{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_58998/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_58998","id":"gutenberg_58998","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/58998","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Churches of Christ -- Doctrines","Disciples of Christ -- Controversial literature","Disciples of Christ -- Doctrines"],"text":"Produced by Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n THE CHURCH,\n THE FALLING AWAY,\n AND\n THE RESTORATION\n\n\n BY\n J. W. SHEPHERD\n Editor of\n\"Handbook on Baptism,\" \"Queries and Answers,\" \"Salvation of Sin,\" \"What\n is the New Testament Church?\"\n\n GOSPEL ADVOCATE COMPANY\n Nashville, Tenn.\n 1961\n\n\n Copyright\n 1929\n By F. L. Rowe\n\n Gospel Advocate Co., Owner\n Nashville, Tenn.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n\n Preface 3\n PART ONE\n The Church\n\nWhat Should the Church of the Present Be? 5\n\nThe Church and the Temple 9\n\nInfant Baptism 16\n\nConditions of Membership 25\n\nConditions of Admission 25\n\nAgencies 28\n\nConditions 28\n\nConditions of Continued Membership 29\n\nThe Worship 32\n\nThe Apostles' Teaching 36\n\nThe Fellowship 38\n\nBreaking Bread 39\n\nPrayers 40\n\nSinging 40\n\nPolity 42\n\nThe Word of God 42\n\nNames 43\n\nCongregational Independence 44\n\nElders 45\n\nDeacons 47\n\nEvangelists 47\n PART TWO\n The Falling Away\n\nThe Falling Away Predicted 49\n\nThe Falling Away 54\n\nThe Confessional 63\n\nIndulgences 67\n\nJohn Tetzel 69\n PART THREE\n The Reformation In Europe\n\nJohn Wyckliffe 74\n\nTranslates the Bible Into English 75\n\nWilliam Tyndale 79\n\nErasmus Arrives in England 80\n\nTyndale Translates the Bible Into English 82\n\nGoes to Hamburg 84\n\nBishop of London Supplies Money 86\n\nBetrayed and Murdered 88\n\nMartin Luther 89\n\nA Friend Indeed 90\n\nBecomes a Monk 91\n\nMakes a Pilgrimage to Rome 94\n\nProfessor of Theology at Wittenburg 96\n\nThe Ninety-five Theses 97\n\nDebates With John Eck and Burns the Papal Bull 100\n\nBefore the Diet of Worms 103\n\nUnder Imperial Ban 110\n\nA Change Comes Over Luther 112\n\nRetains What Is Not Forbidden 115\n\nOrigin of Protestantism 116\n\nThe Reformation in Switzerland 122\n\nThe Reformation in England 126\n\nChanges Made by Edward VI 129\n\n\"Bloody Mary\" 131\n\nElizabeth, the Protestant Queen 133\n\nThe Reformation in Scotland 138\n\nThe Independents 138\n\nHaldane and Aikman 141\n\nThe Scotch Baptists 142\n\nThe Separatists 144\n PART FOUR\n The Restoration Movement In America\n\nSpiritual Unrest in Many Places 148\n\nBarton W. Stone 153\n\nConfronted by Many Difficulties 153\n\nOrdained to the Ministry 157\n\nRemarkable Meeting at Cane Ridge 160\n\n\"A Time of Distress\" 163\n\nLast Will and Testament 166\n\nThe Witnesses' Address 167\n\nPractices Modified in Many Particulars 169\n\n\"Shakerism\" 170\n\nThe Work Prospers 171\n\nThomas Campbell 175\n\nConflict With the Seceders 175\n\nThe Declaration and Address 180\n\nAlexander Campbell 188\n\nSubject and Act of Baptism Settled 188\n\nThe Redstone Association 195\n\nA Wider Field 199\n\nThe Campbell-McCalla Discussion 203\n\nVisits the Kentucky Baptists 207\n\nJohn Smith 209\n\nSoul Struggles 210\n\nDesires to Preach 213\n\nTerrible Calamity 215\n\nPreaches at Crab Orchard 215\n\nThe Christian Baptist 217\n\nFetters Cast Off 218\n\nResolves to Preach the Simple Gospel 220\n\n\"Ancient Order\"--Baptists in Kentucky 224\n\nWalter Scott 231-236\n\nA Sincere Truth Seeker 232\n\nTurning Point in His Life 235\n\nReformers in Other States--John Wright 246\n\nHerman Christian Dasher 249\n\nThe Christians and Reformers Unite 251\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE\n\n\nAn effort is made in the following pages to set forth what the New\nTestament church was when it came into the world through the preaching\nof inspired men; how it was led into apostasy; and an account of some of\nthe many attempts to restore it to its original purity and simplicity.\n\nIn proportion as any religious work becomes a potent force in affecting\nthe welfare of mankind, its early history becomes interesting and\nimportant. This is especially true of the very beginning of its history\nwhere those influences which have molded its character are most clearly\nseen. It is due to the world no less than to the heroic men who were\nchief actors in such a movement, that the motives which inspired them,\nthe principles which guided them, and the forces which opposed them,\ntogether with the results of this conflict, should be set down\naccurately for the information and for the benefit of those who are\nseeking the truth.\n\nIf the writer did not most profoundly believe that this effort to\nrestore the New Testament church was one of those providential movements\ndesigned by Jehovah to correct existing evils, and to purify religion\nfrom its corruptions that the gospel may run and be glorified in the\nearth, then he would feel but little interest in its history and\nachievements. But recognizing, as I do, the hand of God in this\nremarkable movement of the nineteenth century, it is believed that an\nimportant service is being rendered by putting on record the causes\nwhich gave birth to it, and the influences which by action and reaction\nhave made it what it is. If God overrules in human affairs, and teaches\nmen by means of history, then he who faithfully records historic facts\nfulfills an important service in the education of men. This is\npre-eminently true of that kind of history which deals with the\nstruggles of the human mind and heart to know God, and to understand his\nwill concerning human redemption.\n\nIt is of the very greatest importance to the successful carrying forward\nof the Lord's work that the younger generation should become thoroughly\nacquainted with the spirit which animated, and the principles which\ncontrolled the men who, under God, gave the primary impulse to this\ngreat work. They should become familiar with the conflicts of those\nearly days and with the tremendous sacrifices made by those valiant men\nand women who loved the truth more than popularity, more than ease, more\nthan wealth, friends, and family ties. It is only as we shall be able to\nperpetuate this love of truth, this freedom from the bondage of\ntradition and inherited opinions, that we shall be able to carry\nforward, successfully the work they inaugurated.\n\nWe need the same dauntless heroism, the same faith in God, the same zeal\nfor truth and the same underlying principles which characterized them\nand who have transmitted to us the responsibility of carrying forward\nthe work which they began. If this volume which is now sent forth shall\nserve to inspire the workers who are to succeed us with the same passion\nfor pure apostolic Christianity, with the same spirit of loyalty to\nChrist, which marked the beginning of their work, the purpose of the\nwriter shall have been fulfilled.\n\n J. W. Shepherd.\n\nBirmingham, Ala., July 25, 1929.\n\n\n\n\n PART I.\n The Church.\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n WHAT SHOULD THE CHURCH OF THE PRESENT BE?\n\nThat the church is the bride of Christ is clearly expressed in the\nfollowing: \"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law\nthrough the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to\nhim who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto\nGod\" (Rom. 7:4). \"For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I\nespoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin\nto Christ\" (II Cor. 11:2). In these passages the bride evidently means\nthe church. That the bride will remain till the Bridegroom comes there\ncan be no reasonable doubt; that she has ever waited his coming is\nequally certain. She has been in great distress, being driven into the\nwilderness and deprived of much of her glory, but she has ever looked\nfor the coming of her espoused. In what condition the Bridegroom will\nfind her is a question about which there has been much speculation.\nUnless we believe that the Bridegroom, when he comes, will find his\nbride in dishonor--living in fornication with the world--we may not\nmeasure the church by human standards. That the bride will be found\nwearing the name of the Bridegroom and living in chastity when he comes\nto claim her, there is no room for reasonable doubt. The world may be\ndeeply defiled by crime, but the church will be arrayed in her robes of\nrighteousness. Hence, while the church may have its impurities, as\neverything composed of humanity has, it must at least be uncontaminated\nto the extent of fidelity to Christ. This may cut off much of what the\nworld calls the church, but not what God regards as the church. This has\never been the case since the apostasy, and will doubtless so continue to\nthe end.\n\nIn the days of the apostles, God had a people in Babylon, but while they\nwere in Babylon they were not of Babylon. Hence the Lord says: \"Come\nforth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins,\nand that ye receive not her plagues\" (Rev. 18:4). God doubtless has a\npeople in Babylon now; but they and Babylon are two distinct things.\nGod's church is not composed of the Babel of sectarianism. Just who\nGod's people are who may now be in Babylon it is not my purpose to\ndetermine. God has revealed to us the things that pertain to his\nchurch--the faith, the practice, and the promises--and with these it is\nmy purpose to deal. Here, all is faith and assurance; beyond this, all\nis opinion and fruitless speculation. Concerning those in Babylon we\nhave but one living direction. \"Come forth, my people, out of her.\" To\nthis we should give faithful heed. For to console people in the Babylon\nof sectarianism, and to reconcile them to their bondage, we have no\ndivine right; but to deliver them from it is a divine obligation.\nTherefore God's church is an institution separate and distinct from the\nBabel of denominationalism.\n\nIn determining, then, what the church should be, it will be necessary to\nascertain the characteristics of the apostolic church. If the church of\nthe present day be essentially different from the apostolic as a matter\nof preference, it can not be the church of which God is the author.\nHence it can not be a divine institution, neither can it be the virgin\nbride of Christ. It follows, therefore, that the church must possess the\nfollowing characteristics:\n\n 1. It Must Be a Divine Institution\n\n At the beginning the church was a divine institution, and it can not\n cease to be divine and still be the church of God, for God does not\n begin with the divine and end with the human. Beginning in the spirit\n the things of God are not made perfect in the flesh. A divine\n institution must have for its organization and essential features\n divine authority, for the world can not make an ordinance or an\n institution divine. It must be specially appointed of God. No human\n institution, therefore, nor combination of institutions for which\n there is no special divine appointment, can ever constitute the church\n of God, for it is of God and not of men. Hence the church must be in\n all its essential features of specific divine appointment. These\n appointments are all found in the New Testament; therefore, the church\n to be a divine institution must be fashioned after that model.\n\n 2. It Must Be Governed Wholly by Divine Authority.\n\n The church was governed wholly by divine authority at the beginning.\n Should it substitute human for divine authority it would cease to be\n the church of God. A substitute for a divine thing can never itself be\n divine; therefore, anything substituted for the church as it was in\n the beginning is not that church. Just as certainly therefore, as\n Christ will own and accept his church when he comes again, so\n certainly will it be governed by his authority. Christ will accept\n only the church which he established. That which he established was\n governed wholly by divine authority: therefore the church of today\n must be so governed.\n\n 3. It Should Have Only the Names It Had at the Beginning.\n\n In the New Testament there are various names applied to the church and\n to its members. All these names have their significance, for the Holy\n Spirit never used them by accident, and for these names, and for these\n only, is there divine authority. The true church of to-day will be\n governed by divine authority; therefore, only these will the church\n accept. This with it is not simply a matter of taste, but of loyalty\n to Christ. Names unknown to the New Testament have come of the\n apostasy.\n\n 4. It Must Have the Form of Government Given to the Church in the\n Beginning.\n\n It must necessarily be true, since it recognizes only the same\n authority. The church of to-day could not disregard the government of\n the New Testament church and still be the same church. Its\n congregations are not bound in the coils of an ecclesiasticism as\n merciless as it is unscriptural. Its bishops are not diocesan, but\n congregational. There are not a plurality of churches, under one\n bishop, but a plurality of bishops in one church. Its government is\n not in the hands of a legislative body, but it is under the\n legislation of Christ, executed by the several congregations.\n\n 5. It Has the Unity of the Church of the New Testament.\n\n This conclusion is reached from several considerations. (1) Since the\n church is governed only by divine authority, has the same form of\n government that it had in the beginning, and wears only the names\n found in the New Testament, the unity that characterized the first\n church follows as a consequence. (2) The destruction of the unity of\n the church was the work of the apostasy; hence when the church is\n reclaimed from the apostasy it will be freed from this disunion. (3)\n There can be no doubt that Christ's prayer for the unity of his people\n can now be fulfilled as it was at the beginning. This unity can never\n exist through denominational walls. There were no denominational walls\n between the Father and the Son, neither was there any between the\n first disciples. Hence, if that prayer is answered in the restoration\n of the church, and it must be, there must be the same unity that\n characterized the church in the beginning.\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n THE CHURCH AND THE TEMPLE\n\nUnder the Patriarchal and Jewish dispensation there were numerous animal\nsacrifices by divine appointment. Not only so, but the people generally,\nwho knew not the true God, have, all down the ages, poured sacrificial\nblood upon altars innumerable. This must have come about by the\nperversion of divinely-appointed sacrificial institutions, or from the\nfelt need of fallen man for some way of mediation and of approach to\nGod. That the need was felt by true worshipers is not open to doubt, for\nif sacrifice were devised by man, it would only have arisen from a sense\nof that need; and, on the other hand, if ordained of God, it could only\nhave been acceptably offered under a consciousness thereof.\n\nSacrifices, altars and priests have generally stood together; and so\nlong as they have been upon divine lines have been highly beneficial.\nBut it has been alleged that priests have been a curse rather than a\nblessing to the nations, and I am not prepared to dispute the\nallegation. But neither God nor the Bible is responsible, because the\npriesthood as instituted by the Jews was a good and not an evil to that\npeople; while, on the other hand, the priestly system has no place in\nChristianity. The priests of heathendom and of Christendom are not of\nGod. Then how widely different, how completely opposite, is the\nunpriestly worship of the Church of Christ from the sacerdotal\nceremonies of the Jewish economy. There we find the costly temple, in\nthe construction of which were gold, silver, precious stones and costly\nfabrics in unrestricted abundance; sacred places over which the people\nmay not pass, and which the feet of priests and Levites only may tread;\nceremonials which bring death to those who touch them with other than\npriestly hands; altars and fires, blood and incense, and priests, all of\ndivine ordering, so that we read:\n\n Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before Jehovah. And\n King Solomon offered a sacrifice of twenty and two thousand oxen, and\n a hundred and twenty thousand sheep. So the king and all the people\n dedicated the house of God. And the priests stood, according to their\n offices; the Levites also with instruments of music of Jehovah, which\n David the King had made to give thanks unto Jehovah (for his loving\n kindness endureth forever), when David raised by their ministry; and\n the priests sounded trumpets before them; and all Israel stood.\n Moreover Solomon hallowed the middle of the court that was before the\n house of Jehovah; for there he offered and burnt offerings, and the\n fat of the peace offerings, because the brazen altar which Solomon had\n made was not able to receive the burnt offering, and the meat\n offering, and the fat.\n\n So Solomon held the feast at that time seven days, and all Israel with\n him, a very great assembly, from the entrance of Hamath unto the brook\n of Egypt. And on the eighth day they held a solemn assembly: for they\n kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days.\n And on the three and twentieth day of the seventh month, he sent the\n people away unto their tents, joyful and glad of heart for the\n goodness that Jehovah had showed unto David, and to Solomon, and to\n Israel his people. (II Chron. 7:4-10.)\n\nThe significance, and richness, and glory of that economy surpassed\nanything that the world had ever seen; but in the fullness of time it\nwas superseded by a higher and more glorious dispensation, concerning\nwhich the Apostle Paul wrote:\n\n And such confidence have we through Christ to God-ward: not that we\n are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves;\n but our sufficiency is from God; who also made us sufficient as\n ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for\n the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the\n ministration of death, written, and engraven on stones, came with\n glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly upon\n the face of Moses for the glory of his face which glory was passing\n away: how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with\n glory? For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much rather\n doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For verily\n that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this\n respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. For if that which\n passeth away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.\n (II Cor. 3:4-11.)\n\nShall we, then, look for still greater material splendor and wealth in\ntemples, vestments, altars and instruments of music? If not, why not?\nAnd still, if not, why did the like exist under the former and inferior\neconomy? We should look for nothing of the sort, nor suffer its\nintrusion upon the Church of Christ, and that for one reason, sufficient\nwithout others equally good--the former economy, in all its ceremonials,\nwas typical of spiritual blessings then to come. There was a perfect\ntypical system most expressive and opposite, but rendered useless when\nits antitypes appeared. The cross took the place of the altar; the High\nPriest of our confession came in the room of the Aaronic priesthood,\n\"the sacrifice of praise,\" \"that is the fruit of our lips,\" set aside\nthe praise by trumpets, psaltery and cymbal. These were good and\nexpressive in their day and place. \"A shadow of things to come; but the\nbody is Christ\" (Col. 2:17). \"For the law having a shadow of good things\nto come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same\nsacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them\nthat draw nigh. Else would they not have ceased to be offered?\" (Heb.\n10:1). So we see that the Holy Spirit very aptly informs us that \"the\nbody\" or substance, is Christ's, and when he came and filled to the full\nthe types and shadows of the law, they passed away in their entirety,\ngiving place to higher institutions, by means of which the worshipers\ncould be made perfect. \"And not only so,\" as a ripe Bible student very\nforcefully says, \"but just in proportion as these abandoned shadows are\nintruded into the church and worship of God they become injurious and\nmore or less substitutes for the realities of which, in their day and\nplace, they were the proper types and symbols. Consequently, in setting\nin order, by the apostles, of the Church of Christ, the temple and its\nworship were in no degree taken as models, and this is highly\nreasonable, inasmuch as the existence together of the type and the\nantitype would be completely inadmissible. Nothing could have been\neasier than for the apostles to have adopted priestly, or modified\npriestly vestments. There could have been no manner of difficulty in\nburning incense as an act of praise of worship. It can not be supposed\nbut that, long before the close of the apostolic ministry, they could\nhave used and enjoined the use of instrumental music. But no! Nothing of\nthe kind; no trace even of a leaning, or of a desire, in that direction.\nThe things of the shadows were done with, and those of the substance\ntook their place.\"\n\nThat the church is not modeled after the temple, but after the\nsynagogue, is established beyond doubt by the testimony of the learned\nmen in the denominational world. If objection be made to the\ninconsistency of denominational scholars putting forth such views, I\nanswer that it is a well-known fact that men do confess truths that they\nfail to carry into effect; but the truth is not weakened thereby, but\nrather derives additional weight from the fact that it forces\nconfession, even against the interests and associations of those who\nutter it. But however that may be, they write the truth abundantly\nclear.\n\nThe first witness I introduce is \"Richard Watson,\" who the McClintock\nand Strong Cyclopedia says \"gave the first systematic treatment of\nWesleyan theology. His Institutes, though not the legal, have been the\nmoral and scientific standard of Methodist doctrine.\" All aspirants to\nthe Methodist pulpit are required to study \"Watson's Theological\nInstitutes.\" He says:\n\n The course of the synagogue worship became indeed the model of that of\n the Christian Church. It consisted in prayer, reading and explaining\n the Scriptures, and singing psalms; and thus one of the most important\n means of instructing nations, and of spreading and maintaining the\n influence of morals and religion among people, passed from the Jews\n into all Christian countries.... The mode of public worship in the\n primitive church was taken from the synagogue service; and so, also,\n was its arrangements of offices.... Such was the model which the\n apostles followed in providing for the future regulation of the\n churches they had raised up. They took it, not from the temple and its\n priesthood, for that was typical, and was then passing away. But they\n found in the institution of the synagogues a plan admirably adapted to\n the simplicity and purity of Christianity, ... and which was capable\n of being applied to the new dispensation without danger of Judaizing.\n (Theological Institutes, pages 640, 683, 684.)\n\nLyman Coleman, Presbyterian, who was \"eminent in solid abilities, in\naccurate scholarship, in stores of accumulated learning, and in extended\nusefulness,\" says:\n\n He (Jesus) was a constant attendant upon the religious worship of the\n synagogue, and, after his ascension, his disciples conformed their\n acts of worship to those of the synagogue. They consisted in prayer,\n in singing and in the reading and exposition of the Scriptures, as\n appears from the writers of the New Testament, from the earliest\n Christian fathers, and from profane writers of the first two\n centuries. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, page 94.)\n\nThe eminent scholar of the Church of England, G. A. Jacob, in his\n\"Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament,\" which is used as a\ntext-book in some of the Episcopal theological seminaries in this\ncountry, says:\n\n In the temple was the priest consecrated according to a precise\n regulation, and a sarcedotal succession laid down by God himself, with\n the altar and its sacrifices at which he officiated, the incense which\n he burned, the holy places into which none might enter but those to\n whom it was especially assigned. In the synagogue was the reader of\n the Scriptures, the preacher or expounder of religious and moral\n truth, the leader of the common devotions of the people, unconsecrated\n by any special rites, and unrestricted by any rule of succession; with\n a reading desk or pulpit at which he stood, but with no altar,\n sacrifice or incense, and no part of the building more holy than the\n rest. And without attempting now to dwell upon all the remarkable\n contrasts thus displayed, it may suffice to say that the temple\n exhibited in a grand combination of typical places, persons and\n actions. God dwelling with man, reconciling the world unto himself in\n the person and work of Christ; and pardoning, justifying and\n graciously receiving those who come to him through the appointed\n Saviour; while the synagogue exhibited a congregation of men, already\n reconciled to God, assembled as devout worshipers for prayer and\n praise, for instruction in divine knowledge, and edification in\n righteous living. And the two systems--the one gorgeous and typical,\n the other simple and real; in one, God drawing near to man, in the\n other, man drawing near to God--never clashed or interfered with each\n other; were never intermingled or confounded together. In the temple\n there was no pulpit, in the synagogue there was no altar.... They\n (apostles) retained and adapted to Christian use some Jewish forms and\n regulations; but they were taken altogether not from the temple, but\n from the synagogue. The offices which they appointed in the church,\n and the duties and authority which they attached to them, together\n with the regulations which they made for Christian worship, bore no\n resemblance in name or in nature to the services of the priesthood in\n the temple. The apostles had been divinely taught that those priests\n and services were typical forms and shadows, which were centered, and\n fulfilled, and done away in Christ; and to reinstate them in the\n Church would have been in their judgment to go back to the bondage of\n \"weak and beggarly elements\" from the liberty, strength and rich\n completeness of the Gospel dispensation. They saw that as the\n ordinances of the temple represented the work of God wrought out for\n man, not man's work for God, to continue them after that work was\n finished in the life and death of Jesus, would be in effect so far to\n deny the efficacy of the Saviour's mission, and to thrust in the\n miserable performances of men to fill up an imagined imperfection in\n the Son of God. (Ecclesiastical Polity, pages 96-98.)\n\nThe apostles, therefore, by the directions of the Holy Spirit adopted\nofficial arrangements similar to those of the synagogue, and discarded\nthose of the temple, in the institution of church offices, and plainly\nshowed by this circumstance that no priestly powers or duties were\nattached to their ministrations. Another argument which leads to the\nsame conclusion is deduced from the condition of the members of the\nChurch as it appears in the New Testament, and the equality of standing\nin Christ, which Christians possessed. The way of access to God being\nopen to all without distinction through the priesthood of Christ, there\nwas nothing for a priest to do--no sacerdotal work or office for him to\nundertake.\n\nOn this phase of the subject, Mr. Jacob has said some very pointed\nthings, and I will call on him to give testimony. He says:\n\n A distinct proof that the office bearers in the Church of the Apostles\n were not, and could not be priests, or perform any sacerdotal duties,\n is seen in a condensed form in the epistle to the Hebrews, and is\n found at large in the whole of the Old and the New Testaments, of\n which that epistle, as far as the subject reaches, is so valuable an\n epitome. We there learn that from the very nature of the priestly\n office, it is necessary for those who hold it to be specially called\n and appointed by God, either personally by name, or according to a\n divinely instituted order of succession; and that, since the\n patriarchal dispensation, only two orders of priesthood have ever had\n this necessary divine sanction granted to them. The two orders are the\n order of Aaron and the order of Melchisedek. The priests of the former\n order belonged to the Jewish dispensation only, and have indisputably\n passed away. The only priest after the order of Melchisedek, even\n mentioned in the Bible, is our Lord Jesus Christ--the \"priest upon his\n throne,\" without a successor, as he had none before him, in the\n everlasting priesthood of his mediatorial reign. This argument appears\n to me to be conclusive. It appears to me that the epistle to the\n Hebrews shuts out the possibility of there being any other priest in\n the Church besides Christ himself. But this does not so appear to a\n large number of our clergy. Bishops as far back as the third century\n claimed to be successors or vicegerents of Christ on earth; and our\n presbyters do not hesitate to declare that they are priests after the\n order of Melchisedek. To my mind and feeling this is an impious claim;\n but countenanced as they are by numberless past and present examples,\n good men are not conscious of impiety in making it. But, then it is\n necessary to ask the \"priests\" for their credentials. Where is the\n record of their divine appointment to the sacerdotal office? In what\n part of the New Testament, and in what form of words, is the\n institution of such priests, and the manner of their succession, to be\n found? And to such inquiries no satisfactory answer has been or can be\n given. (Ibid, pages 102-104.)\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n INFANT BAPTISM\n\nAnother point in which the Church of Christ and the Jewish Covenant are\nat exact opposites is that of infant membership. In the Apostolic Church\nbaptism preceded membership, and faith was prerequisite to baptism,\nconsequently there was not, neither could be any place for infant\nmembership. On this account we have in the New Testament neither precept\nfor, nor example of, infant baptism, but on the contrary, much that\nrenders it totally incompatible with apostolic teaching.\n\nBut we are reminded by the advocates of infant baptism that in some\nsense baptism stands to its subject and the Church as circumcision did\nunder the Abrahamic covenant. They emphasize that as an unquestioned\nfact, and seem to think there ought to be something in it, somewhere or\nsomehow, in favor of infant baptism. Some claim that circumcision\ninitiated into the Church under the former dispensation, and that\nbaptism is initiative now; and that infants were formerly initiated by\ncircumcision, and should now be initiated by baptism. Others hold that\ncircumcision was a declaration of church membership under the Jewish\ndispensation; and that baptism is a declaration of membership now: and\nthat as circumcision was extended to infants, so baptism should be\nextended. They further claim that infants were put in the Church which\nwas established in the family of Abraham; that the Church of the old\ndispensation is identical with that of the new; that no law has since\nbeen enacted to put them out; and that they were then initiated by\ncircumcision and that, as baptism has superseded circumcision, infants\nshould now be initiated by baptism.\n\nTo some this is a strong and satisfactory argument, but a few plain,\nsimple facts should decide the question whether the Church of the new\ncovenant is identical with that of the old and that baptism takes the\nplace of circumcision:\n\n (1) \"The covenant of circumcision\" (Acts 7:8) was a covenant with\n Abraham and to him \"that is born in thy house, and he that is bought\n with thy money\" (Gen. 17:12, 13); while the new covenant embraces\n believers in Jesus Christ, without respect to Abraham's flesh or\n money. (See II Cor. 5:16, 17; Gal. 3:26-29; Heb. 8:8-12.)\n\n (2) Male children alone were subjects of circumcision. If baptism took\n the place of circumcision, none but the males should be baptized; but\n the advocates of infant baptism contend that infants should be\n baptized regardless of sex, flesh or money.\n\n (3) If baptism came in the place of circumcision, persons already\n circumcised could not be baptized. If the one came in the place of the\n other, the two could not exist at the same time in the same person.\n But all the Jews that had been circumcised on believing in Christ were\n baptized. The children of Jewish Christians were still circumcised. Is\n it possible that pedobaptists are so blinded in their contention for\n infant baptism that they can not see this?\n\nThat there is a point of similarity between circumcision and baptism\nthere is no doubt, for Paul says: \"In whom ye were also circumcised with\na circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off the body of the\nflesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in\nbaptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through the faith in the\nworking of God, who raised him from the dead\" (Col. 2:11, 12). In\ncircumcision the foreskin of the flesh was cut off by the hands; so in\nbaptism the sins were put off, and this putting off the sins was called\n\"a circumcision not made with hands.\"\n\nThe Mosaic law given to the fleshly family of Abraham typified to some\nextent the spiritual family of God. Circumcision marked those born of\nthe flesh as members of the kingdom of Israel; baptism marks those\nbegotten of the Spirit as members of God's spiritual kingdom. To affix\nthe spiritual mark to the fleshly birth is to do violence to the figure\nand to introduce those born of the flesh into the spiritual kingdom. Now\nfaith is the first manifestation of the spiritual begetting, and only\nthose begotten of the Spirit and manifesting it in faith can be\nintroduced into the spiritual kingdom, or should have the mark of God's\nspiritual child. To place the mark of the birth of the Spirit upon one\nborn of the flesh is to mislead and deceive that child and make the\nimpression that it is one of God's spiritual children when it is not.\nThe Spirit of God always connects the fleshly mark with the fleshly\nbirth into the fleshly kingdom, and the spiritual mark (baptism) with\nthe spiritual birth into the spiritual kingdom. Hence the Holy Spirit\nsays: \"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the\nname of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit\" (Matt.\n28:19). \"Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to the whole\ncreation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that\ndisbelieveth shall be condemned\" (Mark 16:15, 16). \"Repent ye, and be\nbaptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission\nof your sins\" (Acts 2:38). \"And now why tarriest thou, arise, and be\nbaptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord\" (Acts\n22:16). Only those capable of believing, repenting and of thus showing\nthat they are begotten of the Spirit, are fit subjects for baptism. To\nbestow the mark of the spiritual birth on those born of the flesh is to\nbreak down and carnalize the kingdom of God.\n\nThe prophet says:\n\n Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant\n with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according\n to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took\n them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: which my\n covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith\n Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of\n Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their\n inward parts, and in their hearts will I write it; and I will be their\n God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every\n man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah: for\n they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of\n them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sins\n will I remember no more. (Jer. 31:31-34.)\n\nThis shows that a new covenant different from that he made at Sinai\nwould be made. That was a fleshly covenant with the house of Israel,\ninto which they were born by a fleshly birth; but in the new covenant\nthe law was to be written on their hearts, and all were to know him,\nfrom the least to the greatest. That is, all must know the law of God,\naccept it in their hearts before they could become members of the Church\nof God. So Paul asks: \"What then is the law? It was added because of\ntransgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been\nmade\" (Gal. 3:19). The seed that was to come was Christ, and this\nplainly shows that because of the transgression this law was to continue\nonly until Christ should come. Then the new spiritual covenant was to go\ninto force, and the members of it were all to believe in Christ.\n\nThe following significant contrast is drawn by the Apostle Paul: \"Ye are\nour epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men; being made\nmanifest that ye are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not\nwith ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not on tables of stone,\nbut in tables that are hearts of flesh. And such confidence have we\nthrough Christ to Godward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to\naccount anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God, who\nalso made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the\nletter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth\nlife. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven on stones,\ncame with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look\nsteadfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which\nglory was passing away: how shall not rather the ministration of the\nspirit be with glory? For if the ministration of condemnation hath\nglory, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in\nglory. For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made\nglorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. For if\nthat which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth\nis in glory\" (II Cor. 3:2-11). In this the Ten Commandments, written\nupon the tables of stone, is contrasted with the law of Christ, written\nin the hearts of God's children. The law written on stones is called\n\"the letter\" that \"killeth.\" It convicted of sin, but had no power to\ndeliver from it. The sins were rolled and rolled year by year until\nJesus came and shed blood, not only for our sins but for \"the redemption\nof the transgressions that were under the first covenant that they that\nhave been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.\"\n\nThe letter to the Hebrews was written to show the change from the old\ncovenant to the new, and to show the immense superiority of the new to\nthe old. To turn back from the spiritual law and the Church of Christ to\nthe fleshly law and institution of Judaism is called falling \"away from\ngrace.\" \"Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the\nlaw; ye are fallen away from grace\" (Gal. 5:4).\n\nSince it is so very evident that there is no ground whatever for infant\nbaptism based on the arguments on the analogy of circumcision and the\nidentity of the covenants it is quite appropriate to close this article\nwith quotations from two great pedobaptist scholars. Dr. Jacob Ditzler,\nclaimed to be the best debater the Methodist Church has produced, says:\n\n I here express my conviction that the covenants of the Old Testament\n have nothing to do with infant baptism. (Graves-Ditzler Debate, page\n 694).\n\nMoses Stuart, Congregationalist, Professor of Sacred Literature in\nAndover Theological Seminary, called \"The Father of Biblical Literature\nin America,\" says:\n\n How unwary, too, are many excellent men, in contending for infant\n baptism on the ground of the Jewish analogy of circumcision! Are\n females not proper subjects of baptism? And again, are a man's slaves\n to be all baptized because he is? Are they church members of course\n when they are so baptized? Is there no difference between ingrafting\n into a politico-ecclesiastical community, and into one of which it is\n said that \"it is not of this world?\" In short, numberless difficulties\n present themselves in our way, as soon as we begin to argue in such a\n manner as this. (Old Testament Canon, [S] 22, page 369.)\n\nIn the investigation thus far we have learned that under the old\ncovenant infants were included, so were slaves, taken in war or bought\nwith money. The covenant was with a nation, involving national laws and\ncustoms, and promising national and temporal blessings. The duly\nrecognized, as embraced under that covenant, were not thereby entitled\nto eternal life. As the entire flesh of the nation, for national\npurposes, was included, the infants of that nation, from the moment of\nbirth, stood in covenant relation with God and the covenant people.\nThere was no ceremonial by which they entered into that\nrelationship--they were born into it. They came not in by circumcision,\nfor the male infant, continuing uncircumcised, was not said to be\ndebarred from entering, but was to be \"cut off\" from the people which\nimplies previous covenant relationship.\n\nBut all this is reversed under the new covenant. No one nation is\nchosen, but the people of the covenant are to be those who respond to a\ncall made to all nations. No family is chosen, but the blessing is\noffered to each of all the families of earth. No infant is either\ninvited or excluded, except as it comes to faith in, and obedience to,\nthe Son of God. The covenant blessings are not national and eternal,\nbased upon a living and active faith. As a consequence, infants are not,\nand could not possibly be embraced in the new covenant; and as the\nChurch of Christ, as to its divinely-ordained membership, consists of\nthose who have thus believed in him, infants are not and can not be in\nthe Church of Christ, therefore are not subjects of baptism, for all who\nare Scripturally baptized enter into the church.\n\nWe now turn our attention to the remaining methods by which the practice\nof infant baptism could be proven. They are: (1) Express command of an\ninspired man; or, (2) by an example from Scripture where an inspired man\nbaptized infants, or where it was done in his presence, by his consent\nand approval. Inasmuch as it is admitted by renowned pedobaptists that\nthere is neither express command for or example of infant baptism in the\nNew Testament, I will make no attempt to answer the arguments to prove\nit, but let the most learned of their number speak for themselves. This\nis legitimate and has the divine sanction, for Jesus said: \"Out of thine\nown mouth will I judge thee\" (Luke 19:22); and Paul, in meeting\nopposition to his preaching, said: \"As certain even of your own poets\nhave said\" (Acts 17:28); and again: \"One of themselves, a prophet of\ntheir own, said\" (Titus 1:12).\n\nHenry Alford, one of the most variously-learned clergymen that the\nChurch of England has produced, says:\n\n The language of the Bible is against them; and, on their own ground,\n which is a very sore perplexity. There is one escape, and that is a\n perfectly effectual one; but they are unwilling to avail themselves of\n its assistance. They might declare, and they ought to declare, that\n infant baptism was a practice unknown to the apostles; that not only\n does the New Testament not give one single expression which plainly\n and necessarily implies that infants were baptized in the apostolical\n churches, but it can be fairly argued from a passage in chapter 7 of\n II Corinthians 7 that such a practice could not have existed at\n Corinth. The recognition that the baptism of adults was the only\n baptism known to the apostles would clear every difficulty on this\n point out of the way of the Low Churchmen. It is natural that the\n sacred writers should assume that men who, at great worldly sacrifice,\n not free from risk of life, came forward to profess the Christian\n faith by a solemn initiatory rite, possessed the frame of mind which\n that fact implied--that they were honestly changed and renewed beings.\n And then it would be easy to pass on the conclusion that the baptismal\n service of the Church of England has been constructed on the language\n of the Bible, and that the embarrassment has proceeded not from a\n mistaken view of baptism, but from the application of the words used\n by Scripture of an adult person to an unconscious and, so to say,\n mindless infant. (Contemporary Review, Vol. 10, page 329.)\n\nJoseph Ager Beet, one of the finest scholars that the English Wesleyan\nMethodist Church has produced, Professor of Systematic Theology in the\nWesleyan Theological College, Richmond, England, says:\n\n It must be at once admitted that the New Testament contains no clear\n proof that infants were baptized in the days of the apostles.\n (Christian Baptism, page 28.)\n\nAlbert Taylor Bledsoe, of whom it has been truthfully said, \"He was one\nof the most candid and trustworthy writers that the Methodist Church has\nproduced,\" says:\n\n It is an article of our faith, that \"the baptism of young children\n (infants) is in any wise to be retained in the church, as one most\n agreeable to the institution of Christ.\" But yet, with all our\n searching, we have been unable to find, in the New Testament, a single\n express declaration, or word, in favor of infant baptism. We justify\n this rite, therefore, solely on the ground of logical inference, and\n not on any express word of Christ or his apostles. This may, perhaps,\n be deemed, by some of our readers, a strange position for a\n pedobaptist. It is by no means, however, a singular opinion. Hundreds\n of learned pedobaptists have come to the same conclusion; especially\n since the New Testament has been subjected to a closer, more\n conscientious, and more candid exegesis than was formerly practiced by\n controversalists. (Southern Review, Vol. 14, page 334.)\n\nJohn Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, says:\n\n As Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that\n none but believers shall be admitted to baptism, it would appear that\n baptism is not properly administered unless when preceded by faith.\n (Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. 3, page 38.)\n\nHeinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, German Lutheran, the \"prince of New\nTestament exegetes,\" says:\n\n The baptism of the children of Christians, of which no trace is found\n in the New Testament, is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance; but\n it is an institution of the church, which gradually arose in\n post-apostolic times in connection with the development of\n ecclesiastical life and of doctrinal teaching, not certainly attested\n before Tertullian, and by him still decidedly opposed, and although\n already defended by Cyprian, only becoming general after the time of\n Augustine in virtue of that connection. (Commentary on Acts 16:15,\n page 312.)\n\nAugust Wilhelm Neander, Lutheran, who is unanimously conceded to be by\nfar the greatest of all ecclesiastical historians, and is surnamed \"the\nfather of modern church history,\" says:\n\n Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were\n accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We\n have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic\n institution somewhat later, as an apostolical tradition serves to\n confirm this hypothesis. (Church History, Vol. 1, page 424.)\n\nMoses Stuart, a Congregationalist, called \"the father of Biblical\nliterature in America\", says:\n\n On the subject of infant baptism I have said nothing. The present\n occasion did not call for it; and I have no wish or intention to enter\n into the controversy respecting it. I have only to say that I believe\n in both the propriety and expediency of the rite thus administered;\n and therefore accede to it ex animo. Commands, or plain and certain\n examples, in the New Testament relative to it, I do not find. Nor,\n with my views of it, do I need them. (Mode of Christian Baptism, pages\n 189, 190.)\n\nBut I have given enough; it is a thing made out that infant baptism was\nnot an apostolic practice. So, indeed, have all the scholars who have\nthoroughly investigated this subject conceded. I know of no subject\nwhich seems to be more clearly made out, and I can not see how it is\npossible for any candid man who examines the subject to deny this.\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP\n\nAs we have already learned that infant baptism was not an apostolic\npractice, we will give it no further attention at present. The\nconditions of membership in the apostolic Church naturally divide\nthemselves into two classes--those of admission into the Church and\nthose of continued membership.\n\n\n CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION\n\nConcerning admission into the Church it is said in connection with its\nestablishment that \"the Lord added to them day by day those that were\nsaved\" (Acts 2:47). This implies that the Lord saved the people and\nadded them by one and the same process. They were not first saved and\nthen added, nor added and afterward saved, but they were saved in being\nadded, and added by being saved. Hence it was not a formal adding to a\nlocal congregation by extending the \"hand of fellowship\" after salvation\nfrom sin, but an adding to the one body of Christ in the obtaining of\nsalvation by obedience to the Gospel. While they were added by the Lord,\nhe added them through certain agencies, both human and divine--the Holy\nSpirit, the Gospel and the preacher--all present and active in the work.\nWhat the Lord did, therefore, he did through these agencies.\n\nIn the second chapter of Acts the Holy Spirit gives the directions that\nGod gave to guide sinners into the Church. This being the first time\nthat men were guided into the Church, the directions given would\nnecessarily be more minute and particular in every step than after the\nway was fully made known to men.\n\nAfter his resurrection from the dead Jesus said to his disciples, \"All\nauthority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth,\" to show them\nthat he had the right and authority to speak the words that come next:\n\"Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them\ninto the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:\nteaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo,\nI am with you always, even unto the end of the world\" (Matt. 28:19, 20).\nThey were not to go yet, for he had sealed their lips. On the day of his\nascension to heaven he said unto them: \"Go ye into all the world, and\npreach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is\nbaptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned\"\n(Mark 16:15, 16); \"but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with\npower from on high\" (Luke 24:49). So they returned to Jerusalem and\nwaited for the coming of the Spirit who was to unseal their lips and to\nspeak to the world in the name of Jesus. The day of Pentecost came, they\nwere in the temple, when suddenly a sound from heaven filled the house\nwhere they were sitting, and they felt themselves moved inwardly by a\nnew power, under which they began to speak to the multitude in the\ntemple, addressing them in all the different languages represented by\nthe nations there assembled. The time had come when they can tell to the\nworld all they know about Jesus fully and freely. And when they had\npraised God, to the amazement of the people, in all their tongues, Peter\narose, now having the keys to the kingdom in his hands, now ready to\nexecute his high commission to open the gates and admit those who were\nentitled to enter, and for the first time in his life begins to inform\nmen who Jesus is. He delivers a discourse in which he says: \"Ye men of\nIsrael, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto\nyou by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the\nmidst of you, even as ye yourselves know; him, being delivered by the\ndeterminate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hands of lawless\nmen did crucify and slay: whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of\ndeath.\"\n\nHe quotes language of the prophets to prove this. He then presents the\ntestimony of himself and his fellow apostles to the effect that Jesus\nhad been raised from the dead, and that they had seen him with their\neyes and handled him with their hands. He further states that God had\nsaid to Jesus: \"Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies the\nfootstool of thy feet,\" and closes this powerful argument with this\nsoul-stirring appeal: \"Let all the house of Israel therefore know\nassuredly that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom\nye crucified.\"\n\nThree thousand of those who stood in the hearing of Peter's voice\nbelieved this, felt pricked in their hearts--that sense of guilt which\noverwhelmed them when they realized that they had been guilty of\nmurdering the Son of the living God, the greatest crime that human being\never committed--and in great agony of soul, they cried out: \"Brethren,\nwhat shall we do?\" to get rid of this pricking of our hearts, to get rid\nof the awful crime, to get rid of our sins before God and escape its\nconsequences in the day of God's wrath against sin.\n\nMoved by the Holy Spirit, Peter answered: \"Repent ye, and be baptized,\nevery one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your\nsins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.\" This was God's\nanswer, that enabled them to get rid of their guilt and condemnation at\nonce. And to assure them still further, he said: \"For to you is the\npromise\" (the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit), \"and\nto your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord\nour God shall call unto him,\" for the commission was to \"all nations,\"\n\"even unto the end of the world.\" But Peter did not stop here, for \"with\nmany other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, 'Save\nyourselves from this crooked generation.' Then they that received his\nword were baptized; and there were added unto them in that day about\nthree thousand souls.\"\n\nNow, let us see if we can gather from this brief narrative what agencies\nGod used in bringing about the conversion of these people, and what\nconditions they had to comply with in order to receive the benefits of\nthe redemption which was provided by the blood of Christ.\n\n\n AGENCIES\n\n1. The Holy Spirit.\n\n2. The apostles, speaking as the Spirit gave them utterance, testifying\nof the Christ and pleading with sinners, were the leading human agents\nin this case of conversion, as they are still and ever will be; for\nthough dead they yet speak through the Gospel which they first preached\nthrough the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. As they were agents then\nthrough their spoken testimony, so they are agents now through their\nwritten testimony. Their words live in all their vitalizing power, and\ncan never be destroyed.\n\n3. The sinners themselves, guilt-stricken and inquiring, had also an\nagency in this work which so vitally concerned themselves. It was theirs\nto attend to the things spoken by the apostles, to hearken to the divine\ncounsel, to learn of Jesus, and to receive the truth that they might be\nmade alive. They had the divinely-given power to do this; and they also\nhad the power to reject the Gospel and die, otherwise the apostle could\nnot say, \"Save yourselves from this crooked generation\"--seize the help\nGod was holding out from heaven.\n\n\n CONDITIONS\n\n1. They heard (vs. 8, 11, 14, 22, 37).\n\n2. Believed (vs. 30), in accordance with the apostle's appeal to them,\notherwise they would not have been pricked in their hearts.\n\n3. They repented.\n\n4. Were baptized in his name. Thus they entered through these\ndivinely-appointed conditions into the enjoyment of the blessings\ngraciously provided for them through the death and mediation.\n\nThis was the first time the Gospel in its fullness was ever preached\nunder the guidance of the Holy Spirit, leading men into the Church of\nGod and into the remission of their sins, under the world-wide\ncommission of Jesus, the Lord and Master; for Peter, in giving an\naccount of the conversion of Cornelius, said: \"As I began to speak, the\nHoly Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning\" (Acts 11:15).\nOn the first occasion, when the world knew not the way, there was of\nnecessity a demand for a fullness and specificness of direction, a\ncareful and distinct enumeration of the steps to be taken in their\nconnection, and the agencies used, that was not needful in after\nreferences; after the steps to be taken and the order was once clearly\nmade known, an allusion to one leading step or point or the order called\nup all of them. These were the steps to be taken, this the rule to be\nfollowed, the fixed directions of the spirit of God, sealed by the blood\nof Christ, worldwide in its application, and to stand to the end of the\nworld. No human power can abrogate, change or modify this commission of\nthe Lord Jesus, this guidance of the Spirit; and I feel sure that no one\ncan have a well-grounded assurance of citizenship in that kingdom until\nhe has complied with the conditions presented in the blood-sealed\ncommission of Jesus Christ, given under the infallible guidance of the\nHoly Spirit.\n\nThis brings us to the discussion of the second division of the subject--\n\n\n CONDITIONS OF CONTINUED MEMBERSHIP\n\nTo all those who entered into the apostolic Church the exhortation was\ngiven: \"Putting away, therefore, all wickedness, and all guile, and\nhypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as new-born babes, long\nfor the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby\nunto salvation\" (I Peter 2:1, 2). They were also taught to \"let the word\nof Christ dwell in them richly\" (Col. 3:16). This was necessary in the\nmind of inspired men because they realized that to be a Christian was to\nbe like God. It was to be like God in the flesh. Jesus Christ was\nImmanuel--\"God with us\" in the flesh. He came in the flesh to take on\nhimself all the feelings, temptations, and weaknesses of humanity, to\nshow what and how the Christian should live. With this in mind it is\neasy to see that with them the Christian was God growing in the flesh up\nto the stage of maturity in man and perfection under \"the law of the\nSpirit of life in Christ Jesus.\" In the growth of the Christian there\nwas a constant but gradual growth of all the desires and affections into\nthe likeness of the character affections that move God; a growth in\ncharacter in the feelings and in thoughts and in actions to the life and\ncharacter of God. The Christian's life was a continual growth into a\nnobler life with God. They were to grow in thoughts and feelings, in\npurposes and actions, into the likeness of God. Solomon said: \"For as he\nthinketh within himself, so is he\" (Prov. 23:7). The thoughts and\nfeelings that a man cherishes in his heart mold and shape the character\nand make him what he is. A spirit that loves as God loves and seeks to\ndo good and bless as God does will grow into the likeness of God. They\nwere taught that a man must not only think as God thinks; but that the\nthoughts must grow into permanent principles cherished in the heart;\nthat they must mold the actions to make him act as God acts. Faith in\nGod made them desire to think, feel and act like God, which is the end\nand accomplishment of the turning to God.\n\nBut all who entered into the apostolic Church did not choose to thus\ndevelop themselves into the likeness of God and continue in the\nfellowship with him, for some were put away. There were reasons for\nthis. Since some were and some were not, it follows that there were\nconditions of continued fellowship. Some have interpreted the parable of\nthe tares (Matt. 13:24-30)--\"Let both grow together until the\nharvest\"--to mean that there is to be no exclusion from the Church, but\nthis is to make parabolic language conflict with plain, unfigurative\nstatements and historical facts, which is not admissible. The Saviour\ndirected that he who would not \"hear the church\" should be \"as the\nGentile and the publican\" (Matt. 18:17). Concerning the incestuous man\nin the church at Corinth Paul said: \"For I verily, being absent in the\nbody but present in spirit, have already as though I were present judged\nhim that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye\nbeing gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus\nto deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that\nthe spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus\" (I Cor. 5:3-5).\nAnd to the Thessalonians he gave practically the same directions: \"Now\nwe command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye\nwithdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly\" (II\nThess. 3:6). The Holy Spirit mentions the following things as the works\nof the flesh: \"Fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry,\nsorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions,\nparties, envying, drunkenness, revelings, and such like; of which I\nforewarn you, that they who practice such things shall not inherit the\nkingdom of God\" (Gal. 5:10-21).\n\nThose guilty of such things \"can not inherit the kingdom of God.\" Such\nthings are disorderly, else they would not deprive one of the kingdom of\nGod. For those that walk orderly enjoy the divine favor. Since such\nthings are disorderly, and the Church is to withdraw from those who walk\ndisorderly, it follows that the Church is to withdraw from all such.\nTherefore, the congregation that did not do it, disregarded the law and\nauthority of Jesus Christ. Of course, it is understood that an earnest,\nfaithful effort was to be made to bring such offenders to repentance,\nand an orderly life; but when such efforts failed, they were compelled\nby the law of Christ to put them away. Consequently the condition of\ncontinuing in the membership of the Church of God was an orderly\nChristian life, as I have already shown.\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n THE WORSHIP\n\nOf the people under the new covenant the Holy Spirit, through Peter,\nsaid: \"But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a\npeople for God's own possession, that ye may show the excellencies of\nhim who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light\" (I Peter\n2:9). They constitute a nation--not a republic, but a kingdom--so we\nread: \"Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his\nblood; and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and\nFather; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever\" (Rev.\n1:6, 7). \"And madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests\"\n(Rev. 5:10).\n\nA nation or kingdom of priests is equal to a nation or kingdom without\npriests. And so the whole Church of God is his lot, heritage, \"clergy,\"\nor priesthood. As a kingdom, not of this world, though in the world.\nWhen on trial for his life, Jesus said: \"My kingdom is not of this\nworld: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,\nthat I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not\nfrom hence\" (John 18:36). Though on earth, not earthly, and its honors\nand grandeur are not akin to those of the nations of this world. The\nsubjects of this \"kingdom\" were born, \"not of blood, nor of the will of\nthe flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God\" (John 1:13); \"born of\nwater and the Spirit.\" They were all the sons and daughters of the Lord\nAlmighty.\n\nCongregated for worship and service they were not only a priesthood, but\ntheir edification was committed to the whole body of male members,\nexcluding from ministering therein only those incapable of edifying.\nThere were elders, required to be \"apt to teach,\" not to be the sole\ninstructors of the church, but taking part therein; securing order and\npropriety on the part of all.\n\nEvery member was taught to attend the worship regularly, but this was\nnot the end. Even if every member attended regularly and punctually,\nthis was not to be the end of the teaching, the worship, the service.\nThese were necessary, because without these the end could not be\nattained. The end was to excite and secure the active and earnest labor\nof every member in serving God and teaching and helping humanity. One\ncould not serve God without helping others. He was to help them\nspiritually, morally, intellectually and materially. The end of all the\nteaching and training of men in the church was that they might bear\nfruit in doing good to men. Paul said of Christ Jesus: \"Who gave himself\nfor us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto\nhimself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works\" (Titus\n2:14). They were to cease to do evil and be zealous in good works.\n\"Faithful is the saying, and concerning these things I desire that thou\naffirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed in God may be\ncareful to maintain good works. These are good and profitable unto\nmen.... And let our people also learn to maintain good works for\nnecessary uses, and that they be not unfruitful\" (Titus 3:8-14). The end\nof the teaching and the worship was to develop the activity and direct\nthe energies of every member in good works. The first element of true\ngood to others was to bring them into proper spiritual relations to God,\nfor without this no good can be enjoyed. But this spiritual harmony with\nGod must show itself in bringing every thought into harmony with the\nwill of God and so direct the bodily energies as to bring all\ngood--spiritual, intellectual and material--to all creatures.\n\nEvery member of the Church was to participate in all the services of the\nchurch; and the members not only were competent to do all the work\npertaining to the church, but they needed this work and service for\ntheir own spiritual growth. In this service alone could the Christian\nfind the food and exercise needed for his growing wise and strong in the\ninner man. The spiritual man could no more grow strong and active\nwithout himself doing the worship and work of the church than the body\ncould grow strong while refusing the food and exercise needed for its\ngrowth and life. In this service in the church man could alone find the\nhighest development of the soul and the mind and the body. One could no\nmore worship and do the work in the church by proxy and grow spiritually\nthereby than he could eat and take exercise by proxy and his body grow\nthereby. The well-being of every member demanded that he should take\nactive part in the worship, the well-being of the church demanded the\nhelp of every member that it \"may grow up in all things unto him, who is\nthe head, even Christ; from whom all the body fitly framed and knit\ntogether through that which every joint supplieth, according to the\nworking in due measure of each several part, making the increase of the\nbody unto the building up of itself in love\" (Eph. 4:15, 16). The point\nemphasized here is that every member had his work to do, his office to\nfill, and by this harmonious working of all the parts the body grew into\nthe well-proportioned body of Christ--the Church. The welfare and\ndevelopment of the whole was dependent upon the proper workings of each\nand every member.\n\nEvery child of God, by virtue of his birthright into God's family, a\nfamily of priests to God, had the right to perform any and every service\nconnected with the Church of God, limited only by God's directions and\nby the ability to do it decently and in order. All were encouraged to\ntake part in the service, and in doing the service each member\nmanifested his talent for the work and trained himself for fitness in\nGod's work.\n\nEvery dispensation has had its peculiar worship. That of the Jewish\ndispensation differed from the patriarchal. The worship under the\nChristian dispensation is radically different from both. The worship\nwhich was acceptable under the patriarchal would condemn a Jew; and that\nwhich would justify a Jew would condemn a Christian. During the\npatriarchal dispensation religion was confined to the family. Every one\nwas his own priest, and he could build his own altar and offer his own\nsacrifices for himself and for his family. (Gen. 4:4; 8:20; Job. 1:5.)\nBut when the priesthood was changed, and confined to the family of Levi\n(Ex. 28:1; Num. 25:11-13), this worship was no longer permitted by those\nincluded in the Sinaitic covenant; hence no longer acceptable. It is\nlikewise true that the sacrifices offered by the Levitical priesthood\nceased to be acceptable after the death of Christ and the establishment\nof the Church. When Christ ascended to the Father the priesthood was\nchanged. The high priesthood then passed into the hands of one belonging\n\"to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar.\nFor it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which\ntribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests\" (Heb. 7:13, 14). The\npriesthood being changed, a change of the Worship follows as a\nnecessity. \"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity\na change also of the law\" (Heb. 7:12). While the worship of the three\ndispensations had some things in common, each had its distinctive\npeculiarities. Since Christianity is distinguished from every other\nreligion by its institutions and worship, it of necessity follows that,\nin order to its preservation, these must be strictly observed. Nothing\nshort of this can preserve the Church from degeneracy and final\nextinction. As we have already learned, a fundamental feature of the\nworship in the Church of God is the _Universal Priesthood_ of its\nmembership. All the members of God's family have became \"a royal\npriesthood,\" who no longer offer bloody sacrifices of the law of Moses,\nbut they offer their \"bodies a living sacrifice\" (Rom. 12:1), and the\n\"sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips\nwhich make confession to his name\" (Heb. 13:15). Since all were priests,\nall worshiped God without any mediatorship other than that of the Lord\nJesus Christ. They could all come with equal boldness to the throne of\ngrace. Such clerical distinction and arrogance as we have at the present\ntime had no place then.\n\nThat the apostles taught the churches to do all the Lord commanded will\nnot be called in question by those who receive the Bible as authority.\nWhatever, then, the churches did by the appointment or concurrence of\nthe apostles, they did by the commandment of Jesus Christ. Whatever acts\nof worship the apostles taught and sanctioned in one congregation, they\ntaught and sanctioned in all, because all under the same government of\nthe same King. But the church in Troas met \"upon the first day of the\nweek ... to break bread\" (Acts 20:7), and Paul exhorts the Hebrew\nbrethren to \"consider one another to provoke unto love and good works;\nnot forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but\nexhorting one another; and so much the more as ye see the day drawing\nnigh\" (Heb. 10:24, 25). From the manner in which this meeting of the\ndisciples at Troas is mentioned by Luke, two things are very evident:\n(1) That it was an established rule of the disciples to meet on the\nfirst day of the week; (2) that the primary object of their meeting was\nto break bread. And Luke also tells us that the Jerusalem church\n\"continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the\nbreaking of bread and prayers\" (Acts 2:42), which shows us that the\nbreaking of bread was a prominent item in those stated meetings. Other\ncorroborating evidences of the stated meetings on the first day of the\nweek for religious purposes are indicated by the instructions Paul gave\nto the church in Galatia and Corinth: \"Now concerning the collection for\nthe saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye.\nUpon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store,\nas he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come\" (I Cor.\n16:1, 2).\n\nAs we have seen that whatever the primitive churches did by the approval\nof the apostles, they did by divine authority, now, as Paul approved\ntheir meeting on the first day of the week, it is as high authority as\ncould be required for the practice of meeting to worship on the first\nday of every week. The items of their worship were:\n\n\n THE APOSTLES' TEACHING\n\nThey believed that the teaching of the apostles was from God and they\nconstantly and diligently studied it, that they might know and do the\nwhole will of God. The constant study of and the profound reverence for\nthe Word of God were recognized traits of their character. They\ncertainly had the word of Christ dwelling in them richly. Not only was\nreading the Scriptures a part of all the public worship, it was a daily\ncustom in private life--in the family, the social circle, and even at\ntheir toil. On this point I will give the testimony of Lyman Coleman,\nwho has gathered much information on this subject. He says:\n\n No trait of the primitive Christians was more remarkable than their\n profound reverence for the Scriptures and their diligent study of\n them. The Word of God, dwelling in them richly and abounding, was\n their meditation all the day long. Those who could read never went\n abroad without taking some part of the Bible with them. The women, in\n their household labors, wore some portion of the sacred roll hanging\n about their necks; and the men made it the companion of their toil in\n the field and the workshop. Morning, noon and night they read it at\n their meals. By the recitals of the narratives of sacred history, by\n constant reading, by paraphrase, by commentary, and by sacred song,\n they taught the Scriptures diligently unto their children; talked of\n these heavenly themes when they sat in their house, when they walked\n by the way, when they laid themselves down, and when they rose up. One\n relates with great delight that he never sat at meat with Origen, A.\n D. 225, but one of the company read to the other. They never retired\n to rest without first reading the Bible. So diligent were they in this\n divine employment that \"prayers succeeded reading of the Word, and the\n reading of the Word to prayer.\" (Ancient Christianity Exemplified,\n Page 57.)\n\nAugustus Neander says:\n\n The nature of single acts of Christian worship will be evident from\n what we have remarked respecting its essence generally. As the\n elevation of the spirit and heart of the united Church of God was the\n end of the whole, so instruction and edification by uniting in the\n common contemplation of the divine Word, constituted, from the first,\n a principal part of Christian worship. The mode in which this was done\n might, like the form of the church constitution, be closely connected\n with the arrangement of the assemblies of the Jewish communities in\n the synagogues. As in the synagogue assemblies of the Jews the reading\n of portions from the Old Testament formed the basis of religious\n instruction, so the same practice passed over into the Christian\n assemblies. The Old Testament was read first, particularly the\n prophetic parts of it, as referring to the Messiah; next, the gospels,\n and finally the apostolic epistles. The reading of the Scriptures was\n of the greater consequence, since it was desired to make every\n Christian familiar with them. (History of the Christian Church, Vol.\n 1, Page 412.)\n\n\n THE FELLOWSHIP\n\nThe leading idea of this term is that of joint participation. We have\nfellowship with God because we are made partakers of the divine nature,\nas we escape the corruption that is in the world through lust. We have\nfellowship with Jesus Christ because of the common sympathies which his\nlife and sufferings have established between himself and us. To be in\nfellowship with him means to take part in his poverty and want, to share\nin his sorrows, his sufferings and self-denial in this world, as well as\nto partake of the joys and hopes, the consolations and blessedness of\nthis world, and the hopes and glories of the world to come. We have\nfellowship with one another because of the mutual participation in each\nother's affections, joys, sorrows and needs. The word as here used\nincludes the contribution which was regularly made on the first day of\nevery week. Paul says: \"Upon the first day of the week let each one of\nyou lay by him in store as he may prosper\" (I Cor. 16:2). The small\noffering of the poor was as much demanded as the greater ones of the\nrich, and just as acceptable. The regulation governing this was: \"For if\nthe readiness is there, it is acceptable according as a man hath, not\naccording as he hath not\" (II Cor. 8:12). God never valued the offerings\nbrought to him by their intrinsic value, but by the sacrifice made by\nthe one making the offering. It was also required that the worshiper\nshould be liberal and cheerful in giving. \"He that soweth sparingly\nshall reap also sparingly; and he that soweth bountifully shall reap\nalso bountifully. Let each man do as he hath purposed in his heart; not\ngrudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver\" (II Cor.\n9:6, 7). This shows that a cheerful, bountiful offering to God is but a\nreasonable measure of liberality. God expected this of every worshiper.\n\n\n BREAKING BREAD\n\nThat the churches in apostolic times met on the first day of every week\nto partake of the Lord's Supper, is well at tested by both inspired and\nuninspired writers. It is plainly stated that the disciples at Troas\ngathered together to break bread; and what one church did by the\nauthority of the Lord, as a part of his instituted worship, they all\ndid. That they met for this purpose is not to be inferred, for Luke\nsays: \"And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered\ntogether to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart\non the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight\" (Acts 20:7).\nFrom the way this meeting is mentioned two things are quite obvious: (1)\nThat it was an established custom for the disciples to meet on the first\nday of the week; and (2) that the primary object of this meeting was to\nbreak bread.\n\nAll Biblical scholars and church historians, without regard to\ndenomination, generally concede that the apostolic church observed the\nLord's Supper on the first day of every week. Out of the many proofs\nthat might be given of this I will give the testimony of only one.\nMosheim says:\n\n The first of all the Christian churches founded by the apostles was\n that of Jerusalem; and after the form and model of this, all the\n others of that age were constituted. That Church, however, was\n governed immediately by the apostles, to whom the presbyters and the\n deacons, or overseers of the poor, were subject. Though the people had\n not withdrawn themselves from the Jewish worship, yet they held their\n own separate meetings, in which they were instructed by the apostles\n and presbyters, offered up their united prayers, celebrated the sacred\n supper, the memorial of Jesus Christ, of his death, and the salvation\n he procured.... The Christians of this century assembled for the\n worship of God and for their advancement in piety on the first day of\n the week, the day on which Christ reassumed his life; for that this\n day was set apart for religious worship by the apostles themselves,\n and that, after the example of the Church of Jerusalem, it was\n generally observed we have unexceptional testimony. (Ecclesiastical\n History, Vol. I, page 46, 85.)\n\nThis testimony is confirmed by the pagan Pliny in his well-known letter\nto Trajan (about A. D. 100), written while he presided over Pontus and\nBithynia. He says:\n\n The Christians affirm the whole of their guilt or error to be that\n they were accustomed to meet together on a stated day, before it was\n light, and to sing hymns to Christ as a god, and to bind themselves by\n a sacrimentum, not for any wicked purpose, but never to commit fraud,\n theft, or adultery; never to break their word or to refuse, when\n called upon, to deliver up any trust; after which it was their custom\n to separate, and to assemble again to take a meal, but a general one,\n and without guilty purpose. (Epistle X, 97.)\n\n\n PRAYERS\n\nSimplicity characterized everything in the primitive worship.\nConsequently the prayers of the first Christians were of the most simple\nand artless character. They regarded prayer as a quickening spirit,\ndrawing forth the inward inspirations of the soul after God, and\naccompanied every important act of their public and private life with\nthis holy privilege, and Paul exhorts his readers to \"pray without\nceasing.\" On this subject Lyman Coleman says:\n\n The prayers of the Church were offered in language the most artless\n and natural. Even the most learned of the apologists and early\n fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of\n Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius, who\n were no strangers to the graces of diction, refused all ornamental\n embellishments in their addresses to the throne of grace, alleging\n that the kingdom of heaven consists not in words, but in power. Their\n prayers were accordingly offered in the greatest simplicity, and as\n far as possible in the phraseology of Scripture. This artlessness and\n elegant simplicity appears in striking contrast with the ostentation\n and bombast of a later date. This contrast appears equally great also\n in the brevity of these prayers. It was a maxim of the primitive\n Church that many words should never be employed to express what might\n be better said in a few. (Ibid, page 316.)\n\n\n SINGING\n\nTheir singing was a real heartfelt service. The Holy Spirit said: \"And\nbe not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the\nSpirit; speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,\nsinging and making melody with your hearts to the Lord\" (Eph. 5:18, 19).\nAnd again, \"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom\nteaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual\nsongs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God\" (Col. 3:16). In this\ndelightful service the whole congregation doubtless took part. It has\nbeen contended, recently, that the singing of the first churches was not\ncongregational, and therefore our congregational singing is as\nunscriptural and unauthorized as any musical performance in the worship.\nThe testimony of history is against this statement. On this subject\nPhilip Schaff says:\n\n The song, a form of prayer, in the festive dress of pietry and the\n elevated language of inspiration, raising the congregation to the\n highest pitch of devotion, and giving it a part in the heavenly\n harmonies of the saints. This passed immediately, with psalms of the\n Old Testament, those inexhaustible treasures of spiritual experience,\n edification and comfort, from the temple and the synagogue into the\n Christian Church. The Lord himself inaugurated psalmody into the new\n covenant at the institution of the holy Supper, and Paul expressly\n enjoined the singing of \"psalms and hymns and spiritual songs\" as a\n means of social edification. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. I,\n page 463.)\n\nTo the same effect testifies Lyman Coleman:\n\n The prevailing mode of singing during the first three centuries was\n congregational. The whole congregation united their voices in the\n sacred song of praise, in strains suited to their ability. Their\n music, if such it could be called, was, of necessity, crude and\n simple. Indeed, it appears to have been a kind of recitative or chant.\n The charm of their sacred music was not in the harmony of sweet\n sounds, but in the melody of the heart.... But, however this may be,\n the most ancient and most common mode of singing was confessedly for\n the whole assembly; men, women and children blend their voices in\n their songs of praise in the great congregation. Such is the testimony\n of Hillary, of Augustin and Chrysostom. \"Formerly all came together\n and united in their song, as is still our custom.\" \"Men and women, the\n aged and the young, were distinguished only by their skill in singing,\n for the spirit which led the voice of each one blended all in one\n harmonious melody.\" (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, pages 329,\n 330.)\n\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n POLITY\n\nBy the term polity I mean the organic structure and government of the\nChurch. Nothing is more obvious from the New Testament record than the\nsimplicity which characterized its primitive organization. In this\nparticular Christianity was in marked contrast with Judaism. With\ntemple, tabernacle or altars; without priests or Levites, and almost\nwithout ceremonies, it made known at once its character and purpose as\nspiritual and not carnal, as, in fact, a kingdom of God \"not of this\nworld.\" Its only authority was\n\n\n THE WORD OF GOD\n\nWe have already seen that the only creed of the primitive Church was the\ncentral truth of God's revelation to man--\"Thou art the Christ, the Son\nof the living God.\" The whole New Testament is but an expansion of this\nthought. The early Christians, in confessing their faith in Christ,\naccepted the whole revelation of God based upon it as their absolute and\nonly authority. The teaching of inspired men was to them what the New\nTestament is to us, till their teaching was recorded and the necessity\nfor oral inspiration ceased.\n\nThe all-sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures is thus expressed by the\ninspired apostle: \"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable\nfor teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in\nrighteousness: for the man of God may be complete, furnished completely\nunto every good work\" (II Tim. 3:16, 17). This most evidently refers to\nthe Old Testament as a whole--the book that Timothy had known from his\nchildhood. The teaching of Jesus and the apostles in connection with the\nexamples, the teachings, the warnings of the Old Testament Scriptures,\nare sufficient to thoroughly furnish the man of God with instruction\nnecessary to carrying out all the requirements of God in every\nrelationship of life. Paul's confidence in the sufficiency of the Word\nof God is also expressed in these words: \"And now I commend you to God,\nand to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give\nthe inheritance among them that are sanctified\" (Acts 20:32). In the\nLord's prayer, just before his arrest and tragic death, he said:\n\"Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth\" (John 17:17).\n\nFrom what is here stated it is evident that the early Christians were\nfully convinced that the Word of God in the work of redemption was\nall-sufficient for the accomplishment of the following things: (1)\nTeaching. (2) Reproof--conviction of sin. (3) Correction--for setting\nmen upright. (4) Instruction in righteousness. (5) Build men up. (6)\nSanctification. (7) Give an inheritance. (8) And perfection in good\nworks.\n\nSince the Bible furnishes all this, it would be difficult to conceive\nany want it does not supply. It leaves no room for a human creed, nor\nany other authority in matters of faith. Hence it is a fact, conceded by\nall Biblical students, that the apostolic Church accepted the Word of\nGod as its absolute and only authority in all religious affairs.\n\n\n NAMES\n\nThose who became followers of Christ in the early days of Christianity\nwere designated by several names, all of which were significant. They\nwere called \"saints\" because they had been set apart to the service of\nGod; \"brethren,\" because of their relation as members of a common\nfamily; \"elect\" because they were chosen of God in Christ by the Gospel;\n\"children of God,\" because of their relation to him as a common Father;\n\"believers,\" because of their devotion to Christ and of their faith in\nhim; \"disciples,\" because they were learners in the school of their\nMaster; \"Christians,\" because they were followers of Christ and citizens\nof his kingdom. It was natural, therefore, that the last name should\nsoon become the most prominent and be freely used by the friend and foe\nin times of persecution. Peter says: \"If a man suffer as a Christian,\nlet him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name\" (I Peter\n4:16). It was the name that united believers in the government of\nChrist, and was the most comprehensive of all the names of those given\nto those who composed the body of Christ. To be called a Christian\ncarried with it all the honors implied in all the other names. All these\nnames were worn by divine authority, and were evidently given by\ninspiration.\n\n\n CONGREGATIONAL INDEPENDENCE\n\nEach congregation was independent of all others in its government. They\nsustained a fraternal relation to each other as parts of the body of\nChrist, but no one was under the ecclesiastical authority of another.\nThere is no ecclesiastical authority recognized in the New Testament\nexcept that of a single congregation, and that only when acting strictly\nin obedience to the will of Christ. From such a decision there is no\ncourt of appeal. On this point I submit the testimony of a few\ndistinguished men, who, while they stood identified with an\neccleciasticism ruling the individual congregation, admit that no such\nthing was known to the New Testament. Mosheim says:\n\n All the churches, in those primitive times, were independent bodies;\n or none of them subject to the jurisdiction of any other. For though\n the churches which were founded by the apostles themselves frequently\n had the honor shown them to be consulted in difficult and doubtful\n cases, yet they had no judicial authority, no control, no power of\n giving laws. On the contrary, it is as clear as the noon-day, that all\n Christian churches had equal rights, and were in all respects on a\n footing of equality. Nor does there appear in this first century any\n vestige of that consociation of the churches of the same provinces,\n which gave rise to ecclesiastical councils, and to metropolitans. But,\n rather as is manifest, it was not till the second century that the\n custom of holding ecclesiastical councils first began in Greece, and\n thence extended into other provinces. (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 1,\n page 72.)\n\nConcerning the churches of the second century, Mosheim says:\n\n During a great part of this century, all churches continued to be as\n at first, independent of each other, or were connected by no\n consociation or confederation. Each church was a kind of small\n independent republic, governing itself by its own laws, enacted or at\n least sanctioned by the people. But in the process of time it became\n customary for all the Christian churches within the same province to\n unite and form a sort of larger society or commonwealth; and in the\n manner of confederated republics, to hold their conventions at stated\n times, and there deliberate for the common advantage of the whole\n confederation. (Ibid, page 116.)\n\nOf the independence of the apostolic churches, Prof. Lyman Coleman says:\n\n These churches, whenever formed, became separate and independent\n bodies, competent to appoint their own officers, and to administer\n their own government without reference to subordination to any central\n authority or foreign power. No fact connected with the history of\n these primitive churches is more fully established or more generally\n conceded, so that the discussion of it need not be renewed at this\n place. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, page 95.)\n\nFrom this we learn: (1) That during the first century and the early part\nof the second the churches were independent; and (2) that so soon as\nthey confederated for the common interest their independency was\ndestroyed and a tyrannical ecclesiasticism established. Much more might\nbe given to establish the face of the congregational independence of the\napostolic churches, but as that is so well established and so generally\nadmitted, it does not seem necessary.\n\n\n ELDERS\n\nIn every fully-developed church in apostolic times there was a plurality\nof elders or bishops. Luke says: \"And from Miletus he [Paul] sent to\nEphesus, and called to him the elders of the church. And when they were\ncome to him he said unto them, ... Take heed unto yourselves, and to all\nthe flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the\nchurch of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood\" (Acts\n20:17-28). From this we not only learn that there was a plurality of\nelders at Ephesus, but they were also called bishops, which clearly\nproves that the terms \"elder\" and \"bishop\" are used synonymously. Of\nPaul and Barnabas it is said: \"And when they had preached the gospel to\nthat city [Derbe], and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra,\nand to Iconium, and to Antioch, confirming the souls of the\ndisciples.... And when they had appointed for them elders in every\nchurch, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on\nwhom they had believed\" (Acts 14:21-23). From this we learn that\n_elders_ were appointed _in every church_. That there were a plurality\nof elders in every fully-developed church is abundantly proved by\nhistorical testimony.\n\nThe eldership is the most sacred trust of God to his church. God is the\nlegislator, the only lawmaker of his people. His authority is absolute,\nhis power omnipotent. To the elders is committed the work of teaching\nand enforcing the laws of God and of guarding them against all\nperversion or corruption by adding to or taking from, or by bringing in\nthe customs, traditions, or doctrines of men. No elder can be faithful\nto God without holding to the faithful word which is according to the\nteaching, that he may be able to \"exhort in sound doctrine, and to\nconvict the gainsayers\" (Titus 1:9). The Holy Spirit through Peter\ncharges them to \"tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising\nthe oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will\nof God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as\nlording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves\nensamples to the flock\" (I Peter 5:2-4). Their office is to feed the\nflock on \"the Spiritual milk which is without guile that they may grow\nthereby unto salvation.\" (See I Peter 2:2.) They are the guardians of\nGod's heritage, to keep it from being led away from him.\n\nThey are to make no rules of their own, as though they are the lords or\nrulers over God's house. They have no authority save to enforce the law\nof God, and so set an example of fidelity to God to be followed by the\nchurch. If elders conscientiously confine themselves to the law of God,\nthey can give account with joy; otherwise with grief. The spirit in\nwhich this is to be done is given by Paul in his charge to the elders at\nEphesus: \"Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the\nHoly Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which\nhe purchased with his own blood. I know that after my departing grievous\nwolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your\nown selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away\ndisciples after them. Wherefore watch ye, remembering that by the space\nof three years I ceased not to admonish every one night and day with\ntears, and now I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which\nis able to build you up, and give you the inheritance among all them\nthat are sanctified\" (Acts 20:28-32). This exhortation was given to\nguide the elders in their work. A fundamental and all-pervading\nprinciple of this counsel is that nothing is to be taught or practiced\nof the precepts of man. The elders are to guard and preserve the purity\nof God's word, the faith and peace of the church and so promote the\nsalvation of man.\n\nTheir labors were confined to the congregation in which they held their\nmembership, and to which they were responsible for their conduct.\n\n\n DEACONS\n\nThere were also a plurality of deacons in every full-developed\ncongregation. Luke tells us (Acts 6:3) that the Church in Jerusalem\nselected seven deacons. It is true that they are not here called\ndeacons, but the work to which they were called corresponds to that of\nthe deacons as described by Paul in his letter to Timothy. The work of\nboth is expressed by the same word in the Greek. Paul addressed a letter\n\"to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the\nbishops and deacons.\" Hence there were a plurality in the Church at\nPhilippi. This being true, and Jerusalem being the Church after which\nthe others were modeled, I conclude that what was true of these churches\nwas true of all the others.\n\n\n EVANGELISTS\n\nIn the New Testament Church there was a class of laborers called\nevangelists. Their work differed very materially from that of the elders\nand deacons. Philip, who was one of the seven that were appointed\ndeacons in the Church at Jerusalem, is the first evangelist of which we\nhave any account. He \"went down to the city of Samaria, and proclaimed\nunto them the Christ. And the multitude gave heed with one accord unto\nthe things that were spoken by Philip when they heard and saw the signs\nwhich he did.... [And] when they believed Philip preaching good tidings\nconcerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were\nbaptized, both men and women\" (Acts 8:5-12). Thence he went, in\nobedience to the instruction of the angel, \"unto the way that goeth down\nfrom Jerusalem unto Gaza,\" where he met \"a man of Ethiopia,\" and\n\"preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto\na certain water; and the eunuch said, Behold here is water; what doth\nhinder me to be baptized?... And they both went down into the water,\nboth Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.\" From this we learn\nthat a deacon may soon develop into an evangelist.\n\nTimothy was exhorted to do the work of an evangelist; hence it is\nlegitimate to infer that he was one. From the letters to Timothy and\nTitus it appears that the general work of an evangelist was to preach\nthe Gospel in other fields than the congregation in which he held his\nmembership, establish churches and take care of them, appoint elders and\ndeacons when such work was appropriate, and to labor for such\ncongregations as needed assistance, whether with or without an\neldership.\n\n\n\n\n PART II\n The Falling Away\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n THE FALLING AWAY PREDICTED\n\nThe Saviour, when about to leave his apostles, prayed the Father, that\nas he till then had kept them, so they might be kept when he was no\nlonger personally with them, adding: \"I pray not that thou shouldst take\nthem from the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one\"\n(John 17:15). And his prayer was answered, for though Jew and Gentile\nsought their death, yet they were preserved until the church stood forth\nin the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ--till the\nperfect had come. And what a perfection it was! Perfect unfolding of the\nlove of God, so far as that can be comprehended in this life; perfect\nexhibition of the plan of salvation; perfect deliverance of the faith;\nperfected canon of Scripture; perfected church policy; perfected hope,\nblooming with immortality. The last of the apostles were preserved to\nthe church till the entire apostolic work was done. The perfect had thus\ncome, and apostles were no more needed, and have no more been had.\n\nBut notwithstanding perfection so varied, the world is not yet brought\nto the Saviour. This would surprise us did we not know that departure\nfrom the faith and order has been as complete and widespread as could\nbe. This sad condition, however, did not come unawares upon the church,\nfor our Saviour himself, and his apostles, foretold the apostasy, and so\nminutely that its very existence stands out that prophets and apostles\n\"spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.\"\n\nIn the Sermon on the Mount we have this solemn note of warning: \"Beware\nof false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly\nthey are ravening wolves.... By their fruits ye shall know them\" (Matt.\n7:15-20). These false prophets were men who would tear and rend the\nsheep to satisfy their own greed; coming not only as enemies, but \"in\nsheep's clothing,\" arising from among the flock.\n\nOn careful examination it will be found that the apostles never taught\nthe disciples to look for an unbroken triumph of Christianity. Paul\ngives warning to the Ephesian elders concerning grievous wolves who\nwould not spare the flock in the following words: \"Take heed unto\nyourselves, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his\nown blood. I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in\namong you, not sparing the flock; and from your own selves shall men\narise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them\"\n(Acts 20:28-30). These grievous, tearing wolves were to arise, not only\nin the church, but from among the elders. They would care for the\nfleece, not for the flock; speaking perverse things to draw away from\nthe truth of God. Paul's epistles repeat the warning to the Ephesian\nelders in various and awful forms. He wrote his second letter to the\nchurch in Thessalonica for the express purpose of guarding the church\nagainst the expected return of the Lord before the \"falling away\" in the\nchurch, \"and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, he that\nopposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is\nworshiped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God setting himself forth\nas God\" (II Thess. 2:3, 4). In this it is clearly set forth that a\nprinciple was at work in the church that would work out developments and\norganizations that would set aside the authority of God. The place or\nprerogative of God is to sit as lawmaker, to make laws for his kingdom\nand his people, and whoever or whatever proposes to legislate, make,\nrepeal or modify the laws of God, add to or take from what God has said,\nis the man of sin, the son of perdition. Organizations in the church or\nover the church to do the work that God has committed to individual\nChristians and the churches are the works of the man of sin.\n\nConcerning false apostles Paul gave this warning: \"For such men are\nfalse apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles\nof Christ. And no marvel; for even Satan fashioneth himself into an\nangel of light\" (II Cor. 11:12, 14). It was no wonder that false\nprophets and apostate elders were transforming themselves into apostles\nof Christ when their master was setting them the example. All who sought\nto turn people from God's appointments were ministers of Satan, even\nthough they thought they were serving God. The end of all such shall\ncorrespond to their works. From this we learn a needful warning in our\nday, that a man calling himself an apostle, or the successor of the\napostles, is no security that Satan is not his prompter. No wonder,\nthen, the apostasy came soon and lasts long.\n\nIn the following the apostle again plainly foretells the apostasy: \"But\nthe Spirit expressly saith that in latter times some shall fall away\nfrom the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons,\nthrough the hypocrisy of men that speak lies\" (II Tim. 4:1, 2). Every\none that teaches that man can in any manner set aside the law and\nappointments of God, or substitute man's devices for the order of God,\nis a seducing spirit that turns man from the truth. Seducing spirits\ncarry on their evil work through men who speak lies in hypocrisy.\n\nAgain the apostle brings up the awful subject: \"But know this, that in\nthe last days grievous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of\nself, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to\nparents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, implacable,\nslanderous, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors,\nhead-strong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God;\nholding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof: from\nthese also turn away\" (II Tim. 3:1-5). The condition here depicted was\nas certain as important. Timothy was to have no doubt about it, and he\nwas to be continually calling it to mind. The men of the last times were\nto be \"lovers of self\" and avaricious. Men had always been so in all\nages; but the characteristic of the men in question was that they were\nto be \"holding a form of godliness,\" but denying the power thereof.\n\nBut Paul is not the only one who confirms the prediction of the Lord.\nThe whole body of the apostles are at one on this point. James says:\n\"Whence come wars and whence comes fightings among you? come they not\nhence, even of your pleasures that war in your members? Ye lust, and\nhave not; ye kill, and covet, and can not obtain: ye fight and war; ye\nhave not, because ye ask not. Ye ask and receive not, because ye ask\namiss, that ye may spend it on your pleasures\" (James 4:1-3). The\nwolfish work had already begun; but it was little compared with what was\nto follow, when the proud, money-loving priest would find emperors and\nkings to arm in his quarrel. Peter, too, writes: \"But there arose false\nprophets among the people, as among you also there shall be false\nteachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even\nthe Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.\nAnd many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way\nof the truth shall be evil spoken of\" (II Peter 2:1, 2).\n\nJude also gives warning against the apostates predicted by Christ, and\nPaul, and Peter, and denounced by James. He says: \"For there are certain\nmen crept in privily, even who were of old written of beforehand unto\nthis condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of God into\nlasciviousness, and denying our only Master, Jesus Christ\" (Jude 4). The\nself-styled vicar of Christ, with all his horde of dignitaries, and all\nthe multitude of corruptions in other sectarian bodies, are sure that\nthis can have no reference to them, because they have never denied\nChrist; but on the other hand have filled the world with their various\ncreeds and confessions of faith. But it deserves consideration, whether\nworks are not always more weighty than words. \"Lord, Lord,\" is loathsome\nto him in the mouths of the \"workers of iniquity\"; and Paul expressly\ndeclares that some \"profess that they know God; but by their works they\ndeny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work\nreprobate\" (Titus 1:16).\n\nComing down to John, the last of the apostles, and, in point of time,\nnearest to the apostasy, we read: \"Little children, it is the last hour;\nand as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there risen many\nantichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour. They went out\nfrom us, but they are not of us; for if they had been of us, they would\nhave continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made\nmanifest that they are not of us\" (I John 2:18, 19). These antichrists\nwere not open enemies, but wolves in the garb of sheep. Then we read:\n\"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they\nare of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world\" (I\nJohn 4:1). Not into the world as openly declaring their departure from\nthe faith, but as destroyers thereof by false doctrine, while professing\nto be servants of Christ. Further: \"For many deceivers are gone forth\ninto the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in\nthe flesh.\" This is the deceiver and the antichrist. They went forth\ninto the world professedly as preachers of the Gospel of Christ, yet\ndenying his true character. Again: \"I wrote somewhat unto the church:\nbut Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them,\nreceiveth us not. Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his\nworks which he doeth, prating against us with wicked words: and not\ncontent therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and\nthem that would he forbiddeth and casteth them out of the church\" (III\nJohn 9,10). Thus this bloated wolf had acquired such power in the church\nas to exclude those who held the truth as taught by the apostles. In the\nlast message that God ever made to man, he said: \"To the angel of the\nchurch in Ephesus write: These things saith he that holdeth the seven\nstars in his right hand, he that walketh in the midst of seven golden\ncandlesticks: I know thy works, and thy toil and patience, and that thou\ncanst not bear evil men, and didst try them that call themselves\napostles, and they are not, and didst not find them false\" (Rev. 2:1,\n2). Thus it appears that what Paul informed the elders of the church at\nEphesus he knew would come to pass after his leaving them. The wolves in\nthat case claimed to be the accepted apostles of Christ, but were found\nliars.\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n THE FALLING AWAY\n\nThe origin of the Roman hierarchial system is obscured in pious frauds;\nbut it is certain that it arose gradually. As we have already learned,\nthe apostolic churches had a plurality of elders or bishops. At the\nfirst the elders of any particular congregation would select one of\ntheir number to preside at their meetings for the transaction of\nbusiness, and in the course of time he came to be known as \"The Bishop.\"\nLittle by little he came to feel his importance till he was exalted\nabove his fellow elders. This the presbyters would not concede.\nDivisions arose out of these troubles, and the authority of the bishops,\nclosely united among themselves, came victorious over the presbyters,\nwho opposed them singlehanded. The power and authority of these bishops\nwere regulated by the prominence of the cities in which they presided.\nAs Rome was the chief city of the world at that time, the bishops of\ncities of less importance regarded it an honor to themselves to concede\nto the bishop of Rome the pre-eminence in all things; and so he extended\nhis authority from time to time, till almost the whole world bowed to\nhis authority.\n\nThe changes which produced this condition are strikingly expressed by\nLyman Coleman. He says:\n\n 1. In the college of equal and co-ordinate presbyters, some one would\n naturally act as moderator or presiding officer; age, talent,\n influence, or ordination by the apostles, might give one an accidental\n superiority over his fellows, and appropriate to him the standing\n office of president of the presbytery. To this office the title of\n bishop was assigned; and with the office and the title began to be\n associated the authority of a distinct order. Jerome alleges that the\n standing office and authority of a bishop were a necessary expedient\n to still the cravings and strife for preferment which by the\n instigation of Satan, arose in process of time among the presbyters.\n Whatever may have been the cause, a distinction began to be made, in\n the course of the second century, between bishops and presbyters,\n which finally resulted, in the century following, in the establishment\n of the episcopal prerogatives.\n\n 2. Without reference to the causes which occasioned the distinction\n between the clergy and the laity, this is worthy of notice as another\n important change in the constitution of the Church, which gradually\n arose in connection with the rise of episcopal power. In opposition to\n the idea of universal priesthood, the people now became a distinct and\n inferior order. They and the clergy begin to feel the force of\n conflicting interests and claims, the distinction widens fast, and\n influence, authority and power centralize in the bishop, the head of\n the clerical order.\n\n 3. The clergy claim for themselves the prerogatives, relations and\n authority of the Jewish priesthood. Such claims, advanced in the third\n century by Cyprian, were a great departure from the original spirit\n and model of the Church derived from Christ and the apostles. It was\n falling back from the New to the Old Testament, and substituting the\n outward for the inward spirit. It presented the priesthood again as a\n mediating office between man and his God. It sought to invest the\n propitiating priest with awful sanctity, as the appointed medium by\n which grace is imparted to man. Hence the necessity of episcopal\n ordination, the apostolical succession, and the grace of the\n ordinances administered by consecrated hands. The clergy, by this\n assumption, were made independent of the people; their commission and\n office were from God; and, as a Mosaic priesthood, they soon began to\n claim an independent sovereignty over the laity. \"God makes the\n priests\" was the darling maxim of Cyprian, perpetually recurring in\n identical and varied phraseology. No change, perhaps, in the whole\n history of the changing forms of church government can be specified\n more destructive to the primitive constitution of the Church, or more\n disastrous to its spiritual interests. \"This entire perversion of the\n original view of the Christian Church,\" says Neander, \"was itself the\n origin of the whole system of the Roman Catholic religion--the germ\n from which sprang the popery of the Dark Ages.\"\n\n 4. Few and simple were the offices instituted in the Church by the\n apostles; but after the rise of episcopacy, ecclesiastical offices\n were multiplied with great rapidity. They arose, as may appear in the\n progress of this work, from different causes and at different times;\n many were the necessary results of changes in the Church and in\n society; but, generally, they will be found to have, as their ultimate\n effect and end, the aggrandizement of the episcopate. They are an\n integral, if not an essential, part of the ceremonial, the pomp and\n power of an outward religion, that carnal perversion of the true idea\n of the Christian Church, and the legitimate consequence of beginning\n in the spirit and seeking to be made perfect in the flesh. (Ancient\n Christianity Exemplified, pages 97-99.)\n\nThis testimony is confirmed by Neander, who says:\n\n The changes which the constitution of the Christian Church underwent\n during this period related especially to the following particulars:\n (1) The distinction of bishops from presbyters, and the gradual\n development of the monarchico-episcopal church government; (2) The\n distinction of the clergy from the laity, and the formation of a\n sacerdotal caste, as opposed to the evangelical idea of the\n priesthood; (3) The multiplication of church offices. (Church History,\n Vol. I, page 259.)\n\nSince it has been shown that episcopacy was the outgrowth of a wicked\nambition for leadership and power that culminated in the papacy, I deem\nit important to give ample proof, since it is yet very popular in many\nof the denominations of this day. I now invite attention to the\ntestimony of Mosheim. He says:\n\n 1. The form of church government which began to exist in the preceding\n century was in this century more industriously established and\n confirmed in all its parts. One president, or bishop, presided over\n each church. He was created by the common suffrage of the whole\n people. With presbyters for his council, whose number was not fixed,\n it was his business to watch over the interest of the whole Church,\n and to assign to each presbyter his station. Subject to the bishop and\n also to the presbyters were the servants or deacons, who were divided\n into certain classes, because all the duties which the interests of\n the Church required could not well be attended to by them all.\n\n 2. During a great portion of this century [second] all the churches\n continued to be, as at first, independent of each other, or were\n connected by no consociations or confederations. Each church was a\n kind of small, independent republic, governing itself by its own laws,\n enacted or at least sanctioned by the people. But in the process of\n time it became customary for all the Christian churches within the\n same province to unite and form a sort of larger society or\n commonwealth; and in the manner of confederated republics, to hold\n their conventions at stated times, and there deliberate for the common\n advantage of the whole confederation. This custom first arose among\n the Greeks, with whom a political confederation of cities, and the\n consequent convention of their several delegates, had been long known;\n but afterward, the utility of the thing being seen, the custom\n extended through all the countries where there were Christian\n churches. Such conventions of delegates from several churches\n assembled for deliberation were called by the Greeks synods and by the\n Latins councils; and the laws agreed upon in them were called canons,\n that is, rules.\n\n 3. These councils--of which no vestige appears before the middle of\n this century--changed nearly the whole form of the Church. For by\n them, in the first place, the ancient rights and privileges of the\n people were very much abridged; and, on the other hand, the influence\n and the authority of the bishops were not a little augmented. At first\n the bishops did not deny that they were merely the representatives of\n their churches, and that they acted in the name of the people; but\n little by little they made high pretensions, and maintained that power\n was given them by Christ himself to dictate rules of faith and conduct\n to the people. In the next place, the perfect equality and parity of\n all bishops, which existed in the early times, these councils\n gradually subverted. For it was necessary that one of the confederated\n bishops of a province should in those conventions be intrusted with\n some authority and power over the others; and hence originated the\n prerogatives of metropolitans. And lastly, when the custom of holding\n these councils had extended over the Christian world and the universal\n Church had acquired the form of a vast republic composed of many\n lesser ones, certain head men were to be placed over it in different\n parts of the world as central points in their respective countries.\n Hence came the Patriarchs, and ultimately the Prince of Patriarchs,\n the Roman Pontiff. (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I, pages 116, 117.)\n\nConcerning this, I note the following facts:\n\n1. That in the second century they digressed so far from apostolic\npractice as to have one bishop over each church, and that he had his\nelders under his control. He was the pastor of that church.\n\n2. That there was a confederation of churches into councils.\n\n3. These councils began to be held about the middle of the second\ncentury, and resulted in augmenting the power of the bishops and\ndiminishing the privileges of the people. This power on the part of the\nclergy was not assumed all at once, but gradually assumed as the people\nwould bear it. These councils soon began to enact laws, and claimed\nauthority from Christ to thus dictate to the people.\n\n4. That when the custom of holding these councils had extended over the\nChristian world, and the Church had acquired the form of a vast republic\ncomposed of many lesser ones, certain head men were placed over it in\ndifferent parts of the world; hence came the patriarchs, and ultimately\na prince of patriarchs, the Roman pontiff.\n\nFor centuries the struggle between the Church of Rome and the State\nraged furiously, so that when we reach the age of Hildebrand (A.D.\n1073-1085) we find plots and counterplots the order of the day. It was\nthe height of his ambition to subordinate the State to the Church, and\nsubject the Church to the absolute authority of the Pope. The course\npursued by Hildebrand and by aspiring pontiffs who succeeded him\nresulted in an open conflict between the papacy and the empire. In the\npersistent contest which followed the papacy gained a decided advantage.\nThat the emperor was commissioned to preside over the temporal affairs\nof men, while it was left for the pope to guide and govern them in\nspiritual things, was a rule too vague for defining the limits of\nspiritual and temporal jurisdiction. The co-ordination, the equilibrium\nof the two powers was a relation with which neither party would be\ncontent. It was a struggle on both sides for universal monarchy. The\npopes, by strategy and shrewd diplomacy, gained complete supremacy over\nWestern Europe, and for many years the pope was everywhere acknowledged\nhead of the Latin Church.\n\n\"It was during the progress of the struggle with the empire,\" says\nProfessor Fisher, \"that the papal power may be said to have culminated.\nIn the eighteen years (1198-1216) in which Innocent III reigned the\npapal institution shone forth in full splendor. The enforcement of\ncelibacy had placed the entire body of the clergy in closer relation to\nthe sovereign pontiff. The vicar of Peter had become the vicar of God\nand of Christ. The idea of a theocracy on earth, in which the pope\nshould rule in this character, fully possessed the mind of Innocent, who\nunited to the courage, pertinacity and lofty conceptions of Gregory VII\na broader range of statesmanlike capacity. In his view the two swords of\ntemporal and ecclesiastical power had both been given to Peter and to\nhis successors, so that the earthly sovereign derived his prerogative\nfrom the head of the Church. The king was to the pope as the moon to the\nsun; a lower luminary shining with borrowed light. Acting on this\ntheory, he assumed the post of arbiter in the contention of nations, and\nclaimed the right to dethrone kings at his pleasure.\" In the Church he\nassumed the character of universal bishop, under the theory that all\nepiscopal power was originally deposited in Peter and his successors,\nand communicated through this source to bishops, who were thus only the\nvicars of the pope, and might be deposed at will. Being thus lifted up,\nhe said: \"Jesus Christ wills that the kingdom should be priestly, and\nthe priesthood kingly. Over all he has set me as his vicar upon earth,\nso that as before Jesus 'every knee shall bow,' in like manner to his\nvicar all shall be obedient, and there shall be one fold and one\nshepherd.\" Moreover, he applied to himself the words of Jesus, \"All\nauthority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.\" And again, we\nhear one of them say: \"For every human creature it is a condition of\nsalvation to submit to the Roman pontiff.\" Not only did they assert the\nnecessity of obedience to the pope, but they actually claimed the power\nto forgive sins and to bestow eternal life. This is a striking\nfulfillment of what Paul said to the Thessalonians: \"He opposeth and\nexalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so\nthat he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God\" (II\nThess. 2:4).\n\nThe corruption of the government of the Church naturally led to the\ncorruption of everything connected with Christianity. A departure from\nthe divine government in one thing opens the way for other departures.\nSuch a course will soon cause men to lose sight of the Lord's directions\nand cause them to follow the doctrines and commandments of men.\nProminent among the early departures from the divine order was the\nsubstitution of infant baptism for that of believers. This practice\noriginated in the third century, and grew out of the doctrine of\noriginal sin. It was contended that baptism was regeneration in the\nsense of washing away original sin; that infants were depraved by\noriginal sin, and could not be saved without this washing away of that\nsin, and therefore they baptized infants that they might be saved. On\nthis point Neander testifies:\n\n But when now, on the one hand, the doctrine of corruption and guilt,\n cleaving to human nature in consequence of the first transgression,\n was reduced to a more precise and systematic form, and, on the other\n from duly distinguishing between what is outward and what inward in\n baptism (the baptism by water and the baptism by the Spirit), the\n error became more firmly established that without external baptism no\n one could be delivered from that inherent guilt, or could be saved\n from the everlasting punishment that threatened him, or raised to\n eternal life; and when the notion of a magical influence, a charm\n connected with the sacraments, continually gained ground, the theory\n was finally evolved of the unconditional necessity of infant baptism.\n About the middle of the third century this theory was already\n generally admitted in the North African Church. (Church History, Vol.\n I, pages 426, 427.)\n\nTo the same import is the testimony of Dr. Philip Schaff. He says:\n\n The practice of infant baptism in the church, with the customary\n formula, \"for the remission of sins,\" and such accompanying ceremonies\n as exorcism, presupposes the dominion of sin and of demoniacal powers\n even in infancy. Since the child, before the awakening of\n self-consciousness, has committed no actual sin, the effect of baptism\n must relate to the forgiveness of original sin and guilt. This was a\n very important point from the beginning of the controversy, and one to\n which Augustine frequently reverted.... Constrained by the idea of\n original sin, and by the supposed necessity of baptism to salvation,\n he does not shrink from consigning unbaptized children to damnation\n itself.... The Catholic doctrine of the necessity of outward baptism\n to regeneration and entrance into the kingdom of God, forbade him a\n more liberal view respecting the endless destiny of that half of the\n human race which die in childhood. (History of the Christian Church,\n Vol. III, pages 835, 836.)\n\nThe departure from the practice of immersion, the original act performed\nin baptism, to affusion, was largely due to the idea of the magical\neffect of water to cleanse the polluted souls of men. It was believed to\ncontain the whole forgiving power of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. On\nthis account many put off baptism till death threatened them, that their\niniquities might be removed as the King of terrors carried them into the\nland of spirits. The first case of the kind on record is that of\nNovatian (A. D. 251), who was \"baptized by affusion in the bed as he\nlay.\" At first this practice caused a schism in the Church, but in the\ncourse of time that which was the exception became the rule. On this\nradical change from apostolic practice the learned Roman Catholic\nbishop, Karl Joseph Hefele, says:\n\n The Church has always been tender toward the sick; she has hastened to\n confer baptism upon them, because it is necessary to salvation; and\n for that reason she introduced clinical baptism. (History of Church\n Councils, page 153.)\n\nThere were no serious controversies about the Lord's Supper until the\nearly part of the ninth century, when one Paschasius Radbert, a monk of\n\"great acuteness of mind,\" wrote a book in which he promulgated the\ndoctrine of transubstantiation. In this book he took the position that\nthe wine in the Lord's Supper is \"the very blood that ran out of the\nSaviour's side upon the cross, and for that reason water is mingled with\nthe eucharistical wine;\" and the bread \"is the very flesh of our Saviour\nwhich was born of the Virgin.\" At first the doctrine was repugnant to\nthe cultivated, but it was broached in a rude age, and the monks favored\nit; the materialistic character of European thought assisted it, and\ngradually it had a host of friends and was prepared to frown down all\nopposition. The controversy, however, continued with fury till A. D.\n1215, when Pope Innocent III assembled a council in Rome, in the Lateran\nChurch, consisting of 412 bishops, in whose hearing he read seventy\ncanons which he had drawn up; among these was the famous canon which\ngave transubstantiation a legal place in the Catholic Church. The\nimportant part of the canon is:\n\n There is one universal church of the faithful, out of which no one at\n all is saved; and in which Jesus Christ himself is at once priest and\n sacrifice; whose body and blood, in the sacrament of the altar, are\n truly constrained under the species of bread and wine, which, through\n the divine power, are transubstantiated, the bread into the body, and\n the wine into the blood; that for the fulfillment of the mystery of\n unity, we may receive of that which he received of ours.\n\nAnother step was taken about 350 years later, when the Council of Trent\ndeclared the host an atoning sacrifice:\n\n And, since in the divine sacrifice which is performed in the mass, the\n same Christ is contained and offered in an unbloody manner, who, on\n the altar of the cross, offered himself, with blood, once for all; the\n holy synod teaches that that sacrifice is, and becomes of itself,\n truly propitiatory, so that if, with a true heart and a right faith,\n with fear and reverence, we approach to God, contrite and penitent, we\n may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. The Lord,\n forsooth, being appeased by the offering of this, and granting grace\n and the gift of repentance, remit crimes and sins, even great ones;\n for it is one and the same host, the same person now offering by the\n ministry of the priests, who when offered himself upon the cross, only\n in a different manner of offering; and by this unbloody sacrifice, the\n fruit of that bloody one are abundantly received; only far be it that\n any dishonor should be done to that by this. Wherefore according to\n the tradition of the apostles, offering is duly made, not only for the\n sins, pains, and satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful\n who are alive, but also for the dead in Christ, who are not yet wholly\n cleansed.\n\nThis same council further declared:\n\n If any one shall deny that in the sacrament of the most holy\n eucharist, there is contained really, truly, and substantially, the\n body and the blood together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord\n Jesus Christ, and so whole Christ, but shall say he is only in it in\n sign, or figure, or power, let him be accursed.\n\nNot content with this it declares that:\n\n If any one shall say that in the holy sacrament of the eucharist,\n there remains the substance of the bread and wine, together with the\n body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful\n and remarkable conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the\n body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, while\n only the appearance of bread and wine remain, which conversion the\n Catholic Church most appropriately names transubstantiation; let him\n be accursed.\n\nThe Council of Tridentine says there is a whole Christ in every particle\nof the Mass:\n\n If any one shall deny that Christ entire is contained in the venerable\n sacrament of the eucharist, under each species, and, when they are\n divided, under every particle of each kind; let him be accursed.\n\nThe climax of blasphemy is reached when the Council of Trent asserts:\n\n There is, therefore, no reason to doubt but that all Christ's faithful\n people, in their veneration, should render this most holy sacrament\n the same worship which is due to the true God, according to the custom\n which the Catholic Church has always received.\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n THE CONFESSIONAL\n\nAs the mass is the aggregate of the Romish doctrine, the confessional is\nthe chief of the papal system. By it the decrees of the \"infallible\nChurch\" are applied and carried out with unequaled measure of minuteness\nand rigor.\n\nThat the New Testament requires the confession of sin is not denied; but\nsuch a thing as secret confession in the ear of a priest, to secure his\nabsolution, was entirely unknown in the early churches. Even in Rome it\nwas not till about the year 390 that there was a place appointed for the\nreception of penitents, when they stood mourning during the public\nservice, from which they were excluded. They cast themselves upon the\nground with groans and lamentations; the bishop who conducted the\nceremony prostrated himself and wept; flooded with fears the people\ngroaned aloud; then the bishop arose from his humble position and\nsummoned up the people, and, after praying for the people, he dismissed\nthem. This custom, with slight changes, was universal. For some sins men\nwere required to do penance during the whole of their lives, and\nabsolution was only granted them in death; but the common course of\npenance consigned men for ten, fifteen or twenty years to its various\nhumiliating stages. After the long, distressing penance was completed,\n\"the candidate for restoration knelt down between the knees of the\nbishop, or, in his absence, between those of the presbyter, who, laying\nhis hand upon his head, solemnly blessed and absolved him. The people\nreceived him with transports of joy, as one escaped from the coils of\nthe old serpent.\"\n\nThey were then received into communion with the imposition of hands, and\nthe prayer of the whole church for them. The form of their prayer was:\n\n O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, that takest away the sin\n of the world, remit, blot out and pardon their sins, both voluntary\n and involuntary, whatever they have done by transgression and\n disobedience. And whereinsoever thy servants have erred from thy\n commandments, in word or deed, or whatever curse or peculiar anathema\n they have fallen under, we pray and beseech thine ineffable goodness\n to absolve them with thy word, and remit their curse and anathema,\n according to thy mercy. O Lord and Master, hear our prayer for thy\n servants and deliver them from eternal punishment.\n\nBingham informs us that the form, \"I absolve you,\" was not known in the\npractice till the beginning of the thirteenth century. Thomas Aquinas\nwas one of the first men to write in defense of it. In his day the\nexpression excited much opposition. Pope Innocent III, ambitious to\nestablish a number of superstitions, called the fourth Council of the\nLateran, A. D. 1215, which declared that \"the church has always\nunderstood that an entire confession of sins was always appointed by the\nLord, and that it is of divine requirement necessary to all who have\nlapsed after baptism. Because our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to\nascend from earth to heaven, left his priests, his vicars, to be, as it\nwere, the presidents and judges, to whom all mortal sins into which\nChrist's faithful people should fall should be brought, in order that,\nby the power of the keys, they might pronounce sentence of remission or\nretention. For it is plain that the priest can not exercise this\njudgment without knowledge of the cause, nor can they observe equity in\nenjoining penalties if men declare their sins only generally, and not\nparticularly and separately. From this it is inferred that it is right\nthat the penitent should recount in confession all the deadly sins of\nwhich, upon examination, their conscience accuses them, even though they\nbe the most secret, and only against the last two commandments, which\nnot unfrequently grievously wounds the soul and are more dangerous than\nthose which are openly practiced.\" This invests the priesthood with the\nprerogative of God himself, who is the searcher and discerner of \"the\nthoughts and intents of the heart.\" To this demand all the members of\nthe Catholic Church, whether old or young, are required to bow, as is\nshown by the twenty-first canon of the Lateran Council, which is as\nfollows:\n\n Every one of the faithful of both sexes, after he shall have reached\n the years of discretion, shall, by himself alone, faithfully confess\n all his sins, at least once a year, to his own priest, and strive to\n perform according to his ability the penance imposed upon him,\n reverently partaking of the sacrament of the eucharist, at least at\n Easter; unless perhaps, by the advice of his priest, for some\n reasonable cause, he should judge that for a time he should abstain\n from partaking of it; otherwise, let the living be hindered from\n entering the church, and let the dead be deprived of Christian burial.\n On this account this salutary statute shall be frequently published in\n the churches that no one may pretend as an excuse the blindness of\n ignorance. But if any one should wish to confess his sins to a foreign\n priest, for proper reasons, he must first ask and obtain a license\n from his own priest, since otherwise he would not be able to bind or\n loose him.\n\nThe confessional as it exists today is chiefly the work of the Council\nof Trent, and those who lived in the age immediately after. In order to\nstrike terror to the hearts of all who might refuse to accede to the\ndemands of the priesthood, the Council of Trent published a number of\ncanons on penance, pronouncing the most awful curses on those who\nrefused obedience. I have not space to give the canons, but they teach\nthat the form of the sacrament of penance in which its force especially\nlies is placed in the words, \"I absolve thee,\" and that this absolution\nis not in words merely, but that \"the ministers of God truly absolve.\"\nThe priest is declared to represent Christ in the confessional, and\ntherefore is invested with divine attributes and powers. The language\nused is: \"Moreover, in the priest who sits a legitimate judge over him,\nhe should venerate the person and power of Christ the Lord; for in\nadministering the sacrament of penance, as in the other sacraments, the\npriest discharges the office of Christ.\" They further teach that the\nconfession of sins to a priest is necessary to salvation; and that every\nmortal sin, even the most secret and infamous, must be confessed to a\npriest, otherwise there can be no pardon from God. Thus we see that they\nmake the priest the judge of the soul, and that in the confessional he\nsits instead of Jesus Christ and that he can keep the sins of any man\nbound upon him, or loose them, according to his discretion.\n\nIn the confessional the penitent kneels beside the priest, makes the\nsign of the cross, saying: \"In the name of the Father, and of the Son,\nand of the Holy Ghost. Amen.\" Then with her lips near the cheek of the\npriest she asks the priest's blessing in these words: \"Pray, father,\ngive me your blessing. I have sinned,\" after which the penitent repeats:\n\n I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary, ever Virgin, to blessed\n Michael, the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy\n Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to you, father, that I have sinned\n exceedingly, in thought, word and deed, through my fault, through my\n fault, through my most grievous fault!\n\nMany of the questions of the confessional are too horrible to quote.\nWere I to do so I would lay myself liable to prosecution by the\nGovernment authorities. But every question put by the priest must be\nanswered by the penitent on the peril of damnation; he sits instead of\nChrist, the penitent is confessing to God, the voice of the priest is\nImmanuel's; it is the Almighty that is addressing the trembling\npenitent. And for this reason the priest hears everything, however\nshocking, shameful, frightful; everything in thoughts, feelings, words,\nlooks and deeds. That the modesty of women should be placed on the rack\nin the confessional by a bachelor priest, full of curiosity as well as\nsanctity, and torn and lacerated, under the awful sanctions of the\nAlmighty, is indeed a dreadful thought.