Does the reformation need reforming?

Front matter

12.5

K^ x^

I

Chapter II

I. ORIGIN.

Perhaps it will not be necessary to present a formidable array of scripture texts in support of the proposition that Christ is the author of the church established by the apostles. In Matt. 16: 18 we find the language of the Master himself, '*/ will build my church," (oikodomeso mou ten eJcJclesian) not I have built, etc. In Heb. 12: 2 the apostle speaks of Jesus as '*the author and finisher of our faith. " Likewise, in his various letters to the brethren, and Peter in both his general epistles, call themselves apostles (messengers) and servants of Christ; hence, he is the author of their messages and the teaching used in the establishment of the congregations resultant therefrom. Eph. 1: 20-22; 5: 23, 24; Col. 1:17, 18; Heb. 1:2,3,8.

II. NAME.

The early church was called by several names, among which are TJie GIiurGh, Acts 2: 47; The Church of God^ Gal.l: 13; The ChuTGhes of Christ, Rom. 16: 16; The Church of the Firstborn, Heb. 12: 23; The Body of Christ, 1 Cor. 12: 27. Why all these different names were used to designate the one Church, I will not undertake to decide; nor yet why some earthly parents give their children only one pre-nomen or Christian name, while others are more liberal in their bestowal of nomenclature. Nor do we believe any conjectures of ours on these questions will be profitable or interesting. It is not dif&cult, however, for the diligent Bible student to see that while these names differ in form, they are very closely allied in meaning. Names were then supposed to indicate some attribute, quality, or characteristic pertaining to the person or thing to which they were applied. When the term '*^/ie OA'i^rcA" was used, the idea intended to be conveyed was not any church, indefinitely, as the definite article is used to denote some particular thing or things. The context clearly shows what church was meant, viz:. either the entire church universal, or the whole number of believers in a given locality adhering to the faith, promulgating the doctrine, administering the discipline, preserving the structure and conforming to the authority prescribed by Christ and his apostles. There was no exception to the rule that in so far as either an individual or an assembly diverged from these principles and procedure they were regarded as on the road to apostasy. 2 Thes. 3: 6; Rev. 2: 1-5.

The Body of Christ is clearly a figurative way of expressing the same as Church of Christy impressing at the same time the close relationship which the members should bear to the church and to one another. Rom. 12: 4; Eph. 4: 16; 1 Cor. 6: 15-19. The phrase, Church of God, is not far different from Church of Christ if we consider the language of Christ as recorded in John 10: 30, *^I and my Father are one. " Nor is the expression, Church oj the Firstborn materially variant from the others when we consider that Christ is the Firstborn or Firstbegotten of God. The same word(Gr. 39ro^o^ofcor6)is rendered firstborn^ Rom. 8: 29 and Heb. 12: 23, and firstbegotten in Heb. 1: 6. Inspired men called the church by names which, though different in form, indicated the same attributes, and literally or figuratively conveyed the same idea. Does that fact justify us in the use of names indicative of doctrines diametrically opposed, or of attributes in irreconcilable conflict? Because some American of Revolutionary days, in the exhuberance of his patriotic devotion called his son George Washington Lafayette Putnam Kosciusko, would his neighbors have been thereby justified in addressing him as Benedict Arnold? or even Burgoyne or Cornwallis? Surely not.

m. BASIC OR FOUNDATION PRINCIPLE.

The scriptures which teach that the divine character and mission of the Christ constitute the basic or fundamental principle on which rests the whole church fabric under the Christian dispensation are both clear and numerous. Christ himself so declares in Matt. 16: 14- 18, where we find that Peter had just declared the divine character, and Christ affirmed that on that fact or declaration his church would be built. John declares the object in writing the history of which he is the author to have been the establishment of the same fact. John 20: 31. The burden of the issue made by the apostles in their preaching after the death of Christ was the proof of his resurrection. This being established, his divinity followed as a logical conclusion. Acts 3: 14, 15; 4: 10-12; 1 Cor. 15: 1-4, and many other scriptures which we forbear to cite at present as we shall recur to this question when we come to deal with the subject ot faith.

rV. ORGANIC STRUCTURE.

