Further Developments Toward the Papal System

Further Developments Toward the Papal System

We have noticed the combined effect upon the churches, in the third century, of the desire for worldly aggrandizement on the part of the church leaders, and of the patronage of the emperors, who on their part saw possibilities of unifying the elements of the state through the instrumentality of the Church. With a view to establishing his throne on a secure basis, the emperor Constantine the Great reconstructed the official arrangements of the imperial government, and adjusted the constitution of the Church so as to model it approximately to that of the state. The ecclesiastical organization of the churches, by this time so vastly different from the New Testament pattern designed for them, lent itself easily to the adaptation. To the three paramount bishops in Christendom, the bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, there was now added the bishop of Constantinople, consequent upon the transference of the imperial residence to that city. These four patriarchs, the heads of the hierarchical system, corresponded in religious matters to the civil praetorian prefects created by Constantine. Next to these were the spiritual exarchs, each presiding over several provinces, and answering to the civil exarchs. After these came the metropolitan bishops, who governed simple provinces and ranked with the provincial civil governors. Then came the bishops, whose authority was confined to districts. Finally, the bishops of ordinary rank, whose local jurisdiction varied in extent. The presbyters, of whom we have written in previous chapters, and who were reminiscent of those elders raised up and appointed by the Spirit of God when the churches were conformed to the divine plan, were gradually deprived of all authority, and in many places were entirely suppressed.

Constantine also divided the administration of ecclesiastical affairs into two parts, the external and the internal. The external administration he himself exercised, assembling councils and presiding over them himself; he fixed the limits of Episcopal provinces, and assigned judges for religious disputes. The internal administration was under the control of the church prelates, and was given effect at the church councils.

The whole ecclesiastical structure, thus made to coincide with the newly arranged civil organization of the government of the empire, was absolutely different from what is set forth in the New Testament. Nothing could be so contradictory to the mind of the Lord. Human expediency, and not the guidance of the Spirit of God, had initiated the ecclesiastical system. One step had led to another, and the ultimate issue was a complete dissimilarity between what Christ designed and what priestcraft had devised.

It was through the instrumentality of the great church councils that the welding together of paganism and Christianity was completed. The Council at Nicaea (a.d. 325), for instance, while it was convened particularly to deal with the Arian controversy, was made the occasion of introducing the worship of the Egyptian goddess Isis, under the name of the Virgin Mary. That was only one example of a general policy which we will consider in greater detail. It serves to illustrate the corrupting effects of imperial patronage and of the worldly and political aims both of the emperor and of the leading ecclesiastical dignitaries. The product of the combined influences of Judaism, statescraft and heathenism, was nothing more than a paganized Christianity. Heathen customs and practices, adopted to enhance the prestige of Church officials, were disguised under color of ecclesiastical terminology. As has been well said, “A compound religion had been manufactured, of which … Christianity furnished the nomenclature, and paganism the doctrines and rites.” The idolatry of the Roman world, though deposed from its ancient preeminence, had by no means been demolished. Instead of this, its pagan nakedness had been covered with the garb of a deformed Christianity.

Carnal aims lend themselves to carnal compromises. Aspirations after political power on the part of the leaders of the church involved the surrender of its independence, undermined its loyalty to Christ, weakened the recognition of His Lordship and raised a barrier to the understanding of His will as revealed in the Scripture.

A church that associates with the world, as if the aims and interests of both are identical, falsifies its own testimony, declines from its high and holy calling, and fails to accomplish the designs of its Lord. His twice repeated statement, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:14, 16), reveals the essential contradistinction between the character and condition, the motives and aims, of the Church and those of the world. “How can two walk together except they be agreed?” Christ and the world, as it exists in this age, cannot be in agreement. Its god is Satan, who inspired its rejection of Christ and maintains its attitude of hostility toward Him. To walk hand in hand with the world is therefore to walk in separation from Christ. To walk in agreement with Christ is to cultivate an intercourse to which the spirit that characterizes the motives and ways of the world is entirely foreign.

Intimately associated with the growth of clericalism and its eventual subservience to the patronage of the state, was the influence of heathen social and religious customs. As these played such a prominent part in fashioning the papal system we must notice them more closely and trace them to their source. For the Word of God gives plain intimations of its origin and character.

