BX 7321 .R68 1913 Rowe, John F., 1827-1897. A history of reformatory movement s Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive in 2014 littps://arcliive.org/details/liistoryofreformaOOrowe_0 A HISTTORY OF Reformatory Movements, RESULTING IN A RESTORATION OF THE i^POSTOLIC CHURCH; TO WHICH IS APPENDED A HISTORY OF TH£ NINETEEN GENERAL CHURCH COUNCILS, ALSO A History of All Innovations, from ths Third Century Down. By JOHN F. ROWE. NINTH EDITION (Revised and Enlarged.) F. CINCINNATI: L. ROWE, PUBLISHER. 1913. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 18S9, by JOHN F. ROWE, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D. C. PREFACE. In preparing this work for the public, we have drawn from the most reliable and distinguished authorities eitant. We have prepared the work with much labor and patient research. The present work is the condensation of many volumes. For authorities, we have depended on such standard works as McClintock and Strong's Encyclopedia, Ency- clopedia- Britannica, Chambers' Encyclopedia., Prof. George P. Fisher's History of the Reformation, Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Neander's History of the Christian Religion and Church, and Prof. R. Richardson's Memoirs of Alexander Campbell. In delineating the devel- opmeat of the great apostasy from the original apostolic order of things, in describing the successive Protestant reformations, in setting forth the restoration and identification of the Church of Christ, as accomplished through the labors of Alexander Campbell and his coad- jutors, and in giving a brief history of the nineteen Ecumenical Church Councils, we have followed the order of events as closely as it was possible to be done. We have aimed to give places, dates, and authorities, and corroborating testimony from disinterested parties. In a word, if there is any reliability in history, it will be found in the following pages. We have aimed to present a systematic compendium of Reformatory Movements, and as such we ask our readers to receive our work, bating all imperfections, as purely a labor cf love. THE AUTHOR. INTRODUCTION. Fob many years the writer has himself felt the pressing need of a work of this character. While young in the ministry, and compara- tively poor, in possession of very few books, and having no access to large libraries, he continually felt himself hampered by the absence of books of reference, and felt himself crippled in his public ministra- tions because he could not find time, in his struggles to live above want, to ransack the pages of history in quest of the desired informa- tion. The general reader needs just such a work as this, who, in a moment, by referring to the index, can find what he wants and satisfy himself. The preacher needs it for easy reference, and especially the traveling evangelist, who can not pack a lot of books with him. The author of this work, having frequently desired a help of this kind, which he could carry with him, to aid him both in speaking and writ- ing for the press, came to the conclusion that others might be greatly benefited by the matter contained in it. The author has for a long time had such a work in contemplation. It is not only intended for the Disciples of Christ, but it is also prepared with a view of circula- ting it among the various denominations, and with the purpose of inciting the independent and untrammeled thinkers in the denomina- tions to investigate the pages of history to see if these things are so. Within the compass of this work, we have aimed to give a connected view of the Reformatory Movements from Martin Luther down to the / times of the great reformer, Alexander Campbell. The reader will discover the fact, that while such illustrious reformers as Luther, Zwingli, Melancthon, Calvin, Knox and Wesley only aimed at re-forming existing abuses and immoralities in the Churcli, Campbell sought the complete restoraiion of apostolic principles and practices, (V) vi INTRODUCTION. and, having determined upon a work of that character, did actually raise up a body of people identical with primitive Christians, both in faith and practice. The plan of the work is as foUows : 1. A brief statement of the primitive order of things. 2. A sketch of the apostasy from the third century down to the times of Luther, or to the Reformation of the sixteenth century. 3. A connected history of the Protestant period, which embraces the efforts made at reforma- tion during the space of three hundred years. 4. The Restoration of the Apostolic Church. 5. A history of the nineteen Ecumenical Church Councils — the study of the proceedings of which is highly instructive and interesting, they serying as a sort of spiritual thermom- eter of the troublous times of the Church, as the Church was manipu- lated by princes and priests. The yarious decrees of successive councils will show how kings and princes were deposed, the rivalries of ambitious men in Church and State, the origin of image worship, auricular confession, penance, the mass, celibacy, purgatory, prayers for the dead, transubstantiation, etc. The subjects we have enumer- ated should be studied as they are not studied in these days of flashy literature and fast living. There is entirely too much superficial read- ing done, even by ministers of the gospel, who should be in possession of a general knowledge of church history, without which they will feel themselves more or less annoyed and crippled in their ministerial work. People who profess to be reformers can not very well progress as reformers unless they have an intelligent view of the situation, as we have outlined it in this work. The general reader, engaged in secular employments, who has not the time to explore the pages of many volumes, and not even time to consult books of reference, wil' we feel confident, find this work of great advantage to him ; that it w /( aid him very much in ascertaining the facts of history, and furaish him with facts and data with which to make just comparison between truth and error, between what God has decreed, and what man has invented, and especially show him the difference between reforming imperfect church organizations and restoring the Cb''.. t25 History of Infant Baptism 432 Origin of Infant Baptism 438 Validity of Baptism 444 History of Sprinkling 451 History of Sprinkling Continued 457 History OF Infant Baptism Continued 463 THIRD PART. THE ARGUMENT OF CONCESSION. Immersion the Only Apostolic Baptism 471 Pedobaptist Authorities 477 Testimony of the Encyclopedias 484 Testimony of the Commentators 488 Testimony of the Commentators Continued 493 SUPPLEMENTARY. Infant Baptism 499 .Baptism of Infants 508 — OF — Reformatory Movements. FIRST PART. HISTORY OP Reformatory Moyemeuts. THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. One essential feature of Protestantism was the aboli- tion of the authority of the hierarchical order. In its mature form, as all history attests, the Reformation of the sixteenth century was a rejection of Papal and priestly authority. As antecedent to the rise of the Reformation, we propose to write on the origin and progressive development of the hierarchical system. The Papacy began by invading the personal rights and pre- rogatives of the disciples of Christ, who stood upon a common plane of equality, and by instituting a media- torial priesthood, which, setting aside the office of the great Mediator, assumed to mediate between God and man. It was an invasion of that order of heaven, as recorded in the New Testament, which gave liberty to the soul and direct access to the Heavenly Father through the one High Priest of our salvation. The rise of sacer- dotalism destroyed the equality of discipleship. The disciples of Christ, under apostolic teaching, formed a community of brethren, who were associated upon a uroad basis of equality, all of them being illuminated and 2 THE PRIMITIVE CHUKCH. directed and united in the one Spirit. Their organiza- tion under Christ was a marvel of simplicity, and very unlike that hierarchical system which in subsequent times overshadowed the Church of the living God — very dissimilar from the individual congregation where all the members served each other in love and faith. The New Testament records the fact that all Chris- tians, in a given locality, were united in one society, or ecclesia, the old Greek term for an assembly legally called and authorized. In each society there was a board of pastors, indifferently called elders, presbyters — a name taken from the synagogue — or interchange- ably styled bishops, overseers, a name given by the Greeks to persons charged with a guiding oversight in civil administration. In the election of these pastors — feeders of the flock — the body of disciples enjoyed a controlling voice, although as long as the apostles re- mained, their suggestions or appointments would natu- rally be accepted. These officers did not give up, at first, their secular employments ; they were not even, at the outset, intrusted as a peculiar function with the business of teaching, which was free to all, and especially imposed upon a class of persons who seemed designated by their various gifts for this work. The elders, with the deacons, whose business it was to l©ok after the poor and to perform kindred duties, were the officers to whom each little separate community committed the lead in the management of its affairs. But, as we ap- proach the close of the second century, we find marked changes ; some of them of a portentous and dangerous character, and as already indicative of the fact that the apostasy had set in. The enlargement of the jurisdic- tion of bishops, by extending it over dependent churches REFOKMATOKV MOVEMENTS. 3 in the neighborhood of the towns and cities, and the multiplying of church officers, were innovations signifi- cant of coming evils. By degrees church officers, by assuming powers which did not belong to them, grew into a distinct order, and placed themselves above the " laity " as the appointed medium of conveying to them the grace of God. A church in the capital of a prov- ince, with its bishop, easily acquired a precedence over the other churches and bishops in the same district, and thus the metropolitan system grew up. A higher grade of eminence was accorded to the bishops and churches of the principal cities, such as Rome, Alexander and Ephesus; and thus we have the germs of a more extended hierarchical dominion. Even as early as the latter part of the second century, the Church had passed into the condition of a visible, organized commonwealth. We find Irenaeus, who was bishop of Lyons from 177 to 202, uttering the famous dictum that where the Church is — m.eaning the visible body with its clergy and sacra- ments— there is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church. To be cut off from this visible Church is to be separated from Christ. By the clergy of that period, this'Church was made the door of access to the favor of God. We can also readily account for the importance that began to be attached to tradi- tion; for the defenders of the true Church of Christ against the corrupting encroachments of gnosticism, naturally fell back on the historical evidence afforded by the presence and testimony of the leading churches, which the apostles themselves had planted. Irenaeus and Tertullian (the latter a presbyter at Carthage, where he died between the years 220 and 240) direct the in- -quirer to go to Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, to the places 4 THE PRIMITIVE CHUKCH. where the apostles had taught, and ascertain whetlver the novel speculations of the time could justly claim the sanction of the first disciples of Christ, or had been transmitted from them. Says a distinguished author : " It is the pre-eminence of Rome, as the custodian of traditions, that Irenjeus means to assert in a noted passage (lib. III. iii. 2) in which he exalts the Church." It was not long until the unity of the Church, as a visible, towering organization, was realized in the unity of the sacerdotal body. It was but a natural and logical sequence to seek and find a head for this traditionized and secularized body ; and where should it be found except in mystic Rome, the capital of the world, the seat of the predominating Church, where Paul had suffered martyrdom, and where many believed (but erroneously) that Peter also perished as a martyr. After the sacerdotal order had raised Peter to be chief of the apostles, and when, near the close of the second century, the idea was suggested and became current that Peter had served as bishop of the Roman Church, a strong foundation was laid in the minds of credulous men for a recognition of the primacy of that Church and of its chief pastor. The first men- tion of Peter as bishop of Rome is found in the Clemen- tine Homilies, which were composed in the latter part of the second century. The habit of thus deferring to the See of Rome, as the center of ecclesiastical authority, so far advances upon the credulity of the people, that in the middle of the third century we find Cyprian, whose zeal for episcopal independence would not tolerate the subjection of one bishop to another, still speaking of that See as the chief source of sacerdotal unity. Rome was a mighty and a glorious city. The eyes of all REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 5 aiations were intently fixed upon it, as the metropolis of wealth and splendor and political power. It was an easy thing to transfer this awe and reverence to the Church which had its seat in the Eternal City. Leo I., with arrogant pretensions, claimed that the Roman Em- pire was built with reference to Christianity, and that Rome, for this reason, was chosen for the bishopric of the chief of the apostles. Leo flourished in the fifth century. UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE. The accession of Constantine (311) found the Church so firmly organized under its hierarchy that it could not be absolutely merged in the State, as might have been the result had its constitution been different. But under him and his successors, the supremacy of the State, with a large control of ecclesiastical affairs, was maintained by the emperors. General councils, for ex- ample, were convoked by them and presided over by their representatives, and conciliary decrees published as laws of the Empire. The Roman bishops felt it to be an honor to be judged only by the Emperor. In the closing period of imperial history, the emperors favored the ecclesiastical primacy of the Roman See, as a bond of unity in the Empire. Political disorders and conflict- ing interests tended to elevate the position of the Roman bishop, especially when he was a person of more than ordinary talents and energy. Leo the Great (zi40-46i), the first, perhaps, who had conferred upon him the title of Pope, proved himself a pillar of strength in the midst of tumult and anarchy. His conspicuous services, as in shielding Rome from the incursions of barbarians and protecting its inhabitants, facilitated the exercise of a spiritual jurisdiction that stretched not only over Italy, but as far as Gaul and Africa. To him was given by Valentinian III. (445) an imperial declaration which made him supreme over the Western Church, or the Church of Rome. We can not follow the alternations (6) REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 7 of the priestly powers of Rome, nor consume space by depicting the varying fortunes of popes and princes. We can record the fact that in the fifth century the fall of the Western Empire increased the authority of the bishop of Rome ; we can speak of the spread of Moham- medanism from Africa and Spain into Europe ; of the alliance of the Papacy with the Franks in 750; of the rescue of the Papacy by Pepin and Charlemagne, and of the coronation of the latter by the hands of the Pope, in the Basilica of St. Peter, on Christmas Day, 800. Taking advantage of the conflicts and disorders in the empire of Charlemagne, and seizing the opportunity of his death, which created an era of political strife and unrest, the Roman bishops rapidly began to increase in power. It was in this period that the False or Pseudo- Isodorian Decretals appeared. These false decretals introduced principles of ecclesiastical law which made the Church dependent on the State, and elevated the Roman See to a position unknown to preceding ages. The immunity and high prerogatives of bishops, the exaltation of primates, as the servile tools of the popes, above metropolitans who were slavishly dependent upon secular rulers, and the ascription of the highest legisla- tive and judicial functions to the Roman Pontiff, were some of the leading and characteristic features of this spurious collection, which found its way into the codes of the canon law, and which radically modified the ancient ecclesiastical system. These false decretals first appeared about the middle of the ninth century, and they only needed a pope of sufficient talents and energy to give practical effect to such pernicious principles ; and such an instrument appeared in the person of Nich- olas I., between the years 858 and 867, Availing 8 UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE. himself of a favorable opportunity, he brought Lothair II., king of Lorraine, under the censure of the Church, whom, in a case of matrimony, he compelled to submit to the decrees of the Papacy, while at the same time he deposed the archbishops who had endeavored to thwart his purpose. At the same time, Nicholas humbled Hincmar, the powerful archbishop of Rheims, who had disregarded the appeal which one of his bishops had made to Rome. According to Baronius, a distinguished Roman Cath- olic annalist, the anarchical condition into which the Empire ultimately fell, left the Papacy, for a century and a half, the prey of Italian factions, by the agency of which the papal office was reduced to a lower point of moral degradation than it ever reached before or since. This period of moral and social debasement — during a considerable portion of which time harlots disposed of the papal office, and their paramours wore the tiara — was interrupted by the intervention of the German sov- ereigns, Otho I. and Otho II.; with the first of whom the Holy Roman Empire, in the sense in which the name is used in subsequent ages, the secular counter- part of the Papacy, derives its origin. The pontiffs preferred the sway of the emperors to that of the lawless Italian barons, says Von Raumer. This dark period, in which nearly all traces of apostolic usages disappeared, was terminated by Henry III., who appeared in Italy at the head of an army, and, in 1046, at the Synod of Sutri, which he had convoked, dethroned three rival popes, and raised to the vacant office one of his own bishops. The imperial ofifice had passed into the hands of the German kings, and they, like their Carlovingian predecessors, whose acts in history we have purposely omitted, rescued the Paoacy from destruction. CONFLICT BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE. When we reach the age of Hildebrand (1073-1085), we find plots and counterplots the order of the day. While this pretended refornner apparently sought a thorough reformation of morals and a restoration of ecclesiastical order and sacerdotal discipline, he under- took at the same time to subordinate the State to the Church, and to subject the Church, such as it was, to the absolute authority of the Pope. The course pursued by Hildebrand, and by aspiring pontiffs who succeeded him, in the course of time resulted in an open conflict between the Papacy and the Empire. Here follows a severe and persistent contest, in which the Papacy gain a decided advantage. That the Emperor was commis- sioned to preside over the temporal affairs of men, while it was left for the Pope to guide and govern them in things spiritual, was a criterion too vague for defining the limits of temporal and spiritual jurisdiction. The co-ordination, the equilibrium of the civil and ecclesias- tical powers, was a relation with which, as any one might know, who is conversant with the history of despotic governments, neither party would be content. It was a struggle on both sides for universal monarchy. The apostolic order of things now completely fades out of view. The popes, by continual strategy and rare diplomacy, gained an ascendency over Western Europe, and, for successive years, the Pope everywhere was the acknowledged head of Latin Christianity. Sometimes (9) 10 CONFLICT BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE. the Roman pontiffs, when they saw an opportunity of centrahzing and consolidating their system of spiritual despotism, became the champions then, as they have frequently since, as suits their base designs, of popular freedom. Acting in the role of Mephistopheles, they can, in turn, become republicans, monarchists, demo- crats, autocrats and imperialists, if by such transforma- tion they can subserve the interests of the Papacy. The end sanctifies the means. The humiliation of Henry IV. in 1077, whom Hildebrand kept waiting during three winter days, in the garb of a penitent, in the yard of the castle of Canossa, gives evidence of the supremacy of the Papacy in the Medieval Age. The Worms Con- cordat which Calixtus II. concluded with Henry V. in 1 122, and the acknowledgment which Frederick Bar- barossa made of his sin and error to Alexander III. at Venice, in 1 177, after a long contest for imperial prerog- atives, are facts which furnish evidence of the triumph of the Papacy. The triumph of the Papacy appeared complete when Gregory X. (1271-1276) directed the electoral princes to choose an emperor within a given interval, and threatened, in case they refused compli- ance with the mandate, to appoint, in conjunction with his cardinals, an emperor for them ; and when Rudolph of Hapsburg, whom they proceeded to select, acknowl- edged in the most unreserved and subservient manner the Pope's supremacy. These are strange developments of church affairs, compared with the origin of Christianity and primitive gospel simplicity. The facts that we glean and scrap from the Dark Ages, are the full fruitage of the work- ings of the "mystery of iniquity" alluded to by the apostle Paul. It is impossible to furnish the details of REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. II history within our Hmited space, but it is our purpose to give a connected view of the rise and development of the Papacy, and to represent in as. few words as possible the ruin of the ancient Church, and the subsequent growth of an apostate Church. And this we do in order to show the relation which Romanism sustains to Protestantism, and the relation which we sustain to both these in our plea for a perfectly restored Christianity. That there was a remnant of the true worshipers of God found here and there during the Dark Ages, such as the Nestorians, is a pleasing fact well established in history ; but that nearly all traces of the primitive order of things, as established by the apostles of Jesus Christ, are lost sight of in the raging conflicts of rival princes and aspiring ecclesiastics, both of which powers, as they alternated repeatedly between victory and defeat, crushed down the liberties of the people and despoiled them of their personal rights, are facts patent and intelligible to all readers of history. We wish the people of this generation, as well as the people of succeeding genera- tions, to know the reasons why we stand apart from all denominations. Papal and Protestant, and why we pro- pose to stand only upon apostolic ground. CULMINATION OF THE PAPACY. From the best authorities we have consulted, we learn •that it was during the progress of the struggle with the Empire that the Papal powers may be said to have cul- minated. In the period between 1198 and 1216, in which Innocent III. reigned, the Papal despotism shone forth in all its ecclesiastical splendor. The enforcement of celibacy had placed the entire body of the clergy in a 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 presumptuously rule in this character, fully possessed the mind of Innocent, who, having profited by the bold- ness and persistency and political finesse of Gregory VII., excelled the latter in diplomacy and political strategy. He worked himself up to believe that the two swords of temporal and ecclesiastical power had both been given to Peter and his successors, so that the earthly sovereign derived his prerogative from the great Head of the Church. The Pope was constituted to shine as the great luminary of the world, and the king or civil ruler could only shine from borrowed light. Acting on this theory — the consummation of spiritual despotism — Innocent assumed the position of arbiter in the conflicts of nations, and claimed the right to dethrone kings and princes at his pleasure. We have not space to give examples of his despotism, with which the pages of history are disgraced. (12) KEFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 13 In the Church he assumed the character of universal bishop, based upon the theory that all episcopal power was originally deposited in Peter and in his successors, and communicated through this source to bishops, who were in this manner constituted the only vicars of the Pope, and who might at any time be deposed at the will or beck of the Pope. To him belonged all legisla- tive authority, councils having merely a deliberate power, while the right to convoke them and to ratify or annul their proceedings belonged exclusively to him. He alone, in the role ot an absolute autocrat, was exempt from all law, and might dispense with them in the case of others. Even the doctrine of Papal infalli- bility, which brought forth its legitimate fruit in the reign of Pope Pius IX., was discovered in the writings of Thomas Aquinas, the most eminent theologian of that age. As the feudal system gradually gave way to political monarchy, so the independency of the churches was absorbed and concentrated in the Pope. The right to confirm the appointment of all bishops, the right even to nominate bishops and to dispose of all bene- fices, the exclusive right of absolution, canonization and dispensation, the right to.assess the churches — such were some of the iniquitous prerogatives, for the enforcement of which Papal legates, clothed with limitless powers, were commissioned to penetrate all the countries of Europe, in order to override the authority of bishops and of local ecclesiastical tribunals. About this time originated the famous mendicant orders of St. Francis and St. Dominic, from which beggarly institutions there came forth a swarm of itinerant preachers, who, as the pets of the Pope, were very intimately associated with his Pontifical Highness, and who were ever ready, as 14 CULMINATION OF THE PAPACY. pliant tools, to defend Papal prerogatives and Papal extortions against whatever opposition might arise from the secular clerg}'. Insinuating themselves, serpent- like, within the walls of the universities of Europe, they defined and defended, in lectures replete with subtilties and sophistries, and by a pretended array of scholastic wisdom, all the usurpations of the Papacy. Conflicts between popes and temporal princes contin- ued. The Papal assertions in regard to the two swords, the supremacy of the ecclesiastical over the secular power, and the subjection of every living soul to the Pope, who judges all and is judged by none, were met by a united and determined resistance on the part of the French people. When Boniface VIII. summoned the French clergy to Rome to sit in judgment on the acts of the king, the summons aroused a storm of indig- nation. The Papal Bull, snatched from the hand of the legate, was publicly burned in Notre Dame, on the nth of February, 1302. The insulted clergy of France flatly denied the proposition that in secular affairs the Pope stands above the king. The prestige of the Papacy now began to wane rapidly. There was an expansion of knowledge in every direction. Political reformers came to the front. Literature began to spread, and poets and jurists, of learning and distinction, began to exert a powerful influence in the direction of civil and religious libert}'. Then comes the period of the Babylonian captivity, or the long residence of the Pope at Avignon — called the Babylonian captivity, because it continued about as long as the captivity of the Jews in ancient Babylon — and the period of the great schism, when, during a great part of this period, the Papacy was enslaved to France, and served the behests of the REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 15 French Court. Various forms of ecclesiastical oppres- sion followed, which involved German}', England and other countries in humiliation. The revenues of the Court at Avignon were supplied by means of extortions and usurpations which had hitherto been without paral- lel. Every form of extortion was resorted to for replen- ishing the Papal treasury. France was willing, as long as the Papacy remained her tool, to indulge the popes in extravagant assumptions of authority. Avignon be- came the headquarters of an extremely luxurious and profligate court — a cesspool of vice — the boundless im- morality of which has been vividly depicted by Petrarch, who himself was an eye-witness to the shameful abom- inations. Then arose the great battle of the fourteenth century, between the Monarchists and the Papists, when such celebrated writers as Marsilius of Padua, William of Occam and Dante, as the defenders of the " Monarchists," vigorously denounced the presumptions of the Papacy. "These bold writings attacked the collective hierarchy in all its fundamental principles ; they inquired, with a sharpness of criticism before un- known, into the nature of the priestly office ; they restricted the notion of heresy, to which the Church had given so wide an extension ; they appealed, finally, to the Holy Scriptures, as the only valid authority in matters of faith. As fervent monarchists, these theolo- gians subjected the Church to the State. Their heret- ical tendencies announced a new process in the minds of men, in which the unity of the Catholic Church went down." During the echism which ensued upon the election of Urban VI., in 1378, there was presented before Christendom the spectacle of rival popes imprecating curses upon each other ; each with his court to be i6 CULMINATION OF THE PAPACY. maintained by taxes and contributions, which had to be largely in-^ creased on account of the division. When men were compelled to choose between rival claimants of the office, it was inevitable that there should arise a still deeper investigation into the origin and grounds of Papal authority. Inquirers reverted to the earlier ages of the Church, in order to find both the causes and the cure of the dread- ful evils under which Christian society was suffering. More than one jurist and theologian called attention to the ambition of the popes for secular rule and to their oppressive domination over the Church, as the prime fountain of this frightful disorder. — "History of tlie Reforrma-- 7) i8 THE PAPACY AND EPISCOPACY. reformers to push through their measures without a pope, and the failure of Alexander V. to redeem the pledges which he had made them prior to his election. Moreover, the schism continued, with three popes in the room of two. The Council of Constance began under the fairest auspices. The resolve to vote by na- tions was a significant sign of a new order of things, and crushed the design of the flagitious Pope, John XXIII., to control the assembly by the preponderance of Italian votes. Solemn declarations of the supremacy and authority of the Council were adopted, and were car- ried out in the actual deposition of the infamous Pope. But the plans of reform were mostly wrecked on the same rock on which they had broken at Pisa. A pope must be elected; and Martin V., once chosen, by skill- ful management and by separate arrangements with different princes, was unable to undo, to a great ex- tent, the salutary work of the Council, but before its adjournment he reasserted the very doctrine of Papal superiority which the Council had repudiated. The substantial failure of this Council, the most august eccle- siastical assemblage of the Middle Ages, to achieve reforms which thoughtful and good men everywhere deemed indispensable, was a proof that some more radi- cal means of reformation would have to be adopted. But another grand effort in the same direction was put forth : and the Council of Basle, notwithstanding that it adopted numerous measures of a beneficent character, which were acceptable to the Catholic nations, had, at last, no better issue; for most of the advantages that were granted to them, and the concessions that were made by the popes, especially to Germany, they con- trived afterward, by adroit diplomacy, to recall." REFORMATORY MOVLMENTS. 19 History gives abundant evidence of the fact that no good ever came from human councils which undertook to interfere with and modify the doctrine and govern- ment of the Church of Christ. Only evil, and unmiti- gated evil, ever emanated from such a source. The fifteenth century was characterized by national rivalries, and by the plots and counterplots of aspiring princes, who served the Papal cause, or compelled the Papacy to serve them, as self-interest might dictate. It is diffi- cult to tell which exercised the most chicanery, and which practiced the most intrigue, or which sank to the lowest depths to gain power — the civil or ecclesiastical powers. One thing is certain, and that is, that selfish- ness reigned supreme. In illustration of this statement, it is recorded that Innocent VIII., besides advancing the fortunes of seven illegitimate children, and waging two wars with Naples, received an annual tribute from the Sultan for detaining his brother and rival in prison, instead of sending him to lead a force against the Turks, the enemies and despoilers of Christendom. Alexander VI., whose deep depravity recalls the dark days of the Papacy in the tenth century, busied himself in founding a principality for his favorite son, that monster of ini- quity, Caesar Borgia, and in amassing treasures, by base and cruel means, for the support of the licentious Roman Court. He is said to have died of the poison which he had caused to be prepared for a wealthy car- dinal, who bribed the head cook to set it before the Pope himself. If Julius II. satisfied the extortionate demands of his relatives in a more peaceable way, he still found his enjoyment in carnal war and savage con- quest, and made it his chief occupation to the States of the Church. According to the testimony of Gieseler, 20 THK PAPACV AND EPISCOPACY. the eminent German historian, he organized alliances and defeated one enemy after another, forcing Venice to submit to his outrages, and not hesitating, old man as he was, to take the field himself, in the time of win- ter. In 15 10, having brought in the French, and having joined the League of Cambray for the sake of subduing Venice, he called to his aid the Venetians for the expul- sion of the French. The Church, and especially the priesthood of Rome, had become thoroughly demoral- ized ; and this was the condition of things on th^ *ve of the Reformation of the sixteenth century. LEO X. AND LUTHER. At the opening of the Reformation, Leo X. was made a cardinal at the age of thirteen, and elected Pope at the age of thirty-seven. He was more '• familiar with the fables of Greece, and the delights of the poets, than with the history of the Church and the doctrine of the Fathers." He indulged in profane studies, and gave much of his time to hunting, jesting and pageants. He sported in a gay and luxurious court, and made religion subordinate to the fascinations of literature, art and music. Vast sums of money, which his religious sub- jects were obliged to contribute, were lavished upon his relatives, and the historian Ranke has characterized his habits of life as "a sort of intellectual sensuality." Luther began his Reformation in the reign of this cold- hearted Pope. "During the Middle Ages," says Coleridge, "the Papacy was another name for a con- federation of learned men in the west of Europe against the barbarians and ignorance of the times. The Pope was the chief of this confederacy ; and, so long as he retained that character, his power was just and uTesist- ible. It was the principal means of preserving lor us and for all posterity all that we now have of the illumin- ation of past ages. But as soon as the Pope made a separation between his character as premier clerk in Christendom and as a secular prince — as soon as he began to squabble for towns and castles— then he at once broke the charm and gave birth to a revolution. (21) 22 LEO X. AND LUTHER. Everywhere, but especially tliroughout the north of Europe, the breach of feeling and sympathy went on widening ; so that all Germany, England, Scotland and other countries, started, like giants out of their sleep, at the first blast of Luther's trumpet." — Table Talk, July 24, 1832. Coleridge may have seen a special providence in the rise of the Papacy, as a "confederation of learned men in the west of Europe ; " but we can not see the special providence. We see the Papacy, with all its worldly wisdom, sagacity, duplicity, diplomacy; with all its arrogance, assumption of power, corruptions and abomi- nations. We also see its downfall at the approach of Bible knowledge, apostolic teaching and popular edu- cation. The age immediately preceding the Lutheran Refor- mation was characterized by the dogmatic system, as elaborated by the schoolmen from the abundant mate- rials furnished by tradition and sanctioned by the mon- grel Church ; which constituted a vast body of mystic and scholastic doctrine, and which every man of the least religious pretensions was bound to accept in all particulars, or come under the ban of excommunication. The polity of the mongrel Church lodged all ecclesiasti- cal rule in the hands of a superior class, the besotted priesthood, who were commissioned as the indispensable almoners of divine grace. The worship centered in the sacrifice of the mass, a constantly repeated miracle wrought by the hands of the wily and winsome priest. Justification by meritorious works, without respect to character and a godly life, was stereotyped into a wicked dogma, which was eatmg out the vitals of all religious life. Human merit was substituted for the mercy of REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 23 God. A religion of external performances, which con- sisted in quantity rather than in quality, and various modes of pretentious abstinences, with the institutions of monasticism and the celibacy of the priesthood, were prominent features in the existing order of things. According to UUman {Reformatoren von der Reformatioii), the masses, pilgrimages, fastings, flagellations, prayers to saints, homage to their relics and images, and similar features so prominent in medieval mysticism, which passed as piety, illustrate the essential character of the times. " The forerunners of the Reformation have been prop- erly divided," says Professor Fisher, quoting from Dr. Ullman, "into two classes. The first of them consists of the men who, in the quiet path of theological research and teaching, or by practical exertions in behalf of a contemplative, spiritual tone of piety, were undermining the traditional system. The second embraces names who are better known, for the reason that they attempted to carry out their ideas practically in the way of effecting ecclesiastical changes. The first class are more obscure, but were not less influential in preparing the ground for the Reformation. Protestantism was a return to the Scriptures as the authentic source of Chris- tian knowledge, and to the principle that salvation, that inward peace, is not from the Church or from human works, ethical or ceremonial, but through Christ alone, received by the soul in an act of trust. Whoever, whether in the chair of theology, in the pulpit, through the devotional treatise, or by fostering the study of languages and of history, or in perilous combat with ecclesiastical abuses, drew the minds of men to the Scriptures and to a more spiritual conception of religion, was, in a greater or less measure, a reformer before the Reformation." THE DAWN OF THE REFORMATION. From the twelfth century down to the dawn of the Reformation, there were found here and there, especially in Southern France and Northern Italy, " anti-sacerdotal sects," who indulged in vehement invectives against the shameful immoralities of the priesthood and their bane- ful usurpations of power. Among these sects in South- ern France, we may mention the noted Albigenses, who vigorously opposed the authority of ecclesiastical tradi- tion and of the hierarchy, but who were finally crushed out of existence by means of a bloody and heartless crusade, instigated by Innocent III., and which, through his agency, was followed up by the iniquitous Inquisi- tion, which here had its origin. " Catharists " was a general name applied to these anti-sacerdotal sects. Succeeding the Albigenses, there appear in ii/O, the Waldenses, under the leadership of Peter Waldo, of Lyons. Because of their attachment to the Scriptures, and of their fiery opposition to clerical usurpation and profligacy, they also became forerunners of the Refor- mation. Disaffection and unrest, and a stubborn resist- ance against the aggressions of the priesthood, were experienced in all quarters, especially among the poor and dependent classes. The Inquisition had done its bloody work in the ex- tirpation of all such heretics as the Albigenses and the Waldenses. More radical and influential reformers have now moved to the front, such as Huss, Jerome of Prague (24) REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 25 and John Wickliffe. But the theologians of Paris made themselves infamous and almost outstripped their Papal antagonists, during the sessions of the Council of Con- stance, in their violent treatment of Huss, and in the alacrity with which they condemned him and Jerome to the stake. One hundred and fifty years before the days of Luther, Wickliffe proved himself a formidable antag- onist to the pretensions of the Papacy. He anticipated the grand Reformation with a knowledge of the religious situation, with a perspicuity of genius, and by apostolic blows of radical reform, that shook the very foundations of the Papal edifice. He set aside Papal decrees by a direct appeal to the Holy Scriptures. He denies tran- substantiation ; he boldly asserts that in the primitive Church there were only two classes of church officers ; denies that there is scriptural authority for the rites of confirmation and extreme unction ; advocates non-inter- ference on the part of the clergy with civil affairs and temporal authority ; condemns auricular confession ; holds that the exercise of the power to bind and loose is ■of no effect, unless it conforms to the doctrine of Christ ; is opposed to the multiplied ranks of the clergy — popes, cardinals, patriarchs, monks, canons, et al.; repudiates the doctrine of indulgences and supererogatory merits, the doctrine of the excellence of poverty, as that was held and as it lay at the foundation of the mendicant orders ; and he sets himself agamst artificial church music, pictures in worship, consecration with the use of oil and salt, canonization, pilgrimages, church asylums for criminals, and the celibacy of the clergy. These facts are all clearly authenticated by reliable historians. The followers of Wickliffe were called Lollards. It is a remarkable fact that Wickliffe predicted that from the 26 THE DAWN OF THE REFORMATION. monks themselves there would arise men who would abandon their false interpretations of Scriptures, and, returning to the apostolic order of things, would recon- struct the Church in the spirit of Paul. The work of reform as inaugurated by Wickliffe, we may remark, in passing, presents many features resembling the work of reform as inaugurated by Thomas and Alexander Camp- bell. The latter was an ardent admirer of the illustrious Wickliffe. It was in the Council of Constance that Huss asserted the right of private judgment. This was going behind the Council ; and for his temerity he was commanded to retract his avowals of opinion, which he refused to do until he could be convinced by argument, and by citations from the Scriptures, that his sentiments were erroneous. The right of private judgment became one of the prominent and distinctive principles of Prot- estantism. Other reformers sprang up, whom we can not mention, such as the distinguished and eloquent Savonarola, who lived at Florence, where he carried on his work of moral reform, until his death in 1498. He exposed the demoralized condition of the mongrel Church, and for laying bare the rottenness of the Papal system, he forfeited his life under the flagitious Alex- ander VI., but predicted a coming reformation. THE MYSTICS. The Reformation of the sixteenth century was prd ceded by a school of men called Mystics, of whom the noted Anselm was the father. The characteristic of the Mystics is the sensation of feeling, rather than of believ- ing ; the preference of intuition to logic; the quest for knowledge through light imparted to feeling, rather than by processes of the intellect ; the indwelling of God in the soul, elevated to a holy calm by the con- sciousness of his presence ; absolute self-renunciation and the absorption of the human will into the divine ; silent meditation and the ecstatic mood. The character- istic spirit of this mystical school, which was a recoil from dogmatic theology, and from^the extravagant use of outward sacraments and ceremonies, was illustrated by Thomas a Kempis, in his celebrated work, entitled " The Imitation of Christ," which it is said has probably had a larger circulation than any other book except the Bible. Luther himself was more or less influenced by the doctrines of the Mystics, especially by the writings of John Tauler and Thomas a Kempis. The Reformation was preceded by a revival of learn- ing— a new era of intellectual culture — in which three eminent writers — Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio — made themselves distinguished. Scholasticism, which for sev- eral hundred years had been dominant in the medieval ages, gradually gave way as books began to multiply, and as the Scriptures continued to be translated into the (27) 28 THE MYSTICS. native languages of the people. The Schoolmen and tlie Mystics began to retire to the background imme- diately upon the introduction of the art of printing, and as distinguished scholars, coming to the front, began to test the doctrinal and ecclesiastical system of that age by a translation of the Old and New Testament from the original, the original fountain of truth having been sup- pressed by the Papacy, and the mass of the people deprived of the key of knowledge. The gigantic fabric of Latin Christianity, that vast receptacle of idolatry and pagan superstition, began to quake at the near approach of intelligent faith and reason, and of civil and religious liberty. The Papacy could no longer endure the light of investigation. But the revival of literature in Italy was, to a considerable extent, the revival of paganism. " Even an Epicurean infidelity," says Professor Fisher in his History of tJie Reformation, "as to the foundation of religion, which was caught from Lucretius and from the dialogues of Cicero, infected a wide circle of literary men. Preachers, in a strain of florid rhetoric, would associate the names of Greek and Roman heroes v. ith those of the apostles and saints, and with the name of the Savior himself If an example of distinguished piety was required, reference would be made to Xuma Pompilius. So prevalent was disbelief respecting the fundamental truths of natural religion, that the Council of the Lateran, under Leo X., felt called upon to affirm the immortality and individuality of the soul." It ap- peared as if the gods of the old mythology had risen from the dead, if we may judge by the sentiments of the poets and rhetoricians of that literary revival, "while in the minds of thinking men Plato and Plotinus had sup- planted Paul and Isaiah." The influence of the classic REFORMATORY MOVEMliNTS. school upon the Church in Italy, as described by Gui/.ot {History of Civilization, lect. xi.), is fearful to contem- plate. As a specimen of his delineation of the crooked ness of the times, he says that the Church in Italy "gave herself up to all the pleasures of an indolent, elegant, licentious civilization ; to a taste for letters, the arts, and social and physical enjoyments." On the principle that like causes produce like effects, may not the study of the same classics revive a love for pagan literature in our times; and is it not now the ten- dency of pulpit rhetoricians, as they come from our col- leges dripping with the distillations of pagan philosophy, to supplant Paul and Isaiah by the introduction of Plato' and Plotinus ? And how often do we hear college fledg- hngs, and some older ones, who consider themselves "advanced thinkers," associating the names of Greek and Roman heroes with those of the apostles and saints, and even with the name of the Savior himself. The religious condition of things in Germany, at the outbreak of the Reformation, was far different from that of Italy. Reuchlin and Erasmus, two of the most emi- nent scholars of the age, taking advantage of the revival of literature, made it contribute to the purification of the morals of the people, and to an earnest and vigorous investigation of the Scriptures. These were the men who furnished Luther, the great champion of the Refor- mation, with the literary munitions of war that crushed the dominion of the Papacy, and which liberated the masses from ignorance and foul superstition. LUTHER AND THE MAN OF SIN. The people of this generation have a just right to know why we propose, and strenuously labor for, a thorough restoration of the apostolic order of things, and why, religiously, we reject all human authority and accept only the law and authority of Jesus the Christ. For more than a half century we have kept this grand proposition before the eyes of all men. It is due to the rising generation — doubly due to our own children — that we should furnish the most substantial reasons for having inaugurated a movement as radical and far-reach- ing as that which was inaugurated by Christ and his apostles. We propose more than a refotmation of refor- mations. We go back of all reformations, and plant ourselves upon apostolic ground. It is a fact patent to all men acquainted with ecclesiastical history, that there is not a Protestant denomination in existence that has entirely emerged from the great apostasy of 1260 years' continuance, and that has effectively cleared itself of the mystic influences of spiritual Babylon. No denomina- tion, however respectable it may appear in the eyes of the world, can claim identity with the Church of Christ, as founded by his apostles, as long as it countenances human dogmas, substitutes theories for facts, supplants the law and authority of Christ by laws of expediency, changes the ordinances of the Church, mystifies the design of the ordinances, bears titles which the Spirit (30) REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 31 never authorized, and carnalizes the worship of the true and living God. It is our purpose, in these essays, to show the origin and drift of the several reformations from the days of Luther down to the present time, and to show also, in tracing out these events, that not one of the so-called reformatory movements ever resulted in the full restora- tion of Apostolic Christianity. We write for those who neither read nor investigate, but who ought to read and investigate. Many of our own people, which statement includes many of our own preachers, are not posted on these questions as they ought to be, while professing at the same time to stand upon the only true and tenable ground. Luther was a great power in crushing the Man of Sin, but he did not succeed in grinding him to powder. Luther was first aroused by the visible presence of a •corrupt priesthood. The origin of the Reformation of the sixteenth century was quite humble and somewhat indefinite. Pope Leo X. had arranged for a very exten- sive sale of indulgences. He gave out as a pretext for the outrage that the proceeds of the sale were intended for a war against the Turks and the erection of St. Peter's Church. It was quite generally believed that the real destination of the money was to defray the exorbitant expenditures of the Pope's Court and to serve as a marriage dowry to his sister. Archbishop Albert, of Mentz, a man whose character was no better than that of Leo X. , authorized the sale in Germany on con- dition that fifty per cent, should flow into his own pocket. Tetzel, a Dominican friar, carried on the trade with such a dash of effrontery as to outrage the sen- timents of thousands of honest and sincere people. 