The Rise of Its Power by J. O. CORLISS

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D.C. · Dec 5, 1907

The Rise of Its Power

By J. O. CORLISS

Character of the Papacy—No. 2

The Rise of Its Power

J. O. CORLISS

The celebrated English historian, Thomas Hobbes, left on record his judgment that the papacy was but “the ghost of the deceased Roman empire, crowned and seated upon the grave thereof.” By touching here and there the history of early missionary work in behalf of Roman Christianity, the measure of accuracy contained in this statement may be easily determined.

When the Goths crossed the Danube to make for themselves homes in the south of Europe, they encountered believers in Christ, who probably were captives taken during that journey. From these slaves they received the primary doctrines of the Christian faith, which was in turn given by them to the various tribes of the Gothic nation.

By the time Western Rome had been dismembered in A. D. 476, the Suevi of Spain, the Burgundians of southeastern France, and the Vandals of north Africa had become converts also to the new religion. A little later the Franks, the Scandinavians, the chief tribes of Germany, and a century or more after, the Anglo-Saxons followed in the same path.

In the midst of this work, however, a great controversy arose. Some of those nations newly come to the Christian faith, had indorsed the Aryan creed, which already had been condemned by the Council of Nice. The bishop of Rome accepted the Athanasian doctrine as the orthodox one, and human-like, felt determined to bring those of the Aryan faith to his standard of orthodoxy. It mattered not so much to him if, in receiving Christianity, these nations had retained, as had all the others, many of their former heathen notions and ceremonies. In any effort to correct their false ideas, no notice was to be taken of the corruptions their paganism had engrafted upon the pure Christian faith.

In further efforts to win these simple-minded barbarians, who were utterly unable to comprehend the subtle differences of dogma between the two great leaders of factions, the church lowered her standard of piety to meet their condition. In order to dazzle their senses, and win their attention, Guizot says that the church “increased wonderfully the number, pomp, and variety of her religious ceremonies.” Through this medium, those who did follow the Athanasian creed, became altogether different from the Christians of an earlier age.

When the wars of subjugation had about annihilated the so-called heretical nations, the others were ready to acknowledge the church of Rome as the exponent of orthodoxy, and the bishop of that organization as its vicegerent. This was but one step toward the realization of a higher ambition. Western Europe at that time was nominally under the government of the emperor of the East, whose seat of empire was at Constantinople. The bishops of Rome were thus the most important persons in the West. They were far removed from the imperial court, and being called to adjust disputes between cities, and between the chieftains of the numerous governments of the West, they gradually assumed imperial powers. Each case so arranged tended to strengthen the authority and increase the influence of Roman bishops.

Up to a certain point, four bishops, or patriarchs, of the early church, each with co-ordinate powers, were distinctly and generally recognized. These were located at Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. But at an early period, the bishop of Rome began to lay claim to supremacy over all the others on the ground that the church at Rome had been founded by the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord had entrusted the keys of the kingdom of heaven, thereby constituting him the first bishop of that church, and that the special authority to feed the Lord’s sheep, conferred on him, was to be transmitted to his successors in that office. This claim was recognized, and title of supreme head of the church was first applied by the Roman emperor to Innocent I early in the fifth century.

But with this claim thus substantiated, no bishop of Rome had then thought of calling himself pope, the title of archbishop seeming to satisfy the high tide of ambition for that time. The title of pope was supposed to be first conferred on Boniface III by the Emperor Phocas in 606, by declaring him Universal Bishop.

So far as the statement of Christ to Peter in Matt. 16:18 goes, not one of the anti-Nicene fathers applies it to Roman bishops as successors of the apostle Peter. While many of them have commented on the text, not one has explained the “rock” there spoken of as referring to any office bestowed upon Peter to be transmitted to others. Some thought the “rock” to refer either to Christ himself or to Peter’s confession

of faith in Christ. Others thought that Peter, with all the other apostles, was by this to constitute the foundation of the church. Indeed, Cyprian, who was bishop of Carthage in the first part of the third century, in letters to Cornelius and Stephen, two bishops of Rome, said that all the apostles had received from Christ equal power and authority with Peter. Gelasius, however, near the close of the fifth century, in an attempt to maintain his new theory of the supremacy of a Roman bishop over the imperial power, caused to be added to Cyprian’s statements, the following: “The primacy was given to Peter to show the unity of the church and of the chair. How can he believe himself to be in the church who forsakes the chair of Peter on which the church is built?”

Another text (Luke 22:32) upon which the papacy relies so strongly for Biblical support, has also been largely commented on by early writers, but not with any comfort for the advocates of papal supremacy. The words, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren,” are explained by no less than eighteen ecclesiastical writers prior to the seventh century, to be simply a prayer of Christ that his apostle might not wholly lose his faith in his approaching trial. The words were first used in behalf of papal elevation by Pope Agatho in 680 A. D., when trying to avert a threatened condemnation of his predecessor on the charge of heresy.

But there was method in all this work of the Roman bishops. They saw a pinnacle towering above them, which, could they but reach it, would give them control of the world. The next step toward this was to invent the theory of the sacredness of the person of the head of the Roman church, so that he might not be judged by any human tribunal. Early in the sixth century this question brought about such a strife in Rome itself that the adherents of two opposing factions murdered each other in the public streets. So there was soon produced a “decision” of an unknown council pretended to have been held at Rome in 321 A. D., in which it was declared that no one can judge the See of Rome.

By such strange doings, well attested by history, did the papacy build itself up into power. Having attained the steps already mentioned, the next degree to be reached was but a half step, since it naturally followed the doctrine of the inviolability of the pope,—and that was the dogma of infallibility. This was to be the crowning achievement, and so the approaches toward it were carefully and strongly laid. Having attained the dizzy height, it was deemed necessary to guard well every viewpoint of the situation, lest there might be discovered some vulnerable part of the station at which to begin an attack. But the review of these precautionary measures must wait for another paper.

Mountain View, Cal.