1870 28 It is unquestionably true that, in lands which have been civilized by Christianity, there is an immense religious movement going on. The surface of Christendom is in a ferment.
Rome is at this moment, amidst the threatened loss of all political power, making fresh efforts upon the credulity of man, and drawing victim after victim into her net, and this with a boldness and barefacedness which, if possible, would deceive the very elect. Her language is, "I sit a queen and am no widow." One may have heard it said, That going over to Rome is going from nothing to nothing. This may be true in a very modified sense, for if Christ was not in the heart before, He will not be found in this new place; but we dare not treat her as nothing, but rather as an active devilish system, comprehended within that which is prophesied of in the New Testament as the "mother of harlots and abominations of the earth," which God will judge. (Rev. 17)
Our object, however, is not to write against popery except incidentally, but to make the inquiry, How is it that so many Protestants, especially English ones, are drawn over to her?
It may be assumed that in order to convince reasonable and religious men, Rome must have, or pretend to possess, some truths which Protestants have lost, and which they get by joining her communion. Bossuet rendered her valuable assistance when, in the seventeenth century, he wrote his work "Upon the Variations of Protestants," as opposed to the unity and order of Rome; and may we not say, in thus beginning our subject, that Protestants from the first have given too little attention to the truth of the unity of the church, in their horror at the false pretences raised by their antagonist?
There is no weapon which Satan is more skilful in the use of than a neglected scripture truth. Some may remember the havoc which the Mormons made by applying "the stick of Joseph" (Ezek. 37:16-19) to Joseph Smith, the head of the Mormons in America, where was to be found the New Jerusalem, the city of the saints. Thousands of illiterate but not irreligious people fell under the delusion. This never could have been the case had the truth of the Lord's coming been taught them, and the proper application made of the return of the ten as well as of the two tribes to the land of Israel under the hand and headship of the Lord Jesus. The same kind of deception may reach us. If we do not understand the character of the church as found in the word of God, and do not, in our measure, seek to walk in the truth of it, we are in danger of being taken up by what is false.
I would preface the observations which follow by observing that it is not a question of the condition of a man's individual soul, although this be the first of all questions, nor of the godly walk of a company of believers in any denomination, instructed, peradventure, by a godly teacher. Scores of clergymen have been instructing such companies, according to their light, and yet have found themselves by a strange moral compulsion obliged to depart for Rome. Surely our readers will exclaim, They had much better have remained where they were! We reply, undoubtedly; but when in the midst of their ministrations the subject of "the church" comes up, its unity, its order, its head, etc., and they find that in the system which they have been accustomed to venerate as the church, there exists no certainty of truth, still less unity of opinion — when, too, they find courts of appeal of today reversed by courts of appeal tomorrow, and that their spiritual heads, the bishops, may be divided in their opinions, resolving themselves indifferently with the High Church, or Low Church, or Broad Church — when we say this comes to pass, as it has so often done lately, what is left but to return to that focus of unity, Rome, from whence they had as a church once departed!
Viewed from another point we may see in all this a direct work of Satan upon often unconscious agents to bring about that grand climax of evil which as a "mystery" has been working since the days of Paul. The doctrine of the unity of the church under the headship of Peter and his successors is the dogma with which Rome successfully maintains her ground against the whole array of Protestantism. This could never have occurred in the sixteenth century. Men's minds were then filled with hatred of the inquisition, with holy zeal against the system of indulgences, and with earnestness about soul salvation. Now we are a money-getting, pleasure-loving, and, as to the things of God, a cowardly race, expediency being the order of the day; and Rome seizes the moment to make good her claim as the mother and mistress of churches.
Inasmuch as there have been from the first century Christians at Rome, and that Europe did at one time universally follow her ritual and allow her supremacy, we must concede to her, as far as antiquity is concerned, a claim superior to all others to be called the church.