32 LUTHER AND THE MAN OF SIN. Luther, then a young monk in an Augustinian convent, was among the first to rise against this profanation of pure reHgion, and to conscientiously protest against the abomination. When a young student, he had been driven by his anxiety for the salvation of his soul into the seclusion of a convent. After long doubts and many mental troubles, he had derived from a profound study of the Scriptures, and of the writings of Augus- tine and Tauler, the consolatory belief that man is to be saved, not by his own works of righteousness, but by faith in God through Jesus Christ. As an earnest Chris- tian man, who had taken upon himself a solemn obliga- tion to teach a pure religion, and who, as we have reason to believe, sincerely believed in the Christianity of the Holy Scriptures, he felt himself impelled to enter an energetic protest against the daring deeds of Tetzel. In accordance with the principles of the Church of Rome, he addressed himself to several neighboring bishops, urging them to stop the sale of indulgences; but, not heeding his appeal, he resolved to act upon his own account. It was on the eve of All-Saints' Diy, October 31, 15 17, that he affixed to the Castle Church of Wittenberg the celebrated ninety-five theses, which bold act has gener- ally been regarded as the beginning of the Lutheran Reformation. But both Papal and Protestant writers are agreed that these theses involved by no means, on Luther's part, a conscious renunciation of the Roman Catholic doctrine. Luther himself made this manifestly clear by his subsequent appeal to the Pope, and also by the fact that he was attempting the nformation and not the disorganization of the Church. His opposition to- the corruptions of Rome was but a reflex of public opin- K E FO K M ATO R Y M O V E M E N r S . 33 ion, which, by this time, had become wide-spread. The Pope became alarmed, and was startled, as by an elec- tric shock, when he discovered finally that the humble and obscure monk, whom he at first feigned to despise, had sent an irresistible impulse all over the religious world. Immediate steps were taken to arrest, if possi- ble, the progress of Luther's revolutionary movement. At first the Pope summoned Luther to Rome ; but at the request of the University of Wittenberg, and the IClector of Saxony, the concession was made that the Papal legate, Thomas de Vio (better known in history as Cajetanus), should examine Luther in a paternal and conciliatory manner. Luther's characteristic line of defense was the rejection of the arguments as taken from the Fathers and the scholastics, and the demand to be refuted by arguments cited from the Bible. After hear- ing that the Pope had issued a fresh Papal bull in behalf of indulgences, Luther changed his appeal to an ecu- menical council. Soon after this the Court of Rome found it expedient to change its policy with Luther, and to win him back by compromise and kindliness. The Papal chamberlain, Karl Von Miltitz, a native of Sax- ony, was so far successful that Luther promised to write letters in which he would admonish all persons to be obedient and respectful to the Church of Rome, and to write to the Pope to assure him that he had never thought of infringing upon the rights and privileges of the Mother Church. History informs us that the letter was actually indited ; its language is replete with expres- sions of condescension, and it exalts the Roman Church above everything but Christ himself He also promised to discontinue the controversy if his opponents wo;;!d agree to do the same. But only a brief period elapsed 4 34 LUTHER AND THE MAN OF SIN. before he was drawn into the Disputation of Leipslc (continuing from June 27 to July 15, 15 19), which the vain glorified Dr. Eck had originally arranged with Carl- stadt. History awards to Dr. Eck the glory of having proved himself the more able disputant, but Luther's cause was nevertheless greatly benefited by the discus- sion. The arguments of his fiery opponents drove Luther onward to a more decided rejection of Romish innovations. He was led by degrees to assert boldly that the Pope was not by divine right the universal Bishop of the Church, to entertain doubts of the infalli- bility of councils, and to believe that not all the Hussite doctrines were heretical. Great men soon came to the support of Luther, and among others. Dr. Melancthon, one of the greatest scholars of the age. The conflict between Rome and Luther now became one of life and death. Dr. Eck returned from a journey to Rome, with a Papal bull which declared Luther a heretic, and which ordered the burning of his writings. Luther, on the other hand, systematized his views in three works, all of which appeared in 1 5 20, viz. : To His Imperial Majesty and the Christian Nobility of the German Nation — On the Baby- lonian Captivity of tlie Church — -Sermon on the Freedom of a Christian Man. The culmination finally came, when (December 10, 1520) Luther publicly burnt the Papal bull with the Papal canon law. The Pope succeeded in prevailing upon the German emperor and the German Diet of Worms (1521) to proceed against the great heretic ; and when Luther firmly refused to recant, and persistently avowed that he could yield to nothing but the Holy Scriptures and sound argument, he was placed under the ban of the Empire; but so great was the dis- REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 35 content in Germany with corrupt Rome, that the same assembly which condemned Luther for opposing the faith of their ancestors, presented one hundred and one articles of complaint against the Roman See. As the ban of the Empire against Luther imperiled his life, he was persuaded by his friends to seclude himself in the Castle of Wartburg. Placed beyond the turmoil of political agitation, he found time to issue several power- ful polemical essays against auricular confession, against monastic vows, against masses for the dead, and against the new idol of the Archbishop of Mentz. After his return from Wartburg, Luther gave his chief attention to the continuation of his translation of the Bible in Ger- man, which was completed in 1534, and which was a master production for that age of the world, while Melancthon, in his celebrated work on theological sci- ence, gave to the theological leaders of the new order of things a hand-book of doctrine. Then came the Augsburg Confession, by which every man was to be measured ; and, having adopted this as the theological measure of every man, then the Bible became once more a sealed book, then a cessation of Bible investigation, and finally the imposition of human dogmas and ecclesiastical con- traction, in which condition of stagnation the Lutheran Reformation has stood ever since, but with an expansion of many millions of nominal members, all of whom were made members of the Lutheran Church in infancy, with- out faith and knowledge, and without liberty of choice. At the Diet of Worms, 1521, before the Augsburg Con- fession was formulated into a creed, when Luther was peremptorily called upon to recant, he replied in Latin : "Unless I shall be convinced by the testimonies of the .Scriptures or by evident reason (for I believe neither 36 LtlHEK AND THE MAN OF SIN. Pope nor councils alone, since it is manifest they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted, and my conscience is held captive by the Word of God ; and as it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience, I can not and will not retract anything. " He added in German : '•"Here I stand; I can not otherwise : God help me. Amen." Memorable words, if only he had adhered to them. But subsequently he took an active part in forming the constitution of the Consistories. He was, in conjunc- tion with other ecclesiastics, the author of the Marburg Articles and Schwabach Articles (1529), which furnished the basis, and to a large extent the material, both doc- trinal and verbal, of the Augsburg Confession, in 1530, during its direct preparation and presentation. During his conflicts with the powers of Rome, he exhorted his friends not to call themselves Lutherans, but Christians, and he also told them that he was not writing his tracts to bring them to him, but to bring them to the Bible. In dissolving Church and State, and in procuring the civil liberties of the German people, as well as the liber- ties of the people of other States, the Lutheran Refor- mation accomplished great and lasting good ; but, religiously, as soon as the Augsburg Confession was made to occupy the place of the Bible, reformation ceased, and there has been but little progress in that direction since. Luther never attempted the complete restoration of Apostolic Christianity. He never com- prehended such a question, which is made the more evident by the fact that the Augsburg Confession con- tains doctrines and dogmas which are purely of Papal origin, notably the dogma of transubstantiation, on account of which, as well as on account of other Romisb REFORMATORV MOVEMENTS. 37 dogmas, Zwingli and other reformers, in Switzerland, separated from him, as we shall show in our next article. Though the great reformer freed himself from the fetters of Papal ecclesiasticism, and severed his connection with the despotism of Rome, it is nevertheless a fact that he never divested himself entirely of the mysticism of the Dark Ages, and never thoroughly rid himself of the traditions of Rome. Hence the necessity of succeeding reformatory movements, not one of which effected a restoration of the apostolic order of things, either in doctrine or in practice, as we shall discover in our future investigations. We accept the good that preced ing reformers have accomplished, and honor those who have rescued the Bible from the grasp of a despotic hierarchy, but whatever they taught contrary to God's word, we reject What the early reformers left undone, we propose to complete ; by which we mean an entire restoration of the ancient order of things, in faith and practice, in doctrine and discipline. ORIGIN OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. Having in a previous chapter given the origin and a brief outline of the Lutheran Reformation, we next pro- ceed to present a history of the Augsburg Confession, which we derive from the most rehable standard author- ities. After Charles V. had concluded a peace with France, he summoned a German Diet to meet at Augsburg, April 8, 1530. The decree of invitation called for aid against the Turks, who, in 1529, had besieged Vienna; it also promised a discussion of the religious questions of the time, and such a settlement of them as both to abolish existing abuses and to satisfy the demands of the Pope. Elector John, of Saxony, who received this decree March 11, directed (March 14) Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen and Melancthon to meet in Torgaii, and draw up a summary of the most important and necessary articles of faith, in support of which the evangelical princes and states should combine. These theologians, as we shall term them, drew up a profession of theit faith, the groundwork of which they found in the seven^ teen articles which had been prepared by Luther fof the convention at Schwabach, and fifteen other articles, which had been drawn up at the theological conference at Marburg, and subsequently presented to the Saxon Elector John at Torgau. The first draft made by the four theologians, in seventeen articles, was at once published, and elicited a joint reply from Wimpina, (38) REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 39 Mensing, Redcerfer and Dr. Elgers, which Luther immediately answered. The subject of the controversy had thus become generally known. Luther, Jonas and Melancthon were invited by the Saxon Elector to accompany him to Augsburg. However, subsequently it was deemed best for Luther's safety to leave him behind. Melancthon, soon after his arrival at Augsburg, completed the Confession, and gave to it the title Apologia. On the nth of May he sent it to Luther, who was then at Coburg, and on the 15th of May he received from Luther an answer of approval. Several alterations were suggested to Melancthon in his confer- ence with Jonas, the Saxon Chancellor Briick, the conciliatory Bishop Stadion of Augsburg, and the Impe- rial Secretary Valdes. To the latter, upon his request, seventeen articles were handed by Melancthon, with the consent of the Saxon Elector, and he was to have a preliminary discussion concerning them with the Papal legate Pimpinelli. Upon the opening of the Diet, June 20, the so-called evangelical theologians who were pres- ent— Melancthon, Jonas, Agricola, Brenz, Schnepf and others — presented the Confession to the Elector. The latter, on June 23, had it signed by the evangelical princes and representatives of cities who were present, viz. : John, Elector of Saxony ; George, Margrave of Brandenburg; Ernest, Duke of Lunenburg; Philip, Landgrave of Hesse; John Frederick, Duke of Saxe; Francis, Duke of Lunenburg ; Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt, and the magistrates of Nuremberg and Reut- linger. The Emperor had ordered the Confession to be pre- sented to him at the next session, June 24 ; but when the evangelical princes asked for permission to read it, 40 ORIGIN OK THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. their petition was refused, and efforts were made to pre- vent the public reading of the document altogether. The evangehcal princes declared, however, that they would not part with the Confession until its reading should be allowed. The 25th of the month was then fixed as the day of its presentation. In order to exclude the people, the little chapel of the Episcopal Palace was appointed in the place of the spacious City Hall, where the meetings of the Diet were held. In this chapel the Protestant princes assembled on the appointed day, June 25, 1530. The Saxon Chancellor, Briick, held in his hands the Latin, Dr. Christian Bayer the German copy. They stepped into the middle of the august assembly, and all the Protestant princes rose from their seats, but were instantly commanded to sit down. The Emperor wished to hear the Latin copy read first, but the Elector replied that they were on German ground ; whereupon the Emperor consented to the reading of the German copy, which was done by Dr. Bayer. The reading lasted from four to six o'clock. The reading being completed, the Emperor ordered both copies to be given to him. The German copy he handed to the Archbishop of Mayence, the Latin he carried with him to Brussels. Neither of these copies is now extant. The Emperor promised to take this "highly important matter" into serious consideration, and make known his decision ; in the meanwhile the Confession was not to be printed without imperial permission. The Prot- estant princes promised to comply with this wish ; but when, soon after the reading, an erroneous edition of the Confession appeared, it became necessary to have both the German and the Latin texts published, which work was done through Melancthon. On June 27 the REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 41 ■Confession was given, in the presence of the whole assembly, to the Roman Catholic theologians to be refuted. The most prominent among them were Eck, Faber, Wimpina, CochliEus and Dietenberger. Before they got through with their work a letter was received from Erasmus, who had been asked for his opinion by Cardinal Campegius, recommending caution, and the concession of the Protestant demands concerning the marriage of the priests, monastic vows and the Lord's Supper. On July 12 the Roman Catholic "Confutation" was presented, which so displeased the Emperor that "of two hundred and eighty leaves, only twelve remained whole. " A new ' ' Confutation " was therefore prepared and read to the Diet, August 3, by the Imperial Secre- tary Schweiss. No copy of it was given to the "evan- gelical members" of the Diet, and it was not published until 1573, by Fabricius. Immediately after the reading of the Confutation, the Protestants were commanded to conform to it. Negotiations for effecting a compromise were begun by both parties, but led to no practical result. Negotiations between the Lutherans and the Zwinglians were equally fruitless. Zwinglius — angli- cized Zwingle — had sent to the Emperor a memorial, dated July 4, and Bucer, Capito and Hedio had drawn up, in the name of the cities of Strasburg, Constance, Memmingen and Lindau, the Covfessio Teirapolitana, which was presented to the Emperor July 11. Neither of these two Confessions was read, and both vere rejected. Melancthon, at the request of the "evangelical princes " and cities, prepared an " Apology of the Con- fession " in opposition to the Roman Catholic " Confu- 42 ORIGIN OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. tation," which was presented by the Chancellor Briick, September 22, to the Emperor, who refused to receive it. Subsequently Melancthon received a copy of the "Confutation," which led to many alterations in the first draft of the Apology. It was then published in Latin, and in a German translation by Jonas (Witten- berg, 1 531). A controversy subsequently arose, in consequence of which Melancthon, after 1540, made considerable alterations in the original Augsburg Con- fession, altering, especially in Article X., the statement of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper in favor of the view of the Reformers. Melancthon, who had already been charged with " crypto-Calvinism " (concealed Cal- vinism), was severely attacked on account of these alterations; yet the "Confessio Variata" remained in the ascendency until 1580, when the Confessio Invariata was put into the '■'•Concordienbuch " in its place, and thus the unaltered Confession has come to be generally regarded as the standard of the Lutheran churches. It is but just to say, however, that the altered Confession has not ceased to find advocates, and several branches of the Lutheran Church have even abrogated the author- itative character of the Confession, and do not demand from their clergy a belief in all its doctrines. And this is how the Augsburg Confession struggled into existence. The following table of the contents of the Confession and of the Apology will give the reader an idea of a religious system of things that, at this time, probably wields an influence, directly and indirectljs over forty million people : Part I (1) acknowledges four ecumenical councils ; (2) declares original sin to consist wholly in concupiscence; (3) contains the aub- stancc of the Apostles' Creed; (4) declares that justification is the REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 43 effect of faith, exclusive of good works ; (5) declares the word of God and the sacraments to be the means of conveying the Holy Spirit, but never without faitli ; (6) that faith must produce good works purely in obedience to God, and not in order to the meriting justification; (7) the -.rue Church consists of the godly only ; (8) allows the validity of the Fax rainents, though administered by the evil one ; (9) declares the necessity of infant baptism ; (10) declares the real presence in the Eucharist continued with the elements only during the period of receiving; (11) declares absolution to be necessary, but not so particu- lar confession ; (12) declares against the Anabaptists; (13) requires acttial faith in all who receive the sacraments ; (14) forbids to teach in the Church, or to administer the sacraments, without being lawfully tailed ; (15) orders the observance of the holy days and ceremonies of the Church ; (16) of civil matters and marriage ; (17) of the resurrec- tion, last judgment, heaven and hell ; (18) of free will ; (19) that God is not the author of sin ; (20) that good works are not altogether ■nprofitable ; (21) forbids the invocation of saints. Pabt II (1) enjoins communion in both kinds, and forbids the pro- cession of the holy sacrament ; (2) condemns the law of celibacy of priests; (3) condemns private masses, and enjoins that some of the congregation shall communicate with the priest ; (4) against the neces- sity of auricular confession ; (5) against tradition and human ceremo- nies ; (6) condemns monastic vows; (7) discriminates between civil and religious power, and declares the power of the Church to consist only in preaching and administering the sacraments. These are briefly the facts which show the origin, gestation and birth of the Augsburg Confession. The inteUigent Bible reader can easily tell how much of this theological medley is Papal, how much Protestant, how much tradition, how much human speculation, and how much apostolic teaching. To say nothing of the sinful^ ness of making the creed, many of its doctrines are pos- itive contradictions of the word of God, and wholly subversive of Bible teaching. The reader will have noticed, in the history of the Confession just given, that civil rulers had about as much to do in producing the creed as the Reformers themselves. The formation .44 ORIGIN OF THE ALGSUUKG CONFESSION. of this Augsburg Confession cut off a'l further investi- gation of the Scriptures, and forever stereotyped the faith of its adherents. By the doctrines of this Confes- sion it will be seen that Luther remained partly a Roman Catholic as long as he lived, and it was because of this fact that Zwingle, as we shall see further on, with other reformers in Switzerland, separated from Luther, and framed another Confession in harmony with their belief Creedism, as the reader will have perceived, began at the very point where reformation ceased. And hence as long as creeds exist, and as long as men prefer creeds in lieu of the word of God, there can be no Christian union upon the basis of the Scrip- tures, so far as creed-lovers are concerned. REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND. Ulrich Zwingle was the founder of Protestantism in Switzerland. He was a man of fine education and of extensive learning. He was educated in the Roman Catholic Church. He possessed a bright intellect, was a great lover of literature, was early in life distinguished for his love of truth, and devoted himself intensely to an investigation of the Scriptures. Like Luther, wit- nessing the corruptions of the clergy, and discovering dogmas and traditions not found in the Word of God, such as the worship of the Virgin Mary and the hideous doctrine of indulgences, he attempted a work of reform in the bosom of the Church. He was soon charged with preaching heresy, which the Papal powers regarded as subversive of the established order of things. In a conference held at Zurich, called at his own request, January 29, 1523, in the presence of an assembly of more than six hundred men, he defended sixty-seven propositions, which were leveled against the system of Romanism. In his defense against the charge of heresy, he substituted the authority of the gospel for the author- ity of the Church ; he declared the Church to be the communion of the faithful, who have no head but Christ ; he maintained that salvation is through faith in Christ as the only priest and intercessor ; he rejected the Papacy and the mass, the invocation of saints, justifica- tion by works, fasts, festivals, pilgrimages, monastic orders and the priesthood, auricular confession, absolu (45) 46 REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND. tion, indulgences, penances, purgatory, and indeed all the characteristic peculiarities of the Romish Church. In another disputation, before a much larger assembly, on the 26th of October following, he obtained a decree of the Council against the use of images and the sacrifice of the mass. By these statements it will be seen that Zwingle, as a clear headed reformer, and as one capable of making dean-C'jt distinctions between the teaching of the Bible And the traditions of Rome, was in advance of Luther. In 1525 he published his chief work, entitled a "Com- mentary on True and False Religion," and also a treat- ise on original sin. The tenets he published are substantially the same as those adopted by the Protes- tant churches generally. In his philosophy he was a predestinarian of an extreme type, transcending both Augustine and Calvin. He did not confine the illumi- nation of the Spirit within the circle of revealed religion, nor do his adherents of the present age, or to those who receive the word of God and the ' sacraments." He held that the virtues of heathen sages and heroes are due to the presence of divine grace, and asserted, for example, that Socrates was more pious and holy than all Dominicans and Franciscans. "He had busied himself," says Neander, ''with the study of antiquity, for which he had a predilection, and had not the right criterion for distinguishing the ethical standing-point of Christianity from that of the ancients " From Zurich the Reformation spread, and in a short time Zwingle found in CEcolampadius as great a counselor and leader as Luther had found in the distinguished and scholarly Melancthon. The authority of the Papal system never had the same deep-set hold upon Zwingle as it had upon REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 47 Luther ; a question, however, which is not necessary to discuss here, as we are only aiming to present a histori- ciA connection of things and events. When Luther was put under the ban of the Church, Zwingle, as we learn from Ranke, the German historian, was still the recipi- ent of a pension from the Pope. When Luther at the Diet of Worms, in the face of Papal princes and the legates of Rome, refused to submit to the authority of the Pope, Zwingle had not yet been seriously molested. As late as 1523 he received a co-rphmentary letter from Pope Adrian VI. — facts which go to show that the reformations effected in the sixteenth century were only partial, and of course incomplete, and a fact which we desire our contemporaries to understand, in view of the work in which we are engaged. Finally there broke out the great controversy on the dogma of transubstantiation between the Lutheran and Swiss reformers. Luther did not obtain this dogma from the apostolic record, but from theologians of the Latin Church — from Radbert, of the ninth century, from the leading schoolmen of the thirteenth century, which was made an article of faith by the fourth Lateran Coun- cil, in 121 5, under Innocent III. The Reformers, as a class, with one consent, denied this dogma, "together with the associated doctrine of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist." But Luther stoutly affirmed the actual corporate presence of the glorified body and blood of Christ, in connection with the bread and wine, so that the body and blood, in some mysterious way, are received by the communicant, whether he be a believer or an unbeliever. Luther did not hold that the heavenly body of Christ, which is offered and received in the "sacrament," occupies space ; yet it is received 48 REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND. by all who partake of the bread and wine — not a portion of the body, but the entire Christ by each communicant. It is received, in some proper sense, with the mouth. We have quoted from De Wette, with the German before us. Zwingle denied that the body of Christ is present, in any sense, in the "sacrament," but, with his followers, he was more and more disposed to attach importance to a spiritual presence in tb.e institution. This belief Calvin emphasized, and added the positive assertion of a direct influence upon the believing com- municant, which flows from Christ through the medium or instrumentality of his human nature. " The Word and the Sacraments Luther had made the criteria of the Church. On upholding them in their just place, every- thing that distinguished his reform frcjm enthusiasm or rationalism depended. He had never thought of for- saking the dogmatic system of Latin Christianity in its earlier and purer days, and he looked with alarm on what struck him as a rationalistic innovation " At the Conference of Marburg, in 1529. which was called with a view of reconciling the disaffected parties, when the theologians sat by a table, the Saxons on one side and Swiss on the opposite side, Luther wrote upon the table with chalk his text: "-Hoc est mcum corpus" (this is my body), and resolutely refused to budge an iota from the literal sense. ORIGIN OF THE HEIDELBERG CONFESSION. As a result of the controversy between the Lutheran reformers and the Swiss reformers, w e have the Heidel- berg Catechism, the property of the Reformed Church. Its name is derived from the city in which it was com- piled and first printed. It is also sometimes styled the Palatinate Catechism, from the territory (the Palatinate) of the Prince (Frederick III.) under whose auspices it was prepared. Soon after the introduction of Protes- tantism into the Palatinate, in 1546, the controversy between Lutherans and Calvinists broke out, and for years, especially under the Elector Otto Heinrich (1556- 59), it raged with great violence in Heidelberg. Fred- erick III., who came into power in 1559, adopted the Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper, and favored that side of the question with all his princely power. He reorganized the Sapienz College (founded by his prede- cessor) as a theological school, and placed at its head (1562) Zacharias Ursinus, a pupil and friend of Melanc- thon, who had adopted the Reformed opinions. In order to put an end to religious disputes in his domin- ions, he determined to put forth a Catechism, a Con- fession of Faith, and laid the responsibility of preparing it upon Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus, for a time profes- sor in the University of Heidelberg, then court-preacher to Frederick III. They made use of the catechetical literature then in existence, especially of the catechisms of Calvin and John a Lasco. Each prepared sketches- 5 (49) 50 ORIGIN OF THE HEIDELBERG CONFESSION. or drafts, and "the final preparation was the work of botli these theologians, with the constant co-operation of Frederick III. Ursinus has always been regarded as the chief author, as he was afterward the principal defender and interpreter of the Catechism ; still, it would appear that the nervous German style, the divi- sion into three parts (as distinguished from the five parts in the Catechism of Calvin, and the previous draft of Ursinus), and the genial warmth and unction of the whole work, are chiefly due to Olevianus. " (Schaff, in Am. Pres. Rev., July, 1863, p. 379.) Philip Schaff, of New York, is the acknowledged leader of the Reformed Church in America. When the Catechism was com- pleted, Frederick laid it before a synod of the superin- tendents of the Palatinate, December, 1562, and after a careful examination it was duly approved. Dr. Schaff observes, in the same Review from which we have already quoted, that "the Catechism is a true expres- sion of the convictions of its authors, but it communi- cates only so much of these as is in harmony with the public faith of the Church, and observes a certain reti- cence or reservation and moderation on such doctrines (as the twofold predestination), which belong rather to scientific theology and private conviction than to a pub- lic church confession and the instruction of youth." The Heidelberg Catechism contains substantially the same tenets, dogmas, traditions, speculations and private opinions that are found in all Protestant creeds, except in governmental affairs. In common with all creeds, whether Romanist or Protestant, it teaches infant bap- tism and sprinkling. The body of people which it represents is called the Reformed Church, and this Reformed Church is regarded by its theologians and REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 51 admirers as a decided improvement upon the Lutheran Church ; that is to say, there is not as much Roniatiisin in the Heidelberg Catechism as there is in the Augs- burg Confession. The theologians and princes of Ger- many and Switzerland began reformation with the Bible, and ended their work by the substitution of creeds, confessions of faith, symbols of faith, church standards, etc. Taking the Bible as their guide, they beat a retreat from the mystic realms of Papal Babylon, but had not gone far until the leaders commanded a halt, when they went to work, while still under the potent influence of Rome, and formulated Confessions of Faith; and, wedded to these human inventions, as their sup- porters now are, they still dwell within the confines of old Babylon. If not ecclesiastically under the power of the "Mother Church," they are religiously and spirit- ually of the same affinities. None of these creeds, whether Catholic or Protestant, tells a man how to become a Christian. They tell a man how he may become a Catholic, a Lutheran, a Reformer, an Episco- palian, a Presbyterian, a Methodist, a Baptist, perchance. There is not a Confession of Faith in existence that ever saved a soul. As human compositions, one is just as full of light and knowledge as another, and just as effica- cious in the .salvation of the soul. They all originated in the councils of men ; they were digested in the heat of human passions; they were concocted and planned by envious and rival theologians ; they became the symbols — the insignia — of rival princes; they have always engendered strife, hatred, malice, bigotry, intolerance and persecution, and will continue to do so until the end of time. There is no Christian love in them ; there is nothing in them that will unite the people of God 52 ORIGIN OF THU HEIDI- LBERG CONFESSION. and make them one people. The mind of God is not found in them, and the spirit of Christ does not breathe through them. They confuse the human mind ; they divide the counsels of Christians ; they paralyze the power of truth ; they make a fable of the gospel ; they mock the prayers of the Savior; they make void the law of God ; they infuse the spirit of sectarianism ; they cramp the human intellect ; they place insuperable bar- riers between tnose seeking love and unity upon the basis of the Bible. In view of these facts, and many more yet to be pro- duced, let our brethren understand that our mission is not yet ended, but, on the contrary, only fairly begun. We have no human creed to defend. The Bible, and the Bible only, is our rule of faith and practice. The word of God only is the man of our counsel. All creeds nmst be crushed under the weight of divine authority. "The unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" must destroy all sectism. There must be but one fold and one Shepherd. We are set for the defense of the gospel of the Son of God, and we propose to walk in the old paths. We propose the restoration of the apostolic order of things. To this work we consecrate our life's blood. Upon this altar we lay our all. We trust that all those who have been called into this marvelous light will stand firm, and work and contend for the faith, and show themselves men in the highest sense of the word,, and never, never, yield an iota of the truth. JOHN CALVIN AND CALVINISM It is not our purpose, nor is it necessary to the end we have in view, to trace the Lutheran Reformation as it spread all through the Scandinavian kingdom, pene- trated the Slavonic nations, and took Hungary captive. We shall next have something to say about John Calvin and his theology. In French Switzerland, the reformatory movement began in 1526, in the French parts of the cantons Berne and Biel, where the principles of reform were preached by William Farel, a native of France. In 1530 he established the Reformation in Neufchatel. A begin- ning was made in Geneva as early as 1528; in 1534, after a religious conference held at the suggestion of the people of Berne, in which Farel defended the Reforma- tion, public worship was granted to those who belonged to the Reformed branch ; rapid progress was then made through the zeal of Farel, Froment and Viret ; and in 1535, after another disputation, the Papacy was abol- ished by the Council, and the doctrines of the Reforma- tion adopted. In 1536 John Calvin arrived in Geneva, and was induced by Farel to remain in the city and to aid him in his struggle against a party of free-thinkers who called themselves Spintiials. In October of the same year he took part with Farel and Viret in a relig- ious disputation held at Lausanne, which resulted in gaining over the Pays-de-Vaud to the cause of the Reformation. In 1538 both Farel and Calvin were (53 J 54 JOHN CALVIN AND CALVINISM. banished by the Council, which liad taken offense at the very strict church discipHne introduced by the reform- ers. S6on, however, the friends of th.e Reformation regained the ascendency, and Calvin was recalled in 1 541, while Farel remained in Neufchatel. For several years Calvin was put under the necessity of sustaining a desperate struggle against his opponents, but in 1555 they were finally subdued in an insurrection incited by one Ami Perrin. From that time forward the reforma- tory ideas of Calvin were carried through in both Church and State with a consistency as rigid as iron, and Geneva became a center whence reformatory influences spread to the remotest parts of Europe. By an exten- sive correspondence and numerous theological theses, he exerted a powerful personal influence upon a certain class of minds far beyond the boundaries of Switzerland. The theological academy of Geneva, founded in 1588, supplied the churches of many foreign countries, espe- cially France, with preachers trained in the spirit of Calvin. When Calvin died, in 1564, the continuation of his work devolved upon the learned Theodore Beza. Calvin disagreed in many points with Zwingle, whose views gradually lost ground as those of Calvin advanced. The Second Helvetic Confession, the most important among the symbolical books of the Reformed Church, which was compiled by Bullinger in Zurich, published in 1566, and recognized in all Reformed countries, com- pleted, we are told, the superiority of Calvin's reforma- tory notions over those of Zwingle. Calvin was only eight years old when Luther posted his famous theses upon the door of the Cathedral in Wittenberg. He was born at Noyon, in Picardy, on the loth of July, 1 509. lie was well provided for by REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 55 families of nobility, who assisted him in obtaining a splendid education in the best colleges of Paris. His physical constitution was not strong, but early in life he developed extraordinary intellectual power. He was raised in affluence, and was never subjected to penury and rough discipline, as were the German and Swiss reformers. In college he surpassed his companions in severe mental application, and in a natural aptitude to learn. He spent most of his time by him'self, and from his serious and severe turn of mind, he was nicknamed by his companions, "The Accusative Case." At the age of eighteen he received the tonsure, and preached occasionally, but had not taken orders, as his father, changing his plan, concluded to qualify him for the pro- fession of a jurist. He studied under the most cele- brated teachers. Before long, however, his attention was directed to the study of the Scriptures through the influence of Protestant relatives. Little is known of his public career until about 1532, soon after which he gives an account of his " sudden conversion." " Calvin had hesitated about becoming a Protestant, out of reverence for the Church. But he so modified his conception of the Church as to perceive that the change did not involve a renunciation of it. Membership in the true Church was consistent with renouncing the rule of the Roman Catholic prelacy : for the Church, in its essence invisible, exists in a true form wherever the gospel is faithfully preached and the sacraments administered conformably to the directions of Christ." So says George P. Fisher, D. D., in his History of the Reforma- tion, pp. 195-6. Calvin, by his great learning, by the rare acuteness of his intellect, and by his extensive acquaintance with 56 JOHN CALVIN AND CALVINISM. the contents of the Bible, became an acknowledged leader of the Protestant party in France. Speaking of Calvin's characteristics as a writer and a man, Professor Fisher says: "His direct influence was predominantly and almost exclusively upon the higher classes of soci- ety. He and his system acted powerfully upon the people, but indirectly through the agency of others. He was a patrician in his temperament. By his early associations, and as an effect of his culture, he acquired a certain refinement and decided affinities for the class elevated by birth or education. This was one of his points of dissimilarity to Luther; he was not fitted, like the German reformer, to come home to the ' business and bosoms' of common men. He had not the popular eloquence of Luther, nor had he the genius that left its impress on the words and works of the Saxon reformer ; but he was a more exact and finished scholar than Luther." Melancthon greeted Calvin as "the theolo- gian," and by the enemies of Protestantism his work was styled "the Koran of the heretics." A contemporary writer thus spoke of him : " Some think on Calvin heaven's own mantle fell, While others deemed him an instrument of hell." Professedly he adopted the Bible as the sole standard of doctrine, while at the .same time he made his peculiar speculation of predestination to overshadow the whole Bible, and to render nugatory the revealed plan of sal- vation. While his "Institutes" show him to be a very acute critic and a profound exegetical writer, yet at the same time it is apparent that by his theocratic interpre- tations of Scripture he renders the gospel of Christ a myth. While he scouts the doctrine that the truth of the Bible rests on the authority of the Church, and REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 57 holds that the divine authority of the Bible can be estab- lished by reason, he at the same time maintains that a spiritual insight of gospel truth is imparted directly by the Holy Spirit. While he professes little esteem for the fathers of the Church, and while he stigmatizes the domas and rites of the Papacy as the "impious inven- tions of men," without warrant from the Word of God, yet at the same time, unlike the other reformers, he frequently pays deference to the Church. Believing in a Church Invisible, composed of true believers, and also believing in the Church Visible, the criteria of which are the proper administration of the Sacraments and the teaching of the Word, and theoretically demanding pos- itive submission to the model of the New Testament, he at the same time fails to identify the Apostolic Church in its complete restoration and purity. The smell of the Papacy tinges much of his writings. Professor Fisher thus summarizes the peculiar theological tenets of Calvin : Predestination to liim is the correlate of human dependence ; the counterpart of the doctrine of grace ; the antithesis to salvation by merit ; the implied consequences of man's complete bondage to sin. In election, it is involved that man's salvation is not his own worlc, but, wholly, the work of the grace of God; and in election, also, there is laid a sure foundation for the believer's security under all the assaults of temptation. It is practical interest which Calvin is sedu- lous to guard ; he clings to the doctrine for what he considers its relig- ious value ; and it is no more than justice to him to remember that he habitually styles the tenet, which proved to be so obnoxious, an unfathomable mystery, an abyss into which no mortal mind can descend. And, whether consistently or not, there is the most earnest assertion of the moral and responsible nature of man. Augustine held that in the fall of Adam, the entire race was involved in a common act and a common catastroplie. The will is not destroyed ; it is still free to sin, but is utterly disabled as regards holiness. Out of the mass of mankind, all oi" >\hom are alike guilty, God chooses a part to 58 JOHN CALVIN AND CALVINISM. be the recipients of his mercy, whom he purifies by an irresistible influence, but leaves the rest to suffer the penalty which they have justly brought upon themselves. In the "Institutes," Calvin does what Luther had done in his book against Erasmus ; he makes the Fall itself, the primal transgression, the object of an efficient decree. In this particular he goes beyond Augustine, and apparently affords a sanction to the extreme, or supralapsarian type of theology, which afterward found numerous defenders — which traces sin to the direct agency of God, and even founds the distinction of right and wrong ultimately on his omnipotent will (Inst. III., xxiii., 6, seq.) But when Calvin was called upon to define his doctrine more carefully, as in the Consensus Genevensis, he confines himself to the assertion of a permissive decree — a volitive permission — in the case of the first sin. In other words, he does not overstep the Augustinian position. He explicitly avers that every decree of the Almighty springs from reasons which, though hidden from us, are good and sufficient ; that is to say, he founds will upon right, and not right upon will. He differs, however, both from Augustine and Luther, in affirming that none who are once converted fall from a state of grace, the number of believers being coextensive with the number of the elect. Calvin lives in history as a scholar and a theologian, but not as a reformer. He rendered valuable service as an interpreter and expounder of Scriptures, but, like Luther, Zwingle and Knox, he failed to restore the primitive apostolic order of things. His speculations, theologically known as Predestination, Total Hereditary Depravity, Particular Election, Reprobation, Final Per- severance and the Eternal Decrees, have only served the purpose of dividing the people of God instead of uniting them — have only perplexed and confused the human mind instead of making plain the simplicity of the gospel. It is said of Calvin by his biographers, that at times he was so carried away by gusts of passion, that he lost all self-control. He had tried in vain, he says, to ' ' tame the wild beast of his anger " ; and on his death-bed he asked pardon of the Senate of Geneva for REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 59 outbursts of passion, while at the same time he thanked them for their forbearance. Calvin, by instinct and choice, was better fitted for the rigid theocracy of Moses than for the liberty of the gospel. He had a stronger inclination toward M'osaic legislation than toward a system of divine truth which makes the individual free. He ruled with a rod of iron in the city of Geneva, where he directed civil as well as ecclesiastical affairs. "In 1568, under the stern code which was established under the auspices of Calvin, a child was beheaded for striking its father and mother. A child sixteen years old, for attemptmg to strike its mother, was sentenced to death ; but, on account of its youth, the sentence was commuted, and having been publicly whipped, with a cord about its neck, it was banished from the city. In 1565 a woman was chastised with rods for singing songs to the melody of the Psalms. " And other inflictions are recorded too numerous to mention. The expulsion of Castellio from Geneva, a highly cultivated scholar whom Calvin had brought from Strasburg, to take charge of the Geneva school — an expulsion caused by the influence of Calvin himself — and the death of Servetus, instigated by Calvin, and executed by those directly under his influence, because Servetus wrote a book entitled " Errors of the Trinity," which contradicted the opinions of Calvin — these heart- less acts indicate the temper of Calvin's spirit, these show the character of his cold intellect, these demon- strate the rigidity and inflexibility of his will power. The powerful intellect of such a man may excite the admiration of cold-hearted theologians, and overawe the ignorant and superstitious with amazement, but such a disposition can never command the love and affection 6o JOHN CALVIN AND CALVINISM. of the "common people." In our opinion, there is nothing in Calvinism but the defeat of Christianity — there is nothing in it on which a sinful and helpless world can lean for support. There is not a gleam of hope in it. It is a death-dealing system. ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. We headed this series of articles Reformatory Move- ments. It may become evident before we conclude, that the series should have been designated A History of the Protestant Denominations, for the reason that many of them do not contain the elements of religious reforma- tion at all. The principles of the Lutheran Reformation swept across the English Channel, and seized the people of the British Empire. But, as might have been expected, the heresies of Luther and of Wickliffe met with intense and malicious opposition from the start. King Henry VIII., at the outbreak of the politico-religious revolu- tion, became a conspicuous opponent of Luther, as well as a champion of the Papal cause. For writing a polemical book against Luther upon the Seven Sac- raments, Leo X. conferred upon the King the title "Defender of the Faith" {Defensor Fidei). This took place in 1521. Henry also addressed a letter to the Emperor of Germany, in which he demanded the extir- pation of the heretics. But the doctrines of Luther found ardent adherents even at the English universities, and an English translation of the Bible, by Frith and Tyndale, members of the University of Cambridge, produced a decisive and salutary effect. It was not long, however, until King Henry had a quarrel with the Pope, because the latter refused to annul Henry's mar- riage with Catharine of Aragon, the niece of the (61) 62 ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Emperor Charles V. Henry, who represented that his marriage with Catharine, his brother's widow, was open to objections, laid the matter, by advice of Thomas Cranmer, before the universities of Europe, "not ab- staining, however, from the use of bribery abroad and of menaces at home;" but when replies came back declaring the marriage with a brother's wife null and void, the King separated from Catharine, married Anne Boleyn, and, as a consequence, fell under the Papal ban. Through the conniving of Henry, the English Parlia- ment was induced to sunder the connection between England and Rome, and to recognize the King as head of the new Church. It became the fixed purpose of Henry to destroy, if possible, the influence of the Pope over the Church of England, with a desire at the same time to preserve its Catholic character. As a revenge upon the Pope, he subjected the cloisters to a searching investigation in 1535, and in the following year he totally abolished them. In 1538 the Bible was diffused in the mother tongue as the only source of doctrine ; " but the statute of 1539 imposed distinct limits upon the Reformation, and, in particular, confirmed transub- stantiation, priestly celibacy, masses for the dead, and auricular confession." After the Pope's authority was abolished in England, Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy, "That the King, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called the Anglicana Ecclesia. " And this was the origin of the Episcopal Church ! Up to this memorable event the Pope of Rome was recognized as head of the Church of England; now REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 63 Henry VIII. becomes head of the Church, and the ecclesiastical are brought into subjection to the civil powers. Many of those who refused to submit to the new order of things in England, were executed, and their goods confiscated by the loyal but servile minions of the English king. It is evident that while Henry was a Protestant in form, he was a Romanist in heart. A powerful party, headed by Thomas Cranmer, after- ward Archbishop of Canterbury, and Thomas Cromwell, royal vicar-general in ecclesiastical affairs, exerted a silent influence toward the Reformed churches of Con- tinental Europe. They met with little success during the reign of Henry, but gained a temporary ascendency in the regency which ruled England during the minority of Edward VI. Certain parties, including Peter Martyr, Bucer and Fagius, were invited to England to aid Cran- mer in establishing the Reformation. The basis was laid in the Book of Homilies (1547), the new English Liturgy (the Book of Common Prayer, 1548), and the Forty-two Articles, 1552; but the labors of Cranmer were interrupted by the death of Edward VI., in 1553. His successor. Queen Mary, the daughter of Henry and Catharine of Aragon, was, as the intelligent reader knows, a devoted partisan of the Church of Rome, during whose bloody reign Cranmer and from three to four hundred other persons were executed on account of their religious views. A Papal nuncio appeared in England, and an obsequious Parliament sanctioned the reunion with Rome ; but the affections of the people were not regained, and the early death of Mary, in 1558, put an end to the official restoration of the Papal Church. Queen Elizabeth, the daughter of Henry and Anne Boleyn, whose birth, in consequence of the Papal 64 ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. decision, was regarded by the Roman Catholics as ille- gitimate, resumed the work of her father, and completed the English Reformation, as a work distinct both from the Church of Rome and the Reformation of Germany and Switzerland. THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. The Book of Common Prayer, which had been adopted under Edward VI., was so changed as to be less offensive to the Romish party ; and by the Act of Uniformity, June, 1559, ^^'^'^ made binding on all the churches of the kingdom. Most of the subjects of the Pope conformed. The Confession of Faith, which had been formulated under Edward, in forty-two articles, was reduced to thirty-nine articles, and in this form it was adopted by a convocation of the clergy, at London, in 1562, and by Parliament made, in 1571, the rule of faith for all the clergy of the realm. According to the Thirty-nine Articles, the Scriptures contain, so they tell us, everything necessary to salvation. We are further informed that justification is through faith alone, which article, we presume, was intended as an offset to the Romish doctrine of justification by works alone, or the doctrine of indulgences ; but works acceptable to God are the necessary fruit of this faith. Of course, neither Christ nor his apostles was consulted, when the English Parliament declared that supreme power over the Church is vested in the English crown, though limited by the statutes. Bishops continued to be the highest ecclesiastical officers and the first barons of the realm, which, it must be confessed, does not resemble the sim- plicity of the primitive order. Subscription to the Articles was made binding on the clergy; freedom of conscience was granted to the laity. The adoption of 6 (65) 66 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. the Thirty-nine Articles completed, substantially, the Constitution of the Episcopal Church of England. Some parts of the Church government and the Liturgy, espe- cially the retaining of sacerJotal vestments, gave great offense to a number -thing in the Christian world for which there could not be pro- duced a divine warrant. Finally, after thoroughly reviewing the premises which he and his friends occu- pied in the proposed reformation, he proceeded to announce, in the most simple and emphatic terms, the great regulating principle or rule which was intended to be the accepted guide of their future actions. ' ' That rule, my highly respected hearers," said he in conclu- sion, ' ■ is this : That where the Scriptures speak, we REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. SPEAK ; AND WHERE THE SCRIPTURES ARE SILENT, WE ARE SILENT." Upon the enunciation of this supreme rule of action, a solemn silence pervaded the assembly, and thrilled with strange emotions every heart. They saw at a glance the vexatious problem solved, and in a manner so simple and rudimental that it appeared to them like a new revelation. Here now, at length, was an end put to all their doubts. The path of duty was now made clear. Here was the solvent of all religious strife. Encouragement seized every heart, and joy lighted up every eye, because, from henceforth, they were to take God at his word, and from this time forth they were to rely exclusively upon apostolic precept and example. All religious teaching which consisted in remote infer- ences, fanciful interpretations, speculative theories, and in false rules of interpretation, was forever to be dis- carded— a consummation never attempted either by Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, Wesley, or by any other Prot- estant reformer. Whatever private opinions men might entertain in regard to matters not clearly revealed must be reserved as private property, and must not be imposed on any one as a test of loyalty and Christian fraternity. The silence of the Bible must be respected equally with its positive and unquestioned revelations, which, by divine authority, were declared to be able to "make the man of God perfect, and thoroughly fur- nished unto every good work." After Mr. Campbell finished his remarkable address, he called upon those present for a free and candid expression of their views. After an interval of some considerable time, the dead silence was broken by a shrewd Scotch Seceder, Andrew Munro, a bookseller 138 ATTEMPTS AT REFORMATION. and postmaster at Canonsburg, who arose and a^id ; "Mr. Campbell, if we adopt that as a basis, then tliere is an end of infant baptism." This remark produced a profound sensation. "'Of course," remarked Mr. Campbell, " if infant baptism be not found in Scripture, we can have nothing to do with it. " Upon this, Thomas Acheson, of Washington, arose, greatly e.xcited, and, advancing a short distance, exclaimed, laying his hand upon his heart: "I hope I may never see the day when my heart will renounce that blessed saying of the Scrip- ture, ' Suffer little children to come unto me. and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.'"' Upon saying this he was so much affected that he burst into tears, and while a deep, sympathetic feeling per- vaded the entire assembly, he was about to retire to an adjoining room, when James Foster, not willing that this misapplication of Scripture should pass unchal- lenged, cried out: "Mr. Acheson, I would remark that in the portion of Scripture you have quoted, tlure is no refere?ue whatever to infant baptis?n." Without offering a reply, ]SIr. Acheson passed out to weep alone; ''but this incident," says Professor Richardson, in his Memoirs cf Alexander Campbell^ ' ' while it foreshadowed some of the trials which the future had in store, failed to abate, in the least, the confidence which the majority of those present placed in the principles to which they were committed. The rule which Mr. Campbell had announced seemed to cover the whole ground, and to be so ob\'iously just and proper, that after further dis- cussion and conference, it was adopted with apparent unanimity, no valid objections being urged against it." THE WORD OF GOD THE SOLE RULE OF ACTION. The rule of action adopted in that humble and obscure meeting was destined to revolutionize the relig- ious world. ' ' Where tlie Scriptures speak, we speak ; where these are silent, we are silent," is a sentiment that not only reaches back to the days of the apostles, but one which reaches into the far future with consequences of good to the world that are beyond all human estimate. For the purpose of promoting Christian union and jjro- ducing peace in the religious world, and in order to carry out this purpose more effectively, it was resolved, at a meeting held on the headwaters of Buffalo Creek, August 17, 1809, that this little party of reformers would form themselves into a regular association, to be known as "The Christian Association of Washington." They then appointed twenty-one of their number to meet and confer together, and, with the counsel of Thomas Campbell, to determine the proper method by which to consummate the object of the Association. Mr. Campbell prepared his Declaration and Address, the object of which was not to formulate a new creed, but to set forth in a perspicuous and forcible manner the object of the movement in which he and those asso- ciated with him were enlisted. At a called and special meeting he read the document in the presence of his brethren, that it might be approved and adopted by them. Having been unanimously adopted as an expo- (139) J40 THK WORD OK GOD THE SOLE RULE OF ACTION. nent of their pronounced principles, it was at once .ordered to be printed, which was done September 7, 1809. We quote as follows from this '■'Declaration" ; of the far-reaching consequences of the principles which the document contained, neither Thomas Campbell nor his associates had a full conception : Our desire, therefore, for ourselves and our brethren would be, that, rejecting human opinions and the inventions of men, as of any author- ity, or as having any place in the Church of God, we might forever (■case from further contentions about such things, returning to and luilding fast by the original standard, taking the Divine Word alone /or our rule, the Holy Spirit for our teacher and guide to lead us into .all truth, and Christ alone as exhibited in the Word for our salvation ; and that by so doing we may be at peace among ourselves, follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. Impressed with these sentiments, we have resolved as follows : " I. That we form ourselves into a religious association, under the denomination of "The Christian Association of Washington," for the sole purpose of promoting simple, evangelical Christianity, free from all mixture of human opinions and inventions of men. " II. That each member, according to his ability, cheerfully and liberally subscribe a specified sum, to be paid half-yearly, for the pur- pose of raising a fund to support a pure gospel ministry, that shall reduce to practice that whole form of doctrine, worship, discipline and government expressly revealed and enjoined in the Word of God ; and also for supplying the poor with the Holy Scriptures. "III. That this Society consider it a duty, and shall use all proper means within its power, to encourage the formation of similar associa- tions ; and shall, for this purpose, hold itself in readiness, upon appli- cation, to correspond with and render all possible assistance to such as piay desire to associate for the same desirable and important purposes. " IV. That this Society by no means considers itself a Church, nor does at all assume to itself the powers peculiar to such a society ; nor do the members, as such, consider themselves as standing connected in that relation ; nor as at all associated for the peculiar purposes of Church association, but merely as voluntary advocates for Church jreformation, and as possessing the powers common to all individuals who may please to associate, in a peaceful and orderly mannar, for REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. anj lawful purpose — namely, the dieposal of their time, rounsel and property, as they may see cause. "V. That this Society, formed for the sole purpose of promoting simple, evangelical Christianity, shall to the utmost of iis power, countenance and support such ministers, and such only, as exhibit a ttiamfest conformity to the original standard, in conversation and doc- trine, in zeal and diligence ; only sucli as reduce to practice that simple, original form of Christianity expressly exhibited upon the Sacred Page, without attempting to inculcate anything of human authority, of private opinion, or inventions of men, as having place in the constitution, faith or worship of the Christian Church, or anything as matter of Christian faith or duty, for which there can not be expressly produced a ' Thus saith the Lord ! ' either in express terms or by approved precedent." By the wording of the foregoing statement of prin- ciples it will be seen that the Association did not at all regard itself as a Church, or publish these statements as the articles of a creed, but simply to publish to the world their desire to urge "a pure evangelical reforma- tion, by the simple preaching of the gospel, and the administration of its ordinances in exact conformity to the divine standard." Thomas Campbell wrote his Declaration and Address in the very midst of a paradise of religious partyism, and while sectarian rancor and hatred and jealousy were consuming what little piety and spirituality were left in the country. " Each party strove for supremacy, and maintained its peculiarities with a zeal as ardent and persecuting as the laws of the land and the usages of society would permit. The dis- tinguishing tenets of each party were constantly thun- dered from every pulpit, and any departure from the ' traditions of the elders ' was visited at once with the severest ecclesiastical censure. Covenanting, church politics, church psalmody, hyper-Calvinistic questions, were the great topics of the day ; and such was the 142 THE WORD OF GOD THE SOLE RULE OF ACTION. rigid, uncompromising spirit prevailing, that the most trivial things would produce a schism, so that old mem- bers were known to break off from their congregations simply because the clerk presumed to give out before singing tivo lines of a psalm instead of one, as had been the usual custom. Against this slavish subjection to custom, and to opinjons and regulations that were merely of human origin, Mr. Campbell had long felt it his duty to protest ; and knowing no remedy for the sad condition of things existing, except in a simple return to the plain teachings of the Bible, as alone authorita- tive and binding upon the consience, he and those associated with him felt it incumbent upon them to urge this upon religious society. This they endeavored to do in the spirit of moderation and Christian love, hop- ing that the overture would be accepted by the religious communities around, especially by those of the Presby- terian order, whose differences were, in themselves, so trivial." — Memoirs of Alexander Campbell^ Vol. /. , /. 245. This, in brief, was the religious complexion of things when Alexander Campbell appeared upon the stage of action, who in the providence of God was destined to become the chosen and distinguished promulgator of the reformatory principles enunciated by his illustrious father. Up to the period when Alexander Campbell comes to the front, Thomas Campbell is still a Presby- terian in faith, but a free and independent thinker. While advocating Christian union upon the basis of the Bible, he still continues to baptize infants. He still continues to be trammeled by the dogmas of Calvinism, and to struggle in the meshes of ecclesiasticism. but. having placed himself upon the solid ground of honest REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. Bible exegesis, and having adopted an infallible rule of Scripture interpretation, we shall soon see how his prin- ciple drove him, and his Presbyterian son, A'r^xander, back upon apostolic ground, and hew the God of truth guided their feet in a way they knew not. ATTEMPTS AT CHRISTIAN UNION. While Alexander Campbell was reading the proof sheets of the "Declaration," in 1809, soon after his arrival in Washington from Scotland, he observed to his father : ' ' Then, sir, you must abandon and give up infant baptism, and some other practices for which it seems to me you can not produce an express precept or an example in any book of the Christian Scriptures." To which, after some hesitancy, the father responded : "'To the law and to the testimony' we make our appeal. If not found therein, we, of course, must abandon it." Then, as showing the perplexed condi- tion of his mind, he added: "We could not unchurch ourselves now, and go out into the world, and then turn back again and enter the Church merely for the sake of form and decorum." When, in an accidental con- versation with Rev. Mr. Riddle, of the Presbyterian Church Union, the principles of the " Declaration and Address " were introduced as matters of discussion, Mr. Alexander referred to the proposition that " nothing should be required as a matter of faith or duty for which a 'Thus saith the Lord' could not be produced, either in express terms or by approved precedent." "Sir," said Mr. Riddle, "these words, however plausible in appearance, are not sound. For if you follow these out, you must become a Baptist." "Why, sir," said the young Alexander, "is there in the Scriptures no express precept nor precedent for infant baptism ? " (144) KEI-ORMATORV MOVEMENTS. The youthful inquirer was startled and chagrined that he could not produce one ; and forthwith he appealed to Andrew Munro, the principal bookseller in Canonsburg, to furnish him all the treatises at his command in favor of infant baptism. He inquired for no works on the other side of the question, for at this time he had little or no acquaintance with the Baptists, and regarded them as a people comparatively ignorant and unedu- cated. He was thrown into a state of doubt and per- plexity by pondering this law of scriptural exegesis as previously announced by his father: "We make our appeal to the law and to the testimony. Whatever is not found therein, we, of course, must abandon." He read the pedobaptist authorities in ardent hopes of for- tifying his mind in favor of infant baptism. The more he investigated, the more his prejudices and predilec- tions gave way, and the conviction gradually grew upon him that infant baptism was a human device. Thor- oughly disgusted with the bald assumptions and fallacious reasonings of the pedobaptist authorities, he threw them all aside, and fled hopefully to the Greek New Testa- ment in the fond expectation of finding convincing proof of the validity of infant baptism in the fountain- head. But the plainness of the Greek text only served to strengthen his doubts. And when again he entered into a conversation with his father on this vexed ques- tion, he found him entirely willing to admit that there were neither "express terms" nor "precedent" to authorize the practice. "But," said he, " as for those who are already members of the Church and partici- pants of the Lord's Supper, I can see no propriety, even if the scriptural evidence for infant baptism be found deficient, in their unchurching or paganizing; II 146 ATTEMPTS AT CHRISTIAN UNION. themselves, or in putting off Christ, merely for the sake of making a new profession ; and thus going out of the Church merely for the sake of coming in again." By these continued discussions it will be perceived that a serious conflict was going on in the minds of these two men, and especially in the mind of the son, as to the question whether it were better, all things consid- ered, to adhere to Presbyterian usages and to the "traditions of the fathers," or, enlightened by the Word of God, carry out the logic of their own rules of Bible interpretation. Being thoroughly honest men, and seeking only to know the truth, and, above all, desiring to effect Christian union exclusively upon the basis of the Bible, they determined to take the Word of God as their sole and infallible guide. The " Declaration and Address" contains the following sentiments, as illustra- tive of the religious condition of things then existing: AVhat dreary effects of those accursed divisions are to be seen, ewen in this highly favored country, where the sword of the civil magistrate has not yet learned to serve at the altar ! Have we not seen congrega- tions broken to pieces, neighborhoods of professing Christians first thrown into confusion by party contentions, and, in the end, entirely deprived of gospel ordinances ; while, in the meanwhile, large settle- ments and tracts of country remain to this day destitute of a gospel ministry, many of them in little better than a state of heathenism, the churches being either so weakened by divisions that they can not send them ministers, or the people so divided among themselves that they will not receive them ? Several, at the same time, who live at the door of a preached gospel, dare not in conscience go to hear it, and, of course, enjoy little more advantage in that respect than living in the midst of heathen. Not discouraged by the small progress made toward Christian union, and not dismayed by the powerful opposition he encountered from his former Presbyterian REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. brethren, he thus, from time to time, addresses his little band : Dearly beloved brethren, why should we deem it a thing incredible that the Church of Christ, in this highly favored country, shouk! resume that original unity, peace and purity which belong to its con- stitution and constitute its glory? Or is there anything that can be justly deemed necessary for this desirable purpose but to conform to the model and adopt the practice of the primitive Church, expressly exhibited in the New Testament ? Whatever alterations this might produce in any or in all of the churches, should, we think, neither be deemed inadmissible nor ineligible. Surely such alteration would be every way for the better and not for the worse, unless we should sup- pose the divinely-inspired rule to be faulty or defective. Were we, then, in our church constitution and management, to exhibit a com- plete conformity to the apostolic Church, would we not be in that respect as perfect as Christ intended us to be ? And should not thii suffice us ? FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. Just before submitting his thirteen propositions to his brethren and to the religious world, with a view of drawing the people away from strife and contention, and in order to fix their minds upon the liberty of the gospel with which Christ makes all willing men free, he says: " Let us not imagine that the subjoined proposi- tions are at all intended as an overture toward a new- creed or standard for the Church, or as in any way designed to be made a term of communion ; nothing can be further from our intention. They are merely designed to open up the way, that we may come fairly and firmly to original ground upon clear and certain premises, and take up things just as the apostles left them ; and thus, disentangled from the accruing embar- rassments of intervening ages, we may stand with evi- dence upon the same ground on which the Church stood at the beginning." Here indeed was the beginning of radical work. Here was a proposition to pass back over all human author- ities, over all the traditions and false dogmas of "inter- vening ages," and begin a thorough restoration of the ancient order of things. Neither Luther nor any one else since his day ever attempted such a revolution. Thomas Campbell proposed to set aside the decrees of popes, councils, synods, conferences and general assem- blies, and to ignore all the traditions and corrupt prac- tices of an apostate Church, and to build upon Christ (148) REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 149 alone. Here was an invitation to come directly to the primitive model — to return to pristine purity and perfec- tion— and, consentaneous with that act, the rejection of all human innovations, and the repudiation of all human authority. It seems as though God guided and guarded the hand that penned such grand and startling proposi- tions. What a mighty revolution have these propositions wrought within the last half century. The thoughts contained in these propositions have changed and modi- fied the theology of the entire religious world, have influenced every pulpit, have changed the tone of every religious journal, and still continue to challenge investi- gation. As the propositions referred to are not access- ible to many of our readers, we think we are rendering valuable service by reproducing several, if not all, of them in this connection. Proposition 1. That the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one ; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct ; and none else, as none else can be truly and properly called Christians. 2. That, although the Church of Christ upon earth must necessarily exist in particular and distinct societies, locally separate one from the other, yet there ought to be no schisms, no uncharitable diviBions among them. They ought to receive each other, as Jesus Christ hath also received them, to the glory of God. And, for this purpose, they i>ught all to walk by the same rule ; to mind and speak the same things, and to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 3. That, in order to this, nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith, nor required of them as terms of com- munion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the Word of God. Nor ought anything to be admitted as of divine obligation in Iheir Church constitution and managements, but what is expressly FUNDAMENTAL PKIKCIFLES. mjointd by the aiithority of ovr Lord Jesus Christ and his apofltlea upon the New Testament Church, either in express terms or by approved pre- cedent. 4. That, although the Old and New Testaments are inseparably connected, making together but one perfect and entire revelatioii of the divine will for the edification and salvation of the Church, and, therefore, in that respect can not be separated ; yet, as to what directly and properly belongs to their immediate object, the New Teglamenl is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline and government of the New Testament Church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline and government of the Old Testament Church and the particular duties of its members. 5. That with respect to commands and ordinances of oar Lord Jesus Christ, where the Scriptures are silent as to the express time or manner of performance, if any such there be, no huTnan authority has power to interfere in order to supply the supposed deficiency by maJein^ laws for the Church, nor can anything more be required of Christians in such cases but only that they so observe these commands and ordinances as will evidently answer the declared and obvious ends of their institu- tion. Much less has any human authority power to impose new com- mands or ordinauces upon the Church, which our Lord Jesus Christ has not enjoined. Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the Church, or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament. 6. That although inferences and deductions from Scripture prem- ises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's Holy Word, yet are they not formally binding upon the cooaciences of Christians further than they perceive the connection, and evidently see they are so, for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church's Confession. Proposition 1 2 reads as follows : That all that is necessary to the highest state of perfection and purity of the Church upon earth is, first, that none be received as members but such as, having that due measure of scriptural self-knowledgfl REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. described above, do profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures ; nor, secondly, that any be retained in her communion longer than they continue to manifest the reality of their profession by temper and conduct. Tliirdly, that her ministers, duly and scripturally qualified, inculcate none other things than those very articles of faith and holiness expressly revealed and enjoined in the Word of God. Lastly, that in all their administrations they keep close by the observance of all divine ordinances, after the example of tJie primitive Church, exhibited in the New Testament, without any additions whatsoever of human opinions w inventions of men. We have italicized certain phrases in these proposi- tions, in order to enlist the special attention of our read- ers. The sentiments contained in these propositions are the sentiments that we have persistently urged in the past. These sublime statements constitute no creed, but they simply indicate the fixed purpose of the author, which is also our fixed purpose, viz.: the com- plete restoration of the primitive order of things, in commands, precepts, ordinances, worship and discipline. THE RESTORATION. In defending his thirteen propositions against the heated assaults of his Presbyterian ministerial brethren, who tried in every possible way to inveigle him in self- contradictions and inconsistencies, Thomas Campbell sought to draw a distinction between faith and opinion, between an express scriptural declaration and inferences which may be deduced from it. By the latter were meant such conclusions as were not necessarily involved in the Scripture premises, and which were to be regarded as private opinions, and not to be made a rule of faith or duty to any one. In order to obtain the true mean- ing of Scripture, "the whole revelation was to be taken together, or in its due connection upon every article, and not on any detached sentence." If, in consequence of thus allowing full freedom of opinion, any should bring forward the charge of latitudinarianism, they are requested to consider whether this charge does not lie against those who add their opinions to the Word of God, rather than against those who insist upon return- ing to the profession and practice of the primitive Church. A return to the Bible, he insisted, was the only way to get rid of existing sectarian evils. He goes 1^ on to say that "a manifest attachment to our Lord Jesus Christ in faith, holiness and charity, was the original criterion of Christian character — the distinguishing badge of our holy profession — the foundation and cement of Christian unity. But now, alas! and long ('52) REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. since, an external name, a mere educational formality of sameness in the profession of a certain standard or formula of human fabric, with a very moderate degree of what is called morality, forms the bond and founda- tion, the root and reason of ecclesiastical unity. " Thomas Campbell speaks like an oracle, as he continues his arraignment of the hypocritical clergy of his day, of whom we find a counterpart in the present day. What was then true of the clerical profession is still true. "Can an Ethiopian change his skin, or a leopard his spots?" Referring to those who love the creed above the Bible, and who prefer leadership in sectarian divi- sion to the unity of hearts in Christ, he says: Take from such the technicalities of their profession, the shibboleth of party, and what have they more? What have they left to distin- guish and hold them together? As to the Bible, they are little beholden to it ; they have learned little from it, they know little about it, and therefore depend as little upon it. Nay, they will even tell you it would be of little use to them without their formula ; they could not know a Papist from a Protestant by it; that merely by it they could neither keep the Church nor themselves right for a single week. You might preach to them what you please, they could not distinguish truth from error. Poor people ! it is no wonder they are so fond of their formula. Therefore they that exercise authority upon them, and tell them what they are to believe and what they are to do, are "galled benefactors. These are the reverend and right reverend authors, upon whom they can and do place a more implicit confidence than upon the holy apostles and {)rophets. These jilain, honest, unas- suming men, who would never venture to say or do anything in the name of the Lord without an express revelation from heaven, and, therefore, were never distinguished by the venerable title of "Rabbi" or "Reverend," but just simply Paul, .John, Thomas, etc. — these were but servants. They did not assume to legislate, and, therefore, neither assumed nor received any honorary titles among men, but merely such as were de8crii)tive of their office. And how, we beseech you, shall this gross and prevalent corruption be purgi'd out of the visible professing Church but by a radical reform \)ut by a returning 154 THE RESTORATION. to the original simplicity, the primitive purity of the Christian institu- tion, and, of course, taking up things just as we find them upon the sacred page? And who is there that knows anything of the present state of the Church, who does not perceive that it is generally overrun with the aforesaid evils? Or who, that reads his Bible, and receives the impressions it must necessarily produce upon the receptive mind by the statements it exhibits, does not perceive that such a state of things is as distinct from genuine Christianity as oil is from water? In opposition to the claim made that a creed secures uniformity of belief and purity of doctrine, history attests that Arians, Socinians, Arminians, Calvinists and Antinomians have existed under the Westminster Confession, and under the Athanasian Creed or the Articles of the Church of England. "Will any one say," it is asked, "that a person might not with e jual ease, honesty and consistency, be an Arian or a Socinian in his heart while subscribing to the Westminster Confession or the Athana- sian Creed, as while making his unqualitied profession to believe everything that the Scriptures declare concerning Christ? — to put all that confidence in him, and to ascribe all that glory, honor and thanksgiving and praise to him professed and ascribed to him in the Divine W^ord ? If you say not, it follows, of undeniable consequence, that the wisdom of men, in those compilations, has effected what the divine wisdom either could not, would not, or did not do in that all perfect and glorious revelation of his will contained in the Holy Scrip- tures. Happy emendation ! Blessed expedient ! Happy, indeed, for the Church that Athanasius arose in the fourth century to perfect what the apostles had left in such a crude and unfinished state! But if, after all, the divine wisdom did not think proper to do anything more, or anything else, than is already done in the Sacred Oracles, to settle and determine those important points, who can say that he deter- mined such a tiling as should be done afterward ? Or has he anywhere given us any intimation of such an intention ?" In regard to the charge of an ii«*ention to make 3 new party, Thomas Campbell said, in further defense of his Thirteen Propositions: " If the Divine Word be not the standard of a party, then we are not a party, for we REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. have adopted no other. If to maintain its alone-suffi- ciency be not a party principle, then we are not a party. If to justify this principle by our practice in makin^j a rule of it, and of it alone, and not of our own opinions, nor those of others, be not a party principle, then we are not a party. If to propose and practice neither more nor less than it expressly reveals and enjoins be not a partial business, then we are not a party. These are the very sentiments we have approved and recom- mended, as a society formed for the express purpose of promoting Christian unity in opposition to a party spirit. " We have thus quoted copiously from the writings of Thomas Campbell, while he was yet a Presbyterian in name, if not in faith, to give our readers a clear concep- tion of the origin of the so-called " Reformation " of the nineteenth century, and to show also that the plea wc are now making in favor of a complete restoration of primitive Christianity is based upon the principles con- tained in that remarkable document styled the "Decla- ration and Address." Says Dr. Richardson, in his Memoirs of Alexander Campbell : "So fully and so kindly was every possible objection considered and refuted, that no attempt was ever made by the opposers of tlu proposed movement to controvert directly a single position wliich it contained.'' Says the same biographer: "To all the propositions and reasonings of this Address, Alexander Campbell gave at once his hearty approba- tion, as they expressed most clearly the convictions to which he had himself been brought by his experience and observation in Scotland, and his reflections upon the state of religious society at large. Captivated by its clear and decisive presentations of duty, and the noble iS6 THE RESTORATION. ■Christian enterprise to which it invited, he at once, though unprovided with worldly property, and aware that the proposed reformation would, in all probability, provoke the hostility of the religious parties, resolved to consecrate his life to the advocacy of the principles which it presented. Accordingly, when, soon after- ward, his father took occasion to inquire as to his arrangements for the future, he at once informed him that he had determined to devote himself to the dissem- ination and support of the principles and views presented ■in the "Declaration and Address." Thomas Campbell, having been solicited both by pri- vate members and by some of the ministers of the Pres- byterian Church, to form an ecclesiastical union with them, and having been assured by certain Presbyterian ministers that the Presbytery generally would willingly ■receive him and the members of the Christian Associa- tion upon the principles they advocated, made overtures looking to that end, in the fond hope that by operating through the Presbyterian Church and its various agencies he might be enabled to advance more effectively the cause of Christian union. Alexander had little confi- -dence that his father would succeed in propitiating the excited spirit of the Presbyterians, who stood more upon their ecclesiastical dignity than upon their love of Chris- tian union. The "Synod of Pittsburg" assembled at Washington, Pennsylvania, on the 2d day of October, l8io. This august body refused to receive the reformer into their body. The grounds of their objection, it appears, were the fears they entertained in regard to the influence of the Christian Association, which, as before stated, was organized with the sole view of promoting Christian union. And it is a noteworthy fact that the REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. I 5/ Presbyterians have not, since that day, cultivated the least disposition for Christian union, upon the basis of the Bible or upon any other basis. In his address before the Synod, Mr. Campbell was careful to define clearly the position which the society occupied, and to state that it was in no sense a church, but simply a soci- ety organized for the promotion of Christian unity. He earnestly and affectionately proposed to the Synod to be obedient to it in all things that the gospel and the law of Christ inculcated, only desiring to be permitted to advocate that sacred unity which Christ and his apos- tles expressly enjoined ; or, in other words, that the Synod would consent to "Christian union upon Chris- tian principles." The Synod rejected his overtures because he would not unite with them on Presbyterian principles. THE BIBLE THE ONLY CREED. When Thomas Campbell, from a sense of duty, made his second appeal to the same Synod which had in the first instance replied to him in very ambiguous terms, and asked for an explanation of the clause, " many other important reasons," by which the Synod attempted to justify its action, this grave body of ecclesiastics found one of them in the childish and frivolous pretext that his son Alexander had been allowed to exercise his gift of public speaking "without any regular author- ity," or before ordination — a liberty taken both by Knox and Calvin, and one frequently granted to theological students. The unrighteousness of the rejection of the application of Thomas Campbell is made manifest by the fact that the Confession of Faith, under which the Synod acted, declares the Bible to be the only rule of faith and practice ; and yet, when a respectable body of Christian people ask for admission they are ruled out — cashiered — because they will come under no other rule than the Bible! For adhering to the "only rule" admitted to be inspired and infallible, and for presuming to doubt the infallibility of the Westminster Confession — the production of uninspired men — they are rejected ; rejected, not for any violation of the "only rule," but because they can not admit that a human creed or con- fession is in reality the "only rule." Says Dr. Richard- son, in his Memoirs of Alexander Campbell: "How completely this verified the remark made by Mr. Camp- (158) REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. bell in his Declaration and Address, ' That a book adopted by any party as its standard for all matters of doctrine, worship, discipline and government, must be considered as the Bible of that party ! ' And how evi- dent it is that, in the sectarian world, there are just as many different Bibles as there are different and authori- Jtative explanations of the Bible, called creeds and con- fessions ! In the case of Thomas Campbell, it was the ' Confession, ' and not the Bible, that was made the standard by which one of the best rren was denied religious fellowship." Is it possible for sectarian bigotry to go beyond this ? Alexander Campbell, at the age of twenty-two, now comes forward, enters the arena of public conflict, reviews the action of this Synod, and not only justifies the course pursued by his father, but takes more advanced ground than that occupied by his father. The Christian Association of Washington held its semi- annual meeting at Washington on Thursday, the 1st of November, 18 10. Alexander, the young polemic, was not made of such stuff as to tamely submit to the pro- ceedings of the Synod in relation to his father and the Christian Association, and he therefore resolved to avail himself of the first opportunity to examine them pub- licly. We have not space for the reproduction of this masterly review. As to the views entertained at this time by Alexander Campbell and his father, it appears from the contents of the address delivered on the occa- sion referred to, (i) that they regarded the religious parties around them as possessing the substance of Chris- tianity, but as having failed to preserve "the form of sound words " in which it was proclaimed in apostolic days ; and that the chief object in the proposed reforma- THE BIBLE THE ONLY CREED. tion was an effort to induce all good people to abandon every human system, and persuade them to the adoption of "this form of sound words," as the infallible basis of Christian union. (2) That they regarded each congre- gation as an independent organization, enjoying its own individuality, and maintaining its own internal govern- ment by elders and deacons, and yet not so absolutely independent of other congregations as not to be bound to them by fraternal and spiritual relations. (3) That they considered "lay preaching" as authorized, and denied the distinction between clergy and laity to be scriptural. (4) That they looked upon infant baptism as without direct scriptural authority, but that they were willing to let it rest as a matter of forbearance, and allow the continuance of the practice in the case of those who conscientiously approved it, as Paul and James permitted circumcision for a time in deference to Jewish prejudices. (5) That they clearly anticipated the prob- ability of being compelled, on account of the refusal of the religious parties to accept their overture, to resolve the Christian Association into a distinct church, in order to carry out for themselves the duties and obliga- tions enjoined on them in the Scriptures. (6) That in receiving nothing but what was expressly revealed, they foresaw and admitted that many things deemed precious and important by the existing religious societies must inevitably be excluded. Where, among all the existing sects, do you find such sentiments uttered as were uttered by Thomas Camp- bell ? Is there one prominent man among any of the denominations, at this time, who proposes such meas- ures of reform as were instituted by Thomas Campbell ? Do you hear any of our Protestant divines talk as he REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. l6l talked, and do you see any of them labor as he labored, to crush out sectarianism and to purify the Church of all tradition ? Do you find one Protestant minister among ten thousand ministers making the least plea for Chris- tian union upon the basis of the Bible? Not one. Intellectually and morally, in comparison with Thomas Campbell, they are all pigmies. 