p. 5 | Its Caricature in the Christian Age by J. O. Corliss

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Aug 10, 1911

Its Caricature in the Christian Age

By J. O. Corliss

Tracings of the Prophetic Gift—No. 14

Its Caricature in the Christian Age

J. O. CORLISS

PAUL (the little) was a prophet after the ancient order. He spoke by authority, given through visions of revelation from God. Gal. 1:12. By virtue of these he could confidently predict that from among the elders, or leaders of the

church, men would arise and speak of church relations in a distorted fashion, in order to draw disciples to themselves. Acts 20:28-30. Under the same inspired direction, the semi-apostasy of the church was foretold, which was to open the door for a “man of sin” to assume the place of God to the dark-minded religionists of the time.

It will be remembered that in previous studies, men were found upon whom God bestowed the prophetic gift, to fit them to unveil his shrouded will to benighted minds. These were men of God’s own choice, and were daily prompted in their duties by the indwelling of God’s representative, the Holy Spirit.

But the individual introduced in the prophecy under consideration, is a “man of sin,” rather than a “man of God,” as were the prophets of old, and is said to exalt himself to that pinnacle where he can represent himself to be God. More than this, the “Wicked” one here presented comes to the front, only after the removal of a hindering cause known as the “mystery of iniquity.” Call the latter what we will, it was a form of iniquitous religion in the first century, out of which was to emerge the “embezzler of power,” called the man of sin. It is well known that the popular form of false religion in the first century was paganism.

As stated in a former study on this subject, during the last half of the second century, as the church relaxed its guiding hold upon prophetic teaching, the prophetic gift was shortly replaced by the episcopal order, under which government the attempt was made to suppress the many schisms then troubling the church. But the first Jerome was careful to say that “the bishops would do well to bear in mind that their office, with its involved authority over presbyters, was to be regarded rather as the result of custom and tradition than of divine appointment.”

In another place, however, Jerome recognizes for the church the expediency and value of a central supreme authority, vested in a single individual. This expressed opinion evidently had much influence to shape future affairs.

After the fall of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, much of the high regard for religious ceremonies which had belonged to Jerusalem was transferred to Rome. Here the episcopal functions underwent a gradual change, until everything yielded to the suggestion of Jerome, just referred to. Perhaps that which did the most to hasten the final result was the creation in the church of the office of metropolitan. This dignity was destined to lift Christianity above the station of an obscure sect, where it rested under the suspicion of political disaffection, and by political affiliation with the empire give it wide-spread recognition.

The metropolies, or chief cities of the Roman provinces, were Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, and Thessalonica, and these were chosen as the seats of the principal Christian churches outside of Rome itself. By this move Syria, Achaia, Asia, and Macedonia became chief ecclesiastical centers. Later, when Constantine and his successors distributed the civil authority among the four patriarchates, subdivided into twelve “dioceses,” the church at once modified its organization to correspond with the civil arrangement.

The Roman bishop thus was enabled to assume the authority of a metropolitan within his jurisdiction, as early as the first half of the third century, and that of a patriarch early in the fourth century. The removal of the imperial court from Rome to Constantinople, in a way constituted the former city “Nova Roma,” that is, New Rome, and resulted in the exaltation of its patriarch. Imperial power having been removed, it was but a step to make the now ecclesiastical city the center of orthodoxy. The Arian controversy added its influence to the positive trend, and gave the bishop of Rome boldness to assume the proud position of protector of the orthodox faith.

Athanasius having been officially vindicated in his controversy with Arius, he visited Rome, where he remained for three years. His presence and exhortations, it is said, confirmed the pontiff still further in his policy, and from that time he assumed the right to define doctrine, as well as the functions of maintaining the true standard of faith against all abounding heresies. This, of course, established the canonical method, which required that the Roman See (one who sees, as the ancient seer) should be consulted in all cases of ecclesiastical procedure.

This was the establishment of papal supremacy. But in order universally to maintain this position, another official decision was necessary. To give authority to papal edicts rendered, it must be made to appear that the occupant of the papal chair holds his position as the vicar, or substitute, of Christ on the earth. Many years, and even centuries, were employed in perfecting this belief generally, but at the council of Florence, in the early part of the fifteenth century (1439), the question was settled once and for all in these words: “We define the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff to have primacy over the whole earth, and the Roman pontiff to be himself the successor of the blessed Peter, chief of the apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and to exist as head of the whole church, and father and teacher of all Christians; and that to him, in the blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ has committed full power of feeding, governing, and directing the universal church, even as is (also) contained both in the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.”

There is the acknowledged authority of the Roman See—all the authority it can claim. Its sole authority rests on a human definition rendered in a subservient council held under the auspices of a Roman Pope, and doubtless for the very purpose mentioned at the council, and the ambition of the Papacy to maintain that authority was well known. Each Pope, too, while claiming the prerogative voted to him by human assent, receives it, not by a special call from God, as did the seers and prophets of old, who stood as God’s mouthpiece to men, but is chosen in secret conclave by men, largely actuated by political considerations.

But do the doctrines of the Papacy really put the head of that organization in the place of God to men? Are the adherents of that faith taught that the Pope is so certainly in the place of God that he does not err in doctrine? Are they not taught that it is a sin to question any doctrine or syllabus sent out from the head of their church? If so, may we not conclude that this power has taken advantage of the error of the early church in slighting the prophetic gift, and has assumed to fill the place that inspiration teaches should be held in the Christian church? We reserve the evidence on this point for the subject-matter of our next study.

Mountain View, Cal.