“H” Entries

Health and Temperance, Alcohol a “Mocker.”—It can be demonstrated that every action of alcohol in the body is an action on tissue cells, and is paralytic in its effect, the cells of the brain suffering in the inverse order of their development, the last developed suffering first and most, the first developed suffering last and least.... If this is true, why do not all believe it? For two reasons: Because alcohol mocks those who take it, and enriches those who make it. Wine is a mocker. It promises what it does not give. It gives one and takes ten. But this is its primary deception. Its secondary deception is the crave for more that it ultimately engenders. Like morphia, it creates a craving for itself.—W. A. Chapple, M. D.; cited in “Shall I Drink?” by Joseph H. Crooker, pp. 9, 10. New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1914.SBBS 197.2

Health and Temperance, Alcohol a Habit-Forming Drug.—Scientists differ as to the fractional value of alcohol as a food. Physicians differ upon the minor value of alcohol as a medicine. Scientific and medical men agree that alcohol is a drug, and that it belongs to the group of habit-forming drugs which beget pleasurable but destructive effects. All of them agree that alcohol predisposes the user to disease, and is a common cause of insanity. All of them agree that the habitual and even moderate use of alcohol induces tissue handicapped by a nervous system prone to insanity, epilepsy, and other major faults.—Richard Olding Beard, M. D., Professor of Physiology, University of Minnesota; quoted in the Pioneer, Toronto, May 26, 1916.SBBS 197.3

Health and Temperance, Scientific Congress on Nature of Alcohol.—In the summer of 1909 an international conference on alcoholism was held in London, to which most of the great nations sent scientific men or delegates. Comparing the results of investigation made in all parts of the world, finding that these results agreed, representative medical leaders of the conference drew up a report in the form of a statement defining the nature of alcohol, as follows:SBBS 197.4

“Exact laboratory, clinical, and pathological research has demonstrated that alcohol is a dehydrating, protoplasmic poison, and its use as a beverage is destructive and degenerating to the human organism. Its effects upon the cells and tissues of the body are depressive, narcotic, and anesthetic. Therefore, therapeutically, its use should be limited and restricted in the same way as the use of other poisonous drugs.”-“Speech of Hon. Richmond P. Hobson, in the House of Representatives. Feb. 2, 1911,” pp. 2, 3. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1912.SBBS 197.5

Health and Temperance, Alcohol a Poison.—The last word of science, after exact research in all the domains, is that alcohol is a poison. It has been found to be a hydrocarbon of the formula C 2 H 6 O, that is produced by the process of fermentation, and is the toxin, or liquid excretion or waste product, of the yeast or ferment germ. According to the universal law of biology, that the toxin of one form of life is a poison to all forms of life of a higher order, alcohol, the toxin of the low yeast germ, is a protoplasmic poison to all life, whether plant, animal, or man, and to all the living tissues and organs.—Id., p. 3.SBBS 197.6

Health and Temperance, Alcohol Paralyzes the Powers of Resistance.—Nearly all the diseases of mankind and nearly all the deaths hang upon the vitality and vigor of the white blood corpuscles. Under the microscope it was found that even a moderate drink of alcoholic beverage passing quickly into the blood paralyzes the white blood corpuscles. They behave like drunken men. In pursuit they cannot catch the disease germs. In conflict they cannot hold the disease germs for devouring, and they cannot operate in great phalanxes, as they do when sober, against such powerful germs as those of consumption. Every time a man takes a drink of alcoholic beverage, he lays himself open for a time to contracting diseases. Every time a man takes a drink, he puts his life in peril. No wonder the mortality statistics show, as they do, that a total abstainer has nearly twice the security and hold on life that the average drinker has, and about three times the hold of heavy drinkers.—Id., p. 4.SBBS 198.1

Health and Temperance, Railroads and the Use of Alcoholic Drink.—We received answers from ten railroads having over 400,000 employees.... There has been a marked change in attitude among these corporations since the government study of twenty years ago. At that time there was a large number of railroad organizations that had no rule in regard to the use of alcohol and made no attempt to reduce its consumption among their employees. Now, apparently, it is difficult for a man to secure a position in the operating branches unless he is a teetotaler; and any employee is liable to lose his position if he indulges in intoxicants or frequents places where alcoholic beverages are sold.—“Railroads and the Use of Alcohol,” in the Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York, June, 1916, pp. 160-162.SBBS 198.2

Health and Temperance, Alcohol and Degeneracy.—The physicians in charge of our insane asylums and our institutions for the care of the mentally deficient, have given us a tremendous amount of statistical information during the past few years; and under the heading of the principal causes of insanity, apoplexy, mental deficiency, moral degeneracy, and criminal tendencies, alcohol is given the prime etiological place.—“The Baneful Influences of Alcohol,” J. Wallace Beveridge, M. D., in Medical Times, September, 1914, p. 281.SBBS 198.3

Health and Temperance, Lincoln’s Plan for Reform.—“Merwin, we have cleared up, with the help of the people, a colossal job. Slavery is abolished. After reconstruction, the next great question will be the overthrow and abolition of the liquor traffic; and you know, Merwin, that my head and heart and hand and purse will go into that work. In 1842-less than a quarter of a century ago-I predicted, under the influence of God’s Spirit, that the time would come when there would be neither a slave nor a drunkard in the land. Thank God, I have lived to see one of those prophecies fulfilled. I hope to see the other realized.” Major Merwin was so impressed by this remarkable statement that he said, “Mr. Lincoln, shall I publish this from you?” “Yes,” was his prompt and emphatic reply, “publish it as wide as the daylight shines.”-“Latest Light on Abraham Lincoln,” Ervin S. Chapman, D. D., p. 174. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company.SBBS 198.4

Note.—Major Merwin started for New York immediately after this conversation, and the next morning heard that Lincoln had been shot.—Eds.SBBS 198.5

Health and Temperance, The Liquor Traffic.—I hate it for the load it straps to labor’s back, for its wounds to genius. I hate it for the human wrecks it has caused. I hate it for the almshouses it peoples, for the prisons it fills, for the insanity it begets, for its countless graves in potters’ fields.SBBS 199.1

I hate it for the mental ruin it imposes upon its victims, for its spiritual blight, for its moral degradation. I hate it for the crimes it has committed. I hate it for the homes it has destroyed. I hate it for the hearts it has broken. I hate it for the grief it causes womanhood-the scalding tears, the hopes deferred, the strangled aspirations. I hate it for its heartless cruelty to the aged, the infirm, and the helpless, for the shadow it throws upon the lives of children.SBBS 199.2

I hate it as virtue hates vice, as truth hates error, as righteousness hates sin, as justice hates wrong, as liberty hates tyranny, as freedom hates oppression.—Ex-Governor J. Frank Hanly, of Indiana; cited in “The Shadow of the Bottle,” p. 30.SBBS 199.3

