PROGRESS OF ANTICHRIST.
Spirit of Antichrist--Priests, Clergy, and
Laity--Ceremonies--Mosheim--“Pious Frauds”--Splendour of
Prelates--Constantine--the
Hierarchy--Titles--Creeds--Arianism--Persecution--Rome and
Constantinople--Pope John--Pope Gregory--Mohammed--Claims of the
Pope--Henry IV.--Corrupt principles.
Divine Wisdom having foreseen, and thus foretold, all the dreadful
corruptions of the Christian church, we are interested in marking the
steps by which the progress was made. The spirit of popery we behold in
the conduct of the judaising teachers of the early Christians, as
censured by Paul, and as seen in the proceedings of Diotrephes, who is
believed to have been a pastor. John complained of his refusing to
“receive the brethren,” the messengers of the apostle, and of his
“malicious words,” persecuting some, and casting others out of the
church.--(2 John 9, 10.)
This ambitious spirit led the pastors in some of the larger churches,
early in the second century, to assume the character and title of
_priests_, as peculiar to their order. They claimed the privilege of
being the Lord’s “heritage,” or clergy, which belonged to the faithful,
as distinct from their ministers.--(1 Pet. v. 31.) But they persuaded
the people that they had succeeded to the rights of the Jewish
priesthood, as God’s clergy; and hence the distinction of _clergy_ and
_laity_, which has no foundation in Christianity. This distinction being
established, gave immense force to the spirit of popery, which advanced
rapidly among the ignorant people. Dr. Mosheim states, “The Christian
doctors had the good fortune to persuade the people, that the ministers
of the Christian church succeeded to the character, rights, and
privileges of the Jewish priesthood; and this persuasion was a new
source of honour and profit to the sacerdotal order. This notion was
propagated with industry, some time after the second destruction of
Jerusalem [A.D. 135] had extinguished all hopes of seeing their
government restored to its former lustre, and their country arising from
its ruins. And, accordingly, the _bishops_ considered themselves
invested with a rank and character similar to those of the _high
priests_ among the Jews, while the _presbyters_ represented the
_priests_, and the _deacons_ the _Levites_.”
Christianity having no splendid ceremonial to recommend the preaching of
the Gospel, priests devised various forms to be added to the Lord’s
supper, which was administered every Sabbath, and ceremonies were
invented, partly derived from the Jews and some from the idolators, to
attract the minds of the people, and with a view to gratify the converts
from heathenism. The performance of these, especially in the Lord’s
supper, served also as the means of employing the priests in their newly
created offices; and they were called _mysteries_, as having a hidden
meaning and a peculiar virtue, after the manner of the rites of the
Pagan priests. Hence originated the term _sacraments_, the Latin word
for _mysteries_, applied to various rites, especially baptism and the
Lord’s supper.
Dr. Mosheim, therefore, remarks, “The bishops, by an innocent allusion
to the Jewish manner of speaking, had been called ‘chief priests;’ the
elders or presbyters had received the title of ‘priests,’ and the
deacons that of ‘Levites.’ But in a little time these titles were abused
by an aspiring clergy, who thought proper to claim the same rank and
station, the same rights and privileges, that were conferred with those
titles upon the ministers of religion under the Mosaic dispensation.
Hence the rise of tithes, first-fruits, splendid garments, and many
other circumstances of external grandeur, by which ecclesiastics were
eminently distinguished.”
Priestly power was greatly augmented at this time by the meetings of the
bishops, as delegates from the churches, to consult respecting their
mutual defence and security against their persecuting enemies. In these
synods or councils, as they were called, various decisions were formed
unfriendly to the interests of the people; for the bishops soon asserted
authority to prescribe laws, and to impose creeds, which led to the most
grievous persecution in the following ages. Superiority was claimed in
these assemblies by the bishops of the chief cities, especially by the
bishop of Rome, as the imperial metropolis. Dr. Mosheim, therefore,
states, “Toward the conclusion of this century, Victor, bishop of Rome,
took it into his head to force the Asiatic Christians, by the pretended
authority of his laws and decrees, to observe the Roman custom of
keeping Easter.” They refused compliance; and, as Milner says, “Victor,
with much arrogance, as if he had felt the very soul of the future
papacy formed in himself, inveighed against the Asiatic churches, and
pronounced their excommunication.”
