be given them; and because the
keeping it is against the public good, the salvation of souls,
and contrary, as they say, to the laws of God and man.
Farther, all places of refuge, which are open to malefactors,
and the worst of villains, are denied to heretics. Another
punishment is imprisonment; or if they cannot be apprehended,
they are put under the ban; so that any one,
by his own private authority, may seize, plunder, and
kill him as an enemy, or robber. The last penalty is
death, the most terrible one that can be inflicted, viz. the
being burnt to death. Such as are obstinate and impenitent,
are to be burnt alive; others are to be first strangled,
and then burnt.
Heretics are distinguished into open and secret. Open
heretics are such, who publicly avow somewhat contrary to
the Catholic faith, or which is condemned as such by the
sentence of the inquisitors. Secret heretics are such who
err in their mind, but have not shewn it outwardly by word
or deed; and these are excommunicated ipso jure; or who by
word or writing have discovered the heresy of their heart
with secrecy and craft; and such are liable to all the punishments
of heretics.
184Again, heretics are either affirmative or negative. Affirmative
heretics are such who err in their minds as to matters
of faith; and who by word or deed shew that they are
obstinate in their wills, and openly confess it before the
inquisitor. Negative heretics are such, who being according
to the laws of the inquisition convicted of some heresy
before an inquisitor, yet will not confess it; constantly
declaring that they profess the Catholic faith, and detest
heretical pravity; or who owning heretical words or
actions, deny the heretical intention; or who refuse to
discover all their accomplices. Such are generally put to
the torture.
Again, heretics are either impenitent or penitent. An
impenitent is one who, being convicted of heresy, or having
confessed it before an inquisitor, will not obey his judge,
when he commands him to forsake his heresy and abjure it,
but obstinately perseveres in his error; or who having confessed
through fear of punishment, yet afterwards asserts his
innocence, or doth not observe the penance enjoined him.
Penitents are those who, being admonished by the inquisitor,
abjure their error, and give suitable satisfaction, as the
bishop or inquisitor enjoins them; either of their own
accord, or upon any particular inquisition made after them.
Such who return of their own accord, are treated with
greater mildness; but the other enjoined a very severe
penance. But they will by no means receive such who do
not return till after frequent admonition, or till fear of
death; or who endeavour any ways to persuade others to
heresy, especially kings and queens, or the sons and daughters
of princes.
Next to heretics are the believers of heretics, and such
who receive, defend, and favour them; who by word or
deed declare their belief of an heretic’s error, who knowingly
take them into their houses and other places, and thus
conceal them from the hands of the church, or give them
notice to make their escape, or vindicate them on their trial,
or hinder the procedure of the office of the inquisition; or
185who, being magistrates, refuse to extirpate them, or to apprehend
and keep them in custody, or to punish them when
given over to them by the inquisitors; or who being prelates
or inquisitors, neglect to have safe prisons, and faithful jailkeepers,
or to apprehend, torture, or punish heretics. These,
ipso facto, incur excommunication; and if they remain under
it a year, are to be punished as heretics. And finally, such
who visit them privately, whilst in custody, and whisper
with them, and give them food; or who lament their apprehension
or death, or who complain they are unjustly condemned,
or who look with a bitter countenance on their
prosecutors, or who gather up the bones of heretics after
they are burnt; these are all favourers of heresy, and are
ipso jure excommunicated.
Such also who hinder the office of the inquisition are
subject to this tribunal. This may be done by rescuing
persons taken up for heresy from prison, or by wounding
any of the witnesses against them; or by using threatenings,
and terrifying words; or by hindering process, judgment,
or sentence; or if a temporal lord ordains that no one shall
take cognizance of heresy but himself, and that no one shall
be accused but before his tribunal, nor any bear arms but
those of his own household. The punishment of this is
excommunication; which, if they continue under a year,
they must either abjure, or be delivered over as heretics to
the secular arm. Sometimes their whole dominions are
put under interdict, and given to him who can first conquer
them.
Yea, they extend this affair sometimes so far, that all
manner of offences committed against any one that belongs
to the inquisitors, though they have no relation to the faith,
are punished in the same manner as though the office of the
inquisition had been hindered by them, or the inquisitor
himself had received some grievous injury. Reginald
Gonsalvius[259] gives us a remarkable instance of this, which
186happened in the former age at Seville. The bishop of Terragone,
chief inquisitor at Seville, went one summer for his
diversion to some pleasant gardens situate by the sea side,
with all his inquisitory family, and walked out, according
to his custom, with his episcopal attendance. A child of
the gardener, two or three years old at most, accidentally sat
playing upon the side of a pond in the garden, where my
lord bishop was taking his pleasure. One of the boys that
attended his lordship, snatched out of the hand of the gardener’s
child a reed, with which he was playing, and made
him cry. The gardener hearing his child, comes to the place;
and when he found out the occasion of his crying, was angry,
and bad the inquisitor’s servant restore the reed to him.
And upon his refusal, and insolently contemning the countryman,
he snatched it away; and as the boy held it fast,
the gardener slightly hurt his hand by the sharp husk of the
reed, in pulling it from him. The wound was far from being
mortal, or from endangering the loss of any part, and so
could not deserve a severe punishment. It was no more
than a scratch of the skin, a mere childish wound, as one
may imagine by the cause of it. However, the inquisitor’s
boy came to his master, who was walking near the place, to
complain about his wound; upon which the inquisitor
orders the gardener to be taken up, and thrown into the
inquisitory jail, and kept him there for nine months in very
heavy irons; by which he received such damage in his circumstances,
which were at best but mean, as the poor man
could not easily recover; his children and wife, in the mean
while, being ready to perish for hunger; and all because he
did not pay deference enough to the inquisitor’s boy, as a
member of the holy tribunal. At nine months end they
dismissed him from jail, and would have persuaded him that
they dealt much more mercifully with him than his crime
deserved.
Again, there are other persons who are only suspected of
heresy. This suspicion is threefold; light, vehement, or
violent. A light suspicion arises from a person’s frequenting
187conventicles, and in his behaviour differing from the
common conversation of the faithful. A vehement suspicion
of heresy, is a person’s not appearing when called to answer
upon any article of the faith; hindering the inquisition,
giving council or assistance to heretics; or advising them
to conceal the truth, or who knowingly accompany, visit, or
receive them; or who are convicted of perjury or lying, in a
cause of the faith; or who give ecclesiastical burial to heretics,
or their favourers, or bury them in church yards with
psalms and prayers; or who preserve the ashes, bones, garments,
and the like, of buried heretics; or who think ill of
some doctrine or order of the church, such as the power of
the pope, the religion of the monks, the rites of the sacrament,
and the like; or who persist in their excommunication
for two years; such persons give such suspicions as are sufficient
to put them to the torture. A violent suspicion
arises from such external words and actions by which it may
be effectually, and almost always concluded, that he who
says or doth them is an heretic; such as the receiving the
communion from heretics, and the like. Of these different
kinds of suspicions the punishment is different. A person
lightly suspected is enjoined canonical purgation, or may be
made to abjure. One vehemently suspected may be commanded
a general abjuration of all heresies; after which, if
he relapses into his former heresy, or associates with, and
favours heretics, he is delivered over to the secular power
as a relapse. One violently suspected, is to be condemned
as an heretic. If he confesses and abjures, he may be admitted
to penance; but if he doth not confess, and will not
abjure, he is to be delivered over to the secular court, and
burnt.
And as some persons are suspected, others are defamed
for heresy; such who are spoken against by common report,
or such against whom there is legal proof before a bishop
that they are spoken against upon account of heresy. And
to this two witnesses suffice, though they have had their
information from different persons, and though they do not
188agree as to time and place, and the causes of their knowledge;
and though the person accused as defamed, can prove himself
to be of good reputation. The punishment of one thus
defamed is canonical purgation, and some other ordinary
penalty.
Again, other persons are relapsed; such who after
having been convicted, either by the evidence of the fact, or
their own confession, or legal witnesses, have publicly
abjured their heresy, and are convicted of falling into the
same again, or into any different heresy, or into a violent suspicion
of heresy, and who accompany, visit, and favour
heretics; or who are found to be perjured after abjuration,
or who after abjuration and purgation do not perform the
penance enjoined them. But there is this difference between
the last, and the former relapsed persons; that the former
are left without mercy to the secular arm; whereas it is in
the inquisitor’s pleasure to deliver the latter to secular
judgment, or not.
Those also who read and keep prohibited books are subject
to the tribunal of the inquisition. Pope Pius V. by a
bull excommunicated, amongst others, all who should knowingly
read, keep in their houses, print, or in any wise defend,
for any cause, publicly or privately, under any pretence or
colour, prohibited books, without the authority of the apostolic
see. If any one brings heretical books into any Catholic
countries, he is not only excommunicated, but his goods
confiscated, and himself whipped, if he be of mean condition;
but if he is of the better sort, he is banished at the pleasure
of the inquisitor. If there arises any vehement suspicion
of heresy, from any one’s reading, keeping, defending, or
printing the books of heretics, he may be put to the torture
to discover the truth. If any of the clergy read or keep
prohibited books, they are vehemently suspected; and may
be deprived of the active and passive voice, suspended
from divine services, deprived of the offices of reading,
preaching, &c. and be enjoined fastings, pilgrimages, and
the like.
189The inquisitors also take cognizance of those who marry
several wives at once, because they are presumed to think
wrong of the sacrament of matrimony. If upon examination
any one affirms it lawful for a christian man to have several
wives at once, he is taken for a formal heretic, and is to be
punished as such. If he denies any heretical intention, he
must be put to the torture; that the inquisitors may know
what his mind is, and whether he married two wives out of
any erroneous opinion concerning the sacrament of matrimony,
or through lust, or carnal concupiscence. All such
persons are suspected of heresy, and must abjure as such,
and may be condemned to the gallies.
If any one celebrates mass, or hears confession, and gives
absolution, not being in priest’s orders, he is vehemently
suspected of heresy; and must abjure as such, and then be
delivered over to the secular arm, to be punished with
death. Raynald gives us an instance of one who said he
was a bishop, though he had not the pope’s bull, and as such
consecrated priests. The story is this: “James the priest,
a false Minorite, born in the dutchy of Juliers, forged the
pope’s bull, and declared in the Netherlands that he was a
bishop; and although he had not been ordained a bishop,
he consecrated priests by a false ceremony in several dioceses
of Germany and the Low Countries. At length he
was convicted of his wickedness, and the magistrates of
Utrecht thought fit, not to condemn him to the flames, that
he might be quickly consumed, but to be gradually burnt by
boiling water, that so they might conquer his obstinacy,
because he most impudently refused to acknowledge his
crime. But being gradually let down into the boiling cauldron,
and overcome with the extremity of the pain, he
detested his wickedness, and prayed that he might receive a
milder punishment. His judges being moved with compassion,
ordered him to be taken out of the boiling cauldron,
and then to be beheaded.”
Those also who solicit women or boys to dishonourable
actions in the sacramental confession, are subject to this tribunal.
190Pius IV. published a bull against them; and when
this bull was first brought into Spain, all persons were commanded
by a public edict, solemnly published throughout
all the churches of the archbishopric of Seville, that whosoever
knew or had heard of any monks or clergymen who
had abused the sacrament of confession to these crimes, or
had in any manner acted in this vile manner at confession
with their wives or daughters, they should discover them
within thirty days to the holy tribunal; and very grievous
censures were annexed to such as should neglect or contemn
it. When the decree was published, so large a number of
women went to the palace of the inquisitors in the city of
Seville only, to make their discoveries of these most wicked
confessors, that twenty secretaries, with as many inquisitors,
were not sufficient to take the depositions of the witnesses.
The lords inquisitors being thus overwhelmed with the multitude
of affairs, assigned another thirty days for the witnesses;
and when this was not sufficient, they were forced to
appoint the same number a third and a fourth time. For as
to women of reputation, and others of higher condition,
every time was not proper for them to apply to the inquisitors.
On one hand, their conscience forced them to a
discovery through a superstitious fear of the censures and
excommunication; and on the other hand, their regard to
their husbands, whom they were afraid to offend, by giving
them any ill suspicion of their chastity, kept them at home;
and therefore veiling their faces, after the Spanish custom,
they went to the lords inquisitors, when, and as privately as
they could. Very few, however, with all their prudence
and craft, could escape the diligent observation of their
husbands at the time of discovery, and hereby possessed
their minds with the deepest jealousy. However, after so
many had been informed against before the inquisitors, that
holy tribunal, contrary to all men’s expectations, put a
stop to the affair, and commanded all those crimes which
were proved by legal evidence, to be buried in eternal
oblivion.
191It is required that this solicitation be made in the act of
sacramental confession; and such confessors are vehemently
suspected, and must abjure as such, and be enjoined fastings
and prayers, and may be condemned to the gallies, or perpetual
imprisonment; must be suspended from hearing confessions,
and deprived of their benefices, dignities and the
like.
Yea, sometimes, according to the heinousness of the
offence, a more grievous punishment is inflicted. “The
Venetians ordered one of them to be burnt alive, by command
of the pope. He had been father confessor to some
nuns in the dominions of Venice, and had got twelve of
them with child; amongst whom the abbess and two others
had children in one year. As he was confessing them, he
agreed with them about the place, manner, and time of lying
with them. All were filled with admiration and astonishment,
taking the man for a perfect saint, he had so great a
shew of sanctity in his very face.” Epist. ad Belgas, Cent. 1.
Ep. 66. p. 345. & Ep. 63. p. 316.
In Portugal also the crime of sodomy belongs to the
tribunal of the inquisition. By the laws of that kingdom
sodomites are punished with death, and confiscation of all
their effects; and their children and grandchildren become
infamous. After the natural death of a sodomite, if the
crime hath not been proved, they cannot proceed against
him, neither as to the crime, nor confiscation of effects,
although the crime can be proved by legal witnesses;
because crimes, which are not particularly excepted, of which
sodomy is one, are extinguished by the death of the delinquent.
Nor do they proceed against a dead sodomite, nor
confiscate his effects, although he hath been convicted, or
confessed when he was alive. If such a one takes sanctuary
in a church, he cannot be taken out of it.
If we compare these things with the punishments of
heretics, it will appear that the crime of sodomy in the kingdom
of Portugal is esteemed a much smaller one than that
of heresy, because sodomites enjoy privileges which are
192denied to heretics. And yet it may happen, that a truly
pious man, who fears God, and is most careful of his eternal
salvation, may be accounted an heretic by the Portuguese
inquisitors; whereas, a sodomite cannot but be the
vilest of men. But it is not at all strange, that by the laws
of that tribunal Barabbas should be released, and Christ
crucified.
Blasphemers also, who deny God, or their belief in him,
or the virginity of our Lady, are subject to the inquisitors,
and punished in the following manner. If the blasphemy be
very heinous, and the blasphemer a mean person, he is made
to wear an infamous mitre, hath his tongue tied, and pinched
with an iron or wooden gag, is carried forth as a public
spectacle without his cloak, whipped with scourges, and
banished. But if he be a person of better condition, or
noble, he is brought forth without the mitre, thrust for a
time into a monastery, and punished with a fine. In smaller
blasphemies they are dealt with more gently, at the pleasure
of the inquisitors, viz. the blasphemer is condemned to
stand, during divine service, upon some holiday or other,
with his head naked, without his cloak and shoes, his feet
naked, a cord tied round him, and holding a burning wax-taper
in his hands. Sometimes also they squeeze his tongue
with a piece of wood. After divine service is over his sentence
is read, by which he is enjoined fastings, and a fine.
This punishment, however, doth not take place as to a
clergyman. For if a clergyman was to appear without his
shoes, and with an halter about his neck, and thus stand at
the gates of the church before the people, the clerical order,
and the ministry of the clergy would suffer disgrace; and it
would become a wonder, and evil example to the laity, if the
blaspheming clergy were thus exposed.
In these cases the inquisitors mostly act according to
their own pleasure, who have an ample power of judging
according to the nature and heinousness of the crimes. A
certain person who had a quarrel with a clergyman of Ecya,
a city in Spain, accidentally said, in the hearing of others,
193that he could not believe that God would come down into
the hands of so profligate an adulterer. The vicar of the
ordinary fined him for the speech. But the clergyman, not
contented with this revenge, afterwards accused him of blasphemy
at the tribunal of the inquisitors at Seville. Nor did
the fine to which he was before condemned by the ordinary,
prevent his being taken up by command of the inquisitors,
imprisoned for a whole year, brought out in triumph without
cloak or hat, carrying a wax candle in his hand, his
tongue gagged with a wooden gag, thus to punish his blasphemy;
and being forced to abjure, as lightly suspected, he
was fined a second time.
Fortune-tellers, who look into the palms of the hands,
such who exercise divination by lots, and use candles and
holy water to discover stolen goods, if they deny any heretical
intention, may be tortured to discover it; and if found
guilty, are excommunicated, whipped, banished, and subject
to other punishments. If any pretend to foretel the mysteries
of faith by the stars, or the life or death of the pope, or
his kindred, they may be punished with death, and confiscation
of goods. With these fortune-tellers are joined witches;
who are reported to deny the faith, and make a compact with
the devil. These poor wretches are miserably tortured to
force them to confess, and then burnt. The inquisitors,
within the space of 150 years, burnt 30,000 of them.
Finally, the Jews are also severely handled by this tribunal.
The inquisition, indeed, is not designed to compel the
Jews to turn Christians, but is introduced against those who,
being converted from Judaism to Christianity, return again
to the principles they have forsaken; or who deny matters
of faith common to them and Christians; or if they invoke
devils, or sacrifice to them; or if they speak heretical blasphemies,
or pervert a Christian from the faith, or hinder
infidels from being converted; or knowingly receive an
heretic, or keep heretical books, or deride the host or the
cross; or keep Christian nurses, and the like. But the inquisition
is levelled principally against those, who having
194professed Christianity, and been baptized, turn again to
Judaism. When suspected they are liable to the torture,
may be compelled to abjure, fined, imprisoned, whipped, or
burnt, according to the nature of their errors, or heretical
actions.
It now remains that I give some account of what relates
to the execution of the inquisitorial office.
When the inquisitor is first constituted by the pope, he
must present himself to the king, or other temporal lord of
those territories in which he is to act, and deliver his apostolic
commission, and demand full protection for himself and
officers, in all matters belonging to their office. He must
also shew his commission to the archbishops and bishops of
the dioceses in which he is sent. Finally, he takes an oath
from the civil officers, that they will defend the faith, and
obey the inquisitor with all their might; and this oath they
may compel them to take, under pain of excommunication,
and all the punishments which attend it.
After this, the inquisitor appoints a sermon to be preached
on a certain day, all other sermons being suspended; at
which, four of each religion must be present, and in which
he commends the Catholic faith, and exhorts the people to
extirpate heretical pravity. When the sermon is ended, he
admonishes them to discover to himself all persons who are
erroneous, and have said or done any thing against the faith;
and then orders monitory letters to be read from the pulpit,
by which all persons, of whatsoever condition, clergy or
laity, are commanded, under pain of excommunication, to
195discover to the inquisitors within six or twelve days following
any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, which they
know. These monitory letters are called, “An edict of the
faith.” When these letters are read, he promises, in the
pope’s name, indulgencies for three years to all who assist
him in reducing heretics, or who discover to him any such;
or person defamed, and suspected of heresy; or who, in any
other case, bear true witness before him in an act of faith.
And finally, he assigns a time of grace to all heretics, &c.
viz. the month following; promising them, that if within
that space they come freely to him, before they are accused
or apprehended, and voluntarily discover their guilt, and ask
pardon, they shall obtain pardon and mercy; viz. freedom
from death, imprisonment, banishment, and confiscation of
effects.
From this obligation to accuse heretics, no persons, of
whatsoever dignity or degree, are exempted; brother must
accuse brother, the wife her husband, the husband his wife,
the son his father, when heretical, or suspected of heresy;
the edict obliges all; and neither kings nor princes, nor
nearest relations are exempted.
Joan, the daughter of the emperor Charles V. was cited
by the inquisitors to be interrogated before them, against a
certain person, concerning some things relating to the faith.
She consulted her father, who advised her to make her deposition
without any delay (lest she should incur excommunication)
not only against others, but even against himself, if
she knew him to be blameable in the least matter. Joan
obeyed this command of her father, and immediately deposed
before Ferdinand Valdez, archbishop of Seville, at that time
bishop and inquisitor general.
Lewis de Carvajal, although governor and captain general
of the province of Tampico and Pamico, was forced to
walk out in public penance, because he did not denounce
four women, who were secretly Jews, and to whom he was
uncle; and though a little before he had the honourable
title of president, he was forced to hear his ignominious sentence
196publicly, was for ever deprived of all offices under the
king, reduced to the lowest misery, and through grief and
weariness of his life, soon went the way of all flesh.
If any person comes in within the appointed time to
accuse himself, he is asked, how long he hath continued in
his errors, and from whom he learnt them? whether he hath
had, and read any heretical or suspected books? what they
were, from whom he had them, and what he hath done with
them? Other questions are added concerning his accomplices
in heresies, that he may tell the names of all those
heretics, or persons suspected of heresy, whom he knows.
He is farther asked, whether he hath ever been inquisited,
processed, or accused or denounced in any tribunal, or before
any judge, on account of the aforesaid errors, or other things
relating to heresy? He is also admonished simply to tell the
whole truth which he knows, as well of himself as of others;
because, if he is afterwards found deceitfully to have concealed
any thing, he is judged as one whose confession is
imperfect, and as impenitent, and feignedly converted.
Finally, he is interrogated, whether he repents of these
errors and heresies into which he hath fallen? and whether
he is ready to abjure, curse, and detest them, and all other
heresies whatsoever, that exalt themselves against the holy
apostolic and Roman church, and to live for the future catholicly,
according to the faith of the church of Rome, and
devoutly to fulfil the salutary penance enjoined him?
However, such as come thus voluntarily, are far from
escaping all punishment, but are either treated kindly at the
pleasure of the inquisitor, according to the quality of their
persons and crimes, or else condemned to pay a fine, or give
alms, or some such works of charity. But if they wait till
they are accused, denounced, cited or apprehended, or suffer
the time of grace to slip over, they are pronounced unworthy
of such favours.
And in this case many foolishly deceive themselves with
a false opinion, believing, that because favour is promised to
such who appear voluntarily, they shall be free from all
197punishment; because they are only saved from the more
terrible ones, it being left to the pleasure of the inquisitors
to inflict some penitential punishment on them, according to
the nature of their crime, as will appear from the following
instance. “There was at the city of Cadiz a certain
foreigner, who yet had lived in Spain for twenty years; who,
according to a common superstition, dwelt in a desart in a
certain chapel, upon the account of religion. Hearing in his
chapel of the great number of those who were taken up every
day at Seville by the inquisitors, for what they call the Lutheran
heresies; having heard also of the decree of the inquisitors,
by which he was commanded, under the terrors of
excommunication, immediately to discover to the inquisition
whatsoever he knew of those things, either as to others or
himself; the poor stupid hermit comes to Seville, goes to
the inquisitors and accuses himself, because he thought the
said inquisitors would use singular clemency towards those
who thus betrayed themselves. His crime was, that whereas
being about twenty years before this at Genoa, and hearing
a certain brother of his disputing about a man’s justification
by faith in Christ, of purgatory, and other things of the like
nature, he did not wholly condemn them, though he never
thought of them afterwards. He therefore acknowledged
his crime, and came to ask mercy. When the lords inquisitors
had received his confession, they commanded the poor
hermit to jail; where, after a long confinement, he was
brought out in public procession, and was sentenced to wear
the sanbenito, to three years imprisonment, and the forfeiture
of his effects.”
Sometimes also they use a certain stratagem to draw
persons to a voluntary appearance before the inquisitors.
“When they have apprehended any remarkable person,
who hath been the teacher of others, or who they know
hath been resorted to by many others, upon account of his
doctrine and learning, as being a teacher and preacher of
great repute; it is usual with them to cause a report to be
spread amongst the people, by their familiars, that being
198grievously tortured, he had discovered several of those that
had adhered to him, suborning some persons out of the
neighbouring prisons to assert that they heard his cries
amidst his tortures, in order to give the greater credit to
the report. These reports are spread for this reason, that
such who have attended on his instructions, or have been
any ways familiar with him, may in time go to the holy tribunal,
confess their fault, and implore mercy, before they
are sent for, or apprehended. By this means they impose on
many, who, if they had waited for their summons, had never
been summoned at all. Or if it should have happened that
they had been summoned, would not have been dealt with
more severely than they generally are, who trust to the
inquisitors promises.”
If any person is accused by another, the accuser is interrogated,
“How long he hath known N. against whom he
denounces? likewise, how he came to know him? Again,
whether he observed that the aforesaid N. was suspected of
matters relating to the faith from his words, or his actions?
Likewise, how often he had seen the said N. do or say those
things for which he thought him an heretic, or suspected of
heresy? Likewise, at what time, and in the presence of
whom the aforesaid N. did or said those things of which he
is denounced? Likewise, whether the aforesaid N. hath had
any accomplices in the aforesaid crimes, or any writings belonging
to the offences denounced? Likewise, to what end
and purpose the aforesaid things were done or said by the
aforesaid N. whether seriously, or in jest? If it appears that
there was a long interval of time between the commission of
the crimes denounced, and the making the denunciation, the
inquisitor interrogates the denouncer, why he deferred so
long to come to the holy office, and did not depose before,
especially if he knew that he incurred the penalty of excommunication
by such omission?” He is moreover asked,
“Whether he knows any thing farther of N. which concerns
the holy office, or of any other person? Likewise, whether
he hath at any time had any cause of hatred or enmity with
199the aforesaid N. and whence it proceeded? With what zeal,
and with what intention he comes to the holy office, and to
make denunciation? Whether he hath denounced through
any passion of mind, ill will, hatred, or subornation?
And he is admonished ingenuously to tell the truth.” He
is especially interrogated how he came by his knowledge,
because on that principally the truth and weight of the testimony
depends.
When the denunciation is received; first, it must be
read over to the denouncer, that he may add, take away, or
alter as he pleases. Secondly, he must subscribe to his deposition;
or if he cannot write, he must at least put under it
the sign of the cross. Thirdly, he must take an oath of
secrecy.
After this, the witnesses are called on. And in this affair
all persons, even such as are not allowed in other tribunals,
are admitted. Persons excommunicated, heretics, Jews, and
infidels, wives, sons and daughters, and domestics, are allowed
as witnesses against those accused of heresy, but never for
them: those who are perjured and infamous, whores,
bawds, those under the ban, usurers, bastards, common blasphemers,
gamesters, persons actually drunk, stage-players,
prize-fighters, apostates, traitors, even all without exception,
besides mortal enemies.
When the witnesses are summoned, first they take an
oath upon the scriptures to speak the truth. After this he is
asked by the inquisitor, whether he knows, or can guess the
cause of his citation and present examination? If he says
yes, he is interrogated how he knew it? If he says no, he is
interrogated, whether he hath known, or doth know now any
one or more heretics, or persons suspected of heresy, or at
least is able to name any such? Whether he knows N.?
What was the occasion of his acquaintance with him? How
long he hath known him? Whether he hath been used to
converse with him? Whether he hath heard at any time any
thing from the said N. concerning the Catholic religion?
Whether ever he was in such a place with the said N. and
200whether the said N. did or said there such and such heretical
things, or favouring of heresy? Who were present when
N. did or said the aforesaid things? How often he saw them
said or done, and on what occasion, and how? Whether
the said N. spoke the aforesaid things in jest, or without
thinking, or through a slip of his tongue, or as relating the
heresies of some other person or persons? Whether he said
any thing which ought not to have been said, through hatred
or love, or omitted and concealed somewhat that ought to
have been explained? He is farther admonished to tell the
single truth, because, if he is detected of speaking falsely,
he will be made to suffer the penalties, not only of perjury,
but of favouring heresy.
After this, one of the proctors of the court demands that
the criminal be taken up, and the inquisitor subscribes an
order for this purpose. When he is apprehended, he must
be well guarded, put in irons, and delivered to the jailkeeper
of the inquisition.
When the criminal is put in jail, he is brought before the
inquisitor. The place where he appears before the inquisitor,
is called by the Portuguese the table of the holy
office. At the farther end of it there is placed a crucifix,
raised up almost as high as the ceiling. In the middle of
the room there is a table. At that end which is nearest the
crucifix, sits the secretary or notary of the inquisition. The
criminal is brought in by the beadle, with his head, arms
and feet naked, and is followed by one of the keepers.
When they come to the chamber of audience, the beadle
enters first, makes a profound reverence before the inquisitor,
and then withdraws. After this, the criminal enters
alone, who is ordered to sit down on a bench at the other
end of the table, over against the secretary. The inquisitor
sits on his right hand. On the table near the criminal lies a
missal, or book of the gospels; and he is ordered to lay his
hand on one of them, and to swear that he will declare the
truth, and keep secrecy.
After taking this oath, of declaring the truth both of
201himself and others, the inquisitor interrogates him of divers
matters. As, whether he knows why he was taken up, or
hath been informed of it by any one or more persons?
Where, when, and how he was apprehended? If he says
that he knows nothing of it, he is asked, whether he cannot
guess at the reason? whether he knows in what prisons he
is detained? and upon what account men are imprisoned
there? If he says he cannot guess at the cause of his imprisonment,
but knows that he is in the prisons of the holy
office, where heretics and persons suspected of heresy are
confined, he is told, that since he knows persons are confined
there for their profanation of religion, he ought to conclude
that he also is confined for the same reason; and must
therefore declare what he believes to be the cause of his
own apprehension and confinement in the prisons of the
holy office. If he says he cannot imagine what it should be,
before he is asked any other questions, he receives a gentle
admonition, and is put in mind of the lenity of the holy
office towards those who confess without forcing, and of the
rigour of justice used towards those who are obstinate.
They also compare other tribunals with the holy office, and
remind him, that in others the confession of the crime draws
after it immediate execution and punishment; but that in
the court of the inquisition, those who confess and are penitent,
are treated with greater gentleness. After this, he is
admonished in writing, and told, that the ministers of the
holy office never take up any one, or are used to apprehend
any one without a just cause; and that therefore they earnestly
beseech him, and command and enjoin him, exactly
to recollect and diligently to consider his actions, to examine
his conscience, and purge it from all those offences and errors
it labours under, and for which he is informed against.
After this he is asked, what race he comes of? Who
were his parents and ancestors? that hereby he may declare
all his family. Whether any one of them was at any time
taken up by the holy office, and enjoined penance? This
they are especially asked, who descend from Jews, Mahometans,
202and sectaries. Where he was brought up? In
what places he hath dwelt? Whether he ever changed his
country? Why he did so, and went into another place?
With whom he conversed in the aforesaid places; who were
his friends, and with whom he was intimate? Whether he
ever conversed with any of his acquaintance about matters
of religion, or heard them speak about religion? In what
place, and when, and how often, and of what things or matters
they conversed?
He is moreover asked, of what profession he is, and
what employment of life he follows? Whether he be rich
or poor? What returns he hath, and what the expences of
his living? Then he is commanded to give an account of
his life, and to declare what he hath done from his childhood,
even to this time. And that he may declare all this, he is
asked, in what places or cities he studied, and what studies
he followed? Who were his masters? whose names he must
tell. What arts he learnt? What books he hath had and
read? and whether he hath now any books treating of religion,
and what? Whether ever he hath been examined and
cited, or sued, or processed before any other tribunal, or the
tribunal of the holy inquisition, and for what causes; and
whether he was absolved or condemned, by what judge, and
in what year? Whether ever he was excommunicated, and
for what cause? Whether he was afterwards absolved or
condemned, and for what reason? Whether he hath every
year sacramentally confessed his sins, how often, and in what
church? Then he is commanded to give the names of his
confessors, and of those from whom he hath received the
eucharist; and especially for the ten years last past, and
more. What orations or holy prayers he recites? Whether
he hath any enemies? whose names he must tell, and the
reasons of their enmity.
If the criminal is persuaded by these, or by more or less
such interrogatories, openly to confess the truth, his cause is
finished, because it is immediately known what will be the
issue of it.
203But if after all these interrogatories the prisoner persists
in the negative, and says he doth not know why he is cited
or sent to prison, the inquisitor replies, that since it appears
from his own words, that he will not discover the truth, and
that there is no proof of his having such enmities with any
person, or that there are no such causes of hatred as he
alledges, by which others could, or ought to be induced
slanderously, and falsely to inform against him, that therefore
there arises the stronger suspicion, that the depositions
against him in the holy office are true. And therefore he is
beseeched and abjured, by the bowels of mercy of Christ
Jesus, to consider better and better, and ingenuously to
confess the truth, and to declare whether he hath erred in
words or deeds, in the aforesaid matter relating to the faith,
and the holy office, or rendered himself suspected to others.
If by such general interrogatories the inquisitor cannot
draw from the prisoner a confession of the crime of which he
is accused, he comes to particular interrogatories, which relate
to the matter itself, or the crimes or heresies for which
the criminal was denounced. For instance, if he was accused
for denying purgatory, then one, two, or three days after his
first examination, he is again interrogated by the inquisitor,
whether he hath any thing, and what to say, besides what
he said in his other examination? Whether he hath thought
better of the matter, and can recollect the cause of his imprisonment,
and former examination, or hath at least any
suspicion who could accuse him to the holy office, and of
what matters? Whether he hath heard any one discoursing
of paradise, purgatory, and hell? What he heard concerning
that matter? Who they were, that he heard speaking, or disputing
of those things? Whether he ever discoursed of
them? What he hath believed, and doth now believe about
purgatory? If he answers, that his faith concerning it hath
been right, and denies any ill belief, but that he believes as
holy mother church believes and teaches, he is ordered to
say what the holy Roman mother church doth think and believe
concerning this article.
204If the prisoner knows the reason of his being apprehended,
and openly confesses every thing of which he hath
been accused to the inquisitor, he is commended, and encouraged
to hope for a speedy deliverance. If he confesses
some things, but cannot guess at others, he is commended
for taking up the purpose of accusing himself, and exhorted
by the bowels of mercy of Jesus Christ to proceed, and ingenuously
to confess every thing else of which he is accused;
that so he may experience that kindness and mercy, which
this tribunal uses towards those who manifest a real repentance
of their crimes by a sincere and voluntary confession.
In these examinations the inquisitors use the greatest
artifice, to draw from the prisoners confessions of those
crimes of which they are accused; promising them favour,
if they will confess the truth. And by these flattering assurances
they sometimes overcome the minds of more unwary
persons; and when they have obtained the designed end,
immediately forget them all. Of this Gonsalvius[260] gives us
a remarkable instance. “In the first fire that was blown
up at Seville, anno 1558, or 1559, amongst many others who
were taken up, there was a certain pious matron with her
two virgin daughters, and her niece by her sister, who was
married. As they endured those tortures of all kinds, with
a truly manlike constancy, by which they endeavoured to
make them perfidiously betray their brethren in Christ, and
especially to accuse one another, the inquisitor at length
commanded one of the daughters to be sent for to audience.
There he discoursed with her alone for a considerable time,
in order to comfort her, as indeed she needed it. When
the discourse was ended, the girl was remanded to her prison.
Some days after he acted the same part again, causing her to
be brought before him several days towards the evening,
detaining her for a considerable while; sometimes telling
her how much he was grieved for her afflictions, and then
205intermixing familiarly enough other pleasant and agreeable
things. All this, as the event shewed, had only this tendency,
that after he had persuaded the poor simple girl, that
he was really, and with a fatherly affection concerned for her
calamity, and would consult as a father what might be for
her benefit and salvation, and that of her mother and sisters,
she might wholly throw herself into his protection. After
some days spent in such familiar discourses, during which he
pretended to mourn with her over her calamity, and to shew
himself affected with her miseries, and to give her all the
proof of his good will, in order, as far as he could, to remove
them; when he knew he had deceived the girl, he begins to persuade
her to discover what she knew of herself, her mother,
sisters, and aunts who were not yet apprehended, promising
upon oath, that if she would faithfully discover to him all
that she knew of that affair, he would find out a method to
relieve her from all her misfortunes, and to send them all
back again to their houses. The girl, who had no very
great penetration, being thus allured by the promises and
persuasions of the father of the faith, begins to tell him some
things relating to the holy doctrine she had been taught, and
about which they used to confer with one another. When
the inquisitor had now got hold of the thread, he dextrously
endeavoured to find his way throughout the whole labyrinth;
oftentimes calling the girl to audience, that what she
had deposed might be taken down in a legal manner; always
persuading her, this would be the only just means to put an
end to all her evils. In the last audience he renews to her
all his promises, by which he had before assured her of her
liberty, and the like. But when the poor girl expected the
performance of them, the said inquisitor, with his followers,
finding the success of his craftiness, by which he had in part
drawn out of the girl, what before they could not extort from
her by torments, determined to put her to the torture again,
to force out of her what they thought she had yet concealed.
Accordingly she was made to suffer the most cruel part of it,
even the rack, and the torture by water; till at last they had
206squeezed out of her, as with a press, both the heresies and
accusations of persons they had been hunting after. For,
through the extremity of her torture, she accused her mother
and sisters, and several others, who were afterwards taken
up and tortured, and burnt alive in the same fire with the
girl.”
But if they do not succeed neither with this way, the inquisitor
permits some person or other, who is not unacceptable
to the prisoner, to go to him, and converse with him;
and if it be needful to feign himself still one of his own sect,
but that he abjured through fear, and discovered the truth
to the inquisitor. When he finds that the prisoner confides
in him, he comes to him again late in the evening, keeps on
a discourse with him, at length pretending it is too late to go
away, and that therefore he will stay with him all night in
the prison, that they may converse together, and the prisoner
may be persuaded by the other’s discourse to confess
to one another what they have committed. In the mean
while there are persons standing at a proper place without
the jail, to hear and to take notice of their words; who,
when there is need, are attended by a notary.
Or else the person who thus treacherously draws out any
thing, according to his desire, from his fellow-prisoners,
prays the jail-keeper, when according to custom he is visiting
his prisoners, to desire that he may have an audience.
And when he goes out of his jail to give an account of his
office, he discovers not only what he heard from any of the
prisoners, but also how they received the doctrine proposed
to them; whether with a chearful or angry countenance, and
the like; if they refused to give them an answer, and what
they themselves think of them. And the accusations of such
a wretch they look on as the best and most unexceptionable
evidence, although the person be otherwise one of no manner
of worth, credit, or regard.
They who have been lately in the prison of the inquisition
in Spain and Portugal, tell us of another method they
make use of to draw a confession from the prisoners, viz.
207The inquisitor suborns a certain person to go and speak to
the prisoner, and to tell him he comes of himself, and of his
own accord, and to exhort him to tell the inquisitor the
truth, because he is a merciful man, and such fine tales.
This is now particularly the custom in Spain and Portugal,
as to those they call the new Christians. If the prisoner
affirms himself to be a Catholic, and denies that he is a Jew,
and is not convicted by a sufficient number of witnesses, they
suborn one to persuade him to confess. If he protests himself
innocent, the other replies, that he also hath been in
jail, and that his protesting his innocence signified nothing.
What, had you rather dwell for ever in jail, and render your
life miserable, by being ever parted from your wife and
children, than redeem your freedom, by confessing the crime?
By this, and other like things, the prisoners are oftentimes
persuaded to confess not only real, but fictitious crimes.
And when their constancy is thus almost overcome, the inquisitor
commands them to be brought before him, that they
may make him a confession of their faults.
After these examinations, if the prisoner persists in the
negative, he is admitted to his defence, and hath an advocate
or proctor appointed him, but such only as the inquisitors
allow him; and who, as soon as ever they know the prisoners
are criminal, bind themselves by oath to throw up
their defence. A copy of the accusation is usually given to
the prisoner, to which he must answer article by article; and
likewise a copy of the proofs, but not of the names of the
witnesses, nor any circumstances by which they may discover
who they are, for fear the witnesses should be in danger
if known.
After the process is thus carried on, it is finished in this
manner: Either by absolution, if the prisoner be found
really innocent, or the accusation against him not fully
proved. Not that they pronounce such person free from
heresy, but only declare that nothing is legally proved
against him, on account of which he ought to be pronounced
an heretic, or suspected of heresy; and that therefore he is
208wholly released from his present trial and inquisition. But
if, notwithstanding this, he should afterwards be accused of
the same crime, he may be again judged and condemned for
it; and this absolution will stand him in no stead.
If the party accused is found to be only defamed for
heresy, and not convicted of heresy by any legal proofs, he
is not absolved, but enjoined canonical purgation. The
manner of the purgation is this: the party accused must
produce several witnesses, good and Catholic men, who must
swear by God, and the four holy gospels of God, that they
firmly believe he hath not been an heretic, or believer of
their errors; and that he hath sworn the truth, in denying
it upon oath. If he fails in his purgation, i. e. cannot procure
such a number of purgers as he is enjoined, he is
esteemed as convict, and condemned as an heretic.
If the person accused is not found guilty by his own confession,
or proper witnesses; yet if he cannot make his
innocence appear plainly to the inquisitor, or if he is caught
contradicting himself, or faultering, or trembling, or sweating,
or pale, or crying; or if there be half proof of his crime,
he is put to the question or torture. And this liberty the
inquisitors sometimes shamefully abuse, by torturing the
most innocent persons; as appears by the following instance.
“[261]A noble lady, Joan Bohorquia, the wife of Francis
Varquius, a very eminent man, and lord of Higuera, and
daughter of Peter Garsia Xeresius, a wealthy citizen of
Seville, was apprehended, and put into the inquisition at
Seville. The occasion of her imprisonment was, that her
sister, Mary Bohorquia, a young lady of eminent piety, who
was afterwards burnt for her pious confession, had declared
in her torture that she had several times conversed with her
sister concerning her own doctrine. When she was first
imprisoned, she was about six months gone with child;
209upon which account she was not so straitly confined, nor
used with that cruelty which the other prisoners were treated
with, out of regard to the infant she carried in her. Eight
days after her delivery they took the child from her, and on
the fifteenth shut her close up, and made her undergo the
fate of the other prisoners, and began to manage her cause
with their usual arts and rigour. In so dreadful a calamity
she had only this comfort, that a certain pious young woman,
who was afterwards burnt for her religion by the inquisitors,
was allowed her for her companion. This young creature
was, on a certain day, carried out to her torture, and being
returned from it into her jail, she was so shaken, and had all
her limbs so miserably disjointed, that when she laid upon
her bed of rushes, it rather encreased her misery than gave
her rest, so that she could not turn herself without the most
excessive pain. In this condition, as Bohorquia had it not
in her power to shew her any, or but very little outward
kindness, she endeavoured to comfort her mind with great
tenderness. The girl had scarce began to recover from her
torture, when Bohorquia was carried out to the same exercise,
and was tortured with such diabolical cruelty upon the
rack, that the rope pierced and cut into the very bones of
her arms, thighs, and legs; and in this manner she was
brought back to prison, just ready to expire, the blood immediately
running out of her mouth in great plenty. Undoubtedly
they had burst her bowels, insomuch that the
eighth day after her torture she died. And when after all
they could not procure sufficient evidence to condemn her,
though sought after and procured by all their inquisitorial
arts; yet, as the accused person was born in that place,
where they were obliged to give some account of the affair
to the people, and indeed could not by any means dissemble
it; in the first act of triumph appointed after her death, they
commanded her sentence to be pronounced in these words:
because this lady died in prison (without doubt suppressing
the causes of it) and was found to be innocent upon inspecting
and diligently examining her cause, therefore the holy
210tribunal pronounces her free from all charges brought
against her by the fiscal, and absolving her from any farther
process, doth restore her both as to her innocence and reputation;
and commands all her effects, which had been confiscated
to be restored to those to whom they of right
belonged, &c. And thus, after they had murdered her by
torture, with savage cruelty, they pronounced her innocent.”
After the sentence of torture is pronounced, the officers
prepare themselves to inflict it. “[262]The place of torture in
the Spanish inquisition is generally an under-ground and
very dark room, to which one enters through several doors.
There is a tribunal erected in it, in which the inquisitor,
inspector, and secretary sit. When the candles are lighted,
and the person to be tortured brought in, the executioner,
who was waiting for him, makes a very astonishing and
dreadful appearance. He is covered all over with a black
linen garment down to his feet, and tied close to his body.
His head and face are all hid with a long black cowl, only
two little holes being left in it for him to see through. All
this is intended to strike the miserable wretch with greater
terror in mind and body, when he sees himself going to be
tortured by the hands of one who thus looks like the very
devil.”
The degrees of torture formerly used, were principally
three: first, by stripping and binding. Secondly, by being
hoisted on the rack. Thirdly, squassation.
This stripping is performed without any regard to humanity
or honour, not only to men, but to women and
virgins, though the most virtuous and chaste, of whom they
have sometimes many in their prisons. For they cause them
to be stripped, even to their very shifts; which they afterwards
take off, and then put on them straight linen drawers,
and then make their arms naked quite up to their shoulders.
211As to squassation, it is thus performed: the prisoner hath
his hands bound behind his back, and weights tied to his
feet, and then he is drawn up on high, till his head reaches
the very pully. He is kept hanging in this manner for some
time, that by the greatness of the weight hanging at his feet,
all his joints and limbs may be dreadfully stretched; and on
a sudden he is let down with a jirk, by the slacking the
rope, but kept from coming quite to the ground; by which
terrible shake his arms and legs are all disjointed, whereby
he is put to the most exquisite pain; the shock which he
receives by the sudden stop of his fall, and the weight at his
feet, stretching his whole body more intensely and cruelly.
The author of the History of the Inquisition at Goa tells
us,[263] that the torture now practised in the Portuguese inquisition
is exceeding cruel. “In the months of November
and December, I heard every day in the morning the cries
and groans of those who were put to the question, which is
so very cruel, that I have seen several of both sexes who
have been ever after lame. In this tribunal they regard
neither age nor sex, nor condition of persons, but all without
distinction are tortured, when it is for the interest of
this tribunal.”
The method of torturing, and the degree of tortures now
used in the Spanish inquisition, will be well understood
from the history of Isaac Orobio, a Jew, and doctor of physic,
who was accused to the inquisition as a Jew, by a
certain Moor his servant, who had by his order before this
been whipped for thieving; and four years after this he was
again accused by a certain enemy of his for another fact,
which would have proved him a Jew. But Orobio obstinately
denied that he was one. I will here give the account
of his torture, as I had it from his own mouth. After three
whole years which he had been in jail, and several examinations,
and the discovery of the crimes to him of which he
212was accused, in order to his confession, and his constant
denial of them, he was at length carried out of his jail, and
through several turnings brought to the place of torture.
This was towards the evening. It was a large under-ground
room, arched, and the walls covered with black hangings.
The candlesticks were fastened to the wall, and the whole
room enlightened with candles placed in them. At one end
of it there was an inclosed place like a closet, where the
inquisitor and notary sat at a table; so that the place
seemed to him as the very mansion of death, every thing
appearing so terrible and awful. Here the inquisitor again
admonished him to confess the truth, before his torments
began. When he answered he had told the truth, the
inquisitor gravely protested, that since he was so obstinate
as to suffer the torture, the holy office would be innocent, if
he should shed his blood, or even expire in his torments.
When he had said this, they put a linen garment over his
body, and drew it so very close on each side, as almost
squeezed him to death. When he was almost dying, they
slackened at once the sides of the garment; and after he
began to breathe again, the sudden alteration put him to
the most grievous anguish and pain. When he had overcome
this torture, the same admonition was repeated, that
he would confess the truth, in order to prevent farther torment.
And as he persisted in his denial, they tied his
thumbs so very tight with small cords, as made the extremities
of them greatly swell, and caused the blood to spurt out
from under his nails. After this he was placed with his
back against a wall, and fixed upon a little bench. Into the
wall were fastened little iron pullies, through which there
were ropes drawn, and tied round his body in several places,
and especially his arms and legs. The executioner drawing
these ropes with great violence, fastened his body with them
to the wall; so that his hands and feet, and especially his
fingers and toes being bound so straitly with them, put him
to the most exquisite pain, and seemed to him just as though
he had been dissolving in flames. In the midst of these torments,
213the torturer, of a sudden, drew the bench from under
him, so that the miserable wretch hung by the cords without
any thing to support him, and by the weight of his body
drew the knots yet much closer. After this a new kind of
torture succeeded. There was an instrument like a small
ladder, made of two upright pieces of wood, and five cross
ones sharpened before. This the torturer placed over
against him, and by a certain proper motion struck it with
great violence against both his shins; so that he received
upon each of them at once five violent strokes, which put
him to such intolerable anguish that he fainted away. After
he came to himself, they inflicted on him the last torture.
The torturer tied ropes about Orobio’s wrists, and then put
those ropes about his own back, which was covered with
leather to prevent his hurting himself. Then falling backwards,
and putting his feet up against the wall, he drew
them with all his might, till they cut through Orobio’s flesh
even to the very bones; and this torture was repeated thrice,
the ropes being tied about his arms about the distance of
two fingers breadth from the former wound, and drawn with
the same violence. But it happened, that as the ropes were
drawing the second time, they slid into the first wound;
which caused so great an effusion of blood, that he seemed
to be dying. Upon this the physician and surgeon, who are
always ready, were sent for out of a neighbouring apartment,
to ask their advice, whether the torture could be
continued without danger of death, lest the ecclesiastical
judges should be guilty of an irregularity, if the criminal
should die in his torments. They, who were far from being
enemies to Orobio, answered that he had strength enough
to endure the rest of the torture, and hereby preserved him
from having the tortures he had already endured repeated
on him, because his sentence was, that he should suffer them
all at one time, one after another. So that if at any time
they are forced to leave off through fear of death, all the
tortures, even those already suffered, must be successively
inflicted to satisfy the sentence. Upon this the torture
214was repeated the third time, and then it ended. After this
he was bound up in his own clothes, and carried back to his
prison, and was scarce healed of his wounds in seventy days.
And inasmuch as he made no confession under his torture,
he was condemned, not as one convicted, but suspected of
Judaism, to wear for two whole years the infamous habit
called Sambenito, and after that term to perpetual banishment
from the kingdom of Seville.
Ernestus Eremundus Frisius,[264] in his History of the Low
Country Disturbances, gives us an account from Gonsalvius,
of another kind of torture. There is a wooden bench, which
they call the wooden horse, made hollow like a trough, so
as to contain a man lying on his back at full length; about
the middle of which there is a round bar laid across, upon
which the back of the person is placed, so that he lies upon
the bar instead of being let into the bottom of the trough,
with his feet much higher than his head. As he is lying in
this posture, his arms, thighs, and shins are tied round with
small cords or strings, which being drawn with screws at proper
distances from each other, cut into the very bones, so
as to be no longer discerned.[265] Besides this,[266] the torturer
throws over his mouth and nostrils a thin cloth, so that he is
scarce able to breathe through them; and in the mean while
a small stream of water like a thread, not drop by drop,
falls from on high, upon the mouth of the person lying in
this miserable condition, and so easily sinks down the thin
cloth to the bottom of his throat; so that there is no possibility
of breathing, his mouth being stopped with water, and
his nostrils with the cloth; so that the poor wretch is in the
same agony as persons ready to die, and breathing out their
last. When this cloth is drawn out of his throat, as it often
215is, that he may answer to the questions, it is all wet with
water and blood, and is like pulling his bowels through his
mouth. There is also another kind of torture peculiar to
this tribunal, which they call the fire. They order a large
iron chafin-dish full of lighted charcoal to be brought in,
and held close to the soles of the tortured person’s feet,
greased over with lard, so that the heat of the fire may more
quickly pierce through them.
This is inquisition by torture, when there is only half
full proof of their crime. However, at other times torments
are sometimes inflicted upon persons condemned to death,
as a punishment preceding that of death. Of this we have
a remarkable instance in William Lithgow, an Englishman,
who, as he tells us in his travels, was taken up as a spy in
Mallagom, a city of Spain, and was exposed to the most
cruel torments upon the wooden horse. But when nothing
could be extorted from him, he was delivered to the inquisition
as an heretic, because his journal abounded with blasphemies
against the pope and the Virgin Mary. When he
confessed himself a Protestant before the inquisitor, he was
admonished to convert himself to the Roman church, and
was allowed eight days to deliberate on it. In the mean
while the inquisitor and Jesuits came to him often, sometimes
wheedling him, sometimes threatening and reproaching
him, and sometimes arguing with him. At length they endeavoured
to overcome his constancy by kind assurances
and promises; but all in vain. And therefore as he was immoveably
fixed, he was condemned, in the beginning of
Lent, to sutler the night following eleven most cruel torments;
and after Easter to be carried privately to Granada,
there to be burnt at midnight, and his ashes to be scattered
into the air. When night came on his fetters were taken off,
then he was stripped naked, put upon his knees, and his
hands lifted up by force; after which opening his mouth
with iron instruments, they filled his belly with water till it
came out of his jaws. Then they tied a rope hard about
his neck, and in this condition rolled him seven times the
216whole length of the room, till he was almost quite strangled.
After this they tied a small cord about both his great toes,
and hung him up thereby with his head towards the ground,
and then cut the rope about his neck, letting him remain in
this condition till all the water discharged itself out of his
mouth; so that he was laid on the ground as just dead, and
had his irons put on him again. But beyond all expectation,
and by a very singular accident, he was delivered out
of jail, escaped death, and fortunately sailed home to England.
But this method of torturing doth not belong to this
place, where we are treating only of the inquisition of a
crime not yet fully proved.
If when the person is decently tortured he confesses
nothing, he is allowed to go away free; and if he demands
of his judges that he be cleared by sentence, they cannot
deny it him; and they pronounce, that having diligently
examined the merits of the process, they find nothing of
the crime of which he was accused legally proved against
him.
But if, when under the question, he confesses, it is written
in the process; after which he is carried to another
place, where he hath no view of the tortures, and there his
confession made during his torments is read over to him,
and he is interrogated several times, till the confession be
made. But here Gonsalvius observes,[267] that when the prisoner
is carried to audience, they make him pass by the door
of the room where the torture is inflicted, where the executioner
shews himself on the purpose to be seen in that shape of
a devil I have described before; that as he passes by, he
may, by seeing him, be forced to feel, as it were over again,
his past torments.
If there be very strong evidence against the criminal, if
new proofs arise, if the crime objected to him be very heinous,
and the discoveries against him undoubted; if he was
217not sufficiently tortured before, he may be tortured again,
but then only “when his mind and body are able to endure
it.”
If he doth not persist in his first confession, and is not
sufficiently tortured, he may be put to the torture again; not
by way of repetition, but continuation of it.
But if he persists in his confession, owns his fault, and
asks pardon of the church, he is condemned as guilty of
heresy by his own confession, but as penitent. But if he
obstinately persists in heresy, he is condemned, and delivered
over to the secular arm to be punished with death. If he
confesses any thing by torture, he must be forced to abjure it.
When a person accused of heresy is found to be only
slightly suspected of it, he is considered either as suspected
publicly or privately. If he is publicly suspected, this was
formerly the manner of his abjuration. On the preceding
Lord’s day the inquisitor proclaims, that on such a day he
will make a sermon concerning the faith, commanding all to
be present at it. When the day comes, the person to abjure
is brought to the church, in which the council hath determined
that he shall make his abjuration. There he is placed
upon a scaffold, erected near the altar, in the midst of the
people, and is not allowed to sit, but stands on it, that all
may see him, bare-headed, and with the keepers standing
round him. The sermon being made on the mass, to the
people and clergy there present, the inquisitor says publicly,
that the person there placed on the scaffold is suspected from
such and such appearances and actions, of the heresy that
hath been refuted in the public sermon; and that therefore it
is fit that he should purge himself from it, by abjuring it, as
one slightly suspected. Having said this, a book of the
gospels is placed before him, on which laying his hands, he
abjures his heresy. In this oath he not only swears that he
holds that faith which the Roman church believes, but also
that he abjures every heresy that extols itself against the
holy Roman and apostolic church: and particularly the heresy
of which he was slightly suspected, naming that heresy:
218and that if he shall do any of the aforesaid things for the
future, he willingly submits to the penalties appointed by
law to one who thus abjures, and is ready to undergo every
penance, as well for the things he hath said and done, as for
those concerning which he is deservedly suspected of heresy,
which they shall lay on him; and that with all his power he
will endeavour to fulfil it.
If he hath not been publicly suspected, he abjures privately
after the same manner in the episcopal palace, or inquisitor’s
hall.
If he is vehemently suspected, he is placed in like manner
upon a scaffold; and after he hath taken his oath upon the
gospels, his abjuration is delivered him in writing, to read
before all the people, if he can. If he cannot read, the
notary, or some religious, or clergyman reads it by sentences,
pausing between each till the other hath repeated it after him;
and so on, till the whole abjuration is gone through. In this
abjuration he submits himself to the punishments due to relapses,
if he ever after falls into the heresy he hath abjured.
After the abjuration is made, the bishop admonishes him,
that if ever hereafter he doth, or says any thing by which it
can be proved, that he hath fallen into the heresy he hath
abjured, he will be delivered over to the secular court without
mercy. Then he injoins him penance, and commands him
to observe it; adding this threatening, that otherwise he will
become a relapse, and may, and ought to be judged as an
impenitent. However, suspected persons, whether it be
slightly or vehemently, are not condemned to wear crosses,
nor to perpetual imprisonment, because these are the punishments
of penitent heretics; though sometimes they are ordered
to wear for a while the Sambenito, according to the nature
of their offence. Ordinarily they are injoined to stand on
certain holy days in the gates of such and such churches,
holding a burning taper of such a weight in their hands, and
to go a certain pilgrimage; sometimes also they are imprisoned
for a while, and afterwards disposed of as is thought proper.
219Gonsalvius gives us some instances of these punishments.[268]
“There was at Seville a certain poor man, who daily maintained
himself and his family by the sweat of his brow. A
certain parson detained his wife from him by violence, neither
the inquisition nor any other tribunal punishing this heinous
injury. As the poor man was one day talking about purgatory,
with some other persons of his own circumstances, he
happened to say, rather out of rustic simplicity than any
certain design, that he truly had enough of purgatory already,
by the rascally parson’s violently detaining from him
his wife. This speech was reported to the good parson, and
gave him a handle to double the poor man’s injury, by accusing
him to the inquisitors, as having a false opinion concerning
purgatory. And this the holy tribunal thought more
worthy of punishment than the parson’s wickedness. The
poor wretch was taken up for this trifling speech, kept in
the inquisitor’s jail for two whole years, and at length being
brought in procession, was condemned to wear the Sambenito
for three years in a private jail; and when they were expired,
to be dismissed, or kept longer in prison, as the lords inquisitors
should think fit. Neither did they spare the poor creature
any thing of his little substance, though they did his wife to
the parson, but adjudged all the remains of what he had
after his long imprisonment to the exchequer of the inquisition.
“[269]In the same procession there was also brought forth a
reputable citizen of Seville, as being suspected of Lutheranism,
without his cloak and his hat, and carrying a wax taper
in his hand, after having exhausted his purse of 100 ducats
towards the expences of the holy tribunal, and a year’s imprisonment
in the jail of the inquisition, and having abjured
as one vehemently suspected; only because he was found to
have said, that those immoderate expences (and on these accounts
the Spaniards are prodigiously extravagant) which
220were laid out in erecting those large paper or linen buildings,
which the common people corruptly call monuments, to the
honour of Christ now in heaven, upon Holy Thursday; and
also those which were expended on the festival of Corpus
Christi, would be more acceptable to God, if they were laid
out upon poor persons, or in placing out to good persons
poor orphan girls. Two young students[270] added to the number
in that procession. One because he had written in his pocketbook
some verses made by a nameless author, so artificially,
as that the same words might be interpreted so as to contain
the highest commendation of, or reflection upon Luther.
Upon this account only, after two year’s imprisonment, he
was brought forth in procession, without his hat and cloak,
carrying a wax taper; after which he was banished for three
years from the whole country of Seville, made to abjure as
lightly suspected, and punished with a fine. The other
underwent the same censure, only for transcribing the verses
for their artful composition, excepting only that he commuted
his banishment for 100 ducats towards the expences of the holy
tribunal.”
If any one informed against, confesses on oath his heresy,
but declares that he will abjure and return to the church, he
must publicly abjure in the church before all the people.
There is placed before him the book of the gospels; he puts
off his hat, falls on his knees, and putting his hand on the book,
reads his abjuration. And from this none, though otherwise
privileged, are excepted. After this abjuration they are absolved
from excommunication, and reconciled to the church;
but are injoined various punishments, or wholesome penances
by the inquisitors at pleasure. What the punishments of
religious persons are, may be seen from the two following
instances.
Friar Marcellus de Pratis, a religious of the order of the
Minors, was condemned in Sicily by the inquisition (because
221he had rashly feigned himself a saint, impeccable, confirmed
in grace, and had pronounced other scandalous and rash propositions)
to the gallies for three years, to be banished for two
more into such a convent of his own religion as should be
assigned him, with this addition; that he should fast every
Friday on bread and water, eat upon the ground in the refectory,
walk without his hat, and sit in the lowest place in the
choir and refectory, and be perpetually deprived of his active
and passive vote, and of the faculty of hearing any persons
confessions whatsoever.
One Mary of the Annunciation, prioress of the monastery
of the Annunciation at Lisbon, a maid of thirty-two years
old, had pretended that the wounds of Christ, by the special
grace and privilege of God were imprinted on her, and shewed
thirty-two wounds made on her head, representing the marks
of those which were made by our Saviour’s crown of thorns,
and blood sprinkled on her hands like a rose, the middle of
which was like a triangle, and shewed the holes of the nails
narrower on one side than the other. The same were to be
seen in her feet. Her side appeared as though it had been
laid open by the blow of a lance. When all these things
were openly shewn, it was wonderful to see how they raised
the admiration and devotion of serious and holy men, and
withal surprized and deceived them; for she did not suffer
those pretended wounds to be seen otherwise than by command
of her confessor. And that absent persons might have
a great veneration for her, she affirmed, that on Thursdays
she put into the wounds a small cloth, which received the
impression of five wounds in form of a cross, that in the
middle being the largest. Upon which these cloths were sent,
with the greatest veneration, through the infinite devotion of
the faithful, to the pope, and to almost all the most venerable
and religious persons of the whole world. And as Paramus
then had the administration of the causes of faith in the kingdom
of Sicily, he saw several of those cloths, and the picture
of that woman drawn to the life; and a book written by a
person of great authority concerning her life, sanctity, and
222miracles. Yea, Pope Gregory XIII. himself determined to
write letters to that wretched creature, to exhort her thereby
to persist with constancy in her course, and to perfect what
she had begun. At last the imposture was found out, that the
marks of the wounds were not real, but made with red lead;
and that the woman’s design was, when she had gained authority
and credit enough, by her pretended sanctity, to recover
the kingdom of Portugal to its former state, which had legally
fallen under the power of Philip II. Upon this the following
sentence was pronounced against her by the inquisitors of Lisbon,
December 8, anno 1588. First, she was commanded to
pass the rest of her life shut up in a convent of another order,
that was assigned to her without the city of Lisbon. Likewise,
that from the day of pronouncing the sentence, she
should not receive the sacrament of the eucharist for the space
of five years, three Easters, and the hour of death excepted;
or unless it were necessary to obtain any jubilee, that should
in the mean while be granted by the pope. Likewise, that on
all Wednesdays and Fridays of the whole year, when the
religious women of that convent held a chapter, she should
be whipped, whilst the psalm, “Have mercy on me O God,”
was reciting. Likewise, that she should not sit down at table
at the time of refreshment, but should eat publicly on the
pavement, all being forbidden to eat any thing she left. She
was also obliged to throw herself down at the door of the refectory,
that the nuns might tread on her as they came in and
went out. Likewise, that she should perpetually observe
the ecclesiastical fast, and never more be created an abbess,
nor be chosen to any other office in the convent where she had
dwelt, and that she should be always subject to the lowest of
them all. Likewise, that she should never be allowed to converse
with any nun without leave of the abbess. Likewise,
that all the rags marked with drops of blood, which she had
given out, her spurious relics, and her effigies describing her,
should be every where delivered to the holy inquisition; or if
in any place there was no tribunal of the inquisition, to the
prelate, or any other person appointed. Likewise, that she
223should never cover her head with the sacred veil; and that
every Wednesday and Friday of the whole year she should abstain
from meat, and live only on bread and water; and that as
often as she came into the refectory, she should pronounce
her crime with a loud voice in the presence of all the nuns.
Michael Piedrola also took upon himself for many years
the name of a prophet, boasted of dreams and revelations,
and affirmed they were revealed to him by a divine voice.
Being convicted of so great a crime, he abjured de levi, was
for ever forbid the reading of the Bible, and other holy
books, deprived of paper and ink, prohibited from writing
or receiving letters, unless such only as related to his private
affairs; denied the liberty of disputing about the holy Scripture,
as well in writing as in discourse; and finally, commanded
to be thrown into jail, and there pass the remainder
of his life.
Another punishment of heretics who abjure, is the confiscation
of all their effects. And this confiscation is made
with such rigour, that the inquisition orders the exchequer to
seize on not only the effects of the persons condemned, but
also all others administered by them, although it evidently
appears that they belong to others. The inquisition at Seville
gives a remarkable instance of this kind.
“Nicholas Burton, an Englishman, a person remarkable for
his piety, was apprehended by the inquisition of Seville, and
afterwards burnt for his immoveable perseverance in the confession
of his faith, and detestation of their impiety. When
he was first seized, all his effects and merchandizes, upon account
of which he came to Spain, werewere, according to the
custom of the inquisition, sequestered. Amongst these were
many other merchandizes, which were consigned to him as
factor, according to the custom of merchants, by another
English merchant dwelling in London. This merchant, upon
hearing that his factor was imprisoned, and his effects seized
on, sent one John Frontom, as his attorney into Spain, with
proper instruments to recover his goods. His attorney accordingly
went to Seville; and having laid before the holy tribunal
224the instruments, and all other necessary writings, demanded,
that the goods should be delivered to him. The lords answered
that the affair must be managed in writing, and that he must
choose himself an advocate (undoubtedly to prolong the suit)
and out of their great goodness appointed him one, to draw
up for him his petitions, and all other instruments which were
to be offered to the holy tribunal; for every one of which they
exorbitantly took from him eight reals, although he received
no more advantage from them, than if they had never been
drawn at all. Frontom waited for three or four whole months,
twice every day, viz. in the morning, and after dinner, at the
gates of the inquisitor’s palace, praying and beseeching, on his
bended knees, the lords inquisitors, that his affair might be
expedited; and especially the Lord Bishop of Tarraco, who
was then chief inquisitor at Seville, that he, in virtue of his
supreme authority, would command his effects to be restored
to him. But the prey was too large and rich to be easily recovered.
After he had spent four whole months in fruitless
prayers and intreaties, he was answered, that there was need
of some other writings from England, more ample than those
he had brought before, in order to the recovery of the effects.
Upon this the Englishman immediately returns to London, and
procures the instruments of fuller credit which they demanded,
comes back with them to Seville, and laid them before the
holy tribunal. The lords put off his answer, pretending they
were hindered by more important affairs. They repeated this
answer to him every day, and so put him off for four whole
months longer. When his money was almost spent, and he
still continued earnestly to press the dispatch of his affair, they
referred him to the bishop. The bishop, when consulted, said
he was but one, and that the expediting the matter belonged
also to the other inquisitors; and by thus shifting the fault
from one to the other, there was no appearance of an end of
the suit. But at length being overcome by his importunity,
they fixed on a certain day to dispatch him. And the dispatch
was this: the licentiate Gascus, one of the inquisitors, a
man well skilled in the frauds of the inquisition, commands
225him to come to him after dinner. The Englishman was
pleased with this message, and went to him about evening, believing
that they began to think in good earnest of restoring
him his effects, and carrying him to Mr. Burton the prisoner,
in order to make up the account; having heard the inquisitors
often say, though he did not know their real meaning, that it
was necessary that he and the prisoner should confer together.
When he came, they commanded the jail-keeper to clap him
up in such a particular prison, which they named to him.
The poor Englishman believed at first that he was to be
brought to Burton to settle the account; but soon found himself
a prisoner in a dark dungeon, contrary to his expectation,
and that he had quite mistaken the matter. After three or
four days they brought him to an audience; and when the
Englishman demanded that the inquisitors should restore his
effects to him, they well knowing that it would agree perfectly
with their usual arts, without any other preface, command
him to recite his Ave Mary. He simply repeated it after this
manner: ‘Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee;
blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is Jesus the fruit
of thy womb. Amen.’ All was taken down in writing, and
without mentioning a word about the restoring his effects (for
there was no need of it) they commanded him back to his
jail, and commenced an action against him for an heretic, because
he had not repeated the Ave Mary according to the
manner of the church of Rome, and had left off in a suspected
place, and ought to have added, ‘Holy Mary, mother
of God, pray for us sinners;’ by omitting which conclusion,
he plainly discovered that he did not approve the intercession
of the saints. And thus at last, upon this righteous pretence,
he was detained a prisoner many days. After this he was
brought forth in procession, wearing an habit; all his principal’s
goods for which he had been suing being confiscated,
and he himself condemned to a year’s imprisonment.”
Besides this confiscation of effects, they enjoin them wholesome
penances; such as fastings, prayers, alms, the frequent
226use of the sacraments of penance, and the eucharist; and,
finally, pilgrimages to certain places.
Some penances are honoraryhonorary, attended with infamy to
those who do them. Such are, walking in procession without
shoes, in their breeches and shirt, and to receive therein public
discipline by the bishop or priest; to be expelled the
church, and to stand before the gates of the great church upon
solemn days, in the time of mass, with naked feet, and wearing
upon their cloak an halter about their neck. At this time
they only stand before the gates of the church, with a lighted
candle in their hand, during the time of solemn mass on some
holy day, as the bell is ringing to church.
Besides these, they now use the punishment of banishment,
of beating, and whipping with scourges or rods. Sometimes
they are condemned to fines, excluded as infamous
from all public offices, prohibited from wearing silver or gold,
precious garments and ornaments, and from riding on horses
or mules with trappings, as nobles do.
But the most usual punishment of all, is their wearing
crosses upon their penitential garments, which is now frequently
enjoined penitents in Spain and Portugal. And this
is far from being a small punishment; because such persons
are exposed to the scoffs and insults of all, which they are
obliged to swallow, though the most cruel in themselves, and
offered by the vilest of mankind; for by these crosses they
are marked to all persons for heresy, or, as it is now in Spain
and Portugal, for Judaism: and being thus marked, the they arethey are
avoided by all, and are almost excluded from all human society.
This garment was formerly of a black and bluish colour,
like a monk’s cloak, made without a cowl; and the crosses
put on them were strait, having one arm long, and the
other across, after this manner †. Sometimes, according to
the heinousness of the offence, there were two arms across,
after this manner ‡. But now in Spain this garment is of a
yellow colour, and the crosses put on it are oblique, after the
227manner of St. Andrew’s cross, in this form X, and are of a
red colour. This cloak the Italians call “Abitello,” the
Spaniards “Sant Benito,” as though it was “Sacco Benito,”
i. e. the blessed sackcloth, because it is fit for penance, by
which we are blessed and saved. But Simancas says it is the
habit of St. Benedict.
Finally, the most grievous punishment is the being condemned
to perpetual imprisonment, there to do wholesome penance
with the bread of grief and the water of affliction. This
is usually enjoined on the believers of heretics, and such as are
difficultly brought to repentance; or who have a long while
denied the truth during the trial, or have perjured themselves.
Besides this condemnation to perpetual imprisonment, such
persons are also enjoined other penances, viz. sometimes to
stand in the habit marked with the cross at the door of such a
church, such a time, and so long, viz. on the four principal
festivals of the glorious Virgin Mary, of such a church; or
on such and such festivals, at the gates of such and such
churches. Sometimes before they are shut up in prison they
are publicly exposed, viz. being clothed with the habit of the
crosses, they are placed upon an high ladder in the gate of
some church, that they may be plainly seen by all; where
they must stand till dinner time; after which they must be
carried, clothed in the same habit, to the same place, at the
first ringing to vespers, and there stand till sun-set; and these
spectacles are usually repeated on several Sundays and festivals
in several churches, which are particularly specified in
their sentence. But if they break prison, or do not otherwise
fulfil the penances enjoined them, they are condemned as impenitents,
and as under the guilt of their former crimes; and
and if they fall again into the hands of the inquisitors, they
are delivered over as impenitents to the secular court, unless
they humbly ask pardon, and profess that they will obey the
commands of the inquisitors.
However, if persons remain impenitent till after sentence
is pronounced, there is no farther place for pardon. And yet
there is one instance of Stephana de Proaudo, extant in the
228book of the sentences of the Thoulouse inquisition, who, being
judged an heretic the day before, and left as an heretic to the
secular court (from whence it appears that it was not then usual
for those who were left to the secular court to be burnt the
same day on which the sentence is pronounced, as is now
practised in Spain and Portugal) seeing on the following day,
viz. Monday, that the fire in which she was to be burnt was
made ready, said on that very day, that she was willing to be
converted to the Catholic faith, and to return to the ecclesiastical
unity. And when it was doubted whether she spoke this
feignedly or sincerely, or through fear of death, and was answered,
that the time of mercy was elapsed, and that she
should think of the salvation of her soul, and fully discover
whatsoever she knew of herself or others concerning the fact
of heresy, which she promised to say and do, and that she
would die in the faith of the holy church of Rome; upon this
the inquisitor and vicars of the bishop of Tholouse called a
council on the following Tuesday, and at length it was concluded,
that on the following Sunday she should confess the
faith of the church of Rome, recant her errors, and be carried
back to prison, where it would be proved whether her conversion
was real or pretended; and so strictly kept, that she might not
be able to infect others with her errors. Emerick[271] also gives
us an instance at Barcelona, in Catalonia, of three heretics,
impenitent, but not relapsed, who were delivered over to the
secular arm. And when one of them, who was a priest, was
put in the fire, and one of his sides somewhat burnt, he cried
to be taken out of it, because he would abjure and repent.
And he was taken out accordingly. But he was afterwards
found always to have continued in his heresy, and to have
infected many, and would not be converted; and was therefore
turned over again, as impenitent and relapsed, to the secular
arm, and burnt.
The author of the History of the Inquisition at Goa,[272] gives
us another instance of a very rich new Christian, whose
229name was Lewis Pezoa, who, with his whole family, had
been accused of secret Judaism, by some of his enemies; and
who, with his wife, two sons and one daughter, and some
other relations that lived with him, were all thrown into the
jail of the inquisition. He denied the crime of which he was
accused, and well refuted it; and demanded that the witnesses
who had deposed against him might be discovered to him,
that he might convict them of falsehood. But he could obtain
nothing, and was condemned as a negative, to be delivered
over to the arm of the secular court; which sentence
was made known to him fifteen days before it was pronounced.
The Duke of Cadaval, an intimate friend of the Duke d’Aveira,
inquisitor general, had made strict inquiry how his
affair was like to turn. And understanding by the inquisitor
general, that unless he confessed before his going out of
prison he could not escape the fire, because he had been
legally convicted, he continued to entreat the inquisitor general,
till he had obtained a promise from him, that if he could
persuade Pezoa to confess, even after sentence pronounced, and
his procession in the act of faith, he should not die, though
it was contrary to the laws and customs of an act of faith.
Upon that solemn day therefore, on which the act of faith was
to be held, he went with some of his own friends, and some that
were Pezoa’s, to the gate of the inquisition, to prevail with
him, if possible, to confess. He came out in the procession,
wearing the infamous Samarre, and on his head the
Caroch, or infamous mitre. His friends, with many tears,
besought him in the name of the Duke de Cadoval, and by
all that was dear to him, that he would preserve his life; and
intimated to him, that if he would confess and repent, the
said duke had obtained his life from the inquisitor general,
and would give him more than he had lost. But all in vain;
Pezoa continually protesting himself innocent, and that the
crime itself was falsely invented by his enemies, who sought
his destruction. When the procession was ended, and the
act of faith almost finished, the sentences of those who were
condemned to certain penances having been read, and on the
230approach of evening the sentences of those who were to be
delivered over to the secular court being begun to be read, his
friends repeated their intreaties, by which at last they overcame
his constancy, so that desiring an audience, and rising
up that he might be heard, he said, “Come then, let us go
and confess the crimes I am falsely accused of, and thereby
gratify the desires of my friends.” And having confessed his
crime, he was remanded to jail. Two years after he was sent
to Evora, and in the act of faith walked in procession, wearing
the Samarre, on which was painted the fire inverted, according
to the usual custom of the Portuguese inquisition;
and after five years more that he was detained in the jail of
the inquisition, he was condemned to the gallies for five years.
If the person accused is found a relapse by his own confession,
he cannot escape death, even though he is penitent.
If he be in holy orders, he is first degraded. After sentence
is pronounced against him, he is delivered to the secular arm,
with this clause added to his sentence by the inquisitors:
“Nevertheless, we earnestly beseech the said secular arm, that
he will moderate his sentence against you, so as to prevent the
effusion of blood, or danger of death:” Thus adding hypocrisy
and insult to their devilish barbarity.
If the person accused be an impenitent heretick, but not
relapsed, he is kept in chains in close imprisonment, that he
may not escape, or infect others; and in the mean while all
methods must be used for his conversion. They send clergymen
to instruct him, and to put him in mind of the pains of
hell-fire. If this will not do, they keep him in chains for a
year or more, in a close, hard jail, that his constancy may be
overcome by the misery of his imprisonment. If this doth
not move him, they use him in a little kinder manner, and
promise him mercy, if he will repent. If they cannot thus prevail
with him, they suffer his wife and children, and little ones,
and his other relations, to come to him, and break his constancy.
But if after all he persists in his heresy, he is burnt
alive.
If the person accused be found guilty of heresy by the
231evidence of the fact, or legal witnesses, and yet doth not confess,
but persists in the negative; after having been kept in
jail for a year, he must be delivered over to the secular arm.
So that if it should happen that he is accused by false witnesses,
and is really innocent, the miserable wretch, though falsely
condemned, is delivered to the power of the secular court, to
be burnt alive; nor is it lawful for him, without the commission
of mortal sin, as the Roman doctors think, to save his life,
by falsely confessing a crime he hath not committed; and therefore
it is the duty of the divines and confessors, who comfort
such a negative, and attend on him to his punishment, to persuade
him to discover the truth; but to caution him by all
means not to acknowledge a crime he hath not committed, to
avoid temporal death; and to put him in remembrance, that
if he patiently endures this injury and punishment, he will be
crowned as a martyr.
It is however evident, if the practice of the Portugal inquisition
be considered, that the inquisitors are not so very solicitous
about the eternal salvation of those they condemn, as
they are to consult their own honour by the criminals confessions
even of false crimes. Of this we have a remarkable instance,
of a noble Portugueze, descended from the race of the
new Christians, who was accused of Judaism. But as he did
most firmly deny the crime objected to him, nothing was
omitted that might persuade him to a confession of it; for he
was not only promised his life, but the restitution of all his
effects, if he would confess, and threatened with a cruel death
if he persisted in the negative. But when all this was to no
purpose, the inquisitor general, who had some respect for him,
endeavoured to overcome his constancy by wheedling, and
other arguments; but when he constantly refused to confess
himself guilty of a crime he had not committed, the inquisitor
general being at last provoked by his firmness, said, “What
then do you mean? Do you think that we will suffer ourselves
to be charged with a lie?”lie?” And having said this, he
went off. When the act of faith drew near, the sentence of
death was pronounced against him, and a confessor allowed
232him to prepare him for death. But at last he sunk under the
fear of his approaching dreadful punishment, and by confessing
on the very day of the act of faith the crime falsely fastened
on him, he escaped death; but all his estate was confiscated,
and he himself condemned for five years to the gallies.
If the person accused is a fugitive, after waiting for his
appearance a competent time, he is cited to appear on such a
day in the cathedral of such a diocese, and the citation fixed
on the gates of the church. If he doth not appear, he is complained
of for contumacy, and accused in form. When this
is done, and the crime appears, sentence is pronounced against
the criminal; and if the information against him be for heresy,
he is declared an obstinate heretic, and left as such to the
secular arm. This sentence is pronounced before all the people,
and the statue or image of the absent person publicly
produced, and carried in procession; on which is a superscription,
containing his name and surname; which statue is
delivered to the secular power, and by him burnt. Thus
Luther’s statue was burnt, together with his books, at the
command of Pope Leo X. by the Bishop of Ascoli.
The inquisitors also proceed against the dead. If there
be full proof against him of having been an heretic, his memory
is declared infamous, and his heirs, and other possessors,
deprived of his effects; and finally, his bones dug out of
their grave, and publicly burnt. Thus Wickliff’s body and
bones were ordered to be dug up and burnt, by the council of
Constance: Bucer and Fagius, by Cardinal Pool, at Cambridge;
and the wife of Peter Martyr, by Brookes, Bishop
of Gloucester, at Oxford; whose body they buried in a dunghill.
And thus Mark Antony de Dominis, Archbishop of
Spalato, was condemned after his death for heresy; and the
inquisitors agreed that the same punishments should be executed
upon his dead body, as would have been on himself
had he been alive.
Having taken this resolution, the twenty-first day of December,
anno 1624, was appointed for the pronouncing sentence.
Early in the morning of it, so vast a multitude had
233got together to St. Mary supra Minervam, where they generally
give these religious shews, that they were forced not
only to shut up, but to guard the gates with armed men; and
the great area before the church was so prodigiously thronged,
that there was scarce room for the cardinals themselves to pass.
The middle aisle of the church, from the first to the fourth pillar,
was boarded in, with boards above the height of a tall
man. At the upper and lower end of it there were gates,
guarded by Switzers. On each side there were scaffolds, running
the whole length of the inclosure; in which were seats
for the cardinals and other prelates, and other conveniences,
to receive the courtiers and other noblemen standing or sitting.
On the right hand, coming in, the sacred council presided;
on the left hand were placed the inferior officers of the holy
inquisition, the governor of the city, and his officials. Before
the pulpit was to be seen the picture of Mark Anthony, drawn
in colours, covered with a black common garment, holding a
clergyman’s cap in his hand, with his name, sirname, and
archiepiscopal dignity, which formerly he had borne, inscribed
upon it, together with a wooden chest bedaubed with
pitch, in which the dead body was inclosed. The rest of the
church was filled with citizens, and a great many foreigners;
the number of whom was at that time larger, because the jubilee
that was at hand had brought them from all parts to the
city, that they might be present at the opening of the sacred
gates.
Things being thus disposed, a certain parson mounted the
pulpit, and with a shrill voice, which rung through all the
parts of the spacious church, and in the vulgar language,
that the common people might understand him, read over a
summary of the process, and the sentence by which the cardinals
inquisitors general, specially deputed for the affair by
the pope, pronouncedpronounced Mark Anthony, as a relapse into heresy,
to have incurred all the censures and penalties appointed to
relapsed heretics by the sacred canons, and papal constitutions;
and declared him to be deprived of all honours, prerogatives,
and ecclesiastical dignities, condemned his memory,
234and cast him out of the ecclesiastical court, delivered over his
dead body and effigies into the power of the governor of the
city, that he might inflict on it the punishment due, according
to the rule and practice of the church. And finally, they
commanded his impious and heretical writings to be publicly
burnt, and declared all his effects to be forfeited to the exchequer
of the holy inquisition. After this sentence was read,
the governor of the city and his officers threw the corpse, effigies,
and aforesaid writings into a cart, and carried them into
the Campo Fiore, a great multitude of people following after.
When they came there, the dead body, which as yet in all
its members was whole and entire, was raised out of the chest
as far as the bottom of the breast, and shewn from on high to
the vast concourse of people that stood round about; and was
afterwards, with the effigies and bundle of his books, thrown
into the pile prepared for the purpose, and there burnt.
And finally, in order to beget in the common people a greater
abhorrence of the crime of heresy, they usually pull down and
level with the ground the houses or dwellings in which heretics
hold their conventicles, the ground on which they stood being
sprinkled over with salt, and certain curses and imprecations
uttered over it. And that there may be a perpetual monument
of its infamy, a pillar or stone, four or five feet high, is
erected in the said ground, with large characters on it, containing
the name and owner of the house, shewing the reason
of its demolition, and the reign of what pope, emperor or
king, the matter was transacted.
The whole of this horrid affair is concluded by what they
call “An Act of Faith;” which is performed after this manner.
When the inquisitor is determined to pronounce the
sentences of certain criminals, he fixes on some Lord’s-day or
festival to perform this solemnity. But they take care that it
be not Advent Sunday, or in Lent, or a very solemn day,
such as the Nativity of our Lord, Easter, and the like; because
it is not decent that the sermons on those days should be
suspended, but that every one should go to his own parish
church. A certain Sunday or festival therefore being appointed,
235the parsons of all the churches of that city or place,
in which this solemnity is to be performed, do, by command
of the bishop and inquisitor, when they have done preaching,
publicly intimate to the clergy and people, that the inquisitor
will, in such a church, hold a general sermon concerning the
faith; and they promise, in the name of the pope, the usual indulgence
of forty days, to all who will come and see, and hear
the things which are there to be transacted. They take care
to give the same notice in the houses of those religious, who
commonly preach the word of God; and that their superiors
should be told, that because the inquisitor will in such a church
make a general sermon concerning the faith, therefore he suspends
all other sermons, that every superior may send four or
two friars, as he thinks fit, to be present at the sermon, and
the pronouncing the sentences. This solemnity was formerly
called “A general Sermon concerning the Faith;” but it is
now called, “An Act of Faith.” And in this, great numbers
of persons, sometimes one or two hundred, are brought forth
in public procession to various kinds of penances and punishments,
all wearing the most horrible habitshabits. They choose festivals
for this solemnity, because then there is a greater confluence
of people gathered together to see the torments and
punishments of the criminals, that from hence they may learn
to fear, and be kept from the commission of evil. And indeed,
as this act of faith is now celebrated in Spain and Portugal,
the solemnity is truly an horrible and tremendous spectacle,
in which every thing is designedly made use of that may
strike terror; for this reason, as they say, that they may
hereby give some representation and image of the future judgment.
If any one, whether an impenitent or relapsed heretic is
to be delivered to the secular court, the bishop and inquisitor
give notice to the principal magistrate of the secular court,
that he must come such a day and hour with his attendants
to such a street or place, to receive a certain heretic or relapsed
person out of their court, whom they will deliver to him:
and that he must give public notice the same day, or the day
236before in the morning, by the crier, throughout the city, in
all the usual places and streets, that on such a day and hour,
and in such a place, the inquisitor will make a sermon for the
faith; and that the bishop and inquisitor will condemn a certain
heretic or relapse, by delivering him to the secular court.
In most of the tribunals of the inquisition, especially in
Spain, it is a remarkable custom they use, viz. on the day
before the acts of faith, solemnly to carry a bush to the place
of the fire, with the flames of which they are consumed, who
deserve the punishment of being burnt. This is not without
its mysteries; for the burning, and not consuming bush, signifies
the indefectible splendour of the church, which burns,
and is not consumed; and besides this, it signifies mercy towards
the penitent, and severity towards the froward and
obstinate. And farther, it represents how the inquisitors
defend the vineyard of the church, wounding with the
thorns of the bush, and burning up with flames all who endeavour
to bring heresies into the harvest of the Lord’s field.
And finally, it points out the obstinacy and frowardness of
heretics, which must rather be broken and bent, like a rugged
and stubborn bush; and that as the thorns and prickles of
the bush tear the garments of those who pass by, so also do
the heretics rend the seamless coat of Christ.
Besides, the day before the criminals are brought out of
jail to the public act of faith, they part with their hair and
their beard; by which the inquisitors represent, that heretics
return to that condition in which they were born, viz. becoming
the children of wrath.
All things being thus prepared to celebrate this act of faith,
all the prisoners, on that very day which is appointed for the
celebration of it are clothed with that habit which they must
wear in the public procession. But the custom in this matter
is not altogether the same in all the inquisitions. In that of
Goa, the jail-keepers, about midnight, go into the cells of the
prisoners, bringing a burning lamp to each of them, and a
black garment striped with white lines; and also a pair of
breeches, which reach down to their ankles; both which they
237order them to put on. The black habit is given them in token
of grief and repentance. About two o’clock the keepers return,
and carry the prisoners into a long gallery, where they
are all placed In a certain order against the wall, no one of
them being permitted to speak a word, or mutter, or move;
so that they stand immoveable, like statues, nor is there the
least motion of any one of their members to be seen, except of
their eyes. All these are such as have confessed their fault,
and have declared themselves willing to return by penance to
the bosom of the church of Rome. To every one of these is
given a habit to put over their black garment. Penitent heretics,
or such as are vehemently suspected, receive the blessed
sackcloth, commonly called the Sambenito; which, as we
have before related, is of a saffron colour, and on which there
is put the cross of St. Andrew, of a red colour, on the back
and on the breast. Vile and abject persons are made to wear
the infamous mitre for more outrageous blasphemies, which
carries in it a representation of infamy, denoting that they are
as it were bankrupts of heavenly riches. The same mitre
also is put on Polygamists, who are hereby shewn to have
joined themselves to two churches; and finally, such as are
convicted of magic; but what is signified hereby as to them,
I have not been able to discover. The others, whose offences
are slighter, have no other garment besides the black one.
Every one hath given him an extinguished taper, and a rope
about their neck; which rope and extinguished taper have their
signification, as we shall afterwards shew. The women are
placed in a separate gallery from the men, and are there
cloathed with the black habit, and kept till they are brought
forth in public procession.
As to those who are designed for the fire, viz. such as have
confessed their heresy, and are impenitent, and negatives, viz.
such who are convicted by a sufficient number of witnesses,
and yet deny their crime, and finally such as are relapsed,
they are all carried into a room separate from the others.
Their dress is different from that of the others. They are
however, clothed with the sackcloth, or kind of mantle, which
238some call the Sambenito, others the Samarra or Samaretta.
And though it be of the same make as the Sambenito is, yet it
hath different marks, is of a black colour, hath flames painted
on it, and sometimes the condemned heretic himself, painted
to the life, in the midst of the flames. Sometimes also they
paint on it devils thrusting the poor heretic into hell. Other
things may also be put on it; and all this is done, that persons
may be deterred from heresy by this horrible spectacle.
As to those, who after sentence pronounced, do at length
confess their crime, and convert themselves, before they go out
of jail, they are, if not relapses, clothed with the Samarra, on
which the fire is painted, sending the flames downward, which
the Portugueze call Fogo revolto; as though you should say,
the fire inverted. Besides this, they have paper mitres put on
them, made in the shape of a cone; on which also devils and
flames are painted, which the Spaniards and Portugueze call
in their language Carocha. All of them being thus clothed,
according to the nature of their crime, are allowed to sit down
on the ground, waiting for fresh orders. Those of them who
are to be burnt, are carried into a neighbouring apartment,
where they have confessors always with them, to prepare
them for death, and convert them to the faith of the church
of Rome.
About four o’clock the officers give bread and figs to all of
them, that they may somewhat satisfy their hunger during
the celebration of the act of faith. About sun-rising, the great
bell of the cathedral church tolls; by which, as the usual signal
of an act of faith, all persons are gathered together to this
miserable spectacle. The more reputable and principal men
of the city meet at the house of the inquisition, and are as it
were the sureties of the criminals, one of them walking by the
side of each criminal in the procession, which they think is
no small honour to them. Matters being thus prepared, the
inquisitor places himself near the gate of the house of the inquisition,
attended by the notary of the holy office. Here he
reads over in order the names of all the criminals; beginning
with those whose offences are least, and ending with those
239whose crimes are greatest. The criminals march out each in
their order, with naked feet, and wearing the habit that was
put on them in jail. As every one goes out, the notary reads
the name of his surety, who walks by his side in the procession.
The Dominican monks march first; who have this
honour granted them, because Dominick, the founder of their
order, was also the inventor of the inquisition. The banner
of the holy office is carried before them; in which the image
of Dominick is curiously wrought in needle-work, holding a
sword in one hand, and in the other a branch of olive, with
these words “justice and mercy.” Then follow the criminals
with their sureties. When all those whose crimes are too
slight to be punished with death, are gone out into procession,
then comes the crucifix; after which follow those who are led
out to the punishment of death. The crucifix being in the
midst of these, hath its face turned to those who walk before, to
denote the mercy of the holy office to those who are saved from
the death they had deserved; and the back part of it to those
who come after, to denote that they have no grace or mercy
to expect: for all things in this office are mysterious. Finally,
they carry out the statues of those who have died in heresy,
habited in the Samarra; and also the bones dug out of the
graves, shut up in black chests, upon which devils and flames
are painted all over, that they may be burnt to ashes.
[273]When they have thus marched round the principal
streets of the city, that all may behold them, they at length
240enter the church, where the sermon concerning the faith is to
be preached. At Goa this is usually the church of the Dominicans,
241and sometimes that of the Franciscans. The great
altar is covered over with cloth, upon which are placed six
silver candlesticks, with burning tapers. On each side of it is
erected something like a throne; that on the right hand for
the inquisitor and his counsellors; that on the left for the viceroy
and his officers. Over against the great altar there is
another lesser one, on which several missals are placed; and
from thence even to the gate of the church is made a long gallery,
three feet wide, full of seats, in which the criminals are
placed, with their sureties, in the order in which they enter
the church; so that those who enter first, and have offended
least, are nearest the altar.
After this comes in the inquisitor, surrounded with his colleagues,
and places himself on the right hand throne; and then
the viceroy, with his attendants, seats himself on the throne
on the left hand. The crucifix is put on the altar in the midst
of the six candlesticks. Then the sermon is preached concerning
the faith, and the office of the inquisition. This honour
is generally given to the Dominicans. The author of the
History of the Inquisition at Goa tells us, that in the act of
faith, in which he walked in procession, cloathed with the
Sambenito, the provincial of the Augustines preached the sermon,
which lasted half an hour, and treated of the inquisition,
which he compared to Noah’s ark; but said it was
preferable to Noah’s ark in this, because that the animals
which entered it came out of it after the flood with the same
brutal nature they carried in; whereas the inquisition so far
changes the persons who are detained in it, that though they
enter cruel as wolves, and fierce as lions, they come out of it
meek as lambs.
When the sermon is ended, two readers, one after another,
mount the same pulpit, and with a loud voice publicly read
over the sentences of all the criminals, and the punishment
to which they are condemned. He whose sentence is to be
read over, is brought by an officer into the middle of the gallery,
holding an extinguished taper in his hand, and there
stands till his sentence is read through; and because all the
242criminals are supposed to have incurred the greater excommunication,
when any one’s sentence is read over, he is
brought to the foot of the altar, where, upon his knees, and
his hands placed on the missale, he waits till so many are
brought there, as there are missals upon the altar. Then the
reader for some time defers the reading of the sentences; and
after he hath admonished those who are kneeling at the altar,
that they should recite with him with their heart and mouth
the confession of faith he is to read over to them, he reads
it with a loud voice; and when it is ended, they all take their
former places. Then the reader reads over the sentences of
the rest, and the same order is observed till all the sentences are
gone through.
When the sentences of all those, who are freed from the
punishment of death by the mercy of the office, are read
through, the inquisitor rises from his throne, puts on his
sacred vestments, and being attended with about twenty priests,
comes down into the middle of the church, and there saying
over some solemn prayers,[274] which may be seen[275] in the Book
of the Sentences of the Thoulouse Inquisition, he absolves
them all from the excommunication they were under, giving
each of them a blow by the hands of those priests who attend
him.
Farther, when the inquisitors absolve and reconcile penitents
at an act of faith, they make use of rods, to admonish
243them, that by heresy they have fallen from the favour of God
into his anger and fury. Hence Paramus[276] advises such penitents
to consider, with how great indulgence they are treated,
because they are only whipped on the shoulders; that they
may go away, and being mindful of the divine fury, may
take heed not to relapse for the future. The rod also points
out the judiciary power which the inquisitors exercise over
impious heretics, and those who are suspected of heresy; because
a rod is the measure by which any one’s deserts are measured,
and therefore penitents are whipped with rods according
to the nature of their offence, whereby their faults are weighed
and measured. Farther, the inquisitors use rods, because, as
a rod at the beginning is in its nature flexible, tender and
soft, but at last hard, blunt and stiff, so the inquisitors are
soft and tender, whilst penitents offending through frailty and
ignorance, reconcile themselves; but if heretics do afterwards
suffer themselves to be overcome by wickedness, and fall again
into the crimes they have committed, then they whip them,
and strike them severely, even to the burning of the fire.
And, finally, they use rods to establish and support the weak
in the faith; because rods are a very apt instrument to support
and confirm the lame and weak.
The penitents carry in their hands extinguished wax tapers,
whilst the inquisitors reconcile them; to intimate, that the light
of the faith hath been altogether extinguished in their minds
by the sin of heresy and infidelity. These tapers are made of
wax, whereby heretics profess (Risum teneatis) that their
hearts have been so melted, through the heat of Concupiscence,
as to receive various sects; and that as wax grows
hard by moisture, but melts by dryness and warmth, so they
being hardened by the moisture of carnal delights, have remained
in infidelity, but are melted as wax, and converted by
the dryness and heat of tribulation and penance enjoined them.
And finally, the cotton of the taper, and the wax of which
244it is made, and the fire with which it is lighted after absolution,
shadow forth that the heretics have denied faith, hope,
and charity. But when the tapers are lighted after their reconciliation,
this signifies that they profess they will demonstrate,
by the light of good works, the faith which they have
recovered.
Farther, those who are reconciled are sprinkled with holy
water and hyssop, in token, that being brought out of the
power of darkness, and having turned the eyes of their minds
to the true light of the faith, they are to remain free from all
the snares and calumnies of the devil, that they may serve
God with greater freedom.
Farther, he who hath offended against the Catholic faith
which he had professed, hath a rope tied round his neck, to
signify, that the inward parts of such a person being possessed
by the craftiness of the devil, have been given to such sins, of
which his outward parts being tied with ropes, give a very
evident sign and proof. And though they are reconciled after
abjuration of their heresy, yet they walk with a rope tied about
their necks; that they may come out as witnesses against
themselves, and may be examples to others, that they may
turn their eyes to the inward spots of the mind.
During this action, every one of the prisoners eats the
bread and figs in the church, which were given them by the
officers of the inquisition in jail.
When this ceremony is performed, the inquisitor goes
back to his place; after which the sentences of those who are
appointed to death are read over; the conclusion of which is,
that the inquisition can shew them no favour, upon account of
their being relapsed, or impenitent, and that therefore it delivers
them over to the arm of the secular court, which they
earnestly intreat so to moderate their punishment, as to prevent
the effusion of blood, and danger of death. When those
last words are read, one of the officers of the holy office gives
each of them a blow on the breast, by which he signifies that
they are left by the inquisition; upon which one of the officers
of secular justice comes to them and claims them. If any of
245them are in holy orders, they are degraded, and deprived of
all their orders, before they are delivered to the secular arm.
After this they read the sentences against the dead. At last
these miserable wretches are brought to the secular judge, to
hear the sentence of death; and when they come before
him, they are severally asked in what religion they desire to
die? Their crime is never inquired into; because it is not the
office of the secular magistrate to ask, whether those, who
are condemned by the inquisition, are criminal? He is to presuppose
them guilty, and his duty is to inflict the punishment
appointed by law upon those who commit such crimes, of
which they are pronounced guilty by the inquisition. When
they have answered this one single question, they are soon
after tied to a stake, round about which there is placed a pile
of wood. Those who answer that they will die Catholics, are
first strangled; but those who say they will die Jews or heretics,
are burnt alive.[277] As these are leading out to punishment,
the rest are carried back without any order, by their sureties,
246to the jail of the inquisition. This is the celebration of an
act of faith in Portugal; or rather in that part of India which
is subject to the Portugueze, as a Frenchman hath described it
in his History of the Inquisition at Goa, who himself walked
in procession at an act of faith, wearing the infamous Sambenito,
247and who accurately observed and described all the circumstances
of it.
The method of celebrating an act of faith in Spain, is
248somewhat different. For whereas at Goa the banner, which
they carry before the procession hath the picture of Dominick
wrought in it, Paramus says, that in Spain the cross is the
banner of the inquisition, which is carried before them; and
tediously tells us of several mysteries signified by the cross, of
which I will here give a short summary.
The cross is the beginning and end of all acts of the inquisition;
and by it is represented, that the tribunal of the inquisition
is a representation of that supreme and final tribunal, in
which the sign of the cross shall appear before the Lord Christ,
coming to the judgement of the world with great majesty and
glory. Farther, it denotes the war which the inquisition
wages against heretics, and the victory which they gain over
the enemies of the orthodox faith; because the inquisitors are
appointed the conquerors of heretical pravity, and captains for
the defence of religion, who keep watch at the castle of the
inquisition for the Christian faith, repair it when going to ruin,
restore it when tumbled down, and preserve it when restored
in its ancient, flourishing and vigorous state.
The inquisition uses a green cross, that it may be more
conveniently distinguished from those crosses of other colours,
which are used by the Christian commonwealth; and especially
that it may be shadowed out, that all things usually
signified by greenness, belong to the inquisition. For instance,
greenness denotes stability and eternity; it is a grateful, pleasant,
and attractive colour to the eyes, and finally is a sign of
victory and triumph. Hereby is shadowed forth, that the
inquisitors of heretical pravity vigilantly preserve the stability
of the church; and that heretics are attracted by the green
cross, so that they cannot escape the judgment of this tribunal,
and by beholding it are brought to the tender bosom of
mother church, and drawn to repentance, and the sincerity of
the faith.
The banner of the inquisition hath a green cross in a field
sable, adorned on the right hand with a branch of green olive,
and brandishing on the left a drawn sword, with this motto
round about the scutcheon, “Exsurge, Domine, & judica
249causam tuam; Psal. lxxiv. 22. Arise, O Lord, and plead
thy own cause.” The branch of green olive denotes the same
as the green cross. But the branch of olive is on the right
hand of the cross, and the sword on the left, to shew that in
the inquisition mercy is mixed with justice; and the meaning
of this mixture they derive from the ark of the tabernacle, in
which, together with the tables, there was the rod and the
manna, the rod of severity, and the manna of sweetness; as
though the rod of Aaron which blossomed, was the rod with
which judges command criminals to be whipped. The branch
of olive at the right hand, signifies that nothing ought to be
so strictly regarded by the inquisitors as mercy and clemency,
which the olive most wonderfully shadows forth, which hath
branches always green, and which endures storms much longer
than any other trees, and if buried under water, is not so soon
destroyed, nor doth so easily lose its verdure. The drawn
sword brandishing on the left, points out that the inquisitors,
after having tried in vain all methods of mercy, do then as it
were unwillingly come to the use and drawing of the sword,
which was given by God for the punishment of offenders.
The field of sable, in the midst of which the green cross is
placed, intimates the repentance of the criminals, and the sorrow
they conceive on account of their sins; which, however,
the green mitigates with the hope of pardon.
The motto round the scutcheon, “Exsurge Domine,” &c.
marks out that the inquisitors, in expectation of the coming
of the Lord, do in the mean while punish the wicked, that
they may deter others, and defend the good.
But besides these things, there are other differences between
the celebration of an act of faith in India and Spain.
Gonsalvius tells us,[278] this solemn procession began in this manner
at Seville. “In the first place went some school-boys,
brought out of a certain college in which boys were taught,
which they commonly call the house of teaching, who strike
250an awe upon others by their habit, singing, and order, in
which they are kept by certain clergymen cloathed in surplices.
They walk along singing the litanies of the saints, repeating
them alternately, the chorus alternately answering,[279] “Ora
pro nobis.” After these follow the prisoners themselves, commonly
called penitentials, disposed as it were into several
classes in this order. Next after the children walk those who
are convicted of lesser faults. The tokens of their guilt are
usually unlighted candles, halters about their necks, wooden
bits, and paper mitres. They walk with their heads uncovered,
that the mitre may not be concealed; and after the
manner of slaves, without their cloak. Those who excel
others in birth, or riches, follow after those who are meaner.
