The Last Reformation
By F.G. Smith
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES
THE REVELATION EXPLAINED
PROPHETIC LECTURES
ON DANIEL AND
REVELATION
PREFACE
God's true people everywhere are looking for light on the church
question. A deep undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the present
order of things exists in the ecclesiastical world. The historic
creeds are stationary and conservative, but religious thought can
not always be bound nor its progress permanently hindered. Honest
Christian men and women will think, and they are now thinking in the
terms of a universal Christianity. If I am able to discern the signs
of the times, the rising tide of Christian love and fellowship is
about to overflow the lines of sect and bring together in one common
hope and in one common brotherhood all those who love our Lord Jesus
Christ in sincerity.
What will constitute the leading characteristics of the church of
the future? This is the burning question. Spiritual-minded men are
conscious that things can not long continue as they now are, but what
and where is the remedy?
After this book was completed and in the hands of the printers,
I received a copy of "The Church and its Organization," by Walter
Lowrie, and was surprized to find in it much truth that I had
already received through independent investigation and embodied in my
manuscript. I refer particularly to the charismatic organization and
government of the church. It is gratifying to know that other minds
are being led to the same conclusions regarding a subject of such
vital importance to the future of Christianity.
In writing the present work I have endeavored to present the
Scriptural solution of this great problem, a solution which takes
into account, and gives due respect to, historic Christianity, the
prophecies respecting the church and its destiny, and the fundamental
characteristics of our holy religion as it emanated from the divine
Founder.
If this work can be of service in pointing out Christ's plan and
purpose to "gather together in one the children of God which are
scattered abroad," and also be instrumental in helping to accomplish
this grand Christian ideal, I shall feel abundantly repaid. F.G.
SMITH.
Anderson, Indiana, May 6, 1919.
CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction--"The Time of Reformation" 9
Part I--The Church in Apostolic Days
CHAPTER
I The Church Defined 19
II The Universal Church 21
III The Local Church 33
IV The Organization and Government of the
Church 41
Part II--The Church in History
V Corruption of Evangelical Faith 73
VI Rise of Ecclesiasticism 87
VII The Reformation 101
VIII Modern Sects 111
IX The Church of the Future 125
Part III--The Church in Prophecy
X Interpretation of Prophetic Symbols 141
XI The Apostolic Period 149
XII The Medieval Period 169
XIII Era of Modern Sects 209
XIV The Last Reformation 223
INTRODUCTION
"THE TIME OF REFORMATION"
In ecclesiastical history the term Reformation has been applied
specifically to the important religious movement of the sixteenth
century which resulted in the formation of the various Protestant
churches of that period. Since the sixteenth century there have been
other religious reformations, some of considerable importance and
influence.
[Sidenote: A present reformation]
There is a present reformation specially distinguished from all those
that have gone before. It is resulting from the particular operation
of the Spirit of God as predicted in the Word of God, and its
influences are being felt in varying degrees throughout all
Christendom. Many Christians are already stirred to action by the
conscious knowledge of Christ's message for these times, while
multiplied thousands of others who love the Lord Jesus are
experiencing within their own hearts the awakening of new aspirations
and impulses, the real meaning of which they do not as yet
understand, but which are, through the leadership of the Holy
Spirit, unconsciously fitting them for their true place in this great
world-wide movement which is destined to exceed in importance and
influence all other religious reformations since the days of primitive
Christianity.
Since, as we shall show, the present reformation is the work of the
Spirit affecting all true Christians, drawing them together for
the realization of a grand Scriptural ideal, it is evident that no
particular band of people enjoy its exclusive monopoly. May the same
Holy Spirit illuminate our hearts and minds in the contemplation of
the truths of the divine Word.
The term _reformation_ signifies "the act of reforming or the state of
being reformed; change from worse to better; correction or amendment
of life, manners, or of anything vicious or corrupt." In its
application to the religion of Christ, reformation means the
correction of abuses and corrupt practises that have become associated
with the Christian system; the elimination of all unworthy, foreign
elements. In other words, it implies _restoration_, a return to the
practises and ideals of primitive Christianity.
[Sidenote: What the final reformation must include]
If we inquire concerning the limits of true reformatory work, we see
at once that, if there is to be a final reformation, such a movement
must restore in its fundamental aspects _apostolic Christianity_--its
doctrines, its ordinances, its personal regenerating and sanctifying
experiences, its spiritual life, its holiness, its power, its purity,
its gifts of the Spirit, its unity of believers, and its fruits.
This assumes, of course, that during the centuries there has been a
departure from this standard.
[Sidenote: The church itself the real object of reformation]
No reformation since apostolic times has covered all this ground. All
the reformations taken together fall far short of this standard. They
have been reformations only in part, each movement simply placing
special emphasis on particular doctrines, or ordinances, or personal
experiences. Hence the need of further reformation. The present
movement embraces all the truth contained in all the previous
reformations of Protestantism. But it does not stop there. It stands
committed to all the truth of the Word of God. It goes straight to
the heart of the reformation subject and reveals the pure, holy,
_universal_ church of the apostolic times as made up of all those who
were regenerated, uniting them all IN CHRIST; in the "church of the
living God," which church was "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1
Tim. 3:15); the church that was graced with the gifts of the Spirit
and filled with holy power.
The true apostolic church has been largely lost to view since the
early Christian centuries, when a general apostasy dimmed the light
of truth and plunged the world into the darkness of papal night.
In modern times the term "church" as applied to a general body of
religious worshipers is usually employed in a restricted sense,
specifying some particular organization, as the hierarchy of Rome or
the aggregation of local congregations constituting a Protestant sect.
By a natural reaction from the Romish extreme, wherein the church and
church relationship are exalted above the personal relationship of
the individual with his God, many teachers now incline to an
opposite extreme, which makes little of the church as an institution,
substituting therefor a sort of "loyalty to Christ," _individualism_,
subversive of true New Testament standards.
[Sidenote: The true church Scripturally important]
The church is not to be exalted above the Christ, nor is it a
substitute for the Christ; but in the light of New Testament teaching
we must regard the true church as _the_ instrument--the divinely
appointed instrument used by the Holy Spirit in carrying forward the
work of Christ on earth. Jesus himself said, "Upon this rock I will
build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"
(Matt. 16:18). At a later time we read, "And the Lord added to the
church daily such as should be saved" (Acts 2:47).
If Paul were living today, he also might despise the "church" idea in
its narrow sectarian sense. But from the apostle's words, it is very
evident that he regarded the church as it existed in his day as an
institution crowned with glory and honor, the concrete expression
of Christ and his truth. "_God hath set some_ IN THE CHURCH, first
apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles,
then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues"
(1 Cor. 12:28). "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and
some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting
of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the _edifying of the
body of Christ_; till we all come in the unity of the faith ... that
we ... may _grow up into him in all things_, which is the head, [of
the body, _the church_, Col. 1:18] even Christ" (Eph. 4:11-15).
[Sidenote: The church as a divine institution]
Inasmuch as God set in the church apostles, prophets, evangelists,
gifts of miracles, of healings, etc., we must regard the church
as originally instituted as being more than a mere aggregate of
individuals associating themselves together for particular purposes.
We must recognize the divine element. This company was the host of
redeemed ones whom Christ had saved, in whom he dwelt, and through
whom he revealed God and accomplished his work on earth. It was his
body--the organism to which he gave spiritual life and through which
he manifested the fulness of his power and glory.
[Sidenote: Church relationship vs. individualism]
Any reformation that has not for its object the full restoration of
the New Testament church, can not be a complete reformation, but
must be succeeded by another. In this respect the church subject
is fundamental and all-inclusive. To emphasize a mere
"personal-union-with-Christ" theory to the disparagement of the divine
_ekklesia_, is to evade the real issue. Jesus declared, "I will build
my church," and that church was an objective reality, which was not
intended to be concealed under high-sounding theological verbiage nor
dissipated in glittering generalities. It is true that Christ himself
must be presented as the ground of our hope and salvation and as the
object of our personal faith, love, and devotion; as "the way, the
truth, and the life"; but we must not forget that there is also
a revelation of the way, the truth, and the life in the church of
Christ. The apostles preached Christ as the divine "way"; but when men
believed on him, he straightway "set the members every one of them
_in the body_"--the church (1 Cor. 12:18). "And the Lord added _to
the church_ daily such as should be saved" (Acts 2:47). They preached
Christ as the personification of "truth." But they also taught that
the gospel was a special "treasure" committed to the church for
dispensing to the nations. Paul said that God hath "committed _unto
us_ the word of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:19). Therefore he could
represent the church of God "as the pillar and ground of the
truth." They preached him as "life," but he was also the life of the
collective body of believers as well as of individuals. He dwelt in
his church. He was its life, and through it he manifested himself
in the only form in which, since the incarnation, he can be fully
exhibited to men.
[Sidenote: Avoiding extremes]
The fact that Romanism has stressed the "church" idea, parading before
the world as the church an organic body devoid of true spiritual life,
a mere corpse, is no reason justifying a view which, ignoring the
practical church relationship taught in the New Testament, talks
glibly of an ethereal, intangible, ghostly something which, without a
body, lacks all practical contact with men. The Bible standard is the
proper union of soul and body. It is certain that, as in apostolic
days, such union is necessary to the proper exhibition of the divine
life and absolutely essential to the full accomplishment of the divine
purposes in Christ's great redemptive plan.
Christ, the life of his spiritual body, and the life-giver, remains
the same in all ages. Hence the church _body_ is the part that has
been disrupted and corrupted by apostasy and sectarianism, and is
therefore the sphere of reformatory effort. And while reformation
pertains to historical Christianity, it implies, as we have already
shown, a return to the primitive standard. Therefore, before
proceeding to describe particularly the present reformation, we must
give attention to the constitution of the apostolic church, the divine
original.
PART I
The Church in Apostolic Days
=The Last Reformation=
CHAPTER I
THE CHURCH DEFINED
[Sidenote: The term "church"]
The word "church" as used in the New Testament is, in most cases,
derived from the Greek word _ekklesia_. The component parts of this
word literally mean to summon or call together in public convocation.
It was, therefore, used to designate any popular assembly which met
for the transaction of public business. As an example of the secular
use of the term, see Acts 19: 32, 39. This particular application of
the word, however, does not here concern us.
Since the word _ekklesia_ conveys the idea of an assembly of "_called
ones_," it expresses beautifully the Christian's call to churchly
association. The divine call of believers is frequently expressed
in the New Testament: they are "called with an holy calling" (2 Tim.
1:9); "called in one body" (Col. 3:15); "called unto his kingdom and
glory" (1 Thess. 2:12); or, as Peter expresses it, "Ye are a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people;
that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out
of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9). While these texts
and many others describe the exalted rights and privileges accorded
the "called ones," there is distinctly implied the idea of their
organic association, and it was this association that constituted them
the Christian church.
[Sidenote: Its two Christian phases]
"The church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts
20: 28), is Clearly set forth in the New Testament. And the term
"church" in its religious usage is given two significations. In its
largest and primary signification, the church of God is the entire
body of regenerated persons in all times and places, and is in this
respect identical with the spiritual kingdom of God, the divine
family. In a secondary sense, church designates an individual assembly
in which the universal church takes local and temporary form and in
which the idea of the general church is concretely exhibited. Besides
these two significations of the Christian term "church," there are,
properly speaking, no other in the New Testament. It is true that
_ekklesia_ is sometimes used as a collective term to denote the body
of local churches existing in a given region, but there is no evidence
that these churches were bound together in groups by any outward
organization which separated or distinguished them from other
congregations of the general church. Therefore this use of the term
"church" can not be regarded as adding any new sense to those of the
general church and the local church already referred to.
CHAPTER II
THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH
Matt. 16:18 introduces in the gospel history the subject of the
church. Jesus said, "I will build my church; and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it." This text implies that the church as
an institution was not yet founded, and it also clearly implies that
Christ himself was to be the founder and builder of his church.
Jesus had already preached that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, and
when he sent forth his twelve apostles he commanded them to preach
and say, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Jesus himself taught
the doctrines of the kingdom, but in the words of our text there is
implied deeper ideas of the kingdom of God yet to be revealed in all
their fulness of meaning.
[Sidenote: The body of Christ]
We should divest our minds, temporarily at least, of preconceived
ideas of formal church organization and earnestly seek to understand
the real signification of that church of which Christ was himself
personally the founder. A few texts make this point clear: "And hath
put all things under his [Christ's] feet, and given him to be the head
over all things to the church, _which is his body_, the fulness of him
that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1: 22, 23). The church, then, is the
body of Christ. Of this body Jesus himself is the head. "And he is the
head of the body, the church ... that in all things he might have the
preeminence" (Col. 1:18). "For his body's sake, which is the church"
(verse 24). Christ is head of but one body. "There is _one_
body" (Eph. 4:4). In these texts the body and the church are used
interchangeably, referring to one and the same thing. The body of
which Christ is the head is the church that he built, "the church of
God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20: 28).
[Sidenote: The atonement its procuring cause]
It is therefore to Calvary that we must look for the specific act by
virtue of which Christ personally became the founder of his church.
_There_ it was "purchased with his own blood." _There_ we find the
application of those sublime words of the Savior, "And I, if I be
lifted up from the earth, _will draw all men_ UNTO ME" (John 12: 32).
By virtue of that act, God "put all things under his feet, and gave
him to be the head over all things to the church." Yea, by virtue
of that act, "God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name
which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should
bow,... and that every tongue should confess" (Phil. 2:9-11).
The church, then, proceeds from Calvary: Pentecost was but its initial
manifestation to men and its dedication for service. Of this we shall
have more to say hereafter.
[Sidenote: Composed of true Christians]
Since through his death Christ proposed to draw all men unto him, it
is evident that all the members of Christ are therefore members of his
body, the church. To this agrees the words of the apostle Paul, "For
as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same
office: so we [true Christians], being many, are _one body in Christ_,
and every one members one of another" (Rom. 12: 4, 5). "Now hath God
set the members _every one of them_ in the body, as it hath pleased
him" (1 Cor. 12:18).
[Sidenote: Mode of admission]
Becoming a member of the spiritual body of Christ is necessarily
a spiritual operation. Men may admit members to a formal church
relationship, but only the Spirit of God can make us members of
Christ. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized [or inducted] into one
body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and
have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:13). This
text does not refer to literal water-baptism, but to the work of the
"Spirit," by whom we are inducted into Christ. "_God hath set the
members_ every one of them in the body" (verse 18). And since this
is the work of the Spirit, it is evident that none but the saved can
possibly find admittance into the spiritual body of Christ. Under a
different figure Jesus conveys the same truth. "I am the door: by me
if _any man_ enter in, _he shall be saved_" (John 10: 9). "And the
Lord added to them day by day those that _were being saved_" (Acts
2:47, R.V.). Salvation, then, is the condition of membership.
[Sidenote: Family relationship]
The members of Christ are members of God's family. How do we become
members of the divine family? "Except a man _be born again_, he can
not see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). "As many as received him, to
them gave he power to become the sons of God ... which were _born ...
of God_" (John 1:12, 13). "Beloved, now are we the sons of God" (1
John 3:2). Since this family, or church, is composed of the saved,
or those who are born again, and excludes all the unsaved, we can
understand Paul's reference to "a glorious church, not having spot,
or wrinkle, or any such thing," but "_holy and without blemish_" (Eph.
5:27).
We have spoken of the union of all believers with Christ when he draws
them unto himself and becomes their spiritual life. But this unity of
all believers _with Christ_ is a spiritual relationship and experience
not to be confused with external things. The Bible speaks of
Christians as being "in Christ." What does this mean? It certainly
means to be "born again," for without that experience we "can not see
the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). "Therefore if any man be _in Christ_,
HE IS A NEW CREATURE: old things are passed away; behold, all things
are become new" (2 Cor. 5:17). "Whosoever abideth _in him_ sinneth
not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him" (1 John
3:6).
[Sidenote: Unity of believers]
But our union with Christ, by which we become members of the divine
family, necessarily fixes our relationship with all those who are
members of Christ. If, through salvation, we are brought into a sacred
unity with Christ, we are by the same act brought into essential unity
and fellowship with the members of Christ. This the Word distinctly
affirms: "We, being many, are one body in Christ, and _every one
members one of another_" (Rom. 12: 4, 5). "There should be no schism
in the body; but the members should have the same care one for
another" (1 Cor. 12:25). While this last text relates literally to the
physical body, the apostle applies it in an illustrative way to
the spiritual body. "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in
particular" (verse 27).
[Sidenote: Unity and uniformity]
Harmony in a normal physical body is not effected by external means,
but is organic. The members may be many and diverse, but they are all
necessary and have their respective places and work. So also with
the body of Christ. Union with Christ is not dependent upon absolute
uniformity except in the one thing--the fundamental experience by
which we are made members of Christ. In the apostolic period the
children of God who loved our Lord and were known of him were not all
of one age or size or nationality. They had not all enjoyed the same
social advantages, nor had they had the same intellectual attainments.
The act of receiving Christ and his salvation did not perfect their
knowledge; therefore they had to be patiently taught in order to bring
them into the "unity of the faith." And for this purpose divinely
chosen instructors were appointed, who must themselves "study" and
give careful attention to "doctrine" (Eph. 4:11-14; 1 Tim. 3:13-16).
But the gospel penetrates beneath the surface; it goes straight to the
heart and reaches fundamental things. "There is neither Jew nor Greek;
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: _for
ye are all one_ IN CHRIST JESUS" (Gal. 3:28).
The unity of believers with Christ is, therefore, based on divine
relationship, and _this is the fundamental basis of the true
relationship of believers with each other_. In order to maintain
spiritual relationship with Christ and his people, the Christian must
have an obedient heart and "walk in the light of the Lord"; but we
should always be ready to extend our fellowship to those whom Christ
really receives and approves.
How prone men have ever been to ignore this simple, divine standard
and set up arbitrary rules of their own by which to measure others!
This wrong tendency combined with the carnal ambitions of men who
love to parade their own unscriptural ideas before the world and gain
adherents has been the real cause of the disunion of Christians. But
the Bible standard is what we are now considering. It teaches that
the saved people were "members one of another" as well as members of
Christ; that they were, in fact, "_all one in Christ Jesus_."
[Sidenote: Unity a practical reality]
According to the New Testament standard, unity of believers is more
than an invisible, intangible, spiritual fellowship. They are "members
one of another" as well as members of Christ. That unity was designed
to be visible and to form a convincing sign to the world of the mighty
power of Christ. This stands out prominently in that notable prayer
of our Lord recorded in John 17, which was uttered on the most
solemn night of his earthly life. First he prayed for his immediate
disciples, then for all believers, in these words: "Neither pray I
for these [twelve] alone, but for them also which shall believe on me
through their word; THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE; as thou, Father, art in
me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: THAT THE WORLD MAY
BELIEVE _that thou hast sent me_" (verses 20, 21).
Such unity is a real standard. It will convince the world. The
practical force of this last scripture can not be lessened by
reference to those other words of Jesus, "By this shall all men know
that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another" (John 13:
35), for Jesus taught the inseparable nature of love and unity. Love,
as an inward affection, produces deeds and results, and is measured
thereby. Jesus said, "If a man love me, he will _keep my words_; and
my Father will love him, and we will _come unto him_, and _make our
abode with him_" (John 14: 23). And just as love to God invariably
produces union with God, so also true love to man will result in
unity. "My little children, let us not love in word, neither in
tongue; but _in deed and in truth_" (1 John 3:18). Carnal divisions
can not exist where true love reigns.
[Sidenote: Christ died for unity]
For this visible unity Christ prayed--"That they all may be one,...
_that the world may believe_." More than this, he died that unity
might be effected. John 11:52 clearly shows that one purpose of
Christ's death was that "he should gather together _in one_ the
children of God that were scattered abroad." Therefore unity of
believers is a sacred truth resting on the solid basis of the
atonement. That this unity is more than that general union resulting
from the personal attachment of separate individuals to Christ as a
common center, is proved by the fact that it is designed to gather
together in one the scattered _children of God_. Jesus himself said,
"Other sheep I have [Gentiles], which are not of this [Jewish] fold:
_them also I must bring_, and they shall hear my voice; and THERE
SHALL BE ONE FOLD [flock] AND ONE SHEPHERD" (John 10:16).
[Sidenote: Jew and Gentile united]
Broadly speaking, there were at that time but two classified divisions
of men--Jews and Gentiles. Jesus predicted that his sheep from both
sections should be brought together into one flock. In the second
chapter of Ephesians, Paul tells us how this was accomplished.
Although "in times past" the Gentiles were "strangers from the
covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world," in
Christ they were "made nigh by the blood." "For he is our peace,
who hath made both [Jews and Gentiles] ONE, and hath broken down the
middle wall of partition between us ... that he might reconcile
both unto God _in one body_ by the cross" (verses 12-16). Since this
glorious reunion through Christ, the Gentiles "are no more strangers
and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the
household of God." They also "are built upon the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner-stone ... in whom ye also are builded together for an
habitation of God through the Spirit" (verses 19-22).
On account of the high standard of unity set forth in his epistles,
Paul has been branded an idealist. But what shall we say of Christ who
prayed for such visible unity and died for it? An idealist is one
who forms picturesque fancies, one given to romantic expectations
impossible of accomplishment. The idealist usually has but few
practical results. But Paul accomplished things. He broke away from
his Jewish prejudices, which brought down upon his head the wrath of
his fellows. He went into the synagogs of the Jews and brought out
those who were willing to become disciples of Jesus. To build up the
work of the Lord he labored night and day with tears; he laid broad
and deep the very foundations of the Christian faith in heathen lands.
Within a very few years he established Christian churches in four
provinces of the Roman Empire--churches in which Jew and Gentile met
together in common fellowship, _in one body_. If this is idealism,
Lord, give us many more such idealists.
[Sidenote: The burden of Paul's ministry]
But the unity described by Paul in the epistles which he wrote late in
life is not given as a mere ideal standard for the future toward which
men should strive. It is given as the record of a historic fact, the
accomplishment of which lay at the very foundation of Paul's call to
the ministry.
In the second chapter of Ephesians, already quoted, Paul declares
that both Jews and Gentiles were reconciled to God in one body _by the
cross_. In the next chapter he shows his part in the accomplishment of
that end. First, he was called of God as the apostle of the Gentiles;
then by revelation was made known unto him "the mystery of Christ
which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men ...
that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and OF THE SAME BODY, and
partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" (Eph. 3:4-6). The
promise referred to was doubtless the "promise of the Father," the
gift of the Holy Ghost. "That the blessing of Abraham might come on
the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the _promise
of the Spirit through faith_" (Gal. 3:14). "For this cause," says
Paul, "I was made a minister ... that I should preach among the
Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and _to make all men see_
what is the fellowship of the mystery ... to the intent that now unto
the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known BY THE
CHURCH the manifold wisdom of God" (Eph. 3: 1-10).
[Sidenote: Was divinely attested]
Paul was given a tremendous task--"TO MAKE ALL MEN SEE" that mystery.
This task required from God "the effectual working of his power"
(verse 7). And in another place he also shows that this power was not
lacking: "For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which
Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word
and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit
of God" (Rom. 15: 18, 19).
Paul, then, was divinely commissioned "_to make all men see_" the
mystery of this union of all classes of men "_in one body_ by the
cross" (Eph. 2: 16), all in "the SAME body, and partakers of his
promise in Christ by the gospel" (Eph. 3: 6). And when Paul's career
was finished, the same mystery was given over to others that it might
be "known BY THE CHURCH" (verse 10), "the church, which is his body"
(Eph. 1: 22, 23). The ministry, then, should have held the ground
already attained, the actual union of all the saved in one body, and
have labored earnestly "to make all men see" that that body only is
the church.
CHAPTER III
THE LOCAL CHURCH
The words of Christ, "I will build my church; and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16: 18), convey a deeper meaning
than the simple preaching of the kingdom. As we have already shown,
the one specific personal act by virtue of which Christ became the
founder of the church was his atonement on Calvary, where the church
was "purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20: 28). The church, then,
as an institution, resulted from the atonement. Paul, describing the
union of Jews and Gentiles in one body, the church, declares that it
was effected "by the cross" (Eph. 2: 16).
There was power in redemption. It brought into the lives of believers
forces that could not but unite them in social compact. It threw them
together in living sympathy and united their hearts firmly in the
strong bonds of brotherly love. Their outward organic union as a
church was the natural and inevitable result of this inward life and
love.
[Sidenote: Local church defined]
By the impartation of spiritual life to believers and by the agency of
the Holy Spirit operating in the apostles as special agents appointed
to do his work, Christ built his church on earth. There was a building
of the church, then, which pertained specifically to its _local_
and _visible_ development among men. The expression "_I_ will build"
indicates the transcendent element, the divine element, in church
organization. This being true, it follows that the local church was
not merely an aggregate of individuals accidently gathered together,
but was the local, concrete embodiment of the spiritual body of
Christ; the unified company of regenerated persons who, as a body,
were dedicated to Christ, acknowledged of Christ, and used by Christ
through the Holy Spirit for the accomplishment of his work. Jerusalem
furnishes the first example, dating from Pentecost (Acts 2).
[Sidenote: Particular example: Corinth]
That this is, generally speaking, the Scriptural definition of a local
church of God, is further shown by another particular example. Paul
addressed two of his epistles "to the church of God which is at
Corinth" (1 Cor. 1: 2; 2 Cor. 1: 1). As individuals they are called
"saints" and "brethren," but collectively as a church they are called
"the church of God" and referred to as "God's building" (1 Cor. 3:
9). And the apostle says to them, "Know ye not that ye are a temple of
God, and that the _Spirit of God dwelleth in you_?" (verse 16, R.V.).
They had been inducted by the Spirit into the "_one body_," and they
were filled with the gifts of the Spirit--wisdom, knowledge, faith,
healing, miracles, prophecy, discernment, and tongues (chap. 12). In
fact, the apostle said, "Ye come behind in no gift" (chap. 1: 7). And
he said particularly, "_Ye are the body of Christ_" (chap. 12: 27).
A true local church, then, was the concrete embodiment of the
spiritual body of Christ in a given place. It was the body of Christ
because it was made up of the people of God, manifested the power of
God, was the repository of the truth of God, was filled with the
gifts of the Spirit of God, and was actually used by the Spirit in
performing the works of God. Such characteristics made it "_the church
of God_."
[Sidenote: Local membership]
Membership in the general body of Christ was conditioned solely on
the new birth, or salvation. Since the individual church was the local
embodiment of the general church, none but the saved could properly
become members thereof, and all who were truly saved (in the same
locality) belonged to it by divine right. At this point, however, the
human element in the constitution of the local church became manifest.
We have pointed out the divine element in the true church--the element
that particularly distinguished it as the church of God, but the
bringing together of many individuals in one assembly involved also a
social element and required the principle of _recognition_. There
is, however, no evidence that such recognition was given by a formal,
official act of the church in its corporate capacity. And since
salvation is of the heart, it was possible for human recognition to
temporarily miss its true purpose. Thus, in the church at Jerusalem
we find recognized as a constituent part of the assembly two false
members--Ananias and Sapphira. On the other hand, when the converted
Saul "was come to Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the
disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he
was a disciple" (Acts 9: 26). The church at Corinth, already referred
to, had some false members at the time the Pauline epistles were
written. The church at Samaria also tolerated for a time one whose
"heart was not right in the sight of God" (Acts 8).
[Sidenote: A holy church]
Since the local church was designed to exhibit concretely the
spiritual body of Christ, none but saved persons could _properly_
hold membership therein; therefore the local church when in its normal
condition was free from sin and sinners. The physical body, which
Paul uses to illustrate the spiritual body, is normal only when every
member possesses the life of the body and functions properly. So also
was the body of Christ. It was not God's will that there should be
(as recognized members) "sinners in the congregation of the righteous"
(Psa. 1: 5). It was his will to purge Jerusalem "by the spirit of
judgment and by the spirit of burning" until "_he that is left_ in
Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called _holy_,
even _every one_ that is written among the living in Jerusalem" (Isa.
4:3,4).
[Sidenote: Discernment and judgement necessary]
The local congregation in Jerusalem did not cease to be the church
of God because two unworthy persons obtained recognition in it. This
incident gave occasion for the church to manifest its inherent _life_
by its ability to discern and then cast off the secret offenders just
as a healthy physical body casts off effete matter. As a result of the
judgment pronounced on Ananias and Sapphira, "great fear came upon all
the church ... and of the rest _durst no man join himself to them_;
but the people magnified them" (Acts 5:11, 13). The fiery judgments
of God put an end to formal church-joining there, as a result of which
"believers were the more _added to the Lord_, multitudes both of men
and women" (verse 14). "And the Lord added to them day by day those
that were being saved" (Acts 2:47, R.V.).
A clean, pure local church was the divine standard. It is evident that
such could never be obtained and maintained except by the power of the
Holy Spirit, who discerned evil and prompted its elimination. Peter
discerned the condition of the two false members in the church at
Jerusalem and removed that blemish. He also exposed the hypocrisy
of Simon at Samaria, and Paul pointed out the evil affection in the
church at Corinth and directed its removal. Chief responsibility
for the maintenance of the normal condition of the church will be
considered in our discussion of the particular features of church
organization and government.
[Sidenote: Apostasy possible]
We have shown the characteristic, spiritual features of a New
Testament congregation in its normal condition; also the possibility
of deviation from that standard. A practical question is, How far
could such a congregation lapse into an abnormal state and still be
a church of God? Or, Can a church as a body backslide? The church at
Ephesus evidently was on the verge of such an apostasy. Therefore in
the special message addressed to it in Revelation the Lord said: "I
have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the
first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and _will remove
thy candlestick_ out of his place" (Rev. 2: 4, 5). So also the church
at Laodicea. "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I
would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art luke warm, and
neither cold nor hot, _I will spew thee out of my mouth_" (Rev. 3: 15,
16).
[Sidenote: The line of distinction]
The physical body may experience the mutilation of some of its members
and still survive, but there is a limit beyond which death will ensue.
So also the spiritual body may survive the encumbrance of a few
false members. From the general facts and principles already adduced,
however, we may safely assert that a local church is a church of God
only so long as it is able to function properly _as a body_. As long
as the Spirit of God is in the ascendency, so that the people of God
as a body manifest the power of God, maintain the truth of God, are
filled with the Spirit of God, and are actually used by the Spirit
in performing the works of God, so long they are the church of God.
Whenever another spirit gains the ascendency and the divine, spiritual
characteristics are lost to view, then is brought to pass the saying
that is written, "_I will spew thee out of my mouth_." Beyond that
time they may continue their formal services, singing hymns, saying
prayers, and making speeches; but the real message of God describing
their condition is, as was true of Sardis, "Thou hast a name that thou
livest, _and art dead_" (Rev. 3: 1). Such dead congregations are no
longer a part of the true church and are unworthy of the recognition
of spiritual congregations.
