An apostasy foretold
I need not take time or space to describe the wonderful successes of Christianity as long as the primitive purity and power of the gospel message was sustained and its results realized in a living, Spirit-filled church. But facts compel me to record a change from that happy condition. This transition was foreseen by those who "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Paul declared: "Some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1); "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:30). Peter predicted, "There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies" (2 Pet. 2:1). Jesus himself declared, "Many false prophets shall arise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall waxcold" (Matt. 24:11, 12).
Paul gives a more particular description of the coming apostasy in the second chapter of Second Thessalonians. Asserting that the second coming of Christ was not at that time imminent, he says: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for thatday shall not come, except there come afalling awayfirst, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (verses 3, 4).
The development of the "man of sin," which was occasioned by the "falling away," was to be gradual, but should finally assume great proportions, "so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God showing himself thatheis God." The apostle further states: "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming" (verses 7, 8). We should not seek for the fulfilment of this prediction in those minor sects and heresies which at an early date arose and soon passed away: the description refers to some great power occupying the greatest prominence, making the most pretentious claims, a power that is to endure until the second advent of Christ. We must, therefore, look for its fulfilment in what we may term the main line of historic Christianity.
First evidences of decline
The "falling away" from the simple truths and standards of the gospel began at a very early date. The mystery of iniquity was already working in the apostles' day. Before the close of the first century we find in the churches of Asia Minor a sad deflection from their primitive condition. The church at Ephesus had left its first love (Rev. 2:4); the church at Pergamos was tolerating false teachers and being ruined by false doctrines (2:14, 15); Thyatira had lost the spirit of holy judgment against wrong-doing and was therefore affected by a shocking degree of immorality (2: 20-23); the message to Sardis was, "Thou hast a name that thou livest,and art dead(3:1); Laodicea had become so lukewarm that the Lord said, " I will spew thee out of my mouth" (3:15, 16).
The apostolic fathers
The transition from the apostles to the age of the early church fathers is involved in considerable darkness. Not until the middle of the second century, when Justin Martyr appears on the scene, does the church emerge from its obscurity into the clear light of history. The apostolic fathers—Clement of Rome, Ignatius, the Pastor of Hermas, Papias, and the unknown author of the Epistle to Diognetus—all these lived and wrote during that transitional period, and they could have told us much, but they have told us little. We can not but admire the beautiful spirit in which they wrote, and their style is earnest and vital. Nevertheless, we discern in these works two leading tendencies which stand, so to speak, as prophecies of what was to predominate in theecclesiastical thought of succeeding centuries.
In the mind of the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, the grand central thought is the incarnation and the spiritual presence of Christ in redeemed humanity, by which they are led to the "free imitation of God," as a result of which they become to the world what the soul is to the body—its life and the means of holding it together. This teaching is an epitome of the Greek theology developed later by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Athanasius. But in Papias, who attaches much importance to oral traditions that "came from the living and abiding voice"; in Ignatius, who exalts the bishop above other presbyters; and in Clement, who, writing as a Roman, is concerned with matters of administration and subordination to authority—in these we discern the beginnings of the Latin theology developed later by Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Augustine, which produced the papacy, and which, as we shall show, has in a great measure dominated the ecclesiastical thought of the world until the present day.
The Ante-Nicene age
After emerging into the clear field of historic Christianity in the time of Justin Martyr, we find everywhere evidences of a rapidly developing apostasy. In one respect we approach an examination of the Ante-Nicene church with feelings of admiration. This was a heroic age, an age of Christian martyrs. The struggles of Christianity against the powers of heathenism enthroned in the Roman Empire and throughout the world form a bright chapter in the annals of historic deeds and supreme loyalty to lofty ideals. When we view the subject from this angle, it would almost seem to be an act of irreverence or of sacrilege to call in question the doctrines and practises of that period when the church was baptized by fire and waded through rivers of blood. Reverence for the martyrs and for their noble efforts to extend the cause of Christ is praiseworthy, but in justice to truth, we must remember that even the martyrs were not inspired teachers commissioned to build a model for all succeeding ages. That they were heroic does not prove them infallible. We should never hesitate, therefore, to compare their teaching with the pure doctrines of the Word of God, and wherein there is any lack of harmony, we should be guided by the truth as it is in Jesus.
