Chapter IV. Romanism an apostasy. (2 Thess. ii 4)

IN the prophecy of Paul, the organized opposition to the Church is denominated “the man of sin,” “the son of perdition,” “the mystery of iniquity,” “that Wicked.” That the passage is a prediction of the rise, progress and overthrow of Popery, an examination, we think, makes clearly manifest. The Apostle affirms that even in that early age the mystery was beginning to work. This we have already found to be true of the Romish Church. Its remaining statements await, and in the progress of our work, we trust, shall receive, an examination, proving them not only strikingly applicable to the Papacy, but applicable to no other system of error, religious or political ; to no other form of wickedness, personal, social or national. It should exalt itself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, sitting in the temple of God, claiming to be God. This we shall hereafter find fulfilled in the arrogant assumptions of the proud pontiffs, Its coming should be “with all power and signs and lying wonders.” Its relics, its legends, its prodigies and its so-called miracles, “lying wonders,” will on examination be seen to be its most efficient agency in spreading and maintaining its soul-debasing superstitions. That God would send its followers strong delusion that they should believe a lie, Paul predicted. Most assuredly observation confirms the testimony of history, that in the Romish Church the willingness and power of the priests to deceive are only equaled by the capability and eagerness of the people to be deceived; deceit producing deceivableness, deceivableness evoking deceit, blinded of God, given over to believe falsehoods. Of this, however, hereafter. So likewise, the prediction that “the man of sin” should continue—not perhaps in organized form as now, but in essential characteristies—during the entire history of the Church on earth, and only be destroyed by the brightness of the Saviour’s coming, is precisely the same, as hereafter will appear, with that so emphatically made respecting Romanism. In each, in all of the particulars here enumerated, the prophecy is exclusively applicable to the Church of Rome. This will appear in the course of our work,

The first statement made respecting the “mystery of iniquity” is, that it should arise from apostasy. It was to be a falling away from the faith. We must therefore look for Antichrist among those who once embraced Christianity. In countries Christianized, or at least partially so, and not in those exclusively Pagan, must we expect “the man of sin.” And unless in the Papacy, where, in the entire history of the Church, does the prophecy find a fulfilment?

If this be not the apostasy, where is it? Does Protestantism bear the marks? Certainly one or the other is the predicted foe of Christ’s kingdom. And if it be Protestantism, then Romanism, with all its abominations, must be all it claims to be, the Church, the only Church, the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

The inquiry, therefore, which is the predicted “son of perdition?” we are entirely willing should await the answer given this question, which form of doctrine and worship has the sanction of the Apostles and primitive Christians? Confident that whilst before the beginning of the fourth century there was, as there always has been, and so long as human nature remains unchanged probably always will be, a strong tendency to ritualism, Popery—in the form in which it now exists and has cursed the world for nearly thirteen centuries—had no existence.

During the lives of the Apostles, and in times immediately subsequent, the Church was comparatively pure. Believers worshipped God, and God alone, and relied for salvation entirely on the merit of Christ’s death. The religion of the humble Nazarene had none of those unmeaning rites, imposing ceremonials, and debasing customs of Romanism, These all came in during the gradual apostasy, and came from Paganism. Prior to this the followers of Jesus were bitterly persecuted, thousands being put to death by every manner of torture which fiendish malignity could invent. They were sawn asunder; they were drowned; they were thrown to wild beasts; they were burned at the stake. Others, covered with the skins of animals, were torn by dogs; others were crucified ; others still, besmeared with combustible materials, and suspended by the chin upon sharp stakes, were set on fire, that they might light the gardens of Rome’s cruel emperor. And to add interest to the horrid spectacle, and attract the crowd, this heartless exhibition of Satanic malignity was accompanied with horse-racing.