CHAPTER IV
THE ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH
[Sidenote: The fact of organization]
We have already shown that the words of Christ "I will build my
church" have a deeper meaning than the simple preaching of the
kingdom. They imply the formation of an organized structure against
which even the gates of hell should not prevail. They can signify
nothing less than the visible establishment of the church among men as
the concrete embodiment of the divine kingdom or family. The church,
then, as made up of local congregations, is an institution of divine
appointment. This is shown by the words of Christ in Matt. 18: 17,
according to which it sometimes becomes necessary in admonishing
and disciplining trespassers to "_tell it unto the church_"; and the
appellation "church of _God_" is frequently applied to individual
congregations (1 Cor. 1: 2, et al.).
Many teachers hold that Christ did not build a church and that the
"form of church organization is not definitely prescribed in the New
Testament, but is a matter of expediency, every body of believers
being permitted to adopt that method of organization which best suits
its circumstances and condition." Such is the Protestant view
put forth by those who seek an excuse for the modern system of
sect-building. The incorrectness of this theory is easily shown.
First, as we shall see, it underestimates the need of divine direction
in church relationship and ignores well-established facts in the New
Testament history. Secondly, if it proves anything, it proves too
much; for to admit such a principle of "church powers" is to admit
that the papacy and every other human system of church control is
justified--systems which can be historically shown to be subversive of
the church as a spiritual body.
That the church was actually organized into local assemblies in
apostolic days is abundantly shown by the New Testament record. They
had regular meetings at stated times (Heb. 10:25; Acts 20:7; I Cor.
16:12); officers (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; Eph. 4:11, 12); recognized
authority (1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:17); discipline (1 Cor. 5:13; 2 Thess.
3:6, 10-14); a system of contributions (1 Cor. 16:1, 2); ordinances
(Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11: 23-29); a common work, etc. On one
occasion Paul instructed Titus to "_set in order_ the things that are
wanting, and ordain elders in every city" (Tit. 1:5).
[Sidenote: By whom effected]
The words of Jesus "I will build my church" point us to the Christ
as its real founder. Since the life and genius of the church is
the superhuman element, which element must at all times be given
precedence over mere outward forms and human characteristics, and
since this life proceeds from Christ as the Redeemer of men, therefore
in all fundamental aspects he is the personal founder of the church.
But more than this, working by proxy, Jesus gave even external form to
his church, employing for this purpose his chosen apostles, to whom
he gave special instruction and authority. Even during his personal
ministry Jesus performed some of his work by proxy. It is expressly
stated that he baptized many (John 3: 22; 4: 1), and yet explanation
is made that "Jesus himself baptized not, _but his disciples_" (John
4: 2).
So also in the organization of the church. The germ of that
organization existed during Christ's personal ministry. Doctrine
was given, ministers preached, baptism was administered, and people
believed, but this embryonic organization could not be completely
established as a church before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore provision was made for its progressive development under the
tutelage of specially inspired apostles. Doctrine was given gradually,
yet invariably through the oral and written teaching of these inspired
apostles. Therefore we can not but believe that the same invariable
guidance of the Holy Spirit also perfected through them God's own plan
of church organization and work. The gradual development of church
organization under the labors of the apostles, therefore, no more
proves the theory of a constant historic development than does the
fact of a gradual unfolding of the Christian faith and doctrine by
the apostles prove a constant and unending revelation of the gospel
through all succeeding ages. One writer has well said, "The same
promise of the Spirit which renders the New Testament an unerring and
sufficient rule of faith renders it also an unerring and sufficient
_rule of practise_ for the church in all places and times." We
must therefore regard the organization of the church, as we do the
unfolding of the gospel message, as complete in all its fundamental
and essential aspects before the close of the sacred canon.
[Sidenote: Apostolic agency]
There is no doubt that the apostles occupied a special place in the
divine establishment of the church and its message. Regarded as a
temple, the church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone" (Eph. 2:
20). The Old Testament Scripture "came not in old time by the will of
man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"
(2 Pet. 1: 21). But now we read, "God, who at sundry times and in
divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
hath in these last days _spoken unto us_ BY HIS SON" (Heb. 1: 1, 2).
Moses, representative of the law, and Elias, representative of the
prophets, appeared in glory on the Mount of Transfiguration; but
when Peter suggested that they be accorded equal honors with Jesus,
immediately a cloud overshadowed the company and a voice out of the
cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; HEAR
YE HIM." "And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man,
save _Jesus only_" (Matt. 17:1-8).
[Sidenote: Model for all ages]
The revelation of divine truth, therefore, as the foundation of our
faith, reached its highest level in the Son. We need not look for
another gospel--_hear him_. He has also said, "I will build my
church"; hence we need not look for another church--HEAR HIM! Paul
declares that the gospel with its revelation of the "mystery" of the
union of the saved in one body, the church, was in his day "_made
manifest_," and, "according to the commandment of the everlasting God,
made known to all nations _for the obedience of faith_" (Rom. 16:25,
26). See Eph. 2; 3:1-10. While therefore Christ was the author of
the truth in its highest form of revelation, also the founder of his
church, both reached their fulness of perfection under the inspired
apostles and was by them "made known to all nations _for the obedience
of faith_." The unity of all believers for which Christ solemnly
prayed was to be accomplished through the direct agency of the
apostles, the result of believing on Christ "_through_ THEIR _Word_"
(John 17:20).
In describing how both Jews and Gentiles were reconciled in one body
by the cross, Paul says that God "hath raised us up together, and made
us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: _that in the ages
to come_ he might show the exceeding riches of his grace" (Eph. 2: 6,
7). The unified church of the apostolic day is therefore the divine
model for all succeeding ages.
[Sidenote: Paul's relation thereto]
Since the first apostles were employed as special agents in
establishing the perfected New Testament church, Paul's connection
therewith is of particular importance. Paul was not one of the
original twelve, yet he exerted a tremendous influence in that period
and was undoubtedly one of the chief agents used in establishing the
church and fixing its external form and character.
Many believe that Paul belonged among the twelve as the real successor
of Judas. According to this view, the election of Matthias to the
apostleship was without divine sanction, being proposed by the
impetuous Peter, who, before the descent of the Holy Ghost, often
proposed inadvised things. Strength is given this view by the
oft-repeated assertion of Paul that he was an apostle, "not of men,
neither by men, but by Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1: 1). We are not forced to
that conclusion concerning Matthias, however. In writing the Acts of
the Apostles, Luke the companion of Paul, records the appointment of
Matthias without intimating that it was a mistake. In Scripture usage
a certain parallelism is maintained between the twelve apostles of the
Lamb and the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. When we recall
that there were literally thirteen tribes in Israel, Ephriam and
Manasseh standing for Joseph, we need not be surprized that there
should be literally thirteen foundational apostles in the Christian
church, Matthias and Paul standing, as it were, in the place of Judas.
There can be no doubt that Paul really ranked with the Twelve. He
was a "chosen vessel," the "apostle of the Gentiles." Although as one
"born out of due time," he himself saw Jesus and from him received the
entire gospel by direct revelation. Consequently the other apostles
possessed no advantage over him. He himself says, "The gospel which
was preached of me was not after man. For I neither received it of
man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ"
(Gal. 1:11, 12). He "was not a whit behind the very chiefest
apostles" (2 Cor. 11:5). And it was through Paul particularly that
the revelation of the "mystery" was made complete--"that both Jews and
Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of _the_ SAME _body_," and he was
commissioned "_to make all men see_" it.
The general church was, therefore, made up of various local
congregations, which were "set in order" by apostolic authority. The
essential nature of this organization is determined by the object for
which these congregations were formed, the conditions of membership
therein, and the kind of laws by which they were governed.
[Sidenote: Nature of its organization]
The primary object for which the local church was formed was the
establishment and extension of the kingdom of God among men. A
secondary object was the encouragement and mutual edification of the
believers themselves, which was best obtained by united worship in
prayer, exhortation, praise, thanksgiving, and religious instruction.
We have already noted the conditions of membership in the local
church. None but those who were already members of the body of Christ
could properly be recognized as members in a congregation which was
designed by Christ to exhibit in local and temporary form the
true idea of the church universal. According to this standard of
membership, every individual owed allegiance directly to Christ
himself as the great head of the church. Christ was the only lawgiver.
The relation of the individual to the local church, then, did not
in any sense supersede his personal relations to Christ, but simply
strengthened and further expressed this higher relationship.
In this standard of church-membership is found the secret of the union
in one body of all apostolic Christians. The standard was _personal
relationship to Christ_, and this relationship could be obtained
only by an experience of salvation and humble obedience to the law
of Christ. Therefore all the truly saved were members of Christ and
members of each other. This standard being the same for all, it led
to absolute equality among members. Hence Paul could say, "There
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female: for ye are all one _in Christ Jesus_" (Gal.
3:28).
The law of the church, as already stated, was simply "the law of
Christ"; first as delivered orally by specially inspired apostles, and
afterwards expressed by them in the Christian Scriptures.
[Sidenote: Organization and government]
The closest relationship necessarily existed between the organization
of the church and its method of government. It is impossible for us
to get a clear conception of either independently of the other; and
in order to understand the subject at all, we must bear in mind the
fundamental nature of the church itself, what it was and what it was
designed to accomplish. The church was not, as we have seen, a mere
aggregate of individuals that happened to gather or that assembled for
ordinary purposes. A social club or a business organization would have
possessed all those features. The church was the body of Christ, the
body to which he gave spiritual life and through which he designed
to manifest his power and glory. Hence its visible organization was
secondary, merely incidental as the means for the accomplishment
of those higher ends involved in the transcendental element of the
church. The relation of the divine and the human characteristics was,
therefore, the relation of _soul and body_--Christ, the soul; redeemed
humanity, the body. The establishment of this relationship was
the manifestation to the world of the "body of Christ." It was
organization of the church.
From the foregoing considerations, we are certain that in the
apostolic church the real emphasis was placed on _life_ and that the
governmental power and authority of the church was derived from its
divine life in Christ and not from its organization. Apostolic church
government was, therefore, more than the adoption of some particular
form of external organization and administration.
[Sidenote: Divine administration]
The origin of the church was divine. Jesus said, "I will build my
church." And though, as we have seen, he employed human agents in its
completion, these agents were so specially inspired and directed by
Christ through the Holy Spirit that it was in reality _his_ work.
Jesus was not only the initial founder of the church, but he was its
permanent head and governor. Isaiah, predicting the coming of Christ,
declares that "the government _shall be upon_ HIS _shoulder_" (Isa.
9:6). And again, we read that "HE _is the head of the body, the church
... that in all things he might have the preeminence_" (Col. 1:18). He
it was who called and commissioned Paul and then personally directed
his ministerial labors (Acts 26:13-19; 16:6-9). He it was who
walked in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, encouraging or
reproving the congregations of Asia (Rev. 1:17, et seq.). He is
"alive forever more" (Rev. 1:18); "the same yesterday, and today, and
forever" (Heb. 13: 8); "upholding all things by the word of his power"
(Heb. 1:3). "To him be glory _in the church_ ... throughout all ages,
world without end. Amen" (Eph. 3:21).
[Sidenote: Christ the living head]
Thus, the general nature of church government was an absolute
monarchy, or, to use a better term, a theocracy. Christ was king and
lawgiver, governor and administrator. Whoever the instruments employed
in carrying out his purposes, whatever the scope of their particular
activities, all were governed directly by Christ through the Holy
Spirit. It was _his_ church. He was its living head. No other church
was known in those days. It was only when the living, vital union of
Christ with his church was lost to view that men began endeavoring
to strengthen the bonds of external union by unscriptural human
organization, just as when life is departed from the physical body we
seek by an embalming process to prevent its speedy dissolution.
[Sidenote: Delegated authority]
In order to understand church government, therefore, we must begin
at the central source of authority and proceed to its varied
manifestations. We have seen that Christ employed human agents in
accomplishing his work; hence, in thus performing the work of Christ
as commanded by Christ, and as personally directed by the Spirit of
Christ, these men possessed the _authority of Christ_. Any church
governmental authority that does not proceed directly from Christ
through his Holy Spirit is but human authority, an usurped authority,
and has no place in the real church of Christ.
[Sidenote: Ministerial oversight]
The apostles were the first to whom Christ delegated authority. They
became his special representatives. They established the church and
became responsible for its general direction and oversight, "the Lord
working with them, and confirming the word with signs following" (Mark
16:20). But these twelve did not stand alone in the government of
the church. Soon a host of ministers were raised up, and these also
possessed divine authority for their representative lines of work.
To the elders of Ephesus, Paul said, "Take heed therefore unto
yourselves, and to all the flock, over which _the Holy Ghost hath made
you overseers_, to feed the church of God" (Acts 20:28). Peter also
writes: "The elders which are among you I exhort ... feed the flock of
God which is among you, _taking the oversight thereof_" (1 Pet. 5:1,
2). "The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work
whereunto _I have called them_ ... so they, _being sent forth by the
Holy Ghost_, departed" (Acts 13: 2-4). "AND HE GAVE some, apostles;
and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and
teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the
ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Eph. 4:11, 12). In
accordance with this standard, we read, "Obey them that have the rule
over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, _as
they that must give account_" to him who is "that great shepherd
of the sheep" (Heb. 13:17, 20). The ministers were under-shepherds
appointed to feed the flock of God, for which service they had to give
account to the great Shepherd.
The foregoing scriptures and many others show conclusively that, while
in the apostolic church spiritual oversight was, in general, vested in
the ministry, it did not originate with them; that it did not proceed
from the general body of believers by a majority vote or by conference
appointment; but that it came by the Holy Spirit direct from the great
head of the church, who alone determined the general bounds of that
authority and responsibility. This ministry, or presbytery, consisted
of two classes--local ministers and general ministers. Before
proceeding from this general classification to a discussion of the
more specific duties and responsibilities of the individual ministers
comprising this presbytery, I shall call attention briefly to the
geographical distribution of their work as a body.
[Sidenote: Local and general phase]
We have already shown that the church in its visible phase was made up
of various local congregations "set in order" by apostolic authority.
So far as their own local affairs were concerned, these congregations
were autonomous. When a matter was purely local, such as the financial
oversight and ministration in the church at Jerusalem, the local
congregation itself determined the course of action and (excepting
that class of officials who were divinely chosen) who should be
appointed to oversee it. In the Jerusalem example cited, the apostles
suggested, "_Look ye out among you_ seven men," etc., "and the saying
pleased the whole multitude: _and they chose_" the proper persons for
that work (Acts 6:1-5).
But while these congregations possessed such autonomy and were
distributed over a wide territory, they were not in all respects
independent, isolated units. As members of Christ sharing in a common
life and engaged in a common cause, they were bound together in one
brotherhood by ties of fellowship and love. In addition to the union
of separate individuals in one locality under the care of the local
presbytery, the local congregations themselves were brought into
close, sympathetic relationship with one another through the labors
and influence of those general ministers who were not attached to
particular churches, but whose gifts, callings, and qualifications
fitted them for general service throughout the various congregations.
The responsibility and authority of these general ministers varied in
accordance with their own gifts and qualifications and the degree of
development attained by the churches among which they labored. In
the case of infant churches, it is evident that oversight was of
the apostolic kind--direct and immediate. But whenever they became
thoroughly established, the principle of local autonomy was recognized
and the relation of the general ministers to such congregations
was evangelistic rather than apostolic--helpers and advisors, not
administrative directors.
