SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
THE BIBLE OR THE CHURCH
APPENDIX IV.
NOTE 1. - BISHOPS.
THE Epistle to the Philippians is addressed to "all the
saints," "with the bishops and ministers." Upon which Dean Alford remarks, "The
simple juxtaposition of the officers with the members of the Church, and indeed
their being placed after those members, shows the absence of hierarchical views
such as those in the Epistles of the apostolic Fathers." And again, in his
comments on Acts xx. 17, 28 (which records that Paul addressed the elders of
the Church in Ephesus as bishops), he refers thus to the perversion of the
passage by Ireneus: "So early did interested and disingenuous interpretations
begin to cloud the light which Scripture might have thrown on ecclesiastical
questions." And he notices the mistranslation of verse 28 in A.V. ("overseers"
in lieu of bishops), as concealing "the fact of elders and bishops having been
originally and apostolically synonymous." This is obvious from Tit. i. 5, 7,
which enjoins the appointment of "elders in every city . . . if any man is
blameless . . . for the bishop must be blameless." And so again in Acts xiv.
23, "And when they had appointed for them elders in every church."
And in
his essay on "The Christian Ministry," (Philippians, p. 97) Bishop Lightfoot of
Durham writes:
"It is a fact now generally recognised by theologians of all
shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same officer
in the Church is called indifferently 'bishop' and 'elder' or 'presbyter.'
Some who would despise these great Protestant theologians, and who would regard
a layman who discusses such subjects as being "in the gainsaying of Korah,"
will listen perhaps to the most learned of the Latin Fathers. In Jerome's
Commentary on Titus they will find all this in the plainest words. He says, "A
presbyter is the same as a bishop and. . . Churches were governed by a common
council of presbyters." And again, "Therefore, as we have shown, among the
ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants
of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one
person."
NOTE II. - "DEACONS."
The
word deacon occurs in two passages in our English Bible, viz., Phil. i. i and 1
Tim. iii. 8-13. It there represents the Greek word, which occurs eight times in
the Gospels and twenty-two times in the Pauline Epistles, and nowhere else. In
the Gospels it means servant in the common sense of that word, save only in
John xii. 26 ("There shall My servant be"). The Apostle uses it only in the
higher sense, save in Rom. xiii. 4. But by an extraordinary vagary of Christian
thought, the seven men appointed, as recorded in Acts vi., to take charge of
the collections are called deacons; and the word having thus acquired the
meaning of a subordinate minister, it was then, with an ecclesiastical bias,
introduced into the two passages above indicated. Its use there is not
translation but exegesis ; for when the New Testament was written the Greek
language possessed no word corresponding to it. And "using the office of a
deacon" (A.V.) or "serving as a deacon" (R.V) in verses io and 13, is a sheer
mis-translation. The verb thus rendered is the kindred term used thirty-six
times in the New Testament, and it ought to be rendered "to minister." The New
Testament knows nothing of "the office of a deacon." Besides the apostles,
there were in the Church "bishops" and" ministers." The functions of an elder
or bishop were not ministry, but rule. If he ruled well he was to be doubly
esteemed, and still more esteemed if (in addition to discharging the duties of
his office) he "laboured in the word and in teaching" (i Tim. v. 17). The "
bishop" was generally appointed by an apostle or his delegate (Tit. i. 5). But
the practice of appointing "ministers" belongs to post-apostolic times. The
call to the ministry was altogether of God. They who claimed to have received
the call were duly tested; the command was, "Let them first be proved, and
then, if they be blameless, let them minister" (i Tim. iii. io). This survives
in the service for "the making of deacons," which is very ancient. (The service
for "ordering of priests" belongs to a later and more corrupt era.) Before the
bishop proceeds to ordain the candidate he requires him to declare that he is
"truly called, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the
ministry." The call itself is neither of men nor by men.
NOTE III.-"THE CHURCH"
In controversies of the
kind raised by "the Oxford movement" and by the present ritualistic revival,
the real question at issue is "the Church." On the one side there is the Romish
view; on the other is that of the Reformers. Which is right? This question is
of vital importance. No one, whatever his opinions may be, can fail to be
struck by the silence of Scripture respecting that which is the paramount
reality in the religion of Christendom. Prominence is given to "the Church
which is His body" ; but about the Church as an organised society on earth,
there is, if we except i Cor. Xii. 28 and i Tim. iii. 15, practically nothing
in the New Testament, save warnings of its apostasy. Latin theology, however,
maintains its position, first, by ignoring all this; secondly, by confounding
the Church with the kingdom; and thirdly, by taking words spoken to the
apostles in the days of the Lord's earthly ministry as applicable to "the
Church" of Christendom.
