3.05 - THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICISM

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICISM In the study of the New Testament church every one certainly knows that it had officers, known as elders and deacons. I purpose tonight the study of the Development of Ecclesiasticism on the earth. It is purely all historic affair. But little in the Bible is said regarding it. The prophetic finger pointed to the departure from the truth and to a disposition to follow the ways of man. According to the New Testament, each congregation was to have elders and deacons.

Hence, in Titus 1:5, Paul said: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city."

I call your attention to the fact that there was a plurality of elders in every city therein mentioned. But to make the matter a little more specific and definite, we are told, in Acts 14:23, that when Paul and Barnabas had passed throughout Asia they ordained elders in every church.

Looking out upon the world and observing the hand of uninspired man in directing the affairs of the churches of this country, one must be impressed with the wonderful contrast between human organizations and the church about which he reads in the Bible. In all that sacred volume there is no such thing as one elder having authority over several churches. Not simply once or twice, but every time the matter is mentioned in the Bible, it is always a plurality of elders to each individual congregation. That, of itself, evidences to us just how things have drifted from the original pattern, and from the ancient order of things.

These elders were to have authority, exercise dominion, and to feed the Church of God. Hence Paul said (Acts 20:28-30) to the elders of the church of Ephesus: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all of the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."

There is a wonderful responsibility resting upon the elders, bishops, pastors, overseers of the Church of God. One of the qualifications of all elder is that he must be apt to teach. Unfortunately, some of them are apt to do most anything, because at the very beginning of ecclesiastical history, elders were not content to abide by the Word of God. They felt the responsibility resting upon them, and sought to make the church a prominent institution. They looked about and saw the pagan worship of the day. Many things about it appealed to their human nature, and step by step, they imitated, followed after these things and endeavored to adorn the Church of Christ, and the doctrine of God, by introducing some of the pagan features. There were things in the pagan religion that appealed to the young of the church—things which were harmless per se. The Lord had never positively said: "Thou shalt not so do," therefore, acting upon the broad principles of liberty and of sanctified common sense, they introduced a number of things borrowed into their own worship.

Another thought came to them as they looked around about. They said, "Here are a number of worldly influences, things that appeal, that attract, that sway and move men. Why not as a congregation capitalize these affairs, and thus utilize worldly influences for the advancement of the cause?" Basing the whole upon mere human reason, they saw no fault in such a procedure, and thus another departure was made. But there was another step. They fancied that if the time could ever come when they could get a Christian emperor on the throne, and thus line up the influence of the civil governments and matters political with the church, all things would move along with greater strides, and more rapid progress. Toward the beginning of the second century all idea entered the minds of some that the membership of the church should be divided. Hence, two classes were suggested, and ere long the clergy and the laity became two separate and distinct bodies. Of course, the Bible knows nothing about such a procedure, neither does it recognize any such distinction among the people of God. May be you might be able to read about lying members in the church, but I think you will never find anything about the lay members. The idea that preachers were created out of a different kind of soil, and to them special recognition ought to be given, comes not from the Book of God. And yet that appeals to many preachers. They want some distinction by which they can be separated from their fellows, and unless they can get some title, the world never would find out that they are a whit better than anybody else. And now it has come about that you are discourteous unto any preacher if you just address him as, for instance, "Brother Srygley." The world wants to say "Dr. Srygley," "Reverend Srygley," and even "Parson Srygley." Now, their objective is to do the man a favor and all honor, but in so doing they go beyond anything in the Bible. I have had people call me "Dr. Hardeman." I am not a doctor. I am not "Reverend Hardeman." That word is found only once in all the Bible, Psalms 111:9. "Holy and reverend is thy name." God’s name is reverend. N. B. Hardeman’s name is not. Some folks call me "Elder Hardeman." I am not all elder, neither in years nor in any official way. I am not a pastor. "Well," someone says, "what are you?" I am just N. B. Hardeman, and if I can manage to live so that my brethren can conscientiously extend their hand and call me "Brother Hardeman," I want no greater title.

