Yet it was not complete in the sense of embracing all Christian communities. There were those who were called the autokephaloi. "They were in the position which Cyprian had in earlier times asserted to be the true position of all bishops: their responsibility was to God alone" (Hatch, p. 181). There was perfect truth in the statement of the Donatists that this catholic church was "a geographical expression." It was not a union of Christians effected by God's spirit, but effected by state power. The Donatists were crushed by the state. The secular power made ecclesiastical puritanism a crime. This is, hastily sketched, the rise, growth, and usurpation of the episcopacy. It was meant for good. It accomplished good. Its alliance with state power corrupted it with arrogance and wealth. It is not apostolic either as to the succession of its bishops, nor in the spirit of its authority, nor in the doctrine which it came to teach. It gave birth to a church which could not really conquer the world, but for nearly a thousand years was conquered by the welt geist, "the god of this world.” The Roman Catholic church is the most powerful form of the evolution of the catholic concept of The Church. The supremacy of the Roman bishop began to be actual in the fourth century. At the Council of Sardica (A. D. 347) there was given the Bishop of Rome appellate jurisdiction. This decision, that appeals might be made to Rome, proves that it was not theretofore either law or custom. It was the Emperor Theodosius who, in 380 A. D., published a law in which he commanded that those who followed that law take the name of "Catholic Christians"; of others it was declared their meetings shall not have the name of churches." This was a beginning. At this time supremacy was not conceded by all the bishops to Rome. It was an imperial fact, rather than a religious fact. It was a novelty, and was effected by state authority in the interest of political unity which seemed to require religious conformity. Both St. Basil and St. Jerome denied any supremacy to the pope. Jerome says, "let the ambition of Roman preeminence retire. I speak to the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the Cross." The œcumenical council at Constantinople (381 A. D.) decreed that no bishop should invade the diocese of another bishop. "The bishop of Alexandria shall manage the affairs of Egypt alone, and the bishops of the East preside over the East alone." (See Hussey, p. 23 f.) It was in contradiction to this decree, which earlier popes said should abide to the end of the world, that the papacy became more assuming and assertive. The supremacy of the Roman bishop over the western church was as much of a usurpation as the domination of the Empire had been, and like it, also, was largely secured through force, intrigue and forgeries. (See Hussey, p. 51 ff.) Thus, in the well-known case of Apiarius, Bishop of Sicca, Pope Zosimus used a falsified version of the Nicene canons which the African Synod repudiated. This Synod (422 A. D.), requested the Pope, in almost so many words, to mind his own business, that he shall not send any more nuncios to interfere with them in any business for fear the church should suffer through pride and ambition (Hussey, p. 47), a fear abundantly, terribly realized. The Council of Chalcedon (451 A. D.), pronounced against the claims of the pope to universal sovereignty, by giving the See of Constantinople equal rank to that of Rome. But this did not hinder the assumption of supremacy by the popes. The Pope Gelasius was the first to set the authority of the papacy above that of the state (492 A. D.). He says to the Emperor Anastasius that two powers govern the world, the sacred authority of the pontiffs and the royal power. He gives reasons why the priest is superior to the king. Another step in this progress was marked (507 A. D.) when Ennodius declared that St. Peter bequeathed his own merits to his successors as well as his authority. "For who can doubt the sanctity of one raised to such a height of dignity; in whom, if there is a lack of goodness acquired by his own merits, that which his predecessors bestow is enough." Surely the Apostle Peter must have had an inexhaustible supply of sanctity to make holy many of the popes, of some of whom even the catholic historian Möhler says, " Hell has swallowed them up" (Symbolik, p. 353; Foster, p. 22). But to follow all the steps is needless. Popery is a growth,-one pretension added to another in a disordered and demoralized condition of society when might was right. Each pope went a little beyond his pred ecessor until finally the Pope Pius IX is declared infallible. Temporal power reached its climax in Gregory VII and Innocent III. The nineteenth century has seen the popes shorn of such power, yet the claim is still maintained. The Fourth Lateran (general) Council decided that "if any temporal power shall have neglected to purge his dominions of heresy-he, the pope, may declare his subjects absolved from their allegiance," etc. (Hussey, p. 40). The papacy will rule alone-when it can. Innocent III has thus described a pope: "The vicar of Jesus Christ, the successor of Peter, the anointed of the Lord, the God of Pharaoh, short of God, beyond man, less than God, greater than man, who judges all men and is judged by no man" (Hussey, p. 199). Thus the catholic idea evolved. This is its outcome. How far removed from its humble origin, how very different, Loisy has frankly admitted. The Papacy, in attempting to absorb the elements of the world, has become mundane. XIII GENERAL ARGUMENTS OF GORE AND MOBERLY The admitted failure of historical argument. The "should be " argument. Ananias' act in Paul's ordination, invalid. The exclusion of non-catholic from the covenant. What is "from above." The "home of grace and truth." Have catholics more grace than protestants ? Ideals of the ministry. The "catholic" church as channel of grace. Corporate Christianity, and "lapsing." Were Savonarola, George Fox, the Wesleys, failures? The need of "organs" and the body. The Spirit not operative exclusively on the clergy. |