FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[115]Mat. 3.11; Mark 1.8; Luke 3.16; Jon. 1.26, 33; Acts 11.15, 16; Acts 1.4, 5; Acts 11.16[116]Eph. 4.5[117]Col. 2.14; Acts 1.4, 5; Acts 2.1, 3; Acts 11.16[118]1 Peter 3.21[119]1 Peter 3.21[120]Acts 1.4, 5; Acts 11.16[121]Acts 10.45; Acts 4.31; Eph. 5.18; 2 Cor. 1.22; Acts 2.17, 18; Joel 2.28[122]Nelson R. Boss on the Prayer Book P. 102[123]Rom. 6.3; Rom. 6.6; Gal. 3.27[124]Gal. 5.24; Gal. 6.14[125]What is Christ's Church? Hammond P. 177, P. 278[126]Acts 1.5; Acts 11.16; Jon. 3.3, 7[127]Luke 23.39, 43[128]Acts 8.13; Acts 8.23; Acts 8.21[129]Acts 8.13[130]Gal. 3.27[131]Acts 8.21,23[132]Gal. 3.26, 27[133]Rom. 6.4[134]Acts 2.16, 21; Acts 10.34, 35; Joel 2.28, 29[135]1 Cor. 12.6[136]Heb. 2.9[137]Heb. 8.10, 13[138]Titus 2.11[139]Rev. 3.20[140]Jon. 14.23[141]What is Christ's Church? Hammond P. 31, 71, 86[142]1 Cor. 6.9, 11; Gal. 5.21; Eph. 5.5; Gal. 5.21; R.v. Margin; Gal. 5.22; Rom. 14.17[143]1 Cor. 6.10, 11; R.v.; 1 Cor. 6.9[144]1 Cor. 6.11[145]1 Cor. 6.11; R.v.[146]Rom. 14.17; 1 Cor. 6.11; Eph. 5.9, 18; Gal. 5.16, 25[147]Mat. 5.3, 12; Mat. 5.20[148]Mat. 7.21, 23[149]Jon. 10.1, 7[150]Mat. 3.11; Luke 3.16; Jon. 3.5[151]Jon. 3.3; Margin R.v.[152]Jon. 3.3 R.v.; Mat. 3.11; Luke 3.16[153]See in this Article P. 39 to 44[154]Jon. 3.3, 5[155]Jon. 3.5; Luke 3.16; Mat. 3.11; Jon. 7.38, 39[156]Mat. 3.10, 12; Luke 3.9, 17; Jon. 4.10, 14[157]Rev. 7.17; Zech. 13.9; Mat. 3.2[158]Mat. 7.21; Gal. 5.21[159]1 Cor. 6.10, 11 R.v.; Titus 3.5, 6[160]Philippians 3.3; Rom. 6.6; Mat. 16.24; Gal. 2.20; Col. 2.11, 12; Gal. 3.27; Rom. 2.29; Col. 2.11[161]Col. 2.11, 16; 1 Cor. 6.11 R.v.

[115]Mat. 3.11; Mark 1.8; Luke 3.16; Jon. 1.26, 33; Acts 11.15, 16; Acts 1.4, 5; Acts 11.16

[116]Eph. 4.5

[117]Col. 2.14; Acts 1.4, 5; Acts 2.1, 3; Acts 11.16

[118]1 Peter 3.21

[119]1 Peter 3.21

[120]Acts 1.4, 5; Acts 11.16

[121]Acts 10.45; Acts 4.31; Eph. 5.18; 2 Cor. 1.22; Acts 2.17, 18; Joel 2.28

[122]Nelson R. Boss on the Prayer Book P. 102

[123]Rom. 6.3; Rom. 6.6; Gal. 3.27

[124]Gal. 5.24; Gal. 6.14

[125]What is Christ's Church? Hammond P. 177, P. 278

[126]Acts 1.5; Acts 11.16; Jon. 3.3, 7

[127]Luke 23.39, 43

[128]Acts 8.13; Acts 8.23; Acts 8.21

[129]Acts 8.13

[130]Gal. 3.27

[131]Acts 8.21,23

[132]Gal. 3.26, 27

[133]Rom. 6.4

[134]Acts 2.16, 21; Acts 10.34, 35; Joel 2.28, 29

[135]1 Cor. 12.6

[136]Heb. 2.9

[137]Heb. 8.10, 13

[138]Titus 2.11

[139]Rev. 3.20

[140]Jon. 14.23

[141]What is Christ's Church? Hammond P. 31, 71, 86

[142]1 Cor. 6.9, 11; Gal. 5.21; Eph. 5.5; Gal. 5.21; R.v. Margin; Gal. 5.22; Rom. 14.17

[143]1 Cor. 6.10, 11; R.v.; 1 Cor. 6.9

[144]1 Cor. 6.11

[145]1 Cor. 6.11; R.v.