John xx. 23 may seem an exception to this. But let
the objector answer this question, Whether were the Lord's words addressed to
the whole company of the disciples there assembled, or to the Apostles as such?
If the former, there is an end of the matter from the Romish standpoint; if the
latter, then let those who claim to have the powers of Apostles in the
spiritual sphere, give proof that they possess such powers, in the sphere where
we can test them.
Since the beginning of the "Oxford movement" to the
present hour, no one has seceded to Rome who has not taken that step as the
result of deciding the question, Whether is the Church of Rome or the Church of
England the Church? It is like one of those catch questions which are framed so
to fix the attention on a side issue that the real issue involved escapes
notice. Of course we answer, with the Reformers, "Neither the one nor the
other." - According to them "the Church" is "a congregation of faithful men, in
the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly
administered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of
necessity are requisite to the same" (Art. xix.). This is the creed of the
Church of England. And if any bigot should set up the plea that by these
concluding words the Reformers intended to limit their definition to
episcopacy, he is answered by the language of the 55th Canon of the Convocation
of 1603, which is as follows: "Before all sermons, lectures, and homilies, the
preachers and ministers shall move the people to join with them in prayer, in
this form, or to this effect, as briefly as conveniently they may; Ye shall
pray for Christ's Holy Catholic Church, that is, for the whole congregation of
Christian periple dispersed throughout the whole world, and especially for the
Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland." Such is " the Catholic Church" for
whose "good estate" prayer is made continually in our churches. In 1603 the
only Episcopal Churches outside the kingdom were those which Article xix.
expressly excludes; and the Church of Scotland (which is here expressly named)
was Presbyterian. All that Dean Hook has here to urge is that, as othe
Archbishop who presided at the Convention was (he declares) a bitter and
unscrupulous bigot, it is "monstrous to suppose" the Presbyterian Church of
Scotland was intended. But the fact remains that there was no Episcopal Church
in Scotland. The plain truth is that the Church of England does not teach this
anti-Christian figment of Apostolic Succession in an episcopacy. Article xxiii.
could never have been framed by men corrupted by such an error. And Hooker-a
high authority upon the doctrines of the Church-repudiates it. "Some do infer"
(he says) "that no ordination can stand but such only as is made by Bishops,
which have had their ordination likewise by other Bishops before them till we
come to the very apostles, . . . to this we answer, that there may be sometimes
very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a Bishop"
(Eccies. Pol. vii. i4).
If Rome has paramount claims to the position she
assumes, it is as being indisputably the most distinctive and advanced
embodiment of the apostasy. When the historic Church adopted the pagan rite of
baptism (see ch. viii) it ceased to have any moral right to be considered the
Church of God; and when in a later age it gave up the Lordship and Headship of
Christ its fall was complete. For if baptismal regeneration is un-christian,
apostolic succession is antichristian.
In Christianity the Church holds its
true place as "a congregation of faithfulmen," and the test of faithfulness is
that the Lord Jesus Christ is all in all. But in "the Christian religion" the
Church is everything. Indeed there is more about "the Church" in many an
evangelical sermon than in the whole of the New Testament.!
(Footnote - The expression "Church of Christ" is not
found in Scripture, though "Churches of Christ" occurs (Rom. xvi. i6). The word
"Church" in 'the singular occurs but fifty times in the Epistles; in the vast
majority of these occurrences it is used narratively, or with reference to some
local congregation. Eph. and Col. deal with the Church as the vital unity-the
body of Christ; and all that the New Testament has to say of the visible or
professing Church corporately, will be found in i Cor. xii. and xiv. and i Tim.
iii. 15.)