Next to these march those who are cloathed with the Sambenito’s,
or military mantles, marked across with the red cross;
the same order being observed as above, according to the
distinction of the persons. Those who are defiled in holy orders,
as they are superior in dignity, so also are they in their
place or rank in the procession. After these comes the third
and last class, viz. of those who are appointed for the fire.
Every prisoner is attended by two armed familiars, for his safe
custody, one on each side of him; besides which, those who
are to die have two monks or theatins, as they call them,
walking by them. The whole council of the city, consisting
of the alguazils, jurors, the judges of twenty-four degrees,
the great officers of the court, the regent and viceroy himself,
or his deputy, who are followed by a great number of nobility
on horseback, immediately follow the classes of the prisoners,
who, accordingaccording to the custom of a triumph, ought certainly
to march first. After these comes the ecclesiastical order, the
clergy, beneficed persons, and curates walking first. Next
after them walk the whole chapter of the principal church,
which they commonly call the cabild of the greater church.
Then the abbots and priors of the monks orders, with their
251attendants. All these walk before the holy tribunal to do honour
to it, because, on that day, it openly triumphs. Between
these and the next after there is a space left empty, in which
the fiscal of the inquisition, who hath had no small share in
gaining that victory to the holy tribunal, walks as standard-bearer
in truly military pomp, displaying and opening the
standard made of red damask silk. This standard is most curiously
embroidered, having on one side of it the arms of that
pope who granted the inquisition, with his name written at
large; and on the other those of King Ferdinand, who first
brought it into Spain. Every thing in it is wrought with silk,
gold, and purple. Upon the very point of this banner is
fastened a silver crucifix washed over with gold, of great value;
to which the superstitious multitude pay a peculiar veneration,
for this reason only, because it belongs to the inquisition.
At length come the fathers of the faith themselves, with
a slow pace, and profound gravity, truly triumphing, as becomes
the principal generals of that victory. After them
come all the familiars of the holy inquisition on horseback.
Then an innumerable company of the common people and mob,
without any order or character. In this pomp they march
from the jail of the inquisition to the high and magnificent
scaffold, which is built of wood, in the noblest and most capacious
street of the city, for shewing the penitents to public
view, and for hearing their sentences. On this scaffold they
make them sit in the same order as they marched. There
is also another scaffold almost as large as the former, over
against it, in which is erected the tribunal of the lords inquisitors;
where they sit in their inquisitorial, and almost
divine majesty, attended with all that grandeur in which they
came.”
The king (if present) the queen and the whole court, and
also the legates, and all the nobility of Spain, generally
honour this solemnity with their presence. The seat of the
inquisitor general is like a tribunal, raised above the king’s.
When all are seated in their places, they begin with celebratingcelebrating
mass; but when the priest who officiates is come to about the
252middle of the service, he leaves the altar, and goes back to
his proper place. Then the supreme inquisitor comes down
from the scaffold, robed in all his ornaments; and making his
reverences before the altar, ascends by several steps to the king,
attended by some of the officers of the inquisition, who
carry the crucifix and gospels, and the book in which is
contained the oath, by which the king obliges himself to
protect the Catholic faith, to the extirpation of heresies, and
the defence of the inquisition. The king standing bare-headed,
having on one side of him the constable of Castile,
or one of the grandees of Spain, who holds up the sword of
state, swears that he will keep the oath, which is publicly
read over to him, by one of the members of the royal council;
and remains in the same posture, till the supreme inquisitor
goes back to his place. After this one of the secretaries
of the inquisition goes into a desk, reads over the like oath,
and takes it from the council, and the whole assembly. Then
all the several sentences are read over, and the solemnity
sometimes lasts till nine o’clock in the evening.
Criminals penitent and reconciled, and brought out in
public procession, are carried back to their former jails in the
holy office the same day in which the sentences are pronounced
against them, and the day following are brought to an audience
of the inquisitors, and are admonished of those things
which are enjoined them by their sentences, and how grievously
they will be punished, unless they humbly do the penances
assigned them. After this, they send every one to the
place to which his sentence ordered him. Those who are
condemned to the gallies, are sent to the jails of the secular
judges. Some are whipped through the principal streets of
the city, and sometimes receive two hundred lashes. Others
wear the infamous Sambenito; some every day, others must
appear in them only sundays and holy days. But in these
things every one observes the custom of his own inquisition.
In the inquisition at Goa this is the method. Before the prisoners
are dismissed, they are carried from jail to some other
house, where they are every day instructed in the doctrines
253and rites of the Church of Rome; and when they are dismissed,
every one hath a writing given him, containing the
penances enjoined them; to which is added a command, that
every one shall exactly keep secret every thing he hath seen,
said or heard, and all the transactions relating to him, whether
at the table, or in other places of the holy office. And to
this secrecy every prisoner binds himself by a solemn oath.
The day after this solemnity also, the effigies of those
condemned to death, painted to the life, are carried to the
dominican’s church, and there hung up to be viewed by all.
The custom in this matter is described by Ludovicus a Paramo.[280]
“There is another monument of infamy, which,
though vulgarly called by the Spaniards Sambenito, yet is
not a garment, but a cloth affixed to the walls of the churches
for perpetual infamy in the parishes where they lived. On
this cloth is written the name and surname of the criminal,
and the business he carried on is also expressed. If he discovers
any farther, they add another little piece to the cloth
to prevent doubt, describing his country, and oftentimes also
the parents and grandfathers of the condemned person.
“In some of these cloths may be read who were the parents
of the criminals, of what race they were; whether they
were married, or if married women, whose wives they were;
whether lately recovered to the Christian religion, from the
Jewish law and Mahometan sect. Finally, the cause of their
penance is declared according to the nature of their crime,
viz. that he was an arch-heretic, a dogmatist, a declared heretic,
an heretical apostate, a feigned penitent, negative and
obstinate, an impenitent and relapsed heretic, a Lutheran,
Anabaptist, Calvinist, Martianist heretic, even though they
died before condemnation. Besides this inscription, there is
also painted the mark which is usually put on living penitents,
as is above explained. In the ancient cloths, which have not
yet been repaired, one may see an upright cross. Besides
254these already mentioned, other things may be seen in them;
for in some the person and crime is omitted, and this one word
only written without the picture, ‘Combustus,’ burnt. On
the clothes of such as are reconciled, this word only, without
any cross or mark, ‘Reconciliatus,’ reconciled. Sometimes
the date of the year is wanting. Sometimes the flames are
painted without any inscription, so that the criminal cannot
possibly be known. However, these monuments of infamy
and disgrace are not to be fixed up to render those infamous,
who are reconciled during the time of indulgence and grace.
For as it was agreed with them, that they should not wear
such infamous habits, nor be cloathed with them during the
time of their reconciliation, it would be contrary to reason and
justice to hang them up, because it would be wholly to destroy
the favour granted them. This constitution is observed in all
the kingdoms and dominions of the King of Spain, except in
Sicily; where, in the year 1543, when the licentiate Cervera
was inquisitor there, there was a very great commotion at Palermo,
when the people rose against the holy inquisition, and
tore off the infamous cloths from the walls of the church
dedicated to St. Dominic, with so great a fury and rage, that
they could never, to this day, fix them up again upon the
walls either of that, or any other church.”
Thus far we have described the method of proceeding
observed in the inquisition; and if we attentively consider it,
and compare it with the usual method of proceeding in all
other courts, we shall find it to be a series and connection of
injustice and cruelties, and subversive of all laws, both divine
and human.
The Papists usually recommend to their own people this
tribunal as an holy one, and call the inquisition the holy office.
But if we consider it thoroughly, we shall find it is all disguise,
by which they endeavour to palliate and cover over the
villany and injustice of this court. I will not now undertake
to shew that the causes which are managed before this tribunal
are not subject to human judgment, but belong to the tribunal
255of God, and his son Christ: for God only, the supreme
Lord of all, who can save, and can destroy, can prescribe
the laws of salvation and damnation: He only, as omniscient
and searcher of hearts, can pronounce an infallible judgment
of every one’s faith, which lies concealed in his mind, and
which he may dissemble by words or actions, and hath admitted
no man as partner with himself in this power. From
hence it evidently follows, that it is a sacrilegious violation of
the divine majesty and laws, in that the pope of Rome arrogates
to himself the judgment of the faith, prescribes laws of
believing to the faithful, erects the tribunal of an inquisition,
sends every where inquisitors as judges delegated by him,
who, in his name, and by a power granted by him, are to
inquire into the faith of all, and punish those who are not in
all things obedient to the pope. Nor will I here examine that
villainous doctrine, by which they teach that heretics are to be
deprived of all power, so that faith is not to be kept with them;
subjects are not bound by their oath of allegiance and fidelity:
that the husband or wife, for the heresy of either, is freed
from the laws of matrimony, and even children from obedience
to their parents: for it is fully evident, that this doctrine
subverts all laws, divine and human.
I will only, in a few words, represent the principal iniquities
and instances of injustice of this tribunal; in which, as to the
reason and method of proceeding in favour of the faith, it
differs from the laws and customs of all other courts; whereby
things evidently unjust in other tribunals, are in this accounted
just. I shall not indeed mention all, but the chief only, and
most remarkable instances, as specimens of the rest.
I. The first is, that the inquisitors, by publishing an edict
of the faith, oblige all, under the penalty of excommunication,
to inform before them of every one of whom they suspect
of heresy, for the slightest cause; so that not only a relation
is bound to accuse his relation, a brother his brother,
and by this information to bring him into danger of being
burnt, the most horrible of all punishments; but even a wife
256her husband: yea, what destroys all the laws of nature, a son,
according to the opinion of many doctors, is bound to inform
against his father, if a secret heretic.
II. A second instance of injustice, is their condemning a
person defamed only for heresy, to make canonical purgation,
i. e. to purge himself with seven, more or less, compurgators;
so that if he fails in one, two or three, he is accounted guilty,
for thus the life and torture of any one depends on the will
and pleasure of another.
III. A third is, that in this office every one, though excluded
by other courts, is admitted for a witness, a mortal
enemy only excepted.
IV. To this may be added a fourth, that the names of the
witnesses are not shewn to the prisoner, nor is any circumstance
discovered to him by which he can come to the knowledge
of the witnesses.
V. A fifth instance of injustice is, that if two unexceptionable
witnesses, who yet must ever be liable to exception, because
unknown to the criminal, testify of different facts, yea,
sometimes if there be one only, yea, if but a mere report,
they think it enough to order to the torture.
VI. A sixth instance is, that they would have persons informed
against become their own accusers: for as soon as ever
any one is thrown into jail, he is bound by an oath to declare
the truth.
VII. A seventh instance is, that the inquisitors use various
arts to draw out a confession from the prisoners, by making
them deceitful promises, which, when they have got the
confession, they do not believe themselves obliged to fulfil;
that so the prisoner being destitute of all human assistance and
comfort, and seeing no end to his miseries, may, through
the art and fraud of the inquisitor, have no possible way left
to defend himself, and yet in the mean while these wretches
affect the appearance of justice, and grant the criminals an
advocate and proctor to manage their cause. But in this the
prisoner is miserably deceived.
VIII. And this is an eighth specimen of their injustice,
257because the advocate granted to him is given him only to betray
him. For he may not choose such an advocate as he
himself approves of, nor is it lawful for the advocate to defend
the prisoner, unless he would be accounted as a favourer of heresy;
but the inquisition itself assigns him his advocate, bound
to them by an oath, whose principal business is to persuade
the criminal to confess the crime he is accused of, not to
use any methods of defence not practised in the court of the
inquisition, and immediately to quit his defence, if he cannot
defend him according to the laws of the inquisition.
IX. A ninth is, that when the crimes cannot be proved
against the prisoner, he is not absolved from the crime of which
he is accused, but only from prosecution; and all the declaration
that is made, is that the crime against him is not proved
by proper witnesses; and this sentence is never taken for an adjudged
case. So that he who is once informed against to the
inquisition, although he be innocent, and his crime cannot be
proved according to the received manner of the inquisition,
though indeed, according to that manner, all crimes of which
there is but the least suspicion may be easily proved; yet he is never
blotted out of the inquisitors book or index, but his name is
there preserved in perpetual remembrance of his being a suspected
person, that if he should happen to be informed against
for heresy at any other time, these latter informations added to
the former may amount to a real proof; and that although he
is dismissed from jail by the sentence of the judge, he may
never be able to live in safety, but that being always suspected
by the inquisitor, he may be arrested for the same crime which
ought to have been forgotten, upon the fresh information of
some vile and wicked fellow.
X. A tenth, and that not the least instance of injustice,
is their readiness to put persons to the torture, and that to
discover a secret crime, lying concealed in the mind; yea,
that they will use the torture so much the sooner, because the
crime is more concealed than other crimes.
XI. The eleventh is, their putting persons to the torture
upon half full proof of the crime. This half full proof is
258faultering, defamation, and one witness of his own knowledge,
or when the tokens are vehement and violent. All these things
are subject to the pleasure of the judge. So that if any one
falls into the hands of a cruel inquisitor, and faulters in his
answer, or is informed against by one witness, who declares
he was present at the action or words he gives information of,
he cannot possibly escape the torture, nor consequently the
punishment of the crime he is accused of, considering the violence
of the torments. Nor is this all; but as there may be
some facts occasioned not so much by heresy concealed in the
mind, as by carnal concupiscence or rashness, they will have
such to be tortured for their intention, and force them by torments
to confess they had an heretical intention in their mind.
XII. A twelfth is, that when they prepare themselves for
the torture, they gravely and seriously admonish the criminal
to speak nothing but the truth, and to confess nothing that is
not agreeable to truth to avoid the tortures. By this means
they put on the appearance of sincerity, as though they sought
nothing but the naked truth, that when the torture is finished
they may be very secure that the tortured person hath confessed
a real crime, because they have seriouslyseriously and gravely admonished
him to say nothing contrary to truth. In the mean
while they suppose, that the crime objected against him is
real, and endeavour to force from him a confession by torture,
and threaten to double his torments unless he confesses; so
that if he denies the crime, his torments are aggravated; if
he confesses it, his torments are soon ended. Hence it appears,
that their design is not honestly to find out the truth by
torture, but that they suppose the crime is real, although according
to the laws of the inquisition it be only half proved,
and then extort a confession of it.
XIII. A thirteenth is, that whereas in other courts the number
is certainly fixed how often the torture may be repeated,
they have invented a method of torturing persons very often,
without offending against the law, which provides that the
tortures shall not be repeated above twice or thrice. If, for
instance, they make use of the lesser tortures, and the prisoner
259confesses nothing, they afterwards make use of more grievous
ones, then proceed to such as are more cruel, till at different
intervals of time they have gone through all the several kinds
of tortures. And this they do not call a repetition, but only
a continuation of the torture; so that if any one hath been several
times tortured, but with a different kind of torture each
time, and hath thus at certain distances gone through all the
kinds of torture, according to the opinion of these merciful
casuists, he ought to be accounted as tortured only once.
XIV. A fourteenth is, that when they deliver condemned
persons to the secular arm, they intercede for them, that their
punishment may be so moderated as to prevent shedding of
blood, or danger of death. And in the mean while, if the
magistrate is not ready to burn the heretics, or delays the
punishment, they oblige him, under penalty of excommunication,
to execute the sentence. The superstitious wretches
are afraid they should becomebecome irregular, by delivering a criminal
to the secular magistrate without intercession, and yet are
not afraid of becoming irregular, by compelling the magistrate
under penalty of excommunication to murder those whom
they have condemned. Can any thing be more evident, than
that this is nothing more than acting a part, and an affectation
to be thought by the people to have no hand in the murder of
which they are really the authors?
XV. The last instance I shall mention, appears in their
ridiculous process against the dead, whose relations and heirs
they cite, to appear on such a day to defend, if they can and
will, the memory of the dead. Whereas they themselves
have made it a law, that if any one appears in defence of an
heretic, he shall be accounted as a favourer of heretics himself,
and condemned as such, and have no advocate or procurator
to defend himself. So that they cite all persons to defend
the memory of the dead, and yet deter all persons from such
defence by a most grievous punishment, appointed against
the favourers of heretics. So that all this is like their intercession
for criminals, mere imposture and sham. Then they
provide an advocate to manage the cause, bound to them under
260an oath, and he publicly declares he cannot defend the
memory of the deceased. So that as no one undertakes his
defence, the accusations against him are reckoned just, the
proofs legal, and the deceased is condemned for heresy. But
what greater instance of injustice can there be, than to condemn
a person as convicted, whose defence no one dares undertake,
without running the hazard of his fortune and life.
If any one considers these things, which I have mentioned
as specimens only, he will find no sanctity in the court of the
inquisition; but must acknowledge, that in the whole method
of proceeding there is nothing but injustice, fraud, impostures,
and the most accursed hypocrisy; by which the inquisitors,
under the feigned pretence of sanctity, endeavour to disguise
the villany of their proceedings, that so they may maintain
their dominion over the miserable common people, and keep
them all in subjection to themselves. And though they do
every thing that is wicked and vile, yet they would have all
adore them for the venerable character of sanctity.
It is needless to mention here more instances of their cruelty:
I shall say all in a few words. The miseries of the jail,
in which the prisoners are generally confined by themselves
for several years, shut up in darkness, without being allowed
any human converse, are so great, the cruelty of their torments
so severe, and their punishments so exquisite, that they
greatly exceed the cruelty of all other courts: for persons are
not only burnt alive, but their mouths gagged, so that they
have not the liberty to groan or cry out in those most horrible
tortures; and by thus stopping up their mouths, they are in
such an agony, as that they are almost strangled. But their
cruelty towards the penitent and converted is most detestable:
for whereas the church ought, with open arms, to embrace
penitents, in imitation of the shepherd who carried the lost
sheep on his shoulders, and brought it home to the sheepfold,
these wretches enjoin the most grievous punishments on those
whose lives they spare, which with them are only wholesome
penances. For they condemn them either to wear the infamous
261Sambenito, or to imprisonment, or the gallies, whereby
their very life is oftentimes a punishment to them; whilst
others are denied the very hopes of life, especially the relapsed,
who are condemned to death without mercy, though they
convert themselves. And yet the sacraments are given to those
who are reconciled to the church when they desire it; and
thus before they are put to death they become members of the
church, put in a state of salvation, and by the priests themselves
most certainly assured of an heavenly crown. Can
there be any greater cruelty, and more abhorrent from the
spirit of Christianity, than to punish with death an erroneous
person who repents, detests his error, and is now reconciled
to the church? But the ecclesiastical sanctions must be satisfied,
and the authority of the church preserved entire, though
the laws of Jesus Christ, and the commands of the gospel are
trampled under foot.
All these iniquities are committed according to the very
laws of the inquisition. Many things are indeed, in the execution
of this office, left to the pleasure of the inquisitors,
which power they often villainously abuse, as appears from
their daily practice, and innumerable instances; for it was the
common complaint of all nations against the inquisition, what
Thuanus tells us[281] was the complaint of the Neapolitans:
“That the perverse and preposterous form of trials increased
the horror, because it was contrary to natural equity, and to
every legal method in carrying on that jurisdiction. Add to
this the inhumanity of their tortures, by which they violently
extorted from the miserable and innocent criminals, that they
might deliver themselves from their torment, whatsoever the
delegated judges would have them confess, though generally
contrary to truth. And for this reason it was justly said, that
it was invented not for the sake of defending religion, which
the primitive church had provided for by a quite different
method, but that by this means they might strip all men of
262their fortunes, and bring innocent persons into danger of being
destroyed.”
The papists indeed glory, that the inquisition is the most
certain remedy to extirpate heresies. And because the inquisition
is so effectual a method to extirpate heresies, Ludovicus
a Paramo[282] gathers from thence that it was ordained for
this purpose by the most wise providence of God. But what
is really unjust in itself, and carried on by unjust methods,
cannot have God for its author; nor is success any argument
that the inquisition is from God. The first inquiry is, whether
it be suitable to the nature of the Christian doctrine? If
it be not, it is then unjust and anti-christian. Many things
are unrighteously undertaken, by men, and accomplished by
violence and cruelty, by which innocence is oppressed; which,
although God in his just and wise counsel permits, he is far
from approving. Even in Japan, a cruel persecution hath
extinguished the Christian religion, as preached by the Roman
priests; so that the Roman Catholic religion is equally extinguished
there by the violence of persecutions, as those doctrines
are in Spain, which are contrary to the church of Rome,
and which they render odious by the infamous name of heresy.
And yet they will not allow that any just argument can be
drawn from hence, to prove that that persecution was given
by divine Providence, as a most effectual remedy for the extirpation
of their religion. If other parties of Christians
would use the same diligence and cruelty of inquisition against
them, I may venture to affirm, that they themselves could not
withstand it: but that within a few years the popish religion
would be extinguished in all Protestant countries, and scarce
a single person left who would dare to profess it. But God
forbid that the Christian religion should ever be propagated
this way, which doth not consist in a feigned and hypocritical
profession, but in a sincere and undissembled faith. And
therefore, as no one ought to assume to himself the power of
263judging concerning it, but God the searcher of hearts, to him
only let us leave it to pass the true judgment concerning every
man’s belief. Let us in the mean while detest the tyranny of
the papists; and strive to reduce those who, in our judgment,
hold errors, into the way of truth, by the good offices of
charity and benevolence, without arrogating to ourselves a
judgment over the consciences of others. And out of a serious
regard to the last great day of judgment, let us approve
our consciences to God: and every one of us, expecting from
his mercy an equitable and righteous judgment, pray without
ceasing: “Arise, O Lord, and plead thy own
cause.”
Taken from the Rev. Dr. Buchanan’s “Christian Researches in Asia.”
In every age of the Church of Rome there have been individuals,
of an enlightened piety, who derived their religion
not from “the commandments of men,” but from the doctrines
of the Bible. There are at this day, in India and in
England, members of that communion, who deserve the affection
and respect of all good men; and whose cultivated
minds will arraign the corruptions of their own religion, which
the author is about to describe, more severely than he will
permit himself to do. He is indeed prepared to speak of
Roman Catholics with as much liberality as perhaps any Protestant
has ever attempted on Christian principles: for he is
acquainted with individuals, whose unaffected piety he considers
264a reproach to a great body of Protestants, even of the
strictest sort. It is indeed painful to say any thing which
may seem to feeling and noble minds ungenerous; but those
enlightened persons, whose good opinion it is desirable to preserve,
will themselves be pleased to see that truth is not sacrificed
to personal respect, or to a spurious candour. Their own
church sets an example of “plainness of speech” in the assertion
of those tenets which it professes, some of which must
be extremely painful to the feeling of Protestants, in their
social intercourse with Catholics; such as, “That there is no
salvation out of the pale of the Romish church.”
This exclusive character prevents concord and intimacy
between ProtestantProtestant and Catholic families. On the principles
of infidelity they can associate very easily; but on the principles
of religion, the Protestant must ever be on the defensive;
for the Romish church excommunicates him: and although
he must hope that some individuals do not maintain the tenet,
yet his uncertainty as to the fact prevents that cordiality which
he desires. Many excellent Catholics suffer unjustly in their
intercourse with Protestants, from the ancient and exclusive
articles of their own church, which they themselves neither
profess nor believe. If they will only intimate to their Protestant
friends, that they renounce the exclusive principle,
and that they profess the religion of the Bible, no more seems
requisite to form with such persons the sincerest friendship on
Christian principles.
At the present time we see the Romish religion in Europe
without dominion; and hence it is viewed by the mere philosopher
with indifference or contempt. He is pleased to see,
that the “seven heads and the ten horns” are taken away;
and thinks nothing of the “names of blasphemy.” But in
the following pages, the author will have occasion to shew
what Rome is, as having dominion; and possessing it too
within the boundaries of the British Empire.Empire.
In passing through the Romish provinces in the East,
though the author had before heard much of the Papal corruptions,
he certainly did not expect to see Christianity in the
265degraded state in which he found it. Of the priests it may
truly be said, that they are, in general, better acquainted
with the Veda of Brahma than with the Gospel of Christ. In
some places the doctrines of both are blended. At Aughoor,
situated between Tritchinopoly and Madura, he witnessed (in
October 1806) the Tower of Juggernaut employed to solemnize
a Christian festival. The old priest Josephus accompanied him,
when he surveyed the idolatrous car and its painted figures, and
gave him a particular account of the various ceremonies which
are performed, seemingly unconscious himself of any impropriety
in them. The author went with him afterwards
into the church, and seeing a book lying on the altar, opened
it; but the reader may judge of his surprize, when he found
it was a Syriac volume, and was informed that the priest himself
was a descendant of the Syrian Christians, and belonged
to what is now called the Syro-Roman Church, the whole service
of which is in Syriac.—Thus, by the intervention of the
papal power, are the ceremonies of Moloch consecrated in a
manner by the sacred Syriac language. What a heavy responsibility
lies on Rome, for having thus corrupted and degraded
that pure and ancient church!
While the author viewed these Christian corruptions in
different places, and in different forms, he was always referred
to the Inquisition at Goa, as the fountain-head. He had long
cherished the hope, that he should be able to visit Goa before
he left India. His chief objects were the following:
1. To ascertain whether the inquisition actually refused to
recognise the Bible, among the Romish churches in British
India.
2. To inquire into the state and jurisdiction of the inquisition,
particularly as it affected British subjects.
3. To learn what was the system of education for the
priesthood; and
4. To examine the ancient church-libraries in Goa, which
were said to contain all the books of the first printing.
He will select from his journal in this place, chiefly what
relates to the inquisition. He had learnt from every quarter,
266that this tribunal, formerly so well known for its frequent
burnings, was still in operation, though under some restriction
as to the publicity of its proceedings; and that its power
extended to the extreme boundary of Hindoostan. That, in
the present civilized state of Christian nations in Europe, an
inquisition should exist at all under their authority, appeared
strange; but that a papal tribunal of this character should
exist under the implied toleration and countenance of the
British Government; that Christians, being subjects of the
British Empire, and inhabiting the British territories, should
be amenable to its power and jurisdiction, was a statement
which seemed to be scarcely credible; but, if true, a fact
which demanded the most public and solemn representation.
Goa, Convent of the Augustinians,
Jan. 23, 1808.
‘On my arrival at Goa, I was received into the house of
Captain Schuyler, the British resident. The British force
here is commanded by Colonel Adams, of His Majesty’s
78th regiment, with whom I was formerly well acquainted in
Bengal.[283] Next day I was introduced by these gentlemen to
the vice-roy of Goa, the Count de Cabral. I intimated
to his excellency my wish to sail up the river to Old Goa,[284]
267(where the inquisition is,) to which he politely acceded. Major
Pareira, of the Portuguese establishment, who was present,
and to whom I had letters of introduction from Bengal, offered
to accompany me to the city, and to introduce me to the
archbishop of Goa, the primate of the Orient.
‘I had communicated to Colonel Adams, and to the British
resident, my purpose of enquiring into the state of the inquisition.
These gentlemen informed me, that I should not be
able to accomplish my design without difficulty; since every
thing relating to the inquisition was conducted in a very secret
manner, the most respectable of the lay Portuguese themselves
being ignorant of its proceedings; and that, if the priests
were to discover my object, their excessive jealousy and alarm
would prevent their communicating with me, or satisfying my
inquiries on any subject.
‘On receiving this intelligence, I perceived that it would
be necessary to proceed with caution. I was, in fact, about
to visit a republic of priests; whose dominion had existed for
nearly three centuries; whose province it was to prosecute heretics,
and particularly the teachers of heresy; and from
whose authority and sentence there was no appeal in India.[285]
‘It happened that Lieutenant Kempthorne, commander
of His Majesty’s brig Diana, a distant connection of my own,
was at this time in the harbour. On his learning that I meant
to visit Old Goa, he offered to accompany me; as did Captain
Stirling, of His Majesty’s 84th regiment, which is now
stationed at the forts.
‘We proceeded up the river in the British resident’s barge,
accompanied by Major Pareira, who was well qualified, by a
268thirty years’ residence, to give information concerning local
circumstances. From him I learned that there were upwards
of two hundred churches and chapels in the province of Goa,
and upwards of two thousand priests.’
‘On our arrival at the city,[286] it was past twelve o’clock:
all the churches were shut, and we were told that they would
not be opened again till two o’clock. I mentioned to Major
Pareira, that I intended to stay at Old Goa some days; and
that I should be obliged to him to find me a place to sleep in.
He seemed surprised at this intimation, and observed that it
would be difficult for me to obtain reception in any of the
churches or convents, and that there were no private houses
into which I could be admitted. I said I could sleep any
where; I had two servants with me, and a travelling bed.
When he perceived that I was serious in my purpose, he gave
directions to a civil officer, in that place, to clear out a room
in a building which had been long uninhabited, and which was
then used as a warehouse for goods. Matters at this time presented
a very gloomy appearance; and I had thoughts of returning
with my companions from this inhospitable place. In
the mean time we sat down in the room I have just mentioned,
to take some refreshment, while Major Pareira went to call on
some of his friends. During this interval I communicated to
Lieutenant Kempthorne the object of my visit. I had in my
pocket ‘Dellon’s Account of the Inquisition at Goa;’[287] and I
269mentioned some particulars. While we were conversing on
the subject, the great bell began to toll; the same which Dellon
observes always tolls, before day-light, on the morning of
the Auto da Fè. I did not myself ask any questions of the
people concerning the inquisition; but Mr. Kempthorne made
inquiries for me: and he soon found out that the Santa Casa,
or Holy Office, was close to the house where we were then
sitting. The gentlemen went to the window to view the horrid
mansion; and I could see the indignation of free and enlightened
men arise in the countenance of the two British officers,
while they contemplated a place where formerly their
own countrymen were condemned to the flames, and into
which they themselves might now suddenly be thrown, without
the possibility of rescue.
‘At two o’clock we went out to view the churches, which
were now open for the afternoon service; for there are regular
daily masses; and the bells began to assail the ear in every
quarter.
‘The magnificence of the churches of Goa, far exceeded
any idea I had formed from the previous description. Goa is
properly a city of churches; and the wealth of provinces
seems to have been expended in their erection. The ancient
specimens of architecture at this place far excel any thing
that has been attempted in modern times in any other part of
the East, both in grandeur and in taste. The chapel of the
palace is built after the plan of St. Peter’s at Rome, and is
said to be an accurate model of that paragon of architecture.
The church of St. Dominic, the founder of the inquisition, is
decorated with paintings of Italian masters. St. Francis
Xavier lies enshrined in a monument of exquisite art, and
his coffin is enchased with silver and precious stones. The
cathedral of Goa is worthy of one of the principal cities of
Europe; and the church and convent of the Augustinians (in
270which I now reside) is a noble pile of building, situated on
an eminence, and has a magnificent appearance from afar.
‘But what a contrast to all this grandeur of the churches
is the worship offered in them! I have been present at the
service in one or other of the chapels every day since I arrived;
and I seldom see a single worshipper, but the ecclesiastics.
Two rows of native priests, kneeling in order before the altar,
clothed in coarse black garments, of sickly appearance, and
vacant countenance, perform here, from day to day, their
laborious masses, seemingly unconscious of any other duty or
obligation of life.
‘The day was now far spent, and my companions were
about to leave me. While I was considering whether I should
return with them, Major Pareira said he would first introduce
me to a priest, high in office, and one of the most learned men
in the place. We accordingly walked to the convent of the
Augustinians, where I was presented to Joseph a Doloribus, a
man well advanced in life, of pale visage and penetrating eye,
rather of a reverend appearance, and possessing great fluency
of speech and urbanity of manners. At first sight he
presented the aspect of one of those acute and prudent men
of the world, the learned and respectable Italian Jesuits,
some of whom are yet found, since the demolition of their
order, reposing, in tranquil obscurity, in different parts of
the East. After half an hour’s conversation in the Latin language,
during which he adverted rapidly to a variety of subjects,
and enquired concerning some learned men of his own
church, whom I had visited in my tour, he politely invited me
to take up my residence with him, during my stay at Old Goa.
I was highly gratified by this unexpected invitation; but Lieutenant
Kempthorne did not approve of leaving me in the hands
of the Inquisitor. For judge of our surprise, when we discovered
that my learned host was one of the inquisitors of the
holy office, the second member of that august tribunal in
rank, but the first and most active agent in the business of the
department. Apartments were assigned to me in the college
adjoining the convent, next to the rooms of the inquisitor
271himself; and here I have been now four days at the very
fountain head of information, in regard to those subjects which
I wished to investigate. I breakfast and dine with the inquisitor
almost every day, and he generally passes his evenings
in my apartment. As he considers my enquiries to be chiefly
of a literary nature, he is perfectly candid and communicative
on all subjects.
‘Next day after my arrival, I was introduced by my
learned conductor to the Archbishop of Goa. We found him
reading the Latin letters of St. Francis Xavier. On my adverting
to the long duration of the city of Goa, while other
cities of Europeans in India had suffered from war or revolution,
the archbishop observed, that the preservation of Goa,
was owing to the prayers of St. Francis Xavier. The inquisitor
looked at me to see what I thought of this sentiment. I
acknowledged that Xavier was considered by the learned
among the English to have been a great man: what he wrote
himself, bespeaks him a man of learning, of original genius,
and great fortitude of mind; but what others have written for
him, and of him, tarnished his fame, by making him the inventor
of fables. The archbishop signified his assent. He
afterwards conducted me into his private chapel, which is
decorated with images of silver, and then into the Archiepiscopal
library, which possesses a valuable collection of books.
As I passed through our convent, in returning from the archbishop’s,
I observed among the paintings in the cloisters a
portrait of the famous Alexis de Menezes, archbishop of Goa,
who held the synod of Diamper near Cochin, in 1599, and
burned the books of the Syrian Christians. From the inscription
underneath I learned that he was the founder of the magnificent
church and convent in which I am now residing.
‘On the same day I received an invitation to dine with the
chief inquisitor, at his house in the country. The second
inquisitor accompanied me, and we found a respectable company
of priests, and a sumptuous entertainment. In the
library of the chief inquisitor I saw a register, containing the
present establishment of the inquisition at Goa, and the names
272of all the officers. On my asking the chief inquisitor whether
the establishment was as extensive as formerly, he said it was
nearly the same. I had hitherto said little to any person concerning
the inquisition, but I had indirectly gleaned much
information concerning it, not only from the inquisitors themselves,
but from certain priests, whom I visited at their respective
convents; particularly from a father in the Franciscan
convent, who had himself repeatedly witnessed an Auto da
Fè.
‘Goa, Augustinian Convent, 26th Jan. 1808.