[Sidenote: Geographical distribution]
That the foregoing analysis is correct is abundantly proved by the
history of events in the Acts respecting the geographical distribution
of the churches and their relation to one another. Jerusalem was the
original seat of Christianity. Isaiah prophesied, "Out of Zion shall
go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (Isa. 2:3).
Jesus told the apostles "that repentance and remission of sins should
be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem"
(Luke 24:47). And again, "Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in
Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost
part of the earth" (Acts 1:8). Philip went from Jerusalem to Samaria
and there preached Christ with great success. "Now when the apostles
which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of
God, _they sent unto them Peter and John_" (Acts 8:14). Later we
read that when churches had been established throughout all Judea and
Galilee and Samaria, "it came to pass, _as Peter passed throughout all
quarters_, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda" (Acts
9: 31, 32). It was while he was on this general tour visiting the
churches that he came to Joppa and there received the vision which led
him to the household of Cornelius, after which he came to Jerusalem
and was there called to account for his action in visiting the
uncircumcised Gentiles.
There is no doubt that there was exerted from Jerusalem a general
care over the surrounding churches. Some of the disciples who were
scattered from Jerusalem at the time of persecution, went as far as
Cyprus and Antioch, preaching the word, and many believed and turned
to the Lord. "Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the
church which was in Jerusalem: _and they sent forth Barnabas_ that
he should go as far as Antioch" (Acts 11: 19-22). Barnabas went to
Antioch and there found such a splendid work that he departed at once
for Tarsus seeking Saul, and together they returned to Antioch and
preached for a whole year.
[Sidenote: Operative centers]
While this principle of general superintendence of infant churches
originated with the apostles themselves, it was extended to others who
were not of the first apostles. Barnabas and Saul were successful at
Antioch and there established the first Christian community outside
the confines of Judaism, as the result of which Antioch became the
seat of Gentile Christianity. Shortly afterwards "certain prophets and
teachers" in the church at Antioch, men who were not of the original
apostles, were directed by the Holy Ghost to send forth Barnabas
and Saul on their first missionary journey, and they went forth
establishing local churches and afterwards setting them in order by
ordaining elders, after which these ministers returned to Antioch,
gathered the church together, and gave them a report of their work.
Antioch was, therefore, an operative center.
At a later time Paul established the truth in Ephesus, the chief city
of Proconsular Asia. As might naturally be expected from the strategic
position and political importance of that city, Ephesus also became
an operative center for Christianity, "so that all they which dwelt
in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks" (Acts
19:10). Thessalonica in Macedonia and Corinth in Achaia are other
examples of the kind.
[Sidenote: Regional units]
The work of the church naturally fell into these geographical units;
therefore the word "church" is sometimes used as a collective term
designating a body of regional congregations. The church "throughout
all Judea and Galilee and Samaria" (Acts 9:31), "the seven churches
which are in Asia" (Rev. 1:11), "the churches of Macedonia" (2 Cor.
8:1), "the churches of Galatia" (1 Cor. 16:1).
We must bear in mind, however, that this regional concept of the
church was not an integral part of fundamental apostolic church
government, but was merely incidental, the result of geographical
location. In fundamental analysis distinctions are always drawn
between things that are _different_, not between things of the same
kind. These regional churches were not different kinds of churches;
they were not bound together in separate groups by an external
organization which placed a wall between them and other congregations
of the saints. There was no authority here for the national-church
theory nor for the sectarian church idea. Geographical separation
there was, but not denominationalism.
[Sidenote: Common bond of unity]
We have already shown from Paul's writings that under his ministry
both Jews and Gentiles were united in one body, "the _same_ body."
That these regional units to which we have referred were no denial of
this clear truth, but that collectively they constituted one body, is
further shown by the indications we have of their _operative unity_.
Notwithstanding the poor facilities for communication and travel
in those days, which made general cooperation very difficult, and
notwithstanding the fact that the record of historic Christianity in
the Acts is exceedingly brief, we have, nevertheless, clear proof that
there was cooperation throughout the apostolic church. Two instances,
one of a business nature, the other ecclesiastical, establish
this point. The churches of at least three provinces of the Roman
Empire--Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia--united under Paul's direction
in establishing a weekly financial system, the immediate object of
which was to assist in accomplishing a particular object in which they
were all interested (2 Cor. 8:9; 1 Cor. 16:1-3). The ecclesiastical
example is the council of the apostles and elders held in Jerusalem
and recorded in Acts 15. A question of doctrine and practise arose in
Antioch; the church there was not able to settle it; therefore it
was "determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other with them,
should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this
question" (verse 2).
This was not a general council of the church. No other sections or
provinces were represented. Nor did it meet as a legislative body,
even though there were present specially inspired apostles, to whom
had been given the commission to unfold the gospel as an authoritative
revelation. It is clear that the ministers of this council even sought
to avoid the legislative function. "For it seemed good to the Holy
Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these
necessary things" (verse 28). While this incident does not prove
an administrative human headship of the whole church centralized at
Jerusalem, it does prove that the individual congregations were not
isolated units, but that they had respect for, and sought the advice
and counsel of, older established congregations, and particularly of
those general ministers whose gifts, qualifications, and reputation
fitted them for general care of all the churches.
When we consider the divine nature of the church's organization,
with the ever-living Christ working mightily in all his ministers and
through them in particular administering its government, we can see
that the entire church was necessarily one body joined together in a
common fellowship and actually laboring together in the performance of
common tasks.
[Sidenote: Bishop and elder]
The presbytery, to whom was given particular oversight and government
of the church, was set apart by the Holy Ghost for this special work.
Different terms, such as "elder" and "bishop," were used to designate
this office. The term "bishop," which literally means _overseer_,
implies the duties of the office, while "elder" denotes its rank. That
these terms were used interchangeably and applied to the same order
of persons is proved by Acts 20:28 (cf. 17); Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1, 8;
Tit. 1:5, 7; 1 Pet. 5:1, 2. This was admitted by many early writers,
as Jerome, Augustine, Urban II, Petrus Lombardus, Chrysostom,
Theodoret, and others.
From the general classification already given, let us proceed to the
specific. This body was made up of elders or bishops. The fact that
the terms "elder" and "bishop" were applied to all the presbyters
shows equality of rank; that the office was one. We find, however,
that these elders as individuals were diversified in their gifts and
callings in accordance with the specific work which the Holy Ghost
designed them to perform. Under one classification there were, broadly
speaking, two kinds of elders--local and general; that is, those whose
sphere of operation was particularly local and those whose influence,
work, and responsibility extended beyond any congregational
limitation. This distinction was not made arbitrarily, however; for
it was essential to the performance of the twofold class of work to be
done and was the inevitable result of that operation of the Spirit
in individual ministers which fitted them particularly for these
distinctive lines of activity.
[Sidenote: Divine gifts]
To be still more specific, we must go a step farther and consider the
reason why and the process by which ministers became differentiated
from other saints. In this we shall find the inner secret, both of
particular spiritual organization and of divine church government. The
apostle says, "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" and
"God hath set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath
pleased him" (1 Cor. 12:13, 18). These texts suggest more than a mere
attachment to the body: they imply _functional activity in the body_.
The functions of the body as described by Paul means the exercise of
spiritual gifts. "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same
Spirit ... there are diversities of operations, but it is the same
God _which worketh all in all_. But the manifestation of the Spirit is
given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit
the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same
Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of
healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to
another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers
kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues; but all
these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man
severally as he will" (1 Cor. 12: 4-11).
[Sidenote: Basis of ministerial authority]
The foregoing scripture is a mere enumeration of the gifts that God
implanted in the church as a body. The more particular application of
these gifts and their relation to church organization and government
are given further on in the same chapter. "Now ye are the body of
Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the
church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after
that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities
of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are
all workers of miracles? have all the gifts of healing? do all speak
with tongues? do all interpret? _But covet earnestly the best gifts_"
(verses 27-31).
Comparison of verses 4 to 11 with verses 27 to 31 of the chapter just
quoted shows conclusively that one is the counterpart of the other,
the latter merely amplifying and explaining the former. From this
clear teaching it is evident that the work of apostleship, of
teaching, of governing, etc., were all based upon and grew out of
divine gifts implanted in the heart by the Holy Spirit.
The same truth is taught by Paul in another place. Speaking of Christ,
the apostle says, "When he ascended up on high, he ... _gave gifts
unto men_ ... and he gave some, _apostles_; and some, _prophets_;
and some, _evangelists_; and some, _pastors_ and _teachers_; for
the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
edifying of the body of Christ" (Eph. 4: 8-12).
According to these scriptures, the very governmental positions of the
church with their authority and responsibility were the product of
those gifts and qualifications bestowed upon certain individuals in
particular. Such gifts could be legitimately coveted with a view to
spiritual edification of the body (1 Cor. 12:31; 14:12). "If a man
desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work" (1 Tim. 3:1).
"Helps" doubtless included that class of assistants commonly called
deacons (1 Tim. 3:8-11).
Since in the primitive church organization and government were
determined by the divine gifts and callings possessed by individuals,
it is evident that we have in this something totally different
from that later conception of church government as a mere human
arrangement. At a subsequent time, as we shall show, church government
was patterned after the forms of political government in that it was
vested inherently in men. Four such forms have been developed--the
imperial, or papal; the episcopal; the presbyterial; and the
congregational. While these four differ in external form, they are all
alike in fundamental character, in that they assume that the governing
power rests inherently in _men_.
None of these forms of government represent the New Testament church.
The organization and government of that church was based upon the
_charisma_, or divine gifts and callings, of individuals composing the
church. The power and authority of an apostle or of an evangelist, for
example, did not rest upon any selection or appointment made by
men. The church did not act in a corporate capacity and confer
ecclesiastical power and authority upon any one. All such power and
authority came direct from God through the Holy Spirit, and it was
in God's name and by his authority alone that they acted. The
organization of the church was therefore charismatic. If, for example,
the gifts of an apostle were conferred by the Holy Spirit upon an
individual, he possessed apostolic responsibility and authority. The
brethren recognized such gifts when these were evident, and submitted
themselves voluntarily to such spiritual leadership and oversight; for
at this period there had not been developed that ecclesiastical system
by which human election and appointment gave positions and authority
to men. In fact, we shall clearly show later that the true church can
not be _legally_ organized. Every attempt of men to assume the reins
of authority and give governmental form and administrative direction
to the church has been denominational and sectarian.
[Sidenote: Ordination]
The true church was the whole family of God directed by his
Holy Spirit. Ministerial appointment, with its authority and
responsibility, was therefore divine. We have seen that through the
spiritual operation called the new birth, one became a member of
Christ, and hence by divine right belonged to whichever congregation
of the church he might be able to associate with; but that in
practical experience, such local membership involved recognition on
the part of the other members. So it was with the divine appointment
to the ministry. The only other essential to its practical operation
was simply recognition of that call. Such recognition, in the last
analysis, belonged to the whole church (1 Tim. 3: 2-7; Tit. 1:
6-9), but was given formally by the laying on of the hands of the
presbytery.
[Sidenote: Plurality of local elders]
The development of ministers in an apostolic church was a divine,
natural process, the inevitable result of the emphasis placed on the
gifts and callings of the Spirit. This free exercise of the Spirit's
gifts working in the members doubtless accounts for the plurality of
ruling elders found in those local churches. See Acts 14:23; 20:17;
Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 5:16, 17; Tit. 1:5. It could not be otherwise as
long as the churches were Spirit-filled, working congregations and
the Spirit of God had his way. The system that limited local church
government to a one-man rule originated in the apostasy, after the
gifts of the Spirit had died out. It is simply one part of that great
system of human organization that developed the full-grown papacy. Of
this we shall learn more hereafter.
The same principles that developed local ministers produced also
ministers of the general class. While some naturally became "pastors,"
"teachers," and "helpers" in the local church, particular gifts and
qualifications fitted others for "apostles" and "evangelists," whose
particular sphere was general oversight and work in the churches. The
prophet was not limited to either class.
[Sidenote: Apostolic oversight]
As it is not germane to my present purpose, I shall not here attempt
to define the various phases of ministerial work designated by various
terms but all included under the one generic term "elder." The work
described by the term "apostle," however, requires brief notice, on
account of its bearing on the subject of church government. The fact
that Paul had particular "care of all the churches" (2 Cor. 11:28)
and that he gave special instructions to Timothy and Titus, other
ministers (1 Tim. 5: 21; Tit. 1:5), forms the basis for the episcopacy
argument--church rule by a superior order of clergy called bishops.
"Apostle" literally signifies "a planter." The term belongs
specifically to the first founders of the Christian faith, but is
loosely applied in a more general sense to any minister who plants
Christianity in a new territory. It is clear that the first apostles
were especially inspired for a particular work in laying the
foundations of the Christian church and in writing the New Testament
Scriptures. Hence the apostolic office in this special sense passed
away with them. But there was, nevertheless, an apostolic work such
as planting and overseeing the infant work in a new field, and in this
sense Barnabas also was an apostle (Acts 13:46 with 14:4).
That the word "apostle" really signified a planter and was therefore
descriptive of the kind of work done is shown by the words of Paul
himself: "For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship
of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles"
(Gal. 2:8). And again, he says to the Corinthians, "If I be not an
apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am _to you_; for _the seal of
mine apostleship are ye in the Lord_" (1 Cor. 9:2). In another place
he says to the same church, "Though ye have ten thousand instructors
in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have
begotten you through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15).
The special, personal relation that the apostle, or planter, sustained
to the work which he had founded and over which he exercised general
jurisdiction, was but temporary, a sort of fatherly care. He was
obliged to oversee the work as a whole, including young ministers,
until it became thoroughly established. After others were able for the
work and the apostle's special oversight was withdrawn, there might be
ten thousand other instructors, but _no more fathers_. This disproves
entirely the episcopal idea as an essential feature of church
government. The apostle Peter even classes himself simply as an elder
in common with other elders (1 Pet. 5:1). But with the exception of
the original apostles, who were specially commissioned to reveal the
doctrine and message of the gospel and to establish the Christian
faith, the difference existing between elders in the primitive
church was not a difference in kind, but in degree only, varying in
accordance with their ability to put forth some portion of that moral
and spiritual power by which alone Christ governs his church.
PART II
The Church in History
CHAPTER V
CORRUPTION OF EVANGELICAL FAITH
It is not my purpose to write an ecclesiastical history, but in order
to make clear the work of final reformation, it will be necessary to
present at least a brief sketch of historic Christianity, outlining
particularly those leading features which show a radical departure
from the true church as originally constituted by our Lord and his
apostles.
[Sidenote: "The faith"]
In the days of primitive Christianity there was something called "the
gospel," "the truth," "the form of sound words," "_the faith."_ To
understand its fundamental nature is not difficult, for it has been
preserved and handed down to us in the writings of the New Testament.
According to this record, the gospel message, or "the faith," centered
in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, who died and rose again that
he might be a "Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel,
and forgiveness of sins" (Acts 5:31). "And that repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47). Around this central fact of
salvation from sin through faith in Christ clustered those other
truths and facts which either necessarily resulted from the new
relationship of redeemed humanity with God or were essential to its
visible manifestation and propagation. Prominent among these features
were the entire sanctification of believers, holy life and conduct,
the baptism, gifts, and leadership of the Holy Spirit, and the visible
unity and relationship of believers in one body, the church.
[Sidenote: An apostasy foretold]
I need not take time or space to describe the wonderful successes of
Christianity as long as the primitive purity and power of the
gospel message was sustained and its results realized in a living,
Spirit-filled church. But facts compel me to record a change from that
happy condition. This transition was foreseen by those who "spake as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Paul declared: "Some shall depart
from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of
devils" (1 Tim. 4:1); "Also of your own selves shall men arise,
speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts
20:30). Peter predicted, "There shall be false teachers among you, who
privily shall bring in damnable heresies" (2 Pet. 2:1). Jesus himself
declared, "Many false prophets shall arise, and shall deceive many.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold"
(Matt. 24:11, 12).
Paul gives a more particular description of the coming apostasy in
the second chapter of Second Thessalonians. Asserting that the second
coming of Christ was not at that time imminent, he says: "Let no man
deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there
come a _falling away_ first, and that man of sin be revealed, the
son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that
is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the
temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (verses 3, 4).
The development of the "man of sin," which was occasioned by the
"falling away," was to be gradual, but should finally assume great
proportions, "so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God showing
himself that _he_ is God." The apostle further states: "For the
mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will
let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked be
revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth,
and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming" (verses 7, 8). We
should not seek for the fulfilment of this prediction in those minor
sects and heresies which at an early date arose and soon passed away:
the description refers to some great power occupying the greatest
prominence, making the most pretentious claims, a power that is to
endure until the second advent of Christ. We must, therefore, look
for its fulfilment in what we may term the main line of historic
Christianity.
[Sidenote: First evidences of decline]
The "falling away" from the simple truths and standards of the gospel
began at a very early date. The mystery of iniquity was already
working in the apostles' day. Before the close of the first century
we find in the churches of Asia Minor a sad deflection from their
primitive condition. The church at Ephesus had left its first love
(Rev. 2:4); the church at Pergamos was tolerating false teachers and
being ruined by false doctrines (2:14, 15); Thyatira had lost the
spirit of holy judgment against wrong-doing and was therefore affected
by a shocking degree of immorality (2: 20-23); the message to Sardis
was, "Thou hast a name that thou livest, _and art dead_ (3:1);
Laodicea had become so lukewarm that the Lord said, "I will spew thee
out of my mouth" (3:15, 16).
[Sidenote: The apostolic fathers]
The transition from the apostles to the age of the early church
fathers is involved in considerable darkness. Not until the middle of
the second century, when Justin Martyr appears on the scene, does the
church emerge from its obscurity into the clear light of history. The
apostolic fathers--Clement of Rome, Ignatius, the Pastor of Hermas,
Papias, and the unknown author of the Epistle to Diognetus--all these
lived and wrote during that transitional period, and they could have
told us much, but they have told us little. We can not but admire the
beautiful spirit in which they wrote, and their style is earnest and
vital. Nevertheless, we discern in these works two leading tendencies
which stand, so to speak, as prophecies of what was to predominate in
the ecclesiastical thought of succeeding centuries.
In the mind of the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, the grand
central thought is the incarnation and the spiritual presence of
Christ in redeemed humanity, by which they are led to the "free
imitation of God," as a result of which they become to the world
what the soul is to the body--its life and the means of holding it
together. This teaching is an epitome of the Greek theology developed
later by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Athanasius. But in Papias,
who attaches much importance to oral traditions that "came from the
living and abiding voice"; in Ignatius, who exalts the bishop
above other presbyters; and in Clement, who, writing as a Roman,
is concerned with matters of administration and subordination to
authority--in these we discern the beginnings of the Latin theology
developed later by Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Augustine,
which produced the papacy, and which, as we shall show, has in a great
measure dominated the ecclesiastical thought of the world until the
present day.
[Sidenote: The Ante-Nicene age]
After emerging into the clear field of historic Christianity in the
time of Justin Martyr, we find everywhere evidences of a rapidly
developing apostasy. In one respect we approach an examination of the
Ante-Nicene church with feelings of admiration. This was a heroic age,
an age of Christian martyrs. The struggles of Christianity against the
powers of heathenism enthroned in the Roman Empire and throughout
the world form a bright chapter in the annals of historic deeds and
supreme loyalty to lofty ideals. When we view the subject from
this angle, it would almost seem to be an act of irreverence or of
sacrilege to call in question the doctrines and practises of that
period when the church was baptized by fire and waded through rivers
of blood. Reverence for the martyrs and for their noble efforts to
extend the cause of Christ is praiseworthy, but in justice to truth,
we must remember that even the martyrs were not inspired teachers
commissioned to build a model for all succeeding ages. That they
were heroic does not prove them infallible. We should never hesitate,
therefore, to compare their teaching with the pure doctrines of the
Word of God, and wherein there is any lack of harmony, we should be
guided by the truth as it is in Jesus.
However much we may admire the early church fathers, we can not help
noticing the sharp contrast between them and the first apostles;
between their writings and the sublime, inspired teaching of the
divine Word. If, after reading Paul, Peter, or John, we turn to
Tertullian, Irenaeus, or Cyprian, we instinctively realize that
we have, so to speak, been transferred from sunny Italy to frigid
Siberia. We are conscious of a change to another era, and to another
country. Notwithstanding the fact that we find numerous familiar
objects, we know that we are moving in another atmosphere amid foreign
surroundings.
[Sidenote: Growth of ritualism]
The church of the Middle Ages was the natural fruitage of the seeds
planted during the second and third centuries. There we began to
notice particularly foreign elements which stand out in bold
contrast to the simple forms of primitive Christianity. One of these
innovations was the development of the ritualistic spirit, according
to which undue importance was attached to particular forms of worship,
such as time, place, positions of the body, and ceremonial observances
in general. Take baptism for an example. Apart from erroneous notions
concerning the efficacy of baptism, which will be referred to under
another head, the writings of the church fathers abound with the
most minute and puerile details concerning how the act is to be
performed--details of catechism, of consecration of waters, of
dressing and undressing, exorcism, anointing from head to foot with
oil, the laying on of hands, etc., all of which were to be carried out
in the most exacting and solemn manner.
[Sidenote: Example from Tertullian]
As an example of the ritualistic character of Christian worship at the
beginning of the third century, I will cite a passage from Tertullian.
In the third chapter of his work De Corona, this celebrated Latin
father undertakes to defend customs and practises that he confesses
were received "on the ground of tradition alone." He says: "I shall
begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little
before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the
president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp,
and his angels. Whereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat
ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel.[A] Then
when we are taken up (as new-born children) we taste, first of all, a
mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we abstain from the daily
bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak,
and from the hand of none but the president, the sacrament of the
Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be done at mealtimes and
enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes
round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honors. We count
shouting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful. We
rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel
pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the
ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out,
when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at
table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary
actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign of the
cross."
In words immediately following, at the beginning of Chapter 4,
Tertullian says: "If for these and other such rules you insist upon
having positive Scriptural injunction, you will find none. Tradition
will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their
strengthener, and faith as their observer."
According to this confession, all the ceremonial observances here
set forth are without Scriptural authority. When we read in the
New Testament concerning the simple act of baptizing believers, and
compare it with the customs and practises that had grown up in the
Ante-Nicene church, we do not wonder that evangelical faith was soon
afterwards almost entirely lost in ritualistic forms; that, like the
Pharisees of old, men made the faith of God of none effect by their
traditions.
[Sidenote: False doctrines and heresies]
Another evidence of the decline of evangelical faith is found in
the presence of many false doctrines among the leaders of so-called
orthodox Christianity in that period of which I now write. Paul not
only taught that at a later time some should "depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits and devils" (1 Tim. 4:1), but he
referred to some who had already "erred concerning the faith" (1 Tim.
6:21), and named two persons, 'who, concerning the truth, had erred,
saying that the resurrection was past already, and overthrew the faith
of some' (2 Tim. 2:18). After the death of the apostles, error made
deeper inroads, and its baneful influence cast a shadow over the
church, which rapidly deepened into the darkness of spiritual night.
[Sidenote: Baptismal regeneration]
One of the earliest corruptions of apostolic truth concerned the
design and purpose of baptism. It was not long until unscriptural
significance was attached to the literal rite itself, so that what was
originally a mere sign, was substituted for the thing signified, and
thus baptism took the place of spiritual regeneration. In several
places in the writings of Justin Martyr, who lived about the middle of
the second century, his language seems to attach undue importance to
the literal rite; but other passages from the same author indicate
that he had not as yet entirely lost sight of the apostolic standard.
In his Dialog with Trypho, chapter 14, he says: "We have believed and
testify that that very baptism which he [Isaiah] announced is alone
able to purify those who have repented ... and what is the use of that
baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? Baptize the soul from
wrath and covetousness, from envy and from hatred, and lo, the body is
pure."
In his First Apology, chapter 61, the same writer draws a clear
Biblical distinction between spiritual regeneration secured through
repentance and faith, and ritual regeneration in baptism as a mere
outward sign of the inward work. He says: "I will also relate the
manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made
new through Christ ... as many as are persuaded and believe that
what we teach and say is truth, and undertake to be able to live
accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting
for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting
with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are
regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the Universe, and of
our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the
washing with water."
Other writers of the period under consideration, however, praise the
saving efficacy of baptism in the most exalted terms. According to
their minds, it is the actual means of the redemption of sins, not
a mere literal rite expressing ceremonially the work of God's Spirit
within the heart; it is an illumination; it extinguishes the fire
of sin; it removes the unclean spirits from men and seals them for
heaven. Tertullian wrote extensively on this subject. In his work
On Baptism, chapters 3 to 8, he maintains the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration "by which we are washed from the sins of our former
blindness and set free for eternal life." He declares that by this act
men are prepared to receive the Holy Ghost; that in the literal act,
"the spirit is corporeally washed in the waters, and the flesh is, in
the same, spiritually cleansed." Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (third
century), in his treatise concerning the Baptism of Heretics, teaches
the same doctrine in no uncertain terms.
[Sidenote: Other erroneous doctrines and practises]
The limits of this work preclude the historic treatment of the rise
and development of the host of false doctrines and practises that
finally bound the people in the thralldom of superstition and plunged
the world into the darkness of spiritual night. One who is free from
such influences can scarcely read without feelings of disgust the
elaborate treatises of these church fathers wherein they extol the
virtues of virginity as forming a new order of life, as an evidence of
divinity, as making virgins while in this world "equal to the angels
of God," and as a certain surety of special rewards in heaven. From
this false standard proceeded at length the celibacy of the clergy and
monkery with all their attendant evils. And the time would fail me to
tell of the introduction of images and image-worship in the Western
Church and of that superstitious regard for miserable relics of every
description and kind. True evangelical faith was at length lost to
view, buried beneath the rubbish of men's traditions. The treatment
of such matters, however, belongs to the church historian, and as the
general facts are well-known, it is unnecessary here to make more than
a brief reference to them so as to prepare the mind for that treatment
of the reformation which is a special object of the present work.
[Footnote A: Tertullian is the earliest writer that clearly and
unmistakably teaches trine immersion, or records its practise. But
here he honestly confesses that it is a "somewhat ampler pledge than
the Lord has appointed in the gospel."]
CHAPTER VI
RISE OF ECCLESIASTICISM
[Sidenote: Two phases of apostacy]
In order to understand the place which the work of reformation has in
the plan and purpose of God respecting his church, we must carefully
observe the twofold character of the apostasy. Both these phases
are clearly outlined in that remarkable prediction of Paul to which
reference has already been made, recorded in the second chapter
of Second Thessalonians. The first phase, described as "_a falling
away_," was that decline from true Christianity which we have
considered in the preceding chapter as the Corruption of Evangelical
Faith. The second phase was the rise and development of a foreign
element which was from its beginning "the mystery of iniquity" and
which in certain respects usurped the true place of Jehovah himself
in spiritual worship in the temple of God. This phase now demands our
special attention.
Since the sixteenth century reformation a large part of the Christian
world has renounced the right of the pope to sit as the supreme
earthly head of the church, but we shall show later that these same
modern Christians who have sought the restoration of the evangelical
_faith_ have not discarded the essential elements of the papal
hierarchical system, but have perpetuated them in their own
ecclesiastical constitutions, and that this relic of medievalism is
the chief barrier to a reunited Christendom and the restoration of
pure apostolic Christianity. It is highly essential, therefore, that
this phase of the apostasy be carefully considered. It is not enough
to reject the pope and his college of cardinals. If that tree, as
judged by its fruits, is an "evil" tree, we should seek to know where,
when, and by whom the evil seed from which it grew was first planted,
and then _reject it from the roots up_. Then, and not until then, can
the work of reformation be made complete. We have, therefore, to trace
the rise and development of what may be forcibly expressed by the
apparently pleonastic phrase _human ecclesiasticism_.
[Sidenote: Divine authority vs. positional authority]
We have already seen that in the church, as originally constituted,
organization, authority, and government proceeded from the divine and
not from the human. The agents whom Christ used in performing his
work and in overseeing his church were called and endowed by the
Holy Spirit, and this divine endowment was the real basis of their
authority and responsibility. Paul's authority and responsibility as
an apostle, for example, was not positional authority, or authority
proceeding from a certain position to which he had been appointed or
elected. His authority was divine, and out of that divine authority
grew his positional responsibility as the "apostle of the Gentiles."
Over and over he affirmed that he was an apostle, "not of men, neither
by man, but by Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:1). On the same principle the
position, work, and responsibility of all the members of the body of
Christ grew out of the gifts and qualifications possessed by them, and
thus the church was divinely organized and divinely governed.
[Sidenote: Original bond of union]
The bonds which united primitive Christians in one body were
essentially moral and spiritual. Christ was their ever-living and
ever-acting head. Their life proceeded from him, and they were all
one in him. While those living in widely separated districts
consulted together concerning matters of general concern, or united
in cooperative efforts to accomplish common tasks, there is not the
slightest evidence that there was an external human organization
of the primitive church--either sectionally, nationally, or
universally--centralized under a human headship of the administrative,
legislative, and judicial kind. Christ was the head of the general
church, the head of all the local churches, the head of all the
individual members of the church. In him, the source of their common
life, the primitive Christians were essentially one, and by his Spirit
he operated in all hearts, in all the individual churches, and in all
the ministers whose particular gifts and qualifications fitted them
for divinely appointed oversight, both local and general. By this
means the primitive church was able to perform the work of Christ
harmoniously and present to the world the grand spectacle of one body.
[Sidenote: First steps to ecclesiasticism]
Jesus taught the humble equality of the New Testament ministry. "All
ye are brethren" (Matt. 23:8). According to the New Testament they
were all of one general order or rank, although greatly diversified
in gifts and qualifications and the kind of work accomplished by each.
The first example we have in Scripture of _positional authority_ in
the ministry as distinguished from the authority of the Holy Spirit,
is the case of Diotrephes, of whom the apostle John wrote in his
third epistle. We are also informed as to the nature of the authority
exercised by him and the direction in which it led. It was _human
authority_, something additional and foreign to the authority and
government through the Holy Spirit, and the first example of church
government by a single man. It proceeded from the evil root of pride
and ambition, the love of "preeminence" among the brethren; and
this usurped power and authority led to a judicial process by which
innocent brethren were 'cast out of the church.'
What a contrast this presents to that New Testament picture of the
divine ecclesia, exhibiting the highest form of human society known
to history, a body in which every member had his gift and use for it.
Among these many activities, oversight and preaching had their place,
but did not constitute the whole sum of Christian service. Paul
describes Christ as the living head "from whom the whole body fitly
joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,
according to the _effectual working in the measure of every part_,
maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love" (Eph.
4:16). The object of the ministerial function was "the perfecting of
the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the
body of Christ" (verse 12, R.V.).