NOTE IV.-"THE PRIEST IN
ABSOLUTION"
In the course of official duty I have read many
obscene books, but I have seldom read anything more gratuitously filthy than
the standard works intended for the guidance of priests in questioning
penitents. Compared with Romish treatises, those in use among the Romanisers in
the Church of England seem mild. Dr. Pusey's Manual for Confessors (based on
Abbé Gaume's work) entirely omits the section relating to the seventh
commandment-an acknowledgment that, in his day, Englishmen would not tolerate
it. But impurity is an evil plant of rapid growth, and no such reserve was used
by "The Society of the Holy Cross" when, in 1866, they issued The Priest in
Absolution. Part I. of this work, a tract of 90 pages, was published and sold
openly, and reached a second edition in 1869. Part II., a book of 322 pages,
was "privately printed for the use of the clergy." It was dedicated "to the
Masters, Vicars, and Brethren of the Society of the Holy Cross," and its
circulation has been chiefly among the conspirators of that Jesuitical
organisation. I have been fortunate enough, however, to see a copy of it, and I
have made extracts which I intended to set out here. But this purpose I have
abandoned, for I have sought to exclude everything from these pages which would
render them unfit for general readers. When the late Lord Redesdale brought the
book before the House of Lords (June 14, 1877) the extracts he read from it
were deemed too indecent even for the secular newspapers; and the Archbishop of
Canterbury (Dr. Tait), who followed Lord Redesdale, declared "that it is a
disgrace to the community that such a book should be circulated under the
authority of clergymen of the Established Church."
The history of this
shameful book, and of the controversy to which it gave rise, will be found in
Chapter IV. of Mr. Walsh's Secret History of the Oxford Movement-a work which
ought to be in the hands of every voter in the country. With his usual coldness
he discusses them question as though these "priests" who practise this
abominable system were all excellent men, whose only error is doctrinal. But
suffice it to say - for the subject is a delicate one - that those who claim to
be priests with authority to forgive sins need expect no quarter when they
outrage morality. The scandal is still recent respecting one leading member of
the Society of the Holy Cross, whose name figures in Mr. Walsh's pages; and
were I to refer to others it would not betoken Protestant bigotry, but special
knowledge.
NOTE VI.-THE "VIRGIN MARY"
MYTH
If, in the face of the plain statements of the 19th, 20th,
and 25th verses of the first chapter of Matthew, people can deny that the
mother of our Lord became Joseph's wife, it is idle to argue the question.
Jerome it was who first formulated the Virgin Mary myth in a systematic way.
With reference to the verses above cited, he exposed the fallacy of holding, as
Hooker expresses it, "that a thing denied with special circumstance doth import
an opposite affirmative when once that circumstance is expired." Sound logic
this, provided "the thing denied" be something against the doing of which there
exists a presumption, on account of its being vicious or wrong. And this
Jerome's argument assumes, thus begging the whole question. If we deny that a
man committed some grossly immoral act on the day when a wife whom he dearly
loved lay dying, we do not imply that he committed such acts on other days, but
merely give a special reason for rejecting the charge that he did so on the day
in question. But if we assert that a man did not eat meat during Lent we do
distinctly imply that he did do so at Easter. Some who deplore Mariolatry may
perhaps shrink from the thought that Mary became the wife of Joseph. But the
question arises, how far that feeling may be due to the very error which God
intended to correct by recording so plainly that she, whom all generations call
blessed, entered into the marriage relationship. "Let marriage be had in honour
among ALL", (Heb. xiii. 4, R.V.).
NOTE VII.-THE
APOSTLE PAUL ON CELIBACY.
The Apostle Paul's words in i Cor.
vii. 25-40 have been misused in support of pernicious teaching on the subject
of celibacy. But as Dr. Chr. Wordsworth writes
(Church History, vol. iii.
chap. vi.), he "qualifies his commendations of celibacy by grounding them on
considerations of the present distress (in i Cor. vii. 26) in which the
Christian Church was, in tha.t age of persecution; and he condemns in the
strongest terms those who forbid to marry, even as contravening the divine
truths which flow from the doctrine of the Incarnation, and as led astray by
seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, and declares his will that younger
women should marry and bear children. (i Tim. V. 14), and that every man should
have his own wife, and every woman her own husband (i Cor. vii. 2), and that
marriage is honourable in all (Heb. xiii. 4) and 'a great mystery,' being a
figure of Christ's union with His Church (Eph. V. 23-33)."