Health and Temperance, Cardinal Gibbons on Intemperance.—The great curse of the laboring man is intemperance. It has brought more desolation to the wage-earners than strikes, or war, or sickness, or death. It is a more unrelenting tyrant than the grasping monopolist. It has caused little children to be hungry and cold, to grow up among evil associates, to be reared without the knowledge of God. It has broken up more homes and wrecked more lives than any other curse on the face of the earth.—Cardinal Gibbons, of Baltimore; cited in “The Shadow of the Bottle,” p. 102.SBBS 199.4

Health and Temperance, Tobacco in Arctic Cold.—Tobacco is equally or more objectionable in polar work. It affects the wind endurance of a man, particularly in low temperatures, adds an extra and entirely unnecessary article to the outfit, vitiates the atmosphere of tent or igloo, and, when the supply gives out, renders the user a nuisance to himself and those about him.—“The Secrets of Polar Travel,” Rear-Admiral Robert E. Peary, p. 77.SBBS 199.5

Health and Temperance, Nansen on Tobacco.—Though tobacco is less destructive than alcohol, still, whether it is smoked or chewed, it has an extremely harmful effect upon men who are engaged in severe physical exertion, and not least so when the supply of food is not abundant. Tobacco has not only an injurious influence upon the digestion, but it lessens the strength of the body, and reduces nervous power, capacity for endurance, and tenacity of purpose.—“First Crossing of Greenland,” Fridtjof Nansen, p. 41.SBBS 199.6

Health and Temperance, Nansen on Tea, Coffee, and Other Stimulants.—My experience, however, leads me to take a decided stand against the use of stimulants and narcotics of all kinds, from tea and coffee on the one hand, to tobacco and alcoholic drinks on the other. It must be a sound principle at all times that one should live in as natural and simple a way as possible, and especially must this be the case when the life is a life of severe exertion in an extremely cold climate. The idea that one gains by stimulating the body and mind by artificial means betrays, in my opinion, not only ignorance of the simplest physiological laws, but also a want of experience, or perhaps a want of capacity to learn from experience by observation. It seems indeed quite simple and obvious that one can get nothing in this life without paying for it in one way or another, and that artificial stimulants, even if they had not the directly injurious effect which they undoubtedly have, can produce nothing but a temporary excitement followed by a corresponding reaction.—Id., pp. 40, 41.SBBS 199.7

Health and Temperance, John Wesley’s Letter on Tea.—“But I cannot leave it off; for it helps my health. Nothing else agrees with me.” I answer, First, Will nothing else agree with you? I know not how to believe that.... Secondly, If in fact nothing else will, if tea has already weakened your stomach and impaired your digestion to such a degree, it has hurt you more than you are aware; it has prejudiced your health extremely. You have need to abhor it as deadly poison, and to renounce it from this very hour.... How few understand, ‘Whether ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God.’ And how glad ought you to be of a fair occasion to observe that though the kingdom of God does not consist in meats and drinks, yet without exact temperance in these, we cannot have either righteousness or peace or joy in the Holy Ghost.—“Letter to a Friend on Tea,” John Wesley, dated Dec. 10, 1748. (Tract in British Museum Library.)SBBS 200.1

Health and Temperance, What the Smoker Inhales and Exhales.—If all boys could be made to know that with every breath of cigarette smoke they inhale imbecility and exhale manhood; that they are tapping their arteries as surely and letting their life blood out as truly as though their veins and arteries were severed, and that the cigarette is a maker of invalids, criminals, and fools, not men,-it ought to deter them some.—Hudson Maxim; cited in Youth’s Instructor, Washington, D. C., Aug. 28, 1917.SBBS 200.2

Health and Temperance, Importance of Preserving the Nerves Unimpaired.—I never contracted the habit of smoking tobacco, and from my youth I always regarded as a pitiful object an engraver endeavoring to engrave with a pipe in his mouth, or dividing his attention between his cigarette and his burin. Our nerves are undoubtedly our most precious possession, and in proportion as we realize this will we abstain from anything that tends, even remotely, to affect them deleteriously.—Timothy Cole (the famous wood-engraver), in Youth’s Instructor. Washington, D. C., Aug. 28, 1917.SBBS 200.3

Health and Temperance, the Need for Immediate Action.—Every year finds King Tobacco more firmly intrenched, his resources vaster, his followers more numerous, their chains more firmly riveted. Every year we delay in our fight against it, makes the warfare more difficult. There is immediate need that the churches take determined action. The enemy’s progress has been at the rate of five hundred per cent a decade. What has been ours?-Amos R. Wells; quoted in Youth’s Instructor, Washington, D. C., Aug. 28, 1917.SBBS 200.4

Health and Temperance, Tobacco, Injurious Effects of.—It leads to impaired nutrition of the nerve centers.SBBS 200.5

It is a fertile cause of neuralgia, vertigo, and indigestion.SBBS 200.6

It irritates the mouth and throat, and thus destroys the purity of the voice.SBBS 200.7

By excitation of the optic nerves it provokes amaurosis and other defects of vision.SBBS 200.8

It causes a tremulous hand and an intermittent pulse.SBBS 200.9

One of its conspicuous effects is to develop irritability of the heart.SBBS 200.10

It retards the cell change upon which the development of the adolescent depends.SBBS 200.11

It will be remembered that when the Boer War broke out, 11,000 volunteered for service in the Manchester District alone; 8,000 of whom were at once rejected as physically unfit, and only 1,200 finally passed the doctors. The chief cause of unfitness was proved to be smoking by boys and young men.—Dr. A. E. Gilson, of the United States Navy; quoted in Youth’s Instructor, Washington, D. C., Aug. 28, 1917.SBBS 200.12

Health and Temperance, Tobacco One of the Greatest of Modern Evils.—No, I do not smoke. Tobacco is one of the greatest evils of the modern world. It is one of the great degenerators of the race. None of my direct ancestry, as far back as I am able to trace, ever used tobacco, consequently tobacco is unusually poisonous to me through lack of immunity. Up to the time I was thirty-five years old I found the use of tobacco by others an insufferable nuisance. Frequently I would become so poisoned by tobacco smoke as to be ill for days. One time while in London, attending a dinner, I was made sick for six weeks.—Hudson Maxim (inventor), in Youth’s Instructor. Washington, D. C., Aug. 28, 1917.SBBS 201.1

Health and Temperance, The Cigarette and Railway Service.—George Baumhoff, superintendent of the Lindell Railway, St. Louis, once said: “Under no circumstances will I hire a man who smokes cigarettes. He is as dangerous at the front end of a motor as the man who drinks; in fact, he is more dangerous. His nerves are bound to give way at a critical moment. A motorman needs his nerve all the time, and a cigarette smoker cannot stand the strain.”-New York Journal, May 19, 1911.SBBS 201.2