\n\n\"The confessional is the most odious espionage ever invented by cunning\ndespots. It is the most flagitious outrage upon the rights of husbands\nand wives, parents and children, the sinning and the sinned against,\nthat ever shocked modesty or ground trembling hearts under its fatal\nheel. It is strongly believed to be the greatest incitement to vice that\na holy God ever permitted; frightful examples of which are on record. It\nturns priests into odious receptacles for the accumulated stench and\nnastiness of all the foul corruptions of thousands, making them the sons\nof the Man of Sin, ready bearers of the iniquities of whole\ncommunities.\" Yes, it is a withering curse, a cruel tyranny, without one\nredeeming quality, \"which the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of\nhis mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming.\"\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n INDULGENCES\n\nIn order to make the absolution effective, the sacrament of confession\ncomprises penances by which the wrongs done are paid. Originally the\namount of satisfaction was measured by the time alone during which the\nstate of penance should last. As we have already seen, this situation\ninflicted the greatest disgrace, and caused the greatest distress of\nmind. But gradually a change was wrought, and penitents who showed\nundoubted sorrow were relieved of their penance earlier than the old\nusage demanded. This abridgement of the long sentence was called an\nindulgence, and was really the beginning of that system which reached\nits infamous maturity under Leo X and in the preaching of the wicked\nTetzel. In that age no one knew anything of purgatory or the treasury of\nmerits acquired by the saints, and disposed by the Pope; or even of the\nsupreme bishop at Rome, with authority over all the churches and clergy\neverywhere.\n\nAt first indulgences were limited exclusively to church penances, but in\nprocess of time they embraced all the temporary punishments due the soul\non earth and in purgatory. Christ, it was said, had endured and removed\nthe eternal penalties of sin; but the sufferings short of everlasting\ncontinuance must be borne in purgatory, pilgrimages, or be removed by\nindulgence. The earthly sufferings could be enduring by deputy--any\namount of fasting, flagellation or pilgrimage work could be discharged\nby substitute--and throngs of monks in time of papal darkness were\ncompetitors for the repulsive service.\n\nIt was argued that when a man performs his allotted task for the day he\ndeserves additional reward or credit for any further services he may\nrender. Such labors are beyond what his agreement demands; they are\nworks of supererogation. So when a Christian leading a blameless life is\npersecuted and killed, as his sins did not draw his sufferings, these\npains were meritorious, they were higher than a man's deserts--these\nwere works of supererogation. It was claimed that millions of saints in\nheaven had left a legacy of such merits to the Church, and that in it\nshe had a treasury of good deeds of immense value, incapable of\nexhaustion, no matter how many drafts, through indulgences, the Holy\nMother might make upon it. Sometimes it was said that one drop of the\nSaviour's blood was sufficient for the sins of the whole world, and that\nall the rest went into the treasury, which the Church might give to\nsouls in purgatory, or rich men on earth who had money to buy it, or to\nmen not so wealthy who had some means. This was the paid-up capital of\nthe bank of indulgences. The doctrine and practice of indulgence\nconstitute the very center of the hierarchial system.\n\nIn the fifteenth century the disposal of indulgences became a common\ntraffic, and public sale of them was generally preceded by some specious\npretext. Often the pretenses for selling them were in reality bloody,\nidolatrous and superstitious. Pope John XXIII empowered his legates to\nabsolve penitents from all sorts of crimes upon the payment of sums of\nmoney proportioned to their guilt. D'Aubigne, in his \"History of the\nReformation,\" tells us that when such indulgences were to be published,\nthe disposal of them was commonly farmed out; for the papal court could\nnot always wait to have the money collected and conveyed from every\ncountry of Europe. And there were rich merchants at Genoa, Milan, Venice\nand Augsburg who purchased the indulgences for a particular province,\nand paid to the papal chancery handsome sums for them. Thus both parties\nwere benefited. The chancery came at once into large sums of money, and\nthe farmers did not fail of a good bargain. They were careful to employ\nskillful men to sell the indulgences, persons whose boldness and\nimpudence bore due proportion to the eloquence with which they imposed\nupon the simple people. Yet, that this species of traffic might have a\nreligious aspect, the Pope appointed the archbishops of the several\nprovinces to be his commissaries, who in his name announced that\nindulgences were to be sold, and generally selected the men to sell\nthem, and for this service shared the profits with the merchants who\nfarmed them. These papal hawkers enjoyed great privileges, and, however\nodious to the civil authorities, they were not molested. Complaints,\nindeed, were made against these contributions, levied by the popes upon\nall Europe. Kings and princes, clergy and laity, bishops, monasteries\nand confessors, all felt themselves aggrieved by them; the kings, that\ntheir countries were impoverished, under the pretext of crusades that\nwere never undertaken, and of wars against heretics and Turks; and the\nbishops, that their letters of indulgence were rendered inefficient, and\nthe people released from ecclesiastical discipline. But at Rome all were\ndeaf to all these complaints, and it was not till the revolution\nproduced by Luther that unhappy Europe obtained the desired relief.\n\n\n JOHN TETZEL\n\nLeo X, in order to carry on the expensive structure of St. Peter's\nChurch in Rome, published indulgences, with a plenary remission to all\nsuch as should contribute toward erecting that magnificent building. The\nright of promulgating these indulgences in Germany, together with a\nshare in the profits arising from the sale of them, was granted to John\nTetzel, a Dominican friar, a licentious wretch, but an active and\nenterprising spirit, and remarkable for his noisy and popular eloquence.\nAssisted by the monks of his order, selected as his chief agent for\nretailing them in Saxony, he executed the commission with great zeal and\nsuccess, but with no less indecency.\n\nThat my readers may have some idea of the course pursued, I give one of\nhis harangues. After the cross had been erected and the arms of the Pope\nsuspended from it, Tetzel went into the pulpit, and with a tone of\nassurance began to extol the value of indulgences in these words:\n\n Indulgences are the most precious and most noble of God's gifts. This\n cross has as much efficacy as the very cross of Jesus Christ. Come and\n I will give you letters, all properly sealed, by which even the sins\n you intend to commit may be pardoned. I would not change my privileges\n for those of Saint Peter in heaven; for I have saved more souls by my\n indulgences than the apostle by his sermons. There is no sin so great\n that an indulgence can not remit; and even if one (which it doubtless\n is impossible) had offered violence to the Virgin Mary, Mother of God,\n let him pay--only let him pay well, and all will be forgiven him.\n Reflect then, that every mortal sin you must, after confession and\n contrition, do penance for seven years, either in this life or in\n purgatory; now, how many mortal sins are there not committed in a day,\n how many in a week, how many in a month, how many in a year, how many\n in a whole life! Alas, these sins are almost infinite, and they entail\n an infinite penalty in the fires of purgatory. And now, by means of\n these letters of indulgence, you can once in your life, in every case\n except four, which are reserved for the apostolic see, and afterward\n in the article of death, obtain a plenary remission of all your\n penalties and all your sins!\n\n Do you know that if any one desires to visit Rome, or any country\n where travelers incur danger, he sends his money to the bank, and for\n every hundred florins that he wishes to have, he gives five or six or\n ten more, that by means of the letters of this bank he may be safely\n repaid his money at Rome or elsewhere.... And you, for a quarter of a\n florin, will not receive these letters of indulgence, by means of\n which you may introduce into paradise not a vile metal, but a divine\n and immortal soul, without its running any risk.\n\n But more than this, indulgences avail not only for the living, but for\n the dead. For that repentance is not even necessary. Priests! nobles!\n merchant! wife! youth! maiden! do you not hear your parents and your\n other friends who are dead, and who cry from the bottom of the abyss:\n \"We are suffering horrible torments! A trifling alms would deliver us;\n you can give it, and you will not!\" At the very instant that the money\n rattles in the bottom of the chest, the soul escapes from purgatory,\n and flies liberated to heaven. Oh, stupid and brutish people, who do\n not understand the grace so richly offered! Now heaven is everywhere\n opened! Do you refuse to enter now? When, then will you enter? Now you\n can ransom so many souls! Stiff-necked and thoughtless man! with\n twelve groats you can deliver your father from purgatory, and you are\n ungrateful enough not to save him! I shall be justified in the day of\n judgment; but--you will be punished so much the more severely for\n having neglected so great salvation. I declare to you, though you\n should have but a single coat, you should strip it off and sell it, in\n order to obtain this grace. The Lord our God no longer reigns. He has\n resigned all power to the pope.\n\n Do you know why our most Holy Lord distributes so rich a grace? It is\n to restore the ruined Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, and those\n of a multitude of martyrs. The saintly bodies, through the present\n state of the building, are now, alas, beaten upon, inundated,\n polluted, dishonored, reduced to rottenness, by the rain and the hail.\n Alas, shall these sacred ashes remain longer in the mire and in\n degradation?\n\n \"Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: for I tell\n you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see, and have not\n seen them; and to hear those things, which ye hear, and have not heard\n them!\"\n\nWhen Tetzel concluded his discourse he immediately left the pulpit, ran\nto the money box, and, in the sight of the people, dropped into it a\ncoin, being very careful to make it rattle so that it could be heard by\nthe excited people. This was the signal that \"indulgence had established\nits throne in the place with due solemnity.\" Confessionals, decorated\nwith the pope's arms, were arranged in convenient places. On \"each of\nthese confessionals were posted in large letters the names, the surnames\nand titles of the under commissaries and of the confessors. Men, women\nand children crowded around these confessionals, all with money in their\nhands. Even those who lived on alms found money to buy indulgences!\"\n\nAfter having privately explained to each individual the greatness of\nindulgence, the confessors addressed the following question to each\npenitent: \"How much money can you conscientiously spare to obtain so\ncomplete a remission?\" \"The demand,\" said the instructions of the\narchbishop of Mentz to the commissaries, \"should be made at this moment,\nin order that the penitents might be better disposed to contribute.\"\n\nTo all who should aid in building the cathedral of Saint Peter in Rome,\nthe following graces were promised: (1) The full pardon for every sin;\n(2) the right of choosing a confessor, who, whenever the hour of death\nappeared at hand, should give absolution for all sin, even from the\ngreatest crimes reserved for the apostolic see; (3) a participation in\nall the blessings, works and merits of the Catholic Church, prayers,\nfasts, alms, and the pilgrimages; and (4) redemption of the souls that\nare in purgatory. To obtain the first of these graces it was said to be\nnecessary to \"have contrition of heart and confession of mouth, or at\nleast an intention of confessing. But as for the three others they might\nbe obtained without contrition, without confession, simply by paying.\"\nThe intention was to make it appear that whoever possessed money could,\nby using it in the purchase of indulgences, introduce souls into heaven.\nThe indulgence mongers said:\n\n As for those who would deliver souls from purgatory and procure the\n pardon of all their offenses, let them put money into the chest;\n contrition of heart or confession of mouth is not necessary. Let them\n only hasten to bring their money: for thus they will perform a work\n most useful to the souls of the dead, and to the building of the\n Church of Saint Peter.\n\nThe confession over, there was a rush to the trafficker, who examined\nvery closely the dress, manner, gait and appearance of the applicant.\nThe sum required was measured by his judgment of the financial ability\nof the individual. If he made a mistake about the price set, he was\nempowered to make the best bargain possible, \"and all was to be arranged\naccording to the data of sound reason, and the generosity of the donor.\"\nFor adultery, polygamy, sacrilege, perjury, murder, witchcraft,\ninfanticide, and fratricide he had a particular tax. In fact, \"there was\nno vein in the gold mine that they did not find the means of working.\"\nTetzel executed the commission with great zeal and success, but with no\nless indecency. He assured the purchasers that their crimes, however\nenormous, would be forgiven; that the efficacy of indulgences was so\ngreat that the most heinous sins would be expiated and remitted by them,\nand the person freed both from punishment and guilt; and that this was\nthe unspeakable gift of God to reconcile men to himself.\n\nIn order that my readers may understand more fully the frightful extent\nof the wickedness to which the traffic led, I give the usual form of the\nletters of absolution, which was as follows:\n\n May the Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve thee by\n the merits of his most holy passion. And I, by his authority, that of\n his apostles Peter and Paul, and of the most holy pope, granted and\n committed to me in these parts, do absolve thee, first, from all\n ecclesiastical censures, in whatever manner they may have been\n incurred; then from all thy sins, transgressions and excesses, how\n enormous soever they may be; even such as are reserved for the\n cognizance of our most holy father the pope and for the apostolic see.\n I remit to thee all punishment which thou deservest in purgatory on\n their account; and I restore thee to the holy sacraments of the\n Church, to the unity of the faithful, and to the innocence and purity\n which thou possessedst at baptism; so that when thou diest the gates\n of punishment shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise of delights\n shall be opened; and if thou shall not die at present, this grace\n shall remain in full force when thou art at the point of death. In the\n name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Friar John\n Tetzel, commissary, has signed with his own hand.\n\nThis abolished all guilt and fear of hell in the minds of the\npurchasers, and inasmuch as the sale of indulgences was universally\nprevalent, the Church of Rome was everywhere triumphant, darkness\ncovered the earth, and gross darkness the people; the children of God\nwere driven to caves and secret places of the earth, hunted by armed\nbands at the command of the apostate Church. The condition was\nappalling!\n\n\n\n\n PART III\n The Reformation in Europe\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n JOHN WYCKLIFFE\n\nThe Roman Catholic Church, as we have already seen, had reached such a\ndegree of corruption in doctrine and practice, so deep and widespread,\nthat it would seem quite impossible for it to reach further degradation.\nThe name of Christ was everywhere professed, but a devout believer was\nseldom found. The Christ was hidden that his pretended representatives\nmight be all in all. Justification by faith was denounced in order to\nopen up a trade in indulgences to enrich the papacy by the sale of\nsalvation. The commands of God were openly made void by the doctrines\nand commandments of men. Apostolic order and ordinances had given place\nto those of the \"man of sin.\" \"The mystery of lawlessness\" stood out in\nfull proportions.\n\nAnd yet, notwithstanding all this, there were forces at work, in\ndifferent parts of Europe, moving on to conflict and reform that were\ndestined to break the all but universal sway of the papacy. There can be\nno doubt that the invention of printing, the gradual revival of\nlearning, and the enlarged acquaintance with the Scriptures, all made\ndirectly against the then existing conditions. The Reformation was\neffected and the names of its chief actors have come down to us with\ndeserved honor, and yet how imperfect the work done and the spirit of\nthe doers of it. Measuring both by the doctrine and practice of the\napostles can not but compel the conclusion that the Reformation from the\nfirst onward needed immense reformation to bring it up to the measures\nof the divine standard. And still it may be that any nearer approach to\na completely scriptural work and spirit would have been quite futile\nunder the existing conditions.\n\nJohn Wyckliffe, who flourished in the latter part of the fourteenth\ncentury, popularly called the \"Morning Star of the Reformation,\" was the\nfirst to distinguish himself in fighting against the supremacy of the\npope, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the abuses of the\nhierarchy. As early as 1360 he became known as the opponent of the\nmendicant friars who infested England, interfering with school\ndiscipline, as well as domestic relations. He exposed the venality and\nsuperstition of the monkish orders with a vigor of reasoning and a keen\nsatire. Efforts were made by a commission appointed by the king to have\nthe evil abrogated, and such arrangements were finally made; but the\npope soon violated the compact and Parliament again took action against\nthe Roman usurpations. These developments fully opened the eyes of\nWyckliffe to the intolerant corruption of the Roman See, and he began\nhenceforth to argue and teach, preach and write, boldly and without\nreserve against the papal system.\n\n\n TRANSLATES THE BIBLE INTO ENGLISH\n\nBut the greatest work of Wyckliffe for the enlightenment of the world\nwas the translation of the Bible into the English language. But in order\nto appreciate the difficulties of his task, we should remember that Rome\nhad not only utterly neglected and contemned the Sacred writings, but\nhad interdicted their translation into any vernacular tongue. She\nclaimed that it was not only unlawful, but injurious, for the people at\nlarge to read the Scriptures. Nor was this idea left to pass current\nmerely as a received opinion, but it was a subject which was considered\nby councils, and canons were enacted against it. Not to mention other\nproofs of this, more than one hundred and fifty years before Wyckliffe\nhad finished his translation of the Bible, in the year 1229, at the\nCouncil of Toulouse, forty-five canons were passed and issued for the\nextinction of heresy and the re-establishment of peace. One of these\ncanons involved the first court of inquisition, and another, the first\ncanon, forbade the Scriptures to the laity, or the translation of any\nportion of them into the common tongue. The latter was expressed in the\nfollowing very pointed terms:\n\n We also forbid the laity to possess any of the books of the Old or New\n Testament, except, perhaps, the Psalter or Breviary for the Divine\n Offices, or the Hours of the Blessed Virgin, which some, out of\n devotion, wish to have; but having any of these books translated into\n the vulgar tongue, we strictly forbid.\n\nIn the face of all this, and far more than I can now explain, Wyckliffe\nperformed his arduous task of translation. Of this great work, a\ncompetent critic most appropriately remarks: \"From an early period of\nhis life he had devoted his various learning, and his powerful energies\nof mind, to effect this, and, at length, by intense application on his\npart, and from assistance from a few of the most learned of his\nfollowers, he had the glory to complete a book, which, alone, would have\nbeen sufficient (or at least ought) to have procured the veneration of\nhis own age, and the commendation of posterity.\"\n\nWhile engaged in this work, in the year 1379, he was taken violently\nill, and the friars, imagining that his course was now near its end,\ncontrived to visit him. Four of their ablest men had been selected, or a\nfriar from each of the mendicant orders, and they were admitted to a\npatient hearing. After reminding him of the great injury he had done to\ntheir order, they exhorted him, as one near to death, that he would now,\nas a true penitent, bewail and revoke, in their presence, whatever he\nhad said to their disparagement. As soon as they had done, Wyckliffe,\ncalling for his servant, desired to be raised up on his pillow; and then\ncollecting all his strength, with a severe and expressive countenance,\nand in a tone not to be misunderstood, exclaimed:\n\n I shall not die, but live to declare the evil deeds of the friars.\n\nConfounded at such a reply, they immediately left him; and he recovered,\nto finish in the next year his translation of the entire Bible.\n\nAs this was before the invention of printing, the translation could only\nbe diffused by the laborious process of transcription; but transcribed\nit was most diligently, both entire and in parts, and as eagerly read.\nThere were those who, at all hazards, sought wisdom from the Book of\nGod, and their number could not be few. A contemporary writer, an enemy,\nand in the language of hatred and fear combined, with the wish to damage\nthe cause, affirmed that \"a man could not meet two people on the road,\nbut one of them was a disciple of Wyckliffe.\" Certainly the opportunity\nwas gladly received by the people; and while the word of the Lord did\nnot have \"free course,\" there can be no question that it was \"glorified\"\nin the reception given it by many. The same bitter opponent, in the tone\nof deep lamentation, makes the following remarkable admission about the\nwonderful progress made in the face of bitter persecution:\n\n The soldiers, with the dukes and earls, are the chief adherents of\n this sect, its most powerful defenders, and its invincible protectors.\n This Master John Wyckliffe hath translated the Gospel out of Latin\n into English, which Christ had entrusted with the clergy and doctors\n of the Church, that they might minister it to the laity and weaker\n sort, according to the state of the times and the wants of men. So\n that by this means the Gospel is made vulgar, and laid more open to\n the laity, and even to women who can read, than it used to be to the\n most learned of the clergy and those of the best understanding! And\n what was before the chief gift of the clergy and doctors of the\n Church, is made forever common to the laity!\n\nAt about the same time another papal dupe, in the same spirit, most\nvehemently urged:\n\n The prelates ought not to suffer that every one at his pleasure should\n read the Scriptures, translated even into Latin; because, as is plain\n from experience, this has been many ways the occasion of falling into\n heresies and errors. It is not, therefore, politic that any one,\n wheresoever and whensoever he will, should give himself to the\n frequent study of the Scriptures.\n\nThese men just quoted referred to the period between 1380 and 1400, and\nit was one, though but too short, which distinguished England from every\nother country in Europe. However transient, it was one that had much to\ndo with wresting the world from the appalling darkness and ruin wrought\nby the papacy, and flooding the world with the glorious sunlight of\neternal truth. It was all in vain that the bishops, with the primates of\nCanterbury at their head bellowed and remonstrated with the people,\nwrote letters to and received letters from Rome, made and executed\nfearful threats of punishment; the Bible had been translated, the people\ntranscribed and read, and sent copies of it far and near.\n\nIn 1400 Parliament enacted a law that gave bishops the power to hand\nover obstinate or relapsed heretics to sheriffs and magistrates, who\nwere enjoined to have them publicly burnt. In 1401 William Sawtre, a\ndevout man, was burnt at Smithfield as a heretic. Of the many victims, I\nhave only space to mention J. Badby, who was burnt in a barrel; and\nespecially that generous friend of the Reformation, Sir John Oldcastle,\nwho frequently sheltered preachers of reform in his castle, and devoutly\ndid he adhere to these doctrines, since, as he himself attested his\nwhole life through them had undergone a change. Henry V had made vain\nefforts to induce him to change from his faith; but he refused to\nrecant, and was condemned as a \"pernicious heretic\" in 1413. But during\nthe respite granted him, he managed to escape into Wales, where he\nconcealed himself till 1417, when he was captured and executed at St.\nGiles' Fields, amidst the most barbarous tortures, being roasted over a\nslow fire. The escape of Oldcastle and the rumors of a Lollard\ninsurrection the following year were made the occasion for fresh\nmeasures of persecution. In 1414 it was ordered that all public\nofficials should bind themselves by oath to aid in the extirpation of\nheresy, and that the lands and possessions of those convicted of heresy\nshould be confiscated.\n\nIn 1416 a regular inquisition was instituted in every parish of the\ndiocese of Canterbury. Among the common people, however, the desire for\nBiblical knowledge continued to spread; secret conventicles were held;\nand though the persecution, which lasted till 1431, may have crushed the\n\"heresy,\" the principles lived and spread worldwide, and became the\ninfluence that led to reformation in other parts.\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n William Tyndale\n\nIf I were to follow the strictly chronological order, I would here give\na sketch of Luther and his work, but as I have given an account of the\nwork of Wyckliffe, it is proper to give attention to the work of William\nTyndale, because I am now seeking the basic principle of the return to\napostolic purity and simplicity.\n\nAt the opening of the sixteenth century, a period of great interest to\nall the world, were four men--Le Fevre, in France; Zwingli, in\nSwitzerland; Luther, in Germany, and Tyndale, in England--destined to\nmake a great impression on the world for all time. But they were wholly\nunknown to each other. In France, Switzerland and Germany were the\nliving voices throughout life, of the men raised up, calling upon their\ncountrymen to hear and obey the truth; and so it was in England a\ncentury and a half before, in the case of Wyclif. But in the case of\nTyndale, the procedure is entirely different, and out of the usual\ncourse pursued in other lands. He had, it is true, lifted up his voice\nwith some effect, but he was driven from his native land, never to\nreturn. In the other cases the men lived and died at home. Le Fevre when\nabove one hundred years old wept because he had not felt and displayed\nthe courage of a martyr; Zwingli, in battle for his country; and Luther,\nafter his noble intrepidity, expired in his sick chamber; but Tyndale\nwas strangled and his body burnt to ashes in a foreign land. Englishmen,\nScotchmen and Germans were gathered together against him; yes, men of\nthree nations at least concur to confer upon him the martyr's crown, so\nthat among all his contemporaries, in several respects, but especially\nas a translator of the Scriptures, he stands alone.\n\nThe political and literary condition of England under Cardinal Wolsey\ndid not afford the slightest indication that the Scriptures were about\nto be given to the people in their native tongue, but the reverse. In\njustice to that event it is necessary to observe, also, the nature of\nthat connection which had existed for ages between Britain and Rome.\nIndeed, under Henry VIII it reached its climax. This connection\nsustained a peculiarly complicated character. There were no fewer than\ntwelve distinct sources of revenue that went directly to Rome. These\naltogether were operating on the inhabitants without exception, and with\nas much regularity as the rising and setting of the sun. \"It was a\npecuniary connection of immense power, made to bear upon the general\nconscience, which knew no pause by day or night; falling, as it did, not\nmerely on the living, but on the dying and the dead!\"\n\nIn no other country throughout Europe was the papal system in all its\noppressive and fearful integrity more fully maintained. Under the\nunscrupulous and imperative Henry VIII, who gloried in his knowledge of\ndivinity and prided himself on his orthodoxy, with a prime minister so\nwell known in every foreign court, and who himself yearned for the\npontificate, England had become the mainstay of the system. In Worcester\ndiocese above every other part of England was this power of Rome most\nintensely felt, yet here in about 1484 was William Tyndale born whose\nlabors were destined to work the overthrow of its power in the realm.\n\n\n ERASMUS ARRIVES IN ENGLAND\n\nErasmus arrived in England in 1498, and was delighted to find a taste\nfor the study of Hebrew, Greek and Latin so pronounced, and he pursued\nhis studies with great diligence and satisfaction. His zeal so inspired\nothers that the influence of his residence there may be regarded as the\nopening of a new era in letters in that country. In 1516 the first\nedition of his Greek New Testament was published, accompanied by a new\nLatin translation, and spread far and wide. He received the hearty\ncongratulations of his friends, but its appearance raised up a host of\nenemies.\n\nNotwithstanding the opposition during the period during 1477 to 1526,\nfourteen editions of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek were published, and\nnot one of the sacred originals had ever been restrained by any\ngovernment. In fact, at this time, so far from such restraint being\nimposed in England, it was encouraged; as not a man in high authority\nseems to have foreseen that the cultivation of the knowledge of the\noriginal language would necessarily lead to a translation of the sacred\nvolume into the common tongue. Even Henry VII transmitted to the\nuniversity a royal mandate \"that study of the Scriptures in the original\nlanguage should not only be permitted, but received as a branch of the\nacademical institution.\" And this was at the period when Tyndale resided\nat Cambridge and Oxford. The advantages thus combined fully explain the\nsource of the superior attainments in learning which he afterward turned\nto such wonderful account.\n\nAbout 1504 Tyndale went to Oxford University, and took his degree of\nB.A., in 1508. One of the colleges at Oxford had forbidden the entrance\nof the Greek New Testament within its walls \"by horse or by boat, by\nwheels or on foot.\" Possibly owing to this enmity Tyndale left Oxford\nfor Cambridge, where Erasmus was teaching Greek and issuing his edition\nof the Greek New Testament. About the close of 1521 we find Tyndale as\ntutor in the family of Sir John Walsh, at Little Sudbury, in\nGloucestershire, twelve miles north of Bristol. Walsh always kept a good\ntable, and abbots, deans, archdeacons, and divers other doctors who were\nfond of discussion, were often invited to share his hospitality. In\nthese discussions Tyndale always bore a conspicuous and decided part. He\nhad an uncomfortable way of crushing his opponents by clinching his\narguments with a \"thus saith the Lord.\" His outspoken way caused Lady\nWalsh many an uneasy hour, and she often reminded him that bishops,\nabbots and others having an income of hundreds of pounds yearly held\nviews the very opposite of his, \"and were it reason that we should\nbelieve you before them?\" Not being so skilled in the use of Scripture\nknowledge as some in these days of Gospel light and liberty, this was\nvery embarrassing to him, a moneyless man, coming from such a source. In\norder to strengthen his position with his wavering hostess by the\ntestimony of Erasmus, whose fame was resounding throughout Europe, he\ntranslated his \"Christian Soldier\" into English and presented it to\nWalsh and his wife. This won her, and they did not invite the clergy to\ntheir table any more. This change was attributed to Tyndale, and ever\nafterward they treasured a grudge against him. Of this opposition Fox\nsays: \"These blind and rude priests, flocking together to the alehouse,\nfor that was their preaching place, raged and railed against him;\naffirming that his sayings were heresy, adding of their own heads\nmoreover unto his sayings more than ever he spake.\"\n\n\n TYNDALE RESOLVES TO TRANSLATE THE BIBLE INTO ENGLISH\n\nFortunately Tyndale has left on record his reflections at this period of\nhis life. He says:\n\n A thousand books had they lever [rather] to be put forth against their\n abominable doings and doctrines, than that the Scripture should come\n to light. For as long as they may keep that down, they will so darken\n the right way with the mist of their sophistry, and so tangle them\n that either rebuke or despite their abominations with arguments of\n philosophy, and with worldly and apparent reasons of natural wisdom,\n and with wresting the Scriptures to their own purpose, clean contrary\n unto the process, order, and meaning of the text; and so delude them\n in descanting upon it with allegories, and amaze them, expounding it\n in many senses, whose light the owls can not hide, that though thou\n feel in thy heart, and art sure, how that all is false that they saw,\n yet couldst thou not solve their subtle riddles. Which thing only\n moved me to translate the New Testament. Because I have proved by\n experience, how that it is impossible to establish the lay people in\n any truth, except the Scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in\n their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order and\n meaning of the text; for else, whatever truth is taught them, these\n enemies of all truth quench it again--partly with the smoke of their\n bottomless pit (Rev. 9), that is with apparent reasons of sophistry,\n and traditions of their own making; and partly in juggling with the\n text, expounding it in such a sense as it is impossible to gather of\n the text itself.\n\nThe Convocation of Canterbury had expressly forbidden any man to\ntranslate any part of the Scripture in English, or to read any such\ntranslation without authority of the bishop, an authority not likely to\nbe granted. The study of the Bible was not even a part of the\npreparatory study of the religious teachers of the people. Writing\nagainst Alexander Alesius to James V of Scotland, Cochl\u00e6us, the\nnotorious Roman Catholic theologian, writes about the Bible as follows:\n\n The New Testament translated into the vulgar tongue, is in truth the\n food of death, the fuel of sin, the veil of malice, the pretext of\n false liberty, the protection of disobedience, the corruption of\n discipline, the depravity of morals, the termination of concord, the\n death of honesty, the well-spring of vice, the disease of virtues, the\n instigation of rebellion, the milk of pride, the nourishment of\n contempt, the death of peace, the destruction of charity, the enemy of\n unity, the murderer of truth. (Demaus' Biography of William Tyndale,\n page 358.)\n\nWith such a sentiment prominent among the clergy, there is no surprise\nat the danger to which Tyndale subjected himself when in a warm\ndiscussion he revealed his intention. Of this incident Fox says:\n\n Communing and disputing with a certain learned man in whose company he\n happened to be, he drove him to that issue, that the learned man said,\n \"We were better to be without God's law than the pope's.\" Master\n Tyndale hearing that, answered him, \"I defy the pope and all his laws;\n and if God spare my life many years, I will cause a boy that driveth\n the plow to know more of the Scripture than you do!\"\n\nAfter this, the murmurings of the priests increased to a fury. Such\nlanguage flew over the country as on the wings of the wind. They branded\nhim as a heretic, and hinted loudly of burning him.\n\nIt was now evident to Tyndale that a crisis had been reached, and he saw\ntoo clearly that it would be impossible for him to remain longer at\nLittle Sudbury in the home of Walsh in peaceful prosecution of his great\npurpose. This purpose he was determined to prosecute whatever\ninconvenience or danger it might bring upon him; and it seemed to him\nquite possible that he might find that liberty in some other part of\nEngland. He resolved, therefore, to give up his position which he held\nin the family of Walsh. So with the good will of Walsh, he made his way\nto London, hoping to find in Cuthburt Tunstal, Bishop of London, a\nliberal patron under whose protection the work might be prosecuted.\nTunstal accorded him an interview, acknowledged his scholarship, but\nsaid that his house was already full, and advised him to seek a place\nelsewhere. While in London Tyndale preached at St.\nDunstan's-in-the-West, and greatly impressed Humphrey Monmouth, a\nwealthy, educated, traveled cloth merchant, who took him into his house,\nwhere he remained six months diligently engaged in translating the New\nTestament. For this kindness Monmouth was imprisoned in the Tower.\n\nWhile in London, Tyndale saw men around him led to prison and to death\nfor having or reading the writings of Luther, which were finding their\nway into England, and he knew well that a Bible translation would be\nstill a more dangerous book. At last he \"understood not only that there\nwas no room in my lord of London's palace to translate the New\nTestament, but, also, that there was no place to do it in all England.\"\nBut Tyndale was not the man to put his hands to the plow and then turn\nback. If only a life in exile could do the work, a life of exile he\nwould gladly accept. As Fox remarks: \"To give the people bare text of\nScriptures, he would offer his body to suffer what pain of torture, yea,\nwhat death His Grace (Henry VIII) would so that this be obtained.\"\n\n\n GOES TO HAMBURG\n\nHaving now fully decided on going abroad, he sailed direct to Hamburg,\nabout May, 1524, never to set foot on his native soil again. Scarcely a\nyear before, he entered London with bright anticipations of success, but\nall his anticipations had been cruelly disappointed, and now in sorrow\nand sadness he was sailing forth on the untried dangers of solitude and\nexile. Had he been able to read the future that awaited him, and which\nhe afterwards so patiently bewailed, \"the poverty, the exile from his\nown native land, the bitter absence from his friends, the hunger, the\nthirst, the cold, the great danger wherewith he was everywhere\ncompassed, the innumerable hard and sharp fightings which he had to\nendure,\" doubtless his loving soul would have been melted with the\nspectacle, and yet, no doubt, the stout and brave heart would have gone\nforward, \"hoping with his labors to do honor to God, true service to his\nprince,\" and bestow unspeakable blessings upon his priest-ridden people.\n\nIn Hamburg he diligently applied his whole time to translating, but on\nbeing interrupted he moved to Cologne about the first of May, 1525,\nwhere he put his translation into the hands of the printer. Not only was\nthe entire sacred text then translated, but his prologue was composed\nbefore he began to print. At this time John Cochl\u00e6us, dean of Frankfort,\nthe \"watchdog of Romanism,\" was at Cologne, an exile from his own city\non account of uprisings of the peasants against the clergy. He was\noccupied at Cologne printing a book. In consequence of this he became\nacquainted with the printers of Cologne, whom he heard confidently\nboasting over their cups that whether the king and cardinal would or not\nall England in a short time would be furnished the New Testament in\nEnglish. He heard that there was \"an Englishman there, learned, skilled\nin languages, eloquent, whom, however, he never could see or converse\nwith.\" Inviting, therefore, some printers to his lodging, and, after\nexciting them with wine, one of them disclosed to him that the New\nTestament had been translated into the English language; that it was\nthen in the hands of the printers, who were then printing an edition of\nthree thousand copies; and that the expenses were being met by English\nmerchants, who were to convey it secretly to England and dispense it\nwidely throughout the realm before the king or the cardinal could\ndiscover or prohibit it.\n\nThough mentally distracted between fear and wonder, Cochl\u00e6us disguised\nhis grief in a cheerful manner; and after having considered sadly the\nmagnitude of the danger, he deliberated with himself how he might\nconveniently obstruct \"these very wicked attempts.\" So he went to Herman\nRinck, a Senator of Cologne, and a knight, well known both to the\nEmperor and the King of England, to whom he made known the whole affair.\nOn hearing this Rinck went to the Senate of Cologne, and procured an\norder interdicting the printers from proceeding further with the work.\nTyndale contrived, however, to procure the printed sheets, and sailed up\nthe Rhine to Worms about October, 1525; but Rinck and Cochl\u00e6us wrote at\nonce to the king and cardinal and the Bishop of Rochester to take the\nutmost precaution in all the seaports of England, lest that \"most\npernicious article of merchandise should be introduced.\" Apparently\nnothing could have been more complete than the triumph of Cochl\u00e6us. He\nhad not only interrupted the printing of the New Testament at Cologne,\nbut had disclosed the secret of Tyndale's intentions to those who were\nmost able to take effectual steps to prevent the introduction of the\nwork in England, if he should ever succeed in getting it printed at all.\n\nThis interruption, though felt most keenly at the time by Tyndale, only\ninflamed his zeal, and the remarkable result was that two editions were\nissued by him in the same period in which he had contemplated only one.\nThus the hostility of Cochl\u00e6us, which, as we have seen, threatened to\narrest the progress of the work, only delayed its completion for a time\nand enabled Tyndale to issue six thousand copies of his translation\ninstead of three thousand. \"Early in 1526 both editions were sent into\nEngland in cases, in barrels, in bales of cloth, in sacks of flour, and\nin every other secret way that could be thought of.\" The reception in\nEngland was remarkable. They were eagerly bought and read to the\ninexpressible joy and comfort of thousands who had long walked in\ndarkness, and as eagerly proscribed and sought out for destruction. Sir\nThomas More fiercely attacked the translation as ignorant, dishonest and\nheretical. In the autumn Tunstal and Warham issued mandates for the\ncollection and surrender of copies. Tunstal attacked it in a sermon at\nSt. Paul's, and professed to have found three thousand errors in it. So\nthe cardinal and all the bishops decided that the book should be burned,\nwhich was vigorously carried out. But this was all in vain, for the tide\nwas fairly flowing and it could not be checked. A formidable\norganization was ready in England to welcome and circulate the books. In\nproportion to the violence with which the clergy condemned the books was\nthe esteem in which they were held by those in England to whom the light\nwas breaking.\n\n\n BISHOP OF LONDON SUPPLIES MONEY TO PRINT BIBLES\n\nIn 1529 Bishop Tunstal went to Antwerp to seize Tyndale's Testaments,\nand by a singular coincident Tyndale also was there and so it happened\nthat one Parkington, who favored Tyndale, was at Antwerp at the same\ntime. On being informed by the bishop that he would be glad to buy the\nTestaments, Parkington told him that, as he knew those who had them for\nsale, he could buy \"every book of them that is imprinted and is here\nunsold.\" The bargain was made, and as has been said by the quaint\nchronicler:\n\n The bishop, thinking he had God by the toe, when indeed he had, as\n after he thought, the devil by the fist, said: \"Gentle Mr. Parkington,\n do your diligence and get them; and with all my heart I will pay for\n them whatsoever they cost you, for the books are erroneous and nought,\n and I intend surely to destroy them all, and to burn them at Paul's\n Cross.\" Augustus Parkington came to William Tyndale, and said:\n \"William, I know that thou art a poor man, and hast a heap of New\n Testaments and books by thee, for which thou hast both endangered thy\n friends and beggared thyself; and I have now gotten thee a merchant,\n which, with ready money, shall dispatch thee of all thou hast, if thou\n think it so profitable for yourself.\" \"Who is this merchant?\" said\n Tyndale. \"The Bishop of London,\" said Parkington. \"Oh, that is because\n he will burn them,\" said Tyndale. \"Yea, marry,\" quoth Parkington. \"I\n am the gladder,\" said Tyndale, \"for these two benefits shall come\n thereof: I shall get money to bring myself out of debt, and the whole\n world will cry out against the burning of God's Word; and the overplus\n of the money that shall remain to me shall make me more studious to\n correct the New Testament, and so newly to imprint the same once\n again, and I trust the second will much better like you than ever did\n the first.\" And so went forward the bargain; the bishop had the books;\n Parkington had the thanks, and Tyndale had the money.\n\n After this, Tyndale corrected the same New Testament, and caused them\n to be newly imprinted, so that they came thick and threefold over into\n England. When the bishop perceived that, he sent for Parkington, and\n said to him: \"How cometh this, that there are so many New Testaments\n abroad? You promised me that you would buy them all.\" Then said\n Parkington: \"Surely, I bought all that were to be had, but I perceive\n they have printed more since. I see it will never be better so long as\n they have letters and stamps; wherefore you were best to buy the\n stamps, too, and so you shall be sure.\" At which the bishop smiled and\n so the matter ended.\n\nIt so happened that shortly after this that George Constantine was\napprehended by Sir Thomas More, suspected of certain heresies. During\nthe time he was in custody, More said to him: \"There are beyond the sea\nTyndale, Joyce, and a great many of you, I know they can not live\nwithout help, and I pray thee tell me who they are that help them thus?\"\n\"My lord,\" quoth Constantine, \"I will tell you truly, it is the Bishop\nof London that hath helped us, for he hath bestowed among us a great\ndeal of money upon New Testaments to burn them; and that hath been, and\nyet is, our only succor and comfort.\" \"Now my troth,\" quoth More, \"I\nthink even the same, for so much I told the bishop before he went about\nit.\"\n\n\n BETRAYED AND MURDERED\n\nTyndale's enemies endeavored to decoy him into England, but he was too\nwary to be so easily entrapped, for he well knew what displeasure Henry\nVIII felt at his tract, called \"The Practice of Prelates,\" and what\npenalty the royal indignation would speedily inflict. But his enemies in\nEngland, whose power had been shaken by the wide circulation of the\nEnglish New Testament, were the more enraged against him, and conspired\nto seize him on the Continent, in the name of the Emperor, and through\nthe treachery of one Henry Philips, a smooth, treacherous villain, in\nthe employ of Stephen Gardiner, after having invited Tyndale to dine\nwith him, had him arrested and had him put in the State prison of the\nCastle of Vivorde, twenty-three miles from Antwerp, May 23, 1535. The\nEnglish merchants aggrieved by the loss of an esteemed friend, and by\nthis treacherous assault of their rights and privileges, made every\neffort to secure his release, but all in vain. The neighboring\nUniversity of Louvain thirsted for his blood. He was speedily condemned,\nand on Friday, October 6, 1536, he was strangled at the stake and his\nbody then burned to ashes. At the stake, with a fervent zeal and a loud\nvoice, he cried: \"Lord, open the King of England's eyes.\"\n\nAs an apostle of liberty, Tyndale stands foremost among the writers of\nhis day, whose heroic fortitude and invincible love of the truth were\nheard with a force superior to royal and ecclesiastical injunctions; and\n\"the very flames to which fanaticism and tyranny consigned his writings\nburnt them into the very hearts of the people, and made them powerful\ninstruments in attacking and converting multitudes to the principles of\nthe Reformation. It is not exaggeration to say that the noble sentiments\nof William Tyndale, uttered in pure, strong, Saxon English, and steeped\nin the doctrines of the Gospel, gave shape to the views of the most\nconspicuous promoters of the great movement, who, like himself, sealed\ntheir convictions with their blood.\"\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n MARTIN LUTHER\n\nNotwithstanding the fact that the papacy had universal sway over Europe\nat the beginning of the sixteenth century, it must be noted that, from\nthe beginning of the fourteenth century on, there were insurgents,\nhowever varied their cries and watchwords, who were persistent in their\ndenunciation of the priesthood. The hatred arose from their intolerable\nextortions, which were a galling burden. While the tithing system was an\nintolerable yoke, the rapacity of the priests went far beyond tithes in\ntheir exactions. In speaking of this condition, Seebohm, a Spanish\nhistorian, says:\n\n I see that we can scarcely get anything from Christ's ministers but\n for money; at baptism money, at marriage money, at bishoping money,\n for confession money--no, not extreme unction without money! They ring\n no bells without money, no burials in the Church without money; so\n that it seems that Paradise is shut up from them that have no money.\n The rich is buried in the church, the poor in the churchyard. The rich\n man may marry his nearest kin, but the poor not so, albeit he is ready\n to die for love of her. The rich may eat meat in Lent, but the poor\n may not, albeit fish be much dearer. The rich may readily get large\n indulgences, but the poor none, because he wanteth money to pay for\n them. (\"The Era of the Protestant Revolution,\" pages 57, 58.)\n\nAll the efforts at reformation had always ignominiously failed, and the\npapacy with all its abuses had never been more powerful than at the time\nJohn Tetzel was trafficking in indulgences. Just thirty-four years\nbefore this time, Martin Luther was born. His parents were poor, but it\nwas their desire to give him the best education possible. When he was\nfourteen years old they sent him to school at Magdeburg, where he relied\nupon the liberality of well-meaning citizens to supply his needs. The\ntuition was free at Magdeburg, but the students were required to provide\ntheir own lodgings and meals. The usual custom was for a company of poor\nboys to band themselves together and sing in the front of the house of\nthe wealthy citizens. Sometimes they would be invited to a meal; at\nother times they would receive the remnants of a repast or at least some\nslices of bread.\n\nAfter a year had gone by his father decided to send him to Eisenach,\nbecause he hoped that some of his relatives would take a kindly interest\nin him; but in this expectation he was mistaken, for as before he was\ncompelled to beg and sing for his bread. Many times young Luther became\nso discouraged that he made up his mind to return to his home and become\na miner like his father. But a very different life was awaiting him.\nWhen he had acquired the discipline resulting from the long struggle\nwith poverty, a great change took place.\n\n\n A FRIEND INDEED\n\nOne day, after having been harshly treated at three houses, he was\npreparing to return fasting to his lodgings; he stopped motionless in\nfront of a house and reflected, \"Must I for the want of food give up my\nstudies and return with my father in the mines?\" when suddenly a door\nopens and Madame Ursula Cotta, the wife of a wealthy merchant, stood on\nthe threshold. She had heard the harsh words that had been addressed to\nhim, and, seeing him standing thus sadly before her door, she came to\nhis aid, beckoned to him to enter, and gave him food to satisfy his\nhunger. She and her husband took a liking to him, and offered him a\nplace at their table and in their family, where he remained for three\nyears. Thus were brought into his life the influences of gentleness and\nrefinement.\n\nA new life now opened to him. Free from care and anxiety as to his\nsustenance, he was able to devote his whole time to his studies. Here\nnoble influences, very necessary for his future work, surrounded him,\nteaching him the fine and gentle traits of good breeding that elevated\nlife above the struggle for mere existence and gave to it its peculiar\ncharm. \"The strength of his understanding, the liveliness of his\nimagination, the excellence of his memory, soon carried him beyond all\nhis school fellows.\"\n\nThese years of his school period contributed much towards promoting that\nhigher education which his father was so very anxious that he should\nobtain. Thus furnished, in the summer of 1501, in his eighteenth year,\nhe entered the University of Erfurt. Here he applied himself diligently\nand made rapid progress. He did not merely study to cultivate his\nintellect. He had serious thoughts about God, and fervently invoked the\ndivine blessings to rest upon his labors. He passed all the time that he\ncould possibly spare from his studies in the university library. Books\nwere very scarce, and it was a great privilege for him to have access to\nthe \"great collection of books there brought together.\" After having\nbeen in the university for two years, one day, to his great surprise and\ndelight, he found a copy of the Bible, the first that he had ever seen.\nHis interest was greatly excited. \"He was filled with astonishment at\nfinding other matters than those fragments of the Gospels and Epistles\nthat the Church had selected to be read to the people during public\nworship throughout the year. Until this day he had imagined that they\ncomposed the whole Word of God.\" And now he sees so much of which he had\nnever thought! With eagerness and great emotion he turned its pages. The\nfirst passage on which he fixed his attention was the story of Hannah\nand Samuel, which gave him unbounded joy. He returned to his room with a\nfull heart, saying, \"Oh, that God would give me such a book for myself!\"\nThe copy of the Bible that had filled him with so much joy was in Latin.\nAfter this he returned to the library again and again to pore over this\nwonderful treasure, and thus the glimmerings of new truth were beginning\nto dawn upon his mind. \"In that Bible the Reformation lay hid.\"\n\n\n BECOMES A MONK\n\nLuther's father required him to study law. At considerable expense the\nnecessary books had been purchased, and he had begun to attend lectures\non jurisprudence; but for the calling he had no love; and yet, from a\nsense of obedience to his father, he felt it his duty to follow the path\nhe had prescribed. He was, however, frequently disturbed by the thought\nof the endangered spiritual condition of those who followed the legal\nprofession. This conflict quickened within him the sense of his relation\nto the higher law, on which his obedience to his father was based. The\nsudden death of a friend followed shortly afterward by a narrow escape\nfrom death by lightning, in a forest on the way between Erfurt and\nEisleben, determined him to obey what he then regarded as the commands\nof higher law. Terrified by the violence of the storm that was raging\naround him, and especially by the bolts of lightning that were crashing\nthrough the trees, addressing one of the patron saints of his childhood,\nhe cried out: \"Help me, dear Saint Anna, I will be a monk!\"\n\nThe vow thus made was faithfully performed. Two weeks later, July 16,\n1505, he invited his most intimate friends to a cheerful but frugal\nsupper. For the last time he determined to enjoy music and song. The\ndecision once made all sadness was gone. His intention was to tell no\none of his decision, but at the very moment his guests were giving way\nto their gayety, he could no longer control the serious thoughts that\nfilled his mind. They endeavored to dissuade him from his purpose, but\nall in vain. Sorrowfully they accompanied him the next morning to the\nAugustinian cloister located in the town, where he knocked for\nadmission. As they opened, he entered. When the heavy portals of the\nmonastery closed behind him, and the bars were fastened again, he had no\nidea but that he was separated from the world forever. The great\nstruggle was at an end. Was his soul satisfied? Had he found that for\nwhich he was looking--the \"peace that passeth all understanding\"? We\nshall see in our next.\n\nLuther was received among the novices of the monastery with sacred\nhymns, prayers and other solemnities. After this he was given over to\nthe care of the master of the novices, whose duty it was to initiate\nthem into the practices of the monastic sanctity, to observe their\nactual conduct, and to watch over their souls. Above all things, the\nwill of the novices were to be entirely broken. They were to learn that\neverything enjoined upon them was to be performed without the least\nresistance, and even to be the more willing to render obedience the more\nit was against their own disposition and taste. Inclination to pride was\nto be overcome by imposing upon them the meanest services. So at the\nvery beginning of Luther's monastic life he was compelled to perform the\nmost degrading work in sweeping and scrubbing, and it afforded those\nenvious of him peculiar pleasure when he, the hitherto proud young\nmaster, was ordered, with a sack upon his shoulders, to beg through the\ntown in company with a more experienced brother. He did not shirk from\nthese services; but even desired to perform self-mortifying duties, so\nthat he might the more deserve God's favors. Of these days Luther says:\n\n I chose for myself twenty-one saints, read mass every day, calling on\n three of them each day, so as to complete the circuit every week;\n especially did I invoke the Holy Virgin, as her womanly heart was more\n easily touched, that she might appease her Son. I verily thought that\n by invoking three saints daily, and by letting my body waste away with\n fastings and watchings, I should satisfy the law, and shield my\n conscience against the goad; but it all availed me nothing: the\n further I went on in this way the more I was terrified.\n\nFrom this we see that Luther subjected himself to every possible form of\ndiscipline and mortification. He was a model of monkish piety. He says,\n\"If ever a monk got to heaven by monkery, I would have gotten there.\" No\none could surpass him in prayers by day and night, in fasting, in\nvigils, self-discipline and self-mortification, and yet--had he found\nwhat his soul was looking for? There is no mistake. He is as far from\npeace of conscience as ever. He read the Bible, but a veil was before\nhis eyes. Christ was still to his mind a merciless judge. The\nrighteousness of God, which, according to Paul, was revealed in the\nGospel, he took to mean the righteousness which metes out just\npunishment.\n\nFinally, John Staupitz, the vicar-general of the Augustinian order, a\nman of sympathetic nature, and one who possessed in a singular degree\nthe power to discern and appreciate the needs of whomsoever applied to\nhim for aid, came to his rescue. Looking into the haggard face of\nLuther, he said: \"Brother, you must obey God and believe in\nforgiveness.\" \"You have altogether a wrong idea of Christ. Christ does\nnot terrify; his office is to comfort.\" \"You must make up your mind that\nyou are a very sinner, and that Christ is a very Savior.\" These were\nstarting points for new currents of thought. They shed light upon many\npassages of scripture. For days and weeks Luther pondered over these\nwords: \"The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that\nbelieveth; ... For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith\nunto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith\"\n(Rom. 1:16, 17). Many years after receiving this help, Luther wrote:\n\n If Dr. Staupitz, or, rather, God, through Dr. Staupitz, had not aided\n me in this, I would have been long since in hell.\n\nLuther now devoted himself earnestly to the study of theology. Among\nother writings, he read those of Augustine more frequently and fixed\nthem more thoroughly in his memory than any others. In 1508 his\nscholarship received acknowledgement by a call to the chair of\nphilosophy in the newly-founded University of Wittenburg. As a professor\nhe made rapid progress, and soon reached a position of great\nresponsibility and influence.\n\n\n MAKES A PILGRIMAGE TO ROME\n\n\"To make a pilgrimage to Rome; to confess in the Holy City all his sins\ncommitted from early youth; to visit the many sacred places, sacred to\nthe memory of saints and martyrs; to avail himself of the rich\ninfluences offered there; to read mass in Rome--had been a\nlong-cherished hope of the young monk. Hardly had he dared to look for\nits realization.\" But all of a sudden he was sent by Staupitz to Rome to\nassist in the settlement of some difficulties which had arisen in the\nmanagement of the monastic order. On foot, from monastery to monastery,\nhe and his companion went across the Alps, and by the picturesque plain\nof Lombardy passed into Italy. Everywhere his eyes were opened, and\nimportant lessons for the future were learned.\n\nThe first sight of Rome inspired him with great enthusiasm. It was a\ngreat moment to him. He fell upon the ground, and, with outstretched\nhands, exclaimed, \"Hail, thou Holy City!\" The visit continued four\nweeks, giving him ample time to see the ruins of the Colosseum, the\nBaths of Dioclesian, the Pantheon, and other remains of past glory. He\nvisited also the catacombs and other places made sacred by the\nsufferings of martyrs, and, above all, those churches and shrines where\n\"special grace\" could be obtained.\n\nThe chief attraction, however, was not that of sight-seeing, but the\nspiritual blessings that he hoped to receive. It was his purpose to make\nwhile there an unreserved confession of all the sins that he had ever\ncommitted. Although he had made such confession twice before at Erfurt,\nhe expected an especial blessing from the same confession, if made in\nthe \"Holy City.\" Mass he celebrated a number of times, and actually\nwished that his parents were dead, because, by such services at Rome, he\nthought that he could have been able to deliver them from purgatory.\n\nBut in all this he found no satisfaction for his mind; on the contrary,\nthere was aroused in him a consciousness of another way to salvation\nwhich had previously taken root in his heart. While he was painfully\nclimbing on his knees in devout prayer the steps of the identical\nstaircase, as was superstitiously believed, which formerly led up to the\npalace of Pilate in Jerusalem--in order to receive the rich blessings\npromised by several popes upon all who would perform this meritorious\ndeed--again and again as he struggled up the stairway, the words of\nPaul--\"the just shall live by faith\"--came to him as though uttered in\ntones of thunder. But Luther never became sensible of any blessing.\n\nEven Rome did not give to his soul the peace for which he longed. On the\ncontrary, his sojourn in the \"Holy City,\" brief though it was, sufficed\nto convince him that Rome could never supply the needs of his spiritual\nnature. The high ideals of the sanctity of the worship of the saintly\nlife of the pope and the other ecclesiastical dignitaries, which filled\nhis own soul with aspirations and stimulated him to like endeavors, were\nrudely shattered. What he saw and heard in Rome was the very opposite of\nwhat he had expected. Instead of piety he found levity; instead of\nholiness he met lasciviousness; instead of seeing pure spirituality, he\nbeheld nothing but carnal-mindedness, greed and self-seeking. Religion\nwas but the cloak which covered up the shame and vice. The white\ngarments of the Church were polluted with the stains of the most\ndisgraceful and carnal manner of living. Wherever he turned he saw\nhypocrisy and sin. Everything that was to him an object of holy\nadoration was made the butt of blasphemous jests. Of the impressions\nmade on his mind he wrote:\n\n Nobody can form an idea of the licentiousness, vice and shame that is\n in vogue in Rome. Nobody would believe it unless he could see it with\n his own eyes and hear it with his own ears. Rome was once the holiest\n city, now it is the vilest. It is true what has been said, \"If there\n be a hell, Rome must be built over it.\"\n\nYet in spite of all he saw and heard, he \"loved the grand old Church\"\nwith all his heart. He did not return from Rome an enemy of the Church,\nnor even intending to reform it. But if ever a man left the \"Holy City\"\nthrust down from the heights of zeal and enthusiasm to the very depths\nof despair, wounded and crushed in spirit, it was the plain, honest\nLuther. This experience, however, was but another step in his\npreparation, for he says:\n\n I would not take a thousand florins for missing that visit to Rome. I\n would constantly fear that I had wronged the pope. But now I can speak\n of what I have seen myself.\n\n\n PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT WITTENBURG\n\nWhen Luther returned from Rome to Wittenburg in the early summer of\n1512, Staupitz sent him to Erfurt to complete his training for the\ndoctorate in theology. His advancement was so rapid that by the time he\nreached his twenty-ninth year he found himself not only installed in a\nprofessorship of Theology at Wittenburg, but also with the main\nresponsibility resting upon him for all instruction that was to be\ngiven. From that time the presence of Staupitz was not frequent. In this\nposition he did not hesitate to break through all traditional modes of\ntheological instruction.\n\nLuther was still a genuine monk, with no doubt of his vocation. He\nbecame the sub-prior of the Wittenburg Monastery in 1512, and was made\ndistrict vicar over eleven monasteries in 1515. These administrative\nduties occasioned frequent interruptions of his professional and\nliterary labors. It was his duty, by means of visitations and frequent\ncorrespondence, to learn the condition and decide concerning the\nnecessities of each monastery and its inmates. The already thoroughly\noccupied professor was thus called to a truly pastoral care of an\nextensive and difficult field. To every one in doubts and perplexities,\nlike those which agitated him, he sought to give the full benefit of his\nexperience.\n\nSo far as the record shows, Luther first heard of Tetzel in 1516, just\nas he was beginning his visitation of the churches. It was reported to\nhim that Tetzel was making a great noise, and some of his extravagant\nsentiments, which I have already quoted, were related to him, and when\nhe heard this he indignantly exclaimed, \"If God permit, I will make a\nhole in his drum!\" Shortly after this he gave warning, not against\nindulgences, but what he regarded their abuse. \"What should be regarded\nwith all reverence,\" said he, \"has become a horrid means of pampering\navarice, since it is not the salvation of souls, but solely pecuniary\nprofit that is in view.\"\n\nHe justified the intentions of the pope, but charged that Tetzel had\nmisinterpreted and misapplied them. In a sermon delivered February 24,\n1517, he grows in severity. \"Indulgences,\" he declared, \"are teaching\nthe people to dread the punishment of sin, instead of sin itself. If it\nwere not to escape the punishment for sin, no one would care about\nindulgences, even if offered gratuitously.\"\n\nAs Tetzel drew near to Wittenburg, attracting larger crowds to his\npreaching, and as some over whom Luther had spiritual jurisdiction\nsought to excuse themselves from worshiping of relict and of engaging in\nrevolting sins by producing letters of indulgence obtained from Tetzel,\nhe could not, by silence, connive at what would have carried with it the\nviolation of his fidelity as a spiritual guide. Still it was only after\nmuch hesitation, after many of his friends had urged him to interfere,\nand in deep distress of mind, that he resolved to protest. When he had\ndetermined to do something he went about the matter with a mixture of\ncaution and courage.\n\n\n THE NINETY-FIVE THESES\n\nThe Church of All-Saints in Wittenburg had always been intimately\nconnected with the university; its doors were used as boards on which to\npublish important academic documents; and notices of public\n\"disputations,\" common enough at the time, had frequently appeared\nthere. The day of the year which drew the largest concourse of townsmen\nand strangers to the church was All-Saints Day, so on the day before,\nOctober 31, 1517, Luther nailed the Ninety-five Theses protesting\nagainst what he regarded as the abuse of indulgences, to the door of the\nchurch. Crowds of eager students gathered for hours before the door of\nthe church, intent upon reading and copying the sensational document.