But the Bishop
overlooks the fact that the Apostle never contemplates pledged celibacy. A life
pledge not to do that which God sanctions to be done is entirely beyond the
scope of his words. And any suggestion of monasticism is absolutely abhorrent
to his teaching. And further, not only are these words of counsel framed with
special reference to the persecution then prevailing, but the Apostle prefaces
them by the express warning, "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of
the Lord." Such reservations are of immense importance as indicating the
meaning of inspiration, and the supreme authority of inspired Scripture. "The
exception proves the rule," and of the rest of the Epistle the Apostle could
write, "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him
acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the
Lord ' (i Cor. xiv. 37). Nothing can be more explicit than the distinction. In
the one case it is, "I command, yet not I, but the Lord" ; in the other case it
is, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord'? (i Cor. vii. 10, 12).
NOTE VIII.-" WE HAVE AN ALTAR."
The language of
Heb. xiii. 2o is freely used against the truth which it is the main object of
the Epistle to establish. Here is the passage: "We have an altar whereof they
have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those
beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin,
are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the
people with His own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth,
therefore, unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach."
The briefest
summary of the views of commentators upon the words "We have an altar," would
fill many a page. And it would convey the false impression that the statement
is a hopeless enigma; whereas, in fact, its meaning is simple and clear to
those who understand the language in which it is written, i.e., the typology of
Scripture, "now entirely neglected" (as Hengstenberg so truly says). But let us
keep in view:
(i) That the passage belongs, not to the doctrinal, but to
the practical teaching of the Epistle;
(2) That so far from its being the
promulgation of some deep or mysterious truth, it is merely an incidental
appeal to one of the plainest and best known ordinances of the law, and this,
as the basis of the practical exhortation of verse 13; and
(3) That there
is no emphasis on the pronouns "we" and "they": as a matter of fact they are
not expressed in the original at all.
We may therefore at once rule out any
explanation which makes the " we refer to Christians and the "they" to Jews; or
which "involves the anachronism of a distinction between clergy and laity,
which certainly then had no place" (Alford). The words are equivalent to "There
is an altar." And as the words were addressed to Hebrews, and no one versed in
the teaching of the law would tolerate the thought of eating the great
sin-offering, we may rule out also any exposition which rests on a blunder so
gross. The priests were to eat of the ordinary sin-offerings, but not of those
of which the blood was carried into the holy place (Lev. vi. 30; x. i6, i8).
Having regard to (3) we dismiss also of course the, exegesis, "We have an
altar," namely, the Cross. Moreover, this also rests upon ignorance of the
types; for under the law no victim was ever killed upon the altar, and there
was no altar of sin-offering at all. The blood of the sin-offering was put upon
the altar of burnt-offering, and in certain specified cases, upon the altar of
incense. The use of the word " altar" in the passage is merely an instance of
the familiar figure of Metonymy; as when, ex. gr., we say that a man keeps a
good table, meaning thereby that he has goodfood.
To conclude: the passage
may be thus amplified and explained :-We know that in the aspect of His work,
which was typified by the great sin-offering, Christ stood absolutely alone and
apart from His people. But the Cross does not speak to us merely of the curse
of God upon sin; it expresses also the reproach of men, poured out without
measure upon Him who was the Sin-bearer. We cannot share the Cross in its
aspect toward God; but let us on that very account be eager to share it in its
aspect toward the world-"Let us go forth, therefore, unto Him without the camp,
bearing His reproach."
It is the Hebrews version of Galatians vi. 14. And
as the tense of the verb makes clear in the original, it is not a call to some
heroic act of renunciation, but (like the "Let us draw near" of ch. x. 22) an
exhortation to the habit and attitude of life and heart which become those who
profess to have been saved by the Cross of Christ.
Space forbids my
noticing, important though it be, either the way in which this passage brackets
together Exod. xxiv. 8 and xxxiii. 7, and Lev. xvi.; or those other aspects of
the great Sacrifice of Calvary in respect of which His people are "partakers of
the Altar" (in the Passover, ex. gr., the people fed upon the lamb whose blood
brought them redemption). In repudiating the very word "altar" the Reformers
gave proof of spiritual intelligence. Just as the only Priest known to
Christianity is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself,' so the only altar is in the
scene of His priestly ministry - the Divine presence in heaven. An altar upon
earth must be either Jewish or Pagan. The. Church of England knows nothing of
it; albeit her paid servants revel in the apostasy betokened by the revival of
the name, and the re-introduction of the abomination itself, in violation of
the truth of God and of the law of this realm.
Literature | Photos | Links | Home