In the second century, popery was further advanced by the peculiar
practices of the Egyptian monks being cherished among the Christians.
They magnified the virtues of fasting, celibacy, and a solitary life, as
the perfection of excellence; and hence the origin of the Romish monks,
nuns, and celibacy of the clergy.
Christianity, in the third century, was still more corrupted by the
priesthood; for “pious frauds,” or false miracles, were commonly
practised. Several of the teachers were guilty of these in the second
century; but, to the dishonour of religion, they were now publicly
defended, even by some good men, provided they were employed with a
design to convert men and advance the cause of Christianity!
Popery continued to advance in this century by rapid strides; for the
clergy maintained their various dignities with determined zeal. The
simple ordinances of Christ in the ministry of the Gospel were laid
aside for the performance of priestly rites. Ecclesiastical government
degenerated towards the form of a religious monarchy; while the people
were, in most cases, excluded from all share in the management of their
own affairs in the churches. Dr. Mosheim, therefore, testifies--“The
bishops assumed, in many places, a princely authority, particularly
those who presided over the most opulent assemblies. They appropriated
to their evangelical function the splendid ensigns of temporal majesty.
A throne, surrounded with ministers, exalted above his equals the
servant of the meek and humble Jesus, and sumptuous garments dazzled the
eye and the mind of the multitude into an ignorant veneration for their
arrogated authority. The example of the bishops was ambitiously imitated
by the presbyters, who, neglecting the sacred duties of their station,
abandoned themselves to the indolence and delicacy of an effeminate and
luxurious life. When the honours and privileges of the bishops and
presbyters were augmented, the deacons also began to extend their
ambitious views, and to despise those lower functions and employments
which they had hitherto exercised with such humility and zeal; and the
effects of a corrupt ambition were spread through every rank of the
sacred order.”
Ecclesiastical ambition was not satisfied with the creation of a
hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons; but various lesser orders of
ministers were now instituted, on account of the increasing ceremonies
which had been adopted in imitation of the heathen mysteries. Various
forms of prayer and consecration were prepared for these ceremonies; the
table of the Lord was converted into an altar; wax tapers were burnt
upon it; the bread and wine were regarded as possessing a kind of saving
virtue; and much solemn pomp was observed in celebrating the Lord’s
supper. Baptism was preceded by a terrifying process--exorcism, to expel
the evil spirit, and the newly baptised persons were required to taste
milk and honey, as indicating spiritual food, and the converts from
heathenism were sent home from the ceremony adorned with crowns and
white garments.
Popery received a vast accession of power, in the beginning of the
fourth century, by the conversion of the Emperor Constantine. He became
a most munificent patron of Christianity, as by its profession he
succeeded to the throne of the Cæsars. The extravagant claims of the
ambitious prelates were now confirmed, and the spiritual institution of
Jesus Christ was transformed into a worldly system, framed to resemble
the civil government of the empire. The bishops of Rome, Antioch, and
Alexandria were already regarded as superior to the other prelates--as
archbishops, with the title of patriarch; and to these was added a
fourth, for the new imperial city of Constantinople. Under this first
Christian emperor, as Dr. Haweis remarks, “the prelatical government
became modelled, after the imperial, into great prefectures, of which
Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, claimed superiority;
whilst a sort of feudality was established, descending from patriarchs
to metropolitans, archbishops, bishops, some with greater, and others
with less extensive spheres of dominion. Instead of the people choosing
their own bishops and presbyters, they were no more consulted. The
presbyters wholly depended on the bishops and patrons; the bishops were
the creatures of patriarchs and metropolitans; or, if the see was
important, appointed by the emperor. So ‘church and state’ formed the
first inauspicious alliance; and the corruption, which had been
plentifully sown before, now ripened by court intrigues for political
bishops of imperial appointment, or at the suggestion of the prime
minister.”