To escape death, the faithful concealed themselves in dens, in caves, in deserts, and in subterranean burial places near the eternal city. During ten successive persecutions, Christianity retained its Apostolic purity. It was persecuted, and partly, no doubt, for this reason was the more spiritual. There was no vast external organization having the Pope at its head, and assuming spiritual power over the entire Church. The worship of images, counting of beads, bowing before altars, adoring the host and worshipping the Virgin, were unknown. Being poor, the Christians had few church edifices; they met for worship in caves and private houses. Magnificent cathedrals, gorgeous vestments, and costly ornaments, which Papists now seem to deem essential to proper worship, were at once impossible and unnecessary to the simple-minded followers of him who had not where to lay his head. Theirs was not the form of godliness, but its power in the heart. Their writings are of the most spiritual type. In these is found incontrovertible proof that the religion then preached was such as we now denominate Protestantism. The Emperor, so far from ruling in ecclesiastical matters, was the bitter enemy of Christianity.

During this period each minister of the Church ruled in his own congregation, and nowhere else. The bishop of the church in Rome was only the equal, in authority, of the humblest shepherd of souls in the most unknown, distant and ignorant part of the empire. Clemens tells us, “Those who were ordained rulers in the churches, were so ordained with the approbation and concurrence of the whole Church.” Clearly, therefore, Romanism did not prevail. Her system is a despotism, in which the people have no voice in the choice of their spiritual guides.

And the assumptions of Popery, like her mummeries, had no existence during the first three centuries. These the persecutions of Pagan Rome effectually repressed. Therefore, before “the man of sin” could be revealed, this let or hindrance must be removed. “And now,” says Paul, “ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed.”

In the year, AD 306, Constantine succeeded to the throne of his father. This marks an important era in the history of the Church. Having seen, as he claimed, the appearance of a cross in the heavens, exceeding bright, bearing the inscription, “Conquer by this,” he embraced Christianity, defeated Maxentius, and in 315, by formal edict, confirmed and extended the privileges of the Christians. Christianity was now established. The Emperor commenced the persecution of Paganism. A profession of the Gospel being no longer accompanied with danger, the churches being richly endowed, the clergy loaded with honors, it was but natural that upon the pure spiritual worship of him who came to abolish all forms, should be engrafted the superstitions of the ignorant heathen. Of a conversion of the heart, there was not even the pretence. With the growth of ignorance and love of ostentation came, not only further importations of unmeaning ceremonies, but also greater assumptions on the part of Rome’s bishop, until, in A.D. 606, the Emperor Phocas conferred upon Boniface III. the title of Universal Bishop. Thus Romanism, after a desperate struggle of three centuries, established itself. Henceforth none might, with impunity, despise its rites or ridicule its claims.

It must not be supposed, however, that the Roman pontiffs acquired supremacy without long continued efforts, and persistent opposition from those who looked upon the growth of this power as the rise of Antichrist. Protests and refutations were numerous. Irenaesus declared that the bishop of Rome was but a presbyter, for Jesus himself was the only bishop of souls. Maurus affirmed that all ministers were bishops, and all bishops were of equal rank. When summoned to Rome to stand trial for such blasphemous heresy, he paid no regard to the summons. When excommunicated he hurled back upon the Pope the sentence pronounced against himself, and continued, in defiance of the Pope’s authority, to discharge duty as pastor of his flock. On his death-bed he exhorted his people to continuance in disowning the usurped power of the great Roman Antichrist. The early Councils resisted Papal supremacy. The sixth of Carthage (AD 418) resisted three Popes; that of Chalcedon (AD 450), Pope Leo. St. Ibar, the Irish divine, wrote, “ We never acknowledge the supremacy of a foreigner.” Says Theodoret, “Christ alone is head of all.” In the early part of the sixth century a fierce contention arose “ between Symmachus and Laurentius, who were on the same day elected to the pontificate by different parties.” A Council assembled at Rome by Theodoric, king of the Goths, endorsed the election of the former. Ennodius, in an apology written for the Council and for Symmachus, first made the assertion, “The bishop of Rome is subject to no earthly tribunal.” He styles him, “judge in place of God, and vicegerent of the Most High.” These claims were maintained by the adherents of Symmachus, and detested and refuted by his opponents. Even Gregory, Pope, author and canonized saint—an authority surely with Papists—in his contest with the bishop of Constantinople, denounced the title of Universal bishop, as “vain,” “diabolical,” “anti-christian,” “blasphemous,” “execrable, infernal.”