‘On Sunday, after divine service, which I attended, we
looked over together the prayers and portions of Scripture for
the day, which led to a discussion concerning some of the
doctrines of Christianity. We then read the third chapter of
St. John’s Gospel, in the Latin Vulgate. I asked the inquisitor
whether he believed in the influence of the Spirit there
spoken of. He distinctly admitted it; conjointly however he
thought, in some obscure sense, with water. I observed that
water was merely an emblem of the purifying effects of the
Spirit, and could be but an emblem. We next adverted to
the expression of St. John in his first Epistle; ‘This is he
that came by water and blood: even Jesus Christ; not by
water only, but by water and blood:—blood to atone for sin,
and water to purify the heart; justification and sanctification:
both of which were expressed at the same moment on the cross.
The inquisitor was pleased with the subject. By an easy
transition we passed to the importance of the Bible itself, to
illuminate the priests and people. I noticed to him that after
looking through the colleges and schools, there appeared to
me to be a total eclipse of Scriptural light. He acknowledged
that religion and learning were truly in a degraded state.—I
had visited the theological schools, and at every place I expressed
my surprise to the tutors, in presence of the pupils, at
273the absence of the Bible, and almost total want of reference to
it. They pleaded the custom of the place, and the scarcity
of copies of the book itself. Some of the younger priests
came to me afterwards, desiring to know by what means they
might procure copies. This inquiry for Bibles was like a ray
of hope beaming on the walls of the inquisition.
‘I pass an hour sometimes in the spacious library of the
Augustinian convent. There are many rare volumes, but
they are chiefly theological, and almost all of the sixteenth
century. There are few classics; and I have not yet seen
one copy of the original scriptures in Hebrew or Greek.’
‘Goa, Augustinian Convent, 27th Jan. 1808.
‘On the second morning after my arrival, I was surprised
by my host, the Inquisitor, coming into my apartment clothed
in black robes from head to foot: for the usual dress of his
order is white. He said he was going to sit on the tribunal of
the holy office. ‘I presume, father, your august office does
not occupy much of your time?’ ‘Yes’ answered he ‘much.
I sit on the tribunal three or four days every week.’
‘I had thought, for some days, of putting Dellon’s book into
the Inquisitor’s hands; for if I could get him to advert to the
facts stated in that book, I should be able to learn, by comparison,
the exact state of the inquisition at the present time.
In the evening he came in, as usual, to pass an hour in my
apartment. After some conversation I took the pen in my
hand to write a few notes in my journal; and, as if to amuse
him, while I was writing, I took up Dellon’s book, which was
lying with some others on the table, and handing it across to
him, asked him whether he had ever seen it. It was in the
French language, which he understood well. ‘Relation de
l’ Inquisition de Goa,’ pronounced he, with a slow, articulate
voice. He had never seen it before, and began to read with
eagerness. He had not proceeded far, before he betrayed
274evident symptoms of uneasiness. He turned hastily to the
middle of the book, and then to the end, and then ran
over the table of contents at the beginning, as if to ascertain
the full extent of the evil. He then composed himself
to read, while I continued to write. He turned over the
pages with rapidity, and when he came to a certain place,
he exclaimed in the broad Italian accent, ‘Mendacium,
Mendacium.’ I requested he would mark those passages
which were untrue, and we should discuss them afterwards,
for that I had other books on the subject. ‘Other books,’
said he, and he looked with an inquiring eye on those on the
table. He continued reading till it was time to retire to rest
and then begged to take the book with him.
‘It was on this night that a circumstance happened which
caused my first alarm at Goa. My servants slept every night
at my chamber door, in the long gallery which is common to
all the apartments, and not far distant from the servants of the
convent. About midnight I was waked by loud shrieks, and
expressions of terror, from some person in the gallery. In the
first moment of surprise I concluded it must be the Alguazils
of the holy office, seizing my servants to carry them to the
inquisition. But, on going out, I saw my own servants standing
at the door, and the person who had caused the alarm
(a boy of about fourteen) at a little distance, surrounded by
some of the priests, who had come out of their cells on hearing
the noise. The boy said he had seen a spectre, and it was a
considerable time before the agitations of his body and voice
subsided.—Next morning at breakfast the Inquisitor apologised
for the disturbance, and said the boy’s alarm proceeded
from a ‘phantasma animi,’ a phantasm of the imagination.’
‘After breakfast we resumed the subject of the inquisition.
The inquisitor admitted that Dellon’s descriptions of the dungeons,
of the torture, of the mode of trial, and of the Auto da
Fè, were in general just; but he said the writer judged untruly
of the motives of the inquisitors, and very uncharitably
of the character of the Holy Church; and I admitted that,
under the pressure of his peculiar suffering, this might possibly
275be the case. The inquisitor was now anxious to know to
what extent Dellon’s book had been circulated in Europe. I
told him that Picart had published to the world extracts from
it, in his celebrated work called ‘Religious Ceremonies,’
together with plates of the system of torture and burnings at
the Auto da Fè. I added that it was now generally believed
in Europe that these enormities no longer existed, and that the
inquisition itself had been totally suppressed; but that I was
concerned to find that this was not the case. He now began
a grave narration to shew that the inquisition had undergone a
change in some respects, and that its terrors were mitigated.[288]
276‘I had‘I had already discovered, from written or printed documents,
that the Inquisition of Goa was suppressed by royal
277edict in the year 1775, and established again in 1779. The
Franciscan father before mentioned witnessed the annual Auto
da Fè, from 1770, to 1775. “It was the humanity, and tender
mercy of a good king,” said the old father, “which
abolished the inquisition.” But immediately on his death, the
power of the priests acquired the ascendant, under the Queen
Dowager, and the tribunal was re-established, after a bloodless
278interval of five years. It has continued in operation ever since.
It was restored in 1779, subject to certain restrictions, the
chief of which are the two following, ‘That‘That a greater number
of witnesses should be required to convict a criminal than
were before necessary;”necessary;” and, ‘That the Auto da Fè should
not be held publicly as before; but that the sentences of the
tribunal should be executed privately, within the walls of the
inquisition.inquisition.
‘In this particular, the constitution of the new inquisition
is more reprehensible than that of the old one; for, as the old
father expressed it, ‘Nunc sigillum non revelat Inquisitio.’—Formerly
the friends of those unfortunate persons who were
thrown into its prison, had the melancholy satisfaction of seeing
them once a year walking in the procession of the Auto da
Fè; or if they were condemned to die, they witnessed their
death, and mourned for the dead. But now they have no
means of learning for years whether they be dead or alive.
The policy of this new mode of concealment appears to be
this, to preserve the power of the inquisition, and at the same
time to lessen the public odium of its proceedings, in the presence
of British dominion and civilization. I asked the father
his opinion concerning the nature and frequency of the punishments
within the walls. He said he possessed no certain means
of giving a satisfactory answer: that every thing transacted
there was declared to be ‘sacrum et secretum.’ But this he
knew to be true, that there were constantly captives in the
dungeons; that some of them are liberated after long confinement,
but that they never speak afterwards of what passed
within the place. He added that, of all the persons he had
known, who had been liberated, he never knew one who did
not carry about with him what might be called, ‘the mark of
the inquisition;’ that is to say, who did not shew in the
solemnity of his countenance, or in his peculiar demeanor, or
his terror of the priests, that he had been in that dreadful place.
‘The chief argument of the Inquisitor to prove the melioration
of the Inquisition was the superior humanity of the
inquisitors. I remarked that I did not doubt the humanity of
279the existing officers; but what availed humanity in an inquisitor?
he must pronounce sentence according to the laws of
the tribunal, which are notorious enough; and a relapsed
heretic must be burned in the flames, or confined for life in a
dungeon, whether the inquisitor be humane or not. ‘But, if,’
said I, ‘you would satisfy my mind completely on this subject,
shew me the inquisition.’ He said it was not permitted
to any personperson to see the inquisition. I observed that mine might
be considered as a peculiar case; that the character of the
inquisition, and the expediency of its longer continuance had
been called in question; that I had myself written on the
civilization of India, and might possibly publish something
more upon that subject, and that it could not be expected that
I should pass over the inquisition without notice, knowing
what I did of its proceedings; at the same time I should not
wish to state a single fact without his authority, or at least his
admission of its truth. I added that he himself had been
pleased to communicate with me very fully on the subject,
and that in all our discussions we had both been actuated, I
hoped, by a good purpose. The countenance of the inquisitor
evidently altered on receiving this intimation, nor did it ever
after wholly regain its wonted frankness and placidity. After
some hesitation, however, he said he would take me with him
to the inquisition the next day.—I was a good deal surprised
at this acquiescence of the inquisitor, but I did not know what
was in his mind.
‘Next morning after breakfast my host went to dress for
the holy office, and soon returned in his inquisitorial robes.
He said he would go half an hour before the usual time for the
purpose of shewing me the inquisition. The buildings are
about a quarter of a mile distant from the convent, and we
proceeded thither in our manjeels.[289] On our arrival at the
280place, the inquisitor said to me, as we were ascending the
steps of the outer stair, that he hoped I should be satisfied
with a transient view of the inquisition, and that I would retire
whenever he should desire it. I took this as a good omen, and
followed my conductor with tolerable confidence.
‘He led me first to the great hall of the inquisition. We
were met at the door by a number of well-dressed persons, who,
I afterwards understood, were the familiars, and attendants of
the holy office. They bowed very low to the inquisitor, and
looked with surprise at me. The great hall is the place in
which the prisoners are marshalled for the procession of the
Auto da Fè. At the procession described by Dellon, in which
he himself walked barefoot, clothed with the painted garment,
there were upwards of one hundred and fifty prisoners. I
traversed this hall for some time, with a slow step, reflecting
on its former scenes, the inquisitor walking by my side, in
silence. I thought of the fate of the multitude of my fellow-creatures
who had passed through this place, condemned by
a tribunal of their fellow-sinners, their bodies devoted to the
flames, and their souls to perdition. And I could not help
saying to him, ‘Would not the holy church wish, in her
mercy, to have those souls back again, that she might allow
them a little further probation?’ The inquisitor answered
nothing, but beckoned me to go with him to a door at one
end of the hall. By this door he conducted me to some small
rooms, and thence to the spacious apartments of the chief
inquisitor. Having surveyed these he brought me back again
to the great hall; and I thought he seemed now desirous that
I should depart. ‘Now, father,’ said I, ‘lead me to the
dungeons below; I want to see the captives.’—‘No,’ said he,
‘that cannot be.’—I now began to suspect that it had been in
the mind of the inquisitor, from the beginning, to shew me
only a certain part of the inquisition, in the hope of satisfying
my enquiries in a general way. I urged him with earnestness,
but he steadily resisted, and seemed to be offended, or rather
agitated by my importunity. I intimated to him plainly, that
the only way to do justice to his own assertions and arguments,
281regarding the present state of the inquisition, was to shew me
the prisons and the captives. I should then describe only
what I saw; but now the subject was left in awful obscurity.—‘Lead
me down,’ said I, ‘to the inner building and let me
pass through the two hundred dungeons, ten feet square, described
by your former captives. Let me count the number
of your present captives, and converse with them. I want to
see if there be any subjects of the British government, to whom
we owe protection. I want to ask how long they have been
here, how long it is since they beheld the light of the sun, and
whether they ever expect to see it again. Shew me the chamber
of torture; and declare what modes of execution, or of
punishment, are now practised within the walls of the inquisition,
in lieu of the public Auto da Fè. If, after all that has
passed, father, you resist this reasonable request, I shall be
justified in believing, that you are afraid of exposing the real
state of the inquisition in India.’ To these observations the
inquisitor made no reply; but seemed impatient that I should
withdraw. ‘My good father,’ said I, ‘I am about to take
my leave of you, and to thank you for your hospitable attentions,
(it had been before understood that I should take my
final leave at the door of the inquisition, after having seen the
interior,) and I wish always to preserve on my mind a favourable
sentiment of your kindness and candour. You cannot,
you say, shew me the captives and the dungeons; be pleased
then merely to answer this question; for I shall believe your
word:—How many prisoners are there now below, in the cells
of the inquisition?’inquisition?’ The inquisitor replied, ‘That is a question
which I cannot answer.’ On his pronouncing these words,
I retired hastily towards the door, and wished him farewell.
We shook hands with as much cordiality as we could at the
moment assume; and both of us, I believe, were sorry that
our parting took place with a clouded countenance.
‘From the inquisition I went to the place of burning in the
Camp Santo Lazaro, on the river side, where the victims were
brought to the stake at the Auto da Fè. It is close to the
palace, that the vice-roy and his court may witness the execution;
282for it has ever been the policy of the inquisition to
make these spiritual executions appear to be the executions of
the state. An old priest accompanied me, who pointed out
the place and described the scene. As I passed over this melancholy
plain, I thought on the difference between the pure
and benign doctrine, which was first preached to India in the
apostolic age, and that bloody code, which, after a long night
of darkness, was announced to it under the same name! And I
pondered on the mysterious dispensation, which permitted the
ministers of the inquisition, with their racks and flames, to
visit these lands, before the heralds of the Gospel of Peace.
But the most painful reflection was, that this tribunal should
yet exist, unawed by the vicinity of British humanity and
dominion. I was not satisfied with what I had seen or said at
the inquisition, and I determined to go back again. The inquisitors
were now sitting on the tribunal, and I had some
excuse for returning; for I was to receive from the chief inquisitor
a letter which he said he would give me, before I left
the place, for the British resident in Travancore, being an
answer to a letter from that officer.
‘When I arrived at the inquisition, and had ascended the
outer stairs, the door-keepers surveyed me doubtingly, but
suffered me to pass, supposing that I had returned by permission
and appointment of the inquisitor. I entered the great
hall, and went up directly towards the tribunal of the inquisition,
described by Dellon, in which is the lofty crucifix. I
sat down on a form, and wrote some notes; and then desired
one of the attendants to carry in my name to the inquisitor.
As I walked up the hall, I saw a poor woman sitting by herself,
on a bench by the wall, apparently in a disconsolate state
of mind. She clasped her hands as I passed, and gave me a
look expressive of her distress. This sight chilled my spirits.
The familiars told me she was waiting there to be called up
before the tribunal of the inquisition. While I was asking
questions concerning her crime, the second inquisitor came
out in evident trepidation, and was about to complain of the
intrusion; when I informed him I had come back for the letter
283from the chief inquisitor. He said it should be sent after me
to Goa; and he conducted me with a quick step towards the
door. As we passed the poor woman I pointed to her, and
said to him with some emphasis, ‘Behold, father, another
victim of the holy inquisition!’ He answered nothing. When
we arrived at the head of the great stair, he bowed, and I
took my last leave of Josephus a Doloribus, without uttering
a word.’
The foregoing particulars concerning the inquisition at
Goa are detailed chiefly with this view; that the English nation
may consider, whether there be sufficient ground for presenting
a remonstrance to the Portuguese government, on the
longer continuance of that tribunal in India; it being notorious,
that a great part of the the Romish Christians are now
under British protection. “The Romans,” says Montesquieu,
“deserved well of human nature, for making it an article in
their treaty with the Carthaginians, that they should abstain
from SACRIFICING their CHILDREN to their gods.” It has
been lately observed by respectable writers, that the English
nation ought to imitate this example, and endeavour to induce
her allies “to abolish the human sacrifices of the inquisition;”
and a censure is passed on our government for their indifference
to this subject.[290] The indifference to the inquisition is
attributable, we believe, to the same cause which has produced
an indifference to the religious principles which first organized
the inquisition. The mighty despot, who suppressed the inquisition
in Spain, was not swayed probably by very powerful
motives of humanity; but viewed with jealousy a tribunal,
which usurped an independent dominion; and he put it down,
on the same principle that he put down the popedom, that he
might remain pontiff and grand inquisitor himself. And so
he will remain for a time, till the purposes of Providence shall
have been accomplished by him. But are we to look on in
silence, and to expect that further meliorations in human society
284are to be effected by despotism, or by great revolutions?
“If,” say the same authors, “while the inquisition is destroyed
in Europe by the power of despotism, we could entertain the
hope, and it is not too much to entertain such a hope, that
the power of liberty is about to destroy it in America; we
might even, amid the gloom that surrounds us, congratulate
our fellow-creatures on one of the most remarkable periods in
the history of the progress of human society, the FINAL ERASURE
of the inquisition from the face of the earth.”[291] It
will indeed be an important and happy day to the earth, when
this final erasure shall take place; but the period of such an
event is nearer, I apprehend, in Europe and America, than it
is in Asia; and its termination in Asia depends as much on
Great Britain as on Portugal. And shall not Great Britain do
her part to hasten this desirable time? Do we wait, as if to
see whether the power of infidelity will abolish the other inquisitions
of the earth? Shall not we, in the mean while,
attempt to do something, on Christian principles, for the
honour of God and of humanity? Do we dread even to express
a sentiment on the subject in our legislative assemblies,
or to notice it in our treaties? It is surely our duty to declare
our wishes, at least, for the abolition of these inhuman tribunals,
(since we take an active part in promoting the welfare of
other nations,) and to deliver our testimony against them
in the presence of Europe.
This case is not unlike that of the immolation of females in
Bengal, with this aggravation in regard to the latter, that the
rite is perpetrated in our own territories. Our humanity revolts
at the occasional description of the enormity; but the matter
comes not to our own business and bosoms, and we fail even
to insinuate our disapprobation of the deed. It may be concluded
then, that while we remain silent and unmoved spectators
of the flames of the widow’s pile, there is no hope that
we shall be justly affected by the reported horrors of the inquisition.—(Thus
far Dr. Buchannan.)
BOOK IV. OF PERSECUTIONS AMONGST PROTESTANTS. — SECT. I. Luther’s opinion concerning Persecution. — SECT. II. Calvin’s Doctrine and Practice concerning Persecution. — SECT. III. Persecutions at Bern, Basil, and Zurich. — SECT. IV. Persecutions in Holland, and by the Synod of Dort. — SECT. V. Persecutions in Great-Britain. — SECT. VI. Of Persecutions in New England.
285
After the world had groaned for many ages under the
insupportable bondage of Popish superstition and cruelty, it
pleased God, in his own good Providence, to take the remedy
of these evils into his own hands; and after several ineffectual
attempts by men, at last to bring about a reformation of religion
by his own wisdom and power. The history of this great
event hath been very particularly and faithfully given by
many excellent writers, to which I must here refer my readers;
and it must be owned, that the persons employed by Almighty
God, to accomplish this great work, were, many of them, remarkable
for their great learning and exemplary piety. I am
sure I have no inclination to detract from their worth and
merit. One would indeed have imagined, that the cruelties
exercised by the papists upon all who opposed their superstitions
in worship, and their corruptions in doctrine, should have
given the first reformers an utter abhorrence of all methods of
persecution for conscience-sake, and have kept them from ever
entering into any such measures themselves. But it must be
confessed, that however they differed from the church of
Rome, as to doctrines and discipline, yet, that they too generally
agreed with her, in the methods to support what they
themselves apprehended to be truth and orthodoxy; and were
angry with the papists, not for persecuting, but for persecuting
themselves and their followers; being really of opinion
that heretics might be persecuted, and, in some cases, persecuted
to death. And that this was their avowed principle,
they gave abundant demonstration by their practice.
286
Luther, that great instrument, under God, of the reformation
in Germany, was, as his followers allow, naturally
of a warm and violent temper, but was however in his judgment
against punishing heretics with death. Thus, in his
account of the state of the Popish church, as related by Seckendorf,
he says:[292] “the true church teaches the word of God,
but forces no one to it. If any one will not believe it, she
dismisses him, and separates herself from him, according to
the command of Christ, and the example of Paul in the Acts,
and leaves him to the judgment of God: whereas our executioners
and most cruel tyrants teach not the word of God, but
their own articles, acting as they please, and then adjudge
those who refuse to believe their articles, and obey their decrees,
to the fires.” The same author gives us many other
strong passages to the same purpose. Particularly, in one of
his letters to Lineus, who asked his opinion about the punishment
of false teachers, Luther says:[293] “I am very averse to the
shedding of blood, even in the case of such as deserve it: and
I the more especially dread it in this case, because, as the
Papists and Jews, under this pretence, have destroyed holy
prophets and innocent men; so I am afraid the same would
happen amongst ourselves, if in one single instance it should
be allowed lawful for seducers to be put to death. I can
therefore, by no means, allow that false teachers should be
destroyed.” But as to all other punishments, Luther seems to
have been of Austin’s mind, and thought that they might be lawfully
used. For, after the before-mentioned passage, he adds,
287“it is sufficient that they should be banished.” And in another
place[294] he allows, that “heretics may be corrected, and forced
at least to silence, if they publicly deny any one of the articles
received by all Christians, and particularly that Christ is God;
affirming him to be a mere man or prophet.” “This,” says
he, “is not to force men to the faith, but to restrain from
public blasphemy.” In another place he goes farther and
says,[295] that “heretics are not indeed to be put to death, but
may however be confined, and shut up in some certain place,
and put under restraint as madmen.” As to the Jews, he was
for treating them more severely;[296] and was of opinion, that
“their synagogues should be levelled with the ground, their
houses destroyed, their books of prayer, and of the talmud,
and even those of the old testament, be taken from them;
their rabbies be forbid to teach, and forced, by hard labour,
to get their bread; and if they would not submit to this, that
they should be banished, as was formerly practised in France
and Spain.”
[297]This was the moderation of this otherwise great and good
man, who was indeed against putting heretics to death, but for
almost all other punishments that the civil magistrates could
inflict: and agreeably to this opinion, he persuaded the Electors
of Saxony not to tolerate in their dominions, the followers
of Zuinglius, in the opinion of the sacrament, because he
esteemed the real presence an essential or fundamental article of
faith; nor to enter into any terms of union with them, for their
common safety and defence, against the endeavours of the
papists to destroy them. And accordingly, notwithstanding
all the endeavours of the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, to get
them included in the common league against the papists, the
Elector would never allow it, being vehemently dissuaded
from it by Luther, Melancton, and others of their party, who
alledged, “That they taught articles contrary to those received
288in Saxony; and that therefore there could be no agreement
of heart with them.”
In one of his conferences with Bucer, he declared, that
there could be no union, unless Zuinglius and his party should
think and teach otherwise; cursing all phrases and interpretations
that tended to assert the figurative presence only;
affirming, that [298]“either those of his own opinion, or those of
Zuinglius, must be the ministers of the devil.” On this
account, though Luther was for treating Zuinglius and his
followers with as much christian friendship as he could afford
them, yet he would never own them for brethren, but looked
on them as heretics, and pressed the Electors of Saxony not
to allow them in their dominions. [299]He also wrote to Albert
Duke of Prussia, to persuade him to banish them his territories.
Seckendorf also tells us, that the Lutheran lawyers of
Wirtemburg condemned to death one Peter Pestelius, for
being a Zuinglian; though this was disapproved by the
Elector of Saxony. Several also of the anabaptists were put
to death by the Lutherans, for their obstinacy in propagating
their errors, contrary to the judgment of the Landgrave of
Hesse Cassel, who declared himself for more moderate measures,
and for uniting all sorts of protestants amongst themselves.[300]
John Calvin, another of the reformers, and to whom
the christian world is, on many accounts, under very great
obligations, was however well known to be in principle and
practice a persecutor. So entirely was he in the persecuting
289measures, that he wrote a treatise in defence of them, maintaining
the lawfulness of putting heretics to death. And that by
heretics he meant such who differed from himself, is evident
from his treatment of Castellio and Servetus.
The former, not inferior to Calvin himself in learning and
piety, had the misfortune to differ from him in judgment, in
the points of predestination, election, free-will and faith.
This Calvin could not bear, and therefore treated Castellio in
so rude and cruel a manner, as I believe his warmest friends
will be ashamed to justify. In some of his writings he calls
him “Blasphemer, reviler, malicious barking dog, full of
ignorance, bestiality and impudence; impostor, a base corrupter
of the sacred writings, a mocker of God, a contemner
of all religion, an impudent fellow, a filthy dog, a knave, an
impious, lewd, crooked-minded vagabond, beggarly rogue.”
At other times he calls him “a disciple and brother of Servetus,
and an heretic.” Castellio’s reply to all these flowers, is
worthy the patience and moderation of a Christian, and from
his slanderer he appeals to the righteous judgment of God.
But not content with these invectives, Calvin farther accused
him of three crimes; which Castellio particularly answers.
The first was of theft, in taking away some wood,
that belonged to another person, to make a fire to warm himself
withal: this Calvin calls “Cursed gain, at another’s expence
and damage;” whereas, in truth, the fact was this.
Castellio was thrown into such circumstances of poverty by
the persecutions of Calvin and his friends, that he was scarce
able to maintain himself. And as he dwelt near the banks of
the Rhine, he used at leisure hours to draw out of the river
with an hook, the wood that was brought down by the waters
of it. This wood was no private property, but every man’s
that could catch it. Castellio took it in the middle of the day,
and amongst a great number of fishermen, and several of his
own acquaintance; and was sometimes paid money for it by
the decree of the senate. This the charitable Calvin magnifies
into a theft, and publishes to the world to paint out the character
of his Christian brother.
290But his accusations ran farther yet; and he calls God to witnesswitness,
that whilst he maintained Castellio in his house, “He never
saw any one more proud or perfidious, or void of humanity; and
it was well known he was an impostor, of a peculiar impudence,
and one that took pleasure in scoffing at piety, and that he
delighted himself in laughing at the principles of religion.”
These charges Castellio answers in such a manner, as was
enough to put even malice itself to silence. For, notwithstanding
Calvin’s appeal to God for the truth of these things,
yet he himself and two of his principal friends, who were
eminent preachers in Savoy, pressed Castellio, even contrary
to his inclination, to take the charge of a school at Stratsburg;
and therefore, as he says to Calvin, “With what conscience
could you make me master, if you knew me to be
such a person when I dwelt in your house? What sort of
men must they be, who would commit the education of children
to such a wicked wretch, as you appeal to God you knew
me to be.”
But what is yet more to the purpose, is, that after he had
been master of that school three years, Calvin gave him a
testimonial, written and signed with his own hand, as to the
integrity of his past behaviour; affirming, amongst other
things, “That he had behaved himself in such a manner,
that he was, by the consent of all of them, appointed to the
pastoral office.” And in the conclusion he adds, “Lest any
one should suspect any other reason why Sebastian went from
us, we testify to all wheresoever he may come, that he himself
voluntarily left the school, and so behaved himself in it,
as that we adjudged him worthy this sacred ministry.” And
that he was not actually received into it, was “non aliqua
vitæ macula,” not owing to any blemish of his life, nor to
any impious tenets that he held in matters of faith, but to this
only cause, the difference of our opinions about Solomon’s
Songs, and the article of Christ’s descent into hell. But how
is this testimonial, that Castellio had no “macula vitæ,” was
unblameable as to his life, reconcileable with the appeal to
God, that he was proud and perfidious, and void of humanity,
291and a professed scoffer at religion, whilst he dwelt at Calvin’s
house? If this charge was true, how came Calvin and his
friends to appoint him master of a school, and judge him
worthy the sacred ministry? Or if he was of so bad a character
once, and afterwards gave the evidence of a sincere repentance
by an irreproachable behaviour, what equity or justice,
what humanity or honour was there in publishing to the
world faults that had been repented of and forsaken? Castellio
solemnly protests that he had never injured Calvin, and that the
sole reason of his displeasure against him was because he differed
from him in opinion. On this account he endeavoured
to render him every where impious, prohibited the reading of
his books; and, what is the last effort of enmity, endeavoured
to excite the civil magistrate against him to put him to
death. But God was pleased to protect this good man from
the rage of his enemies. He died at Basil, in peace; and received
an honourable burial, the just reward of his piety,
learning, and merit.
I may add to this account, Calvin’s treatment of one Jerom
Bolsec,[301] who from a Carmelite monk had embraced the reformed
religion, but held the doctrine of free-will and predestination
upon the foresight of good works. Calvin was present
at a sermon preached by him at Geneva, upon these articles;
and the sermon being ended, publicly opposed him in the congregation.
When the assembly was dismissed, poor Bolsec
was immediately apprehended, and sent to prison; and soon
after, by Calvin’s counsel, banished for sedition and Pelagianism
from the city, and forbid ever to come into it, or the
territories of it, under pain of being whipped, A. C. 1551.
But Calvin’s treatment of the unfortunate Servetus was yet
more severe. His book, entitled, “Restitutio Christianismi,”
which he sent in MS. to Calvin, enraged him to that degree,
that he afterwards kept no temper or measures with him; so
that as Bolsec and Uytenbogaert relate, in a letter written by
292him to his friends Viret and Farrel, he tells them,[302] that “If
this heretic (Servetus) should ever fall into his hands, he would
take care that he should lose his life.” Servetus’s imprisonment
at Vienne, soon gave him an opportunity to shew his
zeal against him: for, in order to strengthen the evidence
against him, Calvin sent to the magistrates of that city the letters
and writings which Servetus had sent to him at Geneva.
This is evident from the sentence itself against him; in which
those writings, as well as his printed book, are expressly mentioned,
as containing the proofs of his heresy. Whether Calvin
sent them of his own accord, or at the desire of the magistrates
of Vienne, I shall not presume to determine. If of
his own accord, it was a base officiousness; and if at the request
of those magistrates, it was a most unaccountable conduct
in a Protestant to send evidence to a Popish court to put
a Protestant to death; especially considering that Servetus
could not differ more from Calvin than Calvin did from the
Papists, their common adversaries, and who certainly deserved
as much to be burnt, in their judgment, as Servetus did in
Calvin’s.
Besides this, Servetus farther charges him with writing to
one William Trie, at Lyons, to furnish the magistrates of that
city with matter of accusation against him. The author of
the Bibliotheque before-mentioned, says this is a mere romance,
dressed up by Servetus. I confess it doth not appear to me in
so very romantic a light; at least Calvin’s vindication of himself,
from this charge, doth not seem to be altogether sufficient.
He says, “It is commonly reported that I occasioned Servetus
to be apprehended at Vienne; on which account it is said, by
many, that I have acted dishonourably, in thus exposing him
to the mortal enemies of the faith, as though I had thrown
him into the mouth of the wolves. But, I beseech you, how
came I so suddenly into such an intimacy with the pope’s officers?
It is very likely, truly, that we should correspond
293together by letters; and that those who agree with me, just as
Belial doth with Jesus Christ, should enter into a plot with
their mortal enemy, as with their companion: This silly calumny
will fall to the ground, when I shall say, in one word,
that there is nothing in it.” But how doth all this confute
Servetus’s charge? For whatever differences soever there
might be between Calvin and the Papists in some things, yet,
why might he not write to the Papists at Vienne to put Servetus
to death for what was equally counted heresy by them
both, and when they agreed as the most intimate friends and
companions in the lawfulness of putting heretics to death?
What Calvin says of the absurdity of their intimacy and conspiracy
with him their mortal enemy, is no absurdity at all.
Herod and Pontius Pilate, though enemies, agreed in the condemnation
of the Son of God.
Besides, it is certain, that the magistrates at Vienne had
Servetus’s Manuscripts sent to them from Geneva, either by
Calvin, or the magistrates of that city; and when Servetus
was afterwards apprehended at Geneva, the magistrates there
sent a messenger to Vienne, for a copy of the process that had
been there carried on against him; which that messenger received,
and actually brought back to Geneva. So that
nothing is more evident, than that there was an intimacy and
conspiracy between the Protestants of Geneva and the Papists
at Vienne, to take away the life of poor Servetus; and that,
though they were mortal enemies in other things, and as far
different from one another as Christ and Belial, yet that they
agreed harmoniously in the doctrine and practice of persecution,
and were one in the design and endeavour of murdering
this unhappy physician. And though Calvin is pleased magisterially
to deny his having any communication by letters
with the Papists at Vienne, yet I think his denial far from sufficient
to remove the suspicion. He himself expressly says
that many persons blamed him for not acting honourably in
that affair; and the accusation was supportedsupported by Servetus’s
complaint, and by what is a much stronger evidence, the
original papers and letters which Servetus had sent to Calvin,
294which were actually produced by the judges at Vienne, and
recited in the sentence as part of the foundation of his condemnation.
And as Calvin himself never, as I can find, hath
attempted to clear up these strong circumstances, though he
owed it to himself and his friends, I think he cannot well be
excused from practising the death of Servetus at Vienne, and
lending his assistance to the bloody Papists of that place, the
more effectually to procure his condemnation.
But he had the good fortune to make his escape from imprisonment,
and was, June 17, 1553, condemned for contumacy,
and burnt in effigy by the order of his judges; having
himself got safe to Geneva, where he was re-condemned, and
actually burnt in person, October 27, of the same year 1553.
He had not been long in this city before Calvin spirited up
one Nicholas de la Fountain, probably one of his pupils, to
make information against him; wisely avoiding it himself,
because, according to the laws of Geneva, the accuser must
submit to imprisonment with the party he accuses, till the
crime appears to have a solid foundation and proof. Upon
this information Servetus was apprehended and imprisoned.
Calvin ingenuously owns, that this whole affair was carried on
at his instance and advice; and that, in order to bring Servetus
to reason, he himself found out the party to accuse him,
and begin the process against him. And therefore, though,
as the fore-mentioned author of the Bibliotheque, for January,
&c. 1729, observes, the action, after its commencement, was
carried on according to the course of law; yet, as Calvin
accused him for heresy, got him imprisoned, and began the
criminal process against him, he is answerable for all the consequences
of his trial, and was in reality the first and principal
author of his death; especially as the penal laws against heretics
seem at that time to have been in force at Geneva, so that
Servetus could not escape the fire upon his conviction of heresy.
When he was in jail, he was treated with the same rigour
as if he had been detained in one of the prisons of the inquisition.
He was stripped of all means of procuring himself the
conveniences and supplies he needed in his confinement.
295They took from him ninety-seven pieces of gold, a gold chain
worth twenty crowns, six gold rings, and at last put him into
a deep dungeon, where he was almost eaten up with vermin.
All this cruelty was practised upon a protestant in the protestant
city of Geneva. Besides this, he could never get a
proctor or advocate to assist him, or help him in pleading his
cause, though he requested it, as being a stranger, and ignorant
of the laws and customs of the country. Calvin, at the
request of the judges, drew up certain propositions out of
Servetus’s books, representing them as blasphemous, full of
errors and profane reveries, all repugnant to the word of God,
and to the common consent of the whole church; and, indeed,
appears to have been acquainted with, and consulted in the
whole process, and to have used all his arts and endeavours to
prevent his coming off with impunity.