Health and Temperance, the Cigarette Habit a Serious Handicap.—The boy or the young man whose brain is fogged by the use of cigarettes finds himself hopelessly handicapped. His services are accepted only as a last resort; and if there is any one else available, he is not intrusted with important matters or considered for future possibilities.SBBS 201.3

This is the testimony of men in every walk of life, ... men who have made good, and who know exactly why some boys succeed and why others make a sorry failure of anything they attempt.SBBS 201.4

But the most any one can do is to point out the dangers that confront you. You must avoid them if you play safe. If you are not already enslaved, the safest and easiest way to escape the danger is to follow the advice of Pliny the Elder, who is wise in our generation as well as in his own, and “profit by the folly of others,” by avoiding cigarettes.—Henry Ford, in his cigarette bulletin, “The Little White Slaver,” No. 4; cited in Youth’s Instructor, Washington, D. C., Aug. 28, 1917.SBBS 201.5

Health and Temperance, Cigarettes Affect Boys as Sand Does a Watch.—I have never used tobacco in any form, and being of a nervous temperament, I am entirely satisfied that I should not have survived if I had. Many of my young friends are now in their graves, undoubtedly from cigarette smoking alone. I have never met any person who thought that cigarettes were beneficial to any one, under any circumstances. Why do people use them? That is too much for me, for the effect of them on boys is exactly like that of sand in a watch.—Luther Burbank, in Youth’s Instructor, Washington, D. C., Aug. 28, 1917.SBBS 201.6

Heresy.—A view or opinion not in accord with the prevalent standards. The Greek word hairesis, meaning originally a choice, then a self-chosen belief, is applied by the Fathers as early as the third century to a deviation from the fundamental Christian faith, which was punished by exclusion from the church. From the end of the fourth century the emperors accepted the view that they were bound to use their temporal power against heretics for the maintenance of purity of doctrine; Theodosius the Great attempted to exterminate heretics by a system of penalties, which was extended by his successors and maintained by Justinian. Any deviation from the orthodox belief might be punished by infamy, incapacity to hold office or give testimony, banishment, and confiscation of property; the death penalty was only prescribed for certain sects, such as the Manichean. The severer punishments were imposed on the leaders of heretical sects, or for the conferring and receiving of orders within them and for public gatherings.SBBS 201.7

This legislation was not accepted in the Merovingian kingdom, which left it to the church to combat heresy with spiritual weapons; the Visigothic law, on the other hand, took the same standpoint as the Roman. The Carolingian period provided penalties for the practice of paganism; but in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the rise and spread of heretical sects, especially the Cathari, led to active ecclesiastical legislation against heresy. As early as the eleventh century, the secular authorities in France and Germany had punished individual heretics with death, and the councils of the twelfth declared them bound to use their power in this way.SBBS 202.1

While Frederick I and II, and Louis VIII, IX, and X of France were enacting laws of this kind, the ecclesiastical view that heresy came by right before the church’s tribunal led to the erection of special church courts with a procedure of their own.SBBS 202.2

In the present Roman Catholic practice, heresy is the wilful holding by a baptized person of doctrines which contradict any article of faith defined by the Catholic Church, or which have been condemned by a pope or a general council as heretical, provided that the holder knows the right faith and makes open profession of his departure from it.... Theoretically, the Roman Catholic Church still holds to the old severe legislation, and as late as 1878 Leo XIII confirmed a ruling of the cardinal vicar based on these principles in relation to those who attended Protestant services in Rome. But the altered position of the church in modern times permits only the imposition of ecclesiastical penalties.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. V, art. “Heresy,” pp. 234, 235. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company.SBBS 202.3

Heresy, Guilt of, Defined.—The theory [of fundamental articles] is repugnant to the nature of Christian faith as understood by the church. According to her teaching, the essential note of this faith lies in the complete and unhesitating acceptance of the whole depositum on the ground that it is the revealed word of God. The conscious rejection of a single article of this deposit is sufficient to render a man guilty of heresy. The question is not as to the relative importance of the article in question, but solely as to whether it has been revealed by God to man.... The Catholic Church knows of one and only one test to determine this question of membership in Christ’s body. This test does not lie in the acceptance of this or that particular doctrine, but in communion with the apostolic hierarchy.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, art. “Fundamental Articles,” p. 320.SBBS 202.4

Heresy a Crime.—In all these states [into which the Roman Empire was divided] heresy was generally regarded as a crime, not less opposed to public order and to the good of society than to the honor of God and of religion. With such severity was it punished, that during many centuries its partisans or abettors dared not appear; and hardly a single example of it appears in the kingdoms of France, Spain, or England, from the conversion of these kingdoms to the Catholic faith until the close of the ninth century. ^{11Thomassin, “Traité des Edits,” Vol. I, chap. 57, note 2; Vol. II, chap. 13, note 1; etc. Lingard, “Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church,” chap. 6, p. 226. Daniel, “Hist. de France,” Vol. IV, p. 153.} An obstinate heretic was immediately prosecuted by the two powers, and cut off from society as a rotten member; exile or perpetual imprisonment was the ordinary penalty of his impiety. It was thus that a Monothelite heretic was treated in France in the year 639; and some other innovators who endeavored to pervert the people. ^{12Fleury, “Hist. Eccl.,” Vol. VIII, book 37, note 40. “Hist, de l’Eglise Gallicane,” Vol. III, ann. 639.} -“Library of Translations: The Power of the Pope During the Middle Ages,” M. Gosselin (R. C.), Vol. I, p. 86. London: C. Dolman, 1853.SBBS 202.5

Heresy and the Deposing Power.—In 1876 Cardinal Manning “committed the work of editing” Cardinal Allen’s Letters to the Brompton Oratorians. The book was published in 1882. In the introduction to this volume it is affirmed that “the relation which ought to exist between the Church [of Rome] and a temporal sovereign” (p. 26) is that which obtained “in the Middle Ages.” That relation is described in the introduction in the following terms:SBBS 203.1

“It was chiefly in the case of heresy that the Pope had recourse to his deposing power. Other sins might be tolerated for a time in a sovereign, and their evil effects abated by lesser remedies; but not so heresy, which, under the protection of an heretical sovereign, will soon pervert a nation. Hence the greatness of the evil calls for prompt and unsparing measures. No monarch so manifestly uses his authority for the destruction, not the good, of the commonwealth as the heretical prince. No one, therefore, so justly deserves to lose his throne as he. It was, in fact, an axiom in those days that the heretic, whatever his degree, was an enemy and alien to the Christian commonwealth, and that, so long as he continued in heresy, he had no part or lot with Christian men.... Hence no one saw ground for complaint when the church punished heretics or delivered them over to the civil power for punishment, and men greeted as an act of supreme justice the solemn deposition of an heretical king” (p. 27).—“Notes on the Papal Claims,” Arthur Brinckman, p. 213. London: A. R. Mowbray & Co., 1910.SBBS 203.2