I believe that the time is not in the future, but now, when we ought to take cognizance of matters of this kind, for such surely evidences a lack of regard for the Word of God, and a plain violation of that statement which says, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." But the clergy, in the course of time, felt as if the whole responsibility were resting upon them. They took charge of the churches and thought that the only approach to God was through them. In the course of time, they assumed the relation of the old Jewish priests, and not many moons passed thereafter until every church had its priest to direct its affairs. This, of course, is unknown to the Book of God. But that is not all. In the Bible the word bishop is used as a synonym for elder. It came to represent the chairman of the board of elders, and thus assumed a meaning nowhere allowed by inspiration. But a system is developing and this is one of the steps leading away from the ancient order.

Man has always believed in organization. He feels that nothing can be accomplished unless men organize, legislate, draft a platform, adopt rules, bylaws and regulations. Hence, in the different localities, a number of churches blended together in what we would call a kind of district association, and over such there was placed one of these bishops.

Watch another step—when the several districts in one vicinity had been organized, over which there was a bishop, then, of course, other districts were organized in other sections with other bishops presiding. When all the districts in the province were thus organized, the next step was the blending of all the districts throughout the state or province under one head.

Now the next question was, "Who will be the head of this enlarged program?" The demand created another term which you have for the first time. The word "archbishop," or higher bishop, was thus applied. This ecclesiastical official had dominion over the province or state as a whole. The province was thus first divided into districts, over which a bishop reigned, then all the districts in the provinces were blended together, over which there reigned the archbishop. Finally all the provinces were thus organized and the next question was, Who shall be head of all the provinces or states in our country? These must, of course, be put under one authority and blended into a unit. This step was a short one. You are introduced to another term as strange to the Bible as any matter you can fancy. You ask, "What is it?" The word "cardinal" is applied to him who becomes head of each nation. The cardinals are appointed by the pope and are his ambassadors. The pope selects the cardinals and they in turn select the pope. There are now about seventy cardinals and half of these must remain in the country of Italy.

Watch the steps thus far taken. For the individual congregation the clergyman becomes a priest; for the district congregations the bishop becomes the head; the archbishop sways the scepter over the various districts of each state; and the cardinal exercises dominion of the states of each nation. Anybody can see the next step. The last question was, Why not go ahead and consummate the whole affair, and bring under one jurisdiction, and one authority, all the nations of the earth? That step was taken, and, therefore, a man was placed at the head of the whole religious world. From the birth of Christ upon the earth, we have drifted in history over six hundred years, until in the year 606 A.D., Boniface III was designated pope by the Emperor Phocus, who himself was a murderer and all adulterer. Back of the year 606, neither in the Bible nor out of it, can any man find where any soul on this earth was ever styled pope, and yet our intelligence is insulted by some peoples’ suggesting that Peter was the first of that type. The Bible knows nothing about it. History fails to record it. And six hundred years pass, during which time all literature, either sacred or profane, was, and is still, as silent as the glittering stars, or the sacred city of the dead. But what have you seen? The development of all ecclesiasticism with reference to the administration or executive functions thereof. Who are the officials now, and over whom do they reign? The individual congregation has its priest, developed out of a pastor or the clergy. The district, with Its narrowed territory, has a bishop over it in a different sense from the word "bishop" as used in the Bible. The districts blended together in the province or in the states have a higher authority unto whom the smaller caliber are amenable, viz., the archbishop. These in turn are under the cardinals, appointed directly by the pope. The cardinals, of course, are under the pope, who sits today in the Vatican as the Holy See, as the viceregent of God, and the representative of the Lord Jesus Christ upon the earth.

But, friends, all of this is as foreign to the simplicity of the ancient order of things as daylight is from midnight darkness. Not one syllable, not one iota, not anything that looks like a distant relative to all imitation of a thing of that kind is found in all God’s Book, from beginning to end. Had the elders, God-appointed and heaven-approved, been faithful, loyal and true to the teachings of Jesus Christ, this world would have been free from that great curse which has fastened itself upon it in the form of a hierarchy, or all ecclesiasticism, remote and strange to Holy Writ.