It would be easy to disprove a host of errors held and imposed by her. Considered simply from the point of view now to be looked at, we might instance the adoption of Peter instead of Paul for the chief apostle as a very prominent one (although one little noticed hitherto either by historians or controversialists), because it shows that, whenever this happened, there must already have been a confusion in men's minds between the church and the kingdom. (Matt. 16:16-19.) For Peter, whilst he had the keys of the kingdom, never once uses the title "Son of God" in his epistles; which title is used alone by Paul and John, being the title on which the church is built: "Upon this rock I will build my church." Another has well observed, "People do not build with keys." You open with keys, and so Peter opened the doors of the kingdom of heaven to Cornelius; but it was Paul who brought out in his writings, and exemplified in his ways, the precious truth of the church, the body of Christ on earth, with a glorified Head. Popery is nothing else that corrupt Christianity; but I am doubtful in these days if, in exposing her errors singly, I should gain over many converts. Such errors have over and over been dealt with by abler pens, and yet Popery goes on increasing. Why is this? Simply because by the attack upon and refutation of isolated points in her system, we do not meet the real difficulty in the mind of her votaries. With them the thought of the church is indigenous. The reply to these attacks is something like the following: God has but one church, founded upon Peter, and against which He has said, "The gates of hell shall not prevail." Let me find out this people and get amongst them. Their supposed false doctrines do not trouble me; and where else do I find the overwhelming concurrence and evidence of all antiquity but in Rome? As to all Protestants, their divergence of interests and clashing of opinions go right against them. But suppose I were to succeed in convincing a Romanist of the untenableness of the doctrines of Popery, one by one, what might be his reply? Either that the church, as having the presence of God, cannot err, or else that if, it does, reform can go on within it, but not in an outside place, to which place no promise is attached. I must avow that I consider it difficult to answer a Romanist upon church ground (though it is easy, comparatively speaking, to overthrow him on the question of personal salvation, if one's own self, by infinite mercy, possesses it), unless, first, one understands what scripture has revealed about the church. That is, does it give any countenance to a unity of believers, so as to allow the pretensions of Rome, caricature though they be of the truth? 2ndly, In allowing Rome to be the centre, so to speak, of Christianity, is an apostacy predicted? 3rdly, Does scripture, supposing a proved departure, indicate any path for a believer who feels himself to be in this ruin?
In considering the scriptural church, one may view it as endowed of God or as seen by men. In the former sense, as it appears in the writings of the Apostle Paul, it is a body on earth (Eph. 4:12) connected with a heavenly and ascended Head (Eph. 4:15-16), indwelt by the Holy Spirit (John 14:17; 1 Cor. 6:16; 2 Cor. 6:16), who is its power of unity (Eph. 4:3-4). It has, in the mind of God, the same symmetry and identification of purpose as the human body has to its head. Indeed Christ above, the Head, is not in this view apart from Christ the body. (1 Cor. 12:12.) It was formed on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) by the descent of the Holy Ghost, who has never left it. (John 14:16.) All its endowments are in the way of permanent spiritual gifts. (Eph. 4:11–14; 1 Cor. 12 — 14.) It is highly important to recognize the positive administration of the Holy Ghost in her. As Eliezer, the servant, in bringing home Rebecca to Isaac (Gen. 24), had all his master's goods under his hand, and distributed the precious things as he would within Rebecca's household, so the Holy Ghost, on the behalf of Christ, is the absolute distributor of every thing in the way of gifts, as well as the power of using them. In nothing is the true discerned from the false more than in this. In Colossians 2:19 the Head is that "from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God." In few words, the church is the body of Christ united to a heavenly Head, formed and filled by the Holy Spirit.
As seen by men, we notice that in 1 Corinthians 1 believers are besought all to "speak the same thing," to have "no divisions among them; but to be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment."
Again, there never was more than one church in one city. Thus a letter is addressed, "To the church of God which is at Corinth." Again, so completely does the idea prevail of saints in each city being one, that when Paul left Titus in Crete, it was that he might ordain elders in every city (observe, not in every church); yet when Paul, in Acts 20, sends from Miletus to Ephesus, he calls "the elders of the church;" that is, the elders of the church were the elders in the city, or vice versa, the elders in the city were the elders of the church. There was but one in every city. The elders were to take heed to themselves, "and to all the flock" (Acts 20:28). They were to "feed the church of God."
Again, in Ephesians 4 we are told to endeavour "to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Seven unities are mentioned. A divided body, which receives its life and strength from one head, is absurd. These passages sufficiently show that scripture does set forth a unity flowing from one Head, the power and administration being by the Spirit, whether doctrinally or practically.
Now, certainly, Protestants, although correct upon foundation truths, ever indeed the most important, and never for a moment to be lost sight of, which carry a soul to heaven and enlighten, its path on earth, have never reflected the truth of one body, the witness being the number of sects in every city, each one with a clashing interest. The Reformers do not appear to have made any attempt to penetrate into God's thoughts about things corporate. They attacked with a zealous care all the horrible superstitions of the papacy; and, not content with denying the false, asserted the true, as far as pardon of sins went, and were the instruments of saving thousands of souls, for men were then honest and real; but they seem not to have understood the place which the Holy Ghost occupied, and to have supposed that the safety of the soul was the only thought of God. It was just this lack that popery has taken advantage of.
As to the second branch of our inquiry, supposing we allow Rome the special place she arrogates, does scripture predict an apostacy* of profession? Because, if it does, it cuts away from Rome her claim to infallibility as well as to reform in the sense of renewing anything or setting it up again. Well, it is most certain that a terrible and universal apostacy is revealed in the word of God. And a singular phenomenon it is, that the very apostle (used, I might almost say, as the depositary of the love of God, and of the place which the church holds as His body and the bride of His affections) should be the very one who predicted its failure.
[*The use of the term "apostacy," does not suppose that anything we are living in the midst of at the present moment, by any means exhausts the word, or consummates that which is prophesied of either in the Old or New Testament. All that we intend is, that the church has lost her original standing, and has become corrupt throughout that sphere in which God is acting.]
Let us come to proofs. Before doing so, it is well to glance at Romans 11, in which chapter the apostle, from verse 11, gives a history of the Gentiles as acted upon by gospel grace, and which more than hints at their failure. They came into the place of Israel, who has been cut off nationally. They partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree; but there is a threat that, if they did not continue to stand by faith, they would be cut off as the Jews were. "For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." We are not then to be surprised at a defection. It is but a repetition of the history of Israel. That which is entrusted into man's hand fails, although God is always faithful to His promises. With this introduction we can pursue the course of the apostle's writings.
In Acts 20, in his address to the elders at Ephesus, he informs them that after his decease grievous wolves should "enter in, not sparing the flock;" also that of their "own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them;" that is, he speaks of men who were to arise from the body of elders, of episkopous. There were to be evils of two kinds, those from without and those from within. It is of no avail to say that this was to be a partial betrayal of the interests of Christ at Ephesus, which need not spread farther! Two points are to be noted: first, "no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20); secondly, of all the seven churches mentioned in Revelation, after the death of Paul, Ephesus seems to have been the best. How then could the decay have been partial, when it had taken place in others before her? There is no idea of recovery by any extraneous help to be brought in from elsewhere, as by reference to other apostles or to a successional order. Nothing remained in Acts 20 but to commit them to God and to the word of His grace, that they might be built up and given an inheritance.
In 2 Thessalonians 2 he declares that there was a mystery of iniquity already at work which, instead of being eradicated, was to spread and culminate in a head — the man of sin or lawlessness, whom the Lord Himself is to consume with the spirit of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The weight of judgment is to fall upon those who believe not the truth: most certainly therefore they have been within hearing of it.
In 1 Timothy 4 he says, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith [apostesontai, apostatize], giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils," etc. It looks somewhat like popery.
In 2 Timothy 3 we have something beyond "latter times," even "last days," in which "perilous times shall come." Already his co-labourers in Asia had turned away from him, as we know from 2 Timothy 1:15. Some too, were "subverting" and others "overthrowing" the faith (2 Tim. 2:14-18); but eventually there was to be a return to the heathen vices of Romans 1, ii.; but with "a form of godliness," an astounding picture of the defection of professing men.
A few words must suffice as to the witness which Peter bears. His second epistle runs much in the same line, and even same language, as Jude. My reader by consulting chapters 2, iii. will find these words: "There were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them … and many shall follow their pernicious ways, by reason of which the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." etc. (Cp 2 Peter 3:4-5.) He does not speak of any rectification, except by the coming of the day of the Lord. Meanwhile we are to account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation. (Ver. 10, 12, 15.)
We now pass to Jude and the Epistles of John. Jude seems to have had the desire to write about "the common salvation," but was deterred by the sense of the incoming corruption, and, instead, proceeded to exhort them earnestly to "contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints." He goes on to show, from verse 6 onwards, the condition into which the Church was falling and would fall, to be met only by the Lord coming to judge it. But he points also to the path of the true-hearted ones: "But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life."
In the first Epistle of John the defection is looked at from another standpoint. The fellowship of saints being with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ, this fellowship is destroyed by the denial of the true incarnation and person of Christ. "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father." Why so? Because it was the Father who sent the Son; but if we are in error upon the true Son as born into this world, as a consequence we must be ignorant of the Father who sent Him.
In the addresses to the seven churches in the Revelation we have abundance of evidence of declension without recovery. Ephesus begins, on losing her first love, with a warning lest her candlestick should be taken away, and Laodicea ends with the threat of being spewed out of Christ's mouth. It is true that at the worst there are a few, but only a few, found faithful — the overcomers; their communion with Christ endures, and to them the promises belong.
It is of moment to remember that scripture never supposes a recovery; at all events, it never contemplates a restoration to primitive order and power. There is always a resource for the faithful ones, as is abundantly shown by the promises to those that have ears to hear in the epistles to the churches. Christ never fails His own in the very darkest day, but He does not set up the thing that has failed in its ancient place, any more than He restored the Shekinah of His presence on the return of some of the Jews from Babylon under Nehemiah and Ezra. Those who see the ruin (whilst they own, as Daniel did, their share in it) labour according to the existing condition of things, and so much the less disappointment do they suffer. In the general, instead of recovery, our hope is the coming of the Lord.
Nothing now remains but to point out in very few words our condition, and the path of the saint in these days. One principal point is that we are living in the last times — in the condition of things of which 2 Timothy, 2 Peter, Jude, the Epistles of John, and those to the seven churches give us, as it were, the programme. Another paramount fact is to know that the question of the day is, What is the Church? A third is that Satan with all deceivableness of unrighteousness is pointing to Rome as the goal of every distressed soul. The defect of the reformers, eminent as they were, was in failing to discern the real condition of things and the mind of God in this condition. Instead of realizing the situation, and looking to God who in unfailing faithfulness never deserts His own, they began the work of building up again. By this they left a place for the insertion of the thin edge of the wedge; and hence the present confusion.
But still it may be argued that all this talk about ruin is negative. Let us come then to something positive. It is certainly true that the beginning of the declension was the loss of the truth of the Holy Ghost. We do not mean a deliberate or theoretical denial of His Godhead, although any one acquainted with the history of Arianism well knows that denial or uncertainty about Christ produced the same effects as to the Holy Ghost. There was a loss, from the moment church history opens in the writings of the Fathers, of the administration of the Holy Ghost on behalf of Christ or of God in His church. Church history begins with a well defined hierarchy, and the Apostle Paul seems to have been forgotten as soon as he was dead. Are you then still looking for, or claiming to have produced a restoration? By no means; nay, the very contrary. But we are bound, in acknowledging the failure, to own the entire written word. We are bound to believe Ephesians 4 as much as 2 Timothy, and to give both their place. It behoves us to know how to use 1 Timothy and Titus without allowing them to jar against 1 Corinthians 12; 14.
