THE CHURCH,
THE FALLING AWAY,
AND
THE RESTORATION

BY
J. W. SHEPHERD
Editor of
“Handbook on Baptism,” “Queries and Answers,” “Salvation of Sin,” “What is the New Testament Church?”

GOSPEL ADVOCATE COMPANY
Nashville, Tenn.
1961

Copyright
1929
By F. L. Rowe

Gospel Advocate Co., Owner
Nashville, Tenn.

CONTENTS

[Preface] 3 PART ONE The Church [What Should the Church of the Present Be?] 5 [The Church and the Temple] 9 [Infant Baptism] 16 [Conditions of Membership] 25 [Conditions of Admission] 25 [Agencies] 28 [Conditions] 28 [Conditions of Continued Membership] 29 [The Worship] 32 [The Apostles’ Teaching] 36 [The Fellowship] 38 [Breaking Bread] 39 [Prayers] 40 [Singing] 40 [Polity] 42 [The Word of God] 42 [Names] 43 [Congregational Independence] 44 [Elders] 45 [Deacons] 47 [Evangelists] 47 PART TWO The Falling Away [The Falling Away Predicted] 49 [The Falling Away] 54 [The Confessional] 63 [Indulgences] 67 [John Tetzel] 69 PART THREE The Reformation In Europe [John Wyckliffe] 74 [Translates the Bible Into English] 75 [William Tyndale] 79 [Erasmus Arrives in England] 80 [Tyndale Translates the Bible Into English] 82 [Goes to Hamburg] 84 [Bishop of London Supplies Money] 86 [Betrayed and Murdered] 88 [Martin Luther] 89 [A Friend Indeed] 90 [Becomes a Monk] 91 [Makes a Pilgrimage to Rome] 94 [Professor of Theology at Wittenburg] 96 [The Ninety-five Theses] 97 [Debates With John Eck and Burns the Papal Bull] 100 [Before the Diet of Worms] 103 [Under Imperial Ban] 110 [A Change Comes Over Luther] 112 [Retains What Is Not Forbidden] 115 [Origin of Protestantism] 116 [The Reformation in Switzerland] 122 [The Reformation in England] 126 [Changes Made by Edward VI] 129 [“Bloody Mary”] 131 [Elizabeth, the Protestant Queen] 133 [The Reformation in Scotland] 138 [The Independents] 138 [Haldane and Aikman] 141 [The Scotch Baptists] 142 [The Separatists] 144 PART FOUR The Restoration Movement In America [Spiritual Unrest in Many Places] 148 [Barton W. Stone] 153 [Confronted by Many Difficulties] 153 [Ordained to the Ministry] 157 [Remarkable Meeting at Cane Ridge] 160 [“A Time of Distress”] 163 [Last Will and Testament] 166 [The Witnesses’ Address] 167 [Practices Modified in Many Particulars] 169 [“Shakerism”] 170 [The Work Prospers] 171 [Thomas Campbell] 175 [Conflict With the Seceders] 175 [The Declaration and Address] 180 [Alexander Campbell] 188 [Subject and Act of Baptism Settled] 188 [The Redstone Association] 195 [A Wider Field] 199 [The Campbell-McCalla Discussion] 203 [Visits the Kentucky Baptists] 207 [John Smith] 209 [Soul Struggles] 210 [Desires to Preach] 213 [Terrible Calamity] 215 [Preaches at Crab Orchard] 215 [The Christian Baptist] 217 [Fetters Cast Off] 218 [Resolves to Preach the Simple Gospel] 220 [“Ancient Order”—Baptists in Kentucky] 224 [Walter Scott] 231-236 [A Sincere Truth Seeker] 232 [Turning Point in His Life] 235 [Reformers in Other States—John Wright] 246 [Herman Christian Dasher] 249 [The Christians and Reformers Unite] 251

PREFACE

An effort is made in the following pages to set forth what the New Testament church was when it came into the world through the preaching of inspired men; how it was led into apostasy; and an account of some of the many attempts to restore it to its original purity and simplicity.

In proportion as any religious work becomes a potent force in affecting the welfare of mankind, its early history becomes interesting and important. This is especially true of the very beginning of its history where those influences which have molded its character are most clearly seen. It is due to the world no less than to the heroic men who were chief actors in such a movement, that the motives which inspired them, the principles which guided them, and the forces which opposed them, together with the results of this conflict, should be set down accurately for the information and for the benefit of those who are seeking the truth.

If the writer did not most profoundly believe that this effort to restore the New Testament church was one of those providential movements designed by Jehovah to correct existing evils, and to purify religion from its corruptions that the gospel may run and be glorified in the earth, then he would feel but little interest in its history and achievements. But recognizing, as I do, the hand of God in this remarkable movement of the nineteenth century, it is believed that an important service is being rendered by putting on record the causes which gave birth to it, and the influences which by action and reaction have made it what it is. If God overrules in human affairs, and teaches men by means of history, then he who faithfully records historic facts fulfills an important service in the education of men. This is pre-eminently true of that kind of history which deals with the struggles of the human mind and heart to know God, and to understand his will concerning human redemption.

It is of the very greatest importance to the successful carrying forward of the Lord’s work that the younger generation should become thoroughly acquainted with the spirit which animated, and the principles which controlled the men who, under God, gave the primary impulse to this great work. They should become familiar with the conflicts of those early days and with the tremendous sacrifices made by those valiant men and women who loved the truth more than popularity, more than ease, more than wealth, friends, and family ties. It is only as we shall be able to perpetuate this love of truth, this freedom from the bondage of tradition and inherited opinions, that we shall be able to carry forward, successfully the work they inaugurated.

We need the same dauntless heroism, the same faith in God, the same zeal for truth and the same underlying principles which characterized them and who have transmitted to us the responsibility of carrying forward the work which they began. If this volume which is now sent forth shall serve to inspire the workers who are to succeed us with the same passion for pure apostolic Christianity, with the same spirit of loyalty to Christ, which marked the beginning of their work, the purpose of the writer shall have been fulfilled.

J. W. Shepherd.

Birmingham, Ala., July 25, 1929.

PART I.
The Church.

CHAPTER I.
WHAT SHOULD THE CHURCH OF THE PRESENT BE?

That the church is the bride of Christ is clearly expressed in the following: “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God” (Rom. 7:4). “For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ” (II Cor. 11:2). In these passages the bride evidently means the church. That the bride will remain till the Bridegroom comes there can be no reasonable doubt; that she has ever waited his coming is equally certain. She has been in great distress, being driven into the wilderness and deprived of much of her glory, but she has ever looked for the coming of her espoused. In what condition the Bridegroom will find her is a question about which there has been much speculation. Unless we believe that the Bridegroom, when he comes, will find his bride in dishonor—living in fornication with the world—we may not measure the church by human standards. That the bride will be found wearing the name of the Bridegroom and living in chastity when he comes to claim her, there is no room for reasonable doubt. The world may be deeply defiled by crime, but the church will be arrayed in her robes of righteousness. Hence, while the church may have its impurities, as everything composed of humanity has, it must at least be uncontaminated to the extent of fidelity to Christ. This may cut off much of what the world calls the church, but not what God regards as the church. This has ever been the case since the apostasy, and will doubtless so continue to the end.

In the days of the apostles, God had a people in Babylon, but while they were in Babylon they were not of Babylon. Hence the Lord says: “Come forth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not her plagues” (Rev. 18:4). God doubtless has a people in Babylon now; but they and Babylon are two distinct things. God’s church is not composed of the Babel of sectarianism. Just who God’s people are who may now be in Babylon it is not my purpose to determine. God has revealed to us the things that pertain to his church—the faith, the practice, and the promises—and with these it is my purpose to deal. Here, all is faith and assurance; beyond this, all is opinion and fruitless speculation. Concerning those in Babylon we have but one living direction. “Come forth, my people, out of her.” To this we should give faithful heed. For to console people in the Babylon of sectarianism, and to reconcile them to their bondage, we have no divine right; but to deliver them from it is a divine obligation. Therefore God’s church is an institution separate and distinct from the Babel of denominationalism.

In determining, then, what the church should be, it will be necessary to ascertain the characteristics of the apostolic church. If the church of the present day be essentially different from the apostolic as a matter of preference, it can not be the church of which God is the author. Hence it can not be a divine institution, neither can it be the virgin bride of Christ. It follows, therefore, that the church must possess the following characteristics:

1. It Must Be a Divine Institution

At the beginning the church was a divine institution, and it can not cease to be divine and still be the church of God, for God does not begin with the divine and end with the human. Beginning in the spirit the things of God are not made perfect in the flesh. A divine institution must have for its organization and essential features divine authority, for the world can not make an ordinance or an institution divine. It must be specially appointed of God. No human institution, therefore, nor combination of institutions for which there is no special divine appointment, can ever constitute the church of God, for it is of God and not of men. Hence the church must be in all its essential features of specific divine appointment. These appointments are all found in the New Testament; therefore, the church to be a divine institution must be fashioned after that model.

2. It Must Be Governed Wholly by Divine Authority.

The church was governed wholly by divine authority at the beginning. Should it substitute human for divine authority it would cease to be the church of God. A substitute for a divine thing can never itself be divine; therefore, anything substituted for the church as it was in the beginning is not that church. Just as certainly therefore, as Christ will own and accept his church when he comes again, so certainly will it be governed by his authority. Christ will accept only the church which he established. That which he established was governed wholly by divine authority: therefore the church of today must be so governed.

3. It Should Have Only the Names It Had at the Beginning.

In the New Testament there are various names applied to the church and to its members. All these names have their significance, for the Holy Spirit never used them by accident, and for these names, and for these only, is there divine authority. The true church of to-day will be governed by divine authority; therefore, only these will the church accept. This with it is not simply a matter of taste, but of loyalty to Christ. Names unknown to the New Testament have come of the apostasy.

4. It Must Have the Form of Government Given to the Church in the Beginning.

It must necessarily be true, since it recognizes only the same authority. The church of to-day could not disregard the government of the New Testament church and still be the same church. Its congregations are not bound in the coils of an ecclesiasticism as merciless as it is unscriptural. Its bishops are not diocesan, but congregational. There are not a plurality of churches, under one bishop, but a plurality of bishops in one church. Its government is not in the hands of a legislative body, but it is under the legislation of Christ, executed by the several congregations.

5. It Has the Unity of the Church of the New Testament.

This conclusion is reached from several considerations. (1) Since the church is governed only by divine authority, has the same form of government that it had in the beginning, and wears only the names found in the New Testament, the unity that characterized the first church follows as a consequence. (2) The destruction of the unity of the church was the work of the apostasy; hence when the church is reclaimed from the apostasy it will be freed from this disunion. (3) There can be no doubt that Christ’s prayer for the unity of his people can now be fulfilled as it was at the beginning. This unity can never exist through denominational walls. There were no denominational walls between the Father and the Son, neither was there any between the first disciples. Hence, if that prayer is answered in the restoration of the church, and it must be, there must be the same unity that characterized the church in the beginning.

CHAPTER II.
THE CHURCH AND THE TEMPLE

Under the Patriarchal and Jewish dispensation there were numerous animal sacrifices by divine appointment. Not only so, but the people generally, who knew not the true God, have, all down the ages, poured sacrificial blood upon altars innumerable. This must have come about by the perversion of divinely-appointed sacrificial institutions, or from the felt need of fallen man for some way of mediation and of approach to God. That the need was felt by true worshipers is not open to doubt, for if sacrifice were devised by man, it would only have arisen from a sense of that need; and, on the other hand, if ordained of God, it could only have been acceptably offered under a consciousness thereof.

Sacrifices, altars and priests have generally stood together; and so long as they have been upon divine lines have been highly beneficial. But it has been alleged that priests have been a curse rather than a blessing to the nations, and I am not prepared to dispute the allegation. But neither God nor the Bible is responsible, because the priesthood as instituted by the Jews was a good and not an evil to that people; while, on the other hand, the priestly system has no place in Christianity. The priests of heathendom and of Christendom are not of God. Then how widely different, how completely opposite, is the unpriestly worship of the Church of Christ from the sacerdotal ceremonies of the Jewish economy. There we find the costly temple, in the construction of which were gold, silver, precious stones and costly fabrics in unrestricted abundance; sacred places over which the people may not pass, and which the feet of priests and Levites only may tread; ceremonials which bring death to those who touch them with other than priestly hands; altars and fires, blood and incense, and priests, all of divine ordering, so that we read:

Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before Jehovah. And King Solomon offered a sacrifice of twenty and two thousand oxen, and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep. So the king and all the people dedicated the house of God. And the priests stood, according to their offices; the Levites also with instruments of music of Jehovah, which David the King had made to give thanks unto Jehovah (for his loving kindness endureth forever), when David raised by their ministry; and the priests sounded trumpets before them; and all Israel stood. Moreover Solomon hallowed the middle of the court that was before the house of Jehovah; for there he offered and burnt offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings, because the brazen altar which Solomon had made was not able to receive the burnt offering, and the meat offering, and the fat.

So Solomon held the feast at that time seven days, and all Israel with him, a very great assembly, from the entrance of Hamath unto the brook of Egypt. And on the eighth day they held a solemn assembly: for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days. And on the three and twentieth day of the seventh month, he sent the people away unto their tents, joyful and glad of heart for the goodness that Jehovah had showed unto David, and to Solomon, and to Israel his people. (II Chron. 7:4-10.)

The significance, and richness, and glory of that economy surpassed anything that the world had ever seen; but in the fullness of time it was superseded by a higher and more glorious dispensation, concerning which the Apostle Paul wrote:

And such confidence have we through Christ to God-ward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God; who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written, and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face which glory was passing away: how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory? For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. For if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. (II Cor. 3:4-11.)

Shall we, then, look for still greater material splendor and wealth in temples, vestments, altars and instruments of music? If not, why not? And still, if not, why did the like exist under the former and inferior economy? We should look for nothing of the sort, nor suffer its intrusion upon the Church of Christ, and that for one reason, sufficient without others equally good—the former economy, in all its ceremonials, was typical of spiritual blessings then to come. There was a perfect typical system most expressive and opposite, but rendered useless when its antitypes appeared. The cross took the place of the altar; the High Priest of our confession came in the room of the Aaronic priesthood, “the sacrifice of praise,” “that is the fruit of our lips,” set aside the praise by trumpets, psaltery and cymbal. These were good and expressive in their day and place. “A shadow of things to come; but the body is Christ” (Col. 2:17). “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not have ceased to be offered?” (Heb. 10:1). So we see that the Holy Spirit very aptly informs us that “the body” or substance, is Christ’s, and when he came and filled to the full the types and shadows of the law, they passed away in their entirety, giving place to higher institutions, by means of which the worshipers could be made perfect. “And not only so,” as a ripe Bible student very forcefully says, “but just in proportion as these abandoned shadows are intruded into the church and worship of God they become injurious and more or less substitutes for the realities of which, in their day and place, they were the proper types and symbols. Consequently, in setting in order, by the apostles, of the Church of Christ, the temple and its worship were in no degree taken as models, and this is highly reasonable, inasmuch as the existence together of the type and the antitype would be completely inadmissible. Nothing could have been easier than for the apostles to have adopted priestly, or modified priestly vestments. There could have been no manner of difficulty in burning incense as an act of praise of worship. It can not be supposed but that, long before the close of the apostolic ministry, they could have used and enjoined the use of instrumental music. But no! Nothing of the kind; no trace even of a leaning, or of a desire, in that direction. The things of the shadows were done with, and those of the substance took their place.”

That the church is not modeled after the temple, but after the synagogue, is established beyond doubt by the testimony of the learned men in the denominational world. If objection be made to the inconsistency of denominational scholars putting forth such views, I answer that it is a well-known fact that men do confess truths that they fail to carry into effect; but the truth is not weakened thereby, but rather derives additional weight from the fact that it forces confession, even against the interests and associations of those who utter it. But however that may be, they write the truth abundantly clear.

The first witness I introduce is “Richard Watson,” who the McClintock and Strong Cyclopedia says “gave the first systematic treatment of Wesleyan theology. His Institutes, though not the legal, have been the moral and scientific standard of Methodist doctrine.” All aspirants to the Methodist pulpit are required to study “Watson’s Theological Institutes.” He says:

The course of the synagogue worship became indeed the model of that of the Christian Church. It consisted in prayer, reading and explaining the Scriptures, and singing psalms; and thus one of the most important means of instructing nations, and of spreading and maintaining the influence of morals and religion among people, passed from the Jews into all Christian countries.... The mode of public worship in the primitive church was taken from the synagogue service; and so, also, was its arrangements of offices.... Such was the model which the apostles followed in providing for the future regulation of the churches they had raised up. They took it, not from the temple and its priesthood, for that was typical, and was then passing away. But they found in the institution of the synagogues a plan admirably adapted to the simplicity and purity of Christianity, ... and which was capable of being applied to the new dispensation without danger of Judaizing. (Theological Institutes, pages 640, 683, 684.)

Lyman Coleman, Presbyterian, who was “eminent in solid abilities, in accurate scholarship, in stores of accumulated learning, and in extended usefulness,” says:

He (Jesus) was a constant attendant upon the religious worship of the synagogue, and, after his ascension, his disciples conformed their acts of worship to those of the synagogue. They consisted in prayer, in singing and in the reading and exposition of the Scriptures, as appears from the writers of the New Testament, from the earliest Christian fathers, and from profane writers of the first two centuries. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, page 94.)

