SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
THE
WAY
APPENDIX
NOTE
I
THE CHURCH
THE Lord Jesus Christ would never have been crucified,
neither would Stephen have been martyred, nor Paul imprisoned, but for words or
acts that were deemed derogatory to the Temple. And in these days a man may
with impunity deny all the vital truths of Christianity, and reject our Divine
Lords teaching about the Scriptures which He came to fulfil; but let him
say a word in disparagement of "the Church" or of any human element of the
"Christian religion," and he is at once cast out of the synagogue. And yet
false conceptions of the Church are working grave mischief.
(Footnote -
The case of Mr. J. N. Darby, the greatest of the very great men of the
"Brethren" movement, is a notable instance of this. Like his contemporaries of
the High Church movement, the false conception of the Church, which obtains in
Christendom, ensnared him. Quite extraordinary in his case, for his early
writings bore clear and emphatic testimony against it, The unity of the Church
was the rock on which his life work was wrecked; and a movement which might
have proved a blessing to all the churches ended in adding another to their
number.)
Most of the perverts to Rome are duped by them; and advocates
of the sham "Higher Criticism" appeal to them to justify their rejection of
Scripture. For with mingled effrontery and folly they make the doctrine of the
Spirits presence in the Church an excuse for rejecting the teaching of
the inspired Apostles and prophets of the New Testament. These false
conceptions, moreover, are a fruitful cause of unfaithfulness to Christ on the
part of many earnest and spiritual Christians.
It is essential to
distinguish between "the Church" as a society the administration of which was
entrusted to men on earth, and "the Church" as the Body of Christ, dependent
only upon Himself as its Lord and Head. The building of "the Church which is
His Body" is His own work, and it cannot fail. But surely fanaticism or folly
alone can refuse to recognise that "the gates of hell" have prevailed against
the organised society on earth -" the outward frame," as Alford calls it,
which, in its full and final development of evil, will yet appear as "the woman
drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of
Jesus" (Rev. xvii. 6).
The Epistle to the Ephesians deals with the Church
as the Body of Christ, and gives the provision for its perfecting (chap. iv.
81,2). The Epistle to the Corinthians deals with the Church as a human
society (chap. xii. 8). In Ephesians we have nothing but spiritual ministry;
and evangelists are prominently named, for it is by the preaching of the Gospel
in the world that men are brought to Christ. Corinthians omits evangelists,
because the sphere of their ministry is the world and not the Church; and it
includes "helps, governments," &c. &c., which are necessary to the
outward society, but not to the vital unity.
And here I venture to think
that, through overlooking this distinction, Bishop Lightfoot, in his great
treatise on "The Christian Ministry" unduly disparages the ministry. For the
New Testament clearly distinguishes between office in the Church, and spiritual
ministry. Bishops (or elders, for the terms are interchangeable) had to do with
the administration and discipline of the Society; ministers with the spiritual
needs of the flock. In 1 Tim. v. 17, we read, "Let the elders that rule well be
counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and
doctrine." Their essential duty was connected with rule; if they excelled in
this, they merited double honour; and that honour was to be greater still if
they "laboured in the word and doctrine." It was not a case of "two orders,"
but of a combination of office and gift. Timothy himself was both a bishop and
a minister.
The Elders, or Bishops, were appointed by Apostolic authority,
but not the ministers. For Ephesians iv. 811 tells us that evangelists
and pastors and teachers were, like the apostles and prophets, gifts of the
ascended Christ. And I Tim. iii. 810 tells us that a minister was to be
tried by certain specified tests, and, if "found blameless," he was to be
recognised. The injunction is not "let him be ordained," but "let him
minister."
The only instance given in the New Testament of "ordaining"
ministers of the Gospel, is the "ordaining" of the Apostles Barnabas and Paul
by the Christians of Antioch (Acts xiii. 3). The laying on of hands was a
Jewish custom, the meaning of which is not doubtful. When the Israelite laid
his hands upon his sin-offering, he made himself one with it, so that the
victim died in his stead. And this is precisely the significance of the act
here. The Christians of Antioch conferred no mystical powers - that is a
thought, as Bishop Lightfoot shows, unknown to Scripture; it is altogether
pagan - but they identified themselves with the Apostles. They said, by an act
more eloquent than words, "We are going forth with you in this mission to which
God has called you." And when the Apostles conferred spiritual gifts by laying
on of hands, their action was not an exception to, but a further instance of,
this same principle of identification; just as when the Lord Jesus touched the
leper, and laid His hands upon the sick (Matt. viii. 3, 15; cf. Luke iv. 40).
The distinction between the appointment of an elder or bishop and the
recognition of a minister may be illustrated by the analogous case of the
priest and the prophet in Israel. By Divine decree none but the sons of Aaron
were to be consecrated as priests. But the consecration conferred no mystical
powers. There was nothing which even the high priest had to do that any
Israelite could not have done. But the absurdity of appointing a man to be a
prophet is obvious. The prophet declared himself by the exercise of his gift,
and the duty of the people was to acknowledge him. No less absurd is the
suggestion that human appointment could constitute a man a minister in the
spiritual sense. The duty of the Church was to recognise him, and the laying on
of hands was merely a method of public and formal recognition. There is no
evidence that in Apostolic times the practice prevailed in the case of
ministers. And in the Church of the Fathers the practice was not universal even
in the appointment of bishops. And "it is impossible that, if it was not
universal, it can have been regarded as essential."