It will be well to bear in mind, as has already been shown, that the word church is used in the New Testament to convey the idea of the Church Universal, as well as a local assembly. Matt. 16: 18; Acts 8: 1. Such is not an unusual way of speaking of that which may be indefinitely divided without any change of its properties. When we say that the atmosphere is composed of oxygen and nitrogen in the proportions of 20.01 to 79.99 we mean every particle of pure air which has ever existed. When we say ''the air is cold," we mean that which is in our immediate locality. If we speak of the air as being foul or damp, we do not mean all the air, or the air in general, but that portion occupying the particular locality in question, whether small or large. Such remarks as these last are never regarded as calling in question the constituent elements of our common atmosphere. When divested of all foreign elements, its component matter is the same in every locality. It is just so with the church. The church at Ephesus was composed of all the obedient believers in that locality, and so with the church at Jerusalem . The Church Universal was and is composed of all the obedient believers everywhere.

If they differ in faith, doctrine, ordinances, disci-

—13— pline or methods of proceaure, it is because of a divergence from the standard authorized. When Paul spoke of ''the church at Corinth" he undoubtedlymeant all the members of the Church Universal who resided at Corinth. If by the '^Church at Rome" he meant less than all of the believers who dwelt there, such meaning does not appear. At the first ''the Church" consisted of a single congregation, which was located at Jerusalem; but this did not continue, and it was not long till congregations were estabUshed at other places.

Yet God provided no cohesive appliances for the purpose of combining them all into one consolidated ecclesiasticism. Hence the only bond of cohesion by which their essential oneness was to be maintained was their unity of faith and its resultant uniformity of doctrine, discipline, ordinances and practice. In the Common or King James version of the New Testament we find a number of official names, among which are apostle, bishop, deacon, elder, evangelist, minist3r,pastor, preacher, presbyter, prophet, servant, shepherd, teacher, etc. It does not follow, however, that there were as many different functionaries in the primitive congregations, having as many different duties to perform, nor does it appear to warrant the co-ordinating of the numerous congregations into an ecclesiastical union, nor st^d-ordinating them to an ecclesiastical hierarchy, with its various tribunals original and appellate, from the stewards of a single congregation to the Pope or Ecumenical Council.

In ancient times names were applied to people or things as indicative of, or to render emphatic real or supposed attributes or qualities. Hence, the followers of Christ were first called converts^ as indicating their recent change from Judaism or Paganism to Christianity. They were caiiea cj^^o^j^s^o (crr manthano, to learn), with reference to their diligence in learning from Christ or his apostles; believers, with reference to their convictions; brethren, as indicating the close and affectionate relationship which their attachment to a common Master rendered appropriate, and saints, in view of that degree of holiness to which it was their privilege and duty to endeavor to attd,in. There appears to be no ground for the inference that a saint was not also a convert, a believer, and, likewise, a brother.

So also with the official ternis. They do not each imply a different functionary, nor, necessarily, a different function. The twelve were first called disciples (Gr. mathetes). Matt. 10: 1. It is probable that at that time they were peculiarly the learners, possibly the only ones seriously devoting their time and energies to the study of the new theology. Luke, in his account of this same matter (Luke 6: 18), informs us that they were also *^named apostles." Luke states the fact, and Matthew gives the reason why they were called apostles, viz: they were **sent forth." Luke says they were named apostles (Gr. apostolos, from apo, out or from, and stello, I send), and Matthew tells how they became apostles, i. e., by being sent. Matt. 10: 5. We see that the twelve were both apostles and disciples, messengers and learners, according to the special function peculiar to the occasion. They were much more, as we shall see. Peter and Paul were both elders, (Gr. presbuteros, senior, older, adjective, comp., deg.). '- 1 Peter 5:1; Philemon 9. All the apostles, together with Stephen, Barnabas, Philip and many others were evangelists (Gr. evangelidzo, to publish or proclaim good news). The elders were overseers (Gr. ep: isJcopos, from epi, over or upon, and sJcopeoo, to look or see) Acts 20: 17-28. This word is translated overseer in Acts 20: 28, and Ushop in Titus 1: 7 and 1 Peter 2: 25. The masculine present participle of the same verb is rendered oversight in 1 Peter 5: 2, while episTcopen (ac. sing.) in Acts 1: 20, and episJcopes (gen. sing.) in 1 Tim. 3: 1 are rendered Mshopricky and office of a Mshop, respectively.