[146]Rom. 14.17; 1 Cor. 6.11; Eph. 5.9, 18; Gal. 5.16, 25

[147]Mat. 5.3, 12; Mat. 5.20

[148]Mat. 7.21, 23

[149]Jon. 10.1, 7

[150]Mat. 3.11; Luke 3.16; Jon. 3.5

[151]Jon. 3.3; Margin R.v.

[152]Jon. 3.3 R.v.; Mat. 3.11; Luke 3.16

[153]See in this Article P. 39 to 44

[154]Jon. 3.3, 5

[155]Jon. 3.5; Luke 3.16; Mat. 3.11; Jon. 7.38, 39

[156]Mat. 3.10, 12; Luke 3.9, 17; Jon. 4.10, 14

[157]Rev. 7.17; Zech. 13.9; Mat. 3.2

[158]Mat. 7.21; Gal. 5.21

[159]1 Cor. 6.10, 11 R.v.; Titus 3.5, 6

[160]Philippians 3.3; Rom. 6.6; Mat. 16.24; Gal. 2.20; Col. 2.11, 12; Gal. 3.27; Rom. 2.29; Col. 2.11

[161]Col. 2.11, 16; 1 Cor. 6.11 R.v.

Some maintain that water baptism is a means of Grace. Others define it as an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual Grace.

We have no record that our Saviour ever taught any such doctrines.

Grace is mentioned in the New Testament more than one hundred times but water baptism is never once alluded to in connection with Grace in any way whatever.

We cannot believe that our Saviour ordained water baptism as a means or sign of Grace to his children forever, when neither He nor his disciples ever mentioned it or even remotely alluded to it—so far as Scripture informs—in all of those one hundred texts wherein Grace is so variously and impressively commended to us.

We are forced to believe that this whole theory of baptismal grace was conceived by man; was modified by the reformation and now might be entirely abandoned as adverse to the teachings of Christ and repugnant to sound reason.

Some assume that Christ, by his apostles and disciples, instituted water baptism as the Christian successor of Jewish circumcision. Scripture testimony conflicts with this assumption. "The Acts of the Apostles" indicate that these apostles were mostly tenacious of Jewish customs and only gradually comprehended the universal and spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom in its noon-day brightness.

They looked for a Jewish kingdom with Christ as earthly king, and of course to retain in some way their existing customs.[162]They called all who were not Jews, uncircumcised Gentiles. But few of the apostles would sit at table with Gentiles or eat in their houses.[163]

Peter required a vision before preaching the Gospel to Gentiles, and gave as his reason for hesitation that it was unlawful for Jews to keep company or come unto those of another nation.[164]

Other apostles censured Peter for making the freedom with Gentiles which he sometimes did.[165]Some insisted that Gentile converts to Christianity be circumcised.[166]

Some taught: Except ye be circumcised ye cannot be saved.[167]

Gentile converts at Antioch resisted circumcision.[168]

Paul pleaded the Gentile cause before the elders and apostles at Jerusalem.[169]

After much questioning Gentile converts to Christianity were excused from circumcision but no others were excused.[170]Jews were reminded that Moses was preached and read to them in the Jewish Synagogue every Sabbath day.[171]

This reminder in connection with the subject before them indicates that Jews were expected to continue as heretofore to circumcise their children according to the law of Moses which was preached and read to them in the Jewish Synagogue every Sabbath day.[172]

These elders and apostles know nothing about water baptism, being the Christian successor of Jewish circumcision or they would surely have instructed the Gentiles to this effect when they excused them from circumcision. Their silence upon this opportune occasion and at all other times is decided evidence that there was no such succession.[173]

Eight years later, the same old controversy about circumcision brought Paul again before the elders and apostles at Jerusalem.[174]

They re-affirmed their former decision that Gentiles be excused from circumcision but reminded Paul that he (a Jew) was expected to walk orderly and keep the law of Moses.[175]They prevailed upon him to take a vow, shave his head, and enter into the Jewish temple until anoffering should be offered for him, because he taught Jews of the dispersion, that they should not circumcise their children nor walk after the customs of Moses. Paul was induced to suppress or conceal his indifference to circumcision but not his pronounced indifference to water baptism.