Right along with this administrative department you may expect other things equally as strange, and hence a system of doctrine likewise begins to develop. In the recitation of these things, I am not reading to you from the Bible. I am not giving you chapter and verse in God’s Book. I have the best reason on earth for not doing it, and that reason is that the Bible knows nothing about the various things thus mentioned. But I can give you uninspired history and cite you to that which is authentic and undeniable.

I now call attention to the development of those strange, unique doctrines, which have become common, and which many good people accept as if they were of Divine origin.

Holy water—a water said to be especially blessed and sanctified by the priest—was first introduced in the year 120. Whence its origin? The apostles never heard of it. The Bible knows nothing of it. Heaven’s will had been revealed and the pen of inspiration had been dropped from weary fingers before such all idea was born on the earth.

What else? The next thing peculiar was the introduction of the idea and the doctrine of penance, the infliction of punishment, the subjection to physical agony, and to physical pain, in order that one might expiate his own sins, and thus claim redemption from wrong done. When did the world first learn anything of penance? In the year 157. Back of that time such a thing was unknown, either in the Bible or out of the Bible.

Again, there is such a thing upon the earth now as Latin mass. What does it mean? Whence its origin? Did the apostles know anything about it? Did Christ ever say one word regarding it? Did the Holy Spirit make mention of anything that even smacked of its nature? Of course not. Latin mass had its genesis upon this earth in the year 394.

Well, what then?

I have heard quite a bit about the doctrine of extreme unction. I am sure that I have read every word of the Bible, and I hesitate not to say that this is also a stranger to the Book of God. The man who speaks as the oracles of God, who holds fast the form of sound words, and is careful regarding sound speech knows nothing about these peculiar doctrines of purely human origin.

Extreme unction was first announced to mortal man in the year 588. From that time till now, it has been, by some, administered to those thought to be in immediate danger of death.

Next comes the doctrine of purgatory in 593. But it came not from the Bible or inspiration. I learned about it out of the Bible, and a long way out. The year 593 A.D. marks the date when first purgatory was mentioned as a religious idea. But what does it mean? It suggests that those who died unprepared and without hope, may be freed from the agonies of torment in which they are writhing by the payment to the priest of a sufficient sum of money. My friends, money extracted by such a means has been used to build magnificent cathedrals and edifices in the heart of various cities, and these attract the attention of passersby. We are made to wonder at the great liberality of those who endorse it. Oh, it is not so much liberality, but it is the sale of that concerning which the people are deluded and blinded.

But, further, if you go to the city of Rome and desire all interview with the pope, you first approach his secretary, tell who you are, where you came from, and the kind of interview you want. If, after you stand and wait a long, long time, all audience is at last granted, you must get down on bended knees, and approach his August presence as he sits in front of a window, with the light coming from his rear, glittering upon your face. There he will extend his hand, and let you kiss the ring. On other occasions he will extend the toe of the right foot, and bid you to pay proper homage and make due acknowledgment.

I always thought quite a bit of President Roosevelt. I admired him because of his courage and of his ability to make up his mind without having to stop and ask what public sentiment was. It is said of him that, while on a visit to the city of Rome, he was asked if he would like to see the pope, and, knowing the ungodly formality through which one would have to pass in order to do that, he rose to the height of all American citizen, and said, "To hell with the pope!" Of course, I would not say that, but "them’s my sentiments." When was such a thought as kissing the toe of the pope introduced? Not until the year 709. As a tourist enters At. Peter’s cathedral, the most magnificent church structure on the face of the earth, the great porphyry stone whereon emperors once stood while the pope placed the crown upon their brow and formally introduced them into office, is first pointed out. Then a guide takes him a step further to the right, and upon a pedestal he sees a great bronze statue representing the apostle Peter. There he sits with a crown upon his head, a large ring of keys in his hand, and his bare right foot extended. The toes of it have been literally kissed away.

I chanced to stand there once and watch the passersby who believed in such lean over the golden rail, and imprint a kiss upon the bronze toe of this gigantic figure.

Poor deluded souls, ignorant of the Word of God, blinded and deceived by the commandments of men.

Those who believe in things I have mentioned have always had quite a bit of trouble about the Lord’s Supper. Throughout a long period of departure from the ancient order they were disturbed, and in the year 1000, the doctrine of transubstantiation was first announced. What do they mean by this? It is their idea now that, by the prayer and the power of the pope, the bread and the fruit of the vine are mystically changed into the literal body and the literal blood of the Son of God. They believe that there is a literal, actual change of substance, and hence the word Transubstantiation. But remember that no one ever dreamed of such until about the year 1000.

Well, then what? The priests decided that it was the proper thing for them to practice celibacy, another term unknown to the Bible that is, they will not marry. They want us to call them "fathers," but they do not aim to marry. Now you, my good friends, can do just as you please about that, but I, for one, do not intend to do anything of the kind. Let me say to you tonight, that I propose to be courteous and polite, but I would knowingly violate God’s positive straightforward command if I were guilty of addressing any man on earth, religiously and officially by the term "father." In the last address our Lord ever made (Matthew 23:9), he said to the disciples: "Call no man your father which is upon this earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." And allow me to say that the original of the word Father is that from which we get the word pope. Therefore God says to Hardeman, and all others, do not call any man "pope." I do not care, my friends, if a man does have his collar turned hind part before, I do not aim to call him "father." Were he to come to my home, I would treat him kindly and courteously. I would speak to him and of him as Mr. So-and-So, but I do not propose to slap Jesus Christ squarely in the face and directly speak the opposite of that which he has prohibited and positively forbidden. When did this idea of celibacy ever come into the minds of men? In the year 1015. Back of that, no such a thought was ever dreamed of. But I am not surprised at it because Paul said to Timothy, "The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing Spirit?, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; and having their conscience seared as with a hot iron; forbidding to marry," etc. But this is not all. There was introduced in the year 1190 the doctrine of indulgences. If I wanted to go into business in Nashville, or anywhere else in Tennessee, and could get people to believe the doctrine of indulgence, I could make more money than any corporation or firm in your city. What does that mean? You just pay the priest so much and he will give you a night off to paint things red and to have a high old time. Pay the sum demanded and you can gratify every passion, satisfy every lust, and revel in all of your physical appetites to your heart’s content.

Mosheim says: "The general prevalence of ignorance and superstition was dexterously, yet basely improved, by the rulers of the church, to fill their coffers, and to drain the purses of the deluded multitude; indeed, each rank and order of the clergy had a peculiar method of fleecing the people. The bishops, when they wanted money for their private pleasures, or for the exigencies of the church, granted to their flock the power of purchasing the remission of the penalties imposed upon transgressors, by a sum of money, which was to be applied to certain religious purposes; or, in other words, they published indulgences which became all inexhaustible source of opulence to the episcopal orders, and enabled them, as is well known, to form and execute the most difficult schemes for the enlargement of their authority, and to erect a multitude of sacred edifices, which augmented considerably the external pomp and splendor of the church. The abbots and monks, who were not qualified to grant indulgences, had recourse to other methods of enriching their convents. They carried about the country the carcasses and relics of the saints in solemn procession, and permitted the multitude to behold, touch and embrace at fixed prices, these sacred and lucrative remains. The monastic orders often gained as much by this rare show as the bishops did by their indulgences."

Again, you have heard about auricular confessions. If you have ever been to any cathedrals, you have observed that there are little booths all along in them. On the inside there sits a priest. On the outside there comes a poor deluded soul and approaches this little booth, kneels down by the side, draws aside a little curtain over all opening, and pours into the ear of the priest within all his secret thoughts and every sin of which he may have been guilty. He arises and passes out believing that all sins have been forgiven when, as a matter of fact, you and I know that no such thing has been done. The man on the inside can no more forgive sins than you or I. There is not a syllable of truth in such a claim. The blood of Jesus Christ alone can cleanse from sin, and that wonderful blood has never been delegated unto any man that today walks the face of God’s green earth. But when did such all idea first appear? Not until the year 1215. And so, the wonderful system, step by step, grew as the exigencies of the hour demanded.