One instance will serve to illustrate the immediate connection. From the very earliest the churches under apostolic teaching had observed the first day of the week, for the special remembrance of the Lord. On that day they met together to partake of the Lord’s Supper. This is clear from the New Testament (see Acts 20:7) and is confirmed by post-apostolic writings long before the time of Constantine. Realizing that this fact formed a radical and separative distinction between the Christian churches and the heathen, the emperor issued an edict that the pagans should observe the same day in honor of Apollo, the sun god. * This decree in honor of the sun would serve the purpose of uniting his subjects, as it enabled the pagans the more easily to assemble with the Christians in their churches. The day was generally to be called Sunday, and this would remove heathen prejudices. On the other hand, the ecclesiastical leaders gladly accepted the decree, inasmuch as they freely admitted the heathen into church membership, with a view to extending the influences of the Church, under the mistaken impression that the kingdoms of this world were becoming the Kingdom of Christ.

Constantine’s enactment was not of a Sabbatarian character, it was political. It gave a civil status to the association of church ordinances with heathen festivals. The churches were now provided with a document giving a new character to a day which they had hitherto observed simply according to apostolic teaching. A serious precedent had been adopted. Through the instrumentality of the Church, decrees were issued by the leading prelates establishing other festivals under the auspices of the state, and these were multiplied as time went on. Jewish law was appealed to in favor of this, and so the process of departure from the Word of God continued apace. The churches had already taken up in great measure with the observance of heathen feast days. There is a stirring protest by Tertullian early in the third century against the celebration of the feast of Saturn, the winter solstice, etc. “Oh, truer fidelity,” he says, “of the nations to their own religion, which claims for itself no solemnity of the Christians! They would be afraid lest they should be thought Christians: We are not afraid lest we should seem to be heathen.” *

Again, December 25th was observed throughout the heathen world as the birthday of the sun god. That was one of the high festivals of the Romans, and was celebrated by the great games of the circus. A Church imbued with worldly ambition must not, forsooth, be behind the heathen in their celebrations, and hence it must be decreed that the birth of Christ should be celebrated on the same day. Chrysostom, remarking upon the fact that on this day “the birthday of Christ was lately fixed at Rome,” supports the procedure by the argument that, as the pagans called that day the birthday of the invincible one, that is, the sun god, it was reasonable for the Church to observe it, as Christ, as the Sun of Righteousness, was the Conqueror of death. December 25th was most certainly not the day on which our Lord was born. The establishment of that day in the way mentioned lent itself to such abuses that in the middle of the fifth century we find Leo the Great blaming the Christians for stumbling their weaker brethren by keeping the festival, not on account of Christ’s birth, but on account of the rising of the new sun. But what else could be expected when the whole drift and policy of the time was by way of the combination of Christianity and paganism?

How little heed had been given to the warnings of the apostle Paul in reference to the departure of Israel in the former age from the Word of the Lord! They turned away from God to follow the manners and customs, and to worship the idols, of heathen nations around them. “All these things happened unto them,” says the apostle, “by way of example, and they were written for our admonition.” Today we are furnished with a twofold solemn example, both that of Israel and that of the Church. The evil effects of the early departure of the churches from the will of the Lord as revealed through His apostles are being witnessed now in a special manner, in the tendency toward a revival of the apostate system, and a turning away of many under its evil influences. It becomes us to give heed to the warning to “come out from among them and be ye separate.” Surely there is a tremendous call from the Lord today to separation both from worldliness and from religious departure from the Word of God.

 
  
* There are various testimonies from the writings of the second and third centuries which give clear evidences that the first day of the week was observed by the churches. Justin Martyr, of the middle of the second century, describes the gathering of believers on that day for the observance of the Lord’s Supper, gives details of the meeting, and assigns the reasons why the Christians met on that day as in distinction from the Jewish Sabbath. Similar testimonies are given by Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, a.d. 170, Clement of Alexandria, a.d. 194, etc. Heathen historians relate also how the Christians came together on the first day of the week for the purpose mentioned. Constantine’s decree did not transfer the observance of the Seventh Day Sabbath to that of the first day of the week, as Seventh Day Adventism has taught. No alteration was made with regard to churches in respect of the keeping of one day instead of another.

* Tertullian, De Idololatria, xiv.