“This pernicious example,” says Dr. Mosheim, “was soon followed by the
several ecclesiastical orders. The presbyters, in many places, assumed
an equality with the bishops, in point of rank and authority. Those more
particularly of the presbyters and deacons, who filled the first
stations of these orders, carried their pretensions to an extravagant
length, and were offended at the notion of being placed upon an equal
footing with their colleagues. For this reason, they assumed the titles
of _archpresbyters_ and _archdeacons_.”
These newly created dignities required a corresponding style of address,
which was soon contrived. It may be remarked, that all these things are
contrary to the New Testament; for though all Christians are there
described as _saints_, or holy persons; they are never addressed with
pompous titles. Even the apostles are never called _Saint_ John and
_Saint_ Peter; these titles are the inventions of popery. Lord
Chancellor King remarks, therefore, “It is very seldom, if ever, that
the ancients give the title of _saints_ to those holy persons, but
singly style them Peter, Paul, John, &c.; not _Saint_ Peter, _Saint_
Paul, _Saint_ John.” Priestly dignities originated the addresses of
“reverend,” “very reverend,” “right reverend,” “most reverend,” “your
grace,” “your holiness.”
Constantine having arranged the offices of his government in church and
state, soon found it necessary to attempt to produce _uniformity of
faith_, especially as Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, had declared his
belief that the Son of God is inferior to the Father, of another nature,
and only the first of all created beings. Finding this heresy prevail,
he called the bishops of all the provinces to an assembly, A.D. 325, at
Nice, in Bithynia. This assembly, famous, as the _first general
council_, consisted of about _two thousand and fifty_ persons, of whom
_three hundred and eighteen_ were bishops. These prelates delivered to
the emperor letters of grievous accusation against each other, but the
prudent sovereign threw the whole into the fire, and referred them to
the day of judgment for a settlement. After two months’ deliberation,
they agreed on that form denominated “_The Nicene Creed_,” which
required to be believed by all Christians. But, by this celebrated act,
the foundation was laid for the pernicious influence of a political
priesthood, and for the authority of councils in ecclesiastical matters,
above even the Holy Scriptures; and this authority, claimed and acted
upon, produced all the superstition, intolerance, and cruelty, which
characterise the terrible _Inquisition_.
Constantine having established the “creed,” required its universal
reception. But the Arians refused; and the bishops prevailed on him to
issue edicts against them, as enemies of truth, forbidding their public
meetings, and giving their places of worship to the orthodox. He
banished Arius, and decreed that his books should be burnt; and that
whosoever should dare to keep any of them, as soon as this was proved,
should suffer death! In two or three years after, the emperor recalled
Arius, and repealed his severe laws against his heresy, which prevailed
under his son and successor, Constantius. Athanasius, patriarch of
Alexandria, became the champion of orthodoxy; and thus two parties arose
among the clergy.
Decrees and state power authorised _inquisition_ and _persecution_; and
“Hence,” says Dr. Mosheim, “arose endless animosities and seditions,
treacherous plots, and open acts of injustice and violence, between the
two contending parties. Council was assembled against council, and their
jarring and contradictory decrees spread perplexity and confusion
throughout the Christian world.” One fact will illustrate the spirit of
party in this age: _eighty_ orthodox bishops having waited on the
Emperor Valerius, to complain of his appointing an Arian bishop of
Constantinople, they were murdered by his order, on shipboard, at sea,
A.D. 370.
Popery prevailed amid all the contentions; and, A.D. 410, four bishops,
deputed from Carthage, obtained an edict from the Emperor Honorius,
which doomed to death every one who differed from the Catholic faith.