12 ALEXANDER CAMPBELL ABANDONS SECTARIANISM. Up to March, 1812, when the first child of Alexander Campbell was born, the question of infant baptism had not given him much concern ; it had not become to him a question of practical interest. Up to this period, the unity of the Church, and the overthrow of sectarianism, and the restoration of the Bible to its original position, had chiefly engaged his attention. In comparison with these objects, the question of baptism was one of small importance, and, hence, neither himself nor his father entertained any decided convictions upon this subject. About a year before the time we are speaking of, in a sermon founded on Mark xvi. 15-16, he said: "As I am sure it is unscriptural to make this matter a term of communion, I let it slip. I wish to think and let others think on these matters." But the unqualified adoption of the principle, ''Where the Bible speaks, we speak; tvJtere the Bible is silent, we are silent,'' began to press upon him, and upon those who attended the Brush Run Church, where the question of baptism was beginning to be discussed as one of considerable importance. The reading and investigation of the great commission which Christ gave to his apostles began to give him serious concern. Admitting that infant baptism was without divine warrant, the question began to assume quite a different aspect, and was now no longer, ' ' May we safely reject infant baptism as a human invention ? " but (162) REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 163 "May we omit believers baptism, which all admit to be divinely commanded?" He began to be troubled with the question, "If the baptism of infants be without divine warrant, it is invalid, and they who receive it are, in point of fact, still unbaptized. When they come to know this in after-years, will God accept the credulity of the parent for the faith of the child ? Men may be pleased to omit faith on the part of the person baptized, but will God sanction the omission of baptism on the part of the believer, on the ground that in his infancy he had been the subject of a ceremony which had not been enjoined? On the other hand, if the practice of infant baptism can be justified by inferential reasoning or any sufficient evidence, why should it not be adopted or continued by common consent, without further discus- sion ? " Such were some of the reasonings which, at this time, pressed heavily upon the clear mind and honest heart of the youthful Alexander Campbell. Having finally abandoned all uninspired authorities, he began a critical examination of the words rendered baptism and baptize in the original Greek, and, as a result of his research, he became thoroughly satisfied that they could mean only immersion and immerse. Further investigation led him to the clear and indisputable conviction that believ- ers, and believers only, are proper scriptural subjects of baptism. The searching investigations he instituted led him to perceive that the rite of sprinkling, to which he had been subjected in infancy, was wholly unauthorized, and that consequently he was, in point of fact, an unbap- tized person, and hence could not, consistently, preach a baptism to others of which he himself had never been a subject. Concerning the immersion of Alexander 164 ALEXANDER CAMPBELL ABANDONS SECTARL\NISM, Campbell and others, we quote the following interesting narrative from the Memoirs of Alexander Campbell: As he was not one who could remain long without carrying out his convictions of duty, he resolved at once to obey what he now, in the light of the Scriptures, found to be a positive divine command. Hav- ing formed some acquaintance with a Matthias Luce, a Baptist preacher who lived above Washington, he concluded to make applica- tion to him to perform the rite, and, on his way to visit him, called to see his father and the family, who were then living on a little farm between Washington and Mt. Pleasant. Soon after arriving, his sister Dorothea took him aside and told him that she had been in great trouble for some time about her baptism. She could find, she said, no authority whatever for infant baptism, and could not resist the convic- tion that she never had been scripturally baptized. She wished him, therefore, to represent the case on her behalf to her father. At this unexpected announcement Alexander smiled and told her that he was now on his way to request the services of Mr. Luce, as he had himself determined to be immersed, and would lay the whole case before their father. He took the first opportunity, accordingly, of presenting the matter, stating the course he had pursued and the conclusions he had reached. His father, somewhat to his sur{3rise, had but little to say, and offered no particular objection. He spoke of the position they had heretofore occupied in regard to this question, but forbore to urge it in opposition to Alexander's conscientious convictions. He finally remarked: " I have no more to add. You must please yourself." It was suggested, however, that in view of the public position they occu- pied as religious teachers and advocates of reformation, it would be jiroper that the matter should be publicly announced and attended to amongst the people to whom they had been accustomed to preach ; and he requested Alexander to get Mr. Luce to call with him on his way down, at whatever time might be appointed. Wednesday, the 12th day of June, 1812, having been selected, Elder Luce, in company with Elder Henry Spears, called at Thomas Camp- bell's on their way to the place chosen for the immersion, which was the deep pool in Buffalo Creek, where three members of the Associa- tion had formerly been baptized. Next morning, as they were setting oat, Thomas Campbell simply remarked that Mrs. Campbell had put up a change of raiment for herself and him, which was the first intima- tion given that they intended also to be immersed. Upon arriving at tiie place, as the greater part of the members of the Brush Run REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. i65 Church, with a large concourse of others, attracted by the noveltj of the oeeasion, were assembled at David Bryant's house, near the place, Thomas Campbell thought it proper to present, in full, the reasons which had determined his course. In a very long address he accord- ingly reviewed the entire ground which he had occupied, and the struggles that he had undergone in reference to the particular subject of baptism, which he had earnestly desired to dispose of in such a manner that it might be no hindrance in the attainment of Christian unity which he had labored to establish upon the Bible alone. In endeavoring to do this, he admitted that he had been led to overlook its importance, and the very many plain and obvious teachings of the Scriptures on the subject ; but having at length attained a clearer view of duty, he felt it incumbent upon him to submit to what he now plainly saw was an important divine institution. Alexander afterward followed in an extended defense of their proceedings, urging the necessity of submitting implicitly to all God's commands, and showing that the baptism of believers only was authorized by the Word of God. Seven persons were immersed — Alexander Campbell and his wife ; his father and mother, and his sister ; with James Hanen and his wife, the latter being a very intel- ligent and courageous woman. Alexander had stipula- ted with Elder Luce that the ceremony should be performed precisely according to the apostolic pattern, and that, as there was no account given to show that converts in primitive times were called upon to give what is termed a "Christian experience" before they had entered upon a Christian life, this modern custom should be omitted, and that the candidates should be admitted on the simple confession that "Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God." Elder Luce at first objected, as being contrary to Baptist usage, but finally N'ielded, believing that the demand was right, and that he would run the risk of censure. All were, therefore, admitted to immersion upon making the simple but comprehensive confession of Christ, the same as that which was required in apostolic times. This meeting, it .l66 ALEXANDER CAMPBELL ABANDONS SECTARIANISM. is related, continued about se7>ett hours. From what has been related in the foregoing chapters, one can readily perceive that the results of honest investigation thus practically brought to an issue, had been reached only through a series of severe mental struggles. Thomas Campbell had been a pedobaptist minister for twenty- five years. It never entered his mind, when he first began to advocate Christian union among Presbyterians, that his principles would actually lead to the abandon- ment of infant baptism. Having accomplished his special mission in propounding and developing the true basis of Christian union, which, in a general way, was enunciated in his "Declaration and Address," and beyond which general principle of union he did not seem disposed to advance, his illustrious son Alexander now changed positions with him, and advanced to the front as the master-spirit of the new revolution, deeply impressed with the conviction that the hand of God was guiding him in a path of duty and responsibility not contemplated by his father. The Brush Run congregation continued to grow by frequent accessions of immersed believers; and as it had been with the church organized by the Haldanes at Edinburgh, so to this church, immersion became an apt emblem of separation from the world — a separation from the traditions of an apostate Church, a separation from mystic Babylon. They adopted immersion as the only scriptural mode ; they rejected infant baptism as a human invention, and the simple confession that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God," made to Christ by the first converts, was acknowledged as the only require- ment which could be scripturally demanded of those who desired to become members of the one body. All REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. these matters were determined by the plahi and une- quivocal authority of the Holy Scriptures, as, from that time to this, they have continued to be prominent feat- ures in our plea for a restoration of the apostolic order of things. They had now, indeed, become learners in the school of Christ ; and in this respect they differed widely from all preceding reformers, in the fact that, instead of making creeds, ;r-forming creeds, and re-did- justing creeds, to suit the changing times, and to please the changeable moods of men, they sought after and adopted the Bible as their only creed, and found the basis of Christian unity alone in the Word of God. They proposed no patchwork of the divine order of things, but, finally, so far as Alexander Campbell was concerned, a radical reformation was determined upon. Abandoning all creeds as the outgrowth of human weak- ness, and as the groundwork of selfish sectarian rivals, he proposed a reformation de novo — a reformation that would eventually result in a complete restoration. And, hence, he instituted at once a thorough research of the entire grounds of Christianity; and, by his voluminous writings, and public debates, and by his matchless ser- mons, repeated and published, he rescued the Bible from the hands of priests and a hireling clergy, and, in defiance of the combined assaults of the infidel world, placed Christianity upon the basis of authenticity, cred- ibility and inspiration. He found the plan of salvation in the Scriptures, and not in a set of cold, abstract prop- ositions ; he found a Savior in the person of Jesus the Christ, and not within the pale of some sectarian church ; he discovered that the Church of Christ was established in Jerusalem, and not in Rome, or at Augsburg, or at Heidelberg, or at Oxford, or at Westminster. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL UNITES WITH THE BAPTISTS. In 1813, as in 1889, baptism, as taught by Baptists, was not a command of Jesus Christ, made essential to the salvation of a sinner, as one of the conditions of pardon and acceptance, but it was simply made a door into the "visible Church" — a door into the Baptist Church. The regenerated sinner — enlightened, saved and sanctified by the direct, irresistible energy of the Holy Spirit, without faith in testimony and without obe- dience to the gospel — first became a member of the "invisible Church" (whatever that is), and afterward, by a vote of a local Baptist church, he was allowed to be baptized in order that he might have the inestimable privilege of communing with Baptists in a visible Baptist church ! On the contrary, Alexander Campbell and those who worshiped with him in the Brush Run con- gregation, made the discovery, by honest and candid investigation, that no one, under apostolic teaching, was ever received into the one body — into a state of salvation and justification — without immersion into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. They discovered that it was by "the obedience of the faith," as well as by faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, that the sinner came into covenant relation with God, and that by this transition act he was conveyed from " the power of darkness into the kingdom of God's dear Son." In the Harbinger for 1848, page 344, Alex- ('68) REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 169 ander Campbell tells how he came to unite with the Baptists, and the circumstances which led to a condi- tional union with the Redstone Baptist Association. And here is the narrative : After my baptism, and the consequent new constitution of our church of Brush Run, it became my duty to set forth the causes of this change in our position to the professing world, and also to justify them by an appeal to the Oracles of God. But this was not all; the position of baptism itself to the other institutions of Christ became a new sub- ject of examination, and a very absorbing one. A change of one's views on any radical matter, in all its practical bearings and effects upon all his views, not only in reference to that simple result, but also in reference to all its connections with the whole system of which it is a part, is not to be computed, a priori, by himself or by any one eke. The whole Christian doctrine is exhibited in three symbols — baptism, the Lord's Supper and the Lord's Day institution. Some, nay, very many, change their views in regard to some one of these without ever allowing themselves to trace its connections with the whole institution of which it is either a part or a symbol. My mind, neither by nature nor by education, was one of that order. I must know now two things about everything — its caitse and its relations. Hence my mind was, for a time, set loose from all its former moorings. It was not a simple change of views on baptism, which happens a thousand times without anything more, but a new commencement. I was placed on a new eminence — a new peak of the mountain of God, from which the whole landscape of Christianity presented itself to my mind in a new attitude and position. I had no idea of uniting with the Baptists more than with the Moravians or the mere Independents. I had unfortunately formed a very unfavorable opinion of the Baptist preachers as then introduced to my acquaintance, as narrow, contracted, illiberal and uneducated men. This, indeed, I am sorry to say, is still my opinion of the min- istry of that Association at that day ; and whether they are yet much improved I am without satisfactory evidence. The people, however, called Baptists, were much more highly appreciated by me than their ministry. Indeed, the ministry of some sects is generally in the aggregate the worse portion of them. It was certainly so in the Redstone Association, thirty years ago. They were little men in a big office. The office did not fit them. They had a wrong idea, too, of what was wanting. They seemed to think that a 170 ALEXANDER CAMPBELL UNITES WITH THE BAPTISTS. change of apparel — a black coat instead of a drab - a broad rim on their hat instead of a narrow one — a prolongation of the face and a fictitious gravity — a longer and more emphatic pronunciation of certain words, rather than scriptural knowledge, humility, spirituality, zeal and Christian affection, with great devotion and great philanthropy, were the grand desiderata. Along with these drawbacks, they had as few means of acquiring Christian knowledge as they had either taste or leisure for it. They' had but one, two, or, at the most, three sermons, and these were either delivered in one uniform style and order, or minced down into one medley by way of variety. Of course, then, unless they had an exu- berant zeal for the truth as they understood it, they were not of the calibre, temper or attainments to relish or seek after mental enlarge- ment or independence. I could not, therefore, esteem them, nor court their favor by offering any incense at their shrine. I resolved to have nothing especially to do with them more than with other preachers and teachers. The clergy of my acquaintance in other parties of that day were, as they believed, educated men, and called the Baptists illiterate and uncouth men, without either learning or academic accomplishments or polish. They trusted to a moderate portion of Latin, Greek and metaphysics, together with a synopsis of divinity, ready-made in suits for every man's stature, at a reasonable price. They were as proud of their classic lore and the marrow of modem divinity, as the Baptist was of his "mode of baptism" and his "proper subject" with sovereign grace, total depravity and final perseverance. I confess, however, that I was better pleased with the Baptist people than with any other community. They read the Bible, and seemed to care for little else in religion than "conversion" and ''Bible doctrine." They often sent for us and pressed us to preach for them. We visited some of their churches, and, on acquaintance, liked the people more and the preachers less. Still I feared that I might be unreasonable, and by education prejudiced against them, and thought that I must visit their Association at Uniontown, Pa., in the autumn of 1812. I went there as an auditor and spectator, and returned more disgusted than when I went. They invited me "to preach," but I declined it altogether, except one evening in a private family, to some dozen preachers and twice as many laymen. I returned home, not intending ever to visit another Association. On my return home, however, I learned that the Baptists themselves did not appreciate the preaching of the preachers at that meeting. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 171 They regarded the speakers as worse than usual, and their discourses as not edifying — as too much after the style of John Gill and Tucker's theory of predestination. They pressed me from every quarter to visit their churches, and, though not a member, to preach for them. 1 often spoke to the Baptist congregations for sixty miles around. They all pressed us to join their Redstone Association. We laid the matter before the Church in the fall of 1813. We discussed the pro- priety of the measure. After much discussion and earnest desire to be directed by the wisdom which cometh from above, we finally con- cluded to make an overture to that effect, and to write out a full view of our sentiments, wishes and determinations on that subject. We did so in some eight or ten pages of large dimensions, exhibiting our remonstrance against all human creeds as bonds of communion or union amongst Christian churches, and expressing a willingness, upon cer- tain conditions, to co-operate or unite with that Association, provided always that we should be allowed to teach and preach whatever we learned from the Holy Scriptures, regardless of any creed or formula in Christendom. A copy of this document, we regret to say, was not preserved, and, when solicited from the clerk of the Association, was refused. The proposition was discussed at the Association, and, after much debate, was decided by a considerable majority in favor of our being received. Thus a union was formed. But the party opposed, though small, began early to work, and continued with a perseverance worthy of a better cause. There was an Elder Pritchard, of Cross Creek, Virginia; an Elder Brownfield, of Uniontown, Penn.; an Elder Stone, of Ohio, and his son Elder Stone, of the Monongahela region, that seemed to have confederated to oppose our influence. But they, for three years, could do nothing. We boldly argued for the Bible, for the New Testament Christianity, vex, harass, discompose whom it might. We felt the strength of our cause of reform on every indica* tion of opposition, and constantly grew in favor with the people. Things passed along without any prominent interest for some two or three yearn. The next Redstone Association convened at Cross Creek, August 30, 18 16. Alexander Campbell was nominated, with others, as one of the speakers for the occasion. Some of the jealous-minded ministers of the Association opposed the nomination, but the opposition 172 ALEXANDER CAMPBELL UNITES WITH THE BAPTISTS. was overruled by other members of that body. When it came Campbell's turn to preach, he selected for his topic the following words, as quoted from Rom. viii. 3 : * ' For what the law could not do, in that it was weak •through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the like- ness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." This was the young polemic's famous "Sermon on the Law," which subsequently created such wonder- ful excitement in the Baptist community. It was the sudden explosion, in the Baptist camp, of an apostolic bombshell. Even during its delivery, as soon as Elder Pritchard and other opposing preachers perceived its drift, they used every means openly to manifest their disapprobation. A lady in the congregation having fainted, Elder Pritchard rushed into the stand, called out some of the preachers, and created great disturb- ance in the large assembly, apparently with a design of distracting the attention of the eager listeners. As might be expected, much misrepresentation followed -the delivery of this discourse. It was on account of these misrepresentations that Mr. Campbell thought it best, soon afterward, to publish this revolutionary ser- mon in pamphlet form, as the most effectual means of refutation. The sermon is published in full in the Millennial Harbinger for 1846. It is certainly a remark- able production, which is too lengthy to reproduce upon these pages. His method of analysis was as follows : 1. Ascertain what ideas we are to attach to the phrase " the law " in this and similar portions of the Sacred Scriptures. 2. Point out those things which the law could not accomplish. 3. Demonstrate the reason why the law failed to accomplish these objects. 4. Illustrate how God has remedied these relative defects of the law. 5. In the last place, deduce such conclusions from these premises as must obviously and pecessarily present themselves to every unbiased and reflecting mind. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 173- Measured by the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, this sermon, in the estimation of those bigoted Baptists, was most unorthodox and mischievously heterodox. And these clergy were the more incensed because they found themselves incapable of answering the points taken in the sermon. The object of the sermon was, by contrasting the law of Moses with the gospel of Christ, by contrasting the Old Covenant with the New Covenant — by showing the difference between " the let- ter that kills" and "the law of the Spirit" that gives life — to convince his hearers that they could not be saved and justified by any system of things not author- ized by Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, and not proclaimed by his apostles. This sermon invoked the wrath of some of the Baptist clergy, and stirred up vengeful and uncompromising opposition. Subsequent to the presentation of this unanswerable address, this Baptist Association, for several consecutive years, by means of a self-constituted ecclesiastical court, brought charges of heretical teachings against Thomas and Alex- ander Campbell. Whenever their persecutors failed to sustain the charge of heresy, they would attempt to tamper with the ignorance and prejudices of members under their influence, and by pursuing this unchristian course lessen the unanimity of the churches in favor of the defendants in the case, and increase the chances of success in their ultimate excommunication from the Baptist communion. The two Campbells, foreseeing that it was the fixed intention of their mischievous per- secutors to gain a majority of votes in favor of their excommunication, severed their connection and withdrew from the Redstone Baptist Association, and united themselves with the Mahoning Baptist Association, in^ 174 ALEXANDER CAMPBELL UNITES WITH THE BAPTISTS. Eastern Ohio, and by this step frustrated the precon- certed schemes of their maUgnant opponents. This Association, being much more enh'ghtened and liberal in their views of the truth, received the two reformers, with other delegates from the feeble churches, with much cordiality and Christian affection. This Associa- tion received them upon the New Testament platform alone, to the exclusion of all human creeds and ' ' church standards." A SIMILAR REFORMATION IN KENTUCKY. At the time the Campbells were urging reformation in the Presbyterian churches in Western Pennsylvania, there was a movement, similar in character, going for- ward in Kentucky, led by Barton W. Stone, a man of great irttellectual force and possessed of rare zeal and devotion. Both Alexander Campbell and B. W. Stone sought to accomplish the same ends by the same means. Both, almost simultaneously, having discarded all human creeds, sought Christian union exclusively upon the basis of the Bible. By comparing notes, it was dis- covered that both were opposed to creeds as terms of communion ; that both desired to propagate only the primitive gospel ; that both were alike persecuted and maligned by those who, glorying in orthodoxy of opin- ion, failed to recognize a scriptural unity of faith ; and that both, after they came to understand the sentiments of each other, repudiating the despotism of opinionisin, accepted only of faith that was founded upon indisput- able testimony. In Kentucky, the adherents of Camp- bell were called " Reformers, " while at the same time the adherents of Stone were known as " Christians," or "Om^ians. " The followers of Stone had been charged with holding the doctrine of Arianism, but by inter- course with Stone and others, Campbell discovered that the charges were unjust and untrue. Campbell advo- cated fellowship with all who received the teachings of the Scriptures in their simple and obvious meaning, and (»7S) 176 A SIMILAR REFORMATION IN KENTUCKY. whose conduct corresponded with these teachings. He held that there was no need of strained interpretations, no need of specious glosses or textual perversions where no theological theory was to be sustained, but where all could learn the truth by taking the Bible in its proper connections, and construing it in harmony with the established laws of language and rules of interpretation. He held that the simple truths of the gospel could be received by babes in Christ, and that upon these com- mon truths all could be united in one body. In short, the guiding principles of Campbell were substantially the same as those which guided the actions of Stone. Both were alike devoted to the great end of uniting the true followers of Christ into one communion upon the Bible alone, but, at first, each regarded the method of its accomplishment from his own angle of vision ; and since Campbell contemplated the distinct congregations, with their proper functionaries, as the highest religious executive authority on earth, he was in doubt as to how a formal union could be attained, whether by a general convention of messengers or by a general assembly of the people. Suffice it to say, that the coalescing of the two peoples was brought about through the spirit of Christ and of brotherly love. Some notable men fell into the wake of the reforma- tory movement of B. W. Stone, such as Samuel and John Rogers, Thomas M. Allen, F. R. Palmer and John Allen Gano — all grand characters — and all of whom, in subsequent years, distinguished themselves as advocates for a restoration of the apostolic order of things. A union of the ' ' Christians " and ' ' Reformers, " or between the "Christian Church " and the Church of the "Re- formers," was directly secured through the agency of REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 177 John T. Johnson, a man of rare self-denial, a man of noble Christian integrity, as well as a natural orator. Johnson was originally a Baptist, but after examining in the light of the Bible what was vulgarly denominated " Campbellism," he separated from the Baptists, and, in 1 83 1, he formed the nucleus of a congregation of six on the basis of the Bible. Soon after, abandoning the lucrative practice of law, he began the public advocacy of the primitive gospel. Becoming intimately acquainted with B. W. Stone, who lived near Georgetown, he was urged by the latter to become co-editor of the Christian Messenger, to which he agreed at the close of 183 1. This paper was conducted in the interests of Christian union. Johnson found that a union in sentiment and religious aims already existed between the two peoples — the "Christians" and "Reformers" — to a large extent. The consummation of the union is thus described by Professor Richardson in his Alemoirs of Alexander Campbell: ThiB editorial union of B. W. Stone and John T. Johnson was soon followed by a fraternal union between the "Christian" Church and that of the "Keformers" meeting in Georgetown. Agreeing to wor- ship together, they found so much agreement in all essential matters, and so happy an effect produced in the increased number of conver- nons, that they were induced near the close of 1831 to appoint a general meeting at Georgetown to continue four days, for the purpose of considering the subject of a complete union between the two people. This meeting included Christmas Day, and a similar one was appointed for the following week, including New Year's Day, at Lexington. Many of the leading preachers on both sides attended and took part in these meetings, and so much evidence was afforded of mutual Christian love and confidence, and such undoubted assurances were given of a firm determination on the part of all to have nothing to do with doc- trinal speculations, but to accept as conclusive upon all subjects the simple teachings of the Bible, that there seemed to be no longer any- thing in the way of the most earnest and hearty co-operation. Aftpr 13 178 A SIMILAR REFORMATION IN KENTUCKY. the meeting at Lexington, some further friendly conferences were held by means of committees, and, by arrangement, the members of both churches communed together on the 19th of February, agreeing to consuinuiate the formal and public union of the two churches on the following Lord's Day, the 26th. During the week, however, some began to fear a diflSculty in relation to the choice of elders and the practical adoption of weekly communion, which they thought would require the constant presence of an ordained administrator. The per- son who generally ministered to the Christian Church at Lexington at this time was Thomas Smith, a man of more than ordinary abilities and attainments, and long associated with the movement of B. W. Stone. He was an excellent preacher, and was considered a skillful debater. He possessed withal a very amiable disposition, and was highly esteemed by Mr. Campbell, whom he often accompanied during his visits in Kentucky. He was at first, like others, apprehensive that the proposed union was premature, and that disagreement might arise in regard to questions of church order. The union was therefore post- poned, and matters remained for a short time stationary ; but it soon became generally apparent that there were no exclusive privileges belonging to preachers as it concerned the administration of ordinances, and Thomas M. Allen, coming to Lexington, induced them to complete the union and to transfer to the new congregation, thus formed under the title of "the Church of Christ," the comfortable meeting-house which they had previously held under the designation of " the Chris- tian Church." This wise measure secured entire unanimity, and was especially gratifying to the " Reformers," who had been meeting in a rented building. At Paris, also, Mr. Allen succeeded in effecting a union between the two churches, for one of which he had himself been preaching, while James Challen at this time ministered to the other. He proposed that both he and Mr. Challen should retire, and that the united churches should engage permanently the services of Aylette Raines. This was accordingly done, and Mr. Raines, leaving his field in Ohio, from this time continued to preach for the church at Paris, as well as for other churches in Kentucky, for more than twenty years, aiding besides in numerous protracted meetings, and by his steady, unremitting labors and able advocacy of the Reformation principles greatly extending their influence." — Memoirs of Alexander Campbeli, pp. 383-85. There were present at the Lexington Conference: B. W. Stone, John T. Johnson, John (Raccoon) Smith, REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 179 John Rogers, G. W. EUey and Jacob Creath, Jr. — all notable men. The adherents of Stone did not all follow him, and some of his brethren censured him for the course he had pursued. However, in the course of time, the great majority were absorbed in the common plea for Christian union. B. W. Stone had been raised a Presbyterian. He began his plea for Christian union upon the basis of the Bible in 1804, eight years before Alexander Campbell was immersed. It is a noteworthy fact that at the very time when these events were transpiring in Kentucky, the same .spirit of union was prevailing over sectarianism and bigotry and prejudice in other States also. John Long- ley, of Rush County, Indiana, under date of the 24th of December, 183 1, says: The Reforming Baptists and we are all one here. We hope that the dispute between you and Bro. Campbell, about names and priority, will forever cease, and that you will go on, united, to reform the world. Griffith Cathey, of Tennessee, on the 4th of January, 1832, writes substantially as follows: The members of the Church of Christ, and the members known by the name of Disciples, or Reformed Baptists, regardless of all charges about Trinitarianism, Arianism and Socinianism, and of the questions whether it is possible for any person to get to heaven without immer- sion, or whether immersion is for the remission of sins, have come forward, given the right hand of fellowship, and united upon the plain and simple gospel. Alexander Campbell, by his commanding talents, by his great force of character and by his invincible cour- age, overshadowed all other reformers, and at once, by common consent of all parties, became the acknowl- edged champion — the admired leader — of the great onslaught upon the sectarian world. B, W. Stone died l8o A SIMILAR REFORMATION IN KENTUCKY. at the age of eighty-four, after having spent his Hfe iiT laboring incessantly for the union of God's people. He was a grand character, a man of noble instincts, of supe- rior intelligence, and greatly loved and admired for his unselfish and philanthropic devotion to the cause of Christ. He lives in history as one of the most distin- guished factors in the greatest religious revolution of modern times. THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IDENTIFIED. By degrees the Mahoning Baptist Association lost its legislative and ecclesiastical character, under the reforma- tory movements of the Campbells, and their coadjutors, and the ministers of a free people, heretofore living under the influence of this Association, gradually lost their affection for human tradition and theological specu- lations, which had been made tests of Christian fellow- ship ; so that, in due course of time, by learning how to use the rules of Bible interpretation — how to quote and apply Scriptures — how to distinguish the law from the gospel — how to distinguish the Jewish from the Chris- tian dispensation, and the Patriarchal from the Jewish — this Association entirely lost its distinctive ecclesiastical features, and was finally absorbed by the "Big Meet- ings" of the "Western Reserve." It never was in the mind of either Thomas or Alex- ander Campbell to start a new sect ; indeed, as we have already shown, they disclaimed and abhorred the very idea; they simply sought reformation within their own ranks, as did the reformers of the three preceding cen- turies. But now, under the guidance of a gracious Providence, having broken away from all traditional trammels — the principles of the "Declaration and Address" pushing them to the front by logical necessity — having escaped the clerical yoke of spiritual bondage — and having accepted the Bible as their only safe and infallible guide, and acknowledging Jesus the Christ as (i8i) l82 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IDENTIFIED. their only infallible lawmaker and legislator, these illus- trious reformers, with other mighty men of influence and eloquence, from the Protestant denominations, from this time forward began to advocate, not simply church reformation — which was all that the earlier reformers sought to accomplish — but an entire restoration of the apostolic order of things. They now resolved to go back beyond Philadelphia, beyond Oxford, beyond Westmin- ster, beyond Geneva, beyond Augsburg, beyond Heidel- berg, beyond Rome, and back to Jerusalem, and there begin a new survey of the great domain of apostolic Christianity. Accordingly, it was not long until the Christian Baptist, and other contemporaneous periodi- cals, were started to advocate this plea; a Bible college was organized in the interest of this plea ; a host of elo- quent preachers entered body and soul into the work, and, as a consequence, converts from the world and from sectariandom were made by thousands. If Martin Luther wrested the Bible out of the hands of the Roman priesthood, and gave it to the people — which had been a sealed book to the masses — Alexan- der Campbell did a mightier work by wresting from the hands of the Papal and Protestant clergy false keys of Bible interpretation, while at the same time he restored to the people the only correct and approved rules of interpretation, which, without the aid of the private and mystic explanations of especially "called and sent preachers," would enable them to understand the Word of God for themselves. He taught the people how to read the Scriptures intelligently, and how to "accu- rately divide the Word of Truth." He showed how necessary it is to know where a thing was done, when it was done, how it was done, and by whom it was done REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. whether the person speaking was a Jew or a Christian ; whether the persons addressed were saints or sinners; whether under the Old Covenant, or under the New Covenant ; whether the speakers were discussing the law or the gospel ; whether those who wrote had refer- ence to the Church of Christ, or to the " church that was set up in the wilderness" by Moses; or whether the gospel in fact was first preached by Abraham, or by the apostles of Jesus Christ ; or whether the law of par- don, in relation to the sinner, emanated from Moses, a fallible man, or from Jesus of Nazareth, the divine Son of God. Following the motto that ' ' where the Bible speaks, ive speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent,'' Alexan- der Campbell, both in preaching and writing, showed the difference between facts and opinions — between per- sonal knowledge — the knowledge of the senses — and faith founded on testimony. He utterly repudiated the idea that the opinions of men should be made tests of Christian fellowship. These he regarded as only private property, and that, as such, they should be always held in abeyance, and never be intruded into the domain of fact and faith. He simplified the whole matter by showing that facts are to be believed, commands to be obeyed, and the promises of the gospel to be enjoyed. The commonest mind could apprehend these simple but grand divisions of the scheme of redemption. He showed that the plan of salvation was a divine and sublime and glorious unity — that there is "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism," and that ''the doc- trine of Christ " is a proposition altogether different from the "doctrines of men," and from the 'doctrines of demons." He contended — and his arguments remain 184 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IDENTIFIED. unassailable to the present day — that the Bible, and the Bible only, can be made the basis of Christian unity, and that no unit)-, either in form or in spirit, can ever take place until all creeds, Confessions of Faith, "Church Standards," and denominational titles — such as Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Metho- dist and Roman Catholic — shall be removed out of the way. All these are divisive of the "one body," of which body Christ is the one living and all-animating Head. Campbell insisted that Bible things should be incul- cated in Bible words, that all theological terminologies should be abandoned, and that the nomenclature of scholastic schools should be rejected, as only serving to confuse and discourage " the common people who gladly hear the word," and who can not comprehend meta- physics, theological abstractions, and inferential deduc- tions. He taught — as do the " Disciples of Christ " now uniformly — that "the gospel is the power of God unto salvation," and that God has revealed no power above and beyond the gospel, as essential to enlighten- ment and conviction of sin. He did not limit the power of the Spirit, but he maintained that we have no right to pry into mysteries which the Almighty Father has not revealed. ' ' Secret things belong to God, but revealed things to us and our children." He taught that the revealed promises of God are the only evidences of pardon in our possession, and while relying implicitly and unequivocally upon the Word of God, he rejected all sensuous evidence of pardon, such as psychological impressions, dreams, apparitions, super- natural visitations, ecstasies ; all of which superstitious notions were prevailing at the time when — eighty years REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 185 ago — the Campbells proposed to abandon the sectarian world and return to the Bible and apostolic teaching. Of course, as a consequence of the principles which they adopted, they could do no other than throw overboard, as lumber of the mystical and monkish ages, all specu- lative theories of conversion — the doctrine of direct supernatural agency — and show, by apostolic teaching, that it is the moral power of divine truth, as exerted through the gospel, that changes the moral nature of man. By an appeal to the New Testament, they showed that the working of miracles, by the apostles, was designed as a "confirmation of the word," as revealed by the Holy Spirit, but that in no place is it recorded that a miracle ever changed the heart of a sinner. "Signs," says Paul, "are not for them that believe, but for them that believe not.'" The sinner is saved by faith in Jesus the Christ, and by obedience to the conditions of the gospel. Giving up infant baptism, while they were yet Pres- byterians in name, by a direct course, through Bible investigation, they came to that point, where, in the absence of all testimony, they were obliged to surrender both rantism and affusion, as being without the least authority in the Word of God. While accepting all the measures of reform as accom- plished by Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, Melancthon, John Wesley and Roger Williams, which were accomplished in harmony with the inspired Scriptures, Alexander Campbell, and those royal spirits co-operating with him, laid aside as impracticable all the theological specula- tions and false dogmas of those reformers, with all their lS6 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IDENTIFIED. contradictory deductions from human reason, unsup- ported by a "Thus saith the Lord." Having fully committed himself to a " Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things," Alexander Campbell encountered, in the outset, three popular systems of denominational justification, all of which, while being essentially the same in principle, flatly contradict the Word of God. These were Calvinism, Arminianism and Universalism. The central idea of the first is this: That God had from all eternity decreed the salvation of his own elect few, whose number can neither be increased nor diminished, while condemning all the rest of man- kind to eternal reprobation. And further, that man being totally depraved, and incapable of any volition toward good thoughts or good deeds, can only be renewed in life by the irresistible grace of God. The second theory embraces this idea: That, as it is impos- sible for man to repent of his sins, until he receives the gift of faith direct from heaven, he must remain in his sins until God, in his own good time, sends down the Holy Spirit to regenerate him. Man can do nothing, God must do all ; man must wait, and if God chooses not to visit him, he is lost. The third theory is to this effect: That God has from all eternity decreed the sal- vation of all men, and that all men, without the loss of one soul, will be made finally holy and happy. Take either one of these systems, and it is clear to be seen that man has nothing at all to do in securing his own salvation — that his salvation or condemnation is wholly in the hands of a stern and implacable God ; that salva- tion is entirely unconditional ; that man is wholly and helplessly passive, and