Heresy, to Deny Both Temporal and Spiritual Power to the Roman Catholic Church.—All those are branded with the error of heresy who take away from the Roman Church, the chair of Peter, one of the two swords, and concede only the spiritual.—Annal. Baron. An. 1053, Sec. XIV (The Annals of Baronius for the year 1053, sec. 14).SBBS 203.3

Heresy, to Deny Primacy of Peter.—It is a pernicious heresy to deny that the primacy of blessed Peter was instituted by Christ.—De Romano Pontifice, Bellarm., Tom. I, lib. 1, cap. x, par. 2 (On the Roman Pontiff, Bellarmine, Vol. I, book 1, chap. 10, par. 2).SBBS 203.4

Heretics Defined.—28. What is a heretic?SBBS 203.5

A heretic is any baptized person, professing Christianity, and choosing for himself what to believe and what not to believe as he pleases, in obstinate opposition to any particular truth which he knows is taught by the Catholic Church as a truth revealed by God....SBBS 203.6

30. How many kinds of heretics (Protestants) are there?SBBS 203.7

There are three kinds of heretics:
(1) Those who are guilty of the sin of heresy.
(2) Those who are not guilty of the sin of heresy, but commit other grievous sins.
(3) Those who are not guilty of the sin of heresy and live up to the dictates of their conscience....SBBS 204.1

38. Can a Christian be saved, who has left the true church of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church?SBBS 204.2

No; because the church of Christ is the kingdom of God on earth, and he who leaves that kingdom, shuts himself out from the kingdom of Christ in heaven.SBBS 204.3

39. Have Protestants left the true church of Christ?SBBS 204.4

Protestants left the true church of Christ, in their founders, who left the Catholic Church, either through pride, or through the passion of lust and covetousness.SBBS 204.5

40. Who were the first Protestants?SBBS 204.6

The first Protestants were:SBBS 204.7

(1) Martin Luther, a bad German priest, who left his convent, broke the solemn vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, which he had made to God, married a nun, and became the founder of the Lutherans.SBBS 204.8

(2) Henry VIII, a bad Catholic king of England, who murdered his wives, and founded the Episcopalian or Anglican Church.SBBS 204.9

(3) John Calvin, a wicked French Catholic, who was the founder of the Calvinists.SBBS 204.10

(4) John Knox, a bad Scottish priest, who was the founder of the Presbyterians or Puritans.SBBS 204.11

41. What great crime did these wicked men commit?SBBS 204.12

Those authors of heresies rebelled against the church of Jesus Christ, and caused a great number of their Catholic countrymen to follow their bad example.SBBS 204.13

42. What will be the punishment of those who wilfully rebel against the Holy Catholic Church?SBBS 204.14

Those who wilfully rebel against the Holy Catholic Church, will, like Lucifer, and the other rebellious angels, be cast into the everlasting flames of hell.—“Familiar Explanation of Catholic Doctrine,” Rev. M. Müller (R. C.), No. IV, pp. 170, 171, 176, 177. New York: Benziger Brothers, Printers to the Holy Apostolic See.SBBS 204.15

A heretic is one who is baptized and claims to be a Christian, but does not believe all the truths that our Lord has taught. He accepts only a portion of the doctrine of Christ and rejects the remainder, and, hence, is a rebellious child of the church. By baptism he belongs to the true church, but does not submit to its teaching, and is therefore an outcast child, disinherited until he returns to the faith.—Benziger’s Magazine (R. C.), September, 1915.SBBS 204.16

Heretics, Keeping Faith with.—No one is obliged to keep faith with excommunicated persons until they have been reconciled.—The Decretum of Gratian, ^{13Gratian’s collection obtained great authority and superseded all other collections; yet it remained a private compilation, was never clothed with an official character, or approved by the Holy See.—“Elements of Ecclesiastical Law,” Rev. S. B. Smith, D. D. (R. C.), Vol. I, p. 69 (Book I, part 1, chap. 9, par. 156) New York: Benziger Brothers, 1877.} part 2, case 15, ques. 6, par. 5.SBBS 204.17

Christians should not regard the sanctity of an oath towards him who is the enemy of God and who tramples underfeet the decrees of the church.—From the Anathema of Gregory IX against Frederick II of Germany, “History of the Popes,” De Cormenin, Vol. I, p. 470.SBBS 204.18

“It pertains also to the punishment and to the hatred of heretics that faith given to them must not be kept; for if faith is not to be kept with tyrants, pirates, and other public robbers because they slay the body, much less is it to be kept with obstinate heretics because they slay the soul.”SBBS 205.1

Rightly, therefore, were certain heretics consigned to lawful flames by the judgment of the grave Council of Constance, although their safety had been promised to them; and blessed Thomas [St. Thomas Aquinas] likewise holds, that an intractable heretic is to be delivered up to the judges, notwithstanding the faith and oath by which he may have bound a Catholic.—Simanca [a Portuguese Roman Catholic bishop], “On Catholic Institutions;” cited in “Delineation of Roman Catholicism,” Rev. Chas. Elliott, D. D., p. 572. London: John Mason, 1844.SBBS 205.2

Yet further, it [the General Synod of Trent] promises in true and good faith, all guile and deceit being excluded, that the said synod will neither openly nor covertly seek for any opportunity, nor make use of, nor suffer any one to make use of, any authority, power, right, or statute, privilege of laws or canons, or of any councils soever, especially those of Constance and Siena, under what form soever of words expressed; to the prejudice in any way of this public faith, and most full security, and of the public and free hearing, granted by this said synod to the above-named; as it suspends the force of the aforesaid [acts] in this instance and for this occasion.—Extract from a decree of the eighteenth session of the Council of Trent, “History of the Councils,” Labbe and Cossart (R. C.), Vol. XIV, col. 844.SBBS 205.3

Heretics and Safe-Conducts.—This present sacred synod [of Constance] declares that whatsoever safe-conduct, granted by the emperor, kings, or other secular princes to heretics, or such as are defamed for heresy, and by whatsoever bond they have obliged themselves to the observance of it, no prejudice can arise, no impediment can or ought to be put to the Catholic faith, or other ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but that (notwithstanding the safe-conduct) it may be lawful for any competent and ecclesiastical judge to inquire into the errors of such persons, and duly otherways proceed against them, and punish them so far as justice shall require, if they shall pertinaciously refuse to revoke their errors; yea, though they come to the place of judgment, relying upon such safe-conduct, and would not otherwise come thither; nor doth he who so promiseth, remain obliged in anything, when he has done what lies in him.—“History of the Councils,” Labbe and Cossart (R. C.), Vol. XII, cols. 169, 170.SBBS 205.4