However much we may admire the early church fathers, we can not help noticing the sharp contrast between them and the first apostles; between their writings and the sublime, inspired teaching of the divine Word. If, after reading Paul, Peter, or John, we turn to Tertullian, Irenaeus, or Cyprian, we instinctively realize that we have, so to speak, been transferred from sunny Italy to frigid Siberia. We are conscious of a change to another era, and to another country. Notwithstanding the fact that we find numerous familiar objects, we know that we are moving in another atmosphere amid foreign surroundings.
Growth of ritualism
The church of the Middle Ages was the natural fruitage of the seeds planted during the second and third centuries. There we began to notice particularly foreign elements which stand out in bold contrast to the simple forms of primitive Christianity. One of these innovations was the development of the ritualistic spirit, according to which undue importance was attached to particular forms of worship, such as time, place, positions of the body, and ceremonial observances in general. Take baptism for an example. Apart from erroneous notions concerning the efficacy of baptism, which will be referred to under another head, the writings of the church fathers abound with the most minute and puerile details concerning how the act is to be performed—details of catechism, of consecration of waters, of dressing and undressing, exorcism, anointing from head to foot with oil, the laying on of hands, etc., all of which were to be carried out in the most exacting and solemn manner.
Example from Tertullian
As an example of the ritualistic character of Christian worship at the beginning of the third century, I will cite a passage from Tertullian. In the third chapter of his work De Corona, this celebrated Latin father undertakes to defend customs and practises that he confesses were received "on the ground of tradition alone." He says: "I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Whereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel.[A]Then when we are taken up (as new-born children) we taste, first of all, a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we abstain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the president, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be done at mealtimes and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honors. We count shouting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign of the cross."
In words immediately following, at the beginning of Chapter 4, Tertullian says: "If for these and other such rules you insist upon having positive Scriptural injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer."
According to this confession, all the ceremonial observances here set forth are without Scriptural authority. When we read in the New Testament concerning the simple act of baptizing believers, and compare it with the customs and practises that had grown up in the Ante-Nicene church, we do not wonder that evangelical faith was soon afterwards almost entirely lost in ritualistic forms; that, like the Pharisees of old, men made the faith of God of none effect by their traditions.
False doctrines and heresies
Another evidence of the decline of evangelical faith is found in the presence of many false doctrines among the leaders of so-called orthodox Christianity in that period of which I now write. Paul not only taught that at a later time some should "depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and devils" (1 Tim. 4:1), but he referred to some who had already "erred concerning the faith" (1 Tim. 6:21), and named two persons, 'who, concerning the truth, had erred, saying that the resurrection was past already, and overthrew the faith of some' (2 Tim. 2:18). After the death of the apostles, error made deeper inroads, and its baneful influence cast a shadow over the church, which rapidly deepened into the darkness of spiritual night.
Baptismal regeneration
One of the earliest corruptions of apostolic truth concerned the design and purpose of baptism. It was not long until unscriptural significance was attached to the literal rite itself, so that what was originally a mere sign, was substituted for the thing signified, and thus baptism took the place of spiritual regeneration. In several places in the writings of Justin Martyr, who lived about the middle of the second century, his language seems to attach undue importance to the literal rite; but other passages from the same author indicate that he had not as yet entirely lost sight of the apostolic standard. In his Dialog with Trypho, chapter 14, he says: "We have believed and testify that that very baptism which he [Isaiah] announced is alone able to purify those who have repented ... and what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? Baptize the soul from wrath and covetousness, from envy and from hatred, and lo, the body is pure."