From this edict serious persecutions arose. But, A.D. 451, the council
of Chalcedon resolved, “that the same rights and honours conferred on
the bishop of Rome, were due to the bishop of Constantinople,”
confirming his jurisdiction, which he had before claimed, over all the
provinces of Asia.
Imperial dominion, however, was now declining, under a succession of
feeble princes. At the opening of the _fifth_ century, Constantinople
was the eastern capital, in which Arcadius presided as emperor, while
Rome continued the western metropolis; though Honorius kept his court at
Ravenna. Swarms of savage hordes, from the northern regions of Europe,
under the names of Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, Franks, Burgundians,
overran the richest provinces, sacking cities, and committing every
species of barbarity and cruelty. Some of these barbarians had embraced
the name of Christ from Arian teachers; and many of those bishops who
held the true divinity of Christ were tortured, banished, or massacred
with their people.
Religion became still more corrupted; and public worship consisted
chiefly in the performance of ceremonies, differing but little from
those of the pagan Greeks and Romans. Both of them had a splendid
ritual, gorgeous robes, tiaras, mitres, wax tapers, crosiers,
processions, lustrations, images, and many such circumstances of
pageantry, were to be seen equally in the heathen temples and in
Christian churches. To engage the admiration of the ignorant population,
pictures and statues of Christ, of the Virgin Mary with the infant Jesus
in her arms, and of numerous saints, were set up in the churches, to be
admired and worshipped. An invincible efficacy, in expelling evil
spirits and healing diseases, was attributed to the presence of the
bones of martyrs. The riches and magnificence of the churches exceeded
all bounds; and the altars and the chests for the relics of saints were
made of the richest materials, some of solid silver.
Everything in the forms of the Catholic religion appeared to produce
false ideas, or to excite the worst passions of the human heart. Hence
superstition and intolerance, and dreadful persecution among the
different parties. Mr. Gibbon states, of the party called Donatists,
that “_three hundred_ bishops, with many thousands of the inferior
clergy, were torn from their churches, stripped of their ecclesiastical
possessions, banished to the islands, and proscribed by the laws, if
they presumed to conceal themselves in the provinces of Africa.”
“Religion in the sixth century became still more corrupt; it lay
expiring,” as Dr. Mosheim remarks, “under an enormous heap of
superstitious inventions. The worship of Christians was now paid to the
remains of the true cross, to the images of the saints, and to bones,
whose real owners were extremely dubious. The progress of vice among the
clergy was truly shocking. In those very places which were consecrated
to the advancement of piety, and the service of God, there was little
else to be seen but ghostly ambition, insatiable avarice, pious frauds,
intolerable pride, and a superstitious contempt of the natural rights of
the people, with many other evils still more enormous.”
Episcopal claims continued to be the subjects of constant disputes,
especially between the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople. John of
Rome visited the eastern capital, A.D. 525, to serve his own purpose,
but charged by Theodore, the Gothic king of Italy, to engage the emperor
Justin to cease from persecuting the Arians. With a crowd of the
nobility and clergy, the emperor met him, and bowed down to the very
ground before the vicar of the blessed Peter, and coveting the honour of
being crowned by him, received at his hands the imperial diadem! The
patriarch invited the Pope to perform Divine service in the great church
together with him; but he would neither accept the invitation, nor even
see the patriarch, till he agreed not only to yield him the first place,
but to seat him on a kind of throne above himself, alleging no other
reason than _because he was the Roman High Priest_! The patriarch
indulged him in every thing he required, and they celebrated Easter
together, with extraordinary pomp and solemnity. The Pope officiated in
the Latin tongue, according to the rites of the Latin church.
