Get your own Free Home Page ..To Ancient SDA's ............ To "What's New?"
This is the Church
by
A T Jones
Part Four
Which One?
(All the emphasis has been added by the Protestors)
Which one is the true?
One of the livest questions of the day is, What is the Church? And this is the most important question that there ever could be in any day. All know that there are so many things each one of which is claimed to be not only a church but The Church, that everybody all the time is forced to the question of not only which is the true Church, but what is the true Church?
Each one of them claims and asserts that it is the true Church: and yet in so many things and ways each one is conducted and managed so unlike what is Christian, that its own members as well as other people are kept perpetually under the question, Is that the true Church? All of them but the first one of them, are perfectly sure that the first one of them is not the true Church: while that first one of them is just as perfectly sure that it is the only true Church.
And if the first one of them, the oldest one of them, the one that has the advantage of far the longest time and the most and fullest experience, the one that has had the benefit of "the ingenuity and patient care of forty generations of statesmen" that have made it "the very masterpiece of human wisdom" - if that one of them is not the true one of them, then how can any other one of them be the true?
Or in behalf of all the others must it be the acknowledged principle of this subject, that the first one of them, the one with the most experience of them all, is, and is certain to be the worst of them all. If this be the principle of the thing, then is it not inevitable that as certainly as each or all of the others shall be given time and experience, they will go the same way? And in the like length of time will be each one just as bad as the first one? And if that be not the principle of the thing, if age and experience have not made the first one of them to be the worst one of them, then what ground or reason of existence have all or any of the others, apart from that first one?
This inevitable dilemma is sought to be avoided by the plea, invariably adopted, that,
the difficulty is not in or with the principle: the principle is correct: the difficulty is in the application of the principle: not the principle but the men.
But that is not any way of escape. For the application of the principle was, and must be always by men. And these men were always just men - plain human beings - like all other men. Always that principle will, and will have to be, applied by men - just plain human beings - like all other men. Yet more than this: that is exactly the plea of that first one of these claimed churches. All the deviltry of the church of Rome, all the way, has been protested by members of that church within that church. The enormities of iniquity practiced by and in that church have been recorded and condemned and denounced by even the high ones of that church - bishops, archbishops, even cardinals - and who still remained orthodox members of that church because they held that the evils were not of the church nor from the church, but of the men, and only from the men, who conducted the affairs of the church.
Long before The Reformation, men in that church had said harder things of the Pope and of the conduct of that church than the reformers ever said: yet these still held that it was still and ever the true church.
The standard annalist of that church itself, Cardinal Baronius, says of the papacy in the tenth century:
"In this century the abomination of desolation was seen in the temple of the Lord: and in the See of St. Peter, reverenced by angels, were placed the most wicked of men: not pontiffs but monsters."
And Bishop Robert of Lincoln, in England, in the very presence of Pope Innocent IV and his cardinals, A. D. 1250, spoke out plainly to them:
"The clergy are a source of pollution in the whole earth: they are anti-christs and devils masquerading as angels of light, who make the house of prayer a den of robbers: and the Roman curia is the source of all the vileness which renders the priesthood a hissing and a reproach to Christianity."
They denounced the men and the activities of the men, even of the popes and the papal court, and still apologized and pleaded for "the church" - for the machine - that alone gave to the men their power and their opportunity. They condemned the evil practices but justified the system by which alone it was possible that these practices could not only be perpetuated, but could even exist.
Church-men were bad; but "the church," whose members and the expression of whose life those church-men essentially were, was "the good!" Customs were pernicious; but "the church," whose the customs essentially were, was "the abode of sanctity!"
Practices were abominable: but "the church," which invented many and profited by all and corrected none of the practices, was "holy!" Popes were demoniac; but "the church," of which the popes were "the head" - the acting will, the guiding mind - was "divine!"
See the grand churches and magnificent cathedrals!
Hear the "heavenly" music of the "divine" chants!
Catch the impressive odor of the "holy" incense!
Feel the awe of the "solemn" service, as the richly-robed ecclesiastics minister at the "altar," kneel before the "host," and move in "holy" procession! Think of the wide extent of her "missions!"
Behold her "perfect organization," by which she executes as by one man the wonders of her will, holds empires in awe, and rules the world!
Is not that the true and only "holy church?"
The church was "the ark of God," the "ship of Salvation." The pilot, the captain, and the crew, might all be pirates, and use every motion of the ship only for piratical purposes, and load her to the sinking point with piratical plunder, and keep her headed ever straight toward perdition, yet "the grand old ship" herself was all right and would come safely to the heavenly port. Therefore, "cling to the ark," "stand by the old ship," and you will be safe and will land at last on the heavenly shore.
For instance, in direct connection with the very passage already quoted from Cardinal Beronius, in which he describes the fearful conditions of that church in the ninth century, there stand the Cardinal's words as follows:
"Christ was then assuredly sleeping a profound sleep in the bottom of His vessel whilst the winds buffeted it on all sides and covered it with the waves of the sea. And what was more unfortunate still, the disciples of the Lord slept more profoundly than He, and could not awaken Him either by their cries or clamors."
And in the General Council of Blase, 1432, the pope's legate exhorted the Bohemian Christians:
"In the time of Noah's flood, as many as were without the ark perished."