In his First Apology, chapter 61, the same writer draws a clear Biblical distinction between spiritual regeneration secured through repentance and faith, and ritual regeneration in baptism as a mere outward sign of the inward work. He says: "I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ ... as many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is truth, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the Universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water."
Other writers of the period under consideration, however, praise the saving efficacy of baptism in the most exalted terms. According to their minds, it is the actual means of the redemption of sins, not a mere literal rite expressing ceremonially the work of God's Spirit within the heart; it is an illumination; it extinguishes the fire of sin; it removes the unclean spirits from men and seals them for heaven. Tertullian wrote extensively on this subject. In his work On Baptism, chapters 3 to 8, he maintains the doctrine of baptismal regeneration "by which we are washed from the sins of our former blindness and set free for eternal life." He declares that by this act men are prepared to receive the Holy Ghost; that in the literal act, "the spirit is corporeally washed in the waters, and the flesh is, in the same, spiritually cleansed." Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (third century), in his treatise concerning the Baptism of Heretics, teaches the same doctrine in no uncertain terms.
Other erroneous doctrines and practises
The limits of this work preclude the historic treatment of the rise and development of the host of false doctrines and practises that finally bound the people in the thralldom of superstition and plunged the world into the darkness of spiritual night. One who is free from such influences can scarcely read without feelings of disgust the elaborate treatises of these church fathers wherein they extol the virtues of virginity as forming a new order of life, as an evidence of divinity, as making virgins while in this world "equal to the angels of God," and as a certain surety of special rewards in heaven. From this false standard proceeded at length the celibacy of the clergy and monkery with all their attendant evils. And the time would fail me to tell of the introduction of images and image-worship in the Western Church and of that superstitious regard for miserable relics of every description and kind. True evangelical faith was at length lost to view, buried beneath the rubbish of men's traditions. The treatment of such matters, however, belongs to the church historian, and as the general facts are well-known, it is unnecessary here to make more than a brief reference to them so as to prepare the mind for that treatment ofthe reformation which is a special object of the present work.
[A]
Tertullian is the earliest writer that clearly and unmistakably teaches trine immersion, or records its practise. But here he honestly confesses that it is a "somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel."
Tertullian is the earliest writer that clearly and unmistakably teaches trine immersion, or records its practise. But here he honestly confesses that it is a "somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel."
Two phases of apostacy
In order to understand the place which the work of reformation has in the plan and purpose of God respecting his church, we must carefully observe the twofold character of the apostasy. Both these phases are clearly outlined in that remarkable prediction of Paul to which reference has already been made, recorded in the second chapter of Second Thessalonians. The first phase, described as "a falling away," was that decline from true Christianity which we have considered in the preceding chapter as the Corruption of Evangelical Faith. The second phase was the rise and development of a foreign element which was from its beginning "the mystery of iniquity" and which in certain respects usurped the true place of Jehovah himself in spiritual worship in the temple of God. This phase now demands our special attention.
Since the sixteenth century reformation a large part of the Christian world has renounced the right of the pope to sit as the supreme earthly head of the church, but we shall show later that these same modern Christians who have sought the restoration of the evangelicalfaithhave not discarded the essential elements of the papal hierarchical system, but have perpetuated them in their own ecclesiastical constitutions, and that this relic of medievalism is the chief barrier to a reunited Christendom and the restoration of pure apostolic Christianity. It is highly essential, therefore, that this phase of the apostasy be carefully considered. It is not enough to reject the pope and his college of cardinals. If that tree, as judged by its fruits, is an "evil" tree, we should seek to know where, when, and by whom the evil seed from which it grew was first planted, and thenreject it from the roots up. Then, and not until then, can the work of reformation be made complete. We have, therefore, to trace the rise and development of what may be forcibly expressed by the apparently pleonastic phrasehuman ecclesiasticism.