therefore irresponsible. Camp- bell held that if these systems are in harmony with the REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 187 moral government of God, then is man not a free moral agent ; that there is no virtue in preaching the gospel ; that there is no need of a Mediator, and that a remedial scheme is a superfluity, if not an absolute myth. The effects of the religious revolution inaugurated by the Campbells were not foreseen by them and their coadjutors. Their steps evidently were guided by the providence of God ; and now there is not a pulpit or a religious journal in the land that has not either directly or indirectly been influenced by the plea of those godly men, to reject many of the grosser forms of a perverted Christianity. On the question of Christian union — toward the consummation of which grand object Alex- ander Campbell gave the undivided energies of his eventful life — there is now a rapidly-growing sentiment among all good men in the various denominations. Campbell held that all denominations never could unite as one spiritual body — neither as Presbyterians, nor as Episcopalians, nor as Lutherans, nor as Methodists, nor as Baptists, nor upon any other sectarian name ; but that they could unite as Christians, that being designa- ted as the scriptural name of the followers of Christ, the Founder of the Church. He held that all these church titles were of purely human origin, that they tended continually toward carnality and the secularization of divine things, and that as central ideas of church polities — each polity antagonizing every other polity — they contradict the last intercessory prayer of our Savior, who prayed that all his disciples might be of one mind and heart ; that as he and his Father are one, so his disciples might be one with them, that the world might believe that he is the Messiah — Christ himself representing the one true vine, and his disciples the branches, which fact i88 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IDENTIFIED. forever excludes the idea that denominations constitute "branches" of the "one body." When Christ said, " Upon this rock I will build my church," the concep- tion of a Papal or Protestant Church, or a Gallican or Anglican Church, was not present in his mind. So many diverse bodies can not possibly possess the Spirit of Christ. The spirit of «an is in them, and hence they can not be divine. THE RESTORATION OF APOSTOLIC CHRIS. TIANITY. In closing our series of articles on Reformatory Move- ments, we propose to give the results of the religious revolution as inaugurated by Alexander Campbell. It has been made evident by the numerous facts which we have heretofore narrated, that Campbell worked himself out of spiritual Babylon by a thorough investi- gation of the Scriptures, and that he abandoned all Protestant sects because he could not find the basis of Christian union in any one of them. He faithfully fol- lowed the logic of God's Word to the end. He dis- carded the deductions of human reason as a logical necessity, and settled all controversies by a direct appeal to the law and authority of Jesus the Christ. He estabHshed the proposition that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, by the most majestic and incontrovertible arguments that were ever penned by mortal man. His arguments on the divinity of Christ stand before the world without a parallel. His theses on the Person of Christ, as Prophet, Priest and King, and as the only Savior of men, and as the only hope of the world, have never been excelled. He showed that salvation from sin is not in subscription to creeds or dogmas ; not in joining some orthodox church ; not in indorsing the opinions of men, however hoary with age ; but in a person, in the Person of Christ ; that " all the promises of God are in him yea, and in him amen." (189J I go THE RESTORATION OF APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANITY. The ground of assurance we occupy may now be briefly stated : I. Our creed is the Inspired Word of God ; no more, no less. II. We believe with all the heart that the Word of God — the Plan of Salvation — was miraculously revealed by the Holy Spirit, and that the revealed Word was confirmed by miraculous attestations of divine power. III. We believe that the gospel — which consists of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ — is the power of God unto salvation to every one who believes it and obeys it. IV. Accepting of no theory of regeneration, and dis- carding alike all mystical influences and all scholastic vagaries, we believe that sinners who are brought under the power of the truth, are begotten of the Word of God — are begotten through the gospel — are made alive by the truth, and born of water. V. We believe that immersion, preceded by genuine faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior of men, and preceded by genuine repentance toward God, is, if done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, for the remission of past sins, and that it is the consummating act in the divine process of salvation. VI. Taking the Scriptures as our infallible guide in all spiritual things, we believe that the heart of the sin- ner is changed by the truth contained in the Scriptures, and that it is the moral power of God found in the divine testimonies, which, when brought to bear upon the sinner's heart, changes his moral nature, and makes him a "new creature" in Christ Jesus. We believe that the truth, as revealed by the Holy Spirit, was intended by the heavenly Father to "convince the world REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 191 of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment to come;" that in conversion, the Holy Spirit is the agent, and the word revealed by the Spirit the instrument. We believe that it is the Word of God, w^ielded by the Spirit, that does the execution, and that it is the Word of God, as the sword of the Spirit, that slays the sinner and destroys his love of sin. As we do not believe in the efficacy of the Word without the presettce of the Spirit, neither do we believe in a direct mystical operation of the Spirit without the presence of the Word in the sinner's heart. VII. We believe that the act of pardon takes place in the mind of God, and not in the sinner's heart; and we know this to be so, because the conditions of pardon are found recorded in the revealed will of God. We do not believe that a sinner — by the mere testimony of his feelings — has a personal consciousness of the pardon of his sins. Remission of sins is purely a matter of faith in the promises of God, and not a mere matter of con- scious feeling, as produced by a psychological state of heart or affections. It is the love of God that changes the sinner's heart, and it is the truth that convicts the sinner of sin ; and it is God who remits sin through obedience to the gospel. Of course, we here only pro- pose to give statements, not arguments. VIII. We do not pretend to limit the power of the Holy Spirit, but, in the absence of testimony, we can not believe that there is a superadded power, beyond and apart from the gospel, necessary to the conviction of the sinner. Such a speculation was never even hinted at by Christ and his apostles. In all doctrinal matters, and in all questions of commands and personal obe- dience, " where the Bible speaks, we speak; and where the Bible is silent, we are silent." We are, therefore, 192 THE RESTORATION OF APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANITY. as much bound to respect the silence of the Bible, as we are bound to honor its utterances. IX. We believe that God only acknowledges one body of believers, and that all converted men, in order to become members of the one body of Christ, must, by the teachings of the Holy Spirit, be "immersed into the one body." We designate the one body, of which Christ is the one all animating head, the Church of Christ, because the body is constituted of those who believe in Christ, obey Christ, and walk in Christ. We call ourselves Christians, because Christ is our only King and Lawgiver, and him only do we propose to follow. We call ourselves the Disciples of Christ, because we learn only from Christ and his apostles. X. In church edification, in worship, in disciplinary matters, and in the weekly communion, we take the New Testament as our only rule of faith and practice. There are some things we do not believe, because not authorized and sustained by the Word of God. 1. We do not believe in sectarian churches, nor in Protestant denominationalism, nor in the Roman Catho- lic Church, or any other church that has an existence without the sanction of God's Word. 2. We do not believe in human creeds, in speculative dogmas, in theories of regeneration, in the mourning- bench business, in dreams and apparitions, in phantasies and ecstasies, nor in sensuous feelings, as guides in the way of obedience and of a divine life. 3, We do not believe in a direct, special, irresistible theory of regeneration. 4, We do not believe in infant baptism, nor in affu- sion, nor rantism. We have good reason to believe that they originated in an apostate church. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 5. We do not believe in a Roman Church, nor in an Episcopal Church, nor in a Lutheran Church, nor in a Presbyterian Church, nor in a Baptist Church, nor in a Methodist Church, nor in any other church not known in the apostolic age. We do not believe in any human organization as a substitute for the Church of the living God. 6. We do not believe that persons who have never been immersed into Jesus Christ — into the death of Christ — into the one body — are members of the one body. 7. We do not believe that morality, no matter how high its character or how highly prized by men, will save a soul from eternal death, without the righteousness of Christ, and without the righteousness of God. 8. We do not believe that God will save men by faith alone, or by repentance alone, or by baptism alone, or by grace alone, or by works alone. We believe that God will save men who sustain the relation of a Chris- tian, and who have the character of a Christian. This is inclusive of all possible good. 9. We do not believe in a Papal form of church gov- ernment, nor in an Episcopal form of church govern- ment, nor in a Presbyterial form of church government; but we do believe in the independency of every congre- gation, as regards church government, and in the sov- ereign right of every congregation to choose its own officers, such as elders and deacons. We also believe that while the congregations maintain a separate gov- ernmental independency, they are at the same time spiritually and sympathetically united in Christ as one harmonious body, and that they are mutually bound to co-operate in the accomplishment oi the same grand 14 194 THE RESTORATION OF APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANITY. objects, especially in proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation and establishing congregations according to the apostolic model. What we have now mapped out as the ground we occupy, we are thoroughly convinced is truly the apos- tolic ground, and a ground of unity about which there can be no intelligent controversy. The ground we occupy excludes all sectarianism. All the people of God may occupy this ground. We invite all men to receive the same Bible we receive ; to accept the same creed we accept ; to honor the same Lord we honor; to obey the same gospel we obey ; to bear the same scrip- tural titles we bear; to "walk by the same rules," to "mind the same things," to "speak the same things," to be "joined together in the same judgment," to con- tend earnestly for the same faith. HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. Many writers, Protestant as well as Romanist, have regarded the assembly of the apostles and elders of Jerusalem, of which we read in Acts xv. , as the first ecclesiastical council, and the model on which others were formed, in accordance, as they suppose, with a divine command or apostolic institution. But this view of the subject is unsupported by the testimony of the apostolic times, and is at variance with the opinions of the earliest writers, who refer to the councils of the Church, Tertullian speaks of the ecclesiastical assem- blies of the Asiatic and European Greeks as a human institution ; and in a letter written by Firmilian, Bishop of CiEsarea, to Cyprian, about the middle of the third century, the same custom is referred to merely as a con- venient arrangement existing at that time among the churches of Asia Minor for common deliberation on matters of extraordinary importance. Besides this, it will be discovered, upon examination, that the councils of the Church were assemblages of altogether a differ- ent nature from that of the apostles; the only point in which the alleged model was really imitated being, per- haps, the form of the preface to the decree, "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." — Studten u. Kritiken, 1842, i. 102 sq. A council is an assembly of bishops or pastors called together for the discussion and regulation of ecclesias- tical affairs. The beginning of the system of church (195) 196 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. councils is traced to the meeting of the apostles and' elders at Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts xv. This, as mentioned above, is generally considered to be the first council; but it differed from all others in this circum- stance, that it was under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit. Roman Catholic writers speak of four apostolical councils, viz.: Acts i. 13, for the election of an apostle; Acts vi., to choose deacons; Acts xv., the one named above; Acts xxi. 18 sq. But none of these had a public and general character, except the one in Acts xv. (Schaff, History of Christian Church, ii., sec. 65). Although the gospel was soon after propaga- ted in many parts of Europe, Asia and Africa, there is not a particle of evidence to show that any public meet- ing of Christians was held for the purpose of discussing any contested point until the middle of the second cen- tury. From that time councils became frequent; but as they consisted only of those who belonged to particular districts or countries, they are usually termed diocesan, provincial, patriarchal or national councils, in contradis- tinction to ecutiienical or general councils, /. e., supposed to comprise delegates or commissioners from all the churches in the Christian world, and consequently sup- posed to represent the Church universal. According to Dr. Schaff, the word ecumenical occurs first in the sixth canon of Constantinople, A. D. 381. But no such assembly was held, or could be held, before the establishment of the Christian religion over the ruins of paganism in the Roman Empire. Their title to rep- resent the whole Christian world is not valid. After the fourth century the "lower clergy and the laity" were entirely excluded from the councils, and bishops only admitted. The number of bishops gathered at the REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 197 greatest of the councils constituted but a small portion of the number who claimed to be bishops. The ecu- menical councils which are generally admitted to bear that title most justly were rather Greek than general councils. In the strict and proper sense of the term, therefore, no ecumenical council has ever been held. There are seven councils admitted by both the Greek and Latin churches as ecumenical, to which number the Roman CathoHcs add twelve, making nineteen in all, which we now shall notice in their regular historical order. X. APOSTOLICAL COUNCIL. This council convened in Jerusalem, A. D. 47, and, according to the meaning of the term, is the only coun- cil mentioned in the New Testament. The conversion of Cornelius having thrown open the Church of Christ to the Gentiles, many uncircumcised persons were soon gathered into the congregation formed at Antioch under the labors of Paul and Barnabas ; but, on the visit of certain Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, a dispute arose as to the admission of such Gentiles as had not ev'en been proselytes to Judaism, but were brought in directly from paganism. To settle this question, the brethren at Antioch deputed Paul and Barnabas, with several others, to lay the matter before a general meet- ing of the apostles and elders in the Jerusalem congre- gation, which was the first congregation formed under the apostles, and obtain their formal and final decision on a point of so vital importance to the progress of the gospel in all heathen lands. On their arrival and pres- entation of the subject, a similar opposition (and of a heated character, as we find from the notices in Gal. ii.) was made by Christians formerly of the Pharisaic party HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. at the metropolis ; so that it was only when, after con- siderable dispute, Peter had rehearsed his experience with reference to Cornelius, and the signal results of the labors of Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles had been recounted, that James, as president of the council, pronounced in favor of releasing those received into the church from the Gentiles, without requiring circumcision or the observance of the Mosaic ceremonial law. This conclusion was generally assented to, and promulgated in a regular authoritative form, and was sent back to Antioch by Paul and Barnabas by letter message, to be thence circulated in all the churches in pagan countries. By the decision of this council, the faithful were commanded to abstain (i) from meats which had been offered to idols (so as not even to appear to countenance the worship of the heathen), (2) from blood and strangled things, and (3) from fornica- tion— the prevailing vice of the Gentiles. II. COUNXIL OF NICE. Two church councils have been held at Nicsea, but only the first of these was properly cecumenical, and it is regarded as the most im portant of such assemblies. It was convened by the Emperor Constantine in A. D. 325. Along with the imperial summoning of the coun- cil, the different bishops were proffered the service of public conveyances for themselves and two presbyters and three servants ; and when the three hundred and eighteen bishops who had complied with the Emperor's request gathered at Nice, the Emperor himself opened the council, June 19, in his own palace, and its use for future sessions was afforded to this august body of ecclesiastics, as it appears from the records that the REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 199 sessions, continuing for two months, were held some- times at the palace, and sometimes at a church or some public building. The Empire, at the time of the call of the council, contained in all about eighteen hundred bishops (one thousand for the Greek provinces, eight hundred for the Latin), and of these, if three hundred and eighteen attended as reported by Athanasius {Ad. Apos., c. 2., et al.), Socrates {Hist. Eccles., bk. viii.) and Theodoret {Hist. Eccles., i. 7), there were one-sixth of the "episcopal sees" represented at Nice — a large number, indeed, if we take into consideration the vast- ness of the imperial realm, and the difficulty of travel in those times. Including the presbyters and deacons and other attendants, the number may have amounted in all to between fifteen hundred and two thousand. Most of the Eastern provinces were strongly repre- sented. Besides a great number of obscure mediocri- ties, there were several venerable and distinguished men; as e. g., Eusebius of Caesarea, who was most emi- nent for learning; the "young archdeacon Athanasius," who accompanied the bishop Alexander of Alexandria, and who was noted for zeal, intellect and eloquence. "Some, as confessors, still bore in their bodies the marks of Christ from the times of persecution ; Paphantias of the Upper Thebaid, Potamon of Herak- lea, whose right eye had been put out, and Paul of Neo-Cxsarea, who had been tortured with red-hot iron under Licinius, and was crippled in both his hands. Others were distinguished for extraordinary ascetic holi- ness, and even for miraculous works ; like Jacob of Nisibis, who spent years as a hermit in forests and caves, and lived like a wild beast on roots and leaves, and Spyridion (or St. Spiro), of Cyprus, the patron of 200 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUN'CILS. the Ionian Isles, who even after his ordination remained a simple shepherd. The Latin Church, on the contrary, had only seven delegates; from Spain, Hosius or Osius, of Cordova, the ablest and most influential of the West- ern representatives ; from France, Nicasius of Dijon ; from North Africa, CiECelian of Carthage ; from Pan- nonia, Domnus of Strido; from Italy, Eustorgias of Milan, and Marcus of Calabria; from Rome, the two presbyters, Victor, or Vitus, and Vincentius, as delegates of the aged Pope Sylvester I., who found it impossible to attend in person. A Persian bishop, John, also, and a Gothic bishop, Theophilus, the forerunner and teacher of the Gothic Bible translator Ulfilas, were present." {McClintock and Strongs Encyclopedia, vol. vii., p. 44.) Various theories have been propounded to explain Constantine's aim in calling this council. By some it is represented as serving a political purpose (based on Eusebius, Vita. Constant, iii. 4); by others it is regarded as intended to restore quiet to the Church and unite all its parties in the great Trinitarian question on which the Church was at that time greatly divided — there existing three parties : one, which may be called the orthodox party, held firmly to the doctrine of the deity of Christ; the second was the Arian party, who regarded Christ as only a man ; and the third, which was in the majority, taking conciliatory or middle ground, and consenting to the use of such christological expressions as all parties could consistently agree upon. They acknowledged the divine nature of Christ in general biblical terms, but avoided the use of the term homoousian (which means like substance with the Father), which the Arians decried as unscriptural, Sabellian, and material- istic. According to Pusey, ' ' Constantine did not REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 20 1 understand the doctrine, and attached as much or more importance to uniformity in keeping Easter as to unity of faith. Indeed, he himself at this ti re beHeved in no doctrine but that of Providence, and spared no terms of contempt as to the pettiness of the dispute between Alexander and Arius" {Councils of the Church, p. 102); yet it would seem that Constantine only called a council when he believed it impossible to restore peace between the contending parties, led respectively by Arius and Alexander, and now turned over the case for settlement to the bishops, who appeared to him to be the repre- sentatives of God and Christ, the organs of the divine Spirit " that enlightened and guided the Church," and he appears to have hoped that when in council assem- bled, analogous to the established custom of deciding controversies in the single provinces by assemblies com- posed of all the provincial bishops, they would be able to dispose of the present controversy. No complete collection of the transactions of this Nicaean ecumenical council have come down to us. Some account of the bishops who composed this assem- bly is given by Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret. It is uncertain who presided, but it is generally supposed that the president was Hosius, bishop of Cordova in Spain. From the reports of two of its attendants, Athanasius and Eusebius of Csesarea, we learn that it busied itself mainly with the settlement of the different christological views. The opening sessions were prin- cipally devoted, according to these writers, to a consid- eration of Arian views, and resulted finally in the examination of Arius himself He did not hesitate to maintain that the Son of God was a creature, made from nothing ; that there was a time when he had no 202 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUN'CILS. existence ; that he was capable of his own free will of right and wrong. Athanasius, although at the time but a deacon, drew the attention of the whole council by his marvelous penetration in unraveling and laying open the artifices of the heretical views of Arius and his followers. He resisted Eusebius, Theognis and Maris, the chief supporters of Arius, and evinced such zeal in defense of the truth that he attracted both the admira- tion of all the anti-Arian party and the bitter hatred of the Arian party. We are told that so great and far- reaching was the influence of the criticism of Athana- sius, that many of the Arians became doubtful of their own standpoint, and eighteen of them abandoned the cause of Arius. The orthodox party themselves became enthusiastic in behalf of their cause, and when Eusebius of Caesarea proposed a confession of faith — an ancient Palestinian confession, which was very similar to the Nicene, and acknowledged the divine nature of Christ in general biblical terms, but avoided the term in ques- tion [homooiisios, of tJie same essence), they rejected it, though the Emperor had seen and approved this con- fession, and even the Arian minority were ready to accept it They wished a creed to which no Arian could honestly subscribe, and especially insisted on inserting the expression hoino-usios, which the Arians so much objected to. The fathers finally presented through Hosius of Cordova another confession, which became the substance of what is now known and owned by the orthodox churches as the well-known Nicene Creed. Here is the Nicene Creed, as translated from the Greek, and which was adopted at the council of Nice in 325: REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 203 THE NICENE CREED. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of ail things Tisible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God begotten of the Father ; only-begotten, that is of the substance of the Father; God of God; Light of Light; very God of very God; begotten, not made; of the same substance with the Father ; by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth ; who for us men and our salvation descended and became flesli, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day. He ascended into heaven ; he cometh to judge the quick and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But those who say there was a time wJien he was not ; or that he was not before he was begotten ; or that he was made from that which had no being; or who affirm the Son of God to be of any other substance or essence, or created, or variable, or mutable, such persons doth the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematize. This creed was enlarged at the second Council of Constantinople, in 381, by which the faith of the Church with regard to the person of Christ was set forth in opposition to certain errors, notably Arianism. Moreover, not only the Semi-Arians, but even many of the Nicenians (followers of the Nicene Creed), held, with the Arians, and especially the Macedonians, that the Holy Spirit was created by the Father (Gieseler i. c). After ineffectual attempts, at several synods, to agree upon a formula, the Nicene Symbol, with certain additions, was adopted in 381, as already stated, at the second ecumenical Council of Constantinople. The parts added at Constantinople are put in brackets. We append it below as enlarged : (1) I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker [of heaven knd earth], and of all things visible and invisible. (2) And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father [before all worlds]; [God of God]; Light of Light ; very God of very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. (3) Who for us men and our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate [by the Holy .204 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. S)>irit of the Virgin Marr], and was made man [and was craelfied. »]»■', for us under Pontius Pilate]; he sufiFered and was buried; and the tMrd dav he rose again, according to the Scriptures ; and ascended iuio heaven [and sitteth on the right hand of the Father]. And he shall come ajain with glory to judge both the quick and the dead [whose kingdom shall have no end]. And I believe in the Hoi;.' St^irit [the Lord and Giver of Life], who proceedeth from the Fatht-r [and the Son], who, with the Father and the Son together is worshiped aud glorified ; who spake bj the prophets. And I believe in one tathoiic and apostolic chuxclu I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. The decision of the council having been laid before Constantine, he saw clearly that the Eusebian formula would not pass ; and as he had at heart, for the sake of peace, the most nearly unanimous decision which was possible, he gave his voice for the disputed word, and declared that he recognized in the unanimous consent of the bishops the work of God, and received it with reverence, declaring that all those persons should be banished who refused to submit to it. Upon this the Arians, through fear, also anathematized the dogmas condemned, and subscribed the faith laid down by the council ; that they did so only outwardly was shown by their subsequent conduct. It was declared by its advo- cates that it was presented after mature deliberation, and after diligent consultation of all that the holy evangelists and apostles have taught upon the subject ; and it proceeded to set forth the true doctrine of the Church in a creed, in which, in order to defy all the subtleties of the Arians (says a modern "orthodox" historian), the council thought good to express by the term " consubstantial " — honioousios — the divine essence or substance which is common to the Father and the Son. According to Athanasius, this creed was in a REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 20$ great measure composed by Hosius, of Cordova. It was written out by Hermogenes, bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, and subscribed, togetlier with the condem- nation of the dogmas and expressions of Arius, by all the bishops present with the exception of a few of the Arians. Socrates {lib. i., ch. 5) says that all the bishops except five; Baronius, that all except Eusebius, of Nicomedia, and Theognis, of Nicasa, assented to the use of the word oyioouaio' — homoousios. According to Cave, Secundus, of Ptolemais, and Theognis, of Marmorica, alone refused. Arius himself was banished, by Con- stantine's order, to Illyria, where he remained until his recall, which took place five years after. We have now transcribed the chief acts of the Nicene Council; but that our readers may have, if possible, the full benefit of the minor proceedings of " the great and holy council, " which "holds the highest place among all the councils," we proceed to show what other grave matters were disposed of by these famous bishops. First. They considered the subject of the Meletian schism, which for some time past had divided Egypt, and they decreed that Meletius should keep the title and rank of bishop in his See of Lycopolis, in Egypt, forbid- ding him, however, to perform any episcopal functions ; also, that they whom he had elevated to any ecclesias- tical dignities should be admitted to communion, upon condition that they should take rank after those who were enrolled in any parish (the district under a bishop's jurisdiction, which is now called a "diocese," was so styled in the Church at that time), and who had been ordained by Alexander. Second. They decreed that throughout the Church, the festival of Easter should be celebrated on the Sunday after the full moon which 206 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. happens next after March 21. Third. They published twenty canons or rules ; and here they are : 1. Excludes from the exercise of their functions those persona in holy orders who have made themselves eunuchs. 2. Forbids to raise neophytes to the priesthood or episcopate. 3. Forbids any bishop, priest or deacon to have women in their houses, except their mothers, sisters, aunts, or such women as shall be beyond the reach of slander. 4. Declares that a bishop ought, if possible, to be constituted by all the bishops of the province, but allows of his consecration by three, at least, with the consent of the absent bishops signified in writing; the consecration to be finally confirmed by the metropolitan. 5. Orders that they who have been separated from the communion of the Church by their own bishop shall not be received into commu- nion elsewhere. Also, that a provincial synod shall be held twice a year in every province to examine into sentences of excommunication ; one synod to be held before Lent, and the second in autumn. 6. Insists upon the preservation of the rights and privileges of the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and other provinces. 7. Grants to the bishop of ^Elia (JElia Capitolina, the new city built by -/Elius Hadrianus upon the site of Jerusalem, or near it), according to ancient tradition, the second place of honor. 8. Permits those who had been ministers among I he Cathari, and who returned into the bosom of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, having received imposition of hands, to remain in the ranks of the clergy. Directs, however, that they shall, in writing, make profession to follow the decrees of the Church ; and that they shall communicate with tliose who have married twice, and with those who have per- formed penance for relapsing in time of persecution. Directs, further, that in places where there is a Catholic bishop and a converted bishop of the Cathari (those pretending to peculiar purity of life), the former shall retain his rank and office, and the latter be considered only as a priest ; or the bishop may assign him the place of chorepiscopus. 9. Declares to be null and void the ordination of priests made with- out due inquiry, and of those who have, before ordination, confessed sins committed. 10. Declares the same of persons ordained priests in ignorance, or whose sin has appeared after ordination. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 207 11. Enacts that those who have fallen away in time of persecution without strong temptation shall be three years among the hearers, seven years among the prostrators, and for two years shall communi- cute witii the people without offering (" Cv);;imunic;:ile with the people in prayer, without being admitted to the oblation ; " i. e., to the holy eucharist, according to Johnson's way of understanding it). 12. Imposes ten years' penance upon any one of the military, who, having been deprived of a post on account of the faith, shall, after all, give a bribe, and deny the faith, in order to receive it back again. 13. Forbids to deny the holy communion to any one likely to die. 14. Orders that catechumens who have relapsed shall be three years among the hearers. 15. Forbids bishops, priests or deacons to remove from one city to another ; or any one offending against this canon to be compelled to return to his own church, and his translation to be void. 16. Priests or deacons removing from their own church not to be received into any other ; those who persist, to be separated from com- , munion. If any bishop dare to ordain a man belonging to another church, the ordination to be void. 17. Directs that all clerks guilty of usury shall be deposed. 18. Forbids deacons to give the eucharist to priests, and to receive it themselves before the priests, and to sit among the priests ; offenders to be deposed. 19. Directs that Paulianists coming over to the Church shall be bap- tized again. Permits those among their clergy who are without reproach, after baptism, to be ordained by the Catholic bishops ; orders the same thing of deaconesses. 20. Orders that all persons shall offer up their prayers on Sundays and Pentecost, standing. It was also proposed to add another canon, enjoining continence upon the married clergy ; Paphnutius warmly opposed the imposition of such a yoke, and prevailed, so that the proposal fell to the ground. The creed and the canons were written in a book, and signed by the bishops. The council issued a letter to the Egyptian and Libyan bishops as to the decision of the three main points; the Emperor also sent several edicts to the 2o8 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNXILS. churches, in which he ascribed the decrees to divine inspiration, and sent them forth as laws of the realm. On July 29, the twentieth anniversary of his accession, the Emperor gave the members of the council a splendid banquet in his palace, which Eusebius (quite too sus- ceptible of worldly splendor) describes as a figure of th.e reign of Christ on earth. Constantine remunerated the bishops lavishly, and dismissed them with a suitable valedictory, and with letters of commendation to the authorities of all the provinces on their homeward way. COUNCILS OF CONSTANTINOPLE. The first ecumenical Council of Constantinople was convoked in this eastern city in 381 by Theodosius the ' Great. There were present one hundred and fifty " orthodox bishops " (mostly eastern) and thirty-six fol- lowers of Macedonius, who left Constantinople when his doctrine was rejected by the. majority. The council condemned, besides the Macedonians, the Arians, Unomians and Eudoxians, and confirmed the resolutions of the Council of Nice. It assigned to the bishop of Constantinople the second rank in the Church, next to the bishop of Rome, and in controversies between the two reserved the decision to the Emperor. The Second Council of Constantinople. — This council (the fifth in the list of ecumenical councils) was held in 553 on account of the Three Chapters contro- versy, by one hundred and sixty-five mostly Oriental bishops. This council excommunicated the defenders of the Three Chapters — Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas and others, and the Roman bishop Vigilius, who refused to condemn the Three Chapters unconditionally. Third Council of Constantinople. — This is the REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 209 sixth in the list of ecumenical councils, and was held from 680 to 681 in the Trullan palace, and was attended by two hundred and eighty-nine bishops, among whom were three Oriental patriarchs, and four legates of the Roman bishop Agathon. The opinions of the Monothe- lites were condenmed, especially through the influence of the Roman legates, as heretical. The General Coun- cil convoked in 691 by the Emperor Justinian II., was also held in the Trullan palace. As it was regarded as supplementing the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils, ivJiich Jiad given no church laws, it was called Qtdnisexta {Synodus) or Quinisextuin {Cojuiliuin). It enacted one hundred and two stringent canons on the morals of clergymen and ecclesiastical discipline. It is recognized as an ecumenical council by the Greeks only. Fifth Council of Constantinople. —This assembled in 754, and was attended by three hundred and eighty- three bishops. It passed resolutions against the vener- ation of images, which were repealed by the second ecumenical council of Nice. It is not recognized by the Latin Church, but only by the Greek Church. Sixth Council of Constantinople. — This was held in 869, and by the Church of Rome is regarded as the fourth ecumenical council of Constantinople, or the eighth in the list of ecumenical councils. It deposed the patriarch Photius, restored the patriarch Ignatius, and enacted laws on church discipline. It is, of course, not recognized by the Greek or Eastern Church. In 879 another General Synod was held at Constantinople, attended by three hundred and eighty bishops, among whom were the legates of Pope John VIII. Photius was recalled, the resolutions of the preceding council against him repealed, and the position of the patriarch IS 2IO HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. of Constantinople to the Pope defined. The Greeks number this as the eighth ecumenical council. The nintli ecumenical council of the Greek Church was held in Constantinople, under the Emperor Adronicus the Younger, in 1341. It condemned the opinions of Bar- laam as heretical. Particular Synods. — The most important of the particular synods are: i. and 2. In 336 and 339, two Arian synods, under the leadership of Eusebius, of Nicomedia. The former deposed and excommunicated Marcellus, of Ancyra ; the latter deposed and expelled Bishop Paulus, of Constantinople, and appointed Euse- bius his successor. 3. A Semi-Arian Synod against .^tius, who was banished. 4. In 426, a synod held against the Messalians ; in 418, 449 and 450, synods against the Eutychians. 5. In 495 and 496, Eutychian synods, condemning their opponents, and recognizing Henoticotf, of Geno. 6. A synod, in 516, condemned the resolutions of the council of Chalcedon. 7. In 536, against Severus, Anthimus, and other chiefs of the Acephali. 8. In 541 (543?), against some views of Origen. 9. In 815, two synods on the question of veneration of images; the one, attended by two hundred and seventy bishops, in favor, and the second against the images. 10. In 861, introducing the patriarch Pho- tius, and approving the veneration of images. 11. In 1 170 (according to others, 1168), a synod, attended by many Eastern and Western bishops, on the reunion of the Eastern and Latin churches. Similar synods were held in 1277, 1280, 1285, all without effect. 12. In 1450, a council convoked by the Emperor Constantine Palaeologus deposed the patriarch Gregory, put in his place the patriarch Athanasius, and declined to accept REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 211 the resolutions passed by the council of Florence in favor of the union of the Greek and the Latin churches. 13. In 1638 and 1643, two synods held against the crypto-Calvinism of the patriarch Cyril Lucaris. GENERAL COUNCIL OF EPHESUS. The third ecumenical council, convoked by the em- peror Theodosius II., was held at Ephesus in 431, upon the controversy raised by Nestorius, bishop of Constan- tinople, who objected to the application of the title of ^£orox(>r* (theotokos) to the Virgin Mary. Celestine, the Pope, not seeing fit to attend in person, sent three legates, Arcadius and Projectus, bishops, and Philip, a priest. Among the first who arrived at the council was Nestorius, with a numerous body of followers, and accompanied by Irenaeus, a nobleman, his friend and protector. Cyril of Alexandria also, and Juvenal of Jerusalem came, accompanied by about fifty of the Egyptian bishops; Memnon of Ephesus had brought together about forty of the bishops within his jurisdic- tion ; and altogether more than two hundred bishops were present. Candidianus, the commander of the forces of Ephesus, attended, by order of the Emperor, to keep peace and order; but by his conduct he greatly favored the party of Nestorius. The day appointed for the opening of the council was June 7; but John of Antioch, and the other bishops from Syria and the East not having arrived, it was delayed till the 22d of the same month. At the first session of the council (June 22), before the Greek and Syrian bishops had arrived, Cyril and the bishops present condemned the doctrines of Nestorius, and deposed and excommunicated him. This • The offspring of God. 212 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNXILS. sentence was signed by one hundred and ninety-eight bishops, according to Tillemont, and by more than two hundred according to Fleury; it was immediately made known to Nestorius, and published in the public places. At the same time, notice of the act was sent to the clergy and to the people of Constantinople, with a recommendation to them to secure the property of the Church for the successor of the deprived Nestorius. As soon, however, as Nestorius had received notice of this sentence, he protested against it, and all that had passed at the council, and forwarded to the Emperor an account of what had been done, setting forth that Cyril and Memnon, refusing to wait for John and the other bishops, had hurried matters on in a tumultuous and irregular way. On the 27th of June, twenty-seven Syrian bishops arrived, chose John of Antioch for their president, and deposed Cyril in their turn. In August, Count John, who had been sent by Theodosius, arrived at Ephesus, and directed the bishops of both synods to meet him on the following day. Accordingly, John of Antioch and Nestorius attended with their party, and Cyril with the orthodox ; but immediately a dispute arose between them; the latter contending that Nestorius .should not be present, while the former wished to exclude Cyril. Upon this, the Count, to quiet the dispute, gave both Cyril and Nestorius into custody, and then endeavored, but in vain, to reconcile the two parties. And thus matters seemed as far from settle- ment as ever. The Emperor at last permitted the fathers of the council to send to him eight deputies, while the Orientals or Syrians, on their part, sent as many. The place of meeting was at Chalcedon, whither the Emperor proceeded, and spenc five days in listening to the argu- REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. •ments on both sides ; and here the Council of Ephesus may, in fact, be said to have terminated. Nothing is known of what pa=,scd at Chalcedon, but the event shows that Theodosius sided with the CathoHcs, since upon his return to Constantinople he ordered, by a letter, the Catholic deputies to come there, and to pro- ceed to consecrate a bishop in the place of Nestorius, whom he had already ordered to leave Ephesus, and to confine Jiimself to his monastery near Antioch. After- ward he directed that all the bishops at the council, including Cyril and Memnon, should return to their respective dioceses. The judgment of this council was at once approved by the whole Western Church, and by far the greater part of the East, and was subsequently confirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, consisting of six hundred and thirty bishops. Even John of Antioch and the Eastern bishops very soon acknowledged it. But Nestorius protested to the last that he did not hold the heretical opinions anathematized by the council. Of the other Councils of Ephesus, the following are all that need to be mentioned: i. In 245 (?) against the Patropassian Noetus ; 2. In 400, under Chrysostom, where Heraclidus was consecrated bishop of Ephesus, and six simoniacal bishops deposed; and the ''Robber Council,'' the details of which it is unnecessary to give. COUNCIL OF CH.\LCEDON. This (the fourth ecumenical council) was held in 451, and was convoked by the Emperor Marcianus, at the request of the bishops (especially of Leo I.) to put down the Eutychian and Nestorian heresies. The Emperor had first summoned the bishops to meet at Nicaea, bu 214 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. when the time approached he was prevented by political troubles from going so far from the Imperial City, and therefore changed the place of meeting to Chalcedon, in Bithynia, on the Bosphorus, opposite Constantinople. The council was attended by six hundred and thirty bishops and deputies, all Eastern except four legates sent by Leo I. from Rome. The sessions began Octo- ber 8, 451, and ended October 21. As the two parties in the council were roused to the highest pitch of pas- sion, the proceedings, especially during the early ses- sions, were very tumultuous, until the lay commissioners and senators had to urge the bishops to keep order, saying that such ex^orjasc-: dr^uor'.yju (vulgar outcries) were disgraceful. (Mansi, as quoted by Stanley, East- em Church, lect. ii., p. 165.) At the jirst session (October 8, 45 i) the council assem- bled in the church of St. Euphemia ; in the center sat the officers of the Emperor ; at their left, or on the epis- tle side, sat the bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, Caesarea in Cappadocia, and of the other Eastern dio- ceses, and Pontus, Asia and Thrace, together with the four legates ; on the other side were Dioscurus, Juvenal, Thalassius of Caesarea, and the other bishops of Egypt, Palestine and Illyria, most of whom had been present in the pseudo-council of Ephesus. In the midst were the holy gospels, placed upon a raise^l seat. When they had taken their seats, the legates of the Pope demanded that Dioscurus should withdraw from the assembly, accusing him of his scandalous conduct at Ephesus, and declaring that otherwise they would depart. Then the imperial officers ordered him to withdraw from the coun- cil, and to take his seat among the accused. The acts of the so called "Robber Council" of Ephesus were REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 215 discussed and condemned, and Dioscurus was left with only twelve bishops to stand by him. The Eutychian heresy, that in our Lord were two natures before his incarnation, and but one afterward, was anathematized. The majority of the assembled bishops then proceeded to anathematize Dioscurus himself, and demanded that he, together with Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustachius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia, who had presided at the council, should be deposed from the episcopate. At the second session (October 10) the following expo- sition of faith, substantially taken from a letter of Leo to Flavianus, was approved, and its opponents anathe- matized : "The divine nature and the human nature, each remaining perfect, have been united in one person, to the intent that the same Mediator might die, being yet immortal and impeccable. * * * Neither nature is altered by the other ; he who is truly God is also truly man. * * * T\\g Word and the flesh preserve each its proper functions. Holy Scrip- ture proves equally the verity of the two natures. He is God, since it is written, ' In the beginning was the Word, and the Word zvas God.' He is also 7Han, since it is written, 'The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. ' As man, he was tempted by the devil ; as God, he is ministered unto by angels. As man, he wept over the tomb of Lazarus ; as God, he raised him from the dead. As man, he is nailed to the cross ; as God, he makes all nature tremble at his death. It is by reason of the unity of tl: t person that we say that the Son of man came down from heaven, and that the Son of God was crucified and buried, although he was so only as to his human nature." 