The eminent scholar of the Church of England, G. A. Jacob, in his “Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament,” which is used as a text-book in some of the Episcopal theological seminaries in this country, says:

In the temple was the priest consecrated according to a precise regulation, and a sarcedotal succession laid down by God himself, with the altar and its sacrifices at which he officiated, the incense which he burned, the holy places into which none might enter but those to whom it was especially assigned. In the synagogue was the reader of the Scriptures, the preacher or expounder of religious and moral truth, the leader of the common devotions of the people, unconsecrated by any special rites, and unrestricted by any rule of succession; with a reading desk or pulpit at which he stood, but with no altar, sacrifice or incense, and no part of the building more holy than the rest. And without attempting now to dwell upon all the remarkable contrasts thus displayed, it may suffice to say that the temple exhibited in a grand combination of typical places, persons and actions. God dwelling with man, reconciling the world unto himself in the person and work of Christ; and pardoning, justifying and graciously receiving those who come to him through the appointed Saviour; while the synagogue exhibited a congregation of men, already reconciled to God, assembled as devout worshipers for prayer and praise, for instruction in divine knowledge, and edification in righteous living. And the two systems—the one gorgeous and typical, the other simple and real; in one, God drawing near to man, in the other, man drawing near to God—never clashed or interfered with each other; were never intermingled or confounded together. In the temple there was no pulpit, in the synagogue there was no altar.... They (apostles) retained and adapted to Christian use some Jewish forms and regulations; but they were taken altogether not from the temple, but from the synagogue. The offices which they appointed in the church, and the duties and authority which they attached to them, together with the regulations which they made for Christian worship, bore no resemblance in name or in nature to the services of the priesthood in the temple. The apostles had been divinely taught that those priests and services were typical forms and shadows, which were centered, and fulfilled, and done away in Christ; and to reinstate them in the Church would have been in their judgment to go back to the bondage of “weak and beggarly elements” from the liberty, strength and rich completeness of the Gospel dispensation. They saw that as the ordinances of the temple represented the work of God wrought out for man, not man’s work for God, to continue them after that work was finished in the life and death of Jesus, would be in effect so far to deny the efficacy of the Saviour’s mission, and to thrust in the miserable performances of men to fill up an imagined imperfection in the Son of God. (Ecclesiastical Polity, pages 96-98.)

The apostles, therefore, by the directions of the Holy Spirit adopted official arrangements similar to those of the synagogue, and discarded those of the temple, in the institution of church offices, and plainly showed by this circumstance that no priestly powers or duties were attached to their ministrations. Another argument which leads to the same conclusion is deduced from the condition of the members of the Church as it appears in the New Testament, and the equality of standing in Christ, which Christians possessed. The way of access to God being open to all without distinction through the priesthood of Christ, there was nothing for a priest to do—no sacerdotal work or office for him to undertake.

On this phase of the subject, Mr. Jacob has said some very pointed things, and I will call on him to give testimony. He says:

A distinct proof that the office bearers in the Church of the Apostles were not, and could not be priests, or perform any sacerdotal duties, is seen in a condensed form in the epistle to the Hebrews, and is found at large in the whole of the Old and the New Testaments, of which that epistle, as far as the subject reaches, is so valuable an epitome. We there learn that from the very nature of the priestly office, it is necessary for those who hold it to be specially called and appointed by God, either personally by name, or according to a divinely instituted order of succession; and that, since the patriarchal dispensation, only two orders of priesthood have ever had this necessary divine sanction granted to them. The two orders are the order of Aaron and the order of Melchisedek. The priests of the former order belonged to the Jewish dispensation only, and have indisputably passed away. The only priest after the order of Melchisedek, even mentioned in the Bible, is our Lord Jesus Christ—the “priest upon his throne,” without a successor, as he had none before him, in the everlasting priesthood of his mediatorial reign. This argument appears to me to be conclusive. It appears to me that the epistle to the Hebrews shuts out the possibility of there being any other priest in the Church besides Christ himself. But this does not so appear to a large number of our clergy. Bishops as far back as the third century claimed to be successors or vicegerents of Christ on earth; and our presbyters do not hesitate to declare that they are priests after the order of Melchisedek. To my mind and feeling this is an impious claim; but countenanced as they are by numberless past and present examples, good men are not conscious of impiety in making it. But, then it is necessary to ask the “priests” for their credentials. Where is the record of their divine appointment to the sacerdotal office? In what part of the New Testament, and in what form of words, is the institution of such priests, and the manner of their succession, to be found? And to such inquiries no satisfactory answer has been or can be given. (Ibid, pages 102-104.)

CHAPTER III.
INFANT BAPTISM

Another point in which the Church of Christ and the Jewish Covenant are at exact opposites is that of infant membership. In the Apostolic Church baptism preceded membership, and faith was prerequisite to baptism, consequently there was not, neither could be any place for infant membership. On this account we have in the New Testament neither precept for, nor example of, infant baptism, but on the contrary, much that renders it totally incompatible with apostolic teaching.

But we are reminded by the advocates of infant baptism that in some sense baptism stands to its subject and the Church as circumcision did under the Abrahamic covenant. They emphasize that as an unquestioned fact, and seem to think there ought to be something in it, somewhere or somehow, in favor of infant baptism. Some claim that circumcision initiated into the Church under the former dispensation, and that baptism is initiative now; and that infants were formerly initiated by circumcision, and should now be initiated by baptism. Others hold that circumcision was a declaration of church membership under the Jewish dispensation; and that baptism is a declaration of membership now: and that as circumcision was extended to infants, so baptism should be extended. They further claim that infants were put in the Church which was established in the family of Abraham; that the Church of the old dispensation is identical with that of the new; that no law has since been enacted to put them out; and that they were then initiated by circumcision and that, as baptism has superseded circumcision, infants should now be initiated by baptism.

To some this is a strong and satisfactory argument, but a few plain, simple facts should decide the question whether the Church of the new covenant is identical with that of the old and that baptism takes the place of circumcision:

(1) “The covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8) was a covenant with Abraham and to him “that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money” (Gen. 17:12, 13); while the new covenant embraces believers in Jesus Christ, without respect to Abraham’s flesh or money. (See II Cor. 5:16, 17; Gal. 3:26-29; Heb. 8:8-12.)

(2) Male children alone were subjects of circumcision. If baptism took the place of circumcision, none but the males should be baptized; but the advocates of infant baptism contend that infants should be baptized regardless of sex, flesh or money.

(3) If baptism came in the place of circumcision, persons already circumcised could not be baptized. If the one came in the place of the other, the two could not exist at the same time in the same person. But all the Jews that had been circumcised on believing in Christ were baptized. The children of Jewish Christians were still circumcised. Is it possible that pedobaptists are so blinded in their contention for infant baptism that they can not see this?

That there is a point of similarity between circumcision and baptism there is no doubt, for Paul says: “In whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through the faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11, 12). In circumcision the foreskin of the flesh was cut off by the hands; so in baptism the sins were put off, and this putting off the sins was called “a circumcision not made with hands.”

The Mosaic law given to the fleshly family of Abraham typified to some extent the spiritual family of God. Circumcision marked those born of the flesh as members of the kingdom of Israel; baptism marks those begotten of the Spirit as members of God’s spiritual kingdom. To affix the spiritual mark to the fleshly birth is to do violence to the figure and to introduce those born of the flesh into the spiritual kingdom. Now faith is the first manifestation of the spiritual begetting, and only those begotten of the Spirit and manifesting it in faith can be introduced into the spiritual kingdom, or should have the mark of God’s spiritual child. To place the mark of the birth of the Spirit upon one born of the flesh is to mislead and deceive that child and make the impression that it is one of God’s spiritual children when it is not. The Spirit of God always connects the fleshly mark with the fleshly birth into the fleshly kingdom, and the spiritual mark (baptism) with the spiritual birth into the spiritual kingdom. Hence the Holy Spirit says: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). “Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mark 16:15, 16). “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38). “And now why tarriest thou, arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Only those capable of believing, repenting and of thus showing that they are begotten of the Spirit, are fit subjects for baptism. To bestow the mark of the spiritual birth on those born of the flesh is to break down and carnalize the kingdom of God.

The prophet says:

Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their hearts will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah: for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sins will I remember no more. (Jer. 31:31-34.)

This shows that a new covenant different from that he made at Sinai would be made. That was a fleshly covenant with the house of Israel, into which they were born by a fleshly birth; but in the new covenant the law was to be written on their hearts, and all were to know him, from the least to the greatest. That is, all must know the law of God, accept it in their hearts before they could become members of the Church of God. So Paul asks: “What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made” (Gal. 3:19). The seed that was to come was Christ, and this plainly shows that because of the transgression this law was to continue only until Christ should come. Then the new spiritual covenant was to go into force, and the members of it were all to believe in Christ.

The following significant contrast is drawn by the Apostle Paul: “Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men; being made manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not on tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh. And such confidence have we through Christ to Godward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory was passing away: how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory? For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. For if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory” (II Cor. 3:2-11). In this the Ten Commandments, written upon the tables of stone, is contrasted with the law of Christ, written in the hearts of God’s children. The law written on stones is called “the letter” that “killeth.” It convicted of sin, but had no power to deliver from it. The sins were rolled and rolled year by year until Jesus came and shed blood, not only for our sins but for “the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant that they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”

The letter to the Hebrews was written to show the change from the old covenant to the new, and to show the immense superiority of the new to the old. To turn back from the spiritual law and the Church of Christ to the fleshly law and institution of Judaism is called falling “away from grace.” “Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace” (Gal. 5:4).

Since it is so very evident that there is no ground whatever for infant baptism based on the arguments on the analogy of circumcision and the identity of the covenants it is quite appropriate to close this article with quotations from two great pedobaptist scholars. Dr. Jacob Ditzler, claimed to be the best debater the Methodist Church has produced, says:

I here express my conviction that the covenants of the Old Testament have nothing to do with infant baptism. (Graves-Ditzler Debate, page 694).

Moses Stuart, Congregationalist, Professor of Sacred Literature in Andover Theological Seminary, called “The Father of Biblical Literature in America,” says:

How unwary, too, are many excellent men, in contending for infant baptism on the ground of the Jewish analogy of circumcision! Are females not proper subjects of baptism? And again, are a man’s slaves to be all baptized because he is? Are they church members of course when they are so baptized? Is there no difference between ingrafting into a politico-ecclesiastical community, and into one of which it is said that “it is not of this world?” In short, numberless difficulties present themselves in our way, as soon as we begin to argue in such a manner as this. (Old Testament Canon, § 22, page 369.)

In the investigation thus far we have learned that under the old covenant infants were included, so were slaves, taken in war or bought with money. The covenant was with a nation, involving national laws and customs, and promising national and temporal blessings. The duly recognized, as embraced under that covenant, were not thereby entitled to eternal life. As the entire flesh of the nation, for national purposes, was included, the infants of that nation, from the moment of birth, stood in covenant relation with God and the covenant people. There was no ceremonial by which they entered into that relationship—they were born into it. They came not in by circumcision, for the male infant, continuing uncircumcised, was not said to be debarred from entering, but was to be “cut off” from the people which implies previous covenant relationship.

But all this is reversed under the new covenant. No one nation is chosen, but the people of the covenant are to be those who respond to a call made to all nations. No family is chosen, but the blessing is offered to each of all the families of earth. No infant is either invited or excluded, except as it comes to faith in, and obedience to, the Son of God. The covenant blessings are not national and eternal, based upon a living and active faith. As a consequence, infants are not, and could not possibly be embraced in the new covenant; and as the Church of Christ, as to its divinely-ordained membership, consists of those who have thus believed in him, infants are not and can not be in the Church of Christ, therefore are not subjects of baptism, for all who are Scripturally baptized enter into the church.

We now turn our attention to the remaining methods by which the practice of infant baptism could be proven. They are: (1) Express command of an inspired man; or, (2) by an example from Scripture where an inspired man baptized infants, or where it was done in his presence, by his consent and approval. Inasmuch as it is admitted by renowned pedobaptists that there is neither express command for or example of infant baptism in the New Testament, I will make no attempt to answer the arguments to prove it, but let the most learned of their number speak for themselves. This is legitimate and has the divine sanction, for Jesus said: “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee” (Luke 19:22); and Paul, in meeting opposition to his preaching, said: “As certain even of your own poets have said” (Acts 17:28); and again: “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said” (Titus 1:12).

Henry Alford, one of the most variously-learned clergymen that the Church of England has produced, says:

The language of the Bible is against them; and, on their own ground, which is a very sore perplexity. There is one escape, and that is a perfectly effectual one; but they are unwilling to avail themselves of its assistance. They might declare, and they ought to declare, that infant baptism was a practice unknown to the apostles; that not only does the New Testament not give one single expression which plainly and necessarily implies that infants were baptized in the apostolical churches, but it can be fairly argued from a passage in chapter 7 of II Corinthians 7 that such a practice could not have existed at Corinth. The recognition that the baptism of adults was the only baptism known to the apostles would clear every difficulty on this point out of the way of the Low Churchmen. It is natural that the sacred writers should assume that men who, at great worldly sacrifice, not free from risk of life, came forward to profess the Christian faith by a solemn initiatory rite, possessed the frame of mind which that fact implied—that they were honestly changed and renewed beings. And then it would be easy to pass on the conclusion that the baptismal service of the Church of England has been constructed on the language of the Bible, and that the embarrassment has proceeded not from a mistaken view of baptism, but from the application of the words used by Scripture of an adult person to an unconscious and, so to say, mindless infant. (Contemporary Review, Vol. 10, page 329.)

Joseph Ager Beet, one of the finest scholars that the English Wesleyan Methodist Church has produced, Professor of Systematic Theology in the Wesleyan Theological College, Richmond, England, says:

It must be at once admitted that the New Testament contains no clear proof that infants were baptized in the days of the apostles. (Christian Baptism, page 28.)

Albert Taylor Bledsoe, of whom it has been truthfully said, “He was one of the most candid and trustworthy writers that the Methodist Church has produced,” says:

It is an article of our faith, that “the baptism of young children (infants) is in any wise to be retained in the church, as one most agreeable to the institution of Christ.” But yet, with all our searching, we have been unable to find, in the New Testament, a single express declaration, or word, in favor of infant baptism. We justify this rite, therefore, solely on the ground of logical inference, and not on any express word of Christ or his apostles. This may, perhaps, be deemed, by some of our readers, a strange position for a pedobaptist. It is by no means, however, a singular opinion. Hundreds of learned pedobaptists have come to the same conclusion; especially since the New Testament has been subjected to a closer, more conscientious, and more candid exegesis than was formerly practiced by controversalists. (Southern Review, Vol. 14, page 334.)

John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, says:

As Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that none but believers shall be admitted to baptism, it would appear that baptism is not properly administered unless when preceded by faith. (Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. 3, page 38.)

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, German Lutheran, the “prince of New Testament exegetes,” says:

The baptism of the children of Christians, of which no trace is found in the New Testament, is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance; but it is an institution of the church, which gradually arose in post-apostolic times in connection with the development of ecclesiastical life and of doctrinal teaching, not certainly attested before Tertullian, and by him still decidedly opposed, and although already defended by Cyprian, only becoming general after the time of Augustine in virtue of that connection. (Commentary on Acts 16:15, page 312.)

August Wilhelm Neander, Lutheran, who is unanimously conceded to be by far the greatest of all ecclesiastical historians, and is surnamed “the father of modern church history,” says:

Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution somewhat later, as an apostolical tradition serves to confirm this hypothesis. (Church History, Vol. 1, page 424.)

Moses Stuart, a Congregationalist, called “the father of Biblical literature in America”, says:

On the subject of infant baptism I have said nothing. The present occasion did not call for it; and I have no wish or intention to enter into the controversy respecting it. I have only to say that I believe in both the propriety and expediency of the rite thus administered; and therefore accede to it ex animo. Commands, or plain and certain examples, in the New Testament relative to it, I do not find. Nor, with my views of it, do I need them. (Mode of Christian Baptism, pages 189, 190.)

But I have given enough; it is a thing made out that infant baptism was not an apostolic practice. So, indeed, have all the scholars who have thoroughly investigated this subject conceded. I know of no subject which seems to be more clearly made out, and I can not see how it is possible for any candid man who examines the subject to deny this.

CHAPTER IV.
CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP

As we have already learned that infant baptism was not an apostolic practice, we will give it no further attention at present. The conditions of membership in the apostolic Church naturally divide themselves into two classes—those of admission into the Church and those of continued membership.

CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION

Concerning admission into the Church it is said in connection with its establishment that “the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved” (Acts 2:47). This implies that the Lord saved the people and added them by one and the same process. They were not first saved and then added, nor added and afterward saved, but they were saved in being added, and added by being saved. Hence it was not a formal adding to a local congregation by extending the “hand of fellowship” after salvation from sin, but an adding to the one body of Christ in the obtaining of salvation by obedience to the Gospel. While they were added by the Lord, he added them through certain agencies, both human and divine—the Holy Spirit, the Gospel and the preacher—all present and active in the work. What the Lord did, therefore, he did through these agencies.

In the second chapter of Acts the Holy Spirit gives the directions that God gave to guide sinners into the Church. This being the first time that men were guided into the Church, the directions given would necessarily be more minute and particular in every step than after the way was fully made known to men.

