HISTORY OF POPERY.

SECTION I.

THE ORIGIN OF POPERY.

THE term Popery is derived from Papa, which signifies a Father. In its ecclesiastical use, it denotes the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, as the earthly head or father of the church universal, including all the professed followers of Christ on earth. It is true that the term pope has been applied, by some writers, to the bishops of Rome from the earliest times. But this is calculated to mislead the mind of the reader. For the truth is, the bishops of Rome were never designated by this title until after supremacy was achieved. And by modern writers only has this title been carried back and applied to bishops in the early days of Christianity. To call Peter or Clement I. a pope, is paying a modern compliment, which either of these men, or their immediate successors, would have little relished. It was not the mind of Christ that any among his disciples should be called Rabbi, or Father, by way of distinction. But he would have them esteem each other brethren, and the servants or ministers of Christ and the church. And Peter was content to follow this advice of his Lord and Master; for he styles himself, in one of his epistles, "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ." Paul was of the same mind, when he says "who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers (servants) by whom ye believed even as the Lord gave to every man." Again, "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers (servants) of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." Peter and Paul

therefore never aspired to any higher title of dignity than that of servant. The same is true of the primitive ministers of the church. And when we read of the popes of Rome in histories which relate to the early ages of the Christian church, we are exposed to imposition. This is mere artifice, to give the authority of antiquity to the name and usurpation which it expressed in after times. By this artifice many are doubtless led to suppose that the church of Rome and her bishops must have had, from the beginning, some kind of superiority. But the illusion will vanish when we reflect that, in primitive times, the bishops of Rome were not called popes, either by themselves or their cotemporaries; and that they receive this title from those who wrote about them, after the church of Rome, and the pope, as her head, had appeared as Anti-Christ, or the oppressor of the true church.

The origin of popery therefore, accurately speaking, must be found in the public announcement of the bishop of Rome as universal bishop, or supreme head of the church. This event occurred near the beginning of the seventh century, under the following circumstances.— After the conversion of the emperor Constantine to the Christian faith, and in consequence of the affluence of power and favor which some of the chief bishops experienced, they began to feel the movings of ambition. From their intimacy with the emperor, they were soon led to affect the pomp and circumstance of imperial dignity. The bishop of Rome, especially, as he was stationed in the imperial city, began to feel the powerful workings of this leaven. He would have all the world submit to him in matters of religion, even as they submitted to the emperor in civil matters. But the world, or the churches in different parts of the world, was not yet prepared for this domineering. Some bishops of the east held a council without asking leave of the bishop of Rome. Julius, the bishop at that day, stormed at this presumption. But the other bishops, knowing this to be

mere usurpation, treated the wrath of the bishop of Rome with contempt, and shortly after held another council at Antioch. But the pretensions of the bishops of Rome continued to rise and strengthen from year to year, until we arrive at the time of Gregory, commonly called the great. He, though in many respects better than most of his successors in the see of Rome, was still intent on extending the power of his office. And, though under great obligations to the emperor Mauritius, and bound by many professions of friendship, no sooner was the emperor murdered by Phocas the rebel, who made himself emperor, than Gregory acknowledged him, sent a legate to him, and afforded him all the assistance in his power. He received from this abominable tyrant all those offices which might contribute to his own greatness. And thus he raised the papacy to a higher degree of power and wealth than it had ever before possessed.

But in all his greatness and glory, the bishop of Rome had a powerful rival, who had also fixed his eye on supremacy; this was the bishop of Constantinople. The emperor Constantine had removed the seat of the empire to the city called after his own name. Constantinople became an imperial city, and the fact soon began to manifest its natural influence in the feelings and aims of its bishops. Violent, and for a time doubtful, was the struggle for supreme authority between the bishops of the two imperial cities. The bishop of Constantinople, however, appears at first to have taken the lead of his rival at Rome, in climbing the ladder of ambition. He assumed the title of universal bishop, and had at least the authority of one council and the consent of one emperor for this proceeding. But when these tidings reached the bishop of Rome, he became mightily alarmed. In this assumption the bishop of Rome could see blasphemy and diabolical influence he even discovered Anti-Christ himself as near at hand. He saw the very religion of Christ in imminent danger, not because the bishop of the east had as

sumed a higher title than was due to him, but because the very title itself implied every thing that was impious. The zeal of the bishop of Rome to withstand this approaching evil, knew no bounds. He wrote to his ambassador at the court, charging him to exert his influence with the emperor and empress, and with the bishop himself, to prevent the inroads of such a proud, profane, unchristian title as universal bishop. Gregory also wrote to the bishop of Constantinople, and remonstrated with him in a most urgent and pathetic strain, loading the title of universal bishop with most opprobrious epithets. He did not hesitate to call it vain, ambitious, execrable, antichristian, blasphemous, infernal, and diabolical. He compares him who assumes this title to Lucifer, and pronounces the assumption an imitation of his arrogance. The Roman bishop also declares that Peter, Paul, Andrew, and John, were but members of the universal church, and none of them, or any of the apostles, presumed to be called its head or bishop." And now," said he to his dear brother of Constantinople, "if none of the apostles would be called head of the universal church, what will you answer on the last day to Christ, who is himself the only universal Head? But this is the time," continues he, "which Christ himself foretold; the earth is now laid waste and destroyed with the plague and the sword; all things that have been predicted are now accomplished; the king of pride, that is, Anti-Christ, is at hand; and, what I dread to say, an army of priests is ready to receive him. For they who were chosen to point out to others the way of meekness and humility, are themselves now become the slaves of pride and ambition."

The attentive reader will here discover important testimony from this bishop of Rome concerning the nature of that assumption by which his successors have been distinguished. When he saw popery commencing in his rival, he could preach against it with all the point and power of a Luther or Calvin. And however inconsistent

with his own practice or that of his successors, the preaching was doubtless good, and deserving of careful attention. It cuts up popery, root and branch, without mercy.

But the exhortations of Gregory were lost on his dear brother the eastern pope, and he next addressed himself directly to the emperor Mauritius, and the empress, declaiming against the anti-christian title and bishop as disturbing the peace of the church, and the order of Christ. But he was no more successful with the emperor than with the bishop. The emperor, in fact, favored the designs of his bishop, as suitable for the bishop of what he wished to be considered the imperial city. And perceiving the emperor did not enter into his views, Gregory appears to have become disaffected towards him. And when the emperor and his children were murdered by Phocas, Gregory could not contain his joy. He wrote to Phocas in the most flattering style. "We," says he, “have been hitherto most grievously afflicted; but the Almighty hath chosen you and placed you on the imperial throne, to banish, by your merciful disposition, all our affliction and sorrows. Let the heavens therefore rejoice, let the earth leap for joy, let the whole people return thanks for so happy a change. May the republic long enjoy these most happy times. May God, with his grace, direct your heart in every good thought, in every good deed! May the Holy Ghost that dwells in your breast ever guide and assist you, and that you, after a long course of years, pass from an earthly and temporal, to an everlasting and heavenly kingdom.'

Gregory probably considered the power of universal bishop safer to the church at Rome than at Constantinople. For that which called forth all this extravagant joy and adulation seems to have been, that the prerogatives of universal bishop were now in the way to be transferred from the latter to the former see. In the course of the transfer, the infernal, diabolical, blasphemous and anti-chris,