\nThe first effect upon those nearest Luther was stunning. Whatever their\nabhorrence of the methods of Tetzel, and their dissatisfaction of the\nwhole system which admitted of such manifest abuses, the impression was\nthat he had spoken inadvisedly. His colleagues were apprehensive of the\nresults for the university. The Augustinian monks saw the stake in the\nforeground, and dreaded the disgrace which Luther's presence among them\nwould cast upon their order. For the moment, Luther stood alone at\nWittenburg, but copies of the Latin original and translations of it into\nGerman were sent to the university printing house and the presses could\nnot print them fast enough to meet the demand which came from all parts\nof Germany, and \"in four weeks they were diffused throughout all\nChristendom, as though the angels were the postmen.\" The result was\nunexpected and startling to Luther.\n\nMany approved Luther's course, saying that the man who was to break the\ntyranny of the papacy had arisen. In the meantime the opposition was\nindustriously gathering its forces, but the controversy increased the\npopularity of the theses. Luther was summoned to Rome to answer for his\nattack on the Indulgence system. To have disobeyed would have meant\ndeath. This peremptory summons was construed as an affront to the\nUniversity of Wittenburg. The officials of the university interfered,\nwith the result that the summons to Rome was canceled and it was\narranged that the matter was to be left in the hands of the Papal Legate\nCajetan in Germany, and Luther was ordered to present himself before the\nofficial at Augsburg. The interview was not satisfactory. The cardinal\ndemanded that Luther should recant his heresies without any argument.\nWhen pressed to say what the heresies were, he named the statement in\nfifty-eighth thesis that the merits of Christ work effectually without\nthe intervention of the pope, and that which said that the sacraments\nare not efficacious apart from faith in the recipient. There was some\ndiscussion, notwithstanding the cardinal's declaration; but in the end\nLuther was ordered to recant or depart. Luther appealed to a general\ncouncil and returned to Wittenburg.\n\nOn returning to Wittenburg Luther's first task was to prepare for the\npress an account of his interview with Cardinal Cajetan, the pope's\nrepresentative at Augsburg. He was careful to take the people of Germany\ninto his confidence, and published an account of every important\ninterview he had; thus the people were able to follow him step by step,\nand he was never so far in advance that they were unable to see his\nfootprints. The immediate effect of the report was an immense outburst\nof sympathy for him.\n\nSoon after the interview at Augsburg, the papal court reached the\nconclusion that it would be to their interest to win him by compromise\nand kindness. Miltitz, a papal chamberlain, was sent to Germany. On\nreaching there he found that \"the state of matters was undreamt of at\nthe papal court.\" He saw that Cajetan had never perceived that he had\nnot only to deal with Luther, but with the slow movement of the German\nnation. He found that three out of five of the people stood with Luther.\nHe wisely resolved that he would see both Luther and Tetzel privately\nbefore producing his credentials. Tetzel he could not see, for it was\ndangerous for him to stir from his convent, so greatly was he in danger\nfrom violence of the people. On meeting Luther, he at once disowned the\nspeeches of Tetzel; showed that he was not pleased with Cajetan's\nmethods of action; and so prevailed on Luther that he promised to write\na submissive letter to the pope, to advise the people to reverence the\nRoman Church, and to say that indulgences were useful in the remission\nof canonical penances.\n\nThe letter was actually written and the language is replete with\nexpressions of condescension, and it exalts the Roman Church above\neverything but Christ himself. He also promised to discontinue the\ncontroversy if his opponents would do the same. But Miltitz was not\nsupported by the Roman court, and he had also to reckon with John Eck,\nwho was burning with a desire to vanquish Luther in a public discussion.\n\nThe time between his interview at Augsburg and the discussion with the\nvainglorious John Eck was spent by Luther in hard and disquieting\nstudies. His opponents had confronted him with the pope's absolute\nsupremacy in all ecclesiastical matters, and this was one of his oldest\ninherited beliefs. The Roman Church had been for him \"the pope's house,\"\nin which the pope was the house-father, to whom all obedience was due.\nIt was hard for him to think otherwise. He re-examined his convictions\nabout justifying and attempted to trace clearly their consequences, and\nwhether they did lead to his declarations about the efficacy of\nindulgences. He came to no other conclusion. He also investigated the\nevidence for the papal claim of absolute authority, and found that it\nrested on the strength of a collection of decretals many of which were\nplainly forgeries. Under the combined influence of historical study, of\nthe opinions of the early \"church fathers,\" and of the Holy Scriptures,\none of his oldest landmarks crumbled to pieces. His mind was in a whirl\nof doubt. He was half-exultant and half-terrified at the result of his\nstudies; and his correspondence shows how his mind changed from week to\nweek. \"It was while he was thus 'on the swither,' tremulously on the\nbalance, that John Eck challenged him to dispute at Leipzig on the\nprimacy and supremacy of the Roman pontiff.\" Luther accepted the\nchallenge, thinking that the discussion might clear the air, and might\nenable him to see more clearly where he stood.\n\n\n DEBATES WITH JOHN ECK AND BURNS THE PAPAL BULL\n\nThe discussion began June 27th and closed July 15, 1519. This is the\nfirst time Luther ever met a controversialist of European fame. Eck came\nto Leipzig from his triumphs at the great debates at Vienna and Bologna,\nand was and felt himself to be the hero of the occasion. Eck's intention\nwas to force his opponent to make some declaration which would justify\nhim in charging Luther with being a partisan of the medieval heretics,\nand especially of the Hussites. He continually led the debate away to\nthe Waldenses, the Wycliffites, and the Bohemians. The audience was\nswayed with a wave of excitement when Luther was gradually forced to\nadmit that \"the Hussite doctrines are not all wrong.\" Throughout the\ndebate Eck's deportment was that of a man striving to overcome his\nopponent rather than one striving to win a victory for the truth. There\nwas as much sophistry as good reasoning in his arguments; he continually\nmisquoted Luther's words or gave them a meaning they were not intended\nto convey.\n\n\"Triumphant, lauded by his friends, and recompensed with favor and honor\nby Duke George, Eck departed from the debate.\" He had done what he had\nmeant to do. He had made Luther declare himself. In his estimation, all\nthat was needed was a papal bull against Luther, and the world would be\nrid of another pestilent heretic. He had made him the central figure\naround which all the smoldering discontent could gather. As for Luther,\nhe returned to Wittenberg, disgusted and full of melancholy foreboding.\nThis did not prevent him preparing and publishing for his people an\naccount of the discussion, which was eagerly read and gained for him\ngreat favor. In some respects the Leipzig debate was the most important\npoint in the career of Luther. It made him see for the first time what\nlay in his opposition to indulgences. It made the people see it, too.\nHis attack was no criticism, as he had at first thought, of a mere\nexcrescence on the medieval ecclestiastical system. He had struck at its\ncenter: at its ideas of priestly mediation which denied the right of\nevery believer to immediate entrance into the very presence of God.\n\nGreat men now came to the support of Luther, including Philip\nMelanchthon, one of the greatest scholars of the age. The conflict\nbetween Rome and Luther became one of life and death. In September,\n1520, Eck again appeared in Germany with a papal bull against Luther,\ndated June 15th. It condemned as heresies forty-one propositions\nextracted from his writings, ordered his works to be burned wherever\nthey were found, and summoned him on pain of excommunication, to confess\nand retract his errors within sixty days, and to throw himself upon the\nmercy of the pope. This bull fight brought Luther to a step decisive\nbeyond recall. He met this threat of violence with unshakable courage.\nHe at once \"carried the war into the heart of the enemy's territory. In\nthe presence of a vast multitude of all ranks and orders, he burned the\npapal bull, and with it the decree, the decretals, the Clementines, and\nextravagants, the entire code of Romish canon law, as the root of all\nthe evil, December 10, 1520.\"\n\nWhen the news spread that a poor monk had burnt the pope's bull, a\nthrill went through Germany, and, indeed, throughout all Europe. Papal\nbulls had been burnt before Luther's day, but the actors had for the\nmost part been powerful monarchs. This time it was done by a monk with\nnothing but his faith and courage to back him.\n\nRome had now done its utmost to get rid of Luther by ecclesiastical\nmeasures, and had failed. If he was to be overthrown, if the new\nreligious movement and the national uprising which indorsed it were to\nbe stifled, this could only be done by the aid of the supreme secular\nauthority. The Roman court now turned attention to the emperor.\n\nEmperor Maximilian died January 12, 1519, and after some months of papal\nintriguing, his grandson, Charles, the King of Spain, was chosen to be\nhis successor. Troubles in Spain prevented his leaving that country at\nonce to take possession of his new dignities. He was finally crowned on\nOctober 20, 1520, and opened his first German diet, at Worms, January\n22, 1521.\n\nAfter the coronation, and especially after the burning of the pope's\nbull, every step was toward Worms. The decision of the Roman court had\nnot settled the case as to Luther; the bull was slow in getting itself\nexecuted; very many thought it were better not executed. Men's minds\nwere not at rest--they wished for some other tribunal to which the case\nmight be referred; in the absence of a general council, the highest\nauthority in the Roman Church, they thought of the emperor and the diet,\nthe highest authority in the State. But if Luther were to appear before\nthe diet, it was not at all clear what the diet was to demand of him or\nto do with him. There was no need that judgment should be passed upon\nhim; the pope had already condemned him. It was not necessary that the\ndiet should order his execution; the bull made it the duty of any prince\nto do that without any order. He might be required to retract his\nteaching, but that had already been done by the bull. If the diet should\nundertake to hear his cause, that would be a virtual denial of the\npope's supremacy, and an acknowledgment of the justice of Luther's\ncomplaint that he had been condemned unheard. Both parties felt that for\nthe diet to do anything was a reflection on the pope; and yet it was\nevidently necessary for the diet to do something.\n\nThe emperor, too, felt the difficulty. He was a politician from his\nyouth, and his conduct toward the pope, even from the first, was\naffected by political considerations; but apart from these things, there\nwas sufficient reason for his hesitation and vacillation. He was\ninfluenced now by one party now by the other or, as is likely, now by\nhis own independent judgment and now by what seemed to be required of\nhim by his position as the civil head of the Church. On November 28,\n1520, he wrote to the Elector of Saxony, directing him to bring Luther\nto Worms, \"in order to give him there a full hearing before the learned\nand competent persons,\" and promising that no harm should come to him;\nin the meantime, the elector was to require of Luther to write nothing\nagainst the pope. The emperor was acting on the suggestion of the\nelector, but between the time of this suggestion and the time of the\nelector's receiving the letter things had been changed--by the burning\nof his books he had been treated as a condemned heretic. This offended\nthe elector, and he wrote the emperor declining to require Luther's\npresence at the diet. The emperor, too, had changed; he had begun to\nrealize that Luther was under the papal ban, and that any place in which\nhe might be was declared under the interdict. Luther, therefore, could\nnot be permitted to come to Worms. If he would not retract what he had\nsaid against the papacy he was to stay at home until the emperor should\nhave opportunity to confer with the elector personally.\n\n\n BEFORE THE DIET OF WORMS\n\nThe diet met on January 22, 1521, and on February 10th there came a\nbrief from Rome making final Luther's excommunication, urging his\ncondemnation by the diet and emperor. But there was evident reluctance\nto proceed against him; something might be accomplished by negotiations.\nThe pope had selected Marino Carraccioli and Jerome Aleander to wait on\nthe young emperor and to represent his case before the diet. Aleander\nwas a clearsighted, courageous and indefatigable diplomatist, a pure\nworldling, a man of indifferent morals, who believed that every man had\nhis price, and that law and selfish motives were alone to be reckoned\nwith. The defeat of the papacy at Worms was not due to any lack of\nthoroughness of his work. He had spies everywhere--in the households of\nthe emperor and of the leading princes, and among the population of\nWorms. He did not hesitate to lie when he thought it useful to the Roman\nChurch. The Roman court had put upon him the difficult task of putting\nLuther under the ban of the empire at once and unheard.\n\nHis speech before the diet was long and eloquent, but weakened by his\nbitterness and vehemence. He said he spoke in defense of the papal\nthrone, which was so dear to them all. He enumerated the heresies taught\nin Luther's works. Luther was obstinate, disobedient to the pope's\nsummons, refused to be instructed; the pope had condemned him, and it\nwas the emperor's duty to enforce the condemnation; the laity had\nnothing to do with such questions except to carry out the pope's\ndecrees; ruin would follow if Luther was not condemned; a decree from\nthe diet and the emperor would restore quiet, and preserve the Church\nand empire. Such were the considerations urged by Aleander. He sat down\namid murmurs of approbation, but he had made no new points, given no\nfresh reasons.\n\nA few days afterward a representative German, Duke George of Saxony,\nalready Luther's enemy, presented the case of Germany against the pope.\nThere were many things of which he complained, exactions and\nusurpations, the growth and accumulation of years. A committee of the\ndiet was appointed to draft the grievances, and brought in a long list.\nWith so many grievances against the pope already the diet was in no\nhurry to take the pope's part against a popular German; the condemnation\nof Luther, and especially the manner of condemnation, was itself another\ngrievance.\n\nThe law required the execution of the pope's bull, and was against\ngranting to a condemned heretic a new hearing before a secular tribunal.\nIt was a case in which the law demanded one thing and expediency and\njustice another. After a long discussion in the diet it was \"held\nstoutly that no countryman of theirs should be placed under the ban of\nthe empire without being heard in his defense, and that they and not the\npope of Rome were to be the judges in the matter.\"\n\nThere was open opposition between the emperor and the diet, and abundant\nsecret intrigue--\"an edict proposed against Luther, which the diet\nrefused to accept; an edict proposed to order the burning of Luther's\nbooks, which the diet also objected to; this edict revised and limited\nto seizure of Luther's writings, which was also found fault with by the\ndiet; and, finally, the emperor issuing this revised edict of his own\nauthority and without the consent of the diet.\"\n\nThe command to appear before the diet on April 16, 1521, and the safe\nconduct were delivered to Luther on March 26th. He was to face in a\npractical way the question of going to the diet, and for him and his\nfriends the crisis had come. Many of Luther's associates at Wittenberg\nendeavored to dissuade him from obeying the emperor's mandate. Well it\nwas for his fame, work and cause that he refused to heed their advice.\nThese good-intentioned, but faint-hearted, colleagues were advising him\nto take a fatal step, one that would have been more damaging to his work\nthan all the machinations of his foes; that would, in fact, have been\nplaying his enemies' game, and bringing the Reformation in Germany to a\nsudden close. A crisis had been reached where a failure in moral courage\nin Luther would have ruined everything. He rose to the occasion, and his\nmoral stature was disclosed to the whole world.\n\nThe journey seemed to the indignant papists like a royal progress;\ncrowds came to bless the man who had stood for the people against the\npope, and they believed he was going to his death for his courage. The\nnearer he came to Worms, the fiercer became the disputes there. Friends\nand foes found that his presence would prove oil thrown into the flames.\nThe emperor regretted having sent the summons. Messengers were\ndispatched secretly to endeavor to prevent his coming. Just as he was\napproaching the city a messenger from one of his best friends in great\nalarm said: \"Do not enter Worms!\" But Luther, undismayed, turned to him\nand said: \"Go and tell your master that even should there be as many\ndevils in Worms as tiles on the housetops, still I would enter it.\"\n\nOn the morning of April 16th Luther entered the city, accompanied by\nfully two thousand persons. The citizens eagerly pressed forward to see\nhim, and every moment the crowd was increasing. It was much greater than\nthe public entry of the emperor. The news of his arrival filled both\nfriend and foe with great alarm. On the next morning the \"marshal of the\nempire cited him to appear at four o'clock before his imperial majesty\nand the states of the empire.\" Luther received this summons with\nprofound respect. Thus everything was arranged. At four o'clock the\nmarshal appeared, and Luther set out with him. He was agitated at the\nthoughts of the solemn congress before which he was about to appear. The\nstreets were so densely crowded that they advanced with great\ndifficulty. At length they reached the doors of the hall, which were\nopened to them. Luther went in, and with him entered many persons who\nformed no portion of the diet. And now was enacted \"the most splendid\nscene in history.\" As has been aptly said:\n\n Never had man appeared before so imposing an assembly. The Emperor\n Charles V, whose sovereignty extended over a great part of the old and\n new world; his brother, Archduke Ferdinand; six electors of the\n empire, most of whose descendants now wear the kingly crown;\n twenty-four dukes, the majority of whom were independent sovereigns\n over countries more or less extensive, and among whom were some whose\n names afterward became formidable to the Reformation--the Duke of Alva\n and his two sons; eight margraves, thirty archbishops, bishops, and\n abbots; seven ambassadors, including those from the kings of France\n and England; the deputies of ten free cities; a great number of\n princes, counts, and sovereign barons; the papal nuncios--in all two\n hundred and four persons. Such was the imposing court before which\n appeared Martin Luther. The appearance was of itself a signal victory\n over the papacy. The pope had condemned the man, and yet there he\n stood before a tribunal which by this very act, set itself above the\n pope. The pope had laid him under an interdict, and cut him off from\n all human society; and yet he was summoned in respectful language, and\n received before the most august assembly in the world. The pope had\n condemned him to perpetual silence, and yet he was now about to speak\n before thousands of attentive hearers drawn together from the farthest\n parts of Christendom. An immense revolution had thus been effected by\n Luther's instrumentality. Rome was already descending from her throne,\n and it was the voice of a monk that caused this humiliation.\n (D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, p. 240.)\n\nInto the presence of this august body Luther was led, and the sight of\nthis great assemblage of dignitaries almost paralyzed him. The marshal\ncommanded him not to speak unless he was spoken to, and to answer\npromptly and truly all questions put to him. The court was conducted\nwith great pomp, but all its solemn apparatus was an empty pageant; for\nhowever Luther might defend himself, the sentence had been already\narranged with Rome. Aleander had arranged the procedure. After a moment\nof solemn silence John Eck rose and said in a loud and clear voice:\n\n Martin Luther, his sacred and invincible imperial majesty has cited\n you before his throne, in accordance with the advice and counsel of\n the States of the holy Roman empire, to require you to answer two\n questions: (1) Do you acknowledge these books to have been written by\n you? [At the same time pointing to twenty books on a table directly in\n front of Luther.] (2) Are you prepared to retract these books, and\n their contents, or do you persist in the opinions you have advanced in\n them?\n\nIt was then requested that the titles of the books be read, which was\ndone, and Luther acknowledged them to be his. He was again asked, \"Will\nyou retract the doctrines therein?\" Then Luther, after having briefly\nand precisely repeated the questions put to him, said:\n\n I can not deny that the books named are mine, and I will never deny\n any of them; they are all my offspring. But as to what follows,\n whether I shall reaffirm in the same terms all, or shall retract what\n I may have uttered beyond the authority of Scripture--because the\n matter involves a question of faith and of the salvation of souls, and\n because it concerns the Word of God, which is the highest thing in\n heaven and on earth, and which we all must reverence--it would be\n dangerous and rash in me to make any unpremeditated declaration,\n because in unpremeditated speech I might say something less than the\n facts and something more than the truth; besides, I remember the\n saying of Christ when he declared, \"Whosoever shall deny me before\n men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven, and\n before his holy angels.\" For these reasons I beg, with all respect,\n that your Imperial Majesty give me time to deliberate, that I may\n answer the question without injury to the Word of God and without\n peril to my own soul.\n\nLuther made his answer in such a low voice that those who were sitting\nnear him could scarcely hear him. Many present inferred that Luther's\nlow voice indicated that his spirit was broken, and that he was greatly\nalarmed. But from what followed it is evident that Luther's whole\nprocedure on this first appearance before the diet was intended to\ndefeat the intrigues of Aleander, which had for their aim to prevent\nLuther addressing the diet in a long speech; and in this he succeeded.\n\nThe emperor expressed the opinion that the question was one for which\nLuther ought to be prepared to make immediate answer; but after much\ndelay and consultation with his advisers he granted Luther's request for\na postponement until the next day at the same hour. Then he was required\nto present himself before the diet on April 18th. After he had been\ncalled on the following day, Eck began by reproving him for asking for\nfurther time for consideration, and then proceeded to put a second\nquestion, somewhat modified and more in conformity to the ideals of the\nStates: \"Will you defend all the books that you have acknowledged as\nyour own, or recant some of them?\"\n\nLuther had now freed himself from the web of intrigue that Aleander had\nso skillfully woven around him to compel him to silence, and stood forth\na free German to plead his cause before the most illustrious audience\nGermany could offer to any of her sons, before which he made a\ndeliberate reply in a firm and decided tone. He divided his books into\nthree classes. The first were written for the edification of believers,\nand his adversaries admitted them to be harmless, and even useful. He\ncould not retract these. Were he to do it, he would be the only man\ndoing so. In other books he had attacked pernicious laws and doctrines\nof the papacy, which, as no one could deny, tortured the consciences of\nChristians and also tyrannically devoured the property of the German\nnation; if he should recant these he would be but adding to the force of\nthe Roman tyranny, and opening, not merely the windows, but the doors,\nto great impiety, and make himself a disgraceful abettor of wickedness\nand oppression. In the third place, he had written against persons who\ndefend and sanction this tyranny, and aiming at annihilating these pious\nteachings; against them he said he had possibly been more severe than he\nshould have been, and that he did not claim that his conduct had always\nbeen faultless. \"But the question,\" said he, \"is not concerning my\nconduct, but concerning the doctrine of Christ; and therefore I could\nnot recant these writings, for Rome would make use of such disavowal to\nextend her oppression. I demand the evidence against me, and a fair\ntrial. I stand here ready, if any one can prove me to have written\nfalsely, to recant my errors, and to throw my books into the fire with\nmy own hands.\" In conclusion he uttered an earnest admonition to the\nemperor, and the empire, that instead of securing peace and quiet by a\ncondemnation of the divine Word, they would, on the other hand, open the\nfloodgate of untold miseries and evils that can not be conceived. He did\nnot mean to say that his distinguished hearers required this admonition,\nbut that he could not refrain from discharging this duty in behalf of\nhis beloved Germany.\n\n\"It was a brave speech, a strong speech, delivered with self-possession\nand in a clear voice that could be heard by the whole assembly--a\nstriking contrast in every way to his manner of the previous day.\" When\nLuther had finished, Eck addressed him in a threatening manner, and told\nhim that he had not answered the question; that this was not an occasion\nfor general discussion, but to ascertain from him whether he would\nretract his errors. \"In some of your books you deny the decision of\ncouncils and that they have often erred and contradicted the Holy\nScriptures. Will you recant or reaffirm what you have said about them?\nThe emperor demands a plain answer.\"\n\nTo which Luther replied:\n\n Well then, since His Imperial Majesty wants a plain answer, I will\n give him one without horns or teeth. Unless I am convinced of error by\n the testimony of Scriptures or clear arguments--for I believe neither\n the pope nor the councils alone, which have erred and contradicted\n each other often--I am convinced by the passages of Scripture which I\n have cited, and my conscience is bound by the Word of God. I can not\n and will not recant anything, for it is neither safe nor right to act\n against one's conscience. Such is my profession of faith, and expect\n no other from me. Here I stand, I can not do otherwise. God help me,\n Amen!\n\nIn astonishment, the emperor suggested the question whether Luther\nactually was of the opinion that councils could err, and he was promptly\nanswered by Luther:\n\n Of course; because they have often erred. For, since the council of\n Constance decided in many points against the clear text of Holy\n Scripture, Holy Scripture forces me to say that councils have erred.\n\nEck declared that it could not be proved that general councils had\nerred. Luther said he could prove they had. The disputation that they\nsaid they would avoid was beginning. The emperor, seeing this, arose,\nand all the assembly with him. Eck cried out in a loud, clear voice:\n\"The diet will meet again to-morrow to hear the emperor's opinion.\" It\nwas night; each man retired to his home in darkness. Two imperial\nofficers escorted Luther. Some supposed that his fate was decided and\nthat they were leading him to prison, whence he would never return till\nhe was brought out to be burned at the stake. A great tumult arose. Some\ncried out, \"Are they taking him to prison?\" \"No,\" replied Luther, \"they\nare only accompanying me to my hotel.\" At these words the excitement\nsubsided.\n\n\n UNDER IMPERIAL BAN\n\nLuther had produced a profound impression on the chiefs of the empire,\nand many lords and princes were won to his cause. On the next morning\nthe emperor submitted to the estates of the empire the proposition to\nimmediately dismiss Luther, and then on the expiration of his\nself-conduct, to proceed against him as a heretic. On May 26th, after a\nmajority of the diet had departed from Worms, an imperial edict against\nLuther was passed, and published as the \"unanimous act of the Electors\nof the States.\" In order to make it appear that the emperor's signature\nwas affixed when all the members of the diet were assembled, it was\ndated May 8th. It decreed against Luther the imperial ban; after\napplying to him the usual severe expressions of the papal bulls, it\nsaid:\n\n Under the pain of incurring the penalties due to the crime of high\n treason, we forbid you to harbor the said Luther after the appointed\n term shall be expired, to conceal him, to give him food or drink, or\n to furnish him, by word or by deed, publicly or secretly, with any\n kind of succor whatever. We enjoin you, moreover, to seize him, or\n cause him to be seized, wherever you may find him, to bring him before\n us without any delay, or to keep him safe in custody, until you have\n learned from us in what manner you are to act toward him, and have\n received the reward due to your labors in so holy a work.\n\nThus the diet of Worms added to the pope's excommunication the ban of\nthe emperor. The bold stand of the poor monk, in the face of the\ncombined civil and ecclesiastical powers of the age, is one of the\nsublimest scenes in history, and marks an epoch in the progress of\nfreedom. The disaffections with the various abuses of Rome and the\ndesire for free preaching of the Gospel were so extensive that the\nReformation, both in its negative and positive features, spread in spite\nof the pope's bull and the emperor's ban, and gained a foothold before\n1530 in the greater part of Northern Germany.\n\nAmong the principal causes of this rapid progress were the writings of\nthe reformers, Luther's German Bible, and the evangelical hymns, which\nintroduced the new ideas into public worship and the hearts of the\npeople.\n\nOn leaving Worms, after having gone some distance, Luther dismissed the\nimperial herald and proceeded leisurely, attended by only two friends.\nToward night on May 4th, as he was in a lonely part of the wood, a band\nof armed horsemen suddenly appeared and surrounded the carriage. His\nfriends supposed themselves attacked by bandits; one of them fled for\nhis life, the other, Amisdorf, went on to Wittenberg with the news that\nLuther was violently dragged away and his fate was unknown. As the weeks\npassed and nothing was heard of him, the people were filled with\nanxiety. Even his enemies rejoiced with trembling when they heard that\nhe had disappeared, for things were in such a state that \"Luther dead\nmight well be more troublesome to them than Luther living.\"\n\nLuther has left no record of his feelings when he was dragged from his\ncarriage, mounted on a horse and spirited away. If he at first supposed\nhimself to be a real captive he was soon informed that he was in the\nhands of friends. He was taken in the darkness and silence of the night\nto the castle at Wartburg, eight miles distant, by the order of the\nElector Frederick, as a means of protecting him, where he spent the next\nten months. He doffed his monk's gown, put on the garb of a country\ngentleman, let his beard grow, and was known as \"Junker George.\" His\ntime was spent in meditation, translating the New Testament into German\nand writing.\n\n\n A CHANGE COMES OVER LUTHER\n\nAt Wartburg he began that course of interference with political\nadministration and ecclesiastical organization which made his later\nyears as a reformer so different from his earlier, and in the end led\nhim to the practical denial of nearly every principle that he had\naffirmed. His own protection by the Elector Frederick against the\ncombined power of pope and emperor made clear to him, he thought, the\nmethod by which a reformation might be attempted. While at Wartburg he\nthought out and wrote what he entitled, \"Warning to all Christians to\nAbstain from Rebellion and Sedition,\" in which he maintained the\nprinciple from which he never thereafter departed, that the civil Rulers\nhad both the right and the duty to undertake the reformation of the\nchurch, and that any other principle was impracticable and dangerous.\nThat there be no mistaking his meaning I give his words:\n\n Therefore have regard to the rulers. So long as they undertake nothing\n and give no command, keep quiet with hand, mouth and heart, and\n undertake nothing. If you can persuade rulers to undertake and\n command, you may do it. If they will not you should not. But if you\n proceed, you are wrong and much worse than the other party.\n\nThis no doubt was called forth by the news of the proceedings at\nWittenberg. For even with Luther away, Wittenberg, with its growing,\naggressive university, was the center of the Reformation. New thoughts\nhad been put into men's minds, new aspirations, new purposes had come\ninto their hearts. Luther had long before preached that the mass was\nwrong, but had gone right along celebrating it, and so had he taught\nabout other things, but continued to practice them. His teaching had\ntaken deep root, and Zwilling, chaplain of the Augustinian convent, a\nbold, zealous and eloquent man, who had the confidence of the people,\ndeclared that the mass ought to be abolished and that it was a sin to\ncelebrate it. \"The members of the convent, the prior excepted, agreed\nwith him. The prior asserted his authority; the monks rebelled; the\nelector interfered and referred the case to the university. The\nuniversity decided in favor of Zwilling and the monks, Melanchthon\nwriting the opinion.\" He attacked earnestly and bitterly monastic vows,\ncelibacy, clerical garb, the use of images and pictures in the churches.\nHis teaching strongly implied that liberty could not be attained till\nall these things were swept away.\n\nThe movement to put these exhortations into practice began first among\nthe clergy. Two priests in parishes near Wittenberg married; several\nmonks left their cloisters and donned the garments of the common people;\nMelanchthon and several of his students \"communicated in both kinds in\nthe church,\" and his example was followed by others. Images were\ncondemned and cast out of the churches. No one knew what would next be\ndone, and disturbing rumors were being circulated. Carlstadt now took\nthe lead and announced that on the first day of the new year he would\n\"celebrate the Lord's Supper after the ancient manner in both kinds.\nWhen opposition threatened he anticipated the time and held the service\non Christmas day. A beginning was made; opposition was silenced and\nCarlstadt had his way.\"\n\nThings were going too fast for the Elector Frederick, too fast for\nLuther. In his quiet retreat in Wartburg he wrote against the mass and\nmonkish vows, \"but how great a step there is between condemning old\ncustoms in our hearts and changing them with our hands--between the\nthoughts and the act!\" On being informed of the reformatory movements in\nWittenberg, Luther resented it, and most sharply reproved them for\npracticing what he had preached. In a letter written to the\nWittenbergers in December, 1521, he said:\n\n They have introduced changes in the mass and images, attacked the\n sacrament and other things that are of no account, and have let love\n and faith go; just as though all the world hereabouts had great\n understanding in these matters, which is not the fact; and so many\n have brought it about that many pious people have been stirred up to\n do what is really the devil's work. It would, indeed, be a good thing\n to begin such changes, if we could all together have the needful\n faith; and if they suited the church in such measure that no one could\n take offense at them. But this can never be. We can not all be as\n Carlstadt. Therefore we must yield to the weak; otherwise those who\n are strong will run far, and the weak who can not follow them at like\n pace will be run down.\n\nIt was not by Luther, but by men of a different type, that this\npractical work was begun. There was sore need for a Zwilling and a\nCarlstadt. This was an occasion when those who were called fanatics did\na real service for mankind. They were strong in their convictions, saw\nonly one thing, reckless of all consequences, and brave where other men\nare appalled, and with no misgivings kindled a fire that wrapped the\nworld in flame. Had it not been for what they did, \"Luther's writing and\npreaching might have ended in preaching and writing. They saw that\nsomething must be done, and they did it!\" While this was needful in\nprecipitating the conflict, it was equally necessary that others should\ndirect it.\n\nThe excitement at Wittenberg soon reached an alarming height, and was\nintensified by the arrival of the Zwickan prophets, who claimed to be\nthe first to have properly received the divine Spirit, and to have been\ncalled to carry on God's work. They boasted of prophetic visions, dreams\nand direct communications with God. They also rejected infant baptism,\nsaying that there was no such thing taught in the Scriptures. The\npeople, losing their hold on the old, were ready to take up with\nanything that came with a plausible face. Even the most prudent were\nafraid to condemn anything that might have truth in it, and especially\nwere they unwilling to reject anything that seemed to be taught in the\nScripture. Melanchthon was greatly troubled and disturbed. It was not so\nmuch the visions of the Zwickan prophets that disturbed him as their\nteaching on baptism, and instead of settling the matter by an appeal to\nthe Word of God, he referred it to the Elector Frederick, who advised\nhim not to discuss the subject with them, but wait for Luther, for they\nquoted Saint Augustine to prove that nothing could be brought in favor\nof infant baptism except ecclesiastical custom.\n\n\n RETAINS THAT WHICH THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT EXPRESSLY FORBID\n\nLuther returned from Wartburg to Wittenberg in the early part of 1522,\nwhen efforts were made to get him to drop infant baptism and make the\nReformation thorough. But while translating the Bible, at Wartburg, he\nhad determined to retain whatever practices it did not forbid. At first\nhe had no little struggle on the subject of infant baptism. On other\nsubjects he had been forced, against his will, step by step, to abandon\nthe fathers, the councils, and Catholic tradition, being driven to it by\nthe Scriptures. But when he found no authority in the Bible for infant\nbaptism he assumed a new attitude. At that point he had a fiery contest\nwith himself as to the true key of Biblical interpretation, and he\ndeliberately chose the negative turn. That is, he determined to abide by\nwhat the Scriptures did not forbid, instead of by what they enjoined. He\nsaw at a glance where his rule of interpretation on other subjects must\ninevitably lead him on this point. And he dared not venture one step\nfurther in free thought, for fear of invoking a complete revolution. To\ntake one step more was to let infant baptism go and the State church\nwith it. But this was not the kind of a church Luther wanted, so he\ndismissed the whole matter as a very inopportune question. Thus it\nappears that he was willing to do as a positive duty to God whatever the\nScriptures did not prohibit, as in the Supper, when asked, \"What\nscripture have you for elevating the cup?\" to which he indignantly\nreplied, \"What is there against it?\" By the same answer he might have\njustified the offering of masses for the dead, auricular confession,\npurgatory, infallibility of popes, and any other unauthorized thing\npracticed by the Catholics, but which the Scriptures had not positively\nforbidden.\n\nThe imperial edict against Luther at the diet of Worms could scarcely\nhave been stronger than it was, and yet it was wholly ineffective, for\nafter Luther returned from his hiding place to Wittenberg he went on\ntours of numerous places, preaching to thousands, encouraging them in\nreformation, and never felt any ill effects of the ban placed upon him.\n\nThe papal court made determined efforts to bring to nought the efforts\nof Luther at the diet of Nurnberg, 1522-1523, but with no success, for\nthey were compelled to say that \"among a thousand men scarcely one could\nbe found untainted by Lutheran teaching.\"\n\nIt is generally agreed that the real separation into two opposite camps\nreally began at the diet of Spires in 1524, although the real parting of\nthe ways actually occurred after the Peasants' War. When Germany emerged\nfrom the social revolution which perpetrated this war, it soon became\napparent that the religious question was still unsettled and was\ndividing the country into two parties, and that both held as strongly as\never to their distinctive principles. The reason for the increased\nstrain was the conduct of many of the Romanist princes in suppressing\nthe rebellion; and on the other hand those princes who favored Luther's\nteaching had a mutual understanding to defend one another against the\nattack upon their faith.\n\n\n ORIGIN OF PROTESTANTISM\n\nWhen the diet met at Spires in 1526 it was apparent that the national\nhostility to Rome had not abated. The grievances of Germany against the\nRoman court were again revived, and it was alleged, as it was in fact,\nthat the chief causes of the Peasants' War were the merciless exactions\nof clerical landholders. In the absence of Charles V, who was at war\nwith France, Ferdinand of Austria presided over the diet. \"He demanded\nthe enforcement of the edict of Worms and a decree of the diet to forbid\nall innovations in worship and in doctrine,\" but the diet was not\ninclined to adopt the suggestions. Luther's followers were in the\nmajority, and the delegates from the cities insisted that it was\nimpossible to enforce the edict. The Committee of Princes proposed to\nsettle the religious question by a compromise which was almost wholly\nfavorable to Luther's teaching. It was decided that \"the marriage of\npriests, giving the cup to the laity, the use of the German as well as\nthe Latin in the baptismal and communion services, should be recognized;\nthat all private masses should be abolished; that the number of\necclesiastical holy days should be largely reduced; and that in the\nexposition of Holy Writ the rule ought to be that scripture should be\ninterpreted by scripture\"; and that each State should so live as it\nhoped to answer for its conduct to God and the emperor.\n\nThis was interpreted by those States favorable to the Reformation that\nthey had a legal right to organize territorial churches and to make such\nchanges in public worship as would bring it into harmony with their\nbeliefs. This gave new life to the Reformation. Almost the whole North\nGermany adopted the principles of the Reformation. Various political\nintrigues caused division and discredit among the reform party. When the\ndiet again met at Spires in 1529, the Roman Catholic party was largely\nin the majority. The emperor at the outset declared:\n\n By my imperial and absolute authority I abolish the clause in the\n ordinance of 1526 on which the Lutherans relied when they founded\n their territorial churches; it has been the cause of much ill counsel\n and misunderstanding.\n\nThe majority of the diet upheld the emperor's decision, and the\npractical effect of the ordinance was to rescind that of 1526;\nre-establish Roman Catholic rule everywhere, and with it the right of\nthe bishops to direct all preachers in their dioceses. This ordinance\ncalled forth the celebrated \"Protest,\" which was read before the diet\nApril 19, 1529, when all concessions to the reformers had been refused.\nThe legal position taken was that the unanimous decision of the diet in\n1526 could not be rescinded by a majority. The \"protesters\" declared\nthat they intended to abide by the decision of 1526, and not by that of\n1529. They also declared their readiness to obey the emperor and the\ndiet in all \"dutiful and possible matters, but any order considered by\nthem repugnant to God and his holy Word, to their soul's salvation, and\ntheir good conscience,\" they appealed to the emperor, to the free\ncouncil, and to all impartial Christian Judges. The essential principles\ninvolved in the protest against this decree and in the arguments on\nwhich it was grounded were:\n\n We protest publicly before God, our only Creator, Preserver, Redeemer\n and Savior, who, as the only Searcher of all our hearts, judgeth\n righteously, and we also protest before all the world, that both for\n ourselves and for our connections and subjects, we do not consent or\n agree with any resolutions or acts contained in the last decree of\n Spires above referred to, which, in the great concern of religion, are\n contrary to God and to his holy word, injurious to our soul's\n salvation, and also in direct opposition to the dictates of our\n conscience, as well as to the degree issued by an imperial diet at\n Spires; and we hereby solemnly declare that, from reasons already\n assigned, and from other weighty considerations, we regard all such\n resolutions or acts as null and void.\n\nThus in the presence of the diet spoke those courageous men. This is the\norigin of the name \"Protestant.\"\n\nSo critical was the situation that the Protestants immediately entered\ninto an armed alliance for mutual defense. But as the only object now\nwas to secure mutual defense in the right to have the same Gospel, the\ncontest in progress was not one in which all wrongs were to be righted,\nbut one in which they felt themselves justified in resistance only when\nthe emperor attacked that which they all were convinced was of God.\n\nAn effort was made to perfect a union between the Protestants in\nGermany, but without success, and a divided Germany awaited the coming\nof the emperor. Charles V was now at the zenith of his power, and was\ndetermined to visit Germany and by his personal presence and influence\nend the religious difficulty which was distracting that portion of his\nvast dominions. He meant to use every persuasion possible, to make what\ncompromises his conscience permitted, to effect a peaceful settlement.\nBut if these failed he was determined to crush the Reformers by force.\n\nHe summoned the diet to meet at Augsburg on April 8, 1530, but it was\nnot formally opened till June 20th. In his speech Charles V. announced\nthat the assembly would be invited to discuss armament against the Turk,\nand that his majesty was anxious \"by fair and gentle means\" to end the\nreligious differences which were distracting Germany. The Protestants\nwere invited to give in writing their opinions and difficulties which\ncompelled them to forsake the Church of Rome. It was resolved to take\nthe religious question first. By June 24th the Lutherans were ready with\nthe \"statement of their grievances and opinions relating to the faith.\"\nOn the following day it was read before the diet by the Saxon\nChancellor, Dr. Christian Bayer, in such a clear voice that it was heard\nnot only by those assembled within the chamber, but by the crowd that\nthronged the court outside.\n\nThey were reviewed before the Protestant princes, and it being deemed\ndesirable that they should be extended and enlarged, the work was\nassigned to Melanchthon; thus was completed the famous Confession of\nAugsburg, the standard of faith of all the Lutheran churches. When read\nbefore the diet it produced a profound impression. It was signed by four\nprinces of the empire, by the imperial cities of Nuremberg and\nReutlingen, and by the Elector of Saxony. Faber, Eckins and Cochl\u00e6us,\nwho represented the Roman court at the diet, drew up a refutation which\nwas publicly read before the diet, the emperor demanding the\nacquiescence of the Protestants; for he was now determined to insist on\ntheir submission, and to close the dispute. This they absolutely\nrefused. The emperor again took counsel with the pope, and the result\nwas an imperial edict commanding the princes, States and cities which\nhad thrown off the papal yoke to return to their duty, on pain of\nincurring the displeasure of the emperor as a patron and defender of the\nHoly See.\n\nThe emperor published the decision on November 19th, and the Protestants\nhad to arrange some common plan for facing the situation. They met,\nprinces and delegates of cities, in the town of Smalkald, December 22d\nto 31st, when they formed a religious alliance, to which they invited\nEngland, Denmark and other States in which the Reformation had now\ndawned, to join them. In 1532 the peace at Nuremberg composed for a time\nthe differences between the emperor and the reformers; the Lutherans\nwere permitted the free exercise of their worship until a general\ncouncil or another diet should finally determine the faith of\n\"Continental Christendom.\" In 1535 the pope, Paul III, proposed to\nsummon a general council at Mantau. The Protestants of Germany, well\nsatisfied that no advantages would result from such a synod, assembled\nat Smalkald in 1537, and published a solemn protest against the\nconstitution of the council as partial and corrupt. To this they added a\nsummary of their doctrine, drawn up by Luther, in order to present it to\nthe council, if the pope should persist in calling it together. This\nsummary, which was distinguished by the title of the \"Articles of\nSmalkald,\" is generally joined with the creeds and confessions of the\nLutheran Church. The pope, however, died and the council at Mantau was\npostponed. New projects were raised, with the vain hope of setting at\nrest the spirit of religious freedom by which all Germany was now\ndisturbed. The emperor summoned a conference at Worms in 1541, and\nMelanchthon disputed three days with Eckins on the points at issue. A\ndiet followed at Ratisbon, another at Spires in 1542, and a third was\nheld at Worms in 1545; the emperor vainly attempting to intimidate the\nProtestants, or to induce their leaders to consent to a general council\nto be summoned by the pope. But their resolution was fixed: they denied\nthe pope's right to call a general council; they regarded the proposal\nas a snare, and treated it with scorn.\n\nThe Council of Trent met in 1546, but the Protestant representatives\nappeared. It thundered its decrees, and the Protestant princes of\nGermany bade it defiance. The emperor, exasperated by their resistance\nand stimulated by the pope, assembled his forces, resolved to crush the\nspirit he could not otherwise subdue. All Germany was arming in defense\nof Protestantism or in submission to the emperor, and the storm darkened\non every side. Such was the state of Germany when Luther died, February\n18, 1546.\n\nA religious war now broke out. The emperor was victorious and the\nInterim followed. This was an imperial edict, issued in 1547,\nguaranteeing certain concessions more specious than really important, to\nthe Protestants, until the decisions of a general council should be\ngiven. It satisfied neither party, and the war soon raged anew. The\nemperor was defeated by the German confederate, under Maurice of Saxony,\nin 1552, and the pacification of Passau followed. At last, in 1555, the\ndiet of Augsburg met, peace was restored, and the Protestant States of\nGermany secured their independence. It was decreed that the Protestants\nwho embraced the Confession of Augsburg should be entirely exempt from\nthe jurisdiction of the pope of Rome, and from the authority and\ninterference of his bishops. They were free to enact laws for the\nregulation of their own religion in every point, whether of discipline\nor doctrine. Every subject of the German empire was allowed the right of\nprivate judgment, and might unite himself with the church he preferred;\nand those who should prosecute others under the pretext of religion were\ndeclared enemies of the common peace.\n\nThe \"Religious Peace of Augsburg\" has been claimed, and justly so, as a\nvictory for religious liberty. The victory lay in this, that the first\nblow had been struck to free mankind from the fetters of Rome; that the\nfirst faltering step had been taken on the road to religious liberty;\nand the first is valuable not for what it is in itself, but for what it\nrepresents and for what comes after it. It is always the first step that\ncounts.\n\nThe German Reformation was a vast stride from Rome, but it fell far\nshort of a return to Jerusalem. About the best that can be said is that\nthe Reformation was a change of masters; a voluntary one, no doubt, in\nthose who had any choice; and in this sense an exercise, for the time,\nof their personal judgment. But as soon as the Augsburg Confession of\nFaith was written no one was at liberty to modify or change it, and\nthose who did not conform to it were no less heretics than Luther had\nbeen when he failed to conform to the behests of Rome.\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND\n\nHulerreich Zwingli, the Reformer of German Switzerland, was born at\nWildenhaus, January 1, 1484. In school he made rapid progress and was\nsoon recognized as a youth of much promise. His bright mind, love of\ntruth, and devotion to the Scriptures soon brought him prominently\nbefore the public. On discovering the corruptions of the clergy, and\nlearning of the dogmas and traditions, not found in the Bible, such as\nindulgences, the worship of the \"Virgin\" Mary and of images, he\nattempted to reform the Roman Catholic Church. This soon caused charges\nof heresy to be brought against him, for his influence was subversive of\nthe established order of things.\n\nIn a discussion held in the Town Hall at Zurich, January 29, 1523, in\nthe presence of more than six hundred persons, the entire clergy of the\ncanton and large numbers of the laity, Zwingli presented reformatory\ndoctrines he had preached in sixty articles, and defended them so\nsuccessfully that \"the council at Zurich charged all the preachers to\npreach the pure gospel in the same manner.\" Soon after Zwingli received\nan efficient co-laborer in his reformatory efforts by the appointment of\nLeo Pudea, as Lent priest in Zurich. Several events signalized at this\ntime the cause of the Reformation. The council allowed nuns to leave\ntheir convents, several of the clergy married without hindrance, a\nGerman baptismal service was introduced, and the cathedral chapter, at\nits own request, received new and suitable ordinances.\n\nThe council decided that the time was ripe for a second public\ndiscussion, to be held October 26, 27, 1523. More than eight hundred and\nfifty persons were present, of whom more than three hundred and fifty\nwere clergymen. On the first day, Zwingli set forth his views on the\npresence of images in churches, and appealed to the council to forbid\ntheir use. No champion for their use was found, and the council decided\nthat the images and pictures should be removed from the churches, but\nwithout disturbance. On the second day the following proposition was\ndiscussed: \"The mass is no sacrifice, and hitherto has been celebrated\nwith many abuses, quite different from its original institution by\nChrist.\" As no champion for images and mass was found, the Council of\nZurich concluded to promote the reformation of the canton by diffusing\nthe proper instruction in the country districts, for which purpose\nZwingli drew up and published his \"Christian Introduction,\" which\nexplained to the people the meaning of the Reformation. Soon after this\nthe council remodeled the public worship according to the views set\nforth by Zwingli. While Luther favored the retention of everything in\nthe practice of the church of Rome not forbidden by the Scriptures,\nZwingli contended that nothing should be practiced that was not\nexpressly commanded by the Scriptures. On this difference between Luther\nand Zwingli, D'Aubigne says:\n\n The Swiss Reformation here presents under an aspect somewhat different\n from that of the German Reformation. Luther had risen up against the\n excesses of those who had broken the images in the churches of\n Wittenberg; and in Zwingli's presence the idols fell in the temples of\n Zurich. This difference is explained by the different lights in which\n the two reformers viewed the same object. Luther desired to retain in\n the church all that was not expressly contrary to the Scriptures, and\n Zwingli to abolish all that was opposed to the Word of God. The Zurich\n reformer passed over those ages, returned to the apostolic times, and\n carrying out an entire transformation of the church, endeavored to\n restore it to its primitive condition. (History of the Reformation, p.\n 401.)\n\nThus Zwingli reduced the church service \"to extreme simplicity; pictures\nand statues were removed from the churches, on the assumption that their\npresence was contrary to the Ten Commandments; organs were banished, and\nsacred music disparaged as interfering with spirituality.\"\n\nFrom Zurich the Reformation spread, and soon Zwingli was joined by\nOecolampadius, who was a great leader and counselor. The majority of the\ncantons were, however, still opposed to the Reformation, and the act of\nLucerne (January, 1525) endeavored to satisfy the longing for a\nreformation without rending the church. Its decrees did not, however go\ninto effect; and the Catholic cantons, in accordance with the advice of\nDr. Eck, arranged a new religious discussion at Baden, which began May\n10, 1526. Oecolampadius was the spokesman in behalf of the Reformation.\nThough both sides claimed the victory, the Reformation continued to make\nprogress. As the most zealous of the Catholic cantons resorted to\nforcible measures for the suppression of the Reformation, Zurich and\nConstance formed, December 25, 1527, a defensive alliance under the name\nof \"Burgher Rights.\" Later on this alliance was joined by eight other\ncantons. In the meanwhile five Catholic cantons had concluded to league\nwith King Ferdinand for the maintenance of the Catholic faith. A war\ndeclared by Zurich in 1529 against the five cantons was of short\nduration, and the peace was favorable to the Reformation. In 1531 the\nwar was renewed. Zurich had lost somewhat of its earlier evangelical\npurity, while the neighboring cantons were conspiring for its ruin.\n\nIn the awful emergency, when the public mind was alarmed, Zwingli\nmaintained tranquility. The war began, but Zurich was dilatory, and far\nfrom being prepared; but the horn of the enemy echoed among the hills,\nand Zwingli bade farewell to his wife and children, mounted his horse\nand went forth as a warrior to share the common danger. The reformers\nwere defeated with great slaughter, October 11, 1531. Zwingli was found\nafter the battle, lying on his back, and his eyes upturned to heaven,\nwith his helmet on his head, and his battle-ax in his hand. He had been\nstruck near the commencement of the engagement, and then, as he reeled\nand fell, he was several times pierced with a lance. He was living when\ndiscovered in the evening, but the infuriated fanatics soon dispatched\nhim. Next day his body was barbarously quartered and burned. The\nProtestants had provoked a contest for which they were not prepared, and\nthe blow given at Cappel checked for a time the general progress of the\nReformation in Switzerland.\n\nIn French Switzerland, the reformatory movement began in 1526, in Berne\nand Biel, where William Farel preached. In 1530 he established the\nReformation in Neufchatel. In Geneva a beginning was made as early as\n1528; in 1534, after a religious conference held at the suggestion of\nthe reformers at Berne, in which Farel defended the Reformation, public\nworship was allowed to the reformers. Rapid progress was made through\nthe zeal of Farel, Fromdnt, and Viret; and in 1535, after another\ndiscussion, the papacy was abolished by the council and the principles\nof the Reformation adopted.\n\nIn 1536 John Calvin arrived at Geneva and was induced by Farel to remain\nin the city and to aid him in his struggle against a party of\nfree-thinkers. On July 20, 1539, the citizens renounced the papacy and\nprofessed Protestantism. Prior to this a reaction of the popish and\nconservative elements in the State led to such dissensions and\nopposition that Calvin and Farel were banished; but the earnest petition\nof the citizens and rulers at Geneva at last induced them to return in\n1541. On his return Calvin set about modeling the policy of the\nreformers in Geneva on the principles of Presbyterianism, the theory\nwhich he had wrought out, and commenced the dissemination of that\ntheological system which bears his name. Both his theology and church\npolity became dominant throughout Switzerland.\n\nThe theological academy of Geneva, founded in 1588, supplied the\nchurches of many foreign countries, especially France, trained in the\nspirit of Calvin. When Calvin died, in 1564, the continuation of his\nwork devolved upon Theodore Beza. Calvin disagreed in many points with\nZwingli, whose views gradually lost ground as those of Calvin advanced.\nThe second Helvetic Confession, the most important among the symbolic\nbooks of the Reformed Church, which was compiled by Bullinger in Zurich,\npublished in 1566, and recognized in all reformed countries, completed\nthe supremacy of Calvin's principles over those of Zwingli.\n\nAlthough the majority of German Protestant Churches remained in\nconnection with the Lutheran Reformation, a German Reformed Church,\nwhich bore a moderately Calvinistic aspect, sprang up in several parts\nof Germany. In 1650 the Elector Frederick II, of the Palatine, embraced\nthe reformed creed, and organized the church of his dominions according\nto reformed principles. By his authority the Heidelberg Catechism, which\nsoon came to be regarded not only as a standard symbolical book of the\nGerman Reformed Church, but was highly esteemed throughout the reformed\nworld, was written.\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND\n\nTo say that the Reformation in England was brought about by the desire\nof Henry VIII to be divorced from Catharine of Aragon is to ignore the\nwell-established facts of history. No king, however despotic, could have\nforced on such a revolution unless there was much in the life of the\npeople that reconciled them to the change, and evidence of this is\nabundant.\n\nThere was much that was called \"heresy\" in England long before Luther\nraised his voice against Catholicism in Germany. Wycliffe's writings and\ntranslations of the Scriptures into English had a tremendous influence\non the people in England and for many years the fires of martyrdom were\nkept burning in the mad endeavor to stop the spread of the \"heresy,\" and\nso great was the exasperation that forty years after the death of\nWycliffe Romanists dug up his bones and burned them, and still the\n\"heresy\" spread. As I have already shown in a former article, the work\nof Tyndale, \"who won a martyr's crown,\" had a wonderful influence over\nthe English people.\n\nIn the Dictionary of National Biography, Dr. Rashdall says:\n\n It is certain that the Reformation had virtually broken out in the\n secret Bible readings of the Cambridge reformers before either the\n trumpet call of Luther or the exigencies of Henry VIII's personal and\n political position set men free once more to talk openly against the\n pope and the monks, and to teach a simpler and more spiritual gospel\n than the system against which Wycliffe had striven. (Wycliffe, Vol.\n 63, p. 218.)\n\nThe Parliaments showed themselves anti-clerical long before Henry threw\noff his allegiance to Rome; and Englishmen could find no better term of\ninsult to throw at the Scots than to call them \"Pope's men.\" These, and\nmany other things that might be mentioned, indicate a certain\npreparedness in England for the Reformation, and that there was a strong\nnational force behind Henry, when he at last decided to defy the Pope of\nRome. The possibility of England breaking away from papal authority and\nerecting itself into a separate church under the archbishop of\nCanterbury had been thought probable before the divorce precipitated the\nquarrel between Henry and the pope.\n\nHenry clung strenuously to the conception of papal supremacy, and\nadvocated it in a manner only done hitherto by canonists of the Roman\ncourt. It is evident that the validity of his marriage and the\nlegitimacy of his children by Catharine of Aragon depended on the pope\nbeing in possession of the very fullest powers of dispensation. Henry\nhad been married to Catharine under very peculiar circumstances, which\nsuggested doubts about the validity of the marriage ceremony.\n\nTo make the alliance stronger between England and Spain the pope had a\nmarriage arranged between Arthur, Prince of Wales, and Catharine, the\ndaughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. The wedding took place in\nSt. Paul's, November 14, 1501, but Arthur died April 2, 1502, and it was\nproposed from the side of Spain that the young widow should marry Henry,\nher brother-in-law, now Prince of Wales. Ferdinand insisted that if this\nwas not done Catharine should be sent back to Spain and her dowry\nreturned. Pope Julius II was then besieged to grant a dispensation for\nthe marriage. At first he refused to give his consent. Such a marriage\nhad been branded as a sin by canonical law, and the pope himself had\ngrave doubts whether it was competent for him to grant a dispensation in\nsuch a case; but he finally yielded to the pressure and granted the\ndispensation. The archbishop of Canterbury, who doubted whether the pope\ncould grant dispensation for what was a mortal sin in his eyes, was\nsilenced. The marriage took place June 11, 1509.\n\nThe first four children were either stillborn or died soon after birth;\nand it was rumored in Rome as early as 1514 that Henry might ask to be\ndivorced in order to save England from a disputed succession. Mary was\nborn in 1516 and survived, but all the children who came afterwards were\neither stillborn or died soon after birth. There is no doubt that the\nlack of a male heir troubled Henry greatly. There seems to be no reason\nfor questioning the sincerity of his doubts about the legitimacy of his\nmarriage with Catharine, or that he actually looked on the repeated\ndestruction of his hopes of a male heir as a divine punishment for the\nsin of that contract. Questions of national policy and impulses of\npassion quickened marvelously his conscientious convictions. In the\nperplexities of his position the shortest way out seemed to be to ask\nthe pope to declare that he had never been legally married to Catharine.\nHe fully expected the pope to grant his request; but the pope was at the\ntime practically in the power of Charles V, to whom his aunt, the\ninjured Catharine, had appealed, and who had promised her his\nprotection. From the protracted proceedings in the divorce case, Henry\nlearned that he could not depend on the pope giving him what he wanted;\nand although his agents fought the case in Rome, he at once began\npreparing for the separation from papal jurisdiction. In the meantime,\nHenry had taken measures to summon a parliament; and in the interval\nbetween summons and assembly it had been suggested that Cranmer was of\nthe opinion that the best way to deal with the divorce was to take it\nout of the hands of the pope and lay it before the canonists of the\nvarious universities of Europe. Through Cranmer this was so successfully\ndone that the universities of England, France and Italy decided that the\nmarriage was null and void. The king separated from Catharine, married\nAnne Boleyn, and fell under the papal ban.\n\nParliament sundered the connection between England and Rome, and passed\nan act declaring that the king was \"their singular protector and only\nsupreme lord, and, as far as that is permitted by the law of Christ, the\nSupreme Head of the Church and of clergy.\" The king's desire was to\ndestroy the influence of the pope over the Church of England, to which,\nin other respects, he wished to preserve the continuity of its Catholic\ncharacter; but it was impossible, however, for the Church of England to\nmaintain exactly the same place which it had occupied. There was too\nmuch stirring of reformation life in the land. \"The cloisters were\nsubjected to visitation in 1535, and totally abolished in 1536; and the\nBible was diffused in English in 1538 as the only source of doctrine;\nbut the statute of 1530 imposed distinct limits upon the Reformation,\nand in particular confirmed transubstantiation, priestly celibacy,\nmasses for the dead, and auricular confession.\"\n\nWhen Henry died in 1547 the English Church was Roman in appearance.\nExcepting the litany in English, he left the ritual very much as he\nfound it, as he did nearly the whole framework of religious belief. He\nwas, however, the instrument whereby three great barriers to\nimprovement--the papacy, monasticism, and Biblical ignorance--were\nbroken down. The course of national events during Henry's latter years\nprepared the country for that reformation which it subsequently\nembraced.\n\nA remarkable thing connected with the issuing of the Bible, in English,\nis that Tyndale's New Testament, which had been publicly condemned in\nEngland at the council called by his majesty in May, 1530, and copies of\nit had been burned in St. Paul's churchyard, while Tyndale himself had\nbeen tracked like a wild beast by the emissaries of the English\nGovernment in the Netherlands, was published in 1538, by the king's\ncommand, to be \"sold and read by every person without danger of any act,\nproclamation, or ordinance heretofore granted to the contrary.