Aids for Bible Readers

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Feb 13, 1908

Aids for Bible Readers

Historical quotations and extracts from various writers which may assist the thoughtful student of the Scriptures.

The Catholic Reformation and the Authority of the Vatican

MORE important than the views which the Vatican may espouse or denounce is the motive principle of this new crusade against heresy,—the assumption that the Vatican has authority to declare, through the “Holy Inquisition,” what shall or shall not be held true, whether in criticism, history, or science,—the claim of the Vatican to exercise, by divine right, a despotic power over men’s intellects, forbidding to the faithful all true liberty of thought. Are we, or are we not, prepared to grant this claim? The whole question turns on that.

The Vatican is wise in forbidding genuine research into the meaning of the Scriptures, and in laying down an “orthodox” view of the early history of Christendom. For nothing is more certain than that a candid study of the Scriptures, a sincere examination of early history, will cut at the root of the Vatican’s assumptions. The claim of intellectual despotism is wholly unwarranted by the words of Jesus himself, and by the whole spirit of his teachings; it is wholly unwarranted by the words and conduct of the apostles; it is unwarranted by the early practise of the church. This claim grew up, I am entirely convinced, as a part of that process by which the Bishop of Rome assumed the title of Sovereign Pontiff, till then worn by the Roman Cæsars, and with that title assumed much of the Cæsars’ power. And this claim of intellectual despotism has always gone hand in hand with civil persecution, and with the assertion of political suzerainty over Christendom.

Let us begin with the heart of the matter. Where do we find Jesus claiming despotic authority over men’s intellects, and demanding that they shall renounce

their convictions? Where do we find Jesus countenancing civil persecution? Can we imagine Jesus, in the black robe of the inquisitor, dragging forth “heretics” by the hundred, and burning them at the stake? Can we think of Jesus organizing a bloody crusade against the Waldenses, and hurling “mother with infant down the rocks”? If Jesus would have authorized these things, why did he not do them himself? Why did he not summon the twelve legions of angels and drive Herod from Jerusalem, setting up the “temporal power” in the City of David?

Has he not given the answer himself: “My kingdom is not of this world.” Jesus does not say: “Whoever dares to think otherwise than I, let him be anathema;” he does say: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” Jesus does say: “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, . . . and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” And does not Jesus specifically command his disciples to be subject to the political power of the state, even though that power was pagan and idolatrous: Reddite ergo quæ sunt Cæsaris Cæsari: et quæ sunt Dei, Deo?

The Vatican claims that it exercises despotic authority as the spiritual heir of Peter, and that this despotic power was given to Peter by Jesus himself, who designated Peter prince of the apostles, and subordinated them to Peter’s supremacy. I venture to say that there is no warrant in the New Testament for the claim that such authority was ever exercised by Peter, or that Peter himself ever dreamed of exercising it. This claim of the supremacy of Peter is a cardinal point of the Vatican’s claims, and should be “sifted as wheat is sifted.” The Vatican has always made much of the text, Tu es Petrus; but was it not said to all of the disciples equally: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”? And do we not find “the keys of hell and of death,” not in the hands of Peter, according to the Apocalypse, but in the hands of “the Son of man”?

Where does Paul acknowledge the authority and supremacy of Peter? Does he not, in writing to the Galatians, go out of his way to show that his authority is wholly independent of Peter, and equal to Peter’s: “He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles”? Did Paul recognize the authority of Peter, when he says, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face,” and rebuked Peter openly for hypocrisy? If this striking incident shows anything, it shows, not that Paul deferred to Peter, but that Peter deferred to James “the brother of the Lord.” Again, James, who was not one of the twelve, and so may be said to have held a lower place, nowhere in his epistle refers to Peter, or recognizes his “authority.” And Jude, when he wishes to recommend himself, refers not to Peter, but to James. John also is wholly silent as to any claim of Peter’s supremacy. Is there not rather an implication of the independent spiritual authority of John in the Master’s words: “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”