After his resurrection from the dead Jesus said to his disciples, “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth,” to show them that he had the right and authority to speak the words that come next: “Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:19, 20). They were not to go yet, for he had sealed their lips. On the day of his ascension to heaven he said unto them: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mark 16:15, 16); “but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). So they returned to Jerusalem and waited for the coming of the Spirit who was to unseal their lips and to speak to the world in the name of Jesus. The day of Pentecost came, they were in the temple, when suddenly a sound from heaven filled the house where they were sitting, and they felt themselves moved inwardly by a new power, under which they began to speak to the multitude in the temple, addressing them in all the different languages represented by the nations there assembled. The time had come when they can tell to the world all they know about Jesus fully and freely. And when they had praised God, to the amazement of the people, in all their tongues, Peter arose, now having the keys to the kingdom in his hands, now ready to execute his high commission to open the gates and admit those who were entitled to enter, and for the first time in his life begins to inform men who Jesus is. He delivers a discourse in which he says: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know; him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hands of lawless men did crucify and slay: whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death.”

He quotes language of the prophets to prove this. He then presents the testimony of himself and his fellow apostles to the effect that Jesus had been raised from the dead, and that they had seen him with their eyes and handled him with their hands. He further states that God had said to Jesus: “Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet,” and closes this powerful argument with this soul-stirring appeal: “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.”

Three thousand of those who stood in the hearing of Peter’s voice believed this, felt pricked in their hearts—that sense of guilt which overwhelmed them when they realized that they had been guilty of murdering the Son of the living God, the greatest crime that human being ever committed—and in great agony of soul, they cried out: “Brethren, what shall we do?” to get rid of this pricking of our hearts, to get rid of the awful crime, to get rid of our sins before God and escape its consequences in the day of God’s wrath against sin.

Moved by the Holy Spirit, Peter answered: “Repent ye, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” This was God’s answer, that enabled them to get rid of their guilt and condemnation at once. And to assure them still further, he said: “For to you is the promise” (the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit), “and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him,” for the commission was to “all nations,” “even unto the end of the world.” But Peter did not stop here, for “with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ Then they that received his word were baptized; and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.”

Now, let us see if we can gather from this brief narrative what agencies God used in bringing about the conversion of these people, and what conditions they had to comply with in order to receive the benefits of the redemption which was provided by the blood of Christ.

AGENCIES

1. The Holy Spirit.

2. The apostles, speaking as the Spirit gave them utterance, testifying of the Christ and pleading with sinners, were the leading human agents in this case of conversion, as they are still and ever will be; for though dead they yet speak through the Gospel which they first preached through the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. As they were agents then through their spoken testimony, so they are agents now through their written testimony. Their words live in all their vitalizing power, and can never be destroyed.

3. The sinners themselves, guilt-stricken and inquiring, had also an agency in this work which so vitally concerned themselves. It was theirs to attend to the things spoken by the apostles, to hearken to the divine counsel, to learn of Jesus, and to receive the truth that they might be made alive. They had the divinely-given power to do this; and they also had the power to reject the Gospel and die, otherwise the apostle could not say, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation”—seize the help God was holding out from heaven.

CONDITIONS

1. They heard (vs. 8, 11, 14, 22, 37).

2. Believed (vs. 30), in accordance with the apostle’s appeal to them, otherwise they would not have been pricked in their hearts.

3. They repented.

4. Were baptized in his name. Thus they entered through these divinely-appointed conditions into the enjoyment of the blessings graciously provided for them through the death and mediation.

This was the first time the Gospel in its fullness was ever preached under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, leading men into the Church of God and into the remission of their sins, under the world-wide commission of Jesus, the Lord and Master; for Peter, in giving an account of the conversion of Cornelius, said: “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). On the first occasion, when the world knew not the way, there was of necessity a demand for a fullness and specificness of direction, a careful and distinct enumeration of the steps to be taken in their connection, and the agencies used, that was not needful in after references; after the steps to be taken and the order was once clearly made known, an allusion to one leading step or point or the order called up all of them. These were the steps to be taken, this the rule to be followed, the fixed directions of the spirit of God, sealed by the blood of Christ, worldwide in its application, and to stand to the end of the world. No human power can abrogate, change or modify this commission of the Lord Jesus, this guidance of the Spirit; and I feel sure that no one can have a well-grounded assurance of citizenship in that kingdom until he has complied with the conditions presented in the blood-sealed commission of Jesus Christ, given under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This brings us to the discussion of the second division of the subject—

CONDITIONS OF CONTINUED MEMBERSHIP

To all those who entered into the apostolic Church the exhortation was given: “Putting away, therefore, all wickedness, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as new-born babes, long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation” (I Peter 2:1, 2). They were also taught to “let the word of Christ dwell in them richly” (Col. 3:16). This was necessary in the mind of inspired men because they realized that to be a Christian was to be like God. It was to be like God in the flesh. Jesus Christ was Immanuel—“God with us” in the flesh. He came in the flesh to take on himself all the feelings, temptations, and weaknesses of humanity, to show what and how the Christian should live. With this in mind it is easy to see that with them the Christian was God growing in the flesh up to the stage of maturity in man and perfection under “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.” In the growth of the Christian there was a constant but gradual growth of all the desires and affections into the likeness of the character affections that move God; a growth in character in the feelings and in thoughts and in actions to the life and character of God. The Christian’s life was a continual growth into a nobler life with God. They were to grow in thoughts and feelings, in purposes and actions, into the likeness of God. Solomon said: “For as he thinketh within himself, so is he” (Prov. 23:7). The thoughts and feelings that a man cherishes in his heart mold and shape the character and make him what he is. A spirit that loves as God loves and seeks to do good and bless as God does will grow into the likeness of God. They were taught that a man must not only think as God thinks; but that the thoughts must grow into permanent principles cherished in the heart; that they must mold the actions to make him act as God acts. Faith in God made them desire to think, feel and act like God, which is the end and accomplishment of the turning to God.

But all who entered into the apostolic Church did not choose to thus develop themselves into the likeness of God and continue in the fellowship with him, for some were put away. There were reasons for this. Since some were and some were not, it follows that there were conditions of continued fellowship. Some have interpreted the parable of the tares (Matt. 13:24-30)—“Let both grow together until the harvest”—to mean that there is to be no exclusion from the Church, but this is to make parabolic language conflict with plain, unfigurative statements and historical facts, which is not admissible. The Saviour directed that he who would not “hear the church” should be “as the Gentile and the publican” (Matt. 18:17). Concerning the incestuous man in the church at Corinth Paul said: “For I verily, being absent in the body but present in spirit, have already as though I were present judged him that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (I Cor. 5:3-5). And to the Thessalonians he gave practically the same directions: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” (II Thess. 3:6). The Holy Spirit mentions the following things as the works of the flesh: “Fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envying, drunkenness, revelings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, that they who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:10-21).

Those guilty of such things “can not inherit the kingdom of God.” Such things are disorderly, else they would not deprive one of the kingdom of God. For those that walk orderly enjoy the divine favor. Since such things are disorderly, and the Church is to withdraw from those who walk disorderly, it follows that the Church is to withdraw from all such. Therefore, the congregation that did not do it, disregarded the law and authority of Jesus Christ. Of course, it is understood that an earnest, faithful effort was to be made to bring such offenders to repentance, and an orderly life; but when such efforts failed, they were compelled by the law of Christ to put them away. Consequently the condition of continuing in the membership of the Church of God was an orderly Christian life, as I have already shown.

CHAPTER V.
THE WORSHIP

Of the people under the new covenant the Holy Spirit, through Peter, said: “But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that ye may show the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (I Peter 2:9). They constitute a nation—not a republic, but a kingdom—so we read: “Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood; and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever” (Rev. 1:6, 7). “And madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests” (Rev. 5:10).

A nation or kingdom of priests is equal to a nation or kingdom without priests. And so the whole Church of God is his lot, heritage, “clergy,” or priesthood. As a kingdom, not of this world, though in the world. When on trial for his life, Jesus said: “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36). Though on earth, not earthly, and its honors and grandeur are not akin to those of the nations of this world. The subjects of this “kingdom” were born, “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13); “born of water and the Spirit.” They were all the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty.

Congregated for worship and service they were not only a priesthood, but their edification was committed to the whole body of male members, excluding from ministering therein only those incapable of edifying. There were elders, required to be “apt to teach,” not to be the sole instructors of the church, but taking part therein; securing order and propriety on the part of all.

Every member was taught to attend the worship regularly, but this was not the end. Even if every member attended regularly and punctually, this was not to be the end of the teaching, the worship, the service. These were necessary, because without these the end could not be attained. The end was to excite and secure the active and earnest labor of every member in serving God and teaching and helping humanity. One could not serve God without helping others. He was to help them spiritually, morally, intellectually and materially. The end of all the teaching and training of men in the church was that they might bear fruit in doing good to men. Paul said of Christ Jesus: “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works” (Titus 2:14). They were to cease to do evil and be zealous in good works. “Faithful is the saying, and concerning these things I desire that thou affirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed in God may be careful to maintain good works. These are good and profitable unto men.... And let our people also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, and that they be not unfruitful” (Titus 3:8-14). The end of the teaching and the worship was to develop the activity and direct the energies of every member in good works. The first element of true good to others was to bring them into proper spiritual relations to God, for without this no good can be enjoyed. But this spiritual harmony with God must show itself in bringing every thought into harmony with the will of God and so direct the bodily energies as to bring all good—spiritual, intellectual and material—to all creatures.

Every member of the Church was to participate in all the services of the church; and the members not only were competent to do all the work pertaining to the church, but they needed this work and service for their own spiritual growth. In this service alone could the Christian find the food and exercise needed for his growing wise and strong in the inner man. The spiritual man could no more grow strong and active without himself doing the worship and work of the church than the body could grow strong while refusing the food and exercise needed for its growth and life. In this service in the church man could alone find the highest development of the soul and the mind and the body. One could no more worship and do the work in the church by proxy and grow spiritually thereby than he could eat and take exercise by proxy and his body grow thereby. The well-being of every member demanded that he should take active part in the worship, the well-being of the church demanded the help of every member that it “may grow up in all things unto him, who is the head, even Christ; from whom all the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, making the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love” (Eph. 4:15, 16). The point emphasized here is that every member had his work to do, his office to fill, and by this harmonious working of all the parts the body grew into the well-proportioned body of Christ—the Church. The welfare and development of the whole was dependent upon the proper workings of each and every member.

Every child of God, by virtue of his birthright into God’s family, a family of priests to God, had the right to perform any and every service connected with the Church of God, limited only by God’s directions and by the ability to do it decently and in order. All were encouraged to take part in the service, and in doing the service each member manifested his talent for the work and trained himself for fitness in God’s work.

Every dispensation has had its peculiar worship. That of the Jewish dispensation differed from the patriarchal. The worship under the Christian dispensation is radically different from both. The worship which was acceptable under the patriarchal would condemn a Jew; and that which would justify a Jew would condemn a Christian. During the patriarchal dispensation religion was confined to the family. Every one was his own priest, and he could build his own altar and offer his own sacrifices for himself and for his family. (Gen. 4:4; 8:20; Job. 1:5.) But when the priesthood was changed, and confined to the family of Levi (Ex. 28:1; Num. 25:11-13), this worship was no longer permitted by those included in the Sinaitic covenant; hence no longer acceptable. It is likewise true that the sacrifices offered by the Levitical priesthood ceased to be acceptable after the death of Christ and the establishment of the Church. When Christ ascended to the Father the priesthood was changed. The high priesthood then passed into the hands of one belonging “to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests” (Heb. 7:13, 14). The priesthood being changed, a change of the Worship follows as a necessity. “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (Heb. 7:12). While the worship of the three dispensations had some things in common, each had its distinctive peculiarities. Since Christianity is distinguished from every other religion by its institutions and worship, it of necessity follows that, in order to its preservation, these must be strictly observed. Nothing short of this can preserve the Church from degeneracy and final extinction. As we have already learned, a fundamental feature of the worship in the Church of God is the Universal Priesthood of its membership. All the members of God’s family have became “a royal priesthood,” who no longer offer bloody sacrifices of the law of Moses, but they offer their “bodies a living sacrifice” (Rom. 12:1), and the “sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to his name” (Heb. 13:15). Since all were priests, all worshiped God without any mediatorship other than that of the Lord Jesus Christ. They could all come with equal boldness to the throne of grace. Such clerical distinction and arrogance as we have at the present time had no place then.

That the apostles taught the churches to do all the Lord commanded will not be called in question by those who receive the Bible as authority. Whatever, then, the churches did by the appointment or concurrence of the apostles, they did by the commandment of Jesus Christ. Whatever acts of worship the apostles taught and sanctioned in one congregation, they taught and sanctioned in all, because all under the same government of the same King. But the church in Troas met “upon the first day of the week ... to break bread” (Acts 20:7), and Paul exhorts the Hebrew brethren to “consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more as ye see the day drawing nigh” (Heb. 10:24, 25). From the manner in which this meeting of the disciples at Troas is mentioned by Luke, two things are very evident: (1) That it was an established rule of the disciples to meet on the first day of the week; (2) that the primary object of their meeting was to break bread. And Luke also tells us that the Jerusalem church “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and prayers” (Acts 2:42), which shows us that the breaking of bread was a prominent item in those stated meetings. Other corroborating evidences of the stated meetings on the first day of the week for religious purposes are indicated by the instructions Paul gave to the church in Galatia and Corinth: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come” (I Cor. 16:1, 2).

As we have seen that whatever the primitive churches did by the approval of the apostles, they did by divine authority, now, as Paul approved their meeting on the first day of the week, it is as high authority as could be required for the practice of meeting to worship on the first day of every week. The items of their worship were:

THE APOSTLES’ TEACHING

They believed that the teaching of the apostles was from God and they constantly and diligently studied it, that they might know and do the whole will of God. The constant study of and the profound reverence for the Word of God were recognized traits of their character. They certainly had the word of Christ dwelling in them richly. Not only was reading the Scriptures a part of all the public worship, it was a daily custom in private life—in the family, the social circle, and even at their toil. On this point I will give the testimony of Lyman Coleman, who has gathered much information on this subject. He says:

No trait of the primitive Christians was more remarkable than their profound reverence for the Scriptures and their diligent study of them. The Word of God, dwelling in them richly and abounding, was their meditation all the day long. Those who could read never went abroad without taking some part of the Bible with them. The women, in their household labors, wore some portion of the sacred roll hanging about their necks; and the men made it the companion of their toil in the field and the workshop. Morning, noon and night they read it at their meals. By the recitals of the narratives of sacred history, by constant reading, by paraphrase, by commentary, and by sacred song, they taught the Scriptures diligently unto their children; talked of these heavenly themes when they sat in their house, when they walked by the way, when they laid themselves down, and when they rose up. One relates with great delight that he never sat at meat with Origen, A. D. 225, but one of the company read to the other. They never retired to rest without first reading the Bible. So diligent were they in this divine employment that “prayers succeeded reading of the Word, and the reading of the Word to prayer.” (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, Page 57.)

Augustus Neander says:

The nature of single acts of Christian worship will be evident from what we have remarked respecting its essence generally. As the elevation of the spirit and heart of the united Church of God was the end of the whole, so instruction and edification by uniting in the common contemplation of the divine Word, constituted, from the first, a principal part of Christian worship. The mode in which this was done might, like the form of the church constitution, be closely connected with the arrangement of the assemblies of the Jewish communities in the synagogues. As in the synagogue assemblies of the Jews the reading of portions from the Old Testament formed the basis of religious instruction, so the same practice passed over into the Christian assemblies. The Old Testament was read first, particularly the prophetic parts of it, as referring to the Messiah; next, the gospels, and finally the apostolic epistles. The reading of the Scriptures was of the greater consequence, since it was desired to make every Christian familiar with them. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1, Page 412.)

THE FELLOWSHIP

The leading idea of this term is that of joint participation. We have fellowship with God because we are made partakers of the divine nature, as we escape the corruption that is in the world through lust. We have fellowship with Jesus Christ because of the common sympathies which his life and sufferings have established between himself and us. To be in fellowship with him means to take part in his poverty and want, to share in his sorrows, his sufferings and self-denial in this world, as well as to partake of the joys and hopes, the consolations and blessedness of this world, and the hopes and glories of the world to come. We have fellowship with one another because of the mutual participation in each other’s affections, joys, sorrows and needs. The word as here used includes the contribution which was regularly made on the first day of every week. Paul says: “Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store as he may prosper” (I Cor. 16:2). The small offering of the poor was as much demanded as the greater ones of the rich, and just as acceptable. The regulation governing this was: “For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according as a man hath, not according as he hath not” (II Cor. 8:12). God never valued the offerings brought to him by their intrinsic value, but by the sacrifice made by the one making the offering. It was also required that the worshiper should be liberal and cheerful in giving. “He that soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he that soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Let each man do as he hath purposed in his heart; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (II Cor. 9:6, 7). This shows that a cheerful, bountiful offering to God is but a reasonable measure of liberality. God expected this of every worshiper.

BREAKING BREAD

That the churches in apostolic times met on the first day of every week to partake of the Lord’s Supper, is well at tested by both inspired and uninspired writers. It is plainly stated that the disciples at Troas gathered together to break bread; and what one church did by the authority of the Lord, as a part of his instituted worship, they all did. That they met for this purpose is not to be inferred, for Luke says: “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7). From the way this meeting is mentioned two things are quite obvious: (1) That it was an established custom for the disciples to meet on the first day of the week; and (2) that the primary object of this meeting was to break bread.