It is but a poor and mean excuse that Calvin makes for
himself in this respect, when he says; [303]“As to the fact, I
will not deny, but that it was at my prosecution he was imprisoned:—But
that after he was convicted of his heresies, I
made no instances for his being put to death.” But what need
of instances? He had already accused him, got him imprisoned,
prosecuted in a criminal court for the capital
crime of heresy, and actually drew up forty articles against
him for heresy, blasphemy, and false doctrine. When he
was convicted of these crimes, the law could not but take its
course; and his being burnt to death was the necessary consequence
of his conviction. What occasion was there then
for Calvin to press his execution, when the laws themselves
had adjudged him to the flames? But even this excuse, poor
as it is, is not sincerely and honestly made: for Calvin was
resolved to use all his interest to destroy him. In his letter to
Farrel, he expressly says, “I hope, at least, they will condemn
him to death, but not to the terrible one of being burnt.” And
in another to Sultzer, “Since the papists, in order to vindicate
296their own superstitions, cruelly shed innocent blood, it is
a shame that Christian magistrates should have no courage at
all in the defence of certain truth.—However, I will certify
you of one thing, that the city treasurer is rightly determined,
that he shall not escape that end which we wish him.” And
in another to the church at Franckfort,[304] “The author (Servetus)
is put in jail by our magistrates, and I hope he will shortly
suffer the punishment he deserves.”deserves.” There was but one way
possible for him to escape; and that was by bringing his cause
from the criminal court, where he was prosecuted, before the
council of the two hundred. And this Calvin vigorously opposed
and reflected on the syndic himself for endeavouring it. He
says, “that he pretended illness for three days, and then came
into court to save that wretch (Servetus) from punishment; and
was not ashamed to demand, that the cognizance of the affair
should be referred to the two hundred. However he was
unanimously condemned.” Now, what great difference is
there between a prosecutor’s endeavouring to prevent the only
method by which a criminal can be saved, and his actually
pressing for his being put to death? Calvin actually did the
former, and yet would fain persuade us he had no hand in the
latter.
It is much of a piece with this, his desiring that the rigour
of Servetus’s death might be mitigated; for as the laws against
heretics were in force at Geneva, the tribunal that judged
Servetus could not, after his conviction of heresy, absolve him
from death, nor change the manner of it, as Calvin says he
would have had it; and therefore his desiring that the rigour
of it might be abated, looks too much like the practice of the
inquisitors, who when they deliver over an heretic to the secular
arm, beseech it so to moderate the rigour of the sentence,
as not to endanger life or limb.
This was the part that Calvin acted in the affair of Servetus,
which I have represented in the most impartial manner, as it
297appears to me; and am sorry I am not able to wipe off so foul
a stain from the memory of this otherwise excellent and learned
reformer. But when his enemies charge him with acting
merely from principles of malice and revenge in this matter,
I think it an evident abuse and calumny. He was, in his own
judgment, for persecuting and destroying heretics, as appears
from the treatise he published in vindication of this practice,
entitled, “A declaration for maintaining the true faith, held
by all Christians concerning the Trinity of persons in one only
God, by John Calvin, against the detestable errors of Michael
Servetus, a Spaniard. In which it is also proved, that it is lawful
to punish heretics; and that this wretch was justly executed in
the city of Geneva.” Geneva, 1554.
This principle was maintained by almost all the fathers and
bishops of the church since the three first centuries, who
esteemed heresy as one of the worst of impieties, and thought
it the duty of the civil magistrates to employ their power for
the suppression of it, and for the support and establishment
of the orthodox faith. And though the first reformers abhorred
the cruelty of the papists towards the protestants, they
had nevertheless the same abhorrence of what they counted
heresy that the papists had, and agreed with them in the lawfulness
of suppressing it by the civil power. So that Calvin
acted in this affair from a principle, though a mistaken principle
of conscience, and had the encouragement and approbation
of the most learned and pious reformers of the times he
lived in.
Melancton, in a letter to Bullinger, says[305] “I have read
also what you have written concerning the blasphemies of Servetus,
and I approve your piety and judgment. I think also,
that the senate of Geneva have done right, that they have put
to death that obstinate person, who would not cease to blaspheme;
and I wonder that there are any who disapprove that
severity.” He affirms the same also in another letter to Calvin
himself. Bucer also said publicly in his sermon, that
298“He ought to have his bowels pulled out, and be torn in
pieces,” as Calvin relates in his letter to Sultzer. Farrel in a
letter to Calvin, says, that “He deserved to die ten thousand
deaths; that it would be a piece of cruelty, and an injustice
to Christ, and the doctrine of piety, for magistrates not to
take notice of the horrible blasphemies of that wicked heretic.
And he hoped God would so order it that as the magistrates of
Geneva were very praise-worthy for punishing thieves and
sacrilegious persons, so they would behave themselves well in
the affair of Servetus, by putting him to death, who had so
long obstinately persisted in his heresies, and destroyed so
many persons by them.”
[306]The pastors of the church at Basil, in their letter to the
syndics and senate of Geneva, express their joy for the apprehension
of Servetus, and advise them first to “Use all endeavours
to recover him; but that if he persisted in his perverseness,
they should punish him according to their office, and the
power they had received from God, to prevent his giving any
disturbance to the church, and lest the latter end should be
worse than the first.” [307]The ministers of the church of Bern
were of the same opinion; and in their letter to the magistrates
of Geneva say, “We pray the Lord that he would give you
the spirit of prudence, counsel and strength, to remove this
plague from the churches, both your own and others,” and
advise them “to neglect nothing that may be judged unworthy
a Christian magistrate to omit.” [308]The ministers of Zurich
give much the same advice, and thought that there was
need of a great deal of diligence in the affair; “especially
as the reformed churches were evil thought of, amongst other
reasons for this, as being themselves heretical, and favourers
of heretics. But that, as the Providence of God had given
them an opportunity of wiping off so evil a suspicion, and
preventing the farther spreading of so contagious a poison,
they did not doubt but their excellencies would be careful to
improve it.” [309]Those of Scaffhusen subscribed to the judgment
299of those of Zurich, and declare, that they did not
doubt, but that their prudence would put a stop to the attempts
of Servetus, lest his blasphemies, as a canker, should eat up
the members of Christ; adding these remarkable words,
“That to endeavour to oppose his dreams by a train of reasoning,
what would it be, but to grow mad with a madman?”
These extracts, which are taken out of the letters printed
at the end of Calvin’s Institutions, clearly demonstrate that
he acted seriously and deliberately in the affair of Servetus;
and that he consulted the neighbouring churches, and had
their opinion of the lawfulness and expediency of putting
him to death for his heresies. And though it doth not wholly
excuse his fault, yet it ought in justice to be allowed as an
abatement and extenuation of it; and, I think, evidently
proves, what his enemies are very unwilling to allow, that he
was not transported by rage and fury, and did not act merely
from the dictates of envy and malice, but from a mistaken
zeal against what he accounted blasphemy and heresy, and
with the concurrent advice of his brethren in the ministry,
and fellow-labourers in the great work of the reformation.
And I think his eminent services to the church of God, both
by his preaching and writings, ought, notwithstanding all his
failings, to secure to his memory the honour and respect that
is due to it: for he deserved well of all the reformed churches,
and was an eminent instrument in the hand of Providence, in
promoting the great and glorious work of saving men from
the gross errors, superstitions and idolatries of the Romish
church. And as I thought myself obliged impartially to
represent these things as they appeared to me, I hope all
who love to distinguish themselves by Calvin’s name, will be
careful not to imitate him in this great blemish of his life,
which, in reality, hath tarnished a character, that would
otherwise have appeared amongst the first and brightest of the
age he lived in.
In the year 1632, after Calvin’s death, one Nicholas Anthoine
was condemned also by the council of Geneva, to be
first hanged, and afterwards burnt; because, that having forgotten
300the fear of God, he had committed the crime of apostacy
and high treason against God, by having opposed the
Holy Trinity, denied our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
blasphemed his holy name, renounced his baptism, and the
like.
Valentinus Gentilis,[310] a native of Cosentia in Italy,
had the misfortune also to fall into some heterodox opinions
concerning the Trinity, and held that the Father alone was
αυτοθεος, God of himself, αγεννητος, unbegotten, Essentiator,
the giver of essence to all other beings; but that the Son was
Essentiatus, of a derived essence from the Father, and therefore
not αυτοθεος, or God of himself, though at the same time
he allowed him to be truly God. He held much the same as
to the Holy Ghost, making them three eternal Spirits, distinguished
by a gradual and due subordination, reserving the
monarchy to the Father, whom he stiled the one only God.
Being forced to fly his native country, on account of his religion,
he came to Geneva, where there was a church of Italian
refugees, several of whom, such as G. Blandrata, a physician,
Gribaldus, a lawyer, and Paulus Alciatus, differed from the
commonly received notions of the Trinity. When their heterodoxes
came to be known at Geneva, they were cited before
the senators, ministers, and presbyters, and being heard in
their own defence, were refuted by Calvin, and all subscribed
to the orthodox faith.
But V. Gentilis having after this endeavoured to propagate
his own opinions, he was again apprehended, and forced by
301Calvin and others to a public abjuration, and condemned anno
1558, to an exemplary penance, viz. “That he should be
stripped close to his shirt, then barefoot and bare-headed
should carry in his hand a lighted torch, and beg God and the
court’s pardon on his knees, by confessing himself maliciously
and wickedly to have spread abroad a false and heretical doctrine;
but that he did now from his heart detest and abhor
those abominable, lying, and blasphemous books, he had composed
in its defence; in testimony of which he was to cast
them, with his own hands, into the flames, there to be burnt,
to ashes. And for more ample satisfaction, he was injoined
to be led through all the streets of Geneva, at the sound of
trumpet, in his penitentialpenitential habit, and strictly commanded not
to depart the city without permission.” And this penance he
actually underwent.
But having found means to make his escape, he came at last
to Gaium, a prefecture, subject to the canton of Bern, where he
was seized and imprisoned by the governor, who immediately
sent an account of his apprehension to the senate of Bern,
who ordered him to be brought prisoner to that city, where
they put him in jail. After they had seized all his books and
papers, they collected several articles, with the heads of an
indictment out of them to be preferred against him. Amongst
others these were two, 1. “That he dissented from us, and
all the orthodox, in the doctrine of the Trinity.” And
2. “That his writings contained many impious blasphemies
concerning the Trinity.” And because he continued obstinate
in his opinions, notwithstanding the endeavours of the divines
to convert him, he was condemned by the senate, for his blasphemies
against the Son of God, and the glorious mystery of
the Trinity, to be beheaded; which sentence was executed on
him in September, anno 1566.
[311]At Basil, also, heresy was a crime punishable with death,
since the reformation, as appears from the treatment of the
302dead body of David George, an enthusiastical anabaptist.
Having left Holland he went to Basil, and settled there as one
that was banished out of his country for the sake of his religion,
propagating his own doctrines by letters, books, and
messengers in Holland. But his errors being discovered after
his death, he was taken out of his grave, and together with
his books and pictures burnt to ashes, by order of the magistrates,
at the place of execution, without the walls of Basil,
May 13, 1559. His opinions were first extracted from the
printed books and manuscript papers found in his house, and
himself declared an arch heretic.
[312]Zurich also furnishes us with an instance of great cruelty
towards an anabaptist. A severe edict was published against
them, in which there was a penalty of a silver mark, about
four shillings English money, set upon all such as should suffer
themselves to be-rebaptized, or should withhold baptism
from their children. And it was farther declared, that those
who openly opposed this order, should be yet more severely
treated. Accordingly one Felix was drowned at Zurich,
upon the sentence pronounced by Zuinglius, in these four
Words, “Qui interum mergit, mergatur:“ He that re-dips,
let him be drowned. This happened in the year 1526.
About the same time also, and since, there were some more of
them put to death. [313]From the same place, also, Ochinus
was banished, in his old age, in the depth of winter, together
with his children, because he was an Arian, and defended
polygamy, if Beza’s account of him be true.
Lubieniecius,[314] a Polish Unitarian, was, through the practices
of the Calvinists, banished with his brethren from Poland,
his native country; and forced to leave several protestant
cities of Germany, to which he had fled for refuge,
particularly, Stetin, Frederickstadt, and Hamburg, through
the practices of the Lutheran divines, who were against all
303toleration. At Hamburg he received the orders of the magistrates
of the city to depart the place on his death-bed; and
when his dead body was carried to Altenau to be interred,
though the preachers could not, as they endeavoured, prevent
his being buried in the church, yet they did actually
prevent the usual funeral honours being paid him. John Sylvanus,[315]
superintendant of the church of Heidelberg, was put
to death by order of Frederick Elector Palatine, anno 1571,
being accused of Arianism.
If we pass over into Holland, we shall also find that the
reformers there were most of them in the principles and measures
of persecution, and managed their differences with that
heat and fury, as gave great advantages to the Papists, their
common enemies. In the very infancy of the reformation the
Lutherans and Calvinists condemned each other for their supposed
heterodoxy in the affair of the sacrament, and looked
upon compliance and mutual toleration to be things intolerable.
These differences were kept up principally by the clergy of
each party. The Prince of Orange, and States of Holland,
who were heartily inclined to the reformation, were not for
confining their protection to any particular set of principles or
opinions, but for granting an universal indulgence in all matters
of religion, aiming at peace and mutual forbearance, and
to open the church as wide as possible for all Christians of unblameable
lives; whereas the clergy being biassed by their
passions and inclinations for those masters, in whose writings
they had been instructed, endeavoured with all their might to
304establish and conciliate authority to their respective opinions;
aiming only at decisions and definitions, and shutting up the
church by limitations in many doubtful and disputable articles;
so that the disturbances which were raised, and the severities
which were used upon the account of religion, proceeded from
the bigotry of the clergy, contrary to the desire and intention
of the civil magistrate.
Before the ministers of the reformed party were engaged
in the controversy with Arminius,[316] their zeal was continually
exerting itself against the anabaptists, whom they declared to
be excommunicated and cut off from the church, and endeavoured
to convert by violence and force, prohibiting them
from preaching under fines, and banishing them their country,
upon account of their opinions. And the better to colour these
proceedings, some of them wrote in defence of persecution;
or, which is the same thing, against the toleration of any religion
or opinions different from their own; and for the better
support of orthodoxy, they would have had the synods ordain,
that all church officers should renew their subscriptions to the
confession and catechism every year, that hereby they might
the better know who had changed their sentiments, and differed
from the received faith. This practice was perfectly agreeable
to the Geneva discipline; Calvin himself, as hath been shewn,
being in judgment for persecuting heretics; and Beza having
wrote a treatise, anno 1600, to prove the lawfulness of punishing
them. This book was translated from the Latin into the
Low Dutch language by Bogerman, afterwards president of
the synod of Dort, and published with a dedication, and recommendation
of it to the magistrates. The consequence of
this was, that very severe placarts were published against the
anabaptists in Friesland and Groningen, whereby they were
forbidden to preach; and all persons prohibited from letting
their houses and grounds to them, under the penalty of a large
fine, or confinement to bread and water for fourteen days. If
305they offended the third time, they were to be banished the city,
and the jurisdiction thereof. Whosoever was discovered to
re-baptize any person, should forfeit twenty dollars; and upon
a second conviction to be put to bread and water, and then
be banished. Unbaptized children were made incapable of
inheriting; and if any one married out of the reformed church,
he was declared incapable of inheriting any estate, and the
children made illegitimate.
But the controversy that made the greatest noise, and produced
the most remarkable effects, was that carried on between
the Calvinists and Arminians. Jacobus Arminius, one of the
professors of divinity at Leyden, disputing in his turn about
the doctrine of predestination, advanced several things differing
from the opinions of Calvin on this article, and was in a
few months after warmly opposed by Gomarus his colleague,
who held, that “It was appointed by an eternal decree of God,
who amongst mankind shall be saved, and who shall be
damned.” This was indeed the sentiment of most of the
clergy of the United Provinces, who therefore endeavoured
to run down Arminius and his doctrine with the greatest zeal,
in their private conversations, public disputes, and in their
very sermons to their congregations, charging him with innovations,
and of being a follower of the ancient heretical monk
Pelagius; whereas the government was more inclinable to
Arminius’s scheme, as being less rigid in its nature, and more
intelligible by the people, and endeavoured all they could to
prevent these differences of the clergy from breaking out into
an open quarrel, to the disturbance of the public peace. But
the ministers of the predestinarian party would enter into no
treaty for peace: the remonstrants were the objects of their
furious zeal, whom they called mamelukes, devils, and
plagues; animating the magistrates to extirpate and destroy
them, and crying out from the pulpits, “We must go
through thick and thin, without fearing to stick in the mire:
we know what Elijah did to Baal’s priests.” And when the
time drew near for the election of new magistrates, they prayed
306to God for such men, “as would be zealouszealous even to blood,
though it were to cost the whole trade of their cities.”
They also accused them of keeping up a correspondence
with the Jesuits and Spaniards, and of a design to betray their
country to them.
These proceedings gave great disturbance to the magistrates,
especially as many of the clergy took great liberties with them,
furiously inveighing against them in their sermons, as enemies
to the church, and persecutors; as libertines and free-thinkers,
who hated the sincere ministers of God, and endeavoured to
turn them out of their office. This conduct, together with
their obstinate refusal of all measures of accommodation, and
peace with the remonstrants, so incensed the magistrates, that
in several cities they suspended some of the warmest and most
seditious of them, and prohibited them from the public exercises
of their ministerial function; particularly Gezelius of
Rotterdam, and afterwards Rosæus, minister at the Hague,
for endeavouring to make a schism in the church, and exhorting
the people to break off communion with their brethren.
Being thus discarded, they assumed to themselves the name of
the persecuted church, and met together in private houses,
absolutely refusing all communion with the remonstrant ministers
and party, in spite of all the attempts made use of to
reconcile and unite them.
What the ministers of the contra-remonstrant party aimed
at, was the holding a national council; which at length, after
a long opposition, was agreed to in the assembly of the States-General,
who appointed Dort for the place of the meeting.
Prince Maurice of Orange, the Stadtholder, effectually prepared
matters for holding the said assembly; and as he
declared himself openly for the contra-remonstrant party, not
for that he was of their opinions in religion, being rather inclined
to those of Arminius, but because he thought them the
best friends to his family, he took care that the council
should consist of such persons as were well affected to them.
In order to this his excellency changed the government of
307most of the towns of Holland, deposed those magistrates who
were of the remonstrant persuasion, or that favoured them in
the business of the toleration, and filled up their places with
contra-remonstrants, or such as promoted their interests;
making use of the troops of the states, to obviate all opposition.
The consequence of this was the imprisonment of several
great men of the remonstrant persuasion, such as the advocate
Oldenbarnevelt, Grotius, and others; and the suspension, or
total deprivation of a considerable number of the remonstrant
clergy, such as Vitenbogart, of the Hague, Grovinckhovius,
of Rotterdam, Grevius, and others, by particular synods met
together for that purpose, and to prepare things, and appoint
persons for the ensuing national one at Dort. The persons
fixed on were generally the most violent of the contra-remonstrant
party, and who had publicly declared, that they
would not enter into communion with those who differed from
them, nor agree to any terms of moderation and peace. There
were also several foreign Divines summoned to this council,
who were most of them in the Calvinistic scheme, and professed
enemies to the Arminians.
The lay commissioners also, who were chosen by the States,
were most of them very partial contra-remonstrants; and two
or three of them, who seemed more impartial than the others,
were hardly suffered to speak; and if they did, were presently
suspected, and represented by letters sent to the states, and
Prince Maurice, at the Hague, as persons that favoured the
remonstrants; which was then considered as a crime against
the government, insomuch, that by these insinuations, they
were in danger of being stripped of all their employments.
The session and first opening of this venerable assembly,[317] was
Nov. 13, 1618. John Bogerman was chosen president of it;
the same worthy and moderate Divine, who had before translated
308into Low Dutch Beza’s Treatise, to prove the lawfulness
of punishing heretics, with a preface recommendatory to
the civil magistrate; chosen not by the whole synod, but by
the Low Country divines only, the foreigners not being allowed
any share in the election.
At the fifth session the remonstrants petitioned the synod,
that a competent number of their friends might have leave to
appear before them, and that the citation might be sent to the
whole body, and not to any single person, to the end that they
might be at liberty to send such as they should judge best
qualified to defend their cause; and particularly insisted,
that Grovinckhovius and Goulart might be of the number.
One would have thought that so equitable a request should
have been readily granted. But they were told, that it could
not be allowed that the remonstrants should pass for a distinct
body, or make any deputation of persons in their common
name to treat of their affairs; and agreeably to this declaration,
the summons that were given out were not sent to the
remonstrants as a body or part of the synod, but to such particular
persons as the synod thought fit to choose out of them;
which was little less than citing them as criminals before a
body of men, which chiefly consisted of their professed adversaries.[318]
When they first appeared in the synod, and
Episcopius in the name of the rest of them talked of entering
into a regular conference about the points in difference, they
were immediately given to understand, that no conference was
intended; but that their only business was to deliver their sentiments,
and humbly to wait for the judgment of the council
concerning them.
Episcopius, in the name of his brethren, declared, that they
did not own the synod for their lawful judges, because most of
that body were their avowed enemies, and fomenters and promoters
of the unhappy schism amongst them; upon which
they were immediately reprimanded by the president, for impeaching
309and arraigning their authority, and presuming to
prescribe laws to those whom the States-General had appointed
for their judges. The Divines of Geneva added upon this
head, “That if people obstinately refused to submit to the
lawful determinations of the church, there then remained two
methods to be used against them; the one, that the civil magistrate
might stretch out his arm of compulsion; the other that
the church might exert her power, in order to separate and cut
off, by a public sentence, those who violated the laws of God.”God.”
After many debates on this head, between the synod and the
remonstrants, who adhered to their resolution of not owning
the synod for their judges, they were turned out of it, by
Bogerman the president, with great insolence and fury; to
the high dissatisfaction of many of the foreign Divines.
After the holy synod had thus rid themselves of the remonstrants,
whose learning and good sense would have rendered
them exceeding troublesome to this assembly, they proceeded
to fix the faith; and as they had no opposition to fear, and
were almost all of one side, at least in the main points, they
agreed in their articles and canons, and in their sentence
against the remonstrant clergy, who had been cited to appear
before them; which was to this effect: “They beseeched and
charged in the name of Christ, all and singular the ministers
of the churches throughout the United Netherlands, &c. that
they forsake and abandon the well-known five articles of the
remonstrants, as being false, and no other than secret magazines
of errors.—And whereas some, who are gone out from amongst
us, calling themselves remonstrants, have, out of private views
and ends, unlawfully violated the discipline and government
of the church—have not only trumped up old errors, but
hammered out new ones too—have blackened and rendered
odious the established doctrine of the church with impudent
slanders and calumnies, without end or measure; have filled
all places with scandal, discord, scruples, troubles of conscience—all
which heinous offences ought to be restrained
and punished in clergymen with the severest censures: therefore
this national synod—being assured of its own authority—doth
310declare and determine, that those ministers, who
have acted in the churches as heads of factions, and teachers
of errors, are guilty, and convicted of having violated our
holy religion, having made a rent in the unity of the church,
and given very great scandal: and as for those who were cited
before this synod, that they are besides guilty of intolerable
disobedience—to the commands of the venerable synod: for
all which reasons the synod doth, in the first place, discharge
the aforesaid cited persons from all ecclesiastical administrations,
and deprive them of their offices; judging them likewise
unworthy of any academical employment.—And as for
the rest of the remonstrant clergy, they are hereby recommended
to the provincial synods, classes, and consistories—who
are to take the utmost care—that the patrons of errors be
prudently discovered; that all obstinate, clamorous, and factious
disturbers of the church under their jurisdiction, be
forthwith deprived of their ecclesiastical and academical offices.—And
they the said provincial synods are therefore exhorted—to
take a particular care, that they admit none into
the ministry who shall refuse to subscribe, or promise to preach
the doctrine, asserted in these synodical decrees; and that they
suffer none to continue in the ministry, by whose public dissent
the doctrine which hath been so unanimously approved
by all the members of this synod, the harmony of the clergy,
and the peace of the church may be again disturbed—And they
most earnestly and humbly beseech their gracious God, that
their High Mightinesses may suffer and ordain this wholesome
doctrine, which the synod hath faithfully expressed—to
be maintained alone, and in its purity within their provinces—and
restrain turbulent and unruly spirits—and may likewise
put in execution the sentence pronounced against the above
mentioned persons—and ratify and confirm the decrees of the
synod by their authority.”
The states readily obliged them in this christian and charitable
request; for as soon as the synod was concluded, the
old advocate Barnevelt was beheaded, who had been a zealous
and hearty friend to the remonstrants and their principles,
311and Grotius condemned to perpetual imprisonment;
and because the cited ministers would not promise wholly, and
always to abstain from the exercise of their ministerial functions,
the states passed a resolution for the banishing of them
on pain, if they did not submit to it, of being treated as disturbers
of the public peace. And though they only begged a
respite of the sentence for a few days, to put their affairs in
order, and to provide themselves with a little money to support
themselves and families in their banishment, even this was
unmercifully denied them, and they were hurried away next
morning by four o’clock, as if they had been enemies to the
religion and liberties of their country.
Such was the effect of this famous presbyterian synod,
who behaved themselves as tyrannically towards their brethren,
as any prelatical council whatsoever could do; and to
the honour of the church of England it must be said, that
they owned their synodical power, and concurred by their
deputies, Carleton Bishop of Landaff, Hall, Davenant, and
Ward, in condemning the remonstrants, in excommunicating
and depriving them, and turning them out of their churches,
and in establishing both the discipline and doctrines of Geneva
in the Netherlands. For after the council was ended,
the remonstrants were every where driven out of their
churches, and prohibited from holding any private meetings,
and many of them banished on this very account. The reader
will find a very particular relation of these transactions, in the
learned Gerard Brandt’s History of the Reformation of the
Low Countries, to which I must refer him.
If we look into our own country, we shall find numerous
proofs of the same antichristian spirit and practice. Even
our first reformers, who had seen the flames which the papists
312had kindled against their brethren, yet lighted fires themselves
to consume those who differed from them. Cranmer’s hands
were stained with the blood of several.[319] He had a share in
the prosecution and condemnation of that pious and excellent
martyr John Lambert, and consented to the death of Ann
Askew, who were burnt for denying the corporal presence;
which, though Cranmer then believed, he saw afterwards
reason to deny.
In the year 1549, Joan Bocher was condemned for some
enthusiastical opinions about Christ, and delivered over to the
secular power. The sentence being returned to the council,
King Edward VI. was moved to sign a warrant for her being
burnt, but could not be prevailed with to do it. Cranmer
endeavoured to persuade him by such arguments, as rather
silenced than satisfied the young king: so he set his hand to
the warrant with tears in his eyes, saying to the archbishop,
that if he did wrong, since it was in submission to his authority,
he should answer for it to God. Though this struck
Cranmer with horror, yet he at last put the sentence in execution
against her.
About two years after one George Van Pare, a Dutchman,
was accused, for saying, “That God the Father was only
God, and that Christ was not very God.” And though he
was a person of a very holy life, yet because he would not
abjure, he was condemned for heresy, and burnt in Smithfield.
The Archbishop himself was afterwards burnt for heresy;
which, as Fox observed, many looked on as a just retaliation
from the providence of God, for the cruel severeties he had
used towards others.
The controversy about the Popish habits was one of the
first that arose amongst the English reformers. Cranmer and
Ridley were zealous for the use of them, whilst other very
pious and learned Divines were for laying them aside, as the
badges of idolatry and antichrist. Amongst these was Dr.
313Hooper, nominated to the bishoprick of Gloucester; but because
he refused to be consecrated in the old vestments, he
was by order of council first silenced, and then confined to his
own house; and afterwards, by Cranmer’s means, committed
to the Fleet prison, where he continued several months.
[320]In the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, A. C. 1559,
an act passed for the uniformity of common prayer, and service
in the church, and administration of the sacraments; by
which the queen and bishops were empowered to ordain such
ceremonies in worship, as they should think for the honour of
God, and the edification of his church. This act was rigourously
pressed, and great severities used to such as could not
comply with it. Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, made
the clergy subscribe to use the prescribed rites and habits;
and cited before him many of the most famous Divines who
scrupled them, and would allow none to be presented to livings,
or preferred in the church, without an intire conformity. He
summoned the whole body of the London pastors and curates to
appear before him at Lambeth, and immediately suspended 37,
who refused to subscribe to the unity of apparel; and signified
to them, that within three months they should be totally deprived,
if they would not conform. So that many churches
were shut up; and though the people were ready to mutiny
for want of ministers, yet the archbishop was deaf to all their
complaints, and in his great goodness and piety was resolved
they should have no sacraments or sermons without the surplice
and the cap. And in order to prevent all opposition to
church tyranny, the Star Chamber published a decree for
sealing up the press, and prohibiting any person to print or
publish any book against the queen’s injunctions, or against
the meaning of them. This decree was signed by the bishops
of Canterbury and London.
This rigid and fanatical zeal for habits and coremonies,
caused the Puritans to separate from the established church,
314and to hold private assemblies for worship. But the queen
and her prelates soon made them feel their vengeance. Their
meetings were disturbed, and those who attended them apprehended,
and sent in large numbers, men and women, to Bridewell,
for conviction. Others were cited into the spiritual
courts, and not discharged till after long attendance and great
charges. Subscriptions to articles of faith were violently
pressed upon the clergy, and about one hundred of them were
deprived, anno 1572, for refusing to submit to them. Some
were closely imprisoned, and died in jail, through poverty
and want.
And that serious piety and christian knowledge might gain
ground, as well as uniformity, the bishops, by order of the
queen, put down the prophesyings of the clergy, anno 1574,
who were forbid to assemble as they had done for some years,
to discourse with one another upon religious subjects and sermons;
and as some serious persons of the laity were used to
meet on holidays, or after they had done work, to read the
scriptures, and to improve themselves in christian knowledge,
the parsons of the parishes were sent for, and ordered to suppress
them.
Eleven Dutchmen, who were anabaptists, were condemned
in the consistory of St. Paul to the fire, for heresy; nine of
whom were banished, and two of them burnt alive in Smithfield.
In the year 1583, Copping and Thacker, two Puritan
ministers, were hanged for non-conformity. It would be endless
to go through all the severities that were used in this reign
upon the account of religion. As the queen was of a very
high and arbitrary temper, she pressed uniformity with great
violence, and found bishops enough, Parker, Aylmer, Whitgift,
and others, to justify and promote her measures; who
either entered their sees with persecuting principles, or embraced
them soon after their entrance, as best befitting the ends
of their promotion. Silencings, deprivations, imprisonments,
gibbets, and stakes, upon the account of religion, were some
of the powerful reasonings of those times. The bishops rioted
in power, and many of them abused it to the most cruel
315oppressions. The cries of innocent prisoners, widowed wives,
and starving children, made no impression on their hearts.
Piety and learning with them were void of merit. Refusal of
subscriptions, and non-conformity, were crimes never to be
forgiven. A particular account of these things may be seen
in Mr. Neal’s history of the Puritans, who hath done some
justice to that subject.
I shall only add, that the court of high commission established
in this reign, by the instigation of Whitgift, Archbishop
of Canterbury, by which the commissioners were impowered
to inquire into all misdemeanors, by all such ways and means
as they could devise, and thought necessary; to examine persons
upon oath, and to punish those who refused the oath by
fine or imprisonment, according to their discretion, was an
high stretch of the prerogative, and had a very near resemblance
to the courts of inquisition; and the cruelties that were
practised in it, and the exorbitant fines that were levied by it
in the two following reigns, made it the universal abhorrence
of the nation, so that it was dissolved by parliament, with a
clause that no such court should be erected for the future.
[321]King James I. was bred up in the kirk of Scotland, which
professed the faith and discipline of those called Puritans in
England; and though he blessed God, “For honouring him
to be king over such a kirk, the sincerest kirk in the world,”
yet, upon his accession to the English throne, he soon shewed
his aversion to the constitution of that kirk; and to their
brethren, the puritans in England. These were solicitous
for a farther reformation in the church, which the bishops
opposed, instilling this maxim into the king, [322]“No Bishop,
no King;” which, as stale and false a maxim as it is, hath
been lately trumped up, and publicly recommended, in a
sermon on the 30th of January. In the conference at Hampton
Court, his Majesty not only sided with the bishops, but
assured the puritan ministers, who were sent for to it, that
316“he had not called the assembly together for any innovations,
for that he acknowledged the government ecclesiastical, as it
then was, to have been approved by God himself;” giving
them to understand, that “if they did not conform, he would
either hurry them out of the kingdom, or else do worse.”[323]
And these reasonings of the king were so strong, that Whitgift,
Archbishop of Canterbury, with an impious and sordid flattery
said, “He was verily persuaded that the king spoke by
the spirit of God.”
It was no wonder that the bishops, thus supported by an
inspired king, should get an easy victory over the puritans;
which possibly they would not have done, had his majesty
been absent, and the aids of his inspiration withdrawn; since
the archbishop did not pretend that himself or his brethren
had any share of it. But having thus gotten the victory, they
strove by many methods of violence to maintain it; and used
such severities towards the non-conformists, that they were
forced to seek refuge in foreign countries. The truth is, this
conference at Hampton Court was never intended to satisfy the
puritans, but as a blind to introduce episcopacy into Scotland,
and to subvert the constitution and establishment of that church.
His majesty, in one of his speeches to his Parliament, tells
them, that “he was never violent and unreasonable in his
profession of religion.” I believe all mankind will now
acquit him of any violent and unreasonable attachment to the
protestant religion and liberties. He added in the same speech,
it may be questioned whether by inspiration of the spirit,
“I acknowledge the Roman church to be our mother church,
although defiled with some infirmities and corruptions.” And
he did behave as a very dutiful son of that mother church,
by the many favours he shewed to the papists during his
reign, by his proclamations for uniformity in religion, and
encouraging and supporting his bishops in their persecutions
of such as differed from, or could not submit to them.
Bancroft, promoted to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury,
317was, as the historian[324] calls him, “A sturdy piece,” a cruel
and inflexible persecutor, treating the non-conformists with
the greatest rigour and severity; and who, as Heylin tells us,
[325]“was resolved to break them, if they would not bow.” He
put the canons and constitutions agreed on A. C. 1603, furiously
into execution, and such as stood out against them, he
either deprived or silenced. And indeed, as the aforementioned
author says, [326]“Who could stand against a man of such
a spirit, armed with authority, having the law on his side,
and the king to his friend? During his being archbishop he
deprived, silenced, suspended, and admonished, above three
hundred ministers. The violencies he and his brethren used
in the high-commission courts, rendered it a public grievance.”grievance.”
[327]“Every man must conform to the episcopal way, and quit
his hold in opinion or safety. That court was the touchstone,
to try whether men were metal for their stamp; and if they
were not soft enough to take such impressions as were put
upon them, they were made malleable there, or else they
could not pass current. This was the beginning of that mischief,
which, when it came to a full ripeness, made such a
bloody tincture in both kingdoms, as never will be got out of
the bishop’s lawn sleeves.”
