Produced by Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed

                              THE CHURCH,
                           THE FALLING AWAY,
                                  AND
                            THE RESTORATION

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

                        GOSPEL ADVOCATE COMPANY
                            Nashville, Tenn.
                                  1961

                               Copyright
                                  1929
                             By F. L. Rowe

                       Gospel Advocate Co., Owner
                            Nashville, Tenn.

                                CONTENTS

   Preface                                                             3
                                 PART ONE
                                The Church

What Should the Church of the Present Be?                              5

The Church and the Temple                                              9

Infant Baptism                                                        16

Conditions of Membership                                              25

Conditions of Admission                                               25

Agencies                                                              28

Conditions                                                            28

Conditions of Continued Membership                                    29

The Worship                                                           32

The Apostles' Teaching                                                36

The Fellowship                                                        38

Breaking Bread                                                        39

Prayers                                                               40

Singing                                                               40

Polity                                                                42

The Word of God                                                       42

Names                                                                 43

Congregational Independence                                           44

Elders                                                                45

Deacons                                                               47

Evangelists                                                           47
                                 PART TWO
                             The Falling Away

The Falling Away Predicted                                            49

The Falling Away                                                      54

The Confessional                                                      63

Indulgences                                                           67

John Tetzel                                                           69
                                PART THREE
                        The Reformation In Europe

John Wyckliffe                                                        74

Translates the Bible Into English                                     75

William Tyndale                                                       79

Erasmus Arrives in England                                            80

Tyndale Translates the Bible Into English                             82

Goes to Hamburg                                                       84

Bishop of London Supplies Money                                       86

Betrayed and Murdered                                                 88

Martin Luther                                                         89

A Friend Indeed                                                       90

Becomes a Monk                                                        91

Makes a Pilgrimage to Rome                                            94

Professor of Theology at Wittenburg                                   96

The Ninety-five Theses                                                97

Debates With John Eck and Burns the Papal Bull                       100

Before the Diet of Worms                                             103

Under Imperial Ban                                                   110

A Change Comes Over Luther                                           112

Retains What Is Not Forbidden                                        115

Origin of Protestantism                                              116

The Reformation in Switzerland                                       122

The Reformation in England                                           126

Changes Made by Edward VI                                            129

"Bloody Mary"                                                        131

Elizabeth, the Protestant Queen                                      133

The Reformation in Scotland                                          138

The Independents                                                     138

Haldane and Aikman                                                   141

The Scotch Baptists                                                  142

The Separatists                                                      144
                                PART FOUR
                   The Restoration Movement In America

Spiritual Unrest in Many Places                                      148

Barton W. Stone                                                      153

Confronted by Many Difficulties                                      153

Ordained to the Ministry                                             157

Remarkable Meeting at Cane Ridge                                     160

"A Time of Distress"                                                 163

Last Will and Testament                                              166

The Witnesses' Address                                               167

Practices Modified in Many Particulars                               169

"Shakerism"                                                          170

The Work Prospers                                                    171

Thomas Campbell                                                      175

Conflict With the Seceders                                           175

The Declaration and Address                                          180

Alexander Campbell                                                   188

Subject and Act of Baptism Settled                                   188

The Redstone Association                                             195

A Wider Field                                                        199

The Campbell-McCalla Discussion                                      203

Visits the Kentucky Baptists                                         207

John Smith                                                           209

Soul Struggles                                                       210

Desires to Preach                                                    213

Terrible Calamity                                                    215

Preaches at Crab Orchard                                             215

The Christian Baptist                                                217

Fetters Cast Off                                                     218

Resolves to Preach the Simple Gospel                                 220

"Ancient Order"--Baptists in Kentucky                                224

Walter Scott                                                     231-236

A Sincere Truth Seeker                                               232

Turning Point in His Life                                            235

Reformers in Other States--John Wright                               246

Herman Christian Dasher                                              249

The Christians and Reformers Unite                                   251

                                PREFACE

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

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

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

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

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

                                                         J. W. Shepherd.

Birmingham, Ala., July 25, 1929.

                                PART I.
                              The Church.

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

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

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

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

  1. It Must Be a Divine Institution

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

  2. It Must Be Governed Wholly by Divine Authority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              CHAPTER II.
                       THE CHURCH AND THE TEMPLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              CHAPTER III.
                             INFANT BAPTISM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The prophet says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              CHAPTER IV.
                        CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP

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

                        CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                AGENCIES

1. The Holy Spirit.

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

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

                               CONDITIONS

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

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

3. They repented.

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

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

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

                   CONDITIONS OF CONTINUED MEMBERSHIP

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

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

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

                               CHAPTER V.
                              THE WORSHIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                         THE APOSTLES' TEACHING

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

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

Augustus Neander says:

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

                             THE FELLOWSHIP

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

                             BREAKING BREAD

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

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

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

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

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

                                PRAYERS

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

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

                                SINGING

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

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

To the same effect testifies Lyman Coleman:

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

                              CHAPTER VI.
                                 POLITY

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

                            THE WORD OF GOD

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

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

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

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

                                 NAMES

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

                      CONGREGATIONAL INDEPENDENCE

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

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

Concerning the churches of the second century, Mosheim says:

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

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

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

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

                                 ELDERS

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

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

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

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

                                DEACONS

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

                              EVANGELISTS

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

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

                                PART II
                            The Falling Away

                               CHAPTER I.
                       THE FALLING AWAY PREDICTED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              CHAPTER II.
                            THE FALLING AWAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

This testimony is confirmed by Neander, who says:

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning this, I note the following facts:

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

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

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

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

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

"It was during the progress of the struggle with the empire," says
Professor Fisher, "that the papal power may be said to have culminated.
In the eighteen years (1198-1216) in which Innocent III reigned the
papal institution shone forth in full splendor. The enforcement of
celibacy had placed the entire body of the clergy in closer relation to
the sovereign pontiff. The vicar of Peter had become the vicar of God
and of Christ. The idea of a theocracy on earth, in which the pope
should rule in this character, fully possessed the mind of Innocent, who
united to the courage, pertinacity and lofty conceptions of Gregory VII
a broader range of statesmanlike capacity. In his view the two swords of
temporal and ecclesiastical power had both been given to Peter and to
his successors, so that the earthly sovereign derived his prerogative
from the head of the Church. The king was to the pope as the moon to the
sun; a lower luminary shining with borrowed light. Acting on this
theory, he assumed the post of arbiter in the contention of nations, and
claimed the right to dethrone kings at his pleasure." In the Church he
assumed the character of universal bishop, under the theory that all
episcopal power was originally deposited in Peter and his successors,
and communicated through this source to bishops, who were thus only the
vicars of the pope, and might be deposed at will. Being thus lifted up,
he said: "Jesus Christ wills that the kingdom should be priestly, and
the priesthood kingly. Over all he has set me as his vicar upon earth,
so that as before Jesus 'every knee shall bow,' in like manner to his
vicar all shall be obedient, and there shall be one fold and one
shepherd." Moreover, he applied to himself the words of Jesus, "All