All Biblical scholars and church historians, without regard to denomination, generally concede that the apostolic church observed the Lord’s Supper on the first day of every week. Out of the many proofs that might be given of this I will give the testimony of only one. Mosheim says:

The first of all the Christian churches founded by the apostles was that of Jerusalem; and after the form and model of this, all the others of that age were constituted. That Church, however, was governed immediately by the apostles, to whom the presbyters and the deacons, or overseers of the poor, were subject. Though the people had not withdrawn themselves from the Jewish worship, yet they held their own separate meetings, in which they were instructed by the apostles and presbyters, offered up their united prayers, celebrated the sacred supper, the memorial of Jesus Christ, of his death, and the salvation he procured.... The Christians of this century assembled for the worship of God and for their advancement in piety on the first day of the week, the day on which Christ reassumed his life; for that this day was set apart for religious worship by the apostles themselves, and that, after the example of the Church of Jerusalem, it was generally observed we have unexceptional testimony. (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I, page 46, 85.)

This testimony is confirmed by the pagan Pliny in his well-known letter to Trajan (about A. D. 100), written while he presided over Pontus and Bithynia. He says:

The Christians affirm the whole of their guilt or error to be that they were accustomed to meet together on a stated day, before it was light, and to sing hymns to Christ as a god, and to bind themselves by a sacrimentum, not for any wicked purpose, but never to commit fraud, theft, or adultery; never to break their word or to refuse, when called upon, to deliver up any trust; after which it was their custom to separate, and to assemble again to take a meal, but a general one, and without guilty purpose. (Epistle X, 97.)

PRAYERS

Simplicity characterized everything in the primitive worship. Consequently the prayers of the first Christians were of the most simple and artless character. They regarded prayer as a quickening spirit, drawing forth the inward inspirations of the soul after God, and accompanied every important act of their public and private life with this holy privilege, and Paul exhorts his readers to “pray without ceasing.” On this subject Lyman Coleman says:

The prayers of the Church were offered in language the most artless and natural. Even the most learned of the apologists and early fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius, who were no strangers to the graces of diction, refused all ornamental embellishments in their addresses to the throne of grace, alleging that the kingdom of heaven consists not in words, but in power. Their prayers were accordingly offered in the greatest simplicity, and as far as possible in the phraseology of Scripture. This artlessness and elegant simplicity appears in striking contrast with the ostentation and bombast of a later date. This contrast appears equally great also in the brevity of these prayers. It was a maxim of the primitive Church that many words should never be employed to express what might be better said in a few. (Ibid, page 316.)

SINGING

Their singing was a real heartfelt service. The Holy Spirit said: “And be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit; speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your hearts to the Lord” (Eph. 5:18, 19). And again, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God” (Col. 3:16). In this delightful service the whole congregation doubtless took part. It has been contended, recently, that the singing of the first churches was not congregational, and therefore our congregational singing is as unscriptural and unauthorized as any musical performance in the worship. The testimony of history is against this statement. On this subject Philip Schaff says:

The song, a form of prayer, in the festive dress of pietry and the elevated language of inspiration, raising the congregation to the highest pitch of devotion, and giving it a part in the heavenly harmonies of the saints. This passed immediately, with psalms of the Old Testament, those inexhaustible treasures of spiritual experience, edification and comfort, from the temple and the synagogue into the Christian Church. The Lord himself inaugurated psalmody into the new covenant at the institution of the holy Supper, and Paul expressly enjoined the singing of “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” as a means of social edification. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. I, page 463.)

To the same effect testifies Lyman Coleman:

The prevailing mode of singing during the first three centuries was congregational. The whole congregation united their voices in the sacred song of praise, in strains suited to their ability. Their music, if such it could be called, was, of necessity, crude and simple. Indeed, it appears to have been a kind of recitative or chant. The charm of their sacred music was not in the harmony of sweet sounds, but in the melody of the heart.... But, however this may be, the most ancient and most common mode of singing was confessedly for the whole assembly; men, women and children blend their voices in their songs of praise in the great congregation. Such is the testimony of Hillary, of Augustin and Chrysostom. “Formerly all came together and united in their song, as is still our custom.” “Men and women, the aged and the young, were distinguished only by their skill in singing, for the spirit which led the voice of each one blended all in one harmonious melody.” (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, pages 329, 330.)

CHAPTER VI.
POLITY

By the term polity I mean the organic structure and government of the Church. Nothing is more obvious from the New Testament record than the simplicity which characterized its primitive organization. In this particular Christianity was in marked contrast with Judaism. With temple, tabernacle or altars; without priests or Levites, and almost without ceremonies, it made known at once its character and purpose as spiritual and not carnal, as, in fact, a kingdom of God “not of this world.” Its only authority was

THE WORD OF GOD

We have already seen that the only creed of the primitive Church was the central truth of God’s revelation to man—“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” The whole New Testament is but an expansion of this thought. The early Christians, in confessing their faith in Christ, accepted the whole revelation of God based upon it as their absolute and only authority. The teaching of inspired men was to them what the New Testament is to us, till their teaching was recorded and the necessity for oral inspiration ceased.

The all-sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures is thus expressed by the inspired apostle: “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: for the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (II Tim. 3:16, 17). This most evidently refers to the Old Testament as a whole—the book that Timothy had known from his childhood. The teaching of Jesus and the apostles in connection with the examples, the teachings, the warnings of the Old Testament Scriptures, are sufficient to thoroughly furnish the man of God with instruction necessary to carrying out all the requirements of God in every relationship of life. Paul’s confidence in the sufficiency of the Word of God is also expressed in these words: “And now I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give the inheritance among them that are sanctified” (Acts 20:32). In the Lord’s prayer, just before his arrest and tragic death, he said: “Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth” (John 17:17).

From what is here stated it is evident that the early Christians were fully convinced that the Word of God in the work of redemption was all-sufficient for the accomplishment of the following things: (1) Teaching. (2) Reproof—conviction of sin. (3) Correction—for setting men upright. (4) Instruction in righteousness. (5) Build men up. (6) Sanctification. (7) Give an inheritance. (8) And perfection in good works.

Since the Bible furnishes all this, it would be difficult to conceive any want it does not supply. It leaves no room for a human creed, nor any other authority in matters of faith. Hence it is a fact, conceded by all Biblical students, that the apostolic Church accepted the Word of God as its absolute and only authority in all religious affairs.

NAMES

Those who became followers of Christ in the early days of Christianity were designated by several names, all of which were significant. They were called “saints” because they had been set apart to the service of God; “brethren,” because of their relation as members of a common family; “elect” because they were chosen of God in Christ by the Gospel; “children of God,” because of their relation to him as a common Father; “believers,” because of their devotion to Christ and of their faith in him; “disciples,” because they were learners in the school of their Master; “Christians,” because they were followers of Christ and citizens of his kingdom. It was natural, therefore, that the last name should soon become the most prominent and be freely used by the friend and foe in times of persecution. Peter says: “If a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name” (I Peter 4:16). It was the name that united believers in the government of Christ, and was the most comprehensive of all the names of those given to those who composed the body of Christ. To be called a Christian carried with it all the honors implied in all the other names. All these names were worn by divine authority, and were evidently given by inspiration.

CONGREGATIONAL INDEPENDENCE

Each congregation was independent of all others in its government. They sustained a fraternal relation to each other as parts of the body of Christ, but no one was under the ecclesiastical authority of another. There is no ecclesiastical authority recognized in the New Testament except that of a single congregation, and that only when acting strictly in obedience to the will of Christ. From such a decision there is no court of appeal. On this point I submit the testimony of a few distinguished men, who, while they stood identified with an eccleciasticism ruling the individual congregation, admit that no such thing was known to the New Testament. Mosheim says:

All the churches, in those primitive times, were independent bodies; or none of them subject to the jurisdiction of any other. For though the churches which were founded by the apostles themselves frequently had the honor shown them to be consulted in difficult and doubtful cases, yet they had no judicial authority, no control, no power of giving laws. On the contrary, it is as clear as the noon-day, that all Christian churches had equal rights, and were in all respects on a footing of equality. Nor does there appear in this first century any vestige of that consociation of the churches of the same provinces, which gave rise to ecclesiastical councils, and to metropolitans. But, rather as is manifest, it was not till the second century that the custom of holding ecclesiastical councils first began in Greece, and thence extended into other provinces. (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 1, page 72.)

Concerning the churches of the second century, Mosheim says:

During a great part of this century, all churches continued to be as at first, independent of each other, or were connected by no consociation or confederation. Each church was a kind of small independent republic, governing itself by its own laws, enacted or at least sanctioned by the people. But in the process of time it became customary for all the Christian churches within the same province to unite and form a sort of larger society or commonwealth; and in the manner of confederated republics, to hold their conventions at stated times, and there deliberate for the common advantage of the whole confederation. (Ibid, page 116.)

Of the independence of the apostolic churches, Prof. Lyman Coleman says:

These churches, whenever formed, became separate and independent bodies, competent to appoint their own officers, and to administer their own government without reference to subordination to any central authority or foreign power. No fact connected with the history of these primitive churches is more fully established or more generally conceded, so that the discussion of it need not be renewed at this place. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, page 95.)

From this we learn: (1) That during the first century and the early part of the second the churches were independent; and (2) that so soon as they confederated for the common interest their independency was destroyed and a tyrannical ecclesiasticism established. Much more might be given to establish the face of the congregational independence of the apostolic churches, but as that is so well established and so generally admitted, it does not seem necessary.

ELDERS

In every fully-developed church in apostolic times there was a plurality of elders or bishops. Luke says: “And from Miletus he [Paul] sent to Ephesus, and called to him the elders of the church. And when they were come to him he said unto them, ... Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:17-28). From this we not only learn that there was a plurality of elders at Ephesus, but they were also called bishops, which clearly proves that the terms “elder” and “bishop” are used synonymously. Of Paul and Barnabas it is said: “And when they had preached the gospel to that city [Derbe], and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, and to Iconium, and to Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples.... And when they had appointed for them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed” (Acts 14:21-23). From this we learn that elders were appointed in every church. That there were a plurality of elders in every fully-developed church is abundantly proved by historical testimony.

The eldership is the most sacred trust of God to his church. God is the legislator, the only lawmaker of his people. His authority is absolute, his power omnipotent. To the elders is committed the work of teaching and enforcing the laws of God and of guarding them against all perversion or corruption by adding to or taking from, or by bringing in the customs, traditions, or doctrines of men. No elder can be faithful to God without holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to “exhort in sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9). The Holy Spirit through Peter charges them to “tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock” (I Peter 5:2-4). Their office is to feed the flock on “the Spiritual milk which is without guile that they may grow thereby unto salvation.” (See I Peter 2:2.) They are the guardians of God’s heritage, to keep it from being led away from him.

They are to make no rules of their own, as though they are the lords or rulers over God’s house. They have no authority save to enforce the law of God, and so set an example of fidelity to God to be followed by the church. If elders conscientiously confine themselves to the law of God, they can give account with joy; otherwise with grief. The spirit in which this is to be done is given by Paul in his charge to the elders at Ephesus: “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. I know that after my departing grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Wherefore watch ye, remembering that by the space of three years I ceased not to admonish every one night and day with tears, and now I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and give you the inheritance among all them that are sanctified” (Acts 20:28-32). This exhortation was given to guide the elders in their work. A fundamental and all-pervading principle of this counsel is that nothing is to be taught or practiced of the precepts of man. The elders are to guard and preserve the purity of God’s word, the faith and peace of the church and so promote the salvation of man.

Their labors were confined to the congregation in which they held their membership, and to which they were responsible for their conduct.

DEACONS

There were also a plurality of deacons in every full-developed congregation. Luke tells us (Acts 6:3) that the Church in Jerusalem selected seven deacons. It is true that they are not here called deacons, but the work to which they were called corresponds to that of the deacons as described by Paul in his letter to Timothy. The work of both is expressed by the same word in the Greek. Paul addressed a letter “to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” Hence there were a plurality in the Church at Philippi. This being true, and Jerusalem being the Church after which the others were modeled, I conclude that what was true of these churches was true of all the others.

EVANGELISTS

In the New Testament Church there was a class of laborers called evangelists. Their work differed very materially from that of the elders and deacons. Philip, who was one of the seven that were appointed deacons in the Church at Jerusalem, is the first evangelist of which we have any account. He “went down to the city of Samaria, and proclaimed unto them the Christ. And the multitude gave heed with one accord unto the things that were spoken by Philip when they heard and saw the signs which he did.... [And] when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:5-12). Thence he went, in obedience to the instruction of the angel, “unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza,” where he met “a man of Ethiopia,” and “preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, Behold here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?... And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” From this we learn that a deacon may soon develop into an evangelist.

Timothy was exhorted to do the work of an evangelist; hence it is legitimate to infer that he was one. From the letters to Timothy and Titus it appears that the general work of an evangelist was to preach the Gospel in other fields than the congregation in which he held his membership, establish churches and take care of them, appoint elders and deacons when such work was appropriate, and to labor for such congregations as needed assistance, whether with or without an eldership.

PART II
The Falling Away

CHAPTER I.
THE FALLING AWAY PREDICTED

The Saviour, when about to leave his apostles, prayed the Father, that as he till then had kept them, so they might be kept when he was no longer personally with them, adding: “I pray not that thou shouldst take them from the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one” (John 17:15). And his prayer was answered, for though Jew and Gentile sought their death, yet they were preserved until the church stood forth in the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ—till the perfect had come. And what a perfection it was! Perfect unfolding of the love of God, so far as that can be comprehended in this life; perfect exhibition of the plan of salvation; perfect deliverance of the faith; perfected canon of Scripture; perfected church policy; perfected hope, blooming with immortality. The last of the apostles were preserved to the church till the entire apostolic work was done. The perfect had thus come, and apostles were no more needed, and have no more been had.

But notwithstanding perfection so varied, the world is not yet brought to the Saviour. This would surprise us did we not know that departure from the faith and order has been as complete and widespread as could be. This sad condition, however, did not come unawares upon the church, for our Saviour himself, and his apostles, foretold the apostasy, and so minutely that its very existence stands out that prophets and apostles “spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.”

In the Sermon on the Mount we have this solemn note of warning: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.... By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:15-20). These false prophets were men who would tear and rend the sheep to satisfy their own greed; coming not only as enemies, but “in sheep’s clothing,” arising from among the flock.

On careful examination it will be found that the apostles never taught the disciples to look for an unbroken triumph of Christianity. Paul gives warning to the Ephesian elders concerning grievous wolves who would not spare the flock in the following words: “Take heed unto yourselves, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:28-30). These grievous, tearing wolves were to arise, not only in the church, but from among the elders. They would care for the fleece, not for the flock; speaking perverse things to draw away from the truth of God. Paul’s epistles repeat the warning to the Ephesian elders in various and awful forms. He wrote his second letter to the church in Thessalonica for the express purpose of guarding the church against the expected return of the Lord before the “falling away” in the church, “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 worshiped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God setting himself forth as God” (II Thess. 2:3, 4). In this it is clearly set forth that a principle was at work in the church that would work out developments and organizations that would set aside the authority of God. The place or prerogative of God is to sit as lawmaker, to make laws for his kingdom and his people, and whoever or whatever proposes to legislate, make, repeal or modify the laws of God, add to or take from what God has said, is the man of sin, the son of perdition. Organizations in the church or over the church to do the work that God has committed to individual Christians and the churches are the works of the man of sin.

Concerning false apostles Paul gave this warning: “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light” (II Cor. 11:12, 14). It was no wonder that false prophets and apostate elders were transforming themselves into apostles of Christ when their master was setting them the example. All who sought to turn people from God’s appointments were ministers of Satan, even though they thought they were serving God. The end of all such shall correspond to their works. From this we learn a needful warning in our day, that a man calling himself an apostle, or the successor of the apostles, is no security that Satan is not his prompter. No wonder, then, the apostasy came soon and lasts long.

In the following the apostle again plainly foretells the apostasy: “But the Spirit expressly saith that in latter 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” (II Tim. 4:1, 2). Every one that teaches that man can in any manner set aside the law and appointments of God, or substitute man’s devices for the order of God, is a seducing spirit that turns man from the truth. Seducing spirits carry on their evil work through men who speak lies in hypocrisy.

Again the apostle brings up the awful subject: “But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, implacable, slanderous, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, head-strong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof: from these also turn away” (II Tim. 3:1-5). The condition here depicted was as certain as important. Timothy was to have no doubt about it, and he was to be continually calling it to mind. The men of the last times were to be “lovers of self” and avaricious. Men had always been so in all ages; but the characteristic of the men in question was that they were to be “holding a form of godliness,” but denying the power thereof.

But Paul is not the only one who confirms the prediction of the Lord. The whole body of the apostles are at one on this point. James says: “Whence come wars and whence comes fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your pleasures that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not; ye kill, and covet, and can not obtain: ye fight and war; ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may spend it on your pleasures” (James 4:1-3). The wolfish work had already begun; but it was little compared with what was to follow, when the proud, money-loving priest would find emperors and kings to arm in his quarrel. Peter, too, writes: “But there arose false prophets among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of” (II Peter 2:1, 2).