I use the word
"minister" advisedly, for, of course, that is the meaning of the word . The
word occurs thirty times in the New Testament. It means primarily a servant in
the ordinary sense; and in the Gospels it is used only in that sense, save in
John xii. 26. In the Epistles it is the equivalent of our word "minister." The
Apostle Paul uses it of himself seven times, and of the Lord Jesus once (Rom.
xv. 8). It is never applied to Stephen and his fellows, with whom it is
popularly associated (Acts vi.). As Dr. Hatch shows, the duties temporarily
assigned to them were essentially those of the bishops when the Church was
fully organised. For, as Dean Alford says bluntly, "the 'ministers' of the New
Testament have officially nothing in common with our bishops."
But this is
a digression. What we need to keep in view is that the apostasy of "the visible
Church" in no way affects the Divine provision "for the building up of the Body
of Christ" (Eph. iv. 11, 12). "The visible Church" is competent to select and
appoint its own officers to administer its affairs; but in this other sphere
its duty is to recognise and honour those who are "truly called to the
ministry, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ." Having regard to the
black and hateful history of Christendom, God help us if we are dependent for
anything upon a historical succession. But here at least we are dependent only
upon our Divine Lord. And we cannot have too high thoughts of Him, or trust too
implicitly to His faithfulness and care, come what may of evil or of peril. But
of the Professing Church, the lowest and worst estimate we can form cannot be
much amiss. Ordinary Christians know nothing of its history, and Protestantism
stultifies itself with the theory that its corruptions are due to Rome. Rome
has merely systematised the errors of the "Primitive Church" of the Fathers;
and the shameless immorality of its pre-Reformation days will bear comparison
with the condition of the "Primitive Church." "The virgins of the Church," held
in special honour for their sanctity, were denounced by Cyprian for violating
"the commonest dictates of feminine modesty." At a single visitation the great
Chrysostom had to depose no fewer than thirteen bishops for simony and
licentiousness. To call "the Catholic Church " - which drove that great saint
into exile and practically to death - the Church of God savours of profanity.
In characterising "Saint" Cyril of Alexandria, nephew of Theophilus, one of
Chrysostoms enemies, Dean Milman uses the words ambition, intrigue,
arrogance, rapacity, barbarity, persecution, bloodshed. And this evil man was
the ruling spirit in the third of the "(Ecumenical" Councils, held at Ephesus
(431), to deal with the Nestorian heresy. Theology holds that this Council was
controlled by the Holy Ghost. History testifies that it was controlled by a
hired mob, and that at last the Emperor, unable to restrain the disorder which
prevailed, dismissed the bishops with the scathing rebuke, "Return to your
provinces, and may your private virtues repair the mischief and scandal of your
meeting."
The great names of Jerome and Augustine have raised a glamour
round the Church of their time. But the famous treatise of their contemporary,
Salvian of Marseilles, published ten years after Augustines death,
discloses what the state of the Church actually was in that age. I will not
soil the page with details, but content myself with a single sentence, in which
he sums up his terrible indictment: "Almost every assembly of Christians has
become a sink of vices." Even the heathen world was scandalised by the
exhibition of immorality and hatred presented by what is profanely called the
Church of Christ. "See how these Christians love one another!" had long given
place to "See how these Christians hate one another!" In one of the fights for
the bishopric of Rome, one hundred and thirty-seven corpses were left on the
pavement of one of the churches in a single day. What wonder that a Pagan
historian of that age - a man whose writings are praised for the moderation
with which he speaks of the Christians - declared that no savage beasts could
equal the cruelty of Christians to one another! What wonder that penal laws of
merciless severity were needed to keep the baptismally regenerated Pagans from
turning back to paganism !
Religious superstition is deaf both to Reason
and to Scripture; but people who are guided either by their Bibles or their
brains will take account of these things. And they will recognise that no
reasonable compromise is possible between the superstitious and profane
traditional view of "the Church" and the intelligent and Scriptural view of the
Reformers.
"Clear the decks" is one of the first orders issued in naval
warfare. And in the battle for the faith, now raging so fiercely, our safety
requires that we shall ruthlessly jettison all superstitious beliefs on this
subject. In his Commentary upon Matt. xii. 43 - 45, Dean Alford, after noticing
the application of the passage to "the Jewish Church," uses these words : -
"Strikingly parallel with this runs the history of the Christian Church. Not
long after the Apostolic times, the golden calves of idolatry were set up by
the Church of Rome. What the effect of the captivity was to the Jews, that of
the Reformation has been to Christendom. The first evil spirit has been cast
out. But by the growth of hypocrisy, secularity, and rationalism, the house has
become empty, swept, and garnished: swept and garnished by the decencies of
civilisation and discoveries of secular knowledge, but empty of living and
earnest faith. And he must read prophecy but ill, who does not see under all
these seeming improvements the preparation for the final development of the man
of sin, the great repossession, when idolatry and the seven [more wicked
spirits] shall bring the outward frame of so-called Christendom to a fearful
end."