In his early epistle to the Philippians, Paul makes reference to
the officers that guided that church. He sends greetings "to all the
saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and
deacons" (Phil. 1:1). Polycarp, writing to the same church in the
next century, addresses the "presbyters and deacons," showing that the
apostolic order was still preserved there.
[Sidenote: Bishops vs. Presbyters]
In the Ignatian epistles, however, written early in the second
century, there appears positional authority of a new order. In place
of the New Testament standard of a plurality of elders, or bishops,
jointly teaching and guiding the local church, we find recognition of
an office which was superior to that of the presbyters and to whose
incumbents alone the term "bishop" was applied. A few extracts from
his writings will make clear this recognition of a threefold order of
the ministry--bishops, elders, and deacons. "Wherefore, it is fitting
that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your
bishop, which thing also ye do. For your justly renowned presbytery,
worthy of God, is fitted exactly to the bishop as the strings are to
the harp" (To the Ephesians, chap. 4). "He is subject to the bishop
as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the will of Jesus
Christ" (To the Magnesians, chap. 2). And again, in the same epistle
he says, "I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine
harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your
presbytery in the place of the assembly of the apostles" (chap. 6).
"In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as the appointment of
Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the
Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of
the apostles. Apart from these there is no church" (To the Trallians,
chap. 3). To the Smyrnaeans he writes: "See that ye all follow
the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father.... Let no man do
anything connected with the church without the bishop" (chap. 8). "It
is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a
love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing
to God" (chap. 8). "It is well to reverence both God and the bishop.
He who honors the bishop has been honored of God; but he who does
anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve
the devil" (chap. 9).
That this early recognition of a superior order of ministers was a
distinct innovation is also shown from the literature of that period.
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dating from the first part of the second
century, elders and presbyters are distinctly named but no bishop
in contrast therewith. In the so-called "Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles," also dating from the first part of the second century,
bishops and deacons only are named as teachers and leaders of the
church, showing that the original signification of the term "bishop"
is here retained. Clement of Rome, in his first epistle to the
Corinthians, speaks of the ministry as an institution of the apostles,
but he mentions, nevertheless, only a twofold order--elders and
deacons, presbyters and deacons, or bishops and deacons. The same
classification is made in the second epistle of Clement to the
Corinthians, a work which is generally ascribed to another author; so
also in the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.
[Sidenote: Innovation becomes general]
The superior office of _the_ bishop as distinguished from the local
presbytery was, therefore, an innovation, but in process of time its
recognition became general. It is probable that in the local
presbytery of the primitive church some one minister excelled in
special gifts and qualifications and consequently became a natural
leader of his brethren. _Such_ leadership was of God, comes general
because it was based on the authority proceeding from the Spirit of
God. Such was the leadership which Paul held in a sphere of activity
wider than a local congregation. But such was not positional authority
or authority proceeding from a humanly created superior office and
appointment thereto. It was of divine order. But this fact of
distinguished leadership at first, doubtless furnished an excuse for
the creation of a distinct office with carefully defined functions and
limits of authority. The power of the bishop thus constituted advanced
steadily. The churches of the cities where they were located extended
their influences over smaller towns in the surrounding territory, and
thus the city bishop came to rule over the elders of the lesser
churches of a district.
[Sidenote: Development of hierarchy]
When the first step toward ecclesiasticism was definitely taken,
by the recognition of official position authority, and government
proceeding from human appointment alone, the way was prepared for
rapid progress toward a highly organized system of man-rule. When the
bishops met in provincial councils, special deference was given those
bishops from cities of great political importance, and they were
exalted to the presidency of these councils, and this in time led to
the recognition of a new order of church officials--_metropolitans_.
Later the metropolitans seemed too numerous for general utility in
governmental functions; therefore general leadership gradually became
centralized more and more in the bishops or metropolitans of
certain of the most important cities, until they were finally given
recognition as an order superior to that of metropolitans and were
styled _patriarchs_. The first Council of Nice recognized this
superior authority possessed by the patriarchates of Alexandria, Rome,
and Antioch. The General Council of Constantinople placed the bishop
of Constantinople in the same rank with the other three patriarchs,
and the General Council of Chalcedon exalted the see of Jerusalem to
a similar dignity. The race for leadership between the patriarchates
then began. On account of the Moslem invasion in the seventh century,
Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch fell away from their former
positions of greatness; therefore the rivalry for leadership was
henceforth between the see of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople.
Rome possessed many natural advantages, and consequently the bishop
of Rome gained the greater prestige. The full-fledged papacy was the
result.
[Sidenote: Fundamental causes]
What produced that transition from the humble apostolic church of the
brethren to the medieval church of the impious Hildebrand, who caused
monarchs to tremble on their thrones? The change resulted from two
particular causes, and it is highly essential to our purpose that
we understand them. One was a misconception both of the Fundamental
constitution of the true church itself as designed by its Founder
and of Christ's perpetual relationship to it; and the second was
the imperialistic tendencies of that age to which the first error
naturally exposed the church.
It is unnecessary here to recite at length that conception of the
primitive church which we have described in preceding chapters as
the concrete expression of the kingdom of God. Such was the only true
_catholic_, or universal, church. Its catholicity, however, was a
moral and spiritual dominion exercised over men by the truth and
Spirit of God, and was rendered visible only in the society of
redeemed believers who held the truth and bore its appropriate fruits
of righteousness. Being composed of the redeemed, it lovingly embraced
within its membership the entire brotherhood of Christ.
[Sidenote: Two theories of catholicity]
It is not too much to say that in the age in which Christianity first
appeared it was difficult for men to appreciate the conception of a
purely moral and spiritual authority which was to be universal and
perpetual. Another idea of catholicity soon began to take possession
of men's minds--the idea of a temporal and earthly organization of the
kingdom of heaven. In this conception of the church the bond of union
was not moral and spiritual--not the inevitable result of divine life
and love in the individual members--but its pretended catholicity was
to be secured by official, administrative, legislative, and judicial
functions under a human headship and a self-perpetuating human
magistracy. Such was the "mystery of iniquity," and in its developed
form historically it was "the man of sin." The student of the New
Testament can easily see that the great Founder never intended that
the boundary of his church should be determined by the administrative
functions of a self-perpetuating clerical corporation. But, on
the other hand, the real church embraces the entire _spiritual
brotherhood,_ and out of this spiritual membership was developed by
the Spirit of God the capacity and authority to teach, guide, and
instruct. What a contrast these two conceptions present!
[Sidenote: The power of the keys]
Out of that worldly conception of the kingdom of God grew the Romish
figment of the "power of the keys." According to this idea, Christ
constituted his ministers a sort of clerical, close corporation
invested with direct authority over souls so that without their
priestly mediation the kingdom of heaven is forever shut against men.
The words "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19) are evidently
nothing more than a figurative expression indicating the moral
influence in the kingdom which Peter in particular should wield with
peculiar energy and efficiency. According to Matt. 18:18 all the
apostles and others were to exercise the same functions. In time, this
expression denoting moral influence and usefulness in the service of
Christ was tortured into an engine of despotism and made the means of
spiritual tyranny over the consciences of millions of men and women.
The corporation entrusted with such power durst not be resisted, and
the church was identical with the hierarchy.
But all of Rome's boasted catholicity, centralized in an official,
administrative corporation, is a chimera; for it is a fact that
multitudes are accepted of God as members of the divine family who are
not identified with the hierarchy. The real catholic church, embracing
the whole spiritual brotherhood, is therefore something else.
[Sidenote: Main source of ecclesiasticism]
But we have not yet reached in this discussion the tap-root of the
evil tree of human ecclesiasticism. The fundamental error underlying
all other errors on this subject, was the idea of an absent Christ.
Notwithstanding the definite assertions of our Lord, "I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world" and "Where two or three
are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of
them"--notwithstanding these reassuring promises and the definite
statements of the apostles which represent Christ as the ever-living
and ever-acting head of the church, soon after the apostolic period
men lost the consciousness of the divine presence and began to think
and to act as if Christ were indeed absent and would not return again
for thousands of years. The presence of gigantic evils in the world
with no apparent available means of redressing them, the dead weight
of heathenism, and the disturbing influences of speculative Oriental
philosophies impressed upon the conscience of the world a despairing
pessimism. In the midst of this trial there was a revival of the
Platonic philosophy. The treatise of Plato that made the most profound
impression upon the religious thought of the second century was the
"Timaeus," wherein the Deity is pictured as withdrawn from the world
into a distant heaven separated from all creation because of the evil
with which matter is essentially connected. With God withdrawn from
the world and Christ absent on a long journey, what was man to do?
What was the hope of the world?
Here ecclesiasticism found its real opportunity. Here human authority
and government could be and was substituted for that spiritual
dominion of Christ which gave life, form, and character to his church
in primitive days. Here grew up that conception of the church as
identical with the hierarchy whose power and authority was handed
down by direct descent from the apostles and without whose priestly
mediation there was no hope of salvation. Here was introduced the
idea of world-wide centralization of administrative, legislative,
and judicial functions in a self-perpetuating human headship. What a
contrast! With Christ absent, the church an ark for the saving of the
world, the truth a mere deposit made to the church for safe keeping to
be handed down like a heirloom from generation to generation, and with
a self-perpetuating priestly corporation as master of the destinies of
the universe, we are prepared to understand the tyrannical rule of the
church of Hildebrand and Innocent III. Traced to its source, this evil
system is found to have sprung from that worldly conception of the
kingdom of Christ which was substituted for the inconceivably grander
conception of its Founder--a kingdom whose dominion is moral and
spiritual under the personal supervision of Christ himself in all
ages, and which embraces in its membership the entire spiritual
brotherhood.
CHAPTER VII
THE REFORMATION
The age of popery's greatest glory was the world's midnight. I have
not attempted to give an adequate description of that long reign of
superstition and error preceding the reformation of the sixteenth
century. Such is the particular province of ecclesiastical historians.
I have simply confined the discussion to certain features essential to
our present purpose.
One point of importance I have endeavored to impress, namely, that
the papal hierarchy, with all its attendant evils, corruption,
superstition, and spiritual despotism, was the logical successor of
the Ante-Nicene church; that the ripened fruits of papalism were the
direct results of the seeds of error planted in the second and third
centuries. In view of this fact, one is led to inquire why true
Christianity was not permanently buried in oblivion beyond the
possibility of resurrection, how any reformation could be possible.
If Christianity were nothing more than a human religion, its
reformation at such a period of decline and corruption would appear
impossible. But Christianity was of divine origin. No matter how
deeply it was buried under the rubbish of human tradition and
superstition, no matter how grossly it was perverted and misunderstood
by men, it still retained within itself the vital spark of divine
life, the living principle of reformation.
[Sidenote: First cause of reformation]
The secret of this reformatory power was Jesus Christ himself, the
great ever-living head of the church. Notwithstanding the decline
of faith and morals among those professing Christ, the wonderful
character of Jesus still stood out with remarkable clearness and
power in the records of the New Testament and could not but exert a
tremendous influence in spite of prevailing standards; could not
but shed rays of light and warmth in the midst of the surrounding
darkness. Although men's ideas of the church became perverted, they
could not entirely lose sight of the great Founder of the church, and
they could not escape the conviction that the record of the founding
of that church was given in the writings of the New Testament and that
these writings were worthy of peculiar veneration. Perhaps this is
the main reason why the learning of antiquity was chiefly preserved in
monasteries and churches. There were ecclesiastics in all these
ages who were acquainted with the Scriptures in Latin, and this
acquaintance tended to preserve the knowledge of Jesus the Christ as
portrayed in the original gospel records. The history of that epoch
proves that there were men who loved the Lord more than priestly forms
and ceremonial observances. John Wyclif, Jerome of Prague, John Huss,
and others experienced that deeper longing for personal relationship
with Christ, and they proclaimed the gospel of Christ in a manner that
could not be understood by the hierarchy of their times.
[Sidenote: Classical learning]
Jesus was indeed the Christ of God. The light which shone forth from
his presence could not be totally obscured, and the moral power and
influence of his life and teaching could not be destroyed. The revival
of classical learning restored the Greek Testament to western Europe
and attracted the attention of students and learned men in all the
monasteries and universities. While the hierarchy insisted on the
exclusive right to interpret the Scriptures, the simple reading of
these wonderful records could not but create new conceptions of truth
which no clerical prohibition could banish. Life was springing up in
the midst of death.
[Sidenote: Love for truth]
The Reformation was the sincere effort of honest men to restore the
truth of primitive Christianity, that the world might again experience
the triumph of evangelical faith. To the everlasting credit of the
Continental reformers be it said that their motives were not selfish.
They sought not for themselves freedom of thought and speech nor
church power. Their immediate object was the restoration of the
gospel; all other results were but secondary. Nothing is more
certain than that at the first Luther had no idea of assailing the
organization of the papal church. Most of the reformers at the first
still believed most earnestly in the imperial government of the
universal church; and they relinquished this long-cherished ideal only
when driven by force of circumstances which were at first unseen and
unsuspected. Luther did not at first question the doctrine of the
supremacy of the pope; but when he found that the reigning pope could
not be reconciled with the principles of truth which he taught, Luther
proposed to appeal the matters in question to a general council,
notwithstanding the melancholy example, a century earlier, of the
Council of Constance and the fate of John Huss and Jerome of Prague.
[Sidenote: Indulgences]
The real occasion for the outbreak of the Reformation was the papal
traffic in indulgences. Leo X had great need of money for the building
of St. Peter's, and other undertakings, and in order to fill the
coffers of the church he had recourse to the sale of indulgences.
The power of dispensing these indulgences in Saxony in Germany was
committed to a Dominican friar named Tetzel, a fanatical enthusiast
who entertained the most extravagant notions concerning their efficacy
in forgiving not only the sins already committed but even those which
were contemplated. Luther's soul burned with righteous indignation. Of
what use was the doctrine that forgiveness of sin came by the death of
Christ on the cross if any sinner could obtain it from an emissary of
the pope for a pecuniary consideration. Luther felt that this infamous
traffic was making the Word of God of none effect. He therefore drew
up ninety-five theses against the doctrine of indulgences and nailed
them on the church-door at Wittenberg. The printing-press scattered
copies of these theses everywhere, and soon the continent of Europe
was in a blaze of controversy. Such, in short, was the beginning of
the Reformation and some of the causes leading thereto.
[Sidenote: Gospel standard sought]
The key-note of the reformers was, therefore, the gospel. The views
of the reformers with respect to truth were not altogether harmonious,
and it is evident that some of them had much clearer conception of the
gospel than had others. Nevertheless, their primary purpose was the
same. They were gradually forced to the conviction that Rome had
made the faith of God of none effect by her traditions, errors, and
superstitions, so much so as to make it practically unknown. It was
the purpose of these heroic preachers to bring out these long-obscured
truths and thus make them effectual in the saving of men. The main
doctrine around which the Reformation centered was justification by
faith independent of human mediation.
So far as the Reformation restored to the world right doctrine, it
tended to correct the evils of that phase of the apostasy which we
have characterized as the corruption of evangelical faith. But it did
not remove that other evil characteristic of the apostasy, the parent
of nearly all other evils--_human ecclesiasticism_. Viewed from one
angle, that power appears to have been modified; but from another
point of view, we can see that what was formerly an imperial system
of centralized ecclesiastical control simply ended now in nationally
centralized systems perpetuating the same principles. Thus, from the
centralized dominion of the papal hierarchy there sprang the national,
or state, churches in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, England, Sweden,
and Scotland.