\" Copies\nof it were placed in the churches for the people to read, and portions\nof it were read from the pulpit every Sunday.\n\nWhen Henry died the situation was difficult for those who came after\nhim. A religious revolution had been half accomplished; a social\nrevolution was in progress, creating popular ferment; evicted tenants\nand uncloistered monks formed raw material for revolt; the treasury was\nempty, the kingdom in debt, and the coinage debased.\n\n\n CHANGES MADE BY EDWARD VI.\n\nEdward VI, \"a child in years, but, mature in wisdom, intelligence and\nvirtue,\" was crowned king, February 20, 1547. He collected learned men\naround him from every quarter, and ordered the kingdom to be purged\nentirely of popish fictions, and a better religion to be publicly\ntaught. On July 31st the council began the changes. A series of\ninjunctions was issued to the clergy, ordering them to preach against\n\"the bishops of Rome's usurped power and jurisdiction; to see that all\nimages which had been objects of pilgrimages should be destroyed; to\nread the Gospel and Epistles in English during the service, and to see\nthat the litany was no longer recited or sung in processions, but said\ndevoutly kneeling.\" The council were evidently anxious that the whole\nservice should be conducted in English, and that a sermon should always\nbe a part of the service.\n\nThe first Parliament of Edward VI made great changes in the laws of\nEngland affecting treason, which had the effect of sweeping away the\nedifice of absolute government which had been so carefully erected by\nHenry VIII. The kingly supremacy in matters of religion was maintained,\nbut all heresy acts were repealed, giving the people an unwonted amount\nof freedom. An act was passed ordaining that \"the most blessed sacrament\nbe hereafter commonly administered unto the people ... under both kinds,\nthat is to say, of bread and wine, except necessity otherwise require.\"\nAn act was also passed permitting the marriage of the clergy. The next\nimportant addition to the progress of the Reformation was the\npreparation of a Service Book, commonly called \"The First Prayer-Book of\nKing Edward VI.\" It was introduced by an \"Act of Uniformity,\" which,\nafter relating how there had been for a long time in England \"divers\nforms of common prayer ... and that diversity of use caused many\ninconveniences,\" ordains the universal use of this one form, and enacts\npenalties on those who make use of any other.\n\nThe changes made in the laws of England--the repeal of the \"bloody\nstatute\" and of the treason laws--induced many of the English refugees\nwho had gone to Germany and Switzerland to return to their native land.\nThese, with other learned Protestants, who were invited to come to\nEngland, were appointed as teachers in the English universities. Thus\nthe \"New Learning\" made great strides, leavening all the more cultured\nclasses, leading to the discredit of the old theology, and gave a strong\nimpulse to the Reformation movement. The feeling of the populace changed\nrapidly, for instead of resenting the destruction of images, they were\nrather inspired by too much iconoclastic zeal.\n\nIn 1552, the \"Second Prayer-Book of King Edward VI.\" was issued. which\nwas enforced by the second \"Act of Uniformity,\" containing penalties\nagainst laymen as well as clergymen--against \"a great number of people\nin divers parts of the realm, who did willfully refuse to come to their\nparish churches.\" Soon after there followed a new creed or statement of\nthe fundamental doctrines received by the Church of England. This is\ninteresting because they form the basis of the \"Thirty-nine Articles,\"\nthe creed of the Anglican Church of today.\n\nIt was during the reign of Edward VI that Puritanism, which became so\nprominent in the time of Elizabeth, first manifested itself. Its two\nprincipal spokesmen were Bishops Hooper and Ridley. Hooper was an ardent\nfollower of Zwingli, and was esteemed to be the leader of the party.\nWhile the Reformation was being pushed forward at a speed too great for\nthe majority of the people, Edward died (July 6, 1553), and the collapse\nof the Reformation afterwards showed the uncertainty of the foundation\non which it had been built.\n\n\n \"BLOODY MARY\"\n\nMary, the daughter of Henry VIII and Catharine of Aragon, was crowned\nwith great ceremony October 1, 1553, and her first Parliament met four\ndays later. It reversed a decision of the former Parliament, and\ndeclared that Henry's marriage with Catharine had been valid, and that\nMary was the legitimate heir to the throne; and it repealed all the\nreligious legislation under Edward VI. On taking the throne Mary\npromised to force no one's religion, but as soon as she dared she began\nto restore Romanism with a zeal that delighted the pope.\n\nMary was married to Philip of Spain January 1, 1554; but the alliance\nwas very unpopular from the first. Immediately after the marriage \"the\nbloody acts of the tragedy were begun.\" Care was taken to elect to\nParliament members \"of a wise, grave and Catholic sort.\" This body\nobtained the pope's absolution of the nation for its guilt of schism and\nabolished all acts which made the sovereign the supreme head of the\nChurch. The Latin service was restored. Fully half of the clergy were\nthrust out of their offices. Bishop Gardner secured the passage of the\nterrible edicts and laws, and Bishop Bonner so applied them as to gain\nthe title of \"the bloody.\" The fires of Smithfield and the ax at the\nTower were in such active service during four years that some four\nhundred \"martyrs left their record of faith and triumph as one of\npainful glories of the English Reformation.\"\n\nAmong those burned were Latimer and Ridley. Bound to the stake with his\nfriend, Latimer said, when the lighted fagot was applied: \"Be of good\ncomfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day, by God's\ngrace, light such a candle in England as, I trust, shall never be put\nout.\"\n\nCranmer had been the decisive agent in the divorce against Catharine,\nthus branding the birth of her daughter, Mary, as illegitimate. This\nMary never forgave. But there were other motives. \"To burn the Primate\nof the English Church for heresy was to shut out meaner victims from all\nhope of escape.\" He was more than any other man the representative of\nthe religious revolution which had passed over the land. In an hour of\nweakness, and under the entreaties of his friends, he recanted. But in\nthe end he redeemed his momentary weakness by a last act of heroism. He\nknew that his recantations had been published, and that any further\ndeclaration made would probably be suppressed by his unscrupulous\nantagonists. He resolved by a single action to defeat their calculations\nand stamp his sincerity on the memories of his countrymen. His dying\nspeech was silenced, as he might well have expected; but he had made up\nhis mind to something that could not be stifled. In his speech he said:\n\n And now I come to the great thing that so troubleth my conscience,\n more than any other thing that I said or did in my life: and that is\n my setting abroad of writings contrary to the truth, which here now I\n renounce and refuse as things written with my hand contrary to the\n truth which I thought in my heart, and written for fear of death, and\n to save my life, if it might be; and that is all such bills which I\n have written or signed with mine own hand since my degradation;\n wherein I have written many things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand\n offended in writing contrary to my heart, it shall be first burned.\n And as for the pope, I refuse him as Christ's enemy and antichrist,\n with all his false doctrine and as for the sacrament--\n\nHe got no further; his foes had been dumb with amazement, but now their\npent-up feelings broke loose. \"Stop the heretic's mouth!\" cried one;\n\"Take him away!\" cried another; \"Remember your recantations and do not\ndissemble!\" cried Lord Williams. \"Alas, my lord,\" replied Cranmer, \"I\nhave been a man that all my life loved plainness, and never dissembled\ntill now against the truth; for which I am sorry;\" and he seized the\noccasion to add that as for the sacrament, he believed that it should be\nadministered in \"both kinds.\" The tumult redoubled. Cranmer was dragged\nfrom the stage and led to the place where Ridley and Latimer had been\nburned.\n\nThe friars ceased not to ply him with exhortations: \"Die not in\ndesperation,\" cried one; \"Thou shalt drag innumerable souls to hell,\"\ncried another. On reaching the appointed place he was bound to the stake\nwith a steel band, and fire was set to the fagots of wood which made his\nfuneral pyre. As the flames leaped up, he stretched up his right hand,\nsaying with a loud voice, \"This hand hath offended,\" and held it firmly\nin the fire till it was consumed. No cry escaped his lips and no\nmovement betrayed his pain. If the martyrdom of Ridley and Latimer\nlighted the torch, Cranmer's spread the conflagration which in the end\nburnt up the Roman Catholic reaction and made England a Protestant\nnation.\n\nThe death of Cranmer was followed by a long succession of martyrdoms.\nMary tried most desperately to restore Romanism in its fullness, but\nfailed, and died November 17, 1558, \"the unhappiest of queens, and\nwives, and women.\" The people who had welcomed her when she was crowned,\ncalled her \"Bloody Mary\"--a name which was, after all, so well deserved\nthat it will always remain. \"Each disappointment she took as a warning\nfrom heaven that atonement had not yet been paid for England's crimes,\nand the fires of persecution were kept burning to appease the God of\nRoman Catholicism.\"\n\n\n ELIZABETH, THE PROTESTANT QUEEN\n\nThe people of England were coming to the conclusion that Elizabeth must\nbe queen, or civil war would result. It seemed also assumed that she\nwould be a Protestant. Many things contributed to create such\nexpectations. The young intellectual life of England was slowly becoming\nProtestant. \"This was especially the case among the young ladies of the\nupper classes, who were becoming students learned in Latin, Greek and\nItalian, and at the same time devout Protestants, with a distinct\nleaning to what afterwards became Puritanism.\" The common people had\nbeen showing their hatred of Roman Catholicism, and \"images and\nreligious persons were treated disrespectfully.\" It was observed that\nElizabeth \"was very much wedded to the people and thinks as they do,\"\nand that \"her attitude was much more gracious to the common people than\nto others.\" The burning of Protestants, and especially the execution of\nCranmer, had stirred the indignation of the populace of London and the\nsouth countries against Romanism, and the feelings were spreading\nthroughout the country.\n\nThe accession of Elizabeth, the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn,\nto the throne, gave new life to the Reformation. As soon as it was known\nbeyond the sea, most of the exiles returned home, and those who had hid\nthemselves in the houses of their friends began to appear; but the\npublic religious service continued for a time the same as Mary left\nit--the popish priests still celebrated mass and kept their livings.\nNone of the Protestant clergy who had been ejected in the last reign\nwere restored; and orders were given against all innovations without\npublic authority. The only thing Elizabeth did before the meeting of\nParliament was to prevent pulpit disputes.\n\nElizabeth was crowned on January 15, 1559. The bishops swore fealty to\nthe new queen, but took no part in the coronation of \"one so plainly a\nheretic.\" Her first Parliament passed a new act of supremacy in which\nthe queen was declared to be \"the only supreme governor of this realm,\nas well in spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal.\"\nWhile not proclaimed as \"Supreme Head of the Church,\" all the drastic\npowers claimed by Henry VIII were given to her. It may even be said that\nthe ecclesiastical jurisdiction bestowed upon her was more extensive\nthan that given to her father, for _schisms_ were added to the list of\nmatters subject to the queen's correction, and she was empowered to\ndelegate her authority to commissioners, thus enabling her to exercise\nher supreme governorship in a way to be felt in every corner of the\nland.\n\nThe same Parliament passed the \"Act of Uniformity,\" which threatened all\nnon-conformists with fines and imprisonment, and their ministers with\ndeposition and banishment. When the provisions of the act began to be\nenforced, a number of the non-conformist ministers who demanded a\ngreater purity of the church (hence the name Puritan), a simple,\nspiritual form of worship, a strict church discipline, and a\nPresbyterian form of government, organized separate congregations in\nconnection with presbyteries, \"and a considerable portion of the clergy\nand laity of the Established Church sympathized with them. The rupture\nwas widened in 1592 by an act of Parliament that all who obstinately\nrefused to attend public worship, or led others to do so, should be\nimprisoned and submit, or after three months be banished, and again in\n1595 when the Presbyterians applied the Mosaic Sabbath laws to the\nLord's day, and when Calvin's doctrines of predestination excited\nanimated disputes.\"\n\nIn our study of the Reformation we have found that the pretentions of\nRoman Catholic infallibility were replaced by a not less uncompromising\nand intolerant dogmatism, availing itself, like the other, of the\nsecular power, and arrogating to itself, like the other, the assistance\nof the Spirit of God. The mischief from this early abandonment of the\nright of free inquiry is as evident as its inconsistency with the\nprinciples upon which the reformers had acted for themselves.\n\nHence under the Protestant banner there arose sectarian churches,\nprofessing to take the Bible alone as their rule of faith and practice,\nwhen assailing the claims of Rome, and yet binding by creeds, unknown to\nthe Bible, all embraced within their folds; till Protestantism becomes\nas creed-bound as Romanism. Taking into view the larger results of this\ninconsistency, they bring under notice the Lutheran Church, the State\nchurches of England and Scotland, as well as non-conformist churches\nwhich have arisen from them.\n\nBible interpretation by the dogmatic and mystic methods even before the\ndeath of Luther, but more intensely afterward, made the Lutheran\nchurches a very Babeldom. Then came \"Forms of Concord,\" made obligatory,\neach one resulting in further discord. Lutherans acknowledge the head of\nthe State as the supreme visible ruler of the Church. The supreme\ndirection of ecclesiastical affairs is vested in the councils or boards,\ngenerally appointed by the sovereign termed \"consistories,\" consisting\nof both laymen and ministers. The Lutheran established churches are so\ninterwoven with the State as to be usually dependent on it. They are\nalmost destitute of discipline, and, in some places, exclude dissent.\nDr. Schaff says:\n\n The congregations remained almost as passive as the Roman Church. They\n have, in Europe, not even the right of electing their pastor. They are\n exclusively ruled by their ministers, as they are ruled by the\n provincial consistories, always presided over by a layman, the\n provincial consistory by a central consistory, and this again by the\n minister of worship and public instruction, who is the immediate organ\n of the ecclesiastical supremacy of the crown.\n\nAdd to this infant baptism and infant membership, and then you have the\nworld in the Church, and a state of things, if not so bad as that of\nRome, yet as completely unlike the apostolic churches, and as wide a\ndeparture from what must result from surrender to the Bible alone and\nsubmission to Christ and his apostles as it were possible to reach.\n\nThe Reformation in England was fraught with immense blessings to the\nworld at large, the advantage of which the English people now enjoy. But\nin England's so-called Protestant Church there is no trace of the three\nfundamental principles enunciated by the reformers:\n\n (1) The Bible the only rule of faith and practice.\n (2) The duty of every man to judge the Bible for himself.\n (3) The priesthood of every member of the Church.\n\nInstead of \"the Bible only as the rule of faith and practice,\" they have\ncreeds and Parliamentary control of church services; in place of \"the\nduty of every man to interpret the Bible for himself,\" this same State\nChurch has burned and hung Roman Catholics and Dissenters, the one for\nholding too much Romanism, and the other for not holding as much as the\nking and the clergy were pleased to demand. Then, in lieu of \"the\npriesthood of every member,\" there is a limited priesthood, differing\nbut little from that of Rome; with infant baptism, infant membership,\nand numerous other human inventions \"making void the commandments of\nGod.\"\n\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND\n\nHad I the time and space I would be glad to give a history of the\nReformation in Scotland under John Knox and others. After all the\nprolonged suffering and conflict, it has precious little more of\nProtestantism than is common in the English State Church. There we also\nfind the reigning monarch represented in the General Assembly by a\nnobleman, as Lord High Commissioner, who, on some occasions, has taken\nupon himself to dissolve the Assembly without the consent of its\nmembers. In 1843 a conflict between the ecclesiastical and civil courts\nbrought about a great disruption, giving rise to the Free Church of\nScotland, so that there is also the \"General Assembly of the Free\nChurch.\" But these two General Assemblies are not on equal footing--in\nthe very nature of the case could not be. In the one, the proceedings of\nthe Assembly carry with them the sanction of the law, backed by the\ncivil power; while those of the other have no such sanction, and are\nonly binding upon willing adherents, who, by tacit agreement, are under\nmoral obligation. The one is a corporate body in the eye of the law; the\nother entirely voluntary. But both bodies hold that the acts of their\nrespective assemblies are binding upon their churches. Consequently\nthose churches are in subjection to a rule of which the apostolic\nchurches knew nothing, and, therefore, are not in faith and practice in\nsubjection to the Bible alone. The \"Confession of Faith\" is the standard\nof appeal. Infant baptism, infant membership, and numerous other\ndepartures from apostolic Christianity stand out to refute any claims\nthat these churches of Scotland might put in. They may protest against\nRome or Episcopacy, but what matters that, as the Bible protests all of\nthem?\n\n\n THE INDEPENDENTS\n\nBut it is not to be supposed, even though the multitudes settled down in\nviolation of their professed principles, that all would refrain from a\nfuller application of them. Hence the multiplication of distinct\nparties, each claiming to be the church, or a nearer approach to the\nchurch as ordained by Christ. Coming out in this way from the English\nState Church we find the Independents, who sacrificed property, liberty\nand life. They were glad to escape to Holland or to this country. Others\nsuffered on and aided largely to win against a persecuting State Church\nthe liberties the people now enjoy. Belknap's \"Life of Robinson\" gives\nthe following principles as underlying their church organization:\n\n (1) That no church ought to consist of more members than can meet in\n one place for worship and discipline.\n (2) That a church of Christ is to consist only of such as appear to\n believe in and obey him.\n (3) That any competent number of such have a right, when conscience\n obliges them, to form themselves into a distinct church.\n (4) That, being thus incorporated, they have a right to choose their\n own officers.\n (5) That these officers are teaching elders, ruling elders, and\n deacons.\n (6) That elders being chosen and ordained have no power to rule the\n church, but by consent of the brethren.\n (7) That all elders and all churches are equal in respect to power and\n privileges.\n (8) That the Lord's Supper is to be received sitting at the table.\n (When in Holland they observed it every Lord's day.)\n (9) That ecclesiastical censures are wholly spiritual, and not to be\n accompanied with temporal penalties.\n\nThey admitted no holy days but the \"Christian Sabbath,\" though they had\noccasional days of fasting and thanksgiving; and finally they had\nrenounced all human inventions or impositions on religious matters.\n\nIn Scotland we find Congregational principles as far back as the\nCommonwealth. Independency had obtained much hold in England among all\nclasses. The soldiers of Cromwell carried their principles with them,\nand are said to have formed a Congregational church in Edinburgh. But\nthat church was not permanent, and we find nothing of churches of like\norder in Scotland till 1726, when John Glass, an eloquent and able\nminister, with avowed convictions in harmony with those of the English\nIndependents, withdrew from the Church of Scotland and formed churches\nin most of the large towns of Scotland. These churches were called\n\"Glassite.\" Mr. Glass and his adherents taught:\n\n (1) That national establishments of religion are unlawful and\n inconsistent with the true nature of the Church of Christ.\n That the church being spiritual, ought to consist only of true\n spiritual men.\n (2) That a congregation of Jesus Christ, with its elders, is in its\n discipline subject to no jurisdiction under heaven, save that\n of Christ and his apostles.\n (3) That each church should have a plurality of elders or bishops,\n chosen by the church, according to instruction given to\n Timothy and Titus, without regard to previous education for\n the office, continuous engagement in secular employment being\n no disqualification.\n (4) That the churches observe the Lord's Supper on the first day of\n every week; and that love feasts be held, after the example of\n the primitive Christians.\n (5) That mutual exhortations be practiced on the Lord's day, any\n member able to edify being at liberty to address the church.\n (6) That a weekly collection be made in connection with the Lord's\n Supper in aid of the poor, and for necessary expenses.\n\nMr. Glass was largely eclipsed by Robert Sandeman, whose activity\nwielded a wide influence. Those who adhered to his teachings were called\n\"Sandemanians.\" Sandeman prominently repudiated that mischievous\nmysticism which views \"saving faith\" as an inspiration directly from the\nHoly Spirit. His teaching has been thus summarized:\n\n \"One thing is needful,\" which he called the sole requisite to\n justification, or acceptance with God. By the sole requisite to\n justification, he understood the work finished by Christ in his death,\n proved by his resurrection to be all sufficient to justify the guilty;\n that the whole benefit of this is conveyed to men only by the\n apostolic report concerning it; that every one who understands this\n report to be true, or is persuaded that the events actually happened,\n as testified by the apostles, is justified, and finds relief to his\n guilty conscience; that he is relieved not by finding any favorable\n symptom about his heart, but by finding their report to be true; that\n the event itself, which is reported, becomes his relief so soon as it\n stands true in his mind, and accordingly becomes his faith; that all\n the divine power which operates in the minds of men, either to give\n the first relief to their consciences, or to influence them in every\n part of their obedience to the Gospel, is persuasive power, or the\n forcible conviction of truth.\n\nFrom this we see that he saw with some degree of clearness the nature of\nfaith, but not that the divine economy provides that faith shall be\nperfected by surrender to an ordinance of the Lord's own appointment. On\nsome other points in regard to faith he was more or less confused. He\nadvocated the weekly observance of the Lord's Supper; love feasts;\nweekly contribution for the poor; mutual exhortation of members;\nplurality of elders; conditional community of goods; and approved of\ntheaters and public and private diversions, when not connected with\ncircumstances really sinful. His influence extended to the north of\nIreland, but the people there did not adopt all his views. They attended\nweekly to the Lord's Supper, contributions, etc., but were opposed to\ngoing to theaters or such places of amusement; to the doctrine of the\ncommunity of goods; feet washing, etc., as advocated by Sandeman.\nSandeman's influence extended also to England and to this country.\n\n\n HALDANE AND AIKMAN\n\nAt the close of the eighteenth century spiritual religion in Scotland\nwas at a very low ebb. Then village preaching and extensive itineraries\nwere entered upon by James A. Haldane and John Aikman. They were members\nof the Established Church of Scotland. They took in hand preaching tours\nunauthorized by the clergy. They were \"laymen,\" and preaching by such\nmen was then a strange thing in Scotland. Their labors were so far\nsuccessful that a revival of spiritual life set in at many places and a\nspirit of inquiry was aroused. They made successive tours throughout all\nScotland, as far as the Orkney Islands. Then Robert Haldane turned his\nattention to the spiritual needs of his native land, and determined to\ndevote his large fortune to spreading the Gospel through its benighted\ndistricts. This led to the formation of a society for the dissemination\nof religious knowledge, and to the employment of young men of known\npiety to plant and superintend evening schools for the instruction of\nthe young in religious truths. This movement grew to considerable\nproportions. But it met with determined opposition, both from\nPresbyterian Dissenters and the Established clergy. The decrees were\nfulminated by entire bodies, as the Relief Synod, obviously leveled\nagainst the devout and ardent itinerants. In like spirit the Antiburger\nSynod decreed:\n\n That as lay preaching has no warrant in the Word of God, and as the\n Synod has always considered it their duty to testify against\n promiscuous communion, no person under the inspection of the Synod\n can, consistently with these principles, attend upon or give\n countenance to public preaching by any who are not of our community;\n and if any do so they ought to be dealt with by the judicatories of\n the Church, to bring them to a sense of their offensive conduct.\n\nGoing beyond this, the General Assembly of 1799 accused the itinerant\npreachers of \"being artful and designing men, disaffected to the evil\nconstitution of the country, holding secret meetings, and abusing the\nname of liberty as a cover for a secret democracy and anarchy.\" In the\nmidst of this opposition a church was formed of some fourteen persons in\na private house on George Street, Edinburgh, which was the beginning of\nthe Tabernacle Church Leith Walk, in which James Haldane eventually\nbecame minister, in which capacity he exercised, without any emolument,\nall the public and private duties with unbroken fidelity and zeal for a\nperiod of fifty years. For some time this church was content with\nmonthly communion, but in 1802 it resolved to spread the Lord's table on\nthe first day of every week. By the close of 1807 some eighty-five\nIndependent churches had been established. Out of this movement a\nfurther advance took place, and thence arose Baptist churches in\nScotland.\n\n\n THE SCOTCH BAPTISTS\n\nChurches holding the immersion of believers as the only authorized\nbaptism have, possibly, stood out against the apostasy (not as\nBaptists), even from the days of the apostles, though frequently driven\ninto hiding places by the force of persecution and for the preservation\nof their faith and order and also of their lives.\n\nConcerning the origin of the Baptists in England I shall not dwell;\nthough their early history is very interesting, and far more in accord\nwith the apostolic style than the present-day Baptists. Passing at once\nto Scotland, I find no trace of Baptist churches till the latter part of\nthe eighteenth century, excepting one of short duration formed by\nsoldiers of Cromwell's army. The earliest Scotch Baptist Church is said\nto have been formed in Edinburgh in 1765 under the efforts of Robert\nCarmichael, who had been a minister in the Antiburger Church at\nCoupar-Augus; but later became minister of an Independent Church\n(\"Glassite\") in Edinburgh, of which Archibald McLean was a member. Early\nin life a strong impression had been made on the mind of McLean by the\npreaching of George Whitfield. In 1762 he withdrew from the Established\nChurch of Scotland and united with this Independent Church. But it was\nnot long till some trouble arose over a case of discipline which\nresulted in the withdrawal of both Carmichael and McLean from the\nchurch. While thus standing aloof from church membership they directed\ntheir attention to baptism. McLean, not having read a line upon the\nsubject, went carefully through the whole of the New Testament with the\ninquiry before him, \"What is baptism?\" This led him to the firm\nconviction that only those capable of believing in Christ are its\nsubjects and that it must be performed by immersion of the whole body in\nwater. A year later Carmichael reached the same conclusion. He then went\nto London where he was immersed by Dr. Gill at Barbican, October 9,\n1765. On returning to Edinburgh, he baptized McLean and six others, and\nformed a Baptist church. In 1769, Carmichael moved to Dundee, and McLean\nbecame minister of the newly-formed church. Other churches of immersed\nbelievers were soon planted in Glasgow, Dundee, Montrose and other\nplaces, and the sentiment in favor of returning to the scriptural act of\nbaptizing grew among the people. The marked piety and noble\ndisinterestedness of Archibald McLean stand out as worthy of all\nadmiration. His labors were immense and given gratuitous, as he\npersisted in continuing in employment as overseer of a printing\nestablishment.\n\nAs Scotch Baptist churches multiplied there arose a disturbing element.\nMcLean and others held the necessity of an ordained elders to the proper\nobservance of the Lord's Supper; consequently, notwithstanding that they\ntaught the importance of observing the Lord's Supper on the first day of\nevery week, it had to be omitted when an ordained elder could not be\npresent. But ere long others among them saw more light and insisted that\nelders were not essential to the being of a church, that the church\nexisted before its eldership, and that where the church is the Lord's\ntable should be spread on the first day of every week, irrespective of\nthe presence of an ordained elder. This led to contention, and, indeed,\nto separation. But truth will not down. We may go with it any distance\nwe please, but when we say, \"Thus far and no farther,\" truth struggles\nto remove the hindrances thrown across its path, and in the end starts\non afresh to complete the journey.\n\nAs leaven will permeate so truth must influence more or less the mass\ninto which it is cast. From Scotland the principles associated with the\nnames of the Haldanes, Carmichael and McLean found receptive hearts in\nWales. Even in Ireland, also, there was in men's minds the struggling of\ntruth and error, the partial expulsion of the false by the true, the\nconsequent advance to apostolic faith and order, and falling short of a\ncomplete return thereto, notwithstanding progress calling for thankful\nrecognition.\n\n\n THE SEPARATISTS\n\nAbout the year 1802 there were a few persons in Dublin, most of them\nconnected with the religious establishments of the country. The most\nnoted among them were John Walker, G. Carr and Dr. Darby, all of whom\norganized religious bodies, differing in minor points from one another.\nTheir attention was directed to Christian fellowship, as they perceived\nit to have existed among the disciples in apostolic times. They\nconcluded from the study of the New Testament that all the first\nChristians in any place were connected together in the closest\nbrotherhood; and that as their connection was grounded on the one\napostolic gospel which they believed, so it was altogether regulated by\nthe precepts delivered to them by the apostles, as the divinely\ncommissioned ambassadors of Christ. They were convinced that every\ndeparture of professing Christians from this course must have originated\nin a withdrawing of their allegiance from the King of Zion, and in the\nturning away from the instruction of the inspired apostles; that the\nauthority of their word, being divine, was unchangeable, and that it can\nnot have been annulled by or weakened by the lapse of ages, by the\nvarying customs of different nations, or by the enactments of earthly\nlegislators.\n\nWith such views in their minds they set out in the attempt to return\nfully to the course marked out in the Scriptures; persuaded that they\nwere not called to make any laws or regulations for their union, but\nsimply to learn and adhere to the law recorded in the divine Word. Their\nnumber soon increased; and for some time they did not see that the union\nwhich they maintained with each other, on the principles of scripture,\nwas at all inconsistent with the continuance of their connection with\nthe various religious bodies round them. But after a time they were\nconvinced that these two things were utterly incompatible; and that the\nsame divine rule which regulated their fellowship with each other\nforbade them to maintain any religious fellowship with others. From this\nview, and the practice consequent upon it, they were called\n\"Separatists.\"\n\nThey held that even two or three disciples in any one place, united\ntogether in the faith of the apostolic gospel, and in obedience to the\napostolic precepts, constitute the Church of Christ in that place.\n\nThey held that the only good and sure hope toward God for any sinner is\nby the belief of this testimony concerning the great things of God and\nhis salvation. And as they understood by faith, with which justification\nand eternal life were connected, nothing else but belief of the things\ndeclared to all alike in the Scriptures, so by repentance they\nunderstood nothing else but the new mind which that belief produces.\nEverything called repentance, but antecedent to the belief of the Word\nof God, or unconnected with it, they considered spurious and evil.\n\nThey considered the idea of any successors to the apostles or of any\nchange of Christ's laws as utterly unchristian, and did not tolerate any\nmen of the clerical type among them. They believed that the Scriptures\ntaught the community of goods. They held that there is no sanction in\nthe New Testament for the observance of the first day of the week as the\nSabbath; and that the Jewish Sabbath was one of the shadows of good\nthings to come, which passed away on the completion of the work of Jesus\non the cross. They believed themselves bound to meet together on the\nfirst day of the week, the memorial day of Christ's resurrection, to\nshow his death, in partaking of bread and wine, as the symbols of his\nbody and his blood shed for the remission of sins.\n\nIn their assembly they joined together in the various exercises of\npraise and prayer, reading the Scriptures, exhorting and admonishing one\nanother as brethren according to their several gifts and ability;\ncontributed of their means and saluted each other with \"an holy kiss.\"\nIn the same assemblies they attended, as occasion required, to the\ndiscipline appointed by the apostles, for removing any evil that might\nappear in the body.\n\nWhen any brethren appeared among them possessing all the qualifications\nof the office of elders or overseers, which are marked in the apostolic\nwritings, they thought themselves called upon to acknowledge them as\nbrethren in that office, as the gifts of the Lord to his church. They\nheld themselves bound to live as peaceable and quiet subjects of any\ngovernment under which the providence of God placed them; to implicitly\nobey all human ordinances which did not interfere with their subjection\nto their heavenly King.\n\nThe baptism of believers was cast aside as anti-Christian, except in the\ncase of the heathen, who on conversion had made no previous confession\nof faith. Their mistake lay in the belief that baptism was intended to\nmark the mere profession of Christian faith. They failed to see that it\nwas commanded by the Lord himself to follow upon a real believing with\nthe heart, and a confession with the mouth. Any act called baptism prior\nto that is not the ordinance of Christ, and stands for nothing. The time\nfor baptism is so soon as that believing confession and heart trust\nexists as a fact. So long as it remains unperformed after that there is\na cessation in that particular of compliance with the divine command,\nwhich should be terminated by obedience so soon as possible.\n\nWhile these people were scriptural in a number of things, in others they\nfell far short of returning to apostolic Christianity. So we must\ncontinue our search.\n\nAs we have already seen, there was a great struggle in Europe to escape\nfrom the direful effects of departure from apostolic simplicity. These\nefforts brought forth many sects, and each sect fought desperately to\nsecure the Bible within its own party by the spiritual fetters of\npartisan interpretation. The clergy of each denomination, arrogating to\nthemselves the claim of being its divinely-authorized expounders, caused\nit to speak only in the interest of their sect, and thus the Bible was\nmade to speak in defense of each particular creed. Detached sentences,\nrelating to matters wholly distinct and irrelevant, were placed in\nimposing array in support of positions assumed by human leaders; the\npeople, on the other hand, seemed to have quietly surrendered into the\nhands of the clergy all power of discrimination and all independence in\nreligious matters. It seemed vain that the Bible had been put into the\nhands of the people in their mother tongue, since the \"clergy\" had\nsucceeded in imposing upon it a seal which the \"laity\" dared not break,\nso that while Protestants were delighted that they were in possession of\nthe Bible, it was, in fact, little else than an empty boast, so long as\nthey could be persuaded that they were wholly unable to understand it.\n\nThe Bible thus trammeled had, nevertheless, set free from spiritual\nbondage individuals here and there, who were more or less successful in\ntheir pleadings for reform. But among them all, however, there was no\none who took hold of the leading errors with sufficient clearness and\ngrasp as to liberate it from the thraldom of human tradition and restore\nthe Gospel to the people in its primitive simplicity and power.\n\n\n\n\n PART IV\n The Restoration Movement in America\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n SPIRITUAL UNREST IN MANY PLACES\n\nThe close of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century\nwere characterized by efforts to get entirely on apostolic ground,\noriginating almost simultaneously in widely-separated localities and\namidst different and antagonistic sects. But, as the greatest of these\nefforts developed in our own country, we now turn our attention to them.\n\nOne of these originated among the Methodists at the time of the\nestablishment of the American colonies, and the subject of church\ngovernment became a matter of discussion among them. Thomas Coke,\nFrancis Asbury and others labored to establish prelacy, regarding\nthemselves as superintendents or bishops. Against this movement, James\nO'Kelley, of North Carolina, and some others of that State and of\nVirginia, with a number of members, pleaded for a congregational system,\nand that the New Testament be the only creed and discipline. Those\ncontending for the episcopal form of government were largely in the\nmajority, and the reformers were unable to accomplish their wishes. Led\nby James O'Kelley, they finally seceded at Mankintown, N. C., Dec. 25,\n1793. McTiere says: \"The spirit of division prevailed chiefly in the\nsouthern part of Virginia, and in the border counties of North Carolina,\nin all of which region the personal influence of O'Kelley has been seen.\nIt extended also beyond these limits. We find the first two missionaries\nin Kentucky--Ogden and Haw--drawn away into his scheme. And in other\nplaces he had adherents\" (History of Methodism, page 411). At first they\ntook the name \"Republican Methodists,\" but in 1801 \"resolved to be known\nas Christians only, to acknowledge no head over the Church but Christ,\nand to have no creed or discipline but the Bible.\" In respect to\nincrease of numbers, this movement was not great, and in the course of\ntime was weakened by changes and removals, but its principles spread\ninto other States.\n\nAbout the same time Abner Jones, a physician, of Hartland, Vt., then a\nmember of the Baptist Church, became \"greatly dissatisfied with\nsectarian names and creeds, began to preach that all these should be\nabolished, and that true piety should be made the ground of Christian\nfellowship. In September, 1800, he succeeded by persevering zeal in\nestablishing a church of twenty-five members at Lyndon, Vt., and\nsubsequently one in Bradford and one in Piermont, N. H., in March,\n1803.\" Elias Smith, a Baptist preacher, who was about this time laboring\nwith much success in Plymouth, N. H., adopted Jones' view and carried\nthe whole congregation with him. Several other preachers, both from the\nRegular and Freewill Baptists, soon followed, and with many other\nzealous preachers, who were raised up in the newly-organized churches,\ntraveled extensively over the New England states, New York,\nPennsylvania, Ohio and into Canada, and made many converts. Those in\nthis movement also called themselves Christians only, and adopted the\nBible as their only rule of faith and practice.\n\nDr. Chester Bullard was the pioneer in the cause of primitive\nChristianity in all Southwest Virginia. He separated himself from the\nMethodist Church and most earnestly desired to be immersed, but would\nnot receive it at the hands of the Baptists, as he was not sufficiently\nin harmony with their tenets to unite with them. About this time Landon\nDuncan, the assessor of the county, happened to call in the discharge of\nhis official duties. Engaging in a religious conversation with him, Dr.\nBullard freely expressed to him his feelings and his desires, and though\nhe freely expressed his dissent from some of the views held by Duncan,\nthe latter agreed to baptize him.\n\nIn early life Duncan had united with the Baptists and was ordained by\nthem, but after a time adopted the views of the \"Christians,\" chiefly\nthrough the teaching of Joseph Thomas, who was in some respects a\nremarkable man. He was born in North Carolina, whence he removed with\nhis father to Giles County, Virginia, where he became deeply imbued with\nreligious fervor, and began while quite a young man to urge his\nneighbors to the importance of devoting themselves to the service of\nGod. Associating with O'Kelley in North Carolina, he desired to be\nimmersed, when O'Kelley persuaded him that pouring was more scriptural,\nto which he submitted after stipulating that a tubful of water should be\npoured upon him. But afterward he became fully convinced that immersion\nalone is baptism, and was immersed by Elder Plumer. This brought him\ninto intimate association with Abner Jones, Elias Smith and others of\nthe \"Christians.\" He now devoted his life wholly to preaching and became\nnoted for the extent of his travels throughout the United States. He\ntraveled on foot dressed in a long, white robe, hence he was called the\n\"White Pilgrim,\" and frequently, in imitation of the Master, retired to\nlonely places for fasting and prayer. He made a strong impression on the\npeople, and finally died of smallpox amidst his itinerant labors in New\nJersey.\n\nDr. Bullard, after his baptism by Duncan, at once began preaching,\ndelivering his first discourse the evening following his baptism.\nAvoiding those speculation points with which Duncan and those associated\nwith him were so much occupied, he presented simple views of the Gospel\nand the freeness of the salvation through Christ, and showed that faith\ncomes by hearing the Word of God, and that \"he that believeth and is\nbaptized shall be saved.\" It was a considerable time, however, before he\nconvinced enough people of the scripturalness of the doctrine to form a\nchurch. By degrees, most of those associated with Duncan were convinced\nby Dr. Bullard, and through the assistance of James Redpath and others\njoining him in the ministry of the Word, a number of churches were\nestablished in that part of Virginia. About 1839 Dr. Bullard\nincidentally came into possession of a copy of Alexander Campbell's\n\"Extra on Remission of Sins.\" On reading it he was so surprised and\ndelighted with the new views therein set forth that he obtained all the\nnumbers of the Christian Baptist and Millennial Harbinger, and was\nfilled with great joy to find how clear and consistent were Campbell's\nviews, and how different from the slanderous misrepresentations which\nhad been so persistently circulated through the press and from the\npulpit. He immediately began to circulate Campbell's writings, preaching\nwith great success the ancient Gospel, and overjoyed in finding himself\nunexpectedly associated with so many fellow laborers in the effort to\nrestore primitive Christianity. He endured hardships as a good soldier\nof Jesus Christ and pushed forward against great odds. He traveled all\nover Virginia, from the mountains to the seashore, and baptized\nthousands. In his prime he was one of the most powerful exhorters that\ncould be found, and his sermons were exceedingly clear, scriptural and\npersuasive.\n\nOn a notable occasion the Methodists, who had become greatly stirred by\nDr. Bullard's preaching, chose one of their preachers, T. J. Stone, to\nrepresent them in a debate with Dr. Bullard on the \"Act of Baptism.\" The\ndebate was to be held in a grove at a place some distance from Dr.\nBullard's home, and he had to start the day before in order to reach the\nplace in time. Late in the afternoon of the first day's journey he fell\nin with the preacher who was to be his opponent in the debate. Stone had\nbeen studying the Campbell and Rice Debate in search of arguments to\nsustain his side of the question. As they rode along together their\nconversation turned on the debate, and Dr. Bullard noticed rather a lack\nof confidence in the language of his opponent. The doctor turned the\nconversation so that he might learn the cause of this, and soon reached\nthe conclusion that his opponent had little relish for the debate, and,\nin short, in his research his confidence in affusion had been\noverturned. Dr. Bullard finally said: \"You had better let me baptize you\nto-morrow instead of debating.\" Stone replied: \"If it were not for two\nor three things in the way, I would.\"\n\nThat night they spent at Stone's home, and the doctor soon perceived\nthat one of the greatest things in the way was Stone's wife. Accordingly\nhe gave her much attention, and the three searched the Scriptures the\ngreater part of the night. A large crowd assembled the next day to hear\nthe discussion. Dr. Bullard announced that there would be no debate, but\nthat he would preach that morning and Stone in the afternoon; also that\nthere would be an immersion immediately after the morning discourse.\nMuch to the surprise of all, both Mr. and Mrs. Stone presented\nthemselves for baptism when the invitation was given.\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n BARTON W. STONE\n\nWe have already learned that efforts were being made to return to\napostolic Christianity in different places in the East, and I mentioned\nthese efforts first because as emigration is most usually westward, the\ninfluences thus exerted spread far and wide. This is one of the reasons\nwhy the plea to return to the original practice of the apostolic\nchurches has been more effective in the West than in the East.\n\nI now give attention to a great movement that was inaugurated in what\nwas then called the \"West,\" through the untiring labors of Barton W.\nStone and others. Stone was born in Maryland, December 24, 1772. His\nfather died and the mother, being left with a large family of children,\nmoved to Pittsylvania County, Va., in 1779, where the manners and\ncustoms of the people were very simple, and contentment seemed to be the\nlot of all, and happiness dwelt in every breast amidst the abundance of\nhome stores, acquired by honest industry. His first teacher was a\ntyrant, who seemed to take pleasure in whipping and abusing his pupils\nfor every trifling offense. When called upon to recite, he was so\naffected with fear, and so confused in mind, that he could say nothing,\nand remained in that school only a few days. He was then sent to another\nteacher, who was patient and kind, and he advanced so rapidly that after\nfive years' training his teacher \"pronounced him a finished scholar.\"\nThis fired him with ambition and spurred his efforts to rise to eminence\nin learning.\n\n\n CONFRONTED BY MANY DIFFICULTIES\n\nAbout this time some Baptist preachers came into the neighborhood and\nbegan preaching to the people, and great excitement followed. Multitudes\nattended their ministrations, and many were immersed. Immersion was so\nnovel that people traveled long distances to see the ordinance\nadministered. Young Stone was constant in his attendance, and was\nparticularly interested in hearing the converts relate their\nexperiences. Of their conviction and great distress they were very\nparticular in giving an account, and how and when they obtained\ndeliverance from their burdens. Some were delivered by a dream, a\nvision, or some uncommon appearance of light; others by a voice spoken\nto them--\"Thy sins are forgiven thee\"; and others by seeing the Savior\nwith their natural eyes. Such experiences were considered good by the\nChurch, and those relating such were baptized and received into full\nfellowship. The preachers had an art of affecting their hearers by a\ntuneful voice in preaching. Not knowing any better, he considered all\nthis a work of God, and the way of salvation.\n\nAfter these came Methodist preachers who were bitterly opposed by the\nBaptists and Episcopalians, who publicly declared them to be the locusts\nof Revelation, and warned the people against receiving them. Stone's\nmind was much agitated, and vacillated between the two parties. For some\ntime he had been in the habit of retiring in secret, morning and\nevening, for prayer, with an earnest desire for religion; but being\nignorant of what he ought to do, he became discouraged and quit praying,\nand turned away from religion.\n\nWhen he was about sixteen he came into possession of his portion of his\nfather's estate. This absorbed his mind day and night endeavoring to\ndevise some plan as to how to use it to the best advantage. At last he\ndecided to acquire a liberal education, and thus qualify himself for the\npractice of law. Having reached this decision he began immediately to\narrange his affairs to put his purpose into execution. Accordingly he\nbade farewell to his mother, and made his way to the noted academy at\nGuilford, N. C. Here he applied himself with great diligence to acquire\nan education or die in the attempt. He divested himself of every\nhindrance for the course. With such application he made rapid progress.\n\nJust before he entered the academy the students had been greatly stirred\nby James McGready, a Presbyterian preacher, and Stone was not a little\nsurprised to find many of the students assembled every morning in a\nprivate room before the hour for recitation to engage in singing and\nprayer. This was a source of uneasiness to him, and frequently brought\nhim to serious reflections. He labored diligently to banish these\nserious thoughts, thinking that religion would impede his progress in\nlearning, thwart the object he had in view, and expose him to the\nridicule of his relatives and companions. He therefore associated with\nthose students who made light of such things, and joined them in the\nridicule of the pious. For this his conscience severely condemned him\nwhen alone and made him so very unhappy that he could neither enjoy the\ncompany of the pious nor that of the impious. This caused him to decide\nto go to Hampden-Sidney College, Virginia, that he might be away from\nthe constant sight of religion. He determined to leave at once, but was\nprevented by a violent storm. He remained in his room all day and\nreached the decision to pursue his studies there and to attend to his\nown business, and let others do the same.\n\nHaving made this resolution, he was settled till his roommate asked him\nto accompany him to hear Mr. McGready preach. Of the deep impression\nmade on him by the discourse he heard on that occasion he says:\n\n His coarse, tremulous voice excited in me the idea of something\n unearthly. His gestures were the very reverse of elegance. Everything\n appeared by him forgotten but the salvation of souls. Such\n earnestness, such zeal, such powerful persuasion, enforced by the joys\n of heaven and miseries of hell, I had never witnessed before. My mind\n was chained by him, and followed him closely in his rounds of heaven,\n earth and hell, with feelings indescribable. His concluding remarks\n were addressed to the sinners to flee the wrath to come without delay.\n Never before had I comparatively felt the force of truth. Such was my\n excitement that had I been standing I should have probably sunk to the\n floor under the impression.\n\nWhen the meeting was over he returned to his room, and when night came\nhe walked out into a field and seriously reasoned with himself on the\nall-important subject of religion. He asked himself: \"What shall I do?\nShall I embrace religion, or not?\" He weighed the subject and counted\nthe cost. He concluded that if he embraced religion he would then incur\nthe displeasure of his relatives and lose the favor and company of his\ncompanions: become the object of their scorn and ridicule; relinquish\nall his plans and schemes for worldly honor, wealth and preferment, and\nbid adieu to all the pleasures in which he had lived. He asked himself,\n\"Are you willing to make this sacrifice?\" His heart answered, \"No, no.\"\nThen there loomed before him a certain alternative, \"You must be\ndamned.\" This thought was so terrible to him that he could not endure\nthe thought, and, after due deliberation, he resolved from that hour to\nseek religion at the sacrifice of every earthly good, and immediately\nprostrated himself before God in supplication for mercy.\n\nIn accordance with the popular belief, and the experience of the pious\nin those days, he anticipated a long and painful struggle before he\nshould be prepared to come to Christ, or, in the language of that day,\nbefore he should \"get religion.\" This anticipation was fully realized.\nFor a year he was tossed about on the waves of uncertainty, laboring,\npraying and striving for \"saving faith,\" sometimes desponding and almost\ndespairing of ever getting it. He wrestled with this condition until he\nheard a sermon on \"God is love,\" which so impressed his mind that he\nretired to the woods alone with his Bible. There he read and prayed with\nvarious feelings, between hope and fear, till the great truth of the\nlove of God so triumphed over him that he afterward said:\n\n I yielded and sunk at his feet, a willing subject. I loved him, I\n adored him, I praised him aloud in the silent night, in the echoing\n groves around. I confessed to the Lord my sin and folly in\n disbelieving his word so long, and in following so long the devices of\n men. I now saw that a poor sinner was as much authorized to believe in\n Jesus at first as last; that now was the accepted time and the day of\n salvation.\n\nFrom that time he looked forward to preaching, and in the spring of 1796\napplied to the Presbytery of Orange, N. C., for license to preach. In\ndescribing the proceedings of the presbytery, he says: \"Never shall I\nforget the impression made on my mind when a venerable old father\naddressed the candidates, standing up together before the presbytery.\nAfter the address he presented to each of the candidates the Bible (not\nthe Confession of Faith), with this solemn charge, 'Go ye unto all the\nworld, and preach the Gospel to every creature.'\" He was assigned to a\ncertain district, but soon became much discouraged, and contemplated\nseeking regions where he was not known and turning his attention to some\nother calling in life.\n\nIn the midst of much doubt and perplexity, he turned westward and\nfinally reached Caneridge, Bourbon County, Ky., where he remained for a\nfew months, then returned to Virginia.\n\n\n ORDAINED TO THE MINISTRY\n\nIn the fall of 1798 he received a call from the united congregations of\nCaneridge and Concord, through the Transylvania Presbytery. He accepted,\nand a day was appointed for his ordination to the ministry. Knowing that\nat his ordination he would be required to adopt the Westminster\nConfession of Faith, as the system of doctrine taught in the Bible, he\ndetermined to give it a very careful examination. This was to him almost\nthe beginning of sorrows. He stumbled at the doctrine of the Trinity as\ntherein taught, and could not conscientiously subscribe to it. Doubts,\ntoo, arose in his mind on the doctrines of election, reprobation and\npredestination, as then taught. He had before this time learned from\nthose higher up in the ecclesiastical world the way of divesting those\ndoctrines of their hard, repulsive features, and admitted them as true,\nyet unfathomable mysteries. Viewing them as such, he let them alone in\nhis public discourses and confined himself to the practical part of\nreligion, and to subjects within his depth. But in re-examining these\ndoctrines he found the covering put over them could not hide them from a\ndiscerning eye with close inspection. Indeed, he saw that they were\nnecessary to the system, without any covering.\n\nHe was in this state of mind when the day for his ordination came. He\ndetermined to tell the presbytery honestly his state of mind, and to\nrequest them to defer his ordination until he should be better informed\nand settled. When the day came a large congregation assembled, but\nbefore the presbytery convened he took aside the two pillars--James\nBlythe and Robert Marshall--and made known to them his difficulties and\nthat he had determined to decline ordination at that time. They labored,\nbut in vain, to remove his difficulties and objections. They asked him\nhow far he was willing to receive the Confession of Faith. To this he\nreplied, \"As far as I see it is consistent with the Word of God.\" They\nconcluded that that was sufficient. The presbytery then convened, and\nwhen the question, \"Do you receive and adopt the Confession of Faith as\ncontaining the system of doctrine taught in the Bible?\" he answered\naloud, so that the whole assembly could hear, \"I do, so far as I see it\nconsistent with the Word of God.\" No objection being raised to this\nanswer he was ordained.\n\nThe reception of his ordination papers neither ended his intellectual\nmisgivings nor his difficulties with his strictly orthodox ministerial\nassociates in the presbytery. His mind, from this time until he finally\nbroke the fetters of religious bondage, \"was continually tossed on the\nwaves of speculative divinity,\" the all-engrossing theme of the\nreligious community at that time. Clashing, controversial theories were\nurged by the different sects with much zeal and bad feeling. At that\ntime he believed and taught that mankind were so depraved that they\ncould do nothing acceptable to God until his Spirit, by some physical,\nalmighty and mysterious power had quickened, enlightened and regenerated\nthe heart, and thus prepared the sinner to believe in Jesus for\nsalvation. He began to see that if God did not perform this regenerating\nwork in all, it was because he chose to do it for some and not for\nothers, and that this depended upon his own sovereign will and pleasure.\nHe then saw that the doctrine was inseparably linked with unconditional\nelection and reprobation, as taught in the Westminster Confession of\nFaith; that they are virtually one, and that was the reason why he\nadmitted the decrees of election and reprobation, having admitted the\ndoctrine of total depravity. Scores of objections continually crossed\nhis mind against the system. These he imputed to blasphemous suggestions\nof Satan, and labored to repel them as satanic temptations and not\nhonestly to meet them with Scripture arguments. Often, when addressing\nthe multitudes on the doctrine of total depravity, on their inability to\nbelieve and on the physical power of God to produce faith, and then\npersuading the helpless to \"repent and believe\" the Gospel, his zeal\nwould in a moment be chilled by such questions as: \"How can they\nbelieve?\" \"How can they repent?\" \"How can they do impossibilities?\" \"How\ncan they be guilty in not doing them?\" Such thoughts almost stifled his\nability to speak, and were as great weights pressing him down to the\nshades of death. The pulpits were continually ringing with this\ndoctrine; but to his mind it ceased to be a relief; for whatever name it\nwas called, he could see that the inability was in the sinner, and\ntherefore he could not believe nor repent, but must be damned. Wearied\nwith the works and doctrines of men and distrustful of their influence,\nhe made the Bible his constant companion. He honestly, earnestly and\nprayerfully sought for the truth, determined to buy it at the sacrifice\nof everything else.\n\nHe was relieved from this state of perplexity by this resolve. By\nreading and meditating upon the Word of God, he became convinced that\nGod did love the whole world, and that the only reason why he did not\nsave all was because of their unbelief, and that the reason why they\nbelieved not was because they neglected and received not his testimony\nconcerning his Son, for the Scripture says: \"These are written, that ye\nmay believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing\nye may have life in his name.\" From this he saw that the requirement to\nbelieve in the Son of God was reasonable, because the testimony given is\nsufficient to produce faith in the sinner, and the invitation and\nencouragement of the Gospel are sufficient, if believed, to lead him to\nthe Savior for the promised salvation and eternal life. From that moment\nof new light and joy he began to part company with Calvinism, declaring\nit to be the heaviest clog on Christianity in the world, a dark mountain\nbetween heaven and earth, shutting out the love of God from the sinner's\nheart.\n\nIn the joy of this new-found liberty he received such power that made\nhim one of God's choicest instruments in awakening religious society out\nof its apathy, and in preparing the way for the great religious movement\nwith which the last century was ushered in. Born with his new\nconvictions of God's all-abounding love, was an intense yearning to\nbring his fellow men to the joy of such a salvation. While the fire was\nkindling in his soul, he heard of a great religious excitement which had\nalready begun in Logan County, Kentucky, under the labors of certain\nPresbyterian preachers, among whom was the same James McGready whose\npreaching had so strongly affected Stone, while a youth, in North\nCarolina. In the spring of 1801 he attended one of these camp meetings,\nand for the first time witnessed those strange agitations and cataleptic\nattacks, which baffled description. He describes them thus:\n\n The scene to me was new, and passing strange. It baffled description.\n Many, very very many, fell down as men slain in battle, and continued\n for hours together in an apparently breathless and motionless state;\n sometimes for a few moments reviving and exhibiting symptoms of life\n by a deep groan or a piercing shriek, or by a prayer for mercy most\n fervently uttered. After lying thus for hours they obtained\n deliverance. The gloomy cloud which had covered their faces seemed\n gradually and visibly to disappear, and hope in smiles brightened into\n joy; they would rise shouting deliverance, and then would address the\n surrounding multitude in language truly eloquent. (Biography of Stone,\n page 34.)\n\n\n REMARKABLE MEETING AT CANE RIDGE\n\nReturning from these strange scenes, he entered the pulpit at Caneridge\nwith heart aglow with spiritual fervor. No longer shackled by the\ndoctrine of election and reprobation, he took for his text the inspiring\nmessage of the great commission: \"Go ye into all the world and preach\nthe Gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized\nshall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.\" Old as was\nthe text, it came like a new evangel to this people, who had known\nnothing but the hard terms of a Calvinistic creed. The audience was\nvisibly affected, and he left them promising to return in a few days.\nThis was the beginning of one of the greatest revivals in history. On\nhis return a vast multitude awaited him, and he had scarcely begun to\npicture before them the great salvation when scores fell to the ground\nas if smitten by some unseen hand. It is well to let Mr. Stone describe\nthe scene in his own language:\n\n Some attempted to fly from the scene panic-stricken, but they either\n fell or returned immediately to the crowd, as unable to get away. In\n the midst of this exercise an intelligent deist in the neighborhood\n stepped up to me and said, \"Mr. Stone, I always thought before that\n you were an honest man, but now I am convinced that you are deceiving\n the people.\" I viewed him with pity, and mildly spoke a few words to\n him; immediately he fell as a dead man, and arose no more until he had\n confessed the Savior. (Biography, pages 36, 37.)\n\nThe report of this remarkable meeting soon spread through the country,\nand shortly afterward he held a protracted meeting at Concord. The whole\ncountry was aroused and multitudes of all denominations attended. Party\nspirit shrank away and all joined heartily in the meeting, which\ncontinued five days and nights without a break, and great numbers\nabandoned sin.\n\nOn July 2, 1801, Barton W. Stone was married to Miss Elizabeth Campbell,\nof Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. Soon after marriage they hurried on to\nCaneridge for the memorable meeting which began on Friday before the\nthird Sunday in August. The news concerning the remarkable meeting at\nConcord had spread far and wide, and when the time came to begin the\nmeeting at Caneridge the roads were literally crowded with wagons,\ncarriages, horsemen and footmen, moving to the camp grounds. The crowd\nwas estimated at thirty thousand. During the meeting four or five\npreachers were frequently speaking at the same time, in different parts\nof the encampment, without confusion. All denominations joined in the\nconduct of the meeting. Party spirit for the time had disappeared, and\nall united in the great work. Multitudes abandoned sin and entered the\nprofession and practice of religion. The meeting continued six or seven\ndays and nights, and would have continued longer but food for the\nmultitude could not be found.\n\nThis meeting was attended by many from Ohio and other distant parts, who\nreturned to their homes and spread the same spirit in their\nneighborhoods, and the same results followed, and it can not be denied\nthat great good resulted. Nor were its effects by any means transient,\nbut were felt for years in the rapid growth of the churches in general\nand in a great degree of religious fervor.\n\nFrom the beginning of this great excitement Mr. Stone had been employed\nalmost day and night in preaching, singing, visiting, and praying with\nand for the distressed, till his lungs failed and became inflamed,\nattended with a violent cough, and it was believed that he had\ntuberculosis. His strength failed and he believed that his end was near.\nNotwithstanding this he had an intense desire to attend a camp-meeting a\nfew miles distant from Caneridge. His physician had strictly forbidden\nhim to preach any more till his disease should be removed.\n\nThis meeting was held in a grove near Paris. Here for the first time a\nPresbyterian preacher opposed the work and the doctrine by which the\nzeal among them had its existence and life. He labored hard to bring the\npeople under the yoke of Calvin and to regulate them according to his\nstandard. He wished to leave the camp at night and repair to the town,\nnearly a mile away, and hold the meeting in a house that would not hold\nhalf the people. This could not be done without leaving their tent and\nother things exposed. The consequence was, the meeting was divided and\nthe work greatly hindered. Infidels and formalists were greatly elated\nover this supposed victory and passed great encomiums on the preacher;\nbut the hearts of the revivalists were filled with sorrow. Stone went to\nthe meeting in town. A preacher was put forward who had always been\nhostile to the work and seldom mingled with the revivalists. He\naddressed the assembly in \"iceberg style,\" and its influence was very\ndepressing. Stone had decided to lead the congregation in prayer just as\nsoon as the preacher closed. When he finally closed, Stone arose and\nsaid, \"Let us pray.