But nothing displeased the sober part of the nation more,
than the publication of the Book of Sports, which the
bishops procured from the king, and which came out with a
command, enjoining all ministers to read it to their parishioners,
and to approve of it; and those who did not, were
brought into the high commission, imprisoned, and suspended;
this book being only a trap to catch some conscientious men,
that they could not otherwise, with all their cunning, ensnare.
[328]“These, and such like machinations of the bishops,” says
my author, “to maintain their temporal greatness, ease, and
plenty, made the stones in the walls of their palaces, and the
beam in the timber, afterwards cry out, moulder away, and
318come to nothing; and caused their light to go out offensive
to the nostrils of the rubbish of the people.”people.”
Indeed many of the king’s bishops, such as Bancroft, Neal,
and Laud, who was a reputed papist in Oxford, and a man of
a dangerous turbulent spirit, were fit for any work; and as
they do not appear to have had any principles of real piety
themselves, they were the fittest tools that could be made use
of to persecute those who had. Neal, when he was Bishop
of Litchfield and Coventry, prosecuted one Edward Wightman,
for broaching erroneous doctrine, and having canonically
condemned him, got the king’s warrant for his execution;
and he was accordingly burnt in Litchfield. One Legat also
was prosecuted and condemned for heresy, by King Bishop of
London, and expired in the flames of Smithfield. He denied
the divinity of our Saviour, according to the Athanasian mode
of explaining it; but as Fuller tells us, he was excellently skilled
in scripture, and his conversation very unblameable. But
as these sacrifices were unacceptable to the people, the king
preferred, that heretics hereafter, though condemned, should
silently and privately waste themselves away in prison, rather
than to amuse others with the solemnity of a public execution.
In the reign of the Royal Martyr,[329] the church grew to
the height of her glory and power; though such is the fate of
all human things, that she soon sickened, languished, and
died. Laud, carried all before him, and ruled both church
and kingdom with a rod of iron. His beginning and rise is
thus described by Archbishop Abbot, his pious and worthy
predecessor.
[330]“His life in Oxford was to pick quarrels in the lectures
of the public readers, and to advertise them to the then Bishop
of Durham, that he might fill the ears of King James with
discontents against the honest men that took pains in their
places, and settled the truth, which he called puritanism, in
their auditors.
319“He made it his work to see what books were in the press,
and to look over epistles dedicatory, and prefaces to the reader,
to see what faults might be found.
“It was an observation what a sweet man this was like to
be, that the first observable act he did, was the marrying the
Earl of Devonshire to the Lady Rich, when it was notorious
to the world that she had another husband, and the same a
nobleman, who had divers children then living by her. King
James did for many years take this so ill, that he would never
hear of any great preferment of him: insomuch that the
Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Williams, who taketh upon him to be
the first promoter of him, hath many times said, that when he
made mention of Laud to the King, his Majesty was so averse
from it, that he was constrained oftentimes to say, that he
would never desire to serve that master, who could not remit
one fault to his servant. Well, in the end he did conquer it,
to get him to the Bishoprick of St. David’s; which he had
not long enjoyed, but he began to undermine his benefactor,
as at this day it appeareth. The Countess of Buckingham
told Lincoln, that St. David’s was the man that undermined
him with her son. And verily, such is his aspiring nature,
that he will underwork any man in the world, so that he may
gain by it.it.”
[331]He had a peculiar enmity to Archbishop Abbot, a man of
an holy and unblameable life, because he had informed King
James that Laud was a reputed papist in Oxford, and of a
dangerous, turbulent spirit; and as James I. was wrought up
into an incurable animosity against the puritans, “this was
thought to be fomented by the papists, whose agent Bishop
Laud was suspected to be: and though the king was pleased
with asservations to protest his incentive spirit should be kept
under, that the flame should not break out by any preferment
from him; yet getting into Buckingham’s favour, he grew into
such credit, that he was thought to be the bellows which
320blew those flames that were every where rising in the
nation.
“For the papists used all the artifices they could to make
a breach between the king and his people; and to accomplish
this, amongst other methods, they sowed the seeds of division
betwixt puritan and protestant; for all those were puritans,
with this high grown Armenian popish party, that held in
judgment the doctrine of the reformed churches, or in practice
live according to the doctrine publicly taught in the church
of England. And they attributed the name of protestant,
“1. To such papists, as either out of policy, or by
popish indulgence, held outward communion with the church
of England.
“2. To such protestants, as were either tainted with,
or inclinable to their opinions.
“3. To indifferent men, who embrace always that religion,
that shall be commanded by authority. Or,
“4. To such neutrals as care for no religion, but such as
stands with their own liking; so that they allow the church
of England the refuse both of their religion and ours.”
Thus far Wilson: and though Laud might be, as the
same historian relates, of “a motley form of religion” by
himself, yet the whole course of his tyrannical administration
gave but too just reason for suspicion, that his strongest inclinations
were towards Rome and Popery.[332] The first parliament
of Charles I. re-assembled at Oxford in 1625, complained
that Popery and Arminianism were countenanced by a
strong party in the kingdom; and Neal Bishop of Winchester,
and Laud, then of St. David’s, were chiefly looked
upon as the heads and protectors of the Arminians, nay, as
favourers of Popery.
The reasons of this suspicion were many. He was drove
on by a rigid, furious, and fanatical zeal for all the ceremonies
of the church of England, even for such as seemed the least
321necessary. And not content with these, he promoted and
procured the introduction of many others, which never had
been enjoined by lawful authority.
January 16, 1630, he consecrated, as Bishop of London,
St. Catharine Creed Church, with all the fopperies of a popish
superstition. [333]“AtAt the bishop’s approach to the west door,
some that were prepared for it, cried with a loud voice,
“Open, open, ye everlasting doors, that the king of glory
may enter in.” Immediately enters Laud. Then falling
down upon his knees, with his eyes lifted up, and his arms
spread abroad, he cried out “This place is holy: the ground
is holy: in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I
pronounce it holy.” Then he took up some of the dust, and
threw it up into the air several times, in his going up towards
the chancel. When they approached near to the rail, and
communion table, the bishop bowed towards it several times;
and returning, they went round the church in procession,
singing the 100th psalm; after that the 19th psalm; and
then said a form of prayer, “Lord Jesus Christ, &c.” concluding,
“We consecrate this church, and separate it unto
thee as holy ground, not to be profaned any more to common
use.”
“After this the bishop being near the communion table,
and taking a written book in his hand, pronounced curses
upon those that should afterwards profane that holy place, by
musters of soldiers, or keeping profane law courts, or carrying
burdens through it; and at the end of every curse he bowed
towards the east, and said, “Let all the people say,” Amen.
After this he pronounced a number of blessings upon all those
who had any hand in framing and building of that sacred and
beautiful church, and those that had given, or should hereafter
give any chalices, plate, ornaments, or utensils; and at the
end of every blessing he bowed towards the East, saying,
“Let all the people say,” Amen.
322“After this followed the sermon; which being ended,
the bishop consecrated and administered the sacrament in
manner following.
“As he approached the communion table, he made many
lowly bowings, and coming up to the side of the table, where
the bread and wine were covered, he bowed seven times; and
then, after the reading of many prayers, he came near the
bread, and gently lifted up the corner of the napkin wherein
the bread was laid; and when he beheld the bread, he laid it
down again, flew back a step or two, bowed three several
times towards it; then he drew near again, and opened the
napkin, and bowed as before. Then he laid his hand on the
cup, which was full of wine, with a cover upon it; which he
let go, then went back, and bowed thrice towards it. Then
he came near again; and lifting up the cover of the cup,
looked into it, and seeing the wine, he let fall the cover again,
retired back, and bowed as before. Then, he received the
sacramentsacrament, and gave it to some principal men; after which
many prayers being said, the solemnity of the consecration
ended.”
In this manner have I seen high mass celebrated pontifically.
And from whence did the pious Laud learn all these
kneelings, bowings, throwings of dust, cursings, blessings, and
adorations of the sacramental elements; from the sacred scriptures,
or the writings of the primitive fathers? No: it was
an exact copy of the Roman Pontifical, which was found in
his study; and though he alledged in his defence that it was
a form communicated by Bishop Andrews to him, it was ridiculous,
since Andrews himself had it from the same pontifical.
[334]The next year, 1632, Henry Sherfield, Esq. recorder of
Sarum, was fined in the Star Chamber £500. on the following
occasion. There was in the city of Salisbury a church
called St. Edmund’s, whose windows were painted with the
history of the creation; where God the Father was represented
323in the form of an old man, creating the world during the
first six days, but painted sitting on the seventh, to denote the
day of rest. In expressing the creation of the sun and moon,
the painter had put in God’s hand a pair of compasses, as if
he was going to measure them. The recorder was offended
with this profaneness; and, by an order of vestry, took down
those painted glasses, and broke some of the panes with his
stick, and ordered others to be put up in their room. Upon
this an information was exhibited against him in the Star
Chamber, by the attorney-general; where Sherfield was for
this reason charged with being ill-affected to the discipline of
the Church of England, and the government thereof by
bishops, because he had broken excellent pictures of the
creation, and fined for his crime in the sum above mentioned,
committed to the Fleet, removed from his recordership, and
bound to his good behaviour. Nor was Laud ashamed, in
justification of such pictures, to urge, as the papists continually
do, that place in Dan. vii. 9, in which God is described as
“the ancient of days;” shewing himself a worse divine, or a
more popishly affected one, than the Earl of Dorset, who then
sat with him in the court, and said, that by that text was
meant “the eternity of God, and not God to be pictured as
an old man, creating the world with a pair of compasses.
But I wish” added the Earl, “there were no image of the
Father, neither in the church, nor out of the church; for,
at the best, they are but vanities and teachers of lies.”
In 1633,[335] Laud was made Archbishop of Canterbury;
and having observed that the placing the communion table in
the body of the church, or at the entrance of the chancel, was
not only a prostitution of the table to ordinary and sordid
uses, but the chancel looked like an useless building, fit only
for a schooling and parish-meeting, though originally designed
for the most solemn office of religion; to redeem these
places, as he termed it, from profaneness, and restore them to
324the primitive use of the holy sacrament, the archbishop used
his utmost diligence to remove the communion table from the
body of the church, and fix it at the upper end of the chancel,
and secure it from the approach of dogs, and all servile
uses, by railing it in, and obliging the people to come up to
those rails to receive the sacrament with more decency and
order. This affair, says Lord Clarendon, he prosecuted more
passionately than was fit for the season, and created disputes
in numberless places;[336] so that the high commission had frequent
occasions to punish the ministers, who were suspected
of too little zeal for the Church of England. And as since the
reformation the altars were changed into communion tables,
and placed in the middle of the chancel, to avoid superstition;
many imagined, and that with too much reason, the
tables were again turned into altars with intent to revive a
superstitious worship.
In the year 1634,[337] he set up and repaired Popish images in
the glass windows of his chapel at Lambeth; particularly one
of God the Father, in the form of a little old man. This
Laud himself owned, that he repaired the windows at no
small cost, by the help of the fragments that remained, and
vindicated the thing. He introduced also copes, candlesticks,
tapers, and such like trumperies. So that L’Estrange, whom
no man will charge with partiality against the archbishop,
says of him: [338]“The Archbishop of Canterbury stands aspersed,
in common fame, as a great friend at least, and patron of
the Romish Catholics, if he were not of the same belief. To
which I answer by concession: true it is, he had too much
and long favoured the Romish faction—though not the Romish
faith. He tampered indeed to introduce some ceremonies,
bordering upon superstition, disused by us, and abused by
them. From whence the Romanists collected such a good
disposition in him to their tenets, as they began not only to
hope, but in good earnest to cry him up for their proselyte.”proselyte.”
325Under the year 1635,[339] the author of the notes to the Complete
History tells us, that one of the great offences taken by
wise and good men against the archbishop, was the new
attempt of reconciling the Church of England to the Church
of Rome. The design was to accommodate the articles of
the Church of England to the sense of the Church of Rome, for
the reconciliation of the two churches. Davenport, an English
Franciscan Friar, published a book to this purpose, under the
name of Franciscus de Sancta Clara, which was dedicated to the
king, and said to have been directed to Archbishop Laud.
And it was an article objected against him, that for the
advancement of popery and superstition in this realm, he had
wittingly and willingly harboured and relieved divers popish
priests and jesuits, and particularly Sancta Clara, who hath
written a popish and seditious book, wherein the thirty-nine
articles of the Church of England are much traduced and
scandalized, the said archbishop having divers conferences
with him, while he was writing the said book. The archbishop
did not seem to deny his acquaintance with the man,
nor with the design of the book; but was rather afraid the
book would not answer the design.
The same author farther adds, that the best observations
on this matter were made by Mr. Rous, in a speech against
Dr. Cosin, March 16, 1640, “A second way by which this
army of priests advanceth this popish design, is the way of
treaty. This hath been acted both by writings and conference.
Sancta Clara himself says, ‘Doctissimi eorum, quibuscunque egi.’‘Doctissimi eorum, quibuscunque egi.’ So it seems they have had conference together.
And Sancta Clara, on his part, labours to bring the
articles of our church to popery, and some of our side labour
to meet him in the way. We have a testimony that the great
arch-priest himself hath said: ‘It were no hard matter to make a reconciliation, if a wise man had the handling of it.’”‘It were no hard matter to make a reconciliation, if a wise man had the handling of it.’”
Such was the good opinion which the papists had of Laud,
326and of his inclinations to popery, that it is certain they offered
him a cardinal’s cap. Eachard and others say he refused it.
[340]But the Lord Wiquefort, as cited by Mr. Oldmixon, informs
us, in his Treatise of the Ambassador and his Function, that
Laud treated with Count Rosetti, the popish agent in England,
for a pension of 48,000 livres a year; which if the Pope
would have settled upon him, he would not only have accepted
the cardinal’s cap, but have gone to Rome, and have dwelt
with the Pope and his cardinals as long as he lived.
The bitter and relentless fury with which he treated the
puritans, and others, who were friends to the Church of England,
and some of the best protestants in the kingdom, is a
demonstration that he was more papist than protestant. Of
the puritans he used to say, as Heylin tells us, that “they
were as bad as the papists;” and indeed he used them in a
much worse manner.
In the Considerations he presented to the King, “Anno
1629, for the better securing the Church Government,” he
prayed his Majesty, amongst other things, that Emanuel and
Sydney Colleges in Cambridge, which are the nurseries of
puritanism, may from time to time be provided of grave and
orthodox men for their governors. In the several accounts of
his province, which he sent to the King, we read almost of
nothing but conformity and non-conformity to the church,
refractory people to the church, peevish and disorderly men,
for preaching up the observation of the sabbath, breach of
church canons, wild, turbulent preachers, for preaching against
bowing at the name of Jesus, and in disgrace of the common
prayer book; and in consequence of these things, presentments,
citations in the high commission court, censures, suspensions
from preaching, and other like pious methods, to
reduce and reform them.[341] And so grievous and numerous
were the violencies he exercised on these and the like occasions,
in the star chamber, high commission, and spiritual
327courts, that many excellent and learned men were forced to
leave the kingdom, and retire to the West-Indies. And yet
even this was unmercifully forbidden them. For in the year
1637, a proclamation was issued to stop eight ships going to
New England; and another warrant from the council, of
which Laud was one, to the Lord Admiral, to stop all ministers
unconformable to the discipline and ceremonies of the church,
who frequently transport themselves to the summer islands,
and other plantations; and that no clergyman should be suffered
to go over, without approbation of the Lord Archbishop
of Canterbury, and Bishop of London. These prohibitions,
as the Complete Historian observes, increased the murmurs
and complaints of the people thus restrained, and raised the
cries of a double persecution, to be vexed at home, and not
suffered to seek peace or refuge abroad.
But how were the papists treated all this while? why with
brotherly mildness and moderation. For whilst these severities
were exercising against protestants, there were many pardons
and indulgencies granted to popish offenders. The
papists were in reality his favourites and friends.
On July 7, 1626,[342] Montague’s books, intitled, “An
Appeal to Cæsar,” and “A Treatise of the Invocation of
Saints,” were called in question by the House of Commons,
and reported to contain false, erroneous, papistical opinions.
For instance: “That the Church of Rome hath ever remained
firm, upon the same foundation of sacraments and
doctrines instituted by God. That the controverted points
(between the Church of England and that of Rome) are of a
lesser and inferior nature, of which a man may be ignorant,
without any danger of his soul at all. That images may be
used for the instruction of the ignorant, and excitation of devotion.
[343]That there are tutelar saints as well as angels.” The
House of Commons voted his books to be contrary to the
established articles; to tend to the King’s dishonour, and to
328the disturbance of church and state. And yet this zealous
protestant Bishop Laud was, as the Complete Historian assures
us, “a zealous friend to the person and opinions of Mr.
Montague;”Montague;”[344] and made this entry in his diary on this affair.
“Jan. 29. Sunday. I understand what D. B. had collected
concerning the Cause, Book, and Opinions of Richard Montague,
and what R. C. had determined with himself therein.
Methinks I see a cloud arising, and threatening the Church of
England;” viz. because the popish opinions of this turbulent
priest were censured as contrary to the established articles of
the church of England. He was fit to be made one of Laud’s
brethren; and accordingly was preferred to the Bishoprick
of Chichester, anno 1629.
[345]The author of the Remarks on the Complete Historian
farther tells us, under the year 1632, that great prejudice was
taken against some of Bishop Laud’s churchmen, by one of them
protesting to die in the communion of the Church of Rome;
Dr. Theodore Price, prebendary of Winchester, and sub-dean
of Westminster. Mr. Prynne affirmed, that this man, very
intimate with the archbishop, and recommended by him specially
to the King to be a Welch Bishop, in opposition to the
Earl of Pembroke, and his chaplain Griffith Williams, soon
after died a reconciled papist, and received extreme unction
from a priest. The remarker adds, “It is strange partiality
in the Oxford Historian, to question this matter, when Laud
himself, in his MS notes upon that relation given by Mr.
Prynne, doth by no means deny the fact, but excuses the
using his interest for him; and says, ‘he was more inward
with another bishop, and who laboured his preferment more
than I.’”I.’”
In the same year, 1632,[346] Mr. Francis Windbank was
made secretary of state by the interest of Bishop Laud, who
hath entered it in his Diary. “1632. June 15. Mr. Francis
Windbank, my old friend, was sworn Secretary of State;
329which place I obtained for him of my gracious master King
Charles.” He proved so much a creature of the queen’s, and
such an advocate and patron of all suffering papists and jesuits,
that he had the character of a papist, and brought a very
great odium upon Laud who preferred him. That which
created him the more envy, was the turning out the old secretary,
Sir John Coke, who was displaced by Laud “for his
honest firmness against popery,” as the author of the remarks
on the complete historian assures us, and for his hatred and
opposition to the jesuits. This job was labouring for three
years’ space and at last obtained by Laud’s influence on the
King.
These instances, and many others which might be mentioned,
are sufficient to discover what sort of a protestant Laud
was, and how he stood affected to the church of Rome. I
shall now consider his character for piety, which was exactly
of a piece with his protestantism.
He was a creature of the Duke of Buckingham, who was
one of the lewdest men in the kingdom.kingdom. This man, as Archbishop
Abbot said of him, was the only inward counsellor
with Buckingham; “sitting with him sometimes privately
whole hours, and feeding his humour with malice and spite.”
His marrying the Earl of Devonshire to the Lady Rich, though
she had another husband, is a glorious argument of his regard
to the laws of God, and particularly of his reverence for the
seventh commandment.
He gave, also, notable proofs of his zeal to maintain the
honour of the fourth. The liberties taken at Wakes, or annual
feasts of the dedication of churches, on Sundays, were
grown to a very high excess, and occasioned great and numerous
debaucheries. The lord chief justice Richardson,[347] in
his circuit, made an order to suppress them, Laud complained
of this to the king, as an intrusion upon the ecclesiastical
power; upon which Richardson was severely reprimanded,
330and forced to revoke the order. The justices of
the peace upon this drew up a petition to the king, shewing the
great inconveniences which would befal the country, if those
revels, church-ales and clerk-ales, upon the Lord’s-day, were
permitted. But before the petition could be delivered, Laud
published by the king’s order, the declaration concerning recreations
on the lord’s-day, “out of a pious care for the service
of God,” as that declaration expresses it towards the conclusion
of it. However, this “pious care” of Laud and the
king was resented by the soberest persons in the nation, as irreligious
and profane, as those revels had been the occasion of an
“infinite number of inconveniences;” and the declaration for
publishing the lawfulness of them through all parish-churches,
[348]“proved a snare to many ministers, very conformable to the
church of England, because they refused to read the same
publicly in the church, as was required: For upon this many
were suspended, and others silenced from preaching.” An
instance of great piety, unquestionably this; first to establish
the profanation of the Lord’s-day by a public order, and then
to persecute and punish those ministers who could not, in conscience,
promote the ends of “so godly a zeal,” by reading
the king’s order for wakes and revels on the Lord’s-day out of
that very place, where perhaps they had been just before publishing
the command of the most high God, not to profane but
to keep it holy.
His treatment of Mr. Prynne may also be added, as another
instance of this prelate’s exemplary love of virtue, and pious
zeal for the service of God. [349]That gentleman published in
the year 1632 his Histrio-Mastix, or book against stage-plays;
in which, with very large collections, he exposed the liberties
of the stage, and condemned the lawfulness of acting. Now,
because the court became greatly addicted to these entertainments,
and the queen was so fond of them, as meanly to submit
to act a part herself in a pastoral; therefore this treatise
331against plays “was suspected” to be levelled against the court
and the queen; and it “was supposed an innuendo,” that in
the table of the book this reference was put, “women actors
notorious whores.” Now mark the christian spirit, the burning
zeal of the pious Laud. Prynne was prosecuted in the
star chamber by Laud’s procurement, who shewed the book
to the king, and pointed at the offensive parts of it; and employed
Heylin to pick out all the virulent passages, and
“N. B. to give the severest turn to them;” and carried these
notes to the attorney general for matter of information, and
urged him earnestly to proceed against the author.
Prynne was accordingly prosecuted; and being sufficiently
convicted by suspicions, suppositions, and innuendoes, he was
sentenced, Laud sitting as one of his judges, to have his book
burnt in the most public manner; to be himself put from the
bar, and made for ever incapable of his profession; to be excluded
from the society of Lincoln’s Inn, and degraded in
Oxford; to stand in the pillory in Westminster and Cheapside,
and lose both his ears, one in each place; with a paper
on his head, declaring his offence to be “an infamous libel”
against both their majesties, the state and the government; to
pay a fine of five thousand pounds, and to suffer perpetual imprisonment.
Good God! what cruelty and barbarity is here?
what insolent sporting with men’s fortunes, liberties, and
bodies? What was the occasion of this bloody severity? A
gentleman’s writing against the abuses of plays. Who ordered
the prosecution against him for writing against plays? Archbishop
Laud. Who sat at the head of his judges, who
pronounced this infamous sentence? Archbishop Laud. Excellent
archbishop! how christian, how commendable his
zeal! How gloriously must religion flourish under his archiepiscopal
inspection, and by his becoming “the most reverend”
abettor, encourager, and great patron of plays on week
days, and revels on sundays?
[350]’Tis true, he was for building colleges, repairing churches,
332settling statutes for cathedrals, annexing commendams to
small bishoprics, settling of tithes, building hospitals, aggrandizing
the power, and encreasing the riches of the clergy;
and these things may be esteemed arguments of his piety, and
of “the greatness of his soul above the ordinary extent of
mankind:” This I do not take on me to deny; but it puts me
in mind of the Carthusian monk, mentioned by Philip de
Comines, in his “Commentaries of the Neapolitan war:”
CominesComines was looking on the sepulchre of John Galeacius,
first duke of Milan of that name, in the Carthusian church of
Pavia, who had governed with great cruelty and pride, but
had been very liberal in his donations to the church and
clergy. As he was viewing it, one of the monks of the order
commended the virtue, and extolled the piety of Galeacius.
Why, says Comines, do you thus praise him as a saint?
You see drawn on his sepulchre the ensigns of many people,
whom he conquered without right. “Oh,” says the monk,
“it is our custom to call them saints, that have been our benefactors.”
But let us pass on from his piety to his christian tenderness
and compassion, of which there are many very remarkable
instances on record.
[351]The case of Mr. Prynne, I have already mentioned.
Another instance is that of the Rev. Mr. Peter Smart, who,
July 27, 1628, preached on the Lord’s Day against the
innovations brought by Dr. Cosins into the cathedral church
of Durham; such as fonts, candles, pictures, images, copes,
singings, vestments, gestures, prayers, doctrines, and the like.
Cosins demeaned himself during the sermon very turbulently,
and immediately afterwards summoned him before the high
commission; by whom he was censured by two acts of sequestration,
and one of suspension. After this they unlawfully
transmitted him to London, to answer there in the high commission,
for the same cause, before the inquisitors general for
the kingdom; who sent him back again with proper instructions
333to the high commission at York, where they fined him
£500. committed him to jail, detained him under great bonds,
excommunicated him, sequestred all his ecclesiastical livings,
degraded him, “ab omni gradu et dignitate clericali;” by
virtue of which degradation, his prebendship and parsonage
were both taken from him, and himself kept in jail. By these
oppressions his life was several times endangered, and himself
and children lost and spent above fourteen thousand pounds of
real estate, whereby they were utterly undone. The hand of
Laud was in all this evil, as appears by the book published by
Mr. Smart himself, with the title of “Canterbury’s Cruelty.”
The truth is, many of the most worthy and learned protestant
gentlemen and divines were treated by him with the
utmost indignity and barbarity; some of them dying in jail,
and others being made to undergo the most cruel bodily
punishments, for daring to oppose his arbitrary and superstitious
proceedings. No man of compassion can read his treatment
of Dr. Leighton, without being shocked and moved in
the same tender manner as the House of Commons were, who
several times interrupted, by their tears, the reading of the
Doctor’s petition, which I shall here present my reader with
entire, and leave him to form what character he pleases of the
man that could contrive and carry on such a scene of barbarous
and execrable cruelty.
To the Honourable and High Court of Parliament.
The humble Petition of Alexander Leighton, Prisoner in the Fleet;
HUMBLY SHEWETH,
“How your much and long distressed petitioner, on the
17th of February gone ten years, was apprehended in Black-Fryers,
coming from the sermon, by a high commission
warrant (to which no subject’s body is liable), and thence,
with a multitude of staves and bills, was dragged along (and
334all the way reproached by the name of jesuit and traitor) till
they brought him to London-House, where he was shut up,
and, by a strong guard, kept (without food) till seven of the
clock, till Dr. Laud, then Prelate of London, and Dr. Corbet,
then of Oxford, returned from Fulham-House, with a
troop attending. The jailer of Newgate was sent for, who
came with irons, and with a strong power of halberts and staves;
they carried your petitioner through a blind, hollow way,
without pretence or examination; and opening up a gate into
the street (which some say had not been opened since Queen
Mary’s days) they thrust him into a loathsome and ruinous
dog-hole, full of rats and mice, which had no light but a
little grate; and the roof being uncovered, the snow and rain
beat in upon him, having no bedding, nor place to make a
fire, but the ruins of an old smoky chimney; where he had
neither meat nor drink, from the Tuesday at night, till the
Thursday at noon. In this woeful place and doleful plight,
they kept him close, with two doors shut upon him, for the
space of fifteen weeks; suffering none to come at him, till at
length his wife was only admitted.
“The fourth day after his commitment, the high commission
pursuivants came (under the conduct of the sheriffs of
London) to your petitioner’s house, and a mighty multitude
with them, giving out that they came to search for jesuit’s books.
There these violent fellows of prey laid violent hands upon your
petitioner’s distressed wife, with such barbarous inhumanity,
as he is ashamed to express; and so rifled every soul in the
house, holding a bent pistol to a child’s breast of five years
old, threatening to kill him, if he would not tell where the
books were; through which the child was so affrighted, that
he never cast it. They broke open presses, chests, boxes,
the boards of the house, and every thing they found in
the way, though they were willing to open all. They, and
some of the sheriffs’ men, spoiled, robbed, and carried away
all the books and manuscripts they found, with household
stuff, your petitioner’s apparel, arms, and other things; so
that they left nothing that liked them; notwithstanding your
335petitioner’s wife told the sheriffs, they might come to reckon
for it. They carried also a great number of divers of your
petitioner’s books, and other things, from one Mr. Archer’s
house, as he will testify.
“Farther, your petitioner being denied the copy of his
commitment, by the jailor of Newgate, his wife, with some
friends, repaired to the sheriff, offering him bail, according to
the statute in that behalf; which being shewed by an attorney
at law, the sheriff replied, that he wished the laws of the land,
and privileges of the subject, had never been named in the
parliament, &c. Your petitioner (having thus suffered in body,
liberty, family, estate, and house) at the end of fifteen weeks
was served with a subpœna, on information laid against him
by Sir Robert Heath, then his Majesty’s attorney general;
whose dealing with your prisoner was full of cruelty and deceit.
In the mean time it did more than appear, to four physicians,
that poison had been given him in Newgate; for his
hair and skin came off in a sickness (deadly to the eye) in the
height whereof, as he did lie, censure was passed against him
in the star chamber, without hearing (which had not been
heard of) notwithstanding of a certificate from four physicians,
and affidavit made by an attorney, of the desperateness of the
disease. But nothing would serve Dr. Laud, but the highest
censure that ever was passed in that court to be put upon
him; and so it was to be inflicted with knife, fire, and whip,
at and upon the pillory, with ten thousand pounds fine; which
some of the lords conceived should never be inflicted, only it
was imposed (as on a dying man) to terrify others. But the said
doctor and his combinants, caused the said censure to be executed
the 26th day of November following (with a witness)
for the hang-man was armed with strong drink all the night
before in prison, and, with threatning words, to do it cruelly.
Your petitioner’s hands being tied to a stake (besides all other
torments) he received thirty-six stripes with a treble cord;
after which, he stood almost two hours on the pillory, in cold
frost and snow, and suffered the rest; as cutting off the ear,
firing the face, and slitting of the nose; so that he was made
336a theatre of misery to men and angels.” [Here the compassion
of the house of commons was so great, that they were
generally in tears, and ordered the clerk to stop reading twice,
till they had recovered themselves.] “And being so broken
with his sufferings, that he was not able to go, the warden of
the Fleet would not suffer him to be carried in a coach: but
he was forced to go by water, to the farther endangering of
his life; returning to the jail after much harsh and cruel
usage, for the space of eight years, paying more for a chamber
than the worth of it (having not a bit of bread, nor a drop of
water allowed). The clerk of the Fleet, to top up your petitioner’s
sufferings, sent for him to his office, and without
warrant, or cause given by your petitioner, set eight strong
fellows upon him, who tore his clothes, bruised his body, so
that he was never well, and carried him by head and heels
to that loathsome and common gaol; where, besides the filthiness
of the place, and vileness of the company, divers contrivances
were laid for taking away the life of your petitioner,
as shall manifestly appear, if your honours will be pleased
to receive and peruse a schedule of that subject.
“Now the cause of all this harsh, cruel, and continued ill
usage, unparalleled yet upon any one since Britain was blessed
with christianity, was nothing but a book written by your petitioner,
called “Sion’s Plea against the Prelacy; and that, by
the call of divers and many good Christians in the parliament
time, after divers refusals given by your petitioner; who would
not publish it being done, till it had the view and approbation
of the best in the city, country, and university, and some
of the parliament itself: In witness whereof he had about 500
hands; for revealing of whose names he was promised more
favors by Sir Robert Heath than he will speak of: But denying
to turn accuser of his brethren, he was threatened with a
storm, which he felt to the full; wherein (through God’s
mercy) he hath lived, though but lived; choosing rather to
lay his neck to the yoke for others, than to release himself
by others’ sufferings.
“Farther, the petitioner was robbed of divers goods, by
337one Lightborn, Graves, and others, officers and servants of
the Fleet, amounting towards the value of thirty pounds, for
which Lightborn offered composition (by a second hand) upon
the hearing of the approach of parliament; but your petitioner
(notwithstanding his necessity) refused to hearken to any such
illegal and dangerous way. To innumerate the rest of your
petitioner’s heavy pressures, would take up a volume; with
which he will not burden your honours, till further opportunity.
“And therefore, he humbly and heartily entreateth, that
you would be graciously pleased to take this his petition into
your serious thoughts, and to command deliverance, that he
may plead his own cause, or rather Christ’s, and the state’s.
As also to afford such cost and damages as he has suffered in
body, estate, and family; having been prisoner (and that
many times) in the most nasty prisons, eleven years, not suffered
to breathe in the open air: to which, give him leave to
add his great sufferings in all those particulars, some sixteen
years ago, for publishing a book, called, ‘The Looking-Glass
of Holy War.’
“Farther, as the cause is Christ’s and the states, so your
petitioner conceiveth (under correction) that the subject of the
book will be the prime and main matter of your agitation, to
whose wisdom he hopeth the book shall approve itself.
“Also your petitioner’s wearing age, going now in
seventy-two years, together with the sicknesses and weakness
of his long distressed wife, require a speedy deliverance.
“Lastly, the sons of death, the jesuits and jesuited, have
so long insulted in their own licentious liberty, and over the
miseries of your servant, and others; who, forbearing more
motives, craves pardon for his prolixity, being necessitated
thereto from the depth and length of his miseries. In all
which he ceaseth not to pray, &c. and,
“Kisseth your hands.”
“Wilt thou not deliver them that are drawn unto death,
and those that are ready to be slain?”
338When this merciless sentence on Leighton was pronouncing,
Laud stood up in public court, and “pulled off his cap,
and gave God thanks for it;” and in his diary he makes this
remark on the execution, without one word to discover that
his bowels yearned, or his heart relented. “Friday, Nov.
16. He (Leighton) was severely whipped; and being set in
the pillory, he had one of his ears cut off, one side of his nose
slit, and branded on one cheek with a red-hot iron. And on
that day sevennight his sores upon his back, ear, nose and
face, not being cured, he was whipped again at the pillory in
Cheapside, and there had the remainder of his sentence
executed upon him, by cutting off the other ear, slitting the
other side of his nose, and branding the other cheek.”cheek.”
These, and the like instances are specimens of this most
reverend prelate’s humanity, compassion, and christian moderation.
I shall only consider him in one view more, viz. his
constant regard to the laws and liberties of his country.