[Sidenote: Lingering influence of Rome]
We have already shown that development of ecclesiasticism which
culminated in the papacy. From the primitive autonomy of the local
churches, there came the centralization and consolidation of churches
sectionally under a human headship with administrative functions, then
provincial or national centralization, then finally the primacy of
Rome over them all. The reason for this is evident. When the moral and
spiritual dominion of Christ's kingdom was lost to view or could not
be appreciated, the wrong conception of the church as a world-empire
naturally took possession of men's minds; for in that age vast,
centralized, imperial power was the ideal government. When, however,
the political empire fell, and men witnessed the ruin of their
political ideal, they sought to realize the same universal conception
in a world-church possessing imperial powers under the pope of Rome.
[Sidenote: National churches]
At the period of the Reformation the Christian world had been in the
grip of this world-church idea for more than a thousand years. As
already stated, the reformers, whose minds were directed chiefly
toward the restoration of evangelical doctrine, had at first no idea
of breaking away from this standard. Evidently they had no conception
of that moral and spiritual dominion of Christ by which alone he
governs his church--a 'kingdom that is not of this world.' They
therefore abandoned the world-church idea reluctantly, and not until
the opposition of the hierarchy drove them to separation. When the
issue was clearly drawn, they of course decided to obey God rather
than man. Having no idea of the real spiritual character of the divine
ecclesia, they had to content themselves with that _national_ church
unity which was still in their power.
The clergy, who had long been accustomed to the imperial tie, believed
that a national headship was now necessary. The governments of Europe
at that time were for the most part absolute monarchies, about the
only limits to the sovereign power of these kings being the control
which the pope exercised over the ecclesiastical affairs of the
nations. From this control the Reformation liberated them. Therefore
they eagerly took upon themselves the oversight of the national
churches, and thus came into existence the church-and-state system of
Protestant Europe. To a great extent the power that the imperial head
of the church lost was acquired by the national heads.
All this seemed perfectly consistent to the reformers. They felt the
necessity of lodging somewhere that power of human control which had
been formerly exercised by the pope. As one writer has said, "They
could not understand that Christianity could prosper without a
strongly organized and governed church or without the presence of a
strong and vigorous hand ready at all times to repress dissent
and enforce uniformity of faith and worship." The time of absolute
religious freedom was not yet.
[Sidenote: Ecclesiasticism perpetuated]
As might be expected, numerous modifications of the principles and
usages of the papal church occurred in the change from imperial
control to the state-church system. This diversity took place in the
different countries in accordance either with prevailing conditions
and sentiments or with the whims and caprices of the reigning
sovereigns. While some retained the episcopate, others greatly
modified it or rejected it altogether. In forms of worship, ritual,
and other things numerous changes were also made. But notwithstanding
the diversity in forms of worship and in church polity, in two
respects there was perfect agreement among all the Reformed
churches--two things brought over from the papacy--namely, first,
the idea of a self-perpetuating clerical caste possessing in their
corporate capacity legislative and judicial authority over the
church; and second, the centralization under a human headship of
administrative functions, instead of that local autonomy which
prevailed in the congregations of apostolic times. The doctrine of the
"power of the keys," a power wielded by a clerical corporation with
authority to prescribe the very manner and form of worshiping God and
to require men to comply therewith or else exclude them from gospel
privileges. That doctrine was accepted without question. It was the
same power in principle as that which was wielded so terribly by
Gregory VII in the papal church of the eleventh century.
CHAPTER VIII
MODERN SECTS
[Sidenote: A mental picture]
Picture a keen observer living in the middle of the first century
of our era. He travels about from place to place studying the
development, nature, and fruits of the recently established religious
phenomenon--Christianity. He observes the purity of its doctrines and
the high moral standard exemplified in the lives of its adherents, and
he inquires particularly concerning the secret of that mysterious bond
which unites in one body and in one fellowship, sympathy, and love the
entire society of believers in Jesus. He departs. After the lapse of
long ages he returns near the beginning of the twentieth century,
and lo, what is it that meets his astonished vision? The mournful
spectacle of a divided Christendom; of rival sects compassing land and
sea to make proselytes; of the spiritual alienation of those who, in
reality, belong to the one divine family; of waste and inefficiency
in methods of evangelical effort; not to mention the error, pride, and
worldliness inherent in the gigantic ecclesiastical systems known as
denominational churches. What a change!
It is useless to minimize the evils inherent in the sect system.
Intelligent men the world over need not the services of an
eye-specialist to see clearly that there is something wrong with
modern Christendom; that the sect system does not represent the
standard of primitive Christianity, but that in reality the sect
principle misrepresents the apostolic ideal as portrayed in the New
Testament. We may as well face the facts honestly and seek for
a remedy for this disease that has so long marred the beauty and
corrupted the nature of the true Christian system.
[Sidenote: Inherent evils]
I cheerfully admit that God has worked among his people in all ages
in accordance with the degree of light and truth which they possessed.
But I can not forget that the greatest revivals of evangelical
religion have either taken place in spite of the sect system or
among those who had just made their escape from the bondage of
ecclesiastical despotism and had not as yet become very deeply
affected by the sectarian principle. To what source, then, are we to
trace sects? What is their cause?
[Sidenote: Alleged causes of sect-making]
A large proportion of the Christian world would reply without
hesitation that the existence of the modern sects is due to these
two things: the principle of religious liberty and the limitations
of human knowledge. Such an answer reveals a superficial view of
the whole subject. Religious liberty among Christians existed in the
primitive church before the rise of ecclesiastical tyranny over the
conscience, and the masses of men in those days were at least as
limited in knowledge as are we. Still, the church was one; it was not
divided into rival and hostile sects. There was no need in those days
of constructing churches to conform to the limited capacity of men's
minds; for there was already in existence a church sufficiently
_catholic_ in its nature and spirit to accommodate all classes of
minds, because there was in operation the power of the Spirit of
God which revealed truth to men and thus enlightened their minds and
brought them into harmony with the divine standard. Concerning the
principle of religious liberty, I shall have more to say hereafter.
[Sidenote: Human limitations]
The natural limitations of human knowledge may account for difference
of opinion, but more than this is required to account for the entire
system of organized sects such as we see it today. Millions of
evangelical Christians possessing spiritual affinity and holding
opinions no more divergent than often exist between members of the
same sect, are, nevertheless, divided into independent, rival parties.
Something else originated and now perpetuates that barrier between
them.
When differences are fundamental and therefore unavoidable, they will
become more pronounced under test than at any other time. If, during
an epidemic, a physician believes that the method of treatment
employed by another doctor is actually killing the patients, his
opposition to such a method will then he stronger than at any other
time. As long as that method is simply a theory, it is harmless. Only
when put into practise does it become dangerous.
It is a matter of common knowledge that evangelical Christians are
not driven further apart but are really driven together whenever
Christianity itself is placed under any special trial, as, for
example, in foreign missionary work in heathen lands. And even in our
own country, whenever a great local interest is taken in the work
of soul-saving there is a corresponding tendency for Christians
of different sects to ignore their differences of opinion and get
together as if they believed in a common Lord over all and were all
members of the same family. Thus, whenever the high tide of evangelism
comes in, the landmarks of sects are scarcely visible; but whenever
the tide goes out, behold, _the ancient boundaries of sects appear as
before_. This fact proves that there are no fundamental reasons why
sects should exist. It proves that in reality sects are a barrier
to the true work of Christ; hence are, in their essential nature,
antichristian. What, then, is the real cause of sects'?
Traced to the original source, modern sects, we find, originated where
the papacy originated--in the corruption of Christianity in the early
centuries. All came from the same roots of error.
[Sidenote: True causes of sects]
However modified and diversified in external form and in doctrinal
teaching they may now be, they exhibit in their ecclesiastical
constitutions a foreign character derived from the foreign stock from
which they sprang. Into this system there have been engrafted many
noble scions of truth from the "good olive-tree," and these have
produced commendable fruits of righteousness. But we are here
concerned with pointing out those fundamental characteristics of the
system that are foreign to the true church of Jesus Christ.
[Sidenote: Erroneous ideas of the church]
The first cause to which I call attention is an erroneous conception
of the church itself. At the cost of some repetition I must point
out that in the beginning the church was the universal company of the
redeemed, the whole _spiritual brotherhood_, whether isolated members
of Christ or those worshiping in local assemblies distributed over the
earth. The tie which united these members of Christ in one body
was their common faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and the life of the
Spirit. But as in those times vast centralized imperial power was
a divinity that every one worshiped, it was impossible properly to
appreciate _the moral and spiritual dominion_ of Christ by which
alone he designed to rule his church; therefore men soon proceeded to
pattern the church of Christ after the political government, first
by grouping together under one administrative human headship the
congregations of a province or section of the empire, and then finally
uniting these different provinces under one administrative headship
at Rome. From that day until the present time the church-idea that has
generally prevailed in Christendom has been an organization fashioned
according to the kingdoms of this world; a human organization in which
the administrative functions of government are centralized under some
form of human headship; a unity that is not moral and spiritual, but
official and administrative, as well as legislative and judicial.
[Sidenote: Wrong standard of church-membership]
Coincident with the creation of foreign ideals concerning church
societies was the formation of of a foreign idea of church-membership
and church-relationship. In the beginning, as we have shown, the
church was simply the divine family. Therefore salvation through
Christ was its sole condition of membership. "And the Lord added to
them day by day those that were being saved" (Acts 2:47, R.V.). And as
the local congregation was but the concrete expression of the ideals
of the general body or church, that membership in Christ which made
men members of the general body, made them, by a moral and spiritual
law, members of all the other members of Christ, and therefore fixed
their local relationship: they belonged by divine right with whichever
company of believers they happened to be associated. Nothing more than
simple recognition of what God had done for them and the according
to them of the local rights and privileges that naturally belonged
to them was necessary on the part of a local congregation to make the
actual union complete.
The wrong conception of the constitution of the church necessarily
required another standard of church-membership. When _church_ came
to signify merely a group of congregations consolidated under a
centralized human headship possessing administrative, legislative, and
judicial functions (so organized as to distinguish it from all other
organized groups or congregations), simple membership in Christ was
insufficient to mark the convert with the stamp of denominational
individuality. Salvation itself made no one a member of a church
fashioned according to the kingdoms of this world. Consequently
another standard of membership was necessary, a standard which
required acceptance of and conformity to the self-made rules and
regulations of that foreign society called a church. And when these
earth-born institutions became identified in the public mind with
the real church of Christ and membership in them became confused with
membership in the true church of God, the natural result was that
millions complied, in a formal manner at least, with the conditions of
the counterfeit church membership who never knew what it meant to be
vitally joined to Christ. In this we see the "evil" fruit which grew
on that tree of error. The multitudes that have been by this means
deceived with the thought that they were Christians, only to be lost
at last, will not be known until that awful day of final reckoning.
[Sidenote: Divisive nature of the creeds]
The formation of creeds tends to create division and to perpetuate
division. C├Žsar's maxim illustrates their history: "Soldiers will
raise money, and money will make soldiers." So creeds will make sects,
and sects will make creeds. "A creed or confession of faith is an
ecclesiastical document--the mind and will of some synod or council
possessing authority--as a term of communion by which persons and
opinions are to be tested, approbated or reprobated." The sect
churches are built on their creeds, although, of course, they affirm
that their creeds are built on the Bible. In this case, however, it is
usually apparent to the careful observer that the Bible is that part
of the foundation which is buried out of sight below the ground. The
creed is the real test applied to persons, the measure by which their
opinions are judged. It is the creed upon which the sect is built that
gives the denominational character and distinctiveness.
It is a fact of history that the primary purpose of the historical
creeds was not to unite men but to separate them. The Nicene Creed was
made to exclude the Arians. The Decrees of the Council of Trent were
framed to exclude Protestants; the Westminster Confession, to exclude
Arminians; and the Episcopal Articles, to exclude Catholics and
Independents. To rally around a creed framed by human authority and
make it the basis of union is but to teach a system--a sect system;
but to rally around the person of Jesus Christ and make him the
supreme object of our faith, hope, and love is to contend for what
the Bible terms the faith, the truth, the gospel. This is infinitely
better than any document proceeding from Nicea, Trent, Dort, Augsburg,
or Westminster.
[Sidenote: Power of the keys]
Another cause, both for the origin of the sect system and its
perpetuation, is the assumed "power of the keys" which has been
carried over from the Church of Rome. The idea that the administrative
rule and government of the church of Christ has been, by divine
decree, centralized in a self-perpetuating clerical caste with
authority to legislate for the church and then to enforce its
decisions by judicial procedure, is foreign to the primitive church as
recorded in the New Testament. It is a product of Papalism, and yet
it has been, in its essential characteristics, transferred directly to
the sects of Protestantism. The New Testament recognizes no such human
positional authority. It recognizes only that divine authority which
operates through God's chosen ministers and helpers by virtue of
the Spirit-bestowed gifts and qualifications. The only governmental
authority exercised by the New Testament ministers was in cooperation
with Christ, the visible head, by putting forth, in accordance with
the Spirit's gifts and qualifications, some portion of that moral
power by which alone Christ governs.
The idea that to a clerical order has been committed the exclusive
guardianship of the church, with full power to admit to or exclude
from the worship and service of God all except those who come by
way of their priestly mediation, is the basest assumption. It is a
violation of the rights of individual conscience. Yet just such
power has been and still is being exerted as a means of enforcing
acquiescence in matters of opinion and submission to customs and
practises which every unprejudiced man knows, or can soon see, is no
part of the New Testament teaching and requirements. What a weapon
has this ecclesiastical assumption been! One always ready for use. It
makes no difference whether it is wielded by a Methodist conference,
an Episcopal judicatory, a Presbyterian synod, or a Catholic pope, it
is all the same in principle--"the power of the keys."
[Sidenote: Lack of religious freedom]
This assumed corporate power of the clergy has been one of the
fundamental causes of sect-making. When a general clerical body
assumes the right in its corporate capacity to prescribe rules of
either faith or practise, written or unwritten, and then to enforce
them by judicial action, it is a direct violation of the New Testament
standard, and of the rights of individual consciences. It was because
of this lordly, unscriptural rule that many sincere men of God have
been forced to sever their connection with the older sects in order
to find a place where a greater degree of light and truth could be
experienced and proclaimed. In such cases it was not religious liberty
that caused the formation of new movements and new sects, but _the
lack of religious liberty_.
That "power of the keys," making and then enforcing the standards of
creeds, has done violence to the conscience of both the clergy and
the laity. Conscienceless persons subscribe to the creed without any
particular hesitation, but the truly conscientious suffer the greatest
embarrassment They must either refuse altogether and withdraw from
all connection, or else subscribe with a mental reservation amounting
practically to hypocrisy.
[Sidenote: Inflexible character]
This inflexible character of the sect institution has been a most
fruitful cause for the production of new sects. No matter how
spiritual the movement at its beginning, when its leaders were not
longing for church power but were earnestly preaching the Word of
the Lord as it came unto them, as soon as the sect machinery was
thoroughly organized and was set in motion the inevitable tendency has
been to throw around the movement a wall of creedal and ecclesiastical
exclusiveness which shut out other true people of God; and then
began a process of crystalization which ever afterwards precluded the
unfolding of new truth. It is a well-known fact that the high tide of
truth-discovery in every religious movement in Protestantism has
been at the time of its beginning. A fixed law of immobility has ever
afterwards prevailed. The reason is clear: whenever men grasp the
reins of government and assume those prerogatives which belong to God
alone, the rule of the Spirit ends. The unfolding of new truths by
the operation of the Spirit is impossible within the limits of the
old order where human ecclesiasticism reigns. But truth can not be
permanently suppressed. If it can not find room for development
within the existing order of things, God will raise up men who
will, independently, proclaim the Word of the Lord. This he has done
repeatedly, only to have the new movements end in the same manner--in
a rule of human ecclesiasticism.