Thus closes our last recorded meeting of the elders and apostles at Jerusalem with no apparent abatement of zeal for circumcision. To the last they evinced much more zeal for circumcision than they had ever shown for water baptism; and they never in any way recognized water baptism as the successor of circumcision.

Plainly it was not by the apostles but after the apostles' time that circumcision was discarded and water baptism exalted.[176]

Altho' Paul ostensibly yielded to the elders and apostles at Jerusalem, yet his subsequent epistles indicate that he remained firmly indifferent or opposed to circumcision, water baptism, and other ordinances, all of which he called carnal, weak and beggarly elements when applied to Gentiles. Paul said he was made allthings to all men that he might win some.[177]

To the Jews, he became a Jew, to the Gentiles a Gentile.

FOOTNOTES:[162]Acts 1.6; Luke 24.21[163]Acts 11.1, 3; Gal. 2.11, 12[164]Acts 11.1, 16; Acts 10.28[165]Acts 11.1, 3[166]Acts 15.5, 6[167]Acts 15.1[168]Acts 15.2[169]Acts 15.2, 6[170]Acts 15.6, 20 R.v.[171]Acts 15.21[172]Acts 15.21[173]Acts 15.23, 29[174]Acts 21.21, 24[175]Acts 21.21, 25; Acts 21.21, 26[176]Acts 21.21, 26[177]Acts 21.21, 26; Col. 2.10, 23; Heb. 9.1, 10; Gal. 6.12, 16; 1 Cor. 1.14, 17; Gal. 4.4, 11; 1 Cor. 9.20, 22

[162]Acts 1.6; Luke 24.21

[163]Acts 11.1, 3; Gal. 2.11, 12

[164]Acts 11.1, 16; Acts 10.28

[165]Acts 11.1, 3

[166]Acts 15.5, 6

[167]Acts 15.1

[168]Acts 15.2

[169]Acts 15.2, 6

[170]Acts 15.6, 20 R.v.

[171]Acts 15.21

[172]Acts 15.21

[173]Acts 15.23, 29

[174]Acts 21.21, 24

[175]Acts 21.21, 25; Acts 21.21, 26

[176]Acts 21.21, 26

[177]Acts 21.21, 26; Col. 2.10, 23; Heb. 9.1, 10; Gal. 6.12, 16; 1 Cor. 1.14, 17; Gal. 4.4, 11; 1 Cor. 9.20, 22

Dean Stanley[178]says: "It has been the misfortune of churches that they have imagined a primitive condition which never existed. The reluctance to look the facts of history in the face has favored the growth of a vast superstructure of fable."

Let us avoid this "misfortune of the churches," this "vast superstructure of fable," and be willing to look the facts of Scripture and history squarely in the face.

It appears by Scripture that our Saviour did not baptize with water and that none of his apostles were so baptizedin his time.[179]

After Christ, Ananias directed Paul to be baptized.[180]

We read that Ananias was devout according to the law of Moses, as were also many of the apostles.[181]

They looked for Christ to restore again the kingdom of Israel.[182]

With such hopeful prospects for Judaism we cannot wonder that Ananias and many apostles devoutly believed it to be in order and necessary that water baptism, circumcision, &c., be continued and that Paul and other converts be so baptized.

That they should so believe is no more remarkable than that upon two occasions eight years apart they should pronounce it necessary that Gentile believers abstain from meat offered to idols and from things strangled and from blood as Jews did.[183]

Paul was sent a special apostle to the Gentiles. Peter and others more to the Jews. To Paul therefore we turn for light upon the duty of Gentiles.[184]

Paul taught Gentile believers: Unless ye be told that meat is offered to idols, eat whatever is set before you or is sold on the shambles, asking no questions for conscience sake.[185]Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in regard to an holy day, or the new moon, or the sabbath days which are shadows of things to come.[186]

Without claiming perfection for Paul, should we not all as believing Gentilesaccept his teaching about meat, eating, water, baptism, etc., that Christ did not send his apostles to baptize with water, but preach the Gospel, and that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe.[187]

After Pentecost, believers were baptized presumably with water.[188]They sold their possessions and gave to apostles and had all things in common and continued daily in the Jewish temple, and in breaking bread from house to house.