Divine authority vs. positional authority
We have already seen that in the church, as originally constituted, organization, authority, and government proceeded from the divine and not from the human. The agents whom Christ used in performing his work and in overseeing his church were called and endowed by the Holy Spirit, and this divine endowment was the real basis of their authority and responsibility. Paul's authority and responsibility as an apostle, for example, was not positional authority, or authority proceeding from a certain position to which he had been appointed or elected. His authority was divine, and out of that divine authority grew his positional responsibility as the "apostle of the Gentiles." Over and over he affirmed that he was an apostle, "not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ"(Gal. 1:1). On the same principle the position, work, and responsibility of all the members of the body of Christ grew out of the gifts and qualifications possessed by them, and thus the church was divinely organized and divinely governed.
Original bond of union
The bonds which united primitive Christians in one body were essentially moral and spiritual. Christ was their ever-living and ever-acting head. Their life proceeded from him, and they were all one in him. While those living in widely separated districts consulted together concerning matters of general concern, or united in cooperative efforts to accomplish common tasks, there is not the slightest evidence that there was an external human organization of the primitive church—either sectionally, nationally, or universally—centralized under a human headship of the administrative, legislative, and judicial kind. Christ was the head of the general church, the head of all the local churches, the head of all the individual members of the church. In him, the source of their common life, the primitive Christians were essentially one, and by his Spirit he operated in all hearts, in all the individual churches, and in all the ministers whose particular gifts and qualifications fitted them for divinely appointed oversight, both local and general. By this means the primitive church was able to perform the work of Christ harmoniously and present to the world the grand spectacle of one body.
First steps to ecclesiasticism
Jesus taught the humble equality of the New Testament ministry. "All ye are brethren" (Matt. 23:8). According to the New Testament they were all of one general order or rank, although greatly diversified in gifts and qualifications and the kind of work accomplished by each. The first example we have in Scripture ofpositional authorityin the ministry as distinguished from the authority of the Holy Spirit, is the case of Diotrephes, of whom the apostle John wrote in his third epistle. We are also informed as to the nature of the authority exercised by him and the direction in which it led. It washuman authority, something additional and foreign to the authority and government through the Holy Spirit, and the first example of church government by a single man. It proceeded from the evil root of pride and ambition, the love of "preeminence" among the brethren; and this usurped power and authority led to a judicial process by which innocent brethren were 'cast out of the church.'
What a contrast this presents to that New Testament picture of the divine ecclesia, exhibiting the highest form of human society known to history, a body in which every member had his gift and use for it. Among these many activities, oversight and preaching had their place, but did not constitute the whole sum of Christian service. Paul describes Christ as the living head "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to theeffectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love" (Eph. 4:16). The object of the ministerial function was "the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ" (verse 12, R.V.).
In his early epistle to the Philippians, Paul makes reference to the officers that guided that church. He sends greetings "to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1). Polycarp, writing to the same church in the next century, addresses the "presbyters and deacons," showing that the apostolic order was still preserved there.
Bishops vs. Presbyters
In the Ignatian epistles, however, written early in the second century, there appears positional authority of a new order. In place of the New Testament standard of a plurality of elders, or bishops, jointly teaching and guiding the local church, we find recognition of an office which was superior to that of the presbyters and to whose incumbents alone the term "bishop" was applied. A few extracts from his writings willmake clear this recognition of a threefold order of the ministry—bishops, elders, and deacons. "Wherefore, it is fitting that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also ye do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp" (To the Ephesians, chap. 4). "He is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the will of Jesus Christ" (To the Magnesians, chap. 2). And again, in the same epistle he says, "I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbytery in the place of the assembly of the apostles" (chap. 6). "In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as the appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these there is no church" (To the Trallians, chap. 3). To the Smyrnaeans he writes: "See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father.... Let no man do anything connected with the church without the bishop" (chap. 8). "It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God" (chap. 8). "It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honors the bishop has been honored of God; but he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil" (chap. 9).