All of this evil in that church and of that church was so chronic, and so well known that time and again when a pope died, all Europe was searched as with candles to find "a good man" to be pope. And when one was at last found who was well known and universally accepted as of model character, when he had been installed and was actually pope he was indeed the pope: and all were caused to lament that "he always would have been universally considered to be the best man for pope, if he had never become pope."
Thus the plea utterly falls in every way that would hold that the badness of the church of Rome is because of the men and not because of the principle. It is essentially in the principle: and the principle only manifests itself in and through the men who become identified with it.
And what of the Scriptures? What say they of it? This: "the man of sin," "the mystery of iniquity," "the synagogue of Satan," "the son of perdition," "the great harlot," "Mystery, Babylon the Great," "the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth," "the mistress of witchcrafts and mother of abominations," "the abomination of desolation."
Does God say all of that of a thing in which there is any possible trace of good, of purity, or of truth? Do the Scriptures deal with men, or with principles? With principles only. The whole Bible is a Book of principles only. And as certainly as the Scriptures deal with principles and not with men, so certainly the Scriptures deal with and define and denounce the church of Rome in its principle, and not merely in its men.
The sin, the perdition, the mystery of the iniquity, the harlotry, the witchcraft, the sorcery, the abomination, of the church of Rome is in the principle of the thing: is in the essence of the thing, and not in the management of the thing: is in the essence of that thing as the church, and not in the management of it as the church.
And what is the principle of the church of Rome as the "church?" According to that principle and idea, what is the "church?" It is this:
"The society of the validly baptized faithful united together in one body by the profession of the same faith, by the participation of the same sacraments, and by obedience to the same authority, Christ, its invisible head in Heaven, and the Roman Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, Christ's visible representative and vicegerent on earth." - Christian Apologetics, Sec. 200.
Take out of that definition the words "Roman Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter," and "vicegerent," and in their place insert the name of the man, or of the Board, or of the Committee, or of the Conference or Diocese, in the case, and in principle and largely in expression, it equally defines "the church" as held and manifested in every other "church organization" in the world.
And what is the principle in it and of it? It is the visible crowded into the place of the invisible: the human into the place of the divine: the spiritual attention and obedience of souls centered in, and held under, the dominion of men instead of that of God Himself in Christ under the Holy Spirit. The Reformers cut to the root of that whole thing at the one stroke of declaring that in truth it is not in any sense The Church. That is what made them "heretics." They said that it is "the abomination of self-deification in the holy place:" "the Pope is Anti-Christ and his See is that of Satan himself:" "the papacy is a general chase, by command of the Roman Pontiff, for the purpose of running down and destroying souls."
Were they wrong? Was The Reformation a mistake in its fundamental principle and contention?
Rome claims that it was: and that as she now has eliminated the bad elements from the church, there is no longer any grounds for Protestant contention: but that all should and can now work in harmony as one. And the professed Protestant churches, holding as tenaciously as does Rome herself the Romish principle of "the church," and refusing the Christian principle of The Church, are ready for co-operation with Rome. And every "church" that holds that principle of "the church" is co-operating with Rome.
Now what is the principle of The Church of the Living God? According to this principle and idea, What is The Church? It is this:
"The Church is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all." Ephesians 1: 22-23.
It is "the House (sic) of God" "built upon . . . Jesus Christ Himself . . . in Whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord . . . for an habitation of God through the Spirit." Ephesians 2: 19-22. And what is the principle in this and of this? It is more than a principle, it is a Person - the Personal God, all in all, in Christ, building His own House, for His own habitation through His own Spirit.
And the difference between these two ideas and these two realms as to The Church, is as wide as is the difference between man and God. It is just the difference that there is between man and God: between sly and designing and ambitious and deceitful men, and the open and frank and honest and meek and lowly Jesus in Whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
It is the truth that the long experience of that first one of these "churches," and the ingenuity and patient care of the more than "forty generations of statesmen" have made it "the very masterpiece of human wisdom:" and have so made it that, that "among the contrivances that have been devised for deceiving and oppressing mankind it occupies the highest place." It was devised for the sole purpose of deceiving and oppressing mankind; for it was devised by the arch-deceiver of mankind. The men had little to do with it beyond being the instruments of the arch-deceiver to extend his purpose and to fulfill his will. His has been always the purpose, and his the moving will, to put his church - "the synagogue of Satan" - in the place of The Church of God.
That is why the Wisdom of God in the Scriptures sets it forth as He does in the terms "the mystery of iniquity," "the son of perdition," etc., with never a single intimation of anything respectable or even decent: much less anything good. That Wisdom penetrates to the seat of the life of the thing, and reveals the inherent principle of it. And what that Wisdom says that it is, that is what it is. And no ingenuity of argument, no trick to remove from the thing to the men of the thing, from the principle to the application of it, can escape or elude the inherent and essential deviltry of the thing.
The thing is simply and only Satanic.
It is Satanic in its principle, it was Satanic in the beginning of its working - "the mystery of iniquity doth already work;" it has always been Satanic in its working; and it cannot be anything else, whatever may be said or done to have it be something else.
The principle, being Satanic, makes more corrupt the men who espouse it and identify themselves with it. It makes the best men bad and makes bad men worse. That is the secret of the papacy.
Error - error in the inward parts - corrupts the passions.
Truth - truth in the inward parts - sanctifies the soul.
oooOooo
To Ancient SDA's ............ To "What's New?"
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page