Shall we sell our lands, live in common, frequent Jewish temples and break bread daily from house to house? We see as much authority for doing so as for baptizing with water.

If the example of apostles and believers is Scripture authority for water baptism, it is also Scripture authority to sell our lands, live in common, frequent Jewish temples, etc.

We cannot believe that we are required by Scripture or otherwise to do all things which the apostles and believers did, however good and proper it may have been for them at that time. Much less should we gratify our own predilectionsby electing to follow their example in water baptism and to reject it in other particulars.

By Peter's preaching the household of Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit.[189]Peter then asked his Jewish brethren if any could forbid water that these Gentiles should not be baptized as well as we Jews. Peter hesitated about baptizing Gentiles as Jews baptized, yet he commanded it to be done.

Peter claimed authority from Christ for the Holy Spirit baptism, but no authority for the water baptism only the silence of the six Jewish brethren who were with him from Jerusalem.[190]

Upon another occasion Peter, with others, pronounced it necessary that Gentile believers abstain from certain meats as Jews did.[191]

We recognize no distinction in Peter's authority, whether he restrained Gentile believers from the use of certain meats or had them baptized with water. In both cases Peter's Jewish education was his impulse and not Christ.

As the Eunuch rode in his chariot he read from Esaias the prophet. Philipwent up into the chariot and preached unto him Jesus. The Eunuch was baptized by the wayside. The Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. The Eunuch went on his way rejoicing.[192]

This appears to have been John's decreasing water baptism without formula, but nevertheless to have been blessed to the Eunuch's dawning condition of belief. Had the Eunuch been reading Christ's Sermon on the Mount with the veil which was rent on Calvary clear lifted from his eyes, he might not have stopped that chariot to baptize with water. But he did not so read. The New Testament was not written at that time. He read from the Old Testament, from Esaias the prophet.

Many years after Paul said, until that day the veil remained upon the hearts of some when the Old Testament was read.[193]

Divine condescension to the dawning belief of this Jewish proselyte in those transition times established no precedent which should induce us to linger in the border land of Judaism.

We hear some wonder why many apostles and believers adhered so tenaciouslyto circumcision, abstinence from certain meats, etc.

Future generations may still more wonder why many believers in our day hold so persistently to water baptism, etc.

The day is surely dawning, the ranks are filling with those who realize that these shadows are all foreign to the Christian dispensation.

There is less excuse for now baptizing with water than there was for those Jewish believers continuing to observe the law of Moses generally. The law was given to Moses amid the thunders of Sinai. When Israel obeyed that law they triumphed over their enemies. When they disobeyed they fell before them.[194]

How could they abandon that time-honored law of Moses and their fathers and at once embrace Christianity in its fulness?

John the Baptist foretold that this transition would be gradual when he said, "He must increase, but I must decrease."[195]

Our Saviour was very tender of his disciples in their transition state and is yet equally mindful of his sincere childrenwho are still in the same condition.[196]He said, I have many things to say unto you but you cannot bear them now. Some things which he did say few can bear even yet; still, we long to know what were those suppressed and holy things which he did not say because his disciples could not bear them.

By the teaching of the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, we have access ever-more to this sacred knowledge.[197]But only as we are able to bear it will he teach us all things.[198]Not to the wise and prudent of this world, but to babes in Christ.[199]