2l6 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. At the third session the deposition of Dioscurus was pronounced irrevocable, and, soon after, he wzis ban' ished to Gangra, in Paphlagonia, where, in the course of three years, he died. In the fifth session the following formula of faith, on the question at issue, was adopted : "We confess, and with one accord teach, one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in the divinity, perfect in the humanity, truly God and truly man, consisting of a rea- sonable soul and body ; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood ; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted ; who was begotten of the Father before all ages, according to the Godhead ; and in the last days, the same was born according to the manhood, of Mary the Virgin, mother of God, for us and for our salvation ; who is to be acknowledged one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the only begotten in two natures, without mixture, change, division or separation ; the difference of natures not being removed by their union, but rather the propriety of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and in one unoaraatz, so that he is not divided or separated into two persons, but the only Son, God, the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, and one and the same person." At the later sessions (ix.-xv.), a number of questions of order, supremacy, discipline, etc., were settled. But by far the most important was the twenty-eighth canon, session XV., by which the patriarch of Constantinople was placed on equality of authority with the bishop of Rome, saving only to the latter priority of honor. The Roman delegates protested against this, and, after its adoption, T ,eo constantly opposed it, upon the plea that REFOKMATOKY MOVEMENTS. 217 it contradicted the sixth of Nicaea, which assigned the second place in dignity to Alexandria ; however, in spite of his opposition and that of his successors, the canon remained and was executed. The acts of this council in Greek, with the exception of the anathemas, are lost. THE SECOND COUNCIL OF NICE. This is called the seventh ecumenical council, though falsely so, as some assert. It assembled August 17, 786, by order of the Empress Irene and her son Constantine. Owing to the tumults raised by the Iconoclastic party, it was dissolved and reconvened on September 24, 787. (Theophanes, who was present, says that the opening of the council was made on October 11.) There were present three hundred and seventy-five bishops from Greece, Thrace, Natolia, the Isles of the Archipelago, Sicily and Italy. Pope Hadrian and all the Oriental patriarchs sent legates to represent them in the synod, those of Rome taking the first place ; two commissioners from the Emperor and Empress also assisted at it. The causes which led to the assembling of this council were briefly as follows : The Emperor Leo (and afterward his son Constantine Copronymus), offended at the excess of veneration often offered to the images of Christ and the saints, made a decree against the use of images in any way, and caused them everywhere to be removed and destroyed. These severe and summary proceedings raised an opposition almost as violent, and both the patriarch of Constantinople (Germanus) and the Pope (Hadrian) defended the use of images, declaring them to have been always in use in the churches, and showing, or attempting to show, the difference between absolute and relative worship. However, in a council assembled 2l8 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. at Constantinople in 754, composed of three hundred and thirty-eight bishops, a decree was pubHshed against the use of images. But at this time Constantine Copro- nymus died, and Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, induced the Empress Irene and her son .Constantine to convoke this council, in which the decrees of the coun- cil of 754 at Constantinople were set aside. The first session was held in the church of St. Sophia. Tarasius, the patriarch, spoke first, and exhorted the bishops to reject all novelties, and to cling to the tradi- tions of the Church. After this, ten bishops were brought before the council, accused of following the party of the Iconoclasts (image-breakers) — three of whom, Basil of Ancyra, Theodore of Myra, and Theo- dosius of Amorium, recanted, and declared that they received with all honor the relics and sacred images of Jesus Christ, the blessed Virgin, and the saints ; upon which they were permitted to take their seats ; the others were remanded to the next session. The forty- second of the apostolic canons, and the eighth of the Nicaea, and other canons relating to the reception of converted heretics, were read. In the second session, the letters of Pope Hadrian to the Empress and to the patriarch Tarasius were read. The latter then declared his entire concurrence in the view taken of the question by the bishop of Rome, viz. : that images are to be adored with a ''relative worship," reserving to God alone faith and the worship of Latria. This opinion was warmly applauded by the whole council. In the third session, the confession of Gregory of Neo- Cicsarea, the leader of the Iconoclast party, was received, and declared by the council to be satisfactory ; where- REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 219 Upon he was, after some discussion, admitted to take his seat, and with him the bishops mentioned above. Then the letters of Tarasius to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, and their replies, as well as the confession of Theodore of Jerusalem, were read and approved. The passages of Holy Scripture relating to the cherubim which overshadowed the ark of the cov- enant, and which ornamented the interior of the temple, were read, together with other passages taken from the fathers, showing that God had, in other days, worked miracles by means of images. In the fifth session, the patriarch Tarasius endeavored to show that the innovators, in their attempts to destroy all images, were following in the steps of the Jews, pagans, Manichaeans, and other heretics. The council then came to the conclusion that the images should be restored to their usual places, and be carried in proces- sions as before. In the sixth session, the refutation of the definition of faith, made in the council of Iconoclasts at Constan- tinople, was read. They had there declared that the eucharist was the only image allowed of our Lord Jesus Christ ; but the fathers of the present synod, in their refutation, maintained that the eucharist is nowhere spoken of as the image of our Lord's body, but as the very body itself. After this, the fathers replied to the passages from Holy Scripture and from the fathers which the Iconoclasts had adduced in support of their views, and, in doing so, insisted chiefly upon perpetual tradition and the infallibility of the Church. In the seventh session a definition of faith was read, which was to this effect : "We decide that the holy images, whether painted or graven, or of whatever kind 220 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. they may be, ought to be exposed to view — whether in churches, upon sacred vessels and vestments, upon walls, or in private houses, or by the wayside ; since the oftener Jesus Christ, his blessed mother, and the saints are seen in their images, the more will man be led to think of the originals, and to love them. Salutation and the adoration of honor ought to be paid to images, but not the worship of Latria (adoration due to God alone), which belongs to God alone ; nevertheless, it is lawful to burn lights before them, and to incense them, as is usually done with the cross, the books of the gos- pels, and other sacred things, according to the pious use of the ancients ; for honor so paid to the image is trans- mitted to the original which it represents. Such is the doctrine of the holy fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church ; and we order that they who dare to think or teach otherwise, if bishops or other clerks, shall be deposed; if monks or laymen, shall be excommuni- cated. " This decree was signed by the legates and all the bishops. Another session (not recognized either by Greeks or Latins) was held at Constantinople, to which place the bishops had been cited by the Empress Irene, who was present, with her son Constantine, and addressed the assembly. The decree of the council and the passages from the fathers read at Nicaea were repeated, and the former was again subscribed. The council of Constan- tinople against image-worship was anathematized, and the memory of Germanus of Constantinople, John of Damascus, and George of Cyprus, held up to veneration. Twenty-two canons of discipline were published. No. I insists upon the proper observation of the canons of the Church. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 221 No. 2 forbids to consecrate those who do not knoW the psalter, and will not promise to observe the canons. No. 3 forbids princes to elect bJehops No. 7 forbids to consecrate any church or altar in which relics are not contained. No. 14 forbids those who are not ordained to read in the synaxis from the Ambon. Nos. 15 and 16 forbid plurality of benefices, and lux- ury in dress among the clergy. No. 20 forbids double monasteries, for men and women. This council was not for a long period recognized in France. The grounds upon which the French bishops opposed it are contained in the celebrated Caroline Books, written by order of Charlemagne. Their chief objections were these: i. That no Western bishops, except the Pope, by his legates, were present ; 2. That the decision was contrary to their custom, which was to use images, but not in any way to worship them; 3. That the council was not assembled from all parts of the Church, nor was its decision in accordance with that of the Catholic Church. The Caroline Books were answered by Pope Adrian, but with little effect, so far as the Gallican Church was concerned, which continued long after this to reject this council in toto. LATER AN COUNCILS. Lateran Councils is a general name applied to the ecclesiastical councils that have been convened in the Lateran Church at Rome, but especially to the five great councils held there, and regarded by the Roman Catholics as ecumenical, viz.: those which were held in the years 11 23, 11 39, 1179, 121 5 and 15 12-17. 222 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. have only room to notice the most important of all these councils, and that with reference to their principal enactments and historical connections. I. The council of 649, under Martin I., condemned the Monothelitic doctrine, or that of o)ic will in the per- son of Christ. This view was developed as a continua- tion of the Monophysite controversy. The council of Chalcedon, in 451, had affirmed the existence of two natures in Christ in one person, against the Antiochians, the Nestorians and Eutychians. This determination of the council did not obtain final supremacy in the Greek and Latin Churches till after the time of Justinian, and the conflict with it was continued under various forms. From the council of Chalcedon till that of Frankfort, in 793, the church councils, especially, sought to maintain the twofoldness of the nature of Christ asserted at Chalcedon, with less regard to the unity, which was at the same time established. An early source for the rist- of Monothelitism appeared in the writings of PseudM Dionysius the Areopagite, which, originating in the fourth century, probably obtained for many centuries thereafter great credit in the Church, A Neo-Platonic mysticism in these writings seeks to mediate between the prevalent church doctrine and Monophysitism (or the doctrine of one nature in Christ). "The Areopagite is not an outspoken Monophysite, and yet with him the human in Christ is only a form of the divine, and there is in all the acts of Christ but one mode of operation, the theandric energy" {inia theandrikee henergeid). This expression became a favorite one with all the Monophy- site opponents of the Chalcedonian decisions. The Monothelitic controversy proper extends from 623 to 680, at which latter date the synod of Constan REFORMATORY MOVI£MENTS. 223 tinople gave the most precise definition of two wills in the nature of Christ. ' ' The earh'er sta^je of the contro- versy, extending to the year 63S, concerns rather the question of one or two energies or inodis of ivorking in the acts of Christ." The Emperor Hcraclius, on the occasion of his reconquering the Eastern provinces from "the Persians in the year 622, and there coming in con- tact with certain Monophysite bishops, conceived the idea of reconciUng them to the Church, by authorizing the expression in reference to the acts of Christ which was used by Dionysius. Sergius, patriarch of Constan- tinople, being consulted, admitted the propriety of the expression as one sanctioned by the fathers, and recom- mended it to Cyrus, bishop of Phasis, who, being made soon after bishop of Alexandria, set up a compromise for the Monophysites with the council of Chalcedon on nine points. Sophronius, a monk of Alexandria, seri- ously objected to the course taken by Sergius, and, on being made bishop of Jerusalem, became so strong an opponent that Sergius called to his aid the influence of Honorius, bishop of Rome, who expressed himself in favor of the view, "rather'one will than of one opera- tion," but advised that controversy be avoided. "It is unquestionably the fact that the expressed views of Honorius, though a Pope, were subsequently condemned in council. " By occasion of the more decided opposi- tion of Sophronius, the Emperor Heraclius, under advice of Sergius, issued his edict, the Ecthesis, in 638, in which he forbade the use of either expression, "one mode of working," or "two modes of working," in a controversial way ; but especially prohibited the latter, since it is evident that Christ can have but one will, the human being subordinate to the divine. This was dis- 224 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. tinct Monothelitism. A powerful opponent of this view was the monk Maximus, whose writings had a control- ling influence with the Lateran Counci'. " He asserts that for the work of redemption a completeness in the two natures of Christ is necessary; there must be a complete human will. The Logos, indeed, works all through the human working and willing. There is a theandric energy in his own sense. It is rather as a tropes antidoseos, or what was subsequently called the communicatio idiomatum. " Maximus worked with great zeal against Monothe- litism in Rome and in Africa, sending out thence tracts on the subject into the Eastern countries. Sophronius still carried on the controversy, as also, with him, Stephen, bishop of Doria, his pupil. After the death of Honorius, in 638, the bishops of Rome were decid- edly opposed to Monothelitism, and Martin I., who had zealously contended against the view while representa- tive of the Roman Church at Constantinople, became, when made Pope in 649, the chief pillar of the contrary opinion. Advocates of the view enunciated in the Ecthcsis of Heraclius were Theodore, bishop of Phasan, and Pyrrhus, of Constantinople. In 638, the Emperor Constans II., under the influence of the patriarch Paul, issued his Type (ryrroc rriarso;), which, though not so decidedly Monothelitic as the Ecthesis, condemns, under threat of the severest penalties, any further controversy upon the subject. Without consulting the Emperor, Martin I. now convoked this first Lateran Council, in which he presided over about one hundred and four bishops from Italy, Sicily, Sardinia and Africa. The Pope sought to obtain generally recognition for the council, and it was finally everywhere received with the REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 225 five ecumenical councils. Five sessions were held ; the writings of the prominent Monothelites were examined and condemned ; Pope Martin explained the proper meaning of Dionysius' term "theandric operation," stating that it was designed to signify two operations of one person ; the Ecthesis of Heraclius and Type of Con- stans were condemned ; and the judgment of the council pronounced in twenty canons, which "anathematize all who do not confess in our Lord Jesus Christ two wills and two operations. " II. The councils of 1 105, 1 1 12 and 1 1 16, under Pascal II., concern the contest about investitures between the Pope and the Emperor, which was brought to a close in the council of 1 123, called and presided over by Calix- tus II. This body consisted of three hundred bishops and six hundred abbots, all of the Latin Church. The investiture contest, which began as early as 1054, when, by mutual degrees of excommunication, the breach between the Eastern and Western Churches was made final, arose from the claim made by the German emper- ors to an inheritance of rights, exercised by the Greek emperors, concerning the appointment of candidates to ecclesiastical offices, and their investiture with the right to hold church property as subjects of the empire. Under the new German Empire, from Otho the Great to Henry IV., 936-1056, the popes themselves were confirmed in their seats by the Emperor. Henry III. obtained from the Council of Sutry, which was held near Rome, in the midst of his own army, in 1046, the power of nominating the popes, without intervention of clergy or people. The influence of Hildebrand was now felt — an influence which he had begun to exert from the time of Leo IX., in 1048, and which secured from. 16 226 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. Nicolas II. (1063) a decree transferring the election of popes to a conclave of cardinals. Hildebrand, as Gregory VII., maintained a celebrated contest with Henry IV., to whom, in 1075, he forbade all power of investiture, excommunicating the Emperor the next year, and causing him to do penance at Canossa. With his victorious campaign in Italy (1080-83) Henry drove the Pope into exile at Salerno, where he soon after died. His immediate successors, however, were such as he had designated for the post, and were the inheritors of his doctrines and plans for the supremacy of the Church. Urban II. sent forth an encyclical, declaring his adhe- sion to the principles of Gregory — the Dictatus Gregorii ; and Pascal II. (1099-1118), who had been one of Greg- ory's cardinals, showed more zeal than firmness in the same course. In the Lateran Council under the Pope (1105), an oath of obedience to the Pope was taken by the clergy, and a promise rendered to affirm whatever he and the Church in council should affirm. The Count De Meulan and his confederates were excommunicated for having encouraged the King of England in his con- duct concerning investitutes. Henry V., who, in the rebellion against his father, was encouraged by Pascal, would nevertheless yield nothing on becoming emperor (1105) in the matter of investitures; his example being followed in this respect by France and England. Henry marched into Italy and imprisoned the Pope in the year nil, forcing from him the concession of rendering back to the Emperor the fiefs of the bishops, on condition that there should be no imperial interference with the elections. For his weakness in this and in other points, the Pope was bitterly reproached, and the council of 1 112 revoked all these concessions and excommunicated REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. the Emperor. Notwithstanding the rebellion of his German subjects, Henry collected an army and invaded Italy anew in 1116. The council convoked the same year, thereupon renewed the revocation of the conces- sions which Pascal had formerly made, and anathema- tized the Emperor. At last, the German people, weary of the conflict between Church and State, brought a peaceful compromise in the concordat at the imperial Diet of Worms, in 1122. The principles of this con- cordat were adopted by the council of 1123. The terms of the compact are as follows : "The Emperor surrenders to God, to St. Peter and Paul, and to the Catholic Church, all right of investiture by king and staff He grants that elections and ordi- nances in all churches shall take place freely in accord- ance with ecclesiastical laws. The Pope agrees that the election of German prelates shall be had in the presence of the Elmperor, provided it is without violence or simony. In case any election is disputed, the Emperor shall render assistance to the legal party, with the advice of the archbishop and the bishops. The person elected is invested with the imperial fief by the royal scepter pledged for the execution of everything required by law. Whoever is consecrated shall also receive in like manner his investiture from other parts of the empire with six months." (Hase, Church History, p. 200; Gieseler, Eccles. Hist., iii., 181 sq.) The Pope here made considerable concessions in form, but actually, through his influence, obtained all power at the elections. The council of 11 23 also renewed the grant of indul- gences promulgated by Urban II. in promotion of the first crusade in 1095, and decreed the celibacy of the clergy. Twenty-two canons of discipline were enacted. 228 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. III. The council of 1139, under Innocent II., con- demned the anti-pope Anacletus II., with his adherents, and deposed all who had received office under him. On the same day with the installation of Innocent II., in 1 1 30, Peter of Leon, a cardinal, and grandson of a rich Jewish banker, had been proclaimed Pope, as Anacletus II., by a majority of the cardinals. Innocent took refuge in France, where he was supported by the king. His cause was very warmly espoused by Bernard of Clairvaux, through whose influence chiefly Innocent recovered his position in Italy, and marched into Rome triumphantly with Lothaire II., in 1 1 36. Anacletus died in 1138, and a successor was chosen by his party only with the purpose of making peace. Roger of Sicily had supported Anacletus, and was on this account condemned in the council of 11 39, though the origin of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies belongs to the same year, Roger having taken Innocent prisoner, and having compelled the Pope to bestow upon him the investiture of this kingdom. At this council Arnold of Brescia was also condemned. This was a young clergy- man of the city of Brescia, a disciple of Abelard. who, inspired by the free philosophical spirit of his master, devoted himself to the promotion of practical reform in Church and State. A marked spirit of political inde- pendence was manifesting itself about this time in Lombardy, as an inheritance from the old Roman munic- ipalities established there. The popes, from the days of Leo IX., had themselves inspired movements of ecclesiastical reform. Pascal II. had admitted that the secular power of the bishops interfered with their spirit- ual duties. Bernard, though a zealous opponent of Arnold, yet writes as follows in his Contemplations on the REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 229 Papacy: "Who can mention the place where one of the -apostles ever held a trial, decided disputes about boundaries or portioned out lands?" " I read that the apostles stood before judgment-seats, not sat on them." Arnold preached with great zeal against the political -power and wealth of the clergy. "The Church ought nither to rejoice, " he said, "in an apostolic poverty " He was driven successively from Italy, France and Switzerland, but in 1139 was recalled tc Rome by the populace, who sought to revive the sovereignty, the State, established a Senate, limited the Pope to the exercise of spiritual power, and the possession of volun- tary offerings, and invited the German emperor to make Rome his capital. Arnold and his "politicians" at Rome thus gave Pope Innocent and his immediate suc- cessors— Lucius II., Eugenius III., and Adrian IV. — more trouble than any political movements elsewhere. This condemnation at the council did not effectually diminish his power. When, however, Adrian, in 11 54, put the city of Rome under ban, and prohibited all public worship, Arnold was abandoned by the Senate, sacrificed by Frederick I., and hung at Rome in 1 155, his body being burned and thrown into the river Tiber. Among the canons of the council, the twenty-third con- demns the heresy of the Manichc-eans, as the followers of Peter de Brins were called. This heresy was attrib- uted to the early Waldensians in France and elsewhere, arising partly from their ascetic mode of life. About one thousand prelates were present at this council ; thirty canons of discipline were published, and among them reaffirmations of former canons against simony and concubinage in the clergy. IV. The council of 1179, under Alexander III., num- 230 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. bering two hundred and eighty, mostly Latin bishops, was called to correct certain abuses which had arisen during the long schism just brought to a close by the Peace of Venice, 1177. Until near the end of the twelfth century the popes were hard pressed by Hohen- stauffen emperors. It was the contest of Ghibelline and Guelph. Frederick I. had taken umbrage at the use of the term " beneficium," in a letter addressed to him by Adrian IV., about the rudeness of German knights to pilgrims visiting Rome, as if the Pope meant to imply that the imperial authority had been conferred by him. The Emperor marched into Italy, and other letters were interchanged between him and the Pope, when, upon the death of Adrian, in 1159, the two parties — the hierarchic and the moderate among the cardinals — chose two opposing popes, vis.: Alexander III. and Victor IV. The Emperor's Council, called at Pavia in 1 160, recognized the latter. Pascal III. and CaUxtus III. followed at the imperial dictation, with but little influ- ence. Alexander, from his refuge in France, enjoyed great popularity. He had on his side the Lombard League. The cause of Frederick was defended by the lawyers of Bologna, who ascribed to him unlimited power, to the prejudice of the people. Defeated at Legnano. in 11 76, the Emperor subscribed, at the dicta- tion of Alexander, the Peace of Venice, the provisions of which were based on the Concordat of Worms. The first and most important of the twenty-seven canons established by this council, which were mostly disciplin- ary, provides that henceforth ' ' the election of the popes shall be confined to the college of cardinals, and hvo-thirds of the votes shall be required to make a law- ful election, instead of a majority only, as heretofore."" REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 231 It was by this council also that the "errors and impie- ties" of the Waldenses and Albigenses were declared heretical. At the unimportant council of 1167 Pope Alexander excommunicated Frederick I. V. The council of 12 15, under Innocent III., was the most important of all the Lateran Councils. It is usually styled the Fourth Lateran. It continued in session from November 1 1 to November 30, there being present seventy-one archbishops, four hundred and twelve bishops, eight hundred abbots, the patriarchs of Con- stantinople and Jerusalem, and the legates of other patriarchs and crowned heads. The Pope opened the convocation with a sermon on Luke xxii. 15, relating to the recovery of the Holy Land and the reformation of the Church. The remarkable power of Innocent III. i? displayed in his influence over this council, which was submissive to all his wishes, and received the seventy canons proposed by him. The papal prerogatives attained their greatest supremacy in Innocent, whose pontificate extended from 1198 to 1216. The bull, Unam Sanctum, of Boniface VIII., directed against Philip the Fair in 1 302, marks the limit from which the power of the popes evidently began to decline. Innocent III., a man of great personal influence, of marked ability as a writer and orator, bold, crafty, and ever watchful of the affairs of Church and State, had his eye on all that transpired through his legates. The chief objects which his pontificate sought were first, "the strengthening of the States of the Church ; second, separation of the two Sicilies from all dependence on the German Empire; third, the liberation of Italy from all foreign control ; fourth, the exercise of guardianship over the confeder- acy of its States; fifth, the liberation of the Oriental 232 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. Church ; sixth, the extermination of heretics, and, sev- enth, the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline." (Hase, Church Hist., p. 207.) Hitherto England, Germany and France had consti- tuted a balance of power against the Pope, but under Innocent the two former, as well as Italy, submitted to the claims of the pseudo-Isodorean decretals. France was early laid under interdict (1200), on account of Philip Augustus' repudiation of Ingeburge and the French bishop's approval of the act, while John of England was deprived of his realm, to receive it back (in 12 13) only as a fief of Rome. Deciding at first for Otto IV., the Guelph, against the Hohenstauffen Philip, in Germany, Innocent subsequently secured from the council the recognition of Frederick II., vainly seeking in this his German policy to free Italy entirely from the power of the Emperor. The famous Seventy Constitutions of Innocent, if not discussed in a conciliatory manner by the bishops, or passed with every form of enactment, were nevertheless regarded as the canons of the council, so recognized by the Council of Trent, and by church authorities of the intervening age, and they have consti- tuted a fundamental law for many well-known practices of the Church. The first of these canons asserts the Catholic faith in the unity of God against the Manichaean sects. It also, for the first time, makes the doctrine of substantiation, in the use of this express term, an article of faith. "The body and blood of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the altar are truly contained under the species of bread and wine, the bread being, by the divine omnipotence, transubstantiated into his body, and the wine into his blood." The second canon condemns the treatise of Joachim, the prophet of Calabria, which REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. lie wrote against Peter Lombard on the subject of the Trinity. The third canon is of great importance, furnishing the basis for the crusade against the Albigenses, and for all severities of a like character on the part of the Romish Church. It " anathematizes all heretics who hold any- thing in opposition to the preceding exposition of faith, and enjoins that, after condemnation, they shall be delivered over to the secular arm; also excommunicates all who receive, protect or maintain heretics, and threat- ens with deposition all bishops who do not use their utmost endeavors to clear their diocese of them." (Landon, Manual of Councils, p. 295.) The fourth canon invites the Greeks to unite with and submit themselves to the Romish Church. The fifth canon regulates the order of precedence of the patriarchs: I. Rome; 2. Constantinople; 3. Alexandria; 4. Antioch; 5. Jerusalem; and permits these several patriarchs to give the pall to the archbishops of their dependencies, exacting from themselves a profession of faith and of obedience to the Roman See, when they receive the pall from the Pope. The sixth to the twentieth, inclusive, are of minor importance to the Christian world. (Landon, p. 296.) The twenty first zz.x\ox\ enjoins "all the faithful of both sexes, having arrived at years of discretion, to confess all their sins at least once a year to their proper priest, and to communicate at Easter." This is the first canon known which orders sacramental confession gen- erally, and may have been occasioned by the teaching of the Waldenses, that neither confession nor satisfac- tion was necessary in order to obtain remission of sin. From the words with which it begins it is known as the canon "Omnis utriusque sex As," and was solemnly 234 HISTORY OF CHUKCH COUNCILS. reaffirmed by the Council of Trent. The canons (^iven completely by Landon, Manual of Councils, p. 293, sq.) in general constitute a body of full and severe disciplin- ary enactments. This council reaffirmed and extended the "Truce of God" on plenary indulgence which had been previously proclaimed in behalf of the Eastern crusades, and fixed the time, June i, and the place Sicily, as a rendezvous for another crusade. This council confirmed Simon de Montfort in posses- sion of lands which the crusaders had obtained by papal confiscation from the Waldenses, and decreed the entire extirpation of the heresy. The Waldenses or Albigenses in the south of France were the followers of Peter Waldo, a wealthy citizen of Lyons, who, from religious princi- ple, adopted a life of poverty. His adherents were also called Leonistae and " poor men of Lyons. " They were allied in their sentiments to the Vaudois of the Pied- montese valleys, with whom they became united fo( mutual defense. They prote.sted against these points in the doctrine of the Romish Church : First, transubstan- tiation ; second, the sacraments of confirmation, confes- sion and marriage; third, the invocation of saints; fourth, the worship of images; fifth, the temporal power of tht clergy. A crusade had been instituted against them by the papal jaower in 1178. Innocent sought to win then^ over and make monks of them by establishing, in 1201, the order of ' ' Poor Catholics. " Unsuccessful in this, he confiscated their lands to the feudal lords, and estab- lished an inquisition among them under the direction of Dominic, which was formally sanctioned by the council under consideration. The warfare against them, incited and directed by the monks of Citeaux, was allowed by Philip Augustus. Count Raymond, of Toulouse,. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. e5ipoused the cause of his persecuted vassals. The papal legate, Peter of Castelman, sent to convert the Walden- ses, was murdered by Raymond, whose dominions were thereupon assaulted, in 1209, by a fiercer crusade of so-called '-Christian Pilgrims," led on by Simon de Montfort and Arnold, the Abbot of Citeaux. The Count of Toulouse submitted, but a bloody warfare was prose- cuted against Raymond Roger, viscount of Beziers and Albi, and subsequently two hundred towns and castles, within the boundaries of the two counts, were granted to the successful Simon de Montfort. A rebellion, how- ever, against his power deprived him of all; but Ray- mond of Toulouse, who appeared at the council of 121 5, obtained no favor, and his territory was declared to be alienated from him forever. VI. The Lateran Council of 1512-1517, under Julius II. and Leo X., was convened for the "reformation of abuses," for the condemnation of the Council of Pisa, "and attained its most important result in the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction." France, under Louis XII., had obtained great military successes in Italy by the League of Cambray, formed in 1509 against Venice. In the interests of France, and by the friendship of some of the cardinals, Louis XII. summoned a Church Coun- cil at Pisa, November, 15 11, which in 15 12 was moved to Milan, but was entirely fruitless of results, being dissolved by the presence of the Pope's army. Julius I., though at first jealous of Venice, had nevertheless, aroused by the successes of the French general, formed the Holy Alliance with Venice, Spain, England and Switzerland, and now, at the head of his army, drove the French beyond the Alps and himself summoned a council at the Lateran, May 10, 15 12. This council HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. extended over twelve sessions, until March, 15 17. The Bishop of Guerk had actively promoted the summoning of the council, and attended as representative of the German Emperor. All the acts of the Council of Pisa were at once annulled. Julius having died in February, 1513, Leo X. presided over the sixth session. At the eighth session, in December, 15 13, Louis XIL, through his ambassador, declared his adhesion to this Council of the Lateran. At the eleventh session, in December, 15 16, the bull was read which, in place of the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438), wherein France accepted the decisions of the Basle Council, in so far as they were consistent with the liberties of the G.illican Church, substituted the concordat agreed upon this year (15 16) between Leo X. and Francis I. Through hope of increasing his power in Italy, Francis largely sac- rificed the liberties of the Church. Several of the articles of the Pragmatic were retained, but most of them were altered or abolished. The first article was entirely con- trary to the Pragmatic, which had re established the right of election, while the concordat declares that the chapters of the cathedrals in France shall no longer pro- ceed to elect the bishop in case of vacancy, but that the king shall name a proper person, whom the Pope shall nominate to the vacant see. The concordat, on account especially of this provision, met with great opposition in the parliament, universities and the church at Paris. It was a great advance of the Papacy against the liber- ties of France. (Janus, Pope and Council, xxviii. and xxix ) Neither this council, nor the other four, viz.: those of I123, 1139, 1179 and 1215, styled ecumenical by the JRomish Church, can be properly regarded as such- REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. Some writers mention as the sixth Lateran the council convened by Pope Benedict XIII. on the bull Unigemius, and for the purpose of general reform in the Church. THE COUNCIL OF LYONS. Lyons is a city of France, and is situated three hun- dred and sixteen miles southeast of Paris, and is noted in ecclesiastical history as the seat of two ecumenical councils, the first of which was held in 1245, consisting of one hundred and forty bishops, and convened for the purpose of promoting the crusades, restoring ecclesi- astical discipline, and dethroning Frederick II., Emperor of Germany. It was also decreed at this council that cardinals should wear red hats. At the second council, held in 1274, there were five hundred bishops present and about one thousand "inferior clergy." Its principal object was the reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches. The first of these councils was held under the pontificate of Innocent IV., and the second under the pontificate of Gregory X. COUNCILS OF VIENNE. Vienne is a city of Dauphine, France, where numerous church councils were held. I. The first of which mention is made was held in 474; of its transactions nothing is known beyond the fact that it sanctioned the solemn observance of the three days preceding Ascension Day, which Bishop Mamercus, of Vienne, had ordered. II. The one held in 870 simply confirmed the privi- leges bestowed upon a monastery. III. Held in 892, by order of Pope Formosus, whose two legates, Pascal and John, presided. Several bishops were present, and the following canons were published: 238 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUN'CILS. I, 2, Excommunicate those who seize the property of the Church, or maltreat clerks. 4 Forbids laymen to present to churches without the consent of the bishop of the diocese ; also forbids them to take any present from those whom they present. — • Mansi, Concil. ix., 433. IV. Held in 907 ; was concocted by Archbishop Alexander, of Vienne, and adjusted a dispute between Abbots Aribert and Barnard respecting the income receipts of monasteries. V. Held in 11 12 by Archbishop Guido; excommuni- cated Emperor Henry V., because he claimed the right of episcopal investiture, and revoked the treaty of 1 1 1 1, which conferred such right upon the crown. VI. Held in 11 19; was called by Pope Gelasius H., who had again excommunicated Henry V. , on the occa- sion of his setting up an anti-pope in the person of Gregory VHl.; but nothing whatever concerning the transactions of this synod is known. Vn. Held in 11 24; was incited by Pope Calixtus II., and called by Archbishop Peter, of Vienne ; legislated with reference to the securing of ecclesiastical privileges and possessions. VIII. Held in 1 142 ; was chiefly concerned with the election of a new bishop. IX. Held in 1164, at which Archbishop Reginald, of Cologne, vainly endeavored to secure a recognition of Paschal III., whom the Emperor Frederick had endorsed. X. Held in 1199, by the Cardinal-legate Peter of Capua, for the purpose of promulgating the decree of Pope Innocent III., which punished the king, Philip Augustus, with excommunication on account of his renunciation of Inneburgis, his lawful consort, and his REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. subsequent marriage with Agnes of Meran. — Mansi, Concii. xi. , II. XI. Held in 1289; is barely mentioned in the records, and some authorities deny that it was held. XII. Held in 131 1; known as the fifteenth ecumeni- cal council, and the only one of the series to which ""attaches any considerable importance. It was origin- ally ordered, by a papal bull of 1308, to meet October I, 1310, but was subsequently postponed for one year. The council finally convened under the presidency of Pope Clement v., October 16, 131 1. The number of prelates present is fixed by some at one hundred and fourteen, and by others at three hundred, including the patriarchs of the Latin Rite of Alexandria and Antioch. It discussed methods for preserving the purity of the faith, which was impaired by the heretical influence of John of Olivia, and of the Fratricelli, Dolcinists, Beg- hards and Beguins; also the aid to be afforded the Holy Land; the reform of ecclesiastical discipline; and espe- cially the disposition to be made of the Order of Knights Templar. The decision abrogated the Order of Tem- plars ; declared the legitimacy of the late Pope Boniface VIII., and his freedom from the crimes charged against him ; conceded titles for six years to the kings of France, England and Navarre, in order that they might organize a crusade ; and regulated the government of the begging friars and similar matters. Most of the decrees which have to do with matters of doctrine and discipline are contained in the so called Clementines, and were first promulgated by Pope John XXII. — Landon, Manual of Councils, 5 V. XIII. Held in 1557; it determined several questions of church discipline ; discussed the use of sermons as a 240 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. means of instructing the people ; forbade the admission of strangers to the pulpits; demanded the rendition of heretics ; and prohibited merry-makings on feast-days and association with suspected persons ; gave directions concerning the tonsure and garb of priests ; denied to monks and nuns the privilege of leaving their convents, etc. (Martine, Thesaur. Novus Anecdot. — Lutet Par. 1717, iv., 446 sq.) COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. This council was summoned at the dictation of Pope John XXIII., in accordance with the writ of the Emperor Sigismund, and continued its sessions from 1414 to 1418. One of its professed objects was to put an end to the schism which had lasted for thirty years, and which was caused by the several claimants for the pontificate. At this time, besides John (Balthasar Cossa), two others claimed the title of Pope, viz.: Pedro of Luna, a native of Catalonia, who styled himself Bene- dict XIII., and Angelo Corrario, a Venetian, wha assumed the name of Gregory XII. Another object of the council was to take cognizance of the so-called her- esies of Huss and Wickliffe. The council was called to meet at Constance on the festival of All-Saints, in 1414, and so great was the influx of people, that it was esti- mated that not less than thirty thousand horses were brought to Constance, which may give some idea of the immense multitude of human beings. It is stated that during the session, the Emperor, the Pope, twenty princes, one hundred and forty counts, more than twenty cardinals, seven patriarchs, twenty archbishops, ninety- one bishops, six hundred other clerical dignitaries, and about four thousand priests, were present at this cele- REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 241 brated convocation. The pretended heresies of Wick- hfie and Huss were here condemned, and the latter, notwithstanding the assurances of safety given him by the Emperor, was burnt at the stake July 6, 141 5, and his friend and companion, Jerome of Prague, met with the same fate, May 30, 1416. The three popes were formally deposed, and Martin V. was legally chosen to the chair of St. Peter; but instead of furthering the Emperor's wishes for a reformation in the affairs of the Church, he thwarted his plans, and nothing was accom- plished till the council of Basle. At this council the question was very warmly agitated whether the authority of an ecumenical council is greater than that of the Pope or not? Gerson "proved (so it is asserted) that in cer- tain cases the Church, or, which is the same thing, an ecumenical council, can assemble without the command or consent of the Pope, even supposing him to have been canonically elected, and to live respectably." These peculiar cases he states to be: " i. If the Pope, being accused, and brought into a position requiring the opinion of the Church, refuses to convoke a council for the purpose. 2. When important matters, concerning the government of the Church, are in agitation, requir- ing to be set at rest by an ecumenical council, which, nevertheless, the Pope refuses to convoke." (Herzog, Real Encykl., iii., 144, and many other authorities.) THE COUNCIL AT BASLE. This council was called by Pope Martin V., and con- tinued by Eugenius IV. It was opened July 23, 143 1, by Cardinal Julian, and closed May 16, 1443, forty five sessions in all having been held, of which the first twenty- five were acknowledged by the Gallican Church. The »7 242 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. Ultramontanes reject it altogether, but "on grounds utterly untenable," it is said. The council, in its thirtieth session, declared that "a general council is superior to a pope; " and, in 1437, Eugenius transferred its sessions to Ferrara. The council refused to obey, and continued its sessions at Basle, the capital of a can- ton of the same name in Switzerland. The principal objects for which this council was called were the refor- mation of the Church, and the reunion of the Greek with the Roman Church. " ]Many of its resolutions were admirable both in spirit and form ; and had the council been allowed to continue its sessions, and had the Pope sanctioned its proceedings, there would have ensued a great and salutary change in the Roman Church.", But the power of the Papacy was at stake, and the reform was suppressed. Its most important acts were as follows : In the first session, December 7, 1431, the decree of the council of Constance, concerning the celebration of a general council after five and after seven years, was read, together with the bull of Martin V. convoking the council, in which he named Julian, president ; also the letter of Eugene IV. to the latter upon the subject : afterward the six objects proposed in calling the council were enumerated : 1. The extir])ation of heresy. 