That this early recognition of a superior order of ministers was a distinct innovation is also shown from the literature of that period. In the Shepherd of Hermas, dating from the first part of the second century, elders and presbyters are distinctly named but no bishop in contrast therewith. In the so-called "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," also dating from the first part of the second century, bishops and deacons only are named as teachers and leaders of the church, showing that the original signification of the term "bishop" is here retained. Clement of Rome, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, speaks of the ministry as an institution of the apostles, but he mentions, nevertheless, only a twofold order—elders and deacons, presbyters and deacons, or bishops and deacons. The same classification is made in the second epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, a work which is generally ascribed to another author; so also in the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.
The superior office ofthebishop as distinguished from the local presbytery was, therefore, an innovation, but in process of time its recognition became general. It is probable that in the local presbytery of the primitive church some one minister
Innovation becomes general
excelled in special gifts and qualifications and consequently became a natural leader of his brethren.Suchleadership was of God, comes general becauseit was based on the authority proceeding from the Spirit of God. Such was the leadership which Paul held in a sphere of activity wider than a local congregation. But such was not positional authority or authority proceeding from a humanly created superior office and appointment thereto. It was of divine order. But this fact of distinguished leadership at first, doubtless furnished an excuse for the creation of a distinct office with carefully defined functions and limits of authority. The power of the bishop thus constituted advanced steadily. The churches of the cities where they were located extended their influences over smaller towns in the surrounding territory, and thus the city bishop came to rule over the elders of the lesser churches of a district.
Development of hierarchy
When the first step toward ecclesiasticism was definitely taken, by the recognition of official position authority, and government proceeding from human appointment alone, the way was prepared for rapid progress toward a highly organized system of man-rule. When the bishops met in provincial councils, special deference was given those bishops from cities of great political importance, and they were exalted to the presidency of these councils, and this in time led to the recognition of a new order of church officials—metropolitans. Later the metropolitans seemed too numerous for general utility in governmental functions; therefore general leadership gradually became centralized more and more in the bishops or metropolitans of certain of the most important cities, until they were finally given recognition as an order superior to that of metropolitans and were styledpatriarchs. The first Council of Nice recognized this superior authority possessed by the patriarchates of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. The General Council of Constantinople placed the bishop of Constantinople in the same rank with the other three patriarchs, and the General Council of Chalcedon exalted the see of Jerusalem to a similar dignity. The race for leadership between the patriarchates then began. On account of the Moslem invasion in the seventh century, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch fell away from their former positions of greatness; therefore the rivalry for leadership was henceforth between the see of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople. Rome possessed many natural advantages, and consequently the bishop of Rome gained the greater prestige. The full-fledged papacy was the result.
Fundamental causes
What produced that transition from the humble apostolic church of the brethren to the medieval church of the impious Hildebrand, who caused monarchs to tremble on their thrones? The change resulted from two particular causes, and it is highly essential to our purpose that we understand them. One was a misconception both of the Fundamental constitution of the true church itself as designed by its Founder and of Christ's perpetual relationship to it; and the second was the imperialistic tendencies of that age to which the first error naturally exposed the church.
It is unnecessary here to recite at length that conception of the primitive church which we have described in preceding chapters as the concrete expression of the kingdom of God. Such was the only truecatholic, or universal, church. Its catholicity, however, was a moral and spiritual dominion exercised over men by the truth and Spirit of God, and was rendered visible only in the society of redeemed believers who held the truth and bore its appropriate fruits of righteousness. Being composed of the redeemed, it lovingly embraced within its membership the entire brotherhood of Christ.