Pre-eminence being thus acknowledged by the patriarch of Constantinople
to the pontiff of Rome, it cannot be matter of wonder that Justinian,
the nephew and successor of the emperor Justin, in his epistle to the
new Pope, John II., writes, A.D. 533, “We hasten to SUBJECT _and to
unite to your holiness all the priests of the whole East_. Nor do we
suffer anything which belongs to the state of the church, however
manifest and undoubted, that is agitated, to pass without the knowledge
of your holiness, the _head of all_ the holy churches!”
This pre-eminence was given more fully, two years after, in a memorial
to the pontiff, by “the bishops and clergy of Constantinople.” It was
addressed--“To our most holy lord, and most blessed father of fathers,
Agapetus, archbishop of the Romans and patriarch, the bishops of the
oriental diocese, and those who dwell in the holy places of Christ our
Lord, with the residents and other classes assembled in this royal
city.” Plain Christians may wonder at all this sacerdotal blasphemy, so
utterly at variance with all that they read in the New Testament, except
of the predicted Antichrist!
But the dignity of “universal patriarch” being assumed by the bishop of
Constantinople, “Gregory the Great” denounced it as a “_profane_,”
“proud,” “antichristian” title; as “impious,” “execrable,”
“blasphemous,” “infernal,” “diabolical.” On this occasion, Gregory
assumed the title of affected humility, ever since retained by the
Popes, “SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD!” Still that lofty title, which
he condemned in his ambitious brother John, he sought for himself, as is
evident from his adulatory letter to those monsters of wickedness,
Phocas and his wife Leontia.
Phocas had opened a passage to the imperial throne, by the murder of
Mauricius and his six sons; and afterwards, most barbarously, of the
empress Constantia, and her three daughters, dragging them from their
refuge in one of the churches of Constantinople. Mauricius is commended
as a prince of many virtues, and of but few vices; and Gregory, in his
letters to him, hypocritically declares, that “his tongue could not
express the good he had received of the Almighty, and his lord the
emperor; and that he thought himself bound, in gratitude, to pray
incessantly for the life of his most pious and most Christian lord; and
that, in return for the goodness of his most religious lord to him, he
could do no less than love the very ground on which he trod.”
Mauricius, however, favouring the title assumed by the patriarch John,
Gregory was offended; and, like many a courtier, congratulated the
murderer, Phocas, on his being proclaimed emperor; saying, with the
most consummate hypocrisy, “Let the heavens rejoice! let the earth leap
for joy! let the whole people return thanks for so happy a change!” In
the same strain he wrote, in reply to the first letter of Phocas, and to
the Empress Leontia he says, “What tongue can utter, what mind can
conceive, the thanks we owe to God, who has placed you on the throne, to
ease us of the yoke with which we have hitherto been so cruelly galled?
Let the angels give glory to God in heaven! let men return thanks to God
upon earth! for the republic is relieved, and our sorrows are banished!”
Mr. Bower, in his “Life of Gregory,” asks, “Who would have expected such
letters from a Christian bishop to a usurper! a tyrant! a murderer! a
regicide? Who would not have thought Gregory, of all men, the least
capable of becoming his panegyrist, of applauding him in his usurpation,
murder, and tyranny? Gregory, I say, whose manners and whole conduct
have hitherto appeared irreproachable! But what virtue can be proof in a
Pope against the jealousy of a rival?”
“Gregory the Great” died A.D. 604, without attaining his object; but he
has been highly extolled by the Romish church, by whom he has been
canonised as a _saint_. He was a man of profound talents, and of equal
priestcraft, as the venerable martyrologist, John Fox, says of this
Pope, “Of the number of all the first bishops before him in the
primitive time, he was the _basest_; of all them that came after him he
was the _best_.”
Sabinian succeeded to the popedom, A.D. 605; and Boniface, A.D. 607.
This latter priest, formerly _nuncio_ of Gregory, by flattering the
emperor, as his master had done, prevailed on Phocas to “revoke the
decree of Constantinople in 588, entailing the title of _universal
bishop_ on the bishop of Constantinople, and to transfer it to Boniface
and his successors, declaring the bishop of Rome _the head of the
universal church_!”