2. The reunion of all Christian persons with the Catholic Church. 3. To afford instruction in the true faith. 4. To appease the wars between Christian princes. 5. To reform the Church in its head and in its members. 6. To re-establish, as far as possible, the ancient discipline of the Church. It soon Eippeared that Pope Eugene was determined to break u^ the council, which took vigorous measures of defense. In the second session (Feb. 15, 1432) it was "declared that the synod, being assembled in the name of the Holy Spirit, and representing the Church mili- tant, derives its power directly from our Lord Jesus Christ, and that all persons, of whatever rank or dignity, REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 243 not excepting the Roman Pontiff himself, are bound to obey it ; and that any person, of whatever rank or con- dition, not excepting the Pope, who shall refuse to obey the laws and decrees of this or any other general council, shall be put to penance and punished. " In the third session (April 29, 1432) Pope Eugene was summoned to appear before the council within three months. In August the Pope sent legates to vindicate his authority over the council; and in the eighth session (December 18) it was agreed that the Pope should be proceeded against canonically, in order to declare him contumacious, and to visit him with the canonical penalty ; two months' delay, however, being granted him within which to revoke his bull for the dissolution of the council. On the i6th of January, 1433, deputies arrived from the Bohemians, demanding (i) liberty to administer the Eucharist in both kinds ; (2) that all mortal sin, and especially open sin, should be repressed, corrected and punished according to God's law; (3) that the Word of God should be preached faithfully by the bishops, and by such deacons as were fit for it ; (4) that the clergy should not possess authority in temporal matters. It was afterward agreed that the clergy in Bohemia and Moravia should be allowed to give the cup to the laity ; but no reconciliation was effected. In April, 1433, Eugene signified his willingness to send legates to the council to preside in his name, but the council refused his conditions. In the twelfth session (July 14, 1433,) the Pope, by a decree, was required to renounce within sixty days his design of transferring the council from Basle, upon pain of being pronounced contumacious. In return, Eugene, irritated by these proceedings, issued 244 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. a bull, annulling all the decrees of the council against himself. Later in autumn, the Pope, in fear of the council, supported as it was by the Emperor and by- France, agreed to an accommodation. He chose four cardinals to preside with Julian at the council; he revoked all the bulls which he had issued for its dissolution, and published one according to the form sent him hy the council. [Session XIV.] It was to the effect that, although he had broken up the council at Basle lawfully assembled, nevertheless, in order to appease the disorders which had arisen, he declared the council to have been lawfully continued from its commencement, and that it would be so to the end ; that he approved of all that it had offered and decided, and that he declared the bull for its dissolution, which he had issued, to be null and void; thus, as Bossuet observes, setting the council above himself, since, in obedience to its order, he revoked his own decree, made with all the authority of his pontifical see. In spite of this forced yielding, Eugene never ceased plotting for the dissolution of the council. In subsequent sessions earnest steps were taken toward reform ; the annates and taxes (the Pope's chief revenues) were abrogated ; the papal authority over chapter elections was restricted : citations to Rome on minor grounds were forbidden, etc. These move- ments increased the hatred of the papal party, to which, at last. Cardinal Julian was won over. The proposed reunion of the Greek and Roman Churches made it necessary to appoint a place of conference with the Greeks. The council proposed Basle or Avignon; the papal party demanded an Italian city. The latter, in the minority, left Basle, and Eugene called an opposi- tion council to meet at Ferrara in 1437. After Julian's REFORWATORY MOVEMENTS. -departure the Cardinal Archbishop of Aries presided. In the thirty-first session, Jan. 24, 1438, the council •declared the Pope Eugene contumacious, suspended him from the exercise of all jurisdiction, temporal or spiritual, and pronounced all that he should do to be null and void. In the twenty-fourth session, June 25, 1439, sen- tence of deposition was pronounced against Eugene, making use of the strongest possible terms. France, England and Germany disapproved of this sentence. On October 30, Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, was elected Pope, and took the name of Felix V. Alphonso, King of Aragon, the Queen of Hungary, and the Dukes of Bavaria and Austria recognized Felix, as also did the Universities of Germany, Paris and Cracow ; but France, England and Scotland, while they acknowledged the authority of the council of Basle, continued to recognize Eugene as the lawful Pope. Pope Eugene dying four years after, Nicholas V. was elected in his stead, and recognized by the whole Church, whereupon Felix V. renounced the pontificate in 1449, and thus the schism ended. (Manst, vols. 29 to 31; Landon, Manual of Councils, 74 ; Palmer, On the Church ; Mosheim, Church History; Ranke, History of Papacy, i., 36, 243. COUNCIL OF TRENT. This council is regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as the last in the order of assemblies known as ecumenical or general, and as the great repository of all the doctrinal judgments of that ecclesiastical body on the chief points at issue with the Reformers of the sixteenth century. " Very early in the conflict with Leo X., Luther had appealed from the Pope to a general council ; and after the failure of the first attempts at an flISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. adjustment of the controversies, a general desire grew up in the Church for the convocation of a general coun- cil, in which the true sense of the Church upon the con- troversies which had been raised, might be finally and decretorially settled. Another, and, to many, a still more pressing motive for desiring a council, was the wish to bring about a reform of the alleged abuses as well of the Court of Rome as of the domestic discipline and government of local churches, to which the move- ment of the Reformers was in part at least ascribed. But the measures for convoking a council were long delayed, owing partly, it has been alleged, to the intrigues of the party who were interested in the maintenance of those profitable abuses, and especially of the officials of the Roman court, including the cardinals, and even the popes themselves ; but partly also the jealousies, and even the actual conflicts, which took place between Charles V. and the King of France, whose joint action was absolutely indispensable to the success of any ecclesiastical assembly." (Chambers' Encyclopedia, vol. ix.. p. 533.) It was not till the pontificate of Paul III. (1534-1549) that the design assumed a practical character. One of the great difficulties was that in regard to a place of meeting. In these discussions much time was lost; and without entering into detail, it is sufficient to say that the assembly did not actually meet till December 13, 1545, at which time four archbishops, twenty-two bishops, five generals of orders, and the representatives of the Emperor and of the King of the Romans, assembled at Trent, a city of the Tyrol. The number of prelates afterward increased. The Pope was repre- sented by three legates, who presided in his name, vis.,. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 247 Cardinals del Monte, Cervino and Pole. The first three sessions were devoted to preliminaries. It was not till the fourth session (April, 1546) that the really important work of the council began. It was decided, after much disputation, that the doctrinal questions and the ques- tions of reformation should both be proceeded with simultaneously. Accordingly, the discussions on both subjects were continued through the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh sessions, in all of which "matters of great moment were decided;" when a division between the Pope and the Emperor, who, by the victory of Miililberg, had become all-powerful in the Empire, made the former desirous to transfer the council to some place beyond the reach of Charles' arbitrary dictation. The appearance of the plague at Trent furnished a cause for removal, and in the eighth session a decree was passed (March 11, 1547) transferring the council to Bologna. The change of place was opposed by the bishops who were in the imperial interest, and the division which ensued had the effect of suspending all practical action. In the meantime, Paul III. died. Julius III., who had, as Cardinal del Monte, presided as legate in the council, took measures for its resumption at Trent, where it again assembled. May i, 155 i. The sessions 9-12, held partly at Bologna, and partly at Trent, were spent in discussions regarding the suspension and removal ; but in the thirteenth session the real work of the assembly was renewed, and was continued, slowly, but with great care, till the sixteenth session, when, on account of the apprehended insecurity of Trent, the passes of the Tyrol having fallen into the hands of Maurice of Saxony, the sittings were again suspended for two years. But the suspension was destined to continue for no 248 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. less than nine years. Julius III. died in 1555, and was followed rapidly to the grave his successor (who had also been his fellow-legate in th . council as Cardinal Cervina) Marcellus II. The pontificate of Paul IV. (1555-1559) was a very troubled one, as well on account of internal dissensions as owing to the abdication of Charles V.; nor was it till the accession of Pius IV. (i 559-1565) that the bishops and legates were again brought together to the number of one hundred and two, under the presidency of Cardinal Gonzaga, reopen- ing their deliberations with the seventeenth session. All the succeeding sessions were ' ' devoted to matters of the highest importance," among which may be men- tioned such doctrines and practices as (i) communion under one kind, (2) the sacrifice of the mass, (3) the sacrament of orders, (4) the nature and origin of the grades of the hierarchy, (5) marriage and the many ques- tions relating to it. These grave discussions occupied the sessions 17-24, and lasted till November 11, 1563. Much anxiety was expressed on the part of many bish- ops to draw the council to a conclusion, in order that they might be able to return to their sees in a time so critical ; and accordingly, as the preliminary discussions regarding most of the remaining questions had already taken place, decrees were prepared in special congrega- tions comprising almost all the remaining subjects of controversy, as (i) purgatory, (2) invocation of saints, (3) images, (4) relics and (5) indulgences. Several other matters, rather of detail than of doctrinal princi- ple, were referred to the Pope, to be by him examined and arranged ; and on the 3d and 4th of December, 1563, these important decrees were finally read, approved and subscribed by the members of the assembly, con- REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 249 sisting of four cardinal legates, two other cardinals, twenty-five archbishops, one hundred and sixty-eight bishops, seven abbots, seven generals of orders and thirty-nine proxies of bishops, comprising in all two hundred and fifty-two. These decrees were confirmed January 10, 1564, by Pius IV., who had drawn up, based upon them in con- junction with the creeds previously in use, a profession of feith known under his name. "The doctrinal decrees of the council were received at once throughout the Western Church, a fact which it is necessary to note, as the question as to the reception of the decrees of doc- trine has sometimes been confounded with that regard- ing the decrees of reformation or discipline." As to the latter, delays and reservations took place. The first country to receive the decrees of the council as a whole, was the Republic of Venice. France accepted the dis- ciplinary decrees only piecemeal and at intervals. The canons and decrees of the council of Trent were issued in Latin, and have been reprinted innumerable times. They have also been translated into almost every modern language. One of the supplementary works assigned to the Pope by the council at its break- ing up, was the completion of a catechism for the use of parish priests and preachers. This work has not all the authority of the council, but it is of the very highest credit, and is extensively used, having, like the canons and decrees, been very generally translated. Another similar work was the publication of an authentic edition of the Vulgate version of the Bible, as well as of the Breviary and Missal. All these have been accomplished at intervals ; and there is besides at Rome a permanent tribunal, a congregation of cardinals, styled " Congrega- 250 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. tio Interprcs Concilii Trideniini," to which belongs the duty of dealing with all questions which arise as to the meaning, the authority, or the effect of the canons and decrees of this celebrated council. (Chambers' Encyclo- pedia, vol. ix., p. 534.) It would occupy entirely too much space to give the dry and uninteresting details of this council. But we have given a faithful outline of its proceedings. Suffice to say that the Roman Catholic Church of the present day is but a counterpart, theologically and morally, of the council of Trent. During the various sittings of the sessions, such questions as these were discussed: the personal sin of Adam ; original sin ; the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary; non-resident bishops; justification as opposed to Luther and other reformers ; infant baptism ; the validity of baptism ; the conferring of grace by the sacraments; transubstantiation as opposed to consubstantiation ; extreme unction ; priestly vest- ments ; a visible priesthood ; whether the cup should be given to the laity at the communion ; pictures and images ; a general overhauling of the theology of Luther and Zwingle and Melancthon. The importance of the so-called ecumenical councils has often been greatly over-estimated, not only by the Greeks and Roman Catholics, but also by many Protest- ants. John Jortin, D. D., an eminent preacher of the eighteenth century, and of the Church of England, tells us very forcibly that councils "were a collection of men who were frail and fallible. Some of these councils were not assemblies of pious and learned divines, but cabals, the majority of which were quarrelsome, fanati- cal, domineering, dishonest prelates, who wanted to compel men to approve all their opinions, of which they REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 251 themselves had no clear conceptions, and to anathema- tize and oppose those who would not implicitly submit to their determinations." (Works, vol. iii., charge 2.) The Romanists hold that the Pope alone can convene and conduct ecumenical councils, which are supposed, on their theory, to represent the universal Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In matters of faith, councils profess to be guided by the Holy Scriptures and the traditions of the Church, while in lighter mat- ters human reason and expediency are consulted. In matters of faith, ecumenical councils are held to be infal- lible, and hence it is maintained that all such synods have agreed together; but in matters of discipline, etc., the authority of the latest council prevails. The Roman claim is not sanctioned by history. The emperors called the first seven councils, and either presided over them in person or by commissioners; and the final ratifi^cation of the decisions was also left to the Emperor. But the Greek Church agrees with the Latin in ascribing abso- lute authority to the decisions of truly ecumenical coun- cils. Gregory of Nazianzus (who was president for a time of the second ecumenical council) speaks strongly of the evils to which such assemblies are liable. He says: '•'lam inclined to avoid conventions of bishops ; I never knew one that did not come to a bad end, and create more disorders than it attempted to rectify'' A remark- able view of the authority of councils was that of Nico- las of Clamengis, vis.^ that they, in his opinion, could claim regard for their resolutions only if the members were really believers, and if they were more concerned for the salvation of souls than for secular interests. His views on general councils were fully set forth in a little work entitled : Disputatio de concilio generali, which con-^ 252 HISTORY OF CHURCH COUNCILS. sists of three letters, addressed in 141 5 or 1416, to a professor at the Paris University (printed apparently at Vienna in 1482). He not only places the authority of general councils over the authority of the popes, but the authority of the Bible over the authority of the councils. He doubts whether at all the former ecumenical coun- cils the Holy Spirit really presided, as the Holy Spirit would not assist men pursuing secular aims. He denies that a council composed of such men represents the Church, and asserts that God alone knows who are his people, and where the Holy Spirit dwells, and that there may be times when the Church can only be found in one single woman. After the lapse of over three hun- dred years, the Pope in 1867 signified his purpose to summon another ecumenical (or universal) council ; but of course none but Roman bishops attended it. .(McCHntock and Strong's Encyclopedia, vol. ii., p. 539.) THE PRIMITIYE CHURCH — AND — INNOVATIONS. SECOND PART. Tlje Prinjitive Churclj and Innovatiorjs. HOLY WATER. So little is known by the general reader of the consti- tution and character of the primitive Church, as estab- lished by the apostles, and so ignorant are the common mass of mankind (of the Christian world) of the great apostasy which, in the first centuries of the Christian Era, overtook the apostolic Church, which finally cul- minated in the Papacy, that we have concluded to write a series of articles on a question so profoundly import- ant to the religious world, and on a subject so intensely interesting to every inquirer in pursuit of the truth. As the question is one of great length and latitude, and one which runs back through the Dark Ages, spanning time between the apostolic and the present age, it is our intention to trace out the origin of all human tradition, and of all ecclesiastical dogmas, and of pagan supersti- tion, such as the origin of the intercession of saints, the Papal primacy, transubstantiation, invocation of saints, the mass, indulgences, image worship, purgatory, pray- ing for the dead, auricular confession, extreme unction, holy water, celibacy, canonization of saints, baptism of bells, wax tapers, etc. In this enlightened and inquisi- tive age people wish to know the cause and the reason of things. But we are not writing for those who love darkness rather than light. (255) 256 HOLV WATER. Jesus Christ is the foundation and the center of che Christian rehgion — of the remedial system of salvation. He is "the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person." He is our infallible Law- giver. He is invested with all authority. There is no appeal from his word. We only know of him and of his precepts as we receive knowledge from the united and consistent testimonies of those who have recorded his acts and teachings, as eye and ear witnesses; or, as in the case of Luke, from the testimony of those who had the advantage of daily and personal intercourse with the Savior of men. Before the apostles passed away, after they had established the Church of Christ upon an impregnable basis, they, with other inspired historians, left us, in writing, an inspired book, or number of books, to infallibly guide us in the right way; the magna chafta of heaven, to tell us how to become the loyal subjects of Jesus Christ, and how to walk and live in the fear of God. These inspired writers of infallible truths acknowl- edged no object of adoration but the invisible and eter- nal God; they knew no intercessor but the "High Priest of our salvation"; they knew of no expiatory sacrifice but the Lamb of God ; no other method of jus- tification was revealed to them save the grace of God which comes through the medium of faith. We read of no altar at the Lord's Supper, nor of image worship in consecrated temples, nor of a " Universal Bishop " in the Church of God ; nor hear of souls in purgatory, not of a queen in heaven, nor of the stored-away merits of dead and living saints, nor of vain and pompous cere monies. The greatest ornaments in the primitive con- gregations were simplicity of doctrine and purity of life. We stand immovably upon the ground that any REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 257 deviation from the written and inspired word of God must, by logical necessity, and in the very nature of things, be based on human invention and on the desire to glory in the things of men rather than in the things of God. What has been added to the word is "wood, hay and stubble." The introduction of Jewish and pagan rites and ceremonies by the early converts to Christianity, the glare and pomp of heathen practices, the dense ignorance of the people on the question of a divine revelation, and the connivance or craft of those who would be teachers in things divine, mixed with things secular, gradually obscured the word of God, under the guise of tradition. Innovations were intro- duced by slow degrees ; and, step by step, we see the "man of sin" developing, until finally there looms up in the horizon that huge deformity called Popery. Justin Martyr (A. D. 130), in the following words, delineates the beautiful simplicity of the worship of the apostolic age : On the day that is called Sunday, there is an assembly in the same place, of those who dwell in towns or in the country ; and the histories of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, whilst the time permits; then the reading ceasing, the president verbally admon- ishes and exhorts the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise in common and offer prayers, bread and wine and water are offered, and the president offers prayers and thanksgivings, as far as it is in his power to do so, and the people joyfully cry out, saying, Amen. And the distribution and the communication is to each of those who have returned thanks, and it is sent by tlie deacons to those who are not present. And this food is called by us the eucharist. And in all that we offer we bless the Maker of all things by his Son Jesus Clirist and by the Holy Spirit. Of those who are rich and willing, each, accord- ing to his own pleasure, contributes; and what is thus collected is put away by the president, and he assists the orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are destitute. (Second Apology for Christians, p. 97, Paris, 1615.) 18 258 HOLY WATER. Such was the simplicity of worship in those early days — the simplicity of worship whicli thousands are now longing for ; but even here we trace an innovation, in the addition of water to the wine, a practice not known among apostolic institutions. It has been seen (about A. D. no) that the celebration of the Lord's Supper formed an important part of the worship in the primitive Church. In that memorial institution Christ Jesus — the Savior of men — the only hope of the world — was the central figure of adoration, and the affections of the disciples centered in him. We read of no pastor or clergyman being present in that worship; we read of no organ, of no select choir, of no duets and quartettes, and of no gorgeous architecture and splendid drapery. The Jews, when they made their solemn appearances before God, took offerings with them, usually the pro- duce of the earth, in token of their grateful acknowledg- ment of daily mercies. The early Christians, the greater part of whom were of Jewish birth, retained this custom ; and, at the public assemblies, brought with them bread and wine, fruits, corn and grain. These, when consecrated by prayer, seem to have been used in part for the communion, and the rest distributed to the poor,* etc. The gifts thus brought retained the name of offerings, and from this simple beginning we can trace the com- plicated superstitions of the Mass. From these offerings the "eucharist " (Lord's Supper) was called an oblation, afterward a sacrifice, gratulatory and not expiatory. It was the offering of the fruits of the earth, not of the body of Christ — though this furnished a pretense for *PlaflE, Dissert, de Oblat., etc.; in his Stigmata Dissert. Theologia. Stut., 1720. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. , 259 changing- the Supper into a sacrifice, by reason of the several attendant circumstances connected with the ser- vices, as hereafter to be stated, when we come to A. D. 7S7. Platina, in his "Lives of the Popes," attributes the introduction of the use of /lo/y ivater to Alexander I.* (A. D. 108-117.) The authority for this statement is a decretal epistle of doubtful authenticity, to say the least of it (says Collette, the author of The Novelties of Romanistri). But even if introduced, the practice was condemned by some of the subsequent Fathers as a pagan custom. The Emperor Julian, to spite the Chris- tians, ordered the provisions in the market to be sprink- led with Jioly water from the heathen temples, on purpose, as Middleton observes, either to starve them, or force them to eat what they esteemed polluted. The use of holy water by the heathens at the entrance of their temples, to sprinkle themselves with, is admitted by Montfangon and the Jesuit, La Cerda — the latter, in his notes on a passage of Virgil where this practice is men- tioned, says: " Hence was derived the custom of Holy Church to provide purifying or holy water at the entrance of their churches." The modern priests use the same " aspergillium, " or sprinkler, which was used by pagan priests for the same purpose, as seen on ancient bas-reliefs and coins. The Indians, the Brah- mins, et al., also use holy water in sprinkling their houses, etc., and believe that they can thereby wipe out their sins.f But the abuse of this custom did not •In the Clementine Constitutions the authorship of the Holy Water is attributed to St. Matthew. Lib. viii., chap, xxix., in Labb. Concil., torn, i., col. 484. Lutet., Paris, 1671. fPicard's Ceremonies et Costumes Religieuse, vol. i., p. 18, note 6. . Amsterdam, 1723. 26o HOLY WATER. take place until some centuries after — in the ninth cert' tury, as we shall eventually see. Whatever might have been the first intention of the originators of the custom (says Collette), it is very cer- tain that the present use is mingled with the grossest superstitions. Marsilius Columna, Archbishop of Sa- lerno, attributes to the use of holy water seven spiritual virtues: (i) to frighten away devils; (2) to remit venial sins ; (3) to cure distractions ; (4) to elevate the mind ; (5) to dispose it to devotion ; (6) to obtain grace ; (7) to prepare for the sacrament. As to corporal gifts : (a) to cure barrenness ; (b) to multiply goods; (c) to procure health; (d) to purge the air from pestilential vapors.* There are other virtues attributed to holy water that are not fit to be spoken of to modest ears, f Even at this early period, various heresies existed in the Church, such as the Valentinian, the Gnostic and the Eucratite. These heretics declared against marriage and forbade eating flesh. The Montanists were likewise enemies to marriage, especially of the clergy. Almost all the present Papal heresies existed in some form or other during these early periods, either among the pagans or Jews, or one or other of the heretical sects. We shall see how and when they were successfully engrafted on the teaching of the apostles. Cardinal Baronias, in his Annals under the A. D. 740, says that "It is allowable for the Church to transfer to pious uses those ceremonies which the pagans employed impiously to superstitious worship, after they had been purified by •Marsilius Columna, Hydragialog, s. iii., o. ii., p. 281, etc. Rom., 1686. tSee Domenico Magri Notigia de Vocaboli Ecclesiastici in qu» Bene- dict*; p. 41. Eom., 1669. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. ^consecration ; for the devil is more mortified to see those things returned to the service of Jesus Christ, which were instituted for his own."* •Referring to pagan ceremonies, he says: "Consulto introductum videtur, ut quae erant Gentilatiae superstitionis officia, eadem veri Dei .cuUai sanctiiicata in yerae religionis cultum impend ereatum." Baroa : Annales, torn, ii., p. 384, col. i. Luc, 1738. FAST OF LENT. About A. D. 140, Telsephorus, bishop of Rome, instituted the fast of Lent upon a pretended tradition of the apostles. Fasts and festivals were instituted and practiced by both the Jews and pagans. Concerning the fast of Lent, more hereafter. The latter part of the second century was a period of violent persecutions and martyrdom. It was a custom of the Greeks to celebrate the memory of their heroes at their tombs, with a view of exciting the survivors to emulate their deeds of valor. Hence Christians, in order to encourage each other to suffer death for the name of Christ, thought they ought to imitate this Greek custom. They gathered such of the relics of the martyrs as could be saved, and gave them honorable burial, as they supposed. An annual commemoration, called the day of their nativity, or birthday to heaven, at their tombs or at their place of martyrdom, was then celebrated on the days of their death.* At their assemblies, after prayer and exposition of the Scriptures, they rehearsed in order the names of the martyrs and their deeds. After which thanksgivings were then offered to God for having given victory. The proceed- ings terminated with the celebration of the "eucharist." Obviously the intention of these solemn meetings was to convey the idea that those who died in the hope of the gospel lived with the Lord, and in the memory of *Tertullian, De Cor. Militis, Edit. Roth., 1662. p. 289. (262) REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 263 the brotherhood, and to excite their surviving friends to remain constant and faithful. Says Eusebius: "There [namely, where their bones were deposited], if it be possible, meeting together in joy and gladness, the Lord grant us to celebrate the birthday of this martyr- dom, both in memory of those who have wrestled before us, and for the exercise and preparation of those that come after."* No religious worship was rendered to the martyrs themselves at the first ; for Eusebius, in the treatise last referred to, thus expresses himself, touching these ceremonies: "We are taught to worship God only, and to honor those blessed powers that are about him with such honor as is fit and agreeable to their estate and condition. " And again : " To God only will we give the worship due unto his name, and him only do we religiously worship and adore, "f Following this apparently harmless practice, prayers for the dead were instituted; next came intercession for the departed; and, in the course of time, there came the sacrifice of the inass, as now practiced by the Roman hierarchy. About the year A. D. 200, offerings began to be presented at the celebrations in memory of martyrs ; the action, however, still being one of commemoration only. Hence arose the custom of offerings for the dead. These offerings were generally made by the parents of the deceased, t The gifts were distributed to the poor. From this arose saints' days. The transition to prayers for the dead was made easy ; and this was the first great innovation which invaded the sanctity of the apostolic *EusebiuB, Eccl. Hist., lib. v., c. ix.; and lib. iv., c. xv. Paris, 1659. tEuseb., De Prsep. Evang., lib. iv., c. x., p. 88. Edit. Stephani, Paris, 1544. JXeander's Church Hist., vol. iii., pp. 469, 470. London, IS.jl. 264 FAST OF LENT. Church. It is important to observe that it is honestly admitted by Tertullian, a celebrated writer of this age, that this practice was founded on custom, and not on the Scriptures,* and was, therefore, called a tradition. It is to be noted that, though some Christians did now begin to pray for the dead, it was not that they should be freed from the pains of purgatory. It was a common belief that departed souls did not enjoy the beatific vision until the day of resurrection and the last judg- ment; but there is no trace of a belief at this period that they were in a place of torment, f They prayed for the consumnation of their glory, and that they them- selves might join the departed in the resurrection of the just— a custom having no sanction in Scripture, but still differing widely from the modern practice and intention of praying for the dead. The next step in advance (A. D. 240) was a mistaken zeal of martyrs and others in the prospect of death. They began to make mutual agreements that he who should first depart should remember the survivor, and implore God in his behalf when he found himself in the next world. J Here we have the beginning of interces- sion of saints, but it was the departed for the living. •Tertullian, De Cor. Militis, cap. iii., p. 121 D. Paris, 1634. f Jeremiah Taylor's Works, " Dissuasion from Popery," c. i., sec. iv. Edit, by Heber, vol. x., p. 149. London, 1839. J Cyprian, Ep. ad Cornel. Ep. 57, p. 96. Edit. Paris, 1726. ORIGIN OF MONASTIC VOWS, PRIESTLY VESTMENTS AND THE SIGN OF THE CROSS. About the year 250, and for some time thereafter, the bishop of Rome took upon himself to interfere in matters which had been adjudged or determined by the bishop of Africa. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, opposed this newly-assumed power, and denied the right of the bishop of Rome to intermeddle with the decisions of other bishops in their own sees. He wrote to the bishop of Rome and told him that "it was decreed by the African bishops that every case was to be heard where the crime was committed."* These interferences continued for some time, and were always resisted, until the Council of Melevi, in Numidia (A.D. 415), passed a decree, signed by sixty bishops, among whom was St. Augustine, prohibiting all appeals to any other tribunal than the primate of the province where the subject matter arose, f Of the primacy, more here- after. In the year 257 "the hallowing of priests' vestures and altar clothes, with other ornaments of churches, was taken out of the Hebrew priesthood and used in our Church first by Stephen, the first bishop of Rome of that name. For, at the beginning, priests, in their massing, used rather inward virtues of soul than outward • Ep. ad Cornel, p. 136, Oxoa, 1682; Paris Edit., 1836, p. 73. f Manse's Councils, torn, iv., p. 507, Venetiis, 1785. (26s) 266 ORIGIN OF MONASTIC VOWS, ETC. apparel of the body, which is rather a glorious gaze than any godly edifying."* In consequence of the persecutions of this age (A. D. 260), some began to seek the deserts, and a monastic life ensued. Paul was the first hermit who fled from Alexandria into the desert, on account of the persecu- tions in the time of the Emperor Valerian. Fleury, the noted Roman Catholic Church historian, canonist and confessor of Louis XV., A. D. 17 16, from whose ecclesiastical history we shall have frequent occasion to quote, says: " Monasticism was introduced into favor mainly by the influence of Athanasius [A. D. 370] ; but in the year 341, the profession of a monk was despised at Rome as a novelty. "f And Polydore Vergil says: " The institution of this state of things came, I grant, of a good zeal to godliness, but the evil perverter of all good things did so empoison the hearts of them that followed, that they had more trust in their monks than faith in Christ's blood ; and then every man began new rules of monks to be their own saviors, and went so superstitiously to work that it was out of rule and abominable in the sight of God."| At this period, Christians being much mixed with pagans, and suffering from their taunts and persecutions, made themselves known to each other by the sign of the cross on the forehead, in token that they were not ashamed of the cross of Christ. It was a sort of badge of their profession, and a silent calling on the name of Christ. There was no virtue attributed to the action, but simply a profession of Christ made, whose name * Polydore Vergil, b. vi., c. viii., p. 136. London, 1551. t Fleury, Histoire Eccl., Paris, 1722-1734, torn, iii., pp. 340, 341. J Polydore Vergil, b. viii., c. i., p 131, London, 1551. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 267 was tacitly invoked. In modern times the original cus- tom has been superstitiously and mischievously per- verted. It is now supposed that the signing of the cross drives away evil spirits. What was at first sup- posed to be harmless, has degenerated into a gross superstition, as do all "harmless innovations," such as we are now daily encountering in the very current of the grand reformation of the nineteenth century. It was about this time (the latter part of the third century) that a custom became prevalent from which the modern theory of mdulgence has been derived. Christians who had been convicted of crimes were required to make confession of them publicly before the entire congregation, to implore pardon, and to undergo whatever punishment the church thought best to impose on them. This was done as well for example as to pre- vent reproach to the Christian religion among infidels. These punishments were not supposed tc be satisfactory to God. Such an idea can not be traced in any of the writers of the age who mention the practice. At the latter end of the third century, when many had lapsed, through fear of persecution, the punishment and period of probation became more severe and lengthened before they were readmitted. Sometimes the period was pro- tracted for a series of years. Hence, arose the custom of prescribing times or periods — five, ten or more years — of penance; but, lest the penitent should lose heart, or be driven to despair, the bishops took upon them- selves, under certain circumstances, to mitigate the period of punishment. This act was termed a relaxa- tion or remission. It was not till long after this that the term indulgence was substituted, and when intro- duced it was in a far different sense to its modern use. 268 ORIGIN OF MONASTIC VOWS, ETC. It signified only a discharge, or a mitigation, of ecclesi- astical censures and penalties inflicted by the Church, and not a remission of the penalty due to God's justice for the sin of the penitent which had been forgiven, which is the modern Romish idea. But the transition from one to the other can well be comprehended when we find craft and avarice on the one side, and supersti- tion and ignorance on the other.* As to the various orders of the priesthood, Polydore Vergil (A. D. 290) says: The bishops of Rome, following the shadows of the old abrogated law of the Hebrews, have ordained a swarm of divers other orders, as porters or sextons, readers, exorcists, acolytes, sub-deacons, deacons, priests, bishops, archbishops, as a certain degree, one above another. Caius [A. D. 290], bishop of Rome, did begin the orders first ; yet some say Hygenius [A. D. 140] ordained those decrees long before Caius' time. Hygenius might be the first deviser of them, and after- ward Caius accomplished the work and brought it to a final consum- mation.f Now see the parallel between that time and this. As men and churches depart from the simplicity of the gospel, there comes a corresponding demand for offices. Many persons can be induced to remain in the Church, provided you give them honor and distinction, with salaries to support them in their places of honor. Among ourselves the demand for honor and distinction is greater than the supply, although we have the Gen- eral Missionary Convention, with its officers; the State societies, with their officers; the district societies, with their officers ; the Foreign Board, with its officers ; the Woman's Board, with its officers ; auxiliary societies, * " The Novelties of Romanism," the Religious Tract Society, Lon- don, Collette, p. 166. f B. iv., c. iv., p. 88, London, 1551. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 269 with their officers ; "officiary boards " for the churches, and presided over by self-styled bishops. "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw disciples after them." ORIGIN OF THE MASS AND CELIBACY. We now come into the fourth century. In A. D. 300, the Emperor Constantine having become a Chris- tian, nominally at least, the Church, as a whole, being released temporarily from terrible persecutions, began to assume a pageantry and splendor out of all harmony with the simplicity of the persons who founded the Church. We trace now more frequently the terms ''sac- rifice" and "altar," though still used in a different sense from their modern application. We pause here to quote from the Novelties of Romanism, p. 167, as relating to the matter under consideration : When the word "sacrifice " was used by the Fathers, it was not in the sense in which it is now used ; and this is evident from the fact that they used the same term as applied to " baptism," as admitted by Melchior Canus. He said : " But you demand what cause had man\j of the ancient Fathers that they called baptism a sacrifice, and therefore said there remained no more sacrifice for sin, because baptism can not be repeated. Truly, because in baptism we die together with Christ, and by this sn;Tament the sacrifice of the cross is applied unto us tu the full remission of sin, hence they call baptism metaphorically a sacrifice (Canus' Loc. Theol., lib. xii., fol. 424-426; Louvan, 1569). And for the same purpose did they call the sacrament of the Lord's Supper a sacrifice, metaphorically being a memorial of the sacrifice on the cross. We are told upon the pages of history that at the beginning of the fourth century freedom from perse- cution gave opportunities for collecting the relics of martyrs. These were now reinterred under the commun- ion-table. This custom was of decidedly pagan origin. (270) REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 271 A similar custom among^ the Athenians is related by Plutarch in his life of Theseus ; and as they did of old with their pagan heroes, so the modern Romanists deposit relics of the so called saints, supplemented with processions and sacrifices. The building of church chapels led to superstitious consecrations, and other ]fsenseless ceremonies, which, no doubt, according to modern parlance, were the product of "sanctified com- mon sense." Eusebius informs us that "this Emperor [Constantine], to make the Christian religion more plausible to the Gentiles, adopted the exterior ornaments which they used in their religion." The consecration of churches (temples), accompanied by superstitious rites, is unquestionably of pagan origin ; the vestal vir- gins sprinkled the ground with lustral water; and now lustral water is sprinkled upon helpless, unreasoning babes in Protestant churches, in the name of Jesus Christ ! In 325 the famous Council of Nice met with the express purpose of settling certain points of discipline. It was determined that the bishop of each metropolitan church should rule the district attached to that church, and be independent, in his ecclesiastical jurisdiction, of of any other bishop.* Rome, however, by virtue of being the acknowledged seat of empire, enjoyed a pre- cedence of honor, but not of ecclesiastical rank. The bishop of Constantinople, by conciliar decree, enjoyed the same primacy and ecclesiastical prerogatives with the bishop of Rome, t This decree is important, for not only did it declare the rights of the See of Constanti- nople, but it expressly points out the nature of the pre- •Labb. et Coss., torn, ii., col. 32. Paris, 1671. tCouncil Chal., can. 28 ; ibid., torn, iv., col. 769. Paris, 1671. 2/2 ORIGIN OF THE MASS AND CELIBACY. cedency enjoyed by Rome — a precedency arising fronr the fact of Rome having been the seat of empire. This precedency was now shared by Constantinople for the same reason. It is unnecessary to reproduce here the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Nice, which con- tains the decree alluded to. It was at this council that the question of the celibacy of the clergy was seriously mooted. Marriage was then allowed to all, though it had been previously the subject of discussion. The Council of Elvira, in Spain, A. D. 305, was the first to announce the law that the clergy of the first three grades should abstain from all marriage intercourse, or be deposed (Neander's Church History, vol. iii., p. 208, London, 185 i). The other orders were left to the free choice of each individual. By the Coun- cil of Neo-Caesarea (A. D. 314), presbyters were not allowed to marry ; and it enjoined the degradation of priests who married after ordination. * Ecclesiastics, on taking their charge, stated whether they would refrain from marrying or not ; if they answered that they would refrain, they were not allowed to marry ; otherwise, they were allowed. The question first arose in conse- quence of the fearful persecutions of the times, and alsor in consequence of the extreme poverty of the congrega- tions. At the Council of Nice, however, it was dis- cussed whether celibacy should be made compulsory. Bishop Paphnutias protested against a law being passed on the subject, on the ground that such an unnatural prohibition would produce great immorality, and was contrary to the Holy Scriptures.f The custom was not universally received, but here is where the hideous *Labb. et Coss. Council, torn, i., col. 1479. Paris, 1671. fSosomen, Hist. Eccles., lib. i.. cap. xxiii., p. 41. Cantab, 1720 REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. dogma first began to develop Even so late as A. D. 692, at the Sixth General Council, it was decreed by the thirteenth canon that they should be deposed who should presume to deprive deacons and priests, after the receiving of orders, of the company of their lawful wives, and that they who, after the taking of orders, under the pretense of greater holiness, should put away their wives, should be deposed and properly excommu- nicated.* In fact, the Roman canon law did admit that the marriage of the clergy is not prohibited by the law, the gospel, or the apostles, but that it is strictly prohib- ited by "the Church. "f Celibacy was most esteemed among the heathen phi- losophers. Jerome, in his second book against Jovinian, relates some curious customs practiced by the Athenian and Egyptian priests. Josephus and Pliny also inform us of the customs of the Jewish Church with regard to this subject. Constantine, in the commemoration of the Passion, first ordered Friday to be held as a solemn feast. The feast days Good Friday and Easter (Oester, the name of a German god) are both of pagan origin ; and yet Christians, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, perpetuate these pagan festivals ! About A. D. 350 there were three classes of persons who were not permitted to partake of the "eucharist," or Lord's Supper, viz.: the Cathecumens, or those under instruction ; the Penitents, not as yet received into church communion; and Demoniacs, or those supposed to be possessed with wicked spirits. The sermon being ended, the deacon intimated to these that they should •Can. xiii., Concl. in Trulla, A. D. 692, col. 947, E., torn. xi. Mansi, Florentiae, 1765. fDecreti Secunda Pars., Cause xxvi., q. ii., c. i., fol. 884. 19 274 ORIGIN OF THE MASS AND CELIBACY. withdraw, dismissing them with these words, "Ite missa est" — a valedictory expression, or solemn leave-taking of them, which did not apply to the ceremony which followed. In succeeding ages those words began to be contracted into mass, and the eucharist, which followed, was called from thence the mass.