It was for two reasons that the church that Christ founded was distinct from all other religions in the world. In the first place, it taught salvation was solely by grace conveyed to men as a gift from God; and secondly, its believers composed a society of brethren, all

of whom were priests unto God, and who, in turn, were guided by humble pastors.

Human religion had taught salvation was of man and that he could buy it at a price. The church that Jesus founded proclaimed salvation was the gift of God "and if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no

grace: otherwise work is no more work."--(Romans 11:6) Soon, however, this doctrine eclipsed only to be replaced by faith and works. Grace and Law were pronounced husband and wife: and these two became one.

But what saith the Scripture? "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh NOT, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."--(Romans 4:4,5)

In the second place, Christ took from the priesthood what it had taken from the Father, and He proclaimed Himself to be the only Mediator between the Heavenly Father and Adam’s fallen race. This, too, however, was soon to be replaced--by an absolute dictator. It came about like this.

Rome was Queen of all the cities of the earth. She was the "greatest, the richest, and the most powerful city in the world," D’Aubigne tells us. The seat of the Roman Empire was here. Now if she was Queen of all cities, why was she not also to be regarded as the mother of Christendom? Why should she not be the Protector of all the saints and the Authority in all matters of faith and practice? And why should not her pastor be the Chief of all pastors?

As early as the 2nd century, respect was paid to pastors according to the importance of the city in which they resided, and what before was a treating of pastors as equal does equal now became a "primus inter pares"--a "first among equals."

Brethren, we are at this very point today when we esteem the pastor of a large city church "worthy of double honor," even if he does not "labor in the Word and doctrine." Instead of esteeming a pastor for his godliness, most born-again Christians are encouraged to look and see how influential his people are. This is how the Roman hierarchy all started.

The pastors of Rome engaged in evangelism in the regions near the capital city. It was not long before the pastors of these surrounding villages began to go to the pastor of Rome as an "enlightened guide" for various problems. But this natural loyalty degenerated into dependence, and the neighboring churches freely yielded their authority.

Should not Rome have rather released these "mission churches" as soon as she could that they might be autonomous bodies of believers? Yet today, it is a common practice in many fundamental churches to keep their "mission churches" as mission churches and not to release them as self-governing bodies. Why? So the "mother church" can add the attendance of her "mission churches" on HER attendance. And the "numbers racket" begins. And poor misguided souls who walk by sight rather than by faith esteem such a church as a more spiritual church

than the one with few in attendance? And what is their basis for their esteem? Why the numbers of those in attendance! The silliest children are not so foolish as this!

The pastors of Rome soon regarded this allegiance as a right. Though they were still overseers only of those churches within the territory subject to Rome, yet by the 3rd century, the doctrine of the church and her external unity began to prevail.

In 325, the Council of Nicea singled out three cities as having had ancient authority over surrounding provinces. They were Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

Theodosius II issued an edict declaring the pastor of Rome to be the "Rector of the whole church." A similar edict was published by Valentinian III and another still later appeared by Justinian. The simple society of brethren who were guided by humble pastors--this church, which Christ built, had fallen into wreck and ruin.

Brethren, when churches send out foreign missionaries as preachers ordained by God and on whose heads the hands of other godly men have been placed--when these churches "control" these missionary pastors, does not this constitute an episcopal form of government? When a preacher is lord over other pastors, how is he different from a BISHOP in the sense of episcopal church government?

Brethren, a plea for Biblical sanity, please!

The numerical size of a church in no wise means a godly man is in the pulpit! An influential church does not weigh heavier in God’s eyes than does a church of poor brethren. Neither numbers nor money moves God Who dwells within the contrite heart and the broken spirit.

The church that Christ founded is a society of brethren who are overseen by humble shepherds, and not rather, as we often see today, by one who lords it not only over the flock of God, but others pastors of flocks as well.

OCTOBER