Pope Boniface, therefore, on receiving this imperial edict, assembled a
council in the church of St. Peter at Rome, consisting of _seventy-two_
bishops, and _thirty-four_ presbyters, and all the deacons and inferior
clergy of the city, and issued a decree as absolute monarch of the
church! His successors pursued his policy; “nor did their boundless
ambition allow them or the world,” as Mr. Bower states, “to enjoy any
rest, till they got themselves acknowleged for UNIVERSAL MONARCHS, as
well as UNIVERSAL BISHOPS!”
Throughout the seventh century, popery advanced, while the name of
Christianity was dreaded, and by many abhorred, on account of the wicked
lives of its professed ministers. It was dishonoured by various heresies
and idolatries. Some of their leaders filled the eastern empire with
carnage and assassinations, of which, indeed, the Catholics were
scarcely less guilty; so that the vengeance of the Christians was
regarded with the deepest horror. This shocking exhibition was observed
with astonishment by reflecting Jews and pagans; when Mohammed, an Arab
travelling merchant, a young man of singular talents, ambition, and
enthusiasm, having witnessed these abominations, formed a design of a
new system of religion, which should destroy the popular idolatries.
Aided, and perhaps prompted by a learned Jew, and an apostate from
Christianity, he succeeded. His system rejected the idolatry of the
Arabs, and the worship of saints and relics by professed Christians,
while it included the chief facts of patriarchal history in the
Scriptures, mingled with many Arabian and Jewish fables. This he
pretended was the pure religion taught by Moses, by the prophets, and by
Jesus Christ. By this artful device, and as a military chief, he engaged
multitudes of followers; and thus, by rapine and war, he soon obtained
the sovereignty of Arabia and several adjoining countries. In this
century, therefore, “the mystery of iniquity” prevailed, fulfilling the
Divine prophecies regarding Antichrist in the west, as monarch in the
church at Rome, but in the language of Scripture, a “BEAST;” and, in the
east, by the imposture of Mohammed, as the predicted “FALSE PROPHET.”
(Rev. xvi. 13-xvii.)
Mohammedanism reigned, in all its savage bigotry, in the _eighth_,
_ninth_, and _tenth_ centuries, under the Saracen and Turkish military
leaders, over the finest parts of Asia and Africa, and in several
kingdoms of Europe; and as image-worship prevailed among professing
Christians, with endless priestly abuses and pious frauds, the
Scriptures being almost unknown to the people, many families, nominally
Christian, relinquished the name of Christ, assuming that of the false
prophet, Mohammed.
Popery still advanced in the west; and the barbarous nations proselyted
from paganism, being kept in ignorance of the Holy Scriptures, were
unable to detect the gross impositions of the priests, who pretended to
possess the power of forgiving the sins of men. Hence, many of the
princes and nobles, having acquired wealth by rapine and murder, gave
large donations to their religious instructors, to save them from the
torments in the future world due to their crimes. These gifts were
commonly called “The price of transgression for the redemption of
souls!” Pepin, king of France, transferred to Pope Stephen III., A.D.
756, the Italian provinces, which he had conquered from the Lombards;
and this was enlarged by the addition of Rome itself, by Charlemagne, a
few years after. From that time to the present, that territory has been
regarded as “the temporal patrimony of St. Peter.”
Immense riches were by this means soon possessed by the priesthood.
Emperors, kings, and princes invested bishops with the possession of
whole provinces, cities, castles, and fortresses, with the rights of
sovereignty! But, among all these, the Pope maintained his pre-eminence;
and this was willingly conceded, as essential to the usurped dominations
of the inferior prelates. The western barbarians who received the name
of Christ, looked upon the bishop of Rome as they had regarded their
arch-druid; and the ignorant people yielded to the bishops a boundless
authority, which they had given to their priests in paganism. The
consequences of this superstition were most pernicious; for it gave to
the Roman pontiff a despotic power in civil affairs; and hence arose the
horrible notion, _that all those who were excommunicated by the Pope
forfeited thereby all their rights as citizens, and the common claims of
humanity_.