\" At that very moment another preacher of the same\ncast with the former rose in the pulpit to preach another sermon; but\nStone proceeded to pray, feeling a tender concern for the people. While\nhe was praying the people became much affected and the house was filled\nwith distress. Some of the preachers jumped out of the window back of\nthe pulpit and fled. Stone then pushed his way through the crowd to\nthose in distress, pointed them to the way of salvation, and\nadministered to them the comforts of the Gospel. The physician who was\nattending him being present, pressed his way through the crowd and found\nStone wet with perspiration. He ordered him to his home, lecturing him\nseverely for violating his orders. He put on dry clothes and retired at\nonce, slept sounding, and arose next morning perfectly relieved from his\naffliction. He soon regained his strength and joyfully resumed his\nministerial duties. This incident brought the campmeeting to a sudden\nclose.\n\n\n \"A TIME OF DISTRESS\"\n\nThere were at this time several other preachers in the Presbyterian\nChurch who coincided in religious views with Stone. These were Richard\nMcNemar, John Thompson, John Dunlavy, Robert Marshall and David\nPurviance. The three former lived in Ohio, and the three latter lived in\nKentucky. They all boldly preached the sufficiency of the Gospel to save\nmen, and that the testimony of God was designed and able to produce\nfaith, and that sinners were capable of understanding and believing this\ntestimony, and of acting upon it by coming to the Savior and from him\nobtaining salvation and the Holy Spirit. When they first began to preach\nthese things, \"the people appeared as just awakened from the sleep of\nages. They seemed to see for the first time that they were responsible\nbeings, and that a refusal to use the means appointed was a damning\nsin.\"\n\nThis departure from the doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith\nsoon occasioned a virulent opposition on the part of those who adhered\nto it. \"At first they were pleased to see the Methodists and Baptists so\ncordially uniting with us in the worship; but as soon as they saw these\nsects drawing away disciples after them, they raised the tocsin of\nalarm--The Confession of Faith is in danger, 'To your tents, O Israel!'\"\n\nThese partisans began to preach boldly the doctrines of their Confession\nof Faith and used the most potent arguments in their defense. \"A fire\nwas now kindled that threatened to ruin the great fervor among the\npeople. It revived the dying spirit of partyism and gave strength to\ntrembling infidels and lifeless professors. The sects were aroused. The\nMethodists and Baptists, who had so long lived in peace and harmony with\nthe Presbyterians and with one another, now girded on their armor and\nmarched into the deathly field of controversy and war. These were times\nof distress. The spirit of partyism soon expelled the spirit of love and\nunion--peace fled before discord and strife and religion was stifled and\nbanished in the unhallowed struggle for pre-eminence. Who shall be the\ngreatest seemed to be the spirit of the contest. The salvation of the\nworld was no longer the burden, and the spirit of mourning in prayer\ntook its flight from the breasts of many preachers and people. Yet there\nwere some of all the sects who deplored this unhappy state of things;\nbut their entreating voice was drowned in the din of battle.\"\n\nThe Presbytery of Springfield, Ohio, arraigned McNemar on the charge of\nheresy, and the case came before the synod at Lexington, Ky. Foreseeing\ntheir fate before that body, Stone, McNemar, Thompson, Dunlavy and\nMarshall drew up a protest, declaring their independence and withdrawal\nfrom the jurisdiction of the synod. The synod then suspended them and\ndeclared their congregations vacant. This act produced great commotion\nand division among the churches and confirmed the seceding ministers in\ntheir opposition to creeds and authoritative ecclesiastical systems. But\nas yet they had no thought of ceasing to hold the Presbyterian faith,\nand that they might continue in the service of the Church organized\nthemselves into an independent presbytery, called the \"Springfield\nPresbytery,\" but soon finding this position an impossible one and the\nwhole system out of harmony with their views, they now took another step\nin their work of reform. Renouncing their allegiance to all authority\nbut that of their divine Master, they resolved to be governed by the\nBible as their only rule of faith and practice. This called for the\ntracts and sermons from the opposition, and the views thus canvassed\nbecame widely disseminated.\n\nSoon after his separation, Stone called the churches at Caneridge and\nConcord together and informed them that he could no longer preach to\nsupport Presbyterianism, but that his labors should henceforth be\ndirected to advance the kingdom of God, irrespective of party, releasing\nthem from all pecuniary obligations to him. Thus for the cause of truth\nhe sacrificed the friendship of two large churches and an abundant\nsalary for his support. He preferred the truth to the friendship and\nkindness of his associates in the Presbyterian ministry, who were dear\nto him, and tenderly united in the bonds of love. Having now no support\nfrom the congregations, and having emancipated his slaves, he turned his\nattention cheerfully to labor on his farm. Though fatigued in body, his\nspirit was happy and calm. He did not relax his ministerial labors,\npreaching almost every night and often in the daytime to those who were\nanxious to hear the Word. He had no money to hire laborers, and often on\nhis return home he had to labor at night while others were asleep to\nredeem his lost time.\n\nCo-operating with his associates in the Springfield Presbytery in\npreaching and planting churches, a year had scarcely passed until such\nan organization was perceived to be unscriptural, and was by common\nconsent renounced, all agreeing to take the name \"Christian,\" which they\nbelieved to be the only proper title for Christ's followers, and\nbelieved it to have been given by divine appointment to the disciples at\nAntioch. Having divested themselves of all party creeds and party names,\nand trusting alone in God and the word of his grace, they became a\nbyword and laughing stock to the whole family of the sects; all of whom\nprophesied their speedy annihilation. Through much tribulation and\nstrenuous opposition they advanced, and churches and preachers were\nmultiplied.\n\nAs their renouncing their allegiance to all authority in religious\nmatters but that of the Lord Jesus Christ aroused much interest and no\nlittle opposition at the time, it will, no doubt, be interesting to my\nreaders to have this remarkable production in full, together with the\nwitnesses' address in full, which is as follows:\n\n THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE SPRINGFIELD PRESBYTERY\n\n The Presbytery of Springfield, sitting at Caneridge, in the county of\n Bourbon, being, through a gracious Providence, in more than ordinary\n bodily health, growing in strength and size daily; and in perfect\n soundness and composure of mind; but knowing that it is appointed for\n all delegated bodies once to die; and considering that the life of\n every such body is very uncertain, do make and ordain this our last\n will and testament, in manner and form following, viz:\n\n _Imprimis._ We _will_, that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into\n union with the body of Christ at large; for there is but one body and\n one spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling.\n\n _Item._ We _will_, that our name of distinction, with its _Reverend\n title_, be forgotten, that there be but one Lord over God's heritage,\n and his name one.\n\n _Item._ We _will_, that our power of making laws for the government of\n the Church, and executing them by delegated authority, forever cease;\n that the people may have free course to the Bible, and adopt the _law\n of the spirit of life in Jesus Christ_.\n\n _Item._ We _will_, that candidates for the gospel ministry henceforth\n study the Holy Scriptures, with fervent prayer, and obtain license\n from God to preach the simple Gospel, _with the Holy Spirit sent down\n from heaven_, without any mixture of philosophy, vain deceit,\n traditions of men, or the rudiments of the world. And let none take\n _this honor to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron_.\n\n _Item._ We _will_, that the Church of Christ resume her native right\n of internal government, try her candidates for the ministry, as to\n their soundness in the faith, acquaintance with experimental religion,\n gravity and aptness to teach; and admit no other proof of their\n authority but Christ speaking in them. We will that the Church of\n Christ look up to the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers into\n the harvest; and that she resume her primitive right of trying those\n _who say they are apostles and are not_.\n\n _Item._ We _will_, that each particular church as a body, actuated by\n the same spirit, choose her own preacher and support him by a\n free-will offering, without a written _call_ or _subscription_, admit\n members, remove offenses; and never henceforth _delegate_ her right of\n government to any man or set of men whatever.\n\n _Item._ We _will_, that the people henceforth take the Bible as the\n only sure guide to heaven; and as many as are offended with other\n books, which stand in competition with it, may cast them into the fire\n if they choose; for it is better to enter into the life having one\n book than having many to be cast into hell.\n\n _Item._ We _will_, that preachers and people cultivate a spirit of\n mutual forbearance; pray more and dispute less; and while they behold\n the signs of the times, look up, and confidently expect that\n redemption draweth nigh.\n\n _Item._ We _will_, that our weak brethren who may have been wishing to\n make the Presbytery of Springfield their king, and wot not what is now\n become of it, betake themselves to the Rock of Ages, and follow Jesus\n for the future.\n\n _Item._ We _will_, that the Synod of Kentucky examine every member who\n may be suspected of having departed from the Confession of Faith, and\n suspend every such heretic immediately, in order that the oppressed\n may go free, and taste the sweets of gospel liberty.\n\n _Item._ We _will_, that Ja---- ----, the author of two letters lately\n published in Lexington, be encouraged in his zeal to destroy\n _partyism_. We will, moreover, that our past conduct be examined into\n by all who may have correct information; but let foreigners beware of\n speaking evil of things which they know not.\n\n _Item._ Finally, we _will_, that all our _sister bodies_ read their\n Bibles carefully, that they may see their fate there determined, and\n prepare for death before it is too late.\n\n Springfield Presbytery.\n\n June 28, 1804. (L. S.)\n\n Robert Marshall, John Dunlavy, Richard McNemar, B. W. Stone, John\n Thompson, David Purviance,\n _Witnesses_.\n\n\n THE WITNESSES' ADDRESS\n\n We, the above-named witnesses of the Last Will and Testament of the\n Springfield Presbytery, knowing that there will be many conjectures\n respecting the causes which have occasioned the dissolution of that\n body, think proper to testify that from its first existence it was\n knit together in love, lived in peace and concord, and died a\n voluntary and happy death.\n\n Their reasons for dissolving that body were the following: With deep\n concern they viewed the divisions and party spirit among professing\n Christians, principally owing to the adoption of human creeds and\n forms of government. While they were united under the name of a\n presbyter, they endeavored to cultivate a spirit of love and unity\n with all Christians, but found it extremely difficult to suppress the\n idea that they themselves were a party separate from others. This\n difficulty increased in proportion to their success in the ministry.\n Jealousies were excited in the minds of other denominations; and a\n temptation was laid before those who were connected with the various\n parties to view them in the same light. At their last meeting they\n undertook to prepare for the press a piece entitled, \"Observations on\n Church Government,\" in which the world will see the beautiful\n simplicity of Christian Church government, stript of human invention\n and lordly traditions.\n\n As they proceeded in the investigation of that subject, they soon\n found that there was neither precept nor example in the New Testament\n for such confederacies as modern church sessions, presbyteries,\n synods, General Assemblies, etc. Hence they concluded that while they\n continued in the connection in which they then stood, they were off\n the foundation of the apostles and prophets of which Christ himself is\n the chief cornerstone. However just, therefore, their views of church\n might have been, they would have gone out under the name, the precious\n cause of Jesus, and dying sinners who are kept from the Lord by the\n existence of sects and parties in the church, they have cheerfully\n consented to retire from the din and fury of conflicting parties--sink\n out of the view of fleshly minds, and die the death. They believe\n their death will be great gain to the world. But though dead, as\n above, and stript of their mortal frame, which only served to keep\n them too near the confines of Egyptian bondage, they yet live and\n speak in the land of gospel liberty; they blow the trumpet of jubilee,\n and willingly devote themselves to the help of the Lord against the\n mighty. They will aid the brethren, by their counsel, when required;\n assist in ordaining elders or pastors, seek the divine blessing, unite\n with all Christians, commune together, and strengthen each others'\n hands in the work of the Lord.\n\n We design, by the grace of God, to continue in the exercise of those\n functions which belong to us as ministers of the Gospel, confidently\n trusting in the Lord, that he will be with us. We candidly acknowledge\n that in some things we may err, through human infirmity; but he will\n correct our wanderings and preserve his Church. Let all Christians\n join with us in crying to God day and night to remove the obstacles\n which stand in the way of his work, and give him no rest till he make\n Jerusalem a praise in the earth. We heartily unite with our Christian\n brethren of every name in thanksgiving to God for the display of his\n goodness in the glorious work he is carrying on in our western\n country, which we hope will terminate in the universal spread of the\n Gospel. (Biography of B. W. Stone, pages 51-55.)\n\n\n PRACTICES MODIFIED IN MANY PARTICULARS\n\nThe stand they now took drove them to modify their practices in many\nparticulars. Among the first things to which they turned their attention\nwas infant baptism. Previous, indeed, to the great excitement in 1801,\nRobert Marshall had become satisfied that infant baptism was not taught\nin the Word of God; upon which Stone tried to set him right, but in the\ncourse of the discussion he became so thoroughly convinced of its\nunscripturalness that he discontinued the practice entirely. The\nreligious awakening, however, soon engrossed the minds of all, and for\nsome years baptism was left out of view. At length, many becoming\ndissatisfied with their infant baptism, a meeting was convened to\nthoroughly consider the subject, and, after a friendly investigation,\nand discussion, it was decided that each member should act in accordance\nwith his convictions. As none among them had been immersed, it was a\nquestion whether any one was qualified to administer baptism, which was\nfinally settled upon the ground that authority to preach carried with it\nthe authority to baptize. In the performance of this newly-discovered\nduty, the ministers first baptized each other, and then their\ncongregations. The practice of immersion soon prevailed generally among\nthe churches.\n\nShortly after having reached the conclusion that the immersion of\nbelievers is the only Scriptural baptism, at a great meeting at Concord,\nwhen mourners were daily invited to collect around for prayer, as was\ntheir custom then, and many persons were prayed for without receiving\nthe expected comfort, the words of Peter rolled through Stone's\nmind--\"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus\nChrist for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the\nHoly Spirit\"--and he thought, \"were Peter here he would thus address\nthese mourners.\" So he quickly arose and addressed them in the same\nlanguage and urged them to comply with this demand. The effect, however,\nwas the reverse of what he intended. Instead of comforting the mourners,\nit only perplexed and confused them by directing their attention to an\nuntried course of procedure utterly unknown to \"revivals,\" and for which\nthey were wholly unprepared. \"While their hearts were filled with ardent\ndesires for special operations of the Holy Spirit and of fire, this\nunexpected presentation produced a chilling effect, and tended to cool\nthe ardor of their excited imagination. Mr. Stone himself, indeed,\nquoted Peter's language on this occasion evidently more from his anxiety\nto suggest some means of relief, and from his unbounded confidence in\nthe Word of God, than from any proper understanding of the relation of\nbaptism to remission of sins.\"\n\nThe independent stand that Stone took on the Bible alone greatly\nincreased his labors. Kindred spirits speedily rallied to his support.\nThe Presbyterians forbade their people to associate with them in their\nworship, on pain of censure or exclusion, but this caused many to cast\ntheir lot with them. Churches quickly sprang up over a wide region,\nrejecting all standards but the Bible and refusing to wear any name but\nthat of \"Christians.\" Stone and his co-laborers now devoted themselves\nto encouraging and strengthening these widely-scattered churches.\n\n\n \"SHAKERISM\"\n\nScarcely had the work been inaugurated, however, before the very life of\nthe churches was threatened by the appearance of a strange delusion. A\nsemi-religious, socialistic movement, known as \"Shakerism,\" had some\nyears before this established several communities in the State of New\nYork. Its leaders, hearing of the revolt against Calvinism led by Stone,\nsent three missionaries--Bates, Mitchum and Young--among them. They were\neminently qualified for their work, and soon made sad havoc of the\nnewly-planted churches. Stone thus describes them and their work:\n\n Their appearance was prepossessing, they were grave and unassuming at\n first in their manners; very intelligent and ready in the Scriptures,\n and of great boldness in their faith. They informed us that they had\n heard of us in the East, and greatly rejoiced in the work of God among\n us--that as far as we had gone we were right, but we had not gone far\n enough into the work--that they had been sent by their brethren to\n teach the way of God more perfectly, by obedience to which all should\n be led into perfect holiness. They seemed to understand all the\n springs and avenues of the human heart. They delivered their testimony\n and labored to confirm it by the Scriptures. They promised the\n greatest blessings to the obedient, but certain damnation to the\n disobedient. They urged the people to confess their sins to them,\n especially the sin of matrimony, and to forsake all\n immediately--husbands must forsake their wives and wives their\n husbands.... Many said they were the great power of God, confessed\n their sins to them and forsook their marriage state. Among them were\n three of our preachers--Matthew Houston, Richard McNamar and John\n Dunlavy. Several more of our preachers and pupils, alarmed, fled from\n us, and joined the sects around us. (Biography, page 62)\n\nIt was only by the great effort of Stone that the churches were saved\nfrom this vortex of ruin. He labored day and night, far and near, among\nthe churches where the Quakers went. By this means the evil influence\nwas checked and their broken ranks were rallied, and soon led once more\nto victory.\n\n\n THE WORK PROSPERS\n\nSoon after the trouble with the Quakers had been quelled and the\nchurches were once more in a prosperous condition, another trouble arose\nwhich threatened their entire overthrow. Two of the preachers, who with\nStone had thrown off the yoke of Presbyterianism, abandoned the\nmovement, reaffirmed their faith in the Westminster Confession of Faith,\nand returned to the Presbyterian fold. \"Of the five of us,\" as he wrote\nat a later date, \"that left the Presbyterians, I only was left, and they\nsought my life.\" Conscious of the integrity of his purpose, and\nconvinced of the scripturalness of his position, Stone continued to\npreach to the churches far and near, to any who would listen to him,\nrendering his services gratuitously, and earning as best he could the\nsupport of his family out of his little farm. Preaching the Gospel as he\nnow understood it, multitudes flocked to his standard, and many\nflourishing churches were established by him in Ohio, Kentucky and\nTennessee.\n\nAs an evangelist among the pioneer population of newly-settled States he\nwas without a rival. His large, generous nature quickly won the\nconfidence of the hardy inhabitants. His zeal and originality awakened\ntheir interest and fixed their attention. His warm sympathies and strong\nemotions melted them to repentance and led them to obedience. Seldom did\nhe preach a sermon that did not result in conversions, sometimes scores\ncoming forward at the close of a single address. At other times the\nwayside cabin with its lonely occupant received with gladness the\nmessage of life. Here is a scene as he describes it:\n\n One day as I was riding along slowly to an appointment at night, I was\n passing by a small hut, when a woman ran out and called to me. I\n stopped my horse. She told that she had heard me preach the day\n before, and with a heavenly countenance thanked God for it. \"For,\"\n said she, \"the Lord has blessed my soul. Will you stop and baptize\n me?\" \"Yes,\" said I, \"gladly will I do it.\" I dismounted, and walked\n into the hut. \"Oh,\" said she, \"will you wait till I send for my\n sister, a short distance off. She was with me, and the Lord has\n blessed her, too. She wants also to be baptized.\" \"Oh, yes,\" said I;\n \"I will gladly wait.\" She quickly dispatched a little boy to call her\n husband from the field near the house, and to tell the sister to come.\n In the meantime she was busy preparing dinner for me. It was no doubt\n the best she had, but such as I had never seen before. I never more\n thankfully, more happily, and more heartily dined. The husband soon\n came in, and the wife beckoned him out, and informed him of her\n intention of being baptized. He obstinately opposed it. In tears and\n distress she informed me. I talked mildly with him of the impropriety\n of his conduct, and at length gained his consent. Her countenance\n brightened with joy, and her sister came in shortly.\n\nThere, in the depths of the forest, in a stream that flowed near by, was\nwitnessed a scene that rivals in picturesqueness and simple beauty any\nrecorded in the Word of God.\n\nOn another occasion as he was returning from an appointment he was\novertaken by a gentleman returning from the same meeting, and the two\ncontinued the journey together. Stone introduced the subject of\nreligion, which was found not to be disagreeable to the stranger, though\nhe made no profession of religion. He urged him with many arguments to a\nspeedy turning to the Lord. It was very evident that his mind was deeply\ntroubled and that he was vacillating as to his choice of life or death.\nAt length they came to a clear running stream, when he said to Stone:\n\"See, here is water. What doth hinder me to be baptized?\" To which he\nreplied in the language of Philip to the Eunuch: \"If thou believest with\nall thine heart, thou mayest.\" The ready response came: \"I believe that\nJesus Christ is the Son of God, and am determined hereafter to be his\nservant.\" Without anything further passing between them, they dismounted\nand Stone baptized him.\n\nAbout 1812 Stone filled an appointment of long standing in Meigs County,\nOhio. The Separate Baptists, by previous appointment, held their annual\nassociation at the same time and place. They agreed to worship together.\nThe crowd of people was great, and early in the meeting Stone baptized\nWilliam Caldwell, a Presbyterian preacher, in the Ohio River. This drew\nthe cords of friendship more closely between him and the Baptists. By\nthis united effort the excitement became very great. The elders and\nmembers of the association met daily in a house near the stand, where\nthey transacted their business, while worship was carried on at the\nstand. Stone was asked and urged to assist them in their deliberations\nin the association, and frequently requested to give his opinion on\ncertain points, which he did to their acceptance and approbation. They\nhad a very difficult case before them, on which they could come to no\ndecision. He was urged to speak on it, and to speak freely. He spoke\nfreely and fully on the point, showing it to be a party measure, and\nunscriptural, at the same time exerting himself against sectarianism,\nformularies and creeds, laboring all the while to establish the\nscriptural ground of union among Christians, and the name they should\nwear, and that until Christians were united in spirit on the Bible there\nwould be no end to such difficult cases as now confronted them. Having\nclosed his speech, he went at once to the stand.\n\nThe mind of the association was withdrawn from any further consideration\nof the knotty cases before them to the consideration of what had been\npresented to them in the speech which they had just heard, with the\nresult that they agreed to forever lay aside their formularies and\ncreeds and take the Bible alone for their rule of faith and practice--to\ndrop the name \"Baptist\" and take the name \"Christian\"--and to disband\ntheir association and join Stone and others in their efforts to return\nto apostolic Christianity. They then marched to the stand, shouting the\npraises of God and proclaiming aloud what they had done. They embraced\neach other with Christian love, by which the union was cemented. This\ngave a mighty impetus to the work and multitudes were added to the Lord.\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n Thomas Campbell\n\nFor the present I turn from the work of Stone to that of the Campbells.\nChiefly because of failing health, Thomas Campbell, an humble, but\nintellectually and spiritually-gifted minister of the Seceder\nPresbyterian Church in the parish of Ahory, Armaugh County, Ireland,\ndetermined to seek for himself and for his family a home in this\ncountry. He came alone, intending to send for his family as soon as he\nhad established himself. He arrived in Philadelphia May 27, 1807. The\nSeceder Synod of North America was in session in that city when he\nlanded. He at once presented his credentials to that body, was cordially\nreceived, and at once assigned to the Presbytery of Chartiers, in\nSouthwestern Pennsylvania. As soon as he became settled in his new home\nhe began in a very earnest way to exercise his ministry as a member of\nthe presbytery, which embraced a number of counties. He had come to this\ncountry as a zealous missionary of the cross, filled with the love of\nsouls. Already in Ireland, through various influences, he had learned to\ncherish a liberal religious spirit, to esteem as of little value the\nbarriers that separate into sects.\n\n\n CONFLICT WITH THE SECEDERS\n\nThe Seceders constitute one of the \"straitest sects\" of the Calvinistic\nfaith, and even to this day they will not affiliate in full fraternal\nfellowship with other Presbyterians. It was in the matter of the\ncommunion that the severe test of fellowship was applied. Thomas\nCampbell had come to this country with his heart filled with a burning\nzeal to labor in the Lord's vineyard, and in largest charity for all\ncommunions, while still maintaining sincerely and fully his relations to\nhis particular communion. He believed that in this freest land men's\nhearts would necessarily be emancipated from the unyielding sectarian\nprejudices and animosities of the Old World. While eminently prudent and\npeace-loving, he was a man of heroic temper. He would not temporize nor\nbow to the tyrannous dictates of human traditions or human policy. \"This\ngrave spirit he had already shown in his early youth, when he decided\nfrom conviction not to follow the religion of his father, who was\nattached to the Church of England, and preferred, as he used to say, 'to\nworship God according to act of Parliament.' 'The law of the Lord, in\nthe word and spirit of the Gospel, which is 'the law of liberty,' was\nThomas Campbell's supreme rule of life.\"\n\nIt is interesting to unfold the events which led to the final crisis\nthat inaugurated actually and in a formal manner the restoration\nmovement. The Seceders were not very numerous within the limits of the\nChartiers Presbytery; the power of expansion was not in them. Mr.\nCampbell at once gained a wide and strong influence. His natural\nability, his scholarship and literary culture, made him much superior to\nthe preachers in that region; and his deep religious fervor and zeal and\nhis rare courtesy of manner won the hearts of the people. He did not\nrespect in his labors the narrow spirit and strict, illiberal rules and\nhabits of the Seceder Church. Besides this, he had found near him a\nnumber of excellent people who had come over from Ireland, Presbyterians\nand Independents, some of whom had been his acquaintance and cherished\nfriends in his native land. These gathered around him, and he promptly\ntook them to his heart in his ministrations as brethren. This kind of\nfreedom, however, was not in harmony with \"the usages\" of the Seceders.\nLater on he took a step which went even further than this, and thus in a\nvery decided way transgressed the established custom of the Church.\n\nHe was sent on a missionary tour with a young preacher, a Mr. Wilson, up\nthe Allegheny Valley, above Pittsburgh, \"to hold a celebration of the\nsacrament among the scattered Seceders of that then sparsely-settled\nregion. He found there many members of other Presbyterian bodies who had\nnot for a long time enjoyed the privilege of these by them so\nhighly-cherished occasions. His heart urged him to deplore in his\nintroductory sermon the existing divisions among Christians, and to\ninvite all the pious among his hearers, who were prepared for it, to\nunite in the participation of this sacred feast of God's people; and\nmany accepted the invitation. This was a bold infraction of Seceder\ncustom.\" Campbell could have no fellowship with such bigotry. Mr. Wilson\nsoon discovered that Campbell had no regard for sectarian differences\nand prejudices and that he was not sound in the Seceder faith. \"His\nconduct of inviting those not of his Church to partake of the communion\nwas an overt act of extreme transgression that could not be overlooked;\"\nbut he made no objection at the time this grave offense was committed.\nHe felt it his duty, however, to bring the matter before the presbytery\nat its next meeting. The charge contained several complaints, but the\nprincipal one was this public act in regard to the communion. It\nrecited, moreover, that \"Campbell had expressed his disapprobation of\nthings in the 'Standards' and of the practical application of them.\"\n\nThe presbytery, already much dissatisfied with his liberal course,\nreadily took up Wilson's charges. But they had before them a man who,\nalthough ever remarkably inclined to peace and warmly attached to the\nSeceder Church, would, nevertheless, not yield to any human authority\nagainst his convictions in matters of serious import. The present was a\ndecisive moment in his life, reaching in its effects far beyond what was\nthen thought.\n\nAfter an investigation, which called from him a most earnest plea in\nbehalf of Christian liberty and fraternity, he was found deserving of\ncensure. In vain did he protest the treatment he had received at the\nhands of his brethren. In vain did he appeal from the presbytery to the\nsynod. Party spirit was unyielding. He had expressed sentiments, it\ninsisted, which were \"very different from sentiments held and professed\nby the Church.\" This, it held, was an altogether sufficient ground of\ncensure. From that time many of his fellow ministers became inimical to\nhim and were disposed to inflict on him at every opportunity their petty\npersecutions.\n\nUnjust as he felt the censure of the synod to be, yet so strong was his\nlove of peace and his desire to continue to live and labor with his\nbrethren that he submitted to it; the condition, however, expressed in a\nwritten form to this tribunal \"that his submission should be understood\nto mean no more, on his part, than an act of deference to the judgment\nof the court; that by so doing he might not give offense to his brethren\nby manifesting a refractory spirit.\" After this concession he hoped that\nhe would be permitted to continue his labors in peace; but, much to his\nregret, the hostility of his opponents continued. Misrepresentations,\ncalumny, anything that would detract from his influence, were employed\nagainst him. Spies were employed to attend his meetings, that, if\npossible, they might find fresh ground of accusation in his utterances.\nAt last, worn out with these efforts, and having satisfied himself that\ncorruption, bigotry and tyranny were inherent in existing clerical\norganizations, he decided to sever his connection with the religious\nbody to which he had given life-long support, renouncing the authority\nof the presbytery and synod. That this final decisive step caused him\nmuch grief can not for a moment be doubted; but it is certain, also,\nthat the freedom which it gave him, as a servant of God, must have been\nto him a genuine joy and an impartation of a strength of soul he never\nknew before.\n\nThese painful experiences soon led to important consequences. By his\nforced withdrawal from the presbytery he found himself without church\naffiliations. But this only quickened his zeal in the efforts to extend\nChrist's kingdom. He had gained a wide and strong influence in the\nregion in which he lived. No meeting houses were at his command; but he\nheld his assemblies, after the pioneer fashion, in private dwellings,\nbarns, schoolhouses and under green trees. In these labors it was no\npart of his plan to organize a separate religious party. Such parties\nwere already too numerous. At first it seems that he had no definite\nplan of action. He had simply determined to use his strength in such\nways as Providence should open to him, in putting an end to partyism, by\ninducing the different denominations to unite together on the Bible. In\nthis purpose many of his neighbors heartily sympathized with him, though\nshrinking from the conclusions to which they were being irresistably\ndriven.\n\nAt last the time seemed ripe for some forward movement. He therefore\ndetermined to adopt what he believed to be the best course to promote\nthe interest of his Master's cause. He saw that many of his hearers\nsincerely, some ardently, had accepted the principles he was advocating\nand were constant in attendance on his ministry. He consequently\nproposed to them that they meet together and consult on the best method\nto give more order, definiteness and permanency to their efforts. This\nmet with ready and general approbation. A day was named and at the\nappointed hour a large company assembled in an old farmhouse in the\nneighborhood. The company was composed of thoughtful men and women,\ndeeply conscious of the importance of the occasion. They were plain,\nhard-working pioneers, but they were men and women of faith, whose\nhearts were pained at the division into warring sects and parties.\nThough belonging to different religious parties, they had met to seek a\npathway of closer fellowship.\n\nA feeling of deep solemnity pervaded the entire assembly, when at length\nMr. Campbell arose to address them. The theme of the occasion had grown\nto be the burden of his heart. He gave a clear exposition of the\nsituation and of the object of the assembly. The events that had led to\nthe calling of this meeting, well understood by all, had made a deep\nimpression upon them. The discourse was a strong argument against\nsectarian divisions and in behalf of Christian unity on the Bible as the\nonly infallible standard of doctrine and practice, to the rejection of\nall human traditions. He concluded this remarkable discourse by urging\nwith great earnestness the adoption of the following principles as the\nrule of their future action and life as Christians: \"_Where the\nScriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are\nsilent._\" This bold maxim was so just that no one of the audience,\nprepared as they were by previous teaching, could for a moment hesitate\nto accept it as right. These people could not help seeing the effect of\nthis law on some of the most familiar practices of the denominations to\nwhich most of them belonged.\n\n\n THE DECLARATION AND ADDRESS\n\nThis discourse to which reference has been made, closed with: \"Where the\nScriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are\nsilent,\" and produced a profound impression on the audience. The\nmajority of the audience were ready, unhesitatingly, to give a hearty\nassent to this great declaration. But the troublesome question arose,\n\"Where will it lead us?\"\n\nWhen Mr. Campbell had concluded, opportunity was given for free\nexpression of views, whereupon Andrew Munro, a shrewd Scotch Seceder,\narose and said: \"Mr. Campbell, if we adopt that as a basis, then there\nis an end of infant baptism.\" This remark and the manifest conviction\nthat it carried with it, produced a great sensation, for the whole\naudience was composed of pedobaptists who cherish infant baptism as one\nof their cardinal doctrines. \"Of course,\" said Mr. Campbell, in reply,\n\"if infant baptism is not found in Scripture we can have nothing to do\nwith it.\" This bold declaration came like a new revelation to the\naudience. Thomas Acheson, one of Mr. Campbell's closest friends, in a\nvery excited manner arose and said: \"I hope I may never see the day when\nmy heart will renounce that blessed saying of the Scripture, 'Suffer the\nlittle children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the\nkingdom of heaven!'\" Upon saying this he burst into tears, and was about\nto retire to the adjoining room when James Foster, well informed in the\nScriptures, called out, \"Mr. Acheson, I would remark that in the portion\nof Scripture you have quoted there is no reference to infant baptism.\"\nWithout offering a reply Mr. Acheson passed into the adjoining room to\nweep alone.\n\nThis new turn of things, so unexpected to them, did not lessen their\nconfidence in the position they had taken, or in the man who was leading\nthem onward. At the end of the conference the great principle was\nadopted without any real opposition. It would have been difficult for\nthem to object to a profession so manifestly loyal to God and so\nimpregnably founded in the Holy Scriptures. The principle, so universal\nin its application, and its controlling authority in all things that\nconcern the faith and practice of the followers of the Lord Jesus\nChrist, became henceforth the watchword and directive law of action of\nthose endeavoring to restore apostolic Christianity. Some of those who\nstarted out in this great movement, when they saw more clearly the\ninevitable, logical result of the great principle now adopted, one after\nanother broke off all connection with this work.\n\nThey now began to feel that in order to carry out with successful effect\nthis noble purpose they must organize themselves into a well-ordered,\npermanent association. At a meeting held August 17, 1809, it was decided\nthat they would formally unite themselves into a regular body, under the\nname of \"The Christian Association of Washington.\" They then appointed\ntwenty-one of their number to meet and confer together, and, with the\nassistance of Thomas Campbell, to determine upon the proper means to\ncarry into effect their purposes. As it was found to be very\ninconvenient to hold meetings in private houses, it was deemed advisable\nto provide some regular place of meeting. The neighbors, as was\ncustomary in those days, all moved by good will for the excellent man\nand his purposes, assembled and erected a log building three miles from\nMount Pleasant, Washington County, Pa. This building was designed, also,\nfor the purpose of a common school, which was much needed in that\nneighborhood. No ecclesiastical aspirations, no sectarian ambition, no\nparty purpose or name, entered into the erection of this humble\nbuilding. The name and cause of Christ alone prompted and sanctified the\nact of these honest souls.\n\nNear by, in the house of Mr. Welch, a worthy farmer who was friendly to\nthe association, Mr. Campbell had a home. A little chamber upstairs was\nassigned to him as his apartment. Here he spent his leisure time in\nquiet study, for he felt that he needed these days of undisturbed\nretirement to prepare himself to meet, in wisdom and the fear of God,\nthe crisis through which he and those united with him were passing. The\nwriting with which he was at this time engaged was designed to set forth\nto the public at large, in a clear and definite manner, the character\nand purposes of the association. In the \"prophet's chamber\" Thomas\nCampbell wrote the \"Declaration and Address\" which became so famous in\nthe early history of the effort to restore apostolic Christianity. When\nit was finished he called a special meeting of the chief members and\nread it to them for their approval and adoption. This meeting\nunanimously approved it and ordered its publication September 7, 1809.\n\nThis production is, in its substance and spirit, as well as in its\nvigorous and scholarly style, the most notable historical production of\nthe initiatory period of the effort to restore the apostolic church in\nits doctrine and practice, and is worthy of diligent and thoughtful\nstudy at the present day. It is proper, therefore, that I should note\nthe essential principles therein set forth. The admirable introduction\nsetting forth and deploring the divided state among the professed\nfollowers of the Savior concluded as follows:\n\n Our desire, therefore, for ourselves and our brethren would be that,\n rejecting human opinions and the inventions of men as of any\n authority, or as having any place in the Church of God, we might\n forever cease from further contentions about such things, returning to\n and holding fast by the original standard, taking the divine Word\n alone for our rule, the Holy Spirit for our teacher and guide to lead\n us into all truth, and Christ alone as exhibited in the Word for our\n salvation; and that by so doing we may be at peace among ourselves,\n follow peace with all men and holiness, without which no man shall see\n the Lord.\n\nThen follows a statement of the purpose and program of the association:\nTo form a religious association for promoting simple and evangelical\nChristianity, under the name of the \"Christian Association of\nWashington\"; to contribute a certain sum to support a pure Gospel\nministry and supply the poor with the Scriptures; to encourage the\nformation of similar associations; to consider itself not a church, but\nas a church reformation society; to countenance only such ministers as\nadhere closely to the example and precept of Scripture in conduct and\nteaching; to entrust the management of the association to a standing\ncommittee of twenty-one; to hold two meetings a year; to open each\nmeeting with a sermon; and to look to the friends of genuine\nChristianity for the support of their work.\n\nThis is followed by the address, with the following dedicatory heading:\n\"To all that love our Lord Jesus Christ, in sincerity, throughout all\nthe churches, the following address is most respectfully submitted.\"\nAfter an arraignment of the evils of divisions and an indictment of\nsectarianism, he pleads with his \"dearly beloved brethren\" of \"all the\nchurches\" \"to unite in the bonds of an entire Christian unity--Christ\nalone being the head, the center, his word the rule; and explicit belief\nof and manifest conformity to it in all things--the terms.\" Thus to\n\"come firmly and fairly to original ground, and take up things just as\nthe apostles left them.\" In this way they could become \"disentangled\nfrom the accruing embarrassments of intervening ages,\" and stand \"upon\nthe same ground on which the church stood at the beginning.\" \"Here,\nindeed, was the startling proposition to begin anew--to begin at the\nbeginning; to ascend at once to the pure fountain of truth, and to\nneglect and disregard, as though they had never been, the decrees of\npopes, cardinals, synods and assemblies, and all the traditions and\ncorruptions of an apostate church. Here was an effort not so much for\nthe reformation of the church as was that of Luther and of Calvin and of\nHaldanes, but for its complete restoration at once to its pristine\npurity and perfection. By coming at once to the primitive model and\nrejecting all human imaginations; by submitting implicitly to the divine\nauthority as plainly expressed in the Scriptures, and by disregarding\nall the assumptions and dictations of fallible men, it was proposed to\nform a union upon a basis to which no valid objection could possibly be\noffered. By this summary method the church was to be at once released\nfrom the controversies of eighteen centuries, and from conflicting\nclaims of all pretenders to apostolic thrones, and the primitive Gospel\nof salvation was to be disentangled and disembarrassed from all those\ncorruptions and perversions which had heretofore delayed or arrested its\nprogress.\"\n\nThere were certain \"fundamental truths\" of the nature of \"first\nprinciples,\" \"truths demonstrably evident in the light of Scripture and\nright reason,\" which _underly_ the proposal for a union of the professed\nfollowers of Christ. These are so interesting and important that I deem\nit wise to give them, for they need to be diligently and profoundly\nstudied by the present generation. They are summed up in the following\npropositions:\n\n 1. That the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally\n and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that\n profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things\n according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their\n tempers and conduct, and of none else; as none else can be truly and\n properly called Christians.\n\n 2. That although the Church of Christ upon earth must necessarily\n exist in particular and distinct societies, locally separate one from\n another, yet there ought to be no schisms, no uncharitable divisions\n among them. They ought to receive each other as Christ Jesus hath also\n received them, to the glory of God. And for this purpose they ought\n all to walk by the same rule, to mind and speak the same thing, and to\n be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same\n judgment.\n\n 3. That in order to this nothing ought to be inculcated upon\n Christians as articles of faith, nor required of them as terms of\n communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the\n Word of God. Nor ought anything to be admitted as of divine\n obligation, in their church constitution and management, but what is\n expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his\n apostles upon the New Testament Church, either in express terms or by\n approved precedent.\n\n 4. That although the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are\n inseparably connected, making together but one perfect and entire\n revelation of the divine will, for the edification and salvation of\n the Church, and therefore in that respect can not be separated, yet as\n to what directly and properly belongs to their immediate object, the\n New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline\n and government of the New Testament Church, and as perfect a rule for\n the particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the\n worship, discipline and government of the Old Testament Church, and\n the particular duties of its members.\n\n 5. That with respect to the commands and ordinances of our Lord Jesus\n Christ, where the Scriptures are silent as to the express time or\n manner of performance, if any such there be, no human authority has\n power to interfere, in order to supply deficiency by making laws for\n the Church; nor can anything more be required of Christians in such\n cases, but only that they so observe these commands and ordinances as\n will evidently answer the declared and obvious end of their\n institution. Much less have any human authority power to impose new\n commands or ordinances upon the Church, which our Lord Jesus Christ\n has not enjoined. Nothing ought to be received into the faith or\n worship of the Church, or be made a term of communion among\n Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament.\n\n 6. That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises,\n when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy\n Word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of\n Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently\n see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of\n men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore no such\n deductions can be made the terms of communion, but do properly belong\n to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence, it is\n evident that no such deductions or inferential truth ought to have any\n place in the Church's confession.\n\n 7. That although doctrinal exhibitions of the great system of divine\n truths and defensive testimonies in opposition to prevailing errors be\n highly expedient, and the more full and explicit they be for those\n purposes the better; yet, as these must be in a great measure the\n effect of human reasoning, and of course must contain many inferential\n truths, they ought not to be made terms of Christian communion, unless\n we suppose, what is contrary to fact, that none have a right to the\n communion of the Church, but such as possess a very clear and decisive\n judgment, or are come to a very high degree of doctrinal information;\n whereas the Church from the beginning did, and ever will, consist of\n little children and young men, as well as fathers.\n\n 8. That as it is not necessary that persons should have a particular\n knowledge or distinct apprehension of all divinely-revealed truths in\n order to entitle them to a place in the Church, neither should they,\n for this purpose, be required to make a profession more extensive than\n their knowledge; but that, on the contrary, their having a due measure\n of scriptural self-knowledge respecting their lost and perishing\n condition by nature and practice, and of the way of salvation through\n Jesus Christ, accompanied with a profession of their faith in the\n obedience to him, in all things, according to his Word, is all that is\n absolutely necessary to qualify them for admission into his Church.\n\n 9. That all who are able through grace to make such a profession, and\n to manifest the reality of it in their tempers and conduct, should\n consider each other as the precious saints of God, should love each\n other as brethren, children of the same family and Father, temples of\n the same Spirit, members of the same body, subjects of the same grace,\n objects of the same divine love, bought with the same price, and\n joint-heirs of the same inheritance. Whom God hath thus joined\n together no man should dare put asunder.\n\n 10. That divisions among the Christians is a horrid evil, fraught with\n many evils. It is anti-Christian, as it destroys the visible unity of\n the body of Christ; as if he were divided against himself, excluding\n and excommunicating a part of himself. It is anti-scriptural, as being\n strictly prohibited by his sovereign authority, a direct violation of\n his express command. It is anti-natural, as it excites Christians to\n condemn, to hate and oppose one another, where bound by the highest\n and most endearing obligation to love each other as brethren, even as\n Christ has loved them. In a word, it is productive of confusion and of\n every evil work.\n\n 11. That (in some instances) a partial neglect of the expressly\n revealed will of God, and (in others) an assumed authority for making\n the approbation of human opinions and of human inventions a term of\n communion, by introducing them into the constitution, faith or worship\n of the Church, are, and have been, the immediate, obvious and\n universally acknowledged causes of all corruptions and divisions that\n ever have taken place in the Church of God.\n\n 12. That all that is necessary to the highest state of perfection and\n purity of the Church upon earth is, first, that none be received as\n members, but such as, having that due measure of scriptural\n self-knowledge described above, do profess their faith in Christ and\n obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures; nor,\n secondly, that any be retained in her communion longer than they\n continue to manifest the reality of their profession by their temper\n and conduct. Thirdly, that her ministers, duly and scripturally\n qualified, inculcate none other things than those very articles of\n faith and holiness expressly revealed and enjoined in the Word of God.\n Lastly, that in all their administrations they keep close by the\n observance of all divine ordinances, after the example of the\n primitive Church, exhibited in the New Testament, without any\n additions whatever of human opinions or inventions of men.\n\n 13. Lastly, that if any circumstantials indispensably necessary to the\n observance of divine ordinances be not found upon the pages of express\n revelation, such, and such only, as are absolutely necessary for this\n purpose should be adopted under the title of human expedients, without\n any pretense to a more sacred origin, so that any subsequent\n alteration or difference in the observance of these things might\n produce no contention nor division in the Church. (\"Memoirs of Thomas\n Campbell,\" pages 48-52.)\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n ALEXANDER CAMPBELL\n\nAlexander Campbell, the son, arrived in this country September 29, 1809,\njust as the proof sheets of the Declaration and Address were coming from\nthe press, and as a matter of the first concern with him, Thomas\nCampbell gave a full detail of the events already related to his son,\nand desired especially that he should read and consider the Declaration\nand Address. This Alexander did, and fell in heartily with the action of\nhis father and the principles set forth therein. A new world of thought\nand life was now opened to him. He had spent one of the two years of\nseparation in study at the University of Glasgow, where his father had\nformerly studied, and while there came more intimately under the\ninfluence of the new ideas and movements of the country. There he had\nmet Greville Ewing, the Haldanes, and other religious leaders of the\ntime who were pressing for larger liberty of religious service under the\nrule of a stricter conformity to the Scriptures, and had in a large\nmeasure imbibed these principles. He had not had the courage to write to\nhis father of his change of convictions from the old church, and now\nfeared that his changed course would bring him deep pain. In this\nattitude of mind the meeting between father and son took place. Happy\nwas the surprise when each learned that the other no longer adhered to\nthe old religious party in which they had been reared.\n\n\n SUBJECT AND ACT OF BAPTISM SETTLED\n\nWhile reading the proof sheets of the Declaration and Address, Alexander\nCampbell had a conversation on the principles set forth therein with a\nMr. Riddle, of the Presbyterian Church, whom he accidentally met. When\nthe proposition that \"nothing should be required as a matter of faith or\nduty for which a 'Thus saith the Lord' could not be produced either in\nexpress terms or by approved precedent,\" was introduced, Mr. Riddle very\npromptly replied that the words, however plausible in appearance, were\nnot sound; for if that were followed it would be necessary to abandon\ninfant baptism. To which he replied, \"Why, sir, is there in the\nScriptures no express precept nor precedent for infant baptism?\" \"Not\none, sir,\" was the prompt reply.\n\nThis reply startled and mortified Mr. Campbell, and shortly afterward he\nmentioned the suggested difficulty to his father, who replied, \"We make\nour appeal to the law and the testimony. Whatever is not found therein\nmust of course be abandoned.\" Not willing to remain in uncertainty on\nthe subject, he procured all the books and tracts he could favorable to\nthe practice. On reading them he was disgusted with the assumptions and\nfallacious reasonings to sustain the practice, and threw them aside with\nthe faint hope of finding something more convincing in the Greek New\nTestament. \"This, however, only made the matter worse, and upon again\nentering into a conversation with his father on the subject he found him\nentirely willing to admit that there were neither 'express terms' nor\n'precedent' to authorize the practice. 'But,' said he, 'as for those who\nare already members of the church and participants of the Lord's Supper,\nI can see no propriety, even if the scriptural evidence for infant\nbaptism be found deficient, in their unchurching or paganizing\nthemselves, or in putting off Christ, merely for the sake of making a\nnew profession; thus going out of the church merely for the sake of\ncoming in again.'\"\n\nFrom this it seems that he was disposed only to concede that they ought\nnot to teach nor practice infant baptism without divine authority, and\nthat they should preach and practice scriptural baptism in regard to all\nwho were to make, for the first time, a profession of faith. In\ndeference to his views, the son dismissed the subject for the time,\n\"seemingly satisfied with the fallacious reasoning imposed by\ncircumstances, which prevented his father from seeing then the real\nposition which baptism occupied in the Christian economy, and\nconsequently from making, in regard to it, a practical application of\nhis own principles.\" With this Alexander Campbell seems to have\nsuspended his investigation of the subject, and to have foreborne giving\nto it that impartial and continued attention necessary to the discovery\nof truth. In a discourse delivered June 5, 1811, on Christ's commission\nto his apostles (Mark 16:15,16), he said, in reference to baptism: \"As I\nam sure it is unscriptural to make this matter [baptism] a term of\ncommunion, I let it slip. I wish to think and let think on these\nmatters.\"\n\nBut circumstances came up later which compelled him to give it a most\npainstaking examination. He was married March 12, 1811, and on March 13,\n1812, his first child was born. Soon after this event a great change\ntook place in his views in regard to baptism. His wife, with her father\nand mother, was still a member of the Presbyterian Church, and, as the\nchild grew, it was natural that the subject of infant baptism should\nbecome one of immediate practical interest. As viewed from the viewpoint\nof his early education, infant baptism was a rite justified,\ninferentially at least, and not to be neglected; but viewed from the\nprinciples set forth in the Declaration and Address it possessed no\ndivine authority, yet as an ancient and venerated practice, and for the\nsake of peace, it seemed to his father and to himself expedient to allow\nits continuance in the case of such members as conscientiously believed\nit proper. Most of the members of the church, furthermore, supposed\nthemselves to have been baptized into the church in their infancy. From\nthe occasional discussions of the subject among the members of the Brush\nRun Church, there was an increasing conviction on the part of many that\nbaptism was a matter of much more importance than had been generally\nsupposed, and now his changed relationship caused him to share in this\nconviction. Admitting that infant baptism is without divine warrant\nassumed a very different aspect, and was no longer, \"May we safely\nreject infant baptism as a mere human invention?\" but, \"May we omit\nbelievers' baptism, which all admit to be divinely commanded?\" In other\nwords, if infant baptism is without divine warrant, it is invalid, and\nthey who receive it are as a matter of fact still unbaptized. \"When they\ncome to know this in after years, will God accept the credulity of the\nparent for the faith of the child?\" \"Men may be pleased to omit faith on\nthe part of the person baptized, but will God sanction the omission of\nbaptism on the part of the believer, on the ground that in his infancy\nhe had been the subject of a ceremony which had not been enjoined?\" \"On\nthe other hand, if the practice of infant baptism can be justified by\ninferential reasoning on any sufficient evidence, why should it not be\nadopted or continued by common consent, without further discussion?\"\n\nSuch were some of the thoughts which at this time passed through the\nmind of Alexander Campbell. Desiring to maintain \"a conscience void of\noffense toward God and men,\" and sensible of the responsibilities\nresting upon him in the new relationship which he sustained as a father,\nhe was led to think more earnestly and seriously upon the whole subject,\nso that he might not come short in any duty that God had placed upon\nhim. At this point he parted company with all uninspired authorities and\nturned to the Greek New Testament and diligently applied himself to the\nmeaning of the words translated into the English by the words \"baptize\"\nand \"baptism,\" and soon became thoroughly satisfied that the act\nindicated by them could not be performed short of a burial of the\nsubject in water. By further investigations he was led to the strong\nconviction that believers, and believers only, were the scriptural\nsubjects of the ordinance. \"He now fully perceived that the rite of\nsprinkling to which he had been subjected in infancy was wholly\nunauthorized, and that he was, consequently, in point of fact, an\nunbaptized person, and hence could not consistently preach a baptism to\nothers of which he had never been a subject himself.\" The subject was of\nsuch serious and anxious inquiry that he frequently conversed with his\nwife on the subject; she also became interested in it, and finally\nreached the same conclusion.\n\nHaving now reached such a definite conclusion in regard to the matter,\nhe could not long refrain from putting his convictions into practice, so\nhe resolved to obey what he now found to be a positive, divine command.\nSome time prior to this he had formed an acquaintance with Matthias\nLuce, a Baptist preacher, who lived some thirty miles distant, to whom\nhe now decided to apply to perform the rite. On his way to see him he\ncalled to see his father and the family. Soon after his arrival his\nsister, Dorothea, took him aside and told him that she had been in great\ntrouble for some time in regard to the validity of her baptism, as she\ncould find no authority whatever in the New Testament for infant\nbaptism, and as she had received nothing else, could not resist the\nconviction that she had never been baptized, and requested him to lay\nher difficulties before her father. To this unexpected announcement he\nresponded that he also had reached the same conclusion and was then on\nhis way to arrange with Mr. Luce to immerse him, and that he would lay\nthe whole matter before their father. Accordingly he sought and obtained\nan interview with him; discussed the subject at some length, and\nconcluded with these words: \"I now fully and conscientiously believe\nthat I have never been baptized, and consequently I am, in point of\nfact, an unbaptized person; and hence can not consistently preach\nbaptism to others, as I have never submitted to it myself.\" To this his\nfather responded, \"I have, then, nothing further to add. You must please\nyourself.\"\n\nAs Alexander was leaving the next morning, his father said: \"When,\nwhere, and by whom do you intend to be immersed?\" To which Alexander\nreplied: \"As to the place, I prefer to be baptized near home, among\nthose who are accustomed to hear my preaching; as to the time, just as\nsoon as I can make arrangements with a suitable Baptist preacher. I will\nlet you know as soon as I make the necessary arrangements.\" The\ninterview with Mr. Luce was satisfactory and everything was\nsatisfactorily arranged. Mr. Richardson gives the following interesting\naccount of the baptism:\n\n Wednesday, June 12, 1812, having been selected, Elder Luce, in company\n with Elder Henry Spears, called at Thomas Campbell's on their way to\n the place chosen for the immersion, which was the deep pool in Buffalo\n Creek, where three members of the Association had formerly been\n baptized. Next morning, as they were setting out, Thomas Campbell\n simply remarked that Mrs. Campbell had put up a change of raiment for\n herself and him, which was the first intimation that they also\n intended to be immersed. Upon arriving at the place, as the greater\n part of the Brush Run Church, with a large concourse of others,\n attracted by the novelty of the occasion, were assembled at David\n Bryant's house, near the place, Thomas Campbell thought it proper to\n present, in full, the reasons which had determined his course. In a\n long address he reviewed the entire ground which he had occupied, and\n the struggles that he had undergone in reference to the particular\n subject of baptism, which he had earnestly desired to dispose of, in\n such a manner that it might be no hindrance in the attainment of that\n Christian unity which he had labored to establish on the Bible alone.\n In endeavoring to do this he admitted that he had been led to overlook\n its importance, and the very many plain and obvious teachings of the\n Scriptures on the subject; but having at length attained a clearer\n view of duty, he felt it incumbent upon him to submit to what he now\n saw an important Divine institution. Alexander afterwards followed\n with an extended defense of their proceedings, urging the necessity of\n submitting implicitly to all God's commandments, and showing that the\n baptism of believers only was authorized by the Word of God.\n\n In his remarks, he had quoted, among other scriptures, the command of\n Peter to the believers on the day of Pentecost: \"Repent and be\n baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the\n remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit;\"\n and had dwelt at length upon the gracious promises of God to all who\n should obey him. When he had concluded, James Hanan, who, with his\n wife, had also concluded to be baptized, took his child from its\n mother's arms and requested her to walk aside, asked her what she\n thought of the declaration of Peter, \"You shall receive the gift of\n the Holy Spirit,\" and how she understood it. Mrs. Hanan, being well\n acquainted with the Scriptures, soon gave a satisfactory reply, and\n both were accordingly baptized along with the rest, consisting of\n Alexander Campbell and his wife, his father and mother, and his\n sister--in all, seven persons. Alexander had stipulated with Elder\n Luce that the ceremony should be performed precisely according to the\n pattern given in the New Testament, and that, as there was no account\n of any of the first converts being called upon to give what is called\n \"a religious experience,\" this modern custom should be omitted, and\n that the candidates should be admitted on the simple confession that\n \"Jesus Christ is the Son of God.\" These points he had fully discussed\n with Luce during the evening spent at his house when he first went up\n to request his attendance, and they had been arranged as he desired.\n Elder Luce had, indeed, at first objected to these changes, as being\n contrary to Baptist usage, but finally consented, remarking that he\n believed they were right, and he would run the risk of censure. There\n were not, therefore, upon this occasion, any of the usual forms of\n receiving persons into the Church upon a detailed account of religious\n feelings and impressions.... All were, therefore, admitted to\n immersion upon making the simple confession of Christ required of the\n converts in the apostolic times. The meeting, it is related, continued\n seven hours. (Memoirs of A. Campbell, Vol. I, pages 396-398.)\n\nWithin a week of the immersion of the Campbells and their group,\nthirteen other members of the Brush Run Church asked to be immersed, and\nit was done by Thomas Campbell, upon a simple confession of their faith\nin Jesus Christ as the Son of God. It was not long before the entire\nchurch of thirty or more members were immersed, for those who did not\naccept immersion withdrew from the church and united with some of the\ndenominations in the community. Immersion became a condition of union\nand communion with the Brush Run Church. Its conversion into a company\nof immersed believers did not bring them any favor from the pedobaptist\nchurches of the community.\n\nThe Brush Run Church had come to its position under the guidance of\nprimitive apostolic example and its application to every item of faith\nand practice which is adopted in its order. It was not seeking agreement\nwith any religious body, but \"the old paths,\" agreement with the\n\"original standard,\" \"that it might come fairly and firmly to original\nground upon clear and certain premises, and take up things just as the\napostles left them.\" It was feeling its way and making sure of its\nground as it went. It knew of no religious body that stood upon original\nground; none that dared to return to the original standard. The sense of\nfreedom which it enjoyed in being bound only by the New Testament with\nrespect to all doctrines and practices, was equaled only by the sense of\ncertainty it enjoyed in being infallibly guided by the New Testament to\nthe true conditions of unity and communion.\n\n\n THE REDSTONE ASSOCIATION\n\nAs was to be expected, the attitude of the Brush Run Church in becoming\na body of immersed believers awakened a storm of opposition from the\npedobaptist ranks, and its members became the subjects of no little\npersecution. Misrepresentations of all kinds, were freely circulated\namong the people. Family and friendship ties were broken, and the common\ncivilities of society were denied to this new order of \"heretics.\" It is\nrelated that Alexander Campbell, returning after nightfall from one of\nhis appointments about this time, was overtaken by a violent storm.\nCalling at the house of a member of the Seceder Church, he asked for\nshelter from the violence of the storm. Before granting his request she\ndesired to know his name. On being informed she promptly refused him\nadmittance, giving as her reason her hostility to his religious views.\nSo he was forced to continue his journey through an almost trackless\nforest, until he reached his home. These trials, so far from\ndiscouraging this feeble band of earnest searchers for the truth, served\nrather to strengthen their faith and zeal. Convinced of the correctness\nof their course, they were drawn more closely to each other by the petty\npersecutions which they were now called upon to suffer. \"They often\nvisited each other's houses, frequently spending the greater portion of\nthe night in social prayer, in searching the Scriptures, asking and\nanswering questions, and singing hymns of praise.\" Thus was laid, in\nobscurity and adversity, the foundation of the great work of returning\nto the \"example of the primitive Christians exhibited in the New\nTestament; without any addition whatever of human opinions or inventions\nof men.\"\n\nA new situation now confronted them. When the Baptists heard of the\naction of the Brush Run Church in submitting to immersion and adopting\nit in their practice, they were highly elated and began to urge the\nchurch to join the Redstone Association, which embraced all the Baptist\nchurches of that region. Alexander Campbell had not been favorably\nimpressed with the Baptists, either as ministers or people, and had no\nidea of uniting with them. He, however, liked the people better, and the\npreachers less, the more he became acquainted with them. He did not\npress himself upon their attention, but they knew his power as a\npreacher and often sent for him to preach for them. He visited their\nassociation which convened at Uniontown, Pa., in the autumn of 1812. He\nwent as a spectator, and returned more disgusted than when he went. He\nwas invited to preach, but he declined, except one evening in a private\nfamily, \"to a dozen preachers and twice as many laymen.\" He returned\nhome not intending ever to visit another association. Later on he\nlearned that the Baptists themselves did not appreciate the preaching or\nthe preachers of that association. They regarded the speakers as worse\nthan usual, and their discourses as not at all edifying. Then they\npressed on Mr. Campbell from every quarter to visit their churches, and\npreach for them. He often spoke to Baptist congregations for sixty miles\naround.\n\nThe matter of joining the Redstone Association was laid before the Brush\nRun Church in the fall of 1813. They discussed the propriety of the\nmeasure. After much discussion and earnest desire to be directed by the\nwisdom that cometh down from above, they finally concluded to make an\noverture to that effect, and to write out a full view of their\nsentiments, wishes and determinations on the subject. They did so,\nexhibiting their remonstrance against all human creeds as bonds of\ncommunion and union among Christians, and expressing a willingness, upon\ncertain conditions, to co-operate or unite with that association,\nprovided always that they should be allowed to teach and preach whatever\nthey learned from the Holy Scriptures, regardless of any creed or\nformula in Christendom.\n\nThe proposition was discussed at the association, and, after much\ndebate, was decided by a good majority in favor of their being received.\nThus a union was formed. But the party opposed, though small, began\nearly to work, and continued with a perseverance worthy of a better\ncause. But for three years they could do nothing. The situation in which\nMr. Campbell found himself, soon after his connection with the Redstone\nAssociation of the Baptist churches, was not at all inviting. The\noriginality of his method in dealing with the Scriptures, and his utter\ndisregard for customs, however time-honored, which were not sanctioned\nby primitive precept or example, awakened the suspicion of the more\nnarrow-minded of the Baptist preachers, who were not slow in manifesting\ntheir disapproval. His popularity among the churches of the association\nno doubt added to their displeasure, and at every opportunity he was\nmade to feel the sting of their resentment. This hostility, which at\nfirst manifested itself in slights and little annoyances, at last led to\nan open attack upon his teachings.\n\nWhen the association met at Cross Creek in August, 1816, in spite of the\nintrigues of his enemies he was appointed as one of the speakers, on\nwhich occasion he preached his great \"Sermon on the Law.\" In that\ndiscourse he sharply discriminated between the law of Moses and the\nGospel, showing that the former had served its purpose, and that its\nauthority had passed away when the kingdom of the Messiah was\nestablished. This marked another important advance in the progress of\nthe efforts to return to apostolic Christianity. The distinction between\nthe law and the Gospel, the old covenant and the new, the letter and the\nspirit, the Jewish commonwealth and the kingdom, had been greatly\nobscured in popular thought. It was claimed that the law was still\nalive, and that Christians come under its provisions as such, with the\nexception of its strictly ceremonial parts, and that the church under\nthe Christian dispensation is the same that existed under the Jewish\ndispensation. The sermon, though containing but plain Scripture\nteaching, was such a bold assault upon the theology and style of\npreaching current among the Baptists that it created a great sensation\nin the association, and raised a storm of persecution. The common people\nwere, for the most part, pleased with his simple, natural presentation\nof the truth, but this only added fuel to the flame of bitterness which\nsome of the preachers cherished against him. \"This will never do,\" they\nsaid, \"this is not our doctrine.\"\n\nIn consequence of the views presented in this sermon, Mr. Campbell was\n\"brought up for trial and condemnation\" at the next meeting of the\nassociation in the autumn of 1817. At that time but few were ready to\naccept the conclusion in the sermon, and the actual adherents of the\nteaching, scattered among the Baptists of three States, did not number\nmore than one hundred and fifty persons; but notwithstanding this feeble\nsupport, upon investigation he was acquitted of the charge made against\nhim. Opposition to him increased in the Redstone Association, and some\nof the preachers determined to manufacture a sentiment that would thrust\nhim out when the association should meet in September, 1823. In\npursuance of this purpose certain influential men canvassed all the\nchurches and secured the appointment of messengers who were in sympathy\nwith themselves in opposition to Mr. Campbell; and when the association\nmet all things were in readiness to exclude the author of the \"Sermon on\nthe Law\" from the fellowship of the association. But to the astonishment\nand chagrin of the plotters, when the letter from the Brush Run Church\nwas read, Mr. Campbell, though present, was not mentioned as a\nmessenger. This cooled the ardor of his enemies who had hoped to close\nBaptist ears against him by a decree of excommunication, and crush his\ninfluence generally by putting him in the discreditable position of one\nexpelled from the association. A motion being made to invite him to a\nseat in the body, his enemies opposed it, and demanded to know why he\nhad not been sent as a messenger. After much discussion Mr. Campbell\nrelieved the situation by stating that the church of which he was then a\nmember did not belong to the Redstone Association. In describing the\nchagrin of his enemies when this announcement was made, Mr. Campbell\nsays:\n\n Never did hunters, on seeing the game unexpectedly escape from their\n toils at the moment when its capture was sure, glare upon each other a\n more mortifying disappointment than that indicated by my pursuers at\n that instant, on hearing that I was out of their bailiwick, and\n consequently out of their jurisdiction. A solemn stillness ensued, and\n for a time all parties seemed to have nothing to do.\n\nForeseeing the storm that was gathering, and learning, just a few weeks\nbefore the time for the association to convene, the plans that were\nbeing so industriously laid to exclude him from the association, he\ndetermined to defeat the project in a way which his enemies little\nexpected, but which was in strict accordance with Baptist usage. As he\nhad been frequently solicited by Adomson Bently to leave the Redstone\nAssociation and unite with the Mahoning, and as a number of the members\nof the Brush Run Church lived in Wellsburg and vicinity, he decided this\nwas an opportune time to form a separate congregation in which he would\nhave his membership, and which might afterward unite with the Mahoning\nAssociation. He announced, therefore, to the church at Brush Run that he\ndesired from them letters of dismission for himself and some thirty\nother members in order to constitute a church at Wellsburg. This request\nwas granted and a congregation was at once formed in the town of\nWellsburg, and continued to assemble regularly ever afterward in the\nhouse which had been previously erected for that purpose. Thus were the\nunrighteous attempts of wicked men defeated.\n\n\n A WIDER FIELD\n\nShortly before the events already mentioned, Mr. Campbell was very\nunexpectedly drawn into a discussion with John Walker, a minister of the\nSeceder Presbyterian Church. It came about in this way: The jealousy of\nrival religious parties at Mount Pleasant, Ohio, led to a controversy\nbetween Mr. Walker and Mr. Birch, a Baptist preacher, which ended in a\nchallenge by Mr. Walker to meet any Baptist preacher of good standing in\nthe public discussion of the question of baptism. The high opinion\nentertained throughout that region for Mr. Campbell's ability led to his\nselection as the most suitable champion of the Baptist cause. Owing to\nthe circumstances under which he was placed, he did not give an\nimmediate answer. In the meantime Mr. Birch renewed the appeal, and\nfinally made it more urgent by stating that it was the unanimous wish of\nall the Baptist churches throughout that region that he should be their\nrepresentative in the discussion. Being thus called upon by the church,\nand urged by personal friends, he could no longer refuse to yield to his\nown convictions of public duty.\n\nHis hesitancy was not due to his own disinclination, but in deference to\nhis father, who did not regard \"public debates the proper method of\nproceeding in contending for the faith once delivered to the saints.\"\nHe, however, finally succeeded in convincing his father that, however\nmuch the usual unprofitable debates upon human theories were to be\ndeplored and avoided, no objection could lie against a public defense of\nrevealed truth, for which the Scriptures afforded abundant precedent.\nHaving gained this point with his father, he finally informed Mr. Birch\nof his willingness to enter the discussion.\n\nAll preliminaries having been arranged, the discussion began on Monday\nmorning, June 19, 1820, at Mount Pleasant, Ohio. It was attended by a\nlarge concourse of people and created great interest. Mr. Walker's first\nspeech was very brief, and as it gives the gist of his whole contention\nthroughout the debate, I will give it in full:\n\n My friends, I do not intend to speak long at one time, perhaps not\n more than five or ten minutes, and will, therefore, come to the point\n at once: I maintain that baptism came into the room of circumcision;\n that the covenant on which the Jewish Church was built, and to which\n circumcision is the seal, is the same with the covenant on which the\n Christian Church is built, and to which baptism is the seal; that the\n Jews and the Christians are the same body politic under the same\n lawgiver and husband; hence the Jews were called the congregation of\n the Lord; and the bridegroom of the church says, \"My love, my\n undefiled is one\"--consequently the infants of believers have a right\n to baptism.\n\nIn response to this speech Mr. Campbell said that the pedobaptists acted\nas if they did not themselves believe infant baptism to be true, since,\nin point of fact, they did not put baptism in the room of circumcision,\nas they did not confine it to males only and extend it to servants as\nwell as to children, perform it on the eighth day, etc.; and then\nproceeded to point out various differences between the two institutions\nwhich rendered the supposed substitution of the one for the other\nimpossible. Among these he particularizes the fact that circumcision\nrequired only carnal descent from Abraham, but that baptism demanded\nfaith in Christ as its indispensable prerequisite; and that baptism\ndiffered from circumcision in the nature of the blessings it conveyed,\nwhich were spiritual and not temporal: \"Baptism is connected with the\npromise of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.\" This\nutterance is his first public recognition of the importance of baptism.\nWhile he then distinctly perceived and asserted a scriptural connection\nbetween baptism and remission of sins, he seems at this time to have\nviewed it only in the light of an argument and to have but a faint\nconception of its great practical importance in the economy of grace.\n\nAs the discussion proceeded, all recognized that he was an invincible\ndefender of what he believed the Scriptures taught. His whole training\nhad fitted him for such an arena. His liberal education, his extensive\nreading, his wonderful memory, his faultless diction, his remarkable\nself-control, sustained as they were by deep earnestness of purpose,\ngave him at once a vantage ground which he never relinquished. But such\nwas the originality of his method in handling the truth and his freedom\nfrom the accepted terms of the theological schools that even the\nvictory, which was universally admitted to be with him, was not accepted\nby many of the Baptists as an unmixed blessing. The opportunities and\nissues of the debate were such as to convince Mr. Campbell of its\npractical utility in disseminating the truth and he gave the following\nchallenge in his concluding speech.\n\n I this day publish to all present that I feel disposed to meet any\n pedobaptist minister of any denomination, of good standing in his\n party, and I engage to prove in a debate with him, either orally or\n with the pen, that infant sprinkling is a human tradition and\n injurious to the well-being of society, religious and political.\n\nSuch a challenge was well calculated to make a deep impression on all\nwho heard it, and this was what he designed it to do. In the frankness\nof his independent spirit he, from that time forward, held himself in\nreadiness to meet in public discussion any worthy champion who might\nrise in opposition to the truths he taught, or in defense of popular\nreligious error.\n\nThe effect of this discussion, however, was to aid Mr. Campbell's\ngrowing reputation. His fame was widely extended by the publication of\nthe debate, which was read by thousands, and began soon to produce\nresults far beyond his fondest hopes. The printed debate circulated very\nwidely among the Baptists, who felt that they had the best of the\nargument. While some Baptists \"remained extremely dubious in regard to\nthe orthodoxy of their champion,\" others took grateful pride in him, and\nfelt, as one Baptist declared, that \"he had done more for the Baptists\nin the West than any other man.\"\n\nThe printing and circulation of the debate opened the eyes of Mr.\nCampbell to the power and usefulness of the press. From that time\nforward he cherished the hope that he might do something upon a more\nextended scale to rouse the people from their spiritual lethargy. Step\nby step he had been brought to an eminence from which he could survey\nthe wide field in which he was destined to labor, and he now nerved\nhimself for the undertaking. After maturing his plans, he conferred with\nhis father and others concerning the advisability of issuing a monthly\npublication in the interest of religious truth. They heartily approved\nhis plan, and he issued in the spring of 1823 a prospectus for the work\nwhich he proposed to call \"The Christian Baptist.\" In this prospectus\nthe nature and objects of the publication were candidly and clearly\nstated, as follows:\n\n The \"Christian Baptist\" shall espouse the cause of no religious sect,\n excepting that ancient sect \"called Christians first at Antioch.\" Its\n sole object shall be the eviction of the truth and the exposing of\n error in doctrine and practice. The editor, acknowledging no standard\n of religious faith or works other than the Old and New Testament, and\n the latter as the only standard of the religion of Jesus Christ, will,\n intentionally at least, oppose nothing which it contains, and\n recommend nothing which it does not enjoin. Having no worldly interest\n at stake from the adoption or reprobation of any articles of faith or\n religious practice, having no gift nor religious emolument to blind\n his eyes or to pervert his judgment, he hopes to manifest that he is\n an impartial advocate of truth.\n\nHe dedicated the work \"to all those, without distinction, who\nacknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be a true\nrevelation from God, and the New Testament as containing the religion of\nJesus Christ; who, willing to have all religious tenets and practices\ntried by the divine Word, and who, feeling themselves in duty bound to\nsearch the Scripture for themselves in all matters of religion, are\ndisposed to reject all doctrine and commandments of men, and to obey the\ntruth, holding fast the faith once delivered to the saints.\"\n\n\n The Campbell-McCalla Discussion\n\nWhile making preparations to issue The Christian Baptist, he received a\nletter from Mr. McCalla, a Presbyterian preacher of Augusta, Ky.,\naccepting his challenge given at the conclusion of the Walker debate.\nMr. McCalla had been a lawyer and had gained a high reputation among the\nPresbyterians for his polemical powers. It was therefore greatly desired\nby his friends and the pedobaptists of the community that he should have\nan opportunity to retrieve, if possible, the injury which had been done\nto their cause by the generally-admitted failure of Mr. Walker. After\nhaving ascertained his standing, Mr. Campbell agreed to meet him, and\narrangements were made for the discussion to take place at Washington,\nKy., beginning October 15, 1823. As the Ohio River was too low for\nnavigation at the time, Mr. Campbell made the entire distance of about\nthree hundred miles on horseback.\n\nHere, as in his former discussion, the entire bearing of the baptismal\nquestion was carefully canvassed. Each controverted point was hotly\ncontested in the presence of a vast assemblage, which had been drawn\ntogether by Mr. Campbell's reputation and their own interest in the\nquestion at issue. During this discussion, which continued seven days,\nin addition to his defense of the scriptural act and subject of baptism,\nthe design and importance were set forth and examined in a systematic\nform, and with such critical ability as to astonish his hearers. In the\ndiscussion with Walker he barely touched the design of baptism, but\neither during that debate or while transcribing it for publication, an\nimpression was made on his mind that it had a very important meaning and\nthat it was in some way connected with remission of sins, but he was so\nengaged in other matters that it passed out of his mind till he received\nthe challenge to meet McCalla in debate, when he resolved to settle its\ntrue import before he ever debated the subject again. In the\ninvestigation, he examined the New Testament with great care and\ndiscussed the subject with his father for several months, and formed his\nconclusion after thorough examination and reflection, and after he saw\nthat it was the way marked out by the Holy Spirit he had no hesitancy,\non the second day of the debate with McCalla, in saying:\n\n Our third argument is deduced from the design or import of baptism. On\n this topic of argument we shall be as full as possible, because of its\n great importance, and because perhaps neither Baptists nor\n Pedobaptists sufficiently appreciate it. I will first merely refer to\n the oracles of God, which show that baptism is an ordinance of the\n greatest importance and of momentous significance. Never was there an\n ordinance of so great import or design. It is to be but once\n administered. We are to pray often, praise often, show forth the\n Lord's death often, commemorate his resurrection every week, but we\n are to be baptized but once. Its great significance can be seen from\n the following testimonies: The Lord saith, \"He that believeth and is\n baptized shall be saved\" (Mark 16:16). He does not say, \"He that\n believeth and keeps my commandments shall be saved,\" but he saith, \"He\n that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.\" He placeth baptism on\n the right hand of faith. Again, he tells Nicodemus that \"unless a man\n be born of water and of the Spirit he can not enter into the kingdom\n of God.\" Peter, on the day of Pentecost, places baptism in the same\n exalted place. \"Repent,\" says he, \"and be baptized, every one of you,\n for the remission of sins\" (Acts 2:38). Ananias saith to Paul, \"Arise\n and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the\n Lord\" (Acts 22:16). Paul saith to the Corinthians, \"Ye were once\n fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous,\n drunkards, rioters, extortioners, but ye are washed in the name of the\n Lord Jesus,\" doubtless referring to their baptism. He tells Titus,\n \"God our Father saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing\n of the Holy Spirit\" (Titus 3:5). See again its dignified importance.\n Peter finishes the grand climax in praise of baptism: \"Baptism doth\n now also save us ... by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the\n dead\" (I Peter 3:21).\n\n It was this view of baptism misapplied that originated infant baptism.\n The first errorists on this subject argued that if baptism was so\n necessary for the remission of sins, it should be administered to\n infants, whom they represented as in great need of it on account of\n their \"original sin.\" Affectionate parents, believing their children\n to be guilty of \"original sin,\" were easily persuaded to have them\n baptized for the remission of \"original sin,\" not for washing away\n sins actually committed. Faith in Christ is necessary to forgiveness\n of sins, therefore baptism without faith is an unmeaning ceremony.\n\n Our argument from this topic is, that baptism being ordained to be to\n a believer a formal and personal remission of all his sins, can not be\n administered unto an infant without the gravest perversion and abuse\n of the nature and import of this ordinance. Indeed, why should an\n infant that never sinned--that, as Calvinists say, is guilty only of\n \"original sin,\" which is a unit--be baptized for the remission of\n sins? (\"Campbell-McCalla Debate,\" pages 116, 117, 136.)\n\nFor a number of years prior to the debate Mr. McCalla had taken great\ndelight in assailing the distinctive tenets of the Baptists, and gave\nthem no little annoyance. As the debate progressed his defeat became\nmore and more manifest and raised Mr. Campbell to great popularity among\nthem; but as it was not his intention to seek popularity among them by\ncatering to their admiration, by fostering their favorite but defective\nviews of the Gospel and its institutions, he deemed it wise on the\nevening of the fifth day of the debate to candidly inform the principal\nBaptist preachers present of the exact position which he occupied. Being\nassembled in a room where he had called them together, he introduced\nhimself fully to their acquaintance in the following manner, as related\nby himself:\n\n \"Brethren, I fear that if you knew me better you would esteem and love\n me less. For let me tell you that I have almost as much against you\n Baptists as I have against the Presbyterians. They err in one thing\n and you in another; and you are each nearly equidistant from original\n apostolic Christianity.\" I paused; and such a silence as ensued,\n accompanied by a piercing look from all sides of the room, I seldom\n before witnessed. Elder Vardeman at length broke the silence by\n saying: \"Well, sir, we want to know our errors or your heterodoxy. Do\n let us hear it. Keep nothing back.\" I replied: \"I know not where to\n begin; nor am I in health and vigor after the toils of the day to\n undertake so heavy a task; but I am commencing a publication called\n The Christian Baptist, to be devoted to all such matters, a few copies\n of which are in my portmanteau, and, with your permission, I will read\n you a few specimens of my heterodoxy.\" They all said: \"Let us\n hear--let us hear the worst error you have against us.\" I went\n upstairs and unwrapped the first three numbers of the Christian\n Baptist that ever saw the light in Kentucky. I had just ten copies of\n the first three numbers. I carried them into the parlor and read a\n sample, the first essay on the clergy--so much of it as respected the\n \"call to the ministry\" as then taught in the \"kingdom of the clergy,\"\n and especially among the Baptists. This was the first essay ever read\n from it in Kentucky. After a sigh and a long silence, Elder Vardeman\n said: \"Is that your worst error, your chief heterodoxy? I do not care\n so much about that, as you admit that we have a providential call,\n without a voice from heaven or a special visit from some angel or\n spirit. If you have anything worse, for my part I wish to hear it.\"\n The cry was, \"Let us hear something more.\" On turning to and fro, I\n read an article on \"Modern Missionaries.\" This, with the \"Capital\n Mistake of Modern Missionaries,\" finished my reading for the evening.\n On closing this essay, Elder Vardeman said: I am not so great a\n missionary man as to fall out with you on that subject. I must hear\n more before I condemn or approve.\" I then distributed my ten copies\n among the ten most distinguished and advanced elders in the room,\n requesting them to read these numbers during the recess of the debate,\n and to communicate freely to me their objections. We separated. So the\n matter ended at that time. (\"Memoirs of A. Campbell,\" Vol. II, page\n 88.)\n\nAt the close of the debate the Baptist preachers were so much pleased\nwith the results, and so tolerant of what they found in the \"Christian\nBaptist,\" that they requested Mr. Campbell to furnish them with the\nprinted proposals for its publication, in order to extend its\ncirculation, and urged him to make an immediate tour through the State.\n\nPrevious engagements prevented, and he could only comply with their\nwishes so far as to visit Bryan's Station, Mayslick, and Lexington;\npromising, if possible, to make a more extended tour through the State\nthe following year.\n\nAs Mr. McCalla's character for ability was well established and equally\nwell sustained by his Presbyterian brethren, the results of the\ndiscussion were less damaging to his reputation than to the cause which\nhe advocated, which to this day has never recovered from the withering\ndefeat which it then suffered. But Mr. McCalla labored for some time\nafter the debate to change public sentiment by preaching on the subjects\ndiscussed in various parts of Kentucky, endeavoring at the same time to\nprejudice the minds of the people in advance against the report of the\ndebate which Mr. Campbell was soon to publish.\n\nMr. Campbell was fully satisfied with his part in the discussion, and\nwas now thoroughly satisfied that debates were a great means of reaching\nthe people with the truth, for he wrote:\n\n Public discussion, is, we are convinced, one of the best means of\n propagating the truth and of exposing error in doctrine or practice.\n We now reap the benefits of public debates of former times, and we\n have witnessed the beneficial results of those in our own time. And we\n are fully persuaded that a week's debating is worth a year's\n preaching, such as we generally have, for the purpose of disseminating\n truth and putting error out of countenance. There is nothing like\n meeting face to face in the presence of many witnesses and \"talking\n the matter over\"; and the man that can not govern his spirit in the\n midst of opposition and contradiction is a poor Christian indeed.\n (Christian Baptist, Vol. 1, page 189.)\n\n\n VISITS THE KENTUCKY BAPTISTS\n\nThe debate was attended by great crowds of people from far and near. Mr.\nCampbell's reputation as one of the first pulpit orators of the day was\nfully established; and wherever he could be induced to speak he was met\nby throngs of hearers. His most important reception on this trip was at\nLexington, where he spoke in the Baptist meetinghouse, of which Dr.\nFishback was minister. At the hour for the meeting the house was crowded\nto its utmost capacity. When Mr. Campbell rose he was not able to stand\nerect during the delivery of his discourse. \"This was based on the first\nchapter of Hebrews, and led him to dwell upon the divine glory of the\nSon of God--a theme on which he was almost surpassingly eloquent. It\nlasted two hours, during which the audience sat in rapt attention.\" He\nmade a very profound impression on the entire audience. They recognized\nin him the mightiest intellect that had ever visited their city. The\nfreshness of his thoughts, the extent and accuracy of his Biblical\nknowledge and his grand generalizations of the wonderful fact of\nredemption opened up trains of reflection wholly new, and presented the\nsubject of Christianity in a form so simple and yet so comprehensive as\nto fill every one with admiration; so that from this time forward Mr.\nCampbell was esteemed by the people of Kentucky as great among the\ngreatest of her public men, and without a rival in the department to\nwhich he had devoted his powers.\n\nImmediately after the close of the debate with Mr. McCalla, Mr. Campbell\nmade preparations for its publication. This was done from his own notes\nand those taken by Sydney Rigdon during the debate, and notwithstanding\nMr. McCalla's effort to discredit it before its appearance, its general\naccuracy was attested by those who heard the discussion. Its publication\nand circulation proved the severest blow that pedobaptism ever received.\n\nIn the fall of 1824 Mr. Campbell made his promised visit to Kentucky,\nvisiting a large portion of the State, addressing everywhere large\naudiences, and extending his acquaintance and influence with the\nBaptists. This more intimate acquaintance led him to esteem them very\nhighly, and to regard them as much nearer the apostolic model than any\nother of the denominations with which he had formed acquaintance, and he\nfelt that it would not be difficult to eliminate from the Baptist\nchurches such erroneous theories and usages as had gained currency among\nthem. With these convictions in mind, he now visited the Baptists in\nKentucky, to impart to them, as well as to the community at large, those\nclearer views of the Gospel to which he had been led by diligent and\nprayerful study of the Bible. These he had, to some extent, already\npresented through the pages of The Christian Baptist, which, since the\ndebate, had been read throughout Kentucky with interest and had produced\nintense excitement among the churches. \"Some individuals were favorably\nimpressed with the plea for reform; others remained in perplexity and\ndoubt, while not a few were disposed to cling tenaciously to their\ncherished opinions.\"\n\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n JOHN SMITH\n\nAmong the Baptist preachers whom Mr. Campbell met on this visit was John\nSmith, who, on account of the prominent part he afterwards had in\npresenting apostolic Christianity to the people, deserves more than a\npassing notice. He was born October 15, 1784, in a log cabin in East\nTennessee, whither his parents had moved a short time before his birth\non account of religious persecution. His father and mother had espoused\nthe Baptist faith. But as Virginia, at that time, had an established\nform of religion, the Episcopal, Baptists were a despised, hunted,\npersecuted people. They were described by their persecutors as\n\"schismatical persons, so averse to the established religion, and so\nfilled with new-fangled conceits of their heretical inventions, as to\nrefuse to have their children baptized.\" To escape from this galling\noppression and to secure religious privileges which were so dear to him,\nGeorge Smith took his little flock into the wilderness, seeking mercy at\nthe hands of the savage tribes of the forest, which was not accorded him\nby the savage spirit of religious intolerance. In his new home he was at\nleast free to work out the great problem of his own destiny in harmony\nwith \"the dictates of conscience\" and the leadings of Providence. He was\nhumble-minded and earnestly pious. He held firmly every dogma of the\nPhiladelphia Confession of Faith as it was expounded in his day. \"He\nconscientiously sought, too, to impress his own severe faith on the\nminds of his children. To labor for their daily bread and to wait, with\nhumbleness of heart, for the Holy Ghost, were the two great commandments\non which hung all his precepts and admonitions. He exhorted them to seek\nafter God, if, haply, they might find him; yet to esteem themselves dead\nand to abide the good time when, unless predestinated to eternal wrath,\nthe mysterious Spirit would give them life and open their eyes to the\nbeauties of the Saviour.\"\n\nWhen John was in his twelfth year the migratory spirit again seized\nGeorge Smith, who determined to plunge into the wilderness once more,\nwith a view of securing cheap lands and providing for the future of his\ngrowing family. Having sold his Tennessee farm, he set out, in the\nautumn of 1795, accompanied by John and an older brother, on the trail\nthat led across the Cumberland Mountains in the unsettled territory of\nKentucky, in search of a \"goodly spot where he might build a cabin,\nplant a patch of corn, and prepare as well as he could for the family\"\nthat was to join him in the coming summer.\n\nIn the new home the life of the boy continued its developments along\nsuch lines as its rude surroundings stimulated. Of work there was\nplenty, and from his daily tasks he never shrank. Of opportunity for\nintellectual development there was none, and the thirst of the ambitious\nyouth was unquenched. At this period John Smith's spiritual nature gave\npromise of being as untamed as the forest that surrounded his home.\nUnhallowed sports crept into the backwoods. Sunday horse races and\ncard-playing became the pastime of the young men. For the latter John\nhad a fondness, and would creep away on Sundays to spend the day with\nidle companions in his favorite game; but the grief and patience of the\nfather at last touched his heart, and he threw away his cards, saying,\n\"It is wrong to distress so good a father as ours; it is a sin and a\nshame!\"\n\n\n SOUL STRUGGLES\n\nThis proved to be the turning point in the young man's career, and with\nit came the question of religion demanding his consideration. Indeed the\nsubject had been kept before him in some form from his earliest\nrecollection. But the doctrine taught at that time was not very\nattractive to young hearts. Calvinism in its severest type was\nprevalent. It taught a \"hell of the most appalling type, into which even\nlittle children might be cast; an unalterable destiny for every one,\nregardless of his conduct or his creed, as God might have chosen him for\nheaven or doomed him to hell before he was born; a dread uncertainty\nthat rested on his fate; his utter inability to understand the\nScriptures, to believe or repent, to love God or to obey him, until\nendued with power from on high; the necessity of some supernatural sign\nor sensation, some miraculous voice or vision, as an evidence of pardon\nand acceptance with God.\"\n\nIt was natural that John should imbibe the spirit of his father's creed\nand for him to expect, should he be among the elect, that some visible\nor audible manifestation of divine approval should be given him. The\ngreat revival which swept the country in the beginning years of the\nnineteenth century was at its height as he began seriously to think upon\nthe subject of religion. It was the theme he heard discussed on every\nhand, and he determined to investigate it as far as his limited\nresources would permit. Failing to find the way to assured salvation, he\nat last appealed to a Baptist preacher, Isaac Denton, a friend of the\nfamily, for light upon the subject which was beginning to agitate his\nmind. According to the prevailing notion, conversion was a change of a\nmysterious nature wrought out in the soul by supernatural agency. This\nchange young Smith now most sincerely desired to experience. With this\nin mind the following conversation took place:\n\n Smith--What must I do in order to have this change of which you speak?\n\n Denton--Nothing, John; God's grace is sovereign and unconditional. If\n you are his sheep you will be called, and you will hear his voice and\n follow him.\n\n Smith--But when, Mr. Denton, will the Lord call?\n\n Denton--In his own good time, John. He has worked out your whole life,\n and determined your destiny according to his own wise, but hidden and\n eternal, purpose.\n\n Smith--How then may I know whether I am one of his sheep or not?\n\n Benton--You will know it by your change when it comes; till then you\n can only wait on the Lord and hope.\n\n Smith--If I am left to perish I know it will be on account of my sins;\n but if I should be saved, will it not be on account of my goodness?\n\n Denton--The Lord sees no goodness in you, John. If you are ever\n brought to life, it will be solely because it was his good pleasure to\n choose you before the foundation of the world, and that, too, without\n any reference to your character or works foreseen by him. True, if you\n should be lost, if you perish, it will be on account of your sins, and\n to the praise of his glorious justice.\n\n Smith--My destiny, you say, is fixed and I can not change it. I need\n not, then, give myself any concern; I have nothing to do.\n\n Denton--Ah, great is the mystery of godliness. There is something for\n you to do.\n\n Smith--What is it, Mr. Denton?\n\n Denton--You must pray, pray, pray in the dust and ashes to the Lord.\n\n Smith--Pray for what, sir?\n\n Denton--That the blinding scales may fall from your eyes, and that you\n may see and feel what you really are in the sight of God; for you are\n yet in the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity.\n\nIt is not strange that a young man with keen intellect of John Smith\nshould have turned from such instruction, saying, \"Since my destiny is\nfixed and I can not change it, I need not, then, give myself any\nconcern. I have nothing to do.\"\n\nBut his heart was not to be stifled by the forbidding theology. While\nstoutly for a season he maintained his unbelief, his position was not\nsatisfactory to himself, and he resolved at last to examine the subject\nin the light of the Scriptures. Though failing to find proof of the\ndoctrines taught, he became convinced of his duty to be a Christian,\nand, knowing no way to approach to Christ, he began earnestly and\npersistently to seek religion after the manner of the times. The illness\nand death of his venerable father in the spring of 1804, deepened his\ninterest in personal salvation, and from that time through many weary\nmonths he sought for assurance of saving grace. In his fruitless search\nhis agony was indescribable.\n\nHe had been taught that an indispensable step to salvation was to feel\nhimself the greatest of sinners. This he desired to do, and then\ndespaired of salvation, simply because he could not feel that he was\n\"too wicked to be saved.\" A gloomy cloud overshadowed his sunny temper.\nHis nights were sleepless and his days filled with torment. In vain he\nprostrated himself alone in the forest and prayed for the blessed\nassurance of his pardon. Finally, after a night spent in agonizing\nprayer, his heart seemed to throw off its burden, and he was happy.\nReturning home and relating his experience to his brother William, the\nlatter replied with joy, \"You are converted, John, at last.\" He went to\na meeting, expecting to offer himself for membership, but the weird\nexperience of others sent him away in sorrow and disgust. His mind was\nagain beclouded by doubts and despair, and he prayed the Lord to keep\nhis poor heart from error and to lead him by the right way into the\neverlasting kingdom.\n\nReligious friends who had watched with solicitude the long and painful\nstruggle of the young man believed that a work of grace had already been\nwrought in his heart, and urged him to relate the facts before the\ncongregation. This he did on December 26, 1804, giving a plain statement\nof his religious struggles, and though his experience was lacking in the\nmarvelous element which characterized the conversion of that time, the\ncongregation unanimously voted him the subject of a work of grace. The\nnext day he was baptized, and at once entered into the active service of\nthe Master to find in doing the peace he had failed to receive in\nseeking.\n\n\n DESIRES TO PREACH\n\nNo sooner had John Smith been received into the Baptist Church than he\nbecame exceedingly anxious to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ.\nBut two obstacles rose before him which seemed an insurmountable barrier\nto the realization of his desires. One was his ignorance. In his brief\nterm of schooling he had barely learned to read and his surroundings and\noccupation had left him without further means of self-improvement, as he\nlooked with yearning heart toward the ministry, he \"wept at the thought\nthat he was now a man without an education.\" No less was the hindrance\nwhich the popular sentiment of the day threw across his pathway. It was\nregarded as an almost unpardonable act of presumption to stand before\nthe people as an expounder of the Scriptures without a supernatural\ncall, and yet he was without evidence of such a call to preach the\ngospel. No voice spoke to his listening ear. No answer came to his\nearnest prayer. No sign met his expectant vision.\n\nIn the face of these obstacles the way seemed completely blocked, so\nnothing remained for him to do but to continue in his labors on the\nfarm. At last circumstances opened up before him for larger usefulness\nfor God. His widely scattered neighbors were pious people, and, in the\nabsence of churches and ministers, often gathered at night after a day\nof toil, in each other's cabins, to sing and pray, and talk about their\nreligious interests. At these meetings he was present, when\ncircumstances would permit, and his native ability, gave him\npre-eminence among them. As they met from house to house they often\nconstrained him to lead in prayer. In these religious meetings his\nconfidence increased, his heart warmed, and he greatly desired to enter\ninto more active service. But still he waited for some audible call\nwhich should assure him of the Lord's will. His brethren urged that when\nGod gave man a talent, he gives the right to use it. He was finally\npersuaded to lay aside his scruples, and at the prayer meeting he\nconsented to make a short talk. The appointment was made, the people\ncame together, filling the house to its utmost capacity, the light from\nthe fire fell full upon his face as he arose and stood near the table,\nbut as he looked into the faces of his neighbors, he was seized with\nstage fright, and forgot everything he had hoped to say. He fled from\nthe house and sought the darkness outside, but in his hurried flight he\nstumbled and fell to the ground. As he arose his mind cleared, and he\nreturned and delivered a thrilling address, and from that time he\ncontinued in his humble way to lead those who were as sheep without a\nshepherd.\n\nHe waited anxiously for the call, but it came not. But the call from his\nbrethren was so strong that he continued to exercise the gift of\nexhortation, with increasing desire to devote his life to the work of\nproclaiming the Gospel to his fellowmen. In deference to the judgment of\nhis brethren, who urged him to lay aside all scruples and become their\npreacher, he at last consented to be ordained, and entered at once upon\nthe duties of his new calling, while continuing to provide for his\nfamily by his labors on the farm. He was marvelously endowed for the\nwork of a pioneer preacher. \"His well-toned voice and earnest manner,\nhis fine common sense and unaffected piety, rendered him pre-eminently\npopular as a speaker; his genial humor, too, threw its sunny influence\non all around him and made him the delight of every fireside.\" As his\nreputation spread flattering offers came to him from the more favored\nportions of Kentucky, through which he was induced to travel on a\npreaching tour. Wealthy congregations, pleased with his originality and\ngenius, offered him what was then regarded as a handsome salary to labor\nwith them. But, conscious of his lack of education and culture, he\ndeclined these offers, while his soul, for the time lifted up with\npride, planned ambitiously for the future.\n\n\n TERRIBLE CALAMITY\n\nJust here occurred the saddest episode of his life. The South was being\nopened up, and many were drawn thither by what seemed to be a most\npromising picture. He sold his farm and stock for $1,500, with which he\nhoped to enter ten thousand acres of land, which, with the advance in\nprice, he was sure would make him a wealthy man. In the fall of 1814, he\nlocated his family in a log hut, in what is now Madison County, Alabama,\nand went out to select his land. During his absence, in one awful night,\nhis hopes and happiness were dashed to pieces. The house which contained\nhis possessions and wife and children, was burned to the ground, and two\nof his children and all his money were consumed in the flames of that\nawful night. His poor wife escaped, only to die of a broken heart and be\nburied with the ashes of her children. The husband, though a strong man,\nwas so shocked that he was at last stricken with fever, and for weeks\nlingered near the grave. But he finally recovered, and with a sad heart,\nhe retraced his steps, empty-handed and alone, to the old home in\nKentucky.\n\n\n PREACHES AT CRAB ORCHARD\n\nImmediately after his return to Kentucky he began preaching again; but\nhe was from that time harassed by doctrinal difficulties which gave him\nno rest until he turned from his creed to the Bible in its primitive\nsimplicity. His appearance, as he joined his brethren in the meeting of\nthe Baptist Association, shortly after his return, is thus described by\nhis biographer:\n\n He reached Crab Orchard on Saturday, with the dust of the journey\n thick upon him. He wore a pair of homespun cotton pantaloons, striped\n with coperas--loose enough, but far too short for him--and a cotton\n coat, once checked with blue and white, but now of undistinguishable\n colors; these had been given him in Alabama. His shapeless hat was\n streaked with sweat and dust. His socks, too large for his shrunken\n ankles, hung down upon his worn shoes. His shirt was coarse and dirty\n and unbuttoned at the neck; his white cravat was in the coffin with\n his wife. (Life of John Smith, page 96.)\n\nBut if the exterior of this vessel was rough, within it was garnished\nand adorned with all the graces of truth. He was pressed upon to speak\non the occasion. He lifted his head and sat erect, he arose, and, with\nfirm step, walked to the stand and stood up before the people. As he\nlooked around upon them his eyes kindled and his spirit was stirred\nwithin him. The multitude stared curiously for a moment at the uncouth\nfigure before them. Some laughed outright, while others were withdrawn\nfrom the assembly. His first work was to stop them. Raising his voice so\nthat all could hear, he said: \"Stay, friends, and hear what the Great\nAugustine said. Augustine wished to see three things before he died:\nRome in her glory, Paul on Mars' Hill, and Jesus in the flesh.\" A few\nsat down, but many moved on.\n\nIn louder tones he cried: \"Will you not stay and see what the great Cato\nsaid. Cato repented of three things before his death: First that he had\never spent an idle day; second, that he had ever gone on a voyage by\nwater when he might have made the same journey by land; and, third, that\nhe had ever told the secrets of his bosom to a woman.\" Many more were\nseated.\n\nBut he continued: \"Come, friends, and hear what the great Thales thanked\nthe gods for. He thanked the gods for three things: First, that he was\nendowed with reason, and was not a brute; second, that he as a Greek,\nand not a barbarian; and third, that he was a man, and not a woman.\" By\nthis time all were seated and the sermon began.\n\nHis theme was redemption. His analysis was threefold: (1) Redemption as\nconceived; (2) Redemption as applied; (3) Redemption as completed. He\nseemed inspired for the occasion. His voice like a trumpet reached and\nthrilled the most distant hearer, and his thought swept the audience\nlike the storm sweeps the sea. The people crowded closer to hear him,\nand some who could find neither sitting nor standing room, climbed the\ntrees, so that even the forest swayed to and fro as if under the magic\nspell in the third division, and portrayed the final glory of the\nredeemed, every heart was filled with emotion, every eye as weeping,\nevery face was radiant with hope, and at the close one loud \"Amen\"\nascended to the heavens.\n\nIn the course of time he again married, choosing as a companion a\nsensible and consecrated woman who lived in the neighborhood where he\nministered, and who cheerfully joined him in all his plans for the\nbetterment of human society.\n\n\n THE CHRISTIAN BAPTIST\n\nThough preaching the doctrine of the Philadelphia Confession of Faith,\nhe now found himself ill at ease. The strange inconsistency of his\nposition embarrassed him. Why urge sinners to repent if they were\nalready safe, and if among the non-elect they could not repent. As the\nsituation flashed upon him in the midst of an impassioned exhortation,\nhe immediately closed his remarks and sat down, saying: \"Brethren,\nsomething is wrong; I am in the dark--we are all in the dark; but how to\nlead you to the light, or to find the way myself, before God I know\nnot.\" Retiring on his knees he prayed that he would take God's Word as\nhis only guide, examine it carefully, and follow its teachings wherever\nthey might lead him. In the keeping of this pledge he began anew to\nstudy the Bible. When his day's work in the field was done, he would sit\nby his candle with his Bible upon his knees, and often spend the whole\nnight in solemn meditation in his search for light.\n\nIt was while in this state of mind that the prospectus of The Christian\nBaptist fell into his hands, and he read it with profound interest. He\nordered the paper sent to him and induced others to subscribe for it. He\nhoped that Mr. Campbell's discussion of scriptural themes would greatly\nassist him in solving his own doctrinal difficulties. The first numbers\nwere read with great interest, and through them light began to break\nalong his darkened pathway. He read each succeeding number with great\ncare to ascertain to which of the contending parties Mr. Campbell\nbelonged, and soon found himself in a realm of truth entirely beyond the\nrange of the popular systems. Among other things that specially appealed\nto him was the following from the trenchant pen of Mr. Campbell:\n\n We have no system of our own, nor of others, to substitute in lieu of\n the reigning systems. We only aim at substituting the New Testament in\n lieu of every creed in existence; whether Mohametan, Pagan, Jewish or\n Presbyterian. We wish to call Christians to consider that Jesus Christ\n has made them kings and priests to God. We neither advocate Calvinism,\n Arminianism, Arianism, Socinianism, Trinitarianism, Unitarianism,\n Deism, or Sectarianism, but New Testamentism. We wish, we cordially\n wish, to take the New Testament out of the abuses of the clergy, and\n put it into the hands of the people. (Christian Baptist, Vol. 1, page\n 90.)\n\n\n FETTERS CAST OFF\n\nSo thorough did these views accord with his that he determined at the\nfirst opportunity to meet Mr. Campbell and learn from him by personal\ninterview more of the new order that he was advocating. During his visit\nto Kentucky in 1824, to which I have already referred, the opportunity\npresented itself. Mr. Campbell was to speak at Flemingsburg, and Smith\nrode twenty miles on horseback that he might see and hear him. He\nreached the town on the day that Mr. Campbell was to preach. Shortly\nafter his arrival he met William Vaughn, a Baptist preacher, with whom\nhe was well acquainted, when the following conversation took place:\n\n Vaughn--Brother John, have you met Bro. Campbell yet?\n\n Smith--No, sir, I have not. Have you seen him?\n\n Vaughn--Why, I have been with him for eight days and nights, through\n Mason and Bracken counties, and have heard him every day.\n\n Smith--Do, then, tell me what his views are on doctrinal points. Is he\n a Calvinist or an Arminian, or Arian, or a Trinitarian?\n\n Vaughn--I do not know. He has nothing to do with any of these things.\n\n Smith--Well, I can tell when I hear him just what he is.\n\n Vaughn--How?\n\n Smith--If a man of sense and takes a position, even though he should\n not run it out into any ism, I can do it for him, and tell exactly\n where he would land. But tell me, Bro. Vaughn, does he know anything\n about heartfelt religion?\n\n Vaughn--Lord bless you, he is one of the most pious, godly men that I\n was ever in company with in all my life.\n\n Smith--But do you think he knows anything about a Christian\n experience?\n\n Vaughn--Bless you, he knows everything. Come, I want to introduce you\n to him.\n\nOf this meeting with Mr. Campbell he afterward said: \"I then felt as if\nI wanted to sit down and look at him for one hour, without hearing a\nword from any one. I wanted to scan him who had been so much talked of,\nand who had in _The Christian Baptist_ and in his debates introduced so\nmany new thoughts.\" But the hour appointed for the address had come, and\nthey walked into the house together. Smith was determined now to\nascertain the theory of religion to which he held, if, indeed, he held\nto any; for he was still full of doubt and suspicion.\n\nMr. Campbell read the fourth chapter of Galatians. After giving a\ngeneral outline of the whole epistle, he took up the allegory of Sarah\nand Hagar, and in a simple, plain and artless manner, leaning with one\nhand on his cane, he delivered his discourse. \"He seemed,\" as Smith\nafterward remarked, \"to move in a higher sphere or latitude than that in\nwhich the isms of the day abounded.\" At the conclusion of the services\nSmith remarked to Mr. Vaughn, \"Is it not hard, Bro. Vaughn, to ride\ntwenty miles, as I have done, just to hear a man preach thirty minutes?\"\n\"You are mistaken,\" said Mr. Vaughn; \"look at your watch, for it\ncertainly has been longer than that.\" He looked at his watch, and, to\nhis surprise, saw that the discourse had been two hours and a half long.\nOn discovering this he said, \"I have never been more deceived. Two hours\nof my life are gone, I know not how, though wide awake, too, all the\ntime!\" On being questioned as to whether he had ascertained whether he\nwas a Calvinist or an Arminian, he replied: \"No, I know nothing about\nthe man; but be he saint or devil, he has thrown more light on that\nepistle, and on the whole Scripture, than I have received in all the\nsermons that I have ever heard before.\"\n\n\n RESOLVES TO PREACH THE SIMPLE GOSPEL\n\nFor several days he accompanied Mr. Campbell from place to place, an\nenraptured listener to every discourse, and earnestly engaged him in\nconversation as they traveled along the way or sat under some hospitable\nroof. At last his mind cast off its fetters. The way hitherto so clouded\nbecame plain, and he left the company of Mr. Campbell, resolved\nhenceforth to devote his life to preaching the simple Gospel as\nexhibited in the New Testament.\n\nThe step was, as he had anticipated, attended with great sacrifices. Old\nfriends forsook him. He had always stood high among his preaching\nbrethren, but now he was regarded with undisguised suspicion. Soon the\nstorm gathered furiously about him. At the annual meeting of the\nassociation in which he held his membership charges were preferred\nagainst him, among the most serious of which was that, instead of the\nKing James translation of the Scriptures, \"he had on two or three\noccasions in public, and often in his family, read from Alexander\nCampbell's translation.\" Without being given an opportunity to defend\nhimself, he was placed under censure, and given a year in which to\ncorrect his views and change his ways.\n\nReturning to his home, the way for a time seemed to close before him.\nThe little farm was covered with a heavy mortgage. The churches that had\nobligated themselves to pay his debt in compensation of his services,\nnow refused to make further payment. Nothing apparently remained but for\nhim to cultivate his farm with his own hands, and for a time to abandon\nthe work of the ministry. Taking his ax he went into the forest with the\nheroic purpose, first to free himself from debt, and then to return to\nthe defense of the faith which he now felt to be the teaching of the\nWord of God. But one day as he was bending to his labors he thought of\nthe cause that he loved, and remembered that there was no one in all the\nland to advocate it but himself. He also thought of the construction\nthat would be put on his silence by his enemies. He dropped the ax, went\nto the house, and threw down his coarse apron at the feet of his wife,\nexclaiming:\n\n Nancy, I shall work no more! Get whom you please to carry on the farm,\n but do not call on me! In all the land there is not one soul to open\n his mouth in defense of the best cause under the sun! I am determined,\n from this time forth, to preach the Gospel, and leave the consequences\n to God.\n\nWith the courage of his convictions, he immediately began to preach the\ntruth as he now felt it and saw it. No personal consideration was\nallowed to interfere with the course he had marked out for himself. His\nheroic wife readily caught his spirit and as cheerfully accepted the\nresponsibilities of her new position--agreeing to take the oversight of\nthe farm, care for the family, and to relieve him of every temporal\ncare, while he should give himself wholly to the ministry of the Word.\n\nBut from a course so radical and perilous his friends earnestly sought\nto dissuade him. They argued: \"Your more influential brethren will\nabandon you; you will get nothing for your preaching; your debts will\npress you to the earth, and your farm and house eventually given up.\"\n\"Conscience,\" said he, \"is an article that I have never yet brought into\nthe market; but should I offer it for sale, Montgomery County, with all\nits lands and houses, would not be enough to buy it, much less that farm\nof one hundred acres.\"\n\nAs he now went from house to house, and neighborhood, to plant the cause\nof Christ, his zeal knew no bounds. His heart was all aglow with his\nnew-born knowledge of the truth, and with tireless effort he sought to\nwin men to respect and obey the simple claims of the Gospel. So intense\nwas his desire that he scarcely allowed himself time to eat and sleep.\nAfter a busy day he would often spend a greater part of the night\nanswering questions or meeting objections which his public discourses\nhad aroused, or in helping some half-persuaded inquirer to a full\nacceptance of the Gospel; often going the same hour of the night to some\nnear-by stream to administer baptism, when a surrender had been made.\nOr, if at home, the burden that was upon his heart, and his thirst for\nthe knowledge of the Word of God, would often interfere with his sleep,\nand he would arise and light his candle at midnight \"to examine some\nword or text not yet understood, and which, perhaps, had confused him in\nhis dreams.\"\n\nThe preaching of John Smith, so different from that of the times, so far\nremoved from the conventional forms, and so new and strange in doctrine,\nat once awakened new interest in languishing churches. Calls now came to\nhim from so many quarters that he seldom had an opportunity to enjoy the\nfellowship of his family, to which he was warmly attached. He\nendeavored, if possible, to visit his home once a week; but this purpose\nhe was not always able to accomplish. \"He would tarry at some distant\nplace, preaching and baptizing till the week was nearly gone, and then,\ndismissing the people at a late hour, ride hurriedly through the\ndarkness, sometimes through mud and cold and tempest, in order to keep\nhis promise with his wife. At other times, when going from one part of\nthe district to another, he would pass along by his own house, but, too\nmuch hurried to stop and rest, would linger a while at the gate, and,\ngathering strength from her words of cheer, press on to his distant\nappointment.\" On one occasion, as he thus hurried from one appointment\nto another, he stopped at home just long enough to change his soiled\nlinen for clean. As he was about to leave his wife remarked with a touch\nof sadness in her tone, \"Is it not time that you were having your\nwashing done somewhere else? We have attended to it for you a long\ntime.\" \"No, Nancy, I am pleased with your way of doing things, and I do\nnot wish to make any change.\" After a kind good-bye to her and a few\nplayful words to the little ones, he passed on to meet the congregation\nthat would wait for him that day in some young convert's house, or\nperhaps, in some hospitable grove.\n\nThe patient heroism of faith finds few better illustrations than in the\nwife of this tireless pioneer. Upon Nancy Smith rested the burden of the\nfamily and the farm. When help could not be secured, she would go forth\nherself into the busy field to tend the growing crop, or to superintend\nthe gathering of the harvest, that her faithful husband might devote all\nhis energies to the cause to which they were both so much devoted. His\npreaching brought no material recompense to relieve their pinching\npoverty. Though he labored incessantly for the salvation of his fellow\nmen, no one ever thought of contributing to his support, or if they felt\ninclined to minister to him in temporal things were probably too poor.\nDuring the years 1825-1830, in which he laid the foundation of primitive\nChristianity in Kentucky, he never received a dollar for his services,\nor compensation of any kind, save the remittance to a friendly merchant\nin a neighboring town for a small bill of goods.\n\nThe result of such zeal, such labor, such sacrifice, brought its reward\nto this devoted messenger of truth in a richer blessing than any that\nmaterial prosperity had to offer. His message was gladly received.\nMultitudes gathered to hear him, and many received with joy the glorious\nGospel of the Son of God which he now felt himself commissioned to\npreach. A revival of religious interest began to follow the track of his\nministry, and he had the satisfaction of seeing hundreds, who had held\naloof from the religious systems of the day, now turn to the Lord. So\nfruitful were his labors that within a short period of six months he was\nable to report seven hundred conversions and five new churches\norganized. But greater still, he had established a great cause in the\nhearts of the people.\n\nAlthough he had renounced the Calvinistic theory of conversion, and had\nlaid aside its unyielding creed for the New Testament, he still\nconsidered himself a Baptist, and lived in fellowship with those who\n\"stood resolutely by the old church covenant\", hoping that his brethren\nwould one day accept the primitive Gospel. But his genial fraternal\nspirit was far from being reciprocated by the Baptist preachers with\nwhom he associated. Once, meeting an old acquaintance, Smith said to\nhim, kindly, \"Good morning, my brother.\" To which the other scornfully\nreplied, \"Don't call me brother, sir! I would rather claim kinship with\nthe devil himself.\" \"Go, then,\" said Smith, \"and honor thy father.\"\n\nBut the bitterness of opposition did not always end in harmless railery.\nIt too frequently resorted to misrepresentations and other unchristian\nmeans to check his growing popularity and influence. Churches were\nclosed against him, compelling him to take his audience to some\nneighboring house, or hall, or, in fair weather, to a grove. But,\nwhatever the discouragement or hindrance, he continued to preach.\n\"Usually he divided his discourses, which were two or three hours long,\ninto three divisions, according to the objects he had in view; in the\nfirst he corrected misrepresentations; in the second he exposed popular\nerrors, and in the third he presented the simple Gospel to the people.\"\nHaving taken his stand upon the Bible, he felt himself secure. The truth\nmade him fearless, and his courage at last won respect for the unpopular\nposition to which he held.\n\n\n \"Ancient Order of Things\" Among the Baptists In Kentucky\n\nThe years 1828-1830 were great years in the ministry of John Smith. In\nthem was witnessed the fruition of years of self-sacrificing labor, and\nthe triumph of the ancient Gospel on the soil of Kentucky. The year 1828\nwas a notable one among the Baptist associations. At the meetings of\nthree of the largest associations the Reformers were in control, due in\na very large degree to Smith's preaching. As we have already seen, his\ninfluence over the people was tremendous. The churches for which he\npreached regularly--Spencer's Creek, Grassy Lick and Mount\nSterling--reported in their annual letters of 1828 to the North District\nAssociation of which they were members, the baptism of 392 persons\nduring the year. The twenty-four churches of the Association reported\nthe baptism of about nine hundred persons, \"the greater part of whom had\nbeen immersed by Smith.\" Five new churches had been organized by Smith\non the Bible alone and became members of the Association.\n\nThe North District Association met in July, 1828. At its meeting the\nprevious year the Lulbegrud Church had sent the following charges aimed\nat John Smith, but veiling the object of their charge under the\ndesignation, \"one of their preachers.\" The accusations were:\n\n 1. That, while it is the custom of Baptists to use as the Word of God\n the King James translation, he had on two or three occasions in\n public, and often privately in his family, read from Alexander\n Campbell's translation.\n\n 2. That while it is the custom in the ceremony of baptism to\n pronounce, \"I baptize you\", he, on the contrary, is in the habit of\n saying, \"immerse you\".\n\n 3. That in administering the Lord's Supper, while it is the custom to\n break the loaf into bits, small enough to be readily taken into the\n mouth, yet he leaves the bread in large pieces, teaching that each\n communicant shall break it for himself.\n\nWithout waiting for himself to be singled out, Smith arose and said, \"I\nplead guilty to them all.\" After bitter debating and wrangling over the\ncharges it was finally voted that they be laid over for another year.\nThe meeting of 1828 was the time when these charges should be brought\nup. Smith had been unceasingly engaged in preaching, and marvelously\nsuccessful in winning men to Christ during the years. Still, when the\nAssociation met, he was in doubt at first as to which side had the\nmajority of messengers. In the registration of messengers, it was soon\nfound that the majority were favorable to him. The messengers, from the\nfive new churches he had established turned the scale in his favor. The\ncharges were not mentioned on the floor of the Association. In 1830 this\nAssociation divided, ten churches voluntarily withdrawing and forming a\nnew association on Baptist principles. The North District Association\nmet for the last time as an advisory council in 1831, and was dissolved\none year later. Fourteen churches and four parts of churches were\nenrolled on the occasion of the dissolution. On the same day the\nchurches that had withdrawn from the Association two years before met\nand formed a new association under the same name.\n\nThe Bracken Association was the next to meet, in 1828. Licking\nAssociation, rigidly Calvinistic and devoted to the Philadelphia\nConfession of Faith, desired to enter into mutual correspondence with\nBracken, but had determined as a condition of it to require from Bracken\na pledge to support the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, which no doubt\nwould have been given in 1827; but in the meantime Smith had gone into\nthat district, and preached among the churches; and such men as Walter\nWarden and Jesse Holton, already moved by the plea of Alexander\nCampbell, and encouraged by the boldness and success of Smith, were\nalready favoring the return to the \"ancient order of things.