FOOTNOTES:[178]"Christian Institutions" P. 208[179]Jon 4.2[180]Acts 22.16[181]Acts 22.12; Acts 21.18, 26[182]Acts 1.6[183]Acts 15.28, 29; Acts 21.25[184]Acts 22.21; Gal. 2.7, 9; Acts 13.47[185]1 Cor. 10.25, 29[186]Col. 2.16, 18[187]1 Cor. 1.17; Rom. 1.16[188]Acts 2.38, 41; Acts 4.33, 37; Acts 2.44, 46[189]Acts 10.44; Acts 11.15; Acts 10.47[190]Acts 10.42, 44; Acts 11.15, 16; Acts 10.47[191]Acts 15.28, 29[192]Acts 8.27, 39 R.v.[193]2 Cor. 3.15[194]Exodus 20.18[195]Jon. 3.30[196]Jon. 16.12[197]Jon. 14.23, 26[198]Jon. 16.12[199]Mat. 11.25

[178]"Christian Institutions" P. 208

[179]Jon 4.2

[180]Acts 22.16

[181]Acts 22.12; Acts 21.18, 26

[182]Acts 1.6

[183]Acts 15.28, 29; Acts 21.25

[184]Acts 22.21; Gal. 2.7, 9; Acts 13.47

[185]1 Cor. 10.25, 29

[186]Col. 2.16, 18

[187]1 Cor. 1.17; Rom. 1.16

[188]Acts 2.38, 41; Acts 4.33, 37; Acts 2.44, 46

[189]Acts 10.44; Acts 11.15; Acts 10.47

[190]Acts 10.42, 44; Acts 11.15, 16; Acts 10.47

[191]Acts 15.28, 29

[192]Acts 8.27, 39 R.v.

[193]2 Cor. 3.15

[194]Exodus 20.18

[195]Jon. 3.30

[196]Jon. 16.12

[197]Jon. 14.23, 26

[198]Jon. 16.12

[199]Mat. 11.25

By collateral evidence we are led to suppose that several of the apostles were martyred under the Roman Emperor, Nero, about A.D. 64.

The Jews rebelled against the Romans, A.D. 66. At the approach of war, Christians of Jerusalem and Judea removed to Pela, beyond the Jordan.[200]Eusebius says they fled in obedience to a Divine revelation.[201]These were all Jews, and in their new homes were called Nazarenes or Ebonites.[202]

Jerusalem and the temple were utterly destroyed and the Jews massacred by the Romans, A.D. 70.[203]

Dean Stanley says: "The fall of Jerusalem was the fall of the Jewish world; it was a reason for the close of the apostolic age; a death-blow of the influence of Jewish nationality for a long time to come."[204]

After the destruction of Jewish Jerusalem, Gentile Antioch appears to have become the seat of church authority.

John was probably the only apostle then living and he, it is thought, was in a distant country.

At Antioch and other places Gentile Christians evidently soon gained the ascendency and discouraged, even Jews from circumcision and other offensive Jewish customs, while water baptism and other usages not repulsive to Gentiles were generally continued and in time modified to suit taste and convenience.

The early Christians were not united in making these changes; they caused continued discord and division among them as is manifest throughout the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and Eusebius.

The Nazarenes, Ebonites and some others adhered to circumcision and the customs of Moses as the elders at Jerusalem had insisted that Paul should do and as in the "Hermit Church" of Abyssinia they still continue to do.[205][206]

We find these Nazarenes and Ebonites soon classified as heretics after the Gentiles preponderated.

Water baptism seems not to have been insisted upon at first but in the second century greater importance appears to have been attached to it.[207]Many, however, claimed that only baptism of the Holy Spirit and purity of the heart were necessary because none of the apostles but Paul were baptized with water, and Christ said: "John indeed baptized with water but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit;"[208]and again, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God."

Justin Martyr[209]said: "What is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and the body alone. Baptize the soul from wrath, envy, &c., and lo! the whole body is clean." And again: "What need have I of that other baptism who have been baptized with the Holy Spirit."

While many such expressions occur in the writings of the "Fathers," there are many more which support sacramentalism. Their testimonies are conflicting.

About the beginning of the third century we find water baptism first called a sacrament by Tertulian and about the same time he complains that many tried to destroy it. Plainly, as water baptism was exalted, opposition increased.[210]

The sect called Ascoondrutes rejected all symbols and sacraments on the principle that incorporeal things cannot be communicated by things corporeal nor divine mysteries by things visible.[211]

Schaff says[212]: Many Jews and Gentiles were baptized only with water; not with Holy Spirit and fire of the Gospel, and smuggled their old religious notions and practices into the church.

