The Church, the Falling Away, and the Restoration

by J. W. Shepherd

4. That when the custom of holding these councils had extended over the Christian world, and the Church had acquired the form of a vast republic composed of many lesser ones, certain head men were placed over it in different parts of the world; hence came the patriarchs, and ultimately a prince of patriarchs, the Roman pontiff.

For centuries the struggle between the Church of Rome and the State raged furiously, so that when we reach the age of Hildebrand (A.D. 1073-1085) we find plots and counterplots the order of the day. It was the height of his ambition to subordinate the State to the Church, and subject the Church to the absolute authority of the Pope. The course pursued by Hildebrand and by aspiring pontiffs who succeeded him resulted in an open conflict between the papacy and the empire. In the persistent contest which followed the papacy gained a decided advantage. That the emperor was commissioned to preside over the temporal affairs of men, while it was left for the pope to guide and govern them in spiritual things, was a rule too vague for defining the limits of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction. The co-ordination, the equilibrium of the two powers was a relation with which neither party would be content. It was a struggle on both sides for universal monarchy. The popes, by strategy and shrewd diplomacy, gained complete supremacy over Western Europe, and for many years the pope was everywhere acknowledged head of the Latin Church.

“It was during the progress of the struggle with the empire,” says Professor Fisher, “that the papal power may be said to have culminated. In the eighteen years (1198-1216) in which Innocent III reigned the papal institution shone forth in full splendor. The enforcement of celibacy had placed the entire body of the clergy in closer relation to the sovereign pontiff. The vicar of Peter had become the vicar of God and of Christ. The idea of a theocracy on earth, in which the pope should rule in this character, fully possessed the mind of Innocent, who united to the courage, pertinacity and lofty conceptions of Gregory VII a broader range of statesmanlike capacity. In his view the two swords of temporal and ecclesiastical power had both been given to Peter and to his successors, so that the earthly sovereign derived his prerogative from the head of the Church. The king was to the pope as the moon to the sun; a lower luminary shining with borrowed light. Acting on this theory, he assumed the post of arbiter in the contention of nations, and claimed the right to dethrone kings at his pleasure.” In the Church he assumed the character of universal bishop, under the theory that all episcopal power was originally deposited in Peter and his successors, and communicated through this source to bishops, who were thus only the vicars of the pope, and might be deposed at will. Being thus lifted up, he said: “Jesus Christ wills that the kingdom should be priestly, and the priesthood kingly. Over all he has set me as his vicar upon earth, so that as before Jesus ‘every knee shall bow,’ in like manner to his vicar all shall be obedient, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” Moreover, he applied to himself the words of Jesus, “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.” And again, we hear one of them say: “For every human creature it is a condition of salvation to submit to the Roman pontiff.” Not only did they assert the necessity of obedience to the pope, but they actually claimed the power to forgive sins and to bestow eternal life. This is a striking fulfillment of what Paul said to the Thessalonians: “He opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God” (II Thess. 2:4).

The corruption of the government of the Church naturally led to the corruption of everything connected with Christianity. A departure from the divine government in one thing opens the way for other departures. Such a course will soon cause men to lose sight of the Lord’s directions and cause them to follow the doctrines and commandments of men. Prominent among the early departures from the divine order was the substitution of infant baptism for that of believers. This practice originated in the third century, and grew out of the doctrine of original sin. It was contended that baptism was regeneration in the sense of washing away original sin; that infants were depraved by original sin, and could not be saved without this washing away of that sin, and therefore they baptized infants that they might be saved. On this point Neander testifies:

But when now, on the one hand, the doctrine of corruption and guilt, cleaving to human nature in consequence of the first transgression, was reduced to a more precise and systematic form, and, on the other from duly distinguishing between what is outward and what inward in baptism (the baptism by water and the baptism by the Spirit), the error became more firmly established that without external baptism no one could be delivered from that inherent guilt, or could be saved from the everlasting punishment that threatened him, or raised to eternal life; and when the notion of a magical influence, a charm connected with the sacraments, continually gained ground, the theory was finally evolved of the unconditional necessity of infant baptism. About the middle of the third century this theory was already generally admitted in the North African Church. (Church History, Vol. I, pages 426, 427.)

To the same import is the testimony of Dr. Philip Schaff. He says:

The practice of infant baptism in the church, with the customary formula, “for the remission of sins,” and such accompanying ceremonies as exorcism, presupposes the dominion of sin and of demoniacal powers even in infancy. Since the child, before the awakening of self-consciousness, has committed no actual sin, the effect of baptism must relate to the forgiveness of original sin and guilt. This was a very important point from the beginning of the controversy, and one to which Augustine frequently reverted.... Constrained by the idea of original sin, and by the supposed necessity of baptism to salvation, he does not shrink from consigning unbaptized children to damnation itself.... The Catholic doctrine of the necessity of outward baptism to regeneration and entrance into the kingdom of God, forbade him a more liberal view respecting the endless destiny of that half of the human race which die in childhood. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, pages 835, 836.)

The departure from the practice of immersion, the original act performed in baptism, to affusion, was largely due to the idea of the magical effect of water to cleanse the polluted souls of men. It was believed to contain the whole forgiving power of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. On this account many put off baptism till death threatened them, that their iniquities might be removed as the King of terrors carried them into the land of spirits. The first case of the kind on record is that of Novatian (A. D. 251), who was “baptized by affusion in the bed as he lay.” At first this practice caused a schism in the Church, but in the course of time that which was the exception became the rule. On this radical change from apostolic practice the learned Roman Catholic bishop, Karl Joseph Hefele, says:

The Church has always been tender toward the sick; she has hastened to confer baptism upon them, because it is necessary to salvation; and for that reason she introduced clinical baptism. (History of Church Councils, page 153.)

There were no serious controversies about the Lord’s Supper until the early part of the ninth century, when one Paschasius Radbert, a monk of “great acuteness of mind,” wrote a book in which he promulgated the doctrine of transubstantiation. In this book he took the position that the wine in the Lord’s Supper is “the very blood that ran out of the Saviour’s side upon the cross, and for that reason water is mingled with the eucharistical wine;” and the bread “is the very flesh of our Saviour which was born of the Virgin.” At first the doctrine was repugnant to the cultivated, but it was broached in a rude age, and the monks favored it; the materialistic character of European thought assisted it, and gradually it had a host of friends and was prepared to frown down all opposition. The controversy, however, continued with fury till A. D. 1215, when Pope Innocent III assembled a council in Rome, in the Lateran Church, consisting of 412 bishops, in whose hearing he read seventy canons which he had drawn up; among these was the famous canon which gave transubstantiation a legal place in the Catholic Church. The important part of the canon is: