SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
THE BIBLE OR THE CHURCH
CHAPTER TEN
"THE Jews' religion" was a human system based upon a Divine
revelation, and so is it with the religion of Christendom. But the Judaism of
Messianic times was not an apostasy in the sense in which that can be averred
of the religion of Christendom. For the Lord could sanction by His presence the
services both of the temple and the synagogue. The cult was right: it was the
men who were wrong. "God is Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship in
spirit." With unspiritual men, therefore, even a religion which in itself was
true became of necessity false. "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly . . .
but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in
the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."
"For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness and peace and
joy in the Holy Ghost."' And if this was true in regard to a cult in which
ordinances and the external element filled so large and prominent a place, how
intensely true must it be of Christianity.
Moses was the Apostle of "the
Jews' religion." And in externals at least there was no wilful departure from
his teaching. Any blunders in this respect were made honestly and through
ignorance. Blunders there were, as for example in the celebration of the Day of
the Firstfruits. This error, which has escaped the notice of theologians,
destroyed the significance of one of the great characteristic types Of the law.
The law enjoined that "on the morrow after the Sabbath" of Passover week, the
first sheaf of the harvest should be cut and carried to the temple, to be
"waved before Jehovah." The true " Day of the Firstfruits," therefore, always
fell upon the "first day of the week." But in Ezra's revival, misreading the
injunction, they took "the Sabbath" to mean the festival day of the passover.
And thus it came about that on that Sabbath day during which the? Lord lay in
the grave, the Jews were celebrating a rite divinely ordained to typify His
resurrection from the dead.
See Lev. xxiii. 10,
11, 15, 16; and Deut. Xvi. 9. Also John xix. 31 ("that Sabbath was an high
day," because it was "the day of the firstfruits"). I have dealt more fully
with this in The Coming Prince, Chapter IX., and have there
pointed out that the true "Day of Pentecost," as divinely ordered, was not the
Sabbath upon which the Jews observed it, but that "first day of the week" on
which the Holy Spirit was given. iCor. xv. 20, 23 especially refers to the
firstfruits as a type of the resurrection. Just as God's accepting the first
sheaf gathered was a token and pledge of His acceptance of the whole harvest,
so the resurrection of Christ is a token and pledge of the resurrection of His
people. I have seen it stated that one of the points on which the Karaites
differed from the "orthodox" Jews was that they followed the Scriptures in
celebrating the Day of the Firstfruits, and therefore also the Day of
Pentecost, upon the first day of the week.
But while those who
honoured Moses sought to follow his teaching with scrupulous care, the New
Testament has received very different treatment in the religion of Christendom.
When the Lord and His disciples met to eat the paschal supper, the rite was
essentially the same as in the days of Hezekiah or of Samuel. And if a heathen
stranger could have passed from that "upper room" to other kindred scenes in
Jerusalem, no difference in the ritual would have attracted his attention.
Here, was Israel's Messiah surrounded by His disciples; there, were apostate
Jews who on the morrow would clamour for Messiah's death. But disciples and
apostates alike were celebrating the same ordinance according to the same
ritual. The only difference between them was that while the disciples were
spiritually quickened and enlightened, the apostates were spiritually in
darkness and in death.
And if a Jew of those days could now come back to
life he could again take part in the familiar rite in the home of any pious
co-religionist. But imagine one of the primitive disciples present in St.
Peter's at Rome today during the celebration of a baptism or a mass! A devotee
of the old Eleusinian mysteries would find himself at home in the scene; but
the disciple would shrink away from it, as from a specially profane development
of paganism. Between the religion of Christendom and the revelation upon which
it claims to be founded there yawns a gulf which is impassable.
To the
apostasy of Christendom Judaism affords no parallel. As regard externals,
Judaism appears to be an exception to the strange law of degeneration which
marks the religion of mankind. The Scriptures are still read in the synagogues,
and the paschal supper is still celebrated in simplicity. And in the Scriptures
and the paschal rite may yet be found the means of their spiritual restoration.
The altar is there and the wood for the sacrifice: all that is lacking is the
fire from heaven to kindle it - a signal proof of the truth that "God has not
cast away His people."' For though in this age of a silent Heaven, He does not
declare Himself as the God "that repayeth them that hate Him to their face," He
is none the less "the faithful God which keepeth covenant . . . to a thousand
generations." Paganism is not less evil or less hateful because it masquerades
in a Christian dress, and uses the language of Christianity. The guilt and
infamy of Judas were all the greater because he ranked as an apostle of the
Lord. And if there be indeed apostolic succession in the historic Church, we
know to what source to trace its origin ! The Judaism which crucified the Lord
was essentially a true religion: it became a false religion only because the
very truth of God when administered by carnal men is changed into a lie. But
the religion of Christendom is essentially a false religion, and so lost to
shame, moreover, that it makes no effort even to cover itself with a Christian
terminology. About the priest and the altar the New Testament is silent, save
in that Epistle which was written expressly to teach that they belong in type
to Judaism and in anti-type to Christ. And as for baptismal regeneration, and
the mass, with its vestments and "candles vainly lighted at noonday" '-these
are the well-known stock-in-trade of a Pagan priesthood, and the New Testament
knows absolutely nothing of them.
Judaism, I repeat, affords no parallel to
such an apostasy as this; but a counterpart may be sought in Buddhism. Just as
the principles and practices of Buddhism are marked by the most flagrant
opposition to the teaching of Gautama, so also the religion of Christendom
stands out in open contrast with the teaching of Christ. I would not be
understood as bracketing Gautama with the Lord Jesus Christ. I deplore such
profanity. But again I appeal to the history of Buddhism as a striking instance
of the working of that same law of spiritual gravitation which has been so
apparent and so disastrous in the history of what - if it be lawful to coin a
much needed word - might be described as Christianism. For while in the sphere
of morals and of mind man is master of himself, the ruin of his spiritual
nature is complete. Here he is so entirely the slave of perverted religious
instincts that, apart from Divine grace, his recovery is impossible.
But
even here we must distinguish. Divine grace is needed for the apprehension of
Divine truth, but not for the detection of human error. No grace is needed to
save a man from card sharpers and "confidence trick" men; and his native wit
might equally avail to save him from the artifices and errors of human
religion. In the only address to a heathen audience recorded in the New
Testament, the Apostle appealed to reason and common sense to teach his hearers
that their cult was false.
But while the victim of the
criminal is eager to hide his shame, the dupe of the priest seems always ready
to glory in it. Not many years ago one of our great city houses was defrauded
of £20,000 in gold by a very clever, but very transparent trick; but
their chief.anxiety was to avoid the ridicule which publicity would have
brought 'upon them.
True it is that in the most solemn prophecy
world, ever uttered-for the words fell from the lips of our Divine Lord - a
time is foretold when false prophets shall arise who "shall show great signs
and wonders, insomuch that if it were possible they shall deceive the very
elect." ' But that time is yet to come. "Great signs and wonders"! The victim
of the "confidence trick" can plead that with his eyes he saw the sheaf of
counterfeit bank-notes, and he took them to be genuine. But what excuse can the
victim of these sham priests set up to excuse his credulity ?An honest-hearted
schoolboy might well be ashamed of being duped by them. As for priestly
absolution, if even-handed justice were meted out to all, the Vagrant Act would
suffice to deal with it. Ignorant women are sent to gaol for deceiving people
about their future in this world, but educated men are allowed to deceive them
with impunity about their future in the next.
And yet human religion has a
terrible power behind it. Satan is not, as men suppose, the instigator of their
crimes. Religion is the special sphere of his influence. What other meaning can
be given to the awful title, "the god of this world," accorded him in Holy
Writ? Were it otherwise the religion of Christendom would never have survived
the sixteenth century. When that century opened, the infamous Alexander VI. was
on the papal throne. The letter of a devout Roman Catholic, recorded in the
diary of a high official in personal attendance on the Pope, describes life in
the Vatican under the Borgias. Here are extracts from it :
"Everything can
be had for money. Crimes grosser than Scythian are committed without disguise
under the eyes of the Pope. There are rapes, murders, incests, debaucheries,
cruelties, exceeding those of the Neros and Caligulas. Licentiousness past
description is paraded in contempt of God and man. Sons and daughters are
polluted. Harlots and procuresses are gathered together in the mansion of St.
Peter. On All Saints' day fifty women of the town were invited to dinner."
At this point the historian from whom the foregoing is quoted breaks off
the narrative by adding: "The details of what followed are barely mentionable."
' The letter goes on to speak of the universal sale of indulgences, to provide
a portion for the Pope's daughter, Lucretia, and also to mention his son Cesar
Borgia as being as great a monster as himself. And as for the Sacred College,
not a single voice is raised in warning or remonstrance..
Was it any wonder
that when Charles V. ascended the Imperial throne the laity everywhere were in
revolt against the Church? But the Emperor was no friend of Luther, no patron
of the Protestants. The Edict of Worms, which devoted Luther to the flames,
gave proof of his zeal for the Church; and it was no fault of his that that
edict was frustrated. But the dream of his life was the calling of a Council
which, by dealing with the flagrant immoralities of the clergy, and allowing
the voice of the laity a hearing, would prepare the way for his putting down
the Protestants by force. Pope succeeded Pope, however, without his achieving
his purpose. Neither Leo X. nor Clement VII. had any wish to be "reformed"; and
when, a quarter of a century alter Charles's accession, Paul III. found himself
compelled at last to yield, he took care that the Council should neither parley
with the laity nor meddle with the vices of the clergy.
The secret history
of the Council of Trent has been laid bare by its "incomparable historian," as
Gibbon calls him - Paolo Sarpi of Venice, that amazing prodigy of genius and
learning. The shameful story is before the world.' There a Lot even in Sodom,
and doubtless there were not a few such at Trent - the Spanish bishops were
believed to be pure; but the Italian majority were for the most part men of the
same kidney as Pope Paul - that "Vicar of Christ" who openly pensioned his
bastard children upon the State, and made cardinals of his schoolboy
grandsons.
His friend and biographer, Cardinal
Pailavicino, pleads that he was no worse than his contemporaries! One might
expect a "Vicar of Christ" to be better; but this perhaps is proof of
Protestant ignorance and bigotry.
And these men, unknown to fame as
theologians, and bound by their ordination oath to obey their master the Pope,
settled the creed of Christendom, not omitting to devote to eternal damnation
all who refuse the blasphemous lie that a thrice-holy God accredits licentious
profligates as His ministers.
The Council of Constance had claimed
jurisdiction over the Popes, and proceeded to try and depose the rival
claimants to the chair of St. Peter, including John XXIII., of whom Gibbon
writes, "The Vicar of Christ was only accused of piracy, murder, rape, sodomy,
and incest; the most scandalous charges were suppressed."' But the Council of
Trent established the supreme authority of the Pope.
Nine years after it
was finally dissolved, occurred the "Massacre of St. Bartholomew." The leading
Protestants of France were invited to Paris by the French king, Charles IX., to
celebrate the marriage of his sister. They had been granted solemn and
oath-bound pledges of safety, but at midnight on the festival of St.
Bartholomew (21st Aug., 1572), the signal was given for their butchery. Ten
thousand Huguenots, men, women, and children, including some five hundred
persons of rank, were massacred. Their mangled bodies were flung into the
streets; the gutters were choked with their blood. In other towns like
butcheries were perpetrated." According to the estimate of Sully, the
defenceless victims numbered seventy thousand. But when Charles, repenting too
late of his hideous guilt, sought to palliate it by inventing charges of
political conspiracy against the Huguenots, the "Vicar of Christ" rebuked his
repentance by celebrating a Te Deum and ordering public rejoicings in honour of
the crime. More than this, he sent Cardinal Orsino to convey his
congratulations to the king. At Lyons, on his way to Paris, the emissary sought
out the leader of the butchery, and gave him absolution and his blessing. And
on reaching the capital he urged Charles to claim openly the credit of his
acts, which future generations would attribute to zeal for the Catholic
religion, now purified from heresy by the Council of Trent and by the
extermination of the Protestant sect within his realm.
And this "Vicar of
Christ" was not a depraved sensualist like some of his predecessors, but a
theologian and a scholar.' Gregory XI,J'!. had much in common with his
successors of 13ur own times. But on this very account his n~rnory is branded
with eternal infamy.
And yet the Council of Trent has settled it that the
Popes of our own times, notwithstanding their personal claims to veneration,
have no better title to the homage of Christendom than an obscene monster like
Alexander VI., or a monster as hateful, though of another kind, like Gregory
XIII. That Pius X. is the successor of the Apostle Peter is a mere theory; that
he is the successor of these men is a plain fact. Just as a family or a nation
can morally separate itself from its past, so can a Christian Church for it
depends only on the living Christ in heaven, the Divine Spirit present upon
earth, and the inspired Word of God. But the Church of Western Christendom is
united to its past by a chain that reaches back through all the centuries of
our era, and if one link be broken the chain is destroyed.
And yet if we
ask the way of life, we shall get answer, "Submission to the Church." And when
we press the inquiry and ask, What is submission? we shall be told, "Not the
profession of Catholic doctrines, but obedience to the voice of the Shepherd."
For "the sheep hear the voice of their Shepherd and they follow Him. He chooses
the pastures; He leads His sheep into them. The relations of sheep and Shepherd
correspond to those of disciple and Teacher. And hence it is clear that no one
ought to be received into the Catholic Church unless he comes into the fold
through the gate, of which Peter the Chief Shepherd is the Keeper."
The
words are Cardinal Vaughan's. Referring to the difficulties and prejudices
which have to be overcome, he proceeds: "Now, instead of entering into a maze
of objections, into a labyrinth of difficulties, a shorter and more
satisfactory course should be taken. Find the Divine Teacher, find the Supreme
Shepherd, find the Vicar of, Christ. Concentrate all your mental and moral
faculties upon finding the Head of God's Church upon earth. This is the key to
the situation."' The daring profanity of this is accentuated by the use of
capital letters, which lead the reader to suppose that the Divine titles so
familiar to the student of Scripture refer to his Divine Lord., But he is
startled and shocked to that they are applied to an Italian priest, whose claim
to them is, as we have seen, no better than that of the incarnate fiends of
eternally infamous memory, who ruled the Church of Rome in other days.
Nothing ever penned by Edmund Burke has been more often challenged than the
statement - in the most brilliant passage of the most brilliant of his
treatises, that, "vice itself lost half its evil in losing all its grossness."
By parity of reasoning it might perhaps be urged that the superstitions of
Christendom are less degrading than those of Pagan cults. But the true contrast
is between human superstitions on the one hand, and Christianity on the other.
And this explodes the fallacy of Macaulay's well-known problem "Whether England
owes more to the Roman Catholic religion or to the Reformation." "For political
and intellectual freedom," the historian goes on to say, "and for all the
blessings which political and intellectual freedom brought in their train, she
is chiefly indebted to the great rebellion of the laity against the
priesthood." This is her debt to the Reformation. To the Church of Rome she
owes it that the dawning of that bright day was delayed for centuries; that by
her hideous cruelties, and the debasing influence of her teaching, the chains
were riveted which at last made that "rebellion" a necessity.
It is
commonly assumed that religion, if earnest and sincere, must be pleasing to God
and a benefit to men. But Scripture and history combine to refute such an
error. The religious zeal of those who crucified the Lord was altogether
exemplary. Nor was religion with them what it has so often proved in the
history of Christendom -a mere cloak for immorality. In the terrible
denunciations of the Pharisees, which fell from the lips of Christ Himself, the
secret sinfulness of their hearts was exposed, but there was not a word to
justify the charge that they were outwardly immoral. Nor was any such reproach
ever cast upon them by the great Apostle who had been trained in their school,
and whose knowledge of their lives was intimate and full. "I bear them
witness," he declared, "that they have a zeal for God." And if such men were
branded by the Lord Himself as a "generation of vipers," "children of hell,"
and farther from the kingdom than publicans and harlots, why should we doubt
that there are men among" us today of scrupulous morality and intense religious
zeal, who, like them, are "children of hell," and farther from the kingdom than
the openly dishonest and impure?
The religion of Christendom has so lowered
the standard of rrrorals that morality has come to mean no more than freedom
from one special lust. But God makes no such distinction between sins; and even
men of the world have often juster thoughts. It was not thus that John Stuart
Mill used the word when recording how his father taught him to regard religion
as "the greatest enemy of morality."' The indictment is a terrible one; but in
the light of notorious facts, who can resist the charge, inspired though it be
by the bitterest prejudice?
From the murder of Abel to the supreme tragedy
of Calvary, and down through all the ages of the history of Christendom,
religion has been the fruitful cause of more wickedness and hate and cruelty
and bloodshed than all the common lusts and vices of humanity. These lusts and
vices have degraded men to the level of the brute, but religion has changed
them into flends. Hence it is that in every age religion has been the most
implacable enemy of God, the most relentless persecutor of His people.
The following is Hume's account of the massacre of the
Protestants in Ireland in 164I : "But death was the lightest punishment
inflicted by these rebels. All the tortures which wanton cruelty could devise,
all the lingering pains of body, the anguish of mind, the agonies of despair,
could not satiate revenge excited without injury, and cruelty derived from no
cause. To enter into particulars would shock the least delicate humanity. Such
enormities, though attested by undoubted evidence, appear almost incredible.
Amidst all these enormities the sacred name of RELIGION resounded on every
side, not to stop the hands of these murderers, but to enforce their blows, and
to steel their hearts against every movement of human or social sympathy." This
quotation is an adequate defence of the memory of the great man who, in 1649,
meted out well-deserved punishment to the authors and abettors of these
crimes.
"It cannot be," the Lord exclaimed, "that a prophet
perish out of Jerusalem!" With common men the prophet's mantle would insure
immunity from outrage. Religion it was that made it the outward badge and
emblem of martyrdom. "Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?"
was the martyr Stephen's scathing charge against the religious leaders of his
people-" They killed them which showed before of the coming of the Righteous
One, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers." Religion it was
that crucified the Lord of Glory, and stoned His faithful servant.
It was the Lord's misinterpreted words about the temple
which most excited the malignity of the religious Jews (Mark xiv. 18, xv. 29).
Stephen received a patient hearing until, referring to Isaiah's words, he
declared that God did not dwell "in temples made with hands" (Acts vii. 48).
This evidently provoked an outburst of opposition which led to his breaking off
his narrative, and launching the rebuke of verses 51-53. Just as in the case of
Paul, the declaration that he had been charged to preach to the Gentiles so
exasperated his hearers that in a frenzy of passion they exclaimed, "Away with
such a fellow from the earth... for it is not fit that he should live." And but
for the intervention of the Roman power they would have murdered him then and
there (Acts xxii. 21-24). Such is religion
Religion inspired the
persecutions even of Pagan Rome. For though in the case of a monster like Nero
it was no more than a cloak for his infamies, in the case of emperors of a
different type it was the genuine motive of their cruelties. Nor will it avail
to plead that theirs was a heathen cult. It is a matter of common knowledge,
astounding though the fact may be, that the persecutions of the Christian
centuries, perpetrated in the name of the Christian religion, equal in fiendish
malignity and cruelty the atrocities of Pagan Rome. As a matter of fact, in the
case of such men as Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, persecution was not the outcome
of malignity at all. The State required that every man should have a religion.
But Christianity had not yet degenerated into a religion, and so the Christians
ranked as Atheists, and they were punished accordingly.' Christianity was
aggressive. It proclaimed a revelation, and inculcated a faith, that drew away
men from all religions. It thus came to be regarded as an enemy to religion;
and rightly so. Religion therefore became the enemy of Christianity. Such it
has ever been. As Renan tersely puts it, the temple has always been
anti-Christian.
This accusation is mentioned by both Justin (Apol. i. 5,
i6) and Tertullian (Apol. x.). And Eusebius records that when the Roman
pro-consul called upon Polycarp to renounce his fellow. ship with Christians,
he did so in the words, "Repent: say, 'Away with the Atheists,'"
But here
mark the contrast. In his famous letter to Pliny, Trajan enjoined upon his
pro-consul not officiously to press inquiries concerning the Christians, and on
no account to receive charges made against them by informers. How different
this from the spirit and the methods of the persecutions inspired by the
so-called Christian Church in the name of Christ! In the passage already
quoted, Mill goes on to say that a hundred times he heard his father declare
that the Christian's God was "the most perfect conception of Wickedness which
the human mind can devise." And if the Christian's God be the 4od of "the
historic Church "- the god of the religion of Christendom, is not this true? If
the judgment which we mete out to men in other spheres is to be applied to
this, and guilt is to be measured by enlightenment and privileges neglected and
abused, the Church of Christendom stands out as the most hideous inpersonation
of evil which the world has ever known. "No means came amiss to it, sword or
stake, torture chamber or assassin's dagger. The effects of the, Church's
working were seen in ruined nations and smoking cities, in human beings tearing
one another to pieces, like raging maniacs, and the honour of the Creator of
the world befouled by the hideous crimes committed in His name. All this is
forgotten now," the writer here quoted sorrowfully adds-" forgotten, or even
audaciously denied."
We judge of a Pagan god by the acts of his
worshippers, committed in his name and in his honour. Let us be consistent and
fair, and apply the same test here; and instead of denouncing Mill as a coarse
blasphemer, we shall hang our heads as we deplore the ignorance which confounds
the god of Christendom with the Christian's God, and the Christ of Christendom
with the Christ of the New Testament.
The god of Christendom is a god who
can own as his specially accredited agents and ministers men whose lives were
marked by immoralities and crimes so flagrant and so shameful that the record
of them here would render these pages unfit for the eyes of the innocent and
pure; a god who can sanction and bless atrocities as hideous and hateful as any
that we associate with the names of Nero and Diocletian. With all the passion
of which we are capable we protest against the blasphemy of confounding this
god with the God of the Bible, or the Christ of "the historic Church" with our
Divine Lord and Saviour.
Chapter Eleven
Literature | Photos | Links | Home