The Roman Emperor, Constantine, professedly became a Christian, while he virtually remained a heathen; A.D. 312.[213]

Christians were few in number before Constantine, but now pagans flocked to the church and sat in its councils.

"Constantine married the Christian church to the heathen world." He virtually united church and state. He convened the council of Nice and they formed a creed A.D. 325.

Many protested against this council and its decisions but the mass supported the Emperor and the creed.

Among obscure dissenters whom the ruling church called heretics may we expect thereafter to find the nearest approach to Christianity as Jesus taught it upon the Mount and elsewhere.

Mosheim says: No sooner had Constantine abolished the superstition of his ancestors than magnificent churches were erected for the Christians, which were richly adorned with pictures and images and bore striking resemblances to the Pagan temples both within and without.[214]

The simplicity of the Gospel was clouded by the prodigious number of rites and ceremonies which the bishops invented to embellish it.[215]

They imagined the Pagans would receive Christianity with more facility when they saw the rites and ceremonies to which they were accustomed adopted in the church. So the religion of the Christians was made to conform verynearly to that of the Pagans in external appearance.[216]

The vice and insolent tyranny of many of the priesthood soon became notorious.[217]

Neander says: Such individuals of the laity as were distinguished by their piety from the great mass of nominal Christians and from the worldly minded of the clergy often suffered persecution from the latter.[218]

The name of Andeus stand prominent among the many dissenters who protested against the corruptions of the ruling church at this time.[219]

Isolated companies of devout Christians under various names rejected the Sacraments. They were called Lampetians, Adelphians, Estatians, Marcionites, Euchites, Massalians and Enthusiasts.[220]

Mosheim says: Enthusiasts who discarded the Sacraments and were rather wrong headed than vicious lived among the Greeks and Assyrians for many ages. They were known by the general and invidious name of Massalians or Euchites. A foot-note says: This sect arose under the Emperor Constantius about the year 361.[221]

We have numerous accounts of Christians who were prominent in the dominant church of the fourth century who deferred water baptism to middle life or old age and many were never so baptized altho' born of Christian parents.[222]

About A.D. 660 another Constantine came forward as a reform preacher under inspiration said to have been received in reading the New Testament, particularly the writings of St. Paul.[223]

His followers were sometimes called Macedonians but were generally known as Paulicians altho' they preferred to be called Christians.

It appears that these Paulicians existed centuries before under the other names given them by their enemies and that the drooping sect was revived by the powerful preaching of Constantine.

Neander says[224]the Paulicians wholy rejected the outward observance of the Sacraments and maintained that by multiplication of external rites and ceremonies in the dominant church the true life of religion had declined. That it was not Christ's intention to institute water baptism as a perpetual ordinanceand that by baptism he meant only baptism of the Holy Spirit and that he communicates himself by the living waters for the thorough cleansing of the whole human nature; that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ consists in coming into vital union with him.

In the ninth century one hundred thousand Paulicians were martyred at once in Armenia, accused of heresy and denying the Sacraments.[225]

For the same offence untold numbers were put to death during previous and subsequent centuries and in widely distant countries.[226]

Their enemies represent that these Paulicians were loving, spiritual and peaceful, and diligent in reading and circulating the Scriptures, but they were heretics and not worthy to live.

Were not these dissenting martyrs a remnant or seed of the living church and their baptized enemies the real heretics?

The history of these inhuman persecutions reveals a sad condition of the dominant church and its ruling clergy of the ninth century.

Some Ecclesiastics who presided over a flourishing theological institution at Orleans, claimed to have been awakened by the writings of St. Augustine and St. Paul, particularly the later. Many of the nobility and others of eminent piety and benevolence became their adherents.[227]

They rejected external worship, rites and ceremonies and placed religion in the internal contemplation of God and the elevation of the soul.

They rejected water baptism and held to a baptism of the Spirit, also to a Spiritual Eucharist by which all who had received spiritual baptism would be refreshed and find their spiritual needs completely satisfied.

Thirteen leaders of this sect were burned A.D. 1022. When urged to recant they replied, "We have a higher law, one written by the Holy Spirit in the inner man."

Mosheim says they soared above the comprehension of the age in which they lived.