Two theories of catholicity
It is not too much to say that in the age in which Christianity first appeared it was difficult for men to appreciate the conception of a purely moral and spiritual authority which was to be universal and perpetual. Another idea of catholicity soon began to take possession of men's minds—the idea of a temporal and earthly organization of the kingdom of heaven. In this conception of the church the bond of union was not moral and spiritual—not the inevitable result of divine lifeand love in the individual members—but its pretended catholicity was to be secured by official, administrative, legislative, and judicial functions under a human headship and a self-perpetuating human magistracy. Such was the "mystery of iniquity," and in its developed form historically it was "the man of sin." The student of the New Testament can easily see that the great Founder never intended that the boundary of his church should be determined by the administrative functions of a self-perpetuating clerical corporation. But, on the other hand, the real church embraces the entirespiritual brotherhood,and out of this spiritual membership was developed by the Spirit of God the capacity and authority to teach, guide, and instruct. What a contrast these two conceptions present!
The power of the keys
Out of that worldly conception of the kingdom of God grew the Romish figment of the "power of the keys." According to this idea, Christ constituted his ministers a sort of clerical, close corporation invested with direct authority over souls so that without their priestly mediation the kingdom of heaven is forever shut against men. The words "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19) are evidently nothing more than a figurative expression indicating the moral influence in the kingdom which Peter in particular should wield with peculiar energy and efficiency. According to Matt. 18:18 all the apostlesand others were to exercise the same functions. In time, this expression denoting moral influence and usefulness in the service of Christ was tortured into an engine of despotism and made the means of spiritual tyranny over the consciences of millions of men and women. The corporation entrusted with such power durst not be resisted, and the church was identical with the hierarchy.
But all of Rome's boasted catholicity, centralized in an official, administrative corporation, is a chimera; for it is a fact that multitudes are accepted of God as members of the divine family who are not identified with the hierarchy. The real catholic church, embracing the whole spiritual brotherhood, is therefore something else.
Main source of ecclesiasticism
But we have not yet reached in this discussion the tap-root of the evil tree of human ecclesiasticism. The fundamental error underlying all other errors on this subject, was the idea of an absent Christ. Notwithstanding the definite assertions of our Lord, "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" and "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them"—notwithstanding these reassuring promises and the definite statements of the apostles which represent Christ as the ever-living and ever-acting head of the church, soon after the apostolic period men lost the consciousness of the divine presence and began tothink and to act as if Christ were indeed absent and would not return again for thousands of years. The presence of gigantic evils in the world with no apparent available means of redressing them, the dead weight of heathenism, and the disturbing influences of speculative Oriental philosophies impressed upon the conscience of the world a despairing pessimism. In the midst of this trial there was a revival of the Platonic philosophy. The treatise of Plato that made the most profound impression upon the religious thought of the second century was the "Timaeus," wherein the Deity is pictured as withdrawn from the world into a distant heaven separated from all creation because of the evil with which matter is essentially connected. With God withdrawn from the world and Christ absent on a long journey, what was man to do? What was the hope of the world?
Here ecclesiasticism found its real opportunity. Here human authority and government could be and was substituted for that spiritual dominion of Christ which gave life, form, and character to his church in primitive days. Here grew up that conception of the church as identical with the hierarchy whose power and authority was handed down by direct descent from the apostles and without whose priestly mediation there was no hope of salvation. Here was introduced the idea of world-wide centralization of administrative, legislative, and judicial functions in a self-perpetuating human headship. What a contrast! With Christ absent, the church an ark for the saving of the world, the truth a mere deposit made to the church for safe keeping to be handed down like a heirloom from generation to generation, and with a self-perpetuating priestly corporation as master of the destinies of the universe, we are prepared to understand the tyrannical rule of the church of Hildebrand and Innocent III. Traced to its source, this evil system is found to have sprung from that worldly conception of the kingdom of Christ which was substituted for the inconceivably grander conception of its Founder—a kingdom whose dominion is moral and spiritual under the personal supervision of Christ himself in all ages, and which embraces in its membership the entire spiritual brotherhood.