Heretics, Safe-Conduct of Huss.—“The Holy Synod [of Constance] decrees: Forasmuch as certain persons presumptuously or with a sinister intention, or wishing to be wise above what is right, not only calumniate the emperor, but also this Sacred Council with slanderous tongues, publicly and secretly saying or insinuating that the safe-conduct given by the most invincible Prince Sigismund, king of the Romans, Hungary, etc., to John Huss, the Heresiarch, of execrable memory, was unduly violated, contrary to justice or honor; although the said John Huss, by obstinately impugning the orthodox faith, forfeited all safe-conduct and privileges, and no faith or promise was to be kept with him by natural law, either human or divine, to the prejudice of the Catholic faith; therefore, the said Holy Synod declares by the tenor of these presents, that the said most Invincible Prince, notwithstanding the said safe-conduct, did what he could and what became his Imperial Majesty, with respect to the said John Huss; and it enjoins and forbids all and singular Christians of whatever dignity, grade, preëminence, condition, state, or sex, henceforth to slander or in any way disparage the Sacred Council or the Imperial Majesty for their deeds in the matter of John Huss: and it decrees that whosoever transgresses this command, shall be punished without pardon as an abettor of heresy, and guilty of high treason.”SBBS 205.5

Such is the second decree of the Sacred Ecumenical Synod of Constance, concerning John Huss.—“Sequel to Letters to M. Gondon, On the Destructive Character of the Church of Rome,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 151-153. London: Francis and John Rivington, 1848.SBBS 206.1

Heretics, Lord Acton on Keeping Faith with.—In the religious struggle a frenzy had been kindled which made weakness violent, and turned good men into prodigies of ferocity; and at Rome, where every loss inflicted on Catholicism and every wound was felt, the belief that, in dealing with heretics, murder is better than toleration prevailed for half a century. The predecessor of Gregory had been Inquisitor-General. In his eyes Protestants were worse than pagans, and Lutherans more dangerous than other Protestants.SBBS 206.2

The Capuchin preacher, Pistoja, bore witness that men were hanged and quartered almost daily at Rome; and Pius declared that he would release a culprit guilty of a hundred murders rather than one obstinate heretic. He seriously contemplated razing the town of Faenza because it was infested with religious error, and he recommended a similar expedient to the king of France. He adjured him to hold no intercourse with the Huguenots, to make no terms with them, and not to observe the terms he had made. He required that they should be pursued to the death, that not one should be spared under any pretense, that all prisoners should suffer death. He threatened Charles with the punishment of Saul when he forebore to exterminate the Amalekites. He told him that it was his mission to avenge the injuries of the Lord, and that nothing is more cruel than mercy to the impious. When he sanctioned the murder of Elizabeth, he proposed that it should be done in execution of his sentence against her. It became usual with those who meditated assassination or regicide on the plea of religion to look upon the representatives of Rome as their natural advisers....SBBS 206.3

The theory which was framed to justify these practices has done more than plots and massacres to cast discredit on the Catholics. This theory was as follows: Confirmed heretics must be rigorously punished whenever it can be done without the probability of greater evil to religion. Where that is feared, the penalty may be suspended or delayed for a season, provided it be inflicted whenever the danger is past. Treaties made with heretics, and promises given to them, must not be kept, because sinful promises do not bind, and no agreement is lawful which may injure religion or ecclesiastical authority. No civil power may enter into engagements which impede the free scope of the church’s law. It is part of the punishment of heretics that faith shall not be kept with them. It is even mercy to kill them, that they may sin no more.—“The History of Freedom and Other Essays,” John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (R. C.); edited by John Neville Figgis, Litt. D., and Reginald Vere Laurence, M. A., pp. 138-141. London: Macmillan & Co., 1909.SBBS 206.4

Heretics, Facts Concerning Keeping Faith with.—The Third Lateran Council, which was held at Rome in 1167 [1179] under the pontificate of Alexander III, and which all papists admit to be infallible, decreed in its sixteenth canon, that “oaths made against the interest and benefit of the church are not so much to be considered as oaths, but as perjuries.” ^{14“Non quasi juramenta, sed quasi perjuria.”} The fourth or great Lateran Council absolved from their oath of allegiance the subjects of heretical princes.SBBS 206.5

The Council of Constance, which was holden in 1414, expressly decreed that no faith was to be kept with heretics. The words of this decree, as preserved by M. L’Enfant, in his learned history of that famous council, are, that “by no law, natural or divine, is it obligatory to keep faith with heretics, to the prejudice of the Catholic faith.” ^{15“Nec aliqua sibi fides, aut promissio de jure naturali, divino, et humano, fuerit in prejudicium Catholica fidei observanda.”} This fearful doctrine the council ratified in a manner not less fearful, in the blood of John Huss. It is well known that this Reformer came to the council trusting in a safe-conduct, which had been given him under the hand of the emperor Sigismund. The document in the amplest terms guaranteed the safety of Huss, in his journey to Constance, in his stay there, and in his return home. Notwithstanding, he was seized, imprisoned, condemned, and burnt alive, at the instigation of the council, by the very man who had so solemnly guaranteed his safety.SBBS 207.1

When the Council of Trent assembled in the sixteenth century, it was exceedingly desirous of obtaining the presence of the Protestants at its deliberations. Accordingly, it issued numerous equivocal safe-conducts, all of which the Protestants, mindful of the fate of Huss, rejected. At last the council decreed, that for this time, and in this instance, the safe-conduct should not be violated, and that no “authority, power, statute, or decree, and especially that of the Councils of Constance and Siena,” should be employed against them. In this enactment of the Council of Trent, canons, decrees, and laws, to the prejudice of safe-conducts to heretics, are expressly recognized as already existing. These decrees are not revoked or abjured by the council; they are only suspended for the time,-“pro hac vice.” This is a plain declaration, that on all other occasions Rome means to act upon them, and will, whenever she has the power. There has been no general council since; and as no decree of the Pope has repudiated the doctrine of these decrees and canons, they must be regarded as still in force.—“The Papacy: Its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects,” Rev. J. A. Wylie, LL. D., pp. 379-381. London: Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1889.SBBS 207.2

Note.—This was written before 1870.—Eds.SBBS 207.3

Heretics, Sentenced to Death by the Church.—Therefore we conclude that the church cannot of itself put to death any one, but nevertheless it has the right to sentence obstinate or relapsed heretics, not only to corporal punishments, but also to condemn to capital punishment, if it shall have judged it expedient; whence those enemies of the faith equally err from the truth who falsely charge that the church has of itself consigned some heretics to the pyre, and many Catholic apologists, who think that all sentences of death must be attributed to the secular power, or timidly concede that the church, yielding to the spirit of the times, has deviated a little in this matter. History surely testifies that the Roman Inquisition, if not in express words, at least in equivalent terms, has sentenced heretics to capital punishment, to be inflicted without fail by the secular arm, with manifold censures lest it fail of its duty; who, then, would dare to say that the church has erred in so serious a matter?-“De Stabilitate et Progressu Dogmatis,” Alexius M. Lepicier (R. C.), p. 203. Rome, 1910.SBBS 207.4