He declares, “Our Lord says unto his disciples, be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your master, and all ye are brethren.” And again he affirms, “ Whosoever ADOPTS OR AFFECTS THE TITLE OF UNIVERSAL BISHOP, HAS THE PRIDE OF ANTICHRIST, AND IS IN SOME MANNER HIS FORERUNNER IN HIS HAUGHTY QUALITY OF ELEVATING HIMSELF ABOVE THE REST OF HIS ORDER. AND INDEED, BOTH THE ONE AND THE OTHER SEEM TO SPLIT UPON THE SAME ROCK; FOR AS PRIDE MAKES ANTICHRIST STRAIN HIS PRETENSIONS UP TO GODHEAD, SO WHOEVER IS AMBITIOUS TO BE CALLED THE ONLY AND UNIVERSAL BISHOP, ARROGATES TO HIMSELF A DISTINGUISHED SUPERIORITY, AND RISES, AS IT WERE, UPON THE RUINS OF THE REST.” As the doctrine of Papal supremacy is so strongly condemned by an infallible Pope, surely we ought to be excused for disbelieving it. As the Papacy is declared, by what Romanists deem the highest human authority, to be either Antichrist or his harbinger, further proof that she is the great apostasy is certainly uncalled for. Infallibility has spoken, and for once, we can believe, has certainly spoken the truth.

Two years after the death of Gregory, Boniface III. requested and obtained from the Emperor Phocas—the usurper and murderer—the title of Universal Bishop. This is the date commonly assigned as the origin of Popery. At this time the foundation stone of the entire structure was laid. Grant that the bishop of Rome is the legitimate successor of St. Peter, the primate of the Church, “the infallible judge in faith and morals,” sole interpreter of Scripture, and the entire system is logically defensible. Even, however, so late as the ninth century, Lewis, son of Charlemagne, owned no supremacy in the Pope, but sustained the power of the bishops and Council against him. To bring men to consent to their arrogant assumptions, the pontiffs now devised a new scheme. They procured, in the year 845, by the aid of their trusty friends, pretended decrees of early Popes, spurious writings of the fathers, and forged acts of synods and Councils, known since as the “Isidorian Decretals.” The most important of these documents was the pretended gift from Constantine the Great, in the year 324, of the city of Rome, and all Italy, with the crown, to Sylvester, then bishop of Rome. “We attribute,” says the imposture, “to the chair of St. Peter ALL THE IMPERIAL DIGNITY, GLORY AND POWER. Moreover, we give to Sylvester, and to his successors, our palace of Lateran—incontestably one of the finest palaces on earth; we give him our CROWN, OUR MITRE, OUR DIADEM, AND ALL OUR PRINCIPAL VESTMENTS; WE RESIGN TO HIM THE IMPERIAL DIGNITY. . . . . We GIVE As A FREE Gift To THE Holy Pontiff the city or Rowe, AND ALL THE WESTERN CITIES Or ITALY, AS WELL AS THE WESTERN CITIES OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES. To MAKE ROOM FOR HIM, WE ABDICATE OUR SOVEREIGNTY OVER ALL THESE PROVINCES and we withdraw from Rome, transferring the seat of our empire to Byzantium, since IT IS NOT JUST THAT A TERRESTRIAL EMPEROR SHALL RETAIN ANY POWER WHERE GOD PLACED THE HEAD OF RELIGION.” *

* Of Constantine’s pretended donation and the Decretals in general, Dr. Campbell remarks, “ ‘They are such bare-faced impostures, and so bunglingly executed, that nothing less than the most profound darkness of those ages could account for their success.”

By the aid of these base forgeries, approved by the Roman Pontiffs because designed to enrich the primacy of St. Peter, Nicolas I. succeeded, notwithstanding the determined opposition of the reflecting, in instilling into the minds of many the belief that the bishop of Rome was legislator and judge over the whole Church; that other bishops, and even Councils, derived authority solely from him, Nor were the results which flowed from this huge fabrication confined to the ninth century. Gradually, but surely, the whole constitution and government of the Church were changed. According to Mosheim, “The wisest and most impartial among the Roman Catholic writers, acknowledge and prove, that from the times of Lewis the Meck, the ancient system of ecclesiastical law in Europe was generally changed, and a new system introduced by the policy of the court of Rome.” The authors of the recent work entitled, “Janus,” “members of a school who yield to none in their loyal devotion to Catholic truth,” affirm: “ The Isidorian Deeretals revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, introducing a new system in the place of the old.” “ Upon these,” say they, “was founded the maxim that the Pope, as supreme judge of the Church, could be judged by no man.” It was on the strength of these fictions that Nicolas I. affirmed: “ {he Roman Church keeps the faith pure, and is free from stain.” These authors, certainly competent authority, at least with Catholics, affirm: “(Jesuit Cardinal) Bellarmine acknowledged that without the forgeries of the pseudo-Isidore, . . . it would be impossible to make out even a semblance of traditional evidence,” for the supremacy. (P. 319.)