^ Even this is of pagan origin. In the work by which Apuleias, a Platonic philosopher of the second century, made himself best known, entitled '^'De Asino Aureo" — The Golden Ass, we read that, in imitation of an old ceremony among the Greeks, when the worship of Isis was concluded, the people were dismissed by two Greek words signifying their discharge. The pagan Romans, when their devo- tions were concluded, discharged the throng with the words, ^'Ite niissio est." This, by gradual corruption, passed into massa. Polydore Virgil says : When the mass is ended, the deacon, turning to the people, sayeth, "lie missa est," which words are borrowed from the rite of the pagans, and signifieth that then the company may be dismissed. It was used in the sacrifices of Isis, that when the observances were duly and fully performed and accomplished, then the minister of religion should give warning or a watchword what time they should lawfully depart. And of this springs our custom of singing Ite missa est for a certain significa- tion that the full service was finished.! Fleury, the French historian, fixes 366 as the date of the actual beginning of the so-called appellate authority or jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. He says that the Emperor Valentinian ordered that the bishop of Rome, with his colleagues, should examine the causes of other bishops. + The decree empowered (in matters *Neander, in his Church History, gives this as the origin of the term. See vol. iii., p. 461, note. London, 1851. fBook v., c. ii., p. 110. Edit. London, 15.51. JFleury, Eccles. Hist., torn, ir., p. 146. Paris, 17X4. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 2;5 not canonical) the metropolitan bishops to judge the inferior clergy, and the bishop of Rome to judge the metropolitan bishops, or the diocesan bishops who occu- pied cities inferior to Rome ; but this only extended the jurisdiction of Rome westward. This privilege, says Fleury, was conceded to Damasus, wliose election was by no means canonical. At a council subsequently held at Rome (378), Damasus addressed a memorial to the Emperor Gratian, to confirm the above decree, the object of which was to shift the clergy from civil to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or to the Emperor himself ; but it is important to note that they accepted the boon as an indulgence, or concession from the Emperor. The notion of "divine right," now so confidently and arrogantly appealed to, was not then introduced. The " exemption " did not extend to criminal cases. It was from these small beginnings, concessions made by tem- poral princes to ecclesiastics, that the huge ecclesiastical fabric and monstrous Papal hierarchy was ultimately constructed. The preference given to the See of Rome arose from the splendor and importance of the city, and the magnif- icence and luxury, even at this early age, of the lordly bishop of that See. Fleury gives the words of a pagan historian of the period, who said that he was not at all surprised to see the strifes to attain to the Papal See, when he considered the splendor of Rome, where the chief bishop is enriched by offerings from ladies, and that they drove in chariots, clothed splendidly, lived well, their tables surpassing even those of kings. This author jokingly said to Damasus : " Make me bishop of Rome and I will become a Christian."* *Fleury, Eccles. Hist., yol. iv., p. 146. Paris, 1724. 276 ORIGIN OF THE MASS AND CELIBACY. The love of position, the love of power, and the love of money in the Church, has been the bane of the Church in all ages. This we shall see more fully further on, 05 the great apostasy continues to develop. Convo- cations, conventions, councils, synods and conferences, constituted of clergymen, and undertaking to legislate for Jesus Christ, while placing the masses in the condi- tion of passive servitude, have not only made a grand failure as elevating institutions, but they have oppressed and weakened the Church in all ages, while at the same time they have elevated, honored and enriched the self- ish and ambitious few. PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. The latter part of the fourth century (A. D. 370) was famous on account of its orators They displayed their talents on the occasions of celebrating the memorials of saints, and in funeral orations, by reciting their peculiar virtues. To give effect to their eloquence, they began to apostrophize the departed. Gregory Nazianzen, in the first oration, exclaimed, "Hear, likewise, thou soul of great Constantine, if thou hast any understanding in these things."^ The same orator, in the second oration, and in a similar manner, addressed his speech to the soul of the apostate Julian, which he believed to be in hell. These apostrophes were figures of rhetoric: the sentiments offered were no enunciation of doctrine, and as yet were different in character and purpose from the modern custom of invocation of saints. There is no doubt that a way was thereby opened for the introduc- tion of the more modern heresy; for thenceforward, by imperceptible advances, the mystified people began to address their requests to saints departed ; but it was not until long after this that invocation of saints was intro- duced into the church service as a legitimatized practice. Invocating angels became common in the province of Phrygia. Oratories of St. Michael were erected. This heresy was at once condemned by the Council of Laodicea, held about this time (A. D. 368). The thirty- fifth canon is as follows: "It does not behoove Chris- * Vol. i., p. 78. Paris, 1778, Benedictine EditioQ. (277) 278 PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. tians to leave the Church of God and go and invoke angels, and make assemblies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one be detected idling in their secret idolatry, let him be accursed, because he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and gone to idolatry." It may be urged by the advocates of saint worship, that "idolatry" alone is condemned; but in passing such a decree the Council would have made some reservation for a legitimate innovation, had such been the practice of the Church in those days.* ''Praying for the dead'' came into a more general practice about A. D. 380, as appears from the records. Eusebius tells us that at the death of Constantine they prayed in behalf of his soul; "but it must be noted," says CoUette, "that the intent of these prayers was very different from the modern custom ; for the writers of this age testify that, in the same prayers were included those whom the modern Church of Rome would exclude, namely, those supposed to be in hell ; as also those who, it is now supposed, do not require such prayers, but, on the contrary, are prayed to, namely, patriarchs, prophets, evangelists, apostles, martyrs and the Virgin Mary, "f Here we find the foundation on which the modern Papal practice is based, which, however, is inseparable from the doctrine of purgatory, not then developed. From a passage in Epiphanias, + we must presume * Labb et Coss., Council Laod., c. 3o, torn, i., col. 1503. Paris, 1671. fThe references are numerous. See Cyril's Catech. xxiii., Mys. tag. v., n. ix., p. 328. Paris, 1720. Chrysost. Horn, xxix., in Acts ix. Liturg. Oper., torn, xii., p. 1011. Paris, 1838. And admitted by Dr. Wiseman in his Moorefield Lectures, lect. xi., p. 66, note. London, 1851. JEpiph. Epist. ad Johan. Hieros. Hieron., torn, i., p. 251. Colon, 1682. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 279 that, at this time, some desired to introduce paintings in churches, for he records the fact that, on finding in a certain village in Palestine a painted cloth representing Christ, he cut it down. The authenticity of this epistle has been questioned by Bellarmine, but it has been vindicated by the learned critic, Rivet, in his Crit. Sacer., edit. 1682. It is alleged that Siricius, bishop of Rome (386), was the first, by decree, who undertook to prohibit the clergy within his jurisdiction from entering the marriage relation. The previous Council of Ancyra (A. D. 314) did not prohibit the marriage of the clergy; but the tenth canon expressly allowed those persons who, at the time of being made deacons, declared their intention to marry, to do so, and to remain in the priesthood ; but those who did not declare their purpose, but were ordained, professing that they would live a single life, were to be deposed if they married afterward.* Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian of the fifth century, designated this as a "new law. "f Rather he should have said that it was a revival of an old pagan custom. It is a well-known fact that the ancient Egyptian priests were prohibited from marrying. It was a Manichean heresy.! It was not until A. D. 950 that the decree was observed in every church: for throughout the prov- inces of Europe many of the priesthood were married. Athanasius (A. D. 340), writing to Bishop Dracontius, told him "that in his days many monks were parents of children, and bishops were likewise fathers. "|| Gra- *Labb. et Coss. Concl. Gen. Concl. Ancyra, can. x., torn, i., col. 14.")6. Paris, 1671. fSocrati^s' Hist. Ec, lib. i., c. ii., Bib. Max. Patr., torn. vii. tSee Aug. Ep. 74, p. 848, torn. ii. Paris, 1670. IjAthanas. ad Draconfcium., p. 739, torn. i. Heidel., 1601. 28o PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. tian does not hesitate to testify that many bishops of Rome were the sons of priests. He names Popes Damasus, Hosius, Boniface. Agapetiis, Theodorus, Silverius, Felix, Gelasius, as all being Popes and sons of priests, some even of bishops; and he adds, "There were many others also to be found who were begotten of priests and governed in the Apostolic See."* Roman bishops, descended from ecclesiastical parents, were married during their clerkships: as were Boniface I., Felix III., Gelasius I., etc. Even so late as A. D. 1068 we find that at a council held in Barcelona, by the Legate Cardinal Hugo, it was unanimously agreed that the clergy should not be married, "as had hitherto been permitted, "t The decree was authoritatively enforced in 1074, under Hildebrand, and renewed by the twenty- first canon of the first Lateran Council, A. D. 11 23; J and also by the sixth and seventh canons of the second Lateran Council (A.D. 1139). The latter canon forbade anyone to hear mass celebrated by a married priest, 1| which canon, by the way, is in direct contradiction to the fourth canon of the Council of Gangra (A. D. 325, or, as some say, 380). There were many unscriptural and superstitious cus- toms practiced, in the times of which we write, under the pretended authority of tradition ; and so great was the corruption of the age, even at this early period of the Church, that Cyprian exclaimed that " the Church of God and spouse of Christ was fallen into this bad state, that, to celebrate the heavenly mysteries, light *Grat. Par. I., Dist. 56, c. iii., p. 291, torn. i. Lug., 1671. fSee Landon'8 Manual of Councils, p. 56. London, 1846. JLabb. et Coss. Concl., torn, x., col. 899. Paris, 1671. Illbid., col. 10 03. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. borrowed discipline even from darkness itself, and Christians do the very same things that antichrists do."* And, in the succeeding century, Augustine complained that such was the accumulation of ceremo- nial observances, that the condition of the Jews under the servile yoke of the law was more supportable than that of Christians under the gospel, f About A. D. 390, a remarkable occurrence took place, as recorded by the historians Socrates and Sozomen,^ with reference to private confession. In the primitive Church Christians made public confession of sins before the assembled congregation. This was the injunction of the apostles, "Confess your faults one to another." During the awful persecutions which followed the apostolic age, many Christians denied the faith and abandoned the Church. The penitent was, after a public confession and performance of penance, read- mitted into the communion of the Church. About the year 250, during and after the Decian persecution, the number of "penitents" returning to the faith was so great that the bishops could not attend to them all, and the public confession was as notorious as it was scandal- ous. Accordingly a new officer was created as "peni- tentiary presbyter," to whom all who desired to be admitted to public penance for private sins, should first confess their sins, and afterward, if not too scandalous for public ears, confess them in the hearing of all. This was also necessary, as some public confessions entailed other and painful inconveniences. This was the first institution of the "penitentiary •Cyprian, Epist. Pomp., Ep. Ixxiv., 224. Leipsic edit., 1838. tAug. Epist. ad Jannar, 55, sec. 35, vol. ill., p. 142. Paris, 1700. JSocrates, lib. v., c. xix. Soz. , i. 7, c. 16. 282 PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. priest." In this year (A. D. 390) the office was sup- pressed, and with it private confession aboHshed. This occurred at Constantinople by order of Nectarius, bishop of that city, and the example was followed all over the East. The circumstance came about by rea- son of a scandalous occurrence, which happened to a lady of distinction after confession, the crime having been committed in the church itself. The misbehavior of one priest was visited on all the priesthood, which incident set the whole city in an uproar ; and, to appease the tumult, Nectarius not only deprived the offending deacon of his office, but also removed the "penitentiary," and with it all private confessions ; and the more effectually to prevent for the future the scan- dal, inseparable, as it appears, from the system, he abolished that office, and, to use the words of Nectarius above referred to, ' ' Leaving any man free to partake of the holy mysteries according to the direction of his own conscience," thus abolishing the custom of private, or, it is now called, auriculur confession. This, at that remote time, was regarded as a human expedient, and the confession and penance enjoined were left optional with the people, on the ground, we presume, of the "silence of the Scriptures," as some apologists now boldly assert. But notice, out of that shadow of apostasy there has come forth the real dogma itself, which consists in the fact that private confession to a priest is now made compulsory on every member of the Romish Church. The Council of Carthage, held under bishop Aurelius in the year 397, by the twent\--ninth canon ordered that mass should be said in the time of fasting.* *Labb. et Coss. Concl., Carth., can. xxiz., torn, ii., col. 1,165. Paris, ]671. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 283 Apostasy is hardly perceptible at first, but it gathers momentum as it proceedo, and descends with increased rapidity until the final crash comes. Once float away from the fixed standard of New Testament teaching, and there is no telling where you will tie up, or how far out you will float without pilot or compass. Facilis est descensus, etc. Either absolute anarchy or absolute spiritual despotism is not far ofi", when men begin to talk disrespectfully of the "silence of the Scriptures,*' and when they begin to manufacture "sanctified com- mon sense " out of that which is neither written nor authorized. Spiritual despotism may be an escape from anarchy — from latitudinarianism, or from rationalism. Where there is so much talk on matters of "human expediency," and a strong inclination to take advantage of the "silence of the Scriptures," those in the per- formance are verging close to rationalism. PURGATORY AND PASCHAL CANDLES. Between A. D. 230 and A. D. 400, curious and various and many were the speculations broached in regard to the state of the dead or the condition of souls in hades or in the world of spirits. Origen (230), a man of great learning, but, withal, a visionary mystic, seems to have been the first to pave the way for the evolution of purgatory. He was of the opinion that the faithful, as well as the unrighteous, would pass through a fire which was to consume the world on the last day, after the resurrection, when all, even the devil himself, would eventually be saved. This speculation, however, was condemned by a general council of the Church.* This theory of Origen, the Greek scholar, was but the prelude of many other speculations in regard to the existence of purgatory. About this time, Augustine, bishop of Hippo, in Africa, though he condemned Ori- gen's theory, evolved from the realms of mysticism one of his own speculations. Some such thing as a purga- torial fire, he said, might be probable,! but he did not treat it as a matter of accepted faith and doctrine. These mystical speculations, evolved from dreamy Egypt, and revolved through several successive centuries, finally brought to maturity the modern Romish doctrine *By the General Council held at Constantinople, A. D. 553. See Bals. apud Belveridge. Synod, torn, i., p. 150. Oxon, 1672. Augastine, lib. de Haeres, c. xliii., torn, viii., p. 10. Benedictine edition, Paris, 1685. tAugustine, Euch. de Fide. Spe. et Caritate, torn, iv., p. 222. Paris, 1685. (284) REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 285 of purgatory, and also the handsome hell of the Univer- salists. It was at the Council of Toledo (A. D. 400) that the bishop of Rome was, for the first time, spoken of simply by the title of "Pope."* But, as we shall see further down the ages, it was not until A. D. 1073 that the title was assumed exclusively by the bishop of Rome. About A. D. 417 the custom of hallowing paschal candles on Easter eve was commanded by Zosimus, and ordered to be observed in every church, f The word "Easter" is only found once in the Bible — in Acts xii. 4 — and there it should be translated Passover, to har- monize with the Greek term pascha. Easter is a word of Saxon origin, and imports a goddess of the Saxons, or, rather, of the East, Estera, in honor of whom sacri- fices being annually offered about the Passover time of the year (spring), the name became attached by associa- tion of ideas to the Christian festival of the resurrection, which happened at the time of the Passover ; hence we say Easter Day, Easter Sunday, but very improperly ; as we by no means refer the festival then kept to the god- dess of the ancient Saxons. So the present German word for Easter, Ostern, is referred to the same goddess Estera or Ostera (Calmet, s. v.). In A. D. 419, when Boniface found himself seated on the Papal throne, he affected to be shocked at the scan- dals witnessed at the elections of bishops of Rome. In order to prevent cabals and intrigues on similar occa- sions, to the scandal of the Christian religion, from which he himself had not been free, he petitioned the Emperor Honorius to pass a law with a view of restrain' •See Landon's Manual of Councils, p. 578. London, 1846. tPolydore Vergil, b. vi., c. v., p. 120. London, 1551. 286 PURGATORY AND PASCHAL CANDLES. ing the ambition and intrigues of aspirants to the Papacy. Accordingly Honorius made a decree to the effect that, when two rival candidates were chosen, neither was to hold the dignity, but the people and clergy were to pro- ceed to a new election.* This is the first instance in history, says Bower, in his "History of the Popes," of princes intermeddling in the election of the bishop of Rome, a necessity imposed on the Roman Church on account of the many disorders of which the clergy and people were guilty in those elections. The emperors reserved a right of confirmation, which they exercised for many years thereafter. A notable example is the case of Gregory I., who, when elected, wrote to the Emperor entreating him not to confirm his appointment. In the year 431, the first law was passed granting asylum in churches to fugitives, f or places for harboring and protecting transgressors of the law, as well as for the persecuted innocent people of God. Mr. Elliott, in his HorcB ApocalyptiCie,X assigns this as the date when the bishop of Rome distinctly assumed the "keys" as a symbol of ecclesiastical power. The use of the keys as symbolical of the Papal power, is, like many similar practices, curiously connected with pagan mythology. The key was a symbol of two well-known pagan divinities of Rome. Janus bore a key, || as did also Cybele. It was only in the second century before the Christian Era that the worship of Cybele, under that name, was introduced into Rome ; but the same goddess, *See F. Page's Grit. Hist., in Annal. Baroni. ad ann, 419. fCod. Theodosius, lib. ix., tit. 45, 1, 4, vol. iii. Lips. 1736. Neaa- .der's Church Hist., vol. iii., p. 206. London, 1851. JVol. iii., p. 139. London, 1851. ||See Ovid's "Fasti," vol. iii., 1, 101, p. 346, opera. Leyden, 166>- REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 287 under the name of Cardea, with the " power of the key," was worshiped in Rome, with Janus, many years before.* Hence, perhaps, the two keys that the Pope emblazons on his arms, as the ensigns of his spiritual authority. The device was familiar to the Romans, and corre- sponded with their ideas of such sovereignty. As the statue of Jupiter is now worshiped at Rome (or was until recently) as the veritable image of Peter, so the keys of Janus and Cybele have for ages been devoutly believed to represent the keys of the same august person. *Torke's " Pantheon," "Cybele," p. 153. London, 1806. THE BEGINNING OF POPERY. The year A. D. 434 is referred to for proof that the bishop of Rome exercised supreme authority over the Church, as to the right of calling councils. With this view of the matter, a long letter from Sixtus III. to the Eastern bishops, as establishing several of the Papal prerogatives, is quoted by Bellarmine* and others to prove that councils ought to be called by none except the Pope, and by him alone. Sixtus is represented as saying: "The Emperor Valentinian has summoned a council by our authority." It has been clearly proved, however, that the letter is wholly made up of passages borrowed from the Eighth Council of Toledo, from Gregory I., from Felix III., from Adrian and from the Theodosian and Justinian codes; and, therefore, evi- dently spurious, and the passage in question forged, in order to introduce a sentence supposed to have been passed by the Emperor Valentinian. A charge of immorality has been invented against Sixtus, who is supposed to have written the letter on the occasion of his having cleared himself before a council, but the acts of that council are so manifestly fabulous that even Binius and Baronius have been forced, by unquestion- able evidence, to give them up, though the Emperor, whom the acts suppose to have assisted at the council, is said to have referred the pronouncing of the sentence to the Pope himself, "because the judge of all ought to »BeU. de. Concl., lib. 2, c. 12. (288) REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 289 be judged by none." There can be no doubt that it was in order to estabhsh this maxim that the acts of this council were forged, as well as those of the alleged pre- vious Council of Sinuessa (A. D. 303), which is supposed to have condemned Marcellinus, and which, at the expense of this man's reputation, is cited to exalt the See of Rome. No writers earlier than Anastasius, librarian of the Vatican, who flourished in the ninth century, and the historian Platina, who died in 1481, have treated the charge against Sixtus as a serious fact. This letter, with other palpable forgeries, was for a long time received as genuine, but it is now wholly renounced. "If the Roman system be of God [says Collette in "The Novel- ties of Romanism"], and the Roman Church founded upon a rock, against which the gates of hell shall never prevail, surely falsehood, fraud and forgeries were not required to prop it up." To the acts of the council referred to are added those of the judgment, supposed to have been given at Rome, on the occasion of an appeal made to that See by one Polychronius, said to have been bishop of Jerusalem, and to have appealed from the judgment of his colleagues in the East to that of the bishop of Rome. This judgment has also been for a long time held up as genuine, to prove that East- ern bishops appealed to the bishop of Rome. Nicholas I., in the ninth century, appealed to these acts as genu- ine in a letter which he wrote to the Emperor Michael. But that they are shameful forgeries is palpable on the face of them. It is upon such a rotten foundation as this — a foundation of tradition and lying assumptions — that Romanism is built. "Antiquity," indeed! yes, the antiquity of Egyptian mysticism and Roman paganism 1 20 290 THE BEGINNING OF POPERY. The judgment is supposed to have been given while the Emperor Yalentinian was the seventh time consul with Avienus, that is, no fewer than eleven years after the death of Sixtus III. Besides, it is manifest from the acts of the Councils of Ephesus (A. D. 431) and Chalce- don (A. D. 451), that Juvenalis assisted at both as bishop of Jerusalem ; and the first of these two councils was held a year before the election of Sixtus III., and the latter eleven years after his death (Sixtus became bishop of Rome A. D. 432, and died A. D. 440) ; so that Polychronius was not bishop of Jerusalem in his time. Indeed, it may be questioned whether there ever was a bishop of Jerusalem bearing that name; it can not be found in any catalogues of the bishops of that city that have been handed down to us.* These vain and pompous bishops had a sweet time of it. They assumed to feed the flock of God, but the flock was consumed by them. Men who love office and high salaries have, in every age, assumed that the com- mon herd of humanity can not live and flourish without pastors — a set of titled land-sharks, who, instead of feeding and sustaining the flock of God, devour the flock of God. As long as these bishops and pastors have good livings, and as long as the flocks are safe from prowling wolves, these officers are ever so faithful and courageous ; but when the wolf approaches, breathing out slaughter, and the salary is exhausted, behold how many abandon their charges and flee to the mountains for safety ! Leo I. (A. D. 450) seems to have been the first bishop of Rome who interfered with the election of bishops in other dioceses. He is reported to have interposed in Rower's History of the Popes, Tol. ii., pp. 5-6. London, 1750. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 291 the institution of Anatolius, "by the favor of whose assent he obtained the bishopric of Constantinople";''' and he is stated to have confirmed Maximus, of Antioch, and Donatus, an African bishop. But, on the other hand, other bishops arrogated the same privilege — for instance, Lucifer, a Sardinian bishop, ordained Paulinus, bishop of Antioch; Theophilus, of Alexandria, ordained Chrysostom ; Eustathius, of Antioch, ordained Evagrius, bishop of Constantinople, etc.; and Acacius and Patro philus expelled Maximus, and instituted Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, in his stead. All these acts, and many more that might be cited, were done without any refer- ence to the bishop of Rome. Here we have the battle of the bishops— the raging battle for supremacy. Is it not remarkable that we read of no such functionaries, and of no such ungodly stratagems, in the apostolic age ! We are still in the mystical regions of the fifth cen- tury, tracing out the successive innovations which cor- rupted the primitive Church, and which, by degrees, led the Church into the wilderness, where its identity was entirely lost to view. We are tracing out "the mystery of iniquity," as set forth by the apostle Paul in Second Thessalonians, second chapter, which he calls "that man of sin," "the son of perdition," who, as the represen- tative of Popery, ' ' opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped ; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." About A. D. 450, Leo, bishop of Rome, arrogantly assumed an authority never before attempted by any of his predecessors, declaring that the supreme authority over Western churches rested in him as bishop of Rome. *Labb. et Coss. Concl., torn, iv., col. 847. Paris, 1671. 292 THE BEGINNING OF POPERY. "In the chair of Peter," he said, "dwelleth the e\i^r- living power, the superabundant authority." The cir- cumstances attending this assumption of authority are important to be noted, as it obtained the sanction of the Emperor. Hilary, metropolitan bishop of Aries, assumed the right of ordaining all Gallican bishops. Leo was made jealous because this authority was vested in a rival. Becoming highly incensed, he brought false accusations against Hilary (see his 9th and loth Epistles), and eventually appealed to Valentinian HI., at this time Emperor of the West, a weak prince, who could not cope with a man of Leo's craft, address and ambition. Leo represented Hilary as a disturber of the peace, a rebel against the Apostolic See, and even against His Majesty. The Emperor was induced to issue the famous "rescript," vesting in the bishop of Rome an absolute and unlimited authority over the Gallican churches and bishops. This "rescript" was addressed to Aetius, general of the Roman forces in Gaul, under pretense of maintaining peace and tran- quillity in the Church, and in which "rescript" he stigmatizes Hilary as a traitor, and as an enem)' both to the Church and State. There is strong presumptive evidence that this document was dictated by Leo him- self. It is set out in full by Baronias in his Annals (Ann. 445). We transcribe the following passage to illustrate the nature of the power now first usurped by the bishop of Rome : " In order, therefore, to prevent even the least disturbance in the churches, and that discipline maj not thereby be infringed, we decree that, hereafter and forever, not only no Gallic bishops, but no bishop of any other province, be permitted, in contradiction of ancient cus- tom, to do anything without the authority of the venerable Pope of the Eternal City; but, on the contrary, to them and to all men, let REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. •whatsoever the authority of the Holy See hath ordained, or doth or shall ordain, be as law ; so that any bishop being summoned to the judg- ment-seat of the Roman Pontitif, be thereunto ampelUd by the governor of the prwine*." Thus we see how the secular arm was made subser- vient to ecclesiastical usurpation, the very thing that superinduced the dark ages, and out of which for the last four hundred years the Church has been trying to extricate itself. Hilary, and with him other Gallican bishops, opposed to the last this Papal encroachment, and they would never acknowledge the authority of the bishop of Rome. Notwithstanding Hilary's alleged traitorous conduct and repudiation of one of the alleged fundamentals of the Church of that age, " the sum and substance of Christianity," as the noted Bellarmine puts it, this same Hilary is claimed by the modern Church of Rome as a canonized saint, standing side by side with his opponent and oppressor, Leo ! The framer of this edict did not hesitate to record a deliberate untruth when "ancient custom " was invoked as authority. No such authority can be adduced,* and even Leo himself did not, for a considerable length of time after the time alluded to, claim the authority of ordaining bishops all over the Western provinces, for in his eighty-ninth epistle, addressed to the bishops of Gaul, he expressly disclaimed the authority. "We do not," he said, "arrogate to ourselves a power of ordaining in your provinces ;"t and this would warrant us in suspecting *It was only a few years previous to this, A. D. 421, that the Emperor Theodosius referred the dispute of the election of Perigenes to the See of Patrae in Achaia, one of the provinces of Illyricum, to the bishop of that diocese, after he liad consulted the bishop of Con- stantinople. See Cod. Theod., 1, 45, de Episcop., 1, 6. fP. Leo, Ep. 89, quoted by Barrow. See "On the Pope's Suprem- acy," p. ,343, Revised Edit. London, 1849. 294 THE BEGINNING OF POPERY. that the edict itself is, to a great extent, spurious. Bat it must be specially noted, says Collette, as a fact that, while Leo placed himself at the head of the Western bishops, he admitted the superior authority of the State, appealing, on all occasions, to the Emperor as his superior in ecclesiastical matters, under whose authority alone, since the appearance of the first Chris- tian emperor, all the early general councils were con- voked, who, as Eusebius expresses the sentiment of those days (referring to Constantine), " as a common bishop appointed by God, did summon synods of God's ministers. "* Here follow other innovations upon the apostolic order of things. But up to this date we find no trace of the origin of infant baptism, nor any trace of the substitution of sprinkling for immersion. We find that in 460, Leo, bishop of Rome, ordered the observance of four fasts, namely. Lent, Whitsuntide, the Seventh and Tenth Months. *Eu8eb. de Vit. Const. 1, 44, p. 524. Cantab, 1720. INVOCATION OF SAINTS. The first recorded act we can find of the invocation of a saint, is when the body of Chrysostom was trans- ported to Constantinople in 470. The Emperor Theo- dosius knelt down before it, prayed for it to forgive his parents, who had persecuted it while hving. But this profane superstition was rebuked by the so-called "Fathers of the Church" at the time of its occurrence. Nicephorus, in his Ecclesiastical History, informs us that one Peter Gnapheous, patriarch of Antioch (A. D. 470), was the first who introduced invocation of saints into the prayers of the Church, and ordered that the "Mother of God" should be named in every prayer. But this man was infected with the Eutychian heresy, for which cause he was condemned by the Fourth Gen- eral Council. A superstition, which was hitherto only private, became public ; the commemoration of the saints was changed into invocation ; preachers, instead of addressing their discourse to the living, to excite them to imitate the actions of their dead, began now to direct their prayers to the dead on behalf of the living. But, as yet, the practice was restricted to a sect of the Greeks; the Latins did not receive the doctrine till one hundred and twenty years further down the stream of innovation, where the stream began to widen more and more. THE EUCHARIST. About A. D. 49 another innovation was attempted, but, for the time being, it was checked. In the cele- bration of the "eucharist, " a custom had arisen of soaking or dipping the bread for those who would not drink wine. Julius, bishop of Rome in A. D. 340, condemned this practice, notwithstanding which fact, the custom was subsequently reintroduced into the Roman Church. About A. D. 440 the Manichees, who held wine in abhorrence, attempted to introduce the practice of taking the communion under one species only, namely, the bread. (Parenthetically we would remark that some of the Manichees still survive, judg- ing by the disturbance they raise in some of our con- gregations.) Leo (A. D. 450)* and Gelasius (A. D. 492), both bishops of Rome, condemned this heresy in express terms, and ordered that the communion should be received entire, as instituted by our Lord, or not at all. The words of Gelasius are so precise and so con- tradictory to the teaching of modern Rome, that we have only to quote them to convict the Roman Church of imposing on believers a doctrine most emphatically condemned by a bishop of their own Church. His words are : "We find that some, having received a portion of the holy body only, do abstain from the cup of the holy blood, who, doubtless (because they are bound by I know not what superstition), should ♦Leon. Mag. Oper. Lut., 1623, col. 108, Sermon iv., de Quadrag. (296) REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. 297 receive the wftole sacrament, or be driven from the whole; for the dividing of one and the eame mystery can not be done without sacrilege."* As connected with what many theologians call the eucharist, and, as we learn from the New Testament, improperly, this period should not be passed over without recording the deliberate opinion of this same Gelasius, bishop of Rome, on what is now deemed a fundamental doctrine of the Roman Church of the present day. We allude to transubstantiation ; that is, the alleged conversion of the substance and nature of the elements of bread and wine, after the consecration by the priest, into " t/te very and real body and blood'' of our Savior Jesus Christ. We place in parallel columns the dictum of Gelasius and the decree of Trent, clearly showing that transubstantiation was an invention after this date. GELASIDS, A. D. 492. "Certainly the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, which we receive, are a divine thing ; be- cause by these we are made partak- ers of the divine nature. Never- theless, the itihitaiux or naivire of the bread and wine cease not to exist; and, assuredly, the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the ac- tion of the mysteries." DECREE OF TRENT, A. D. 1551. "By the consecration of the bread and wine, the whole substance of the bread is converted into the substance of the body of Christ, and the wliole substance of the wine is converted into the substance of his blood ; which conversion is suit- ably and properly called by the Catholic Church, transubstantia- tion."! The contradiction between the opinion of Pope Gelasius and the decree of the Trent Council, which *Gela3. in Corp. .Juris Canon, Decret. Grat. tert. pars, de consecr. dist., ii. chap., col. 1,168. Ludg., 1661. And torn, i., col. 1,918. Ludg., 1671. (The Latin text is before us.) fConcil. Trid. Sessio XIIL, Decret. de Sanct. Euchar. Sacramento, cap. iv., De Transubstantiatioue. 298 THE EUCHARIST. now molds and directs the power and politics of the Church of Rome, is so manifest, that no one can be surprised to find a desperate attempt made to explain away the otherwise apparent heresy of an early bishop of Rome. Baronius and Bellarmine were foremost in their endeavors to explain the difficulty boldly confront- ing them. They hit upon the expedient of declaring that some other person of the name of Gelasius, but not Gelasius the bishop, was the writer of the treatise in question. The Roman Catholic historian, Dupin, how- ever, has exposed the hollowness of this "pious fraud," and proves incontestably that the work in question is the genuine production of Pope Gelasius, who was bishop of Rome A. D. 492,* and by holding on to this doctrine, the Church of Rome stands convicted before the intelligent world of introducing a shameful innova- tion into the creed of the Apostolic Church. » Fide Dupin. Ecc. Hist., vol. i., p. 250. Dublin, 1723. IMAGES AND EXTREME UNCTION. At the beginning of the sixth century (A. D. 500} images began to be used in the churclies, but as histori- cal memorials only (we recently saw the image of Presi- dent Garfield in a Sunday-school room, which is not an uncommon sight in certain localities), for which purpose alone they continued to be used for about one hundred years thereafter. Even this use of images received from various bishops severe reprobation. Within their sev- eral dioceses they caused them to be broken in pieces, in regular iconoclastic style. This was the incipient stage of image worship. Its full developrr.ent is yet to come. Though the gift of miraculous healing ceased with the apostles, yet, about A. D. 528, some imaginative here- tics retained the use of unction, no doubt in imitation of the practice referred to by the apostle James in his Epistle (v. 14). Bathers on leaving the bath, and wrestlers on entering the arena, were, at the time of which we write, anointed with oil. Christians, in imi- tation of these customs, anointed with oil those who were baptized (immersed), as being purified and singled out to contend with the world. This miction, as yet, formed no part of the "sacrament," which Rome subse- quently incorporated in her Seven Sacraments. The Valentinian heretics arrogated to themselves the gift of the apostles, and anointed their sick with oil on the approach of death. They pretended that this anointing, (299) 30O IMAGES AND EXTREME UNXTION. accompanied with prayers, would conduce to the salva- tion of the soul, though not to the healing of the body. This superstition found no supporters except among this sect of heretics. Innocent I., in his letter to Decentius, bishop of Eugubium, refers to the custom of anointing the sick with oil, which was to be exercised not merely by the priesthood, but by all the faithful, and was, therefore, evidently not considered a sacrament. The practice subsequently gained ground, and about A. D. 523, Felix IV., bishop of Rome, engrafted it on other religious ceremonies, and first instituted the right of extfcme unction, by declaring that such as were in extremis (at the point of death) should be anointed.* Ceremonies were, in course of time, superadded, and ultimately, but long after, extreme unction was made to receive the quality of a sacrament. It is evident that this pretended sacrament is derived chiefly from pagan- ism, as are many other rites and dogmas now recognized and legalized, not only by the Papal Church, but also in Protestant churches. In A. D. 529, Benedict, of Nursia, founded the order of Benedictine monks, f In A. D. 535, Agapetus I. ordained processions before the festival of Easter. Processions, as religious rites, are of great antiquity, and evidently of pagan origin. With the Greeks and Romans they took place chiefly on the festivals of Diana, Bacchus, Ceres, and other deities ; also before the opening of the games in the Circus ; and in the spring, when the fields were sprinkled with holy water to increase their fertility. *Polydore Vergil, b. v., c. iii., p. 102. London, 1551. tMosheim's Ecc. Hist., Cent, vi., pt. ii., p. 448, vol. i. London, 1825. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. The pagan priests were accustomed to head them, car- rying images of the gods and goddesses to be propi- tiated, and either started from certain temples or from the capital. The first processions mentioned in eccle- siastical history are those set on foot at Constantinople, in the time of Chrysostom. The Arians of that city, being forced to hold their meetings outside of the city, went thither night and morning, singing anthems. Chrysostom, to prevent them from perverting the Cath- olics, adopted counter processions, in which the clergy and people marched by night, singing hymns and carry- ing crosses and torches. From this period the custom of processions was introduced into the Eastern and Western Churches.* In A. D. 538, Vigilius, bishop of Rome, ordered that the priest, standing at the altar, should turn his face to the east, which was an old pagan custom ; and from this there originated another custom, that of placing the altar to the east of the chapel. Vitruvius, an eminent archi- tect of the age of Augustus, informs us that when the pagans built their temples, they placed their choir and principal idols toward the east. (Even in this enlight- ened age some congregations of professed Christians find it difificult to locate the organ and the choir.) "Let those," he said, "who sacrifice toward the altars, look to the east of the heavens, as also the statue which is to stand in the temple, * * * j-qj. jj. jg necessary that the altars of God be turned to the east."! The ancient Romans turned to the east when they sacrificed. The custom, therefore, was of pagan origin. Mosheim, *Chry808t. Or. contr. lud. et theatre; Basil Ep. 207, al. 63. Ambrose Ep. 40 ad Theodos. n. 14. fLib. iv., c. v.. Edit, de Laet. Amst., 1649. 302 IMAGES AND EXTREME UNCTION. in his chapter on "Rites and Ceremonies," says that " nearly all the people of the East, before the Christian Era, were accustomed to worship with their fices turned toward the sun- rising; for they all believed that God, whom they supposed resembled light, or rather to be light, and whom they limited as to place, had his resi dence in that part of the heavens where the sun rises. When they became Christians they rejected the erro- neous belief ; but the custom which originated from it, and which was very ancient and universally prevalent, they retained. Not to this hour has it been wholly laid aside."* The ancient idolaters used to worship the sun, turning to the east (Ezek. viii. i6, and Deut. iv. 19). The Manichees also prayed toward the east. Leo I., bishop of Rome (A. D. 443), ordained that, in order to discern Catholics from heretics, the former should turn toward the west to pray, f In the Christian temples at Antioch, in Syria, the altars were placed toward the west, and not toward the east. J To Vigilius is also attributed the institution of the feast of the Purification of the Virgin Mary, or Candle Mass. That was also of pagan origin. The pagans were accustomed, in the beginning of February, to cele- brate the feast of Proserpine with burning of tapers. To make the transition more easy from paganism, they instituted on the same day a feast, and burned tapers in honor of the Virgin Mary. According to Picard, the *Eccl. Hist., cent. ii. , pt. ii., cap. iv. , sec. 7. f" Ad occidentem conversi Deum colerunt." Binius Concl., torn, i., fol. 932, Colon, 1606. And Cardinal Baronius' Annal., ann. 443, pom. 5, torn. \n., p. 556. JSocrat. Eccl. Hist., in Euseb., lib. v., c. xxii. London, 1709. REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. institution of this feast is attributed to Gelasius I., in the year 496 ; and the procession of wax lights, to drive away evil spirits, to Sergius I., in the year 701.* •Ceremonies et Contumes Religieuses, vol. i., pt. ii., p. 163, notes c and d. Amsterdam, 1723. UNIVERSAL BISHOP. Toward the latter part of the sixth century (59S), John, patriarch of Constantinople, assumed the title of Universal Bishop. Pelagius II., and after him his suc- cessor, Gregory, both bishops of Rome, were shocked at the assumption of such a title by any individual, and denounced the act in the strongest terms of reprobation. Gregory, in his letters to the Emperor, said: "I confi- dently assert whoever calls himself the universal bishop, is the forerunner of Antichrist." Here are his precise words : " I, indeed, confidently assert that whosoever either calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, that person, in his vain elation, is the precursor of Antichrist, because, through his pride, he exalts himself above the others."* So spoke the bishop of Rome at that time. And as a question of historical fact, he publicly asserted that none of his predecessors did ever assume the impious title of " universal bishop." Pontifex Maxivius was of pagan origin. Dionysius, of Halicarnassus, gives a description of the "Supreme Pontiff" of the ancient Romans in his "Life of Numa Pompilius, " as also does the historian Livy. We find coins in the time of the Cssars, on which the Emperor was called "Pont. Max.," and even "Summus Sacer- dos." The heathen historian Zosimus (A. D. 426) gives the following account of the title before it was *Gregor. I., Epist., lib. v.; Epist. viii., opera., tom- ii., p. 742. Edit. Bened., 1705. (304) REFORMATORY MOVEMENTS. assumed by a Catholic bishop. He says that "among the Romans, the persons who had the superintendence of sacred things were the pontifices, who are termed Zephyrjei, if we translate the Latin word 'pontifices,' which means bridge-makers, into the Greek. " He pro- ceeds : The origin of the appellation was this. At a period before mankind was acquainted with the mode of worshiping by statues, some images of the gods were made in Thessaly. As there were not then any tem- ples (for the use of them was likewise unknown), they fixed up these figures of the gods on a bridge over the river Pevensa, and called those who sacrificed to the god Zephyraei — priests of the bridge — from the place where the images were first erected. Hence the Romans, deriv- ing it from the Greeks, called their own priests Pontifices, and enacted a law that kings, for the sake of dignity, should be considered of the number. The first of the kings who enjoyed this dignity was Numa Pompilius. After him it was conferred not only upon the kings, but upon Octavianus and his successors in the Roman Empire. Upon the elevation of any one to the imperial dignity, the pontifices brought him the priestly habit, and he was immediately styled Pontifex Maximus, or Chief Priest. All former emperors, indeed, appeared gratified with the dedication, and willingly adopted the title. Even Constantine himself, when he was emperor, accepted it, although he was seduced from the path of rectitude in regard to the sacred affairs, and had embraced the Christian faith. In like manner did all who succeeded him, till Valentinian Noleus ; but when the pontifices brought the sacred robe in the accustomed manner to Gratian, he, considering it a garment unlawful for a Christian to wear, rejected the offer. When the robe was returned to the priests who had brought it, their chief is said to have made an observation, " If the Emperor refuses to become pontifex, we shall soon make one."* We shall have more to say about the supremacy of the Pope of Rome. We suppose those traditionists reasoned just as modern innovators reason, that because the Word of God does not expressly condemn innova- ♦Zosimus, b. iv., c. 36, p. 196,