What next? In the year 1311, at the Council of Ravenna, the Western branch of this ecclesiasticism adopted the practice of sprinkling for baptism. Up to that time I grant you that sprinkling had been practiced from the year 251 in cases of sickness, and on special occasions. But as a practice, as a doctrine, as the polity of the Western branch of that ecclesiasticism, sprinkling was not adopted until the year 1311. Of course, you know the Greek Catholics have never practiced sprinkling, but from the very beginning of their existence until now, they have practiced immersion.

You ask, ladies and gentlemen, any of the Roman branch what does the word baptizo, the original form, mean. There is not a scholar among them but will tell you it means to immerse, to bury, to submerge, to overwhelm, to cover up. Then you naturally follow with the question, "Why don’t they do it?"

Here is the reason. Catholics claim that they are all infallible body. When the pope and his cardinals assemble and deliberate upon a matter, and render their verdict, such becomes to them infallible. Hence, if you grant the infallibility of the pope, then you must accept the idea that sprinkling is a satisfactory way of administering the sacred rite. But the strange thing to me is that people, in this country, who repudiate and ridicule the idea of infallibility, have borrowed from no higher source than the Catholic edict the practice of sprinkling for baptism and do it in the name of Christ. Bear in mind that God never commanded it; Christ never authorized it; the Holy Spirit never sanctioned it. Such a practice and such a doctrine is purely of human origin. Water and nothing but water was never sprinkled on anything, for any purpose, in all the ages, by the authority of God. It took six hundred years for the development of the administrative part— the executive part’ of this great ecclesiasticism.

It required 1,300 long years for the development of doctrine perfected and complete. But with the passing of these years and a few minor changes in doctrine and practice that have been made since, the system has fastened itself upon the earth. There is about it scarcely a vestige of that simplicity that characterized the Jerusalem church.

There is one thing peculiar to Catholicism, and that is this: it is unlike any other church or body known. I would be absolutely unable to name a definite person that began it. I could not tell you the specific date of its origin. Neither could I put my finger upon any page in history wherein is recorded the definite, and specific place.

Catholicism did not spring into existence overnight. It IS the development of a departure from the Word of God, until it stood forth exercising dominion and claiming authority not only in matters religious, but likewise in civil affairs as well. In the year 728, there was granted the jurisdiction over civil authorities to the pope of Rome. And he-was the supreme head, not only of the church, but of civil affairs, until the good year of 1870. At that time he was shorn of the temporal government, but now has the monumental gall and the colossal cheek to demand of the Duce of Italy a recognition of temporal powers.

Friends, if Catholicism had its way tonight, it would hold in the very grasp of its hand, not only religious, but like wise civil government as well. To that end every fiber of its being and every pulsation of its heart is consecrated. This ecclesiasticism is purely of human origin. It is human in origin; it is human in doctrine; it is human in practice. The best definition that I could render of such a hierarchy would be to say that it is a mixture of Judaism, paganism and Christianity. Take a small part of the latter, more of the former two, blend them together in proper proportions, and the result is that institution, that organization, that ecclesiasticism, that threatens, tonight, possibly more than we know the religious and likewise the civil liberties of our land.

Any devout member thereof who pays his allegiance to the power that sits in the Vatican, and who has taken upon himself the Catholic oath, has, perhaps, a higher regard for it than he would for all oath to support the constitution of the United States of America. A great danger threatens this country unless religious forces come out from things that smack of such characteristics, cut loose from human organizations, and that which pertains to ecclesiasticism, and earnestly endeavor to restore upon this earth the ancient order of things. My friends, I have come to your good city to call upon you to flee from such matters that are purely human in every phase, and feature. I am glad to tell you that there is a church founded by Jesus Christ, bought by His blood, filled with His spirit, and guided by His counsel. The terms of initiation into it are such that you and I can easily understand them. I pray God that you may be willing to obey them, and then to stand upon his everlasting promise. If you understand these terms, and have a disposition to accept them, I am glad once more to extend the gospel call. Put your trust in Jesus Christ; earnestly and truly repent of every sin; publicly confess your faith in the crucified one and obey him in the sacred ordinance of baptism. If such you will do and ever thereafter live faithful to him, heaven will be your home.