concerning the popes who exalted themselves to the papal reign, it
is also proper to give what may be read in the “_Chronijk van den
Ondergang der Tyrannen_,” for the year 537, where the popedom of
Vigilius is thus spoken of: “This Pope Vigilius was certainly impelled
by the spirit of ambition; he greatly aspired to the popedom, and
wrongfully ascended the papal chair, for he counseled the empress, how
to expel Pope Silverius. He engaged false witnesses, who said that
Silverius intended to betray the city of Rome secretly, and surrender
it to the Goths (of which we shall afterwards speak more fully);
therefore he was deposed from the popedom by force, and relegated into
misery; and thus Vigilius six days afterwards became pope. The Empress
Theodora desired him to reinstate Anthenius at Constantinople, as he
had promised to do; but Vigilius refused, saying that one was not
bound to keep a bad promise against one’s conscience.” Compared with
the account of Platina, in his _“Panselijk Register,” fol. 110_. Also,
_Chron. Fasci. Temp. fol. 117_.
OF SOME WHO ATTAINED POSSESSION OF THE ROMAN CHAIR THROUGH SECULAR
POWER AND OTHER UNGODLY MEANS.
There is, moreover, mention made of another kind of popes, who attained
possession of the Roman chair, not properly through themselves,
inasmuch as they were too weak, but through the power of princes and
potentates, yea, even through the Arians. Among these are particularly
numbered the two popes named Felix, both of whom were exalted to papal
dignity, and put in their office by Arian Kings, who ruled Italy, and,
consequently, also the city of Rome; the one by Constantius,[56] the
other by Theodoric, both of whom belonged to the Arian sect. _Caes.
Bar. Ann. 526. num. 2._
[56] This Constantius was a Roman emperor, while Theodoric was King
of the Goths.
But quite the contrary happened when pope Silverius was reputed to
favor the Goths, who sided with the Arians. Prince Belizarius deposed
him, and sent him away into Greece, putting Vigilius in his stead as
pope. According to the testimony of Procopius. _Ann. 538. num. 2._
After Vigilius, Pelagius was declared pope by two bishops only, and
one from Ostien,[57] through the favor and assistance of the emperor
Justinian; notwithstanding, as Anastasius says, the bad suspicion of
having caused the death of the previous Pope Vigilius, rested on him;
for which reason none of the other ecclesiastics, nay, not even the
laity, would have communion or anything to do with him. _Ann. 555. num.
2._
[57] Probably Ostia, a town at the mouth of the Tiber. (Pub.)
OF THE DREADFUL TIME, CALLED BY THE PAPISTS THE IRON AND LEADEN CENTURY,
WHICH WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE ELECTION OF THE POPES.
The oftmentioned cardinal Cæsar Baronius, proceeding in his account
of the Register of the Popes, arrives at the year 901, the beginning
of the tenth century, where he bursts out, as if with sorrow, calling
this time hard, unfruitful, and productive of much evil; and comparing
it to an iron and leaden century, full of wickedness and darkness,
particularly in respect to the great irregularity practiced in the
installing and deposing of the Roman popes; which was done partly by
the Roman princes, partly by the princes of Tuscany, who, now this
one, then that one, usurped the authority to elect the popes, and to
dethrone them; which happened in such a manner that all the preceding
abuses committed with reference to the Roman chair were mere child’s
play in comparison with it.
For now, as Baronius writes, many monsters were thrust into this
chair as popes; which continued throughout this whole century, yea,
for a hundred and fifty years, namely from the year 900 to about
the year 1049, when the German Ottoes, who occupied the imperial
throne, interposed between both, although they, not less than their
predecessors, retained as their prerogative the right of electing and
rejecting the popes. _Baron. Ann. 901. num. 1._
The same cardinal relates, that in these awful and terrible times
some popes attained to the popedom not only by the power of princes
and potentates, but through the foolish love of certain dishonorable
and loose women, by whom Rome was ruled; which we could in no wise
believe, had not so eminent a man and rigid papist, as Baronius was,
described it so plainly and circumstantially. See in _Baronius’ Church
History_, printed at Antwerp 1623, _for the year 912. num. 1_; also
_928. num. 1_; also _931. num. 1_.
Our soul is amazed, and we are ashamed to relate all that is adduced
there from various papistic writers, concerning the election of some of
the popes.
O God! open the eyes of these blind lovers of papacy, that they may
see, what succession it is, of which they have so long boasted in vain;
so that they may truly turn to thee and thy church, and be saved!
