Chapter XVIII: Of the Resurrection of the Dead, and the Last Judgment (2)

NOTE.--Besides what we have mentioned in our account of holy baptism, for the year 606, of the rise and establishment of the Roman pope, there is also found, concerning the cause of the same (in the _Chronijk van den Ondergang der Tyrannen_, edition of 1617, book VII., page 211, col. 2), this annotation: When the patriarch at Constantinople reproved the Emperor Phocas for the shameful murder he had committed, or would not consent to, or remit it, while the bishop of Rome winked at, or excused this wicked deed, the Emperor Phocas, in his displeasure, deprived the church of Constantinople of the title, _Head of Christendom_, and, at the request of Boniface III., conferred it upon the Roman church; which was done amidst great contentions, for the eastern churches could not well consent to it, that the see of Rome should be considered by everybody, and everywhere, as the head and the supreme (of the) church. Compare this with _Platinae Reg. Pap. fol. 123; Fasc. Temp. fol. 122; Pol. Virgil, lib. 4. cap. 10; Hist. Georg. lib. 4; Conrad. Oclutar. fol. 15; Tract, called, Ouden en Nieuwen Godt. lib. 1; M. Zanchij Tract. Pap. fol. 41; Zeg. Chron. Rom. Pap. fol 132_.

OF THE ELECTION OF THE POPE; AND OF SUCH AS HAVE USURPED THE CHAIR.

In the introduction to the _Martyrs Mirror_ (edition of 1631, fol. 25, 26, 27) mention is made from Cardinal Baronius (we have looked into his history, and found it to be so at the place referred to), of various popes who ran of themselves, without lawful election or mission; and also of some who usurped the chair, without the consent of the church, merely by the power of princes and potentates.

Among the popes who, without lawful election or mission, ran of themselves, are numbered Stephen VII., Christopher, and Sergius III., with whom it was as follows:

Stephen VII. expelled Boniface VI. by force from the Roman see, after the death of Formosus; and afterwards committed an abominable deed on the dead body of said Formosus, who was counted a lawful and good pope; which deed the Cardinal C. Baronius describes from Luytprandus and others as follows:

“In this same year was perpetrated the great wickedness which Luytprandus and others relate, but incorrectly by Sergius; since the acts of the aforementioned Synod under Pope John IX., to which doubtless more credence is to be given, impute it to the then existing pope, Stephen IX.

He caused the dead body of Formosus to be exhumed, and placed it on the pope’s throne, dressed in all his papal robes; whereupon he upbraided Formosus, as though he were alive, that he, through great ambition, had come from the chair of Porto into that of Rome; anathematized him on this account, had the dead body stripped of all the robes, as also the three fingers with which Formosus according to custom used to ordain, cut off from the same, and thus thrown into the Tiber. Besides this he deposed all those who had been ordained by Formosus, and re-ordained them; all of which he did from pure madness.” See _C. Baron. histor. Eccl. Anno 897. num. 1. 2_.

After this the same Baronius relates of Christophorus, who also thrust himself into the papal chair, the following:

“Further, in the following year of Christ ... in the tenth indiction,[55] Pope Benedict died, and was buried in St. Peter’s church. In his place succeeded Leo, the fifth of this name, a native of Ardea, who held the chair only forty days, being expelled and imprisoned after that by Christophorus, who himself occupied the chair after him.” _Baron. Ann. 906. 907. num. 2._

[55] A cycle of fifteen years, instituted by Constantine the Great,
in connection with the payment of tribute, and afterwards made a
substitute for Olympiads in reckoning time. It was much used in the
ecclesiastical chronology of the middle ages, and is reckoned from
the year 313 as its origin.--_Webster’s Dictionary._

The aforementioned Christophorus, who had expelled his predecessor, Leo V., from the chair, and taken possession of it himself, was, in his turn, robbed of the occupancy of the chair by another, called Sergius III., who was ambitious of the same dominion; which Sergius, although he attained to the papal dignity, without being elected or called, yea, more than that, was, according to the testimony of the papists themselves, fearfully tyrannical and unchaste, is nevertheless recorded with the aforementioned upon the Register of the legitimate popes of Rome. See _Baron. Ann. 907. num. 2., Ann. 908. num. 3._

In the midst of this account this papistic writer declares, _that these were the dreadful times when every self-constituted pope immediately nullified that which his predecessor had made. Ann. 908. num. 2._

Confirmatory of this matter is also that which is adduced in the “_Chronijk van den Ondergang_,” edition 1617, for the year 891, page 315. col. 1. 2. from the tract of “_Den Onpartijdigen Rechter_.”

