-The Church and a Clerical Hierarchy

The Church and a Clerical Hierarchy “THE CHURCH AND A CLERICAL HIERARCHY”
John T. Smith By “the church,” we mean the New Testament church, the one which Jesus gave himself for or purchased with his own blood. A “hierarch” is an ecclesiastical ruler, or one hav­ing rule in holy things. “Hierarchy” is the power or rule of a hierarch, priestly rule or government, or an organized body of priests or clergy in successive order or grades. “Clerical,” of or pertaining to the clergy. From these latter definitions it will be obvious to all that we are to study this subject almost entirely in the light of uninspired history. We are to try to trace, historically, the movement referred to by Paul as the “falling away,” and the progressive develop­ment of a hierarchial or ecclesiastical system which corrupted the church from its primitive simplicity and purity, and culminated in the “Church of Rome” with its successive order of priests and prelates. The Bible furnishes us an excellent text with which to begin. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 : “Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him; to the end that you be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle from us, as that the day of the Lord is just at hand; let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped: so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now you know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall be revealed the lawless one whom the Loid Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to naught by the manifestation of his coming; even he, whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them-that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God sendeth them a work­ing of error, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be judged who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” From this reading it is clear that the Thessalonians were troubled in regard to the second coming of Christ, and Paul writes to settle their minds, “Let no man beguile (deceive) you—, for it will not be except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;....” He said the “man of sin” is being restrained to the end he may be revealed in his own season. “P1or the mysteiy of lawlessness doth already vTork: only there is one that restraineth now.” The Pulpit Commentary says: The prediction of Paul, concerning the man of sin, mede a deep impres­sion upon the early fathers, and the references to it in their writings are numerous. In general, they con­sidered that the fulfillment of the prediction was fu­ture; that the man of sin was anti-Christ, and an individual; and that the restraining influence was the Roman Empire.” It further says: “The reformers in general adopted this opinion.” The reformers did not agree with the fathers that the man of sin—anti- Christ—is an individual, but rather the “succession of popes.” Hence, they applied the name, “man of sin” to the movement or institution which we style the hierarchial or ecclesiastical system.

There are some things very definite about Paul’s language in the text. First, an apostasy is positively predicted, and the nature of it is clearly set forth. It was not to.be a political, or social decline, but a reli­gious apostasy, and was to take place before the sec­ond coming of Christ. Second, the quotation from Paul shows that it was to be characterized by the usurpation of power or authority. These points must not, cannot, be overlooked in discovering the apostasy predicted by Paul. From the New Testament we learn that each con­gregation was to have elders and deacons. Titus 1:5 : “For this, cause left I thee in Crete, that thou should- est set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge.” Luke records the fact that Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every church which they had established in Asia (Acts 14:23). To the Philippians Paul wrote: “To all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” Thus the New Testament church was a marvel of simplicity in its organization, with only these two sets of officers; the first to “Tend the flock . . . . exercising the oversight” (Acts 20:28), while the deacons were to look after the poor, and perform other kindred duties. But this simplicity was not to continue very long. The mystery o£ lawlessness had already begun to work in the days of the apostles.

Bishop Newhon observes that, “The foundations of popery wTe^e laid in the apostles’ days, but that the superstructure was raised by degrees, and that sev­eral ages passed before the building was completed, and the. man of sin revealed in full perfection.” Numer­ous passages in the New Testament clearly pre­dict departures from the truth and simplicity which is in Christ, and a tendency to follow the traditions of men. In his sacred, solemn charge to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:1-8), Paul said: “For the time will1 come wThen they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itch­ing ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their cars from the truth, and turn aside unco fables.” Again 1 Timothy 4:1-3 says: “The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall fail away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of de­mons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanks­giving by them that believe and know the truth.” To the Ephesian elders he said: “For I know this, that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw’ the disciples after them.” Thus he predicted that wfithin the church, and among its lead­ers, there would be men not satisfied with the sim­plicity thereof, but who like Diotrephes, loveth to have the pre-eminence (3 John 1:9).