NOTE.--With respect to this matter, the writer of the Introduction
to the _Martyrs Mirror_, of the year 1831, says: “After that arose a
time far more horrible, etc., for the margraves of Tuscany, and after
them the emperors, exercised so much violence with reference to the
papal chair, that they thrust into it many monsters; among whom was
John X., who was thrust into the chair by Theodora, mistress of Rome,
while Lando was deposed.” Introduction, _fol. 26. col. 2._ from _Baron.
Church History, Anno 912. num. 1._
After that he relates, that John X. was deposed by Theodora’s daughter,
who also reigned over Rome, and that John XI., a bastard child of Pope
Sergius III., was put into it. “And thus,” he writes, “have whores
and rogues, according to the testimony of cardinal Baronius, ruled
the papal chair, deposing and instituting whomsoever they would.”
_Fol. 27. col. 1._ from _Baronius, Anno 931. num. 1._ Continuing, the
aforementioned author remarks: “In this iron century it also happened,
that Stephen IX., having illegitimately attained to the chair, was
marked in the face by some rogues, for which reason he staid in his
house.” Same place, from _Baronius Anno 940. num. 1._
But, in order to give an account of those particular ones only, who
attained unlawfully to the papal chair, since we are treating of the
succession and mission of the popes, we must also mention Pope John
XII., who, being only eighteen years old, was forcibly put into the
chair, and made pope by his father, the margrave of Tuscany. Afterwards
he was deposed by a council at Rome, on account of his wicked life; but
he remained pope nevertheless, since nobody would excommunicate the
pope, however wicked his life might be, as Baronius relates. Compare
_Baron. Anno 955. num. 1._ with _Anno 963. num. 1. 2._
After that, Albericus, the count of Tusculum, made his son, who was
but ten years old, pope, and by his authority put him into the chair
under the name of Benedict IX. After he had reigned about nine years,
a certain faction of the Romans elected another pope. When Gratianus,
a priest at Rome, saw this, he bought out both of them with money, and
called himself Gregory VI.
But the Emperor, not willing to tolerate this, deposed all three of
them, and put Clemens II. in their stead; and then Damascus II.; after
him Leo IX.; and, finally, Victor II.
Thus the imperial line of the popes continued, until the clergy
itself became powerful enough to elect the popes without waiting for
the imperial mission, which formerly had been deemed necessary; this
afterwards gave rise to great schisms and divisions in the Roman
Church. Compare concerning all this _Baron. Hist. Eccl. Anno 1033. num.
2._ with _Anno 1044. num. 2. 3_; also, _Anno 1046. num. 1_; _Anno 1048.
num. 1_; _Anno 1049. num. 2_; _Anno 1055._
With regard to the aforesaid matters, the writer of the Introduction
mentioned says (_Fol. 27. col. 2_): “This being taken into
consideration, we say, that it is not true that they, namely the
Romanists, have an uninterrupted succession from the days of the
apostles to the present time, as they would make the people believe,
with their long register of popes, whom they have connected as the
links of a chain, as though they, through lawful mission, had always
maintained a continuous succession; but we have proved here that this
chain of succession is, in many ways, broken.
“In the first place, by Stephen VII. and his successors, who have
forcibly thrust themselves into the chair. These certainly had no
mission; and where the mission ceases, the succession ceases also.
“In the second place, by those who were thrust into the chair, without
the order or sanction of the church, only by kings and princes, yea,
even by whores, through lewd love; or who bought the same with money,
as we have shown. These also were certainly not sent; or, if they
were sent, it must be proved, by whom: for two contrary things cannot
consist together. If they were sent, they did not thrust themselves
into the chair, as Baronius says notwithstanding; but if they thrust
themselves into it, or were thrust into it by others through unlawful
means, then they were not sent, and consequently, had no succession
from the apostles.” Introduction, _fol. 28. col. 1._
TWO, THREE, AND FOUR POPES REIGNING AT THE SAME TIME; THE CHAIR OF ROME
OCCASIONALLY WITHOUT A POPE FOR A LONG TIME.
Formerly, when the papal dominion was coveted, the aim was directed
solely to the Roman chair, but now it was quite different; for, instead
of according to Rome, the honor of electing the pope, as had always
been the case heretofore, they of Avignon, in France began, without
regarding the Romans or Italians, to constitute themselves the electors
of the pope; insomuch that they for this end elected a certain person,
whom they called Benedict XIII., notwithstanding the Roman chair was
occupied by a pope called Gregory XII.; thus setting not only pope
against pope, but France against Italy, and Avignon against Rome.[58]
[58] After pope Anastasius, Symmachus was elected pope in a tumult;
and immediately also Laurentius was elected, with whom he had two
contests, yet came off victor, as the papists say, for the clergy
and king Diederik were on his side. But after four years, some of
the clergy, who lusted after uproar and contention, and some Roman
senators, recalled Laurentius; but they were sent into banishment.