_Twenty-eight_ popes, amid five dreadful schisms, are enumerated in the
_tenth_ century; several were sons of the infamous prostitutes Theodora
and her daughters, Theodora and Merozia influencing the chief
ecclesiastics. Their premature deaths or deposition were the fruits of
their flagitious lives, details of which cannot stain these pages. Dr.
Mosheim truly states, “the history of the Roman pontiffs that lived in
this century, is a history of so many monsters, and not of men, and
exhibits a horrible series of the most flagitious, tremendous, and
complicated crimes.” Cardinal Baronius describes them as “monstrous and
infamous in their lives, dissolute in their manners, and villanous in
all things.”
Popery attained its highest elevation in the eleventh century; and this
will be seen in its genuine form, as the “man of sin,” “exalting himself
above all that is called God, or that is worshipped,” in the extravagant
titles now assumed by the popes. They were called “universal fathers,”
and “masters of the world.” Notwithstanding vigorous opposition from
several sovereigns, they carried their insolent pretensions so far as to
proclaim themselves, “lords of the universe,” “arbiters of the fate of
nations,” and “supreme rulers of the kings and princes of the earth!”
One instance of this abominable assumption will best illustrate the
hateful spirit of popery, while the reading of it will not fail to shock
the feelings of every Christian.
Henry IV., emperor of Germany, opposed the arrogant claims of Gregory
VII. The haughty pontiff at once excommunicated him, and excited the
princes of the empire to make war upon him. Being ignorant of the Holy
Scriptures, and bowed down by superstition, he was terrified by the
anathemas of the Pope, as if he had command over the destinies of men,
as the pretended vicar of Christ; he was, therefore, persuaded to throw
himself into the hands of the pontiff, to yield to his clemency, and to
await his dread decision. Filled with apprehension of eternal
consequences if he refused, Henry consented; and submitted to the
degrading penance which had been prescribed; so as to stand, with his
empress and family, at the gates of the fortress of Canusium, during
three days, in the open air, in a severe February, A.D. 1077, having his
feet bare, his head uncovered, and with no other raiment than a piece of
coarse woollen cloth thrown over his body, to cover his nakedness. On
the fourth day he was with difficulty admitted to the presence of that
lordly priest, who, with the utmost hypocrisy, as a minister of
religion, and with much ceremony, granted him absolution! But he forbade
him ever after to assume the title or the ensigns of sovereignty! Such a
daring outrage upon humanity, as well as royalty, excited universal
abhorrence; but not one of the greatest princes in Europe had the
courage to utter a word of reproof to the terrible ANTICHRIST!! Such
was the spirit and the power that originated and carried on the
execrable COURT OF HOLY INQUISITION!!
With these advances of the papal power there was a corresponding
corruption in the doctrines and ceremonies of religion. While Romanists
pretend that theirs is the only pure form of Christianity, we know that
all their peculiarities are novelties, the contrivances of priests, to
serve their own purposes. Their doctrines were never formed into a
system or settled until the council of Trent, at the close of which,
A.D. 1564, they were first published in the creed of Pope Pius IV. And
one of the greatest points,--relating to the Virgin Mary, whether she
were _conceived in sin_,--fiercely contested between monkish sects in
the Romish Church,--was determined in the affirmative, first by Pope
Pius IX., in 1849.
Many of the practices had previously been inculcated by individuals,
before their establishment as follows:--
A.D.
The celibacy of the clergy first ordained 305
The invocation of Saints and Angels 350
The Virgin called Mother of God 431
The Virgin invoked in litanies 620
The worship of images 787
Transubstantiation originated 831
Transubstantiation established 1215
Auricular confession, and priestly pardon 1215
Purgatory affirmed, A.D. 1140: Decreed 1563