The age of popery's greatest glory was the world's midnight. I have not attempted to give an adequate description of that long reign of superstition and error preceding the reformation of the sixteenth century. Such is the particular province of ecclesiastical historians. I have simply confined the discussion to certain features essential to our present purpose.
One point of importance I have endeavored to impress, namely, that the papal hierarchy, with all its attendant evils, corruption, superstition, and spiritual despotism, was the logical successor of the Ante-Nicene church; that the ripened fruits of papalism were the direct results of the seeds of error planted in the second and third centuries. In view of this fact, one is led to inquire why true Christianity was not permanently buried in oblivion beyond the possibility of resurrection, how any reformation could be possible.
If Christianity were nothing more than a human religion, its reformation at such a period of decline and corruption would appear impossible. But Christianity was of divine origin. No matter how deeply it was buried under the rubbish of human tradition and superstition, no matter how grossly it was perverted and misunderstood by men, it still retained within itself the vital spark of divine life, the living principle of reformation.
First cause of reformation
The secret of this reformatory power was Jesus Christ himself, the great ever-living head of the church. Notwithstanding the decline of faith and morals among those professing Christ, the wonderful character of Jesus still stood out with remarkable clearness and power in the records of the New Testament and could not but exert a tremendous influence in spite of prevailing standards; could not but shed rays of light and warmth in the midst of the surrounding darkness. Although men's ideas of the church became perverted, they could not entirely lose sight of the great Founder of the church, and they could not escape the conviction that the record of the founding of that church was given in the writings of the New Testament and that these writings were worthy of peculiar veneration. Perhaps this is the main reason why the learning of antiquity was chiefly preserved in monasteries and churches. There were ecclesiastics in all these ages who were acquainted with the Scriptures in Latin, and this acquaintance tended to preserve the knowledge of Jesus the Christ as portrayed in the original gospel records. The history of that epoch proves that there were men who loved the Lord more than priestly forms and ceremonial observances. John Wyclif, Jerome of Prague, John Huss, and others experienced that deeper longing for personal relationship with Christ, and they proclaimed the gospel of Christ in a manner that could not be understood by the hierarchy oftheir times.
Classical learning
Jesus was indeed the Christ of God. The light which shone forth from his presence could not be totally obscured, and the moral power and influence of his life and teaching could not be destroyed. The revival of classical learning restored the Greek Testament to western Europe and attracted the attention of students and learned men in all the monasteries and universities. While the hierarchy insisted on the exclusive right to interpret the Scriptures, the simple reading of these wonderful records could not but create new conceptions of truth which no clerical prohibition could banish. Life was springing up in the midst of death.
Love for truth
The Reformation was the sincere effort of honest men to restore the truth of primitive Christianity, that the world might again experience the triumph of evangelical faith. To the everlasting credit of the Continental reformers be it said that their motives were not selfish. They sought not for themselves freedom of thought and speech nor church power. Their immediate object was the restoration of the gospel; all other results were but secondary. Nothing is more certain than that at the first Luther had no idea of assailing the organization of the papal church. Most of the reformers at the first still believed most earnestly in the imperial government of the universal church; and they relinquished this long-cherished ideal only when driven by force of circumstances which were at first unseen and unsuspected. Luther did not at first question the doctrine of the supremacy of the pope; but when he found that the reigning pope could not be reconciled with the principles of truth which he taught, Luther proposed to appeal the matters in question to a general council, notwithstanding the melancholy example, a century earlier, of the Council of Constance and the fate of John Huss and Jerome of Prague.