This caused a fearful riot at Rome. _P.J. Twisk, 5th Book, Anno 499.
page 171. col. 2. ex Platinal Chron. fol. 101. Fasc. Temp. fol. 114._
Of this, P. J. Twisk gives the following account: “At this time there
reigned two popes, who were for a long time at great variance with each
other; the one at Rome in Italy, the other at Avignon.
“When Pope Innocentius at Rome was dead, Benedict XIII. still occupied
the papal chair in France. Then Gregory XII. was elected pope.” _Chron.
P. J. Twisk, 15th Book, for the year 1406. page 758. col. 1. ex Chron.
Platinæ, fol. 396. Fasc. Temp. fol. 187._
The same writer, after narrating successively several other things
which happened in the five subsequent years, again makes mention, for
the year 1411, of this Pope Benedict, who was elected at Avignon; as
well as of two others, who arose during his reign, namely, Gregory and
John; and also of their mutual contentions. These are his words:
“At that time there were three popes at once, who incessantly
excommunicated one another, and of whom the one gained this potentate
for his adherent, the other another. Their names were: Benedict,
Gregory, and John.
“These strove and contended with each other, not for the honor of the
Son of God, nor in behalf of the reformation and correction of the
adulterated doctrines or the manifold abuses of the (Roman) church,
but solely for the supremacy; to obtain which, no one hesitated to
perpetrate the most shameful deeds.
“In brief, the emperor exerted himself with great diligence, and
traveled three years through Europe, to exterminate this shameful and
pernicious strife and discord which prevailed in Christendom. Having,
therefore, rejected these three schismatic popes, he brought it about,
that Otto Columnius was made Pope by common consent; for, within the
last twenty-nine years there had always been at least two popes; one at
Rome, and the other at Avignon. When one blessed, the other cursed.[59]
See aforementioned _Chronicle, 15th Book, for the year 1411. page 765.
col. 1, 2._
[59] So writes Jan Crispijn.
Concerning the overthrow of these three popes the same author gives
this statement: “In this year, Pope John XXIV., having been convicted
in fifty-four articles, of heresies, crimes, and base villainies, was
deposed from papal dignity, by the council of Constance, and given in
custody to the palsgrave. When these articles were successively read
to him, he sighed deeply and replied, that he had done something still
worse, namely, that he had come down from the mountains of Italy, and
committed himself under the jurisdiction of a council, in a country
where he possessed neither authority nor power.
After he had been in confinement at Munich three years, to the
astonishment of every one, he was released, and made cardinal and
bishop of Tusculum, by Pope Martin V., whose feet he submissively came
to kiss at Florence. Shortly afterwards, in the year 1419, he died
there, and was buried with great pomp and solemnity in the church of
St. John the Baptist. After he had thus received his sentence, the
other two popes were summoned; of whom Gregory XII., who resided at
Rimini, sent Charles Maletesta thither, with instructions to abdicate
voluntarily in his name the papal dignity; in reward of which he was
made a legate in Marca d’Ancona, where he subsequently died of a broken
heart, at Racanay, a seaport on the Adriatic Sea.
Benedict XIII., the pope at Avignon, remained obstinate in his purpose,
so that neither entreaties nor threats, nor the authority of the
council could move him, to submit, or lay down his office, for the
tranquillity of all Christendom. See the aforementioned _Chronicle,
15th Book, for the year 1415. page 773. col. 2. and 774. col. 1._
NOTE.--Pope Benedict XIII., through the incitation of the King of
France, and the University of Paris, sent his legates to Pope Boniface
IX.; but they received as an answer, that their master could not
properly be called a pope, but an antipope; whereupon they refuted him.
See _De Ondergang, 15th Book, Anno 1404. page 757. col. 1._
Here it is proper to note what the last mentioned author narrates
concerning the plurality of the popes, who existed at one and the same
time.
“Besides this,” he writes, “It is related that there were sometimes
four, sometimes three, and sometimes two popes at the same time.”
Victor, Alexander III., Calixtus III., and Paschalis, possessed
together the papal authority, at the time of the Emperor Frederick
Barbarossa; and also Benedict VIII., Sylvester II., and Gregory V. were
popes together, till finally, Henry III. deposed them.