Heretics, Extermination of, Justified.—With regard to heretics two elements are to be considered, one element on their side, and the other on the part of the church. On their side is the sin whereby they have deserved, not only to be separated from the church by excommunication, but also to be banished from the world by death. For it is a much heavier offense to corrupt the faith, whereby the life of the soul is sustained, than to tamper with the coinage, which is an aid to temporal life. Hence if coiners or other malefactors are at once handed over by secular princes to a just death, much more may heretics, immediately they are convicted of heresy, be not only excommunicated, but also justly done to die. But on the part of the church is mercy in view of the conversion of them that err; and therefore she does not condemn at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the apostle teaches. After that, however, if the man is still found pertinacious, the church, having no hope of his conversion, provides for the safety of others, cutting him off from the church by the sentence of excommunication; and further she leaves him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated from the world by death.—“Aquinas Ethicus; or, The Moral Teaching of St. Thomas,” Joseph Rickaby, S. J. (R. C.), Vol. I, pp. 332, 333. London: Burns and Oates, 1892.SBBS 208.1

Heretics, to be Put to Death.—In actual fact, the church at first dealt more leniently with heretics, excommunicating them, confiscating their property ... till at last she was compelled to inflict the extreme penalty; “secondly, experience shows (says Bellarm., “De Laicis,” I. 3, c. 21) that there is no other remedy: for the church gradually advanced, and tried every means, first excommunication alone, then a pecuniary fine was added, then exile, finally she was compelled to fall back on death [the capitals here are the author’s own]. Heretics despise excommunication and say that that bolt is powerless; if you threaten them with a pecuniary fine, they neither fear God nor respect men, knowing that they will find fools enough to believe them and support them. If you imprison them or send them into exile, they corrupt those near them with their words and those at a distance with their books. So the only remedy is to send them soon to their own place [capitals are the author’s]. The society of the church and its public order, against the disturbance of which there are many ecclesiastical charges, must necessarily be preserved, that men’s souls may be sanctified by the true faith and good works, and that they may gain eternal salvation.—“Institutiones Juris Ecclesiastici Publici” (Institutes of Public Ecclesiastical Law), P. Marianus de Luca, S. J. (R. C.), Professor in the Gregorian University of Rome, Vol. I, p. 143. 1901.SBBS 208.2

Note.—This work was highly recommended by Pope Leo XIII.—Eds.SBBS 208.3

Heretics, to be Punished with Death.—He who publicly avows a heresy and tries to pervert others by word or example, speaking absolutely, can not only be excommunicated but even justly put to death, lest he ruin others by pestilential contagion; for a bad man is worse than a wild beast, and does more harm, as Aristotle says. Hence, as it is not wrong to kill a wild beast which does great harm, so it must be right to deprive of his harmful life a heretic who withdraws from divine truth and plots against the salvation of others.—“De Stabilitate et Progressu Dogmatis,” Fr. Alexius M. Lepicier, O. S. M. (R. C.), p. 194. Printed at the official printing office in Rome, in 1910.SBBS 208.4

Heretics, Edicts of Constantine Against.—Some years later, that is, about 325, Arius having been condemned in the Council of Nice,SBBS 208.5

Constantine published several edicts branding him as infamous, condemning him and the bishops of his party to exile, ordering all his writings to be burned, compelling his partisans to deliver them up, and threatening with capital punishment all who refused. All private persons, moreover, who persisted in this error, were condemned to pay, in addition to their capitation tax, the tax of ten other persons. In the following year, a new edict restricted to the Catholics the immunities conferred on the clergy, and ordered that heretics and schismatics, instead of enjoying that immunity, should be subjected to heavier burdens than others. From this law the emperor excepted the Novatians, whom, it would appear, he did not regard at the time as being absolutely condemned; but, becoming afterwards better informed about that sect, he prohibited them, as well as the Valentinians, Marcionites, and all others, to hold any meetings, public or private; ordered that their churches should be given to the Catholics, that their other places of assembly should be confiscated, and that all their books should be diligently searched for and destroyed.—“Library of Translations: The Power of the Pope During the Middle Ages,” M. Gosselin (R. C.), Vol. I, p. 78. London: C. Dolman, 1853.SBBS 209.1

Heretics, Justinian’s Law Against.—We declare forever infamous, and deprived of their rights, and condemned to exile, all heretics of either sex, whatever be their name; their property shall be confiscated without hope of restoration, or of being transmitted to their children by hereditary succession, because crimes which attack the majesty of God are infinitely more grievous than those which attack the majesty of earthly princes. With regard to those who are strongly suspected of heresy, if, after having been ordered by the church, they do not demonstrate their innocence by suitable testimony, they also shall be declared infamous, and condemned to exile.—Codex Justinianus, lib. 1, tit. 5, n. 19; cited in “Library of Translations: The Power of the Pope During the Middle Ages,” M. Gosselin (R. C.), Vol. I, pp. 83, 84. London: C. Dolman, 1853.SBBS 209.2

Heretics to be Extirpated by Princes.—Temporal princes shall be reminded and exhorted, and if need be, compelled by spiritual censures, to discharge every one of their functions; and that, as they desire to be reckoned and held faithful, so, for the defense of the faith, let them publicly make oath that they will endeavor, bona fide with all their might, to extirpate from their territories all heretics marked by the church; so that when any one is about to assume any authority, whether spiritual or temporal, he shall be held bound to confirm his title by this oath. And if a temporal prince, being required and admonished by the church, shall neglect to purge his kingdom from this heretical pravity, the metropolitan and other provincial bishops shall bind him in fetters of excommunication; and if he obstinately refuse to make satisfaction this shall be notified within a year to the Supreme Pontiff, that then he may declare his subjects absolved from their allegiance, and leave their lands to be occupied by Catholics, who, the heretics being exterminated, may possess them unchallenged, and preserve them in the purity of the faith.—“The Decretals of Gregory IX,” book 5, title 7. chap. 13.SBBS 209.3

Heretics, Protestants Declared to be.—In the eyes of the church, Protestants are heretics pure and simple; and if the name be offensive, it’s nothing more than the offensiveness of truth....SBBS 209.4

