by Rev. M. MacSween, M.A.
(This Paper was read at the first Theological Conference held at Inverness in December 1964.)
Our subject is so vast that we can only attempt to deal with a few points in such a paper as this.
The Papacy has been described by the late Principal William Cunningham of Edinburgh as “a Satanic system”, and, following the testimony of the Word of God, we have no hesitation in saying that the ultimate source of that mystery of iniquity called the Papacy is the apostate Satan, and that the proximate source is sinful, corrupt, proud, fallen men. This ought to be a sobering truth, for we are reminded of that solemn exhortation, “wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall”. I Corinthians 10: 12.
But, in the background of our subject, having noted the awful apostasies of Satan and of men, we also note Cain with his false worship, Nimrod (whose name means “rebellion”), the founder of Babel and of the Babylonian Pagan religion, the mother of all the false religions of antiquity: Semiramis, Nimrod’s licentious Queen, who was worshipped as Rhea, (Cybele and Venus), who made Babylon, in the Babylonian Pagan “Mysteries” the grand seat of idolatory and of consecrated prostitution: and the Babylonian Grand Council of Pontiffs, which controlled the iniquitous “Mysteries” at Babylon, with its President, called the Pontifex Maximus, (Chief Bridge-builder), or Sovereign Pontiff.
The name “Pontifex” was borne by the heathen priests, who by this name indicated that they alone were capable of bridging the gulf between the seen and unseen worlds.
In course of time, many other Grand Councils were set up on the original Babylonian model. When Babylon was taken by the Medo-Persians under Cyrus in 539 B.C., the Babylonian Grand Council fled to Pergamos, in Asia Minor, and consequently “Satan’s Seat” was there for many centuries (Revelation 2: 13, 14). Much closer contact was thus obtained with its daughter Grand Councils of Greek, Roman, and other heathen priesthoods. Finding an asylum in Pergamos, the Grand Council of Pontiffs deified the Kings of Pergamos, putting them in the vacant place which Belshazzar of Babylon and his predecessors had occupied. Then, when Attalus III, King of Pergamos, died in 133 B.C., he bequeathed his dominions and the Babylonian Grand Council of Pontiffs to the Republic of Rome, which had become mistress of the world by overcoming the Kingdom of Macedon at the Battle of Pydna in B.C. 168. Thus, the second move of the Babylonian Grand Council was to the capital city of that power which now ruled the world. Then, about 64 B.C., Julius Caesar, the first Roman Imperator, was invested with the title of Pontifex Maximus, claiming the divine dignity of Attalus and of the Babylonian Kings as invested in himself, as we see from his motto “Venus Genetrix”, which signified his being made the “son” of that notorious goddess. On certain occasions he appeared in all the pomp of the ancient Babylonian costume, in robes of scarlet, with the crozier of Nimrod in his hand, wearing the mitre of Dagon—which simply represents the head of a fish with its mouth open—and bearing the keys of Janus and Cybele.
This state of affairs was continued under the succeeding Pagan Roman Emperors, and in essence even under professedly Christian Roman Emperors after Constantine (312 A.D.), who, as a matter of policy and as a salve to their conscience, appointed a heathen official to act as their substitute in the more directly idolatrous functions of the Pontifex Maximus. This phase continued till Damasus, Bishop of Rome, accepted the key post of Pontifex Maximus in 378 A.D. His successors, the Popes of Rome, have carried the title of Pontifex Maximus ever since. Paganism was thus enthroned in the Papacy.
From this extraordinary event, in which we find the Pagan priesthood supremely vested in the person of the so-called Christian Bishop of Rome, we now retrace our steps a little, chronologically.
In the spring of 58 A.D., Paul the Apostle wrote his Epistle to the Romans, which he addressed, “to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world”. Romans 1: 7, 8. How very highly the Christian Church in Rome is here commended! Paul wrote this Epistle five years before his first visit to Rome, but the actual origin of the Christian Church in Rome is unknown. In all probability it was first set up there on their return by those persons who were at Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, and who are called “strangers of Rome” in Acts 2: 10. Persecutions, such as that following Stephen’s death, about 34 A.D., and that under Herod Agrippa in 44 A.D., and other factors, also caused a dispersion of the earliest Christian believers from Jerusalem throughout the Roman empire. There is no proof from Scripture that the Apostle Peter was ever in Rome.
Stephen I, (258 A.D.), was the first Bishop of Rome to claim succession from the Apostle Peter. But the strange identification of Peter with Rome arises from the very probable explanation that Romanists, for their own aggrandisement deliberately confused Peter with the Roman heathen official called Peter the Reader. This Pagan official, (not the Pontifex Maximus), was the interpreter of the Book of heathen “Mysteries”, called the Book Petr-Roma. By the time of the evil Bishop Damasus, (378), this confusion was complete. Romanists also, for the same reason, have confused Peter with Paul, who even himself was not the founder of the Church of Rome.
Of the many persons named in the Epistle to the Romans, some are Jews, some are Greeks, while others have Latin names, such as Urban and Ampliatus. In Philippians 2: 22, we are told that there were believers even “of Caesar’s household”. The early Christian Church in Rome was thus evidently a representative metropolitan, and peaceful community, in which the saving power and grace of the crucified, risen, and ascended Redeemer, shone very brightly. But, even because of this, many eyes were fixed upon her in hatred and covetousness, among them the eye of Satan, Paul had declared (c. 52 A.D.), that “the mystery of iniquity doth already work”, (II Thessalonians 2: 7). As Calvin says, it was even then secretly at work. Paul had also warned the Romans against unbelief. “Because of unbelief they (the Jewish Church) were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high minded but fear. For, if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee.” Romans 11: 20, 21.
For a short time, the Christian Church in Rome was considered as Jewish, and was treated according to the general Roman policy of toleration of national religions throughout the Empire. But, when the difference between Christianity and Judaism began to be realised, however, the Christians in Rome and elsewhere began to suffer grievous persecutions under many of the Pagan Roman Emperors, such as Nero (54 A.D.), Domitian (95), Severus (193-211), Decius (249-251), and Diocletian (284-305). There were at least ten such persecutions, the last being the worst. The Church had indeed short intervals of rest, but in these the process of secularising her began. Her enemies gained more from these intervals of rest than from all the blood shed by the Christian martyrs. But, when it seemed as though Christianity was to be destroyed, outward relief came in 313 A.D. through the Edict of Milan, first issued by the joint Emperors, Constantine and Licinius. This Edict granted full toleration to Christianity, which soon afterwards became the religion of the Roman State. By 323 A.D., when Constantine became sole Emperor, one half of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire professed Christianity.
But now, endeavouring to approach our subject more closely, we come to consider:—
1. The Rise of the Papacy to the Ecclesiastical Supremacy.
2. The Rise of the Papacy to the Temporal Supremacy.
Both aspects are, of course, very closely connected.
First, then, with respect to the Ecclesiastical Supremacy, although traces are seen of this development as early as 140 A.D., yet, as Calvin points out, the oldest important notice we have of this in the Rome See is in a Decree of the Council of Nicaea, in 325 A.D., assigning the first place among the Church Patriarchs to Julius, Bishop of Rome, and enjoining him to take care of the suburban churches only. This took place in the important period which extends from the Edict of Milan (313) to the Council of Chalcedon (451), the first being an Imperial Decree, and the second an Ecclesiastical Council. The point to note here is that in the interval between 313 and 451, the supreme ecclesiastical power had virtually passed over from the State to the Church. The first factor, then, in the rise of the Papacy to the Ecclesiastical Supremacy was the union of Church and State under Constantine. Though promulgated by the joint-Emperors, Constantine and Licinius, the history of the next ten years proves that Constantine was keen-sighted enough to see that heathenism was on the wane, while Christianity, having borne the most cruel persecution must continue to increase. Constantine became a Christian by profession only. He conceived that the only protection against the threatened disruption and decay of the Empire lay in a universal religion. The Parallel between political and ecclesiastical unity frequently recurs in his Edicts, and represents the fundamental principle of his policy. So long as he shared the Empire with Licinius, he confined himself in his public measures to placing Christianity on a level with the ancient religions. But the compensation which he granted to those who had been persecuted, his contributions to the support of bishops and to the building of churches, the immunities and privileges which he granted to the clergy in common with the heathen priesthood, and his laws with respect to “Sunday”, or the Lord’s Day, showed that he was disposed to favour the Christians. He was convinced of the superior worth of Christianity, but Licinius began to persecute the Christians in his provinces, a procedure which led to his defeat and death in war with Constantine. In 323, the year of his victory over Licinius, Constantine became sole Emperor, and openly declared himself on the side of Christianity. In 325, he convened the first General Council of the Church of Nicaea, taking a lively interest in its deliberations, not from an intelligent appreciation of the points in dispute, but from a hope of realising a universal religion. With a view to abolishing idolatry, he sought to deprive the ancient Pagan priesthood of the prestige derived from connection with the State by transferring the seat of government from Rome to Byzantium, which then became Constantinople and New Rome (330). But Constantinople was also a much better strategic base than Rome against barbarian attacks by land and sea. History has proved the truth of this. Constantine, however, failed to cope effectually with heathenism. He tried hard to conciliate those who adhered to the old polytheism. He thus used vague terms in his Edicts into which heathen and Christian might each read his own meaning. While he styled himself “a bishop for the external relations of the Church”, yet he retained to the end of his life the title and dignity of the heathen Pontifex Maximus. While he preached to his Court what he supposed to be Christian sermons, he remained unbaptized until shortly before his death, chiefly from policy, though partly from a superstitious regard for the efficacy of the ordinance.
The favour shown by Constantine to Christianity induced many to declare themselves Christians from interested motives. The presence in the professing Church of multitudes who had no sincere Christian convictions was the cause of much of the compromise on the part of the Church with the State, leading to Papal Supremacy. It was thought that unity among such diverse elements could be preserved only by bringing some external authority to bear upon them, and this authority naturally fell into the hands of the clergy. This increase of power on the part of the clergy widened the gulf between clergy and laity and favoured the growth of the idea that the clergy possessed a mediatorial character as the channels of the influence of the Holy Spirit. The universal priesthood of believers was thrown into the background, and the clergy became a priesthood. The laity thus drop out of account, the inferior clergy succumb to the bishops, the bishops to the Patriarchs: and, in the end, the chief power having centred in the three leading Sees—Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome—the struggles of the three great Patriarchs for ecclesiastical supremacy led to the separation of the Eastern from the Western Church (1054), and to the consolidation of the Papacy. The supreme power had been vested in the great ecumenical Councils—Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431)—for a long time. But the fact that all these Councils were held in the East, and the consequent absence of such assemblies from the West, favoured the concentration of the chief ecclesiastical power in the Bishop of Rome. But the Church leaders became willing to surrender to heathenism and secularism, if thereby they could secure the triumph of the Church.
The recruiting of the priesthood from all classes of people was a master-stroke of Papal policy especially for obtaining information regarding all parties. If much of this deplorable issue can be traced to the alliance of Church and State under Constantine, we may be prone to think that we see in it a proof from experience that the State-Church system carries in it the seeds of evil. To hold such an opinion would mean that we reject the Establishment principle and are Voluntaries. We, however, maintain that the Establishment principle is Scriptural, and would point out that the State of Constantine’s day was the outcome of a heathen civilisation, and was heathen to the core, and therefore, that no fair analogy can be drawn between such an alliance as we have described, and an alliance of the Church with a State which is in itself the outgrowth of Christian civilisation.