\" The letter\ncame from Licking requiring the pledge and was read before the\nAssociation. After a prolonged discussion by various members, during\nwhich Smith sat in silence, he finally saw his opportunity to speak.\nThis opportunity was given when James Arnold, a messenger from the North\nBend Association, moved that the terms proposed by Licking be rejected,\nand that all further correspondence with that body be dropped. Smith\nsupported the proposition, and as he rose to do so took from his saddle\nbags a copy of the Confession of Faith, and said.\n\n Brethren, Licking requires of Bracken an utter impossibility. No one\n can maintain inviolate the doctrine of grace as revealed in the\n Scriptures, and at the same time, defend that which is taught in the\n Philadelphia Confession of Faith; for the doctrine of the creed is not\n the doctrine of the Bible. No two books in the world differ more than\n these; and in no point do they differ more widely than on the doctrine\n of salvation by grace.\n\nHe then contrasted the teaching of the New Testament with that of the\nConfession of Faith, and his argument was so convincing that practically\nall seemed satisfied that the terms proposed by Licking were\ncontradictory, and when the vote was taken the proposition to reject was\ncarried almost unanimously. A prominent witness of these events said:\n\n It was John Smith that gave impulse and tone to the reformation in\n Bracken, as he had already done in North District, Boone's Creek and\n other associations.\n\nIt was decided while the Association was in session that Bracken would\nrecommend no creed or confession of faith but the New Testament. Bracken\ndid not, however, remain long of this mind; but went back into regular\nfellowship in 1830; yet not without great loss by defection to the side\nof those contending for the \"ancient order of things\". Benedict, the\nBaptist historian, informs us that \"the number of members was reduced\nfrom 2,200 to 900 on account of the sweeping inroads of the Reformers.\"\n\nThe next association to take action in 1828 was the Boone's Creek. The\nletter sent out by the Association in 1827 said to the churches\ncomposing it: \"We hear from some of the churches that they are\nendeavoring to return to 'the ancient order of things', and they\nrecognize the Scriptures alone as an entire and sufficient rule of faith\nand practice.\" During the spring and summer of 1828 there was an\nincrease of about 870 members by immersion, many of whom had been\nbrought in through the preaching of John Smith. The Association,\ncomposed of thirteen churches, met on the third Sunday in September. The\nquestion before it, raised in letters of two churches, was concerning an\namendment to the constitution to bring it into harmony with the Word of\nGod. The following action was taken by the Association and reported back\nto all the churches:\n\n We, therefore, recommend to the churches an abolition of the present\n constitution, and, in lieu thereof, an adoption of this resolution:\n Resolved, That we the Churches of Jesus Christ, believing the\n Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and the\n only rule of faith and obedience given by the great Head of the Church\n for its government, do agree to meet annually on every third Saturday,\n Lord's day, and Monday in September of each year, for the worship of\n God, and on such occasions voluntarily communicate the state of\n religion amongst us by letter and messenger. (Christian Baptist, Vol.\n 6. page 420.)\n\nSuch men as John Smith, William Morton, Jeremiah Vardeman and Jacob\nCreath, Jr., all under the influence of the restoration movement, were\nthe leading spirits in this meeting. The report of the action of\nchurches with reference to the resolution was made a year later. The\nresult showed that seven churches voted to retain the constitution, six\nvoted to abolish it. At the meeting in 1830 these six churches were\ndropped from the Association, and both the North District and Tate's\nCreek messengers were rejected.\n\nIn 1829 Tate's Creek Association was under the controlling influence of\nthe restoration movement. A minority of orthodox Baptist churches\nwithdrew and called a meeting for the month of June, 1830, at which they\ndrew up a bill of errors against certain preachers and churches of the\nAssociation. This Association was composed of delegates from ten of the\ntwenty-six churches. They organized and proceeded to meet as the \"Tate's\nCreek Association\", and resolved to cut off correspondence with the\nchurches that \"tolerated the heresy of Campbellism\". Thus we see that\nthe majority of this Association was in line with the effort to restore\nthe \"ancient order of things\".\n\nThe Franklin and Elkhorn Associations were, however, not friendly to the\nmovement, though there was a strong and influential minority committed\nto those principles. In 1829 Franklin Association adopted decrees\nrejecting as heretical all those who sought to return to apostolic\nChristianity and all churches were warned not to harbor any such errors.\nThe Elkhorn Association at its meeting in 1830 dropped from further\ncorrespondence two churches, and refused to recognize the messengers\nfrom the North District, thus excluding from Baptist fellowship eighteen\nchurches and 1,427 members.\n\nThe Russell Creek and South Concord Associations took action against\n\"Campbellite heresy\", the latter passing a resolution advising all\nchurches to lock their doors against \"the followers of Alexander\nCampbell, who deny the agency of the Spirit\". Very few of the Kentucky\nBaptist Associations escaped the influence of the effort to return to\nprimitive Christianity.\n\nThe success of the movement only increased the bitterness and hate of\nthe opposition. No longer satisfied with misrepresentation, and with\nclosing the doors of their meeting places against Smith, the leaders of\nthe Baptist churches formulated measures for the forcible expulsion of\nall who gave heed to the teaching of Smith and his co-workers. As this\npurpose spread from church to church and from association to\nassociation, Smith threw himself fearlessly into the breach, and with\nhis rugged eloquence sought to stay any attempt at disruption, and to\npreserve the peace and order of religious society. As the heat of this\ncontroversy grew intense, his genial spirit and good-fellowship were\nonly the more manifest. In the excitement of the times he alone was\ncalm. Amidst the cloud of angry faces that often denied him a hearing,\nhis countenance alone was lit up with a friendly smile. When the doors\nwere locked against him by some unfriendly hand, he would speak to those\nwho gathered to hear him on such occasions in the woods, refusing to\nsanction any act of violence by which admittance might be gained. Though\nfrom this time in the thickest of the fight, he was a man of peace; and\nwhile others \"gnashed on him with their teeth\", he only replied in\npleasantries. The principles for which he now contended were the right\nof free speech and private judgment. As railing accusations were brought\nagainst him and those who shared his views, he would usually seek the\nopportunity of replying, but was invariably refused the simple privilege\nclaimed.\n\nThe effort of John Smith, therefore, to maintain the unity of the\nBaptist Church on the broad platform which he had framed for himself was\nsoon found unavailing. The unyielding policy of those who were\nantagonistic to apostolic Christianity was to deny fellowship to those\nwho joined in the search to learn the way of the Lord more perfectly.\n\"Seek first to reclaim these reformers from their error\", was the method\nnow suggested; \"if your efforts should fail, invite them to leave you,\nand to practice their reformation to themselves. If they will not go at\nyour request, separate them from you in the best way you can.\"\n\nHenceforth his whole energy and strength were consumed in setting in\norder the things lacking and strengthening the faith of the brethren. At\nthis time there were about eight thousand intelligent, pious men and\nwomen in the State standing with Smith. During the winter and spring of\n1831 he gave himself unreservedly to the rejected churches of the old\nNorth District Association, organizing them after the New Testament\nmodel, and pressing the claims of the primitive Gospel of larger\nconquest.\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n WALTER SCOTT\n\nInasmuch as the name of Walter Scott is inseparably linked with the\nmovement to restore apostolic Christianity, I now give a sketch of his\nlife and work. He was born in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, October 31, 1796.\nHe was carefully trained in the Scotch Presbyterian Church by his\nmother. At the very early period in his life he gave evidence of a\ndecided talent. Though the resources of the family were only moderate,\nhis watchful parents gave him every educational advantage, the mother\npraying that the church might enjoy the service of his rare gift of mind\nand heart. The Scotch family of the old school sought no greater honor\nthan to have a son at the university. Though a collegiate education at\nthat time was regarded within the reach of the sons of the wealthy only,\nin his devoted family the slender resources were so husbanded as to\nenable Walter, after a preparatory course at the academy, to enter the\nUniversity of Edinburgh. Here he pursued his studies with a zeal and\nsuccess that fully justified the labors and sacrifices of his parents.\nAfter completing his university course, while casting about for a place\nto plant his feet and enter the service of his race, an unexpected turn\nof affairs changed the channels of his life. His mother's brother,\nGeorge Innis, had some years before emigrated to this country, and by\nfaithfulness and integrity advanced himself to a place of responsibility\nin the governmental service in New York City. Anxious to assist his\nrelatives still in Scotland, he wrote his sister to send one of her\nsons, promising what assistance he could render in his advancement.\nWalter, as the best fitted by education for the opportunities of a new\ncountry, was the one selected to go; and as the plan was in perfect\nharmony with his own wishes, he at once started on the voyage, reaching\nNew York on July 7, 1818, and on his arrival was kindly welcomed by his\nuncle, through whose influence he soon obtained a position as Latin\ntutor in a classical academy, for which he was eminently qualified. But\nin this position he did not long remain. He had made some acquaintances\nin the city, and from them heard glowing reports of the West, as all the\nregion beyond the Allegheny Mountains was then called; and had resolved\nto see for himself the land of which he had heard so much. On foot, with\na light heart and a light purse, with a young man about his own age as a\ntraveling companion, he set out for the regions beyond. After a long\njourney he reached Pittsburgh in the early spring of 1819. He sought\nemployment, and soon had the good fortune to fall in with George\nForrester, a fellow countryman, and the principal of an academy, by whom\nhe was immediately engaged as an assistant in his school. Somewhat to\nthe surprise of young Scott, he soon made the discovery that his\nemployer, though a deeply religious man, differed very much in his views\nfrom those which he himself had been taught to regard as true. Mr.\nForrester's peculiarity consisted in making the Bible his only authority\nand guide in religious matters, while Scott had been trained to regard\nthe Presbyterian Standards as the true and authoritative exposition and\nsummary of Bible truth.\n\n\n A SINCERE TRUTH SEEKER\n\nMr. Forrester had been trained under the Haldanes of Scotland before\ncoming to this country, and had in connection with his school duties,\nbuilt up a small congregation who shared his views. Differing, as they\ndid, they were, nevertheless, both lovers of the truth, and the frequent\nand close examinations which they made of the Scriptures resulted in\nconvincing Scott that human standards in religion were, like their\nauthors, imperfect; and in impressing him deeply with the conviction\nthat the Word of God is the only true and sure guide. Better soil for\nthe planting was not to be found than that presented in the heart of\nWalter Scott. He was a sincere truth seeker. He loved the Bible and was\nready to accept whatever it clearly taught. No sooner, therefore, did he\nlearn of this new religious movement than he set about diligently to\ntest the correctness of his employer's views. Together they made an\nearnest, prayerful search of the Scriptures. Often, after the labors of\nthe day had closed in the school room, they would prosecute their\nexaminations of the Scriptures far into the night; not in the spirit of\ncontroversy, however, but with an earnest desire to know the will of\nGod, and a determination to follow wherever his Word, the expression of\nhis will, should lead.\n\nThe result of this painstaking search was that in a few weeks he turned\nhis back upon his past religious training, convinced that human\nstandards of belief were without the sanction of God's Word. This\nconclusion was not reached without much anguish of spirit. He further\ndiscovered that though he had adhered, in all strictness, to the church\ntraditions, he had not obeyed some of the important commands of the\nBible. Among his first discoveries, in his conscientious search of\ntruth, was the absence of scriptural authority for infant baptism, and\nhis need of personal obedience to a command so repeatedly enforced as\nthat of baptism into Christ. He, therefore, announced his purpose to\nreject all authority but that of Christ, and in obedience to the divine\ncommand he was immersed by Mr. Forrester and immediately entered into\nhearty co-operation with the small congregation planted by Mr.\nForrester.\n\nHe at once proved himself a valuable addition to this struggling\ncongregation. Although he did not immediately take a public part in the\nservices, his genial presence, zealous devotion, and Christian culture\nwere an inspiration to the whole congregation. He humbly accepted the\nposition of learner, continued his diligent search of the Scriptures and\nrejoiced in his new-found faith. In the meantime Mr. Forrester, desiring\nto devote himself exclusively to religious work, turned over the\nmanagement of the school to his talented assistant.\n\nMr. Scott's original methods of instruction, his pleasing manner and\nfaultless character won for his school a wide reputation and patronage.\nHad success in this line been the goal of his ambition, his situation\nwould have proved eminently satisfactory; but this was not his ambition.\nThe more he studied the Bible the more he felt drawn toward the ministry\nof the Word. A new world of religious truth was gradually unfolding\nbefore him. He soon found that even his teachers in this new religious\nschool but partially apprehended the divine purpose and method in the\nworld's salvation. From his study of the Bible, especially Acts of\nApostles, which now enlisted his attention, the plan of redemption began\nto take form in his mind. Conversion had always been a perplexing\nsubject to him, but in the light of this book all mystery fled. He now\nfound that all who heard, believed and obeyed the glad message of\nsalvation were filled with peace and joy in believing.\n\nWhile pursuing this line of investigation a small tract, sent out by an\nobscure congregation in New York, fell into his hands. The views\nexpressed in it so perfectly coincided with those he now held that he\ndetermined to get acquainted with its authors, feeling that such an\nassociation would add greatly to his Christian knowledge. He, therefore,\nat once severed his connection with the school and set out in search for\nmore light upon the great religious problems that now consumed his\nthought. The visit proved a keen disappointment. He found the practice\nof the church much different from what he had been led to expect from\ntheir publication. So after a short sojourn in the city, with a heavy\nheart he continued his journey, visiting Baltimore and Washington, in\neach of which he had learned of small congregations of independent\nbelievers; but these visits only added to his disappointment. These\nearly attempts at religious reformation were not always successful and\nfrequently resulted in a caricature of the thing attempted. In\ndescribing his fruitless journey he said:\n\n I went thither, and having searched them up I discovered them to be so\n sunken in the mire of Calvinism that they refused to reform; and so\n finding no pleasure in them I left them. I then went to the Capitol,\n and, climbing up to its lofty dome, I sat myself down, filled with\n sorrow at the miserable desolation of the Church of God.\n\nHis drooping spirit was cheered by his return to Pittsburgh, after a\njourney on foot of three hundred miles. He received a warm welcome from\nthose who had learned his true worth, and, as a suitable successor in\nthe school room had not been found, a handsome salary was pledged to\nsecure his services once more. Broken in spirit and purse, he accepted\nthe position and continued in the management of the school for several\nyears with remarkable success. But his chief delight now was to minister\nto the little church, which, deprived of its leader by the sudden death\nof Mr. Forrester, looked to him for leadership. This period marks his\ngrowth in spiritual things. His reverence for Christ and his Word led to\nthe constant study of the Bible. His chief delight was in the Holy\nScriptures. It was in these hours with the Spirit of truth that he made\nthe final dedication of himself to God, promising \"that if he, for\nChrist's sake, would grant him just and comprehensive views of his\nreligion he would subordinate all his present and future attainments to\nthe glory of his Son and his religion.\"\n\n\n TURNING POINT IN HIS LIFE\n\nIt was while thus engaged singlehanded in working out the problem of\nhuman redemption as revealed in the Word of God that he first met\nAlexander Campbell, with whom his own history and efforts in the future\nwere to be so intimately blended. They possessed many elements in\ncommon, had been reared in the same school of religious thought, had\nbeen driven by the same burning thirst for truth to the Bible, and\nthrough its message were led to pursue a similar path in their search\nfor acceptance with God. The following, from the pen of Dr. Richardson,\nbeautifully presents the predominating characteristics in contrast at\nthe time of their first meeting:\n\n The different hues in the characters of these two eminent men were\n such as to be, so to speak, complimentary to each other, and to form,\n by their harmonious blending, a completeness and a brilliancy which\n rendered their society, peculiarly delightful to each other. Thus,\n while Mr. Campbell was fearless, self-reliant and firm, Mr. Scott was\n naturally timid, diffident and yielding; and, while the former was\n calm, steady and prudent, the latter was excitable, variable and\n precipitate. The one, like the north star, was ever in position,\n unaffected by terrestrial influences; the other, like the magnetic\n needle, was often disturbed and trembling on its center, yet ever\n returning or seeking to return to its true direction. Both were nobly\n endowed with the powers of higher reason--a delicate\n self-consciousness, a decided will and a clear conception of truth.\n But, as it regards the other departments of the inner nature, in Mr.\n Campbell the understanding predominated, in Mr. Scott the feelings;\n and, if the former excelled in imagination, the latter was superior in\n brilliancy of fancy. If the tendency of one was to generalize, to take\n wide and extended views and to group a multitude of particulars under\n a single head or principle, that of the other was to analyze, to\n divide subjects into their particulars and consider their details....\n In a word, in almost all those qualities of mind and character, which\n might be regarded differential or distinctive, they were singularly\n fitted to supply each other's wants and to form a rare and delightful\n companionship. (Memoirs of A. Campbell, Vol. 1, p. 510.)\n\nThey at once recognized in each other kindred spirits and joined hands,\nand, with Thomas Campbell, formed a trio of unsurpassed genius,\neloquence and devotion to truth.\n\n\n WALTER SCOTT\n\nThe turning point in the life of Walter Scott came in 1827, when\nAlexander Campbell, on the way to the annual meeting of the Mahoning\nAssociation, visited him at his home in Steubensville, Ohio, and\nprevailed upon him to attend the meeting at New Lisbon. Scott, though\nnot a member of the Association, was chosen evangelist.\n\nThe Association was organized in 1820 and was composed of ten Baptist\nchurches. The number was doubled later, seventeen of whom were\nrepresented at the New Lisbon meeting. These churches in the main were\nin eastern Ohio, near the Pennsylvania line, and between the Ohio River\nand Lake Erie, and were known as the Western Reserve. One of the\nchurches--Wellsburg--was in Virginia. Spiritually they were almost dead.\nThis, perhaps, was the result of extreme Calvinistic teachings and their\nelaborate man-made creeds. At this association fifteen churches reported\nonly thirty-four baptisms, and eleven of these were at Wellsburg, the\nchurch home of Alexander Campbell.\n\nThe new evangelist threw the full force of his ardent nature into the\nwork. He had long been an earnest, faithful, and prayerful student of\nthe Word of God. He had drunk deep into its spirit, and became fully\nconvinced of the weakness and inefficiency of modern systems, in all of\nwhich \"there seemed to be a link wanting to connect an avowed faith in\nChrist with an immediate realization of the promises of the gospel.\nThese seemed placed at an almost infinite distance from the penitent,\nbowed down under a sense of guilt, and longing for some certain evidence\nof acceptance, which he often vainly sought in the special spiritual\nilluminations upon which men were taught to rely.\"\n\nThe Association had imposed upon him no particular course whatever, and\nit was his duty, therefore, to consider how the proclamation of the\ngospel could be rendered most effective for the conversion of sinners.\n\nIn view of all the circumstances, this was a very difficult and\nperplexing question with which to grapple. He was aware of the fact that\nMr. Campbell had spoken of baptism in his debate with McCalla as a\npledge of pardon, but in this point of view it was, as yet, contemplated\nonly _theoretically_. However, his knowledge of the Scriptures led him\nto think that baptism was in some way intimately connected with the\npersonal enjoyment of the blessings of the gospel, but as yet he was\nunable to perceive just what position it occupied in relation to other\nrequirements.\n\nAfter a more diligent and prayerful study of the Word of God, and many\nconferences with other pious and godly men, it became clear to Scott\nthat the Gospel contained facts to be believed, commands to be obeyed,\nand promises to be enjoyed. But in its specific application it was\nfive-fold: (1) Faith to change the heart; (2) Repentance to change the\nlife; (3) Baptism to change the state; (4) Remission of sins to cleanse\nfrom guilt; (5) The gift of the Holy Spirit to help in the Christian\nlife and make one a partaker of the divine nature. This arrangement of\nthese items was so manifestly in harmony with the Scriptures that he was\ntransported with the discovery. The key of knowledge was now in his\npossession. The things that before were dark and perplexing were now\nclear and he resolved to preach the same Gospel preached by inspired\nmen, and to preach it in the same way. From his present viewpoint the\nWord of God was for the salvation of the world, and the inspired\nteachers made no mistake in their method of preaching it. This was a\nbold and novel thing to do, but he believed it to be right, and he had\nthe courage of his convictions, and proceeded to do it.\n\nFearing that he might give cause of offense to the churches which had\nemployed him, he sent an appointment outside the limits of the\nAssociation, and with some misgivings, but in an earnest and interesting\nmanner, laid before the audience his analysis of the Gospel, and at the\nclose he gave a formal invitation to any one so disposed to come\nforward, confess his faith in Christ and be baptized for the remission\nof sins; but no one came. To his audience this was like the proclamation\nof a new religion, so different did it seem from the orthodoxy of the\nday. They regarded him as an amiable but deluded enthusiast, and looked\nupon him with wonder, pity, and even scorn. This result was not\nunexpected, for the whole community was filled with the idea that\nsomething supernatural had to occur before any one could become a fit\nsubject for baptism. Instead of giving way to this traditional\nprejudice, he said to himself \"This way is of God, and ought to succeed,\nand with his help it shall.\" He was right, and God gave him success, as\nhe gives to all such men. He accordingly announced that he would deliver\na series of discourses on the Ancient Gospel at New Lisbon, Ohio, the\nplace at which he had been selected as evangelist by the Association a\nfew months before. Here he was to witness the removal of the barriers\nand the triumph of the cause that was so near his heart.\n\nWhen he arrived on Sunday to begin the series of meetings every seat in\nthe building was literally packed, soon even standing room was at a\npremium, and the doorway was blocked up by the eager throng. Scott was\njust the man to be moved to the highest point by such an occasion. The\nfollowing is a vivid description of the events of that day:\n\n His theme was the confession of Peter, \"Thou art the Christ, the Son\n of the living God\" (Matt. 16:16), and the promise which grew out of\n it, that he should have entrusted to him the keys of the kingdom of\n heaven. The declaration of Peter was a theme upon which he had thought\n for years; it was a fact which he regarded the four gospels was\n written to establish; to which type and prophecy had pointed in all\n the ages gone by; which the Eternal Father had announced from heaven\n when out of the waters of Jordan and the Spirit descended and abode\n upon him, and which was repeated again amid the awful grandeur and\n solemnity of the transfiguration scene. He then proceeded to show that\n the foundation truth of Christianity was the divine nature of the Lord\n Jesus--the central truth around which all others revolved, and from\n which they derived their efficacy and importance--and that the belief\n of it was calculated to produce such love in the heart of him who\n believed as would lead him to true obedience to the object of his\n faith and love. To show how that love and faith were to be manifested,\n he quoted the language of the great commission (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark\n 16:15,16), and called attention to the fact that Jesus had taught his\n apostles \"that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in\n his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem\" (Luke 24:47).\n He then led his hearers to Jerusalem on the memorable Pentecost and\n bade them listen to an authoritative announcement of the law of\n Christ, now to be made known for the first time by Peter to whom\n Christ had promised to give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt.\n 16:16), which he represented as meaning the conditions upon which the\n guilty might find pardon at the hands of the risen, ascended, and\n glorified Son of God, and enter his kingdom.\n\n After a rapid yet graphic review of Peter's discourse, he pointed out\n its effect on those that heard him, and bade them mark the inquiry\n which a deep conviction of the truth they had heard forced from the\n lips of the heart-pierced multitudes, who, in their agony at the\n discovery that they had put to death the Son of God, their own\n long-expected Messiah, \"said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles,\n Brethren, what shall we do?\" and then with flashing eyes and\n impassioned manner, as if he fully realized that he was but re-echoing\n the words of one who spake as the Spirit gave him utterance, he gave\n the reply, \"Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of\n Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the\n gift of the Holy Spirit.\" He then, with great force and power, made\n his application; he insisted that the conditions were unchanged, that\n the Word of God meant what it said, and that to receive and obey it\n was to obey God and to imitate the example of those who, under the\n preaching of the apostles, gladly accepted the gospel message. His\n discourse was long, but his hearers marked not the flight of time. The\n Baptists forgot, in admiration of its scriptural beauty and\n simplicity, that it was contrary to much of their own teaching and\n practice; some of them who had been, in a measure, enlightened before,\n rejoiced in the truth the moment they perceived it; to others, who had\n long been perplexed by the difficulties and contradictions of the\n discordant views of the day, it was light like light to weary\n travelers long benighted and lost.\n\n The man of all others, however, in that community who would most have\n delighted in and gladly accepted those views, so old and yet so new,\n was not there, although almost in hearing of the preacher, who, with\n such eloquence and power, was setting forth the primitive gospel. This\n was William Amend, a pious, God-fearing man, a member of the\n Presbyterian Church, and regarded by his neighbors as an \"Israelite\n indeed.\" He had for some time entertained the same views as those Mr.\n Scott was then preaching in that place for the first time, but was not\n aware of the fact that any one agreed with him. He was under the\n impression that all the churches--his own among the number--had\n departed from the plain teachings of the Word of God. He had\n discovered, some time before, that infant baptism was not taught in\n the Bible, and, consequently, that he was not a baptized man; the act\n of baptism seemed also to him to have been changed, and he sought his\n pastor, and asked to be immersed. His pastor endeavored to convince\n him that he was wrong, but finding that he could not be turned from\n his purpose, he proposed to immerse him privately, lest others of his\n flock might be unsettled in their minds by his so doing, and closed by\n saying that baptism was not essential to salvation. Mr. Amend regarded\n everything that Christ had ordained as being essential, and replied\n that he should not immerse him at all; that he would wait until he\n found a man who believed the gospel, and who could, without any\n scruple, administer the ordinance as he conceived it to be taught in\n the New Testament.\n\n He was invited a day or two before to hear Mr. Scott, but knowing\n nothing of his views, he supposed that he preached much as others did,\n but agreed to go and hear him. It was near the close of the services\n when he reached the Baptist Church and joined the crowd at the door,\n who were unable to get into the house. The first sentence he heard\n aroused and excited him; it sounded like the gospel which he had read\n with such interest at home, but never had heard from the pulpit\n before. He now felt a great anxiety to see the man who was speaking so\n much like the oracles of God, and pressed through the throng into the\n house.\n\n Mr. Dibble, the clerk of the church, saw him enter, and knowing that\n he had been seeking and longing to find a man who would preach as the\n Word of God read, thought within himself, \"Had Mr. Amend been here\n during all this discourse I feel sure that he would have found what he\n has so long sought in vain. I wish the preacher would repeat what he\n said before he came in.\" Greatly to his surprise Mr. Scott did give a\n brief review of the various points of his discourse, insisting that\n the Word of God meant what it said, and urging his hearers to trust\n that Word implicitly. He rehearsed again the Jerusalem scene, called\n attention to the earnest, anxious cry of the multitude, and the\n comforting reply of the apostle, \"Repent ye, and be baptized every one\n of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins;\n and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.\" He invited any one\n present who believed with all his heart to yield to the terms proposed\n in the words of the apostle, and show by a willing obedience his trust\n in the Lord of life and glory. Mr. Amend pressed his way through the\n crowd to the preacher and made known his purpose; made a public\n confession of his faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God\n and expressed his desire to obey him, at once, and on the same day, in\n a beautiful, clear stream which flows on the southern border of the\n town, in the presence of a great multitude, he was baptized in the\n name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. (Life of Walter Scott,\n pages 104-108.)\n\nFrom that day the meeting continued with increasing interest. Seventeen\npersons, \"hearing, believed, and were baptized.\" The whole community was\naroused and began to search the scriptures, some in the same spirit of\nthe Bereans of old to see whether these things were so; others with no\nhigher purpose than to file objections to that which was so boldly\nproclaimed, and many of these were forced to admit that if the teaching\nwere false the Bible could not be true, for the preacher could read\neverything that was demanded from the Word of God.\n\nIt was a fortunate thing that a man with such an unsullied character and\nreputation as that of Mr. Amend should be the first to render obedience\nto the apostolic teaching at New Lisbon. He was a man with more than\nordinary intelligence, and his scriptural knowledge was far beyond that\nof most men in his station in life. His action was not the result of an\nimpulse produced by Mr. Scott's discourse, for that he had not heard;\nbut from a careful study of the Word of God. He was not aware of the\nfact that there was another person in the world who held similar views\nto his own.\n\nAlthough Mr. Scott was pleased with the initial success, it was still a\nmystery to him why his first discourse had failed to convince any one,\nand that at the close of the second, Mr. Amend, who had heard neither of\nthem, should come forward so intelligently; hence he wrote a letter\nrequesting him to state the facts which induced him to respond to the\ninvitation so promptly, to which he replied:\n\n Now, my brother, I will answer your questions. I was baptized November\n 18, 1827, and I will relate to you a circumstance which occurred a few\n days before that date. I had read the second chapter of Acts when I\n expressed myself to my wife as follows: \"Oh, this is the gospel--this\n is the thing we wish--remission of our sins! Oh, that I could hear the\n gospel in these same words--as Peter preached it! I hope I shall some\n day hear it; and the first man I meet who will preach the gospel thus,\n with him will I go.\" So, my brother, on the day you saw me come into\n the meeting-house, my heart was open to receive the Word of God, and\n when you cried, \"The scriptures no longer shall be a sealed book. God\n means what he says. Is there any man who will take God at his word,\n and be baptized for the remission of sins?\" at that moment my feelings\n were such that I could have cried out, \"Glory to God! I have found the\n man for whom I have long sought.\" So I entered the kingdom where I\n readily laid hold of the hope set before me. (Life of Walter Scott,\n page 113.)\n\nWithin three weeks after the close of the meeting at New Lisbon, Mr.\nScott returned and found the interest there greater than when he left,\nand seven others were baptized. Soon after this he visited there again,\nand baptized more than thirty others. The members of the Baptist Church\ngladly accepted the truth, and resolved that thenceforth the Bible\nshould be their only rule of faith and practice.\n\nThe ice was now broken, and a new era was inaugurated which was marked\nby a quiet thoughtfulness, and an unwonted searching of the Scriptures,\n\"whether these things were so,\" and a final decision to obey the\npersonal Christ, expressed in public confession of faith in Christ and\nbaptism. The country was aroused as never before. The conversion of Mr.\nAmend confirmed Mr. Scott in his conviction that the way preached and\npracticed by God's inspired messengers at Pentecost was the right way.\nHis labors and success aroused much inquiry and great opposition, and\nthe wildest rumors were circulated concerning his preaching and work.\nThe interest in the public mind swelled to a torrent which swept\neverything before it. Not only individuals by the hundreds became\nobedient to the faith, but often entire congregations would wheel into\nline with the \"ancient order of things.\" Baptist congregations voted out\nthe Philadelphia Confession of Faith and substituted the New Testament\nin its place. And not only the Baptists, but Presbyterians,\nUniversalists, Lutherans, Christian Connectionists, Methodists, and\nEpiscopalians in large numbers were reached. The Deerfield Methodist\nChurch came in as a whole.\n\nExaggerated reports concerning the teaching and practice of Mr. Scott\nreached Mr. Campbell and he became fearful lest his zeal and youthful\ninexperience should lead him into serious error. He therefore decided\nthat it would be well for his father, Thomas Campbell, to visit his\nfield of labor and ascertain the truth concerning the state of affairs.\nUpon arriving, he heard Mr. Scott's presentation of the gospel and\nwitnessed his method of procedure with surprise and great pleasure. It\nat once became apparent to him that what he and his son had taught was\nnow reduced to practice, and that the rumors that had reached him were\nuntrue. He therefore remained in this promising field some time, and by\nhis earnest and efficient labors gave great assistance to the work. On\nApril 9, 1828, from New Lisbon, he wrote to his son giving his\nimpressions of the work, as follows:\n\n I perceive that theory and practice in religion, as well as in other\n things, are matters of distinct consideration. It is one thing to know\n the art of fishing--for instance the rod, the line, and the hook, and\n the bait, too; and quite another thing to handle them dextrously when\n thrown into the water, so as to make it take. We have spoken and long\n known the former (the theory), and have spoken and published many\n things correctly concerning the ancient gospel, its simplicity and\n perfect adaptation to the present state of mankind, for the benign and\n gracious purpose of his immediate relief and complete salvation; but I\n must confess that, in respect to the direct exhibition and application\n of it for that blessed purpose, I am at present for the first time\n upon the ground where the thing has appeared to be practically applied\n to the proper purpose. \"Compel them to come in, saith the Lord, that\n my house may be filled.\"\n\n Mr. Scott has made a bold push to accomplish this object, by simply\n and boldly stating the ancient gospel, and insisting upon it; and then\n by putting the question generally and particularly to male and female,\n old and young: \"Will you come to Christ and be baptized for the\n remission of your sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit? Don't you\n believe this blessed gospel? Then come away.\" This elicits a personal\n conversation; some confess faith in the testimony, beg time to think;\n others consent, give their hand to be baptized as soon as convenient;\n others debate the matter friendly; some go straight to the water, be\n it day or night, and upon the whole none appear offended. (Life of\n Walter Scott, pages 158, 159.)\n\nBy the end of the first year many languishing churches had been brought\ninto living activity, many new ones had been organized, and a thousand\npersons had been baptized into Christ. Mr. Scott was unanimously chosen\nto continue in the work, and he consented, stipulating only that he\nshould have William Hayden, a zealous young preacher and sweet singer,\nto assist him. But his second year was one of great conflict. By this\ntime, those bound by sectarian traditions began to realize if Scott were\nallowed to continue preaching what they called \"heresy\" unopposed as he\nhad been allowed to do during the preceding year, sectarianism was\ndoomed, hence the opposition became extremely fierce. That you may have\nsome idea of the conflict that ensued all over the country, I give a\nbrief history of the introduction of the ancient gospel at Sharon, Pa.\nJust a short distance over the state line in Ohio, the Baptist churches\nat Warren and Hubbard had accepted it almost in a body, so generally\nindeed, that both houses of worship passed quietly out of the hands of\nthe Baptists; and in the case at Warren, not only the greater part of\nthe congregation, but the preacher also accepted the truth so ably and\neloquently urged by Scott, and became himself an earnest and successful\nadvocate of the same. Some of the Baptists had heard of the great\nchanges that had taken place in the two churches mentioned; some of the\nmembers had even gone so far as to visit them, and could find no\nwell-founded objections to what they had heard stigmatized as heresy;\nnay, it even seemed to them like the things they had read in the Bible;\nand some of them went so far as to sit down at the Lord's table with\nthem. Such an element in the church, of course, soon made itself felt.\nThe Scriptures were closely searched, and the light began to spread.\nSuspicion was aroused--was the hated \"heresy\" about to break out among\nthem and destroy their peace? Several were soon marked men; the views\nthey held were assailed and loudly condemned, when some one suggested\nthat, as it was not the custom to condemn without a hearing in ancient\ntime, they had better send for the public advocates of the new doctrine\nand learn the best or worst at once. This suggestion prevailed and Scott\nand Bently were invited to preach at Sharon. They came and Scott\npreached every night for three weeks. The curiosity which at first\ncharacterized many who attended soon deepened into sincere interest, and\nsome began to inquire, \"Brethren, what shall we do?\" The inspired answer\nwas given, and, in response to the gospel invitation, several persons\npresented themselves and were immediately, on a confession of their\nfaith in Christ as the Son of God, baptized.\n\nShortly after this meeting closed the cry was raised that what had been\ndone was not according to \"Baptist usage.\" Those who had been baptized\nhad not been required to relate an experience of grace prior to baptism,\nand the church had not been allowed to pass on their fitness for\nmembership, and so they were not received as members. But there was\nanother serious trouble that could not be so easily settled. They could\nrefuse to receive into their fellowship those baptized by Mr. Scott; but\nwhat was to be done with those who received with gladness the message\ndelivered by him as the word of God? Some of these were the most\ninfluential members, and to make the case more perplexing, were tolerant\nof the views held by the Baptists. As they had formerly held the same,\nthey desired that the others should see as they did; but they did not\nattempt to force their views upon the church; they wished to hold them\nin peace, however, but at the same time did not want to be bound by the\ncreed and church articles. All this class sympathized with those who had\nbeen refused membership. In their view, if the Lord, as they believed,\nhad accepted them, why should the church reject them?\n\nThose who were still attached to the Baptist views were of a different\nspirit. And they were fully determined that all who even sympathized\nwith those whom they regarded as heretics should either repent or be\nexcluded from their fellowship. This naturally produced serious trouble,\nand many of the leading members left the church and cast their lot with\nthose endeavoring to restore the apostolic church. But the opposition\nonly stirred the evangelists to greater zeal and power, and created for\nthem a sympathy which opened the doors to thousands of hearts hitherto\nclosed to their message. Like fighting fire in the stubble, the stroke\nof the flail only increased the flame. Throughout the country they went\n\"turning the country upside down,\" like the apostles of old. So great\nwas their influence that, when the Mahoning Association met in 1830, it\ndisbanded, and ceased its connection with the Baptist Church, that\nchurch having repudiated all who were set for a return to apostolic\nsimplicity.\n\nThe three years spent by Mr. Scott in the Western Reserve; the great\naudiences that greeted him, and the marvelous success that crowned his\nlabors, stimulated his fervent nature to the highest and drew from his\nrich soul the rarest wealth. His mind was filled with truth, and his\nthought was illuminated with the finest imagery. He knew the Bible as\nfew men, and loved it with a passionate love. His life was wholly given\nto the Savior, and never was a sacrifice more unreservedly made. No\nwonder that a preacher like this should revolutionize the hearts of men.\n\n\n REFORMERS IN OTHER STATES\n\n\n JOHN WRIGHT\n\nIn our study so far we have learned of several independent movements, in\nwidely separated localities, making strenuous efforts to throw off the\nshackles of sectarianism and to stand wholly on apostolic ground, and it\nis fitting that I should give a brief sketch of others.\n\nJohn Wright was born in Rowan County, North Carolina, December 12, 1785.\nWhen he was about twelve years old his father moved into Powell's\nValley, Va., where he grew to manhood. From Virginia the whole family\nemigrated to Wayne County, Ky., where he was joined in marriage to Miss\nNancy Beeler, who proved to be a most excellent helpmeet, ever ready\nwith him to make any sacrifice for the cause of Christ. In the latter\npart of 1807, he moved from Kentucky into Clark's Grant, Indiana.\n\nIn August, 1808 he and his wife were baptized by William Summers, and\nthey immediately united with the Baptist Church, and in the latter part\nof the same year he began to preach. This was long before the current\nReformation was heard of by the inhabitants of the West. He was,\ntherefore among the very first to break the stillness of Indiana's\nforest with the glad tidings of salvation. In January, 1810, he moved to\nBlue River, four miles south of Salem, and was shortly afterwards joined\nby his father, where they organized a congregation of Free-Will\nBaptists. They exerted great influence in behalf of Christianity, and it\nwas not long until they had organized ten Baptist Churches which they\norganized into what was called Blue River Association.\n\nFrom the very first, John Wright was of the opinion that all human\ncreeds were heretical and schismatical, and in that region there has not\ncome after him a more persistent contender for the word of God as the\nonly and all-sufficient rule of faith and practice. He labored to\ndestroy all divisions and promote union among all professed followers of\nthe Lord; and in this difficult and most important service he was very\nsuccessful. Though at first he tolerated the name Baptist, he afterwards\nwaged a war of extermination against all party names. This war was\ndeclared in the year 1819, when he offered at the church at Blue River a\nresolution in favor of discarding all party names. As individuals, he\ncontended that they should be called \"friends,\" \"disciples,\" \"brethren,\"\n\"saints,\" \"Christians;\" and, as a body, \"Church of Christ,\" or \"Church\nof God.\" He opposed the term \"Christian\" as applied to the church,\nbecause it is not so applied in the writings of the apostles.\n\nThe resolution was adopted, and, having agreed, also, to lay aside their\nspeculative opinions and contradictory theories, they were prepared to\nplead consistently for Christian union, and to invite others to stand\nwith them upon the one broad and sure foundation. They then began in\nearnest the work of reformation, and with such success that by the year\n1821 there was not a Baptist Church in all that region.\n\nAbout this time a spirited controversy over the subject of Trine\nImmersion was being waged among the Tunkers, of whom there were fifteen\ncongregations in that section of country. The leading spirits in\nopposition to that doctrine were Abram Kern, of Indiana, and Peter Hon,\nof Kentucky. At first they contended against great odds, but so many of\ntheir opponents finally surrendered that they finally gained a decisive\nvictory in favor of one immersion. At the close of the contest, while\nboth parties were exhausted by the conflict, Mr. Wright recommended to\nhis brethren that they should send a letter to the Annual Conference of\nthe Tunkers, proposing a union of the two bodies on the Bible alone. The\nletter was written and John Wright, his brother, Peter, and several\nothers, were appointed as messengers to convey it to the conference and\nthere advocate the measures it proposed. So successful was the effort\nthat at the first meeting the union was permanently formed.\n\nAbout the same time Mr. Wright proposed a correspondence with the\nNewlights, for the purpose of forming with them a more perfect union. He\nwas appointed to conduct the correspondence on the part of his brethren,\nwhich he did with so much ability and discretion, that a joint meeting\nwas assembled at Edinburg, where the union was readily consummated.\n\nA few years subsequent to this, the work of reformation began to\nprogress rapidly among the Regular Baptists of the Silver Creek\nAssociation. This was directly through the influence of Absolom and J.\nT. Littell, and Mordecai Cole, the leading spirits of that locality.\nThrough their teaching hundreds of individuals and some whole churches\nrenounced all human creeds and boldly took a stand on the Bible alone.\nBut still there was a shyness existing between them and those who had\ndone the same thing under the labors of Mr. Wright. The former having\nheld Calvinistic opinions, stood aloof through fear of being called\nArians; while the latter feared to make any advances lest they should be\nstigmatized as \"Campbellites.\" Thus the two parties stood when Mr.\nWright became their mediator communicating the sentiments of each to the\nother. By this means it was soon ascertained that they were all\nendeavoring to preach and practice the same thing. The only important\ndifference between them was in regard to the design of baptism, and on\nthis point Mr. Wright yielded as soon as he was convinced of his error.\nThis move resulted in the permanent union of these two large and\ninfluential bodies of believers. In consequence of this effort at peace\nmaking, more than three thousand united in the bonds of peace, agreeing\nto stand together on the one foundation and to forget all minor\ndifferences in their devotion to the great interests of the Redeemer's\nkingdom. This was the greatest achievement of Mr. Wright's long and\neventful life; and he deserves to be held in high esteem for his love of\ntruth, for his moral courage in carrying out his convictions of right,\nand for the meek and affectionate spirit which gave him such power in\nleading people out of sectarianism and uniting them together in the\nbonds of love in Christ Jesus.\n\n\n HERMAN CHRISTIAN DASHER\n\nThe parents of Herman Christian Dasher came to this country from\nSalzburg, Germany, to escape the persecution of the Roman Catholic\nChurch, and located near Savannah, Georgia. They were Lutherans and had\nHerman christened in infancy and brought up in that faith. When he\narrived at manhood and began to be impressed with the importance of\nuniting with a church, and of living the Christian life, he was deeply\nperplexed by the existence, and by the proclaiming of so many\ncontradictory doctrines. Fortunately, instead of becoming an infidel, as\nso many do under like circumstances, he turned to the Holy Scriptures\nfor light. He soon became thoroughly convinced that immersion is\nbaptism, and that affusion is not, and that therefore he ought to be\nimmersed.\n\nHe could not cast his lot with the Baptists, as he could not tell an\nexperience of grace which they required, for he had seen no marvelous\nlight, neither had he heard any marvelous sounds. He was by no means\nconvinced \"that God had for Christ's sake forgiven his sins,\" though he\ndid not then understand the doctrine of baptism for remission of sins,\nas he afterwards did; nor did he think that God demanded any such\nexperience as a prerequisite to baptism and church membership. But he\ndesired most earnestly to become a Christian, believing in his heart\nthat Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God, the Savior of\nsinners.\n\nThis brought before him a new difficulty, for within the whole range of\nhis acquaintance, there was not one who would immerse him on a simple\nconfession of his faith in Christ. All demanded that he should profess\nto have a miraculous and mysterious work of the Holy Spirit within him,\nin taking away his heart of stone and giving him a heart of flesh.\n\nProvidentially, about this time, while he was most earnestly engaged in\nstudying the Bible, he was thrown into the company of a Mrs.\nThreadcraft, of Savannah, who informed him that in her city a Mr. S. C.\nDunning, who had formerly been a Baptist preacher, but had recently\nseceded from that body, because he did not believe it taught and\npracticed as the Word of God required. In this movement he had been\naccompanied by eight or ten others. This lady further informed him that\nMr. Dunning preached the Scriptures as he did, and that at his hands he\ncould obtain baptism upon a simple confession of his faith in Jesus\nChrist as the Son of God. This information filled him with such great\njoy that he did not delay in making the journey into Savannah to see Mr.\nDunning, who baptized him without further delay. This was during the\nyear 1819.\n\nImmediately after returning to his home he immersed his wife, her sister\nand her husband. These \"continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching\nand fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers,\" meeting every\nLord's Day in the house of Mr. Dasher. The little church grew and\nprospered, being occasionally visited by Mr. Dunning, who assisted in\nbuilding it up by his teaching and exhortations.\n\nSome time after this, Mr. Dasher, accompanied by a number of the members\nof the church, moved into Lowndes County, and located where the city of\nValdosta now stands. In this new field he continued the work of\npreaching the word and built up a congregation which met in his own\nresidence. This was the beginning of the work in Valdosta and the region\naround about. It was many years after the baptism of Mr. Dasher before\nhe knew that there were any others in any place contending for the\n\"truth as is in Jesus,\" as he and those associated with him were doing.\n\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n THE CHRISTIANS AND REFORMERS UNITE\n\nA new period has now dawned in the movement for the union of all\nChristians by the restoration of primitive Christianity. The Baptists\nhad thrust from their fellowship those who had embraced it and they were\nforced into a separate existence. Every preacher among them was filled\nwith a zeal to plant churches after the primitive order wherever they\ncould get a large enough company together.\n\nThe work spread principally from two centers, Ohio and Kentucky. From\nOhio it was carried into New York and Pennsylvania; and westward into\nMichigan, northern Ohio, and Indiana, and Wisconsin. From Kentucky it\nwas carried eastward and southward into Virginia, Maryland, the\nCarolinas, Tennessee, and Alabama; and westward into Indiana, Illinois\nand Missouri. The movement spread chiefly in a westward direction from\nKentucky and Tennessee along the lines of emigration. Very often a\nsufficient number of emigrants to establish themselves into a\ncongregation after the primitive order found themselves together in the\nsame neighborhood and began at once to meet together for mutual\nedification and the spread of the truth.\n\nWhile it was well known that there were many things received and\npracticed in common there had been no special effort to bring about a\nunion between them. In 1824, at Georgetown, Ky., Mr. Stone and Mr.\nCampbell first met. When they compared views, it seemed that there were\nirreconcilable differences between them. Stone thought Campbell was\nheterodox on the Holy Spirit, and Campbell suspected Stone's soundness\non the divinity of Christ. But on a more careful investigation, they\nfound these differences more imaginary than real, and they joined hearts\nand hands and God blessed them with the most important work since the\napostolic age. With the kindly feelings towards each other, the work of\nunion between their brethren was well on the way when it was begun. And\nso, after a number of friendly conferences, it was decided to have a\nmeeting of representative men at Georgetown, Ky., to continue for days,\nincluding December 25, 1831. The results of this conference were so\nsatisfactory that another was convened in Lexington, January 1, 1832. In\nthese gatherings the spirit of the Master was supreme.\n\nAt the Lexington meeting, at an early hour the house was crowded. Stone,\nJohn T. Johnson, Samuel Rogers, G. W. Elley, Jacob Creath, \"Raccoon\"\nJohn Smith, and many other worthy men were there, all guarded in thought\nand purpose against any compromise of truth, but all filled with the\nspirit of the Master: \"That they may all be one; even as thou, Father,\nart in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world\nmay believe that thou didst send me.\" It was decided that one man from\neach party should speak, setting forth clearly the grounds of union, and\nSmith and Stone were selected as the speakers. After this had been\nannounced, the two brethren went aside, and conferred in private.\nNeither knew what the other would say in the critical hour which had now\ncome upon the churches; nor did either, in the moment of solemn\nconference, ask the other to disclose his mind, touching their\ndifferences, more fully than he had already done. It was decided between\nthem that Smith should speak first.\n\nThe occasion was to Smith the most important and solemn that had\noccurred in the history of the reformation. \"It was now to be seen\nwhether all that had been written and said and done in behalf of the\nsimple gospel of Christ and the union of Christians was really the work\nof the Lord, or whether the prayers of Stone and Johnson were but the\nidle longings of pious, yet deluded hearts; whether the toils and\nsacrifices of Smith were but the schismatic efforts of a bold\nenthusiast, and whether the teachings of Campbell were only the\nspeculations of a graceless and sensuous philosophy. The denominations\naround mocked, and declared that a church without a constitution could\nnot stand, and that a union without a creed was but the chimera of a\ndreamy and infatuated heresy.\"\n\nAt the appointed hour, Smith, realizing the tremendous importance of the\noccasion, arose with simple dignity, and stood before the mingling\nbrotherhoods. He felt the weight that rested upon him. Every eye turned\nupon him, and every ear leaned to catch the slightest tones of his\nvoice. He said:\n\n God has but one people on the earth. He has given to them but one\n Book, and therein exhorts and commands them to be one family. A union\n such as we plead for--a union of God's people on that one Book--must\n then be practicable. Every Christian desires to stand complete in the\n whole will of God. The prayer of the Savior, and the whole tenor of\n his teaching, clearly show that it is God's will that his children\n should be united. To the Christian, then, such a union must be\n desirable. But an amalgamation of sects is not such a union as Christ\n prayed for and God enjoins. To agree to be one upon any system of\n human invention would be contrary to his will, and could never be a\n blessing to the church or the world: therefore the only union\n practicable or desirable must be based on the Word of God as the only\n rule of faith and practice. There are certain abstruse and speculative\n matters--such as the mode of the divine existence and the ground and\n nature of the atonement--that have for centuries, been themes of\n discussion among Christians. These questions are as far from being\n settled now as they were in the beginning of the controversy. By a\n needless and intemperate discussion of them much feeling has been\n provoked, and divisions have been produced. For several years past I\n have tried to speak on such subjects only in the language of\n inspiration, for it can offend no one to say about those things just\n what the Lord himself has said. In this scriptural style of speech all\n Christians should be agreed. It can not be wrong; it can not do harm.\n If I come to the passage, \"My Father is greater than I,\" I will quote\n it, but will not stop to speculate upon the consubstantial nature of\n the Father and the Son. \"Have this mind in you, which was also in\n Christ Jesus: who existing in the form of God, counted not the being\n on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,\" I will not stop to\n speculate upon the consubstantial nature of the Father and the Son. I\n will not linger to build a theory on such texts, and thus encourage a\n speculative and wrangling spirit among my brethren. I will present\n these subjects only in the words which the Lord has given me. I know\n he will not be displeased if we say just what he has said. Whatever\n opinions about these and similar subjects I may have reached in the\n course of my investigation, if I never distract the church of God with\n them or seek to impose them on my brethren, they will never do the\n world any harm.\n\n I have the more cheerfully resolved on this course, because the gospel\n is a system of facts, commands, and promises; and no deductions or\n inferences from them, however logical or true, forms any part of the\n gospel of Jesus Christ. No heaven is promised to those who hold them,\n and no hell is threatened to those who deny them. They do not\n constitute, singly or together, any items of the ancient and apostolic\n gospel. While there is but one faith, there may be ten thousand\n opinions; and hence if Christians are ever to be one, they must be one\n in faith, and not in opinion. When certain subjects arise, and even in\n conversation or social discussion, about which there is a contrariety\n of opinion and sensitiveness of feeling, speak of them in the words of\n the Scriptures, and no offense will be given, and no pride of doctrine\n will be encouraged. We may even come, in the end, by thus speaking the\n same things, to think the same things.\n\n For several years past I have stood pledged to meet the religious\n world, or any part of it, on the ancient gospel and order of things as\n presented in the words of the Book. This is the foundation on which\n Christians once stood, and on it they can, and ought to, stand again.\n From this I can not depart to meet any man, or set of men, in the\n world. While, for the sake of peace and Christian union, I have long\n since waived the public maintenance of any speculation I may hold, yet\n not one gospel fact, commandment, or promise will I surrender for the\n world. Let us, then, my brethren, be no longer Campbellites or\n Stoneites, New Lights or Old Lights, or any other kind of lights; but\n let us all come to the Bible, and to the Bible alone, as the only book\n in the world that can give us all the light we need.\n\nWhen Smith had concluded, Stone arose, with his heart filled with love\nand hope, said:\n\n I will not attempt to introduce any new topic, but say a few things on\n the subject presented by my beloved brother. Controversies in the\n church sufficiently prove that Christians can never be one in their\n speculations upon these mysterious and sublime subjects, which, while\n they interest the Christian philosopher, can not edify the church.\n After we have given up all creeds and taken the Bible, and the Bible\n alone, as our rule of faith and practice, we met with so much\n opposition that I was led to deliver some speculative discourses upon\n these subjects. But I never preached a sermon of that kind that really\n feasted my heart; I always felt a barrenness of soul afterwards. I\n perfectly accord with Bro. Smith that these speculations should never\n be taken into the pulpit; and when compelled to speak of them at all,\n we should do so in the words of inspiration.\n\n I have not one objection to the ground laid down by him as the true\n Scriptural basis of union among the people of God, and I am willing to\n give him, now and here, my hand.\n\nAnd as he spoke these words, he extended his hand to Smith, and it was\ngrasped by a hand full of the honest pledges of love and fellowship, and\nthe union of these two bodies was virtually accomplished. It was then\nproposed that all who felt willing to unite on the principles enunciated\nshould signify it by giving to each other the hand of fellowship, and at\nonce the audience joyfully joined hands in joyful accord. A song was\nsung, and, amid tears of inexpressible happiness, the union was\nconfirmed.\n\nFollowing this meeting, some further friendly conferences were held by\nmeans of committees, and by arrangement the members of both churches\ncommuned together on February 19, agreeing to consummate the formal and\npublic union of the two churches on the following Lord's day. During the\nweek, however, some began to fear a difficulty in relation to the choice\nof elders and the practical adoption of weekly communion, which they\nthought would require the constant presence of an ordained\nadministrator. The person who generally ministered to the Christian\nChurch at Lexington at this time was Thomas Smith, a man of more than\nordinary abilities and attainments, and long associated with the\nmovement of Barton W. Stone. He was at first, apprehensive that the\nproposed union was premature, and that disagreements might arise in\nregard to questions of church order. The union was therefore postponed,\nand matters remained for a short time stationary, but it soon became\napparent to the Christians that there were no exclusive privileges\nbelonging to the preacher as it concerned the administration of the\nordinances, and Thomas M. Allen, who enjoyed the esteem and confidence\nof the entire brotherhood, induced them to complete the union and to\ntransfer to the new congregation, thus formed under the title of the\n\"Church of Christ;\" the comfortable church house which they had\npreviously held under the designation of \"the Christian Church.\" This\nwise measure secured entire unanimity, and the formal and public union\nwas consummated on February 26, as had been previously arranged, when\nthey again broke bread together, and in that sweet and solemn communion\nagain pledged to each other their brotherly love.\n\nAt Paris, Mr. Allen also effected a union of the two churches and the\nunion at Georgetown, Lexington, and Paris soon led to union throughout\nthe state. This desire for unity was greatly furthered by the efforts of\nJohn Smith and John Rogers, who had been appointed at the Lexington\nmeeting to visit all the churches and hold meetings in conjunction with\neach other. Their work was wonderfully successful throughout Kentucky in\nuniting the two bodies. The effect of this union was very great on those\nwho had never made any profession of religion. Multitudes became\nobedient to the faith throughout Kentucky, and an impetus was given to\nthe cause by the union of the two peoples, which served to illustrate\nthe overwhelming power which the gospel would exert upon the world if\nall the sad divisions among those who claim to follow Christ were\nhealed. The sectarians of Kentucky, who had foretold a speedy disruption\nof the union, were surprised to find their prophecies unfulfilled, and\nnot less grieved at the inroads continually made upon their own power,\nwhich, from this period steadily and rapidly declined. It is worthy of\nmention that at the time these events were happening in Kentucky, the\nspirit of union was prevailing over sectarianism in a number of other\nstates also. Every preacher among them was a missionary and traveling\nevangelist.\n\n\"This union of the Christians and Reformers was not a surrender of one\nparty to the other; it was an agreement of such as already recognized\nand loved each other as brethren to work and worship together. It was\nthe union of those who held alike the necessity of implicit faith and of\nunreserved obedience; who accepted the facts, commands, and promises as\nset forth in the Bible; who conceded the right of private judgment to\nall; who taught that opinions were no part of the faith delivered to the\nsaints; and who were now pledged that no speculative matters should ever\nbe debated to the disturbance of the peace and harmony of the church,\nbut when compelled to speak on controverted subjects, they would adopt\nthe style and language of the Holy Spirit.\" It was an equal and mutual\nresolution to meet on the Bible as on common ground and to preach the\ngospel rather than to propagate opinions.\n\n\n\n\n Transcriber's Notes\n\n\n--Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook\n is public-domain in the country of publication.\n\n--Added some entries to the Table of Contents to correspond to section\n headings.\n\n--Silently corrected a few palpable typos.\n\n--In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by\n _underscores_.","title":"The Church, the Falling Away, and the Restoration","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":95150}