He justified, and did all he could to support Charles I. in
all the illegal and arbitrary measuresmeasures of his government. In
1626, after he had dissolved his Parliament, because they
were too intent upon the redress of grievances, though they
had voted four subsidies, and three fifteenths, he resolved to
raise money by the illegal method of a loan. And to promote
this, who so fit as Laud; who, with others of his brethren,
were, as the complete historian expresses it, unhappily
“engaged in the interest of Buckingham, and very forward
in those measures which the king unfortunately took.” Accordingly
Laud received a command from the king to draw
up instructions to shew the urgency of the king’s affairs, and
his occasions of supply. These instructions Laud soon got
ready; and the king sent them as letters of precept to the two
archbishops, to be communicated to their suffragans, to be
published in all the parishes of the kingdom. This was justly
looked upon as a stratagem of state to promote the raising of
money without a parliament, and Laud was employed as the
fittest tool to promote these arbitrary measures of the king.
The papists joined with the bishops, and were very forward
339in the loan: whilst the puritans were backward in it; and
some of the best gentlemen in the kingdom, upon their refusal
to lend money, were immediately committed to several jails.
Besides this, the court had their parsons to preach up
absolute obedience to the king’s commands. Sibthorp, in his
sermon at Northampton, laid it down as gospel, that “It is
the king’s duty to direct and make laws; that he doth whatever
pleaseth him; and that it is the subject’s duty to yield a
passive obedience.” Manwaring, in a sermon, spoke more
plainly, and affirmed, that “the king was not bound to observe
the laws of the realm concerning the subject’s rights and
liberties; but that his royal will and command, in imposing
loans and taxes, without common consent of Parliament, doth
oblige the subject’s conscience, upon pain of eternal damnation;”damnation;”
and that those who refused the loan, became guilty of
impiety, disloyalty, and rebellion. And yet infamous as this
doctrine was, and subversive of all the laws of the kingdom,
Laud was their patron and advocate; and in contempt of the
censure of the House of Lords on Manwaring, gave him first
as his reward a good benefice, and afterwards advanced him
to the Bishoprick of St. David. And because this parliament,
which had censured Manwaring, had also complained of
Laud himself, and passed a vote against innovations in religion,
and against such as should counsel and advise the levying
of tonnage and poundage without grant of parliament;
Laud, out of his great love for the liberties of the kingdom,
advised the king to dissolve it; which he accordingly did, to
the great discontent of the nation in general.
Another illegal project for raising money, was by a tax to
provide and maintain a certain number of ships to guard the
seas; and writs were sent all over the kingdom, An. 1636, for
this purpose. Laud was peculiarly active in this affair; and
as several persons refused to pay the sums they were rated at,
they were summoned before the council table, where they
were brow-beaten, and sentenced to jail by Laud, and others
of the council.[352] Laud acknowledges he gave his vote with
340the rest, and he had an hand in these and almost all other illegal
pressures for ship-money; and in his diary he tells us,
that “Dec. 5, 1639. A resolution was voted at the council
board,” when he was present, “to assist the king in extraordinary
ways, if the parliament should prove peevish, and
refuse, &c.”
[353]The endeavouring arbitrarily to reduce the kirk of Scotland
to the discipline of the church of England, was also by
Laud’s persuasion and advice; who was ordered by the
king to hold continual correspondence with the bishops and
council of Scotland, and to take with them the necessary
measures to accomplish the design. [354]The Scots bishops were
so lifted up, says Burnet, with the king’s zeal, and so encouraged
by Archbishop Laud, that they lost all temper. And
when the violent measures that were used to impose the liturgy,
&c. drove the Scots to an open rupture, he forwardly procured
an order of council, directed to the two archbishops, to
write their several letters to the bishops, that they might incite
their clergy to assist the king to reduce the Scots. Laud accordingly
wrote to his several suffragans, and raised by the
clergy a very great sum on this occasion. The queen also
wrote letters to promote contributions amongst the Roman
catholics, to further the same good cause. So that Laud and
his clergy, the queen and her papists, joined hand in hand to
destroy or enslave the protestants of Scotland; who rose in
their own defence, and to preserve themselves from the arbitrary
measures of this tyrannical archpriest.
But it would be endless to reckon up all the instances of
his illegal proceedings. He was a confederate with all the
enemies of the liberties of these kingdoms, and pushed on the
unhappy king to such fatal measures, as at last produced
the civil wars and the subversion of the constitution. He was
chief counsellor and minister after Buckingham’s death; so
that as Sir Edward Deering said of him, to the parliament,
341“Our manifold griefs do fill a mighty and vast circumference,
yet so that from every part our lines of sorrow do lead unto
him, and point at him the centre, from whence our miseries in
this church, and many of them in the commonwealth, do flow.”
Sir Harbottle Grimstone was more severe, who called him,
“The sty of all pestilential filth—The great and common
enemy of all goodness, and good men—A viper near his majesty’s
person, to distill poison into his sacred ears.”
These and the like violences of Laud and his creatures,
drew down the just vengeance of the parliament on his head,
and involved the church of England itself in his ruin. Bishops
and common prayer were now no more. The church was
formed after a quite different model, and the presbyterian discipline
received and established, both the lords and commons
taking the solemn league and covenant, which was intended
for the utter abolishing prelatical government. The writers
of the church party think this an everlasting brand of infamy
upon the presbyterians. But how doth this throw greater infamy
upon them, than the subversion of presbytery in Scotland,
and the imposing canons and common prayer on that nation,
doth on Laud and his creatures? If the alteration of the established
religion, in any nation, be a crime in itself, it is so in
every nation; and I doubt not but the Scotch presbyterians,
think that that archbishop, and the prelatical party, acted as
unjustly, illegally, and tyrannically, in introducing the English
form of church government and worship into Scotland, contrarycontrary
to their former settlement, and the inclination of almost
the whole nation, as the high-church party can do with respect
to the presbyterians, for altering the form of the establishment
in England; And, indeed, the same arguments that will
vindicate the alterations made in Scotland by the king and the
bishops, will vindicate those made in England by the parliament
and the presbyterians.
[355]It would have been highly honourable to the presbyterian
party, had they used their power, when in possession of it,
342with moderation, and avoided all those methods of persecutions
and suspensions they had themselves felt the effects of in former
times. But to do them justice, they had no great inclination
for moderate measures, or allowing any form of religion but
their own; as appears from the larger catechism of the Westminster
divines, approved by the general assembly of the kirk
of Scotland; in which the “tolerating a false religion” is
ranked amongst the sins forbidden in the second commandment.
And accordingly as soon as they came into the church,
all others must out who would not comply, and submit to
sequestrations and imprisonments.
“The solemn league and covenant” was imposed, and
rigorously exacted of all people, as they would escape their
brand and penalty of malignants. Many of the episcopal
clergy, both in the city and country, were expelled their
livings; though by a generosity, not afterwards imitated by
them, provision was made for the support of their wives and
children. The lord-mayor, aldermen, and common-councilmen
of London, presented a remonstrance to the parliament,
desiring a strict course for suppressing all private and separate
congregations; that all anabaptists, heretics, &c. as conformed
not to the public discipline, may be declared and proceeded
against; that all be required to obey the government settled, or
to be settled; and that none disaffected to the presbyterian
government, be employed in any place of public trust.
An ordinance of parliament was also made; by which every
minister that should use the common prayer, in church or
family, was to forfeit five pounds for the first time, ten pounds
for the second, and to suffer a year’s imprisonment for the
third. Also every minister, for every neglect of the directory,
was to pay forty shillings; and for every contempt of it, by
writing or preaching, to forfeit, at the discretion of those before
whom he was convicted, any sum not under five pounds,
nor above fifty pounds. The parliament also appointed elderships
to suspend, at their discretion, such whom they should
judge to be scandalous, from the sacrament, with a liberty of
appeal to the classical eldership, &c. They set up, also, arbitrary
343rules about the examination and ordination of ministers
by Triers, who were to be sound in faith, and such as usually
received the sacrament. And in these things they were quickened
by the Scots, who complained that reformation moved
so slowly, and that sects and errors encreased, and endeavours
were used for their toleration. Great restraints also were put
upon the liberty of the press, by several ordinances made for
that purpose. And, to say the truth, when they once got presbytery
established, they used the same methods of suspensions,
sequestrations and fines, that the prelatical party had done before,
though not with equal severity; and were as zealous for
uniformity in their own covenant and discipline, as the bishops
were for hierarchy, liturgy, and ceremonies.
[356]But the triumphs of the presbytery and covenant were but
short. Upon the restoration of the “royal wanderer,”wanderer,”Charles
II. prelacy immediately revived, and exerted itself in its primitive
vigor and severity. In his majesty’s first declaration
to his loving subjects, he was pleased to promise “a liberty to
tender consciences, and that no man should be disquieted or
called in question for differences of opinion in matters of religion;
and that he would consent to an act of parliament for
the full granting that indulgence.” But other measures
soon prevailed. In the second year after his restoration,
the act of uniformity was passed; by which all ministers
were to read, and “publicly declare unfeigned assent and
consent to all and every thing contained in, and prescribed
by the book of common prayer,” before the feast of St. Bartholomew
then ensuing, under the penalty of immediate and
absolute deprivation. The consequence of this act was, that
between two and three thousand excellent divines were turned
out of their churches; many of them, to say the least, as eminent
for learning and piety as the bishops, who were the great
promoters of this barbarous act; and themselves and families,
many of them, exposed to the greatest distress and poverty.
344This cruel injustice obliged the ejected ministers, and their
friends, to set up separate congregations; and occasioned such
a division from the established church, as will, I hope, ever
remain, to witness against the tyranny of those times, and the
reverend authors and promoters of that act, to maintain the
spirit and practice of serious religion, and as a public protestation
for the civil and religious liberties of mankind, till time
shall be no more; or till the church shall do herself the justice
and honour to open wide her gates, for the reception of all into
her communion and ministry, who are not rendered incapable
of either, by Jesus Christ the great shepherd and bishop of
souls. But however, measures were then soon taken to disturb
their meetings. In 1664, the bill against frequenting conventicles
passed, the first offence made punishable with five
pounds, or three months imprisonment; the second offence
with ten pounds, or six months imprisonment; and the third
with banishment to some of the foreign plantations; sham plots
being fathered on the dissenters, to prepare the way for these
severities.
But some of the bishops, such as Sheldon, Ward, Wrenn,
&c. did not think these hardships enough; and therefore, notwithstanding
the devastations of the plague, and though several
of the ejected ministers shewed their piety and courage,
in staying and preaching in the city during the fury of it, the
five mile act was passed against them the next year at Oxford;
by which all the silenced ministers were obliged to take an
oath, that it was not lawful, on any pretence whatsoever, to
take arms against the king, or any commissioned by him; and
that they would not, at any time, endeavour an alteration in
the government of church and state. Such who scrupled the
oath were forbid to come within five miles of any city or parliament
borough, or of the church where they had been ministers,
under penalty of forty pounds, or six months imprisonment,
for every offence.
After these things, several attempts were set on foot for a
comprehension, but rendered ineffectual by the practices of
the bishops; and particularly by Ward, bishop of Salisbury,
345who had himself taken the solemn league and covenant: But
having forsaken his first principles, it is no wonder he became
a bitter persecutor. In the year 1670, another severe act was
passed against them: by which it was provided, that if any
person, upwards of sixteen, should be present at any conventicle,
under colour of exercising religion in any other manner
than according to the practice of the church of England, where
there were five persons or more, besides those of the said
household, the offenders were to pay five shillings for the first
offence, and ten shillings for the second; and the preacher to
forfeit twenty pounds for the first, and forty pounds for the
second offence, and those who knowingly suffered any such
conventicles in their houses, barns, yards, &c. were to forfeit
twenty pounds. The effect of these acts was, that great numbers
of ministers and their people were laid in jails amongst
thieves and common malefactors, where they suffered the
greatest hardships and indignities; their effects were seized on,
and themselves and families reduced to almost beggary and
famine.
But at length this very parliament, which had passed these
severe bills against protestant dissenters, began themselves to
be awakened, and justly grew jealous of their religion and
liberties, from the increase of popery: and therefore, to prevent
all dangers which might happen from popish recusants,
they passed, in 1673, the test act; which hath since been,
contrary to the original design of the law, turned against the
protestant dissenters, and made use of to exclude them from
the enjoyment of those rights and privileges which they have
a natural claim to. In the year 1680, a bill passed both
houses of parliament, for exempting his majesty’s protestant
dissenting subjects from certain penalties; but when the king
came to the house to pass the bills, this bill was taken from
the table, and never heard of more; And though this parliament
voted, that the prosecution of protestant dissenters, upon
the penal laws, was grievous to the subject, a weakening the
protestant interest, an encouragement to popery, and dangerous
to the peace of the kingdom; yet they underwent a fresh
346prosecution, their meetings were broken up, many ministers
imprisoned, and most exhorbitant fines levied on them and
their hearers.
In the beginning of King James’s (II.) reign, these rigorous
proceedings were continued, but as the design of that
unhappy bigotted prince was to subvert the religion and laws
of these kingdoms, he published in the year 1687, a declaration
for a general liberty of conscience to all persons, of what
persuasion soever; not out of any regard or affection to the
protestant dissenters, but for the promoting the popish religion
and interest. He also caused an order of council to be passed,
that his declaration of indulgence should be read, in all
churches and chapels, in the time of divine service, all over
England and Wales. But though the dissenters used the
liberty which was thus granted them, and had several opportunities
to have been revenged on their former persecutors;
yet they had too much honour, and regard to the protestant
religion and liberties, ever to fall in with the measures of the
court, or lend their assistance to introduce arbitrary power and
popery. And as the divines of the church of England, when
they saw King James’s furious measures to subvert the whole
constitution, threw off their stiff and haughty carriage towards
the dissenters, owned them for brethren, put on the appearance
of the spirit of peace and charity, and assured them that no
such rigorous methods should be used towards them for the
future; things that never entered into their hearts whilst they
were triumphant in power, and which nothing but a sense of
their own extreme danger seems then to have extorted from
them; the dissenters, far from following their resentments,
readily entered into all measures with them for the common
safety, and were amongst the first and heartiest friends of the
revolution, under King William III. of glorious and immortal
memory.
Soon after the settlement of this prince upon the throne, an
act was passed for exempting their majesty’s protestant subjects,
dissenting from the church of England, from the penal
laws; and though the king, in a speech to the two houses of
347parliament, told them, “That he hoped they would leave
room for the admission of all protestants that were willing and
able to serve him;” agreeable to which, a clause was
ordered to be brought into the house of lords, to take away
the necessity of receiving the sacrament to make persons capable
of offices; yet his majesty’s gracious intentions were frustrated,
and the clause rejected by a great majority. Another
clause also that was afterwards added, that the receiving the
sacrament in the church of England, or in any other protestant
congregation, should be a sufficient qualification, met with the
same fate as the former: so that though the dissenters were
freed from the penal laws, they were left under a brand of
infamy, and rendered incapable of serving their king and
country. And the Lord’s Supper laid open to be prostituted
by law to the most abandoned and profligate sinners; and an
institution designed for the union of all christians, made the
test of a party, and the means of their separation from each
other; a scandal that remains upon the church of England to
this day. It is indeed but too plain, that when the established
church saw itself out of danger, she forgot her promises of
moderation and condescension towards the dissenters, who
readily and openly declared their willingness to yield to a
coalition. But as the clergy had formed a resolution of consenting
to no alterations, in order to such an union; all the
attempts made to this purpose became wholly ineffectual.
Indeed, their very exemption from the penal laws was envied
them by many; and several attempts were made to disturb
and prosecute them in this reign, but were prevented from
taking effect by royal injunctions.
Upon the death of King William, and the succession of
Queen Anne, the hatred of the clergy towards the dissenters,
that had lurked in their breasts, during the former reign, immediately
broke out. Several sermons were preached to render
them odious, and expose them to the fury of the mob. A
bill was brought in and passed by the house of commons, for
preventing occasional conformity, imposing an hundred
pounds penalty upon every person resorting to a conventicle
348or meeting, after his admission into offices, and five pounds
for every day’s continuance in such offices, after having been
present at such conventicle: but upon some disagreement
between the Lords and Commons, the bill dropped for that
time. The same bill, with some few alterations, passed the
house of commons the two next sessions, but was rejected by
the lords. During this reign several pamphlets were published,
containing bitter invectives against the dissenters, and
exciting the government to extirpate and destroy them. Several
prosecutions were also carried on against them for teaching
schools, &c. with great eagerness and malice. In 1709, an
open rebellion broke out, when the mob pulled down the meeting-houses,
and publicly burnt the pews and pulpits. Sacheverell
was trumpet to the rebellion, by preaching treason and
persecution; and the parliament that censured him, was
hastily dissolved. The parliament that succeeded, 1711, was
of a true tory spirit and complexion; and, in its second session,
passed the bill against occasional conformity. The next
parliament, which met in 1714, was of the same disposition,
and passed a bill to prevent the growth of schism; by which
the dissenters were restrained from teaching schools, or from
being tutors to instruct pupils in any family, without the
license of the archbishop or bishop of the diocese where they
resided; and the justices of the peace had power given them
finally to determine in all cases relating thereto. Another bill
was also intended to be brought in against them, to incapacitate
them from voting in elections for parliament men, or being
chosen members of parliament themselves.
But before these unjust proceedings had their intended
effect, the protestant succession, in his late majesty king George
I. took place; Queen Anne dying on the first of August, the
very day on which the schism bill was to have commenced;
which, together with that to prevent occasional conformity,
were both repealed by the first parliament called together by
that excellent prince. And I cannot help thinking that if the
church of England had then consented to have set the dissenters
intirely free, by repealing the test and corporation acts;
349it would have been much to its own honour and reputation, as
well as a great strength and security to the national interest.
But the time was not then come. We still labour under the
oppression of those two acts; and notwithstanding our zeal for
his majesty’s person and family, must sit down as easy as we
can, with the inclination to serve him, whilst by law we are
denied the opportunity and power.
The sentiments of his late majesty, of glorious memory,
with respect to moderation, and the tolerating of dissentersdissenters,
were so fully understood by the whole nation, as kept the
clergy in tolerable good order, and from breaking out into
many outrages against them. But a controversy that began
amongst themselves, soon discovered what spirit many of them
were of. The then bishop of Bangor, the now[357] worthy and
reverend bishop of Winchester, happened in a sermon before
his majesty, to assert the supreme authority of Christ as king
in his own kingdom; and that he had not delegated his power,
like temporal lawgivers, during their absence from their kingdoms,
to any persons, as his deputies and vicegerents. Anno
1717. He also published his preservative; in which he advanced
some positions contrary to temporal and spiritual tyranny,
and in behalf of the civil and religious liberties of mankind.
The goodness of his lordship’s intentions to serve the family of
his present majesty, the interest of his country, and the honour
of the church of God, might methinks have screened him from
all scurrilous abuses. But how numerous were his adversaries,
and how hard the weapons with which they attacked him!
Not only the dregs of the people and clergy opened against
him; but mighty men, and men of great renown, from whom
better things might have been expected, entered the lists with
him, and became the avowed champions for spiritual power,
and the division of the kingdom between Christ Jesus and
themselves. His lordship of Bangor had this manifest advantage
upon the face of the argument. He pleaded for Christ’s
350being king in his own kingdom: his adversaries pleaded for
the translation of his kingdom to certain spiritual viceroys.
He for liberty of private judgment, in matters of religion and
conscience: they for dominion over the faith and consciences
of others. He against all the methods of persecution: they
for penal laws; for corporation and test acts, and the powerful
motives of positive and negative discouragements. He
with the spirit of meekness and of a friend to truth: they with
bitterness and rancour, and an evident regard to interest and
party.
However, the lower house of convocation accused and prosecuted
him, for attempting the subversion of all government
and discipline in the church of Christ, with a view undoubtedly
of bringing him under a spiritual censure, and with impeaching
the regal supremacy in causes ecclesiastical, to subject
him to the weight of a civil one. Of the bishop it must
be said, to his everlasting honour, that the temper he discovered,
under the opposition he met with, and the slanders that
were thrown on him, was as much more amiable than that of
his adversaries, as his cause was better, his writings and principles
more consistent, and his arguments more conclusive and
convincing. But notwithstanding these advantages, his lordship
had great reason to be thankful to God that the civil
power supported and protected him; otherwise his enemies
would not, in all probability, have been content with throwing
scandal upon his character, but forced him to have parted with
SOMETHING, and then delivered him unto Satan for the
punishment of his flesh, and made him have felt the weight of
that authority, which God made him the happy and honourable
instrument of opposing; especially if they were all of
them of a certain good archdeacon’s mind, who thought he
deserved to have his tongue cut out.
The dissenters also have had their quarrels and controversies
amongst themselves, and managed them with great warmth
and eagerness of temper. During their persecution under
King Charles II. and the common danger of the nation under
his brother James, they kept tolerably quiet; the designs of
351the common enemy to ruin them all, uniting them the more
firmly amongst themselves. But after the revolution, when
they were secure from oppression by the civil power, they
soon fell into eager disputes about justification, and other
points of like nature. The high-flown orthodox party would
scarce own for their brethren those who were for moderation
in these principles, or who differed in the least from their
doctrine concerning them. [358]And when they could no longer
produce reason and scripture in their defence, they, some of
them, made use of infamous methods of scandal, and endeavoured
to blast the character of a reverend and worthy divine,
Dr. Williams, in the most desperate manner; because they
could no otherwise answer and refute his arguments. But his
virtue stood the shock of all their attempts to defame it; for
after about eight weeks spent in an enquiry into his life, by a
committee of the united ministers, which received all manner
of complaints and accusations against him; it was declared at
a general meeting, as their unanimous opinion, and repeated
and agreed to in three several meetings successively, that he
was intirely clear and innocent of all that was laid to his charge.
Thus was he vindicated in the amplest form, after the
strictest examination that could be made; and his adversaries,
who dealt in defamation and scandal, if not brought to repentance,
were yet put to silence. It was almost incredible how
much he was a sufferer for his opposition to Antinomianism,
by a strong party, who left nothing unattempted to crush him,
if it had been possible. But as his innocence appeared the
brighter, after his character had been thoroughly sifted, he
was, under God, greatly instrumental in putting a stop to
those pernicious opinions which his opposers propagated;
which struck at the very essentials of all natural and revealed
religion. His Gospel Truth remains a monument of his honour;
a monument his enemies were never able to destroy. However,
nothing would serve, but his exclusion from the merchant’s
352Lecture at Pinners-Hall. Three other worthy divines,
who had been his partners in that service, bore him company;
and their places were supplied with four others, of unquestionable
rigidness and sterling orthodoxy. Many papers were
drawn up on each side, in order to an accommodation; so
that it looked as Dr. Calamy tells us, as if the creed-making age
was again revived. It was insisted, that Arminianism should
be renounced on one side, and Antinomianism on the other.
But all was in vain; and the papers that were drawn up to
compose matters, created new heats, instead of extinguishing
the old ones. These contentions were kept up for several
years, till at last the disputants grew weary, and the controversy
thread-bare, when it dropped of itself.
The next thing that divided them was the Trinitarian controversy,
and the affair of subscription to human creeds and articles
of faith, as a test of orthodoxy. In the year 1695, a
great contest arose about the trinity, amongst the divines of
the church of England, who charged each other with Tritheism
and Sabellianism; and according to the ecclesiastical manner
of managing disputes, bestowed invectives and scurrilous
language very plentifully upon each other. The dissenters,
in the reign of his late majesty, not only unfortunately fell into
the same debate, but carried it on, some of them at least, with
equal want of prudence and temper.
In the west of England, where the fire first broke out, moderation,
christian forbearance, and charity, seemed to have
been wholly extinguished. The reverend and learned Mr.
James Peirce, minister in the city of Exeter, was dismissed
from his congregation, upon a charge of heresy; and treated
by his opposers, with shameful rudeness and insolence. Other
congregations were also practised with, to discard their pastors
upon the same suspicion, who were accused of impiously “denying
the Lord that bought them;” to render them odious to
their congregations, merely because they could not come up
to the unscriptural tests of human orthodoxy. And when
several of the ministers of London thought proper to interpose,
and try, if by advices for peace, they could not compose the
353differences of their brethren in the west; this christian design
was as furiously opposed as if it had been a combination to extirpate
christianity itself; and a proposal made in the room of
it, that the article of the church of England, and the answer
in the assembly’s catechism, relating to the trinity, should be
subscribed by all the ministers, as a declaration of their faith,
and a test of their orthodoxy.
This proposal was considered by many of the ministers,
not only as a thing unreasonable in itself, thus to make inquisition
into the faith of others, but highly inconsistent with the
character of protestants, dissenting from the national establishment;
and dissenting from it for this reason amongst others,
because the established church expressly claims “an authority
in controversies of faith.” And, therefore, after the affair had
been debated for a considerable while, the question was solemnly
put, and the proposal rejected by a majority of voices.
This the zealots were highly displeased with, and accordingly
publicly proclaimed their resentments from the pulpits. Fasts
were appointed solemnly to deplore, confess, and pray against
the aboundings of heresy; and their sermons directly levelled
against the two great evils of the church, Nonsubscription and
Arianism. Through the goodness of God they had no power
to proceed farther; and when praying and preaching in this
manner began to grow tedious, and were, by experience, found
to prove ineffectual, to put a stop to the progress of the cause of
liberty, their zeal immediately abated, the cry of heresy was
seldomer heard, and the alarm of the church’s being endangered
by pernicious errors, gradually ceased; it being very
observable, that though heresy be ever in its nature the same
thing, yet that the cry against it is either more or less, according
as the political managers of it, can find more or fewer
passions to work on, or a greater or lesser interest to subserve
by it.
354
It hath been already remarked, in the foregoing section,
that the rigours with which Laud, and his persecuting brethren
treated the puritans, occasioned many of them to transport
themselves to New England, for the sake of enjoying that
liberty of conscience, which they were cruelly denied in their
native country. And who could have imagined, but that their
own sufferings for conscience sake must have excited in them
an utter abhorrence of these antichristian principles, by which
they themselves had so deeply smarted? But though they
carried over with them incurable prejudices against persecuting
prelates, yet they seem many of them to have thought that
they had the right of persecution in themselves; and accordingly
practised many grievous cruelties towards those who
did not fall in with their doctrine and discipline, and church
order.
I shall not here mention the severities practised on great
numbers of persons for supposed witchcraft, to the great blemish
and dishonour of the government there, those prosecutions
being carried on not properly upon a religious account; but I
am obliged, in justice, not to pass by the cruel laws they made
against the persons called Quakers, who felt the weight of
their “independent discipline,” and were treated with the
utmost rigour by their magistrates and ministers.
[359]In the year 1656, a law was made at Boston, prohibiting
all masters of ships to bring any quakers into that jurisdiction,
and themselves from coming in, “on penalty of the house of
correction.”correction.” When this law was published, one Nicholas Upshal,
who was himself an independent, argued against the unreasonableness
of such a law; and warned them to take heed
“not to fight against God,” and so draw down a judgment
upon the land.land. For this they fined him twenty-three pounds,
355imprisoned him for not coming to church, and banished him
out of their jurisdiction.
[360]But though this law was executed upon many persons
with unrelenting and extreme rigour; yet, as it did not entirely
prevent the quakers from coming into New England, a more
cruel law was made against them in the year 1658. “That
whosoever of the inhabitants should, directly or indirectly,
cause any of the quakers to come into that jurisdiction, he
‘should forfeit one hundred pounds to the country, and be
committed to prison,’ there to remain till the penalty should be
satisfied: and whosoever should entertain them, knowing them
to be so, ‘should forfeit forty shillings to the country for every
hour’s entertainment’ or concealment, and be committed to
prison till the forfeiture should be fully paid and satisfied.
And farther, that all and every of those people, that should
arise amongst them there, should be dealt withal, and suffer
the like punishment as the laws provided for those that came
in: viz. That for the first offence, if a male, ‘one of his ears
should be cut off, and he kept at work in the house of correction,’
till he should be sent away at his own charge. For the
second, ‘the other ear, and be kept in the house of correction,’
as aforesaid. If a woman, then ‘to be severely whipped,’
and kept as aforesaid, as the male for the first; and for the
second offence, to be dealt withal as the first. And for the
third, ‘he or she should have their tongues bored through
with an hot iron,’ and be kept in the house of correction close
at work, till they be sent away at their own charge.”
Could it be imagined that the authors of these bloody laws
had been forced from their own native country by the terrors
of persecution? or that after all their complaints, about the
violences and oppressions of the prelates against themselves,
they should yet think persecution for conscience-sake a lawful
thing; and that they had a right, as soon as ever they could
get power, to persecute others? The making such laws, and
356the execution of them, was certainly more detestable in them
than others; who should have learnt forbearance and compassion
towards others, by the things which they themselves
had suffered. And yet they seem to have been as devoid of
these virtues, as Laud or any of his brethren, against whom
they had so bitterly and justly exclaimed.
[370]In pursuance of the before-mentioned law, one William
Brend, and William Leddra, were committed to the house of
correction at Boston; where they were kept five days without
food, and after that received twenty blows each with a three-corded
whip. The next day Brend, who was an elderly man,
was put in irons, and tied neck and heels close together for
sixteen hours. The next morning the jailer took a pitched
rope, about an inch thick, and gave him twenty blows over
the back and arms with as much force as he could, so that the
rope untwisted. But he fetched another thicker and stronger,
and gave him fourscore and seventeen more blows, and threatened
to give him as many more the next morning. Brend
had nothing on but a serge cassock upon his shirt, so that his
back and arms were grievously bruised, and the blood hung
as in bags under his arms; and so cruelly was his body
mangled, that it was reduced almost to a perfect jelly.
The same year J. Copeland, Christ. Helder, and J. Rous,
were apprehended and imprisoned, and condemned to have
each of them their right ear cut off by the hangman; which
was accordingly executed; after which they were whipped.
But things did not stop here. Norton and others of his
brethren the ministers, petitioned the magistrates to cause the
court to make some law to banish the quakers, upon pain of
death. The court consisted of twenty-five persons; and the
law being proposed, it was carried in the affirmative, thirteen
to twelve. As the law is very peculiar, and contains the reasons
given by these “Independent Persecutors,” and shews
the severity of their discipline, I shall give the substance of it;
which is as follows:
357[371]“Whereas there is a pernicious sect, commonly called
quakers, lately risen, who by word and writing have published
and maintained many dangerous and horrid tenets, and do
take on them to change and alter the received laudable customs
of our nation, in giving civil respect to equals, or reverence
to superiors, whose actions tend to undermine the civil
government, and also to destroy the order of the churches, by
denying all established forms of worship, and by withdrawing
from orderly church fellowship, allowed and approved by all
orthodox professors of the truth—whereby divers of our inhabitants
have been infected;—for prevention thereof, this court
doth order and enact, that every person or persons of “the
cursed sect” of the ‘Quakers,’ who is not an inhabitant of,
but is found within this jurisdiction, shall be apprehended
without warrant, where no magistrate is at hand, by any constable,
commissioner, or select man—who shall commit the said
person to close prison, there to remain without bail until the
next court of assistance, where they shall have a legal trial:
and ‘being convicted to be of the sect of the quakers, shall
be sentenced to be banished, upon pain of death.’ And that
every inhabitant of this jurisdiction, being convicted to be of
the aforesaid sect, either by taking up, publishing, or defending
the horrid opinions of the quakers, or the stirring up mutiny,
sedition, and rebellion against the government, or by taking
up their absurd and destructive practices, viz. denying civil
respect to equals and superiors, and withdrawing from our
church assemblies, and instead thereof frequent meetings of
their own, in opposition to our church order, or by adhering to,
or approving of any known quaker, and the tenets and practices
of the quakers, that are opposite to “the orthodox received
opinions of the godly, and endeavouring to disaffect others to
civil government, and church orders, or condemning the practice
and proceedings of this court against the quakers, manifesting
hereby their complying with those, whose design is to overthrow
358the order established in church and state; every such
person, upon conviction before the said court of assistants, in
manner as aforesaid, ‘shall be committed to close prison for
one month;’ and then, unless they choose voluntarily to depart
this jurisdiction, shall give bond for their good behaviour,
and appear at the next court; where continuing obstinate, and
‘refusing to retract or reform the aforesaid opinions,’ they
shall ‘be sentenced to banishment, upon pain of death:’ And
any one magistrate, upon information given him of any such
person, shall cause him to be apprehended; and shall commit
any such person to prison, according to his discretion, until
he come to trial, as aforesaid.”
“Here endeth,” says my author, “this sanguinary act,
being more like to the decrees of the Spanish inquisition, than
the laws of a reformed christian magistracy; consisting of such
who themselves, to shun persecution (which was but a small
fine for not frequenting the public worship) had left Old England.”
And what was it occasioned this bloody law? Why,
because the poor quakers refused to pull off their hats, and withdrew
from the church assemblies of these independent persecutors,
and frequented their own meetings, in opposition to
their church order; and because the quakers held tenets opposite
to the orthodox received opinions of the godly, i. e. opposite
to their own opinions, who by flying from England seem
to have imagined that they carried away with them all the
orthodoxy and godliness out of the kingdom.
And to shew the rigidness of their discipline, and that they
did not intend this law merely “in terrorem,” they wickedly
murdered several innocent persons under the cover of it, several
of their priests standing with pleasure to see them executed.
Thus William Robinson, merchant, Marmaduke Stephenson,
Mary Dyer, and William Leddra, were hanged at Boston for
being quakers; and they would have proceeded to more executions,
had it not been for the Mandamus of Charles II. who,
though a papist, yet was of a more merciful disposition than
these New England disciplinarians, and ordered all proceedings
against the quakers immediately to stop.
359It would be endless to recount all the cruelties they used to
these poor people, whom they imprisoned, unmercifully whipped,
oppressed with fines, and then condemned them to be sold
to the plantations, to answer the fines they had laid upon them.
But enough hath been said to shew the inhumanity of their
spirit and practice, and to raise in the reader an abhorrence
and detestation of such a conduct in men, who, though they
had been persecuted themselves, carried the principles of persecution
with them into the place of their banishment, and
used worse severities towards others for conscience-sake, than
what they themselves had experienced from the bitterness of
their enemies; and thereby made it appear, that they complained
against the persecutions of the prelatical party, not
because they were for moderation and christian charity in
their own conduct, but because they thought the right of persecution
only in themselves, and that violence ought not to be
made use of to support any but the orthodox opinions of such
as they themselves esteemed to be godly, and to maintain what
they called the order and fellowship of their own churches.
[372]I have only to add, that I find also from the same author,
that the quakers were much persecuted in Scotland; but as he
hath given no particular account of that affair, I have nothing
farther to enlarge upon that subject.
And thus have I brought the History of Persecution down
to our own times, and nation; and shewn how all parties have,
in their turns of power, been sharers in this guilt. If church
history would have afforded me a better account, I assure my
reader he should have had it told with pleasure. The story,
as it is, I have told with grief. But it is time to dismiss him
from so ungrateful an entertainment, and see what useful reflections
we can make on the whole.