Indulgences
The real occasion for the outbreak of the Reformation was the papal traffic in indulgences. Leo X had great need of money for the building of St. Peter's, and other undertakings, and in order to fill the coffers of the church he had recourse to the sale of indulgences. The power of dispensing these indulgences in Saxony in Germany was committed to a Dominican friar named Tetzel, a fanatical enthusiast who entertained the most extravagant notions concerning their efficacy in forgiving not only the sins already committed but even those which were contemplated. Luther's soul burned with righteous indignation. Of what use was the doctrine that forgiveness of sin came by the death of Christ on the cross if any sinnercould obtain it from an emissary of the pope for a pecuniary consideration. Luther felt that this infamous traffic was making the Word of God of none effect. He therefore drew up ninety-five theses against the doctrine of indulgences and nailed them on the church-door at Wittenberg. The printing-press scattered copies of these theses everywhere, and soon the continent of Europe was in a blaze of controversy. Such, in short, was the beginning of the Reformation and some of the causes leading thereto.
Gospel standard sought
The key-note of the reformers was, therefore, the gospel. The views of the reformers with respect to truth were not altogether harmonious, and it is evident that some of them had much clearer conception of the gospel than had others. Nevertheless, their primary purpose was the same. They were gradually forced to the conviction that Rome had made the faith of God of none effect by her traditions, errors, and superstitions, so much so as to make it practically unknown. It was the purpose of these heroic preachers to bring out these long-obscured truths and thus make them effectual in the saving of men. The main doctrine around which the Reformation centered was justification by faith independent of human mediation.
So far as the Reformation restored to the world right doctrine, it tended to correct the evils of that phase of the apostasy which we have characterized as the corruption of evangelical faith. But it did not remove that other evil characteristic of the apostasy, the parent ofnearly all other evils—human ecclesiasticism. Viewed from one angle, that power appears to have been modified; but from another point of view, we can see that what was formerly an imperial system of centralized ecclesiastical control simply ended now in nationally centralized systems perpetuating the same principles. Thus, from the centralized dominion of the papal hierarchy there sprang the national, or state, churches in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, England, Sweden, and Scotland.
Lingering influence of Rome
We have already shown that development of ecclesiasticism which culminated in the papacy. From the primitive autonomy of the local churches, there came the centralization and consolidation of churches sectionally under a human headship with administrative functions, then provincial or national centralization, then finally the primacy of Rome over them all. The reason for this is evident. When the moral and spiritual dominion of Christ's kingdom was lost to view or could not be appreciated, the wrong conception of the church as a world-empire naturally took possession of men's minds; for in that age vast, centralized, imperial power was the ideal government. When, however, the political empire fell, and men witnessed the ruin of their political ideal, they sought to realize the same universal conception in a world-church possessing imperial powers under the pope of Rome.
National churches
At the period of the Reformation the Christian world had been in the grip of this world-church idea for more than a thousand years. As already stated, the reformers, whose minds were directed chiefly toward the restoration of evangelical doctrine, had at first no idea of breaking away from this standard. Evidently they had no conception of that moral and spiritual dominion of Christ by which alone he governs his church—a 'kingdom that is not of this world.' They therefore abandoned the world-church idea reluctantly, and not until the opposition of the hierarchy drove them to separation. When the issue was clearly drawn, they of course decided to obey God rather than man. Having no idea of the real spiritual character of the divine ecclesia, they had to content themselves with thatnationalchurch unity which was still in their power.
The clergy, who had long been accustomed to the imperial tie, believed that a national headship was now necessary. The governments of Europe at that time were for the most part absolute monarchies, about the only limits to the sovereign power of these kings being the control which the pope exercised over the ecclesiastical affairs of the nations. From this control the Reformation liberated them. Therefore they eagerly took upon themselves the oversight of the national churches, and thus came into existence the church-and-state system of Protestant Europe. To a great extent the power that the imperial head of the church lost was acquired by the national heads.
All this seemed perfectly consistent to the reformers. They felt the necessity of lodging somewhere that power of human control which had been formerly exercised by the pope. As one writer has said, "They could not understand that Christianity could prosper without a strongly organized and governed church or without the presence of a strong and vigorous hand ready at all times to repress dissent and enforce uniformity of faith and worship." The time of absolute religious freedom was not yet.