I would illustrate this. If I go to a good Protestant, who is individually sound in faith and practice, and put a leading question to him about the church, his reply will be, There are good people in every sect. Of course we should agree with him. If I put a second question, he will answer, For my own part, I prefer an Episcopal, or, as the case might be, a Presbyterian form of government; but I do not think scripture presents any of these matters with certainty. Now, certain or uncertain, it is just by being able to present his so-called church in a definite and tangible way that the popish priest has drawn away so many to Rome.*
[*(The following portion of the Syllabus known as "Canones de Ecclesia" is proposed to the Council at Rome as the new dogmatic scheme. It will confirm the paper and otherwise interest many of our readers.
"Of the Church of Christ.
"Canon 1. If any man say that the religion of Christ does not exist, and is not expressed in any particular association instituted by Christ himself, but that it may be properly observed and exercised by individuals separately without relation to any society which may be the true Church of Christ, let him be anathema.
"2. If any man say that the Church has not received from the Lord Jesus Christ any certain and immutable form of constitution, but that, like other human associations, it has been subject, and may be subject, according to the changes of times, to vicissitudes and variations, let him be anathema.
"3. If any man say that the Church of the Divine promises is not an external and visible society, but is entirely internal and invisible, let him be anathema.
"4. If any man say that the true Church is not a body one in itself, but that it is composed of various and dispersed societies bearing the Christian title, and that it is common to them all, or that various societies differing from each other in profession of faith and holding separate communion, constitute, as members and portions, a Church of Christ, one and universal, let him be anathema.
"5. If any man say that the Church of Christ is not a society absolutely necessary for eternal salvation, or that men may be saved by the adoption of any other religion whatsoever, let him be anathema.
"6. If any man say that this intolerance, whereby the Catholic Church proscribes and condemns all religious sects which are separate from her communion, is not prescribed by the Divine law, or that with respect to the truth of religion it is possible to have opinions only, but not certainty, and that, consequently all religious sects should be tolerated by the Church, let him be anathema.
"7. If any man say that the same Church of Christ may be obscured by darkness, or infected with evils, in consequence of which it may depart from the wholesome truth of the faith and manners, deviate from its original institution, or terminate only in becoming corrupt and depraved, let him be anathema.
"8. If any man say that the present Church of Christ is not the last and supreme institution for obtaining salvation, but that another is to be looked for from a new and fuller outpouring of the Holy Spirit, let him be anathema.
"9. If any man say that the infallibility of the Church is restricted solely to things which are contained in Divine revelation, and that it does not also extend to other truths which are necessary in order that the great gift of revelation may be preserved in its integrity, let him be anathema.
"10. If any man say that the Church is not a perfect society, but a corporation (collegium), or that as such in respect of civil society or the State it is subject to secular domination, let him be anathema
"11. If any man say that the Church, divinely instituted, is like to a society of equals; that the Bishops have indeed an office and a ministry, but not a power of governing proper to themselves, which is bestowed upon them by Divine ordination, and which they ought to exercise freely, let him be anathema.
"12. If any man hold that Christ our Lord and Sovereign has only conferred upon his Church a directing power by means of its counsels and persuasions, but not of ordering by its laws, or of constraining and compelling by antecedent judgments and salutary penalties those who wander and those who are contumacious, let him be anathema.
"13. If any man say that the true Church of Christ, out of which no one can he saved, is any other than the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, let him be anathema.
"14. If any man say that the Apostle St. Peter has not been instituted by our Lord Christ as Prince of all the Apostles, and visible head of the Church Militant, or that he received only the pre-eminence of honour, had not the primacy of true and sole jurisdiction, let him be anathema.
