HAVING noted the work of this apostate power, as outlined in the prophecy, and having seen the Papacy's claim to be the power in question, let us study more in detail the manner of its rise, comparing prophecy with history; for it is an awful charge that the prophecy lays to the account of the power that shall answer the specifications, and the evidence must be carefully weighed ere final decision is reached. Said the apostle in describing the work of the "man of sin" which was to arise, "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" 2 Thess. 2:5. In his farewell counsel to the elders of the church of Ephesus he admonished: "I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Acts 20:29, 30. Here we have the great apostasy referred to again; note how it was to be brought about. "Grievous wolves" were to come in from without; also from among themselves, that is, the elders, were men to arise, by whom "perverse things" were to be spoken, as the result of which "the disciples," that is, the church, should be "drawn away." This points unmistakably to a combination between prominent men of the world and the church leaders, as the result of which "perverse things" would be spoken instead of God's Word. The following definition of "perverse" is taken from the Encyclopedic Dictionary: "Perverse (from Lat. perversus, past participle of perverto, to overturn, to ruin). Turned aside from the right; distorted; turned to evil." The union, therefore, here referred to would result in speaking words (observe the expression) to "turn aside from the right" and "turn to evil." God's law is the standard of right or righteousness. Ps. 119:172. These "perverse words," then, would be spoken with the express and avowed purpose of turning men aside from God's law, to "draw away disciples" from God. Has such a combination ever been made, and have such results followed?
Let the following answer:—
The truth is, and history abundantly proves it, apart from this confession, that, throughout the early ages of Christianity, when Christians at Rome and elsewhere were known by the purity of their lives and not by mere professions, there was no such thing as the temporal sovereignty of the popes. . . . But when Constantine set the example of uniting Church and State by supporting the church at Rome upon the condition that it would support his claim to dominion over the Italian people, then the bishops began to arrogate to themselves this temporal sovereignty, now asserted so earnestly. They acquired it in the end without regard to the number of people who were crushed to the earth, and succeeded in placing both the spiritual and temporal sword in their hands.—"The Papacy and the Civil Power," by R. W. Thompson, p. 140.
Note that Constantine supported the church on "condition that it would support his claim to dominion." Does this seem like the working of love which "seeketh not her own"? Is it not rather that satanic selfishness which in the beginning declared, "I will exalt my throne"? And as the result of this policy the people "were crushed to the earth." Is this the work of Him who came to "heal the broken-hearted," "to set at liberty them that are bruised"? Does it not rather have the semblance of that desolating power which by its "policy" was to "cause craft to prosper in his hand"? Instead of the "Good Shepherd," is it not the "thief" who "cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy"? John 10:10.
The steps which led to it (the temporal sovereignty of the popes) were gradual [cf. the "gradual process" by which Sunday observance was introduced] and progressive. So far from its having a divine foundation, arising out of any authority conferred by Christ upon Peter, it had its INCEPTION in the time of CONSTANTINE, to whom more than to all others the Papacy is indebted for the origin of its most important immunities and privileges. He was the FIRST to lay the foundation for a union of Church and State, to mingle politics and religion together; and he did this not only to increase his own power, but the influence of the Roman priesthood as well in return for the assistance they rendered him when he overthrew Maxentius, the reigning emperor of Rome.—Idem, p. 242.
Is this the Christian (Christlike) Church? Was it Christ's teaching to "do good to them which do good to you"? Luke 6:33. Did not the Master declare that "sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again"? Verse 34. That is, neither Constantine nor the bishops, in forming this alliance, were acting the part of Christians, but were pursuing the policy of sinners, to gain a selfish end.
He is called the "Christian Emperor" by way of distinction, but when we shall come, at another place, to look into the history of his connection with the Roman clergy, we shall find that his only claim to this title consists in the fact that he was the friend and patron of that ecclesiastical organization which gave him its support when he marched his army from Britain and Gaul into Italy to supplant the reigning emperor and to seize upon the empire. . . . The fact is he cared very little for Christianity beyond the use to which he put its professors, which was to build up and secure his own power. . . . His motives were, in the main, worldly; and hence the inference is unavoidable that what he did for the church at Rome was done chiefly to advance his own ambition.—Id., pp. 250, 251.
As he was the "Christian Emperor" only in name, so the church which allied herself with him was henceforth only nominally the Christian church. Its glory and strength were departing. The members of Christ were fast becoming the members of a harlot. 1 Cor. 6:15. And the once pure and glorious church of Christ was rapidly "falling away" into the mystery of iniquity, "Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth." Rev. 17:5.
The fact is he never united with the church at Rome at all. When baptized in Nicomedia, the ceremony was performed by Arian bishops, in an Arian church (whose opposition to the Roman Catholic faith was shown in the fact that the three powers professing it had to be subdued before papal supremacy could be an accomplished fact), so that he never was, according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, an orthodox Christian, but died as he had lived, a heretic. When he allied himself therefore with the clergy at Rome, that act must, of necessity, be referred to some other motive than the service of God, or the special advancement of Christianity. There could have been no other than a temporal motive, that of securing and retaining possession of the imperial crown, and it is equally conclusive, also, that the clergy at Rome had no other than a temporal motive in forming so close and intimate alliance with a prince who had not demonstrated his devotion to Christianity by uniting with their church. . . . Thus the union formed under these circumstances and by these contracting parties, between the Church and the State, was on the part of both, a mere scheme of ambition designed for no other purpose than to acquire power.—Id., p. 287.