In Rom. 2: 20 the word didasJcalos (from the Gr. didasko, to teach, to instruct), is rendered teacher; in 2 Tim. 1: 11 it is rendered preachev^ and in Matt. 10: 25, Mark 5: 85, it is rendered Master. DiaTconos, the Greek word for servant^ is so translated in Matt. 22: 13 and John 2: 5, 9; and Rom. 16: 1, but in Rom. 13: 4, 6, and 1 Cor. 3: 5 it is rendered minister, while in 1 Tim. 3: 8, and Phil. 1: 1 it is rendered deacon. In this latter verse, the phrase {episTcopois Jcai diaJconois) rendered * ^bishops and deacons" in the King James version, the Arthur Hinds literal translation gives "overseers and those who serve." So we see how by giving to a single word a number of different renderings, the translators have made the text appear to give sanction to a multiplicity of church officials never contemplated by the writers of the New Testament. When we come to consider who were preachers or evangelists, we learn from Acts 8: 4 that "they who were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word. " Who went everywhere? They who were scattered abroad. Who were "scattered abroad"? They of the church at Jerusalem "were all scattered abroad except the apostles. " Acts 8:1. So we see that in the primitive church the believers were all disciples, brethren (or sisters), servants, evangelists, teachers, and preachers. John 13: 14-16. Paul was an apostle (Col. 1: 1), a worker of miracles (Acts 20: 9-17), an elder (Phil. 9), an overseer, having the oversight of the churches (2 Cor. 11: 28), a pastor (Acts 20: 11-22), an evangelist (Acts 17: 22-33), a deacon (Acts 11: 29, 30; 2 Cor. 11: 28), servant of Christ (Rom. 1: 1), and of the church (2 Cor. 4: 5) and a speaker of divers tongues (I Cor. 14: 17). Peter was all these, and in addition had the keys of the kingdom (symbols of authority) committed to him in a special manner; yet he was not infallible, for he thrice denied his Master (Matt. 26: 69-75) and likewise, when he trusted his own wisdom instead of following God's word he was guilty of dissimulation, and carried away as judicious a man as Barnabas with his erroneous doctrine. Gal. 2: 11-14. Not having within himself the attribute of infallibility, it was not possible for him to transmit it to a successor. We might follow this line almost indefinitely, showing that the other apostles were measurably endowed with the same powers and charged with the same duties as Paul and Peter, but enough has been given to indicate how little authority is to be found in the New Testament for the multitude of ofllcial functionaries and their privileges and prerogatives with which the theological jargon of modern Babylon is replete.

We have as parts of the ecclesiastical machinery of modern times, the steward, class leader, chorister, organist, deacon, archdeacon, clerk, secretary, superintendent, teacher, minister, pastor, evangelist, elder, ruling elder, presiding elder, missionary, home and foreign, overseer, bishop, archbishop, licentiate, curate, vicar, priest, reverend, diocesan, metropolitan, primate, cardinal, apostolic delegate. Pope, etc., etc. Just how many of these are claimed by their friends to have been authorized by the New Testament, I do not undertake to say. It is certain, however, that many of them were not even dreamed of by those who read the New Testament in the Greek only. Is it not probable that the emiment scholars selected by King James to make what is known as the * ^common version" carried into the text some of those traditional shades of meaning which had gained a lodgment in their minds through the denominational influence of a lifetime? It appears that they strained the meaning of the Greek text in order to make it cover the ecclesiastical orders then existing in the Church of England, of which they were zealous and devout members, and that all the subsequent subdivisions now constituting the Protestant sects have strained the King James version enough to justify the oflBcial distinctions and prerogatives of their respective denominations.