"15. If any man say that it does not follow from the institution of our Lord Christ himself that St. Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the Universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not by Divine right the successor of Peter in that same primacy, let him be anathema.
"16. If any man say that the Roman Pontiff has only a function of inspection and of direction, but not a full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, or that this power is not ordinary and immediate over the whole Church, taken as a whole or separately, let him be anathema.
"17. If any man say that the independent ecclesiastical power respecting which the Church teaches that it has been conferred upon it by Christ, and the supreme civil power cannot co-exist so that the rights of each may be observed, let him be anathema.
"18. If any man say that the power which is necessary for the government of civil society does not emanate from God, or that no obedience is due to it by virtue even of the law of God, or that such power is repugnant to the natural liberty of man, let him be anathema.
"19. If any man say that all rights existing among men are derived from the political State, or that there is no authority besides that which is communicated by such State, let him be anathema.
"20. If any man say that in the law of the political State or in the public opinion of men has been deposited the supreme rule of conscience for public and social actions, or that the judgments by which the Church pronounces upon what is lawful and what is unlawful, do not extend to such actions, or that by the forces of civil law an act which by virtue of Divine or ecclesiastical law is unlawful, can become lawful, let him be anathema.
"21. If any man say that the laws of the Church have no binding force until they have been confirmed by the sanction of the civil power, or that it belongs to the said civil power to judge and to decree in matters of religion by virtue of its supreme authority, let him be anathema."
Thus the truth as to the church lies between, but apart from, the old successional bodies on the one hand, and the voluntary dissenting societies on the other. The former may in sound own the "one body," but deny its character and ignore its nature, having no faith in the efficacy of redemption nor in the presence and sovereign action of the Holy Ghost in the christian assembly. The latter have lost even the sound of the "one body" for practice on earth through the same fertile root of unbelief. Still the firm foundation of God stands with its twofold seal of divine purpose and creature responsibility. — Ed. B.T.]
Whosoever labours for Christ must do so as realizing the confusion and ruin of everything. If then attacked by an emissary from Rome, on the only ground they do attack, viz., the church, his ready reply would be, Scripture has predicted long ago the condition of which you are the living example. If he should ask, Where, then, is your church? at once one would fall back on Ephesians 4:3: "There is one body and one Spirit." If he asked, Where is your ministry? the reply would be, There is a permanent ministry for the use of that body — in fact, belonging to it. "He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers … for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come," etc.
If he said that Rome has all these, we should reply that, if not apostate, she has not them exclusively, but that if she arrogates to herself the title of the church, we have seen that the professing body is spewed out of Christ's mouth. (Rev. 3:16.) Otherwise gifts are to be found in every part of christendom, whether in or out of communion with Rome. But to all, whether in or out, one would say, are they in exercise according to 1 Corinthians 12; 14?
This is the fellowship from "the gifts" point of view made for us. We do not make it: it is made for us. We should assert, to this emissary of Rome and to all others, the indwelling and administration* of the Holy Ghost in Christ's own house. (Eph. 2:22.)
[*The best manuscripts agree in substituting oikonomia for koinonia in Ephesians 3:9. The meaning of the former word is "the management of a household or family, also the public economy of states:" in general, "administration, management, government." — Liddell and Scott's Lexicon.]
Now, as sure as we really take this ground, it may be things are so weak that it comes only to "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt. 18) To console us however there is the promise of His presence, which makes up for everything. Such a position does not suppose that we seek to build up or restore anything. It is only holding to the truth of God. But it is an answer to all the pretensions of Rome; and in truth, upon the question of the church, there is none other. It occupies God's ground, but in intelligence of the apostacy. We have as our end, too, the sweet hope of the coming of the Lord. If that was the promise to the overcomers in Thyatira and Philadelphia, it may well be ours. "Surely I come quickly. Even so, Come Lord Jesus."