If one will but consider, says this writer, the spiritual or ecclesiastical perfidiousness and rebelliousness of the popes, he will find in ancient history, that the Roman popes have at all times quarreled and contended with one another for the papal chair.

Thus John XXIV., having come to Bononia with many soldiers, threatened all the cardinals severely, if they would elect a pope who would not please him. When many had been nominated to him, and he would assent to none of them, he was finally requested to state whom he would elect thereto. He replied: “Give me Peter’s robe, and I shall deliver it to the future pope.” But, when that was done, he put the robe upon his own shoulders, saying: “I am the pope.” And though this greatly displeased the other cardinals, they were nevertheless compelled to acquiesce in it.

In the same manner John XXII. elected himself pope when the election was committed to him. See 9th book of the above mentioned chronicle, for the year 891, at the place there referred to.

NOTE.--In addition to what has been stated in the body [of this work] 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.

[63] 2,800,000 guilders, or $784,000.

Boniface VII., finding that he could no longer remain in safety at Rome, surreptitiously took the precious jewels and treasures from St. Peter’s coffers, and fled with them to Constantinople.

Clemens VIII., and other popes, were at various times convicted of such sacrilege, by their own people.

Gregory IX. sold his absolution to the emperor for a hundred thousand ounces of gold.

Benedict IX., being stricken with fear, sold to Gregory VI. the papal chair, for fifteen hundred pounds of silver.

The simony and sacrilege of Alexander VI. is also sufficiently known, from his epitaph, which we, for certain reasons, omit.

Further, how Leo X., through Tetzel, and many other popes, through their legates and nuncios, sold their letters of indulgence, is better known throughout all so-called Christendom than the popes of Rome desire. Compare this with _Chron. Plat_. (old edition) _fol. 183. Fran. Ala. fol. 58. Onpartijdigen Rechter, fol. 28._

Concerning the open tyranny, secret treachery, and deadly poisoning, imputed to some of the popes, the following account is given from Vergerius and others:

_I. Their Tyranny._--Julius II. had more than two hundred thousand Christians put to death, in the space of seven years.

Gregory IX. caused the emperor’s envoys by whom he was informed, that Jerusalem was retaken, to be strangled, contrary to all justice.

Clemens IV. openly beheaded Conrad, the son of the king of Sicily, without valid reasons, or legal proceedings.

It is not necessary to give a recital here, of the innumerable multitude of true Christians, who, through the pretensions of some popes, were deprived of life, in all parts of the earth, by fearful deaths at the hands of the executioner, only on account of their religion; for this is sufficiently known, and needs no further demonstration.

_II. Their Treachery._--The Emperor Frederick, at the diet of Nuremburg, openly complained of the treachery of Pope Alexander III, and that in the presence of the princes of the empire, before whom he read the letter containing the treason, which the pope had sent to the soldiers of the Turkish emperor.

Gregory II. secretly issued a prohibition, not to pay to the Emperor Leo his customary (and due) tax.

Alexander VI. availed himself of the assistance of the Turks (or at least, called upon them), against the French. _III. Their Poisoning._--Ancient writers mention, that Pope Paul III. poisoned his own mother and niece, that the inheritance of the Farnesi might fall to him.

Innocentius IV., through a priest, administered poison to the emperor, in a host, thus removing him from this life.

Moreover, how another pope, whose name is sufficiently known, put to death by poison, in accordance with Turkish custom, the brother of Gemeno Bajazet, the Mohammedan emperor, which was contrary to common justice, because he was ransomed with two tonnen treasure, needs not to be recounted, as the fame of it has gone out both into the east and the west.