tjet us briefly examine a few cases in which the Greek text was clearly wrested from its obvious and ordinary sense. In 1 Tim. 5: 1 we read: **Rebuke not an elder (Gr. presbutero) but entreat him as a father; and the younger men (neoterous) as brothers: likewise the elder women (presbuteras) as mothers, and the younger {neoteras) as sisters, "etc. The revised version and the Arthur Hinds popular literal translation give substantially the same. The Campbell and Mc- Knight (Presbyterian) gives *'Do not severely rebuke an aged man^ but beseech him as a father," etc. The Conybeare & Howson free version (Episcopalian), * ^Rebuke not an aged man, but exhort him as thou wouldst a father, " etc. Now, what is the difference in the word presbutero, translated an elder, and presbuteras, translated older women? Both these words are adjectives in the comparative degree. They are conceded by all to mean senior, older. The only difference is that one is the masculine singular and the other feminine plural, the noun to which the adjective belongs being understood in each case. Let those not acquainted with the Greek be reminded that in that language the adjectives have gender and number as well as the nouns. The idea sought to be conveyed by the word elder was not that of an official personage. It is set, practically (though perhaps not gramatically) in apposition to pres&i^^era?, meaning the older women; not, however, as signifying the same thing, but a like thing so far as the analogy is concerned, and in respect to the duty enjoined. This view is confirmed by the antithetic as well as the apposite bearing of the sentence and the words used. Presbutero^ an aged man, is set in antithesis to neoterous, the younger men; and presbuteras, the older or more mature women, is set in antithesis to neoteras, the younger women. If, then, presbutero meant a male officer, presbuteras meant female officers. Prom these considerations it clearly appears that in this place, at least, the word elder meant a man of mature age, in years or experience, or both, — a senior — rather than an officer or one in authority. In 1 Peter 5: 5, ''Likewise ye younger {neoteroi) submit yourselves to the elder, " (presbuterois). Here the same word in the plural is used, not in the sense of contrasting one office with another, nor with the lay or unofficial members, but the aged with the young and inexperienced.

It is, however, rendered elder, (singular) without any indication that it is different in meaning from the other places in which it is made to convey the idea of an office, as in the first verse of the same chapter. In Titus 2: 2 presbutas, the noun corresponding to the adjective used in the passage above cited, is rendered aged men, in correspondence with presbutidas^venderedaged women in the succeeding verse. Thus we see how these words, which have never been regarded as carrying the idea of official preferment in their vernacular, have been made to serve the purpose of sustaining a distinction between the clergy and laity which is entirely unknown in the sacred writings. Titus 2: 2 is almost the exact equivalent of 1 Tim. 5: 1 in its antithetic bearing, i.e., the aged men are set in opposition to the young men, and the old women are set in opposition to the young women. Here, however, the noun is rendered aged men. Why should a noun meaning an old man and an adjective in the positive degree meaning old be made to convey the idea of seniority, and the same adjective in the comparative degree carry the idea of an official personage or one in authority? Why should the feminine adjective not have that meaning as well as the masculine? Let those answer who can.

Keeping in mind the foregoing considerations, turn to the 17th verse of this same chapter (1 Tim. 5), **Let the elders {presbuterois) that rule (proestotes) well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor (kopioontes) in word and doctrine. " The revised version follows the K. J. except that ^'teaching "is substituted for * ^doctrine." The Conybeare & Howson (Epis.) gives, ''Let the presbyters who perform their office well," etc., and the McKnighb & Doddridge (Pres.), **Let the seniors who preside well," etc.