We do not question the possibility of good faith, or of the theological distinction between material and formal heresy. That there are among Protestants material heretics, those who in invincible ignorance deny some dogmas of faith while honestly believing themselves to be in possession of the whole deposit, is not for us or even for the church to positively affirm or deny. Only the all-seeing Searcher of hearts can know aught of that. But in our opinion, the assertion that Protestants in general are not to be considered as heretics, as men who have voluntarily, in one or other of the many ways in which an act can be voluntary, refused the light, merits unqualified condemnation as militating against the present economy of salvation as well as against the efficiency of the means that God infallibly gives to all who do what lies in their power to come into the possession of the truth.SBBS 209.5

In this, as in all other matters of doctrine, the church alone is to be our guide. That the church has ever regarded Protestants as heretics, has ever called them heretics, has ever conducted herself towards them as heretics, is undeniably true, and it ill becomes us to dictate to the church that her terms are “only partly true” and “unnecessarily offensive.”SBBS 210.1

We abominate these spineless Catholics who adopt such methods of kinship and co-operation with Protestants in view of their conversion.—The Western Watchman (R. C.), Jan. 27, 1916.SBBS 210.2

Heretics.—See Church of Rome, 114; Fathers; Heresy; Popes, 387, 388.SBBS 210.3

Heruli.—See Rome, 450-452; Ten Kingdoms.SBBS 210.4

Hildebrand, Dictates of.—There is a document known as Gregory’s “Dictate” (Dictatus) which may be regarded as embodying the principles of his system. The origin of this piece is, indeed, uncertain. Some have supposed it to have been drawn up by the Pope himself; and here again we have a consent between the extreme Romanists, who think both him and the Dictate perfectly right, and the extreme Protestants, who abominate both Gregory and the principles ascribed to him in that document. Others hold, not only that it was not drawn up by Gregory, but that it is an enemy’s misrepresentation of him; but this view would seem to have been devised, merely in order to save the Pope’s credit, by writers of the Gallican school, who disliked the Dictate, but had no wish to quarrel with Gregory’s memory. Gieseler says that the propositions in the Dictate look much as if they were the headings and summaries of a set of canons passed at some Roman council held under Gregory; and this view of their origin seems very probable. But, however the paper may have come into existence, it seems to be certain-notwithstanding the denial of the Gallican writers whom I have mentioned-that there is nothing in the Dictate but what might be paralleled from the unquestioned writings of Gregory himself, or from the actions in which his principles were exemplified.—“Plain Lectures on the Growth of the Papal Power,” James Craigie Robertson, M. A., pp. 204, 205. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.SBBS 210.5

1. That the Romish Church was founded by our Lord alone.SBBS 210.6

2. That the Roman Pontiff alone is justly styled universal.SBBS 210.7

3. That he alone can depose bishops and restore them.SBBS 210.8

9. That all princes should kiss his feet only.SBBS 210.9

12. That it is lawful for him to depose emperors.SBBS 210.10

18. That his sentence is not to be reviewed by any one; while he alone can review the decisions of all others.SBBS 210.11

19. That he can be judged by no one.SBBS 210.12

22. That the Romish Church never erred; nor will it, according to the Scriptures, ever err.SBBS 210.13

27. That he can absolve subjects from their allegiance to unrighteous rulers.—“Dictates” in “Annals of Baronius,” 1076, Vol. XI, col. 506; cited in Gieseler’s “Ecclesiastical History,” period 3, div. 3, par. 47, note 3.SBBS 211.1

Hildebrand.—See Papacy, Builders of, Gregory VII, 349-351.SBBS 211.2

Hippolytus.—See Fathers, 168.SBBS 211.3

Hittites.—It is now known that this people is to be identified with the Kheta of the Egyptians and the Khatti of the Assyrians. It will be recalled that the Egyptians under Tehutimes III waged war against the Kheta, as did Seti in a later succeeding generation....SBBS 211.4

At a slightly later period, when the new Assyrian Empire was waxing strong, the Hittites found an enemy on the other side in Tiglathpileser, who defeated them in a memorable battle, as also a few centuries later did Ashurnazirpal. The latter prince, it would appear, completely subjected them and carried their princes into captivity. Yet they waxed strong again, and took up arms in alliance with Ben-Hadad of Syria against Shalmaneser II in the year 855; and though again defeated, their power was not entirely broken until the year 717 b. c., when Sargon utterly subjected them and deported the inhabitants of their city of Carchemish to a city of Assyria, repeopling it with his own subjects.SBBS 211.5

All these details of the contests of the Hittites against the Egyptians on the one hand and Assyrians on the other were quite unknown until the records of the monuments of Egypt and Assyria were made accessible through the efforts of recent scholars. But it now appears, judged only by the records of their enemies, that the Hittites were a very powerful and important nation for many centuries, and more recent explorations of Asia Minor have brought to light various monuments, which are believed to be records made by the Hittites themselves.—“The Historians’ History of the World,” Henry Smith Williams, LL. D., editor, Vol. II, pp. 391, 392. New York: The Outlook Company, 1904.SBBS 211.6

Holy Roman Empire, Meaning of.—The Holy Roman Empire, taking the name in the sense which it commonly bore in later centuries, as denoting the sovereignty of Germany and Italy vested in a Germanic prince, is the creation of Otto the Great. Substantially, it is true, as well as technically, it was a prolongation of the empire of Charles; and it rested (as will be shown in the sequel) upon ideas essentially the same as those which brought about the coronation of a. d. 800. But a revival is always more or less a revolution: the one hundred and fifty years that had passed since the death of Charles had brought with them changes which made Otto’s position in Germany and Europe less commanding and less autocratic than his predecessor’s. With narrower geographical limits, his empire had a less plausible claim to be the heir of Rome’s universal dominion; and there were also differences in its inner character and structure sufficient to justify us in considering Otto (as he is usually considered by his countrymen) not a mere successor after an interregnum, but rather a second founder of the imperial throne in the West.—“The Holy Roman Empire,” James Bryce, D. C. L., p. 80. London: Macmillan & Co., 1892.SBBS 211.7

Holy Roman Empire, Duration of.—The year 888 is the birth year of modern Europe. France, Germany, Italy, stood distinct as three separate units, with Burgundy and Lorraine as debatable lands, as they were destined to remain for centuries to come. If the conception of empire was still to survive, the Pope must ultimately invite the ruler of the strongest of these three units to assume the imperial crown; and this was what happened when in 962 Pope John XII invited Otto I of Germany to renew once more the Roman Empire. As the imperial strength of the whole Frankish tribe had given them the empire in 800, so did the national strength of the East Frankish kingdom, now resting indeed on a Saxon rather than a Frankish basis, bring the empire to its ruler in 962.... Begun in 952, the acquisition was completed ten years later; and all the conditions were now present for Otto’s assumption of the imperial throne. He was crowned by John XII on Candlemas Day 962, and thus was begun the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted henceforth with a continuous life until 1806.—The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. IX. art. “Empire,” pp. 351, 352, 11th ed.SBBS 211.8