Finally, Peter himself nowhere says anything which might lead us to infer that he had any thought of his own supremacy. Does he not most touchingly describe himself simply as “a co-elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ”? Peter’s view is purely spiritual, and in perfect harmony with the spirit of the Master. He expressly forbids the bishops to “lord it” over the faithful, declaring that their only authority should be that of holy example. And he most significantly adds: “Yea, all of you be . . . clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” I have always thought that Peter’s use of this phrase “lording it over the inheritance,” was a reminiscence of the words of the Master himself: “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” Nothing could be plainer. The Master and his disciple, in the same words, declare that domination, assertion of authority, despotism, is the very negation of spiritual life.

And what has Peter to say of the “temporal power” claimed for so many centuries in his name? He is explicit: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors. . . . For so is the will of God. . . . Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.” Will it be said that the sovereign thus recommended by Peter was distinguished by such piety that there could be no derogation in obeying him? But tradition tells us that Peter wrote this in Rome, under Nero, who had gained the throne by the poisoning of his predecessor, who poisoned his rival, caused the murder of his own mother, had one wife slain and himself killed another, and finally, after an ignoble and cruel life, found a shameful death at his own hand. If Peter could recommend obedience to the son-in-law of Messalina, what becomes of the necessity of temporal power?

It seems undeniable that Jesus gave equal authority to all his apostles, and that they all recognized this; and, further, that Paul and James, who were not of the twelve, exercised exactly the same measure of influence and authority. This power was purely spiritual—that of a holy example, of fervor and aspiration; and it would have been utterly repugnant to any of them to call in civil force, or assert their rights “even to the shedding of blood.”

The supremacy of Peter was an afterthought, when the see of Rome, by its position in the metropolis of the empire, had acquired pre-eminent influence. But in the early days Rome did not claim to be the see founded by Peter; it was always the see “of Peter and Paul.”

Other sees were founded by the other disciples, and they were very far from recognizing any supremacy, in the sense of despotic authority, in the see of Rome. Saint John, ancient authorities tell us, founded the see of Smyrna. Polycarp, as the successor and disciple of John, went to Rome to Anicetus the bishop, to support the tradition of John against the tradition of Rome as to the celebration of Easter. The Fathers of the early period assert the equality of the disciples. Do we not find Origen writing: “If you hold that the whole church was built by God on Peter alone, what will you say concerning John, the son of thunder, and each of the other apostles?”

Irenæus also opposes the supremacy of Rome, and rebukes Victor I for excommunicating the Eastern bishops, who adhered to John’s tradition concerning Easter. Tertullian disapproves of the assumption by the bishops of Rome of the titles of Pontifex Maximus and Episcopus Episcoporum, and distinctly denies the claim made by Zephyrinus of a certain superiority in the Roman see derived as a tradition from Saint Peter. Even Jerome, the pillar of the Latin Church, does not recognize the papacy in the full sense.

One has only to read, for example, the story of the Council of Niceæ to see that it was universally held that the only valid authority was that of the whole church, and that the supremacy of Rome, in the later sense, had then no existence. The representatives of Rome at that great council played no great part, and exercised no special prerogatives.

The creation of Roman supremacy was the work of men like the Roman rhetorician whom we know as Saint Augustine, the Roman citizen whom we know as Leo the Great, the Roman prætor who became the first Pope Gregory; and it was built on the ruins of the power of the Cæsars, who fell before the invading Goths. An understanding was reached between the Vatican and the new empire, under which each supported the other, and for centuries no election of a pope was final until it had secured the approval of the emperor. It is noteworthy that Pope Pius X owes his succession to the papal power to that age-old compact, if it be true that Kaiser Franz-Josef, as master of the holy Roman empire, exercised his right of veto against Cardinal Rampolla.—Charles Johnston, in The North American Review for December, 1907.

(To be concluded)