Likewise Gregory XII., Benedict XIII., and Alexander V. arrogated, by
excommunications, the papal authority.[60]
[60] Concerning this matter, P. J. Twisk gives this account: “At this
time there were three popes at once, namely, Gregory XII., Benedict
XIII., and Alexander V. Thus was the great city, the spiritual
Babylon, divided into three parts, as a token of its approaching
fall. _Chron. for the year 1409. page 762. col. 1._
Further, how Stephen III. and Constantine, Sergius III. and
Christophorus, Urbanus V. and Clemens VII., Eugene IV. and Clemens
VIII., and many other popes, whom to mention it would take too long,
strove and contended with each other for the triple crown, their own
historians have sufficiently elucidated. See in _the 9th Book of the
Chronicle for the year 891. page 315. col 2. from the tract, Den
Onpartijdigen Rechter_.
HOW THE ROMAN CHAIR STOOD VACANT.
As great as was at times the inordinate desire manifested by some for
the possession of the chair of papal dominion, so great was at other
times the negligence and aversion as regards the promotion of the same
cause;[61] for it occasionally happened that the chair stood vacant for
a considerable time, in consequence of the contentions and dissensions
of the cardinals; so that the whole Roman church was without a head;
without which, as the papists themselves assert, it cannot subsist.
[61] Where no true foundation is, there is no stability; this is
apparent here: for as immoderate as they were in seeking to possess
the Roman chair, so immoderate they were also in leaving it vacant.
In order to demonstrate this matter, we shall (so as not to intermix
all sorts of writers) adduce the various notes of P. J. Twisk, who
gives information in regard to this subject from Platina’s Registers of
the Popes, and other celebrated papistic authors, in his _Chronicle_,
printed _Anno 1617 at Hoorn_; from which we shall briefly extract the
following instances, and present them to the reader.
We shall, however, omit brief periods of a few days, weeks, or months,
and pass on to intervals of more than a year, which, consequently, are
not reckoned by months, or still lesser periods. In this we shall begin
with the shortest period, and end with the longest.
On _page 225, col. 1_, mention is made of pope Martin I. (in the
Register the seventy-sixth), that he was carried away a prisoner by
Constantine, emperor at Constantinople, and sent into exile, where he
died; whereupon the chair stood vacant for over a year. _Ex. Hist.
Georg; lib. 4. Platin. fol. 135. Zeg. fol. 224, 225._
_Page 260, col. 2_, the same writer relates of Paul I. (the
ninety-fifth in the Register), that he excommunicated Constantine V.,
who had thrown the images out of the church; and that Constantine, not
heeding this, in his turn excommunicated the pope; whereupon the latter
died, and the Roman chair was without an occupant, and the church
without a head, one year and one month. _Ex. Platinæ Regist. Pap. fol.
166. hist. Georg. lib. 4. Franc. Allars. fol. 54._
After that he makes mention of pope Honorius I. (in the Register the
seventy-second), that he, having instituted the exaltations of the Holy
Cross, the Saturday processions, which had to be held at Rome, the
special prayers in the invocation of the departed saints, etc., was
deposed by a certain council at Constantinople; and that, he having
died, the chair at Rome was vacant for one year and seven months. See
above mentioned _Chronicle, page 218. col. 1. ex hist. Georg. lib. 4.
Franc. Ala. Reg. fol. 44. Platin. Succ. Papæ. fol. 130._
When Pope John XXIV. was deposed on account of his wicked life and
ungodly conduct, and placed in confinement somewhere, in the time of
emperor Sigismund and the council of Constance, there was for the
time of two years and five months no one who took charge of the papal
government; hence the chair was without an occupant for that length of
time. See aforementioned _Chronicle, for the year 1411, p. 769. col.
1. ex Fasc. Temp. fol. 187. Platin. fol. 401. Onuf. fol. 406. 417.
Hist. Eccl. Casp. Hedio. part. 3. lib. 11. Chronol. Leonh. lib. 6. Joh.
Stumpff. fol. 21. Hist. Georg. lib. 9. Hist. Mart. Adr. fol. 53. to 66.
Jan Crisp. fol. 356. to 175. Zeg. fol. 326._
Moreover, twice it happened, that for the space of about three years
no one was pope, or general head of the Roman church; first, after
the deposition of Pope Benedict XIII. of Avignon; secondly, before
the election of Otto Calumna, called Martin V., thus named because he
was consecrated or ordained on St. Martin’s day. Concerning the first
time, see _P. J. Twisk, Chron. for the year 1415. page 774 col. 1_;
concerning the second, see in the same book, for the year 1417, or two
years afterwards _p. 781. col. 1._ compared with _Fasc. Temp. fol. 187.