Jude also gives warning against the apostates predicted by Christ, and Paul, and Peter, and denounced by James. He says: “For there are certain men crept in privily, even who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). The self-styled vicar of Christ, with all his horde of dignitaries, and all the multitude of corruptions in other sectarian bodies, are sure that this can have no reference to them, because they have never denied Christ; but on the other hand have filled the world with their various creeds and confessions of faith. But it deserves consideration, whether works are not always more weighty than words. “Lord, Lord,” is loathsome to him in the mouths of the “workers of iniquity”; and Paul expressly declares that some “profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate” (Titus 1:16).

Coming down to John, the last of the apostles, and, in point of time, nearest to the apostasy, we read: “Little children, it is the last hour; and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there risen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they are not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they are not of us” (I John 2:18, 19). These antichrists were not open enemies, but wolves in the garb of sheep. Then we read: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (I John 4:1). Not into the world as openly declaring their departure from the faith, but as destroyers thereof by false doctrine, while professing to be servants of Christ. Further: “For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh.” This is the deceiver and the antichrist. They went forth into the world professedly as preachers of the Gospel of Christ, yet denying his true character. Again: “I wrote somewhat unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not. Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he doeth, prating against us with wicked words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth and casteth them out of the church” (III John 9,10). Thus this bloated wolf had acquired such power in the church as to exclude those who held the truth as taught by the apostles. In the last message that God ever made to man, he said: “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, he that walketh in the midst of seven golden candlesticks: I know thy works, and thy toil and patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men, and didst try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and didst not find them false” (Rev. 2:1, 2). Thus it appears that what Paul informed the elders of the church at Ephesus he knew would come to pass after his leaving them. The wolves in that case claimed to be the accepted apostles of Christ, but were found liars.

CHAPTER II.
THE FALLING AWAY

The origin of the Roman hierarchial system is obscured in pious frauds; but it is certain that it arose gradually. As we have already learned, the apostolic churches had a plurality of elders or bishops. At the first the elders of any particular congregation would select one of their number to preside at their meetings for the transaction of business, and in the course of time he came to be known as “The Bishop.” Little by little he came to feel his importance till he was exalted above his fellow elders. This the presbyters would not concede. Divisions arose out of these troubles, and the authority of the bishops, closely united among themselves, came victorious over the presbyters, who opposed them singlehanded. The power and authority of these bishops were regulated by the prominence of the cities in which they presided. As Rome was the chief city of the world at that time, the bishops of cities of less importance regarded it an honor to themselves to concede to the bishop of Rome the pre-eminence in all things; and so he extended his authority from time to time, till almost the whole world bowed to his authority.

The changes which produced this condition are strikingly expressed by Lyman Coleman. He says:

1. In the college of equal and co-ordinate presbyters, some one would naturally act as moderator or presiding officer; age, talent, influence, or ordination by the apostles, might give one an accidental superiority over his fellows, and appropriate to him the standing office of president of the presbytery. To this office the title of bishop was assigned; and with the office and the title began to be associated the authority of a distinct order. Jerome alleges that the standing office and authority of a bishop were a necessary expedient to still the cravings and strife for preferment which by the instigation of Satan, arose in process of time among the presbyters. Whatever may have been the cause, a distinction began to be made, in the course of the second century, between bishops and presbyters, which finally resulted, in the century following, in the establishment of the episcopal prerogatives.

2. Without reference to the causes which occasioned the distinction between the clergy and the laity, this is worthy of notice as another important change in the constitution of the Church, which gradually arose in connection with the rise of episcopal power. In opposition to the idea of universal priesthood, the people now became a distinct and inferior order. They and the clergy begin to feel the force of conflicting interests and claims, the distinction widens fast, and influence, authority and power centralize in the bishop, the head of the clerical order.

3. The clergy claim for themselves the prerogatives, relations and authority of the Jewish priesthood. Such claims, advanced in the third century by Cyprian, were a great departure from the original spirit and model of the Church derived from Christ and the apostles. It was falling back from the New to the Old Testament, and substituting the outward for the inward spirit. It presented the priesthood again as a mediating office between man and his God. It sought to invest the propitiating priest with awful sanctity, as the appointed medium by which grace is imparted to man. Hence the necessity of episcopal ordination, the apostolical succession, and the grace of the ordinances administered by consecrated hands. The clergy, by this assumption, were made independent of the people; their commission and office were from God; and, as a Mosaic priesthood, they soon began to claim an independent sovereignty over the laity. “God makes the priests” was the darling maxim of Cyprian, perpetually recurring in identical and varied phraseology. No change, perhaps, in the whole history of the changing forms of church government can be specified more destructive to the primitive constitution of the Church, or more disastrous to its spiritual interests. “This entire perversion of the original view of the Christian Church,” says Neander, “was itself the origin of the whole system of the Roman Catholic religion—the germ from which sprang the popery of the Dark Ages.”

4. Few and simple were the offices instituted in the Church by the apostles; but after the rise of episcopacy, ecclesiastical offices were multiplied with great rapidity. They arose, as may appear in the progress of this work, from different causes and at different times; many were the necessary results of changes in the Church and in society; but, generally, they will be found to have, as their ultimate effect and end, the aggrandizement of the episcopate. They are an integral, if not an essential, part of the ceremonial, the pomp and power of an outward religion, that carnal perversion of the true idea of the Christian Church, and the legitimate consequence of beginning in the spirit and seeking to be made perfect in the flesh. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, pages 97-99.)

This testimony is confirmed by Neander, who says:

The changes which the constitution of the Christian Church underwent during this period related especially to the following particulars: (1) The distinction of bishops from presbyters, and the gradual development of the monarchico-episcopal church government; (2) The distinction of the clergy from the laity, and the formation of a sacerdotal caste, as opposed to the evangelical idea of the priesthood; (3) The multiplication of church offices. (Church History, Vol. I, page 259.)

Since it has been shown that episcopacy was the outgrowth of a wicked ambition for leadership and power that culminated in the papacy, I deem it important to give ample proof, since it is yet very popular in many of the denominations of this day. I now invite attention to the testimony of Mosheim. He says:

1. The form of church government which began to exist in the preceding century was in this century more industriously established and confirmed in all its parts. One president, or bishop, presided over each church. He was created by the common suffrage of the whole people. With presbyters for his council, whose number was not fixed, it was his business to watch over the interest of the whole Church, and to assign to each presbyter his station. Subject to the bishop and also to the presbyters were the servants or deacons, who were divided into certain classes, because all the duties which the interests of the Church required could not well be attended to by them all.

2. During a great portion of this century [second] all the churches continued to be, as at first, independent of each other, or were connected by no consociations or confederations. Each church was a kind of small, independent republic, governing itself by its own laws, enacted or at least sanctioned by the people. But in the process of time it became customary for all the Christian churches within the same province to unite and form a sort of larger society or commonwealth; and in the manner of confederated republics, to hold their conventions at stated times, and there deliberate for the common advantage of the whole confederation. This custom first arose among the Greeks, with whom a political confederation of cities, and the consequent convention of their several delegates, had been long known; but afterward, the utility of the thing being seen, the custom extended through all the countries where there were Christian churches. Such conventions of delegates from several churches assembled for deliberation were called by the Greeks synods and by the Latins councils; and the laws agreed upon in them were called canons, that is, rules.

3. These councils—of which no vestige appears before the middle of this century—changed nearly the whole form of the Church. For by them, in the first place, the ancient rights and privileges of the people were very much abridged; and, on the other hand, the influence and the authority of the bishops were not a little augmented. At first the bishops did not deny that they were merely the representatives of their churches, and that they acted in the name of the people; but little by little they made high pretensions, and maintained that power was given them by Christ himself to dictate rules of faith and conduct to the people. In the next place, the perfect equality and parity of all bishops, which existed in the early times, these councils gradually subverted. For it was necessary that one of the confederated bishops of a province should in those conventions be intrusted with some authority and power over the others; and hence originated the prerogatives of metropolitans. And lastly, when the custom of holding these councils had extended over the Christian world and the universal Church had acquired the form of a vast republic composed of many lesser ones, certain head men were to be placed over it in different parts of the world as central points in their respective countries. Hence came the Patriarchs, and ultimately the Prince of Patriarchs, the Roman Pontiff. (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I, pages 116, 117.)

Concerning this, I note the following facts:

1. That in the second century they digressed so far from apostolic practice as to have one bishop over each church, and that he had his elders under his control. He was the pastor of that church.

2. That there was a confederation of churches into councils.

3. These councils began to be held about the middle of the second century, and resulted in augmenting the power of the bishops and diminishing the privileges of the people. This power on the part of the clergy was not assumed all at once, but gradually assumed as the people would bear it. These councils soon began to enact laws, and claimed authority from Christ to thus dictate to the people.

4. That when the custom of holding these councils had extended over the Christian world, and the Church had acquired the form of a vast republic composed of many lesser ones, certain head men were placed over it in different parts of the world; hence came the patriarchs, and ultimately a prince of patriarchs, the Roman pontiff.

For centuries the struggle between the Church of Rome and the State raged furiously, so that when we reach the age of Hildebrand (A.D. 1073-1085) we find plots and counterplots the order of the day. It was the height of his ambition to subordinate the State to the Church, and subject the Church to the absolute authority of the Pope. The course pursued by Hildebrand and by aspiring pontiffs who succeeded him resulted in an open conflict between the papacy and the empire. In the persistent contest which followed the papacy gained a decided advantage. That the emperor was commissioned to preside over the temporal affairs of men, while it was left for the pope to guide and govern them in spiritual things, was a rule too vague for defining the limits of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction. The co-ordination, the equilibrium of the two powers was a relation with which neither party would be content. It was a struggle on both sides for universal monarchy. The popes, by strategy and shrewd diplomacy, gained complete supremacy over Western Europe, and for many years the pope was everywhere acknowledged head of the Latin Church.

“It was during the progress of the struggle with the empire,” says Professor Fisher, “that the papal power may be said to have culminated. In the eighteen years (1198-1216) in which Innocent III reigned the papal institution shone forth in full splendor. The enforcement of celibacy had placed the entire body of the clergy in closer relation to the sovereign pontiff. The vicar of Peter had become the vicar of God and of Christ. The idea of a theocracy on earth, in which the pope should rule in this character, fully possessed the mind of Innocent, who united to the courage, pertinacity and lofty conceptions of Gregory VII a broader range of statesmanlike capacity. In his view the two swords of temporal and ecclesiastical power had both been given to Peter and to his successors, so that the earthly sovereign derived his prerogative from the head of the Church. The king was to the pope as the moon to the sun; a lower luminary shining with borrowed light. Acting on this theory, he assumed the post of arbiter in the contention of nations, and claimed the right to dethrone kings at his pleasure.” In the Church he assumed the character of universal bishop, under the theory that all episcopal power was originally deposited in Peter and his successors, and communicated through this source to bishops, who were thus only the vicars of the pope, and might be deposed at will. Being thus lifted up, he said: “Jesus Christ wills that the kingdom should be priestly, and the priesthood kingly. Over all he has set me as his vicar upon earth, so that as before Jesus ‘every knee shall bow,’ in like manner to his vicar all shall be obedient, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” Moreover, he applied to himself the words of Jesus, “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.” And again, we hear one of them say: “For every human creature it is a condition of salvation to submit to the Roman pontiff.” Not only did they assert the necessity of obedience to the pope, but they actually claimed the power to forgive sins and to bestow eternal life. This is a striking fulfillment of what Paul said to the Thessalonians: “He opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God” (II Thess. 2:4).

The corruption of the government of the Church naturally led to the corruption of everything connected with Christianity. A departure from the divine government in one thing opens the way for other departures. Such a course will soon cause men to lose sight of the Lord’s directions and cause them to follow the doctrines and commandments of men. Prominent among the early departures from the divine order was the substitution of infant baptism for that of believers. This practice originated in the third century, and grew out of the doctrine of original sin. It was contended that baptism was regeneration in the sense of washing away original sin; that infants were depraved by original sin, and could not be saved without this washing away of that sin, and therefore they baptized infants that they might be saved. On this point Neander testifies:

But when now, on the one hand, the doctrine of corruption and guilt, cleaving to human nature in consequence of the first transgression, was reduced to a more precise and systematic form, and, on the other from duly distinguishing between what is outward and what inward in baptism (the baptism by water and the baptism by the Spirit), the error became more firmly established that without external baptism no one could be delivered from that inherent guilt, or could be saved from the everlasting punishment that threatened him, or raised to eternal life; and when the notion of a magical influence, a charm connected with the sacraments, continually gained ground, the theory was finally evolved of the unconditional necessity of infant baptism. About the middle of the third century this theory was already generally admitted in the North African Church. (Church History, Vol. I, pages 426, 427.)

To the same import is the testimony of Dr. Philip Schaff. He says:

The practice of infant baptism in the church, with the customary formula, “for the remission of sins,” and such accompanying ceremonies as exorcism, presupposes the dominion of sin and of demoniacal powers even in infancy. Since the child, before the awakening of self-consciousness, has committed no actual sin, the effect of baptism must relate to the forgiveness of original sin and guilt. This was a very important point from the beginning of the controversy, and one to which Augustine frequently reverted.... Constrained by the idea of original sin, and by the supposed necessity of baptism to salvation, he does not shrink from consigning unbaptized children to damnation itself.... The Catholic doctrine of the necessity of outward baptism to regeneration and entrance into the kingdom of God, forbade him a more liberal view respecting the endless destiny of that half of the human race which die in childhood. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, pages 835, 836.)

The departure from the practice of immersion, the original act performed in baptism, to affusion, was largely due to the idea of the magical effect of water to cleanse the polluted souls of men. It was believed to contain the whole forgiving power of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. On this account many put off baptism till death threatened them, that their iniquities might be removed as the King of terrors carried them into the land of spirits. The first case of the kind on record is that of Novatian (A. D. 251), who was “baptized by affusion in the bed as he lay.” At first this practice caused a schism in the Church, but in the course of time that which was the exception became the rule. On this radical change from apostolic practice the learned Roman Catholic bishop, Karl Joseph Hefele, says:

The Church has always been tender toward the sick; she has hastened to confer baptism upon them, because it is necessary to salvation; and for that reason she introduced clinical baptism. (History of Church Councils, page 153.)

There were no serious controversies about the Lord’s Supper until the early part of the ninth century, when one Paschasius Radbert, a monk of “great acuteness of mind,” wrote a book in which he promulgated the doctrine of transubstantiation. In this book he took the position that the wine in the Lord’s Supper is “the very blood that ran out of the Saviour’s side upon the cross, and for that reason water is mingled with the eucharistical wine;” and the bread “is the very flesh of our Saviour which was born of the Virgin.” At first the doctrine was repugnant to the cultivated, but it was broached in a rude age, and the monks favored it; the materialistic character of European thought assisted it, and gradually it had a host of friends and was prepared to frown down all opposition. The controversy, however, continued with fury till A. D. 1215, when Pope Innocent III assembled a council in Rome, in the Lateran Church, consisting of 412 bishops, in whose hearing he read seventy canons which he had drawn up; among these was the famous canon which gave transubstantiation a legal place in the Catholic Church. The important part of the canon is:

There is one universal church of the faithful, out of which no one at all is saved; and in which Jesus Christ himself is at once priest and sacrifice; whose body and blood, in the sacrament of the altar, are truly constrained under the species of bread and wine, which, through the divine power, are transubstantiated, the bread into the body, and the wine into the blood; that for the fulfillment of the mystery of unity, we may receive of that which he received of ours.

Another step was taken about 350 years later, when the Council of Trent declared the host an atoning sacrifice:

And, since in the divine sacrifice which is performed in the mass, the same Christ is contained and offered in an unbloody manner, who, on the altar of the cross, offered himself, with blood, once for all; the holy synod teaches that that sacrifice is, and becomes of itself, truly propitiatory, so that if, with a true heart and a right faith, with fear and reverence, we approach to God, contrite and penitent, we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. The Lord, forsooth, being appeased by the offering of this, and granting grace and the gift of repentance, remit crimes and sins, even great ones; for it is one and the same host, the same person now offering by the ministry of the priests, who when offered himself upon the cross, only in a different manner of offering; and by this unbloody sacrifice, the fruit of that bloody one are abundantly received; only far be it that any dishonor should be done to that by this. Wherefore according to the tradition of the apostles, offering is duly made, not only for the sins, pains, and satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are alive, but also for the dead in Christ, who are not yet wholly cleansed.

This same council further declared:

If any one shall deny that in the sacrament of the most holy eucharist, there is contained really, truly, and substantially, the body and the blood together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so whole Christ, but shall say he is only in it in sign, or figure, or power, let him be accursed.

Not content with this it declares that:

If any one shall say that in the holy sacrament of the eucharist, there remains the substance of the bread and wine, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and remarkable conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, while only the appearance of bread and wine remain, which conversion the Catholic Church most appropriately names transubstantiation; let him be accursed.

The Council of Tridentine says there is a whole Christ in every particle of the Mass:

If any one shall deny that Christ entire is contained in the venerable sacrament of the eucharist, under each species, and, when they are divided, under every particle of each kind; let him be accursed.

The climax of blasphemy is reached when the Council of Trent asserts:

There is, therefore, no reason to doubt but that all Christ’s faithful people, in their veneration, should render this most holy sacrament the same worship which is due to the true God, according to the custom which the Catholic Church has always received.

CHAPTER III.
THE CONFESSIONAL

As the mass is the aggregate of the Romish doctrine, the confessional is the chief of the papal system. By it the decrees of the “infallible Church” are applied and carried out with unequaled measure of minuteness and rigor.