Holy Roman Empire, Papal Idea of.—As God, in the midst of the celestial hierarchy, ruled blessed spirits in Paradise, so the Pope, his vicar, raised above priests, bishops, metropolitans, reigned over the souls of mortal men below. But as God is Lord of earth as well as of heaven, so must he (the Imperator calestis) be represented by a second earthly viceroy, the emperor (Imperator terrenus), whose authority shall be of and for this present life. And as in this present world the soul cannot act save through the body, while yet the body is no more than an instrument and means for the soul’s manifestation, so must there be a rule and care of men’s bodies as well as of their souls, yet subordinated always to the well-being of that which is the purer and the more enduring. It is under the emblem of soul and body that the relation of the papal and imperial power is presented to us throughout the Middle Ages.—“The Holy Roman Empire,” James Bryce, D. C. L., pp. 104, 105. London: Macmillan & Co., 1892.SBBS 212.1

Holy Roman Empire, The Double Aspect of.—Thus the Holy Roman Church and the Holy Roman Empire are one and the same thing, in two aspects; and Catholicism, the principle of the universal Christian society, is also Romanism; that is, rests upon Rome as the origin and type of its universality; manifesting itself in a mystic dualism which corresponds to the two natures of its Founder. As divine and eternal, its head is the Pope, to whom souls have been intrusted; as human and temporal, the emperor, commissioned to rule men’s bodies and acts.—Id., pp. 106, 107.SBBS 212.2

Holy Roman Empire, Two Vicars in.—The German king was the emperor, the medieval head of the Holy Roman Empire, the “king of the Romans.” Some idea of what underlay the thought and its expression may be had when one reads across Albert Dürer’s portrait of Maximilian, “Imperator Casar Divus Maximilianus Pius Felix Augustus,” just as if he had been Trajan or Constantine. The phrase carries us back to the times when the Teutonic tribes swept down on the Roman possessions in Western Europe and took possession of them. They were barbarians with an unalterable reverence for the wider civilization of the great empire which they had conquered. They crept into the shell of the great empire and tried to assimilate its jurisprudence and its religion.SBBS 212.3

Hence it came to pass, in the earlier Middle Ages, as Mr. Freeman says, “The two great powers in Western Europe were the church and the empire, and the center of each, in imagination at least, was Rome. Both of these went on through the settlements of the German nations, and both in a manner drew new powers from the change of things.SBBS 212.4

Men believed more than ever that Rome was the lawful and natural center of the world. For it was held that there were of divine right two vicars of God upon earth, the Roman emperor, his vicar in temporal things, and the Roman bishop, his vicar in spiritual things.” This belief did not interfere with the existence either of separate commonwealths, principalities, or of national churches. But it was held that the Roman emperor, who was the lord of the world, was of right the head of all temporal states, and the Roman bishop, the Pope, was the head of all the churches.—“A History of the Reformation,” Thomas M. Lindsay, M. A., D. D., pp. 31, 32. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906.SBBS 213.1

Note.—There is in the Church of the Lateran at Rome a ninth-century mosaic in which Pope Leo III and the emperor Charlemagne are represented as kneeling at the feet of St. Peter, the Pope on Peter’s right hand, the emperor on his left, in which position the saint gives to Leo the stole of the bishop, signifying spiritual power, and to Charlemagne the banner of Rome, the symbol of temporal or political power. For a printed miniature of this noted work of art, see Myers’s “Mediaval and Modern History,” edition 1905, p. 112.—Eds.SBBS 213.2

Holy Roman Empire, a Turning Point in History.—This alliance between the most powerful representative of the Germanic world and the leader of Roman Christendom in the West, was one of the most eventful coalitions in the history of Europe. It was the event upon which all medieval history turned. It created a new political organization in Western Europe with the Pope and German emperor at the head. For centuries, it affected every institution in Western Europe. After Pepin, each new pope sent a delegation with the key and flag of Rome and the key of St. Peter’s tomb to the Frankish rulers for confirmation of the election and to give the king the oath of allegiance. Thus, the strongest Western king assumed the same prerogative over the church which the Eastern emperor had exercised.—“The Rise of the Mediaval Church,” Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph. D., Litt. D., pp. 306, 307. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.SBBS 213.3

Holy Roman Empire, Its Influence upon the Relation Between Church and State.—Whilst the idea of a holy empire was influencing both the civil and ecclesiastical institutions of society, it did not fail to affect the mutual relations of the two. Though it may seem paradoxical to say so, that idea, in itself so grand and inspiring, could only be realized as long as it was imperfect: two rival authorities intrenching on each other’s province could only exist side by side when the reins of all authority hung loosely. But when society became more settled and better regulated, one of the two rival powers must stand, and the other must fall. The idea itself was clung to with extreme tenacity for more than two centuries, until men had come to perceive that the popes, by encroaching on civil matters, were undermining the foundations of all settled political government. When Philip of France wrote to Boniface VIII, “Render to Casar the things that are Casar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” he exposed the untenableness of the idea of the ecclesiastical state; but before that blow was dealt it had given rise to many an internal struggle.SBBS 213.4

Such was that struggle in which the two heads of the Holy Empire, the Pope and the emperor, were brought into collision with each other. The religious character of the emperor gave him a religious sanction for interfering in matters connected with the Papacy, and thus popes in the imperial interests were raised up to dispute the See of Rome with popes in the Roman interest. On the other hand, the Pope, owing to his relations to the world, had reasonable grounds for interfering in the affairs of the empire, and on more than one occasion set up a rival emperor, when his claims to authority had been denied by those in power.SBBS 213.5

For more than a century-from the decree of Nicolas II to the decree of Alexander III-the Papacy was disturbed by antipopes; Honorius II, Clement III, Gregory VIII, Victor 4, Paschal III being set up and supported by the emperors Henry IV, Henry V, and Frederic Barbarossa. For nearly two centuries-from the time of Henry IV to the fall of the House of Hohenstaufen-the empire was distracted by rival emperors, Rudolph of Swabia, Conrad and Henry, Henry Raspe, William of Holland-emperors whom the popes had approved, and whom they had put forward in their own interests. The antipopes and the rival emperors were counterparts to each other. Both were a consequence which might have been easily anticipated from the attempt to realize the idea of the Holy Empire.—“The See of Rome in the Middle Ages,” Rev. Oswald J. Reichel, B. C. L., M. A., pp. 300-302. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1870.SBBS 214.1

Horns, Ten.—See Ten Kingdoms.SBBS 214.2

Huguenots.—See Massacre.SBBS 214.3

Huns.—See Rome, 437, 438, 444, 452; Ten Kingdoms.SBBS 214.4

Huss, John.—See Heretics, 205, 206, 207.SBBS 214.5