History records several stages or steps in the prog­ress of the apostasy, and the building up of the hier­archy, which we shall try to discover. The first of these was the ascendancy or sovereignty of the pres­byters or bishops. The Bible plainly teaches that they are to have dominion and rule over the church. “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor” (1 Timothy 5:17). “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them” (Hebrews 13:17). But they were not to “lord it over the charge allotted to them.” They were not to be tyrannical, or to act as feudal lords.

During the second century, the idea developed that they were clothed with absolute authority as God, and Christ, and the apostles, to rule the church. Igna­tius, who was martyred early in the second century A. D«., and whom tradition says was a disciple of the apostle John, said: Ye should also be subject to the presbyters, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ.” He further said: “See that ye follow the presbyters as ye would the apostles.” Irenaeus, who was born about 120 A. D. made this statement: “Wherefore it is needful to abstain from all these things, being sub­ject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ.” Thus presbyters or bishops were made abso­lute over the church, and the initial departure was effected. In the New Testament, the names presbyter and bishop are used interchangeably. Neander, in his His­tory of the Christian Religion, says: “We find the names presbyter and bishop interchanged for each other until far into the second century.” But at that time a distinction was made which the Bible knows nothing about. The name bishop (episcopus) was applied exclusively to the presbyter who acted as chair­man or president of the presbytery. His place was soon made a standing office, and this bishop presumed to have the pre-eminent oversight. He insisted that due to his superior office, he should exercise greater authority. Neander says: “The bishops considered themselves as invested with supreme power in the guidance of the church, and would maintain them­selves in this authority.” This was the second step place before the return of the Lord. The third step, though more radical, was quite easy and natural, because the way had been paved for it. It was the formation of a sacerdotal or priestly caste in the church. It was formed largely after the order of the old Jewish priesthood. The people were divided into two classes, the clergy and the laity, and these became separate and distinct bodies. Because the clergy was supposed to live in constant intercourse with God, they soon concluded that the only approach to God was through them. Thus they formed a priest­hood for the people, laity, took charge of affairs gen­erally, and gave to every church its priest.

Historians tell us that the next step was the multi­plication of church offices. The system is being de­veloped. The hierarchy is lifting up its head, but it required more organization to acquire more power and authority. So they combine all the churches of a certain locality under one head and management. Over this combine or association one of the bishops was placed to direct its affairs. When associations of this kind had been formed throughout the state or province, with a bishop over each of them, they were prepared for another forward step in the development of the system. There was one drawback to the movement, and that was that the church was filled with warring- factions, which had been developing since the bishops usurped ascendancy and power over the presbyters. When Constantine came to the throne in 312, he soon set about to reconcile these matters. He called a general council in 325, which was attended by 318 bishops, from all over the known world. Out of this council, the historian tells us, was born the archbishopric. It was then that all the districts of a state or province, with their presiding bishops, united under one head, which head was called the archbishop, or higher bishop. He was given power and oversight over the whole state. But the provinces of a nation must next be combined under one head. This was the next step. Hence, one to rule and exercise dominion was placed over this great organization. He was called the cardinal, which term is derived from “cardo,” and means a “hinge.” At first the clergy who served the cathedral churches were regarded as the hinges on which other clergymen and their churches revolved, but later the name was applied to the bishops who became heads of the different nations. Still later, the cardinals constituted the official advisers or senate of the pope, in his administrative and ecclesiastical affairs. But the man of sin is not yet fully revealed, “he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped.” Somewhere between the fourth and sixth century, another stage is reached, when the patriarchate is formed. Just as the political rulers of the large divisions of the Roman Empire were called exarchs, the religious chiefs of the church were given the name patriarchs. At first only the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch received this honor, but soon Jerusalem and Constantinople came to enjoy the same glory. Hence the world was sliced up into five parts and a religious despot ruled in each realm. Each was absolutely independent of the other. Finally, in the latter part of the sixth century, these five powerful bishops waged a terrific struggle for supremacy. It was a battle of the giants, a fight to the finish. Each was striving to occupy the highest place, and have the title of “Universal Patriarch.” In' the year 606 Boni­face III was designated pope, by the Emperor Phocas, and was placed on the religious and temporal throne of the world.

Gregory proudly claimed to be the successor of Peter, set up by God to govern, not only the whole church, but if necessary to assume the control of civil affairs in the whole world. Thus have we seen that through a succession of departures from New Testament teaching, and the gradual development of a human system of government, the Homan Catholic church, with its priests, bishops, archbishops, cardi­nals, and popes, came into being, full grown, in less than 600 years after the primitive church was estab­lished. When one carefully considers the predictions of Paul and then follows the events subsequently occurring, to the elevation of the first pope, it seems all too obvious that his specifications have been met.

Moreover, while these changes were all taking place in the administrative department, a system of doc­trine, wholly unlike that which was given by the apostles, was being developed. For example, “Holy water,” which was said to be especially blessed and sanctified by the priest, was first introduced in the year 120 A. P. Nothing which the Lord ever said, nothing- connected with the Holy Spirit’s guidance is responsible for its us. It is strictly a human innova­tion. The next innovation was the introduction of the doctrine and practice of “penance”—the infliction of punishment to expiate for your sins, and as an evi­dence of your penitence. It was first practiced in the year 157. Where did the doctrine originate? Obvi­ously, in the minds of- those who “go onward, and abide not in the doctrine of Christ.”

Then came “Latin Mass,” in the year 394, which is still practiced after a period of more than 1500 years. Yet there is not one word respecting it in all the pages of the Sacred Book. Gradually were these innova­tions introduced, and step by step the “man of sin” developed. In the year 588, “extreme unction”—an anointing administered to those thought to be in danger of immediate death, began to be practiced. It was not introduced by authority of the apostles, or the Holy Spirit, but purely upon the assumption and the authority of the clerical hierarchy. The doctrine of “purgatory,” which teaches that those who die unprepared, may be prayed out of their torment by the priest, provided a sulficient sum of money is paid to the priest, was first announced in the year 593. The doctrine of “Transubstantiation” was intro­duced about the year 1000 A. D. It taught that by the prayer of the pope or a priest under him, the bread and wine were changed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Of course, there is not a hint of such a thing, in all the word of God. It was never heard of until the year 1000.

“Celibacy,” by which they mean that the popes and priests will not marry, was introduced in the year 1015, and seems to perfectly fulfill the prediction of Paul (1 Timothy 4:1-3), “In later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding to marry . . .

There was introduced in the year 1190 the doctrine of “indulgences,” which simply meant that if one would pay the priest a satisfactory sum, he could do whatever he pleased, give himself up to mirth, gratify his appetites and propensities. All would be absolved by the indulgence. Verily, “the love of money is the root of all evil.”

Next in order was “Auricular confession”—con­fessing one’s sins into the ear of the priest, that he may forgive them. Of course, he has no more power to forgive sins than any other man. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can cleanse one from his sins, and that has never been delegated to any man on earth. Auric­ular confession was just a part of that ecclesiastical system built by man, and was never heard of until the year 1215. In the year 1311, “Sprinkling” for baptism was adopted at the council of Ravenna. Sprinkling had been practiced in cases of sickness and on special occa­sions, since 251 A. D., but now it beomes a doctrine and a regular practice of the western branch of the church. The Greek Catholics have never practiced 'sprinkling, but from the beginning of their existence until now, they have practiced immersion. There is no higher authority for sprinkling for baptism than the Roman Catholic church. There is neither precept nor example for it in any of the recorded cases of con­version in the New Testament.

Thus we have seen the primitive church, which had its beginning at Jerusalem, corrupted by a suc­cession of departures and innovations until it com­pletely lost its original simplicity and purity. In its stead, we have seen the “man of sin” raised up to his full power, “exalting himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.” He claimed to be the successor of Peter, the vicar of Christ; set up by God to govern the church and the world. But after a thousand years of corruption, supersti­tion, and spiritual darkness, the clouds rifted and the sun broke through once more. Hence the church of the Lord Jesus Christ was restored to its ancient purity and power.