That the New Testament requires the confession of sin is not denied; but such a thing as secret confession in the ear of a priest, to secure his absolution, was entirely unknown in the early churches. Even in Rome it was not till about the year 390 that there was a place appointed for the reception of penitents, when they stood mourning during the public service, from which they were excluded. They cast themselves upon the ground with groans and lamentations; the bishop who conducted the ceremony prostrated himself and wept; flooded with fears the people groaned aloud; then the bishop arose from his humble position and summoned up the people, and, after praying for the people, he dismissed them. This custom, with slight changes, was universal. For some sins men were required to do penance during the whole of their lives, and absolution was only granted them in death; but the common course of penance consigned men for ten, fifteen or twenty years to its various humiliating stages. After the long, distressing penance was completed, “the candidate for restoration knelt down between the knees of the bishop, or, in his absence, between those of the presbyter, who, laying his hand upon his head, solemnly blessed and absolved him. The people received him with transports of joy, as one escaped from the coils of the old serpent.”

They were then received into communion with the imposition of hands, and the prayer of the whole church for them. The form of their prayer was:

O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, that takest away the sin of the world, remit, blot out and pardon their sins, both voluntary and involuntary, whatever they have done by transgression and disobedience. And whereinsoever thy servants have erred from thy commandments, in word or deed, or whatever curse or peculiar anathema they have fallen under, we pray and beseech thine ineffable goodness to absolve them with thy word, and remit their curse and anathema, according to thy mercy. O Lord and Master, hear our prayer for thy servants and deliver them from eternal punishment.

Bingham informs us that the form, “I absolve you,” was not known in the practice till the beginning of the thirteenth century. Thomas Aquinas was one of the first men to write in defense of it. In his day the expression excited much opposition. Pope Innocent III, ambitious to establish a number of superstitions, called the fourth Council of the Lateran, A. D. 1215, which declared that “the church has always understood that an entire confession of sins was always appointed by the Lord, and that it is of divine requirement necessary to all who have lapsed after baptism. Because our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left his priests, his vicars, to be, as it were, the presidents and judges, to whom all mortal sins into which Christ’s faithful people should fall should be brought, in order that, by the power of the keys, they might pronounce sentence of remission or retention. For it is plain that the priest can not exercise this judgment without knowledge of the cause, nor can they observe equity in enjoining penalties if men declare their sins only generally, and not particularly and separately. From this it is inferred that it is right that the penitent should recount in confession all the deadly sins of which, upon examination, their conscience accuses them, even though they be the most secret, and only against the last two commandments, which not unfrequently grievously wounds the soul and are more dangerous than those which are openly practiced.” This invests the priesthood with the prerogative of God himself, who is the searcher and discerner of “the thoughts and intents of the heart.” To this demand all the members of the Catholic Church, whether old or young, are required to bow, as is shown by the twenty-first canon of the Lateran Council, which is as follows:

Every one of the faithful of both sexes, after he shall have reached the years of discretion, shall, by himself alone, faithfully confess all his sins, at least once a year, to his own priest, and strive to perform according to his ability the penance imposed upon him, reverently partaking of the sacrament of the eucharist, at least at Easter; unless perhaps, by the advice of his priest, for some reasonable cause, he should judge that for a time he should abstain from partaking of it; otherwise, let the living be hindered from entering the church, and let the dead be deprived of Christian burial. On this account this salutary statute shall be frequently published in the churches that no one may pretend as an excuse the blindness of ignorance. But if any one should wish to confess his sins to a foreign priest, for proper reasons, he must first ask and obtain a license from his own priest, since otherwise he would not be able to bind or loose him.

The confessional as it exists today is chiefly the work of the Council of Trent, and those who lived in the age immediately after. In order to strike terror to the hearts of all who might refuse to accede to the demands of the priesthood, the Council of Trent published a number of canons on penance, pronouncing the most awful curses on those who refused obedience. I have not space to give the canons, but they teach that the form of the sacrament of penance in which its force especially lies is placed in the words, “I absolve thee,” and that this absolution is not in words merely, but that “the ministers of God truly absolve.” The priest is declared to represent Christ in the confessional, and therefore is invested with divine attributes and powers. The language used is: “Moreover, in the priest who sits a legitimate judge over him, he should venerate the person and power of Christ the Lord; for in administering the sacrament of penance, as in the other sacraments, the priest discharges the office of Christ.” They further teach that the confession of sins to a priest is necessary to salvation; and that every mortal sin, even the most secret and infamous, must be confessed to a priest, otherwise there can be no pardon from God. Thus we see that they make the priest the judge of the soul, and that in the confessional he sits instead of Jesus Christ and that he can keep the sins of any man bound upon him, or loose them, according to his discretion.

In the confessional the penitent kneels beside the priest, makes the sign of the cross, saying: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” Then with her lips near the cheek of the priest she asks the priest’s blessing in these words: “Pray, father, give me your blessing. I have sinned,” after which the penitent repeats:

I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary, ever Virgin, to blessed Michael, the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to you, father, that I have sinned exceedingly, in thought, word and deed, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault!

Many of the questions of the confessional are too horrible to quote. Were I to do so I would lay myself liable to prosecution by the Government authorities. But every question put by the priest must be answered by the penitent on the peril of damnation; he sits instead of Christ, the penitent is confessing to God, the voice of the priest is Immanuel’s; it is the Almighty that is addressing the trembling penitent. And for this reason the priest hears everything, however shocking, shameful, frightful; everything in thoughts, feelings, words, looks and deeds. That the modesty of women should be placed on the rack in the confessional by a bachelor priest, full of curiosity as well as sanctity, and torn and lacerated, under the awful sanctions of the Almighty, is indeed a dreadful thought.

“The confessional is the most odious espionage ever invented by cunning despots. It is the most flagitious outrage upon the rights of husbands and wives, parents and children, the sinning and the sinned against, that ever shocked modesty or ground trembling hearts under its fatal heel. It is strongly believed to be the greatest incitement to vice that a holy God ever permitted; frightful examples of which are on record. It turns priests into odious receptacles for the accumulated stench and nastiness of all the foul corruptions of thousands, making them the sons of the Man of Sin, ready bearers of the iniquities of whole communities.” Yes, it is a withering curse, a cruel tyranny, without one redeeming quality, “which the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming.”

CHAPTER IV.
INDULGENCES

In order to make the absolution effective, the sacrament of confession comprises penances by which the wrongs done are paid. Originally the amount of satisfaction was measured by the time alone during which the state of penance should last. As we have already seen, this situation inflicted the greatest disgrace, and caused the greatest distress of mind. But gradually a change was wrought, and penitents who showed undoubted sorrow were relieved of their penance earlier than the old usage demanded. This abridgement of the long sentence was called an indulgence, and was really the beginning of that system which reached its infamous maturity under Leo X and in the preaching of the wicked Tetzel. In that age no one knew anything of purgatory or the treasury of merits acquired by the saints, and disposed by the Pope; or even of the supreme bishop at Rome, with authority over all the churches and clergy everywhere.

At first indulgences were limited exclusively to church penances, but in process of time they embraced all the temporary punishments due the soul on earth and in purgatory. Christ, it was said, had endured and removed the eternal penalties of sin; but the sufferings short of everlasting continuance must be borne in purgatory, pilgrimages, or be removed by indulgence. The earthly sufferings could be enduring by deputy—any amount of fasting, flagellation or pilgrimage work could be discharged by substitute—and throngs of monks in time of papal darkness were competitors for the repulsive service.

It was argued that when a man performs his allotted task for the day he deserves additional reward or credit for any further services he may render. Such labors are beyond what his agreement demands; they are works of supererogation. So when a Christian leading a blameless life is persecuted and killed, as his sins did not draw his sufferings, these pains were meritorious, they were higher than a man’s deserts—these were works of supererogation. It was claimed that millions of saints in heaven had left a legacy of such merits to the Church, and that in it she had a treasury of good deeds of immense value, incapable of exhaustion, no matter how many drafts, through indulgences, the Holy Mother might make upon it. Sometimes it was said that one drop of the Saviour’s blood was sufficient for the sins of the whole world, and that all the rest went into the treasury, which the Church might give to souls in purgatory, or rich men on earth who had money to buy it, or to men not so wealthy who had some means. This was the paid-up capital of the bank of indulgences. The doctrine and practice of indulgence constitute the very center of the hierarchial system.

In the fifteenth century the disposal of indulgences became a common traffic, and public sale of them was generally preceded by some specious pretext. Often the pretenses for selling them were in reality bloody, idolatrous and superstitious. Pope John XXIII empowered his legates to absolve penitents from all sorts of crimes upon the payment of sums of money proportioned to their guilt. D’Aubigne, in his “History of the Reformation,” tells us that when such indulgences were to be published, the disposal of them was commonly farmed out; for the papal court could not always wait to have the money collected and conveyed from every country of Europe. And there were rich merchants at Genoa, Milan, Venice and Augsburg who purchased the indulgences for a particular province, and paid to the papal chancery handsome sums for them. Thus both parties were benefited. The chancery came at once into large sums of money, and the farmers did not fail of a good bargain. They were careful to employ skillful men to sell the indulgences, persons whose boldness and impudence bore due proportion to the eloquence with which they imposed upon the simple people. Yet, that this species of traffic might have a religious aspect, the Pope appointed the archbishops of the several provinces to be his commissaries, who in his name announced that indulgences were to be sold, and generally selected the men to sell them, and for this service shared the profits with the merchants who farmed them. These papal hawkers enjoyed great privileges, and, however odious to the civil authorities, they were not molested. Complaints, indeed, were made against these contributions, levied by the popes upon all Europe. Kings and princes, clergy and laity, bishops, monasteries and confessors, all felt themselves aggrieved by them; the kings, that their countries were impoverished, under the pretext of crusades that were never undertaken, and of wars against heretics and Turks; and the bishops, that their letters of indulgence were rendered inefficient, and the people released from ecclesiastical discipline. But at Rome all were deaf to all these complaints, and it was not till the revolution produced by Luther that unhappy Europe obtained the desired relief.

JOHN TETZEL

Leo X, in order to carry on the expensive structure of St. Peter’s Church in Rome, published indulgences, with a plenary remission to all such as should contribute toward erecting that magnificent building. The right of promulgating these indulgences in Germany, together with a share in the profits arising from the sale of them, was granted to John Tetzel, a Dominican friar, a licentious wretch, but an active and enterprising spirit, and remarkable for his noisy and popular eloquence. Assisted by the monks of his order, selected as his chief agent for retailing them in Saxony, he executed the commission with great zeal and success, but with no less indecency.

That my readers may have some idea of the course pursued, I give one of his harangues. After the cross had been erected and the arms of the Pope suspended from it, Tetzel went into the pulpit, and with a tone of assurance began to extol the value of indulgences in these words:

Indulgences are the most precious and most noble of God’s gifts. This cross has as much efficacy as the very cross of Jesus Christ. Come and I will give you letters, all properly sealed, by which even the sins you intend to commit may be pardoned. I would not change my privileges for those of Saint Peter in heaven; for I have saved more souls by my indulgences than the apostle by his sermons. There is no sin so great that an indulgence can not remit; and even if one (which it doubtless is impossible) had offered violence to the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, let him pay—only let him pay well, and all will be forgiven him. Reflect then, that every mortal sin you must, after confession and contrition, do penance for seven years, either in this life or in purgatory; now, how many mortal sins are there not committed in a day, how many in a week, how many in a month, how many in a year, how many in a whole life! Alas, these sins are almost infinite, and they entail an infinite penalty in the fires of purgatory. And now, by means of these letters of indulgence, you can once in your life, in every case except four, which are reserved for the apostolic see, and afterward in the article of death, obtain a plenary remission of all your penalties and all your sins!

Do you know that if any one desires to visit Rome, or any country where travelers incur danger, he sends his money to the bank, and for every hundred florins that he wishes to have, he gives five or six or ten more, that by means of the letters of this bank he may be safely repaid his money at Rome or elsewhere.... And you, for a quarter of a florin, will not receive these letters of indulgence, by means of which you may introduce into paradise not a vile metal, but a divine and immortal soul, without its running any risk.

But more than this, indulgences avail not only for the living, but for the dead. For that repentance is not even necessary. Priests! nobles! merchant! wife! youth! maiden! do you not hear your parents and your other friends who are dead, and who cry from the bottom of the abyss: “We are suffering horrible torments! A trifling alms would deliver us; you can give it, and you will not!” At the very instant that the money rattles in the bottom of the chest, the soul escapes from purgatory, and flies liberated to heaven. Oh, stupid and brutish people, who do not understand the grace so richly offered! Now heaven is everywhere opened! Do you refuse to enter now? When, then will you enter? Now you can ransom so many souls! Stiff-necked and thoughtless man! with twelve groats you can deliver your father from purgatory, and you are ungrateful enough not to save him! I shall be justified in the day of judgment; but—you will be punished so much the more severely for having neglected so great salvation. I declare to you, though you should have but a single coat, you should strip it off and sell it, in order to obtain this grace. The Lord our God no longer reigns. He has resigned all power to the pope.

Do you know why our most Holy Lord distributes so rich a grace? It is to restore the ruined Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, and those of a multitude of martyrs. The saintly bodies, through the present state of the building, are now, alas, beaten upon, inundated, polluted, dishonored, reduced to rottenness, by the rain and the hail. Alas, shall these sacred ashes remain longer in the mire and in degradation?

“Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: for I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things, which ye hear, and have not heard them!”

When Tetzel concluded his discourse he immediately left the pulpit, ran to the money box, and, in the sight of the people, dropped into it a coin, being very careful to make it rattle so that it could be heard by the excited people. This was the signal that “indulgence had established its throne in the place with due solemnity.” Confessionals, decorated with the pope’s arms, were arranged in convenient places. On “each of these confessionals were posted in large letters the names, the surnames and titles of the under commissaries and of the confessors. Men, women and children crowded around these confessionals, all with money in their hands. Even those who lived on alms found money to buy indulgences!”

After having privately explained to each individual the greatness of indulgence, the confessors addressed the following question to each penitent: “How much money can you conscientiously spare to obtain so complete a remission?” “The demand,” said the instructions of the archbishop of Mentz to the commissaries, “should be made at this moment, in order that the penitents might be better disposed to contribute.”

To all who should aid in building the cathedral of Saint Peter in Rome, the following graces were promised: (1) The full pardon for every sin; (2) the right of choosing a confessor, who, whenever the hour of death appeared at hand, should give absolution for all sin, even from the greatest crimes reserved for the apostolic see; (3) a participation in all the blessings, works and merits of the Catholic Church, prayers, fasts, alms, and the pilgrimages; and (4) redemption of the souls that are in purgatory. To obtain the first of these graces it was said to be necessary to “have contrition of heart and confession of mouth, or at least an intention of confessing. But as for the three others they might be obtained without contrition, without confession, simply by paying.” The intention was to make it appear that whoever possessed money could, by using it in the purchase of indulgences, introduce souls into heaven. The indulgence mongers said:

As for those who would deliver souls from purgatory and procure the pardon of all their offenses, let them put money into the chest; contrition of heart or confession of mouth is not necessary. Let them only hasten to bring their money: for thus they will perform a work most useful to the souls of the dead, and to the building of the Church of Saint Peter.

The confession over, there was a rush to the trafficker, who examined very closely the dress, manner, gait and appearance of the applicant. The sum required was measured by his judgment of the financial ability of the individual. If he made a mistake about the price set, he was empowered to make the best bargain possible, “and all was to be arranged according to the data of sound reason, and the generosity of the donor.” For adultery, polygamy, sacrilege, perjury, murder, witchcraft, infanticide, and fratricide he had a particular tax. In fact, “there was no vein in the gold mine that they did not find the means of working.” Tetzel executed the commission with great zeal and success, but with no less indecency. He assured the purchasers that their crimes, however enormous, would be forgiven; that the efficacy of indulgences was so great that the most heinous sins would be expiated and remitted by them, and the person freed both from punishment and guilt; and that this was the unspeakable gift of God to reconcile men to himself.

In order that my readers may understand more fully the frightful extent of the wickedness to which the traffic led, I give the usual form of the letters of absolution, which was as follows:

May the Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve thee by the merits of his most holy passion. And I, by his authority, that of his apostles Peter and Paul, and of the most holy pope, granted and committed to me in these parts, do absolve thee, first, from all ecclesiastical censures, in whatever manner they may have been incurred; then from all thy sins, transgressions and excesses, how enormous soever they may be; even such as are reserved for the cognizance of our most holy father the pope and for the apostolic see. I remit to thee all punishment which thou deservest in purgatory on their account; and I restore thee to the holy sacraments of the Church, to the unity of the faithful, and to the innocence and purity which thou possessedst at baptism; so that when thou diest the gates of punishment shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise of delights shall be opened; and if thou shall not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force when thou art at the point of death. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Friar John Tetzel, commissary, has signed with his own hand.

This abolished all guilt and fear of hell in the minds of the purchasers, and inasmuch as the sale of indulgences was universally prevalent, the Church of Rome was everywhere triumphant, darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people; the children of God were driven to caves and secret places of the earth, hunted by armed bands at the command of the apostate Church. The condition was appalling!

PART III
The Reformation in Europe

CHAPTER I.
JOHN WYCKLIFFE

The Roman Catholic Church, as we have already seen, had reached such a degree of corruption in doctrine and practice, so deep and widespread, that it would seem quite impossible for it to reach further degradation. The name of Christ was everywhere professed, but a devout believer was seldom found. The Christ was hidden that his pretended representatives might be all in all. Justification by faith was denounced in order to open up a trade in indulgences to enrich the papacy by the sale of salvation. The commands of God were openly made void by the doctrines and commandments of men. Apostolic order and ordinances had given place to those of the “man of sin.” “The mystery of lawlessness” stood out in full proportions.