This is entirely in keeping with the teaching of the Reformers.The
claim of the Churches of the Reformation to be Churches of Christ depends only
upon the Scriptures, and upon the presence of Christ in heaven and of the Holy
Spirit on earth. To base it upon a succession from the historic "Christian
Church" of Christendom is to incur participation in the awful guilt and doom of
that hideous apostasy.
The only true "Holy Catholic Church" is the
Church of the Martyrs, "the whole company of Christian people dispersed
throughout the whole world." The Catholic Church of Apostolic Succession is
stained with the martyrs blood. If "the validity of orders" depends on
"Apostolic Succession," the chain includes such links as Pope John XXIII., who
was deposed by the Council of Constance on charges of "piracy, murder, rape,
sodomy, and incest"; and of Alexander VI., whose vices and crimes, albeit he
was never deposed, are declared by the historian to be "totally unmentionable."
In dealing with such subjects people are apt to ignore their Bibles; but surely
they might be expected to have some respect for their own brains, and to
maintain diplomatic relations with common sense.
NOTE TWO
1
Thess.4:1-18
"Words are the index of thoughts, and where an unusual
construction is found, it points to some reason in the mind of the writer for
using it, which reason is lost in the ordinary shallow method of accounting for
it by saying that it is put for some other word." This sentence,
quoted from Dean Alfords Commentary (Greek Testament, John i. 18), may
fitly preface the present note upon 1 Thess. iv. 14; for our translators have
given us, not what the Apostle wrote, but what they suppose he ought to have
written. But the authorised rendering is popular, because the expression
"sleeping in Jesus" fosters the sort of sentiment in which "religion" delights.
No one, however, who has made a study of the use of the Lords names in
the New Testament can fail to recognise that it is foreign to Scripture. "The
dead in Christ," and "the dead which die in the Lord " - these are Scriptural
expressions; but "sleeping (or dying) in Jesus" is a phrase the Apostle would
never have written. And a kindred objection applies to the alternative
rendering, " that God will through Jesus bring with Him the sleeping ones." "A
clause which I am persuaded the Apostle could never have written," is Dean
Alfords comment upon it. And it is certain that no English writer would
pen such a sentence.
I venture to think that commentators have erred in
taking "the sleeping ones" of verse 13 as identical with "the dead in Christ"
of verse 16. Verse 16 deals with the righteous dead in general; verses 13 and
14 with the particular individuals whose death they were mourning.
And the
first eight verses of chapter iii. indicate that those deaths affected them so
deeply that the Apostle feared lest their faith in Christ should give way, and
"his labour be in vain." Will the reader, then, carefully peruse the first
chapter of the Epistle, and ask himself the question, Is it credible, is it
possible, that Christians such as are there described could have been in danger
of apostatising because some of their number had died in the ordinary course of
nature? It is absolutely certain that what tried their faith was not the fact
that deaths had occurred, but the circumstances in which they had occurred.
And what were the circumstances? The reference to martyrdom in chapters
ii. 14, 15, and iii. 3, supplies the obvious clue. For obvious that clue seems
to me now; and yet I acknowledge humbly and gratefully that it is to my friend
the Rev. C. H. Waller, D.D., that I am indebted for this solution of a
difficulty which perplexed me for forty years.
To recapitulate. As already
noticed (see pp. 117 - 120 ante), the words of 1 Thess. iv. 15 are not
Apostolic teaching about "the dead in Christ" in general, but a definite Divine
message to the Thessalonians with reference to the death of certain definitely
known persons - "the sleeping ones" of verse 13. Of course, the words may bear
the meaning given them by the Revisers. But Dean Alfords translation,
"them which are sleeping" (or, as we should say in colloquial English, "the
sleeping ones") is the simple and natural rendering, and the context makes it
clear that this is what is intended. If the Revisers gloss were correct,
we should expect the repetition of the present participle in verse 15.
Now
a general statement that, at the Lords coming, the righteous dead shall
not be at a disadvantage relatively to people then living upon earth, is very
different from a specific statement to the Thessalonians about certain
individuals whose death they were mourning. If by a Divine decree the Coming
were a far-distant event, that would not affect the truth of the one statement,
whereas it would render the other at least disingenuous.
Certain it is,
therefore, that when these words were written, there was nothing to preclude
their fulfilment at the time. And that being so, it is certain there can be
nothing in prophecy to necessitate delay in these days of ours. For the
question is not whether any foretold events may intervene - that may be
conceded - but whether they must intervene; in other words, not whether the
Coming may be further delayed, but whether delay is inevitable.
The fact
that the promise, "Surely I am coming quickly" remains unfulfilled, does not
clash with the truth that "God is not slack concerning His promise." And the
explanation of the seeming paradox is to be sought in the history of
Christendom and not in the prophetic Scriptures.
"The Apostolic age
maintained that which ought to be the attitude of all ages, constant
expectation of the Lords return" (Alford: 1 Tim. vi. 14). 14
Literature | Photos | Links | Home