Platin. fol. 470. Hist. Georg. lib. 6. Mern. fol. 913. Seb. Fr._ (old
edition) _fol. 31._
After the death of Pope Nicholas I. (the 108th in the Register),
information is obtained from Platina, according to the account of
various other authors, relative to the condition of the Roman church at
that time; namely, that she had no pope or head, for eight years, seven
months and nine days. Compare _Plat. Reg. Pap. fol. 197._ with _Georg.
hist. lib. 5. Joh. Munst. fol. 14. Mern. fol. 556. Francisc. Ala. fol.
60._ Also, _P. J. Twisk, Chron. 9th Book, edition of 1617. p. 297. col.
2._
OF THE UNGODLY LIFE AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT OF SOME OF THE POPES.
Many of the ancient writers, even good Romanists, are so replete with
the manifold ungodly and extremely disorderly conduct of some of those
who occupied the papal chair, and are placed in the Register of the
true successors of Peter, that one hardly knows how to begin, much less
how to end.[62]
[62] Besides what is told in the body of the work concerning the
ungodly life and disorderly conduct of some popes, it is related by
other authors, that some of them were accused (even by those of the
Roman church) of heresy, and apostasy from the Roman faith. From
_Platina’s Register of the Popes, number 37_, is adduced the apostasy
of pope Liberius to the tenets of the Arians; which happened in this
wise: The emperor, being at that time tainted with the tenets of the
Arians, deposed pope Liberius, and sent him into exile ten years. But
when Liberius, overcome by the grievousness of his misery, became
infected with the faith and the confession of the Arian sect, he was
victoriously reinstated by the emperor, into his papal chair at Rome.
Compare _Chron. Platinæ_ (old edition) _fol. 73. Fasc. Temp. fol.
102. Chron. Holl. div. 2. cap. 20._ with _P. J. Twisk, Chron. 4th
Book, for the year 353. page 150. col. 2._
Concerning the apostasy of pope Anastasius II. to the tenets of
Achacius, bishop of Constantinople, and, consequently, to the
Nestorians, we find, from various Roman authors, this annotation:
Anastasius was at first a good Christian, but was afterwards seduced
by the heretic Achacius, bishop of Constantinople. This was the
second pope of bad repute who adhered to the heresy of Nestorius,
even as Liberius adhered to the heresy of Arius. _Plat. Regist. Pap.
fol. 100. Fasc. Temp. fol. 113. Chron. Holl. div. c. 20._ compared
with the _Chronijk van den Ondergang, edition of 1617, 5th Book, for
the year 497. p. 171. col. 2._
Some time after Honorius I. had been exalted to the dignity of the
Roman chair, it was found that he did not maintain the doctrines of
the Roman church, but was opposed to them, although he seemed to
ingratiate himself with her in some external things. Concerning this,
the following words are given by a certain author: Honorius I. added
the invocation of the saints to the litanies: he built many temples,
and decorated them with great magnificence; but this pope was
afterwards condemned as a heretic, together with six prelates, by the
sixth council of Constantinople. Compare _Hist. Georg. lib. 4. Franc.
Ala. fol. 44. Platin. Regist. Pap. fol. 130._ with the last mentioned
_Chronicle, edition of 1617, for the year 622, page 218. col. 1._
In addition to the evil testimony which is given of John XXIV., P.
J. Twisk gives the following account: “This pope John, as some say,
forcibly took possession of the papal chair, and is styled by the
ancient writers a true standard-bearer of all heretics and epicures.
He was a man better fitted for arms and war, than for the service of
God.” _Chronijk, P. J. Twisk, 15th Book, for the year 1411. p. 768.
col. 2._
We shall therefore, so as not to cause any doubts as regards our
impartiality, not adduce all, but only a few, and these not the worst,
but, when contrasted with those whom we shall not mention, the very
best examples of the kind; and shall then soon leave them, as we have
no desire to stir up this sink of rottenness, and pollute our souls
with its stench.
Concerning the simony or sacrilege of some popes, a brief account is
given from Platina and other papistic writers, in the _Chronijk van den
Ondergang, 9th Book, for the year 828. p. 281. col. 2._ and _p. 282.
col. 1._ The writer of said chronicle, having related the complaint of
the king of France about the revenue of twenty-eight tonnen gold,[63]
annually drawn by the popes from said kingdom, proceeds, to say: “How
true the foregoing is, appears sufficiently from the fact that John
XXII. at his death left two hundred and fifty tonnen gold ($7,000,000)
in his private treasury; as Franciscus Petrarcha, a credible writer,
plainly states.