And yet, notwithstanding all this, there were forces at work, in different parts of Europe, moving on to conflict and reform that were destined to break the all but universal sway of the papacy. There can be no doubt that the invention of printing, the gradual revival of learning, and the enlarged acquaintance with the Scriptures, all made directly against the then existing conditions. The Reformation was effected and the names of its chief actors have come down to us with deserved honor, and yet how imperfect the work done and the spirit of the doers of it. Measuring both by the doctrine and practice of the apostles can not but compel the conclusion that the Reformation from the first onward needed immense reformation to bring it up to the measures of the divine standard. And still it may be that any nearer approach to a completely scriptural work and spirit would have been quite futile under the existing conditions.

John Wyckliffe, who flourished in the latter part of the fourteenth century, popularly called the “Morning Star of the Reformation,” was the first to distinguish himself in fighting against the supremacy of the pope, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the abuses of the hierarchy. As early as 1360 he became known as the opponent of the mendicant friars who infested England, interfering with school discipline, as well as domestic relations. He exposed the venality and superstition of the monkish orders with a vigor of reasoning and a keen satire. Efforts were made by a commission appointed by the king to have the evil abrogated, and such arrangements were finally made; but the pope soon violated the compact and Parliament again took action against the Roman usurpations. These developments fully opened the eyes of Wyckliffe to the intolerant corruption of the Roman See, and he began henceforth to argue and teach, preach and write, boldly and without reserve against the papal system.

TRANSLATES THE BIBLE INTO ENGLISH

But the greatest work of Wyckliffe for the enlightenment of the world was the translation of the Bible into the English language. But in order to appreciate the difficulties of his task, we should remember that Rome had not only utterly neglected and contemned the Sacred writings, but had interdicted their translation into any vernacular tongue. She claimed that it was not only unlawful, but injurious, for the people at large to read the Scriptures. Nor was this idea left to pass current merely as a received opinion, but it was a subject which was considered by councils, and canons were enacted against it. Not to mention other proofs of this, more than one hundred and fifty years before Wyckliffe had finished his translation of the Bible, in the year 1229, at the Council of Toulouse, forty-five canons were passed and issued for the extinction of heresy and the re-establishment of peace. One of these canons involved the first court of inquisition, and another, the first canon, forbade the Scriptures to the laity, or the translation of any portion of them into the common tongue. The latter was expressed in the following very pointed terms:

We also forbid the laity to possess any of the books of the Old or New Testament, except, perhaps, the Psalter or Breviary for the Divine Offices, or the Hours of the Blessed Virgin, which some, out of devotion, wish to have; but having any of these books translated into the vulgar tongue, we strictly forbid.

In the face of all this, and far more than I can now explain, Wyckliffe performed his arduous task of translation. Of this great work, a competent critic most appropriately remarks: “From an early period of his life he had devoted his various learning, and his powerful energies of mind, to effect this, and, at length, by intense application on his part, and from assistance from a few of the most learned of his followers, he had the glory to complete a book, which, alone, would have been sufficient (or at least ought) to have procured the veneration of his own age, and the commendation of posterity.”

While engaged in this work, in the year 1379, he was taken violently ill, and the friars, imagining that his course was now near its end, contrived to visit him. Four of their ablest men had been selected, or a friar from each of the mendicant orders, and they were admitted to a patient hearing. After reminding him of the great injury he had done to their order, they exhorted him, as one near to death, that he would now, as a true penitent, bewail and revoke, in their presence, whatever he had said to their disparagement. As soon as they had done, Wyckliffe, calling for his servant, desired to be raised up on his pillow; and then collecting all his strength, with a severe and expressive countenance, and in a tone not to be misunderstood, exclaimed:

I shall not die, but live to declare the evil deeds of the friars.

Confounded at such a reply, they immediately left him; and he recovered, to finish in the next year his translation of the entire Bible.

As this was before the invention of printing, the translation could only be diffused by the laborious process of transcription; but transcribed it was most diligently, both entire and in parts, and as eagerly read. There were those who, at all hazards, sought wisdom from the Book of God, and their number could not be few. A contemporary writer, an enemy, and in the language of hatred and fear combined, with the wish to damage the cause, affirmed that “a man could not meet two people on the road, but one of them was a disciple of Wyckliffe.” Certainly the opportunity was gladly received by the people; and while the word of the Lord did not have “free course,” there can be no question that it was “glorified” in the reception given it by many. The same bitter opponent, in the tone of deep lamentation, makes the following remarkable admission about the wonderful progress made in the face of bitter persecution:

The soldiers, with the dukes and earls, are the chief adherents of this sect, its most powerful defenders, and its invincible protectors. This Master John Wyckliffe hath translated the Gospel out of Latin into English, which Christ had entrusted with the clergy and doctors of the Church, that they might minister it to the laity and weaker sort, according to the state of the times and the wants of men. So that by this means the Gospel is made vulgar, and laid more open to the laity, and even to women who can read, than it used to be to the most learned of the clergy and those of the best understanding! And what was before the chief gift of the clergy and doctors of the Church, is made forever common to the laity!

At about the same time another papal dupe, in the same spirit, most vehemently urged:

The prelates ought not to suffer that every one at his pleasure should read the Scriptures, translated even into Latin; because, as is plain from experience, this has been many ways the occasion of falling into heresies and errors. It is not, therefore, politic that any one, wheresoever and whensoever he will, should give himself to the frequent study of the Scriptures.

These men just quoted referred to the period between 1380 and 1400, and it was one, though but too short, which distinguished England from every other country in Europe. However transient, it was one that had much to do with wresting the world from the appalling darkness and ruin wrought by the papacy, and flooding the world with the glorious sunlight of eternal truth. It was all in vain that the bishops, with the primates of Canterbury at their head bellowed and remonstrated with the people, wrote letters to and received letters from Rome, made and executed fearful threats of punishment; the Bible had been translated, the people transcribed and read, and sent copies of it far and near.

In 1400 Parliament enacted a law that gave bishops the power to hand over obstinate or relapsed heretics to sheriffs and magistrates, who were enjoined to have them publicly burnt. In 1401 William Sawtre, a devout man, was burnt at Smithfield as a heretic. Of the many victims, I have only space to mention J. Badby, who was burnt in a barrel; and especially that generous friend of the Reformation, Sir John Oldcastle, who frequently sheltered preachers of reform in his castle, and devoutly did he adhere to these doctrines, since, as he himself attested his whole life through them had undergone a change. Henry V had made vain efforts to induce him to change from his faith; but he refused to recant, and was condemned as a “pernicious heretic” in 1413. But during the respite granted him, he managed to escape into Wales, where he concealed himself till 1417, when he was captured and executed at St. Giles’ Fields, amidst the most barbarous tortures, being roasted over a slow fire. The escape of Oldcastle and the rumors of a Lollard insurrection the following year were made the occasion for fresh measures of persecution. In 1414 it was ordered that all public officials should bind themselves by oath to aid in the extirpation of heresy, and that the lands and possessions of those convicted of heresy should be confiscated.

In 1416 a regular inquisition was instituted in every parish of the diocese of Canterbury. Among the common people, however, the desire for Biblical knowledge continued to spread; secret conventicles were held; and though the persecution, which lasted till 1431, may have crushed the “heresy,” the principles lived and spread worldwide, and became the influence that led to reformation in other parts.

CHAPTER II.
William Tyndale

If I were to follow the strictly chronological order, I would here give a sketch of Luther and his work, but as I have given an account of the work of Wyckliffe, it is proper to give attention to the work of William Tyndale, because I am now seeking the basic principle of the return to apostolic purity and simplicity.

At the opening of the sixteenth century, a period of great interest to all the world, were four men—Le Fevre, in France; Zwingli, in Switzerland; Luther, in Germany, and Tyndale, in England—destined to make a great impression on the world for all time. But they were wholly unknown to each other. In France, Switzerland and Germany were the living voices throughout life, of the men raised up, calling upon their countrymen to hear and obey the truth; and so it was in England a century and a half before, in the case of Wyclif. But in the case of Tyndale, the procedure is entirely different, and out of the usual course pursued in other lands. He had, it is true, lifted up his voice with some effect, but he was driven from his native land, never to return. In the other cases the men lived and died at home. Le Fevre when above one hundred years old wept because he had not felt and displayed the courage of a martyr; Zwingli, in battle for his country; and Luther, after his noble intrepidity, expired in his sick chamber; but Tyndale was strangled and his body burnt to ashes in a foreign land. Englishmen, Scotchmen and Germans were gathered together against him; yes, men of three nations at least concur to confer upon him the martyr’s crown, so that among all his contemporaries, in several respects, but especially as a translator of the Scriptures, he stands alone.

The political and literary condition of England under Cardinal Wolsey did not afford the slightest indication that the Scriptures were about to be given to the people in their native tongue, but the reverse. In justice to that event it is necessary to observe, also, the nature of that connection which had existed for ages between Britain and Rome. Indeed, under Henry VIII it reached its climax. This connection sustained a peculiarly complicated character. There were no fewer than twelve distinct sources of revenue that went directly to Rome. These altogether were operating on the inhabitants without exception, and with as much regularity as the rising and setting of the sun. “It was a pecuniary connection of immense power, made to bear upon the general conscience, which knew no pause by day or night; falling, as it did, not merely on the living, but on the dying and the dead!”

In no other country throughout Europe was the papal system in all its oppressive and fearful integrity more fully maintained. Under the unscrupulous and imperative Henry VIII, who gloried in his knowledge of divinity and prided himself on his orthodoxy, with a prime minister so well known in every foreign court, and who himself yearned for the pontificate, England had become the mainstay of the system. In Worcester diocese above every other part of England was this power of Rome most intensely felt, yet here in about 1484 was William Tyndale born whose labors were destined to work the overthrow of its power in the realm.

ERASMUS ARRIVES IN ENGLAND

Erasmus arrived in England in 1498, and was delighted to find a taste for the study of Hebrew, Greek and Latin so pronounced, and he pursued his studies with great diligence and satisfaction. His zeal so inspired others that the influence of his residence there may be regarded as the opening of a new era in letters in that country. In 1516 the first edition of his Greek New Testament was published, accompanied by a new Latin translation, and spread far and wide. He received the hearty congratulations of his friends, but its appearance raised up a host of enemies.

Notwithstanding the opposition during the period during 1477 to 1526, fourteen editions of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek were published, and not one of the sacred originals had ever been restrained by any government. In fact, at this time, so far from such restraint being imposed in England, it was encouraged; as not a man in high authority seems to have foreseen that the cultivation of the knowledge of the original language would necessarily lead to a translation of the sacred volume into the common tongue. Even Henry VII transmitted to the university a royal mandate “that study of the Scriptures in the original language should not only be permitted, but received as a branch of the academical institution.” And this was at the period when Tyndale resided at Cambridge and Oxford. The advantages thus combined fully explain the source of the superior attainments in learning which he afterward turned to such wonderful account.

About 1504 Tyndale went to Oxford University, and took his degree of B.A., in 1508. One of the colleges at Oxford had forbidden the entrance of the Greek New Testament within its walls “by horse or by boat, by wheels or on foot.” Possibly owing to this enmity Tyndale left Oxford for Cambridge, where Erasmus was teaching Greek and issuing his edition of the Greek New Testament. About the close of 1521 we find Tyndale as tutor in the family of Sir John Walsh, at Little Sudbury, in Gloucestershire, twelve miles north of Bristol. Walsh always kept a good table, and abbots, deans, archdeacons, and divers other doctors who were fond of discussion, were often invited to share his hospitality. In these discussions Tyndale always bore a conspicuous and decided part. He had an uncomfortable way of crushing his opponents by clinching his arguments with a “thus saith the Lord.” His outspoken way caused Lady Walsh many an uneasy hour, and she often reminded him that bishops, abbots and others having an income of hundreds of pounds yearly held views the very opposite of his, “and were it reason that we should believe you before them?” Not being so skilled in the use of Scripture knowledge as some in these days of Gospel light and liberty, this was very embarrassing to him, a moneyless man, coming from such a source. In order to strengthen his position with his wavering hostess by the testimony of Erasmus, whose fame was resounding throughout Europe, he translated his “Christian Soldier” into English and presented it to Walsh and his wife. This won her, and they did not invite the clergy to their table any more. This change was attributed to Tyndale, and ever afterward they treasured a grudge against him. Of this opposition Fox says: “These blind and rude priests, flocking together to the alehouse, for that was their preaching place, raged and railed against him; affirming that his sayings were heresy, adding of their own heads moreover unto his sayings more than ever he spake.”

TYNDALE RESOLVES TO TRANSLATE THE BIBLE INTO ENGLISH

Fortunately Tyndale has left on record his reflections at this period of his life. He says:

A thousand books had they lever [rather] to be put forth against their abominable doings and doctrines, than that the Scripture should come to light. For as long as they may keep that down, they will so darken the right way with the mist of their sophistry, and so tangle them that either rebuke or despite their abominations with arguments of philosophy, and with worldly and apparent reasons of natural wisdom, and with wresting the Scriptures to their own purpose, clean contrary unto the process, order, and meaning of the text; and so delude them in descanting upon it with allegories, and amaze them, expounding it in many senses, whose light the owls can not hide, that though thou feel in thy heart, and art sure, how that all is false that they saw, yet couldst thou not solve their subtle riddles. Which thing only moved me to translate the New Testament. Because I have proved by experience, how that it is impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the Scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order and meaning of the text; for else, whatever truth is taught them, these enemies of all truth quench it again—partly with the smoke of their bottomless pit (Rev. 9), that is with apparent reasons of sophistry, and traditions of their own making; and partly in juggling with the text, expounding it in such a sense as it is impossible to gather of the text itself.

The Convocation of Canterbury had expressly forbidden any man to translate any part of the Scripture in English, or to read any such translation without authority of the bishop, an authority not likely to be granted. The study of the Bible was not even a part of the preparatory study of the religious teachers of the people. Writing against Alexander Alesius to James V of Scotland, Cochlæus, the notorious Roman Catholic theologian, writes about the Bible as follows:

The New Testament translated into the vulgar tongue, is in truth the food of death, the fuel of sin, the veil of malice, the pretext of false liberty, the protection of disobedience, the corruption of discipline, the depravity of morals, the termination of concord, the death of honesty, the well-spring of vice, the disease of virtues, the instigation of rebellion, the milk of pride, the nourishment of contempt, the death of peace, the destruction of charity, the enemy of unity, the murderer of truth. (Demaus’ Biography of William Tyndale, page 358.)

With such a sentiment prominent among the clergy, there is no surprise at the danger to which Tyndale subjected himself when in a warm discussion he revealed his intention. Of this incident Fox says:

Communing and disputing with a certain learned man in whose company he happened to be, he drove him to that issue, that the learned man said, “We were better to be without God’s law than the pope’s.” Master Tyndale hearing that, answered him, “I defy the pope and all his laws; and if God spare my life many years, I will cause a boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scripture than you do!”

After this, the murmurings of the priests increased to a fury. Such language flew over the country as on the wings of the wind. They branded him as a heretic, and hinted loudly of burning him.

It was now evident to Tyndale that a crisis had been reached, and he saw too clearly that it would be impossible for him to remain longer at Little Sudbury in the home of Walsh in peaceful prosecution of his great purpose. This purpose he was determined to prosecute whatever inconvenience or danger it might bring upon him; and it seemed to him quite possible that he might find that liberty in some other part of England. He resolved, therefore, to give up his position which he held in the family of Walsh. So with the good will of Walsh, he made his way to London, hoping to find in Cuthburt Tunstal, Bishop of London, a liberal patron under whose protection the work might be prosecuted. Tunstal accorded him an interview, acknowledged his scholarship, but said that his house was already full, and advised him to seek a place elsewhere. While in London Tyndale preached at St. Dunstan’s-in-the-West, and greatly impressed Humphrey Monmouth, a wealthy, educated, traveled cloth merchant, who took him into his house, where he remained six months diligently engaged in translating the New Testament. For this kindness Monmouth was imprisoned in the Tower.

While in London, Tyndale saw men around him led to prison and to death for having or reading the writings of Luther, which were finding their way into England, and he knew well that a Bible translation would be still a more dangerous book. At last he “understood not only that there was no room in my lord of London’s palace to translate the New Testament, but, also, that there was no place to do it in all England.” But Tyndale was not the man to put his hands to the plow and then turn back. If only a life in exile could do the work, a life of exile he would gladly accept. As Fox remarks: “To give the people bare text of Scriptures, he would offer his body to suffer what pain of torture, yea, what death His Grace (Henry VIII) would so that this be obtained.”

GOES TO HAMBURG

Having now fully decided on going abroad, he sailed direct to Hamburg, about May, 1524, never to set foot on his native soil again. Scarcely a year before, he entered London with bright anticipations of success, but all his anticipations had been cruelly disappointed, and now in sorrow and sadness he was sailing forth on the untried dangers of solitude and exile. Had he been able to read the future that awaited him, and which he afterwards so patiently bewailed, “the poverty, the exile from his own native land, the bitter absence from his friends, the hunger, the thirst, the cold, the great danger wherewith he was everywhere compassed, the innumerable hard and sharp fightings which he had to endure,” doubtless his loving soul would have been melted with the spectacle, and yet, no doubt, the stout and brave heart would have gone forward, “hoping with his labors to do honor to God, true service to his prince,” and bestow unspeakable blessings upon his priest-ridden people.