This same pope had at a certain time determined to poison in like manner some cardinals, when the cupbearer made a mistake in the tankard containing the poison (as the ancient writers have annotated), and he who had arranged this, was himself served with it, insomuch that he died with the cardinals who had drank of it. Compare _De Tractaten Contarœne, Vergerij des Onpartijdigen Rechters_, especially _pp. 48, 49, 50_, with the _Chronijk van den Ondergang, first part, for the year 1227. p. 544. col. 1. 2._ Also, _p. 768. col. 2._ of the bad conduct of Pope John XXIV., taken from _Fasc. Temp. fol. 187. Platin. fol. 401. Onufr. fol. 406. 417. Hist. Eccl. Casp. Hedio. part 3. lib. 11. Chronolog. Leonh. lib. 6. Henr. Bull. of the councils, 2d Book, chap. 8. Joh. Stumph. fol. 21. Hist. Georg. lib. 6. Seb. Fra._ (old edition) _fol. 31_ to _fol. 89. Hist. Andriani fol. 53_ to _fol. 66._ _Jan Crisp. fol. 256_ to _369. Chron. Car. lib. 5. Zeg. fol. 326._

OF THE DIVINE JUDGMENTS AND PUNISHMENTS VISITED UPON SOME OF THE POPES.

The divine vengeance for great misdeeds is sometimes carried out in this life, and sometimes reserved for the life to come.[64] The vengeance which is inflicted in this life, is sometimes executed immediately by God himself; at other times he uses means--either the elements, or things composed of the elements, yet without life; and sometimes he does it by means of living creatures as, men, beasts, etc. However, here we shall only speak of the judgments of God visited upon some of the popes in such a manner and through such means, as will be shown.

[64] But, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up
unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the
righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to
his deeds. Rom. 2:5,6.

In the eighth book of the _Chronijk van den Ondergang der Tyrannen, for the year 767, page 262, col. 2_, several examples of this kind are successively related, which we shall present here as is most suitable, and in the best possible order.[65]

[65] Notwithstanding, the examples related in the body of the work
are recorded by P. J. Twisk, it is proper to state, that they were
extracted from various papistic writers.

The author of said chronicle, after mentioning the ignominious expulsion of pope Sylvester Campanus from the city of Rome, relates the sad ending of Constantine, Hadrian, John, Benedict, Boniface, Lucius, Innocentius, Nicholas, Paul, Leo, Clement, etc.

Pope Constantine II., having led an ungodly life, was deprived, in a council, of both his eyes, and the papal power, and then put into a convent.

Hadrian III., fleeing from Rome, came to Venice in the habit of a gardener, where he was ordered to work in a garden.

Hadrian IV. was choked to death by a fly, which flew into his mouth, or, as others say, into his drink, while he was drinking.

John XI.,[66] being apprehended by the soldiers of a certain Guido, was smothered with a pillow, which they held upon his mouth.

[66] John XI. was put for John XXII.; by the author from whom this
was taken, but this is an error.

John XXII. was crushed by the falling in of the vault of a pavilion, and thus departed this life.

Benedict VI.,[67] was shut up in the Castle Angelo, by Cynthius, a citizen of Rome, and there strangled by him, on account of his great villainy.

[67] This Benedict VI. was also put for his successor, Benedict IX.;
which error we have corrected.

Benedict IX. was killed by poison, which had been put into a fig by an abbess, who was considered a devout, spiritual daughter.

The body of Boniface VII., who had died a sudden death, was dragged along the street, with his feet tied to a rope, and ignominiously buried in the common grave.

Lucius II., about to storm the capitol, whither the senators had fled, was so seriously pelted with stones, that he died soon afterwards.

When Innocentius IV. had unjustly sentenced to death Robert of Lincoln, because he had censured, with the mouth as well as with the pen, the nefarious deeds of the popes, and Robert therefore appealed to Christ, the Supreme Judge, the pope was found dead in his bed the following day.[68]

[68] Our author relates, that before the death of pope Innocentius
IV. a voice was heard in the papal court, saying, “Come, thou
wretched man, to the judgment of God!”

Nicholas III. died very unexpectedly of apoplexy (called the stroke of God).

Paul II., having supped very merrily, died soon after, likewise of apoplexy.

Leo X. died while laughing and frolicking at his cups.

Clemens VIII., having conspired with Franciscus, king of France, against the Emperor Charles V., was afterwards apprehended by the emperor’s captains, derided above measure, ultimately reinstated in the papal chair, but finally, in the year 1534, suffocated, together with several cardinals, with the smoke of torches. From _Onpar. Recht._ Also, from various other accepted authors who have previously been referred to.[69]

[69] Many more such examples might be related here, but, since by
these few our aim is sufficiently understood, we deem it unnecessary
to enter more deeply into this subject, and shall, therefore, let
this suffice.