The Revelation of Its Iniquities by J. O. CORLISS

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Dec 19, 1907

The Revelation of Its Iniquities

By J. O. CORLISS

Character of the Papacy—No. 4

The Revelation of Its Iniquities

J. O. CORLISS

THAT the papacy did attain great power, history well attests. So great did it become, that it dictated the policy of the western world, both in religious and in civil affairs. Looking at it from the present standpoint of intelligence and self-direction, one hardly accounts for its power of almost universal domination. It was not possible for such mastery to be suddenly grasped, but it was the development of centuries. One point of vantage after another was secured by Machiavellian strategy, each leading forward to and touching another, which gave added authority and jurisdiction, until all men were led to see that no other way was open to them, either in time or in eternity, but cringingly to follow the dictation of the “church.” This to them meant the man who happened for the time to be recognized as the head over all things in the world. This was a dizzy eminence for one to occupy. But having been thus “lifted up,” the “man of sin” there seated, drew “all men” unto him. In this respect he usurped the place of the Man of Calvary, and ruled the consciences of men, instead of permitting the Lord Jesus to do so. He even assumed the office of Christ, calling himself “God upon earth,” and claiming ability to absolve men from their sins. He also challenged the titles of kings, and proceeded to depose them at will, claiming their subjects as his own, with the privilege of placing them under the rule of those who suited him best. He not only virtually said, “I will be like the Most High,” but assumed to be actually like him, in every essential feature.

The steps by which this state of things came about may be briefly noted as follows: First, the ground was taken that because the Word of God is infallible, the church built on that Word must be the same. But, as in the very nature of things, the church could not be infallible if every one were left to his own private judgment in determining its doctrines, an infallible voice, or judge of the faith, must determine and pronounce upon what is and what is not truth. See “Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion,” pages 94, 101, 102, ed. 1906.

Of course this theory would tend to make Bible study a secondary matter, even with priests, to say nothing of the laity under their instruction. Why should a priest trouble himself about original research in theology, when by so doing he might find himself at variance with the head of the church, and thus be condemned for heresy? It were far safer to let all such matters alone. But the clergy were not left to make such decisions. Innocent III, who assumed the title of “Vicar of Christ,” said, in his commentary in Decretal 2: “It is enough for the laity to know that there is a God who rewards the good, and, for the rest, to believe implicitly what the church believes. Bishops and pastors must distinctly know the articles of the Apostles’ Creed; the other clergy need not know more than the laity, and also that the body of Christ is made in the sacrament of the altar.”

Thus the Bible could well be dispensed with, and approved catechisms be made to supply every need. We may well believe that this was the outcome of the matter, for on page 12 of the introduction to “Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion” we are assured that “well-instructed Catholics can see no reason why they should distrust her [the church’s] guidance, and they would consider it as unwarrantable in them to question her authority as it would be for sons and daughters of a respectable family to ask their parents for proofs of their right to govern their home. Catholics, therefore, do not study the claims and the doctrines of the church in a doubting spirit.”

Being kept ignorant of the Bible and its teachings, adherents of the papal system were taught to confide in the church,—which to a Catholic means the pope,—as to the infallible word of Christ himself. Deprived thus of the very fountain of truth, what other resource had they?—Absolutely none. This point secure, it was easy to hold over every head the threat of excommunication upon the least manifest desire to walk independently of the church. So effective was an edict of this character, that even kings, who naturally were as independent as monarchs have ever been since, lived in mortal dread of incurring the frown of their master the pope, whose displeasure meant to them degradation in this world, and damnation in the world to come.

It seems almost incredible that so much power was assumed by the papacy. It, however, not only did make such an arrogant claim, but it has not yet abated, in the least, its lordly pretension. This is evident by reference again to that late edition of “Systematic Study,” wherein we read: “It has ever been the practise of the church to separate from her communion all who refused to believe her doctrine. . . . A Christian ought to fear nothing so much as to be separated from the church of Christ. . . . The truth is usually expressed in these words: Out of the church there is no salvation.”—Ibid., pages 66, 67. (Italics as found in quotation.)

Thus to “hear the church,” without regard to the plain teaching of the Word, is the only road to salvation, according to the decree of the papacy. It goes so far, indeed, as to offer proof that the authority of the church stands above the Bible; so far above, forsooth, that the church has power to set aside any part of that Word, and substitute its own commands. In “Systematic Study,” under the general head of “The commandments of the Church,” we find this: “The first commandment of the church is, to hear mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation. . . . We have seen that God in the Old Law had appointed the last day of the week, the Sabbath, to be specially consecrated to his honor. No power but God’s could have dispensed with this obligation. We do not read that Christ did so; on the contrary, we know that he observed it himself. And yet we know that the church abolished the obligation of keeping that day, and in its stead instituted the observance of the Lord’s day, the first day of the week. This fact by itself shows that the church from the beginning claimed the fulness of power to have been committed to her, to legislate in God’s name for the followers of Christ.”—Ibid., pages 318, 319.

This is a confession of deliberate action by the papacy. In view of this statement, it can not be truthfully said that there was no thought on its part to alter or change the law of God; for the fact that it acknowledges having changed God’s law in behalf of the church, is offered as proof of its claim to such privilege. More than this, the evidence declares that “no power but God’s” could do such a thing, and that Christ himself did not attempt it. This is but a brazen boast of power to do that which even the Son of God would not attempt.

At this point one is justified in making application of a prophetic utterance. Speaking of a little horn which sprang up in the midst of ten others on the head of a nondescript beast, which symbolizes Rome, the prophet says: “He shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws.” Dan. 7:25. Every specification of this text has met its fulfilment in the course of the papacy. It has sat in and controlled God’s temple—in fulfilment of prophecy—to show itself to be God. To do this it has falsified history, that tradition favorable to its uplifting might appear. It has claimed the power and privilege to change God’s law at will, that it might control men’s consciences in harmony with its traditions, and the claims based upon them. These are some of the things revealed concerning the papacy. The question why it did not continue indefinitely, after having so proudly elevated itself, we must consider in a following paper.

Mountain View, Cal.