A few years later a similar sect was discovered in the districts of Arras and Liege. They held individual holiness and practical piety to be necessary and that outward baptism and outward Sacrament were nothing. This they affirmed was the doctrine of Christ and his apostles.[228]

About A.D. 1046 a sect was suppressed at Turin which was favored by the nobility and widely diffused among the clergy and laity. They claimed to have one priest without the tonsure. He daily visited their brethren scattered throughout the world and when God bestowed him on them they received from him with great devotion forgiveness of sin. They acknowledged no other priest and no other sacrament but his absolution.[229]

Who—we ask—is this priest without the tonsure, who daily visits the world-wide brethren?

Is it not Jesus who was made a priest, "not after the law of a carnal commandment, but by the power of an endless life?"[230]

A sect called Bogomiles, who rejected outward baptism and acknowledged only spiritual communion, was discovered in Constantinople, many of them in thefamilies connected with the court. Their leader was burned A.D. 1119, others were imprisoned, yet they spread secretly over the Greek empire.[231]

Mosheim says: The Eastern churches continued to be infested with such fanatics in the twelfth century, and the Latin sects were still more numerous than the Greeks.[232]

The Catherists were a numerous faction in Bulgaria and spread almost all over Europe under various names who all agreed in rejecting baptism and the Lord's Supper.

"Brethren and sisters of the free Spirit" took their denomination from the words of St. Paul (Rom. 8, 2-14). They were called Begards, Beghines, Turpines, etc. They rejected baptism and the Supper as no longer useful to them and held to inward and spiritual worship. They spread rapidly in Italy, France and Germany. They were mostly poor people and lived upon alms while upon their missionary journeys. Great numbers of plain, pious people, rich and poor, embraced their teaching and forsook the dominant church.[233]

The Inquisition checked their career with its usual record of cruelty and blood, yet they continued to feed the fires of persecution for more than two centuries, until near the time of the reformation.

In the south of France dissenters called Albigenses became more numerous than the dominant church. They were condemned by four councils, but still continued to increase until about A.D. 1215, when they were exterminated by a long and horrible war and the Inquisition.[234]

These Albigenses were distinguished generally by their strict and blameless lives, by their abhorrence of oaths, war and punishment by death, and for their hospitality and beneficence. They accepted baptism spiritually and rejected the sacraments.

Can we believe that the church which led to the extermination of these Albigenses, the Paulicians, and many others, was ever established by that loving Saviour who spent his life in doing good to the souls and bodies of men?

Does it not answer more nearly the description given of Mystery Babylon who was drunk with the blood of thesaints and martyrs of Jesus? Who would not gladly forget a succession which claims to run back through such a church as this?[235]

In some parts of France dissenters similar to the Albigenses were called Bulgarians, in Italy they were called Paterens and in Germany were called Catherists, and in derision were called "Good Men." How is it that these dissenters, by the testimony of their enemies, appear to have lived better and holier lives without the sacraments than their persecutors did with them?

What is the testimony of observation in our day?[236]Are those beatitudes which Jesus pronounced upon the Mount better observed by those who have seven sacraments than they are by Protestants who have only two? And, are they better observed under two sacraments than they are by the Quakers, and some other Christians who have none? If this is the case, it is strong support to the belief that Christ ordained the sacraments. But if the reverse is found to be the existing condition, then a suspicion may arise that these sacraments are notdivine, but are human impositions and that they divert from the Divine. Therefore, may it be that some of our best Christians get along quite as well or better without them.

Neither the word sacrament nor any synonym thereof occurs in the New Testament, nor in the writings of the "Fathers," until the third century. There were no sacraments then as there are now, therefore no necessity for such a name.

Sacrament was a Pagan name for a military oath and was ruled into its present position by apostate Christians.

The apostles and first Christians evidently continued to eat the Passover Supper, because their fathers had done so for ages in memory of Israel passing over the Red Sea out of Egypt, and not from any command of Christ. Otherwise they would with still more persistence have continued to wash each other's feet, which Jesus commanded with language and actions far more solemn, impressive and imperative.[237]

The Ante-Nicene Fathers and Eusebius inform us that water baptism was a prolific cause of bitter discord and division among the early Christians. It still sorrowfully distracts the loving children of our one Father and impedes the spread of his kingdom in the earth.

These lamentable conditions must inevitably continue until such shadows are dissolved by divine brightness in that day which we rejoice to believe is now dawning.

Back to Index Next