In Hamburg he diligently applied his whole time to translating, but on being interrupted he moved to Cologne about the first of May, 1525, where he put his translation into the hands of the printer. Not only was the entire sacred text then translated, but his prologue was composed before he began to print. At this time John Cochlæus, dean of Frankfort, the “watchdog of Romanism,” was at Cologne, an exile from his own city on account of uprisings of the peasants against the clergy. He was occupied at Cologne printing a book. In consequence of this he became acquainted with the printers of Cologne, whom he heard confidently boasting over their cups that whether the king and cardinal would or not all England in a short time would be furnished the New Testament in English. He heard that there was “an Englishman there, learned, skilled in languages, eloquent, whom, however, he never could see or converse with.” Inviting, therefore, some printers to his lodging, and, after exciting them with wine, one of them disclosed to him that the New Testament had been translated into the English language; that it was then in the hands of the printers, who were then printing an edition of three thousand copies; and that the expenses were being met by English merchants, who were to convey it secretly to England and dispense it widely throughout the realm before the king or the cardinal could discover or prohibit it.

Though mentally distracted between fear and wonder, Cochlæus disguised his grief in a cheerful manner; and after having considered sadly the magnitude of the danger, he deliberated with himself how he might conveniently obstruct “these very wicked attempts.” So he went to Herman Rinck, a Senator of Cologne, and a knight, well known both to the Emperor and the King of England, to whom he made known the whole affair. On hearing this Rinck went to the Senate of Cologne, and procured an order interdicting the printers from proceeding further with the work. Tyndale contrived, however, to procure the printed sheets, and sailed up the Rhine to Worms about October, 1525; but Rinck and Cochlæus wrote at once to the king and cardinal and the Bishop of Rochester to take the utmost precaution in all the seaports of England, lest that “most pernicious article of merchandise should be introduced.” Apparently nothing could have been more complete than the triumph of Cochlæus. He had not only interrupted the printing of the New Testament at Cologne, but had disclosed the secret of Tyndale’s intentions to those who were most able to take effectual steps to prevent the introduction of the work in England, if he should ever succeed in getting it printed at all.

This interruption, though felt most keenly at the time by Tyndale, only inflamed his zeal, and the remarkable result was that two editions were issued by him in the same period in which he had contemplated only one. Thus the hostility of Cochlæus, which, as we have seen, threatened to arrest the progress of the work, only delayed its completion for a time and enabled Tyndale to issue six thousand copies of his translation instead of three thousand. “Early in 1526 both editions were sent into England in cases, in barrels, in bales of cloth, in sacks of flour, and in every other secret way that could be thought of.” The reception in England was remarkable. They were eagerly bought and read to the inexpressible joy and comfort of thousands who had long walked in darkness, and as eagerly proscribed and sought out for destruction. Sir Thomas More fiercely attacked the translation as ignorant, dishonest and heretical. In the autumn Tunstal and Warham issued mandates for the collection and surrender of copies. Tunstal attacked it in a sermon at St. Paul’s, and professed to have found three thousand errors in it. So the cardinal and all the bishops decided that the book should be burned, which was vigorously carried out. But this was all in vain, for the tide was fairly flowing and it could not be checked. A formidable organization was ready in England to welcome and circulate the books. In proportion to the violence with which the clergy condemned the books was the esteem in which they were held by those in England to whom the light was breaking.

BISHOP OF LONDON SUPPLIES MONEY TO PRINT BIBLES

In 1529 Bishop Tunstal went to Antwerp to seize Tyndale’s Testaments, and by a singular coincident Tyndale also was there and so it happened that one Parkington, who favored Tyndale, was at Antwerp at the same time. On being informed by the bishop that he would be glad to buy the Testaments, Parkington told him that, as he knew those who had them for sale, he could buy “every book of them that is imprinted and is here unsold.” The bargain was made, and as has been said by the quaint chronicler:

The bishop, thinking he had God by the toe, when indeed he had, as after he thought, the devil by the fist, said: “Gentle Mr. Parkington, do your diligence and get them; and with all my heart I will pay for them whatsoever they cost you, for the books are erroneous and nought, and I intend surely to destroy them all, and to burn them at Paul’s Cross.” Augustus Parkington came to William Tyndale, and said: “William, I know that thou art a poor man, and hast a heap of New Testaments and books by thee, for which thou hast both endangered thy friends and beggared thyself; and I have now gotten thee a merchant, which, with ready money, shall dispatch thee of all thou hast, if thou think it so profitable for yourself.” “Who is this merchant?” said Tyndale. “The Bishop of London,” said Parkington. “Oh, that is because he will burn them,” said Tyndale. “Yea, marry,” quoth Parkington. “I am the gladder,” said Tyndale, “for these two benefits shall come thereof: I shall get money to bring myself out of debt, and the whole world will cry out against the burning of God’s Word; and the overplus of the money that shall remain to me shall make me more studious to correct the New Testament, and so newly to imprint the same once again, and I trust the second will much better like you than ever did the first.” And so went forward the bargain; the bishop had the books; Parkington had the thanks, and Tyndale had the money.

After this, Tyndale corrected the same New Testament, and caused them to be newly imprinted, so that they came thick and threefold over into England. When the bishop perceived that, he sent for Parkington, and said to him: “How cometh this, that there are so many New Testaments abroad? You promised me that you would buy them all.” Then said Parkington: “Surely, I bought all that were to be had, but I perceive they have printed more since. I see it will never be better so long as they have letters and stamps; wherefore you were best to buy the stamps, too, and so you shall be sure.” At which the bishop smiled and so the matter ended.

It so happened that shortly after this that George Constantine was apprehended by Sir Thomas More, suspected of certain heresies. During the time he was in custody, More said to him: “There are beyond the sea Tyndale, Joyce, and a great many of you, I know they can not live without help, and I pray thee tell me who they are that help them thus?” “My lord,” quoth Constantine, “I will tell you truly, it is the Bishop of London that hath helped us, for he hath bestowed among us a great deal of money upon New Testaments to burn them; and that hath been, and yet is, our only succor and comfort.” “Now my troth,” quoth More, “I think even the same, for so much I told the bishop before he went about it.”

BETRAYED AND MURDERED

Tyndale’s enemies endeavored to decoy him into England, but he was too wary to be so easily entrapped, for he well knew what displeasure Henry VIII felt at his tract, called “The Practice of Prelates,” and what penalty the royal indignation would speedily inflict. But his enemies in England, whose power had been shaken by the wide circulation of the English New Testament, were the more enraged against him, and conspired to seize him on the Continent, in the name of the Emperor, and through the treachery of one Henry Philips, a smooth, treacherous villain, in the employ of Stephen Gardiner, after having invited Tyndale to dine with him, had him arrested and had him put in the State prison of the Castle of Vivorde, twenty-three miles from Antwerp, May 23, 1535. The English merchants aggrieved by the loss of an esteemed friend, and by this treacherous assault of their rights and privileges, made every effort to secure his release, but all in vain. The neighboring University of Louvain thirsted for his blood. He was speedily condemned, and on Friday, October 6, 1536, he was strangled at the stake and his body then burned to ashes. At the stake, with a fervent zeal and a loud voice, he cried: “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.”

As an apostle of liberty, Tyndale stands foremost among the writers of his day, whose heroic fortitude and invincible love of the truth were heard with a force superior to royal and ecclesiastical injunctions; and “the very flames to which fanaticism and tyranny consigned his writings burnt them into the very hearts of the people, and made them powerful instruments in attacking and converting multitudes to the principles of the Reformation. It is not exaggeration to say that the noble sentiments of William Tyndale, uttered in pure, strong, Saxon English, and steeped in the doctrines of the Gospel, gave shape to the views of the most conspicuous promoters of the great movement, who, like himself, sealed their convictions with their blood.”

CHAPTER III.
MARTIN LUTHER

Notwithstanding the fact that the papacy had universal sway over Europe at the beginning of the sixteenth century, it must be noted that, from the beginning of the fourteenth century on, there were insurgents, however varied their cries and watchwords, who were persistent in their denunciation of the priesthood. The hatred arose from their intolerable extortions, which were a galling burden. While the tithing system was an intolerable yoke, the rapacity of the priests went far beyond tithes in their exactions. In speaking of this condition, Seebohm, a Spanish historian, says:

I see that we can scarcely get anything from Christ’s ministers but for money; at baptism money, at marriage money, at bishoping money, for confession money—no, not extreme unction without money! They ring no bells without money, no burials in the Church without money; so that it seems that Paradise is shut up from them that have no money. The rich is buried in the church, the poor in the churchyard. The rich man may marry his nearest kin, but the poor not so, albeit he is ready to die for love of her. The rich may eat meat in Lent, but the poor may not, albeit fish be much dearer. The rich may readily get large indulgences, but the poor none, because he wanteth money to pay for them. (“The Era of the Protestant Revolution,” pages 57, 58.)

All the efforts at reformation had always ignominiously failed, and the papacy with all its abuses had never been more powerful than at the time John Tetzel was trafficking in indulgences. Just thirty-four years before this time, Martin Luther was born. His parents were poor, but it was their desire to give him the best education possible. When he was fourteen years old they sent him to school at Magdeburg, where he relied upon the liberality of well-meaning citizens to supply his needs. The tuition was free at Magdeburg, but the students were required to provide their own lodgings and meals. The usual custom was for a company of poor boys to band themselves together and sing in the front of the house of the wealthy citizens. Sometimes they would be invited to a meal; at other times they would receive the remnants of a repast or at least some slices of bread.

After a year had gone by his father decided to send him to Eisenach, because he hoped that some of his relatives would take a kindly interest in him; but in this expectation he was mistaken, for as before he was compelled to beg and sing for his bread. Many times young Luther became so discouraged that he made up his mind to return to his home and become a miner like his father. But a very different life was awaiting him. When he had acquired the discipline resulting from the long struggle with poverty, a great change took place.

A FRIEND INDEED

One day, after having been harshly treated at three houses, he was preparing to return fasting to his lodgings; he stopped motionless in front of a house and reflected, “Must I for the want of food give up my studies and return with my father in the mines?” when suddenly a door opens and Madame Ursula Cotta, the wife of a wealthy merchant, stood on the threshold. She had heard the harsh words that had been addressed to him, and, seeing him standing thus sadly before her door, she came to his aid, beckoned to him to enter, and gave him food to satisfy his hunger. She and her husband took a liking to him, and offered him a place at their table and in their family, where he remained for three years. Thus were brought into his life the influences of gentleness and refinement.

A new life now opened to him. Free from care and anxiety as to his sustenance, he was able to devote his whole time to his studies. Here noble influences, very necessary for his future work, surrounded him, teaching him the fine and gentle traits of good breeding that elevated life above the struggle for mere existence and gave to it its peculiar charm. “The strength of his understanding, the liveliness of his imagination, the excellence of his memory, soon carried him beyond all his school fellows.”

These years of his school period contributed much towards promoting that higher education which his father was so very anxious that he should obtain. Thus furnished, in the summer of 1501, in his eighteenth year, he entered the University of Erfurt. Here he applied himself diligently and made rapid progress. He did not merely study to cultivate his intellect. He had serious thoughts about God, and fervently invoked the divine blessings to rest upon his labors. He passed all the time that he could possibly spare from his studies in the university library. Books were very scarce, and it was a great privilege for him to have access to the “great collection of books there brought together.” After having been in the university for two years, one day, to his great surprise and delight, he found a copy of the Bible, the first that he had ever seen. His interest was greatly excited. “He was filled with astonishment at finding other matters than those fragments of the Gospels and Epistles that the Church had selected to be read to the people during public worship throughout the year. Until this day he had imagined that they composed the whole Word of God.” And now he sees so much of which he had never thought! With eagerness and great emotion he turned its pages. The first passage on which he fixed his attention was the story of Hannah and Samuel, which gave him unbounded joy. He returned to his room with a full heart, saying, “Oh, that God would give me such a book for myself!” The copy of the Bible that had filled him with so much joy was in Latin. After this he returned to the library again and again to pore over this wonderful treasure, and thus the glimmerings of new truth were beginning to dawn upon his mind. “In that Bible the Reformation lay hid.”

BECOMES A MONK

Luther’s father required him to study law. At considerable expense the necessary books had been purchased, and he had begun to attend lectures on jurisprudence; but for the calling he had no love; and yet, from a sense of obedience to his father, he felt it his duty to follow the path he had prescribed. He was, however, frequently disturbed by the thought of the endangered spiritual condition of those who followed the legal profession. This conflict quickened within him the sense of his relation to the higher law, on which his obedience to his father was based. The sudden death of a friend followed shortly afterward by a narrow escape from death by lightning, in a forest on the way between Erfurt and Eisleben, determined him to obey what he then regarded as the commands of higher law. Terrified by the violence of the storm that was raging around him, and especially by the bolts of lightning that were crashing through the trees, addressing one of the patron saints of his childhood, he cried out: “Help me, dear Saint Anna, I will be a monk!”

The vow thus made was faithfully performed. Two weeks later, July 16, 1505, he invited his most intimate friends to a cheerful but frugal supper. For the last time he determined to enjoy music and song. The decision once made all sadness was gone. His intention was to tell no one of his decision, but at the very moment his guests were giving way to their gayety, he could no longer control the serious thoughts that filled his mind. They endeavored to dissuade him from his purpose, but all in vain. Sorrowfully they accompanied him the next morning to the Augustinian cloister located in the town, where he knocked for admission. As they opened, he entered. When the heavy portals of the monastery closed behind him, and the bars were fastened again, he had no idea but that he was separated from the world forever. The great struggle was at an end. Was his soul satisfied? Had he found that for which he was looking—the “peace that passeth all understanding”? We shall see in our next.

Luther was received among the novices of the monastery with sacred hymns, prayers and other solemnities. After this he was given over to the care of the master of the novices, whose duty it was to initiate them into the practices of the monastic sanctity, to observe their actual conduct, and to watch over their souls. Above all things, the will of the novices were to be entirely broken. They were to learn that everything enjoined upon them was to be performed without the least resistance, and even to be the more willing to render obedience the more it was against their own disposition and taste. Inclination to pride was to be overcome by imposing upon them the meanest services. So at the very beginning of Luther’s monastic life he was compelled to perform the most degrading work in sweeping and scrubbing, and it afforded those envious of him peculiar pleasure when he, the hitherto proud young master, was ordered, with a sack upon his shoulders, to beg through the town in company with a more experienced brother. He did not shirk from these services; but even desired to perform self-mortifying duties, so that he might the more deserve God’s favors. Of these days Luther says:

I chose for myself twenty-one saints, read mass every day, calling on three of them each day, so as to complete the circuit every week; especially did I invoke the Holy Virgin, as her womanly heart was more easily touched, that she might appease her Son. I verily thought that by invoking three saints daily, and by letting my body waste away with fastings and watchings, I should satisfy the law, and shield my conscience against the goad; but it all availed me nothing: the further I went on in this way the more I was terrified.

From this we see that Luther subjected himself to every possible form of discipline and mortification. He was a model of monkish piety. He says, “If ever a monk got to heaven by monkery, I would have gotten there.” No one could surpass him in prayers by day and night, in fasting, in vigils, self-discipline and self-mortification, and yet—had he found what his soul was looking for? There is no mistake. He is as far from peace of conscience as ever. He read the Bible, but a veil was before his eyes. Christ was still to his mind a merciless judge. The righteousness of God, which, according to Paul, was revealed in the Gospel, he took to mean the righteousness which metes out just punishment.

Finally, John Staupitz, the vicar-general of the Augustinian order, a man of sympathetic nature, and one who possessed in a singular degree the power to discern and appreciate the needs of whomsoever applied to him for aid, came to his rescue. Looking into the haggard face of Luther, he said: “Brother, you must obey God and believe in forgiveness.” “You have altogether a wrong idea of Christ. Christ does not terrify; his office is to comfort.” “You must make up your mind that you are a very sinner, and that Christ is a very Savior.” These were starting points for new currents of thought. They shed light upon many passages of scripture. For days and weeks Luther pondered over these words: “The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; ... For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:16, 17). Many years after receiving this help, Luther wrote:

If Dr. Staupitz, or, rather, God, through Dr. Staupitz, had not aided me in this, I would have been long since in hell.

Luther now devoted himself earnestly to the study of theology. Among other writings, he read those of Augustine more frequently and fixed them more thoroughly in his memory than any others. In 1508 his scholarship received acknowledgement by a call to the chair of philosophy in the newly-founded University of Wittenburg. As a professor he made rapid progress, and soon reached a position of great responsibility and influence.

MAKES A PILGRIMAGE TO ROME

“To make a pilgrimage to Rome; to confess in the Holy City all his sins committed from early youth; to visit the many sacred places, sacred to the memory of saints and martyrs; to avail himself of the rich influences offered there; to read mass in Rome—had been a long-cherished hope of the young monk. Hardly had he dared to look for its realization.” But all of a sudden he was sent by Staupitz to Rome to assist in the settlement of some difficulties which had arisen in the management of the monastic order. On foot, from monastery to monastery, he and his companion went across the Alps, and by the picturesque plain of Lombardy passed into Italy. Everywhere his eyes were opened, and important lessons for the future were learned.