So said the prophecy, "His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power." Dan. 8:24. This combination, the speaking of "perverse things," was with the intent "to draw away disciples after them." So Lucifer's original scheme in heaven was to make "merchandise" of a "multitude" of followers, to secure which he was "filled to the center with force." Eze. 28:16, Jewish Version. In all these is clearly discernible the same satanic spirit for self-exaltation which began so disastrously among the angels in heaven, and is working no less certain ruin in the church upon earth.
The Falling Away.
The effect of this working upon the church itself is set forth clearly in the following:—
In the Nicean age (312-590, beginning with Constantine's reign) the church laid aside her lowly servant form, and put on a splendid imperial garb.—Schaff's Church Hist., vol. 3, p. 375.
This was the logical outcome of the "union of Church and State," of mingling "politics and religion." But how unlike the spirit of the Master! He said: "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. . . . Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister [serve], and to give His life a ransom for many." Matt. 20:25-28. Christ "took upon Him the form of a servant." Phil. 2:7. Therefore when the church at this time "laid aside her lowly servant form," it is evident that she was "falling away" from Christ. When she donned the "imperial garb" to "exercise dominion" and "authority" upon earth, it is apparent that she accepted what the Master refused when He was offered "the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Matt. 4:8. He declared, "My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36. The church is "in the world," but is "not of the world." John 17:11, 14. Her mission is not to crush people down, but to raise up the fallen; not to be lord, but to serve; not to receive, but to give; for "it is more blessed to give than to receive;" therefore hers is the more blessed part.
She exchanged the primitive simplicity of her cultus for a richly-colored multiplicity. She drew all the fine arts into the service of the sanctuary, and began her sublime creations of Christian architecture, sculpture, painting, poetry, and music. In place of the pagan temple and altar, rose everywhere the stately church and chapel in honor of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, of martyrs, and saints. . . . The number of church festivals was increased, processions and pilgrimages, and a multitude of significant and superstitious customs and ceremonies were introduced. . . . Not a few pagan habits and ceremonies, concealed under new names, crept into the church.—Ibid.
The church was rapidly becoming paganized as the pagans joined the church when Christianity was acknowledged as the State religion. The pagans in the church must have the same "festivals," "habits and ceremonies," which they had had outside the church. Thus "not a few" of these "crept into the church." The church, already "fallen," having only "the form of godliness," because through apostasy she had lost its power, was content to receive these "concealed under new names." Hence, the church, the Christian in name, was in6reality pagan. The services of the church, therefore, became simply "pagan habits and ceremonies concealed under new names," and the church holy days were but the pagan holidays received only with "new names" into the church calendar, as the pagans themselves had been received unchanged, except in name, into the church communion.
Paganized Christianity.
IN THE CHRISTIAN MARTYR WORSHIP AND SAINT WORSHIP, which now spread with grand strides over the whole Christian world, we can not possibly mistake the succession of pagan worship of gods and heroes, with its noisy popular festivities. Augustine puts into the mouth of a heathen the question, "Wherefore must we forsake gods which the Christians themselves worship with us?" . . . Leo the Great speaks of Christians in Rome who first worship the rising sun, doing homage to the pagan Apollo (the sun-god), before repairing to the basilica of Saint Peter. Theodoret defends the Christian practices at the graves of the martyrs by pointing to the pagan libations, propitiations of the gods and demigods. Since Hercules, Æsculapius, Bacchus, the Dioscuri, and many other objects of pagan worship were merely deified men, the Christians, he thinks, can not be blamed for honoring their martyrs.—Church History, Schaff, vol. 3, pp. 376, 377.
EVEN "Christians at Rome," the very heart of the church, "first worship the rising sun" before going to St. Peter. The "Christian practices" were justified on the ground that they were imitations of "pagan habits and ceremonies." Chambers' Encyclopedia testifies that "the worship of the sun lingered long even under the shadow of Christianity, which was skilful to turn its rites to profit." The reason why the church borrowed these "rites" from paganism was "for the purpose of drawing away the Christian people from all participation in the heathen festivals, and of gradually drawing over the pagans themselves from their heathen customs to the Christian celebration."—Neander's Church History, p. 313. The "Christian people" were wont to attend the celebration of the heathen festivals rather than the church. So these "festivals" were brought into the church and christened with "new names." A twofold object was thus gained: (1) The "Christian people" were no longer tempted to frequent the heathen shrines to attend the heathen festivals; for the church had the same things, disguised as Christian ordinances. (2) Since the church was becoming popular and Christianity had become the State religion, the pagans being able to attend the same festivals in the church as at their own shrines, were drawn into the church. But "the resorting to this means for drawing away men from the heathen superstitions, was a very hazardous experiment, which might easily lead men to confound Christianity with heathenism, and to lose out of sight the true import of the Christian festival. . . . Yet it should be remarked in general, that the accommodation of Christian to pagan institutions proceeded, in most cases, from the side of the people; the church teachers resisted, at first, the intermingling of pagan customs with Christian; afterwards they gave way, or were themselves carried along by the spirit of the times."—Id.