The word rendered rule (proestotes) in the above verse is the perfect participle, middle voice, of the verb prohistemi^ to undertake, to practice, to maintain with diligence and energy, to stand up ©r forward in support of, etc. It does not carry the idea of ruling in the sense of one in authority. In Titus 3: 8-14 it is rendered "maintain good works," and the context shows diligence and energy in their maintenance. In Rom. 16: 2 the noun form of the same word is rendered ' succorer," i. e., helper. To have translated it ruler in this case would have made Sister Phebe the master or ruler over Paul and many others. The word translated labor in the verse under consideration is the present participle of the verb Jcopaioo, to be weary, to be faint from intense and prolonged efi'ort, etc., (Bagster). It is so rendered in John 4: 6, where Jesus is represented as "being wearied from the journey" (JceJcopiaJcos eJc tes hoidopodias). In other places where this word is rendered labor the context shows it to have been such as tends to faintness or exhaustion. Bagster defines the noun formed from this same root to mean ''one who stands in front, a leader, a protector, a champion, " etc. The evident meaning of the sentence in question is **Bestow abundant honor on the brethren who notwithstanding their advanced age, stand well forward in maintenance of the cause; more especially them who have pursued their duty, of instruction and exhortation to the point of exhaustion. " By translating the word indicating maturity as denoting official character, and the word indicating energetic perseverance as rule^ and then construing ^ ^double honor^^ to mean salary and ^^word and doctrine^ ^ as the equivalent of elocutionary homiletics, we have an injunction well suited to the taste and conception of many of the religious leaders of the present time, viz: * 'Let the official clergy (even though lacking in age and experience) be counted worthy of a liberal salary who succeed in building up our party; more especially they who entertain the spiritually weak with elegant discourse. ' ' There are many more scriptures which have suffered like distortion under the cunning hand of the scholarly translators, but time and space forbid their being considered at length in so small a volume as this is intended to be.

Enough has been quoted and commented on to indicate how persistently the translators and interpreters of the New Testament have labored to sustain the unscriptural claim of modern religionists for the multitude of ecclesiastical orders and clerical distinctions. The apostles are all dead. In the sense of being able to foretell events and of being in direct communication with God, there are probably no prophets now living. It has been shown that the elders (Gr. presbuteros)were the elderly or senior persons; that when charged with the function of overlooking the congregations they were called overseers (episJcopoi) which is the same as bishop, and that figuratively they were also called pastors, which is the Latin for shepherds. Thus, bishop, presbyter, pastor and overseer are the same. They were chosen from among the elders or elderly brethren on account of their experience, knowledge and fixedness of character. It is obvious that there is no more sense in calling an overseer literally a pastor than there is in calling a congregation literally a flock of sheep. As has been shown, all the brethren were disciples (learners), preachers, evangelists (proclaimers of good news), teachers (doctors), and ministers (servants). Those who served the congregations in a special sense were called deacons by way of emphasis, but not as indicating exclusive service. Acts 6: 1-7.

Hence the Organic Structure of the scriptural congregation is:

1. Christ, the Head, with absolute and infinite authority.

2. Overseers. Brethren who by reason of mature age, experience, discretion, integrity, intensity of courage and conviction, and proficiency in scripture knowledge, are recognized as safe and competent leaders and instructors, both in precept and example.

8. Deacons. Those peculiarly qualified and set apart by the congregation for some special service pertaining to the welfare of the assembly or its members in their temporal aspect.

4. Bretnren. Those charged with no special function or prerogative separate from the membership in general.

Let it be remembered that these last are not excused from the performance of any duty of which they are capable, that may be assigned to them by the assembly, or that may otherwise devolve upon them. A man is called a merchant or a farmer according as he makes a specialty of the one or the other; not because he follows it exclusively. A soldier is coiled b> private because he usually serves in that capacity. Should he be capable of services of a higher order, and should they be required of him by a superior officer it would certainly be his duty to perform them cheerfully and to the best of his ability. So with the unofficial member. It was so in apostolic times.

Chapter III

V. THE POWER OR AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.

All authority is either infinite or limited. The authority of the Church is limited in character and extent; that is, only authority of certain character has been committed to the church, and even this has not been extended to all times, places and objects. It has been already shown that under the present or New Testament dispensation, all authority was committed to Christ. It logically follows that the assembly of his people have only such power or authority as he has delegated to them. As to the scope of her authority, we have been unable to find any grant of secular authority to the Church or any number of her members. Though the Master had the undoubted right to have assumed temporal power, he steadfastly refused to do so. John 6: 15; 18: 36. The charge committed to the church by her Lord and King is a moral and spiritual one, and her energies should not be dissipated and wasted on considerations purely and exclusively secular. The church and aU her functionaries, as such, would do well to preserve a respectful and dignified silence concerning the particular business in which a man may engage, what he shall eat, drink and wear, how he shall dispose of his surplus earnings and dispense his bounty, and what shall be the character of his diversions and recreations, so long as they involve no neglect of duty, wrong to a fellow man, or degrading indulgence. The Master has nowhere in the sacred writings delegated to the church or any number of her members the right to require of me that which he has not required nor to deny me that which he has not denied.