As proving that Popery, as it now exists, is an apostasy from the true Church, we present some passages from “Janus,” that complete historical refutation of the Papal claim to supremacy and infallibility, which has recently caused the Catholic World and other publications of the “infallibles” such immense trouble, and—to say nothing of misrepresentation—such a vast amount of special pleading. They say:

“The Papacy, such as it has become, presents the appearance of a disfiguring, sickly, and choking excrescence on the organization of the Church, hindering and decomposing the action of its vital powers, and bringing manifest diseases in its train.”

“The well known fact speaks clearly enough for itself, that throughout the whole ancient canon law . . . there is no mention made of Papal rights.”

“When the presidency in the Church became an empire then the unity of the Church, so firmly secured before, was broken up.” (P. 21.)

“For a long time nothing was known in Rome of definite rights bequeathed by Peter to his successors.”

“The Church of Rome could neither exclude individuals nor Churches from the Church Universal.” (Pp. 64-66.)

“There are many national Churches which were never under Rome, and never even had any intercourse with Rome.” (P. 68.)

“The Popes took no part in convoking Councils.” (P. 63.)

“The force and authority of the decisions of Councils depended upon the consent of the Church, and on the fact of being generally received.” (Pp. 63, 64.)

Thus, the sons of “Holy Mother” themselves being witnesses, we confidently affirm that Romanism, in its form of worship, in its system of doctrines, and in its plan of government, is evidently different from the primitive Church. It must, therefore, be “the mystery of iniquity,” the great apostasy, “that man of sin,” “the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

The insolent ravings of this foe of the true Church, especially those of the last few months, may well strike us with amazement. Pope Boniface VIII. issued a decree, now embodied in the canon law, which solemnly proclaims:—‘ We declare, say, define, pronounce it to be of necessity to salvation, for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” In the fourth canon of the “Dogmatic Decrees on Catholic Faith,” promulgated in the third public session of the Vatican Council, April 24th, 1870, occur these words: “We admonish all that it is their duty to observe likewise the constitutions and decrees of this Holy See.” In the third chapter of the “ First Dogmatic Decree on the Church of Christ,” passed July 18th, 1870, it is affirmed:— “The decision of the Apostolic See, above which there is no higher authority, cannot be reconsidered by any one, nor is it lawful to any one to sit in judgment on his judgment. . . . . We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, according to which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the holy apostolic see and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, and is the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians.” And in the fourth chapter of the same, we find this remarkable assertion, made in this nineteenth century, made after Rome has been again and again proved guilty of entertaining not only doctrines evidently erroneous, but dogmas precisely contradictory—exact opposites :— “KNOWING MOST CERTAINLY THAT THIS SEE OF St. PETER EVER REMAINS FREE from ERROR.” Assertion seems their only stock in trade. With this as their formula, “Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia,” and this as their sole argument, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” they pronounce anathemas against all who deny, or even refuse cordially to accept, the doctrines of the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope. In this decree, the first on the Church, the unterrified five hundred thrice pronounce “anathema sit” against him who shall presume to call in question the primacy of St. Peter or the legitimate succession of Pius IX., Holy Father, Vicar of Christ, Vicegerent of God, infallible judge in faith and morals.

The Romish Church, which now boastingly claims inerrancy, nay even infallibility, has taught errors innumerable, has radically changed her ancient character and constitution, has become thoroughly corrupt in her centre of unity, has changed the forms of worship, has perverted the doctrines of the Gospel; in a word, has, as Paul predicted, fallen away.

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: