by Rev. M. MacSween, M.A.
(Continued from page 57)
But the second great factor in the rise of the Papacy to the Ecclesiastical Supremacy was the Episcopal principle, and especially that of Diocesan Episcopacy. This principle operated powerfully in the field of Church organisation. It is, of course, very closely connected with the first factor mentioned. The early church adhered for some time to the Scriptural basis for the constitution, government, and discipline of the New Testament Church, as it also did in doctrine and worship.
Presbyters, and apparently a plurality of them, are early found discharging in Christian Churches duties analagous to those carried out by the same Order in the Jewish Synagogue. In Acts 14, v. 23, we are told that Paul and Barnabas ordained presbyters in every church towards the close of their first missionary journey (c. 48 A.D.). After that date, it is plain that for some time individual churches among Jews and Gentiles, were as a rule, entrusted to the charge of a Council of Presbyters. Taking their place with the Apostles themselves on early Church Councils—such as that of the mother Church at Jerusalem—it was they who managed and governed the entire Church life. The Scripture proof of the original identity of Presbyter and Bishop is irresistible, for:—
- Both designations are used interchangeably, (Acts 20, v. 17 and 28; Titus 1, v. 5 and 7).
- In Apostolic times the Presbyter was in no respect inferior to the Bishop, for the Apostles themselves assumed the name of Presby-ter, as John does in his 2nd and 3rd Epistles, or speak of themselves as co-presbyters, (1 Peter Chapter 5). Peter there identifies Presbyters with Bishops, or Overseers.
- In Scripture Presbyters are also called “Shepherds”, “leaders”, and, when Christian Congregations came to be formed among the Gentiles, they are called “episkopoi”, (“bishops”, or “overseers”), a term borrowed from the city form of government among the Greeks. Even about 150 A.D., the bishop was but a pastor of a single flock, or of the Christians of a single city; the overseer or superintendent of a Parish, not of a Diocese. To near the end of the 3rd century, any difference between Presbyter and Bishop was in degree and not in Order. The Church saw in the ministers of Christ, not priests in a sense different from that in which all the Lord’s people are priests, but rather “Servants” of the Christian “Body” for Jesus’ sake. At the same time, it preserved their authority; made them feel that their office had been instituted by God Himself, and impressed upon them that they were ambassadors of Christ, called by Him to administer the Gospel in doctrine, worship, government, and discipline. The rise and progress of the unscriptural idea that the Episcopate was a separate Order from the Presbyterate, and superior to it, finally issued in the blasphemy and tyranny of the Papacy. The Christian pastors of the 1st century, though not faultless, were all eminent for piety. Some of them were accomplished scholars, such as Clemens of Rome. They were engaged chiefly in spreading abroad the knowledge of Christ, and in seeking the glory of God and the salvation of guilty, perishing sinners. In this they met with much opposition from Jews and Gentiles. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries conflict comes into greater prominence against foes both within and without the Church. The necessity of combating heresies, such as Gnosticism and Manichaeism tended to consolidate the Church. She entered into deadly strife with heathenism in its two-fold aspect of Greek thought and Roman power. The Christian Apologists met the shock of the former: that of the latter was borne by the Christian martyrs. But in the 4th and 5th centuries, the fatal principle of compromise with heathenism and secularism comes more distinctly into view. The new attitude towards Christianity, first assumed by Constantine, not only had an influence in shaping the further development of the Creed and Constitution of the church, but also helped to introduce into the Church the paganism and secularism which characterise the Papacy to this day.
It was, however, but natural that the members of the Church should seek the advice of their pastors in cases of difficulty. At first, this advice, when given implied neither superiority nor dependence. But, in course of time, when men of a worldly spirit, who, like Diotrephes, loved “to have the pre-eminence”, (3 John 9), crept into the leadership of the Church, they exacted, as a right, the homage at first rendered as equals to equals, and gave their counsels in the form of authoritative, haughty commands. As we have said, we find traces of this evil spirit showing itself as early as the middle of the 2nd century. Rome was mistress of the world, supreme, despotic, and practically universal. Why then should not Christian Rome be the fountain of law and faith to the world, just as Pagan Rome had been? If the Pagan Roman Caesar had been a King of Kings, why should not the Bishop of Rome be Bishop of Bishops? Thus, omitting earlier instances, we find Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, in North Africa, (254), teaching that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of the Apostle Peter, and that the Church at Rome is entitled to precedence from the importance of the city, but not in point of jurisdiction. This was the thin edge of the wedge.
In connection with Gradation of Rank, Provincial Councils came to be founded on the Greek model. The Deputies of the Churches of a whole province assembled at these Councils for deliberation on affairs of importance. Then, one deputy, chosen as President, came to be continued in that office for life. At first, he was regarded as the first among equals, but this office gradually came to be assigned to the Bishop of the metropolitan city. Thus the equality which had obtained among the pastors of the early Church, was seriously affected. In the 4th century, the Roman Empire was divided into four Prefectures. These were divided into Dioceses, and the Dioceses into Provinces. The State had indeed stepped out of its own proper domain when it began to fashion the Church upon the model of the Empire. By merging Church and State as nearly as possible, the Emperors held that they were doing both a useful and necessary service. Co-ordination was set aside for incorporation. In this, the Emperors were seconded by worldly, ambitious churchmen, such as Damasus, Bishop of Rome, and Pontifex Maximus, (378), already mentioned, and by intriguing Church Councils. This was so much the case that the Council of Chalcedon, (451), decreed that State arrangements made by royal authority, should be followed by corresponding alterations in the Church. The Bishop of the chief city of a Province had the title of Metropolitan, or Primate. Pastors of the metropolis of a Diocese were called Exarchs. Four Patriarchs or Presidents, corresponding to the four Praetorian Prefects created by Constantine were then placed over the Exarchs—a fourth Patriarchate, that of Constantinople, which had become Constantine’s capital in 330 A.D., seven years before his death—being added to those of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch in 381 A.D. by the Council of Constantinople.
Constantine’s removal to Constantinople had left the Bishop of Rome the most important person in the old capital city. Although the Council of Chalcedon, (451)—which had made Jerusalem a Patriarchate because of its historic dignity—had decreed that the Bishops of Rome and of Constantinople be given equal privileges, and had stated that the high rank of the Bishop of Rome arose out of the fact that Rome was the ancient capital of the Empire, yet Leo I, Patriarch of Rome, spurned that idea, claiming that the Bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, Leo wrote to the Emperor that “without that Rock, (the Apostle Peter), which our Lord has wonderfully laid as the foundation, no structure can stand.” The reference is, of course, to Matthew 16, v. 18:— “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” But the rock here referred to is Christ Himself, whom Peter had just confessed in the preceeding context, saying, “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God”, verse 16.
When dissensions soon broke out between the Patriarchates, the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch sought the help and protection of the Patriarch of Rome. Concessions were given to Rome as the price of such favours, and the importance of the Roman See was thus all the more enhanced. Eventually, when there were four Patriarchates in the East, there was but one in the West, that of Rome, the most powerful of them all, and supreme in the West.
In 347, the Council of Sardica gave the privilege of appointing judges to try the cases of condemned Bishops, to Julius, Bishop of Rome. Though no appeal was made to him, he could thus revise the verdicts of Synods. This was a very dangerous measure to the liberty of the Churches. These decrees of this Council were also mistakenly taken for those of the great Council of Nicea, (325), their influence was thus enormously increased. The Eastern Bishops were accustomed to defer to the advice of the Patriarch of Rome on the ground of Rome’s historic pre-eminence. But in the Roman Church, the idea of its supremacy, as based on the primacy of Peter, became fully revealed in the policy of Leo I, Bishop of Rome, (440-461), who, at the same time held on to the advantage he derived from the political position of Rome. Leo claimed that the Roman Empire was built up with reference to Christianity, and that Rome, for this reason, was chosen as the bishopric of Peter, the chief of the Apostles. Then, in order to give the decisions of the Bishop of Rome greater power, the memorable Edict of the Emperors Valentinian III and Theodosius II was issued in 445. By this Edict, the Bishop of Rome was declared to be the supreme head of the Western Church. But he was also styled the “Director of all Christendom”, and the Bishops and universal clergy were commanded to obey him as their ruler. Following on this, we find the arrogant Gelasius, Bishop of Rome, (492-496), asserting that it became Kings to learn their duty from Bishops, but especially from the “Vicar of the blessed Peter”. It was this man Gelasius, who compiled the blasphemous rite of the Mass in 495 A.D. This unbloody sacrifice was part of the ancient Babylonian worship. Gelasius simply painted over this Pagan rite, and tacked on to it the name of Christ. But these prerogatives accorded to the Roman See were further enlarged in 533 by a Decree of the Eastern Roman Emperor, Justinian, whose celebrated Code of Laws had been issued in 529, and was now the law of Western Europe. At this time also, under episcopal direction from Rome, the Benedictine Order of Monks was founded. In the course of a century, these monks had spread over the West, preaching implicit obedience to the See of Rome. By the Decree of Justinian, the Bishop of Rome was constituted “Head of All the Holy Churches, and of All the Holy Priests of God”. Then, in 590, Gregory I, “the Great”, became the first Pope of Rome in the modern sense of the word. Under him, the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Papacy was greatly advanced, and in England in particular, under the monk Augustine, (597).
Finally, in 607 A.D., came the Decree of the Emperor Phocas, constituting Pope Boniface III, Universal Bishop. The Emperor conceded to Boniface III the headship over all the Churches of Christendom. Thus the mitre of a universal episcopate was placed on the head of Boniface III by the hand of a murderer, Phocas having murdered the Emperor Maurice and seized his throne. The Chief Patriarch, or Pope, had now really arrived, in that the ecclesiastical supremacy now had a legal existence. The stone “Column of Phocas” erected by Pope Boniface III, still stands in Rome in commemoration of this event. But the ecclesiastical supremacy had to become real as well as legal, and this brings us to consider the third great factor in the rise of the Papacy to the ecclesiastical supremacy.
This factor was the Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 A.D., when Odoacer, King of the Heruli, overthrew Romulus Augustulus, the last of the Western Roman Emperors. As we have already seen the “mystery of iniquity” was secretly working even in the days of the Apostles themselves. Alluding to the power of Imperial Rome, which, so long as it existed, was a great obstruction to the ultimate supremacy of the Papacy, Paul says:—”He who now letteth will let, till he be taken out of the way: and then shall that wicked be revealed.” (2 Thess. 2, v. 7, 8). The Fall of the Western Roman Empire first took the Western Roman Emperors out of the way. It then made it easy for the Bishops of Rome to use the master-stroke of the Papal policy. That was that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and, in virtue of being so, is Christ’s Vicar on earth. This principle, tacitly adopted before this time, was now formally and openly advanced by the Bishop and clergy of Rome. They now discarded the Decrees of both Councils and Emperors, and put in their room the principle of Divine Right, claimed by the Roman Pontiff. It was this element that gave to the Papacy the superhuman power it wielded over the world.
Thus, while society itself was perishing around it, the Papacy laid the foundations of its power, for there was no exercise of dominion, spiritual or temporal, that was not covered by the claim of the Pope of Rome to be Christ’s Vicar on earth. We are aware of other factors which greatly helped the rise of the Papacy to the ecclesiastical supremacy. Some of these were, the earlier Doctrinal Controversies in the East, the Codification of Ecclesiastical Laws, the Political changes in Italy from 404, and the Lombard Conquests, (568 and after). These, however we must leave at present, and proceed to consider the rise of the Papacy to the Temporal Supremacy.