A wisdom sufficiently profound to determine a course of conduct to be adhered to by each individual, and suited to all the conceivable exigencies of life, is probably possessed by no man or number of men. God has not seen fit to prescribe such a course, nor has he authorized his church to do so. Not only is it true that the church has no secular authority conferred upon her, but it is also true that her power in spiritual matters is limited. Nowhere do we find legislative authority conferred on her, nor the right to make change or modify the law of her being or procedure. It is true that Christ said to the apostles, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matt. 16: 19; 18: 18. This was spoken to the apostles personally; certainly not of or to the church, for the church was not yet in existence. Matt. 16: 18. We concede that whatsoever the apostles have loosed or bound, either by their words under inspiration or by their example under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is approved in heaven. But if this language is to be applied to the church in post-apostolic times, and receive a literal construction, and all the modern orthodox denominations are parts of the church, it would follow that all their conflicting and mutually contradictory creeds, confessions, edicts, anathemas, and canonizations must be true because promulgated by the church. This would pass every persecutor, infidel, murderer, and debauchee into heaven on a plane of equality with the most devout martyr of the dark and cruel Inquisition, provided some corrupt or misguided priest could be induced to utter over his remains a flattering absolution. Moreover, if Christ invested the church with absolute authority, including power to legislate, then every vestige of excuse for the existence of Protestantism is at once swept away. If the true Church, being vested with plenary authority during the first sixteen centuries of the Christian era gradually evolved through the legitimate powers committed to her, what was at the time of the reformation The Universal Churchy Luther and his co-adjutors had no right to oppose her. No reformation was necessary. So we see that Protestantism is driven to deny either her own right to exist or the absolute and unlimited authority of the church, even in spiritual matters.

By reference to the 25th, 26th and 27th chapters of Exodus it will be seen that God gave Moses specific directions for the construction of the tabernacle and for each and every piece of furniture to be placed therein. Moses seems to have construed the command, **See that thou make all things according to the pattern shown thee in the mount, " as meaning that a full and minute compliance with every detail of the order exhausted his authority in the premises; and God seems to have acquiesced in that construction. Looking back through the intervening centuries, who will say that Moses would have been justifiable in adding a single article or feature to the prescribed complement of fixtures and arrangements because it seemed juaicious or appropriate to him or to the wisest or most devout of the worthies of his day?

The tabernacle "pitched by Moses" in the wilderness was a type of the church to be thereafter established by Christ under the New Covenant. Heb. 8: 5; 9: 1-11; 10: 1. The "house of Christy " over which he is Master consists not of temples made with hands, furniture burnished with gold, nor altars crimson with the blood of animal sacrifices. Wherein, then, consists the analogy which the type bears to the antitype in the authority and manner of construction, if it be not that such authority is exhausted in supplying each and every item designated in the command? To say that Moses designed and located the tabernacle and each article therein contained, scrupulously according to divine directions, reverently abstaining from making any contribution from human wisdom thereto, either in form or arrangement; and then to infer therefrom that we are authorized to alter, change, vary, or modify the elements contained in the pattern furnished us by God for the construction of the spiritual building and the selection and arrangement of its furniture, is to ignore the essential elements of analogical apposition.

We are not left, however, to the inferences of typical analogy for this important conclusion. Moses, in one of the most direct and pertinent prophecies concerning the advent and character of the New Testament dispensation, says: "But the prophet who shall presume to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded, . . . shall die." Deut. 18: 20. Christ enjoined on the apostles the "teaching them [believers] to observe all things which I have commanded. " Paul said that this had been done, 1. e., that the "whole counsel of God" had been declared unto them. Matt.