Human ecclesiasticism has always been the greatest barrier to the free
spiritual development of the work of Christ. According to that relic
of the papal church, authority and rule is vested in the clerical
corporation and is by them conferred upon other individuals by the
act of ordination. How different the standard of the Word! In the Old
Testament times the office of prophet did not come in the priestly
line, but on whomsoever the spirit of prophecy descended--whether upon
Amos, the herdsman, or David, the king--he spake as he was moved by
the Holy Ghost. There has never been a time under the divine economy
when any man to whom the Word of the Lord came was not divinely
authorized to proclaim his message wherever he could get a hearing,
whether in synagog or temple, or out under the broad canopy of heaven.
CHAPTER IX
THE CHURCH OF THE FUTURE
What about the church of the future? Is the modern sect system the
ultimate goal of Christian attainment in this world? While the sects
contain much truth and many of the people of God, their ecclesiastical
constitutions are foreign to the true church of Jesus Christ, and it
is inconceivable that the great Founder would make no provision either
in his Word or in his plan for the correction of the evils which have
grown up around the Christian system during the dark ages of the world
and which have in a great measure perverted the gospel itself and
lessened its wholesome efficiency as the universal remedy for human
ills.
Since no sect can make good a claim to being exclusively the church of
God, a general feeling of toleration at least (if not in all cases
of sincere respect) has come to prevail respecting the different
denominational churches. Men have come to look upon the sects as
a mere matter of fact, not to be seriously questioned, and we are
supposed to cover the whole scene with the mantle of patience and
charity and make the best of a bad situation.
[Sidenote: The Protestant truce]
Dr. J.M. Sturtevant has expressed this general attitude so well that I
shall quote his own words: "It has long been true in this country that
no Protestant can freely expose the errors and superstitions of the
papal church, especially from the pulpit, without incurring the charge
of intolerance, bigotry, and uncharitableness. Religious controversy
itself has been placed under the ban, as in its own nature
uncharitable. When once any religious opinion has organized itself
into a sect, it is thought to have acquired a sacredness which, in the
name of Christian charity and in the interest of the tranquility of
the community, defends it from any open assault. We have come into the
condition in which Rome was when she had extended her conquests from
the British Isles to the Euphrates and had transferred to Rome the
divinities of all the countries conquered. People of every nationality
might worship their own divinities, but must respectfully tolerate the
worship of every other. In this way only could religious conflict be
avoided. The chief reason why Christianity was persecuted was that
from its very nature it could accept no such truce. It is either
a universal religion or no religion at all. It is, like all other
systems which claim to be the true, in its own nature exclusive."
It is because of its universal character that truth can accept no such
truce as has been declared by the modern sects. Truth is exclusive,
and hence can make no compromises. The church of God is universal or
it is no church at all. The whole truth concerning the church question
must and will come out. The times demand it; the people of God
demand it; the Spirit of God demands it; and, as we shall show, the
Scriptures declare it.
[Sidenote: A new awakening]
It is very evident that the people of God are not satisfied with
the present sectarian situation. Everywhere there is manifested a
restlessness and uneasiness respecting the arbitrary lines of
sect which separate between those who have a recognized spiritual
affinity--recognized except formally by the ecclesiastical powers that
be. _The Christian consciousness is becoming awakened._ Men are coming
to see that Christianity is to be measured, not by sect lines, but by
that broader, Scriptural rule of the divine family embracing all
true disciples of Jesus--those who possess his life and bear the
appropriate fruits of righteousness. This awakening, with its logical
consequences, is what I have termed THE LAST REFORMATION. It will give
form and character to the Church of the Future.
[Sidenote: Apologies for sects]
Sectarianism still has its defenders, however. In the midst of the
rising tide of spiritual fellowship and love, there are those who
bring forward a few sickly apologies for sects, apologies which
generally impress the earnest student of the Scriptures with the
thought that the apologist has a hard case to make out. The excuse
most commonly advanced is that the sect system is a useful arrangement
for accommodating the variety of tastes and feelings found
among Christian people. It is assumed that some are natural-born
Episcopalians, with an innate fondness for formal liturgies and
ecclesiastical vestments, and that others are so constituted by nature
as to require certain other particular forms of worship.
[Sidenote: Diversity of taste and culture]
If there is any such fundamental demand in human nature for a variety
of sects, as different climates are required to suit different
orders of life on our planet, it is strange indeed that the apostles
overlooked such an important point and failed to provide for it. Why
was not the primitive church constructed so as to bring into existence
at once a variety of human sects to accommodate the different classes
of people then existing? From the modern point of view they had an
excellent excuse for starting with at least two churches--one for
the Jews and another for the Gentiles; and if these had not been
sufficient, before the end of their personal ministry they could have
brought into existence a whole brood of sects.
Now, the student of the Scriptures knows that the apostles proceeded
exactly in the opposite direction. They labored earnestly to bring all
classes into love and fellowship _in one body_. This course was not in
accordance with the wisdom of the world, but the twentieth century is
beginning to see that it was "the wisdom of God."
The reason why men have a liking for formal liturgies, stately
ceremonies, and ecclesiastical vestments is because of environment.
They have been trained that way. Here again we see the natural
tendency of sects to make sectarians and thus reproduce their kind.
When particular forms and ceremonies, which are not required
by Scripture, are enforced upon men by a self-constituted,
self-perpetuating ecclesiastical authority, the inevitable result
is to stamp the same principles upon succeeding generations and thus
perpetuate the sect system exercising such authority.
[Sidenote: The sect spirit]
In a final effort to lessen the odium attaching to what is now widely
recognized as an evil, some assert that the cause of mischief is the
sect spirit. This statement contains truth, but it does not tell the
whole truth. One of the worst evils of human slavery was the extreme
tyranny which some slave-masters exercised. But the real fact was that
the system itself tended to convert good men and women into tyrants.
The special manifestation of evil was both effect and cause. It
was the natural tendency of the system to make tyrants, and tyrants
perpetuated the system. So also with sectarianism. Though all can
realize a theoretical difference between the sect spirit and simple
denominationalism, yet the very tendency of the system itself is
to create party interests and to introduce party rivalries, which
naturally foster the sect spirit. Without that devotion to party and
party interests--a devotion almost equal to their devotion to the
gospel itself--sects would perish. _If sect-members should become so
universal in their love and sympathy as to devote themselves to the
work of Christ alone--forgetting party interests--sects would die. The
sect spirit is, therefore, essential to the maintenance of the life
and individuality of the sect body._
[Sidenote: What is the remedy?]
The remedy for sectarianism is not a return to imperialism. The
world-church idea as exemplified in the papal church is not the goal
of Christianity. Such might hold dominion over men in the barbaric
ages of the world, but its universal sway has ceased. The Inquisition
will never be reestablished. The unity of the church is not to be
found in an imperial hierarchy.
Nor is Christian unity to be obtained by adherence to the historic
creeds. These documents may express many noble sentiments respecting
Christ and his truth, and they may express the fullest knowledge of
the truth known in the days when they were written. But knowledge
of the truth is progressive, while creeds are stationary. No human
document, therefore, can serve as a permanent basis upon which to
build our faith. And then, too, we have seen that creeds are in their
very nature divisive. Hence they can not be made the basis for the
realization of unity.
Nor is the unity of the church to be found in some particular form
of exclusive church polity, as Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, or
Congregationalism. We have conclusively proved that that conception of
the church patterned after the forms of political government, in which
government and authority are vested inherently and exclusively in
human hands, is foreign to the original conception of the church as it
existed in the minds of its Founder and his apostles. The government
of the New Testament church is a theocracy. Christ is head. He rules
through his Holy Spirit by moral suasion and spiritual influence, and
the ministers and helpers whom he calls and qualifies share in that
oversight and responsibility to the same extent that they are able
to wield the same moral and spiritual power. _This is the only church
authority and government recognized in the New Testament_.
[Sidenote: The perpetual theocracy]
Here I shall digress long enough to point out by way of contrast
the true form of divine government. Every one is familiar with the
theocratic government of Israel under the Old Testament dispensation.
God ruled. He who carefully reads the New Testament can not fail to
discern the same type of government in the church before the rise of
human ecclesiasticism. The first preachers of the gospel spoke with
an authority not derived from a human source. When Peter and John were
threatened before the Council and commanded not to speak or teach in
the name of Jesus Christ, they gave the sublime answer: "Whether it
be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God,
judge ye. For we can not but speak the things which we have seen and
heard" (Acts 4: 19, 20). The same principle stands out in bold relief
in the experience of Paul. Although that great apostle was forward
to cooperate with other apostles and ministers of Christ, one can
not fail to see that his whole career exemplified the principle of
theocracy. He "was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision."
[Sidenote: An important parallelism]
Permit me to call attention particularly to an important parallelism
between the government of Israel under the theocracy and the
government of the New Testament church before the rise of
ecclesiasticism. God led his people out of Egypt by Moses and Joshua.
These men are a type of Christ, who leads his people. After the
Israelites were settled in Canaan, they had no central government,
but each locality or city was autonomous, having its local judges or
elders. In a time of crisis God raised up a judge to lead the people
in the necessary cooperative efforts to preserve or regain their
liberties. Their miseries Were always the result of their own sins,
not a failure of the divine form of government. Their appointing a
king and thus setting up a centralized human government was called
_rejecting God as ruler_. And this is exactly parallel with what
ecclesiasticism has done and is doing with the same results. God's
government of the church is set aside and rejected.
[Sidenote: Not church federation]
Nor will an organic union of all the sects solve the problem of
unity. In the first place, the tendency of such a union is toward
imperialism, the creation on the federation plan of another
world-church. In the second place, such a federation would strengthen
rather than lessen the authority of human rule, while the compromises
necessary to make such a project possible would lessen in the same
degree that freedom of the Spirit by which alone the full gospel can
be given to the world. And in the third place, such a federation would
not be the church of God, for the very framework on which it would
rest, human ecclesiasticism, is foreign to the original conception of
the church. It would be only a human arrangement patterned after the
model of a world-empire. And for another reason such would not be the
church. The divine _ekklesia_ includes in its membership the whole
family of God. Thousands of men and women who are united to Christ
and in fellowship with all the saved are not members of the formally
organized sects. Therefore the union of all such churches in one
federation would not include the whole family.
[Sidenote: Back to the Bible standard]
Thus, the remedy for sects is not church federation, nor a return to
the historic creeds, nor the adoption of one of the exclusive forms
of church polity; neither is it an attempt to hide the sin of the
obnoxious sect system by covering it with a mantle of charity and
patience--as a sort of necessary evil. What, then, is the real remedy
for sects? It is the absolute rejection of every foreign element that
has crept into the Christian system and the return to that primitive
conception of the church as made up of the entire brotherhood of
Christ, organized and controlled by the Holy Spirit. For true unity
we must turn from hierarchies and apostolical successions and priestly
corporations and church synods and human creeds to THE CHRIST who
alone is the head of the church.
[Sidenote: True membership]
Such a movement requires a moral revolution with respect to the
attitude of God's people toward membership in sects. It requires the
obliteration of sect lines and the recognition of no other bond of
union than that of a common brotherhood through union with Christ.
Divine life secured through repentance and faith is the sole condition
of membership in the church of Christ, and this relationship is
maintained by obedience to the commands of Christ and consistent
Christian conduct. "If we walk in the light, as he is in the light,
we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his
Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).
[Sidenote: Elimination of ecclesiasticism]
Such a movement and such a standard of church relationship require the
elimination of all ideas of priestly ecclesiasticism. The Christ
of the New Testament church is not an absent Christ. He has
never resigned his position as head of the church and vested the
governmental authority in a self-perpetuating clerical caste. His
government is theocratic. He administers it himself through his Holy
Spirit. Hence no men or set of men can confer any power or authority
whatsoever upon any individual to act for Christ. Christ calls his
own assistants, and any man unto whom the Word of the Lord comes is
divinely authorized to proclaim His message. The only sphere of human
operation respecting this administration of divine government is
simple recognition of what God has done, and this recognition in the
last analysis belongs to the whole body of God's people. The basis
of every man's authority and responsibility is, therefore, not human
appointment or official position, but the divine call, gifts, and
qualifications, that he possesses. If, for example, he is called to
apostolic work and endowed with gifts and qualifications fitting him
for such service, he has apostolic authority and responsibility,
and there is nothing for other ministers or Christians to do but to
_recognize what God has done_. "Now hath God set the members every one
of them in the body, as it hath pleased him" (1 Cor. 12:18). Such, in
short, is the divine organization and government.
[Sidenote: What of the future?]
The realization of this grand ideal of the restoration of the New
Testament standard of church membership, government, and authority,
is impossible within the sect system. For the sects to turn all the
people of God loose from subjection to every foreign yoke and make
them free to associate without restriction with all the saved of God,
would be an act of suicide. _Only by division and by holding the grasp
of ecclesiastical rule can sects survive._ But he is blind to the
signs of the times who can not see that the grip of ecclesiasticism is
slipping and the bonds of true catholicity becoming strengthened.
The true people of God are becoming more and more dissatisfied with
present conditions and are beginning to think in terms of a universal
Christianity. The rising tide of evangelism among such is already
beginning to overflow the lines of sect. What may we expect in the
future?
Things can not continue as they have been in the ecclesiastical
world. A sweeping reformation is imperative and imminent. In fact,
the vanguard of this great movement is already visible. What will the
future bring forth? Will the sects themselves fade away and gradually
become dissolved? or will the powers that rule in the ecclesiastical
world finally set themselves against the spirit of catholicity and
thus practically force the true people of God to ignore absolutely
all sectarian lines and step out on the broad platform of truth and
universality, united in Christ alone, knowing no head but Christ and
no creed but His truth? Who can tell?
[Sidenote: A fundamental difference]
In the present work I have given a brief historical sketch of the
leading ecclesiastical events, showing the apostasy as it existed
under two phases, the corruption of evangelical faith and the reign
of ecclesiasticism. I have also shown that the reformations of
Protestantism have tended to the correction of that first phase
pertaining to doctrine, but that a complete reformation requires the
elimination of ecclesiasticism. Hence what I have termed the Last
Reformation, if it is to be the _last_, not only must include the
restoration of pure doctrinal truth but must also restore the real
church of the New Testament. So far as true doctrine is concerned,
such a reformation will differ from other evangelical movements in
degree only--it must ultimately comprehend the whole truth. But the
fundamental difference between the reformation herein considered and
all other preceding reformations is that it strikes the death-blow
to the very root of error that produced the sect system--_human
ecclesiasticism_--and substitutes therefor the administrative
authority of the Holy Spirit working in varying degrees in all the
members of Christ throughout the world. The last reformation therefore
must differ from all others, not in degree only, but _also in kind_.
[Sidenote: The witness of prophecy]
God alone understands the future. During the ages past he has not left
his own work without the witness of prophecy. We may rest assured,
therefore, that in the prophecy of the divine Word he has given us
an outline of the history of his church. So I shall ask the reader to
patiently follow me through a brief sketch of ecclesiastical events
as described in the prophecies of the Revelation. Such an examination
will throw a large amount of additional light on the subjects I have
already treated historically, and will also give us a divinely drawn
picture of the church of the future. Such will enable us to understand
better the real character and extent of THE LAST REFORMATION.
PART III
The Church in Prophecy